IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v85y2019icp94-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extending the bargaining approach to DEA target setting

Author

Listed:
  • Lozano, S.
  • Hinojosa, M.A.
  • Mármol, A.M.

Abstract

This paper extends the approach based on bargaining for computing DEA targets. Thus, for each inefficient Decision Making Unit (DMU), a bargaining problem is defined where the players are the input and output variables that can be improved. In the case of the output players, their utility is an increasing linear function of the corresponding variable. The utility of input players is a decreasing linear function of the input. The disagreement point corresponds to the input and output utilities of the DMU being projected. We show how various well-known bargaining solutions, such as Nash bargaining solution, lexicographic Kalai–Smorodinsky solution, lexicographic egalitarian solution and normalized utilitarian solution, lead to corresponding DEA bargaining models. Some properties of the DEA bargaining models are derived as a consequence of those of the corresponding bargaining solutions. The proposed approach is validated using a container shipping lines application.

Suggested Citation

  • Lozano, S. & Hinojosa, M.A. & Mármol, A.M., 2019. "Extending the bargaining approach to DEA target setting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 94-102.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:85:y:2019:i:c:p:94-102
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2018.05.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048317312677
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.omega.2018.05.015?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pekka Korhonen & Sari Stenfors & Mikko Syrjänen, 2003. "Multiple Objective Approach as an Alternative to Radial Projection in DEA," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 305-321, November.
    2. Du, Juan & Liang, Liang & Chen, Yao & Cook, Wade D. & Zhu, Joe, 2011. "A bargaining game model for measuring performance of two-stage network structures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(2), pages 390-397, April.
    3. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Tvede, Mich, 2002. "Benchmark selection: An axiomatic approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 218-228, February.
    4. Wu, Huaqing & Lv, Kui & Liang, Liang & Hu, Hanhui, 2017. "Measuring performance of sustainable manufacturing with recyclable wastes: A case from China’s iron and steel industry," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 66(PA), pages 38-47.
    5. Cooper, W. W. & Tone, K., 1997. "Measures of inefficiency in data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier estimation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 72-88, May.
    6. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    7. William Cooper & Kyung Park & Jesus Pastor, 1999. "RAM: A Range Adjusted Measure of Inefficiency for Use with Additive Models, and Relations to Other Models and Measures in DEA," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 5-42, February.
    8. Jie Wu & Yafei Yu & Qingyuan Zhu & Qingxian An & Liang Liang, 2018. "Closest target for the orientation-free context-dependent DEA under variable returns to scale," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(11), pages 1819-1833, November.
    9. Silva Portela, Maria Conceicao A. & Thanassoulis, Emmanuel, 2005. "Profitability of a sample of Portuguese bank branches and its decomposition into technical and allocative components," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(3), pages 850-866, May.
    10. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    11. Ester Gutiérrez & Sebastián Lozano & Salvador Furió, 2014. "Evaluating efficiency of international container shipping lines: A bootstrap DEA approach," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 16(1), pages 55-71, March.
    12. Imai, Haruo, 1983. "Individual Monotonicity and Lexicographic Maxmin Solution," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(2), pages 389-401, March.
    13. Korhonen, Pekka J. & Dehnokhalaji, Akram & Nasrabadi, Nasim, 2018. "A lexicographic radial projection onto the efficient frontier in Data Envelopment Analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(3), pages 1005-1012.
    14. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    15. Peter Bogetoft & Kurt Nielsen, 2005. "Internet Based Benchmarking," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 195-215, May.
    16. Fukuyama, Hirofumi & Weber, William L., 2009. "A directional slacks-based measure of technical inefficiency," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 274-287, December.
    17. Jahangoshai Rezaee, Mustafa & Moini, Alireza & Makui, Ahmad, 2012. "Operational and non-operational performance evaluation of thermal power plants in Iran: A game theory approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 96-103.
    18. Aparicio, Juan & Cordero, Jose M. & Pastor, Jesus T., 2017. "The determination of the least distance to the strongly efficient frontier in Data Envelopment Analysis oriented models: Modelling and computational aspects," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 1-10.
