UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS

ERASMUS UNVERSITY ROTTERDAM

HO CHI MINH CITY

VIETNAM

INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES

THE NETHERLANDS

VIETNAM – THE NETHERLANDS

PROGRAMME FOR M.A IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF THE

BANKING SECTOR IN VIETNAM

BY

NGUYEN THI PHUONG THAO

MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

HO CHI MINH CITY, NOVEMBER 2015

i

ABSTRACT

This study measures economic efficiency of commercial banks in Viet Nam and its

determinants. The Stochastic Frontier Model is applied for a profit function. We include internal

factors (including price of fund, price of physical capital, price of labor, price of loan and price

of other earning assets) and macroeconomic factors (economic growth, inflation rate, and other

macroeconomic environment variables) in the profit function. The empirical results show that the

efficiency of Vietnamese commercial banks seems to be fluctuated steeply over the period 20082013. In terms of the efficiency of different groups of commercial banks, the profit efficiency of

the State-owned commercial banks and Private commercial banks follow different trend.

Particularly, the state owned commercial bank’s group seems to have extremely higher profit

efficiency score then private commercial bank.

ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

LSDV

Least squares with dummy variables

GLS

Generalized least squares

SFA

Stochastic Frontier Analysis

SFM

Stochastic Frontier Model

DEA

Development Envelopment Analysis

PE

Profit efficiency

CRER

Credit risk

LIQD

Liquidity

CON

Concentration

DEV

Banking development

INF

Inflation rate

GDP

GDP

SIZE

SIZ

PROFIT

Total profit

PBT

Profit before tax

X1

Labor

X2

Capital

X3

Fund

W1

Price of labor

W2

Price of capital

W3

Price of fund

Y1

Loan

Y2

Other earning asset

P1

Price of loan

P2

Price of other earning asset

TE

Technical efficiency

EE

Economic efficiency

AE

Allocative efficiency

Obs

Number of observations

SOBs

State-owned commercial banks

PCBs

Private commercial banks

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Variables of potential correlates of profit efficiency function.................................. 32

Table 3.2: Data sample of observations over period 2008-2013 ............................................... 43

Table 4.1: Overview of variable in profit function .................................................................... 35

Table 4.2: A summary statistics of profit before tax, inputs, outputs and prices used in the

profit efficiency estimation for the whole period 2008-2013 .................................................... 38

Table 4.3: A summary statistics of inputs, outputs and prices used in the profit efficiency

estimations: (million VND units for X1, X2, X3, Y1, Y2) ....................................................... 39

Table 4.4: A summary statistics of potential correlated of profit efficiency ............................. 40

Table 4.5: Potential correlates of profit before tax (PBT) with time-invariant fixed-effects

model.......................................................................................................................................... 41

Table 4.6: Banking profit efficiency scores in the period 2008-2013 with time-invariant fixedeffects model .............................................................................................................................. 42

Table 4.7: Potential correlates profit efficiency through time-invariant fixed-effect model ..... 43

Table 4.8: Potential correlates of profit before tax (PBT) with Cornwell et al (1990) time

varying fixed-effects model ....................................................................................................... 44

Table 4.9: Banking profit efficiency scores in the period 2008-2013 with time-varying Battese

and Coelli (1995) model .......................................................................................................... 45

Table 4.10: Potential correlates profit efficiency with Kumbhakar (1990) time-varying

parametric model (half-normal) ................................................................................................. 46

Table 4.11: Average banking profit efficiency score of 27 commercial bank in Vietnam and its

ranking from 2008 to 2013 ........................................................................................................ 48

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Input-oriented efficiency ...........................................................................................13

Figure 1.2: Output-oriented efficiency ........................................................................................14

Figure 4.1: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and total number of staff (X1) from

2008 to 2013 ................................................................................................................................36

Figure 4.2: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and total fixed - asset (X2) from

2008 to 2013 ................................................................................................................................36

Figure 4.3: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and total deposit from customer

(X3) from 2008 to 2013 ...............................................................................................................36

Figure 4.4: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and total loan from customers (Y1)

from 2008 to 2013 ........................................................................................................................36

Figure 4.5: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and total asset (Y2) from 2008 to

2013..............................................................................................................................................36

Figure 4.6: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and Price of labor (W1) from 2008

to 2013 .........................................................................................................................................36

Figure 4.7: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and Price of capital (W2) from 2008

to 2013 .........................................................................................................................................37

Figure 4.8: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and Price of fund (W3) from 2008

to 2013 .........................................................................................................................................37

Figure 4.9: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and Price of loan (P1) from 2008 to

2013..............................................................................................................................................37

Figure 4.10: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and Price of other earning asset

(P2) from 2008 to 2013 ................................................................................................................37

Figure 4.11: Profit efficiency score from 2009 to 2013 with time-invariant fixed-effects model

......................................................................................................................................................43

Figure 4.12: Profit efficiency score of SOBs, PCBs and all banks from 2009 to 2013 with timevarying Battese and Coelli (1995) model ....................................................................................46

v

LIST OF APPENDIXES:

Appendix 1: List of Vietnamese commercial banks in Vietnam. Data was collected from

www.taichinhvietnam.com and sorted based on their charter capital .........................................57

Appendix 2: The result of estimation about the determinants of banking profit before tax and its

potential correlate through different type of model .....................................................................59

Appendix 3: Descriptive statistics of profit efficiency estimation through different type of model

......................................................................................................................................................67

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATION .......................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v

LIST OF APPENDIXES: .............................................................................................................. vi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 0

1.

Introduction: ......................................................................................................................... 0

2.

Research objective ............................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 2

1.

Theory of the efficiency ....................................................................................................... 2

2.

Reviews of empirical study on bank efficiency ................................................................... 5

2.1 Overview on bank efficiency ............................................................................................ 5

2.2 Determinants of banking efficiency ................................................................................ 7

2.3

Bank efficiency measurement ....................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER III: DATA AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 21

1.

Overview of the banking industry in Vietnam ................................................................... 21

2.

Analytical framework ........................................................................................................ 23

3.

Research method ................................................................................................................ 23

4.

Theoretical Model .............................................................................................................. 23

5.

Estimation Methodology.................................................................................................... 24

6.

Model specification ............................................................................................................ 25

7.

Functional form .................................................................................................................. 26

8.

Profit Efficiency ................................................................................................................. 26

9.

Variables description ......................................................................................................... 28

10. Data sources: ...................................................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................... 35

1.

Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................................... 35

2.

Regression results .............................................................................................................. 38

2.1 Time-invariant fixed-effects model ................................................................................. 38

vii

2.2 Time-varying fixed-effects model ................................................................................. 42

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION..................................................................................................... 47

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 49

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 54

viii

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction:

In most countries, the banking sector is considered as a key indicator to ensure the

national economy operates smoothly. Banking industry is widely considered as the backbone

of an economy and highly regulated in many countries. Banks usually has been considered as

key players in providing capital and stimulating economic development. In the study of

Demirguc & Huizinga (2000), it showed that when an economy is developed at a certain

level, it requires an intensive support from the stable and sustainable national financial

system.

Prior studies in the body of literature indicate that there are a wide range of factors

affecting the bank efficiency which can be classified into two main groups namely external

factors (e.g. macroeconomic factors and industrial factors) and internal factors of commercial

banks (e.g. size, losses, liquidity, and other factors). Particularly, Hasan and Marton (2003)

examines the relationship between the development and efficiency of banking sector while

Hou, Wang, and Zhang (2014) measure the linkages among market structure, risk taking and

efficiency of commercial banks. Due to their importance on the financial sector and their

influence on the national economy, this sector requires a high regulation by the government.

However, in most developing countries like Vietnam, there is lacks of perfect regulation to

support this sector to stabilize and develop. Like other countries, the banking system in

Vietnam provides many products from retail banking such as saving accounts, deposits,

credit/debit card, mortgage, loans to commercial banking such as business loan, capital

equity, risk management, and credit services.

As commercial banks have evolved in Vietnam before the investment banks, this

service is one of the most sensitive business which suffers direct and indirect impacts on

several intrinsic obstacles of the economy as well as the external effects, thus stabilizing the

currency and the banking system play an important factor, primarily in the financial system

stabilization. Therefore, understanding the efficiency of the banking system as well those

factors affecting the banking operations attracts a lot of attention from many economists and

scholars all over the world. In measuring efficiency, people usually choose between technical

efficiency and economic efficiency. We choose economic efficiency as this is more

comprehensive. In this thesis, the profit function is used to measure economic efficiency.

0

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

2.

Research objective

While the capital funds raised for the national economy from those commercial banks

are enormous, limited research was carried out about how these banks operate and whether

they operate efficiently. With a proper measurement about banking efficiency together with a

wealth of predictive determinants will help the public to indicate how well a certain

commercial bank operate in the competitive market like Vietnam. Secondly, by improving

the performance of individual banks, the whole national banking system will function much

more efficiently and effectively. However, at the moment, most of studies focused on

qualifying the efficiency of the commercial banks (Nguyen, Roca, & Sharma, 2004) or

determining certain large-scale economic factors affecting commercial banks (Athanasoglou,

Brissimis, & Delis, 2008) without quantifying these factors to rank these commercial banks

in the global scale. Hence, the aim of this thesis is to verify the connection between the

current financial growth at the national scale and the efficiency performance of commercial

banks in Vietnam.

In details, this thesis is to understand the connection between the economic efficiency

and the economic growth of the banking system based on two following smaller objectives:

How efficient are commercial banks in Vietnam?

Which factors affect the economic efficiency of commercial banks?

This is the research of Vietnamese banks efficiency that will convey the managers to

identify the banks’ weakness as well as the causes of those weaknesses so that they can come

up with the right strategies, which will bring the best result given the same level of resource

inputted. In addition, this will be a useful research to analyze inefficiencies and minimize it in

order to improve the performance of Vietnamese banking industry. Moreover, this research

also demonstrates the reality of Vietnamese banking industry, which will be a useful guide

for foreign investors to start financing their equity in this dynamic industry.

