References in periodicals archive ?
Therefore, we further test whether the pooled and separate frontiers are identical between keiretsu and independent firms as well as between NSIFs and SIFs.
The tests for NSIFs and SIFs lead to rejection of the subnull hypothesis that NSIF frontiers are different from the pooled (all independent firms) frontier, but not the subnull hypothesis that SIF frontiers are different from the pooled frontier.
We thus conclude that we should base both technical and CE comparisons on separate frontiers when we compare either keiretsu and independent firms or NSIFs and SIFs.
We cannot interpret these results as that independent insurers would produce the outputs of keiretsu insurers more efficiently, nor that NSIFs would produce the outputs of SIFs more efficiently.
To examine whether independent insurers (NSIFs) could produce the outputs of keiretsu insurers (SIFs) more efficiently, we perform cross-frontier analysis.
Again, we need to treat these results with caution because the evidence in Table 6 suggests that NSIFs and SIFs operate on different frontiers and should be analyzed separately even though they are both independent firms.
NSIFs. The cross-frontier TE comparisons for keiretsu firms and NSIFs are presented in the second and fourth columns of Panel B of Table 8.
These TE results imply that keiretsu firms and NSIFs use different technologies.
The cross-frontier CE scores for keiretsu firms and NSIFs are presented in columns 6 and 8 in Panel B.
The comparisons of keiretsu firms and NSIFs in terms of production technology suggest that neither organizational form dominates.
Comparison of SIFs and NSIFs suggests that the specialization effect dominates.
To show that SIFs have advantages over NSIFs and keiretsu firms, we need to provide evidence that NSIFs and keiretsu firms are subject to diseconomies of scale.
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?
- NSHS DET