Medida de eficiencia técnica en la educación media de América Latina: Pruebas PISA

Vol. 27, No. 1 (2019)

Autores:: Viana Barceló, Rafael Antonio
Urbina Fernández, Yehisen Frederick

Tipo de recurso:: Article of journal

Fecha de publicación:: 2019

Institución:: Universidad de Cartagena

Repositorio:: Repositorio Universidad de Cartagena

Idioma:: spa

id	UCART2_482bd162ac9844a7d7df74babc9dcbae
oai_identifier_str	oai:repositorio.unicartagena.edu.co:11227/10190
network_acronym_str	UCART2
network_name_str	Repositorio Universidad de Cartagena
repository_id_str
dc.title.es.fl_str_mv	Medida de eficiencia técnica en la educación media de América Latina: Pruebas PISA
title	Medida de eficiencia técnica en la educación media de América Latina: Pruebas PISA
spellingShingle	Medida de eficiencia técnica en la educación media de América Latina: Pruebas PISA Eficiencia fdh metafrontera insumo productos Efficiency fdh metafrontier input products
title_short	Medida de eficiencia técnica en la educación media de América Latina: Pruebas PISA
title_full	Medida de eficiencia técnica en la educación media de América Latina: Pruebas PISA
title_fullStr	Medida de eficiencia técnica en la educación media de América Latina: Pruebas PISA
title_full_unstemmed	Medida de eficiencia técnica en la educación media de América Latina: Pruebas PISA
title_sort	Medida de eficiencia técnica en la educación media de América Latina: Pruebas PISA
dc.creator.fl_str_mv	Viana Barceló, Rafael Antonio Urbina Fernández, Yehisen Frederick
dc.contributor.author.none.fl_str_mv	Viana Barceló, Rafael Antonio Urbina Fernández, Yehisen Frederick
dc.subject.es.fl_str_mv	Eficiencia fdh metafrontera insumo productos Efficiency fdh metafrontier input products
topic	Eficiencia fdh metafrontera insumo productos Efficiency fdh metafrontier input products
description	Vol. 27, No. 1 (2019)
publishDate	2019
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv	2019
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv	2020-07-03T04:16:29Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv	2020-07-03T04:16:29Z
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv	Artículo de revista
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.coarversion.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv	Text
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.local.eng.fl_str_mv	Journal article
format	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
status_str	publishedVersion
dc.identifier.citation.es.fl_str_mv	https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.1-2019-2616
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv	0122-8900
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv	https://hdl.handle.net/11227/10190
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv	https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.1-2019-2616
dc.identifier.doi.es.fl_str_mv	10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.1-2019-2616
dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv	2463-0470
dc.identifier.url.es.fl_str_mv	https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.1-2019-2616
url	https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.1-2019-2616 https://hdl.handle.net/11227/10190
identifier_str_mv	0122-8900 10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.1-2019-2616 2463-0470
dc.language.iso.es.fl_str_mv	spa
language	spa
dc.relation.ispartofjournal.none.fl_str_mv	Panorama Económico
dc.relation.citationissue.none.fl_str_mv	1
dc.relation.citationvolume.none.fl_str_mv	27
dc.rights.uri.es.fl_str_mv	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.rights.access.es.fl_str_mv	openAccess
dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv	https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ openAccess http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
eu_rights_str_mv	openAccess
dc.format.mimetype.none.fl_str_mv	application/pdf
dc.publisher.es.fl_str_mv	Universidad de Cartagena
dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv	https://revistas.unicartagena.edu.co/index.php/panoramaeconomico/article/view/2616
institution	Universidad de Cartagena
