Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Evaluation and evolution of bank efficiency considering heterogeneity technology: An empirical study from China

  • Zhujia Yin ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Zhujia Yin, Yantuan Yu

    Roles Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Economics and Management, Changsha University of Technology & Science, Changsha, China

    ⨯
  • Yantuan Yu ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Zhujia Yin, Yantuan Yu

    Roles Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

    yantuanyu@hnu.edu.cn

    Affiliation School of Economics and Trade, Hunan University, Changsha, China

    ⨯
  • Jianhuan Huang

    Roles Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision

    Affiliation School of Economics and Trade, Hunan University, Changsha, China

    ⨯

Correction

30 Apr 2019: Yin Z, Yu Y, Huang J (2019) Correction: Evaluation and evolution of bank efficiency considering heterogeneity technology: An empirical study from China. PLOS ONE 14(4): e0216443. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216443 View correction

Abstract

The performances of different types of banks may vary due to heterogeneous technology, which can be examined by metafrontier analysis. However, the metafrontier constructed in most existing literature is concave, resulting in a biased estimation of efficiency. Based on 93 Chinese commercial banks over the period of 2005–2016, we first evaluate the banking efficiency by using the proposed data envelopment analysis (DEA) model, NCMeta-US-NSBM, which simultaneously incorporates a non-concave metafrontier technique, undesirable outputs, and super efficiency into a network slacks-based measure (NSBM) model. Subsequently, the evolution of banking efficiency during the study period is investigated on the basis of the Dagum Gini index and kernel density estimation methods. The main empirical results show the following. 1) There exists significant disparity/heterogeneity in banking efficiency for overall efficiency, productivity efficiency, and profitability efficiency. 2) The results of the technology gap ratio (TGR) and the evaluation of stated-owned banks (SOB), joint-stock banks (JSB), and city commercial banks (CCB) in the productivity stage are higher than those in the profitability stage, indicating that most of the banks have a large space for improvement, especially for SOB and JSB in the profitability stage. 3) The major contribution of the overall difference of banking efficiency in China is the intensity of the transvariation. 4) Although the kernel density estimations for different efficiency scores have similar distributions in corresponding years, the multilevel differentiation phenomenon of banking efficiency may appear after 2008.

Citation: Yin Z, Yu Y, Huang J (2018) Evaluation and evolution of bank efficiency considering heterogeneity technology: An empirical study from China. PLoS ONE 13(10): e0204559. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204559

Editor: Fenghua Wen, Central South University, CHINA

Received: April 15, 2018; Accepted: August 18, 2018; Published: October 2, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Yin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41571524), the National Social Science Foundation of China (No. 15BGL041), the Social Science Foundation of Hunan Province (No. 15YBA014), and the Collaborative Innovation Center for the Development of Modern Services and New Urbanization in Hunan Province (No. CIC1502).

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The improvement of the performance of commercial banks is of great significance for the rational use of financial resources and the enhancement of the comprehensive competitiveness of China’s banking industry. This improvement leads to considerable progress and the development of commercial banks. Intuitively, the efficiency evaluation of banks in China plays a vital role in providing policy implications to managers and decision-makers. Issues related to banking efficiency have long been emphasized in the literature, wherein financial ratio analysis [1], data envelopment analysis (DEA) [2], stochastic semi-nonparametric envelopment of data (StoNED) [3], and stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) [4,5] have been applied to find the production or cost frontier and analyze productivity efficiency. Among these evaluation methods, the DEA (radial or non-radial) is one of the most widely used tools to estimate banking efficiency. Examples include Halkos et al. [1] for Greece; Ohsato et al. [6] and Fukuyama and Weber [7,8] for Japan; Ebrahimnejad et al. [9] for East Virginia; Eken et al. [10] for Turkey; Wu et al. [11] for Canada; Park et al. [12] for Korea; Khodabakhshi et al. [13] and Kwon et al. [14] for the US; Webb [15] for the UK retail Banks; Puri et al. [16–18] for India; Nguyen et al. [19] for Vietnam; Matthews [20], Wang et al. [21], and Zha et al. [22] for China; and Huang et al. [23] for a panel of 17 Central and Eastern European countries.

Decision making units (DMUs) are treated as a ‘black box’ in traditional DEA models, where one of the drawbacks of these approaches is the neglect of intermediate products or linked activities [24, 25]. In fact, some production systems have a network (multiple stages) structure; these include new energy enterprises [26], the iron and steel industry [27, 28], the service industry [29], and commercial banks and supply chains [30, 31]. To open the ‘black box’ and obtain greater insight into the production process, network DEA models have been constructed to analyze the network structure of production. Some examples include Huang et al. [2], Fukuyama et al. [8], Wang et al. [21], Tone et al. [25], Färe et al. [32], Zhu [33], Sexton et al. [34], Lozano [35] and Huang et al. [36]. On the basis of these studies, DEA methods, especially network structures or multistage DEA approaches, attracted interest for measuring banking efficiency from the perspective of macro-, meso-, and micro-levels. However, several key issues should be highlighted when measuring bank efficiency, which are explained in detail as follows.

