BankerR. D.CharnesA.CooperW. W.. 1984. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science30: 1078–92.
2.
BiermanHarold Jr. 1985. The valuation of municipal bond bids: Four solutions. Municipal Finance Journal (fall): 263–68. Reprinted in Gerald J. Miller, ed., The handbook of debt management, 557–60 (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1996).
3.
CharnesA.CooperW.RhodesE.. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operations Research2: 429–44.
4.
CoelliTim J.1996. A guide to DEAP version 2.1: A data envelopment analysis (computer) program. Working paper 96/08. Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, Department of Econometrics, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
5.
CooperS. T.CohnE.. 1997. Estimation of a frontier production function for the South Carolina education process. Economics of Education Review16: 313–27.
6.
KesselRueben. 1971. A study of the effects of competition in the tax-exempt bond market. Journal of Political Economy 79, no. 4: 706–38.
7.
KidwellDavid S.KochTimothy W.. 1982. The behavior of interest rate differential between tax-exempt revenue and general obligation bonds: A test of risk preferences and market segmentation. Journal of Finance 37, no. 1: 73–85.
8.
NyhanRonald C.MartinLawrence L.. 1999. Assessing the performance of municipal police services using data envelopment analysis: An exploratory study. State and Local Government Review 31, no. 1: 18–30.
9.
RuggerioJ.DuncombeW.MinerJ.. 1995. On the measurement and causes of technical inefficiency in local public services: With an application to public education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory5: 403–28.
10.
SimonsenWilliamRobbinsMark D.. 1996. Does it make any difference anymore? Competitive versus negotiated municipal bond issuance. Public Administration Review 56, no. 1: 57–63.
11.
SimonsenWilliamRobbinsMark D.. 2001. The implications of missing cost information in municipal bond interest rate calculations. Public Budgeting and Finance. Forthcoming.
12.
SimonsenWilliamRobbinsMark D.HelgersonLee. 2001. The influence of jurisdiction size and sale type on municipal bond interest rates: An empirical analysis. Public Administration Review 61, no. 6: 709–17.
13.
SimonsenWilliamRobbinsMark D.JumpBernardJr.2001. is TIC always the most appropriate cost of capital measure?Municipal Finance Journal 22, no. 2: 1–14.
14.
Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision. 1997. Data envelopment analysis: A technique for measuring the efficiency of government service delivery. AGPS, Canberra.