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv	https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/a54da076-0e01-49b5-b496-bba404135af2/download https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/5d5c71bc-e5bc-40ce-bf17-c602ae083bec/download https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/57b6708d-0198-4013-bdc9-53659f642d0c/download https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/393c378c-1411-4dbc-b4df-df19086c445f/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv	1e31ffd03c336b974638fc86ed26f911 2d99f67769c1ca46f2c6d076a0c57bcc 5a51e4c18738a0b24161115a77c32a18 99bc3b2cb813bbbc181317744d3c9da1
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv	MD5 MD5 MD5 MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv	Biblioteca Digital Universidad de Cartagena
repository.mail.fl_str_mv	bdigital@metabiblioteca.com
_version_	1814214118907838464
spelling	Viana Barceló, Rafael AntonioUrbina Fernández, Yehisen Frederick2020-07-03T04:16:29Z2020-07-03T04:16:29Z2019https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.1-2019-26160122-8900https://hdl.handle.net/11227/10190https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.1-2019-261610.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.1-2019-26162463-0470https://doi.org/10.32997/2463-0470-vol.27-num.1-2019-2616Vol. 27, No. 1 (2019)En el presente estudio se evalúa la eficiencia técnica de estudiantes de 8 países de América Latina que participaron en las pruebas PISA 2015. El estudio se desarrolló bajo una metodología no paramétrica. Para ello, se empleó un modelo FDH con orientación al producto con un enfoque de estimaciones robustas y una descomposición de Metafrontera, esto último permite descomponer la eficiencia total de los estudiantes, entre la atribuible al estudiante y la atribuible al país. Los datos utilizados en el estudio provienen de las pruebas PISA 2015. Los datos utilizados corresponden 35,880 observaciones de igual número de estudiantes que presentaron la prueba mencionada. Los resultados revelan que la mayor parte de la ineficiencia se debe a los propios estudiantes. Identificando a Uruguay y Brasil como los países donde se presenta el menor puntaje de ineficiencia. Y a México y República Dominicana como los que presentan un mayor puntaje de ineficiencia.This study evaluates the technical efficiency of students from 8 Latin American countries that participated in the PISA 2015 tests. The study was developed under a non-parametric methodology. For this, a product-oriented FDH model was used with a robust estimations approach and a Meta-frontier decomposition. The latter allows decomposing the total efficiency of the students, between that attributable to the student and that attributable to the country. The data used in the study comes from the PISA 2015 tests. The data used correspond to 35,880 observations from the same number of students who presented the aforementioned test. The results reveal that most of the inefficiency is due to the students themselves. Identifying Uruguay and Brazil as the countries with the lowest inefficiency score. And to Mexico and the Dominican Republic as those with the highest inefficiency score.application/pdfspaUniversidad de CartagenaPanorama Económico127https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://revistas.unicartagena.edu.co/index.php/panoramaeconomico/article/view/2616EficienciafdhmetafronterainsumoproductosEfficiencyfdhmetafrontierinputproductsMedida de eficiencia técnica en la educación media de América Latina: Pruebas PISAArtículo de revistainfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleJournal articleAfonso, A., y Aubyn, M. (2006). Cross-country efficiency of secondary education provision: A semiparametric analysis with nondiscretionary inputs. Economics Modelling 23(3), 476-491.Agasisti, A. (2014). The efficiency of public spending on education: An empirical comparison of EU countries. European Journal of Education 49(4), 543-557.Altamirano, A., y Peniche, R. (2014). Metodología AED-RNA para la estimación de la eficiencia institucional: El caso de las dependencias de educación superior (DES) de ingeniería de México Measuring the institutional efficiency using data envelopment analysis and artificial neural networks. Revista Electronica Nova Scientia Vol. 6 (2), 356-378.Andersen, P., y Petersen, N. (1993). Aprocedere for ranking efficient units in Data Envelopment Analysis. Mngt Sci 39(10), 1261-1264.Balaguer, M., Prior, D., y Tortosa, A. (2007). On the determinants of local goverment performance: A two-stage nonparametric approach. European Economic Review 51(2), 425-451.Banker, R., y Natajaran, R. (2008). Evaluating contextual variables affecting productivity using Data Envelopment Analysis. Operation Research 17 (1), 48-58.Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 99-120.Bass, B., y Avolio, B. (1997). Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Mind Garden.Battese, G., y Rao, D. (2002). Technology gap, efficiency, and a stochastic metafrontier function. Int J Bus 1(2), 87-93.Battese, G., Rao, D., y O’Donnell, C. (2004). A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. Prod Anal 21(1), 91-103.Borghans, L., y Schils, T. (2012). The leaning tower of PISA: The effect of test motivation on scores in the international student assessment. The Society of Labor Economists.Bradley, S., Johnes, G., y Millington, J. (2001). The effect of competition on the efficiency of secondary schools in England. European Journal of Operational Research 135(3), 545-568.Bray, M., y Thomas, R. (1995). Levels of comparison in educational studies: Different insights from different literatures and the value of multilevel analyses. Harvard Educational review 65(3), 472-490.Brennan, S., Haelermans, C., y Ruggiero, J. (2014). Nonparametric estimation of education productivity incorporating nondiscretionary inputs with an application to Dutch schools. European Journal of Operational Research 234(3), 809-818.Brunello, G., y Checchi, D. (2007). Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New international evidence. Economic Policy 22(52), 781-861.Cazáls, C., Florens, J., y Simar, L. (2002). Nonparametric frontier estimation: A robust approach. Journal Econometrics 106(1), 1-25.Cherchye, L., De Witte, K., Ooghe, E., y Nicaise, I. (2010). Efficiency and equity in private and public education: A nonparametric comparison. European Journal of Operational Research 202(2), 563-573.Coco, G., y Lagravinese, R. (2014). Cronyism and education performance. Economic Modelling 38, 443-450.Coelli, T., Rao, P., O’Donnell, C., y Battese, G. (2005). An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. New York: Springer.Cooper, W., Seiford, L., y Tone, K. (2000). Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishing.Cordero, J., Pedraja, F., y Santín, D. (2010). Enhancing the inclusion of non-discretionary inputs in DEA. Journal of Operational Research Society 61(4), 574-584.Cordero, J., Santín, D., y Simancas, R. (24 de june de 2017). Assessing European primary school performance through a conditional nonparametric model. Journal of the Operational Research Society 68, 364-376. Obtenido de Journal of the Operational Research Society advance online publication: doi:10.1057/jors.2015.42Crespo, E., Pedraja, F., y Santín, D. (2014). Does school ownership matter? An unbiased efficiency comparison for regions of Spain. Journal of Productivity Analysis 41(1), 153-172.Cuervo, A. (1993). El papel de la empresa en la competitividad. Papeles de Economía Española 56, 363-378.Daraio, C., y Simar, L. (2005). Introducing environmental variables in nonparametric frontier models: A probabilistic approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis 24(1), 93–121.Daraio, C., y Simar, L. (2007). Advanced robust and nonparametric methods in efficiency analysis. Methodology and Applications. New York: Springer.De Jorge, J., y Santín, D. (2010). Determinantes de la eficiencia educativa en la Unión Europea. Hacienda Publica Española 193(2), 131–155.De Witte, K., y Kortelainen, M. (2013). What explains performance of students in a heterogeneous environment? Conditional efficiency estimation with continuous and discrete environmental variables. Applied Economics 45(17), 2401-2412.De Witte, K., y López, L. (2015). Efficiency in education. A review of literature and a way forward. Journal of the Operational Research Society.De Witte, K., y Marques, R. (2009). Capturing the environment, a metafrontier approach to the drinking water sector. International Transactions of Operational Research 16(2), 257-271.De Witte, K., y Rogge, N. (2011). Accounting for exogenous influences in performance evaluations of teachers. Economics of Education Review 30(4), 641-653.De Witte, K., Thanassoulis, E., Simpson, G., Battisti, G., y