Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Ownership Model (Public vs. Private) on the Efficiency of Urban Rail Firms
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Research Questions
3. Research Methods and Data
4. Results and Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Type of Company | Year | ECON1 | ECON2 | ECON3 | ECON4 | ECON14 | ECON5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Public | 2009 | 0.67682 | 0.40831 | 0.40831 | 0.27989 | 0.13335 | 0.42881 |
Public | 2010 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.31354 | 1 | 0.21498 |
Public | 2011 | 0.63039 | 0.40597 | 0.40597 | 0.34195 | 0.16800 | 0.52797 |
Public | 2012 | 0.72113 | 0.56543 | 0.56543 | 0.56543 | 0.29387 | 0.86762 |
Public | 2013 | 0.72094 | 0.51744 | 0.51744 | 0.51744 | 0.33246 | 1 |
Public | 2014 | 0.79112 | 0.59195 | 0.59195 | 0.59195 | 0.22989 | 0.90998 |
Public | 2015 | 0.83936 | 0.65675 | 0.65675 | 0.65675 | 0.14085 | 0.71742 |
Public | 2016 | 0.97585 | 0.76467 | 0.76467 | 0.76467 | 0.15644 | 0.84411 |
Public | 2017 | 0.98356 | 0.76243 | 0.76243 | 0.76243 | 0.16482 | 0.92519 |
Public | 2018 | 1 | 0.77094 | 0.77094 | 0.77094 | 0.17116 | 1 |
Private | 2009 | 0.84484 | 0.62145 | 0.62145 | 0.51866 | 0.18428 | 0.40616 |
Private | 2010 | 0.92813 | 0.69163 | 0.69163 | 0.55727 | 0.20825 | 0.42432 |
Private | 2011 | 0.97036 | 0.73276 | 0.73276 | 0.59419 | 0.22000 | 0.42865 |
Private | 2012 | 0.94316 | 0.71152 | 0.71152 | 0.58787 | 0.21189 | 0.42031 |
Private | 2013 | 0.83866 | 0.70183 | 0.70183 | 0.62507 | 0.20271 | 0.29975 |
Private | 2014 | 0.87676 | 0.73012 | 0.73012 | 0.67423 | 0.20802 | 0.31900 |
Private | 2015 | 0.88371 | 0.7727 | 0.7727 | 0.69715 | 0.22208 | 0.29177 |
Private | 2016 | 0.92391 | 0.91195 | 0.81846 | 0.77671 | 0.91195 | 0.96838 |
Private | 2017 | 0.95059 | 0.90757 | 0.90757 | 0.85600 | 0.78079 | 0.65705 |
Private | 2018 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.83572 |
References
- Ferlie, E.; Pettigrew, A.; Ashburner, L.; Fitzgerald, L.; Ewan, S. The new public management in action. Long Range Plan. 1997, 30, 145–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamasb, T.; Pollitt, M. Electricity Market Reform in the European Union: Review of Progress toward Liberalization & Integration. Energy J. 2005, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guasch, J.L. Granting and Renegotiating Infrastructure Concessions: Doing It Right; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Cruz, C.O.; Marques, R.C. Risk-Sharing in Highway Concessions: Contractual Diversity in Portugal. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2013, 139, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boubakri, N.; Chkir, I.; Saadi, S.; Zhu, H. Does national culture affect corporate innovation? International evidence. J. Corp. Financ. 2021, 66, 101847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz, C.O.; Sarmento, J.M. “Mobility as a Service” Platforms: A Critical Path Towards Increasing the Sustainability of Transportation Systems. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barros, V.; Cruz, C.O.; Júdice, T.; Sarmento, J.M. Is taxation being effectively used to promote public transport in Europe? Transp. Policy 2021, 114, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piacenza, M. Regulatory Contracts and Cost Efficiency: Stochastic Frontier Evidence from the Italian Local Public Transport. J. Prod. Anal. 2006, 25, 257–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Karlaftis, M.G.; Tsamboulas, D. Efficiency measurement in public transport: Are findings specification sensitive? Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2012, 46, 392–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, C.H.P.; Mulley, C.; Merkert, R. Measuring the cost efficiency of urban rail systems an international comparison using DEA and tobit models. J. Transp. Econ. Policy. 2015, 49, 17–34. [Google Scholar]
