DEMİRYOLLARINDA SÜPER ETKİNLİK ÖLÇÜMÜ: TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Günümüzde işletme performansının ölçümünde en sık kullanılan yöntemlerden biri de etkinlik ölçümüdür. Etkinlik ölçümünde parametrik ve parametrik olmayan teknikler kullanılmaktadır. Parametrik olmayan bir yöntem olan Veri Zarflama Analizi (VZA), esnekliği ve kolay yorumlanması nedeniyle son yıllarda çalışmalarda sıkça tercih edilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, VZA yöntemi kullanılarak Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devlet Demiryolları İşletmesi (TCDD)’ nin 1975-2010 yılları arasındaki performansının ölçülmesidir. Çalışmada ayrıca VZA uygulaması sonucunda etkin olarak değerlendirilen karar verme birimleri (KVB)’ nin kendi aralarındaki etkinlik sıralamasını görebilmek amacıyla Süper Etkinlik uygulaması yapılmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, 2010 yılının TCDD için en etkin çalışılan yıl olduğunu, 1982 yılının ise en etkinsiz çalışılan yıl olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Etkinlik Ölçümü, VZA, Süper Etkinlik, TCDD

SUPER EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT IN RAILWAYS: TURKEY CASE

Öz

Nowadays, efficiency measurement is one of the most frequently used methods for measuring business performance. Parametric and non-parametric techniques are used for measuring efficiency. Since its flexibility and ease of interpretation, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), a non-parametric method, is frequently preferred in studies in recent years. The purpose of this study is to measure the performance of Turkish State Railways (TCDD) between the years 1975-2010 by using DEA method. In the study, in order to see the efficiency rank of decision making units (DMU) evaluated as efficient through DEA application, Super Efficiency application is performed. The obtained results reveal that, while 2010 is the most efficient year worked, 1982 has occurred as the most inefficient year worked.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• TCDD, Efficiency Measurement, DEA, Super Efficiency

Kaynakça

1. Adler, N., L. Friedman ve Z. Stern (2002) “Review Of Ranking Methods In The Data Envelopment Analysis Context”, European Journal of Operational Research, 140, 249-265.
2. Atkinson, S.E. ve R. Halvorsen (1986), “The relative Efficiency of Public and Private Firms in a Regulated Environment: The Case of U.S. Electric Utilities”, Journal of Public Economics, 29(3), 281-294.
3. Andersen, P. ve N.C. Petersen (1993), “A Procedure for Ranking Efficient Units in Data Envelopment Analysis”, Management Science, 39, 1261-1264.
4. Banker, R.D., A. Charnes ve W.W. Cooper (1984), “Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis”, Management Science, 30 (9), 1078-1092.
5. Bruggink, T. H. (1982), “Public Versus Regulated Private Enterprise in the Municipal Water Industry: A Comparison of Operating Costs”, Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 22(1), 111-25.
6. Cantos, P., J.M. Pastor ve L. Serrano (2000), “Efficiency Measures and Output Specification: The Case of European Railways”, Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 3(3), 61-68.
7. Cantos, P. ve J. Maudos (2001), “Regulation and Efficiency: The Case of European Railways”, Transportation Research Part A, 35, 459-472.
8. Caves, C. ve L. R. Christensen (1980), “The Relative Efficiency of Public and Private Firms in a Competitive Environment: The Case of Canadian Railroads”, Journal of Political Economy, 88(5), 958-976.

