Document Type: Original Article


Persian Gulf University, bushehr, Iran


The main objective of this research is to measure productivity variations and performance of 28 companies listed on Tehran stock exchange from automobile and parts industry using financial statements information during the period of 2006-2010. In order to attain this goal, the Malmquist index and DEA have been used, the labor force and the fixed assets stand for inputs and the economic value added represents the only output. The results indicated that variations in the company’s performance are due to the change in technical efficiency and technology. Because the productivity and performance of the firms revealed an improvement in two years so that in one year, the efficiency was the prominent factor and in the other year, both of technical efficiency and technology jointly played an important role in this progress. In addition, over the two another years, the firms had not experienced any performance progress and finally in one year, they encountered regressive performance. The reason for this declining performance can be found in technology downfall. Among other results of this research is that the surveyed firms totally experienced productivity progress, although his growth was slight. The reason can be attributed to the negligible technical efficiency growth. Therefore, it can be concluded that technical efficiency improvement by patterning benchmark firms has an important role in productivity and performance improvement. Of course, the critical role of technology growth through the renewing and modernizing facilities should not be overlooked.


Seifert, M., Zhu J. (1998). Identifying Excesses and Deficits in Chinese Industrial Productivity (1953-1990): a Weighted Data Envelopment Analysis Approach” Omega, Vol. 26 (2): 279-296.

Isik, I., Hassan M. K. (2003). Financial disruption and bank productivity: The 1994 experience of Turkish banks” The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 43: 291-320.

Rezitis, A. N.  (2008). Efficiency and productivity effects of bank mergers: Evidence from the Greek banking industry” Economic Modeling, 25: 236–254.

Fiordelisi, F., Molyneux, P. (2010). Total factor productivity and shareholder returns in banking” Omega, 38:  241-253.

Liu, S. (2010). Measuring and categorizing technical efficiency and productivity change of commercial banks in Taiwan” Expert Systems with Applications, 37: 2783-2789.

Fallahi, A., Ebrahimi. R., Ghaderi, S.F. (2011). Measuring efficiency and productivity change in power electric generation management companies by using data envelopment analysis: A case study” Energy, 36: 6398-6405.

Chiu, Y., Luo, Z., Chen, Y. (2013). A comparison of operating performance management between Taiwan banks and foreign banks based on the Meta-Hybrid DEA model” Economic Modelling, 33: 433-439.

Matthews, K., Zhang, N. (2010). Bank productivity in China 1997–2007: Measurement and convergence” China Economic Review, Vol.21: 617–628.

González, E., Gascón, F. (2004). Sources of productivity growth in the Spanish pharmaceutical industry (1994–2000)” Research Policy, 33: 735–745.

Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M. (1994). Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries” American Economic Review, 84(1):66–83, 1994.

Margaritis, D., Psillaki M. (2010). Capital structure and firm performance” Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 34, pp. 621–632.

Gugler, K., Muller, D., Yurtoglu, B., Zulehner, C. (2005). The Effects of Mergers: An International Comparison” International Journal of Industrial Organization,21: 625-657, 2003.

 Kaplan. R. S., Atkinson, A. A, Advanced Management Accounting. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Kang, J., Kim, K., Henderson, W. C. (2002).  Economic Value Added (EVA): A Financial Performance Measure. Journal of Accounting and Finance Research. 10(1): 48-60, 2002.