1

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

The concept “efficiency” in general and “bank efficiency” in particular are common

terms in the body of literature of economic discipline. These could be used to refer to the

competitive capability of entities in the economy. The chapter covers a broad review on

foundational theories on efficiency, bank efficiency and characteristics of the terms. The

measurement approaches as well as factors affecting bank efficiency.

1. Theory of the efficiency

In the production economics, the definitions of efficiency and productivity are two

concepts proxy for two different things. Firstly, the definition of “productivity” and

“efficiency” in terms of firm production has to be differentiated. Clearly speaking,

“productivity” considers the entire elements that decide the level of output achieved with the

amount of input given. Efficiency, however, have a different meaning compared to

productivity.

Efficiency includes three types (technical efficiency, allocative efficiency and

economic efficiency). The function of economic efficiency consists of profit efficiency and

cost efficiency. In this study, profit efficiency function is used to measure economic

efficiency.

It relates to the production frontier. This frontier presents the level of output that can

be reached a peak with the same level of input amount. The firm, which produces on this

frontier, will be considered efficiency. Also, going beyond this frontier is unrealistic because

there is a limitation of its performing ability. Similarly, it is inefficient producing below this

frontier. The further distance, the more inefficiency the firm is.

Even though productivity and efficiency are two separate concepts, they are closely

related. Therefore, if the firm expects to improve its productivities, they will have to produce

more efficiently. Other elements that makes the level of productivity are changed in the

quantities and proportion of inputs (changing its scale efficiency), an innovation of

technology (change in technology level), or according (Coelli et al., 2005) we make

combinations between all above factors.

The definition of efficiency is about the transforming performance between the

numbers of inputs into outputs (Forsund & Hjalmarrson, 1979). Hence, the efficiency is

2

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

usually considered as an essential competitive force of entities in an economy such as a

branch, industry, or an entire system. However, as the society gets more advanced, the

definition of efficiency changes to be more specific. For example, Saha & Ravisankar (2000)

focused on the basic stage to measure the value of output at a given amount of input from the

engineering perspective. In order to attain an efficient point, Koopmans (1951) proposed the

necessary of balancing the equivalent unit of different outputs. In other word, the most

efficiency is the point at which one output is used to maximize a given amount of the input.

Given that, Debreu (1951) and Sephard (1953) developed a quantitative measurement of

efficiency for the outputs and inputs respectively. Debreu (1951) measured the distance

between the produced output and the predicted output that could have been produced from a

given amount of inputs while Sephard (1953) measured the difference the actual input and the

minimum possible amount of inputs.

Later, Farrel (1957) brought the measurement of efficiency into the next level by

establishing the distance functions between efficient point and practical producing point – the

theory of Production Possibility Frontier (PPF). Based on the PPF theory, Kablan (2010)

measured the efficiency by measuring the optimal set of points of inputs in order to produce

one unit of output which is defined as the Production Possibility Frontier Line (PPF 8 Line)

and compared with the actual production unit. The firm is called to be efficient only when its

outcome is on the PPF line and vice versus. Moreover, the theory of PPF can also be

approached from two sides: Input-Oriented approach (IO) and Output-Oriented approach

(OO) (Farrell, 1957). While the firm uses IO to measure the minimum amount of inputs to

produce a given set of outputs, OO is used to predict the maximum level of outputs from a

given level of inputs.

Although there is no consensus on the proper results of IO and OO in banking

efficiency measurement, the IO approach is mostly preferred than the OO one because banks

are able to focus on controlling the inputs (cost) rather than relying on the outputs (outcome)

(Dipasha et al., 2012) although there are some exceptions by employing both approaches

(Beccalli, Casu, & Girardone, 2006).

Among the above studies, Farrell (1957) was one of the first pioneer who proposed

the efficiency as a technical term that can be measured by two main elements. Figure 1.1

demonstrates a firm with two inputs X1 and X2, YY’ is an isoquant which shows every

minimum set of inputs that could be used to produce a given output. If a firm operates on this

3

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

isoquant (the frontier), it will be technically efficient in an input-oriented way for the reason

that the inputs amount of this firm is minimized. The iso-cost line CC’ (which can be

constructed when the input-price ratio is known) determines the optimal proportion of inputs

in order to archive lowest cost.

Figure 1.1: Input-oriented efficiency

The first one is technical efficiency (TE) which focus on the ability of bank to achieve

the maximal output with a given fixed set of inputs, Technical efficiency (TE) can be

calculated by the percentage rate of OR/OP, the second one is allocative efficiency (AE)

equals the percentage rate of OS/OR. The multiplication of AE and TE expresses the overall

efficiency of the firm, called economic efficiency (EE) (i.e.EE = AE × TE). Figure 1.2

illustrates the case where the bank uses one input and produces one output. The f(X) curve

determines the maximum output can be obtained by using each level of input X (the frontier).

The firm will be technical efficient operating on this frontier. In this situation, TE equals

BD/BE.

Figure 1.2: Output-oriented efficiency

4

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

Regarding to the concept of efficiency measurement in banking sector, a bank can be

said to be efficient only if it has an ability to produce an expected result with a minimum

effort or resources.

In the body of literature, bank efficiency has been discussed in a variety of studies

from Berger & DeYoung (1997), Berger and Humphrey (1997), Timothy J. Coelli (1998),

and Bonin, Hasan, & Wachte (2005). In order to evaluate the efficiency of commercial banks,

several measurement criteria need to be taken into account such as scale efficiency, allocative

efficiency, productive efficiency, technical efficiency.

However, as knowledge of bank

efficiency has evolved, many factors have to be considered as suggested by Fu et al. (2014),

Berger, Hasan, and Zhou (2009), and Tecles and Tabak (2010). These studies suggested the

bank efficiency measurement can be determined by both internal and external factors.

In summary, the theoretical foundation on efficiency and bank efficiency have been

well-established and attracted a lot of academic interests who not only studied about the

efficiency measurement but also evaluate different determinant of bank efficiency in the

aspect of economic world.

Measurements and analyses of TE were conducted by a huge number of studies with

two main approaches – Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Stochastic Frontier Analysis

(SFA). The next section briefly discusses these two methods.

2. Reviews of empirical study on bank efficiency

2.1 Overview on bank efficiency

Bank efficiency has been applied since 19th century when Sherman and Gold (1985)

applied specific DEA (CCR Model) to analyze the efficiencies of 14 branches of a US

savings bank. Their study was able to indicate six out of 14 branches were operating

inefficiently at that time. Milin Sathye (2002) also applied a similar methodology to measure

the efficiency of 94 India banks during the period of 1997-1998. He developed two

independent models to rank the efficiency based on the variation of inputs and outputs. In the

first model, inputs are expenses, both interest and non-interest while outputs are nominated as

net income accordingly. Hence, compared to the private sector and foreign commercial

banks, the public sector banks have showed a higher score in the average efficiency in India.

In the second model, he designated inputs as deposits and staff numbers, while outputs as net

5

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

loans and non-interest income. As a result, the second model showed the opposite result,

meaning the private sector commercial banks scored a higher mean efficiency than the public

sector ones.

Among the prior studies, the banking efficiency received an greatest academic interest

among many industries (Liadaki & Gaganis, 2010; Saha & Ravisankar, 2000; Yin, Yang, &

Mehran, 2013). As given by Saha and Ravisankar (2000), the bank efficiency is of the most

reliable indicator to drive the competitveness in the banking industry. The authors argued that

the commercial banks require an efficient operation system to gain more chances to sustain

their business. Tecles and Tabak (2010) indicated that the efficiency of the banking sector

plays a vital role in both the finance development sector as well as the economic growth. A

comprehensive review on the efficiency of financial institutions can be seen in the study by

Berger and Humphrey (1997).

Taking into account the banking industry of a specific country, a study by Tecles and

Tabak (2010) measured the level of efficiency of156 commercial banks in Brazil from 2007

to 2010 and determine different bank’s characteristics that are associated with, e.g. size,

ownership, market share, non – performing loans and equity value. As a result, it showed that

the larger size the banks were, the more efficient the banks got. Bank efficiency measurement

has also been applied for the Vietnamese banking system as Vietnam is in the transition

economy with the high economic growth in recent years. Concise evidences can be found

from reports by Nguyen (2011) and Lieu and Vo (2012). Chao and Nguyen (2006), for

example, researched the methodology to evaluate the efficiency of commercial banks in

Vietnam. Labor and various kinds of expense were used to measure the total loans as outputs

and total deposits as inputs for efficiency measurement similarly to model by Milin Sathye

(2002). The results were consistent to other research in the region, meaning, the larger asset

size of banks have exhibited 11 times higher efficiency than the small ones. Ngo (2010) also

conducted a research to estimate the performance of 22 Vietnamese commercial banks in

2008. The study also used labor, capital and funds as well as income for testing variables.

The conclusion is that these banks achieved the average efficiency scores close to the optimal

score, as an evidence for the bank improvement in Vietnam.

Another conduct by Nguyen (2011) focused on measuring the efficiency 20

commercial banks in Vietnam in the 3-year period (2007-2010) with more efficiency

determinants to be evaluated. In details, labor, fixed assets and deposits as inputs, and interest

6

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

and non-interest income as outputs are all taken into account. The finding indicated that the

state-owned banks had lower efficiency scores as compared to their join-stock commercial

banks competitors. Later, a study of Lieu and Vo (2012) showed that since 2006, the

competition between banks was extremely high due to the financial crisis, especially with the

wide fluctuation in in the input value of deposits and changes in the operating efficiencies of

joint stock banks. However, the research scope of the study was still limited as a traditional

methodology was applied in evaluating key financial ratios of commercial banks.

In the recent years, the stock market of Vietnam has been considered as one of the

fastest growing markets among emerging countries, hence more commercial banks has listed

their stocks on on the stock exchange. However, very few studies have focused on the

efficiency of the banking sector in Vietnam due to data limitation. Hence, it is important to

set a standard measurement of banking efficiency of Vietnamese commercial banks which

will provides valuable information for managers, customers and investors.

