Final Thesis-Miftah Arifyani

UNIVERSITAS ANDALAS
ANALYSIS OF THE TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY OF CONVENTIONAL

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES IN INDONESIA ON 2016-2020 USING
THE DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS (DEA) METHOD
THESIS
MIFTAH ARIFYANI
1810513004
ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINEES
PADANG
2022
TABEL OF CONTENTS
TABEL OF CONTENTS..........................................................................................i
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................iv
CHART LIST...........................................................................................................v
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1
1.1 Background...............................................................................................1
1.2 Problem Formulation.................................................................................6
1.3 Research Objectives..................................................................................6
1.4 Benefits of Research..................................................................................6
1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Research.....................................................7
1.6 Systematic Writing....................................................................................7
CHAPTER II THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK.....................................................9
2.1 Grand Theory............................................................................................9
2.1.1 The Definition of Efficiency and the Concept of Efficiency.............9
2.1.2 Types of efficiency..........................................................................10
2.1.3 Efficiency Measurement..................................................................12
2.1.4 Non-Parametric Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Approach......13

2.1.5 The Relationship of Inputs and Outputs in Efficiency Measurement
15
2.1.6 Financial Institution.........................................................................16
2.1.7 Non-Bank Financial Institutions......................................................18
2.2 Past Research...........................................................................................20
2.3 Research Framework...............................................................................22
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..................................................24
3.1 Specific Research Objectives..................................................................24
3.2 Time and Place of Research....................................................................24
3.3 Research Methods...................................................................................24
3.4 Sampling Techniques..............................................................................24
3.5 Data Collection Techniques....................................................................27
3.6 Data Analysis Techniques.......................................................................27
3.6.1 Data of Variable...............................................................................27
3.6.2 Descriptive Analysis........................................................................28
3.6.3 Input-Output Description.................................................................29
3.6.4 DEA Analysis Methods...................................................................36
3.6.5 Models in Data Envelopment Analysis............................................36
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION................................44
4.1 Variable Description................................................................................44
4.1.1 Input variables..................................................................................44

4.1.2 Output Variables..............................................................................44
4.2 Result of Data Analysis...........................................................................45
Input dan output Oriented CCR......................................................................45
Input oriented BCC.........................................................................................48
4.2.3 Output Oriented BCC............................................................................51
CHAPTER V..........................................................................................................55
5.1 Summary.................................................................................................55
5.2 Research Synthesis..................................................................................55
5.3 Research Implication...............................................................................55
5.4 Recommendations...................................................................................55
BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................56
APPENDIX............................................................................................................59
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3. 1 The Company issues premium income, capital dan employee expenses
................................................................................................................................26
Table 3. 2 List of Company...................................................................................26
Table 3. 3 Company Profile...................................................................................27
Table 3. 4 Conventional Input Variabel Data (Capital) 2016-2020 (In Millions of
Rupiah)...................................................................................................................30
Table 3. 5 Conventional Life Insurance Input Variable Data (Employee Expenses)
2016-2020 (In Millions of Rupiah)........................................................................32
Table 3. 6 Conventional Life Insurance Input Variable Data (Premium Income)
2016-2020 (In Millions of Rupiah)........................................................................34
Table 4.2. 1 Input and Output Oriented

CCR…………………………………………….………………….45
Table 4.2. 2 Input Oriented BCC...........................................................................48
Table 4.2. 3 Output Oriented BCC........................................................................51

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. 1 Growth in the number of conventional insurance companies...............2
Figure 1. 2 Growth of Premiums, Assets, Claims and Investments in Conventional
Live Insurance in 2016-2020...................................................................................3
Figure 2. 1 Technical Efficiency Model 11
Figure 2. 2 Framework of Thought........................................................................22

CHART LIST
Chart 4. 1 CRS.......................................................................................................47
Chart 4. 2 VRS.......................................................................................................49
Chart 4. 3 VRS.......................................................................................................53
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In everyday life, human beings will not be separated from risks, because no
one can predict what will happen in the future. Future risks can occur to a person's
life, for example; death, illness or the risk of being fired from his job. Every risk
faced must be overcome so as to minimize the losses that will occur. To reduce
risks that we do not want in the future, such as the risk of loss, risk of fire or other
risks, a company is needed that is able to bear these risks. One of the efforts to
anticipate risks is to find other parties who are willing to overcome these risks,
including insurance companies. (Directorate General of State Treasury:2020)
According to the Big Indonesian Dictionary, insurance is coverage, an
agreement between two parties. The definition of insurance according to the
Financial Services Authority, which is an agreement between the insurance
company and the policyholder, which is the basis for receiving premiums by the
insurance company in exchange for or reducing losses. While, according to Law
Number 2 of 1992 Insurance or coverage is an agreement between two or more
parties by which the insured party binds itself to the insured by receiving
insurance premiums to provide reimbursement to the insured for loss, damage, or
loss of expected profits, or legal liability to a third party that the insured may
suffer, arising from an uncertain event, or to provide a payment based on the death
or life of an insured person.

