TOTAL PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFITABILITY ANALYSES OF TURKISH BORON MINING

Year 2018, Volume: 26 Issue: 3, 107 - 116, 30.09.2018

Seyhan Önder , Adnan Konuk

https://doi.org/10.31796/ogummf.404467

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Productivity is one of the primary indicators used to determine
enterprise performances. The fact that profitability is high in Turkey Boron
Mining sector has led to undervaluing the studies related to productivity. Due
to the structure of the boron market and the product range’s quality to be able
to substitute for each other, the potential future price drops to be caused by
competition is considered to draw attention to productivity measurement and
assessment studies. In this study, the model called as “Aggregate Index for the
Analysis of Total Productivity and Rentability (AIPR)” was restructured by
means of Fisher Ideal Index. The developed model was applied to Turkey Boron
Mining Sector between the years 1980 and 2001 in order to see the current position
with regard to productivity and to determine which points to focus on to
increase productivity. It was established that the sector’s profitability and
productivity level according to the base year was high and that technological
change played the leading role in achieving high productivity. Also in this
study, statistical analyses were carried out in order to determine the relation
between the input parameters of Turkey Boron Mining Sector and indices of
productivity and profitability.

Keywords

Productivity Analysis, Boron Mining

References

• Ahn, S., and Abt, R.C., (2005). Productivity measurement with improved index numbers: Application to the sawmills and planing mills industry of the U.S.: 1947-2000. Forest Policy and Economics, 8, 323-335.
• Ang, B.W., Liu, F.L., Chung, H-S., (2004). A generalized Fisher index approach to energy decomposition analysis. Energy Economics, 26, 757-763.
• Balk, B.M., (2004). Decompositions of Fisher indexes. Economics Letters, 82, 107-113.
• Comlekci, N., Basic Statistic. Science&Technics Publishing House, Istanbul, 1994.
• Darmstadter, J., (1997). Productivity Change in U.S. Coal Mining. Resources For The Future, Discussion Paper 97-40.
• Diewert, W.E., (1993). Fisher Ideal Output, Input and Productivity Indexes Revisited. Essays in Index Number Theory, Volume I, Elsevier Science Publishers, Chapter 13, pp.317-357
• Diewert, W.E., and Fox, K.J., (1998). The measurement of inflation after tax reform. Economic Letters, 61, 279-284.
• Dumagan, J.C., (2002). Comparing the superlative Törnqvist and Fisher ideal indexes. Economics Letters, 76, 251-258.
• Eti Mine, (2003). Eti Mine Works General Management. Annual Report. Ankara. 2003.
• Flynn, E.J., (2000). Impact of Technological Change and Productivity on the Coal Market. Energy Information Administration, Issues in Midterm Analysis and Forecasting, 10 p.
• Ghebrit, K.S., (2004). The Impact of management practices on productivity in the Eritrean fishing industry. Dissertation, University of Pretoria, 224 p.
• Hailu, A., and Veeman, T.S., (2001). Alternative methods for environmentally adjusted productivity analysis. Agricultural Economics, 25, 211-218.
• Hannula, M., (2002). Total productivity measurement based on partial productivity ratios. International Journal of Production Economics, pp.57-67.
• Hansson, K., (2002). Reconcilliation of Quarterly and Annual National QNA. 27th General Conference of The International Association for Research in Income and Wealth Djurhamn (Stockholm Archipelago), Sweden 18 to 24 August 2002.
• Kulshreshtha, M., and Parikh, J.K., (2001). A study of productivity in the Indian coal sector. Energy Policy, 29, 701-713.
• Kurosawa, K., Productivity Measurement and Management at the Company Level : The Japanese Experience. Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1991.
• Mawson, P., Carlaw, K.I., and McLellan, N., (2003). Productivity measurement: Alternative approaches and estimates. New Zealand Treasury,Working Paper 03/12.
• Mongia, P., and Sathaye, J., (1998). Productivity Growth and Technical Change in India’s Energy Intensive Industries, A survey, LBNL-41840.
• Onder, S., Productivity Analyses of Turkish Boron Mining. PhD Thesis. Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey (Turkish text), 2006.
• Reinsdorf, M.B., Diewert, W.E., and Ehemann, C., (2002). Additive decompositions for Fisher, Törnqvist and geometric mean indexes. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 28, 51-61.
• Rogers, M., (1998). The Definition and Measurement of Productivity. Melbourne Instute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Instute Working Paper, No:9/98.
• Schreyer, P., (2001). The OECD Productivity Manual: A Guide to the Measurement of Industry-Level and Aggregate Productivity. Number Two, Spring 2001, pp. 37-51.
• Sink, S.D., Productivity Management: Planning, Measurement and Evaluation, Control and Improvement. John Wiley&Sons, New York, 1985.
• Stainer, A., (1996). Productivity, performance measurement and management in logistics. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics; 8 (2), ABI/INFORM Global, pg. 46.
• Stainer, A., (1997). Capital input and total productivity management. Management Decision, 35 (3), 224-232.
• Sumanth, D.J., Total Productivity Management A systemic and Quantitative Approach to Compete in Quality, Price and Time. St. Lucie Press, 1998.
• Szwilski, A.B., (1988). Significance and Measurement of Coal Mine Productivity. Mining Science and Technology, 6, 221-231.
• TMMOB, (2002). “The Importance on National Science and Technology Policy in Utilization of Turkish Boron Reserves”, Proceedings of the 1st International Boron Symposium, The Board of Directors of Chamber of Mining Engineers of Turkey, pp. XIII-XVI.