    19. Yang, Xiaopeng & Morita, Hiroshi, 2013. "Efficiency improvement from multiple perspectives: An application to Japanese banking industry," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 501-509.
    20. Asmild, Mette & Pastor, Jesús T., 2010. "Slack free MEA and RDM with comprehensive efficiency measures," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 475-483, December.
    21. Jens Leth Hougaard & Mich Tvede, 2010. "n-Person Nonconvex Bargaining: Efficient Proportional Solution," Discussion Papers 10-21, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    22. Mette Asmild & Jens Hougaard & Dorte Kronborg & Hans Kvist, 2003. "Measuring Inefficiency Via Potential Improvements," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 59-76, January.
    23. Sebastián Lozano & Miguel Ángel Hinojosa & Amparo María Mármol & Diego Vicente Borrero, 2016. "DEA and Cooperative Game Theory," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Shiuh-Nan Hwang & Hsuan-Shih Lee & Joe Zhu (ed.), Handbook of Operations Analytics Using Data Envelopment Analysis, chapter 0, pages 215-239, Springer.
    24. An, Qingxian & Chen, Haoxun & Xiong, Beibei & Wu, Jie & Liang, Liang, 2017. "Target intermediate products setting in a two-stage system with fairness concern," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 49-59.
    25. Juan Aparicio & José Ruiz & Inmaculada Sirvent, 2007. "Closest targets and minimum distance to the Pareto-efficient frontier in DEA," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 209-218, December.
    26. Tone, Kaoru, 2001. "A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(3), pages 498-509, May.
    27. Hinojosa, M.A. & Mármol, A.M., 2011. "Axial solutions for multiple objective linear problems. An application to target setting in DEA models with preferences," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 159-167, April.
    28. Juan Du & Yao Chen & Wade D. Cook & Liang Liang & Joe Zhu, 2014. "Evaluating Two-Stage Network Structures: Bargaining Game Approach," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Wade D. Cook & Joe Zhu (ed.), Data Envelopment Analysis, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 165-187, Springer.
    29. Fukuyama, Hirofumi & Maeda, Yasunobu & Sekitani, Kazuyuki & Shi, Jianming, 2014. "Input–output substitutability and strongly monotonic p-norm least distance DEA measures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 997-1007.
    30. Pastor, J. T. & Ruiz, J. L. & Sirvent, I., 1999. "An enhanced DEA Russell graph efficiency measure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 596-607, June.
    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. Contreras, I. & Lozano, S., 2020. "Allocating additional resources to public universities. A DEA bargaining approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    2. Chen, Lei & Wang, Ying-Ming, 2020. "DEA target setting approach within the cross efficiency framework," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Lei Chen & Ying-Ming Wang & Yan Huang, 2020. "Cross-efficiency aggregation method based on prospect consensus process," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 288(1), pages 115-135, May.
    4. Yu, Ming-Miin & Rakshit, Ipsita, 2024. "How to establish input and output targets for airlines with heterogeneous production technologies: A nash bargaining DEA approach within the meta-frontier framework," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    5. Luo, Chunlin & Zhou, Xiaoyang & Lev, Benjamin, 2022. "Core, shapley value, nucleolus and nash bargaining solution: A Survey of recent developments and applications in operations management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    6. Kadziński, Miłosz & Stamenković, Mladen & Uniejewski, Maciej, 2022. "Stepwise benchmarking for multiple criteria sorting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. Chang, Tsung-Sheng & Lin, Ji-Gang & Ouenniche, Jamal, 2023. "DEA-based Nash bargaining approach to merger target selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(2), pages 930-945.
    8. Cui, Yuan & Pan, Hao & Huang, Yi-Di & Yang, Guo-liang, 2024. "How can sociological theories provide legitimacy to eco-efficiency evaluations? Embark on a journey toward understanding," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    9. Yu, Ming-Miin & Rakshit, Ipsita, 2023. "Target setting for airlines incorporating CO2 emissions: The DEA bargaining approach," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    10. Zhu, Qingyuan & Aparicio, Juan & Li, Feng & Wu, Jie & Kou, Gang, 2022. "Determining closest targets on the extended facet production possibility set in data envelopment analysis: Modeling and computational aspects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(3), pages 927-939.
    11. Lozano, Sebastián & Khezri, Somayeh, 2021. "Network DEA smallest improvement approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    12. Yu, Shasha & Lei, Ming & Deng, Honghui, 2023. "Evaluation to fixed-sum-outputs DMUs by non-oriented equilibrium efficient frontier DEA approach with Nash bargaining-based selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    13. Lozano, Sebastián, 2023. "Bargaining approach for efficiency assessment and target setting with fixed-sum variables," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).