Life insurance is an insurance product that provides guarantees in the form
of compensation or sum insured to the family of the customer who died, had an
accident, permanent disability, or other accidental risks. Because of its role, this
insurance product is important to have, especially for those who act as the only
backbone in the family. The purpose of conventional life insurance is to cover
potential loss of income. If a person who played the role of the backbone of the
family dies, then the family left behind will not lose the source of income. The
types of conventional life insurance are term life insurance, whole life insurance,
unit-linked life insurance, and dual-purpose life insurance. (www.manulife.co.id)
Figure 1. 1 Growth in the number of conventional insurance companies
on 2016-2020
Data sources: Statistik Perasuransian Indonesia 2020
The following table 1.1 shows the growth in the number of insurance
companies. The number of insurance companies that have business licenses to
operate in Indonesia as of December 31, 2020 is 376 companies, consisting of 148

insurance and reinsurance companies and 228 insurance business support
companies (excluding Actuarial Consultants and Insurance Agents). Insurance
and reinsurance companies consist of 59 conventional life insurance companies,
77 general insurance companies, 7 reinsurance companies, 2 social security
program organizing bodies, and 3 PNS and TNI / POLRI insurance providers.
(Financial Services Authority:2021)
The level of efficiency of a company can be seen from the company being
able to pay claims submitted by insurance members. The growth of conventional
insurance institutionally pushes the number of assets, investments, gross
contributions, and gross claims higher, for example as in the following 2016-2020
chart.
Figure 1. 2 Growth of Premiums, Assets, Claims and Investments in Conventional
Live Insurance in 2016-2020
Sour
ce: Processed by the author

The number of gross claims for the insurance industry in 2020 decreased by
2.1% compared to the previous year, from IDR 364.26 trillion in 2019 to IDR
356.53 trillion in 2020. Claims paid by conventional life insurance companies
decreased by 6.5% compared to the previous year, from Rp163.50 trillion to
Rp152.90 trillion. Claims paid by the social security organizing agency decreased
by 4.5%, from Rp138.18 trillion to Rp131.96 trillion. Overall, the ratio of gross
claims to gross premiums in 2020 was 70.8%. This ratio is lower than the
previous year's claims ratio of 75.7%. This decrease was due to the growth of
gross premiums followed by a decrease in claims paid the number of assets of the
Indonesian insurance industry in 2020 reached IDR 1,450.32 trillion. This amount
has increased by 6.87% compared to the number of assets in the previous year.
From 2016 to 2020, insurance industry assets increased by an average of 7.66%
per year (using the Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) method).
(Financial Services Authority:2020)
According to the State Bank of Pakistan (2005), the growth of the insurance
sector well will contribute to economic growth. One of the measurements of good
insurance performance growth is seen in its efficiency. The efficiency of an
enterprise means making the best use of the available resources. Efficient
companies show better performance with input utilization (Janjua & Akmal,
2015). According to Abidin and Endri (2010), one of the most important aspects
for the success of an insurance company is efficiency. Efficiency is indeed one of
the performance parameters that are quite popular, but efficiency alone is not
enough to be a performance parameter of an insurance. The efficiency of an
insurance must at least be followed by good risk management, so that in addition

to being able to get maximum profit, insurance is also required to be able to
control existing risks.
Measuring insurance efficiency can be done by various methods, such as
looking at the comparison of insurance performance indicators and financial
ratios. In addition, there are also several other methods, namely parametric and
non-parametric approaches. The parametric approaches include the Stochastic
Frontier Approach (SFA), the Distribution Free Approach (DFA), and the Thick
Frontier Approach (TFA), while the non-parametric approach is to use the Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA) approach (Hadad et al., 2003).
The research related to the efficiency of sharia insurance is a study by Shieh
et al. (2020) with the title "Efficiency of Life Insurance Companies: An Empirical
Study in Mainland China and Taiwan". This research shows that environmental
factors significantly affect the efficiency of all life insurance companies. After the
adjustments, the efficiency score of life insurance companies in mainland China
and Taiwan drops to 14.01% and 26.64% in the regional frontier, and 38.31% and
12.22% in the metafrontier frontier. Before 2008, the life insurance companies in
Taiwan were more efficient than those in mainland China. different with research
from Kader et al. (2010) with the title "The Cost Efficiency of Takaful Insurance
Companies." This research shows that larger Sharia insurance companies have a
better level of efficiency.
1.2 Based on this, the author wants to analyze the efficiency of conventional
insurance because there has been limited research that examines the
efficiency of conventional insurance and so that consumers know which