- To, W.M.; Lee, P.K.; Billy, T.W. Sustainability assessment of an urban rail system–The case of Hong Kong. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 119961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, K.; Han, B.; Lu, F.; Wang, Z. Urban rail transit in China: Progress report and analysis (2008–2015). Urban Rail Transit 2016, 2, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Qin, F.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, Q. Evaluating the impact of organizational patterns on the efficiency of urban rail transit systems in China. J. Transp. Geogr. 2014, 40, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J. Analysis of the Relationship between Governance Development Models and the Operational Efficiency of Urban Rail Transit. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management 2016, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 29 September–1 October 2016; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2017; pp. 1148–1155. [Google Scholar]
- Vickers, J.; Yarrow, G.K. Privatization: An Economic Analysis; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Dnes, A.W. The economic analysis of franchise contracts. J. Inst. Theor. Econ. 1996, 2, 297–324. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, L.F.S.; Chen, T.-L. Do cost efficiency gap and foreign competitors matter concerning optimal privatization policy at the free entry market? J. Econ. 2010, 100, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shires, J.D.; Preston, J.M.; Nash, C.A.; Wardman, M. Rail Privatisation: The Economic Theory; Discussion Paper; Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds: Leeds, UK, 1994; Available online: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2159/ (accessed on 1 July 2021).
- Pollitt, M.G.; Smith, A.S.J. The restructuring and privatisation of British Rail: Was it really that bad? Fisc. Stud. 2005, 23, 463–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cowie, J. The British passenger rail privatisation: Conclusions on subsidy and efficiency from the first round of franchises. J. Transp. Econ. Policy. 2009, 43, 85–104. [Google Scholar]
- McCartney, S.; Stittle, J. ‘Taken for a Ride’: The Privatization of the UK Railway Rolling Stock Industry. Public Money Manag. 2008, 28, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.S. Are Britain’s railways costing too much? Perspectives based on TFP comparisons with British Rail 1963–2002. J. Transp. Econ. Policy. 2006, 40, 1–44. [Google Scholar]
- Mathieu, G. The reform of UK railways—Privatization and its results. Jpn. Railw. Transp. Rev. 2003, 34, 16–31. [Google Scholar]