M, C. (2010). Assessing pupil and school performance by nonparametric and parametric techniques. Journal of the Operational Research Society 61(8), 1224-1237.Deprins, D., Simar, L., y Tulkens, H. (2006). Measuring labor efficiency in post offices. Boston: Springer.Deutsch, J., Dumas, A., y Silber, J. (2013). Estimating an educational production function for five countries of Latin America on the basis of the PISA data. Economics of Education Review 36, 245–262.Dronkers, J., y Robert, P. (2008). Differences in scholastic achievement of public, private governmentdependent, and private independent schools a cross-national analysis. Educational Policy 22(4), 541–577.Dufrechou, P. A. (2016). The efficiency of public education spending in Latin America: A. International Journal of Educational Development, 188–203.Essid, H., Ouellette, P., y Vigeant, S. (2014). Productivity, efficiency, and technical change of Tunisian schools: A bootstrapped Malmquist approach with quasi-fixed inputs. Omega 42(1), 88-97.Farrell, M. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 120, 253–281.Farrell, M., y Fieldhouse, M. (1962). Estimating efficient production functions under increasing returns to scale. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 125, 252–267.Giambona, F., Vassallo, E., y Vassiliadis, E. (2011). Educational systems efficiency in European Union countries. Studies in Educational Evaluation 37(2), 108–122.Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel Statistical Models. London: Arnold Publisher.Haelermans, C., y De Witte, K. (2012). The role of innovations in secondary school performance: Evidence from a conditional efficiency model. European Journal of Operational Research 223(2), 541–549.Hanushek, E. (1979). Conceptual and empirical issues in the estimation of educational production functions. Journal of Human Resources 14(3), 351-388.Hanushek, E., y Woessman, L. (2011). The economics of international differences in educational achievement. En E. Hanushek, S. Machin, y L. Woessmann, Handbook of the Economics of Education (págs. 89–200). Amsterdam.Heckman, J. (2011). Integrating personality psychology into economics. National Bureau of Economic Research.Herve, L. (2006). A linear programming framework for free disposal hull technologies and cost functions: Primal and dual models. European Journal of Operational Research 168, 340–344.Jerrim, J. (2015). Why do East Asian children perform so well in PISA? An investigation of Westernborn children of East Asian descent. Oxford Review of Education Vol. 41.Johnes, J. (2006). Measuring efficiency: A comparison of multilevel modelling and data envelopment analysis in the context of higher education. B Econ Res 58(2), 75-104.Koopmans, T. (1951). Analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. En T. Koopmans, Activity analysis of production and allocation (págs. 33–97). New York: Wiley.Kramer, G. (1983). The ecological fallacy revisited: Aggregate versus individual level-findings on economics and elections, and sociotropic voting. Am Polit Sci Rev 77(1), 92-111.Lavy, V. (2015). Do differences in school’s instruction time explain international achievement gaps in Maths, Science and Language? Evidence from developed and developing countries. The Economic Journal, 397-424.O’Donnell, C., Rao, D., y Battese, G. (2007). Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empirical Econ 34(2), 231-255.Portela, M., y Thanassoulis, E. (2001). Decomposing school and school-type efficiency. Eur J Opl Res 132(2), 357-373.Racine, J., Hart, J., y Li, Q. (2006). Testing the significance of categorical predictor variables in nonparametric regression models. Econometric Reviews 25(4), 523-544.Rivkin, S., y JC, S. (2015). Instruction Time, Classroom Quality, and Academic Achievement. The Economic Journal, vol 125(588), 425-448.Rowe, K. (2000). Assessment, League Tables and School Effectiveness: Consider the Issues and ‘Let’s Get Real’. Journal of Educational Enquiry, Vol. 1(1), 73-98.Ruggiero, J. (1996). On the measurement of technical efficiency in the public sector. European Journal of Operational Research 90(3), 553–565.Ruggiero, J. (2000). Nonparametric estimation of returns to scale in the public sector with an application to the provision of educational services. Journal