Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Igor Viveiros Souza
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade (FEA/SBD) |
| Defense date: | 2006-12-12 |
| Examining board members: |
Fabiana Fontes Rocha;
Arthur Barrionuevo Filho;
Danilo Camargo Igliori
|
| Advisor: | Fabiana Fontes Rocha |
| Abstract | |
The aim of this study is develop a contribution about the prices readjustments in Brazilian Pharmaceutical Industrial Sector, which is regulated by Resolution Nº 1 from 27 February of Brazilian?s Medicines Chamber (CMED). The present work uses information from IBGE?s Industrial Annual Research between 1996-2003. This contribution comes from measuring the Malmquist Total Factor Productivity Index of this sector. In order to do so, Battese and Coelli?s (1995) stochastic productions frontiers were estimated whit employment of Fourrier Flexible Form. Six different indexes were constructed by the necessity to attribute an exogenous depreciation factor to calculus of capital stock. Therefore, three distinct hypotheses (8%, 9% and 10%) were established to this factor, following the values used by Brazilian Real Business Cycles Literature. Apart from these values, two sets of indexes were constructed: a geometric mean index (following the most popular methodology in the Malmquist Index Literature) and a weighted mean index (the weight used is the relatively participation of each firm at the total Industrial Transformation Value). The results shows that the sector doesn?t have a significant technological variation in the investigated period. The technological coefficients are numerically near to zero and the derivative technological indexes present positive variation until 1999. After this period, the technological indexes present negative variation, so the final effect is quite null. Looking to the technical efficiency, we can?t assume the same result. According to the estimated equation, inefficiency is not only present but it?s effects seem dominate the idiosyncratic error. Moreover, the inefficiency doesn?t show a clear decreasing pattern like technological variation. However, when someone evaluate this variable accumulated, the results show an efficiency lost. The final results of these indexes were got by the technical indexes and technical efficiencies indexes and present an accumulated efficiency lost in two sets of indexes with 1996 as basis. Therefore, 2003 shows an average lost about 8% in weighted mean and about 7% in geometric mean. (AU) | |