- Boardman, A.E.; Laurin, C.; Moore, M.A.; Vining, A.R. Efficiency, profitability and welfare gains from the Canadian National Railway privatization. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2013, 6, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boardman, A.E.; Laurin, C.; Vining, A.R. Privatization in Canada: Operating and Stock Price Performance with International Comparisons. Can. J. Adm. Sci./Rev. Can. des Sci. de l’Administration 2009, 19, 137–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boardman, A.E.; Vining, A.R. Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises. J. Law Econ. 1989, 32, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Megginson, W.L.; Netter, J.M. From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization. J. Econ. Lit. 2001, 39, 321–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mizutani, F.; Nakamura, K. Effects of Japan national railways’ privatization on labor productivity. Pap. Reg. Sci. 1996, 75, 177–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, L. Changing railway structure and ownership: Is anything working? Transp. Rev. 2003, 23, 311–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruz, C.O.; Sarmento, J.M. Airport privatization with public finances under stress: An analysis of government and investor’s motivations. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2017, 62, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lobo, A.; Couto, A. Technical Efficiency of European Metro Systems: The Effects of Operational Management and Socioeconomic Environment. Netw. Spat. Econ. 2016, 16, 723–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xue, L.; Zhao, S. Evaluating and Analyzing the Operation Efficiency of Urban Rail Transit Systems in China Using an Integrated Approach of DEA Model, Malmquist Productivity Index, and Tobit Regression Model. J. Transp. Eng. Part A Syst. 2021, 147, 04021061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, W.; Shuai, B.; Sun, Y.; Wang, Y.; Antwi, E. Using entropy-TOPSIS method to evaluate urban rail transit system operation performance: The China case. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 111, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1978, 2, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonald, J. Using least squares and tobit in second stage DEA efficiency analyses. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009, 197, 792–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Scheme | Input | Output |
---|---|---|
ECON1 | Operating costs (€) Assets (€) Liabilities as percentage of asset (%) | Revenue (from tickets) (€) |
ECON2 | Operating costs (€) Assets (€) | Revenue (from tickets) (€) EBITDA as percentage of revenue (%) |
ECON3 | Operating costs (€) Assets (€) | Revenue (from tickets) (€) |
ECON4 | Operating costs (€) | Revenue (from tickets) (€) EBITDA as percentage of revenue (%) |
ECON5 | Liabilities as percentage of asset (%) | Revenue (from tickets) (€) EBITDA as percentage of revenue (%) |
VARIABLES | Levene’s Test | t-Test | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | Sig. | t | df | Sig. (2-tailed) | ||
ECON1 | Equal variances assumed | 15.365 | 0.001 | −1.672 | 18 | 0.112 |
Equal variances not assumed | −1.672 | 11.384 | 0.122 | |||
ECON2 | Equal variances assumed | 1.696 | 0.209 | −1.915 | 18 | 0.072 |
Equal variances not assumed | −1.915 | 15.458 | 0.074 | |||
ECON3 | Equal variances assumed | 2.541 | 0.128 | −1.817 | 18 | 0.086 |
Equal variances not assumed | −1.817 | 14.827 | 0.090 | |||
ECON4 | Equal variances assumed | 0.900 | 0.355 | −1.725 | 18 | 0.102 |
Equal variances not assumed | −1.725 | 17.061 | 0.103 | |||
ECON5 | Equal variances assumed | 0.224 | 0.642 | 2.117 | 18 | 0.048 |
Equal variances not assumed | 2.117 | 17.716 | 0.049 |
Variable | Pearson | Kendall’s tau | Spearman’s rho | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gdpg | unra | gdpg | unra | gdpg | unra | |
