Factor affecting technical efficiency of the banking sector: Evidence from Ethiopia

Abdulahi, Salah Mohammed; Yitayaw, Mekonnen Kumlachew; Feyisa, Habtamu Legese; Mamo, Wondmagegn Biru Article Factor affecting technical efficiency of the banking sector: Evidence from Ethiopia Cogent Economics & Finance Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Abdulahi, Salah Mohammed; Yitayaw, Mekonnen Kumlachew; Feyisa, Habtamu Legese; Mamo, Wondmagegn Biru (2023) : Factor affecting technical efficiency of the banking sector: Evidence from Ethiopia, Cogent Economics & Finance, ISSN 2332-2039, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-26, https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/304006 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cogent Economics & Finance ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oaef20 Factor affecting technical efficiency of the banking sector: Evidence from Ethiopia Salah Mohammed Abdulahi, Mekonnen Kumlachew Yitayaw, Habtamu Legese Feyisa & Wondmagegn Biru Mamo To cite this article: Salah Mohammed Abdulahi, Mekonnen Kumlachew Yitayaw, Habtamu Legese Feyisa & Wondmagegn Biru Mamo (2023) Factor affecting technical efficiency of the banking sector: Evidence from Ethiopia, Cogent Economics & Finance, 11:1, 2186039, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 26 Mar 2023. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2700 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaef20 FINANCIAL ECONOMICS | RESEARCH ARTICLE Factor affecting technical efficiency of the banking sector: Evidence from Ethiopia Salah Mohammed Abdulahi 1 *, Mekonnen Kumlachew Yitayaw 2 , Habtamu Legese Feyisa 1 and Wondmagegn Biru Mamo 2 Abstract: An efficient bank is more robust to shocks, fosters competitiveness, and promotes stability of the financial system. This study estimates Ethiopia’s commercial banks’ level of efficiency and its determinants during the period 2014–2020. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Malmquist DEA, and Tobit regression were employed to analyze the data. The result indicated that the average efficiency score of banks in the constant returns to scale (CRS), variable returns to scale (VRS), and scale efficiency (SE) models were 95.5%, 99.85%, and 96.95% , respectively. Furthermore, in the VRS model, a state bank is more efficient than private banks. During the study period, the Total Factor Productivity (TFP) of Banks improved by 1%. According to the Tobit model, the efficiency of banks grows with an increment in the number of branches, bank size, and credit risk. However, when, liquidity risk and the log of the fixed asset increase, bank efficiency will decrease. The level of capitalization, log of GDP, and inflation, on the other hand, do not influence bank efficiency. Therefore, banks should pay close attention to aspects that influence technical efficiency. Subjects: Public Finance; Corporate Finance; Banking Keywords: Bank efficiency; DEA; CRS; VRS; SE; Malmquist Index; Tobit JEL Classification: G21; G24; G32 Salah Mohammed Abdulahi ABOUT THE AUTHOR Salah Mohammed Abdulahi was born in 1988 in Harar, Ethiopia. He earned a Bachelor of Art in Economics from Jimma University in 2008 and a Master of Science in Development Economics from Dire Dawa University in 2018. He is currently a lecturer in the department of economics at Haramaya University, Ethiopia. His professional interests include measuring institutional productivity and efficiency, as well as assessing the impact of development programs. He published one paper entitled “The Three-Dimensional Impacts of Governance on Economic Growth: Panel Data Evidence From The Emerging Market” and currently he is leading a research project dealing with the impact of urban productive safety net program on poverty reduction in major cities of Eastern Ethiopia. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT This paper measures factors affecting the technical efficiency of commercial banks of Ethiopia using the nonparametric frontier DEA and Tobit model. The paper also estimates the total factor productivity of the output using the Malmquist index. The result indicates that the number of branches, bank size, credit risk, fixed assets, and liquidity risk are the most important factors that must be considered in determining the technical efficiency of commercial banks in Ethiopia. On the contrary, the study reveals that capitalization, inflation, and GDP growth are not important to determine the technical efficiency of commercial banks in Ethiopia. Further, factor productivity of commercial banks has improved throughout the study period. Thus, decisionmakers should take into account bank specific and macroeconomic variables to improve the efficiency of banks. Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 1 of 26 Received: 08 August 2022 Accepted: 24 February 2023 *Corresponding author: Salah Mohammed Abdulahi, Department of Economics, College of Business & Economics, Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: David McMillan, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. 1. Introduction In the economic growth and stability of a country, banks have an important role. They help in channelizing household savings to corporations and industries where it is optimally used for the development of the country. As financial institutions improve their efficiency and productivity in channelizing financial resources, they will bring value to the economy as a whole. Further, they should perform efficiently in converting their costly inputs into a variety of financial products and services to serve the aforementioned role effectively. According to Adusei and McMillan (2016), “Only strong technically efficient and profitable banks can promise a realistic return to their stakeholders and reduce the probability of bankruptcy.” As a result, it is important to investigate efficiency levels and identify factors determining bank performance. In Ethiopia, the financial market is developing and plays a key role in mobilizing funds. Moreover, banks dominate Ethiopia’s financial sector, with total banking capital of Birr 85.5 billion and fresh loan disbursements of Birr 271.2 billion, up 14.8% from a year before (National Bank of Ethiopia, 2020). Thus, with the increase in the number of commercial banks and rapid changes in the financial environment, assessing determinants of banking efficiency is a major issue. DEA and Tobit models are common methods in the banking literature that are used to measure technical efficiency. Such studies include Sarsour and Daoud (2015), Karimu Tossa (2016), Hamid et al. (2017), R. Banya and Biekpe (2018), and Banna et al. (2019), and Jiménez-Hernández et al. (2019), and Cheriye (2020), and Jelassi and Delhoumi (2021). Though there are