IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/eeaeje/249860.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Ethiopian Leather industry on the right track?: an Empirical investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Worku, Gebeyehu

Abstract

This study aimed at examining the existence of technical efficiency differences among tanneries and leather processing firms using stochastic frontier production function models. The study considered 10 tanneries and 24 leather processing firms for the period 1996 to 1999. Mean technical efficiency of tanneries was about 83 percent for the entire period, albeit showing a declining trend. Among tanneries, larger firms were found to be more efficient because of the advantage of scale economies. Contrary to the widely held view, exporting tanneries were not as efficient as inward oriented ones except that they were using capital intensive and relatively modern technologies which might have allowed them producing good quality products for their target markets. Although, leather processing industries were operating far below their designed capacity, the empirical evidence externalized the causes for their poor performance. The Translog production function estimated through OLS was found to better characterize their production technology implying that there was not statistically significant technical efficiency difference amongst them. External constraints might include unfair competition with illegal imports, lack of easier access to finance, and limited government support in light of the fiercely competitive global trade and the infant nature of the sector. Albeit, statistical tests do not affirm it, an increasing trend of inefficiency has been observed in leather processing industries. This is perhaps a reflection of firm level weaknesses associated with mediocre product design, use of backward machines, limited international exposure and passive reaction to competitive products. Thus, both tanneries and leather processing industries ought to firmly work in addressing their weaknesses and accustom themselves with the challenges of the changing global environment. Government should also play its supportive role in terms of ensuring a fairly competitive domestic market, providing market and technology related information, supporting trainings, and minimizing transaction costs related to the provision of its services.

