The efficiency of food crop agriculture is a fairly common and used performance
parameter, efficiency measurement is widely used to answer the challenges of
calculating the size of agricultural crops. This research uses a method called Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to measure technical efficiency. DEA method from one
company is a non-parametric analysis method which aims to measure the level of
efficiency relative to the productivity unit that has the same goal. The productivity unit
is here in the form of a decision-making unit (DMU) where the DMU in this study is
the food crop agriculture sub-sector 29 districts in East Java. The results of this study
can be studied as many as 93.
2. Analysis of Productivity Efficiency of Food Plant Agriculture In East Java Based On Dea Index
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 421 editor@iaeme.com
Agricultural land is needed in increasing the productivity of agricultural crops according
to Irz, Lin, Thirtle, & Wiggins, (2001). East Java Province has agricultural land which
continues to decline throughout the year because it is caused by experts in the function of land
to be residential and industrial. According to Bayyurt & Yılmaz, (2012) even though the
government carried out agricultural land regulation had a negative impact or continued to
decline. However, if the government does not provide a regulation to ban functional experts, it
can be ascertained that the productivity of agricultural crops will decline according toKheir-
El-Din & Heba El-Laithy, (2008).
In addition to agricultural land, the productivity of food crops is urgently needed, and also
requires labor to carry out their production according toTravers & Ma, (1994). Labor also has
a good and bad impact on increasing productivity in the agricultural sector. Because the
higher the number of workers with a little land area will have an impact on decreasing
agricultural productivity in Kheir-El-Din & Heba El-Laithy,(2008). East Java Province must
be aware of this phenomenon, because we know that more and more people cannot work in
the industrial sector and their services will enter the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector
is a sector that does not require high skills(Yutanto, Shonhadj, Ilham, & Ekaningtias, 2018).
Efficiency of food crop agriculture is a performance parameter that is quite often and
commonly used, efficiency measurement is widely used to answer the challenges of
difficulties in calculating measures of food crop agriculture performance. Calculation of the
level of land area, labor, irrigation and rainfall is usually used to show good performance
results, but this calculation is sometimes not included in the criteria of good food crop
agriculture that can answer the problems of food crop agriculture. Measurement of efficiency
of food crop agriculture can be done using nonparametric methods, in this case using an
approach to calculate the efficiency of food crop agriculture, namely Data Envelopment
Analysis (DEA) to analyze the level of efficiency of food crop agriculture from Districts in
East Java according toCooper, Seiford, & Zhu, (2011).
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
According toTravers & Ma, (1994) results of analysis of technological improvements,
prices, fertilizer and irrigation can increase agricultural productivity food crops and reduce
poverty .According to Irz et al., (2001)results of analysis of agricultural growth as well food
crops can be done by adding agricultural land, along with supporting tools.Agricultural
technology should be used to get more and more satisfying results.
According to(Bayyurt & Yılmaz, 2012) the results of the analysis of increasing irrigation
rates and literacy rates in rural areas are two factors, the most important of all is that they
know, the knowledge of agriculture and growing food crops so that it can reduce
poverty.According to Majid, (2004)the results of the analysis of factors in farmer income,
food prices, GINI ratio, labor, total population and inflation can reduce poverty.
According to Kheir-El-Din & Heba El-Laithy, (2008) TFP analysis results reduce
poverty by 0.241 percent , higher productivity of agricultural food crops will result in lower
poverty rates, -1,377 ,increase in yields do not benefit the poor, increase in land results in a
decrease in poverty by 1.464, increase THIS one percent G index will increase poverty by
1.62 percent.According to Bayyurt & Yılmaz, (2012) the results of government
regulation analysis havea positive effect on agricultural efficiency.