many studies that examine the determinants of bank efficiency, little effort has been made to study the efficiency of banks in Ethiopia. Studies by Lelissa (2014), Tesfay (2016), Zenebe Lema (2017), and Dinberu and Wang (2018) have tried to measure the efficiency of commercial banks in Ethiopia. However, these articles are unable to incorporate relevant bank-specific explanatory variables like the number of branches and macro-specific variables like inflation and GDP in their efficiency model. Based on the findings of Jelassi and Delhoumi (2021), Ofori-Sasu et al. (Ofori-Sasu et al., 2019), and Trabelsi and Trad (2017) the aforementioned variables have a significant impact on determining the efficiency level of commercial banks. Furthermore, previously conducted research did not measure factor productivity change on outputs of Ethiopian commercial banks. In addition, the data used in the aforementioned articles were too old for observing the current performance of banks in the dynamic financial world. In particular, Zenebe Lema (2017) made his analysis by using data from 2011 to 2014 and he failed to take into account the efficiency of three commercial banks, namely Enat Bank, Debub Global Bank, and Addis International Bank. As a result, our study used the DEA and Tobit models to estimate the efficiency score and factor productivity changes and investigate factors that affect the technical efficiency of commercial banks in Ethiopia over the years 2014 to 2020. Therefore, this research could be crucial in understanding the technical efficiency score, changes in factor productivity, and variables affecting the technical efficiency score of commercial banks in Ethiopia. Furthermore, this study will be useful in providing a better foundation for bank managers, business professionals, and policymakers to improve the overall efficiency of the financial sector. 2. Literature review Theoretical measurement of efficiency for decision-making units could be either parametric or nonparametric techniques. The parametric techniques such as the Stochastic Frontier Approach (SFA) or Distribution-Free Approach (DFA) were used to measure efficiency. The nonparametric technique includes mainly data envelopment analysis (DEA) and Free Disposal Hull Analysis (FDH). Empirically, a large volume of studies were conducted on the factors affecting the technical efficiency of commercial banks in various countries. For instance, Řepková (2015), R. Banya and Biekpe (2018), Goswami, Hussain, Kumar et al. (2019), JiménezHernández et al. (2019), and Sultana and Rahman (2020), and Jelassi and Delhoumi (2021) Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 2 of 26 have examined both bank-specific and macroeconomic factors that determine technically the efficiency of banks. Bank-specific factors include those factors that are specific to banks or that are controlled by their management policy and decisions (Djalilov & Piesse, 2016). Macroeconomic factors, on the other hand, are the exogenous forces derived from the nation’s economic environment and are not directly related to the internal banking policy (Ding et al., 2017). Consequently, different literature on bank efficiency shows that the level of efficiency varies from country to country and the findings are inconsistent in terms of sign, size, and statistical significance of the coefficients of explanatory variables. In Ethiopia, studies (Yasin, 2018; Amene & Alemu, 2019; and Lemi et al., 2020) were conducted to investigate determinants of financial performance using ratio analysis. However, it is difficult to get comprehensive figures indicating the efficiencies of banks by only applying ratio analysis. Hence, this paper explores issues that influence the technical efficiency of commercial banks in Ethiopia using DEA and Tobit models. 2.1. Bank specific factors 2.1.1. Branches of bank Literature on the effect of the number of bank branch on the technical efficiency of banks is limited. Bannour and Labidi (2013) found that the technical efficiency of commercial banks may not increase with the broadening of their distribution networks. Furthermore, Hirtle (2007) and Řepková (2015) found no significant effect on the number of branches. According to Liang et al. (2013), they found a positive impact on the technical efficiency of banks. This is because as banks get geographically closer to their clients, could enhance their number of clients, which in turn raise their performance. Based on the aforementioned, the study proposes the following hypothesis. H 1 : There is a direct relation between the number of branches and efficiency of banks. 2.1.2. Bank size On the empirical front, the nexus between bank size and efficiency is an ongoing debate. Studies such as Karray and Eddine Chichti (2013), Anwar (2019), Otero et al. (2020), and Sakouvogui and Shaik (2020) establish that banks with higher assets record have higher efficiency in their operation. However, studies show that there is an inverse relationship between bank size and costefficiency literature (Ding & Sickles, 2018; Hadhek et al., 2018; R. M. Banya & Biekpe, 2017; Staněk, 2015). However, Ojeyinka and Akinlo (2021) found that larger banks do not enjoy any cost advantage over their smaller counterparts, hence, refereeing to the findings, the study proposes the following hypothesis. H2: The efficiency of banks is directly related to the size of banks as measured by total asset 2.1.3. Credit risk Credit risk was found to be ambiguous. R. Banya and Biekpe (2018), Adusei and McMillan (2016), and Sharma et al. (2015) found that risk was positively related to technical efficiency. Whereas Salim et al. (2017), Hamza (2017), and Munangi and Bongani (2020) found that there is an inverse relationship between credit risk management and bank performance. Hence, the study predicts the following hypothesis. H3. Credit Risks are associated inversely with bank efficiency. Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 3 of 26 2.1.4. Liquidity risk Empirical studies show that the impact of liquidity risk on bank efficiency is mixed. Some studies (Batir et al., 2017; Řepková, 2015; Tan et al., 2017) found that liquidity risk has a positive effect on bank efficiency. Others found a negative effect (Dahiyat, 2016; Marozva, 2015). Furthermore, R. Banya and Biekpe (2018) found that liquidity risk is insignificant to affect technical efficiency. Referring to these findings, we propose the following hypothesis: H4: Liquidity Risk is inversely associated with efficiency. 2.1.5. Level of capitalization Capitalization was found to be positively related to technical efficiency by most of the studies (Řepková, 2015; Ayadi, 2014; Blankson et al., 2022), except Batir et al. (2017), Adusei and McMillan (2016), and Adjei-Frimpong et al. (2014) who found a negative relationship between capitalization and technical efficiency. Based on the literature, the study hypothesised the following statement. H5; Level of Capitalization directly influences the efficiency level of banks. 