2.2 Determinants of banking efficiency

2.2.1 Macroeconomic factors

There have been many researches regarding the relationship between macroeconomic

indicators and banking efficiency. As a result, several economic factors are proven to have

the impacts on bank efficiency such as economic growth and stock performance.

For example, Avadi and Arbak (2013) researched the relationship between bank’s

efficiency and economic growth especially in the southern Mediterranean region. After

analyzing insight information and data, they found out that the profits from banking industry

had a huge impact on the economic growth. Also, Ferreira (2012) also conduct a study of the

same topic but in the European. The outcome of this study was the evidence of how the

bank’s cost efficiency affect the economic growth, especially GDP.

Regarding the stock market performance, Beccalli et al., (2006) in his research

suggested that bank’s efficiency also has impacts on the stock market performance. The study

was focused on measuring various European bank’s efficiency and used those results to prove

that changes in cost efficiencies of target banks may cause changes in the prices of bank

shares, that means bank’s efficiency and the stock market are having a relationship, through

which it could create changes to the economy. Similar results could be found in the study by

7

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

Liadaki and Gaganis (2010) who indicate the changes in both cost and profit efficiency have

affected stock prices of commercial banks operating in EU markets over the period from

2002 to 2006.

2.2.2 Banking industry factors

It could be seen that there are a wide range of banking industry factors taken into

consideration with regard to the bank performance in the body of literature. Some common

factors can be indicated such as industry development, industry competition, industry

concentration or industry growth, and other factors. These factors are discussed in several

studies by Athanasoglou, Brissimis, and Delis (2008), Owoputi (2013), and Pulungan and

Yustika ((2014).

A study by Athanasoglou, Brissimis, and Delis (2008) examines the impacts of

industry specific factors and bank profitability of Greek commercial banks over the period

1985 – 2001. Particularly, the authors use two determinants including ownership and

concentration to measure the industry specific indicators; however, they find industry

structure does not significantly affect bank profitability.

Naceur and Omran (2011) investigate the effect of two indicators of the banking

system, namely regulation and competition, on bank margin and cost efficiency across 11

countries over the 1988 – 2005 period. Additionally, taken into account the industry

development indicator, the authors use the size of the credit to private sector as a percentage

of the GDP to measure the impacts of bank financing in the entire economy. The proxies of

the banking sector development seem to have no impacts on the bank market but have

negative signs with the cost efficiency. They conclude that the well – developed banking

sector may lower its operating costs.

2.2.3 Bank Specified factors

There are several factors that can be utilized to measure specific characteristics of the

bank, such as financial leverage, and the bank’s size, equity and risk, etc. However, an

evidence mentioned in an observational studies shows the keen interest between the bank

specific indicators and the performance of the bank (how liquid and profitable it is).

A study conducted by Fu et al., investigates the relationships between the return on

equity and both cost and profit efficiency. Several bank specific factors mentioned above

8

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

were used in the study. The findings indicate that there is a significant influence of the bank

size, market risk and credit risk (bank specific factors). Other bank specific factors, equity to

total assets and return on assets ratios, were also used by Lensink, Meesters, and Naaborg in a

study to examine the impact of both factors on cost efficiency. The researchers examined the

efficiency of the bank and the foreign ownership of a large commercial bank in more than

100 countries (from 1998 to 2003).

In conclusion, many prior studies were taken into consideration when determining the

relationship between macroeconomic factors, and bank specific factors and performance

(ratios). However, it is worth to mention that the researchers have also taken into

consideration that bank efficiency has emerged recently, and that the findings in the

observational studies on bank efficiency and factors are not consistently supported. This leads

to the need of further investigating the relationships between the bank efficiency and

indicators of commercial banks including industry specific and bank specific factors.

2.3

Bank efficiency measurement

In this literature, different methods will be discussed that can be used to measure bank

efficiency. These methods are based on different aspects of bank efficiency. As given by Yin,

Yang, and Mehran (2013), two specific aspects are taken into account for bank efficiency

measurement in terms of achieving the maximization of output or requiring the minimal

inputs. As such two approaches namely the production approach and the intermediation

approach can be applied to determine the bank inputs and outputs (Sufian, 2009; Yin et al.,

2013). Particularly, the production approach considers loan, deposit and other financial

services as inputs and the intermediation approach considers deposits, labors, and capitals as

its input. In the production approach, output variables are bank deposit and loan transactions

while in the intermediation approach, bank loans and investments are known as outputs..

However, as indicated by Yin, Yang, and Mehran (2013) and Thoraneenitiyan and Avkiran

(2009), commercial banks focus on intermediation services rather than physical goods, hence

the intermediation approach will be more appropriately used to measure their bank efficiency.

Regarding to the methodology to measure bank efficiency, many studies have

proposed several methods such as Berger and Humphrey (1997) and Beccalli et al. (2006).

The most traditional and simple method is to use key financial ratios to analyze bank’s

performance. However, due to the increasing input/output determinants in bank efficiency

9

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

measurement, a large number of authors support two more advanced group classes, namely

parametric and nonparametric approaches. Particularly, the nonparametric methods cover two

main approaches which are Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Free Disposal Hull

(FDH). The methods draw a linear connection to rank the best practicing DMUs by

comparing the operation of two different banks in one sample set. These methods do not

require any specific production function and are suitable for a small size of data set. On the

other hand, the parametric method includes Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) or more

advanced techniques such as Thick Frontier Approach (TFA) and Distribution Free Approach

(DFA). The later method requires more variable and specifies a functional form for efficiency

functions such as production function, profit function or cost function. For specific

commercial bank industry in particular to determine its profit efficiency, as commercial

banks do not produce physical goods but provide intermediation services, both the inputs and

outputs of banks must be determined by different groups of inputs and outputs. Among these

above methods, the DEA and SFA are commonly used by many researchers in recent studies

(Kohers, Huang, & Kohers, 2000; Thoraneenitiyan & Avkiran, 2009), hence, the details of

these two methods are given as follow.

2.3.1

Data Envelopment Analysis model and Stochastic frontier model

a. Data Envelopment Analysis model:

The Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), categorized as a non–parametric method, is a

linear programming model. As given by Farrel (1957), the model was developed from the

piecewise -linear convex hull approach and further developed by Charnes, Cooper, and

Rhodes (1978) who employed a mathematical planning model with “constant returns to

scale” (CCR model) to measure the technical efficiency frontier. Then, Banker et al. (1984)

extended the model by providing variable returns to scale and output orientation. In the DEA

method, no functional form for the data is required. It allows a production frontier reflected in

the weights for the inputs and outputs can be calculated.

In the DEA method, how a particular decision making unit (DMU or bank in this

study) operated is examined relative to the other units in the sample. Based on the DMUs or

banks, the production frontier set, is then set to rank from the most efficient banks to the most

inefficient ones using efficiency scores.

10

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

Profit efficiency model

While cost efficiency focuses only on cost, profit efficiency considers both cost and

revenue aspects. Accordingly, the profit efficiency model developed by Färe, Grosskopf, and

Lovell (1988) is employed to measure profit efficiency for bank j as follows.

𝑀𝑎𝑥 ∑𝑠 𝑟𝑗𝑠 𝑦𝑗𝑠 − ∑𝑚 𝑐𝑗𝑚 𝑥𝑗𝑚

Subject to: 𝑥𝑗𝑚 ≥ ∑𝑖 𝑥𝑖𝑚 ƛ𝑖 ∀m, 𝑦𝑗𝑠 ≤ ∑𝑖 𝑦𝑖𝑠 ƛ𝑖 ∀s,

∑𝑛𝑖=1 ƛ𝑖 ƛ ≥ 0

The assumptions to this model is a combination of the optimal output supply vector

y ∗ j = (y ∗ j1 …y ∗ js) and the optimal input demand vector x ∗ j = (x ∗ j1 …x ∗ jm) in a possible

production curve set that the same condition of given input prices c and output prices r, the

profit will be maximized, and the bank j will be the best one when it uses least level of input

to produce optimal output with a bank’s linear combination is obtained, it leads this

hypothetical bank to have an optimal profit P ∗ j = ∑s rjs y ∗ js − ∑m cjm x ∗ jm

which, by

definition, this optimal profit will be equal to or higher than the actual banking profit j (Pj=

∑i rjs yjs

i

− ∑m cjm xjm ). As a result, the banking profit efficiency for j could be calculated

as follows.

𝑃𝐸𝑗 =

∑𝑖 𝑟𝑗𝑠 y𝑗𝑠 − ∑𝑚 𝑐𝑗𝑚 𝑥𝑗𝑚

𝑃𝑗

𝑖

=

∑𝑠 𝑟𝑗𝑠 𝑦 ∗𝑗𝑠 − ∑𝑚 𝑐𝑗𝑚 𝑥 ∗𝑗𝑚

𝑃∗ 𝑗

b. Stochastic frontier model

The first SFA model was developed by Aigner, Lovell and Schmidt (1977) and

Broek, Førsund, Hjalmarsson, and Meeusen (1980) based on the production function

estimation namely the Cobb-Douglas production function. Later, several other functions are

listed in the SFA model including Quadratic, Translog, Generalized Leontief, Normalized

Quadratic, and Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) forms (Griffin, Montgomery, and

Rister, 1987). Among those function, Cobb-Douglas and Translog function are most

commonly used (Jiang et al., 2009; Liadaki & Gaganis, 2010; Yin et al., 2013). Frequently,

the Cobb-Douglas model is used for its parsimony while the Translog model is used for its

11

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

flexibility. More particularly, the Cobb-Douglas functional form assumes there is no change

in the value of production elasticity and other factor substitution; while the Translog

functional form does not. As such, The production function can be tested in the Translog

form to provide more realistic and less restrictive results.

However the Translog model poses some weakness when the number of parameters

increases, it appears cross and squared terms. On the other hand, if the number of

observations is not limited, this increase in parameters leads to the decrease in freedom.

Given that, it is necessary to combine both models provide consistent results of bank

efficiency. Examples can be seen in the study by Kohers et al.(2000), and Thoraneenitiyan

and Avkiran (2009).

