Using Fractional Regression Models to Analyse

Efficiency of European Manufacturing Firms

Bhaswar Chakma
Joaquim Ramalho
Jorge Santos

XIII Congreso Galego de Estatística e Investigación de Operacións

Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 1 / 24

 Fractional Regression Models Introduction

Fractional Response Variables

Continuous dependent variables (y) in [0,1] or (0,1).

Pass rates in exams
Share of consumers’ spending on food
Proportion of debt in the financial mix of firms
Efficiency scores
How to model relationship between a fractional dependent variable and a
set of explanatory variables?
Linear Models are not efficacious
No guarantee that the predicted values of the dependent variable will lie with the
desired interval

Need alternative models

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 2 / 24

 Fractional Regression Models Modelling

How to model?

Mainly two approaches for modelling fractional response variables

Quasi Maximum Likelihood (QML) estimators
Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimators

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 3 / 24

 Fractional Regression Models QML

QML Based Models

Papke and Wooldridge(1996) first introduced fractional regression

models
To deal with fractional response variables, only the assumption on functional
form of y is required
Functional form should impose constraints on the conditional mean of the
dependent variable:
E(y |x) = G(Xθ),
where G(.) is a known nonlinear function satisfying 0 ≤ G(.) ≤ 1.
Any cumulative function, satisfying the above condition, works as a possible
specification for G(.)

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 4 / 24

 Fractional Regression Models QML

QML Based Models (Cont.)

Table: Possible Specifications for G(.)

Cumulative Distribution
Model Designation Distribution Function
G(Xθ)
e(Xθ)
Logit Logistic 1+e(Xθ)
Probit Standard normal Φ(Xθ)
e(Xθ)
Cloglog Extreme minimum 1 − 1+e (Xθ)

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 5 / 24

 Fractional Regression Models ML

ML Based Model: Beta Regression

A beta regression model could be employed when the value of the

dependent variable is greater than zero i.e. 0 < y < 1
The standard beta density function could be expressed in the following
way
Γ(p + q) (p−1)
f (y ; p, q) = y (1 − y )(q−1) ,
Γ(p)Γ(q)
where Γ(.) denotes the gamma function, p > 0 and q > 0 are shape
parameters.

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 6 / 24

 Fractional Regression Models ML

ML Based Model: Beta Regression (Cont.)

letting p = µφ and q = (1 − µ)φ, a mean-dispersion parameterization of

the beta density could be expressed as

Γ(φ)
f (y ; µ, φ) = y (µφ−1) (1 − y )(1−µ)φ−1 ,
Γ(µφ)Γ[(1 − µ)φ]

where 0 < µ < 1 and φ > 0. This implies that

p
E(y ) = =µ
p+q

and
pq µ(1 − µ)
Var (y ) = = .
(p + q)2 (p + q + 1) φ+1
Here φ can be regarded as precision parameter with the notion that, for a
constant µ, as the value of φ gets larger the smaller the variance of y
becomes.

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 7 / 24

 Fractional Regression Models ML

ML Based Model: Beta Regression (Cont.)

Two beta regression models could be applied based on the simplified

beta density function.
The first model simply assumes µ = G(Xθ) as in the models discussed
earlier and consider φ as a nuisance parameter.
In the second model, the precision parameter and the mean are estimated
differently. The model assumes that µ = G(Xθ) and φ = exp(zα), where z is
a set of independent variables, potentially distinct from x, and α is a vector
of parameters
Both models are estimated by maximizing the log likelihood function of
the simplified beta density function. Hence, alike other MLE, estimators
of the these regression models are consistent and efficient.

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 8 / 24

 Fractional Regression Models Tests

Hypothesis Testing

Wald Test and Lagrange Multiplier Test can be used for both ML and
QML based models.
Likelihood Ratio(LR) Test only works for ML based models. QML
estimators are likely to be inefficient due to the issue of misspecification.
Hence, the LR test cannot be used in ML based models.

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 9 / 24

 Application Introduction

Application: Analysing Efficiency

This study focuses on the efficiency scores of manufacturing firms in

Portugal, Greece, France, and Germany, and tries to analyze them by
taking exogenous factors such as economic condition (before and after
financial crisis i.e 2007 and 2013), use of technology (high or low), type
of firm (SME or large), and country of origin into account.
Given the paucity of empirical research on this particular topic,
hypotheses of this study are formulated using pragmatic approach.

