Efficiency dynamics of sugar industry of Pakistan.
Subject: Sugar industry (International economic relations)
Sugar
Authors: Raheman, Abdul
Qayyum, Abdul
Afza, Talat
Pub Date: 12/22/2009
Publication: Name: Pakistan Development Review Publisher: Pakistan Institute of Development Economics Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Business, international; Social sciences Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2009 Reproduced with permission of the Publications Division, Pakistan Institute of Development Economies, Islamabad, Pakistan. ISSN: 0030-9729
Issue: Date: Winter, 2009 Source Volume: 48 Source Issue: 4
Topic: Event Code: 950 International economic relations
Product: SIC Code: 2061 Raw cane sugar; 2062 Cane sugar refining; 2063 Beet sugar
Accession Number: 269029191
Full Text: Pakistan is the 15th largest producer of sugar in the world, 5th largest in terms of area under sugar cultivation and 60th in yield. The sugar industry is the 2nd largest agro based industry which comprises of 81 sugar mills. With this scenario, Pakistan has to import sugar which exposes it to the effects of shortage and rising prices in the world. The present sugar crisis has opened up new avenues for researcher to analyse the performance and efficiency of the firms in this sector.

Total factor productivity plays a significant role in measuring the performance of a firm which ultimately affects the shareholder's value. This paper analyses the performance of sugar firms in Pakistan and estimate/calculate the Malmquist total factor productivity growth indices using non-parametric approach. TFP growth is further decomposed into technical, scale and managerial efficiency change using balanced panel data of 20 sugar firms listed on Karachi Stock Exchange for the period 1998 to 2007.

The results reflect a tormenting picture for the sugar industry. Overall sugar industry improved technological progress by 0.8 percent while managerial efficiency change put a negative effect on the productivity by a same percentage; as a result the overall total factor productivity during 1998-2007 remained almost static with a decline of 0.1 percent. The analysis of TFP and its sources in individual year for overall sugar industry also presents divergent trend.

The research suggests that sugar industry is facing serious productivity growth problems where no increase is recorded in total factor productivity during 1998 to 2007. The sugar industry is lacking in terms of managerial efficiency which could be explained by a general reduction in the quality of managerial decision-making among the best practice firms. Regardless of the reason for this decline, it has potentially serious implications for the longer-term financial viability of these sugar firms. The pattern of TFP growth tends to be driven more by technical change (or technical progress) rather than improvements in technical efficiency.

1. INTRODUCTION

Sugarcane is among the most valuable crops of Pakistan. It is a source of raw material for entire sugar industry. At present, the sugar industry is second largest agro- based industry in Pakistan. The future of this industry in Pakistan is mainly attributed to the production efficiency because of higher cost of production; increase in the imports and due to declining competitiveness of the domestic sugar industry. Productive efficiency can be improved by the adoption and development of new production technologies but at present it is difficult due to limited income and credit to the out growers. Therefore, this industry can improve the efficiency of its operations using currently available technology.

Measures of productivity, its growth and sources for the sugar industry of Pakistan play a significant role for policy development. Productivity growth can be decomposed into three components: technical change, scale effects, and changes in the degree of technical efficiency [Coelli, et al. (2005)]. Technical change means progress in technology not only physically in the form of improved machinery but also innovations in the knowledge base. Regarding scale effects, it relate to economies in production. If there exists increasing economies of scale it indicates that the production of additional outputs will require a less than proportional increase in inputs. Improvements in the degree of technical efficiency arise from situations where resources can be used more efficiently by applying practices from the present stock of knowledge.

The most comprehensive measure of aggregate or sectoral productivity is Total Factor Productivity (TFP). However, given the paucity of good data, this area of research has remained quite limited in Pakistan [Ali (2004)]. There are some studies on manufacturing sector of Pakistan which include Raheman, et al. (2008), where TFP and its sources are estimated using Malmquist Productivity growth index for major manufacturing industries of Pakistan using aggregate firm level financial data but sugar industry is not among the industries analysed. The results of the study highlighted the role of efficiency change in the TFP growth while deficiencies in terms of technological progress. Similarly, another study by Mahmood, et al. (2007) examined the efficiency of the large scale manufacturing sector of Pakistan by using the stochastic production frontier approach for periods 1995-96 and 2000-01. Afzal (2006) also analysed the TFP for the large scale manufacturing sector from 1975 to 2001 using three different approaches. There are no reported productivity efficiency studies for the sugar industry in Pakistan.

This study attempts to fill this gap by estimating firm level efficiency and total factor productivity growth and its components for a sample of twenty sugar firms in the sugar industry and to assess the variations in TFP growth between firms and over Time. The TFP growth is estimated for the period 1998 to 2007. This study, therefore, would provide a fresh perspective on the growth of TFP in sugar sector for use in developing appropriate policy responses towards this sector of Pakistan's economy.

There are several techniques available, parametric and non-parametric, to estimate total factor productivity. The most widely used example of a non-parametric technique is DEA [Coelli (1995); Seiford (1996)]. Parametric techniques encompass stochastic frontier techniques and Bayesian methods [Kalirajan and Shand (1999)]. In this paper we employ DEA to estimate Malmquist TFP indices from panel data set. The reason for the choice of DEA as the method of estimation is that the methodology has been employed widely to conduct benchmarking analysis [for example, see Jaforullah and Whiteman (1999)]. Most of the existing studies that employs panel data for estimation of efficiency and productivity change reports estimates for the entire data period, while in the present study our focus is on the annual estimates because we wish to examine how productivity changes through time at the firm level.

The basic objective of this paper is to use the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) as a tool for the measurement of TFP growth for sugar industry and sugar firms. The objective/purpose is also to decompose TFP growth into technical change, efficiency change and scale efficiency change in order to understand the source of productivity for Pakistani sugar firms listed at Karachi Stock Exchange. This decomposition enables policymakers to trace lagging productivity to particular factors. For example, if slowing technical progress causes declining TFP growth, the production frontier can be shifted upward through investment in research and development (R&D); if slow productivity growth is traced primarily to deteriorating technical efficiency (TE), learning- by-doing processes and managerial practices can be targeted for this purpose; if there will be benefits from SE, production scales should be adjusted toward optimum values. The specific objective of the study is to provide policy implications and strategies for improvement in the production efficiency of sugar firms. Policymakers can recommend policies that improve the productivity of firms only if they understand the sources of variation in productivity growth.

Generally, studies at country level on productivity growth are based on the overall or aggregate data; therefore, the results of those studies are average of the overall economy which comprises of different sectors. Hence contribution in each country's productivity has different proportion of sectors. This study uses financial data of sugar firms extracted from annual reports obtained from different sources. This data allows examination of the TFP performance of individual firms, which was not previously done.