Although many previous studies have assessed banking performance by considering undesirable outputs (such as non-performing loans; see, for example, Huang et al. [2], Park et al. [12], Zha et al. [22], Fukuyama and Weber [37] and Fukuyama et al. [38]) and super efficiency (Khodabakhshi et al. [13], Andersen et al. [39], Chiu et al. [40], Chen [41], Minh et al. [42], Avkiran et al. [43] and Zhou et al. [44]) either separately or simultaneously [2], these models do not consider both super efficiency and heterogeneous factors, while they assume that banks share a common production frontier. Actually, the production sets of different banks may differ due to differences in physical and capital stocks, as well as the social and economic infrastructure in which the production occurs [45]. If these differences are left out, the measures of banking efficiency may be biased.

Metafrontier analysis is a mainstream approach to consider the heterogeneity of factors [46–48], and it proceeds in two steps. First, banks are classified into different groups according to their internal characteristics (such as state-owned commercial banks, joint-stock commercial banks, and foreign banks), including some stylized environments [49–52] to estimate a group-specific production frontier for each group. Admittedly, external environments such as the spatial effect of tourism building investments on tourist revenues [53], the asymmetric impact of oil price shock on the stock market [54], and portfolio optimization problems [55] also exert influences on the group division. Second, the metafrontier is estimated by enveloping the group-specific frontiers [29, 56, 57]. In their latest work, Chiu et al. [57] developed a new model to decompose the source of metafrontier inefficiency for various banks based on a two-stage network system with undesirable outputs. Their empirical results suggest that foreign banks are less efficient in developed countries, indicating that there are technology gaps among different types of commercial banks. However, the metafrontier constructed in the abovementioned works is concave, and the meta-technology gap may be greater than unity when evaluated by a slack-based measure (SBM) in a two-stage framework. This outcome may occur because the concave metafrontier exhibited some piecewise differences located on the area labeled ‘Infeasible Input-Output combinations’ [58], which is consistent with the indivisibility of technology proposed by Tone and Sahoo [59]. In such cases, it is necessary to extend the concave metafrontier analysis to a non-concave metafrontier one.

Based on the need to include the abovementioned issues in the DEA analytical framework, we propose an innovative measurement approach that incorporates a non-concave metafrontier and undesirable outputs into a slack-based network DEA model (NCMeta-US-NSBM), providing more accurate results and evidence when banking efficiency is estimated. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to consider a non-concave metafrontier, super efficiency, and undesirable outputs in a network SBM framework. The strength of the NCMeta-US-NSBM (compared to traditional DEA models) is its comparability treatment of efficiency of the same DMUs in different years due to possible unobserved exogenous technical changes and the ranks of the efficient DMUs on the efficient frontier.

Methodology

The proposed model

Assuming that the number of observed DMUs (banks) is N and they can be divided into G(G>1) groups in terms of heterogeneous factors, each group contains Ng DMUs and . Furthermore, suppose that there are two stages in the production process of a bank. They are the deposit stage (stage 1) and the loan stage (stage 2), which are also known as the productivity stage and the profitability stage. The efficiency scores of these two stages are called productivity efficiency and profitability efficiency in this study, respectively. Then, each DMU obtains Q intermediate products on the consumption of M original inputs in the productivity stage and utilizes Q intermediate products to produce R desirable and J undesirable outputs in the second stage. These are denoted by vectors x,z,y and b, respectively, where , , , and . We define the intensity variable column for the first stage as , and, for the second stage, the intensity column vector is . All the variables are strictly greater than 0. Fig 1 illustrates the production procedure of a bank.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Two-stage network production process of a bank.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204559.g001

Production possibility sets.

The production possibility sets of the productivity and profitability stages can be given by Eqs (1) and (2).

