Banking and Cooperatives in Ecuador: Comparative Evidence of Technical Efficiency and Financial Resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ecuador’s financial system, private banks and savings and credit cooperatives coexist, both playing a key role in financial intermediation and the economic inclusion of traditionally underserved sectors. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these institutions faced unprecedented challenges that tested their adaptability and operational efficiency. In this context, the present study evaluates the technical efficiency of banks and cooperatives in Ecuador over the 2015–2023 period, using a combined approach involving Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and mixed linear models (MLMs). A longitudinal and comparative methodology is adopted, allowing for the analysis of efficiency trends over time and the identification of their main structural determinants. The results show that cooperatives exhibit a higher average technical efficiency than banks, as well as greater resilience during the health crisis. The analysis reveals that operating expenses negatively impact efficiency, while equity and social capital show no significant effects. By combining DEA and MLMs, the study offers a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the factors influencing efficiency, underscoring the importance of tailored policies and institutional strategies focused on resource optimization and continuous improvement. The study concludes that efficiency does not rely solely on size or asset volume, but rather on managerial capacity and organizational adaptability in complex and changing environments.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".