臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：汽車客運業績效評估之研究－資料包絡分析法
作者：范植谷
作者(外文)：Chih-Ku Fan
校院名稱：國立交通大學
系所名稱：運輸科技與管理學系
指導教授：卓訓榮
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2004
主題關鍵詞：資料包絡分析法；拋物線圖形效率測量法；方向性距離函數；多活動資料包絡分析模式；網路包絡分析模式；非意欲產出；民營化；多模式汽車客運公司；Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)；Hyperbolic graph efficiency；Directional distance function；Multiactivity DEA model；Network DEA model；Undesirable output；Privatization；Multimode bus transit
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1
本論文首先應用資料包絡分析法中之拋物線圖形效率測量法及方向性產出距離函數，來評量台灣汽車客運公司各車站在民營化前後利潤率及風險調整效率變化的情形，研究結果顯示，民營化後利潤率的增加可歸因於技術效率與配置效率兩者均有進步所致，惟配置效率因素所扮演的角色較為重要，而無論是公營的台汽公司或民營的國光公司都有價格扭曲的現象發生，這可能是兩家公司都試圖涵蓋無效率所導致的損失所致；其次，經整合意欲（好的）產出和非意欲（壞的）產出結果，發現台汽民營化後風險調整效率有顯著改進，而此效率改進可能係導致其成本降低的主因。
其次，因多模式汽車客運公司係台灣地區客運業之特色，此種公司同時從事不同模式（如長途客運和市區客運）的運輸服務，其特點為不同模式的服務雖使用不同的生產技術，但卻使用某些共同的投入（如管理人員），因此本論文不僅考慮多模式客運公司內部生產技術之差異，也將運輸服務的不可儲藏性（或稱產銷同時性）涵蓋在內，以便同時測量多模式客運公司的成本效率，服務效果與成本效果；由本論文所應用之多活動資料包絡分析模式與網路包絡分析模式分別與傳統模式比較發現，無論就有效率（果）的公司數，公司效率（果）排序與相互關聯效果等之評量結果顯示，兩種模式與傳統模式間有顯著性差異，且前兩者較後者更為嚴謹。
本論文之主要貢獻可歸納如下：
(一) 以往有關客運業配置效率及其相關問題之文獻甚為少見，本論文首度應用拋物線圖形效率法來評量民營化前後利潤率變化問題，這項利潤率指標可被分解為技術效率與配置效率，而配置效率則可進一步用來衡量價格扭曲的程度，此種配置效率不同於傳統方法之處，在於它可僅需藉由觀察收入與觀察成本，而無需價格資訊即可予以衡量。
(二) 本論文首次提出將運輸風險定位為非意欲產出的觀念，應用方向性產出距離函數，整合意欲（好的）產出與非意欲（壞的）產出，用來測量民營化對風險調整效率所產生之衝擊，以有別於傳統客運業績效評估之研究，只著重在意欲產出之重大缺陷上。
(三) 台灣地區客運業，尤其老客運公司，大多屬於所謂多模式汽車客運公司，同時經營公路汽車客運及市區汽車客運，其特色為不同模式服務，係使用不同的生產技術，但卻也使用某些共同的投入，因此，亟不宜如傳統方式將其視為一整體，進行績效評比。本論文應用多模式資料包絡分析法，將共同投入合理配置至不同模式，以求得個別模式之效率值，以提供整體及個別模式之經營績效評比，以及公司內部決策之參考。
(四) 有別於傳統研究忽略運輸服務之不可儲藏性，而分開評量其三種效率（果）之缺點，本論文不僅考慮多模式客運公司內部生產技術之差異，更進一步將運輸服務的不可儲藏性（產銷同時性）涵蓋在內，並應用修正式網路包絡分析法模式將生產與消費技術納入此一模式內，以便同時測量多模式客運公司之成本效率、服務效果與成本效果，以資評比其績效差異。
With the aim of capturing the essence of transit performance, this dissertation addresses four crucial but often neglected issues regarding efficiency measurement for bus transit industry, and thereby using a novel refinement of conventional DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) models to deal with these issues, in order to shed new light on the facts relevant to transit performance.