Education has a negative influence on agricultural efficiency food crops . The result can
be interpreted that the higher the level of education the more farmers leave the work of
farmers.According toDhrifi, (2014) analysis results of poverty reduction per capital income
of 0.25%, a decrease in household consumption expenditure by 0.21 points, which
3. Abid Muhtarom, Tri Haryanto and Nurul Istifadah
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 422 editor@iaeme.com
decreases poverty level,growth of foodcrop agriculture can reduce poverty by
32% , technology innovation reduces poverty by 18%.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This research uses a method namely Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to measure technical
efficiency. DEA method is a non-parametric analysis method that aims to measure the level of
technical efficiency relative to other production units that have the same objectives. The
production unit is here in the form of a decision making unit (DMU) where the DMU in this
study is a food crop agricultural sub-sector 29 districts in East Java.
This study focuses for 8 years ie in 2010 until 2017. The input variables used in this
research is the area of land and labor (labor), while Productivity become the output
variable. The Linear Programming (LP) function that is carried out in this approach uses the
assumption of output oriented , so the objective function that is applied is the maximizing
function of output with the input level that isceteris paribus. DEA analysis of this one
stage uses MaxDEA 7 Basic software .
In this measurement of technical efficiency, it will use output oriented measurement
with one measurement scale assumption, namely Variable Return to Scale (VRS) with a
DEA one stage approach . A sum is needed to be able to produce technical efficiency values
for each Regency in East Java based on VRS assumptions, but it is also intended to estimate
the value of the efficiency scores of each Regency in East Java from year 20 10 to 2017 .
3.1. Dea Model
The following is a model of technical efficiency analysis assuming VRS with the DEA one
stage approach : VRS Model Measurement of Technical Efficiency Oriented to Output
( Output Oriented )
Max Ф, λФ,
st-Фyi + Qλ ≥ 0
xi - Xλ ≥ 0
I1'λ = 1
λ ≥ 0 ………………… (3.1)
Where : Ф = efficiency score; λ = Ix1 vector constant or obstacle vector; yi = output
vector i; xi = input vector i; Q = Matrix ouput i keselu Ruhan; X = input matrix i overall
The model above is a VRS model with an output-oriented approach where the variable
ukkan shows the calculation of technical efficiency (Coelli, Prasada Rao, O’Donnell, &
Battese, 2005)with a value of Ф between 1 to ∞ (infinity), and Ф - 1 representing proportional
increase in output that can be achieved by DMU with a constant input quantity. λ is I x1
vector of constants and I1'λ = 1 is convexity constraint, with I 1 being I x1 vector of
one. Convexity constraints show that variable return to scale (VRS) which ensures that
companies are inefficient will only be compared with companies that have the same
scale. There is a note that 1 / Ф indicates the value of technical efficiency which assumes
values at interval levels 0 to 1.
4. Analysis of Productivity Efficiency of Food Plant Agriculture In East Java Based On Dea Index
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 423 editor@iaeme.com
4. RESULT AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Results of Estimates on the efficiency of food crop agriculture in East Java
Province
The results of the estimation of technical efficiency describing food crop agriculture using
the DEA method one stage can be seen in graph I. The technical efficiency score ranges from
0 to 1. An assessment of score 1 shows that food crop agriculture reaches an efficient
condition. While food crop agriculture in an ineffective condition has a technical efficiency
score of less than 1.
Graph 1. Productivity of food
Based on Graph I, it can be seen that as many as 93.1 percent (29 districts) in East Java
Province in the period 2010-2017 have an average score of efficiency of less than 0 , 69,
while the rest have achieved an average technical efficiency of more than 0.31.
So that it can be said that food crop agriculture in 2010-2017 estimates inefficiency by 31
percent and has the potential to increase output by 69 percent so that the conditions are
efficient.
Graph I above shows the DEA one stage technical efficiency score in 2010-2017. On the
other hand, Sidoarjo Regency is the most inefficient DMU with the acquisition of an
efficiency score of 0.20-0.25 in 2010-2017. But there is also one Kabupaten Gresik that also
has an ineffective DMU from 29 Regencies in East Java with the acquisition of an efficiency
score of 0.28-0.35 in 2010-2017.