The structure of this article is as follows. In the following section, an overview of sugar industry of Pakistan is presented followed by the third section which describes the data used in the analysis and methodology opted for analysis including discussion of input and output variables. Then the results of our Malmquist TFP estimates are presented. In the final section we discuss the results presented and provide conclusions.

2. OVERVIEW OF SUGAR INDUSTRY OF PAKISTAN

Sugarcane is an important industrial and cash crop in Pakistan. Pakistan is an important sugarcane producing country and is ranked fifth in terms of area under sugar cultivation, 60th in yield and 15th in sugar production. Sugarcane is grown on over a million hectares and provides the raw material for Pakistan's 84 sugar mills which comprise the country's second largest agro-industry after textiles [Pakistan Annual Sugar Report (2009)]. The sugar sector constitutes 4.2 percent of manufacturing. In size, the sugar sector matches the cement sector. Sugar industry has an indirect socio- economic impact in overall terms which is significantly larger than its direct contribution to GDP because of it's backward (sugarcane growers) and forward linkages (food processors) in the economy.

The sugar cane yield for some important countries of the world is given in the following Table 1.

According to the Table l, Egypt is the highest in terms of sugarcane yield per hector which is 110.8 tons per hector while the Pakistan is the lowest in terms of this yield. As far as the sugar recovery is concerned, Brazil has the highest percentage and again Pakistan is at the lowest. If we analyse the sugar yield from sugarcane, Australia has the highest sugar yield in these countries and again Pakistan is at the lowest with 3.54 tons per hector. It indicates that in Pakistan, improvements can be made in terms of sugarcane yield, sugar recovery and sugar yield.

The area under cultivation has increased more rapidly than any other major crops. The Table 2 presents the area production and yield during period 1997-98 to 2007-08.

During the year 2007-08 production of sugar was estimated at 61.5Million Metric Ton (MMT), an increase of 12 percent over previous year due to increase in area under cultivation and yield. While during 2008-09 sugar production is estimated at 55MMT a decline of 10 percent over the previous year. According to press reports [Jang Weekly News, August (2009)], Pakistan's 2009-10 sugar production is expected around 3 millions tons as against 3.2 million tons in the last year. The annual consumption of sugar varies in between 3.6 to 4.2 million tons, but according to the industry's officials, it has gone down since October due to economic slowdown and higher prices that resulted in lower demand from industries like drink producers. With this scenario, Pakistan has to import sugar which exposes it to the effects of shortage and rising prices in the world.

The consumption of sugar is showing an increasing trend for the last 15 years. In 1995-96, it was 2.89 million tons, which increased to 3.95 million tons in 2005- 06. This is mainly due to increase in the population growth of the country, which is now almost 170 million. According to a rough estimate, the country will need approximately 5.5 million tons of sugar to meet the local demand by year 2020. It will require about 1.5 million hectares of area under cultivation which is at present about 1 hector. The per capita sugar consumption is around 25kg per year which is highest in the developing countries. The demand of sugar will increase in the coming years at the rate of about 2.3 percent because of growth in the population which is about 2.3 percent.

The sugarcane production in terms of sugarcane crushed, sugar made and recovery percentage is presented in the Table 3 for period 1997-98 to 2006-07.

This table is showing an increasing trend in terms of sugarcane crushed and sugar made except for years 2004-05 and 2005-06. During these two years Pakistan sugar industry faced the crisis due to decline in area under cultivation which causes decline in production and yield. Otherwise number of mills increased during this period.

After getting an overview of the sugar industry, we develop the methodology for estimating productivity growth of sugar industry in Pakistan by examining this issue at firm level.

3. METHODOLOGY

Total factor productivity growth and its sources are estimated using Data Envelopment Analysis approach. Malmquist productivity growth indices are calculated for twenty sugar firms and also for sugar industry. The Malmquist Productivity Index also includes the sources of productivity growth for these firms.

3.1. Mahnquist TFP Index

The Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) methodology was initiated by Charnes, et al. (1978) who built on the frontier concept started by Farell (1957). The methodology used in this paper is based on the work of Fare, et al. (1994) and Coelli, et al. (1998) and Raheman, et al. (2008). The DEA-Malmquist Index has been used to calculate the total factor productivity growth of sugar firms listed at Karachi stock exchange where each firm in the sugar industry is a Decision Making Unit (DMU).

This Malmquist productivity index can be decomposed into efficiency change, technical change and total factor productivity growth. TFPG is geometric mean of efficiency change and technical change. We have used the DEAP software developed by Coelli (1996) to compute these indices. Following Fare, et al. (1994), the Malmquist output-orientated TFP change index between periods s(the base period) and period t (the subsequent period) is calculated as follows:

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (1)

In the above equation, [d.sup.5.sub.0] ([y.sub.t], [x.sub.t])represents the distance from the period t observation to the period s technology, y represents output and x represents input. Like the DEA specification, each of the distance functions is calculated as a linear program. While interpreting the Malmquist index, when [m.sub.o] is greater than 1 this indicates that the TFP index has grown between periods t and s while [m.sub.o] less than 1 indicates that TFP has declined. This productivity index can also be written in the following way.

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (2)

By re-expressing the Malmquist index in this way we have derived the following components. The ratio outside the bracket measures the change in the output- oriented measure of technical efficiency between period s and t. The other part of Equation 2 measures the technical change which is measured as a geometric mean in the shift in the production technology between two periods evaluated at [x.sub.t] and [x.sub.s].

In the above model efficiency change (catching up effect) and a technical change (frontier effect) as measured by shift in a frontier over the same period. In this methodology, we will use the output oriented analysis because most of the firms and sectors have their objectives to maximise output in the form of revenue or profit.

3.2. Variables

We have applied the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) approach to the revenue producing firms by converting the financial performance measures to the firm's technical efficiency equivalents. Ee have followed the methodology of Raheman, et al. (2008) which is also based on Feroz, et al. (2003) and Wang (2006), who have converted the financial performance measures to the firm's technical efficiency equivalent using DuPont Model. (1) The DuPont model is a technique for analysing a firm's profitability using traditional performance management tools. For enabling this, DuPont model integrates income statement elements with balance sheet.

This process of measuring financial performance indicators can be converted into output and input variables. Where, sales revenue can be used as output variable while cost of goods sold, operating expenses, total assets and shareholder's equity as input variables. In this way long term resources total assets and equity and short term resources cost of goods sold and operating expenses are used to produce output in the form of sales revenue.