Profit efficiency model:

On the other hand, using the SFA methodology, according to Berger and Mester

(1997), the measurement of the profit efficiency model can be quantified similarly to the cost

efficiency model with the exception that the inefficiency values are with a negative sign in

the regression as follow.

Ln𝑍𝑖,𝑡 = f (𝑌𝑖,𝑡 𝑃𝑖,𝑡 ) - 𝑢𝑖,𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖,𝑡

Where 𝑙𝑛𝑍𝑖,𝑡 presents the logarithm of profit efficiency, 𝑢𝑖,𝑡 is the measure of

inefficiency, it is a negative error term since with a higher inefficiency leads to decrease

profit and 𝑢𝑖,𝑡 is always positive. The 𝑣𝑖,𝑡 is the noise component, which is outside the

control of management, assumed to follow a normal distribution.

c. Trade-offs between DEA and SFA

Based on many difference from approaching method, there are many advantages and

disadvantages when we make a choice using DEA or SFA in our research. It means that

researchers have to face the trade-offs when researchers use DEA or SFA to estimate the

study. According to Ray & Mukherjee, 1995 DEA is a non-parametric method, a

deterministic approach, it does not mention about the specification of the production function

meanwhile SFA is a parametric method, a stochastic technique using econometric tools and

must have a model specification of production function. From that key difference, DEA is

considered to be non-statistical, which assumes that the data have no noise. Data noise can

come from measurement errors or random factors which can be controlled by banks. This

12

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

restrict seems to be stubborn in realistic situation. SFA is statistical, so it allows and takes

into account statistical noise. In other words, it is more flexible with real world data, in which

random factors and error in collecting is unavoidable.

Wagstaff, 1989 found that using SFA must satisfy assumptions about the functional

forms, specifications of the model, distribution of parameters and error terms. In DEA

approach, every bank counts as inefficiency operating when every factor that leads the bank

away from its frontier. While in SFA, the residual will be decomposed into two components.

One part, which is not under the control of the firm itself, is accounted to be the noise and has

the zero mean. The other part, which is known as the inefficiency, is the weakness of the

bank which makes it produce below the frontier. So, generally, the efficiency measured from

SFA will be higher relatively (Ferrier & Lovell, 1990). DEA has the advantages with the

ability to be applied in various complicated condition of production. Without the requirement

of a definite production function, it helps simplifying the linkage from inputs to outputs of a

production process. Without statistical properties, no test can be used to test DEA’s goodness

of fit or specification. In spite of having troubles with model specification, SFA still has

econometric tools to test whether the model is suitable or not. The most beneficial advantage

of SFA is the capability of dealing with statistical noise.

Generally, for industries that the production processes are controlled strictly, DEA

seems to be the better choice of measuring efficiency. This is because the random fluctuation

in these industries is minimized and the production process is very stable (from a given

amount of inputs, the number and quality of outputs is likely to be determined precisely). For

those natures of the industries the thesis analyzed, SFA is the better model to be applied. The

next part discusses in detail SFA method with panel data models.

Overall, both the DEA and SFA approach have both advantages as well as

disadvantanges. While the DEA methodology is sufficient to estimate the efficiency of a

given banking system by avoiding misspecification issue. Yin et al. (2013) illustrated that the

DEA approach might lead to some random errors in the ill-defined economic environments.

In fact, Jiang et al. (2009) had suggested that SFA method is reliable in a context of transition

economies. However, given that the SFA approach requires an intensive parametric factors,

profit efficiency calculation might become exhaustive especially with the multi-hierarchy

banking system in developing countries like Vietnam.

13

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

2.3.2

Stochastic frontier model with panel data

In this section, an overview of stochastic frontier model (SFM) with panel data

(repeated observations on each firm) will be present to explain the motivation for the models

in banking efficiency estimation. By using panel data rather than cross-sectional data setting,

estimation techniques can be carried out without strong distribution assumptions on each

variable and repeated observations with panel data can be considered as a substitute of

independence between technical efficiency error and other parameters. This allows the

efficiency measurement to be more robust and consistent (Kumbhabar & Lovell, 2000).

A typical stochastic frontier model firstly developed by Aigner, Lovell and Schmidt

(1977) and Meeusen and van den Broeck (1977) can be written as below:

(1) 𝑦𝑖 = 𝛼 + 𝛽x𝑖 + 𝑣𝑖 − 𝑢𝑖 , i = 1, …, N

Where i is a production unit (firm), 𝑦 is the log of output, x is the log of input, v is

normal noise, and u is a measure of technical inefficiency. Three variables x, v, and u are

assumed to be independent, and v and u are assumed in different types of distributions. The

formula (1) can be computed as follows.

(2) yi = f(xi;β) exp(vi) exp(−ui), i = 1, 2, ..., N.

Later, several authors have generalized this model for the panel data format setting (N firms

in period time T) by applying time parameters in the assumptions on y, x, 𝑣, and u. Here two

main SFA models are considered in which technical efficiency is constant through time

(time-invariant model) or allowed to vary for each firm (time-varying model). Especially,

technical inefficiency error (u) explains differences across different firm performances as

well as the same firm performance in different time periods. While technical efficiency

measurement allows to determine which firms operate efficiency, technical inefficiency error

component permits firms to be able to identify causes of inefficiency and learn how to

become efficient in practice. As a result, several models have been developed in order to

make the most appropriate estimation for the technical inefficiency component.

14

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

a. Time-invariant Technical Efficiency

First, it begins by assuming technical inefficiency ui to be constant over time and

restrictedly non-negative (ui ≥ 0). Based on model (1), the time-invariant SFM model is as

follows.

(3) 𝑦𝑖t = 𝛼 + 𝛽x𝑖t + 𝑣𝑖t − 𝑢𝑖 , i = 1, …, N, t = 1, …, T

A corresponding Cobb-Douglas production frontier reformulated by Aigner and Chu

(1968) can be written as:

(4) ln 𝑦𝑖t = 𝛽0 + ∑ 𝛽n lnx𝑖t + 𝑣𝑖t − 𝑢𝑖 (en)

Furthermore, in order to evaluate the efficiency performance of each model, it is

necessary to estimate the result of changes in other parameters by randomized one parameter

component and see how the technical efficiency can be estimated. There are two models to

estimate time-invariant technical efficiency: fixed effect (FE) or random effect models (RE).

i.

Fixed-effect model by Schmidt and Sickles (1984)

The fixed-effected model is the simplest one which has been developed by Schmidt

and Sickles (1984). In the FE model, the technical inefficiency ui is constant over time but

varying among different firms, hence there is no distribution assumption about technical

inefficiency error ui and all the variables are uncorrelated to each other. Since there is no

distribution assumptions on ui, technical efficiency (TEi) of individual firm can be estimated

by introducing least squares with dummy variables (LSDV) followed by equation (4):

𝛽0 is estimated from 𝛽0 = maxi{ 𝛽0i}

ui is estimated from ui = 𝛽0 - 𝛽0i

TEi is estimated from TEi = exp {-ui}

In the FE model, at least one firm is assumed to be 100% technically efficient and

other firms’ efficiencies are relatively compared to the top firm. The LSDV estimation

method of technical inefficiency component can be consistent as both the number of firms

and time period assessment are large enough (e.g. T ∞ and N ∞).

15

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

ii.

Random-effect model by Schmidt and Sickles (1984)

While in the FE model, the ui is fixed, in the RE model, the ui value is randomly

distributed but with constant mean and variance. This allows the technical inefficiency ui to

vary across different firms but still constant for each firm. Again, all the variables (e.g.

between inefficiency error ui and the input xit, or between inefficiency ui and noise errors vit)

are uncorrelated to each other. Now the model (4) can be written as follows.

(5) ln 𝑦𝑖t = 𝛽0* + ∑n 𝛽n lnxn𝑖t + 𝑣𝑖t − 𝑢𝑖*

It is available to use standard two-step GLS method to evaluate this model in which:

1

ûi* = 𝑇 ∑𝑡𝑛(𝑙𝑛 𝑦𝑖𝑡 − 𝛽̂0∗ − ∑𝑛 𝛽̂𝑛 𝑙𝑛 𝑥𝑛𝑖𝑡 )

ûi = max{ui*}-ui*

Estimation consistency using GLS can be reached when the sample with number of

firms N is large enough, e.g. the measured random effects are uncorrelated from the

regressors. Further test from Hausman and Taylor (1981) can be adopted to verify the

uncorrelatedness between the fixed-effect estimator by LSDV and the random-effect

estimator by GLS.

iii.

Maximum likelihood model by Pitt and Lee (1981)

For time-invariant technical efficiency, a conventional maximum likelihood method

can be adapted to estimate the effect β and the technical inefficiency error ui by making

independent distribution assumptions for botherror components, the idiosyncratic noise vit

and technical inefficiency term ui. There are several distributional assumption models that

can be used in the maximum likelihood method including normal-half normal, normalexponential, normal-gamma, and normal-truncated normal models. Pitt and Lee (1981) was

the first one to formulate and estimate time-invariant panel data model using the normal-half

normal distributional assumption.

b. Time-varying technical efficiency

In a competitive operating environment like financial services, the assumption of

time-invariant efficiency sometimes is unrealistic, e.g. it is unlikely that technical inefficiency

term remains unchanged especially through a long time panel data setting (Cornwell et al.

16

ERASMUS UNVERSITY ROTTERDAM

HO CHI MINH CITY

VIETNAM

INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL STUDIES

THE NETHERLANDS

VIETNAM – THE NETHERLANDS

PROGRAMME FOR M.A IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF THE

BANKING SECTOR IN VIETNAM

BY

NGUYEN THI PHUONG THAO

MASTER OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

HO CHI MINH CITY, NOVEMBER 2015

i

ABSTRACT

This study measures economic efficiency of commercial banks in Viet Nam and its

determinants. The Stochastic Frontier Model is applied for a profit function. We include internal

factors (including price of fund, price of physical capital, price of labor, price of loan and price

of other earning assets) and macroeconomic factors (economic growth, inflation rate, and other

macroeconomic environment variables) in the profit function. The empirical results show that the

efficiency of Vietnamese commercial banks seems to be fluctuated steeply over the period 20082013. In terms of the efficiency of different groups of commercial banks, the profit efficiency of

the State-owned commercial banks and Private commercial banks follow different trend.