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 10 / 24

 Application Hypotheses

Main Hypotheses

1 Firms become more efficient subsequent to financial crisis

2 High-Tech firms are more efficient than Low-Tech firms
3 SMEs are less efficient than large firms
4 Firms in Portugal, France, and Germany are more efficient than firms in
Greece

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 11 / 24

 Application Data

The Data

To obtain efficiency scores, data envelopment analysis(DEA) was used.

In particular, assuming variable returns to scale, efficiency scores were
then obtained using an output oriented BCC model.
Input: Total assets, shareholders’ funds, and number of employees.
Output:Operating revenue turnover
A random sample of 1024 companies, 512 for each year were
considered.

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 12 / 24

 Application Data

Table: Summary Statistics DEA

Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.

SCORES 0.201 0.115 0.028 1
Operating Revenue Turnover 33562.080 340668.468 -1027.170 8487000
Total Assets 24938.228 259213.954 6.520 6721000
Shareholders’ Funds 5801.248 29381.416 -5677.880 538583.813
Number of Employees 99.948 882.770 1 20930
N 1024

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 13 / 24

 Application Data

Table: Summary Statistics-Country

Country Freq. Percent Cum.

DE 60 5.86 5.86
FR 514 50.20 56.05
GR 82 8.01 64.06
PT 368 35.94 100
Total 1024 100

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 14 / 24

 Application Data

Table: Summary Statistics

Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.

CRISIS 0.5 0.5 0 1
HIGHTECH 0.063 0.242 0 1
SME 0.940 0.237 0 1
N 1024

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 15 / 24

 Application Data

Figure: Distribution of Scores by Country

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 16 / 24

 Application Data

Figure: Distribution of Scores by Technology

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 17 / 24

 Application Data

Figure: Distribution of Scores by type of Firm

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 18 / 24

 Application Data

Figure: Distribution of Scores by Period

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 19 / 24

 Application Model

Main Model

E(SCORES|x) = G(β0 + β1 CRISIS + β2 HIGHTECH + β3 SME + β4 DE + β5 FR + β6 PT), (1)

where G(.) is the logistic function.

Table: Estimation Results : Main Model (QML Logit)

Variable Coefficient (Std. Err.)

CRISIS 0.007 (0.044)
HIGHTECH -0.109 (0.109)
SME -0.269∗ (0.116)
DE 0.563∗∗ (0.168)
FR 0.647∗∗ (0.116)
PT 0.489∗∗ (0.120)
Constant -1.667∗∗ (0.195)

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 20 / 24

 Application Robustness

Robustness Tests

Three aims:
1 To examine whether the estimates of a model change significantly when
specification for G(.) changes.
2 To find out if the small number of fully efficient firms i.e. firms with
SCORES=1 affect the regression results.
3 To find out whether alternative estimation methods i.e. ML and QML produce
significantly different results.

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 21 / 24

 Application Robustness

Table: Robustness Tests

FULL SAMPLE RESTRICTED SAMPLE

VARIABLES QML logit (1) QML probit (2) QML cloglog (3) QML logit (4) Beta logit (5)

CRISIS 0.007 0.003 0.007 -0.024 -0.018

(0.044) (0.025) (0.039) (0.036) (0.033)
HIGHTECH -0.109 -0.060 -0.100 -0.091 -0.141**
(0.109) (0.062) (0.097) (0.108) (0.071)
SME -0.269** -0.162** -0.231** -0.283** -0.176**
(0.116) (0.069) (0.099) (0.114) (0.072)
DE 0.563*** 0.311*** 0.517*** 0.556*** 0.581***
(0.168) (0.090) (0.155) (0.167) (0.099)
FR 0.647*** 0.362*** 0.588*** 0.647*** 0.659***
(0.116) (0.060) (0.110) (0.115) (0.071)
PT 0.489*** 0.272*** 0.447*** 0.386*** 0.366***
(0.120) (0.062) (0.114) (0.114) (0.073)
Constant -1.667*** -0.986*** -1.770*** -1.639*** -1.734***
(0.195) (0.107) (0.177) (0.192) (0.098)

Observations 1,024 1,024 1,024 1,017 1,017

Robust standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 22 / 24

 Application Conclusion

Conclusion

Financial crisis does not affect efficiency of firms.

Use of technology does not play any role in explaining efficiency of firms.
Efficiency scores of large firms and SMEs differ significantly. In fact, large
firms are, on average, more efficient than SMEs.
Efficiency of firms varies across countries; firms in Portugal, France, and
Germany are more efficient than firms in Greece.

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 23 / 24

 Application Conclusion

Thank You

XIII SGAPEIO Ferrol, 26, 27, e 28 de outubro de 2017 24 / 24