(1) The Dupont formula and discussion regarding conversion of financial performance measures to firm's technical efficiency equivalents can be seen in Raheman, et al. (2008) 3.3. Data

There are 38 sugar firms listed in the sugar and allied sector on Karachi stock exchange. We have used the data only for those sugar firms which have performed the operations and are among the listed firms on the Karachi Stock Exchange during the study period 1998 to 2007. Furthermore, only those firms are included in the analysis which have their shareholder's equity positive because of the consideration of the imitates of Data Envelopment Analysis Programme (DEAP) and their annual reports (financial statements) are available for all the ten years. Hence, finally 20 firms are selected for the analysis. Malmquist productivity Index has been used to calculate the Total Factor Productivity Growth and its sources for these twenty sugar firms.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data of twenty sugar firms is used to construct a grand frontier using TFP Index technique where each firm is compared to the frontier. We have calculated Malmquist total factor productivity Index which shows TFP growth, efficiency change, technical change, pure technical efficiency and scale change component for all the sugar firms in the sample.

4.1. Total Factor Productivity Growth in Sugar Sector

Malmquist Index of firm means for efficiency change, technical change, pure efficiency change, scale efficiency change and TFP growth are presented in Table 4. Sugar industry experienced an overall negative TFP growth of -0.1 percent during 1998-2007 which is insignificant. It means that during the study period there is no substantial increase or decrease in the total factor productivity growth. The analysis of sugar mills revealed that TFP growth increased for seven out of twenty mills. The decline in technical efficiency by 0.8 percent is offset by a same percentage increase in the technical change which resulted in insignificant overall TFP growth. The technical change in 11 out of 20 firms is more than 1. Pure efficiency change and scale efficiency change results in technical efficiency change. In case of pure efficiency change, it is one of more than one in most of the firms but overall the pure efficiency of sugar industry declined by 0.7 percent while for scale efficiency change, value close to unity shows that most of the firms are operating at optimum scale but again the scale efficiency of sugar industry declined by 0.5 percent. Therefore, both scale efficiency and pure technical efficiency have contributed to the decline in efficiency change.

In the above table, the comparison of total factor productivity change in different firms shows that Shakarganj Mills Limited on average has the highest growth in TFP (11.4 percent) during 1998 to 2007, followed by the Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited that has (5.6 percent) total factor productivity growth. The worst performer in terms of total factor productivity growth is the Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Limited and the Thal Industries Corporation Limited. Total factor productivity of these two mills decreased on average by -9.2 percent and -4.9 percent respectively.

The results presented in Table 5 show that TFP growth has been volatile with little apparent trend. The changes in TFP growth closely follow changes in technical progress with changes in technical efficiency. The years 2002 and 1999 appear to be the years where the total factor productivity growth was the highest at 5.3 percent and 5.2 percent respectively. During years 2001 and 2007, the TFP growth is lowest at 4.7 percent and 4.4 percent respectively. If we analyse the efficiency change over period, it indicates that during year 2003 the efficiency increased by 3.9 percent while it decreased by - 5.9 percent during 2006. On the other hand the technological change increased by 8.7 percent during year 2002 where the TFP growth is also maximum. Similarly technical change is negative in the similar years where TFP growth was negative i.e. year 2001 and 2007.

These above results show an overall picture of TFP growth, efficiency change and technical change for the sugar industry. For firm level analysis, these measures of productivity need to be analysed at firm level during period 1998 to 2007.

4.2. Total Factor Productivity Growth

Yearly comparative results of TFP growth for individual firms during 1998-2007 are presented in Table 6 which provides a complete understanding about the performance of these sugar firms.

During first year of analysis, The Thal Industries Corporation Limited performed best among all the firms with TFP growth 24.2 percent followed by The Frontier Sugar and Distillery Limited where the productivity increased by 19.9 percent. Habib sugar mill is the worst performer with decline in TFP growth by -6.6 percent. This year was also the most favourable for sugar industry where the TFP of 15 out of 20 firms increased and TFP for sugar industry increased by 5.2 percent. During year 2000, the total factor productivity of 10 out of 20 firms increased with the Husein sugar mills limited has the highest TFP growth of 9.6 percent. In the next year 2001, the TFP declined for thirteen sugar mills and the Chashma sugar mill was the worst performer in terms of TFP growth which declined by 25.2 percent and the TFP declined by 4.7 percent for the overall sugar industry which is the worst performance for the overall sugar industry during the study period. The next three years 2002, 2003 and 2004 were relatively better years for the sugar firms where the TFP increased for 12 out of 20 firms in all the three years. Mirpurkhas sugar mill was the best performer during year 2002 while Faran sugar mill was the best performer during year 2003 and Chashma sugar mill during 2004. TFP growth for the sugar industry increased during 2002 and 2003 while declined during 2004. Shakarganj sugar mill played a leading role in total factor productivity growth with highest (best performance) 76.6 percent during year 2005. Year 2006 was suitable for nine sugar mills in terms of total factor productivity with highest TFP growth for Dewan sugar mill at 35.9 percent. In this year the TFP for the sugar industry declined by 3.8 percent. Year 2006-07 was a crucial year for the sugar industry where the productivity change for fourteen out of twenty firms declined and the TFP for the sugar industry declined by 4.4 percent. In this year the best performer was the Chashma sugar mill with a growth of 23 percent in total factor productivity. These results serve to show that firm-level results can display a great deal of variations.

In terms of total factor productivity change, Shakarganj sugar mill has relatively more stable results. In this firm TFP change in seven out of nine years is greater than unity. Due to this reason, this firm topped in ranking in terms of total factor productivity. As discussed earlier year 2006-07 was the most crucial year for most of the firms where TFP declined for fourteen firms in the sample. Excluding this year from the analysis, the overall TFP growth for the sugar industry would increase to 0.53 percent which is now -0.1 percent including year 2007. The Frontier sugar mill is the worst performer in terms of TFP growth followed by the Thal industries corporation limited which has negative TFP growth for six out of nine years.

Two sources of total factor productivity named technical efficiency change and technical change are presented in the next section.

4.3. Technical Efficiency Growth

Firm-wise technical efficiency movement is presented in Table 7 for understanding the contribution made by technical efficiency in the productivity growth of sugar firms.

The results in general suggest that technical efficiency is an important factor in dampening the total factor productivity growth of the sugar industry. The average efficiency change for eight mills is less than one while for nine firms it is equal to one which means there is no change in the managerial efficiency during study period for these firms. During year 1999, the technical efficiency change for eight firms is less than one and Habib sugar mills the worst performer with a decline in efficiency change by -8.7 percent. In this year six mills did not show any change in their efficiency. Managerial efficiency further declined in year 2000, where 14 mills have their efficiency change in negative and three mills have no change in efficiency. During this year AL Abass sugar mill was the worst performer with a decline in efficiency change by 13.8 percent. Year 2001 was relatively better for the sugar industry in terms of managerial efficiency where thirteen mills were having their efficiency change equal to or more than one. The efficiency change for sugar industry declined during years 2002, 2005 and 2006 by -3.1 percent, -1.5 percent and -5.9 percent respectively. The maximum decline in the managerial efficiency for the sugar industry was during year 2006. On the other side efficiency change increased during years 2003, 2004 and 2007.

