No theory: an explanation of the lack of consistency in cross-country health care comparisons using non-parametric estimators

Table 4 Cross-country efficiency rankings in 2000 for 25 countries using common hyperbolic order-α estimator

	Adams et al. (2011) [1]	Gearhart (2016) [8]	González et al. (2010) [9]	Kim & Kang (2014) [13]	Spinks & Hollingsworth (2005, 2009) [22, 23]	Grosskopf et al. (2006) [11]^a	Grosskopf et al. (2006) [11]^b	Grosskopf et al. (2006) [11]^c
Australia	15	22	13	18	23	12	19	22
Belgium	14	15	22	14	25	18	14	16
Canada	20	23	14	16	20	19	15	18
Denmark	19	24	25	19	14	20	23	21
Estonia	6	1	1	24	1	1	2	2
Finland	3	8	15	1	24	4	18	9
France	21	16	16	12	22	22	20	23
Germany	22	17	17	17	19	23	22	24
Greece	16	4	4	3	12	17	8	11
Iceland	10	11	10	7	6	7	24	17
Ireland	5	20	21	23	10	2	4	4
Israel	11	10	9	6	15	10	6	8
Italy	12	9	8	4	21	15	10	13
Japan	1	7	3	11	8	8	16	12
Luxembourg	8	21	6	9	5	3	3	3
Netherlands	17	18	23	10	3	13	13	15
New Zealand	13	12	18	22	11	16	5	6
Poland	2	2	2	8	2	5	1	1
Portugal	23	3	12	5	4	24	25	25
Slovenia	18	6	7	20	7	21	9	7
Spain	4	5	5	13	16	11	17	20
Sweden	7	13	19	2	17	6	12	5
Switzerland	24	19	11	15	9	14	21	19
UK	9	14	20	21	13	9	7	10
US	25	25	24	25	18	25	11	14

This is estimated for the year 2000. These are the efficiency rankings, by country, in 2000, estimated using the hyperbolic order-α estimator
^aGrosskopf et al. [11] refers to utilizing, as inputs, public healthcare expenditures and private healthcare expenditures, both as a percent of per capita GDP
^bGrosskopf et al. [11] refers to utilizing, as inputs, public healthcare expenditures and private healthcare expenditures, both as a percent of per capita GDP; the per capita labor force; and per capita gross capital formation
^cGrosskopf et al. [11] refers to utilizing, as inputs, public healthcare expenditures and private healthcare expenditures, both as a percent of per capita GDP; the per capita labor force; per capita gross capital formation; and the primary education enrollment rate

ISSN: 2191-1991