These two districts have a tendency to improve the efficiency of food crops throughout the
year according to Hanaa Kheir-El-Din and Heba El-Laithy (2008) . This is due to the
development of the center of the provincial capital of East Java to the area of Sidoarjo
Regency and Gersik Regency, making it an expert in the function of agricultural land which
used to be an agricultural area and a residential area. Sidoarjo regency has extensive
agricultural land, but because small-scale ownership (subsitaries) by the community makes a
choice to use agricultural land or sell at high prices to the owners of capital to be used as
settlements or industries. If food crops are implemented, the landowners will also be burdened
by high labor costs, rejecting (Irz et al., 2001; Travers & Ma, 1994).
Third, Gresik Regency is an area with almost the majority of its area being
industrial. Agricultural problems there are due to the large size of Litosol land where this type
of soil is very difficult for agriculture. High labor costs compared to agricultural products
make it an obstacle to agricultural productivity according to(Bayyurt & Yılmaz, 2012; Kheir-
El-Din & Heba El-Laithy, 2008),rejected Dhrifi, (2014).
5. Abid Muhtarom, Tri Haryanto and Nurul Istifadah
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 424 editor@iaeme.com
The technical estimation of food crop agriculture in East Java can be seen in Figure 1.
There are 8 efficient districts but in different years. First, Trenggalek District has an efficient
area since 2010-2012 and 2016, where inefficiency occurred in 2013-2015 and 2017. The
problem of food crop farming was broken down that year so that inefficiencies occurred were
experts in the function of land and labor in the high agricultural sector, although this area
contributed the largest regional income (Qi et al., 2018).
Figure 1. Agriculture east java food crops efficiency
Secondly, based on figure 1 efficiency occurred in 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016, while in
2011, 2013 and 2015 there was inefficiency. The problem of food crop farming in Pacitan is
the area of small agricultural land and the small number of workers in the agricultural sector,
plus people who live a lot in subsitant agriculture for personal needs. Third, efficiency occurs
in Malang Regency in 2015, while in 2010-2017 except 2015 agricultural inefficiencies
occur. This problem occurs because the occurrence of expert land functions into settlements is
also due to the large workforce. Fourth, Magetan Regency in 2010 was an agricultural area,
but because experts in land functions were large enough to influence the productivity of
agricultural crops since 2011-2017 and mapping the lack of regional governance that had an
impact on agricultural areas where fertile land became settlements and tourism. Fifth,
Lumajang Regency in 2010 was an area similar to magetan but different types of soil and soil
fertility.
Sixth, Regency Jember in 2010 was East Java's rice barn, but the food crop sector, but the
existence of development made a good area for agriculture to turn into settlements and
industries, so that 2010-2017 continued to decline in productivity. Seventh, Blitar Regency in
2010 happened agricultural efficiency the same problem with Magetan Regency. Eighth,
Banyuwangi Regency in 2010,2013 and 2015 is one of the East Java Province rice barns
because in that year agricultural productivity increased with government regulations that
prohibited the construction of the (Agovino, Cerciello, & Gatto, 2018; Kaim, Cord, & Volk,
2018).
6. Analysis of Productivity Efficiency of Food Plant Agriculture In East Java Based On Dea Index
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 425 editor@iaeme.com
5. CONCLUSION
This is due firstly, because of the development of the center of the provincial capital of East
Java to the area of Sidoarjo Regency and Gersik Regency, it has become an expert in the
function of agricultural land which used to be an agricultural area and a residential
area(Ilham, 2018).
Second, Sidoarjo Regency has extensive agricultural land, but because small-scale
ownership (subsiten) by the community makes a choice to use agricultural land or sell at high
prices to the owners of capital to be used as settlements or industries. If food crops are
implemented, the landowners will also be burdened by high labor costs, rejecting Irz et al.,
(2001); Travers & Ma, (1994).
Third, Gresik Regency is an area with almost the majority of its area
beingindustrial. Agricultural problems there are due to the large size of Litosol land where
this type of soil is very difficult for agriculture. High labor costs compared to agricultural
products make it an obstacle to agricultural productivity according to (Bayyurt & Yılmaz,
2012; Dhrifi, 2014; Kheir-El-Din & Heba El-Laithy, 2008).