ECON1 | 0.604 * | −0.473 * | 0.480 ** | −0.480 ** | 0.632 ** | −0.596 ** |
ECON2 | 0.654 ** | −0.419 | 0.493 ** | −0.385 * | 0.708 ** | −0.494 * |
ECON3 | 0.652 ** | −0.424 | 0.504 ** | −0.396 * | 0.714 ** | −0.503 * |
ECON4 | 0.613 ** | −0.341 | 0.595 ** | −0.292 | 0.773 ** | −0.368 |
ECON5 | 0.302 | −0.170 | 0.211 | −0.125 | 0.340 | −0.146 |
VARIABLES | REGRESSION MODELS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
ECON1 | |||||
mana | 0.0821 ** | 0.0821 ** | 0.0821 ** | 0.0821 ** | 0.0821 ** |
(0.0350) | (0.0353) | (0.0353) | (0.0353) | (0.0360) | |
gdpg | 0.0228 ** | 0.0254 *** | 0.0254 *** | 0.0187 ** | 0.0291 *** |
(0.0082) | (0.0073) | (0.0073) | (0.0082) | (0.0075) | |
unra | −0.0104 * | −0.0185 * | −0.0185 * | −0.0124 ** | |
(0.0050) | (0.0099) | (0.0099) | (0.0053) | ||
elyelead | 0.0798 * | 0.0949 ** | 0.0949 ** | 0.0621 | 0.0730 * |
(0.0412) | (0.0392) | (0.0392) | (0.0407) | (0.0407) | |
troi | 0.0620 | 0.0620 | |||
(0.0690) | (0.0690) | ||||
elye | −0.0406 | ||||
(0.0444) | |||||
Constant | 0.9266 *** | 0.9923 *** | 0.9923 *** | 0.9681 *** | 0.8042 *** |
(0.0791) | (0.1116) | (0.1116) | (0.0825) | (0.0299) | |
Observations | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
R-squared | 0.6342 | 0.6528 | 0.6528 | 0.6510 | 0.5873 |
ECON2 | |||||
mana | 0.1338 ** | 0.1338 ** | 0.1338 ** | 0.1338 ** | 0.1338 ** |
(0.0500) | (0.0512) | (0.0473) | (0.0528) | (0.0478) | |
gdpg | 0.0436 *** | 0.0402 *** | 0.0290 *** | 0.0400 * | 0.0378 *** |
(0.0094) | (0.0111) | (0.0083) | (0.0196) | (0.0068) | |
unra | −0.0056 | −0.0121* | −0.0059 | ||
(0.0073) | (0.0067) | (0.0134) | |||
elye | −0.1114 ** | −0.0904 ** | |||
(0.0455) | (0.0405) | ||||
ficr | −0.0031 | ||||
(0.1435) | |||||
Constant | 0.6327 *** | 0.6995 *** | 0.8126 *** | 0.7033 *** | 0.6613 *** |
(0.0414) | (0.1024) | (0.0987) | (0.1702) | (0.0437) | |
Observations | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
R-squared | 0.5974 | 0.6040 | 0.6821 | 0.6040 | 0.6547 |
ECON3 | |||||
mana | 0.1244 ** | 0.1244 ** | 0.1244 ** | 0.1244 ** | 0.1244 ** |
(0.0497) | (0.0507) | (0.0473) | (0.0478) | (0.0469) | |
gdpg | 0.0423 *** | 0.0386 *** | 0.0279 *** | 0.0367 *** | 0.0255 ** |
(0.0094) | (0.0112) | (0.0086) | (0.0069) | (0.0096) | |
unra | −0.0059 | −0.0122 | |||
(0.0076) | (0.0070) | ||||
elye | −0.1068 ** | −0.0857 * | −0.1139 * | ||
(0.0470) | (0.0412) | (0.0570) | |||
troi | −0.0805 | ||||
(0.0651) | |||||
Constant | 0.6330 *** | 0.7038 *** | 0.8122 *** | 0.6602 *** | 0.7039 *** |
(0.0416) | (0.1064) | (0.1029) | (0.0439) | (0.0654) | |
Observations | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
R-squared | 0.5801 | 0.5878 | 0.6638 | 0.6345 | 0.6696 |
ECON4 | |||||
mana | 0.1322 *** | 0.1322 *** | 0.1322 *** | 0.1322 *** | 0.1322 *** |
(0.0282) | (0.0283) | (0.0275) | (0.0359) | (0.0284) | |
gdpg | −0.0195 | 0.0123 | |||
(0.0134) | (0.0115) | ||||
elye | −0.1107 *** | −0.1299 *** | −0.1421 *** | −0.1024 | −0.1049 ** |
(0.0353) | (0.0383) | (0.0451) | (0.0675) | (0.0352) | |
ficr | −0.3364 *** | −0.3231 *** | −0.3953 *** | −0.2745 *** | −0.2925 *** |
(0.0429) | (0.0459) | (0.0611) | (0.0639) | (0.0560) | |
troi | −0.1450 ** | −0.1654 ** | −0.3006 *** | −0.1165 ** | |
(0.0580) | (0.0609) | (0.0605) | (0.0520) | ||
elyelead | −0.0385 | −0.0684 | 0.0052 | ||
(0.0397) | (0.0407) | (0.0406) | |||
elyelag | 0.0706 * | −0.0295 | |||
(0.0341) | (0.0380) | ||||
unra | −0.0166 * | −0.0123 | −0.0304 *** | −0.0154 | |
(0.0089) | (0.0095) | (0.0076) | (0.0095) | ||