The firm level changes in managerial efficiency shows that many mills remain static as their efficiency change remain equal to one in most of the years. These firms include Faran sugar mills, JDW sugar mills and Shahtaj sugar mills limited. Thal industries corporation limited which is on top in ranking according to managerial efficiency based on aggregate efficiency change is also more stable firm where efficiency change is more than one in seven out of nine years.

4.4. Technology Adoption

The comparative technical change for twenty sugar firms during period 1998 to 2007 is presented in Table 8. Generally, the technical change can be seen in eleven firms where Shakarganj mills limited at the top with 11.2 percent change followed by the Mirpurkhas sugar mills limited with 5.8 percent. In year 1999, the comparative technical change shows positive change where all mills have their technical change more than one and Thal industries corporation top in ranking followed by the Chashma sugar mills limited. In this year technical change increased by 5.4 percent for the overall sugar industry. Year 2000 was also better in terms of technical change where it was positive for sixteen mills and sugar industry overall recorded a 3.6 percent technical progress. In this year Haseeb Waqas sugar mills limited was the best performer where technical change increased by 13 percent while Shahtaj sugar mills limited was the worst performer with decline in technical progress by 10.7 percent. Years 2001 and 2007 were the worst in terms of technical progress where it declined by 5.2 percent and 5.3 percent respectively. In these years only three to four mills were having their technical change in positive. The best year according to technical progress was the year 2002 where the technical change increased by 8.7 percent for the overall sugar industry and eighteen firms have their technical change above one. In this year Mirpurkhas sugar mill was highest in ranking with a progress of 69 percent followed by Husein sugar mills limited with 36.5 percent. JDW sugar mill was the worst performer where the technical change declined by 16.7 percent. Shakarganj sugar mill was the leading one during year 2004 and 2005, where the technical progress increased by 20.3 percent and 76.6 percent. Further, increase of 76.6 percent is the maximum increase in any mill in a year during period 1998 to 2007.

The ranking of all sugar firms in terms of total factor productivity growth, technical efficiency change and technical change is presented in Table 9. According to the ranking, Shakarganj mills limited is top in ranking according to TFP growth and technical change while at number three according to efficiency change. Mirpurkhas sugar mill is although next in ranking according to TFP growth and technical change but at nurnber thirteen according to managerial efficiency change. Similar type of ranking is for the Sind Abadgar sugar mill which is at third in ranking as per TFP growth and technical change but at number eleven according to efficiency change. This indicates that technical change is the major factor which affects the total factor productivity growth for the sugar firms. The Frontier sugar mills and distillery limited is the laggard firm according to efficiency change and technical change. The other laggard firm is The Thal Industries Corporation limited according to TFP growth and technical change but highest in ranking according to efficiency change. This also indicates that for sugar firms technical change is the major source of total factor productivity.

5. CONCLUSION

Research on productivity growth is very important because economic growth cannot be sustainable without improvement in the Total Factor Productivity. From a policy point of view, the assessment of TFP growth is important as it serves as a guide for resource allocation and investment decisions. In this paper we have applied Data Envelopment Analysis approach for estimating TFP growth, efficiency change and technological progress in Pakistan's sugar industry using data for twenty sugar firms from 1998 to 2007. Productivity Growth is estimated using Malmquist productivity index. The decomposition of TFP growth also helped us to identify improvement in efficiency and contribution of technological progress and innovation to productivity growth in sugar industry. Most of the studies of productivity growth efficiency which are based on panel data discuss the estimates of overall sample or sector. However, we have presented the estimated TFP growth, efficiency change and technical change at each firm level and for each year during 1998 to 2007 which shows that these estimates varies widely at firm level during the data period.

The empirical estimates on the performance of sugar industry yielded several striking results. The Malmquist TFP results reflect a tormenting picture for the sugar industry. Overall sugar industry improved technological progress by 0.8 percent while managerial efficiency change declined by a same percentage. Due this reason the overall TFP growth during 1998-2007 remained almost static with a decline of 0.1 percent.

The results of TFP growth and its components also presents divergent trend in the individual years for the overall sugar industry. The efficiency change declined for nine sugar firms and remained equal to one for nine sugar firms during period 1998 to 2007, while the technical change is positive for eleven out of twenty sugar firms. Therefore, the result shows static TFP Growth. It suggests that sugar industry is lacking in terms of managerial efficiency which could be explained by a general reduction in the quality of managerial decision-making among the best practice firms. Regardless of the reason for this decline, it has potentially serious implications for the longer-term financial viability of these sugar firms. Except few firms which are relatively stable include Shakarganj mills limited and Al Abass sugar mills limited, all sugar firms have a mix trend over 1998-2007 which affects the productivity and ranking of firms.

The pattern of TFP growth tends to be driven more by technical change (of technical progress) rather than improvements in technical efficiency. Shakarganj mills limited has highest technical change and also better performance in terms of managerial efficiency change which lead it top in ranking in terms of TFP. This firm has also performed better in terms of stability over the period 1998 to 2007, where the TFP increased for seven out of nine years. The major source for Mirpurkhas sugar mill is the technical change, which lead it to next in ranking. The technical change is also a main source of relatively better performance for Sind Abadgar sugar mill and Habib sugar mill while Sanghar sugar mill is also among the top ranking firms where the main sources is managerial efficiency. The Frontier sugar mill is among the worst performers in terms of productivity over 1998 to 2007 where the problem lies in managerial efficiency and also non adoption of new technologies. Similarly, The Thal Industries is also one of the laggard firms in terms of TFP where the major source is non adoption of new technologies although top in ranking in terms of efficiency change.

The research suggests that the Pakistani sugar industry is facing serious productivity growth problems where no increase is recorded in total factor productivity during 1998 to 2007. Therefore, this industry must increase total factor productivity in most of the firms and efforts must be made to provide a stable pattern to the productivity growth. The improvement is needed in both technical efficiency and technological progress in the sugar industry. For increasing technical efficiency, efforts are needed to improve the quality of inputs like capital and labour. On the other side the management aspect cannot be ignored and it is also very important in terms of capital. Furthermore, the research and development (R & D) activities can also play a vital role in bringing technological progress. Although there is very little increase in the technical change but for further considerable increase in the productivity, efforts could be made to increase the research and development (R & D) activities in this industry. Therefore, firms in the sugar industry need greater investment in (R & D) activities and adoption of new technologies.