conventional insurance company is more efficient. Thus, research must be
carried out on whether the conventional life insurance industry is able to
survive with certain inputs so as to produce maximum output by using data
from conventional life financial statements that are insurance companies
on the websites of each company. Based on the phenomena that occur and
also the various background problems that have been mentioned above, it
is necessary to conduct research with the title "Analysis of the technical
efficiency of conventional life insurance in Indonesia in 2016-2020 using
the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method".
1.3 Problem Formulation
Based on the background that has been described, the formulation of this
research problem are:
1. What is the efficiency score of conventional life insurance companies
during the 2016-2020 period?
2. Which insurance company was more efficient during the period 2016-
2020?
1.4 Research Objectives
The objectives of this research are:
1. To find out how the efficiency score of Conventional Insurance during the
2016-2020 period.
2. To find out which insurance is more efficient during the 2016-2020 period.
1.5 Benefits of Research
The results of this study are expected to be useful for:
1. Researcher
This research is useful to add insight and knowledge about how the
efficiency of conventional life insurance is using Data Envelopment
Analysis.
2. For Companies
Provide input on the efficiency assessment of conventional life insurance
companies using Data Envelopment Analysis.
3. Investors
To provide information to investors and users of the company's financial
statements regarding the efficiency of conventional life insurance, so it is
hoped that this information can be considered and guided by investors in
making decisions.
4. Next Researcher
This research is expected to spur better research on the efficiency of
conventional life insurance. This research is also expected to add
knowledge and insight to researchers regarding conventional life insurance
so that it is expected to be information to conduct further research.
1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Research
This study only discusses limited to conventional life insurance in 2016-
2020, only using technical efficiency and using the Data Envelopment Analysis
(DEA) method.
1.7 Systematic Writing

Systematics of writing is made to facilitate the preparation of this thesis, it is
necessary to determine a good writing systematically. The writing systematics is
as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction
The chapter contains the problem indentification why this topic was chosen,
problrm statements, research objectives, research benefit, and systematic
writing.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The chapter contains the references and literature reviews relating to
definition of efficiency, components of efficiency, efficiency measurement,
type of efficiency, and research framework.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
The chapter contains the operational research objective, research location and
time, sampling techniques, data collection technique, and data analysis
technique, model in Data Envelopment Analysis.
Chapter 4: Result
The Chapter contains discussion of an overview of the result and discussion.
Chapter 5: Conclusion
The Chapter contains the conclutions of the analysis and recommendations.

CHAPTER II
THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Grand Theory
2.1.1 The Definition of Efficiency and the Concept of
Efficiency
In the Big Dictionary of Indonesian, efficiency means being able to work
on (produce) something (by not wasting time, effort, or money), being able to
carry out tasks appropriately, meticulously, and effectively. Efficiency refers to
the peak performance level that uses the least number of inputs to achieve the
highest number of outputs. Efficiency requires a reduction in the amount of
unnecessary resources used to produce certain outputs, including time and
energy. The concept of efficiency comes from the concept of microeconomics,
that is, the theory of consumers and the theory of producers. The point of view
of consumer theory tries to maximize the usefulness or satisfaction of
individuals, while the theoretical point of view of manufacturers tries to
maximize profits or minimize costs. (Ascarya and Diana Yumanita, 2007).
Efficiency can also be defined as a comparison between output (output)
and input (input), or the amount generated from a single input used. A
company can be said to be efficient when using a smaller number of input units
when compared to the number of input units used by other companies to
produce a larger number of outputs. (Priyonggo, 2008) The objectives of
efficiency are as follows: achieving a result or goal as expected or planned;
saving or also reducing the use of resources in carrying out activities or
activities; maximizing the use of all resources it has so that nothing is wasted;
improving the performance of a work unit so that its results or outputs are
maximized; maximizing the profits that may be obtained.
According to Farrell (1957), the efficiency of a company consists of two
components, namely: (1) technical efficiency and (2) allocative efficiency.
Technical efficiency describes the company's ability to achieve the maximum
level of output by using a certain level of input. This technical efficiency
measures the production process's ability to produce a certain number of
outputs using the minimum possible inputs. In other words, technical
efficiency reflects the company's ability to produce maximum output by using
a limited number of available inputs. Meanwhile, allocative efficiency
describes the company's ability to optimize the use of its inputs within a certain
price structure and technology. The combination of technical efficiency and
allocative efficiency will be economic efficiency.
An enterprise can be said to be economically efficient if it can minimize
production costs to produce a certain output with the level of technology
generally used as well as the prevailing market price. So, it can be concluded
that an organization can be said to be efficient if the output produced can be
increased without increasing the input and lowering certain other outputs.
Similarly, an organization can be said to be efficient if the input can be derived
without lowering the output produced or without increasing the specific input
of others. In simple terms, efficiency is the comparison between outputs that
are generated and inputs that are used. A company or organization can be said
to be efficient if it can produce large outputs and use certain inputs.
2.1.2 Types of efficiency

According to Hidayat (2014: 67), there are three types of efficiency, namely
1. Technical efficiency is the efficiency that describes the ability of a
company or institution to utilize inputs to produce outputs.
2. Allocative or price efficiency is an efficiency that uses price structure and
production technology to optimize inputs.
3. Economic efficiency refers to the capacity of an enterprise to reduce
production costs to produce certain outputs by utilizing common
technologies and current market prices.
In this study, a type of efficiency was used because the research described the
efficiency of insurance institutions in utilizing inputs to produce outputs. Coeli
describes the technical efficiency model as shown below:
Figure 2. 1 Technical Efficiency Model
B D
Output Y
C A
0 Input X
Figure 2.1 shows that if the institution is on the frontier line, then the
institution is in an efficient position. This is in accordance with the statements
of Ketkar, Noulas, and Agarwal (2003) that companies or institutions are said
to be efficient when they are on the frontier line. The frontier line in the figure
above is 0CB. Point A has not been said to be efficient because it is inside the
frontier line and needs to increase output to achieve an efficient position. Point
A can also reach point C even if the input is reduced.