    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. Juan Aparicio & Magdalena Kapelko & Bernhard Mahlberg & Jose L. Sainz-Pardo, 2017. "Measuring input-specific productivity change based on the principle of least action," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 17-31, February.
    2. Sebastián Lozano & Narges Soltani & Akram Dehnokhalaji, 2020. "A compromise programming approach for target setting in DEA," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 288(1), pages 363-390, May.
    3. Chang, Tsung-Sheng & Lin, Ji-Gang & Ouenniche, Jamal, 2023. "DEA-based Nash bargaining approach to merger target selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(2), pages 930-945.
    4. Aparicio, Juan & Cordero, Jose M. & Gonzalez, Martin & Lopez-Espin, Jose J., 2018. "Using non-radial DEA to assess school efficiency in a cross-country perspective: An empirical analysis of OECD countries," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 9-20.
    5. Kao, Chiang, 2022. "Closest targets in the slacks-based measure of efficiency for production units with multi-period data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(3), pages 1042-1054.
    6. Zhu, Qingyuan & Wu, Jie & Ji, Xiang & Li, Feng, 2018. "A simple MILP to determine closest targets in non-oriented DEA model satisfying strong monotonicity," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-8.
    7. Kao, Chiang, 2024. "Maximum slacks-based measure of efficiency in network data envelopment analysis: A case of garment manufacturing," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    8. Juan Aparicio & Jesus T. Pastor & Jose L. Sainz-Pardo & Fernando Vidal, 2020. "Estimating and decomposing overall inefficiency by determining the least distance to the strongly efficient frontier in data envelopment analysis," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 747-770, June.
    9. Tianqun Xu & Ping Gao & Qian Yu & Debin Fang, 2017. "An Improved Eco-Efficiency Analysis Framework Based on Slacks-Based Measure Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-21, June.
    10. Aparicio, Juan & Pastor, Jesus T., 2014. "Closest targets and strong monotonicity on the strongly efficient frontier in DEA," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 51-57.
    11. Sebastián Lozano & Narges Soltani, 2020. "A modified discrete Raiffa approach for efficiency assessment and target setting," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 292(1), pages 71-95, September.
    12. Kao, Chiang, 2022. "A maximum slacks-based measure of efficiency for closed series production systems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    13. Sekitani, Kazuyuki & Zhao, Yu, 2023. "Least-distance approach for efficiency analysis: A framework for nonlinear DEA models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(3), pages 1296-1310.
    14. Aparicio, Juan & Cordero, Jose M. & Pastor, Jesus T., 2017. "The determination of the least distance to the strongly efficient frontier in Data Envelopment Analysis oriented models: Modelling and computational aspects," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 1-10.
    15. Yu, Ming-Miin & Rakshit, Ipsita, 2024. "How to establish input and output targets for airlines with heterogeneous production technologies: A nash bargaining DEA approach within the meta-frontier framework," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    16. Aparicio, Juan & Garcia-Nove, Eva M. & Kapelko, Magdalena & Pastor, Jesus T., 2017. "Graph productivity change measure using the least distance to the pareto-efficient frontier in data envelopment analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-14.
    17. Hirofumi Fukuyama & Hiroya Masaki & Kazuyuki Sekitani & Jianming Shi, 2014. "Distance optimization approach to ratio-form efficiency measures in data envelopment analysis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 175-186, October.
    18. Alcaraz, Javier & Anton-Sanchez, Laura & Aparicio, Juan & Monge, Juan F. & Ramón, Nuria, 2021. "Russell Graph efficiency measures in Data Envelopment Analysis: The multiplicative approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(2), pages 663-674.
    19. Mette Asmild & Tomas Baležentis & Jens Leth Hougaard, 2016. "Multi-directional productivity change: MEA-Malmquist," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 109-119, December.
    20. Juan Aparicio & Magdalena Kapelko & Juan F. Monge, 2020. "A Well-Defined Composite Indicator: An Application to Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 186(1), pages 299-323, July.

    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:eee:jomega:v:85:y:2019:i:c:p:94-102. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.