Comments

The paper titled 'Efficiency Dynamics of Sugar Industry of Pakistan' is interesting and analytical technique used in this paper is latest one. However, write up of this paper needs some editing. For example, in abstract and introduction of this paper, it is stated that total factor productivity (TFP) in sugar industry will be decomposed in 3 categories; technical, scale and managerial. But in Table 4, Malmquist indices have been worked out for technical efficiency change, technical change, production efficiency change, scale efficiency change and TFP. Furthermore, only 3 of these indices have been discussed in Sections 5.3 and 5.4.

In abstract of the paper it is mentioned that there are 81 sugar mills in Pakistan whereas on page 4, the number changes to 84. Also subheading 5.1 is exactly same as 5.2 that should be avoided. Similarly, in Table 1 in 'Overview of Sugar Industry', sugar yield in Pakistan is reported as 3.54 while its correct figure comes out 4.51. Column 4 in Tables 2 and 3 of this section are not commented anywhere in the text. Furthermore, the first sentence in paragraph 2 at page 5 states that area under sugarcane cultivation has increased but data in Table 2 and the last sentence in first paragraph at page 6 do not support it. Calculation of Malmquest indices on pages 8 and 9 is not properly explained. I am sure that careful editing of this paper will improve its reading and worth.

M. Mazhar Iqbal

Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

REFERENCES

Afzal, M. (2006) Some New Production Measurement Methods for Large-scale Manufacturing Sector of Pakistan. PhD Dissertation (unpublished) submitted to National College of Business Administration and Economics. Agricultural Economics 78:2, 331-8.

Ali, S. (2004) Total Factor Productivity Growth in Pakistan's Agriculture: 1960- 1996. The Pakistan Development Review 43: 4, 493-513.

Burki, A. A. and K. Mahmood ul Hassan (2005) Effects of Allocative Inefficiency on Resource Allocation and Energy Substitution in Pakistan's Manufacturing. Lahore University of Management Sciences. (CMER Working Paper No. 04-30).

Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes (1978) Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units. European Journal of Operations Research 2, 429-444.

Coelli, T. (1996) A Guide to DEAP Version 2.1: A Data Envelopment Analysis (Computer) Programme. Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Armidale, NSW, Department of Econometrics, University of New England, Australia. (Working Paper 96/08).

Coelli, T. J., D. S. P. Rao, C. J. O'Donnell, and G. E. Battese (2005) An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

Coelli, T., D. S. P. Rao, and G. E. Battase (1998) An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Coelli, T. J. (1995) Recent Developments in Frontier Modelling and Efficiency Measurement. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 39, 219-45.

Fare, R., S. Grosskopf, M. Norris, and Z. Zhang (1994) Productivity Growth, Technical Progress, and Efficiency Change in Industrialised Countries. The America, Economic Review 84, 66-83.

Farrell, M. J. (1957) The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 120, 253-81.

Feroz, E. H., S. Kim, and R. L. Raab (2003) Financial Statement Analysis: A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach. Journal of Operational Research Society 54, 48- 58.

Jaforullah, M. and J. Whiteman (1999) Scale Efficiency in the New Zealand Dairy Industry: A Non-parametric Approach. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 43, 523-42.

Kalirajan, K. P. and R. T. Shand (1999) Frontier Production Functions and Technical Efficiency Measures. Journal of Economic Surveys 13, 149-72.

Mahmood, T., E. Ghani, and M. Din (2007) Efficiency of Large Scale Manufacturing in Pakistan: A Production Frontier Approach. Pakistan Institute of Development Economics. (Working Paper 27).

Malmquist, S. (1953) Index Numbers and Indifference Curves. Trabajos de Estatistica 4, 1, 209-42.

Pakistan Sugar Mills Association of Pakistan (2007) Annual Report-2007.

Pakistan Sugar Mills Association of Pakistan (2008) Annual Report-2008.

Raheman, A., Talat A., Abdul Q. and A. B. Mahmood (2008) Estimating Total Factor Productivity and Its Components: Evidence from Major Manufacturing Industries of Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review 47:4.

Seiford, L. M. (1996) Data Envelopment Analysis: The Evolution of the State of the Art. Journal of Productivity Analysis 7, 99-137.

Squires, D. and C. Reid (2004) Using Malmquist Indices to Measure Changes in TFP of Purse-Seine Vessels While Accounting for Changes in Capacity Utilisation, The Resource Stock and the Environment. SCTB17 Forum Fisheries Agency. (Working Paper, pp. 1-15).

Wang, J. C. (2006) Corporate Performance Efficiency Investigated by Data Envelopment Analysis and Balanced Scorecard. Journal of American Academy of Business 9:2, 312-18.

Abdul Raheman is PhD Scholar, Department of Managemem Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad and Assistant Professor, University Institute of Management Sciences. PMAS-Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi. Abdul Qayyum is Professor at the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad. Talar Alza is Professor, Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore.
Table 1
Sugarcane Yield of World

Country      Cane Yield (T/ha)   Sugar Recovery (%)

Australia          100.4                13.8
Egypt              110.8                11.5
Brazil             68.4                 14.5
USA                80.2                 11.7
Colombia           80.5                 11.5
Mexico             79.5                 11.6
India              66.9                 9.9
Pakistan           49.0                 9.2
World Avg.         64.4                 10.6

Country      Sugar Yield (t/ha)

Australia          13.85
Egypt              12.74
Brazil              9.91
USA                 9.38
Colombia            9.26
Mexico              9.22
India               6.64
Pakistan            3.54
World Avg.          6.82

Source: www.pakboi.gov.pk/word/Sugar%20.doc

Table 2
Pakistan Sugarcane Area and Yield

                            Produced 000
Year        Area (000 Ha)      Tonnes      Yield per Hectare

1997-98        1,056.2         53,104            50.28
1998-99        1,155.1         55,191            47.78
1999-00        1,009.8         42,000            41.59
2000-01         960.0          43,620            45.40
2001-02         999.7          48,041            48.10
2002-03        1,099.7         52,049            47.30
2003-04        1,074.8         53,800            50.10
2004-05         966.4          43,533            45.00
2005-06         907.0          44,292            48.80
2006-07        1,033.0         54,871            53.12
2007-08        1160.0          61,503            53.02
2008-09        1045.0          55,385            53.00

            Utilisation % by
Year          Sugar Mills

1997-98          77.32
1998-99          77.90
1999-00          69.00
2000-01          67.47
2001-02          76.33
2002-03          80.28
2003-04          81.15
2004-05          73.74
2005-06          67.94
2006-07          73.78
2007-08            --
2008-09            --

Source: Pakistan Sugar Mills Association Annual Report:
2007, 2008.

