SE scores are in the downtrend (see Fig.4.4). Overall speaking, there are much
more rooms for the TE, PTE and SE of 211Us’ HSS research production.
According to the efficiency scores of 2010 (Table4.8), the percentages of 211Us
which need to improve their TE and SE are 94 and 92% respectively.
From the results of SDs of TE, PTE, SE scores, wefind the between-university
variations of TE, PTE, or SE are not enlarged during 2006–2010, but still have
minorfluctuations. The SDs of three efficiency scores are around 0.23, 0.28, and
0.22 respectively, which are considerably large, reflecting that the
between-university efficiency variations of TE, PTE and SE are rather substantial.
4.2.2.2 2007–2009 Results with MA Data
In the subsection, we apply Moving Average method combined with one-period lag
to re-estimate the research production efficiency in each year, in order to avoid the
estimation bias caused by irregular changes of time-series data. More specifically,
we apply CRS and VRS DEA models to our MA data, and calculate the research
production efficiency and its decomposition of the full HSS sample for 2007–2009.
The detailed calculation results for every university are presented in Tables4.54,
4.55and4.56in Appendix. Here we summarize the results into Table4.10.
Fig. 4.4 Changes of TE,
PTE and SE for HSS
disciplines (2006–2010)
Table 4.10 Distribution of
TE and SE for HSS
disciplines (2007–2009, MA)
2007 2008 2009
Overall technical efficiency
TE = 1 7 (7%) 5 (5%) 7 (7%)
TE < 1 98 (93%) 100 (95%) 98 (93%)
Scale efficiency
IRS 51 (49%) 49 (47%) 42 (40%)
DRS 45 (43%) 49 (47%) 49 (47%)
CRS 9 (9%) 7 (7%) 14 (13%)4.2 Overall Status and Change of 211Us’Research Production... 127