2.1.6. Fixed asset Fixed asset investment is crucial for conducting business operations and also improves an organization’s ability to deliver goods and services. The literature on the impact of fixed assets on bank efficiency is scanty. According to Olatunji and Adegbite (2014), fixed assets of banks significantly and positively affect bank efficiency. In contrast, Marian and Ikpor (2017) found a negative impact of fixed assets on the performance of banks. Hence, our study proposes the following statement. H6: Fixed asset directly related to bank efficiency 2.2. Macroeconomic factors 2.2.1. GDP Growth A country’s economic growth is traditionally measured by its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and can have a significant impact on the performance of banks. Studies by Defung et al. (2016), Kamarudin (2015), and Trabelsi and Trad (2017) found that in time of favor of economic growth the demand for credit by household and company will rise up which in turn increases the efficiency of banks. However, Dell’Atti et al. (2015), Aiello and Bonanno (2016), and Goswami, Hussain, Kumar et al. (2019) showed that in periods of significant economic growth, they inversely affect the profitability of banks. This is due to the tendency to adjust their interest margins. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis to be tested H7: There is a significant positive relationship between the country’s GDP and the efficiency of banks 2.2.2. Inflation rate Empirical literatures has found inconclusive features between the effect of inflation and the performance of the commercial bank. Most of the literature (Alhassan et al., 2016; Jelassi & Delhoumi, 2021; Seelanatha, 2012) found that there is a positive impact of inflation on bank efficiency. However, studies by Ofori-Sasu et al. (2019) and Karimu Tossa (2016) found a negative relation between inflation and the technical efficiency of banks. Based on the mixed result, the following hypothesis is posed. H8: Inflation rate inversely associated with bank efficiency Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 4 of 26 3. Methodology The study considered all 17 commercial banks in Ethiopia, which have audited financial statements over the period 2014 to 2020. 3.1. Variables definition and measurements In the efficiency literature, there is no single rule for selecting input and output variables (Berger & Humphrey, 1997) and the variables are defined using the production approach, intermediation approach, value-added approach, and operating approach. Banks are assumed to be intermediaries between savers and borrowers in the intermediation approach, so the inputs are all types of funds and the outputs are all types of lending products. The production approach is used to study the efficiency of bank branches, while the intermediation approach is used for empirical studies at the bank or industry level (Mohd Noor. et al., 2020). This study used a variant of the intermediation approach based on Sealey and Lindley’s (1977) widely accepted intermediation approach. Furthermore, several studies Mohd Noor. et al., (2020); Mokhtar et al. (2008); Rahim et al. (2013); and Dharmendra and Bashir, 2015) used an intermediation approach to assess bank efficiency. Following the works of previous literature (Karimu Tossa, 2016; Ofori-Sasu et al., 2018; Tadesse 2017 and Lutfi and Suyatno 2019), this study used input variables such as fixed asset, deposit, and interest expense. Total loan and advances, interest income, and noninterest income as output variables as described in Table 1. Various studies considered labour as one of the input output variables in estimating commercial banks’ technical efficiency. However, in this study, we did not consider labour as an input variable in the estimation process because the contribution of employee’s number (physical labour) in the production process is less significant than effective (productive) labour. As explained by Marshall (1967), labour is the amount of physical, mental, and social effort required in an economy to produce goods and services. It also provides the knowledge, manpower, and services needed to convert raw materials into finished goods. According to Jajri and Ismail (2010), effective labour differs from physical labour in that the former is computed by taking into account labour quality in terms of educational qualification, training received, or skill acquired. Furthermore, education and training have a significant impact on labour quality. In theory, when effective labour (labour quality) is used, output growth is Table 1. Description of input-output variables (DEA model) Variables Description Output Variables Total loan and advances Total loan and advance disbursed for customers Interest income Interest on loans and advances, interest on deposits, and interest on Treasury and NBE bills are all added together. Non-interest income Commissions, fees on letters of credit, letters of guarantee, and local transfers, as well as other sources of revenue Input Variables Fixed assets Total fixed asset Deposits The sum of demand, time, and saving deposit Interest expense The sum of payment on fixed deposits, saving and demand deposits Source: Based on the literature, 2021 Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 5 of 26 enhanced and occurs at a faster rate than labour force growth (number of labour). This higher growth rate can be attributed to the productivity difference between physical labour and effective labour. Therefore, in order to capture the full effect of labour in our study, we have to collect the disaggregated data about both the actual number of physical labour and effective labour. However, such disaggregated data were difficult to obtain uniformly from each commercial bank of Ethiopia for the study period. As a result, estimating bank efficiency mainly by the number of employees without taking into account the quality of labour will result in a biased estimation. Therefore, we are unable to include labour as an input variable in our efficiency model. However, acknowledging the absence of labour as an input variable, we still hope to provide a useful framework for analysing the technical efficiency of commercial banks in Ethiopia. Table 2 also outlines the expected characteristics that influence the efficiency of Ethiopian commercial banks. The following bank-specific and macroeconomic variables are utilized for the second stage of the DEA model. The selection of the variables is supported by various literatures (Zenebe Lema, 2017; Akmal & Saleem, 2008; Ayadi, 2014; Tesfay, 2016; Alrafadi et al., 2014; Soetanto, 2011; Jelassi & Delhoumi, 2021; Hassan & Jreisat, 2016; and Soetanto, T. V.,2011; Tecles & Tabak, 2010; Rosman et al., 2014; Řepková, 2015; Petria et al., 2015; Blankson et al., 2022; Dinberu & Wang, 2018) and availability of data. As a result, the study considered the number of branches, bank size, liquidity risk, capitalization level, log of fixed assets, credit risk, log of GDP, and inflation as factors affecting the technical efficiency of Ethiopian banks. 