In contrast to these four issues, this dissertation consists of four essays, with particular reference to the transit performance measure in Taiwan. The first two essays pertain to the impact of privatization on bus firm’s efficiency and talk about to what extent the various efficiency changes before and after privatization. The first essay applies a hyperbolic graph efficiency approach to measure “return to the dollar” at the station-level of Taiwan Motor Transport Company (TMTC) over the pre- and post- privatization period. This measure is further decomposed into its technical and allocative efficiency components. Price distortions can be measured by allocative efficiency using data on observed costs and revenues without requiring explicit information on prices.
The decomposition results indicate that both technical and allocative efficiencies contribute to the growth of “return to the dollar”, with the allocative component playing a more important role than the technical component. Perhaps in an attempt to cover the inefficiency-induced losses, both the public and private firms apparently resort to distorting relative output prices with respect to input prices, and the distortion is more pronounced in the private firm than in the public firm.
In the second essay, a directional output distance function which incorporates both desirable and undesirable outputs is employed to investigate the effects of privatization experienced by the TMTC. For the first time, the risk-adjusted efficiency change following privatization are estimated by treating transport risk as a joint but undesirable output. The empirical results demonstrate that TMTC’s privatization has produced a distinct improvement in efficiency enhancement and as such may be considered to be a source of cost reduction.
The last two essays shift the focus from investigating the influence of privatization on the transit firm to the efficiency measurement of some transportation organizations which engage in various activities (services) simultaneously. This third essay focuses most attention on the technical aspect of how to determine the efficiency of individual services within different but highly homogeneous multimode transit firms which engage in their services with non-identical technologies and use shared inputs. The empirical findings indicate that the multiactivity model used is more demanding than the conventional DEA model.
The fourth essay expands the analysis of the third essay to consider both the unstorable characteristics of transportation service and the technological differences within multimode transit firms. The proposed network DEA model allows a representation of both production and consumption technologies in a unified framework and thereby can be used to simultaneously estimate the cost efficiency, the service effectiveness and the cost effectiveness of multimode transit firms. The results obtained from the network model compared to those of a conventional model are quite different in terms of the number of efficient or effective units, rank comparisons of DMUs performance as well as inter-related effects. Throughout the dissertation, the non-parametric technique, also known as DEA, is used as the common approach which integrates the four essays into a dissertation.
REFERENCES
1. Aigner, D. J. and Chu, S. F. “On estimating the industry production function”, American Economic Review, 58, pp.826-839, 1968.
2. Aigner, D. J., Lovell, C. A. K. and Schmidt, P. “Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models”, Journal of Econometrics, 6, pp.12-37, 1977.
3. Alexandersson, G., Hulten, S. and Folster, S. “The effects of competition in Swedish local bus services”, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 32, pp.203-219, 1998.
4. Anderson, S. C. and Fielding, G. L. “US department of transportation”, Comparative Analysis of Transit Performance, Washington D.C., Final report, 1992.
5. Banker, R. D., Charmes, A. and Cooper, W. W. “Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis”, Management Science, 30, pp.1078-1092,1984.
6. Battese, G. E. and Coelli, T. J. “A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data”, Empirical Economics, 20, pp.325-332, 1995.
7. Beasley, J. “Determining teaching and research efficiencies”, Journal of the operational research society, 46 (4), pp.441-452, 1995.
8. Beasley, J. “Allocating fixed costs and resources via data envelopment analysis”, European Journal of Operational Research, 147, pp.198-216, 2003.
9. Berechman, J. and Giuliano, G. “Economies of scale in bus transit: A review of concepts and evidence”, Transportation, 12, pp.313-332, 1985.
10. Bhattacharyya, A., Kumbhakar, S. and Bhattacharyya, A. “Ownership structure and cost efficiency: a study of publicly owned passenger-bus transportation companies in India”, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 6, pp.47-61, 1995.
11. Boame, A. K. The sources of efficiency change in the Canadian urban transit systems: a data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2001.
12. Boardman, A., Vining, A. R. “Ownership and performance in competitive environments: a comparison of the performance of private, mixed, and state-owned enterprises”, Journal of Law and Economics, 32, pp.1-33, 1989.
13. Bonnie, J. P., and Putterman, L. Economics of cooperation and the labor-managed economy, Harwood, 1987.
14. Bonnie, J. P., Jones, D. C., and Puterman, L. “Theoretical and empirical studies of producer cooperatives: will ever the Twain meet?”, Journal of Economic Literature, 31(3), pp.1290-1320, 1993.
15. Boubakri, N., Cosset, J. C. “The financial and operating performance of newly privatized firms: evidence from developing countries”, Journal of Finance, 53, pp.1081-1110, 1998.