ACKNOWLEDGE
Thank you to both parents and extended family, colleagues and siblings, Lamongan Islamic
University and Trunojoyo Madura University, Airlangga University Surabaya Partner and
staff. The Chair of the Doctoral Program in Economics, the Promoter who always supports
and assists in the joys and sorrows. BUDI-DN scholarships that provide financial assistance
REFERENCES
[1] Agovino, M., Cerciello, M., & Gatto, A. (2018). Policy efficiency in the field of food
sustainability. The adjusted food agriculture and nutrition index. Journal of Environmental
Management, 218, 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.058
[2] Bayyurt, N., & Yılmaz, S. (2012). The Impacts of Governance and Education on
Agricultural Efficiency: An International Analysis. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 58, 1158–1165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1097
[3] Bhattarai, M., & Narayanamoorthy, A. (2003). Impact of Irrigation on Agricultural
Growth and Poverty Alleviation: Macro Level Analyses in India. Water Policy Research,
8.
[4] Coelli, T. J., Prasada Rao, D. S., O’Donnell, C. J., & Battese, G. E. (2005). An
introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. An Introduction to Efficiency and
Productivity Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1007/b136381
[5] Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Zhu, J. (2011). Data Envelopment Analysis: History,
Models, and Interpretations. Handbook on Data Envelopment Analysis - International
Series in Operations Research & Management Science (Vol. 164). Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC 2011.
[6] Dhrifi, A. (2014). Agricultural Productivity and Poverty Alleviation: What Role for
Technological Innovation. Journal of Economic and Social Studies, 4(1), 131–151.
https://doi.org/10.14706/JECOSS11418
[7] Ilham, R. (2018). Improve Quality Of E-Loyalty In Online Food Delivery Services : A
CASE OF INDONESIA. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology,
96(15), 4760–4769.
[8] Irz, X., Lin, L., Thirtle, C., & Wiggins, S. (2001). Agricultural Productivity Growth and
Poverty Alleviation Theoretical expectations of the effects of agricultural growth on
poverty. Development Policy Review, 19(4), 449–466.
7. Abid Muhtarom, Tri Haryanto and Nurul Istifadah
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 426 editor@iaeme.com
[9] Kaim, A., Cord, A. F., & Volk, M. (2018). A review of multi-criteria optimization
techniques for agricultural land use allocation. Environmental Modelling and Software,
105(April), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.03.031
[10] Kheir-El-Din, H., & Heba El-Laithy, H. (2008). Agricultural productivity growth
employment and poverty in Egypt. Working Paper Series, 129(129), 34.
[11] Majid, N. (2004). Reaching Millennium Goals: How Well Does Agricultural Productivity
Growth Reduce Poverty? Employment Strategy Papers, 38.
[12] Qi, X., Fu, Y., Wang, R. Y., Ng, C. N., Dang, H., & He, Y. (2018). Improving the
sustainability of agricultural land use: An integrated framework for the conflict between
food security and environmental deterioration. Applied Geography, 90(November 2017),
214–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.12.009
[13] Travers, L., & Ma, J. (1994). Agricultural productivity and rural poverty in China. China
Economic Review, 5(1), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/1043-951X(94)90019-1
[14] Yutanto, H., Shonhadj, N., Ilham, R., & Ekaningtias, D. (2018). Development Of Parking
Accounting Information Systems Based. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 9(8), 1013–1022.