2.1.3 Efficiency Measurement
There are 3 types of efficiency measurement approaches (Muharram and
Pusvitasari: 2007):
1 Ratio Approach is an approach by calculating the ratio of outputs and
inputs to determine efficiency. Efficiency will be of high value if the
output is optimal while the input is very minimal.
Output
Efficiency=
Input
Chu-Fen Li (2007) sees the ratio approach as "the most critical
limitation of the financial ratio is that they fail to consider the multiple
input-output". This ratio approach has the disadvantage that if there are
many inputs and outputs calculated, if taken into account in unison, it will
produce many calculation results so as to produce indecisive assumptions
(Muharam and Purvitasari, 2007). Therefore, this approach has not been
able to assess the performance of financial institutions as a whole.
2 Regression approach, measuring efficiency in this approach using a model
from a certain level of output, namely by using regression equations.
Here's the regression equation:
Y = X1 + X2 + X3 +...+ Xn
Information:
Y: Output
X: Input
This proximity also cannot cope with the condition of many
outputs. Because only one output indicator can be accommodated in a
regression equation.
3 Frontier approach
The approach is divided into two types, namely parametric and
non-parametric approaches. The parametric approach in measuring it uses
the Stolhastic Frontier Approach (SFA) and the Distribution Free
Approach (DFA). While non-parametrics use the DEA (Data Envelopment
Analysis) method. In this study, a non-parametric Frontier approach was
used with the DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) method.
2.1.4 Non-Parametric Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)
Approach
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is a methodology used to evaluate the
efficiency of a decision-making unit (work unit) that is responsible for using a
number of inputs to obtain a targeted output. DEA is a fractional programming
model that can span multiple outputs and inputs without the need to specify
weights for each variable beforehand, without the need for an explicit
explanation of the functional relationship between input and output (unlike
regression). The DEA calculates efficiency measures scalarly and determines
efficient input and output levels for the units being evaluated. (Khan and
Noreen, 2014).
This DEA method was created as a tool for evaluating the performance
of an activity in an entity unit (organization) hereinafter referred to as DMU

(Decision Making Unit). In simple terms, measurement is expressed by a ratio:
output / input which is a unit of measurement of efficiency or productivity that
can be expressed partially (for example output per hour of work or output per
worker, with output is sales, profit, etc.) or in total (involving all outputs and
inputs of an entity into measurement) which helps show what input factors
(outputs) are most influential in producing an output (the use of an input). It's
just that the expansion of productivity measurements from partial to total will
bring difficulties in choosing what inputs and outputs should be included and
how to weight them. Each DMU requires one linear program model above,
where the linear programming for each DMU is essentially the same. A DMU
is said to be relatively efficient when efficiency is worth 1 (efficient value of
100%). Conversely, the efficiency value is less than 1, then the DMU is
considered inefficient.
In this study, the non-parametric approach to the DEA method is a
method that will be used as an analytical method in this study. In Prof. Joe
Zhu's book, the DEA method is one of the non-parametric-based frontier
methods using linear programs. The purpose of using this method is to measure
the efficiency level of a Decision-Making Unit (DMU) relative to a similar
DMU, when all units are on or below its frontier efficient "curve". This method
can be used to evaluate the relative efficiency of some objects. In addition to
generating the efficiency values of each DMU, the DEA also shows the units
that are differentiation for the inefficient units.

Some of the things that the DEA approach excels at are:
1 The DEA method is a procedure specifically designed to measure the
relative efficiency of a DMU that uses many inputs and outputs so that it
can produce a score or value.
2 The DEA method does not require the assumption of functional
relationships between input and output variables.
3 DMU can be compared directly with its peers.
4 The units of measurement of inputs and outputs may be different.
However, this method also has limitations, including:
1 The DEA method requires that all inputs and outputs must be specific
and measurable. Errors in entering inputs and outputs will give biased
measurement results.
2 The values resulting from the DEA are relative values not absolute
values.
3 Statistical hypothesis testing of DEA results is difficult.
4 Using a separate linear programming formulation for each DMU (manual
calculations are difficult to do especially for large-scale problems).
2.1.5 The Relationship of Inputs and Outputs in Efficiency
Measurement
In explaining the relationship between inputs and outputs, there are three
approaches used by a financial institution, including:

