!! Please regularly visit this page as we keep updating it !!

Latest bibliography of DEA with more than 10,000 articles

Emrouznejad A. and G. Yang (2018) A survey and analysis of the first 40 years of scholarly literature in DEA: 1978–2016, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 61(1): 1-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2017.01.008 

CLICK HERE to download bibliography (1978-2016)
CLICK HERE to download Supplement with list of over 10,000 articles

biblio

• Barnum D, JM Gleason and DT Barnum (1982). “Toward Valid Measures of Public Sector Productivity: Performance Indicators in Urban Transit.” Management Science 28 (4): 379-386.
• Bardhan I, WF Bowlin, WW Cooper and T Sueyoshi (1996). “Models and Measures for Efficiency Dominance in DEA – Additive Models and MED measures.” J Oper Res Soc JPN 39(3): 322-332.
• Bardhan IR, WW Cooper and SC Kumbhakar (1998). “A Simulation Study of Joint Uses of Data Envelopment Analysis and Statistical Regressions for Production Function Estimation and Efficiency Evaluation.” JPA 9(3): 249-278.
• Barla P and S Perelman (2005). “Sulphur Emissions and Productivity Growth in Industrialised Countries.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 76(2): 275-300.
• Barnes AP (2006). “Does Multi-Functionality Affect Technical Efficiency? A Non-Parametric Analysis of the Scottish Dairy Industry.” J Environmental Management 80(4): 287-294.
• Barnum D, DT Barnum and JM Gleason (2006). “Biases in Technical Efficiency Scores Caused by Intra-Input Aggregation.” Appl Econ 38 1593-1603.
• Barnum D and J Gleason (2005). “Technical Efficiency Bias Caused by Intra-Input Aggregation in Data Envelopment Analysis.” Appl Econ Letters 12(13): 785-788.
• Banker RD and RM Thrall (1992). “Estimation of Returns to Scale Using Data Envelopment Analysis.” EJOR 62(1): 74-84.
• Banker RDM (1988). “A Nonparametic Analysis of Technical and Allocative Efficiencies in Production Econometrica.” production econometrica 5: 1315-1332.
• Bann C and PS Brann (2005). “Reputation and Organizational Efficiency: A Data Envelopment Analysis Study.” Corporate Reputation Review 8(1): 45-58.