of the Operational Research Society 51(8), 906–912.Sammons, P., Nuttall, D., y Cuttance, P. (1993). Differential school effectiveness: Results from a reanalysis of the Inner London Education Authority’s junior school project data. Brit Educ Res J 19, 381-405.Sammons, P., Thomass, E., Motimore, P., Owen, C., y Pennell, H. (1996). Assessing School Effectiveness: Developing Measures to Put School Performance in Context. Manchester: OFSTED, Publications Centre.Schmidt, P. (1976). On the statistical estimation of parametric frontier production functions. The Review of Economics and Statistics (58), 238–289.Schuetz, G., y HL, U. (2008). Education policy and equality of opportunity. Kyklos 61(2, 279-308.Simar, L., y Wilson, P. (2007). Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of productive processes. Journalof Econometrics, 136 (1), 31-64.Simar, L., y Wilson, P. (2011). Two-stage DEA: caveat emptor. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 205-218.Spiezia, V. (2010). Does computer use increase educational achievements? Student-level evidence from PISA. Economic Studies 1, 1–22.Täht, K., y Must, O. (2013). Comparability of educational achievement and learning attitudes across nations. Educational Research and Evaluation 19(1), 19–38.Thanassoulis, E. (1999). Setting achievement targets for school children. Educ Econ 7(2), 101-119.Thanassoulis, E., y Portela, M. (2002). School outcomes: Sharing the responsibility between pupil and school. Educ Econ 10(2), 183-207.Thieme, C., Giménez, V., y Prior, D. (2012). A comparative analysis of the efficiency of national education systems. Asia Pacific Education Review 13(1), 1-15.Thieme, C., Prior, D., y Tortosa, A. (2011). Desempeño de los centros educativos: ¿un problema de recursos o capacidades organizativas? Revista de Economía Pública 199-(4/2011), 81-118.Thieme, C., Prior, D., y Tortosa, A. (2013). A multilevel decomposition of school performance using robust nonparametric frontier techniques. Economics of Education Review 32, 104-121.Urwick, J., y Junaidu, S. (1991). The effects of school physical facilities onthe processes of education: A qualitative study of Nigerian primary schools. International Journal of Educational Development 11(1), 19-29.Vandenberghe, V., y Robin, S. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of private education across countries: A comparison of methods. Labour Economics 11(4), 87–506.Worthington, A. (2001). An empirical survey of frontier efficiency measurement techniques in education. Education Economics 9(3), 245–268.Zhang, Y., y Bartels, R. (1998). The effect of sample size on the mean efficiency in DEA with an application to electricity distribution in Australia. J Prod Anal 9(3), 187-204.Zhao, Y., Zhang, G., Yang, W., Kirkland, D., Han, X., y Zhang, J. (2008). A comparative study of educational research in China and the United States. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 28(1), 1–17.PublicationORIGINAL2_Viana.pdf2_Viana.pdfapplication/pdf1224470https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/a54da076-0e01-49b5-b496-bba404135af2/download1e31ffd03c336b974638fc86ed26f911MD51LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-869https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/5d5c71bc-e5bc-40ce-bf17-c602ae083bec/download2d99f67769c1ca46f2c6d076a0c57bccMD52TEXT2_Viana.pdf.txt2_Viana.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain60348https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/57b6708d-0198-4013-bdc9-53659f642d0c/download5a51e4c18738a0b24161115a77c32a18MD53THUMBNAIL2_Viana.pdf.jpg2_Viana.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg6233https://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org/bitstreams/393c378c-1411-4dbc-b4df-df19086c445f/download99bc3b2cb813bbbc181317744d3c9da1MD5411227/10190oai:dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.org:11227/101902024-08-28 17:24:42.48https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/open.accesshttps://dspace7-unicartagena.metabuscador.orgBiblioteca Digital Universidad de Cartagenabdigital@metabiblioteca.comQ3JlYXRpdmUgQ29tbW9ucyBSZWNvbm9jaW1pZW50by1Ob0NvbWVyY2lhbCA0LjAgSW50ZXJuYWNpb25hbCBMaWNlbnNl

Medida de eficiencia técnica en la educación media de América Latina: Pruebas PISA

Publicaciones similares