1 Production approach, is an approach that views an institution as a
producer.
2 Intermediation Approach, is an approach that views the organization as
an intermediary to distribute assets from parties who have excess assets
to parties who have a shortage of assets.
3 Asset Approach, is an approach that views an institution as a place of
investment.
The approach used in this research is the Intermediation Approach. The
intermediation approach is a more appropriate approach to evaluate the
performance of the institution in general because of the characteristics of
financial institutions as financial intermediation that collect funds from surplus
units and channel them to deficit units.
2.1.6 Financial Institution
According to the Big Indonesian Dictionary, a Financial Institution is a
body in the financial sector that is in charge of withdrawing money and
distributing it to the public. According to the financial services authority,
Financial Institutions are institutions that collect funds from the public and
invest them in the form of other financial assets. For example, credit,
securities, current accounts, and other productive assets included in Bank
Financial Institutions and Non-Bank Financial Institutions. Meanwhile, the
definition of Financial Institutions according to the Decree of the Minister of
Finance is all entities whose activities are in the financial sector, collecting and
distributing funds to the public. Especially in order to finance the company's
investment.
Based on the definition of financial institutions mentioned above, the
functions of financial institutions are (Subagyo: 2000):
1) Launching the exchange of products (goods and services) using credit
money and instruments.
The function of financial institutions as institutions that facilitate
the exchange of these products, which is the term "transmission role", is.
Money media works as a medium of exchange or a means of facilitating
exchange at this stage of the economy, exchanges are carried out using
means of payment on credit (credit instruments) such as credit cards,
checks, and others.
2) Collect funds from the household (community) sector in the form of
savings and flow to the company sector in the form of loans.
In other words, financial institutions collect from parties that are
excessive funds and flow to those who need funds. Such a function of
financial institutions is often referred to as the "intermediary role", which
is the role of financial institutions as intermediaries between the
household sector and the company sector.
3) Providing economic analysis and information, namely:
a) Financial institutions carry out their duties as experts in analyzing the
economy and credit for the benefit of financial institutions and the
interests of other parties.

b) Financial institutions are obliged to disseminate useful and profitable
information and activities to their customers.
c) Economic analysis and information provided by financial institutions
are very useful for the financial institutions themselves and customers.
4) For financial institutions, economic analysis and information are useful for
the safety of funds distributed to customers so that it will reduce the
possibility of bad debts. For example, in providing credit for investment
activities, finance will analyze and microeconomic and macroeconomic
finances (in and microeconomic information), financial institutions will
conduct financial analysis according to credit needs so that customers can
pay loans obtained from financial institutions (self-liguiting), while in
macroeconomic analysis and information, financial institutions will
conduct a national economic study so that it is influenced by
macroeconomic data which is useful.
5) Provide guarantees, in the sense that financial institutions are able to
provide legal and moral guarantees regarding the security of public funds
entrusted to the financial institution.
6) Creating and providing liquidity. This happens because financial
institutions are able to provide confidence to customers that the funds
stored will be stored at the time needed or at maturity time
2.1.7 Non-Bank Financial Institutions
The definition of a non-bank financial institution or often also used the
term non-bank financial institution is all bodies that carry out activities in the
financial field, which directly or indirectly raise funds mainly by means of

issuing valuable paper and flowing in society, especially to finance company
investments to obtain prosperity and justice for society. This non-bank
financial institution has developed since 1972, with the aim of encouraging the
development of the capital market and helping the capitalization of
economically weak companies. Financial institutions are not banks that can
provide services in the field of finance of quite a lot of types.
The types of non-bank financial institutions in Indonesia include
1) Insurance Company is a company engaged in the coverage business.
2) Pension Fund, is a company whose activities are managing the pension
fund of an employer company
3) Savings and Loans Cooperative, which collects funds from its members
and then re-flows the funds to the members of the cooperative and the
general public
4) The Capital Market is a market where investors meet and conduct
transactions between fund seekers and investors, with the main
instruments of stocks and bonds
5) Factoring Company, is one that seeks to take over the credit payment of a
company by overcoming problems.
6) Venture Capital Companies are financing by companies that have high risk
centers.
7) Pawnshop Company is a financial institution that provides credit facilities
with certain guarantees.
8) Leasing Companies are emphasized more on financing capital goods
desired by their customers.