Table 3
Sugarcane Production and Recovery

            No. of   Cane Crushed   Sugar Made
Year        Mills       Tonnes        Tonnes     Recovery

1997-98       71      41,062,268    3,548,953     8.64%
1998-99       71      42,994,911    3,530,931     8.21%
1999-2000     69      28,982,711    2,414,746     8.33%
2000-01       65      29,408,879    2,466,788     8.39%
2001-02       69      36,708,638    3,197,745     8.71%
2002-03       71      41,786,689    3,652,745     8.74%
2003-04       71      43,661,378    3,997,010     9.15%
2004-05       71      32,101,739    2,922,126     9.10%
2005-06       74      30,090,632    2,588,176     8.59%
2006-07       77      40,483,977    3,516,218     8.69%

Source: Pakistan Sugar Mills Association Annual Report: 2007.

Table 4
Malmquist Index of Firm Means (1998-2007)

                                                  TE     Tech.
No.   Firm                                      Change   Change

1     Adam Sugar Mills Limited                  0.967    1.021
2     Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited              0.996    1.008
3     Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited               1.000    0.996
4     Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                1.000    0.993
5     Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                 0.987    1.007
6     Faran Sugar Mills Limited                 1.000    0.980
7     Habib Sugar Mills Limited                 1.000    1.012
8     Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited          0.983    1.005
9     Husein Sugar Mills Limited                1.001    0.999
10    JDW Sugar Mills Limited                   1.000    0.999
11    Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited              0.979    1.001
12    Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited            0.998    1.058
13    Noon Sugar Mills Limited                  0.991    0.999
14    Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited               1.011    1.008
15    Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited               1.000    0.999
16    Shakarganj Mills Limited                  1.002    1.112
17    Sind Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited          1.000    1.022
18    Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited          1.000    1.008
19    The Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery   0.910    0.998
        Limited
20    The Thal Industries Corporation Limited   1.015    0.937
Mean Sugar Sector                               0.992    1.008

                                                  PE       SE
No.   Firm                                      Change   Change

1     Adam Sugar Mills Limited                  0.978    0.988
2     Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited              0.999    0.997
3     Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited               1.000    1.000
4     Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                1.000    1.000
5     Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                 1.000    0.987
6     Faran Sugar Mills Limited                 1.000    1.000
7     Habib Sugar Mills Limited                 1.000    1.000
8     Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited          0.987    0.996
9     Husein Sugar Mills Limited                0.998    1.003
10    JDW Sugar Mills Limited                   1.000    1.000
11    Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited              0.981    0.998
12    Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited            0.995    1.002
13    Noon Sugar Mills Limited                  0.989    1.002
14    Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited               1.007    1.004
15    Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited               1.000    1.000
16    Shakarganj Mills Limited                  1.000    1.002
17    Sind Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited          1.000    1.000
18    Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited          1.000    1.000
19    The Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery   1.000    0.910
        Limited
20    The Thal Industries Corporation Limited   1.000    1.015
Mean Sugar Sector                               0.997    0.995

                                                 TFP
No.   Firm                                      Change

1     Adam Sugar Mills Limited                  0.987
2     Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited              1.004
3     Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited               0.996
4     Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                0.993
5     Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                 0.993
6     Faran Sugar Mills Limited                 0.980
7     Habib Sugar Mills Limited                 1.012
8     Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited          0.988
9     Husein Sugar Mills Limited                0.999
10    JDW Sugar Mills Limited                   0.999
11    Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited              0.980
12    Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited            1.056
13    Noon Sugar Mills Limited                  0.990
14    Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited               1.019
15    Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited               0.999
16    Shakarganj Mills Limited                  1.114
17    Sind Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited          1.022
18    Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited          1.008
19    The Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery   0.908
        Limited
20    The Thal Industries Corporation Limited   0.951
Mean Sugar Sector                               0.999

Table 5
Malmquist Index of Yearly Means of All Sugar Firm (1998-2007)

Year   TE Change   Tech. Change   PE Change   SE Change   TFP Change

1999     0.998        1.054         0.994       1.005       1.052
2000     0.957        1.036         0.970       0.986       0.991
2001     1.005        0.948         1.016       0.989       0.953
2002     0.969        1.087         0.965       1.004       1.053
2003     1.039        0.999         1.023       1.016       1.038
2004     1.024        0.960         1.015       1.009       0.983
2005     0.985        1.026         0.990       0.995       1.011
2006     0.941        1.022         0.985       0.956       0.962
2007     1.010        0.947         1.014       0.996       0.956
Mean     0.992        1.008         0.997       0.995       0.999

Table 6
Comparative Total Factor Productivity Change in all Sugar Firms
During (1998-2007)

Sector                                             1999    2000

Adam Sugar Mills Limited                          1.101   0.914
Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited                      1.046   0.952
Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                       1.022   1.005
Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                        1.118   0.984
Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                         1.030   0.988
Faran Sugar Mills Limited                         1.034   1.070
Habib Sugar Mills Limited                         0.934   1.020
Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited                  0.992   1.046
Husein Sugar Mills Limited                        1.053   1.096
JDW Sugar Mills Limited                           1.069   0.892
Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited                      1.079   1.023
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited                    0.976   1.025
Noon Sugar Mills Limited                          1.059   1.054
Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                       1.066   0.976
Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                       1.062   0.893
Shakarganj Mills Limited                          1.020   0.961
Sindh Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited                 0.986   1.016
Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited                  0.995   0.978
The Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Limited   1.199   1.005
The Thal Industries Corporation Limited           1.242   0.944
Mean                                              1.052   0.991

Sector                                             2001    2002

Adam Sugar Mills Limited                          1.277   1.082
Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited                      1.056   0.894
Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                       0.947   0.944
Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                        0.748   1.199
Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                         0.995   0.818
Faran Sugar Mills Limited                         1.045   0.768
Habib Sugar Mills Limited                         0.965   0.925
Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited                  0.885   1.138
Husein Sugar Mills Limited                        0.770   1.667
JDW Sugar Mills Limited                           1.284   0.792
Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited                      0.832   1.154
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited                    1.003   1.812
Noon Sugar Mills Limited                          0.935   1.079
Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                       1.051   0.716
Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                       0.966   1.164
Shakarganj Mills Limited                          1.080   1.024
Sindh Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited                 0.974   0.929
Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited                  0.941   1.184
The Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Limited   0.762   1.146
The Thal Industries Corporation Limited           0.762   1.210
Mean                                              0.953   1.053

Sector                                             2003    2004

Adam Sugar Mills Limited                          0.916   0.976
Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited                      1.128   1.087
Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                       1.032   0.990
Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                        0.769   1.222
Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                         1.141   1.062
Faran Sugar Mills Limited                         1.668   0.591
Habib Sugar Mills Limited                         1.063   1.135
Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited                  1.019   1.001
Husein Sugar Mills Limited                        0.794   1.013
JDW Sugar Mills Limited                           1.072   0.998
Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited                      0.888   1.082
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited                    0.943   0.879
Noon Sugar Mills Limited                          0.963   1.007
Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                       1.249   1.131
Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                       0.921   0.985
Shakarganj Mills Limited                          1.085   1.203
Sindh Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited                 1.121   0.871
Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited                  0.840   1.015
The Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Limited   1.124   1.202
The Thal Industries Corporation Limited           1.368   0.565
Mean                                              1.038   0.983