regu | 0.0456 | ||||
(0.0366) | |||||
Constant | 0.9105 *** | 0.8824 *** | 0.8030 *** | 1.0048 *** | 0.8515 *** |
(0.0869) | (0.0915) | (0.0496) | (0.1030) | (0.1138) | |
Observations | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
R-squared | 0.9099 | 0.9156 | 0.9264 | 0.8746 | 0.9147 |
ECON5 | |||||
mana | −0.2385 ** | −0.2385 ** | −0.2385 ** | −0.2385 ** | −0.2385 ** |
(0.0841) | (0.0838) | (0.0848) | (0.0848) | (0.0857) | |
unra | −0.0344 ** | −0.0391 ** | −0.0469 ** | −0.0312 | −0.0479 ** |
(0.0133) | (0.0157) | (0.0197) | (0.0214) | (0.0204) | |
elye | −0.1728 * | −0.2318 ** | −0.2096 ** | −0.2371 ** | −0.2503 ** |
(0.0844) | (0.0936) | (0.0733) | (0.0803) | (0.0915) | |
ficr | −0.3492 ** | −0.3150 ** | −0.3926 ** | −0.4661 ** | −0.3530 ** |
(0.1353) | (0.1270) | (0.1516) | (0.1839) | (0.1499) | |
elyelag | −0.1178 | −0.0997 | |||
(0.1153) | (0.1175) | ||||
gdpg | −0.0218 | −0.0383 | −0.0164 | ||
(0.0216) | (0.0306) | (0.0219) | |||
troi | −0.1878 | ||||
(0.1771) | |||||
Constant | 1.2706 *** | 1.3729 *** | 1.4442 *** | 1.3608 *** | 1.4878 *** |
(0.1268) | (0.1883) | (0.2125) | (0.2117) | (0.2363) | |
Observations | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
R-squared | 0.6284 | 0.6553 | 0.6471 | 0.6724 | 0.6653 |
VARIABLES | REGRESSIONS MODELS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ECON1 | ECON2 | ECON3 | ECON4 | ECON5 | |
mana | 0.069 | 0.250 * | 0.130 ** | 0.316 *** | 0.527 ** |
(0.092) | (0.133) | (0.040) | (0.068) | (0.229) | |
elyelead | 0.080 ** | ||||
(0.022) | |||||
elye | −0.111 ** | −0.086 ** | −0.111 ** | −0.173 ** | |
(0.037) | (0.034) | (0.028) | (0.065) | ||
troi | −0.145 ** | ||||
(0.048) | |||||
ficr | −0.336 *** | −0.349 ** | |||
(0.031) | (0.105) | ||||
gdpg | 0.043 *** | 0.042 ** | 0.048 ** | ||
(0.005) | (0.011) | (0.011) | |||
unra | −0.011 ** | −0.007 | −0.009 | −0.002 | |
(0.003) | (0.008) | (0.006) | (0.013) | ||
mana × gdpg | −0.041 ** | −0.025 | −0.022 | ||
(0.10) | (0.014) | (0.014 | |||
mana × unra | 0.002 | −0.009 | −0.016 ** | −0.065 ** | |
(0.007) | (0.011) | (0.005) | (0.017) | ||
Constant | 0.933 *** | 0.755 *** | 0.657 *** | 0.819 *** | 0.888 *** |
(0.037) | (0.100) | (0.039) | (0.054) | (0.158) | |
Observations | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
R-squared | 0.850 | 0.708 | 0.664 | 0.925 | 0.743 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Costa, Á.; Cruz, C.O.; Sarmento, J.M.; Sousa, V.F. Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Ownership Model (Public vs. Private) on the Efficiency of Urban Rail Firms. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313346
Costa Á, Cruz CO, Sarmento JM, Sousa VF. Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Ownership Model (Public vs. Private) on the Efficiency of Urban Rail Firms. Sustainability. 2021; 13(23):13346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313346
Chicago/Turabian StyleCosta, Álvaro, Carlos Oliveira Cruz, Joaquim Miranda Sarmento, and Vitor Faria Sousa. 2021. "Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Ownership Model (Public vs. Private) on the Efficiency of Urban Rail Firms" Sustainability 13, no. 23: 13346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313346
APA StyleCosta, Á., Cruz, C. O., Sarmento, J. M., & Sousa, V. F. (2021). Empirical Analysis of the Effects of Ownership Model (Public vs. Private) on the Efficiency of Urban Rail Firms. Sustainability, 13(23), 13346. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313346