3.2. Methods of analysis 3.2.1. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) In this study, the DEA model was used to assess the technical efficiency of commercial banks. DEA is a nonparametric linear programming technique that produces an efficiency frontier by Table 2. Determinants of bank efficiency Notation Variable Definition Expected Sign Dependent variable TE Technical Efficiency Efficiency scores of banks computed by applying VRS DEA method Independent variables NB Number of Branches Number + LQ Liquidity Risk The ratio of Total Loans to Total Deposits - CR Credit risk loan to asset ratio + SIZE Bank size The log of total Asset + LC Level of Capitalization The ratio of equity divided by total assets + LogFA Fixed Asset The logarithm of fixed asset + Log GDP Log of GDP The logarithm of GDP + INF Inflation Inflation rate measured by the consumer price index approach - Source, Own Computation, 2021 Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 6 of 26 optimizing each provider’s weighted output/input ratio. It is a method for comparing a company’s or its components’ performance by taking into account various inputs and outputs. By using Charnes et al. (1978)’s proposed model, the efficiency score based on a constant return to scale (CRS) is defined as follows: Effeciency ¼∑of bank outputs;weighted ∑of bank inputs;weighted (1) If there are n banks, each with m bank inputs and s bank outputs, the relative efficiency score of one of them, P, can be obtained by solving the following model: Efficiency ¼max ∑ s r¼1 UrYrp ∑ m i¼1 ViXip s:t:max ∑ s r¼1 UrYrj ∑ m i¼1 ViXij �1;j¼1;2;...;n Ur;Vi>0;"r;"i;r¼1;2;...;s;i¼1;2;. . . m(2) Where: Xij ¼theamountofinputiutlizedbyjthbank Yrj ¼theamountofoutputrproducedbyjthbank Ur¼weightgiventooutputr Vi¼weightgiventoinputi The functional programming model of equation (2) can be transformed to a linear programming model by adding the following constraint. ∑ m i¼1 ViXip ¼1 thus, the relative efficiency score of bank P can be obtained by solving the following equation Max Efficiecnyp¼Maxurvi∑ s r¼1 UrYrp S:t:∑ s r¼1 UrYrj ∑ m r¼1 ViXij �0;"i ∑ m i¼1 ViXip ¼1Ur;Vi>0;"r;"i(3) Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 7 of 26 Table 6. (Continued) Banks 2017 2018 2019 2020 crste vrste scale RTS crste vrste scale RTS crste vrste scale RTS crste vrste scale RTS Sd 0.055 0.032 0.048 0.079 0.067 0.041 0.048 0.035 0.035 0.047 0.019 0.042 Min 0.852 0.886 0.852 0.694 0.731 0.882 0.864 0.873 0.895 0.84 0.941 0.84 Max 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 14 of 26 4.5. Peer and Peer weights Table 8 shows the peer and peer weights for banks generated from the VRS efficiency model for the recommended model. Inefficient banks might improve their performance by adopting the policies and organizational structure of their peers. The result indicated that the peer group for Bank 4 (Bank of Abyssinia) is the bank (2, 5, 6, & 12) which entails that to become efficient, bank of Abyssinia should use an input–output combination of banks (Bunna International Bank, Wegagen Bank, Awash International Bank, and United Bank). The levels of the combination of the four banks are determined by peer weight. 4.6. Input and output slacks Table 9 provides a summary of input and output slack movement (adjustment) for inefficient banks to become efficient. The results indicated that on average, the output side of inefficiency could be increased by Birr 76 million and Birr 25 million for total loan and interest income, respectively, without changing the current input level. Furthermore, if inefficient banks could lower fixed assets by Birr 37 million in order to become more efficient while maintaining current output levels (See, Table 9 in the appendix). 4.7. Total factor productivity (TFP) Table 10 presents a summary for Malmquist index of annual geometric means. It is shown that, on average, TFP increased to some extent by 1% over the period 2014–2020. This improvement in productivity of banks is mainly enhancement in technological changes (6%), where banks expand the use of ICT for different service provisions. In addition, banks also improved internal efficiency by 4%. Furthermore, the total productivity improvement is also contributed by 2% for both changes on pure and scale efficiencies. Moreover, Table 11 provides a summary of TFP growth of banks’ means. Accordingly, Abay Bank attains premier growth (6.2%) followed by Dashen Bank (6%) and United Bank (5.9%). All of this expansion is the result of technical advancements of banks by 3.6%, 3.7%, and 4.5%, respectively. While Commercial and Cooperative banks have shown the highest deterioration total factor productivity by (7.2%) and (7.8%), respectively (See, Table 11 in the appendix). 4.8. Factors affecting commercial banks of Ethiopia 4.8.1. Descriptive statistics of variables in the Tobit model Table 12 presents the summary statistics of variables in the Tobit model. As it is shown, the banks under study recorded an average number of branches of 243. The number of branches varies from Table 7. Technical Efficiency (Mean)—Based on Ownership Private (Domestic)Banks 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average CRSTE 0.943 0.898 0.943 0.963 0.953 0.955 0.974 0.947 VRSTE 0.979 0.958 0.978 0.983 0.971 0.982 0.989 0.977 SCALE 0.964 0.939 0.965 0.980 0.981 0.972 0.985 0.969 State-owned bank CRSTE 1 1 0.928 0.928 0.928 0.933 0.84 0.937 VRSTE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.000 SCALE 1 1 0.928 0.928 0.928 0.933 0.84 0.937 Source: Own computation, 2021 Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 15 of 26 Table 8. Peers and Peer Weight DMUs(Banks) peers: peer weights: 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 4 2 5 6 12 0.238 0.417 0.302 0.044 5 5 1 6 6 1 7 2 6 5 0.018 0.404 0.578 8 8 1 9 9 1 10 12 8 2 0.497 0.431 0.072 11 11 1 12 12 1 13 13 1 14 14 1 15 15 1 16 16 1 17 17 1 Source: Own computation, 2021 Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 16 of 26 4 to 1825 over the period. The average liquidity risk of the commercial banks in Ethiopia under study is determined to be 0.498 with the minimum and maximum liquidity risk of 0.29 and 0.65, respectively. The average credit risk of the commercial banks in Ethiopia under study is determined Table 9. Input and output slacks Output slacks Input slacks Banks Total loan Interest income Interest income Fixed assets Deposit Interest expense 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 188.434 415.551 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 160.076 0 227.183 168.428 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1137.231 0 15.294 58.813 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 76.312 0 25.348 37.811 Source: Own computation, 2021 Table 10. TFP Growth Year Eff TE PE SE TFP 2015 0.952 1.068 0.978 0.974 1.017 2016 1.046 0.991 1.022 1.023 1.036 2017 1.017 0.929 1.005 1.012 0.945 2018 0.99 1.027 0.986 1.004 1.017 2019 1.007 1.028 1.013 0.994 1.035 2020 1.013 0.999 1.007 1.006 1.012 Mean 1.004 1.006 1.002 1.002 1.01 Source: Own computation, 2021 Note that the abbreviations Eff, TEch, PE, SE, and TFP stood for efficiency change, technological efficiency change, pure efficiency change, scale efficiency change, and total factor productivity change, respectively. Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 17 of 26 to be 0.65 with the minimum and maximum liquidity risk of 0.39 and 0.91, respectively. Bank size as measured by the logarithm of total assets is found to have a mean value of 23.38 over the period under study. The summary statistics also indicate that the mean value of the logarithm of a fixed asset is 19.70 with the minimum and maximum values of 16.76 and 23.13, respectively. 4.8.2. The Tobit model result Initially, the study selected 10 explanatory variables, which cover bank-specific variables (number of branches, number of employees, ownership, market share, liquidity risk, Credit Risk, Bank Size, Level of Capitalization, and Log of Fixed Asset) and macroeconomic variables (Log of Gross Domestic Product Table 11. TFP Growth in the Banking Sector, 2014–2020 Banks Eff TE PE SE TFP Commercial Bank of Ethiopia 0.971 0.956 1 0.971 0.928 Awash International Bank 1.015 1.018 1 1.015 1.033 Dashen Bank 1.022 1.037 0.995 1.028 1.06 Bank of Abyssinia 0.999 1.048 0.993 1.007 1.048 Wegagen Bank 0.999 1.044 1 0.999 1.043 United Bank 1.013 1.045 1 1.013 1.059 Nib International Bank 0.99 1.06 0.993 0.996 1.049 Cooperative Bank of Oromia 1 0.922 1 1 0.922 Lion International Bank 0.991 1.001 0.998 0.993 0.992 Oromia International Bank 1.031 0.95 1.03 1 0.979 Berhan International Bank 1 0.983 1 1 0.983 Bunna International Bank S.c 1 1.028 1 1 1.028 Zemen Bank Sc 0.997 0.996 1.005 0.992 0.993 Abay Bank Sc 1.025 1.036 1.018 1.007 1.062 Addis International Bank Sc 1 1.011 1 1 1.011 Debub Global Bank S.c. 1.01 0.98 1 1.01 0.99 Enat Bank S.c. 1 1.003 1 1 1.003 Mean 1.004 1.006 1.002 1.002 1.01 Source: Own computation,2021 Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 18 of 26 and Inflation) for the second-stage Tobit model. However, the number of employees, ownership, and market share are excluded from the model due to the perfect Multicollinearity problem (See Appendix A). Hence, the estimated technical efficiency scores are regressed against the remaining eight variables, as described in Table 13. In addition, we run the Breusch–Pagan test to detect the presence of heteroscedasticity and the result indicates the presence of heteroscedasticity (see Appendix B). As a result, the least-squares estimator is still a linear and unbiased estimator, but it is no longer best. That is, there is another estimator with a smaller variance. In addition, the standard errors computed for the least-squares estimators are incorrect. This can affect confidence intervals and hypothesis testing that use those standard errors, which could lead to misleading conclusions. Therefore, this study applied heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors or simply robust standard errors to solve the affirmation problems (Gelfand, 2015). The findings of Jathurika (2018), who examined the statistically significant and positive impact of the number of branches on the technical efficiency of commercial banks operating in Sri Lanka, are consistent with the results reported in Table 14. The results show that the coefficient of the number of branches (NB) is positive and statistically significant at 5%, indicating that banks with a large number of branches are more efficient than banks with a small number of branches. Thus, the technical efficiency of commercial banks operating in Ethiopia will increase by being more physically close to their clients by opening a lot of branches. To maintain a level at which an overall increase in technical efficiency is feasible, bank managers may want to re-evaluate their strategy for branch expansion. Similar studies on determinants of efficiency are also used in this method, including (Zenebe Lema, 2017; Akmal & Saleem, 2008; Alrafadi et al., 2014; Soetanto, 2011). The result indicated that the number of bank branches is positively and statistically significant in affecting bank efficiency. The outcome, however, contradicts Jelassi and Delhoumi’s (2021) findings, which revealed a maximum average efficiency loss of 0.2% for each extra bank branch in Tunisia, and with the findings of Zenebe Lema (2017) that found the number of banks branches decreases the banks’ technical efficiency. Table 12. Descriptive statistics of variables in the Tobit model Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Variables return to scale (VRTS) 119 0.9784958 0.0478753 0.731 1 Number of branch (NB) 116 243.931 299.3417 4 1825 Liquidity Risk (LIQ) 117 0.4982842 0.0772712 0.2963485 0.6547294 Credit Risk (CR) 117 0.6529392 0.0938615 0.3972224 0.9145538 Bank Size (lSIZE) 117 23.38352 1.302328 19.86681 27.29258 Level of capitalization (LC) 115 0.1442424 0.0424791 0.037171 0.2595156 Log of Fixed Asset (logFA) 118 19.70629 1.459709 16.762 23.13988 Log of GDP (logGDP) 119 25.09109 0.210051 24.74167 25.40211 Inflation (INF) 119 11.96714 4.650997 6.63 20.35 Source: Own computation, 2021 Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 19 of 26 The most dangerous risk to the bank is typically liquidity risk. It compromises not just the security of each commercial bank, but also that of the entire banking system (Eichberger & Summer, 2005). According to Table 14, the level of technical efficiency was significantly and negatively affected by the banks’ level of liquidity risk, which is against the findings of Zenebe Lema (2017). The outcome is consistent with those of Lee & Kim (2013) and Bassey and Moses (2015), who find that liquidity risk and bank performance are negatively correlated in Asia and Africa, respectively. The success of a bank’s operations depends more than any other risk on the correct measurement and effective management of credit risk, which is by far the biggest threat to banks (Gieseche, 2004). Table 14 shows the statistically significant and favorable effect