Table 2: Stochastic Production Frontier and Technical Efficiency Estimates
|
One Step MLE |
Fertilizer Endog. |
Two Step |
Linear Prod. Fun | |||||
|
coeff. |
t-stat |
coeff. |
t-stat |
coeff. |
t-stat |
coeff. |
t-stat | |
|
Production Frontier | ||||||||
|
constant |
4.5707 |
45.32 |
4.3215 |
87.55 |
4.6099 |
79.46 |
3.6076 |
19.59 |
|
land |
0.4941 |
25.37 |
0.5022 |
38.45 |
0.4592 |
37.15 |
0.4281 |
16.59 |
|
labor |
0.2094 |
15.17 |
0.1780 |
18.17 |
0.2417 |
28.01 |
0.3175 |
20.64 |
|
fertilizer |
0.0780 |
8.64 |
0.0782 |
52.59 |
0.0759 |
13.29 |
0.0861 |
7.59 |
|
seeds |
0.1448 |
9.38 |
0.2067 |
24.03 |
0.1606 |
19.38 |
0.1888 |
10.16 |
|
machines |
0.0624 |
14.54 |
0.1838 |
7.98 |
0.1166 |
4.47 |
0.1788 |
5.88 |
|
chemicals |
0.0792 |
2.86 |
0.0561 |
16.42 |
0.0599 |
18.35 |
0.0662 |
13.02 |
|
bullocks |
-0.0104 |
-0.96 |
0.0399 |
4.29 |
-0.0002 |
-0.02 |
0.0848 |
6.77 |
|
irrigation |
0.2132 |
5.90 |
0.3702 |
13.72 |
0.1912 |
6.82 |
0.0596 |
1.48 |
|
Efficiency Equation | ||||||||
|
constant |
4.1910 |
3.72 |
6.4290 |
3.88 |
0.5100 |
16.76 | ||
|
land owned - paddy |
0.1290 |
5.22 |
0.2433 |
8.12 |
0.0033 |
2.08 |
0.0148 |
1.31 |
|
land owned - highland |
0.1037 |
4.86 |
0.0076 |
0.13 |
0.0014 |
1.70 |
0.0066 |
1.53 |
|
household size |
-0.0540 |
-2.50 |
-0.0346 |
-0.57 |
-0.0012 |
-1.14 |
-0.0065 |
-1.04 |
|
male adults (%) |
-1.5427 |
-3.44 |
-0.7295 |
-0.97 |
0.0078 |
0.66 |
0.0503 |
0.72 |
|
female adults (%) |
-0.6098 |
-1.28 |
-0.0605 |
-0.07 |
0.0138 |
1.08 |
-0.0106 |
-0.14 |
|
ethnic group |
1.1951 |
1.91 |
0.4982 |
0.55 |
-0.0037 |
-0.24 |
-0.0278 |
-0.33 |
|
age of head |
-0.0637 |
-2.02 |
0.4624 |
0.40 |
-0.0011 |
-1.19 |
-0.0061 |
-1.13 |
|
age squared |
0.0001 |
0.51 |
-0.0489 |
-1.22 |
0.0000 |
0.44 |
0.0000 |
0.12 |
|
education of head |
-0.3590 |
-6.59 |
-0.4128 |
-3.05 |
-0.0041 |
-2.16 |
-0.0336 |
-3.00 |
|
education squared |
0.0330 |
7.23 |
0.0347 |
3.06 |
0.0005 |
3.28 |
0.0029 |
3.34 |
|
sex of head |
0.5177 |
3.74 |
0.8964 |
2.24 |
0.0123 |
2.01 |
0.0244 |
0.69 |
|
% with primary educ. |
3.0879 |
7.62 |
2.0168 |
2.73 |
0.0253 |
2.06 |
0.0395 |
0.55 |
|
bullocks owned |
0.0731 |
11.44 |
0.1100 |
0.84 |
0.0039 |
3.27 |
0.0026 |
0.38 |
|
tractors owned |
1.0970 |
2.80 |
0.6722 |
0.73 |
-0.0066 |
-0.77 |
-0.0015 |
-0.03 |
|
cattle owned |
0.3361 |
4.92 |
0.2537 |
1.42 |
0.0011 |
0.40 |
-0.0173 |
-1.12 |
|
vehicles owned |
0.1207 |
20.14 |
0.0604 |
2.27 |
0.0019 |
0.99 |
0.0056 |
0.58 |
|
% of students |
-0.9295 |
-2.33 |
-0.7754 |
-1.19 |
0.0005 |
0.04 |
0.0608 |
0.87 |
|
agricultural household |
0.8127 |
5.11 |
0.8613 |
2.16 |
0.0209 |
3.80 |
0.1145 |
3.29 |
|
fisheries and livestock |
0.0598 |
0.59 |
0.0555 |
0.23 |
-0.0139 |
-3.21 |
-0.0370 |
-1.43 |
|
employer |
0.1067 |
0.66 |
-0.0002 |
-0.49 |
0.0129 |
1.50 |
0.0403 |
0.83 |
|
govt. employee |
0.2366 |
1.99 |
-0.2799 |
-0.63 |
0.0103 |
1.73 |
0.0469 |
1.33 |
|
self employed |
1.1198 |
6.87 |
0.1930 |
0.60 |
0.0137 |
2.08 |
0.0912 |
2.22 |
|
sigma-squared |
3.7620 |
10.14 |
1.9850 |
41.788 | ||||
|
sigma-v |
0.4118 |
51.80 | ||||||
|
sigma-t |
2.2208 |
3.66 | ||||||
|
sigma-g |
1.0167 |
92.93 | ||||||
|
gamma |
0.9386 |
139.25 |
1.0457 |
151.46 | ||||
|
log likelihood |
-4836.4 |
-14285.8 |
(1) -8522.55 | |||||
|
r-squared |
(2) 0.02096 |
0.6143 | ||||||
|
no. of observations |
4811 |
4811 |
4811 |
4811 | ||||
NOTE: Estimates are not reported for the 17 district dummy variables in both equations.
55
More intriguing information
1. Washington Irving and the Knickerbocker Group2. A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING SOCIAL WELFARE EFFECTS OF NEW AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY
3. Lumpy Investment, Sectoral Propagation, and Business Cycles
4. The name is absent
5. On the Integration of Digital Technologies into Mathematics Classrooms
6. FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE PROGRAMS AND FOREIGN RELATIONS
7. Estimating the Economic Value of Specific Characteristics Associated with Angus Bulls Sold at Auction
8. Partner Selection Criteria in Strategic Alliances When to Ally with Weak Partners
9. Globalization, Divergence and Stagnation
10. The name is absent