Particularly, the state owned commercial bank’s group seems to have extremely higher profit

efficiency score then private commercial bank.

ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

LSDV

Least squares with dummy variables

GLS

Generalized least squares

SFA

Stochastic Frontier Analysis

SFM

Stochastic Frontier Model

DEA

Development Envelopment Analysis

PE

Profit efficiency

CRER

Credit risk

LIQD

Liquidity

CON

Concentration

DEV

Banking development

INF

Inflation rate

GDP

GDP

SIZE

SIZ

PROFIT

Total profit

PBT

Profit before tax

X1

Labor

X2

Capital

X3

Fund

W1

Price of labor

W2

Price of capital

W3

Price of fund

Y1

Loan

Y2

Other earning asset

P1

Price of loan

P2

Price of other earning asset

TE

Technical efficiency

EE

Economic efficiency

AE

Allocative efficiency

Obs

Number of observations

SOBs

State-owned commercial banks

PCBs

Private commercial banks

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Variables of potential correlates of profit efficiency function.................................. 32

Table 3.2: Data sample of observations over period 2008-2013 ............................................... 43

Table 4.1: Overview of variable in profit function .................................................................... 35

Table 4.2: A summary statistics of profit before tax, inputs, outputs and prices used in the

profit efficiency estimation for the whole period 2008-2013 .................................................... 38

Table 4.3: A summary statistics of inputs, outputs and prices used in the profit efficiency

estimations: (million VND units for X1, X2, X3, Y1, Y2) ....................................................... 39

Table 4.4: A summary statistics of potential correlated of profit efficiency ............................. 40

Table 4.5: Potential correlates of profit before tax (PBT) with time-invariant fixed-effects

model.......................................................................................................................................... 41

Table 4.6: Banking profit efficiency scores in the period 2008-2013 with time-invariant fixedeffects model .............................................................................................................................. 42

Table 4.7: Potential correlates profit efficiency through time-invariant fixed-effect model ..... 43

Table 4.8: Potential correlates of profit before tax (PBT) with Cornwell et al (1990) time

varying fixed-effects model ....................................................................................................... 44

Table 4.9: Banking profit efficiency scores in the period 2008-2013 with time-varying Battese

and Coelli (1995) model .......................................................................................................... 45

Table 4.10: Potential correlates profit efficiency with Kumbhakar (1990) time-varying

parametric model (half-normal) ................................................................................................. 46

Table 4.11: Average banking profit efficiency score of 27 commercial bank in Vietnam and its

ranking from 2008 to 2013 ........................................................................................................ 48

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Input-oriented efficiency ...........................................................................................13

Figure 1.2: Output-oriented efficiency ........................................................................................14

Figure 4.1: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and total number of staff (X1) from

2008 to 2013 ................................................................................................................................36

Figure 4.2: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and total fixed - asset (X2) from

2008 to 2013 ................................................................................................................................36

Figure 4.3: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and total deposit from customer

(X3) from 2008 to 2013 ...............................................................................................................36

Figure 4.4: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and total loan from customers (Y1)

from 2008 to 2013 ........................................................................................................................36

Figure 4.5: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and total asset (Y2) from 2008 to

2013..............................................................................................................................................36

Figure 4.6: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and Price of labor (W1) from 2008

to 2013 .........................................................................................................................................36

Figure 4.7: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and Price of capital (W2) from 2008

to 2013 .........................................................................................................................................37

Figure 4.8: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and Price of fund (W3) from 2008

to 2013 .........................................................................................................................................37

Figure 4.9: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and Price of loan (P1) from 2008 to

2013..............................................................................................................................................37

Figure 4.10: Graph of scatter between Profit before tax (Pbt) and Price of other earning asset

(P2) from 2008 to 2013 ................................................................................................................37

Figure 4.11: Profit efficiency score from 2009 to 2013 with time-invariant fixed-effects model

......................................................................................................................................................43

Figure 4.12: Profit efficiency score of SOBs, PCBs and all banks from 2009 to 2013 with timevarying Battese and Coelli (1995) model ....................................................................................46

v

LIST OF APPENDIXES:

Appendix 1: List of Vietnamese commercial banks in Vietnam. Data was collected from

www.taichinhvietnam.com and sorted based on their charter capital .........................................57

Appendix 2: The result of estimation about the determinants of banking profit before tax and its

potential correlate through different type of model .....................................................................59

Appendix 3: Descriptive statistics of profit efficiency estimation through different type of model

......................................................................................................................................................67

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATION .......................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ v

LIST OF APPENDIXES: .............................................................................................................. vi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 0

1.

Introduction: ......................................................................................................................... 0

2.

Research objective ............................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 2

1.

Theory of the efficiency ....................................................................................................... 2

2.

Reviews of empirical study on bank efficiency ................................................................... 5

2.1 Overview on bank efficiency ............................................................................................ 5

2.2 Determinants of banking efficiency ................................................................................ 7

2.3

Bank efficiency measurement ....................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER III: DATA AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 21

1.

Overview of the banking industry in Vietnam ................................................................... 21

2.

Analytical framework ........................................................................................................ 23

3.

Research method ................................................................................................................ 23

4.

Theoretical Model .............................................................................................................. 23

5.

Estimation Methodology.................................................................................................... 24

6.

Model specification ............................................................................................................ 25

7.

Functional form .................................................................................................................. 26

8.

Profit Efficiency ................................................................................................................. 26

9.

Variables description ......................................................................................................... 28

10. Data sources: ...................................................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................... 35

1.

Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................................... 35

2.

Regression results .............................................................................................................. 38

2.1 Time-invariant fixed-effects model ................................................................................. 38

vii

2.2 Time-varying fixed-effects model ................................................................................. 42

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION..................................................................................................... 47

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 49

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 54

viii

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction:

In most countries, the banking sector is considered as a key indicator to ensure the

national economy operates smoothly. Banking industry is widely considered as the backbone

of an economy and highly regulated in many countries. Banks usually has been considered as

key players in providing capital and stimulating economic development. In the study of

Demirguc & Huizinga (2000), it showed that when an economy is developed at a certain

level, it requires an intensive support from the stable and sustainable national financial

system.

Prior studies in the body of literature indicate that there are a wide range of factors

affecting the bank efficiency which can be classified into two main groups namely external

factors (e.g. macroeconomic factors and industrial factors) and internal factors of commercial

banks (e.g. size, losses, liquidity, and other factors). Particularly, Hasan and Marton (2003)

examines the relationship between the development and efficiency of banking sector while

Hou, Wang, and Zhang (2014) measure the linkages among market structure, risk taking and

efficiency of commercial banks. Due to their importance on the financial sector and their

influence on the national economy, this sector requires a high regulation by the government.

However, in most developing countries like Vietnam, there is lacks of perfect regulation to

support this sector to stabilize and develop. Like other countries, the banking system in

Vietnam provides many products from retail banking such as saving accounts, deposits,

credit/debit card, mortgage, loans to commercial banking such as business loan, capital

equity, risk management, and credit services.

As commercial banks have evolved in Vietnam before the investment banks, this

service is one of the most sensitive business which suffers direct and indirect impacts on

several intrinsic obstacles of the economy as well as the external effects, thus stabilizing the

currency and the banking system play an important factor, primarily in the financial system

stabilization. Therefore, understanding the efficiency of the banking system as well those

factors affecting the banking operations attracts a lot of attention from many economists and

scholars all over the world. In measuring efficiency, people usually choose between technical

efficiency and economic efficiency. We choose economic efficiency as this is more

comprehensive. In this thesis, the profit function is used to measure economic efficiency.

0

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

2.

Research objective

While the capital funds raised for the national economy from those commercial banks

are enormous, limited research was carried out about how these banks operate and whether

they operate efficiently. With a proper measurement about banking efficiency together with a

wealth of predictive determinants will help the public to indicate how well a certain

commercial bank operate in the competitive market like Vietnam. Secondly, by improving

the performance of individual banks, the whole national banking system will function much

more efficiently and effectively. However, at the moment, most of studies focused on

qualifying the efficiency of the commercial banks (Nguyen, Roca, & Sharma, 2004) or

determining certain large-scale economic factors affecting commercial banks (Athanasoglou,

Brissimis, & Delis, 2008) without quantifying these factors to rank these commercial banks

in the global scale. Hence, the aim of this thesis is to verify the connection between the

current financial growth at the national scale and the efficiency performance of commercial

banks in Vietnam.

In details, this thesis is to understand the connection between the economic efficiency

and the economic growth of the banking system based on two following smaller objectives:

How efficient are commercial banks in Vietnam?

Which factors affect the economic efficiency of commercial banks?

This is the research of Vietnamese banks efficiency that will convey the managers to

identify the banks’ weakness as well as the causes of those weaknesses so that they can come

up with the right strategies, which will bring the best result given the same level of resource

inputted. In addition, this will be a useful research to analyze inefficiencies and minimize it in

order to improve the performance of Vietnamese banking industry. Moreover, this research

also demonstrates the reality of Vietnamese banking industry, which will be a useful guide

for foreign investors to start financing their equity in this dynamic industry.

1

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

The concept “efficiency” in general and “bank efficiency” in particular are common

terms in the body of literature of economic discipline. These could be used to refer to the

competitive capability of entities in the economy. The chapter covers a broad review on

foundational theories on efficiency, bank efficiency and characteristics of the terms. The

measurement approaches as well as factors affecting bank efficiency.

1. Theory of the efficiency

In the production economics, the definitions of efficiency and productivity are two

concepts proxy for two different things. Firstly, the definition of “productivity” and

“efficiency” in terms of firm production has to be differentiated. Clearly speaking,

“productivity” considers the entire elements that decide the level of output achieved with the

amount of input given. Efficiency, however, have a different meaning compared to

productivity.