16. Boycko, Maxim, Andrei, S. and Robert W. V. “A theory of privatization”, Economic Journal, 106, pp. 309-319, 1996.
17. Boyd, G., Tolley, G., and Pang, J. “Plant level productivity, efficiency, and environmental performance of the container glass industry”, Environmental and Resource Economics, 23, pp.29-43, 2001.
18. Button, K. and Costa, A. “Economic efficiency gains from urban public transport regulatory reform: two case studies of changes in Europe”, Regional Science, 33, pp.425-438, 1999.
19. Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R. and Diewert, W. E. “The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output and productivity”, Economertica, 50, pp. 1414-1393, 1982.
20. Caves, D. W., Christensen, L. R. and Diewert, W. E. “The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output and productivity”, Production Frontiers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
21. Chambers, R. G., Chung, Y., and Fare, R. “Profit, directional distance functions, and Nerlovian efficiency”, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 98, pp.351-364, 1998.
22. Chang C. C. “The nonparametric risk-adjusted efficiency measurement: an application to Taiwan’s major rural financial intermediaries”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81, pp.902-913, 1999.
23. Chang, K. P. and Kao, P. H. “The relative efficiency of public versus private municipal bus firms: an application of data envelopment analysis”, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3, pp.67-84, 1992.
24. Chang L. Y. Performance evaluation of privatization on the intercity bus company: a case study of Taiwan Motor Corporation, Master thesis, Department of Transportation and Logistics Engineering, Nation Cha-I University, Taiwan, 2003 (in Chinese).
25. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Lewin, A. Y. and Seiford, L. M. Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology, and Application, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1994.
26. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E. “Measuring the efficiency of decision making units”, European Journal of Operational Research, pp.429-444, 1978.
27. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Rhodes, E. “Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: an application of data envelopment analysis to program follow through”, Management Science, 27(6), 668-697, 1981.
28. Chen, D. J. and Shiau J. W. “A study on the development of DEA model for the aggregate performance evaluation of highway bus industry, Transportation Planning Journal, 23(1), pp.11-40, 1994 (in Chinese).
29. Chen, J. J. and Sun S. “A study on the performance of Taipei joint operation bus system”, Proceedings of the Conference on Technology and Management, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C, 2001 (in Chinese).
30. Cho, H. J. and Fan C. K. “The performance of Taiwan motor transport company before and after privatization”, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 5, pp.2872-2882, 2003.
31. Cho, H. J. and Fan C. K. “The performance of Taiwan motor transport company before and after privatization”, The 5th International Conference of Eastern Asia Society for Transport Studies, Fukuoka, Japan, 2003.
32. Cho, H. J. and Fan C. K. “Evaluating the performance of privatization on regional transit services: a case study”, ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development, (Accepted April 2004).
33. Cho, H. J. and Fan C. K. “Measuring the risk-adjusted efficiency of Taiwan Motor Transport Company before and after privatization”, World Scientific and Engineering Academy and society (WSEAS) International conferences, 2004.
34. Chu, X., Fielding, G. and Lamar, B. “Measuring transit performance using data envelopment analysis”, Transportation Research, 26, pp.223-230, 1992.
35. Coelli, T., Prasada Rao, D. S. and Battese, G. E. “An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1998.
36. Coelli, T. J. A guide to DEAP version 2.1: a data envelopment analysis (computer) program, CEPA working papers, 8/96, Dept. of Econometrics, University of New England, Armidale, Australia, 1996.
37. Cook, W. D., Hababou, M., and Tuerter, H. J. H. “Multicomponet efficiency measurement and shared inputs in data envelopment analysis: an application to scales and service performance in bank branches”, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 14, pp.209-224, 2000.
38. Cook, W. D., and Kress, M. “Characterizing an equitable allocation of shared costs: a DEA approach”, European Journal of Operational Research, 199, pp.652-661, 1999.
39. Costa, A. “Public transport efficiency and effectiveness: Metro de Madrid”, In K. Button, P. Nijkamp and H. priemus (eds)”Transport Networks in Europe: Concepts, Analysis and Policies. Elgar,Cheltenham, pp.248-264, 1998.
40. Cowie, J. and Asenova, D. “Organisation form, scale effects and efficiency in the British bus industry”, Transportation, 26, pp.231-248, 1999.