(1)(2)

By combing (1) and (2), the network production possibility set is (3)

A function that is homogeneous of degree 1 is said to either have constant returns to scale or neither economies or diseconomies of scale. A function that is homogeneous of a degree greater (less) than 1 is said to have either increasing (decreasing) returns to scale or economies (diseconomies) of scale, known collectively as variable returns to scale. If the production function is not homogeneous, the returns to scale can still be determined by summing the respective ratios of the marginal to average products. Holod et al. [60] suggested that the assumption of variable returns to scale (VRS) was a better alternative to constant returns to scale (CRS). Moreover, the performance of the efficiency scores obtained by the assumption of VRS is better than that of the assumption of CRS [61]. Thus, we first estimate the banking efficiency under the assumption of VRS. Specifically, the network production technology of the group frontier g′(g′ = 1,2,⋯,G) under the assumption of VRS can be expressed as follows: (4)

Similarly, the network production technology of the overall DMUs, with respect to the concave metafrontier, under the assumption of VRS assumption can be expressed as follows: (5)

Fig 2 portrays the standard (concave) metafrontier with respect to the two technologies (I and II) in the two-stage setting. It is clear from Fig 2 that the metafrontier can encompass input/output combinations that are not feasible in either of the two technologies. These observations are in the triangle labeled ‘Infeasible Input–Output combinations’ (such as A* and B* in stage 1 and stage 2, respectively; see Fig 2). Tiedemann et al. [58] introduced a non-concave metafrontier (piecewise part of bold form in Fig 2) that enveloped those input–output combinations that are part of the technology set of at least one of the technologies, eliminating the area labeled ‘Infeasible Input–Output combinations.’ They also provided a two-step procedure to estimate a non-concave metafrontier. More details can be found in Huang et al. [62]. This may ensure that the TGR in different stages under the network framework lies in (0,1]. Meanwhile, the TGRs of some DMUs in different stages are greater than unity when considering the concave frontier since it contains the area labeled ‘Infeasible Input–Output combinations’, thus resulting in incorrect and irrational estimations.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Concave and Non-concave metafrontiers in two-stage DEA framework.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204559.g002

Following Tiedemann et al. [58] and Huang et al. [62], we extended the non-concave metafrontier to a network framework, which is expressed as follows: (6)

Consequently, we have the following relationship between , and : (7)

NCMeta-US-NSBM model.

There are two types of models in DEA: radial and non-radial efficiency measures. The shortcoming of the former approach is that it neglects the non-radial input/output slacks (i.e., it cannot provide detailed information regarding the inefficiency of a specific input/output). As indicated by Tone [63], slack-based measures used as non-radial measures can directly address the ‘input excess’ and ‘output shortfall’ problems, where the objective function value can be interpreted as the ratio of mean input and output mix inefficiencies. Slack-based measure approaches can effectively explore the sources of inefficiency behind the operational process of each bank from this point of view. In this subsection, we mainly focus on the proposed model NCMeta-US-NSBM, which simultaneously incorporates the non-concave metafrontier technique, super efficiency, and undesirable outputs into the network slack-based measure model.

Assume that N DMUs (n = 1,2,⋯,N) consist of K divisions (stages). Let Mk be the number of original inputs, Rk and Jk respectively stand for the number of final undesirable and desirable outputs of division, and let Qk be the number of intermediate products (k = 1,2,⋯,K). Denote the link leading from division (k−1) to division k by (k−1,k) and the set of links by L. The observations are (original inputs to DMU n at division k in group g′), (final desirable outputs to DMU n at division k in group g′), (final undesirable outputs to DMU n at division k in group g′) and (linked intermediate product from division (k−1) to division k in group g′), where π(k−1,k) is the number of items in link (k−1,k). Note that demonstrates the outputs from (k−1) and the inputs to k.

With the group frontier and metafrontier defined, we can measure bank efficiency by a Group-US-SBM model by considering the undesirable outputs and super efficiency in the SBM model with respect to the group frontier. The optimal objective value for the oth DMU in group g′(o = 1,2,⋯,Ng′; g′ = 1,2,⋯,G) under the group frontier is estimated as: (8) The same applies for the oth DMU in group g′(o = 1,2,⋯,Ng′; g′ = 1,2,⋯,G) under the concave metafrontier, which is estimated as: (9)

For a two-stage (two-division) bank production procession (that is, K =2), the bad outputs (such as NPLs) are part of stage 2 instead of stage 1. Accordingly, we can also define the divisional efficiency score of each stage with respect to the group frontier as follows: (10) (11) where the slack variables with the superscript “*” denote the optimal slacks of model (8) in the corresponding stages.

The same applies for a concave metafrontier. The divisional efficiency score of each stage is computed as follows: (12) (13) where the slack variables with the superscript “*” denote the optimal slacks of model (9) in the corresponding stages.