Data source:
[15] https://jatim.bps.go.id/subject/162/produk-domestik-regional-bruto--kabupaten-kota-
.html#subjekViewTab3
[16] http://prasarana.pertanian.go.id/lahanmy/
[17] http://prasarana.pertanian.go.id/tenagakerjamy/?page=home
Table I Review of Previous Research
NO Researcher Country Method used Analysis Results
1 Lee Travers and Jun
Ma (1994)
China -DEA, Dependent variable
(Y): Food
cropproductivity and poverty
Independent variable
(X): technology, labor,
fertilizer and irrigation
-R 2 of 0.833
- food crop agricultural products (+)
-poverty (-)
-technology (-)
workforce (+)
-fertilizer (+)
- irrigation (-)
2 Xavier Irz, Lin Lin,
Colin Thirtle and Steve
Wiggins (2001)
South
Africa
-DEA
-Production: the number of
poor people, the level of
poverty, labor and land
-Poverty: value added / labor
and value added / land
-Proconductivity(+): the number of
poor (-), poverty (-), labor (+) and
land (+)
-Poverty (-): value added / labor (-)
and value added / land (-), R 2 =
0.088
3 Madhusudan Bhattarai
and A.
Narayanamoorthy, ( 200
3 )
India -DEA
-TFP
-Variable variable (Y):
Agricultural cropproductivity a
nd poverty
-Independent variable
(X): Irrigation, selling price,
land area and fertilizer
-costanta (+)
-R 2 = 0.53
- food crop agricultural products (+)
-poverty (-)
- irrigation (-)
-selling price (-)
-fertilizer (+)
- Extensive land area (+)
4 Majid, Nomaan (2004) Sub-
Saharan
Africa
-DEA
-TFP
Dependent variable (Y): Food
cropproductivity and poverty
Independent variable
- R 2 = 0.33
-costanta (+)
- food crop agricultural products (+)
-poverty (-)
- farmer's income (+)
8. Analysis of Productivity Efficiency of Food Plant Agriculture In East Java Based On Dea Index
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 427 editor@iaeme.com
NO Researcher Country Method used Analysis Results
(X): farmer income, food
price, GINI ratio, labor, total
population, irrigation,
technology,
fertilizer,government
policyand inflation
- food prices (-)
-GINI ratio (-)
-labor (-)
-total population (-)
- technology (+)
- Irrigation (+)
-fertilizer (-)
-government policies (+)
-inflation(-)
5 Hanaa Kheir-El-Din and
Heba El-Laithy (2008)
Egypt -DEA
-TFP
Dependent variable (Y):
Productivity, poverty and
technical efficiency.
Independent variable (X):
Land, GINI labor, and capital
(capital input and livestock)
Study: all of Egypt
Productivity (-), poverty (-) and
technical efficiency (-).
Land (-), Labor (-), GINI (+) and
capital (capital input and livestock)
(-)
6 Nizamettin Bayyurta and
Senem Yilmaz (2012)
64 world
bank
countries
-DEA-CRS
-OLS fixed effect
dependent variable (Y) =
government regulation and
education
Independent variable (X):
Land area, fertility / fertilizer,
tractor, labor.
- R-sq: within = 0.0133
- government regulation (+)
-education(-)
-Surface area (-)
- fertility / fertilizer (+)
- tractor (-)
-labor(-).
7 Abdelhafidh
Dhrifi (2013)
Sub
Saharan
Afrika32
Countries
- Simultaneous Equation
Model, SSA, Data Panel
-Poverty:
agricultural cropproduction ,
capital per capita,
technological innovation,
farmer income, farmer
population, and infrastructure
-Agricultural growth:
agricultural production,
technological innovation,
inflation, export-import trade,
education, government
investment.
-Agricultural production:
economic growth,
technological innovation,
irrigation and agricultural
labor.
-Poverty (+): the productivity
offood crops (+), GDP perkapital
(+), Innovations in technology (+),
farmers' income (+), the population
of farmers (+), and infrastructure
(+), R 2 = 0.431, constants 0.213
-Growth in agriculture
(+):agriculturalproductivity (+),
technological innovation (+),
inflation (-), import-export trade
(+), education (+), government
investment (+), R 2= 0.383, -0.041
constants
-agricultural productivity(+):
economic growth (+), technological
innovation (-), irrigation (+) and
farm labor (+), R2 = 0.294, 0.022
constants.
9. Abid Muhtarom, Tri Haryanto and Nurul Istifadah
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 428 editor@iaeme.com