41. Cowie J. “Acquisition, efficiency and scale economies: An analysis of the British bus industry”, Transport Reviews, 22(2), pp.147-157, 2002.
42. Dajani, J. S., and Gilbert, G. “Measuring the performance of transit systems”, Transportation Planning and Technology, 4, pp.97-103, 1978.
43. Dalen, D. M. and Gomez-Lobo, A.“Yardsticks on the road: regulatory contracts and cost efficiency in the Norwegian Bus Industry”, Transportation, 30, pp. 371-386, 2003.
44. De Borger, B. “The economic environment and public enterprise behaviour: Belgian railroads, 1950-1986”, Economica, 60, pp.443-463, 1993.
45. De Borger, B., Kerstens, K. and Costa, A. “Public transit performance: What does one learn from frontier studies”, Transport Reviews, 22, pp.1-38, 2002.
46. Debreu, G. “The Coefficient of Resource Utilization”, Econometrica, 19, pp. 273-292, 1951.
47. Dewenter, K.L., Malatesta, P.H. “Public offerings of state-owned and privately-owned enterprises: An international comparison”, Journal of Finance, 52, pp.1659-1679, 1997.
48. Dewenter, K.L., Malatesta, P.H. “State-owned and privately-owned firms: an empirical analysis of profitability, leverage, and labor intensity”, American Economic Review, 91, pp.320-334, 2001.
49. Diez-Ticio, A. and Mancebon, M. “The efficiency of the Spanish police service: an application of the multiactivity DEA model”, Applied Economics, 34, pp.351-362, 2002.
50. D’Souza, J., Megginson, W. L. “The financial and operating performance of newly privatized firms in the 1990’s”, Journal of Finance, 54, pp.1396-1438, 1999.
51. Fare, R., Grabowski, R., Grosskopf, S. and Kraft, S. “Efficiency of a fixed but allocatable input: a non-parametric approach”, Economics Letters, 56, pp. 93-187, 1997.
52. Fare, R. and Grosskopf, S. “Shadow pricing of good and bad commodities”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 3, pp.584-590, 1998.
53. Fare, R. and Grosskopf, S. “Network DEA”, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 34, pp.35-49, 2002.
54. Fare, R. Grosskopf, S. and Lovell, C. A. K. The Measurement of Efficiency of Production. Kluwer Acadernic Publibers, Boston, 1985.
55. Fare, R. Grosskopf, S. and Lovell, C. A. K. Production Frontiers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
56. Fare, R., Grosskofp, S., Lovell, C. A. K. and Pasurka, C. “Multilateral productivity comparisons when some outputs are undesirable: a nonparametric approach”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 71, 1, pp. 90-98, 1989.
57. Fare, R., Grosskopf, S. and Weber, W. (1997), “The effect of risk-based capital requirements on profit efficiency in banking”, Discussion Paper Series, Department of Economics, Southern Illinios University at Carbondale, pp.97-112, 1997.
58. Fare, R., Grosskopf, S. and Zaim, O. “Hyperbolic efficiency and return to the dollar”, European Journal of Operational Research, 136, pp.671-679, 2002.
59. Fare, R. and Primont, D. Multi-Output Production and Duality: Theory and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1995.
60. Farrell, M. J. “The measurement of productive efficiency”, Journal of Royal Statistical Society A, 120, pp.253-281, 1957.
61. Fazioli, R., Filippini, M.and Prioni, P. “Cost-structure and efficiency of local public transport: the case of Emilia Romagna bus companies”, International Journal of Transport Economics, 20, pp.305-324, 1993.
62. Fielding, G. J. Managing public transit strategically, Jossey-Bas, Inc., San Francisco, 1987.
63. Fried, H. O., Lovell C. A. K., Schmidt S. S. and Yaisawarng S. “Accounting for environmental effects and statistical noise in data envelopment analysis”, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 17, pp.157-174, 2002.
64. Gathon, H. J. “Indicators of partial productivity and technical efficiency in the European urban transit sector”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 60, pp.43-59, 1989.
65. Georgeson-Roegen, N. “The aggregate linear production function and its applications to Von Neumann’s economic model”, In Koopmans, T. (Ed.), Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation, Wiley, New York, 1951.
66. Gillen, D. and Lall, A. “Developing measures of airport productivity and performance: an application of data envelopment analysis”, Transportation Research E, 33(4), pp.261-273, 1997.