Efficiency includes three types (technical efficiency, allocative efficiency and

economic efficiency). The function of economic efficiency consists of profit efficiency and

cost efficiency. In this study, profit efficiency function is used to measure economic

efficiency.

It relates to the production frontier. This frontier presents the level of output that can

be reached a peak with the same level of input amount. The firm, which produces on this

frontier, will be considered efficiency. Also, going beyond this frontier is unrealistic because

there is a limitation of its performing ability. Similarly, it is inefficient producing below this

frontier. The further distance, the more inefficiency the firm is.

Even though productivity and efficiency are two separate concepts, they are closely

related. Therefore, if the firm expects to improve its productivities, they will have to produce

more efficiently. Other elements that makes the level of productivity are changed in the

quantities and proportion of inputs (changing its scale efficiency), an innovation of

technology (change in technology level), or according (Coelli et al., 2005) we make

combinations between all above factors.

The definition of efficiency is about the transforming performance between the

numbers of inputs into outputs (Forsund & Hjalmarrson, 1979). Hence, the efficiency is

2

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

usually considered as an essential competitive force of entities in an economy such as a

branch, industry, or an entire system. However, as the society gets more advanced, the

definition of efficiency changes to be more specific. For example, Saha & Ravisankar (2000)

focused on the basic stage to measure the value of output at a given amount of input from the

engineering perspective. In order to attain an efficient point, Koopmans (1951) proposed the

necessary of balancing the equivalent unit of different outputs. In other word, the most

efficiency is the point at which one output is used to maximize a given amount of the input.

Given that, Debreu (1951) and Sephard (1953) developed a quantitative measurement of

efficiency for the outputs and inputs respectively. Debreu (1951) measured the distance

between the produced output and the predicted output that could have been produced from a

given amount of inputs while Sephard (1953) measured the difference the actual input and the

minimum possible amount of inputs.

Later, Farrel (1957) brought the measurement of efficiency into the next level by

establishing the distance functions between efficient point and practical producing point – the

theory of Production Possibility Frontier (PPF). Based on the PPF theory, Kablan (2010)

measured the efficiency by measuring the optimal set of points of inputs in order to produce

one unit of output which is defined as the Production Possibility Frontier Line (PPF 8 Line)

and compared with the actual production unit. The firm is called to be efficient only when its

outcome is on the PPF line and vice versus. Moreover, the theory of PPF can also be

approached from two sides: Input-Oriented approach (IO) and Output-Oriented approach

(OO) (Farrell, 1957). While the firm uses IO to measure the minimum amount of inputs to

produce a given set of outputs, OO is used to predict the maximum level of outputs from a

given level of inputs.

Although there is no consensus on the proper results of IO and OO in banking

efficiency measurement, the IO approach is mostly preferred than the OO one because banks

are able to focus on controlling the inputs (cost) rather than relying on the outputs (outcome)

(Dipasha et al., 2012) although there are some exceptions by employing both approaches

(Beccalli, Casu, & Girardone, 2006).

Among the above studies, Farrell (1957) was one of the first pioneer who proposed

the efficiency as a technical term that can be measured by two main elements. Figure 1.1

demonstrates a firm with two inputs X1 and X2, YY’ is an isoquant which shows every

minimum set of inputs that could be used to produce a given output. If a firm operates on this

3

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

isoquant (the frontier), it will be technically efficient in an input-oriented way for the reason

that the inputs amount of this firm is minimized. The iso-cost line CC’ (which can be

constructed when the input-price ratio is known) determines the optimal proportion of inputs

in order to archive lowest cost.

Figure 1.1: Input-oriented efficiency

The first one is technical efficiency (TE) which focus on the ability of bank to achieve

the maximal output with a given fixed set of inputs, Technical efficiency (TE) can be

calculated by the percentage rate of OR/OP, the second one is allocative efficiency (AE)

equals the percentage rate of OS/OR. The multiplication of AE and TE expresses the overall

efficiency of the firm, called economic efficiency (EE) (i.e.EE = AE × TE). Figure 1.2

illustrates the case where the bank uses one input and produces one output. The f(X) curve

determines the maximum output can be obtained by using each level of input X (the frontier).

The firm will be technical efficient operating on this frontier. In this situation, TE equals

BD/BE.

Figure 1.2: Output-oriented efficiency

4

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

Regarding to the concept of efficiency measurement in banking sector, a bank can be

said to be efficient only if it has an ability to produce an expected result with a minimum

effort or resources.

In the body of literature, bank efficiency has been discussed in a variety of studies

from Berger & DeYoung (1997), Berger and Humphrey (1997), Timothy J. Coelli (1998),

and Bonin, Hasan, & Wachte (2005). In order to evaluate the efficiency of commercial banks,

several measurement criteria need to be taken into account such as scale efficiency, allocative

efficiency, productive efficiency, technical efficiency.

However, as knowledge of bank

efficiency has evolved, many factors have to be considered as suggested by Fu et al. (2014),

Berger, Hasan, and Zhou (2009), and Tecles and Tabak (2010). These studies suggested the

bank efficiency measurement can be determined by both internal and external factors.

In summary, the theoretical foundation on efficiency and bank efficiency have been

well-established and attracted a lot of academic interests who not only studied about the

efficiency measurement but also evaluate different determinant of bank efficiency in the

aspect of economic world.

Measurements and analyses of TE were conducted by a huge number of studies with

two main approaches – Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Stochastic Frontier Analysis

(SFA). The next section briefly discusses these two methods.

2. Reviews of empirical study on bank efficiency

2.1 Overview on bank efficiency

Bank efficiency has been applied since 19th century when Sherman and Gold (1985)

applied specific DEA (CCR Model) to analyze the efficiencies of 14 branches of a US

savings bank. Their study was able to indicate six out of 14 branches were operating

inefficiently at that time. Milin Sathye (2002) also applied a similar methodology to measure

the efficiency of 94 India banks during the period of 1997-1998. He developed two

independent models to rank the efficiency based on the variation of inputs and outputs. In the

first model, inputs are expenses, both interest and non-interest while outputs are nominated as

net income accordingly. Hence, compared to the private sector and foreign commercial

banks, the public sector banks have showed a higher score in the average efficiency in India.

In the second model, he designated inputs as deposits and staff numbers, while outputs as net

5

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

loans and non-interest income. As a result, the second model showed the opposite result,

meaning the private sector commercial banks scored a higher mean efficiency than the public

sector ones.

Among the prior studies, the banking efficiency received an greatest academic interest

among many industries (Liadaki & Gaganis, 2010; Saha & Ravisankar, 2000; Yin, Yang, &

Mehran, 2013). As given by Saha and Ravisankar (2000), the bank efficiency is of the most

reliable indicator to drive the competitveness in the banking industry. The authors argued that

the commercial banks require an efficient operation system to gain more chances to sustain

their business. Tecles and Tabak (2010) indicated that the efficiency of the banking sector

plays a vital role in both the finance development sector as well as the economic growth. A

comprehensive review on the efficiency of financial institutions can be seen in the study by

Berger and Humphrey (1997).

Taking into account the banking industry of a specific country, a study by Tecles and

Tabak (2010) measured the level of efficiency of156 commercial banks in Brazil from 2007

to 2010 and determine different bank’s characteristics that are associated with, e.g. size,

ownership, market share, non – performing loans and equity value. As a result, it showed that

the larger size the banks were, the more efficient the banks got. Bank efficiency measurement

has also been applied for the Vietnamese banking system as Vietnam is in the transition

economy with the high economic growth in recent years. Concise evidences can be found

from reports by Nguyen (2011) and Lieu and Vo (2012). Chao and Nguyen (2006), for

example, researched the methodology to evaluate the efficiency of commercial banks in

Vietnam. Labor and various kinds of expense were used to measure the total loans as outputs

and total deposits as inputs for efficiency measurement similarly to model by Milin Sathye

(2002). The results were consistent to other research in the region, meaning, the larger asset

size of banks have exhibited 11 times higher efficiency than the small ones. Ngo (2010) also

conducted a research to estimate the performance of 22 Vietnamese commercial banks in

2008. The study also used labor, capital and funds as well as income for testing variables.

The conclusion is that these banks achieved the average efficiency scores close to the optimal

score, as an evidence for the bank improvement in Vietnam.

Another conduct by Nguyen (2011) focused on measuring the efficiency 20

commercial banks in Vietnam in the 3-year period (2007-2010) with more efficiency

determinants to be evaluated. In details, labor, fixed assets and deposits as inputs, and interest

6

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

and non-interest income as outputs are all taken into account. The finding indicated that the

state-owned banks had lower efficiency scores as compared to their join-stock commercial

banks competitors. Later, a study of Lieu and Vo (2012) showed that since 2006, the

competition between banks was extremely high due to the financial crisis, especially with the

wide fluctuation in in the input value of deposits and changes in the operating efficiencies of

joint stock banks. However, the research scope of the study was still limited as a traditional

methodology was applied in evaluating key financial ratios of commercial banks.

In the recent years, the stock market of Vietnam has been considered as one of the

fastest growing markets among emerging countries, hence more commercial banks has listed

their stocks on on the stock exchange. However, very few studies have focused on the

efficiency of the banking sector in Vietnam due to data limitation. Hence, it is important to

set a standard measurement of banking efficiency of Vietnamese commercial banks which

will provides valuable information for managers, customers and investors.

2.2 Determinants of banking efficiency

2.2.1 Macroeconomic factors

There have been many researches regarding the relationship between macroeconomic

indicators and banking efficiency. As a result, several economic factors are proven to have

the impacts on bank efficiency such as economic growth and stock performance.

For example, Avadi and Arbak (2013) researched the relationship between bank’s

efficiency and economic growth especially in the southern Mediterranean region. After

analyzing insight information and data, they found out that the profits from banking industry

had a huge impact on the economic growth. Also, Ferreira (2012) also conduct a study of the

same topic but in the European. The outcome of this study was the evidence of how the

bank’s cost efficiency affect the economic growth, especially GDP.