9) Credit Card Company
10) Money Market is a market where funds are obtained and fund investments.
11) Infrastructure Financing Company
2.2 Past Research
The research related to the efficiency of sharia insurance is a study from
Shieh et al. (2020) with title “Efficiency of Life Insurance Companies: An
Empirical Study in Mainland China and Taiwan”. This research shows the
environmental factors significantly affected the efficiency of all life insurance
companies. After the adjustments, the efficiency score of life insurance companies
in mainland China and Taiwan drops for 14.01% and 26.64% in regional frontier,
and 38.31% and 12.22% in metafrontier frontier. Before 2008, the life insurance
companies in Taiwan are more efficient than those in mainland China. Different
with research from Kader et. al (2010) conducting research on the cost efficiency
of takaful insurance companies by using the DEA method, show among others,
show that larger Sharia insurance companies have a better level of efficiency.
Subsequent research conducted by Abidin dan Cabanda (2011) about Analisis
Efisiensi Perusahaan Asuransi Non Jiwa yang ada di Indonesia menggunakan
metode DEA. Research shows that large-scale non-life insurance companies are
more efficient than small companies. Subsequent research conducted by Al-Amri
(2015) about takaful insurance efficiency in the GCC countries by using the DEA
method. The average technical efficiency score shows that insurance companies in
GCC countries are quite efficient even though they have not reached the perfect
point, the average technical efficiency score shows that. UAE and Qatar's
insurance industries have higher efficiency ratings than Saudi Arabia's and the
United Arab Emirates', which have lower rates.
Benarda (2016) about Tingkat Efisiensi Asuransi Jiwa Syariah
Menggunkan Pendekatan Two Stage Data Envelopment Analysis dengan
menggunakan metode DEA. The average results of the DEA analysis for all
Decision-Making Units (DMUs) are not yet technically and economically
efficient and the company's fund ratio has a positive and significant effect on
economic efficiency. Subsequent research conducted by Edy Suprapto (2016)
Pengukuran Efisiensi Asuransi Syariah dengan Data Envelopment Analysis
(DEA) dengan menggunakan metode DEA. There are 9 sharia general insurances
sampled, there are only 2 companies that are optimally efficient, there are 13
sharia life insurance companies that are sampled, there are only four samples of
companies that are able to achieve an optimal level of efficiency in managing the
risks of insurance participants. Subsequent research conducted by Sabiti et al.,
(2018) about Efisiensi Asuransi Syariah di Indonesia dengan pendekatan Data
Envelopment dengan menggunakan DEA Method, MPI, Wallis Kruskal Test. The
performance of sharia life insurance companies that are sampled in general has
been quite efficient even though it has not managed to achieve a perfect score.
Tuffahati et al (2019) Pengukuran Efisiensi Asuransi Syariah Dengan
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Insurance companies in general are already
quite efficient even though they have not managed to achieve a perfect score.
Subsequent research conducted by Suryoaji & Cahyono (2019) Perbandingan
Efisiensi dan Produktivitas antara Asuransi Jiwa Konvensional dengan Asuransi
Jiwa Syariah dengan mengunakan metode DEA Method & Malmquist Index. This
study was conducted on 29 companies consisting of 19 conventional life
insurance companies and 10 sharia life insurance companies. The results of this
study show that on average, the level of productivity of conventional life
insurance has increased while the level of productivity of sharia life insurance has
decreased.
2.3 Research Framework
Efficiency measurements in financial institutions have been widely carried
out as an indicator in running their business. This efficiency measurement can be
seen from various aspects, but in general efficiency tends to be seen from the
technical and cost side. The measurement of technical efficiency focuses on
assessing how the relationship between the output and the input, while cost-
efficiently assesses in terms of the amount of costs incurred in obtaining the
output produced. Efficiency measurement by looking at the technical and cost
sides can be applied in assessing efficiency by determining the inputs and outputs
first. By paying attention to this and based on existing theories and empirical
studies, a theoretical framework can be built to measure the level of efficiency in
conventional life insurance as a reference in this study.

Figure 2. 2 Framework of Thought
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Specific Research Objectives
This study aims to determine efficient conventional life insurance
companies in 2016-2020 using the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method.
This research was conducted on conventional ilfe insurance in Indonesia though
the official website of each company studied as many as twelve conventional life
insurance companies.
3.2 Time and Place of Research
Time : 2016-2020
Location : Indonesia
3.3 Research Methods
Soeratno and Arsyad (2012) suggest that data analysis techniques can be
used by two methods:
a. Qualitative analysis method, that is, information provided orally and in
writing (not numbers) to support quantitative data.
b. Quantitative analysis method, which is in the form of numbers aimed at
seeing the efficiency of an institution.
To obtain data related to this study using quantitative methods.
3.4 Sampling Techniques

According to Sugiyono (2015:81) The sampling technique is sampling. To
determine the sample to be used in the study, there are various sampling
techniques used. Schematically, the various Sampling Techniques are presented in
the figure below
Sampling Techniques
Probability Sampling Non-Probability Sampling
1. Simple Random
Sampling
2. Proportionate 1. Systematic Sampling

Stratified Random
2. Sampling Quota
Sampling
3. Incidental Sampling
3. Disproportonate
Stratified Random 4. Purposive Sampling
Sampling
4. Sampling area
The Sampling technique used by the author is Non-Probability Sampling.
According to Sugiyono (2015: 84) the definition of Non-Probability Sampling is a
technique that does not provide equal opportunities for each element or member
of the population to be selected as a sample. The Non-Probability Samling
Technique used in sampling in this study was more precisely the author using the
Purposive Sampling Technique. According to Sugiyono (2015: 84) the definition
of Purposive Sampling is a technique for determining samples with certain
considerations. The reason for selecting samples using the Purposive Sampling
Technique is because not all samples have criteria according to what the author
has determined, therefore the author chose the Purposive Sampling Technique by
establishing certain considerations or criteria that must be met by the sample used
in this study.
In this study, the criteria used in the selection of samples in this study were
as follows:
1. Companies that are registered with financial services authority and publish
financial statements on the official website of each company for the 2016-
2020 period.
2. The company issues premium income, capital and employee expenses.
Table 3. 1 The Company issues premium income, capital dan employee espenses
No. Sample Selection Criteria Number of Companies
1. Initial Population Number (registered with 50
financial services authority)
2. Is appropriate criterion 1 (7)
3. Is appropriate criterion 2 (31)
4. Number of Research Samples 12
The samples in this study are as follows:
Table 3. 2 List of Company
No. Company Name