The technology gap ratio (TGR) based on the optimal objective values and can be computed as follows: (14)

The TGR with respect to each stage under a concave metafrontier is given by: (15) (16) (17) where tx(sx,τx), ty(sy,τy) and tb(sb,τb) are the slacks of the inputs, desirable outputs, and undesirable outputs with respect to group frontiers (concave metafrontier and non-concave metafrontier), respectively. The term ε is non-Archimedean infinitely small, and the corresponding constraint ensures that the denominator in the objective function is greater than zero. For the sake of considering the continuity of the production activities of the two stages, the linkage between the productivity stage and the profitability stage is added in the proposed models. Specifically, we have: (18)

Considering a non-concave metafrontier, the divisional efficiency score of each stage is computed as follows: (19) (20) where the slack variables with the superscript “*” denote the optimal slacks of model (8) in the corresponding stages.

The technology gap ratio (TGR) based on the optimal objective values and can be computed as follows: (21)

The TGR with respect to each stage under a concave metafrontier is given by: (22) (23)

Dagum’s decomposition and Gini coefficient for subpopulations

The Gini decomposition method proposed by Dagum [64] can be used to describe the sources of between group disparity and the distribution of subsamples free from the influence of sample overlap. Eq (24) below can express it: (24) where yji(yhr) is the efficiency score of a bank in the group j(h), μ is the mean value of banking efficiency, n is the total number of banks, k is the number of groups, and nj(nh) is the number of banks in the group j(h).

The groups must be sorted by their average banking efficiency using Eq (25) before performing Dagum’s decomposition: (25)

The Gini coefficient can be decomposed into three components according to Dagum’s approaches. 1) The contribution of differences within groups Gw (i.e., the spatial differences between the banking efficiency within groups) refers to such differences between groups within SOB, JSB, FB and CCB in China in this study. 2) The contribution of differences between groups Gnb (i.e., the bank efficiency differences between groups) refers to such differences between SOB, JSB, FB and CCB in this study. 3) The contribution of the intensity of transvariation Gt is the overlapping contribution of banking efficiency between groups. The components satisfy G = Gw + Gnb + Gt. Gjj is the Gini coefficient within group j. Gjh is the Gini coefficient between groups j and h. Then, the contribution rate of Gw, Gnb and Gt can be calculated as , and , respectively. (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) where pj = nj/n, , and j = 1,2,⋯,k. Djh is the relative contribution rate of banking efficiency between groups j and h. djh is the difference of the contribution rates of banking efficiency between groups (i.e., the weighted average of all samples with yji − yhr > 0 in groups j and h). pjh is the first-order moment of transvariation (i.e., the weighted average of all samples with yhr − yji > 0 in groups j and h). (32) (33) where Fj and Fh are the cumulative density distribution functions of groups j and h, respectively.

Kernel density estimation

Kernel density estimation (KDE) is an important approach to nonparametric estimation. It describes the general distribution of a random variable using a continuous density curve obtained by estimating its probabilistic density [65]. Specifically, suppose x1,x2,⋯,xn are samples from a continuous population X. Then, the KDE for the population density function f(x) at any point x can be defined as: (34) where K(∙) is the kernel function, and h is the bandwidth. Since the shape of the kernel function has little effect on the accuracy of the estimation result, this study bases its estimation on the Gaussian kernel function [66]: (35)

Empirical analysis

Data sources and variable descriptions

The datasets used in this paper include 93 commercial banks from China’s mainland taken from the Bureau van Dijk (BvD) (Bankscope) over the period of 2005–2016. The appendix includes a sample list. Following previous studies [2, 57], we use three inputs: fixed assets (fixed_asset), equity (equity), and personnel expenses (personnel_expenses). The deposits (deposits) are treated as intermediates in the two-stage network DEA framework. The desirable outputs are gross loans (gross_loans) and other earning assets (other_earning_assets). Non-performing loans (NPLs) are an undesirable output. All financial data are deflated using the GDP deflator with a base = 100 in 2005. The descriptive statistics of all inputs, intermediates, and outputs are summarized in Table 1, which reveals that significant differences exist among banks.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of samples (Unit: Million RMB).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204559.t001

Evaluation and evolution of bank efficiency.

Different groups may reflect different productivity performances, and the efficiency scores may vary among different banks. As reported in Table 2, on average, the pooled descriptive statistics of overall efficiency indicate that SOBs perform the best, followed by JSBs, and the FBs are the worst. However, the productivity efficiency of the JSBs is the highest, followed by SOBs, and the FB’s is the smallest. Meanwhile, the controversy rank can be found in the profitability stage. Thus, for different bank types, the efficiency development is unbalanced, especially for FBs and CCBs, with respect to a non-concave metafrontier. Table 3 presents both a paired t-test and a sign rank test that show that there are significance differences among the four groups in different stages. Consequently, it is necessary to consider heterogeneity when measuring banking efficiency.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Pooled descriptive statistics of overall efficiency and stage efficiencies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204559.t002

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. The comparison of stage efficiencies of different groups.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204559.t003

In terms of the overall efficiency, the TGR of the JSB group is highest at 0.9995, FB comes in second at 0.9982, SOB comes in third at 0.9280, and CCB is the lowest at 0.9012. The metafrontier implies the potential payoffs from the meta-technology for each heterogeneous group [45]. The results of TGR evaluation indicate that JSB achieves 99.95% of the potential payoffs, which is greater than the case with the other technology groups. This indicates that the technology of JSB is the best technology type relative to the other types since it can produce the most outputs under the given input level. The percentages of achievable potential payoffs in FB, SOB and CCB are 99.82%, 92.80% and 90.12%, respectively. Moreover, regarding productivity efficiency (stage 1), the percentages of achievable potential payoffs in SOB, JSB, FB and CCB are 93.77%, 99.98%, 89.73% and 96.87%, respectively This declines to 12.01%, 45.55% and 77.78% for SOB, JSB, and CCB, respectively, with respect to profitability efficiency (stage 2). The above findings indicate that most of the banks have a large space for improvement, especially for SOB and JSB in the profitability stage.

Fig 3 displays the sources and contribution rates of the overall difference in the four groups. Since we mainly focus on the evaluation and evolution of bank efficiency with respect to the non-concave metafrontier, we do not provide the evolution of the banking efficiency with respect to the group frontier and TGR. From 2005 to 2016, the contribution rate of the between group differences and the intensity of transvariation showed a fluctuating tendency, while the within group differences had a contribution rate that was stable. The curve of the intensity of transvariation was always the highest, thus making it the major source of the overall differences in banking efficiency in mainland China. For overall efficiency, productivity efficiency and profitability efficiency, the gap between the group differences and the intensity of transvariation decreased until 2007 and then increased after 2007. However, the contribution rate of the intensity of transvariation is stable and at a lower rate (smaller than 20%) for each type of efficiency.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Evolution of the contribution rate of group disparity (2005–2016).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204559.g003

Fig 4 shows the evolutionary path of the differences in the 93 banks’ efficiencies during 2005–2016. Generally, the basic characteristics of the kernel density curve have similar shapes for the overall efficiency, productivity efficiency and profitability, including the shape of the curve, the location of the curve and the peak values. More importantly, the central point of the density function is located at approximately 0.5, indicating that the level of banking efficiency is not very high overall. In addition, there is one major peak value and the interval of the variation changed little. This indicated that the banking efficiency presents a trend of polarization and the group differences changed little from 2005 to 2016. With regard to the overall efficiency (productivity efficiency and profitability efficiency are similar), we specifically get the following.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Kernel density estimation of overall efficiency, productivity efficiency and profitability efficiency (2005–2016).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204559.g004

Peak values and numbers. From 2005 to 2016, the peaks of the distribution curve showed an increasing trend. The increase of a peak’s corresponding area indicates an increase in each bank’s efficiency in the period. There are a prominent peak and a side peak in 2005, thus indicating that there are significant differences in the banking efficiency in China. In addition, there are a prominent peak and more than one side peak since 2008, thus showing that the multilevel differentiation phenomenon of bank efficiency appears compared to the initial period.

Shape of the curve. The tail of the banking efficiency distribution in China becomes longer over time, thus indicating that the gaps in banking efficiency among different groups are gradually increasing during the study period.

Conclusions and directions for further research

The primary concerns of this paper are the evaluation and evolution of banking efficiency in China over the period of 2005–2016. On the one hand, considering a non-concave metafrontier framework and super efficiency simultaneously in a network SBM model to open the black box of traditional DEA methods provides more accurate and comprehensive measurements of banking efficiency. This paper extends the US-NSBM model introduced by Huang et al. [2] to a new two-stage network model called NCMeta-US-NSBM by combining the model with a non-concave metafrontier, undesirable outputs, and super efficiency. An empirical analysis of the proposed model is provided that is based on the data of Chinese commercial banks from 2005 to 2016 (complete panel data; 93 banks, and 1116 observations). On the other hand, we employ the Dagum Gini index decomposition method and kernel density estimation technique to investigate the evolution of banking efficiency. The main empirical findings are summarized as follows.

