TARIMSAL ETKİNLİK DÜZEYİNİN COĞRAFİK BÖLGELER İTİBARIYLA FARKLILAŞMASI: VERİ ZARFLAMA METAFRONTIER YAKLAŞIMI

Yıl 2022, Sayı: 3, 415 - 426, 30.07.2022

Alamettin Bayav , Orhan Gündüz , Bahri Karlı

https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.967858

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, İBBS 3 sınıflaması itibarıyla illerin 2015-2019 yıllarına ait beş yıllık panel verisi kullanılarak Türkiye coğrafi bölgelerinin tarımsal etkinlikleri tahmin edilmiş ve karşılaştırılmıştır.

Yöntem: Bölgesel teknik etkinlikler ve metafrontier teknik etkinlikler veri zarflama analizi (VZA) ile hesaplanmış, buradan hareketle metateknoloji oranları belirlenmiştir.

Bulgular: Girdi odaklı ölçeğe göre değişen getiri varsayımı altında veri zarflama metafrontier yaklaşımı ile belirlenen etkinliklerin bölgesel olarak farklılaştığı belirlenmiştir. En yüksek teknik etkinlik %91,6 ile Akdeniz Bölgesi’nde, en düşük ise %73,0 ile Güneydoğu Anadolu Bölgesi’nde belirlenmiştir. Metateknoloji oranı açısından değerlendirildiğinde Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi en yüksek orana (%77,9) sahip olmuştur. Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi’ni %73,3 ile Karadeniz, %72,9 ile Güneydoğu Anadolu, %64,0 ile Akdeniz, %51,5 ile Ege Bölgeleri takip etmiştir. En düşük metateknoloji oranı %46,7 ile İç Anadolu Bölgesi’nde tespit edilmiştir.

Özgünlük: Bu çalışmanın literatüre iki açıdan önemli katkı yapacağı düşünülmektedir. Birincisi coğrafi bölgeler düzeyinde tarımsal üretim değerinin değerlendirildiği ilk çalışma olması, ikincisi ise tarımsal teknolojik farklılığı dikkate alan ve daha pratik yorumlanmasını sağlayan metafrontier yöntemini kullanıyor olmasıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Teknik Etkinlik, Metateknoloji Oranı, Veri Zarflama Analizi, Türkiye

VARIATION OF AGRICULTURAL EFFICIENCY LEVEL BY GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS: DATA ENVELOPMENT METAFRONTIER APPROACH

Öz

Purpose: In this study, the agricultural efficiency of the geographical regions of Turkey was estimated and compared by using five-year panel data of the provinces for the years 2015-2019 as of NUTS 3.

Methodology: Regional technical efficiency and metafrontier technical efficiency were calculated by data envelopment analysis (DEA), and metatechnology rates were determined.

Findings: The results showed that the highest technical efficiency was determined in The Mediterranean Region with 91.6%, and the lowest in the Southeast Anatolia region with 73.0%. In terms of metatechnology ratio, the Eastern Anatolia Region had the highest rate (77.9%). The Eastern Anatolia Region was followed by the Black Sea Region with 73.3%, the Southeastern Anatolia Region with 72.9% and Mediterranean Region with 64.0%. The lowest metatechnology ratio was found in the Central Anatolia Region with 46.7%.

Originality: It is thought that this study will contribute to the literature in two ways. The first contribution of this study to the literature is that it is the first study to evaluate the agricultural production value at the geographical region level. The second is that it uses the metafrontier method, which takes into account the agricultural technological difference and provides a more practical interpretation.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Technical Efficiency, Metatechnology Ratio, Data Envelopment Analysis, Turkey.

