Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Determinants of Bank Performance in Transition Countries: A Data Envelopment Analysis

  • 341 Accesses

  • 2 Citations

Abstract

We analyze what drives bank efficiency in the transition countries of Central Europe and compare the results with those for the United States. This paper is one of the few that use data envelopment analysis for the computation of efficiency scores in transition countries, and, to our knowledge, it is the first to explore systematically how different specifications of data envelopment analysis affect the results. Our findings corroborate the common wisdom that foreign-owned banks operating in transition countries are more efficient than domestic banks. While in the United States large banks are in general more efficient, the result for transition countries depends on the design of data envelopment analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    A DMU is relatively fully efficient or Farrell-efficient “on the basis of available evidence if and only if the performance of other DMUs does not show that some of its inputs or outputs can be improved without worsening some of its other inputs or outputs”, Cooper et al. (2004). The definition avoids reference to prices or assumptions on weights.

  2. 2.

    Note that the assumption of convexity is criticized for there is no reason for this assumption in real terms. That is why non-parametric approaches were enriched by so-called free disposal hull (FDH) method developed by Deprins et al. (1984)—in other words the DEA relaxed of the convexity assumption.

  3. 3.

    Koopmans (1951) definition of technical efficiency is stricter than that of Farrell (1957). The former states that a firm is only technically efficient if it operates on the frontier and furthermore that all associated slacks equal zero.

  4. 4.

    Allocative efficiency is therefore a radial measure of technical efficiency, a ratio of two measures of distance. Radial efficiency measures are unit-invariant, so that changing the units of measurement does not affect the score in value.

References

  1. Ali A, Seiford L (1993) The mathematical programming approach to efficiency analysis. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt S (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency, pp. 120–159. Oxford University Press, New York

  2. Banker R, Charnes A, Cooper W (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 30:1078–1092

  3. Bauer P.W, Berger A.N, Ferrier G.D, Humphrey D.B (1998) Consistency conditions for regulatory analysis of financial institutions: a comparison of frontier efficiency methods. J Econ Bus 50(2):85–114

  4. Berger AN (1995) The profit-structure relationship in banking–tests of market-power and efficient-structure hypotheses. J Money Credit Bank 27(2):404–31

  5. Berger A.N, Mester L.J (2003) Explaining the dramatic changes in performance of US banks: technological change, deregulation, and dynamic changes in competition. J Financial Intermed 12(1):57–95

  6. Caves DW, Christensen LR, Diewert WE (1982a) Multilateral comparisons of output, input, and productivity using superlative index numbers. Econ J 92(365):73–86

  7. Caves DW, Christensen LR, Diewert WE (1982b) Multilateral comparisons of output, input, and productivity using superlative index numbers. Econometrica 50:1393–1414

  8. Charnes A, Clark T, Cooper W, Golany B (1985) A development study of data envelopment analysis in measuring the efficiency of maintenance units in the US Air force. Ann Oper Res 2:95–112

  9. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring efficiency of decision-making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444

  10. Coelli T, Perelman S (1999) A comparison of parametric and non-parametric distance functions: with application to European railways. Eur J Oper Res 117(2):326–339

  11. Coelli TJ, Rao DP, O’Donnell CJ, Battese GE (2005) An Introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc., Berlin, ISBN: 0-387-25895-7

  12. Cooper W, Seiford L, Zhu J (2004) Data envelopment analysis: history, models and interpretations. In: Cooper W, Seiford L, Zhu J (eds) Handbook on data envelopment analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

  13. Cummins JD, Zi H (1997) Comparison of frontier efficiency methods: an application to the US life insurance industry. Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 97-03, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

  14. Deprins D, Simar L, Tulkens H (1984) Measuring labour-efficiency in post offices. In: Marchand M, Pestieau P, Tulkens H (eds) The performance of public enterprises: concepts and measurements. North-Holland, Amsterdam

  15. DeYoung R, Hasan I (1998) The performance of de novo commercial banks: a profit efficiency approach. J Banking Finance 22(5):565–587

  16. Farrell JM (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J Royal Stat Soc 120(1):253–290

  17. Ferrier GD, Grosskopf S, Hayes K, Yaisawarng S (1993) Economies of diversification in the banking industry: a frontier approach. J Monetary Econ 31(2):229–249

  18. Ferrier GD, Lovell CAK (1990) Measuring cost efficiency in banking: econometric and linear programming evidence. J Econ 46(1–2):229–245

  19. Grigorian DA, Manole V (2002) Determinants of commercial bank performance in transition: an application of data envelopment analysis. Policy Res Working Paper Series 2850, The World Bank

  20. Havrylchyk O (2006) Efficiency of the Polish banking industry: foreign versus domestic banks. J Banking Finance 30(7):1975–1996

  21. Humphrey DB, Pulley LB (1997) Banks responses to deregulation: profits, technology, and efficiency. J Money Credit Banking 29(1):73–93

  22. Irsova Z, Havranek T (2011) Bank efficiency in transitional countries: sensitivity to stochastic frontier design. Trans Stud Rev 18(2):230–270

  23. Koopmans T (1951) An analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. In: Koopmans T (ed), Activity analysis of production and allocation, cowles commission for research in economics, Monograph No. 13, Wiley, New York

  24. Kuosmanen T, Post T (2001) Measuring economic efficiency with incomplete price information: with an application to European commercial banks. Eur J Oper Res 134(1):43–58

  25. Kyj L, Isik I (2008) Bank x-efficiency in Ukraine: an analysis of service characteristics and ownership. J Econ Bus 60(4):369–393

  26. Sealey J, Calvin W, Lindley JT (1977) Inputs, outputs, and a theory of production and cost at depository financial institutions. J Finance 32(4):1251–1266

  27. Thompson RG, Brinkmann EJ, Dharmapala PS, Gonzalez-Lima MD, Thrall RM (1997) DEA/AR profit ratios and sensitivity of 100 large US banks. Eur J Oper Res 98(2):213–229

  28. Zhu J (2008) Manual to DEAFrontier: DEA Add-In for Microsoft Excel.mimeo

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Oldrich Dedek, Petr Jakubik, Michal Mejstrik, and seminar participants at Charles University for helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Grant Agency of Charles University (grant #89910) and from the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (grant P402/11/0948). Corresponding author: Zuzana Irsova, zuzana.irsova@ies-prague.org. The views expressed here are ours and not necessarily those of our institutions. All remaining errors are solely our responsibility.

Author information

Correspondence to Zuzana Irsova.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

PDF (220 KB)

About this article

Cite this article

Havranek, T., Irsova, Z. Determinants of Bank Performance in Transition Countries: A Data Envelopment Analysis. Transit Stud Rev 20, 1–17 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11300-013-0270-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Banking
  • Efficiency analysis
  • Data envelopment analysis
  • Central and Eastern Europe
  • Transition countries

JEL Classification

  • C13
  • G21
  • L25