67. Giuliano, G. “Effect of environmental factors on the efficiency of public transit service”, Transportation Research Record, 797, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., pp. 11-16, 1981.
68. Golany, B. Phhllips, F. Y. and Rousseau, J. J. “Models for improved effectiveness based on DEA efficiency results”, IIE Transactions, 25, pp.2-10, 1993.
69. Golany, B. and Tamir, E. “Evaluation efficiency-effectiveness-equality trade-offs: a data envelopment analysis approach”, Management Science, 41,pp.1172-1184, 1995.
70. Gomez-Ibanez, J. A. and Meyer, J. R. “Privatizing and deregulating local public services: Lessons from Britain’s buses”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 56, pp.9-21, 1990.
71. Gomez-Ibanez, J. A. and Meyer, J. R. Going private-the international experience with privatization, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1993.
72. Greene, W. “Frontier production functions”, Handbook of Applied Econometrics, In Pesaran, M. H. and Wickens, M. R. (eds), 2, pp.81-166, 1997.
73. Grosskopf, S. “Statistical inference and non-parametric efficiency: a selective survey”, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 7, pp.161-176, 1996.
74. Harper, J. T. “The performance of privatized firms in the Czech republic”, Journal of Banking & Finance, 26, pp.621-649, 2002.
75. Hensher, D. A. and Daniels, R.“Productivity measurement in the urban bus sector”, Transport policy, pp.179-197, 1995.
76. Hibbs J. Bus and Coach Management, Chapman and Hall, London, pp.112, 1985.
77. Hooper, P. G. and Hensher D. A. “Measuring total factor productivity of airports-an index number approach”, Transportation Research E, 33 (4), pp. 249-259, 1997.
78. Hughes, J. P. “Measuring efficiency when competitive prices aggregate differences in product quality and risk”, Research in Economics, 53, 47-76, 1999.
79. Institute of Transportation, Ministry of Transportation and Communications, The third Taiwan area integrated transportation system planning study, 1999, Taipei, Taiwan (in Chinese).
80. Jorgensen F., Pedersen P. A. and Volden R. “ Estimating the inefficiency in the Norwegian bus industry form Stochastic cost frontier models”, Transportation, 24, pp.421-433, 1997.
81. Karlaftis, M.G. “Investigating transit production and performance: a programming approach”, Transportation Research A,37, pp.225-240, 2003.
82. Karlaftis, M.G. “A DEA approach for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of urban transit systems”, European Journal of Operational Research, 152, pp.354-364, 2004.
83. Kao, C., Chen, L. H., Wang, T. Y., Kuo, S. and Horng, S. D. “Productivity improvement: efficiency approach vs effectiveness approach”, Omega International Journal Management Science, 23, 2, pp.197-204, 1995.
84. Karlaftis, M. G. and McCarthy, P. S. “The effect of privatization on public transit costs”, Journal of Regulatory Economics, 16, pp.27-43, 1999.
85. Karlaftis, M. G. and Sinha, K. C. “Effect of operating subsides in the paratransit sector”, Transportation Research Record, 1571, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., pp.75-80, 1997.
86. Kerstens, K. “Technical efficiency measurement and explanation of French urban transit companies”, Transportation Research, 30A, pp.431-452, 1996.
87. Kerstens, K. “Decomposing technical efficiency and effectiveness of French urban transport”, Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 54, pp.129-155, 1999.
88. Kerstens, K. and Vanden Eeckaut, P. “The economic cost of subsidy-induced technical inefficiency: a methodological postscript” International Journal of Transport Economics, 22, pp.225-229, 1995.
89. Koopmans, T. C. “An analysis of production as an efficiency combination of activities, in T. C. Koopmans (Ed.)”, Activity analysis of production and allocation, Cowles Commission for Research in Economics, Monograph No.13, Wiley, New York, 1951.
90. Labrecque H. J., Measurement of efficiency in urban mass transit via a Data Envelopment Analysis, Master thesis, Department of Economic, the University of New Brunswick, 1996.
91. Levaggi, R. “Parametric and non-parametric approach to efficiency: the case of urban transport in Italy”, Studi Economici, 49, pp.67-88, 1994.
92. Lijesen, M. “Analyzing cost structures of public sector activities, with an application to regional public transport”, Performance Budgeting: a Perspective on Modelling and Strategic Planning in the Public Sector in Holland. G. B. K. de Graan and F. G. Volmer eds., Eburon, Delft, pp. 178-187, 1998.