9. Charnes, A. W.W. Cooper ve E. Rhodes (1978), “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units”, European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429- 444.
10. Cook, W.D. ve L.M. Seiford (2009), “Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)- Thirty Years On”, European Journal of Operational Research, 192, 1-17.
11. Cooper, William W., L.M. Seiford ve K. Tone (2000), Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software, New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
12. Cooper, William W., L.M. Seiford ve J. Zhu (2004), “Data Envelopment Analysis History, Models and Interpretations”, Cooper W.W, Seiford L.M., Zhu J. (Ed), Handbook of Data Envelopment Analysis içinde (1-39), Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
13. Cowie J. (1999), “The Technical Efficiency of Public and Private Ownership in the Rail Industry: the Case of Swiss Private Railways”, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 33, 241-252.
14. Çağlar, A. (2003), “Veri Zarflama Analizi ile Belediyelerin Etkinlik Ölçümü”, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara.
15. D’Souza, J. ve W.L. Megginson (1998), “Sources of Performance Improvement in Privatized Firms - Telecommunication Industry, Working paper, University of Georgia.
16. Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, S. ve J. Logan (1985), “The Relative Performance Of Publicly-Owned And Privately-Owned Electric Utilities”, Journal of Public Economics 26(1), 89–106.
17. Farrell, M.J. (1957), “The Measurement of Productive Efficiency”, Journal of Royal Statistical Society Series A (General), 120(3), 253-281.
18. Flippini, M. ve M. Zola (2005), “Economies of Scale and Cost Efficiency in the Postal Services: Empirical Evidence from Switzerland”, Applied Economics Letters, 12 (7), 437-441.
19. Harper, J. T. (2002), “The Performance of Privatized Firms in the Czech Republic”, Journal of Banking and Finance, 26, 621-649.
20. Jitsuzumi, T. ve A. Nakamura (2010), “Causes of Inefficiency in Japanese Railways: Application of DEA for Managers and Policymakers”, Socio- Economic Planning Sciences, 44 (3), 161-173.
21. Iturralde, M.J. ve C. Quiros (2008), “Analysis of Efficiency of European Postal Sector”, Int.J. of Production Economics, 114, 84-90.
22. Kaynak, M. (2002). “Yeni Demiryolu Çağı, Yüksek Hızlı Trenler ve Türkiye”, Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 13 (42).
23. Koçak, S. (2006), “Türk Telekom Şebekelerinde Performans Ölçümü: Veri Zarflama Analizi Uygulaması, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Fen bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
24. Lan, L.W. ve E.T. Lin (2003), “Technical Efficiency and Service Effectiveness for Railways Industry: DEA Approaches”, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 5, 2932-2947.
25. Lootsma, F., A., B. Karssen ve A. Leeuwerke (2001), "Assessment of Schools via Regression Analysis, DEA, and MCDA", 18th European Conference on Operational Research, Rotterdam.
26. Meyer, R.A., (1975), “Publicly Owned Versus Privately Owned Utilities: A Policy Choice”. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 62(4), 391–399.
27. Moita, M.H. ve C.E. Fries (1998), "Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Applied to Public Elementary Schools", 16th European Conference on Operational Research, Belçika.
28. Moore, T.G. (1970), “The Effectiveness of Regulation of Electric Utility Prices”, Economic Journal, 36 (4), 365-375.
29. Movahedi, M.M., S. Saati ve A.R. Vahidi (2004), “The Comparison Between Iranian Railway and Other Countries, Present The Suggestion for Improving It”, Technical Scientific Quarterly Journal, Azad University, Firoozkooh Branch.
30. Neuberg, L.G. (1977), “Two Issues in the Municipal Ownership of Electric Power Distribution Systems”, The Bell Journal of Economics, 8 (1), 303-323.
31. Nikali, H. (2002), “Productivity and the Substitution Between Labour and Capital in Postal Organizations. Crew, M.A., Kleindorfer, P.R. edt. Postal and Delivery Service: Pricing, Productivity, Regulation and Strategy, içinde, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 171-198.
32. Noulas, A.G. ve K. W. Ketkar (1998), "Efficient Utilization of Resources in Public Schools: A Case Study of New Jersey", Applied Economics 30 (10), 1299-1306.
33. Oum, T.H. ve C. Yu (2004), “Economic Efficiency of Railways and Implications for Public Policy: A Comparative Study of the OECD Countries Railways”, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 28(2), 21–38.
34. Özcan, İ.Ç. (2006) “Demiryolu Ulaştırmasında Kamu-Özel İşbirliği Modeli ve Türk Tecrübesi”, Uluslararası Demiryolu Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı.
35. Özden, Ü.H. (2008), “Veri Zarflama Analizi (VZA) ile Türkiye’ deki Vakıf Üniversitelerinin Etkinliğinin Ölçülmesi”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 37 (2), 167-185.
36. Pescatrice, D.R., ve Trapani III, J.M. (1980), “The Performance and Objectives of Public and Private Utilities Operating in The United States”, Journal of Public Economics 13 (2), 259–276.
37. Ramanathan, R. (2003), An Introduction to Data Envelopment Analysis: A Tool for Performance Measurement, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
38. Sueyoshi, T.ve S. Aoki (2001), “A Use of a Nonparametric Statistic for DEA Frontier Shift: the Kruskal and Wallis Rank Test”, Omega, 29, 1-18.
39. Tavares, G. ve C.H. Antunes (1998), “A DEA Approach to the Analysis of Modernisation of Telecommunication Services”, Annual Conference of the Operational Research Society, Berlin, 127-134.
40. Tretheway, M.W., W.G. Waters ve A.K. Fok (1997), “The Total Factor Productivity of the Canadian Railways” (1956-91), Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 31, 93-113.
41. Ulucan A. (2002), “İSO 500 Şirketlerinin Etkinliklerinin Ölçülmesinde Veri Zarflama Analizi Yaklaşımı: Farklı Girdi Çıktı Bileşenleri ve Ölçeğe Göre Getiri Yaklaşımları ile Değerlendirmeler”, Ankara Üniversitesi, Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 57 (2), 85-202.
42. Yıldırım, İ.E. (2009), “Veri Zarflama Analizi Sürecinde Temel Bileşenler Analizinin Ayırım Gücünü Arttırıcı Etkisi”, İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(1), 66-83.
43. Yıldız, M.C. (2004), “Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Demiryolu Politikalarına Genel Bir Bakış”, Ekev Akademik Dergisi,19, 195-208.
44. Zaim, O. ve E. Çakmak (1992), “Türkiye Çimento Sanayii ve Tarım Kesiminde Etkinlik”. 3. İzmir İktisat Kongresi Sektörel Gelişme Stratejisi Kitapçığı, 181-188.
45. http://www.tcdd.gov.tr/home/detail/?id=267, (Erişim tarihi: 23.07.2011).