Kaynakça

• Abdallah, A. ve Abdul-Rahaman, A. (2017). “Technical Efficiency of Maize Farmers in Ghana: A Stochastic Frontier Approach”, International of Innovation and Scientific Research, 29(2), 110-118.
• Andersen, P. ve Petersen, N.C. (1993). “A Procedure for Ranking Efficient Units in Data Envelopment Analysis”, Management Science, 39(10), 1261-1264.
• Armağan, G., Özden, A. ve Bekçioğlu, B. (2010). “Efficiency and Total Factor Productivity of Crop Production at NUTS1 Level in Turkey: Malmquist Index Approach”, Qual Quant, 44, 573-581.
• Banker, R.D., Charnes, A. ve Cooper, W.W. (1984). “Some Models for Estimating Technical and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis”, Management Science, 30(9), 1078-1092.
• Barnes, A.P. ve Revoredo-Giha, C. (2011). “A Metafrontier Analysis of Technical Efficiency of Selected European Agricultures”, International Congress, Zurich-Switzerland, 1-12.
• Bayramoğlu, Z. ve Gündoğmuş, E. (2008). “Cost Efficiency on Organic Farming: A Comparison Between Organic and Conventional Raisin-Producing Households in Turkey”, Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(1), 3-11.
• Belgin, Ö. (2019). “Analysing R&D Efficiency of Turkish Regions Using Data Envelopment Analysis”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(11), 1341-1352.
• Bozoğlu, M. ve Ceyhan, V. (2007). “Measuring the Technical Efficiency and Exploring the Inefficiency Determinants of Vegetable Farms in Samsun Province, Turkey”, Agricultural Systems, 94(3), 649-656.
• Canan, S., Abaci, N., Ceyhan, V. ve Demi̇ryürek, K. (2018). “Samsun İli Çarşamba İlçesinde Kivi Yetiştiren Tarım İşletmelerinin Üretim Etkinliği”, Mediterranean Agricultural Sciences, 31(3), 249-254.
• Candemir, S. (2020). “Ekmeklik Buğday Üretiminde Enerji Kullanımı ve Etkinlik Analizi: Kahramanmaraş İli Örneği”, Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(4), 896-903.
• Ceyhan, V. ve Hazneci, K. (2010). “Economic Efficiency of Cattle-Fattening Farms in Amasya Province, Turkey”, Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(1), 60-69.
• Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. ve Rhodes, E. (1978). “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision-Making Units”, European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429-444.
• Coelli, T.J. (1996). “A Guide to DEAP Version 2.1: A Data Envelopment Analysis (Computer) Program”, CEPA Working Papers No. 8/96, Department of Econometrics, University of New England, Armidale.
• Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M. ve Tone, K. (2006). “Introduction Data Envelopment Analysis and Its Uses with DEA-Solver Software and References”, Springer, USA.
• Çekiç, B., Menten, C. ve Atıcı, K.B. (2020). “Türkiye Tarım Sektöründe Ürünler Bazında Etkinlik Değerlendirmesi”, Verimlilik Dergisi, 1, 117-141.
• Dağıstan, E. (2010). “Determination of Technical Efficiency in Wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.) Production of Turkey: A Case Study of Çukurova Region”, Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 8(2), 354-358.
• Debreu, G. (1951). “The Coefficient of Resource Utilization”, Econometrica, 19(3), 273-292.
• Despotis, D.K. (2002). “Improving the Discriminating Power of DEA: Focus on Globally Efficient Units”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(3), 314-323.
• Dudu, H., Çakmak, E. ve Öcal, N. (2015). “Drivers of Farm Efficiency in Turkey: A Stochastic Frontier Analysis”, World Journal of Applied Economics, 1(1), 45-63.
• Erdoğan, H. ve Samut, P.K. (2013). “Analysis of the Efficiency Determinants of Turkey’s Agriculture Sector by Two-Stage Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)”, Ege Akademik Bakış, 13(1), 21-28.
• Färe, R. ve Primont, D. (1995). “Multi-Output Production and Duality: Theory and Applications”, Kluwer, Boston.
• Farrell, M.J. (1957). “The Measurement of Productive Efficiency”, Royal Statistical Society, 120(3), 253-290.
• Ghasemi, M.R., Ignatius, J. ve Rezaeec, B. (2018). “Improving Discriminating Power in Data Envelopment Models Based on Deviation Variables Framework”, European Journal of Operational Research, 278(2), 442-447.
• Goyal, J., Singh, R., Kaur, H. ve Singh, K. (2018). “Intra-industry Efficiency Analysis of Indian Textile Industry: A Meta-frontier DEA Approach”, International Journal of Law and Management, 60(6), 1448-1469.
• Guesmi, B., Terra, S., Kallas, Z. ve Gil Roig, J.M. (2012). “The Productive Efficiency of Organic Farming: The Case of Grape Sector in Catalonia”, Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 10(3), 552-566.
