Journal of Productivity Analysis

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 67–89 | Cite as

Combining DEA Window Analysis with the Malmquist Index Approach in a Study of the Canadian Banking Industry

  • Mette Asmild
  • Joseph C. Paradi
  • Vanita Aggarwall
  • Claire Schaffnit
Article

Abstract

The banking industry in Canada is essentially an oligopoly with five large participants controlling about 90% of the market. To evaluate the industry's performance over time, we need to deal with the problem of a small number of DMU's compared to the number of relevant inputs and outputs. To overcome this problem we use data envelopment analysis (DEA) window analysis, whereby efficiency scores for the 20 year period 1981–2000 are obtained. To measure productivity changes over time, Malmquist indices can be calculated from DEA scores. Using DEA window analysis scores, however, raise the question of how to define the “same period frontier” in a DEA window analysis. We show that for both the adjacent and the base period Malmquist index and for all suggested definitions of same period frontier, the standard decomposition into frontier shift and catching up effects gives inappropriate results when Malmquist indices are based on DEA window analysis scores.

DEA window analysis Malmquist index decomposition Canadian banking 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ali, A. A. and L. M. Seiford. (1993). “The Mathematical Approach to Efficiency Analysis.” In H. Fried, C. A. K. Lovell and S. Schmidt (eds.), The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Althin, R. (2001). “Measurement of Productivity Changes: Two Malmquist Index Approaches.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 16, 107–128.Google Scholar
  3. Banker, R. D. and R. M. Thrall. (1992). “Estimation of Returns to Scale using Data Envelopment Analysis.” European Journal of Operational Research 62, 74–84.Google Scholar
  4. Berg, S. A., F. R. Førsund and E. S. Jansen. (1992). “Malmquist Indices of Productivity Growth during the Deregulation of Norwegian Banking, 1980–89.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics (Supplement), 211–228.Google Scholar
  5. Berger, A. N. and D. B. Humphrey. (1997). “Efficiency of Financial Institutions: International Survey and Directions for Future Research.” European Journal of Operational Research 98, 175–212.Google Scholar
  6. Charnes, A., C. T. Clark, W. W. Cooper and B. Golany. (1985). “A Developmental Study of Data Envelopment Analysis in Measuring the Efficiency of Maintenance Units in the U.S. Air Forces.” Annals of Operations Research 2, 95–112.Google Scholar
  7. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper, A. Y. Lewin and L. M. Seiford (eds.) (1994). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper and L. M. Seiford. (1994). “Extension to DEA Models.” In A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, A. Y. Lewin and L. M. Seiford (eds.), Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Charnes, A., W. W. Cooper and E. Rhodes. (1978). “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making Units.” European Journal of Operational Research 2(6), 429–444.Google Scholar
  10. Cook, W. D. and M. Hababou. (2001). “Sales Performance Measurement in Bank Branches.” Omega 29(4), 299–307.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, W. D., M. Hababou and H. J. H. Tuenter. (2000). “Multicomponent Efficiency Measurement and Shared Inputs in Data Envelopment Analysis: An Application to Sales and Service Performance in Bank Branches.” Journal of Productivity Analysis 14(3), 209–224.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, W. W., L. M. Seiford and K. Tone. (2000). Data Envelopment Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, B. Lindgren and P. Roos. (1994). “Productivity Developments in Swedish Hospitals. A Malmquist Output Index Approach.” In A. Charnes, W. W. Cooper, A. Y. Lewin and L. M. Seiford (eds.), Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Fischer, I. (1922). The Making of Index Numbers: A Study of Their Varieties, Tests, and Reliability. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  15. Freedman, C. (1998). The Canadian Banking System. Technical Report No. 81, Bank of Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  16. Førsund, F. R. (1993). “Productivity Growth in Norwegian Ferries.” In H. Fried, C. A. K. Lovell and S. Schmidt (eds.), The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goto, M. and M. Tsutsui. (1998). “Comparison of Productive and Cost Efficiencies Among Japanese and U.S. Electric Utilities.” OMEGA: International Journal of Management Science 26(2), 177–194.Google Scholar
  18. Grifell-Tatje, E. and C. A. K. Lovell. (1995). “A Note on the Malmquist Productivity Index.” Economics Letters 47, 169–175.Google Scholar
  19. Malmquist, S. (1953). “Index Numbers and Indifference Surfaces.” Trabajos de Estadistica 4, 209–242.Google Scholar
  20. Parkan, C. (1987). “Measuring the Efficiency of Service Operations: An Application to Bank Branches.” Engineering Costs and Production Economics 12, 237–242.Google Scholar
  21. Richardson Greenshields. (1995). The Bank Examiner. Equity Research Report, Sept. 1995.Google Scholar
  22. Richardson Greenshields. (1995). Financial Services Monthly Monitor. Equity Research Report, Oct. 1995.Google Scholar
  23. Schaffnit, C., D. Rosen and J. C. Paradi. (1997). “Best Practice Analysis of Bank Branches: An Application of DEA in a Large Canadian Bank.” European Journal of Operational Research 98, 269–289.Google Scholar
  24. Sueyoshi, T. and S. Aoki. (2001). “A Use of Nonparametric Statistic for DEA Frontier Shift: The Kruskal and Wallis Rank Test.” OMEGA: International Journal of Management Science 29, 1–18.Google Scholar
  25. Thompson, R., F. Singleton, R. Thrall and B. Smith. (1986). “Comparative Site Evaluations for Locating a High-Energy Physics Lab in Texas.” Interfaces 16(6), 35–49.Google Scholar
  26. Thore, S., G. Kozmetsky and F. Phillips. (1994). “DEA of Financial Statements Data: The U.S. Computer Industry.” The Journal of Productivity Analysis 5, 229–248.Google Scholar
  27. Tulkens, H. and P. Vanden Eeckaut. (1995). “Non-Parametric Efficiency, Progress and Regress Measures for Panel Data: Methodological Aspects.” European Journal of Operational Research 80, 474–499.Google Scholar
  28. Westergaard, H. (1890). Die Grundzüge der Theorie der Statistik. Jena: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
  29. Wood Gundy Inc. (1995). The Canadian Chartered Banks, Investment Research Report, Sept. 1995.Google Scholar
  30. Yue, P. (1992). “Data Envelopment Analysis and Commercial Bank Performance: A Primer with Applications to Missouri Banks.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, Vol. 74–1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mette Asmild
    • 1
  • Joseph C. Paradi
    • 1
  • Vanita Aggarwall
    • 1
  • Claire Schaffnit
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Management of Technology and EntrepreneurshipUniversity of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations