MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399592087 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2024.5.007

Technical and economic efficiency measurement of African commercial banks using data envelopment analysis (DEA)

2024· article· en· W4399592087 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Evans Darko, Nadia Saghi-Zedek, Gervais Thenet

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisAllocative efficiencyLoanReturns to scaleProduction (economics)Scale (ratio)Panel dataBusinessEconomicsVariable (mathematics)EconometricsEconomic efficiencyIndustrial organizationEnvironmental economicsComputer scienceFinanceMicroeconomicsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper aims to analyze the Technical Efficiency of 70 Commercial banks from 19 African countries from 2009-2020. Using the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method of the two main approaches, Variable Return to Scale (VRS) and Constant Return to Scale (CRS) technique on a Panel Data. We find that African banks have a higher efficacy assessment with the VRS than the CRS technique, thus, with a Pure Technical Efficiency (PTE) score than Technical Efficiency (TE) . Our findings show that the majority of the banks are operating at very low levels of efficiency (not technically efficient), and inability to optimize the conversion of bank assets and liabilities into loan production for customers. Furthermore, the banks are operating inefficiently in scale, economic, and allocative manner due to mismatches in scale of production. Considering these findings, the implications of these inefficiencies extend to the overall economic development and financial stability of the region.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207