Suggested Citation

  • Worku, Gebeyehu, 2006. "Is the Ethiopian Leather industry on the right track?: an Empirical investigation," Ethiopian Journal of Economics, Ethiopian Economics Association, vol. 10(2), pages 103-103, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eeaeje:249860
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.249860
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/249860/files/Worku%20Gebeyehu_Is%20the%20Ethiopian%20Leather%20Industry.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.249860?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Battese, George E. & Coelli, Tim J., 1988. "Prediction of firm-level technical efficiencies with a generalized frontier production function and panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 387-399, July.
    2. Pitt, Mark M. & Lee, Lung-Fei, 1981. "The measurement and sources of technical inefficiency in the Indonesian weaving industry," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 43-64, August.
    3. Battese, George & Rao, D.S. Prasada & Walujadi, Dedi, 2001. "Technical Efficiency and Productivity Potential of Firms Using a Stochastic Metaproduction Frontier," Efficiency Series Papers 2001/08, University of Oviedo, Department of Economics, Oviedo Efficiency Group (OEG).
    4. Battese, George E., 1992. "Frontier production functions and technical efficiency: a survey of empirical applications in agricultural economics," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 7(3-4), pages 185-208, October.
    5. Aigner, Dennis & Lovell, C. A. Knox & Schmidt, Peter, 1977. "Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 21-37, July.
    6. Gourieroux,Christian, 2000. "Econometrics of Qualitative Dependent Variables," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521589857, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sumeyye Kusakci & Ibrahim Bushera, 2023. "Corporate social responsibility pyramid in Ethiopia: A mixed study on approaches and practices," International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy (2687-2293), Bussecon International Academy, vol. 5(1), pages 37-48, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Munir Ahmad & Azkar Ahmad, 1998. "An Analysis of the Sources of Wheat Output Growth in the Barani Area of the Punjab," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 37(3), pages 231-249.
    2. Tim J. Coelli, 1995. "Recent Developments In Frontier Modelling And Efficiency Measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 219-245, December.
    3. Coll Serrano, V. & Blasco Blasco, O.Mª., 2009. "Evolución de la eficiencia técnica de la industria textil española en el periodo 1995-2005. Análisis mediante un modelo frontera estocástica/Technical Efficiency In The Textile Industry Of Spain In Th," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 27, pages 779(32á)-77, Diciembre.
    4. Reddy, Mahendra, 2002. "Implication of Tenancy Status on Productivity and Efficiency: Evidence from Fiji," Sri Lankan Journal of Agricultural Economics, Sri Lanka Agricultural Economics Association (SAEA), vol. 4, pages 1-20.
    5. Rouf, Abdur, 2018. "A Novel Approach to Verifying Evaluation of Agricultural Products with Productive Efficiency: An Empirical Study," 2018 Conference (62nd), February 7-9, 2018, Adelaide, Australia 273523, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Sedik, David & Trueblood, Michael & Arnade, Carlos, 1999. "Corporate Farm Performance in Russia, 1991-1995: An Efficiency Analysis," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 514-533, September.
    7. Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Pinheiro, Antonio E., 1993. "Efficiency Analysis Of Developing Country Agriculture: A Review Of The Frontier Function Literature," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 22(1), pages 1-14, April.
    8. Abdul Wadud, 2013. "Impact of Microcredit on Agricultural Farm Performance and Food Security in Bangladesh," Working Papers 14, Institute of Microfinance (InM).
    9. Horie, Tetsuya & Yamaguchi, Mitoshi, 2006. "Productivity Growth, Efficiency Change and Technical Change in Japanese Agriculture: 1965-1995," Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics (formerly Japanese Journal of Rural Economics), Agricultural Economics Society of Japan (AESJ), vol. 8, pages 1-15.
    10. Ali M. Oumer & Amin Mugera & Michael Burton & Atakelty Hailu, 2022. "Technical efficiency and firm heterogeneity in stochastic frontier models: application to smallholder maize farms in Ethiopia," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 213-241, April.
    11. Margono, Heru & Sharma, Subhash C., 2006. "Efficiency and productivity analyses of Indonesian manufacturing industries," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 979-995, December.
    12. Dhehibi, Boubaker & Lachaal, Lassaad & Elloumi, Mohamed & Messaoud, Emna B., 2007. "Measurement and Sources of Technical Inefficiency in the Tunisian Citrus Growing Sector," 103rd Seminar, April 23-25, 2007, Barcelona, Spain 9391, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Banfi, Silvia & Filippini, Massimo, 2010. "Resource rent taxation and benchmarking--A new perspective for the Swiss hydropower sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2302-2308, May.
    14. Goyal, S.K. & Suhag, K.S. & Pandey, U.K., 2006. "An Estimation of Technical Efficiency of Paddy Farmers in Haryana State of India," Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, vol. 61(1), pages 1-15.
    15. Roberto Colombi & Subal Kumbhakar & Gianmaria Martini & Giorgio Vittadini, 2014. "Closed-skew normality in stochastic frontiers with individual effects and long/short-run efficiency," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 123-136, October.
    16. J. Cummins & Hongmin Zi, 1998. "Comparison of Frontier Efficiency Methods: An Application to the U.S. Life Insurance Industry," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 131-152, October.
    17. Forsund, Finn R. & Sarafoglou, Nikias, 2005. "The tale of two research communities: The diffusion of research on productive efficiency," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 17-40, October.
    18. I. Fraser & W. Horrace, 2003. "Technical Efficiency of Australian Wool Production: Point and Confidence Interval Estimates," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 169-190, September.
    19. Cazals Catherine & Dudley Paul & Florens Jean-Pierre & Jones Michael, 2011. "The Effect of Unobserved Heterogeneity in Stochastic Frontier Estimation: Comparison of Cross Section and Panel with Simulated Data for the Postal Sector," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(3), pages 1-22, September.
    20. Schalk Hans Joachim & Untiedt Gerhard & Lüschow Jörg, 1995. "Technische Effizienz, Wachstum und Konvergenz in den Arbeitsmarktregionen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (West). Eine ökonometrische Analyse für die Verarbeitende Industrie mit einem „Frontier Product," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 214(1), pages 25-49, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:eeaeje:249860. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eeaa2ea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.