A comparison of chance-constrained dea and stochastic frontier analysis: Bank efficiency in taiwan

Journal of the Operational Research Society

Volumn 53, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 492-500

  Chen, Tser Yieth ^a  

^a MING CHUAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Chance constrained programming; Data envelopment analysis; Stochastic frontier analysis

Indexed keywords

DEREGULATION; FINANCE; FORECASTING; LINEAR PROGRAMMING; PRIVATIZATION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

BANK OWNERSHIP; CHANCE-CONSTRAINED PROGRAMMING; DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS; STOCHASTIC FRONTIER ANALYSIS; TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY;

RANDOM PROCESSES;

EID: 0036566512     PISSN: 01605682     EISSN: 14769360     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601318     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Charnes A, Cooper WW and Rhodes E (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Opl Res 2: 429-444.
2. Banker RD, Charnes A and Cooper WW (1984). Some models for estimation of technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Mngt Sci 30: 1078-1092.
3. Oral M and Yolalan R (1990). An empirical study on measuring operating efficiency and profitability of bank branches. Eur J Opl Res 46: 282-294.
4. Favero CA and Papi L (1995). Technical efficiency and scale efficiency in the Italian banking sector. Appl Econ 27: 385-395.
5. Schaffnit C, Rosen D and Paradi JC (1997). Best practice analysis of bank branches: an application of DEA in a large Canadian bank. Eur J Opl Res 98: 269-289.
6. Fukuyama H, Guerra R and Weber WL (1999). Efficiency and ownership: evidence from Japanese credit cooperatives. J Econ Bus 51: 473-487.
7. Bjurek H, Hjalmarsson L and Forsund FR (1990). Deterministic parametric and nonparametric estimating of efficiency in service production. JEconomet 46: 213-227.
8. Giokas DI (1991). Bank branch operating efficiency: a comparative application of DEA and the loglinear model. Omega 19: 549-557.
9. Resti A (1997). Evaluating the cost efficiency of the Italian banking system: what can be learned from the joint application of parametric and non-parametric techniques. J Banking Fin 21: 221-250.
10. Resti A (2000). Efficiency measurement for multi-product industries: a comparison of classic and recent techniques based on simulated data. Eur J Opl Res 121: 559-578.
11. Ferrier GD and Lovell CAK (1990). Measuring cost efficiency in banking: econometric and linear programming evidence. J Economet 46: 229-245.
12. Cooper WW and Tone K (1997). Measures of inefficiency in data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier estimation. Eur J Opl Res 99: 72-88.
13. Charnes A and Cooper WW (1959). Chanced-constrained programming. Mngt Sci 15: 73-79.
14. Land KC, Lovell CAK and Thore S (1993). Chance-constrained data envelopment analysis. Mngt Decis Econ 14: 541-554.
15. Land KC, Lovell CAK and Thore S (1994). Productive efficiency under capitalism and state socialism: an empirical inquiry using chance-constrained data envelopment analysis. Technol Forecast Social Change 46: 139-152.
16. Farrell M (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. JR Statist Soc A 120: 253-281.
17. Sealey CW and Lindley JT (1997). Inputs, outputs and a theory of production and cost at depository financial institutions. J Fin 32: 1251-1266.
18. Battese GE and Coelli TJ (1992). Frontier production function, technical efficiency and panel data with application to paddy farmers in India. J Prod Anal 3: 153-169.
19. Battese GE and Coelli TJ (1995). A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empirical Econ 20: 325-332.
20. Coelli TJ (1996). Simulators and hypothesis tests for a stochas¬tic model: a Monte Carlo analysis. J Prod Anal 6: 247-268.
21. Oral M and Yolalan R (1990). An empirical study on measuring operating efficiency and profitability of bank branches. Eur J Opl Res 46: 282-294.
22. Coelli T, Rao DSP and Battese GE (1998). An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Kluwer: Norwell, MA, pp 190-198.
23. Banker RD (1996). Hypothesis tests using data envelopment analysis. J Prod Anal 7: 139-159.
24. Banker RD and Chang H (1995). A simulation study of hypothesis tests for differences in efficiencies. Int J Prod Econ 39: 37-54.