First, the statistical analysis shows that the disparity of efficiency occurs in banks in terms of the average level. Therefore, the efficiencies of different bank types are unbalanced. For the overall efficiency, SOB and JSB perform better than FB and CCB. The same conclusion can be found in the productivity stage, but a controversial result is obtained in the profitability stage. Second, both a paired t-test and a sign rank test show that there are significance differences among the four groups for overall efficiency, productivity efficiency and profitability efficiency. Third, the results of the TGR evaluation of SOB, JSB, and CCB in the productivity stage are higher than are those in the profitability stage, indicating that most of the banks have a large space for improvement, especially for SOB and JSB in the profitability stage. Finally, although the kernel density estimations for different efficiency scores have similar distributions in corresponding years, the multilevel differentiation phenomenon of bank efficiency may appear after 2008.

For further research studies, our NCMeta-US-NSBM can be extended to measure and compare productivity changes for banks in different groups under the framework of the Malmquist–Luenberger productivity indicator. With the same metafrontier, these indicators are comparable and can provide insightful information. More specifically, they can show whether productivity change is driven by technological change or efficiency change, which has different implications for managers and policymakers. Essentially, the production process of banking industry may be treated as a complex network or dynamic rather than a two-stage mode or static, and it is a far-reaching attempt to introduce the complex network analysis [67] into the measurement of bank efficiency.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Dataset of 93 banks in the sample.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204559.s001

(DOCX)

S1 Spreadsheet. Excel spreadsheet listing inputs and outputs for the proposed DEA model, along with the measures of banking efficiency.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204559.s002

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41571524), the National Social Science Foundation of China (No. 15BGL041), the Social Science Foundation of Hunan Province (No. 15YBA014), and the Collaborative Innovation Center for the Development of Modern Services and New Urbanization in Hunan Province (No. CIC1502).