Regarding the stock market performance, Beccalli et al., (2006) in his research

suggested that bank’s efficiency also has impacts on the stock market performance. The study

was focused on measuring various European bank’s efficiency and used those results to prove

that changes in cost efficiencies of target banks may cause changes in the prices of bank

shares, that means bank’s efficiency and the stock market are having a relationship, through

which it could create changes to the economy. Similar results could be found in the study by

7

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

Liadaki and Gaganis (2010) who indicate the changes in both cost and profit efficiency have

affected stock prices of commercial banks operating in EU markets over the period from

2002 to 2006.

2.2.2 Banking industry factors

It could be seen that there are a wide range of banking industry factors taken into

consideration with regard to the bank performance in the body of literature. Some common

factors can be indicated such as industry development, industry competition, industry

concentration or industry growth, and other factors. These factors are discussed in several

studies by Athanasoglou, Brissimis, and Delis (2008), Owoputi (2013), and Pulungan and

Yustika ((2014).

A study by Athanasoglou, Brissimis, and Delis (2008) examines the impacts of

industry specific factors and bank profitability of Greek commercial banks over the period

1985 – 2001. Particularly, the authors use two determinants including ownership and

concentration to measure the industry specific indicators; however, they find industry

structure does not significantly affect bank profitability.

Naceur and Omran (2011) investigate the effect of two indicators of the banking

system, namely regulation and competition, on bank margin and cost efficiency across 11

countries over the 1988 – 2005 period. Additionally, taken into account the industry

development indicator, the authors use the size of the credit to private sector as a percentage

of the GDP to measure the impacts of bank financing in the entire economy. The proxies of

the banking sector development seem to have no impacts on the bank market but have

negative signs with the cost efficiency. They conclude that the well – developed banking

sector may lower its operating costs.

2.2.3 Bank Specified factors

There are several factors that can be utilized to measure specific characteristics of the

bank, such as financial leverage, and the bank’s size, equity and risk, etc. However, an

evidence mentioned in an observational studies shows the keen interest between the bank

specific indicators and the performance of the bank (how liquid and profitable it is).

A study conducted by Fu et al., investigates the relationships between the return on

equity and both cost and profit efficiency. Several bank specific factors mentioned above

8

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

were used in the study. The findings indicate that there is a significant influence of the bank

size, market risk and credit risk (bank specific factors). Other bank specific factors, equity to

total assets and return on assets ratios, were also used by Lensink, Meesters, and Naaborg in a

study to examine the impact of both factors on cost efficiency. The researchers examined the

efficiency of the bank and the foreign ownership of a large commercial bank in more than

100 countries (from 1998 to 2003).

In conclusion, many prior studies were taken into consideration when determining the

relationship between macroeconomic factors, and bank specific factors and performance

(ratios). However, it is worth to mention that the researchers have also taken into

consideration that bank efficiency has emerged recently, and that the findings in the

observational studies on bank efficiency and factors are not consistently supported. This leads

to the need of further investigating the relationships between the bank efficiency and

indicators of commercial banks including industry specific and bank specific factors.

2.3

Bank efficiency measurement

In this literature, different methods will be discussed that can be used to measure bank

efficiency. These methods are based on different aspects of bank efficiency. As given by Yin,

Yang, and Mehran (2013), two specific aspects are taken into account for bank efficiency

measurement in terms of achieving the maximization of output or requiring the minimal

inputs. As such two approaches namely the production approach and the intermediation

approach can be applied to determine the bank inputs and outputs (Sufian, 2009; Yin et al.,

2013). Particularly, the production approach considers loan, deposit and other financial

services as inputs and the intermediation approach considers deposits, labors, and capitals as

its input. In the production approach, output variables are bank deposit and loan transactions

while in the intermediation approach, bank loans and investments are known as outputs..

However, as indicated by Yin, Yang, and Mehran (2013) and Thoraneenitiyan and Avkiran

(2009), commercial banks focus on intermediation services rather than physical goods, hence

the intermediation approach will be more appropriately used to measure their bank efficiency.

Regarding to the methodology to measure bank efficiency, many studies have

proposed several methods such as Berger and Humphrey (1997) and Beccalli et al. (2006).

The most traditional and simple method is to use key financial ratios to analyze bank’s

performance. However, due to the increasing input/output determinants in bank efficiency

9

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

measurement, a large number of authors support two more advanced group classes, namely

parametric and nonparametric approaches. Particularly, the nonparametric methods cover two

main approaches which are Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Free Disposal Hull

(FDH). The methods draw a linear connection to rank the best practicing DMUs by

comparing the operation of two different banks in one sample set. These methods do not

require any specific production function and are suitable for a small size of data set. On the

other hand, the parametric method includes Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) or more

advanced techniques such as Thick Frontier Approach (TFA) and Distribution Free Approach

(DFA). The later method requires more variable and specifies a functional form for efficiency

functions such as production function, profit function or cost function. For specific

commercial bank industry in particular to determine its profit efficiency, as commercial

banks do not produce physical goods but provide intermediation services, both the inputs and

outputs of banks must be determined by different groups of inputs and outputs. Among these

above methods, the DEA and SFA are commonly used by many researchers in recent studies

(Kohers, Huang, & Kohers, 2000; Thoraneenitiyan & Avkiran, 2009), hence, the details of

these two methods are given as follow.

2.3.1

Data Envelopment Analysis model and Stochastic frontier model

a. Data Envelopment Analysis model:

The Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), categorized as a non–parametric method, is a

linear programming model. As given by Farrel (1957), the model was developed from the

piecewise -linear convex hull approach and further developed by Charnes, Cooper, and

Rhodes (1978) who employed a mathematical planning model with “constant returns to

scale” (CCR model) to measure the technical efficiency frontier. Then, Banker et al. (1984)

extended the model by providing variable returns to scale and output orientation. In the DEA

method, no functional form for the data is required. It allows a production frontier reflected in

the weights for the inputs and outputs can be calculated.

In the DEA method, how a particular decision making unit (DMU or bank in this

study) operated is examined relative to the other units in the sample. Based on the DMUs or

banks, the production frontier set, is then set to rank from the most efficient banks to the most

inefficient ones using efficiency scores.

10

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

Profit efficiency model

While cost efficiency focuses only on cost, profit efficiency considers both cost and

revenue aspects. Accordingly, the profit efficiency model developed by Färe, Grosskopf, and

Lovell (1988) is employed to measure profit efficiency for bank j as follows.

𝑀𝑎𝑥 ∑𝑠 𝑟𝑗𝑠 𝑦𝑗𝑠 − ∑𝑚 𝑐𝑗𝑚 𝑥𝑗𝑚

Subject to: 𝑥𝑗𝑚 ≥ ∑𝑖 𝑥𝑖𝑚 ƛ𝑖 ∀m, 𝑦𝑗𝑠 ≤ ∑𝑖 𝑦𝑖𝑠 ƛ𝑖 ∀s,

∑𝑛𝑖=1 ƛ𝑖 ƛ ≥ 0

The assumptions to this model is a combination of the optimal output supply vector

y ∗ j = (y ∗ j1 …y ∗ js) and the optimal input demand vector x ∗ j = (x ∗ j1 …x ∗ jm) in a possible

production curve set that the same condition of given input prices c and output prices r, the

profit will be maximized, and the bank j will be the best one when it uses least level of input

to produce optimal output with a bank’s linear combination is obtained, it leads this

hypothetical bank to have an optimal profit P ∗ j = ∑s rjs y ∗ js − ∑m cjm x ∗ jm

which, by

definition, this optimal profit will be equal to or higher than the actual banking profit j (Pj=

∑i rjs yjs

i

− ∑m cjm xjm ). As a result, the banking profit efficiency for j could be calculated

as follows.

𝑃𝐸𝑗 =

∑𝑖 𝑟𝑗𝑠 y𝑗𝑠 − ∑𝑚 𝑐𝑗𝑚 𝑥𝑗𝑚

𝑃𝑗

𝑖

=

∑𝑠 𝑟𝑗𝑠 𝑦 ∗𝑗𝑠 − ∑𝑚 𝑐𝑗𝑚 𝑥 ∗𝑗𝑚

𝑃∗ 𝑗

b. Stochastic frontier model

The first SFA model was developed by Aigner, Lovell and Schmidt (1977) and

Broek, Førsund, Hjalmarsson, and Meeusen (1980) based on the production function

estimation namely the Cobb-Douglas production function. Later, several other functions are

listed in the SFA model including Quadratic, Translog, Generalized Leontief, Normalized

Quadratic, and Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) forms (Griffin, Montgomery, and

Rister, 1987). Among those function, Cobb-Douglas and Translog function are most

commonly used (Jiang et al., 2009; Liadaki & Gaganis, 2010; Yin et al., 2013). Frequently,

the Cobb-Douglas model is used for its parsimony while the Translog model is used for its

11

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

flexibility. More particularly, the Cobb-Douglas functional form assumes there is no change

in the value of production elasticity and other factor substitution; while the Translog

functional form does not. As such, The production function can be tested in the Translog

form to provide more realistic and less restrictive results.

However the Translog model poses some weakness when the number of parameters

increases, it appears cross and squared terms. On the other hand, if the number of

observations is not limited, this increase in parameters leads to the decrease in freedom.

Given that, it is necessary to combine both models provide consistent results of bank

efficiency. Examples can be seen in the study by Kohers et al.(2000), and Thoraneenitiyan

and Avkiran (2009).

Profit efficiency model:

On the other hand, using the SFA methodology, according to Berger and Mester

(1997), the measurement of the profit efficiency model can be quantified similarly to the cost

efficiency model with the exception that the inefficiency values are with a negative sign in

the regression as follow.

