Technical Efficiency Analysis of Tobacco Farming in Southeastern Anatolia

The technical efficiencies of tobacco farms in Southeastern Anatolia were estimated with parametric and non-parametric methods. Data obtained from 149 tobacco farms were used in the empirical analysis. Results obtained with an output oriented Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) were compared to those obtained from Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) and the differences are discussed. According to the results of the DEA model, mean efficiency of tobacco farmers was found to be 0.45 and 0.56 for Constant and Variable Returns to Scale (CRS and VRS) assumptions, respectively. Mean technical efficiency obtained with the SFA model was found to be 0.54. A strong correlation was found between the results obtained with output oriented VRS-DEA and SFA models. Based on these results, it was concluded that the sample tobacco farms would be able to increase their technical efficiency by 45% through better use of the available resources, while applying current technology. However, further studies are required in order to determine the causes of the observed inefficiencies.

Technical Efficiency Analysis of Tobacco Farming in Southeastern Anatolia

The technical efficiencies of tobacco farms in Southeastern Anatolia were estimated with parametric and non-parametric methods. Data obtained from 149 tobacco farms were used in the empirical analysis. Results obtained with an output oriented Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) were compared to those obtained from Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) and the differences are discussed. According to the results of the DEA model, mean efficiency of tobacco farmers was found to be 0.45 and 0.56 for Constant and Variable Returns to Scale (CRS and VRS) assumptions, respectively. Mean technical efficiency obtained with the SFA model was found to be 0.54. A strong correlation was found between the results obtained with output oriented VRS-DEA and SFA models. Based on these results, it was concluded that the sample tobacco farms would be able to increase their technical efficiency by 45% through better use of the available resources, while applying current technology. However, further studies are required in order to determine the causes of the observed inefficiencies.

___

  • Abay C., B. Miran and C. Günden. 2004. An analysis of input use efficiency in tobacco production with respect to sustainability: The case study of Turkey. J. Sust. Agric. 23: 123-143.
  • AERİ. 2001. Türkiye’de bazı bölgeler için önemli ürünlerde girdi kullanımı ve üretim maliyetleri, Tarımsal Ekonomi Arafltırma Enstitüsü Proje Raporu 2001-14, Yayın No: 64 Ankara.
  • Aigner, D.J., C.A.K. Lovell and P. Schmidt. 1977. Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. J. Econ. 6: 21-37.
  • Battese G.E and T.J. Coelli. 1988. Prediction of firm level technical efficiencies with a generalized frontier production function and panel data. J. Econ. 38: 387-399.
  • Bayaner A., A. Koç, H. Tanrıvermifl, E. Gündoğmufl, N. Ören and B. Özkan. 2001. Doğrudan gelir desteği pilot uygulamasının izleme ve değerlendirilmesi. Tarımsal Ekonomi Arafltırma Enstitüsü, Proje Raporu: 2001-9, Yayın No: 57, Ankara.
  • Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper and E. Rhodes. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Op. Res. 2: 429-444.
  • Coelli, T.J. 1996a. A guide to DEAP Version 2.1: a data envelopment analysis (computer) program”, CEPA Working Paper 96/08, Department of Econometrics, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.
  • Coelli, T.J. 1996b. A guide to FRONTIER version 4.1: a computer program for stochastic frontier production and cost function estimation., CEPA Working Paper? England, Armidale, Australia.
  • Coelli, T., D.S.P. Rao and G.E. Battese. 1998. An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
  • DPT. 2001. Sekizinci befl yıllık kalkınma planı. Bitkisel üretim özel ihtisas komisyonu raporu: Sanayi bitkileri alt komisyon raporu. Devlet Planlama Teflkilatı: 2648. Özel İhtisas Komisyonu: 656. Ankara.
  • Farrell, M.J. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, III, 253–290.
  • Iflıklı E., A. Koç, B. Miran, N. Akyıl, C. Abay, S.G. Gümüfl and C. Günden. 2001. Türkiye’de tütün arzının kontrolü ve ekonomik etkileri. Tarımsal Ekonomi Arafltırma Enstitüsü, Proje Raporu: 2001-12, Yayın No: 62, Ankara
  • Meeusen, W. and J. van den Broeck. 1977. Efficiency estimation from Cobb-Douglas production functions with composed error. Int. Econ. Rev. 18: 435-444.
  • Özgüven, M., S. Sekin, B. Gürbüz, N. fiekeroğlu, F. Ayanoğlu and S. Ekren. 2005. Tütün, tıbbi ve aromatik bitkiler üretimi ve ticareti. Türkiye Ziraat Mühendisliği VI. teknik kongresi. (3-7 Ocak 2005), Ankara, 481-501.
  • Sharma K.R., P.S. Leung and H.M. Zaleski. 1997. Productive efficiency of the swine industry in Hawaii: stochastic frontier vs. data envelopment analysis. J. Prod. Anal. 8: 447-459.
  • TZOB. 2004. Ürün Raporları, Tütün Çalıflma Grubu Raporu, Nisan 2004, http://www.tzob.org.tr/tzob/tzob_ana_sayfa.htm).
Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry-Cover
  • ISSN: 1300-011X
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 6 Sayı
  • Yayıncı: TÜBİTAK