References

  1. 1. Halkos G E, Salamouris D S. Efficiency measurement of the Greek commercial banks with the use of financial ratios: a data envelopment analysis approach. Management Accounting Research. 2004; 15(2): 201–224.
  2. 2. Huang J, Chen J, Yin Z. A Network DEA Model with Super Efficiency and Undesirable Outputs: An Application to Bank Efficiency in China. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. 2014.
  3. 3. Eskelinen J, Kuosmanen T. Intertemporal efficiency analysis of sales teams of a bank: stochastic semi-nonparametric approach. Journal of Banking & Finance. 2013; 37(12): 5163–5175.
  4. 4. Hasan M Z, Kamil A A, Mustafa A, Baten M A. A Cobb Douglas stochastic frontier model on measuring domestic bank efficiency in Malaysia. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7(8): e42215. pmid:22900009
  5. 5. Hasan M Z, Kamil A A, Mustafa A, Baten M A. Stochastic frontier model approach for measuring stock market efficiency with different distributions. PloS ONE. 2012; 7(5): e37047. pmid:22629352
  6. 6. Ohsato S, Takahashi M. Management Efficiency in Japanese Regional Banks: A Network DEA. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 172: 511–518.
  7. 7. Fukuyama H, Weber W L. A dynamic network DEA model with an application to Japanese Shinkin banks. Efficiency and productivity growth: Modelling in the financial services industry. 2013; 193–213.
  8. 8. Fukuyama H, Weber W L. Measuring Japanese bank performance: a dynamic network DEA approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis. 2015; 44(3): 249–264.
  9. 9. Ebrahimnejad A, Tavana M, Lotfi F H, Shahverdi R, Yousefpour M. A three-stage data envelopment analysis model with application to banking industry. Measurement. 2014; 49: 308–319.
  10. 10. Eken M H, Kale S. Measuring Bank Branch Performance Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA): The Case of Turkish Bank Branches. Social Science Electronic Publishing. 2011; 5(3): 889–901.
  11. 11. Wu D, Yang Z, Liang L. Using DEA-neural network approach to evaluate branch efficiency of a large Canadian bank. Expert Systems with Applications. 2006; 31(1): 108–115.
  12. 12. Park K H, Weber W L. A note on efficiency and productivity growth in the Korean banking industry, 1992–2002. Journal of Banking & Finance. 2006; 30(8): 2371–2386.
  13. 13. Khodabakhshi M, Asgharian M, Gregoriou G N. An input-oriented super-efficiency measure in stochastic data envelopment analysis: Evaluating chief executive officers of US public banks and thrifts. Expert Systems with Applications. 2010; 37(3): 2092–2097.
  14. 14. Kwon H B, Lee J. Two-stage production modeling of large U.S. banks: A DEA-neural network approach. Expert Systems with Applications. 2015; 42(19): 6758–6766.
  15. 15. Webb R. Levels of efficiency in UK retail banks: a DEA window analysis. International Journal of the Economics of Business. 2003; 10(3): 305–322.
  16. 16. Puri J, Yadav S P. A fuzzy DEA model with undesirable fuzzy outputs and its application to the banking sector in India. Expert Systems with Applications. 2014; 41(14): 6419–6432.
  17. 17. Puri J, Yadav S P, Garg H. A new multi-component DEA approach using common set of weights methodology and imprecise data: an application to public sector banks in India with undesirable and shared resources. Annals of Operations Research. 2017; (11): 1–38.
  18. 18. Puri J, Yadav S P. Improved DEA models in the presence of undesirable outputs and imprecise data: an application to banking industry in India. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering & Management. 2017; (6): 1–22.
  19. 19. Nguyen T P T, Nghiem S H, Roca E, Sharma P. Bank reforms and efficiency in Vietnamese banks: evidence based on SFA and DEA. Applied Economics. 2016; 48(30): 1–14.
  20. 20. Matthews K. Risk management and managerial efficiency in Chinese banks: a network DEA framework. Omega. 2013; 41(2): 207–215.
  21. 21. Wang K, Huang W, Wu J, Liu Y N. Efficiency measures of the Chinese commercial banking system using an additive two-stage DEA. Omega. 2014; 44: 5–20.
  22. 22. Zha Y, Liang N, Wu M, Bian Y. Efficiency evaluation of banks in China: A dynamic two-stage slacks-based measure approach. Omega. 2016; 60: 60–72.
  23. 23. Huang T H, Chiang D L, Tsai C M. Applying the New Metafrontier Directional Distance Function to Compare Banking Efficiencies in Central and Eastern European Countries. Economic Modelling. 2014; 44: 188–199.
  24. 24. Lewis H F, Sexton T R. Network DEA: efficiency analysis of organizations with complex internal structure. Computers & Operations Research. 2004; 31(9): 1365–1410.
  25. 25. Tone K, Tsutsui M. Network DEA: a slacks-based measure approach. European Journal of Operational Research. 2009; 197(1): 243–252.
  26. 26. Wang Q, Hang Y, Sun L, Zhao Z. Two-stage innovation efficiency of new energy enterprises in China: A non-radial DEA approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2016; 112: 254–261.
  27. 27. Yang W, Shao Y, Qiao H, Wang S. An empirical analysis on regional technical efficiency of Chinese steel sector based on network DEA method. Procedia Computer Science. 2014; 31: 615–624.
  28. 28. Yang W, Shi J, Qiao H, Shao Y, Wang S. Regional technical efficiency of Chinese Iron and steel industry based on bootstrap network data envelopment analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 2017; 57: 14–24.
  29. 29. Chiu C R, Lu K H, Tsang S S, Chen Y F. Decomposition of meta-frontier inefficiency in the two-stage network directional distance function with quasi-fixed inputs. International Transactions in Operational Research. 2013; 20(4): 595–611.
  30. 30. Andries A M, Capraru B. Impact of financial liberalization on banking sectors performance from central and eastern European countries. PloS ONE. 2013; 8(3): e59686. pmid:23555745
  31. 31. Liang L, Yang F, Cook W D, Zhu J. DEA models for supply chain efficiency evaluation. Annals of Operations Research. 2006; 145(1): 35–49.
  32. 32. Färe R, Grosskopf S. Network DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. 2000; 34(1): 35–49.