1 PT Asuransi Jiwa Sinarmas MSIG
2 PT Panin Dai-chi Life
3 PT AIA Financial
4 PT Avrist Assurance
5 PT Equity Life Indonesia
6 PT Great Eastern Life Indonesia
7 PT Asuransi Jiwa Indosurya Sukses
8 PT Astra Aviva Life
9 PT Sun Life Financial Indonesia
10 PT Asuransi Jiwa Reliance
11 PT Asuransi Jiwa Sequis Financial
12 PT Asuransi Jiwa Sequis Life
Source: Financial Services Authority
3.5 Data Collection Techniques
This research used secondary data types and used documentation
techniques in collecting data. The data comes from documents that have been
collected from other parties. The data taken from the study comes from the
financial statements of conventional life insurance companies. Data is also
obtained from other sources related to the efficiency of conventional insurance.
3.6 Data Analysis Techniques

3.6.1 DEA Analysis Methods
The data analysis technique used is the method Designed DEA (Data
Envelopment Analysis) specifically to measure the relative efficiency of a person
production units in the condition that there are many inputs as well as many
outputs (Lendro Kurniawan, 2005). DEA is an efficiency mea surement method
that uses mathematical programming techniques. Data Envelopment Analysis is a
method of grouping observation data in the form of a frontier which is then used
to evaluate the performance of the research object. DEA can be used by
stakeholders and in the form of organizations such as schools, hospitals,
foundations and others. In this study, it used one input and two outputs. The
inputs used are capital and employee costs. While the output used is premium
income.
According to Tanjung and Devi (2013: 322-324), in measuring efficiency
using the DEA (Data Envelopmnet Analysis) method, it can be seen from two
orientations, including:
1. Input oriented is a measurement by minimizing inputs but still
maintaining the resulting output.
2. Output oriented is a measurement that aims to maximize output while
maintaining the existing input level.
3.6.2 Models in Data Envelopment Analysis
Conceptually, there are two general methodologies for measuring efficiency
limits, namely the parametric approach using econometric techniques, and the
non-parametric approach that utilizes the linear program method. The main
difference between the two approaches is how to deal with the randomly formed
assumptions that make up the form of efficiency limits.
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is one of the non-parametric analysis
techniques commonly used to measure relative efficiency both between profit-
oriented business organizations and between organizations or actors of non-profit-
oriented economic activities which in the production process or activities involve
the use of certain inputs to produce certain outputs. A part from being a tool to
measure base efficiency, DEA can also be used as a policy-making tool to
increase efficiency. There are two models that are often used in this approach,
namely:
a) CCR Model (1978)
It is called CCR because it was developed by Charnes, Cooper, and
Rhodes. This model assumes that the ratio between the addition of input and
output is the same (constant return to scale). That is, if there is an addition of input
by 1 time, then the output will also increase by 1 time by the amount of the
addition of input. Another assumption used in this model is that each company
(insurance) operates at an optimal scale.
b) BCC Model (1984)
The model, developed by Banker, Charnes, and Chooper in 1984, is a
development of the CCR model. This model assumes that the company is not or
has not operated on an optimal scale. Competition and financial constraints can
cause the company not to operate on its optimal scale.