Sector                                             2005    2006

Adam Sugar Mills Limited                          1.020   0.865
Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited                      0.882   1.016
Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                       1.051   1.012
Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                        0.966   0.852
Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                         0.967   1.091
Faran Sugar Mills Limited                         0.892   1.359
Habib Sugar Mills Limited                         0.996   1.125
Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited                  1.067   0.822
Husein Sugar Mills Limited                        0.999   0.874
JDW Sugar Mills Limited                           1.036   0.994
Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited                      1.040   0.979
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited                    1.175   1.064
Noon Sugar Mills Limited                          0.996   0.851
Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                       0.963   1.213
Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                       0.964   0.979
Shakarganj Mills Limited                          1.766   0.984
Sindh Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited                 1.015   1.298
Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited                  1.047   1.013
The Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Limited   0.855   0.387
The Thal Industries Corporation Limited           0.787   0.970
Mean                                              1.011   0.962

Sector                                             2007   Mean

Adam Sugar Mills Limited                          0.811   0.987
Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited                      1.000   1.004
Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                       0.967   0.996
Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                        1.230   0.993
Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                         0.888   0.993
Faran Sugar Mills Limited                         0.789   0.980
Habib Sugar Mills Limited                         0.971   1.012
Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited                  0.964   0.988
Husein Sugar Mills Limited                        0.956   0.999
JDW Sugar Mills Limited                           0.923   0.999
Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited                      0.804   0.980
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited                    0.864   1.056
Noon Sugar Mills Limited                          0.984   0.990
Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                       0.919   1.019
Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                       1.082   0.999
Shakarganj Mills Limited                          1.070   1.114
Sindh Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited                 1.039   1.022
Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited                  1.089   1.008
The Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Limited   0.892   0.908
The Thal Industries Corporation Limited           0.999   0.951
Mean                                              0.956   0.999

Table 7
Comparative Efficiency (Managerial Efficiency) Change in all Sugar
Firms during (1995-2007)

Sector                                      1999    2000    2001

Adam Sugar Mills Limited                   1.000   0.981   1.019
Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited               0.992   0.862   1.169
Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                1.000   0.985   0.995
Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                 1.000   1.000   0.886
Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                  0.984   0.948   1.071
Faran Sugar Mills limited                  1.000   1.000   1.000
Habib Sugar Mills Limited                  0.913   0.920   1.083
Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited           0.954   0.925   1.035
Husein Sugar Mills Limited                 1.016   1.071   0.819
JDW Sugar Mills Limited                    1.000   0.882   1.134
Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited               1.038   0.947   0.930
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited             0.919   1.012   1.053
Noon Sugar Mills Limited                   1.029   0.961   1.049
Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                1.042   0.935   1.116
Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                1.000   1.000   0.977
Shakarganj Mills limited                   0.965   0.912   1.155
Sind Abadcar Sugar Mills Limited           0.944   0.992   1.025
Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited           0.961   0.923   1.011
The Frontier Sugar Mills and               1.135   0.890   0.870
  Distillery Limited
The Thal Industries Corporation Limited    1.097   1.013   0.810
Mean                                       0.998   0.957   1.005

Sector                                      2002    2003    2004

Adam Sugar Mills Limited                   1.000   0.966   0.990
Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited               0.839   1.158   1.030
Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                0.891   1.076   0.951
Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                 1.128   0.814   1.227
Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                  0.789   1.115   1.026
Faran Sugar Mills limited                  0.825   1.212   1.000
Habib Sugar Mills Limited                  0.862   1.094   1.115
Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited           1.063   0.987   1.005
Husein Sugar Mills Limited                 1.221   0.956   1.038
JDW Sugar Mills Limited                    0.951   1.052   1.000
Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited               1.082   0.913   1.075
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited             1.072   0.952   0.843
Noon Sugar Mills Limited                   1.000   1.000   1.000
Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                0.664   1.292   1.127
Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                1.023   1.000   1.000
Shakarganj Mills limited                   0.968   1.033   1.000
Sind Abadcar Sugar Mills Limited           0.878   1.143   0.924
Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited           1.115   0.870   0.987
The Frontier Sugar Mills and               1.074   1.156   1.213
  Distillery Limited
The Thal Industries Corporation Limited    1.136   1.119   1.000
Mean                                       0.969   1.039   1.024

Sector                                      2005    2006    2007

Adam Sugar Mills Limited                   0.996   0.884   0.877
AL Abass Sugar Mills Limited               0.857   1.057   1.061
Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                1.025   1.052   1.034
Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                 0.945   0.862   1.229
Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                  0.936   1.085   0.968
Faran Sugar Mills limited                  1.000   1.000   1.000
Habib Sugar Mills Limited                  0.917   1.085   1.051
Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited           1.041   0.820   1.043
Husein Sugar Mills Limited                 0.967   0.953   1.012
JDW Sugar Mills Limited                    1.000   1.000   1.000
Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited               0.984   1.011   0.857
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited             1.136   1.097   0.933
Noon Sugar Mills Limited                   0.964   0.874   1.052
Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                0.983   1.066   1.000
Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                1.000   1.000   1.000
Shakarganj Mills limited                   1.000   1.000   1.000
Sind Abadcar Sugar Mills Limited           1.122   1.000   1.000
Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited           1.008   1.025   1.127
The Frontier Sugar Mills and               0.871   0.396   0.935
  Distillery Limited
The Thal Industries Corporation Limited    1.000   0.914   1.092
Mean                                       0.985   0.941    1.01

Sector                                     Mean

Adam Sugar Mills Limited                   0.967
AL Abass Sugar Mills Limited               0.996
Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                1.000
Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                 1.000
Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                  0.987
Faran Sugar Mills limited                  1.000
Habib Sugar Mills Limited                  1.000
Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited           0.983
Husein Sugar Mills Limited                 1.001
JDW Sugar Mills Limited                    1.000
Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited               0.979
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited             0.998
Noon Sugar Mills Limited                   0.991
Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                1.011
Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                1.000
Shakarganj Mills limited                   1.002
Sind Abadcar Sugar Mills Limited           1.000
Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited           1.000
The Frontier Sugar Mills and               0.910
  Distillery Limited
The Thal Industries Corporation Limited    1.015
Mean                                       0.992

Table 8
Comparative Technical Change in all Sugar Firms during (1998-2007)