93. Lothgren, M., and Tambour, M. “Productivity and customer satisfaction in Swedish pharmacies: A DEA network model”, European Journal of Operational Research, 115, pp.449-458, 1999.
94. Lovell, C. A. K., Production frontiers and economic efficiency: the measurement of productive efficiency, Chapter 1 and 3, Oxford University Press, 1993.
95. Lyons, D. M. “Performance measurement in urban transit: a comparative analysis of single and partial measures of transit performance”, Transportation Research A, 31, pp. 69, 1997.
96. Mackie, P., Preston, J. and Nash, C. “Bus deregulation: ten years on”, Transport Reviews, 15, pp.229-251, 1995.
97. Mar Molinero, C. “On the joint determination of efficiencies in a data envelopment context”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47, pp.1273-1279, 1996.
98. Mar Molinero, C. and Tsai, P. F. “Some mathematical properties of a DEA model for the joint determination of efficiencies”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48, pp.51-56, 1997.
99. Matas A. and Raymond, J. L. “Technical characteristics and efficiency of urban bus companies: the case of Spain”, Transportation, 25, pp. 243-263, 1998.
100. McCrosson D. F. “Choosing performance indicators for small transit systems”, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 48, pp.26-30, 1978.
101. Meeusen, W. and van den Broeck, J. “Efficiency estimation from cobb-douglas production functions with composed error”, International Economic Review, 18, pp.435-444, 1997.
102. Megginson, W. L., Nash, R. C., Netter, J. M. and Poulsen, A. B. “The choice of privatization method: an empirical analysis”, Working Paper, university of Georgia. 2000a.
103. Megginson, W. L., Nash, R. C., Netter, J. M. and Schwartz, A. L. “The long-run retrun to investors in share issue privatizations”, Financial Management, 2000b.
104. Megginson, W. L., Nash, R. C. and van Randenborgh, M. “The finacial and operating performance of newly privatized firms: An international empirical analysis”, Journal of Finance, 49, pp.403-452, 1994.
105. Megginson, W. L. and Netter, J. M. “From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical studies on Privatization”, Journal of Economic Literature, 39, pp. 321-389, 2001.
106. Mester, L. J. “A study of bank efficiency taking into account risk-preferences”, Journal of Bank and Finance, 20, pp.45-1025, 1996.
107. Miller, D. R., Lathrop, G. T. and Stuart, D. R. Simplified guidelines for evaluating transit service in small urban areas, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., 1984.
108. Mulley, C. and Wright, M. “Management buy-outs and the privatization of National Bus”, Fiscal Studies, August, pp.1-23, 1986.
109. Nakanishi, Y. J. and Norsworthy, J. R. “Assessing efficiency of transit service”, IEEE International Engineering Management Society Conference, pp.133-140, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2000.
110. National Federation of Bus Passenger Transportation of the Republic of China, Annual Statistical Reports, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C., 2002.
111. Nolan, J. F. “Determinants of productive efficiency in urban transit”, Logistic and Transportation Review, 32(3), pp.319-342, 1996.
112. Nolan, J. F., Ritchie, P. C. and Rowcroft, J. E. “Identifying and measuring public policy goals: ISTEA and the US bus transit industry”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 48, pp.291-304, 2002.
113. Obeng, K. “The economic cost of subsidy-induced technical inefficiency”, International Journal of Transport Economics, 21, pp.3-20, 1994.
114. Obeng, K., Assar, N. and Benjamin, J. “Total factor productivity in transit systems: 1983-1988”, Transportation Research A, 26(6), pp. 447-455, 1992.
115. Obeng, K. and Sakano R. “Total factor productivity decomposition, input price inefficiencies, and public transit systems”, Transportation Research E, 38, pp.19-36, 2002.
116. Odeck, J. “Ownership, scale effects and efficiency of Norwegian bus operators: empirical evidence”, International Journal of Transport Economics, XXX, 3, pp.305-325, 2003.
117. Odeck, J. and Alkadi A. “Evaluating efficiency in the Norwegian bus industry using data envelopment analysis”, Transportation, 28, pp.221-232, 2001.
118. Parker, D. “The performance of BAA before and after privatization: a DEA study”, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 33, 2, pp.133-46, 1999.
119. Perelman, S. and Thiry, B. “Measuring the performance of public transport companies”, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 60(1), pp. 3-8, 1989.