Ln𝑍𝑖,𝑡 = f (𝑌𝑖,𝑡 𝑃𝑖,𝑡 ) - 𝑢𝑖,𝑡 + 𝑣𝑖,𝑡

Where 𝑙𝑛𝑍𝑖,𝑡 presents the logarithm of profit efficiency, 𝑢𝑖,𝑡 is the measure of

inefficiency, it is a negative error term since with a higher inefficiency leads to decrease

profit and 𝑢𝑖,𝑡 is always positive. The 𝑣𝑖,𝑡 is the noise component, which is outside the

control of management, assumed to follow a normal distribution.

c. Trade-offs between DEA and SFA

Based on many difference from approaching method, there are many advantages and

disadvantages when we make a choice using DEA or SFA in our research. It means that

researchers have to face the trade-offs when researchers use DEA or SFA to estimate the

study. According to Ray & Mukherjee, 1995 DEA is a non-parametric method, a

deterministic approach, it does not mention about the specification of the production function

meanwhile SFA is a parametric method, a stochastic technique using econometric tools and

must have a model specification of production function. From that key difference, DEA is

considered to be non-statistical, which assumes that the data have no noise. Data noise can

come from measurement errors or random factors which can be controlled by banks. This

12

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

restrict seems to be stubborn in realistic situation. SFA is statistical, so it allows and takes

into account statistical noise. In other words, it is more flexible with real world data, in which

random factors and error in collecting is unavoidable.

Wagstaff, 1989 found that using SFA must satisfy assumptions about the functional

forms, specifications of the model, distribution of parameters and error terms. In DEA

approach, every bank counts as inefficiency operating when every factor that leads the bank

away from its frontier. While in SFA, the residual will be decomposed into two components.

One part, which is not under the control of the firm itself, is accounted to be the noise and has

the zero mean. The other part, which is known as the inefficiency, is the weakness of the

bank which makes it produce below the frontier. So, generally, the efficiency measured from

SFA will be higher relatively (Ferrier & Lovell, 1990). DEA has the advantages with the

ability to be applied in various complicated condition of production. Without the requirement

of a definite production function, it helps simplifying the linkage from inputs to outputs of a

production process. Without statistical properties, no test can be used to test DEA’s goodness

of fit or specification. In spite of having troubles with model specification, SFA still has

econometric tools to test whether the model is suitable or not. The most beneficial advantage

of SFA is the capability of dealing with statistical noise.

Generally, for industries that the production processes are controlled strictly, DEA

seems to be the better choice of measuring efficiency. This is because the random fluctuation

in these industries is minimized and the production process is very stable (from a given

amount of inputs, the number and quality of outputs is likely to be determined precisely). For

those natures of the industries the thesis analyzed, SFA is the better model to be applied. The

next part discusses in detail SFA method with panel data models.

Overall, both the DEA and SFA approach have both advantages as well as

disadvantanges. While the DEA methodology is sufficient to estimate the efficiency of a

given banking system by avoiding misspecification issue. Yin et al. (2013) illustrated that the

DEA approach might lead to some random errors in the ill-defined economic environments.

In fact, Jiang et al. (2009) had suggested that SFA method is reliable in a context of transition

economies. However, given that the SFA approach requires an intensive parametric factors,

profit efficiency calculation might become exhaustive especially with the multi-hierarchy

banking system in developing countries like Vietnam.

13

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

2.3.2

Stochastic frontier model with panel data

In this section, an overview of stochastic frontier model (SFM) with panel data

(repeated observations on each firm) will be present to explain the motivation for the models

in banking efficiency estimation. By using panel data rather than cross-sectional data setting,

estimation techniques can be carried out without strong distribution assumptions on each

variable and repeated observations with panel data can be considered as a substitute of

independence between technical efficiency error and other parameters. This allows the

efficiency measurement to be more robust and consistent (Kumbhabar & Lovell, 2000).

A typical stochastic frontier model firstly developed by Aigner, Lovell and Schmidt

(1977) and Meeusen and van den Broeck (1977) can be written as below:

(1) 𝑦𝑖 = 𝛼 + 𝛽x𝑖 + 𝑣𝑖 − 𝑢𝑖 , i = 1, …, N

Where i is a production unit (firm), 𝑦 is the log of output, x is the log of input, v is

normal noise, and u is a measure of technical inefficiency. Three variables x, v, and u are

assumed to be independent, and v and u are assumed in different types of distributions. The

formula (1) can be computed as follows.

(2) yi = f(xi;β) exp(vi) exp(−ui), i = 1, 2, ..., N.

Later, several authors have generalized this model for the panel data format setting (N firms

in period time T) by applying time parameters in the assumptions on y, x, 𝑣, and u. Here two

main SFA models are considered in which technical efficiency is constant through time

(time-invariant model) or allowed to vary for each firm (time-varying model). Especially,

technical inefficiency error (u) explains differences across different firm performances as

well as the same firm performance in different time periods. While technical efficiency

measurement allows to determine which firms operate efficiency, technical inefficiency error

component permits firms to be able to identify causes of inefficiency and learn how to

become efficient in practice. As a result, several models have been developed in order to

make the most appropriate estimation for the technical inefficiency component.

14

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

a. Time-invariant Technical Efficiency

First, it begins by assuming technical inefficiency ui to be constant over time and

restrictedly non-negative (ui ≥ 0). Based on model (1), the time-invariant SFM model is as

follows.

(3) 𝑦𝑖t = 𝛼 + 𝛽x𝑖t + 𝑣𝑖t − 𝑢𝑖 , i = 1, …, N, t = 1, …, T

A corresponding Cobb-Douglas production frontier reformulated by Aigner and Chu

(1968) can be written as:

(4) ln 𝑦𝑖t = 𝛽0 + ∑ 𝛽n lnx𝑖t + 𝑣𝑖t − 𝑢𝑖 (en)

Furthermore, in order to evaluate the efficiency performance of each model, it is

necessary to estimate the result of changes in other parameters by randomized one parameter

component and see how the technical efficiency can be estimated. There are two models to

estimate time-invariant technical efficiency: fixed effect (FE) or random effect models (RE).

i.

Fixed-effect model by Schmidt and Sickles (1984)

The fixed-effected model is the simplest one which has been developed by Schmidt

and Sickles (1984). In the FE model, the technical inefficiency ui is constant over time but

varying among different firms, hence there is no distribution assumption about technical

inefficiency error ui and all the variables are uncorrelated to each other. Since there is no

distribution assumptions on ui, technical efficiency (TEi) of individual firm can be estimated

by introducing least squares with dummy variables (LSDV) followed by equation (4):

𝛽0 is estimated from 𝛽0 = maxi{ 𝛽0i}

ui is estimated from ui = 𝛽0 - 𝛽0i

TEi is estimated from TEi = exp {-ui}

In the FE model, at least one firm is assumed to be 100% technically efficient and

other firms’ efficiencies are relatively compared to the top firm. The LSDV estimation

method of technical inefficiency component can be consistent as both the number of firms

and time period assessment are large enough (e.g. T ∞ and N ∞).

15

Vietnam – Netherlands Programme for M.A in Development Economics

ii.

Random-effect model by Schmidt and Sickles (1984)

While in the FE model, the ui is fixed, in the RE model, the ui value is randomly

distributed but with constant mean and variance. This allows the technical inefficiency ui to

vary across different firms but still constant for each firm. Again, all the variables (e.g.

between inefficiency error ui and the input xit, or between inefficiency ui and noise errors vit)

are uncorrelated to each other. Now the model (4) can be written as follows.

(5) ln 𝑦𝑖t = 𝛽0* + ∑n 𝛽n lnxn𝑖t + 𝑣𝑖t − 𝑢𝑖*

It is available to use standard two-step GLS method to evaluate this model in which:

1

ûi* = 𝑇 ∑𝑡𝑛(𝑙𝑛 𝑦𝑖𝑡 − 𝛽̂0∗ − ∑𝑛 𝛽̂𝑛 𝑙𝑛 𝑥𝑛𝑖𝑡 )

ûi = max{ui*}-ui*

Estimation consistency using GLS can be reached when the sample with number of

firms N is large enough, e.g. the measured random effects are uncorrelated from the

regressors. Further test from Hausman and Taylor (1981) can be adopted to verify the

uncorrelatedness between the fixed-effect estimator by LSDV and the random-effect

estimator by GLS.

iii.

Maximum likelihood model by Pitt and Lee (1981)

For time-invariant technical efficiency, a conventional maximum likelihood method

can be adapted to estimate the effect β and the technical inefficiency error ui by making

independent distribution assumptions for botherror components, the idiosyncratic noise vit

and technical inefficiency term ui. There are several distributional assumption models that

can be used in the maximum likelihood method including normal-half normal, normalexponential, normal-gamma, and normal-truncated normal models. Pitt and Lee (1981) was

the first one to formulate and estimate time-invariant panel data model using the normal-half

normal distributional assumption.

b. Time-varying technical efficiency

In a competitive operating environment like financial services, the assumption of

time-invariant efficiency sometimes is unrealistic, e.g. it is unlikely that technical inefficiency

term remains unchanged especially through a long time panel data setting (Cornwell et al.

16

## An Analysis of the Lever Escapement pdf

## Equipment for older and disabled people: an analysis of the market potx

## The Eyes of the Fleet - An Analysis of the E-2C Aircraft Acquisition Options docx

## The Defense Acquisition Workforce: An Analysis of Personnel Trends Relevant to Policy, 1993-2006 pdf

## INVESTIGATING DIVERSITY IN THE BANKING SECTOR IN EUROPE: THE PERFORMANCE AND ROLE OF SAVINGS BANKS pdf

## The Eyes of the Fleet - An Analysis of the E-2C Aircraft Acquisition Options ppt

## Master Thesis in Economics “An analysis of the effectiveness of government R&D policies on business R&D expenditure” doc

## Thuyết trình: An analysis of Internet banking offerings and its determinants in India

## Báo cáo nghiên cứu nông nghiệp " Design and implementation and scientific and financial analysis of 12 Sunflower trials in Vietnam " pot

## an analysis of lexical cohesive devices in funtional food advertisements in english and vietnamese = phân tích các phương tiện liên kết từ vựng trong quảng cáo thực phẩm chức năng trong tiếng anh và tiếng việt

Tài liệu liên quan