The directional distance function provides a complete characterization of the production technology and, when differentiable, can be used to derive shadow prices for nonmarket outputs. A quadratic functional form and the linear programming least absolute deviations method is used to implement the model and to estimate shadow prices and total value for the nonmarket characteristics of Missouri conservation land.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
A Summary of the Missouri Department of Conservation’s Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1993-1994. 1995. Missouri Conservationist (January): 30-31.
2.
Aigner, D. J., and S. F. Chu. 1968. On estimating the industry production function. American Economic Review58 (4): 826-839.
3.
Brown, Gardner M., and Jason F. Shogren. 1998. Economics of the Endangered Species Act. Journal of Economic Perspectives12 (3): 3-20.
4.
Chambers, Robert G.1998. “Input and output indicators. In Index numbers: Essays in honour of Sten Malmquist, edited by Rolf Färe, Shawna Grosskopf, and R. Robert Russell. Boston/London/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5.
Chambers, Robert G., Yangho Chung, and Rolf Färe. 1996. Benefit and distance functions. Journal of Economic Theory70 (2): 407-419.
6.
Chambers, Robert G., Yangho Chung, and Rolf Färe. 1998. Profit, directional distance functions, and Nerlovian efficiency. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications98 (2): 351-364.
7.
Coggins, Jay S., and John R. Swinton. 1996. The price of pollution: A dual approach to valuing SO2 allowances. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management30:58-72.
8.
Domazlicky, Bruce, and William L. Weber. 1997. Total factor productivity in the contiguous United States, 1977-1986. Journal of Regional Science37:213-233.
9.
English, M., S. Grosskopf, K. Hayes, and S. Yaisawarng. 1993. Output allocative and technical efficiency of banks. Journal of Banking and Finance17:349-366.
10.
Färe, Rolf, and Shawna Grosskopf. 1998. Shadow pricing of good and bad commodities. American Journal of Agricultural Economics80:584-590.
11.
Färe, Rolf, Shawna Grosskopf, Mary Norris, and Zhongyang Zhang. 1994. Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. American Economic Review84:66-83.
12.
Grosskopf, Shawna, Kathy Hayes, Lori L. Taylor, and William L. Weber. 1999. Allocative inefficiency and school competition. Proceedings: Ninety-First Annual Conference 1998, National Tax Association, 282-290.
13.
Lemons, Ronnie M.1989. Cape Girardeau-Bollinger Counties, Missouri Feasibility Report on Proposed Recreational Reservoir. Fort Worth, TX: Freese and Nichols.
14.
Luenberger, D. G.1992. Benefit functions and duality. Journal of Mathematical Economics21:461-486.
15.
Missouri Department of Conservation. 1995. Missouri’s conservation atlas: A guide to exploring your conservation lands. Jefferson City: Missouri Department of Conservation.
16.
Missouri Department of Revenue. 1994. Comprehensive annual financial report. Janette M. Lohman, Director of Revenue.
17.
Missouri State Board of Education. 1996. 1994-95 report of the public schools of Missouri. Missouri State Board of Education.
18.
Mullen, John K., and Martin Williams. 1987. Technical progress in urban manufacturing: North-South comparisons. Journal of Urban Economics21:194-208.
19.
Renken, Tim. 1976. Vote puts state first in per capita conservation outlays. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 4 November, p. 6A.
20.
State of Missouri. 1977-1978. Roster of state, district, county officers. James C. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of State.
21.
Swinton, John R.1998. At what cost do we reduce pollution? Shadow prices of SO2 emissions. The Energy Journal19 (4): 63-83.
22.
Zekor, Dan. 1996. Missouri Conservationist, May, p. 29.