Sector                                      1999    2000    2001

Adam Sugar Mills Limited                   1.101   0.932   1.252
Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited               1.054   1.104   0.903
Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                1.022   1.021   0.952
Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                 1.118   0.984   0.844
Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                  1.047   1.042   0.929
Faran Sugar Mills Limited                  1.034   1.070   1.045
Habib Sugar Mills Limited                  1.024   1.109   0.891
Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited           1.039   1.130   0.855
Husein Sugar Mills Limited                 1.036   1.023   0.941
JDW Sugar Mills Limited                    1.069   1.012   1.132
Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited               1.039   1.080   0.895
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited             1.062   1.013   0.953
Noon Sugar Mills Limited                   1.030   1.097   0.892
Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                1.024   1.043   0.941
Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                1.062   0.893   0.988
Shakarganj Mills limited                   1.057   1.054   0.935
Sind Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited           1.044   1.024   0.950
Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited           1.036   1.059   0.931
The Frontier Sugar Mills and               1.056   1.129   0.876
  Distillery Limited
The Thai Industries Corporation Limited    1.132   0.931   0.940
Mean                                       1.054   1.036   0.948

Sector                                      2002    2003    2004

Adam Sugar Mills Limited                   1.082   0.948   0.986
Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited               1.066   0.974   1.056
Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                1.059   0.959   1.041
Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                 1.063   0.945   0.996
Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                  1.038   1.023   1.035
Faran Sugar Mills Limited                  0.931   1.376   0.591
Habib Sugar Mills Limited                  1.073   0.972   1.018
Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited           1.071   1.032   0.996
Husein Sugar Mills Limited                 1.365   0.831   0.976
JDW Sugar Mills Limited                    0.833   1.019   0.998
Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited               1.067   0.972   1.007
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited             1.691   0.990   1.043
Noon Sugar Mills Limited                   1.079   0.963   1.007
Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                1.079   0.966   1.004
Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                1.137   0.921   0.985
Shakarganj Mills limited                   1.058   1.050   1.203
Sind Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited           1.058   0.981   0.942
Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited           1.063   0.965   1.028
The Frontier Sugar Mills and               1.067   0.972   0.991
  Distillery Limited
The Thai Industries Corporation Limited    1.065   1.223   0.565
Mean                                       1.087   0.999    0.96

Sector                                      2005    2006    2007

Adam Sugar Mills Limited                   1.024   0.979   0.925
Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited               1.030   0.961   0.943
Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                1.026   0.962   0.935
Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                 1.022   0.988   1.001
Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                  1.033   1.005   0.917
Faran Sugar Mills Limited                  0.892   1.359   0.789
Habib Sugar Mills Limited                  1.086   1.037   0.924
Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited           1.025   1.003   0.925
Husein Sugar Mills Limited                 1.033   0.917   0.945
JDW Sugar Mills Limited                    1.036   0.994   0.923
Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited               1.056   0.967   0.938
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited             1.035   0.970   0.926
Noon Sugar Mills Limited                   1.033   0.974   0.936
Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                0.980   1.138   0.919
Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                0.964   0.979   1.082
Shakarganj Mills limited                   1.766   0.984   1.070
Sind Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited           0.904   1.298   1.039
Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited           1.040   0.989   0.966
The Frontier Sugar Mills and               0.982   0.976   0.954
  Distillery Limited
The Thai Industries Corporation Limited    0.787   1.061   0.916
Mean                                       1.026   1.022   0.947

Sector                                     Mean

Adam Sugar Mills Limited                   1.021
Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited               1.008
Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                0.996
Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                 0.993
Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                  1.007
Faran Sugar Mills Limited                  0.980
Habib Sugar Mills Limited                  1.012
Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited           1.005
Husein Sugar Mills Limited                 0.999
JDW Sugar Mills Limited                    0.999
Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited               1.001
Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited             1.058
Noon Sugar Mills Limited                   0.999
Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                1.008
Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                0.999
Shakarganj Mills limited                   1.112
Sind Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited           1.022
Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited           1.008
The Frontier Sugar Mills and               0.998
  Distillery Limited
The Thai Industries Corporation Limited    0.937
Mean                                       1.008

Table 9
Ranking of Sugar Firms Based on Malmquist TFP and its Components

                                                            TFP
Ranking    Industry                                         Change

1          Shakarganj Mills Limited                         1.114
2          Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited                   1.056
3          Sind Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited                 1.022
4          Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                      1.019
5          Habib Sugar Mills Limited                        1.012
6          Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited                 1.008
7          Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited                     1.004
8          Husein Sugar Mills Limited                       0.999
9          1DW Sugar Mills Limited                          0.999
10         Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                      0.999
11         Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                      0.996
12         Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                       0.993
13         Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                        0.993
14         Noon Sugar Mills Limited                         0.990
15         Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited                 0.988
16         Adam Sugar Mills Limited                         0.987
17         Faran Sugar Mills Limited                        0.980
18         Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited                     0.980
19         The Thal Industries Corporation Limited          0.951
20         The Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Limited    0.908

                                                            TE
Ranking    Industry                                         Change

1          The Thal Industries Corporation Limited          1.015
2          Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                      1.011
3          Shakarganj Mills Limited                         1.002
4          Husein Sugar Mills Limited                       1.001
5          Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                      1.000
6          Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                       1.000
7          Faran Sugar Mills Limited                        1.000
8          Habib Sugar Mills Limited                        1.000
9          1DW Sugar Mills Limited                          1.000
10         Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                      1.000
11         Sind Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited                 1.000
12         Tandlianwala Sugar Mills limited                 1.000
13         Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited                   0.998
14         Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited                     0.996
15         Noon Sugar Mills Limited                         0.991
16         Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                        0.987
17         Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited                 0.983
18         Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited                     0.979
19         Adam Sugar Mills Limited                         0.967
20         The Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Limited    0.910

                                                            Tech.
Ranking    Industry                                         Change

1          Shakarganj Mills Limited                         1.112
2          Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited                   1.058
3          Sind Abadgar Sugar Mills Limited                 1.022
4          Adam Sugar Mills Limited                         1.021
5          Habib Sugar Mills Limited                        1.012
6          Al Abass Sugar Mills Limited                     1.008
7          Sanghar Sugar Mills Limited                      1.008
8          Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Limited                 1.008
9          Dewan Sugar Mills Limited                        1.007
10         Haseeb Waqas Sugar Mills Limited                 1.005
11         Kohinoor Sugar Mills Limited                     1.001
12         Husein Sugar Mills Limited                       0.999
13         JDW Sugar Mills Limited                          0.999
14         Noon Sugar Mills Limited                         0.999
15         Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited                      0.999
16         The Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Limited    0.998
17         Al Noor Sugar Mills Limited                      0.996
18         Chashma Sugar Mils Limited                       0.993
19         Faran Sugar Mills Limited                        0.980
20         The Thal Industries Corporation Limited          0.937
Gale Copyright: Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.