• Gül, M. (2005). “Technical Efficiency and Productivity of Apple Farming in Antalya Province of Turkey”, Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 8(11), 1533-1540.
• Gündüz, O., Ceyhan, V., Esengün, K. ve Dağdeviren, M. (2010). “Kayısı Yetiştiriciliği Yapan İşletmelerde Ekonomik Etkinlik: Darende İlçesi Örneği”, Türkiye IX. Tarım Ekonomisi Kongresi, Şanlıurfa, 135-142.
• Gündüz, O., Ceyhan, V. ve Esengün, K. (2011). “Measuring the Technical and Economic Efficiencies of the Dry Apricot Farms in Turkey”, Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 9(1), 319-324.
• Gündüz, O., Şili, Ş. ve Ceyhan, V. (2016). “Farm Level Technical Efficiency Analysis and Production Costs in Tomato Growth: A Case Study from Turkey”, Custos e @gronegócio on line, 12(3), 26-38.
• Gündüz, O, Aslan, A., Ceyhan, V. ve Bayramoğlu, Z. (2021). “Measuring the Metafrontier Efficiencies and Technology Gaps of Dried Apricot Farms in Different Agro-Ecological Zones”, Custos e @gronegócio on line, 17(1), 63-87.
• Hazneci, K. ve Ceyhan, V. (2017). “TR83 Bölgesinde Buğday Tohumluğu Üretiminde Teknik Etkinlik ve Etkinliği Belirleyen Faktörler”, Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 32(2), 181-188.
• Li, Y., Chiu, Y. ve Lin, T. (2019). “The Operating Efficiency of Financial Holding and Nonfinancial Holding Banks-Epsilou-Based Measure Metafrontier Data Envelopment Analysis Model”, Managerial and Decision Economics, 40(5), 488-499.
• Moreira, V.H. ve Bravo-Ureta B.E., (2010). “Technical Efficiency and Metatechnology Ratios for Dairy Farms in Three Southern Cone Countries: A Stochastic Meta-Frontier Model”, Journal of Productivity Analysis, 33(1),33-45.
• Murtaza, G. ve Thapa, G.B. (2017). “Factors Affecting Technical Efficiency of Small-Scale Apple Farms in Balochistan Plateau, Pakistan”, Journal of Mountain Science, 14(4), 782-794.
• Odeck, J. (2007). “Measuring Technical Efficiency and Productivity Growth: A Comparison of SFA and DEA on Norwegian Grain Data”, Applied Economics, 39(20), 2617-2630.
• O’Donnell, C.J., Rao, D.S.P. ve Battese, G.E. (2008). “Metafrontier Frameworks for the Study of Firm-Level Efficiencies and Technology Ratios”, Empirical Economics, 34(2), 231-255.
• Owusu, V., Donkor, E. ve Owusu-Sekyere, E. (2017). “Accounting for the Gender Technology Gap Amongst Smallholder Rice Farmers in Northern Ghana”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69(2), 439-457.
• Özden, A. ve Armağan, G. (2012). “Türkiye Tarımında NUTS 1 Bölgeleri Açısından Etkinlik Karşılaştırması (2000-2010)”, 10. Ulusal Tarım Ekonomisi Kongresi, Konya, 764-771.
• Özden, A. ve Di'os-Palomares, R. (2016). “Is the Olive Oil an Efficient Sector? A Meta Frontier Analysis Considering the Ownership Structure”, New Medit, 15(3), 2-9.
• Poudel, K.L., Yamamoto, N. ve Thomas, G.J. (2015). “Comparing Technical Efficiency of Organic and Conventional Coffee Farms in Nepal Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Approach”, Organic Agriculture, 5, 263-275.
• Rahman, S. (2010). “Women’s Labour Contribution to Productivity and Efficiency in Agriculture: Empirical Evidence from Bangladesh”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(2), 318-342.
• Sari, D.W., Hidayat, F.N. ve Abdul, I. (2021). “Efficiency of Land Use in Smallholder Palm Oil Plantations in Indonesia: A Stochastic Frontier Approach”, Forest and Society, 5(1), 75-89.
• Sevim, C. ve Bali, Ö. (2008). “Avrupa Birliği Üyesi ve Aday Ülkelerin Tarımsal Etkinliklerinin Karşılaştırılması”, Verimlilik Dergisi, 3, 21-39.
• Siagian, R.A. ve Soetjipto, W. (2020). “Cost Efficiency of Rice Farming in Indonesıa: Stochastıc Frontier Approach”, Agricultural Socio-Economics Journal, 20(1), 7-14.
• Theriault, V. ve Serra, R. (2014). “Institutional Environment and Technical Efficiency: A Stochastic Frontier Analysis of Cotton Producers in West Africa”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65(2), 383-405.
• Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı (2021). “Bitkisel Üretim”, https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/Konular/Bitkisel-Uretim, Erişim Tarihi:05.05.2021).
• TÜİK (2021). “İstatistik Veri Portalı”, https://data.tuik.gov.tr, (Erişim Tarihi:05.05.2021).
• Uzumdumlu, A.S., Tamşen, M. ve Bilgiç, A. (2021). “Comparison of Organic and Conventional Wheat in terms of Efficiency and Cost in Turkey: A Case Study of Erzurum Province, Custos e @gronegócio on line, 17(1), 217-238.
• Win, T., Sari, D.W. ve Haryanto, T. (2021). “Energy Efficiency of Indonesia’s Sugar Industry Based on Economic Framework: Stochastic Metafrontier Analysis”, Jurnal Akuntansi, 11(1), 53-66.