SFA 모형을 이용한 상장 건설기업 총요소생산성 분석
Total Factor Productivity Analysis of Listed Construction Firms Using SFA Model
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this paper is to measure the total factor productivity(TFP) of listed construction firms. This work is expected to show the level of competitiveness of listed construction firms. To achieve this, translog stochastic production functions were estimated using stochastic frontier analysis(SFA) methods for 28 listed construction firms from 2007 to 2012. TFP for each firm was calculated from the estimated 'technical efficiency change(EC)' and 'technical change(TC)'. The empirical results are as follows: Firstly, EC is an average of 0.9973. This means that the technical efficiency was decreased by 0.27%. But EC showed that there are no large differences among listed construction firms. Secondly, TC is an average of 0.9886. This means that technical advances reduced in approximately 1.14%. TC showed that there are large differences among listed construction firms. The difference between the biggest TC and the lowest TC is 25.2%. Also, TC was consistently increased from 2007 to 2012. Thirdly, TFP is an average of 0.9859. TFP is most affected by the TC. Finally, Small and medium firms, KOSDAQ listed firms and firms that do not do business overseas have higher TFP than the other firms.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to measure the total factor productivity(TFP) of listed construction firms. This work is expected to show the level of competitiveness of listed construction firms. To achieve this, translog stochastic production functions were estimated using stochastic frontier analysis(SFA) methods for 28 listed construction firms from 2007 to 2012. TFP for each firm was calculated from the estimated 'technical efficiency change(EC)' and 'technical change(TC)'. The empirical results are as follows: Firstly, EC is an average of 0.9973. This means that the technical efficiency was decreased by 0.27%. But EC showed that there are no large differences among listed construction firms. Secondly, TC is an average of 0.9886. This means that technical advances reduced in approximately 1.14%. TC showed that there are large differences among listed construction firms. The difference between the biggest TC and the lowest TC is 25.2%. Also, TC was consistently increased from 2007 to 2012. Thirdly, TFP is an average of 0.9859. TFP is most affected by the TC. Finally, Small and medium firms, KOSDAQ listed firms and firms that do not do business overseas have higher TFP than the other firms.
참고문헌 (31)
- 김민섭, "건설업의 변천사 및 경영효율성에 관한 비교연구", 경영사학, 26(4), pp.229~259 (2011), 한국경영사학회
- 지역산업의 생산성과 정책효과 분석 방법 연구, "김영수", 산업연구원, ~ (2009)
- 김용규, "세계 주요 지상파 방송사업자의 총요소생산성 비교", 문화경제연구, 14(1), pp.123~143 (2011), 한국문화경제학회
- 김종기, "DEA 모형을 이용한 국내 아파트 건설기업(상장기업)의 효율성 분석", 한국콘텐츠학회 논문지, 8(7), pp.201~207 (2008), 한국콘텐츠학회
- 대한건설협회, "2012년 완성공사 원가통계", ~ (2013)
- 박선구, "국내 건설업체의 총요소생산성 및 효율성 분석", 박사, 응용경제학과, pp.2014
- 박선구, "주요 건설기업 총요소생산성 국제비교 연구 - SFA기법을 활용한 실증분석 -", 국토계획, 49(1), pp.15~31 (2014), 대한국토·도시계획학회
- 박승규, "지역별 광공업 총요소생산성 분해", 지역연구, 25(4), pp.23~43 (2009), 한국지역학회
- 서대교, "생명보험산업에 대한 보험영업 효율성 분석 - 확률적 프론티어 모형을 중심으로 -", 보험금융연구, 23(3), pp.3~32 (2012), 보험연구원
- 손재영, "손재영 시론 - PF대출 대안 모색 시급", 서울경제신문, ~ (2012)
- 申文泳, "상장건설업체의 X-비효율성 분석", 한일경상논집, 25, pp.10~276 (2002), 한일경상학회
- 신범철, "R&D투자와 수출의 생산효율성 제고 효과-SFA기법을 활용한 실증분석-", 기업경영연구, 17(1), pp.1~21 (2010), 한국기업경영학회
- 오대원, "의약분업 전후의 지방공사의료원 생산성과 효율성분석 : 모수적비, 모수적 추정방법을 이용하여", 보건경제와 정책연구, 13(1), pp.173~198 (2007), 한국보건경제정책학회
- 이용만, "헤도닉 가격모형에 대한 소고", 부동산학연구, 14(1), pp.81~87 (2008), 한국부동산분석학회
- 성숙기 산업의 특성 및 기업 대응전략 고찰과 국내 건설기업에의 시사점, "이홍일", 한국건설산업연구원, ~ (2013)
- 총요소생산성의 추이와 성장률 변화요인 분석, "장인성", 국회예산정책처, ~ (2013)
- 조명수, "전문건설업 경쟁력 요인 분석", 한국구매조달학회지, 12(1), pp.1~21 (2013), 한국구매조달학회
- 한국신용평가, "예정 PF사업, 얼마나 부실한가", ~ (2012)
- 한광호, "韓國 製造業의 總要素生産性, 效率性 變化와 技術進步: SFA와 DEA에 의한 推定", 경제학연구, 53(4), pp.119~146 (2005), 한국경제학회
- 국가연구 개발사업 R&D 효율성분석 및 제고방안, "황석원", 과학기술정책연구원, ~ (2009)
- Aigner, D., "Formulation and Estimation of Stochastic Frontier Production Models", Journal of Econometrics, 6, pp.21~37 (1977)
- Banker, R., "Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis", Management Science, 30(9), pp.1984~
- Battese, G. E., "Frontier Production Functions, Technical Efficiency and Panel Data : with Application to Paddy Farmers in India", Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3, pp.153~169 (1992)
- Battese, G. E., "A Model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Function for Panel Data", Empirical Economics, 20(2), pp.325~332 (1995)
- Charnes, A., "Mea-uring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units", European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), pp.429~444 (1978)
- A Guide to FRONTIER Version 4. 1 : A Computer Program for Stochastic Frontier Production and Cost Function Estimation, "Coelli, T. J", School of Econometrics, University of New England, ~, pp.CEPA Working Papers, Vol. 7 (1996)
- Coelli, T. J, "An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis" (1998), Kluwer
- Kumbhakar, S. C., "Estimation and decomposition of productivity change when production is not efficient : A panel data approach", Econometric reviews, 19(4), pp.425~460 (2000)
- Kumbhakar, S. C., "Stochastic Frontier Analysis" (2000), Cambridge University Press
- Meeusen, W., "'Efficiency Estimation from Cobb-Douglas Production with Composed Error", International Economic Review, 18(2), pp.435~444 (1977)
- Seo, D. A., "Market Consolidation and Productivity Growth in U. S. Wireline Telecommunications : Stochastic Frontier Analysis vs. Malmquist Index", Review of Industrial Organization, 36, pp.271~294 (2010)