120. Pina, V. and Torres, L. “Analysis of the efficiency of local government services delivery. An application to urban public transport”, Transportation Research A, 35, pp.929-944, 2001.
121. Robbins, D. K. and White P. R. “The experience of express coach deregulation in great Briton”, Transportation, 13, pp.359-384, 1986.
122. Roy, Jean-P. “Performance indicators of the transport sector”, in Canadian transportation research forum: transport gateways and trade corridors, Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, May, 2, pp. 719-733, 1996.
123. Sakano, R., Obeng, K. “Re-examination of inefficiencies in urban transit systems: a stochastic frontier approach”, Logistics and Transportation Review, 31, pp.377-392, 1995.
124. Sakano, R., Obeng, K. and Azam, G. “Subsidies and inefficiency: stochastic frontier approach”, Contemporary Economic Policy, 15, pp.113-127, 1997.
125. Shephard, R. W. Theory of Cost and Production Functions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1970.
126. Small, K. A. “Urban Transportation Economics”, Harwood Academic Publishers, Philadelphia, U.S.A. 1992.
127. Stopher, P. R., and Meyburg Arnim, H. Transportation Systems Evaluation, Lexington, Mass, 1976.
128. Sueyoshi, T. “Privatization of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone: was it a good policy decision”, European Journal of Operation Research, 107, pp.45-61, 1998.
129. Talley, W. K., and Anderson P. P. “Effectiveness and efficiency in transit performance: a theoretical perspective”, Transportation Research A, 15(6), pp.431-436, 1981.
130. Taskin, F., and Zaim, O. “Searching for Kuznets curve in environmental efficiency using Kernel estimation”, Economics Letters, 68, pp.217-223, 2000.
131. Thanassoulis, E. “A data envelopment analysis approach to clustering operating units for resource allocation purposes”, Omega, 24, pp.463-476, 1996.
132. Thanassoulis, E. “Estimating efficient marginal resource levels using data envelpment analysis”, Journal of Cost Analysis, pp. 29-52,1998.
133. Thiry, B. and Tulkens, H. “Allowing for inefficiency in parametric estimation of production functions for urban transit firms”, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3, pp.45-65, 1992.
134. Tomazinis, A.R., Productivity, efficiency, and quality in urban transportation systems, Lexington, Mass, 1975.
135. Tomkins, C. and Green, R. “An experiment in the use of data envelopment analysis for evaluating the efficiency of UK university departments of accounting”, Financial Accountability& Management, 4, 2, pp.147-164, 1988.
136. Tone K., and Sawada, T. “An efficiency analysis of public vs. private bus transportation enterprises”, Operational Research ’90 ed. Bradley, H., pp. 357-365, Pergamon, New York, 1990.
137. Tsai, P. F. and Mar Molinero, C. “The joint determination of efficiencies in DEA: an application to the UK health service”, Department of Management, Discussion Paper, University of Southampton, 1998.
138. Tsai, P. F. and Mar Molinero, C. “A variable returns to scale data envelopment analysis model for the joint determination of efficiencies with an example of the UK health service”, European Journal of Operational Research, 141, pp.21-38, 2002.
139. US Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Proc. of the 1st Nat. on Conf. on Transit performance, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1978.
140. Viton, P. “The question of efficiency in urban bus transportation”, Journal of Regional Science, 26(3), pp. 499-513, 1986.
141. Viton, P. “Consolidations of scale and scope in urban transit”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 22, pp.25-49, 1992.
142. Viton, P. “Changes in multi-mode transit efficiency, 1988-1992”, working paper, The Ohio State University, 1995.
143. Viton, P. “Technical efficiency in multimode bus transit: a production frontier analysis”, Transportation Research B, 31, pp.23-39, 1997.
144. Viton, P. “Changes in multimode bus transit efficiency, 1988-1992”, Transportation, 25, pp.1-21, 1998.
145. White, P. “The experience of bus and coach deregulation in Britain and in other countries”, International Journal of Transport Economics, XXIV, 35-52, 1997.
146. Wright, M., Dobson, P., Thompson, S. and Robbie, K. “How well does privatization achieve government objectives? The case of bus buy-outs”, International Journal of Transport Economics, XIX, pp.258-285, 1992.
147. Wright, M. and Mulley, C. “Early experiences from the privatization of National Bus”, Annual Conference of Transport Research Group, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1989.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：346（臺灣：345，外國：1） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2111296 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67906973
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上