This article analyzes the change in municipal administrative efficiency in the post-merger period using the data of 92 municipalities in Ibaraki prefecture for the period 1979–2004. For this purpose, the authors employ a nonparametric programming method to compute a data envelopment analysis (DEA)/Malmquist indices (MI). These indices are decomposed into two component measures, namely, catch-up (CU) and frontier shift (FS) indices. The authors found that the administrative efficiency in Ibaraki prefecture in the post-merger period was monotonically regressed; however, the efficiency scores of merging municipalities were found to be higher than those of nonmerging ones. Scale change did not necessarily contribute to an efficiency change in the post-merger period. In the short run, scale affected Tsukuba city, which was formed by consolidating smaller municipalities.
AndersenP.PetersenN. C.1993. A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 39, 1261–64.
2.
BankerR. D.CharnesA.CooperW. W.1984. Some models for estimating technical and scale efficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30, 1078–92.
3.
BergS. A.FørsundF. R.JansenE. S.1992. Malmquist indices of productivity growth during the deregulation of Norwegian banking 1980-89. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, 211–28.
4.
BoissoD.GrosskopfS.HayesK.2000. Productivity and efficiency in the US: Effects of business cycles and public capital. Regional Science & Urban Economics, 30, 663–81.
5.
BriecW.KerstensK.2009. Infeasibilities and directional distance functions: With application to the determinativeness of Luenberger productivity indicator. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 141, 55–73.
6.
CharnesA.CooperW. W.RhodesE.1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–44.
7.
CoelliT.RaoD. S. P.BatteseG. E.1998. An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis.
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
8.
CooperW. W.SeifordL. M.ToneK.2000. Data envelopment analysis: A comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software.
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
9.
De BorgerB.KerstensK.1996. Cost efficiency of Belgian local governments: A comparative analysis of FDH, DEA, and econometric approaches. Regional Science & Urban Economics, 26, 145–70.
10.
De BorgerB.KerstensK.2000. What is known about municipal efficiency? The Belgian case and beyond. In BlankJ. L. T. (Ed.), Public Provision and Performance: Contributions from Efficiency and Productivity Measurement.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
11.
EmrouznejadA.ParkerB. R.TavaresG.2008. Evaluation of research in efficiency and productivity: A survey and analysis of the first 30 years of scholarly literature in DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 42, 151–57.
12.
FäreR.GrosskopfS.NorrisM.ZhangZ.1994. Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. American Economic Review, 84, 66–83.
13.
GanleyJ. A.CubbinJ. S.1992. Public sector efficiency measurement: Applications of data envelopment analysis.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
14.
GonzálezE.GascónF.2004. Sources of productivity growth in the Spanish pharmaceutical industry (1994–2000). Research Policy, 33, 735–45.
15.
HashimotoA.HanedaS.2008. Measuring the change in R&D efficiency of the Japanese pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 37, 1829–36.
HayesK.WoodL.1995. Utility maximizing bureaucrats: The bureaucrat’s point of view. Public Choice, 82, 69–83.
18.
HughesP. A. N.EdwardsM. E.2000. Leviathan vs. Lilliputian: A data envelopment analysis of government efficiency. Journal of Regional Science, 40, 649–69.
19.
JacobsA. J.2004. Federations of municipalities: A practical alternative to local government consolidations in Japan?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta Hilton Hotel, Atlanta, GA, August 16, 2003.
20.
KonishiS.2003. Shichouson Gappei no Ketsudan [Decision Making in Municipal Mergers].
Japan: Gyousei Publisher.
21.
MalmquistS.1953. Index numbers and indifference surfaces. Trabajos de Estadistica, 4, 209–42.
22.
OstromV.BishR.OstromE.1988. Local government in the United States. San Francisco: ICS Press.
23.
RayS.DesliE.1997. Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries: Comment. American Economic Review, 87, 1033–39.
24.
SaitoS.1999. Gyousei Kibo to Keizai Kouritusei [Scale and efficiency on administration]. Toshi Mondai, 90, 27–37.
25.
SchacterH. L.ToonenT.2010. Resilience in public administration: The work of Elinor and Vincent Ostrom from a public administration perspective. Public Administration Review, 70, 193–202.
26.
SteinerK.1965. Local government in Japan.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
27.
TachiY.1998. Zaisei no Genjou to Tenbou [Data and chart on national finance]Japan: Okura Zaimu Kyokai.
28.
ThanassoulisE.2001. Introduction to the theory and application of data envelopment analysis: A foundation text with integrated software.
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
29.
TsuneyoshiT.HashimotoA.HanedaS.2009. Quantitative evaluation of nation stability. Department of Social Systems and Management Discussion Paper Series 1245, University of Tsukuba.
30.
WorthingtonA. C.DolleryB. E.2000. An empirical survey of frontier efficiency measurement techniques in local government. Local Government Studies, 26, 23–52.
31.
YokomichiK.2003. Shichouson Gappei no Hitsuyousei to Kadai [A requirement and a problem on municipal mergers]. Toshi Mondai, 94, 3–12.
32.
YokomichiK.OkinoH.1996. Zaisei Kouritusei kara mita Shichouson Gappei [Evaluation on municipal administrative efficiency]. Jichi Kenkyu, 72, 69–87.