  33. 33. Zhu J. Multi-factor performance measure model with an application to Fortune 500 companies. European Journal of Operational Research. 2000; 123(1): 105–124.
  34. 34. Sexton T R, Lewis H F. Two-stage DEA: An application to major league baseball. Journal of Productivity Analysis. 2013; 19(2–3): 227–249.
  35. 35. Lozano S. Slacks-based inefficiency approach for general networks with bad outputs: An application to the banking sector. Omega. 2016; 60: 73–84.
  36. 36. Huang T H, Lin C I, Chen K C. Evaluating Efficiencies of Chinese Commercial Banks in the Context of Stochastic Multistage Technologies. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal. 2017; 41: 93–110.
  37. 37. Fukuyama H, Weber W L. A slacks-based inefficiency measure for a two-stage system with bad outputs. Omega. 2010; 38(5): 398–409.
  38. 38. Fukuyama H, Matousek R. Modelling bank performance: A network DEA approach. European Journal of Operational Research. 2017; 259(2): 721–732.
  39. 39. Andersen P, Petersen N C. A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Management Science. 1993; 39(10): 1261–1264.
  40. 40. Chiu Y H, Chen Y C, Bai X J. Efficiency and risk in Taiwan banking: SBM super-DEA estimation. Applied Economics. 2011; 43(5): 587–602.
  41. 41. Chen C M. Super efficiencies or super inefficiencies? Insights from a joint computation model for slacks-based measures in DEA. European Journal of Operational Research. 2013; 226(2): 258–267.
  42. 42. Minh N K, Long G T, Hung N V. Efficiency and super-efficiency of commercial banks in Vietnam: performances and determinants. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research. 2013; 30(01): 1250047.
  43. 43. Avkiran N K, Cai L. Identifying distress among banks prior to a major crisis using non-oriented super-SBM. Annals of Operations Research. 2014; 217(1): 31–53.
  44. 44. Zhou L, Zhu S. Research on the Efficiency of Chinese Commercial Banks Based on Undesirable Output and Super-SBM DEA Model. Journal of Mathematical Finance. 2017; 7: 102–120.
  45. 45. O’Donnell C J, Rao D S P, Battese G E. Metafrontier frameworks for the study of firm-level efficiencies and technology ratios. Empirical Economics. 2008; 34(2): 231–255.
  46. 46. Huang J, Xia J, Yu Y, Zhang N. Composite eco-efficiency indicators for China based on data envelopment analysis. Ecological Indicators. 2018; 85: 674–697.
  47. 47. Huang J, Yu Y, Ma C. Energy efficiency convergence in China: catch-up, lock-in and regulatory uniformity. Environmental and Resource Economics. 2017; 1–24.
  48. 48. Wanke P, Barros C P. Efficiency drivers in Brazilian insurance: A two-stage DEA meta frontier-data mining approach. Economic Modelling. 2016; 53: 8–22.
  49. 49. Wen F, He Z, Dai Z, Yang X. Characteristics of investors’ risk preference for stock markets. Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies & Research. 2014; 3(48): 235–254.
  50. 50. Wen F, Xiao J, Huang C, Xia X. Interaction between oil and US dollar exchange rate: nonlinear causality, time-varying influence and structural breaks in volatility. Applied Economics. 2018; 50(3): 319–334.
  51. 51. Wen F, Gong X, Cai S. Forecasting the volatility of crude oil futures using HAR-type models with structural breaks. Energy Economics. 2016; 59: 400–413.
  52. 52. Fievet L, Sornette D. Calibrating emergent phenomena in stock markets with agent based models. PloS ONE. 2018; 13(3): e0193290. pmid:29499049
  53. 53. Zhou M, Liu X, Pan B, Yang X, Wen F, Xia X. Effect of tourism building investments on tourist revenues in China: A spatial panel econometric analysis. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade. 2017; 53(9): 1973–1987.
  54. 54. Hu C, Liu X, Pan B, Chen B, Xia X. Asymmetric Impact of Oil Price Shock on Stock Market in China: A Combination Analysis Based on SVAR Model and NARDL Model. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade. Forthcoming 2017.
  55. 55. Dai Z, Wen F. Some improved sparse and stable portfolio optimization problems. Finance Research Letters. 2018.
  56. 56. Battese G E, Rao D S P, O’Donnell C J. A metafrontier production function for estimation of technical efficiencies and technology gaps for firms operating under different technologies. Journal of Productivity Analysis. 2004; 21(1): 91–103.
  57. 57. Chiu C R, Chiu Y H, Chen Y C, Fang C L. Exploring the source of metafrontier inefficiency for various bank types in the two-stage network system with undesirable output. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal. 2016; 36: 1–13.
  58. 58. Tiedemann T, Francksen T, Latacz-Lohmann U. Assessing the performance of German Bundesliga football players: a non-parametric metafrontier approach. Central European Journal of Operations Research. 2011; 19(4): 571–587.
  59. 59. Tone K, Sahoo B K. Scale, indivisibilities and production function in data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Production Economics. 2003; 84(2): 165–192.
  60. 60. Holod D, Lewis H F. Resolving the deposit dilemma: A new DEA bank efficiency model. Journal of Banking & Finance. 2011; 35(11): 2801–2810.
  61. 61. Chang S C. Returns to scale in DEA models for performance evaluations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2011; 78(8): 1389–1396.
  62. 62. Huang C W, Ting C T, Lin C H, Lin C T. Measuring non-convex metafrontier efficiency in international tourist hotels. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2013; 64(2): 250–259.
  63. 63. Tone K. A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research. 2001; 130(3): 498–509.
  64. 64. Dagum C. A new approach to the decomposition of the Gini income inequality ratio. Empirical Economics. 1997; 22(4): 515–531.
  65. 65. Silverman B W. Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. London: Chapman and Hall; 1986.
    • 66. Lu X, Kuang B, Li J. Regional difference decomposition and policy implications of China's urban land use efficiency under the environmental restriction. Habitat International. 2017.
    • 67. Huang C, Cao J, Wen F, Yang X. Stability Analysis of SIR Model with Distributed Delay on Complex Networks. PloS ONE. 2016, 11(8): 1–22.