of credit risk on the technical effectiveness of Ethiopian commercial banks as assessed by loan-to-asset ratio. The outcome supports those of R. Banya and Biekpe (2018), Adusei and McMillan (2016), and Sharma et al. (2015) who discovered a statistically significant positive relationship between credit risk and technical efficiency. Bank size, as defined by the logarithm of total assets, has a positive and statistically significant impact on the technical efficiency of commercial banks in Ethiopia, according to our estimates. These findings are in line with the findings of Hassan and Jreisat (2016), Soetanto (2011), and Karray and Eddine Chichti (2013) Anwar (2019), Otero et al. (2020), and Sakouvogui and Shaik (2020). However, this contradicts the findings of Staněk (2015), R. M. Banya and Biekpe (2017), Ding and Sickles (2018), and Hadhek et al. (2018). The technical efficiency of Ethiopian commercial banks is negatively and statistically significantly impacted by the fixed asset logarithm, as shown in Table 14. According to Onyiriuba (2016), asset acquisition should be the major an indicator of the owner’s stake in the business is consistent with the outcome. However, the result contradicts the finding of Olatunji and Adegbite (2014) who found a strong and positive statistical impact of fixed assets on the efficiency of banks. Table 13. Robust Tobit regression result variables Coef. Robust Std. Err. t P > t [95% Conf. Interval] NB .0003929** .0002265 1.74 0.086 −.0000561 .000842 LIQ −1.765412** .6601163 −2.67 0.009 −3.074301 −.4565238 CR .9339213** .4890471 1.91 0.059 −.0357686 1.903611 SIZE .1791463* .0400813 4.47 0.000 .0996725 .2586201 LC .9928821 .8155408 1.22 0.226 −.6241847 2.609949 logFA −.1093701* .0245961 −4.45 0.000 −.1581397 −.0606005 logGDP .0958169 .1397498 0.69 0.494 −.1812812 .372915 INF −.0049354 .0051613 −0.96 0.341 −.0151694 .0052986 _cons −3.244561 3.540252 −0.92 0.362 −10.26423 3.775104 /Sigma .0920702 0.0139934 .06 43,238 .11 98,166 0 left-censored observations 34 uncensored observations 79 right-censored observations at VRTS ≥1 Level of significance: *(1%), **(5%), Source: Own computation, 2021 Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 20 of 26 On the other hand, the level of capitalization is found to be statistically insignificant and has a positive impact on the level of technical efficiency. This result confirms the conclusion of Tecles and Tabak (2010), Rosman et al. (2014), Zenebe Lema (2017), and Řepková (2015). Furthermore, the two macroeconomic variables (log of GDP and inflation) were found to have a statistically insignificant impact on the technical efficiency of Ethiopian commercial banks. The finding is in line with Knezevic and Dobromirov (2016) who found no relationship between economic growth and bank efficiency. 5. Conclusion This paper explores factors affecting the technical efficiency of commercial banks in Ethiopia. According to the DEA analysis, seven banks are technically efficient based on CRS assumptions. This implies that about 58.8% of the banks are technically inefficient. Furthermore, 14 banks are technically efficient in accordance with the VRS assumption. In other words, 17.6% of the banks are technically inefficient. The result shows that there is potential for improving the technical efficiency without requiring additional resources. That is, when inefficient banks enhance their performance on average by 3.5% and 0.4% on CRS and VRS assumptions, they can become efficient without the requirement of additional resources. On the other hand, the Malmquist DEA analysis shows that the average productivity of schools improved in the last seven years of operation by 1%. The improvement in productivity of banks is mainly due to technological changes and internal efficiency. According to the Tobit regression results, out of the bank-specific variables, number of branches, credit risk, and bank size influence the technical efficiency of banks positively. However, fixed assets and liquidity risks are inversely related to banks. Furthermore, the level of capitalization is statistically insignificant to affect efficiency. Based on macroeconomic explanatory variables, both inflation rate and GDP are not significant to impact the technical efficiency of banks. As a result, to enhance the overall efficiency of commercial banks of Ethiopia, they have to consider enhancing their branches in the different regions of the country. In other words, banks should raise their accessibility for customers. Moreover, banks should improve both bank size and credit risk to enhance efficiency. However, they have to reduce the liquidity risk and investment on fixed assets for improving their efficiency. Further studies should focus on measuring the efficiency of commercial banks in Ethiopia by applying a more deterministic frontier technique, Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA). Besides, other efficiency estimations such as cost efficiency, super efficiency, and cross-efficiency model would be employed in the future research. One limitation of using the Tobit regression model was that the scores are not observable and unable to get a guaranteed statistical inference of the analysis. Hence, future research will employee a bootstrapped–truncated regression model in the second stage as recommended by Simar and Wilson (2007). Moreover, the study is unable to take into account labour as input variable in the first stage of efficiency estimation and explanatory variables, such as market concentration ratio, exchange rate, salary expense, and year of operation that could determine the efficiency of banks in the second stage of efficiency estimation. Funding The authors received no direct funding for this research. Author details Salah Mohammed Abdulahi 1 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8818-4788 Mekonnen Kumlachew Yitayaw 2 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6076-1774 Habtamu Legese Feyisa 1 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4345-2432 Wondmagegn Biru Mamo 2 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8516-659X 1 Department of Economics, College of Business & Economics, Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. 2 Department of Accounting and Finance, College of Business & Economics, Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Citation information Cite this article as: Factor affecting technical efficiency of the banking sector: Evidence from Ethiopia, Salah Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 21 of 26 Mohammed Abdulahi, Mekonnen Kumlachew Yitayaw, Habtamu Legese Feyisa & Wondmagegn Biru Mamo, Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039. References Adjei-Frimpong, K., Gan, C., & Hu, B. (2014). Cost efficiency of Ghana’s banking industry: A panel data analysis. The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, 8(2), 69–86. https://ssrn.com/abstract= 2322961 Adusei, M., & McMillan, D. (2016). Determinants of bank technical efficiency: Evidence from rural and community banks in Ghana. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311975.2016.1199519 Aiello, F., & Bonanno, G. (2016). Looking at the determinants of efficiency in banking: Evidence from Italian mutual-cooperatives. International Review of Applied Economics, 30(4), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02692171.2015.1122747 Akmal, M., & Saleem, M. (2008). Technical efficiency of the banking sector in Pakistan. SBP Research Bulletin, 4 (1), 61–80. Alhassan, A. L., Tetteh, M. L., & Brobbey, F. O. (2016). Market power, efficiency and bank profitability: Evidence from Ghana. Economic Change and Restructuring, 49(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10644-015-9174-6 Alrafadi, K. M., Kamaruddin, B. H., & Yusuf, M. (2014). Efficiency and determinants in Libyan banking. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5, 5. Amene, T. B., & Alemu, G. A. (2019). Determinants of financial performance in private banks: A case in Ethiopia. African Journal of Business Management, 13 (9), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM2019.8771 Anwar, M. (2019). Cost efficiency performance of Indonesian banks over the recovery period: A stochastic frontier analysis. The Social Science Journal, 56(3), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sos cij.2018.08.002 Ayadi, I. (2014). Technical efficiency of Tunisian banks. International Business Research, 7(4), 170. https://doi. org/10.5539/ibr.v7n4p170 Banna, H., Shah, S. K. B., Noman, A. H. M., Ahmad, R., & Masud, M. M. (2019). Determinants of sino-ASEAN banking efficiency: How do countries differ? Economies, 7(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ economies7010013 Banya, R. M., & Biekpe, N. (2017). Bank competition and economic growth: Empirical evidence from selected frontier African countries. Journal of Economic Studies, 44(2), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES09-2015-0169 Banya, R., & Biekpe, N. (2018). Banking Efficiency and its determinants in selected Frontier African Markets. Economic Change and Restructuring, 51(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-016-9200-3 Bassey, G. E., & Moses, C. E. (2015). Bank profitability and liquidity management: A case study of selected Nigerian deposit money banks. International Journal of Economics and Management, 3, 1–24. http://ijecm. co.uk/wp-con-tent/uploads/2015/04/3467a.pdf Batir, T. E., Volkman, D. A., & Gungor, B. (2017). Determinants of bank efficiency in Turkey: Participation banks versus conventional banks. Borsa Istanbul Review, 17(2), 86–96. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.bir.2017.02.003 Berger, A. N., & Humphrey, D. B. (1997). The efficiency of financial institutions: International survey and directions for future research. European Journal of Operational Research, 98(2), 175–212. doi.00342-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(96) Blankson, N., Anarfo, E. B., Amewu, G., & Doabil, L. (2022). Examining the determinants of bank efficiency in transition: Empirical evidence from Ghana. Heliyon, 8 (8), e10156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022. e10156 Boutheina, B., & Moez, L. (2013). Efficiency of the Tunisian trade banks: Study by the stochastic frontier approach. Panoeconomicus, 60(1), 103–132. https:// doi.org/10.2298/PAN1301103B Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78) 90138-8 Cheriye, A. B. (2020). Measuring the Efficiency of Pan African Commercial Banks: An Application of Malmquist DEA Methods. Sciences, 10(8), 942–954. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i8/7665 Coelli, T. J., Prasada Rao, D. S., O’Donnell, C. J., & Battese, G. E. (2005). An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (2nd) ed., pp. 36). Springer. Dahiyat, A. (2016). Does liquidity and solvency affect banks profitability? Evidence from listed banks in Jordan international journal of academic research in Accounting. Finance and Management Sciences, 6(1), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARAFMS/v6-i1/1954 Defung, F., Salim, R., & Bloch, H. (2016). Has regulatory reform had any impact on bank efficiency in Indonesia? A two-stage analysis. Applied Economics, 48(52), 5060–5074. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00036846.2016.1170934 Dell’Atti, S., Pacelli, V., & Mazzarelli, G. (2015). The efficiency of the European banking groups and its determinants. Managerial Finance. https://doi.org/10. 1108/MF-12-2013-0335 Dinberu, Y. D., & Wang, M. (2018). Drivers of Technical Efficiency of Ethiopian Commercial Banks: DEA Approach & Tobit Model. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 9(4), 30–38. Ding, N., Fung, H.G., & Jia, J. (2017). Comparison of Bank Profitability in China and the USA. China & World Economy, 25, 90–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/cwe. 12188 Ding, D., & Sickles, R. C. (2018). Frontier efficiency, capital structure, and portfolio risk: An empirical analysis of US banks. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 21(4), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2018.09.002 Djalilov, K., & Piesse, J. (2016). Determinants of bank profitability in transition countries: What matters most? Research in International Business and Finance, 38, 69– 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.03.015 Eichberger, J., & Summer, M. (2005). Bank capital, liquidity, and systemic risk. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(2–3), 547–555. https://doi. org/10.1162/jeea.2005.3.2-3.547 Fare, R., Lindgren, S. G., & Roos, P. (1989). Productivity Development in Swedish Hospitals: A Malmquist Output Index Approach. Discussion Paper 89–3. Southern Illinios University. Gelfand, S. J. (2015), Understanding the Impact of Heteroscedasticity on the Predictive Ability of Modern Regression Methods. Graduating Extended Essay, https://summit.sfu.ca/item/15679 Gieseche, K. (2004). Credit risk modeling and valuation: An introduction, Cornell University. Credit Risk: Models and Management. Vol. 2, London. Goswami, R., Hussain, F., & Kumar, M. (2019). Banking Efficiency Determinants in India: A Two-stage Analysis. Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 22 of 26 Research, 13(4), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0301574219868373 Hadhek, Z., Frifita, M., & Lafi, M. (2018). The determinants of profit efficiency of Islamic banks using stochastic Frontier analysis approach. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 8(6), 20. https://doi. org/10.32479/ijefi.6996 Hamid, N., Ramli, N. A., & Hussin, S. A. S. (2017). Efficiency measurement of the banking sector in the presence of non-performing loan. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1795 (1), 020001. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4972145 Hamza, S. M. (2017). Impact of credit risk management on banks performance: A case study in Pakistan banks. European Journal of Business and Management, 9(1), 57–64. https://core.ac.uk/down load/pdf/234627678.pdf Hassan, H., & Jreisat, A. (2016). Does bank efficiency matter? A case of Egypt. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(2), 473–478. https://dergipark.org.tr/ en/download/article-file/363369 Hirtle, B. (2007). The impact of network size on bank branch performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 31(12), 3782–3805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin. 2007.01.020 Jajri, I., & Ismail, R. (2010). Impact of labour quality on labour productivity and economic growth. African Journal of Business Management, 4(4), 486. https:// academicjournals.org/journal/AJBM/article-full-textpdf/E78664E22233 Jathurika, M. (2018). Impact Of Branches Nationwide On Performance Of Selected Listed Commercial Banks In Srilanka. Global Spine Journal, 6(9), 523–532. Jelassi, M. M., & Delhoumi, E. (2021). What explains the technical efficiency of banks in Tunisia? Evidence from a two-stage data envelopment analysis. Financial Innovation, 7(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s40854-021-00282-w Jiménez-Hernández, I., Palazzo, G., & Sáez-Fernández, F. J. (2019). Determinants of bank efficiency: Evidence from the Latin American banking industry. Applied Economic Analysis, 27(81), 184–206. https:// doi.org/10.1108/AEA-09-2019-0027 Kamarudin, F. (2015). Determinants of revenue efficiency of Islamic banks. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 8(1), 36–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMEFM-12-2012-0114 Karimu Tossa, Y. A. (2016). Estimating and Analyzing the Technical Efficiency of Banks in Ghana. The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, 10(4), 73–90. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=2913181 Karray, S. C., & Eddine Chichti, J. (2013). Bank size and efficiency in developing countries: Intermediation approach versus value added approach and impact of non-traditional activities. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 3(5), 593–613. https://archive.aess web.com/index.php/5002/article/view/1034 Knezevic, A., & Dobromirov, D. (2016). The determinants of Serbian banking industry profitability. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 29(1), 459–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2016.1174390 Lelissa, T. B. (2014). Efficiency in the Ethiopian Banking System: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(23), 129–138. Lemi, B. A., Rafera, M. K., & Gezaw, M. (2020). Macroeconomic and bank specific determinants of commercial bank profitability in Ethiopia. International Journal of Commerce and Finance, 6(2), 198–206. http://ijcf.ticaret. edu.tr/index.php/ijcf/article/view/215 Liang, H. Y., Ching, Y. P., & Chan, K. C. (2013). Enhancing bank performance through branches or representative offices? Evidence from European banks. International Business Review, 22(3), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2012.07.003 Marian, M. O., & Ikpor, I. M. (2017). Impact of fixed asset investment on banks financial performance in Nigeria. Funai Journal of Accounting, 1(1), 241–254. Marozva, G. (2015). Liquidity and bank performance. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 14(3), 453–562. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber. v14i3.9218 Marshall, F. R. (1967). Labor in the South (Vol. 124). Harvard University Press. Mohd Noor, N. H. H., Bakri, M. H., Wan Yusof, W. Y. R., Mohd Noor, N. R. A., & Zainal, N. (2020). The impact of the bank regulation and supervision on the efficiency of Islamic Banks. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(11), 747–757. https://doi. org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no11.747 Mokhtar, H. S. A., Abdullah, N., & Alhabshi, S. M. (2008). Efficiency and competition of Islamic banking in Malaysia. Humanomics, 24(1), 28–48. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/08288660810851450 Munangi, E., & Bongani, A. (2020). An empirical analysis of the impact of credit risk on the financial performance of South African banks. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 24(3), 1–15. National Bank of Ethiopia. 2020. Annual Report. 45 Ofori-Sasu, D., Abor, J. Y., & Mensah, L. (2019). Funding structure and technical efficiency: A data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach for banks in Ghana. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 15(4), 425–443. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-01-2018-0003 Ofori-Sasu, D., Abor, J. Y., & Mensah, L. (2019). Funding structure and technical efficiency: A data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach for banks in Ghana. International Journal of Managerial Finance. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-01-2018-0003 Ojeyinka, T. A., & Akinlo, A. E. (2021). Does bank size affect efficiency? Evidence from commercial banks in Nigeria. Ilorin Journal of Economic Policy, 8(1), 79–100. Olatunji, T. E., & Adegbite, T. A. (2014). Investment in fixed assets and firm profitability: Empirical evidence from the Nigerian banking sector. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 1(3), 78–82. Onyiriuba, L. (2016). Bank Credit Portfolio Structure, Quality, and Returns in Emerging Economies. Chapter 38. In L. ONYIRIUBA (Ed.), Emerging Market Bank Lending and Credit Risk Control (pp. 671–689). Academic Press. Otero, L., Razia, A., Cunill, O. M., & Mulet-Forteza, C. (2020). What determines efficiency in MENA banks? Journal of Business Research, 112, 331–341. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.002 Petria, N., Capraru, B., & Ihnatov, I. (2015). Determinants of banks’ profitability: Evidence from EU 27 banking systems. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 518–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00104-5 Rahim, A., Rahman, A., & Rosman, R. (2013). Efficiency of Islamic banks: A comparative analysis of MENA and Asian countries. Journal of Economic Cooperation and Development. Řepková, I. (2015). Banking efficiency determinants in the Czech banking sector. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 191–196. Rosman, R., Wahab, N. A., & Zainol, Z. (2014). Efficiency of Islamic banks during the financial crisis: An analysis of Middle Eastern and Asian. Abdulahi et al., Cogent Economics & Finance (2023), 11: 2186039 https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2186039 Page 23 of 26