The assumption of this model is that the ratio between the addition of input and
output is not the same (variable return to scale). This means that the addition of
inputs as low as 1 time will not cause the output to increase by 1 time, it can be
smaller or greater than 1 time.
A model is defined as a form of representation of a real process that allows
an individual or group of people to act on something based on the model (Agus
Suprijono, 2011:5). In this research, a model was taken from a book made by
Prof. Jhoe Zhu who is an expert in performance evaluation and banchmarking
methods using the DEA method. These models include:
1. Constan Return to Scale (CCR)
The DEA CRS model means that the addition of inputs has an impact on
the constant addition of outputs.
DEA type: Input Oriented-CRS (CCR)
θ * = min θ
Subject to
∑ λj x ij ≤ θx io i = 1, 2, ….., m:
j=1
∑ λj y rj ≥ y ro r = 1, 2, ….., s:
j=1
λ≥0 j = 1,2, ……., n
Information:
n : Twelve companies
x io : Capital and employee expenses (input)
y ro : Premium income (output)
x ij : Total capital and employee expenses from twelve companies
y rj : Total premium income from twelve companies
I : Number of company input
r : Number of company output
j : Twelve insurance companies
The DEA model above is a CRS model with input oriented. This model
will minimize the input but still keep the output. Objective function is to minimize
n
teta (θ). From the model above, it can be seen that the input ( ∑ λj x ij) must be
j=1
n
smaller or equal to teta (θx io) and output ∑ y j x rj must be greater or equal than ( y ro).
j=1
DEA type: Output Oriented-CRS (CCR)
Max ϕ
Subject to
∑ λj x ij ≤ x io i = 1, 2,…..,m:
j=1
∑ λj y rj ≥ ϕ y ro r = 1, 2,…..,s:
j=1
λ≥0 j = 1,2…….,n
Information:
The DEA model above is an output-oriented CRS model. This model will
maximize the output while keeping the existing inputs. the objective function in
this model is to maximize teta (θ). From the model above, it can be seen that the
n n
input (∑ λj x ij) must be smaller or equal to teta (θx io) and output ∑ λj x rj must be
j=1 j=1
greater or equal than (ϕ y ro). The difference between the two models above is the
location of the teta. On the Input Oriented model, (θ) is on the first line because
the objective function is minimizing ( θ ) or minimize inputs. While in the Output
Oriented model ϕ is on the second line because the objective function is to
maximize ϕ or maximize output.
2. Variable Return to Scale (BCC)
The Data Envelopment Analysis Model assumes VRS has the meaning that
each addition of one input unit is meaningless followed by the addition of one
output unit. If using inputs can produce a larger output, it is called Increasing
Return to Scale. vice versa, if using inputs can produce a smaller output, it is
called Decreasing Return to Scale
Model DEA: Input Oriented-VRS

θ * = min θ
Subject to
∑ λj x ij ≤ θx io i = 1, 2,…..,m
j=1
∑ λj y ij ≤ y ro r = 1, 2,…..,s:
j=1
∑ λj = 1
j=1
λ≥0 j = 1,2…….,n
Information:
The DEA model above is a Variable Return to Scale model with Input
Oriented. This model will maximize the output while keeping the existing inputs.
The objective function of the model above is to minimize the hatching (θ). From
n
the model above, it can be seen that the input (∑ λj x ij) must be smaller or equal to
j=1
n
teta (θx io) and output ∑ λj x rj must be greater or equal than ( y ro)
j=1
Model DEA: Output Oriented-BBC
Max ϕ
Subject to:
∑ λj x ij ≤ x io i = 1, 2,…..,m:
j=1
∑ λj y rj ≤ ϕy ro r = 1, 2,…..,s:
j=1
∑ λj = 1
j=1
λ≥0 j = 1,2…….,n
Information:

The DEA model above is a Variable Return to Scale model with Output
Oriented. This model will maximize the output while keeping the existing inputs.
The DEA model above is a Constant Return to Scale model with output oriented.
This model will maximize the output while keeping the existing inputs. the
objective function in this model is maximizing(θ). From the model above, it can
n
be seen that the input (∑ λj x ij) must be smaller or equal to teta (θx io) and output
j=1
∑ λj x rj must be greater or equal than (ϕ y ro). The difference between the two
j=1
models above is the location of the teta. In the Input Oriented model, (θ) is on the
first line because the objective function is to minimize (θ) or minimize the input.
Whereas in the Output Oriented model φ is on the second line because the
objective function is to maximize the φ or maximize the Output. CRS and VRS
n
models have differences, namely in VRS models that use the formula ∑ λj = 1
j=1
whereas in the CRS model there is no such formula.

CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Variable Description
4.1.1 Input variables
 Capital is all things that we have in the form of money, goods, other assets
that we can use to make a profit in running a business. The data can be
seen in the position of the financial statements in the equity column in the
paid-up capital section.
 Employee expenses are a certain amount of wages and salaries given to
workers in an enterprise. The data can be seen in the comprehensive
income statement in the operating expenses column.
4.1.2 Output Variables
• Premium Income: payment from the insured to the insurer in exchange for
services for the transfer of risks to the insurer. Premium is an amount of
money that must be paid every month as an obligation from the insured for
his participation in insurance. The data can be seen in the comprehensive
income statement in the income column.
4.1.3 Data of Variable
Table 4. 1 Company Profile
No. Nama Perusahaan Nomor Izin Usaha Tanggal Izin
Usaha
1. PT. Asurransi Jiwa KEP-649/KM.10/2011 3 Agustus 2011
Sinarmas
2. PT. Panin Dai Chi Life KEP-213/KMK.013/1992 6 Agustus 1992

3. PT. AIA Finalcial KEP-156/KMK.017/1997 3 April 1997
4. PT. Avrist Assurance KEP-037/KM.11/1986 10 Maret 1986
5. PT. Equity Life Indonesia KEP-085/KM.11/1987 15 September
1987
6. PT. Great Eastern Life KEP-514/KMK.017/1996 16 Agustus 1996
7. PT. Asuransi Jiwa KEP-95/D.05/2013 11 September
Indosurya Sukses 2013
8. PT. Astra Aviva Life KEP-044/KM.17/1992 5 Oktober 1992
9. PT. Sun Life Financial KEP-610/KMK.017/1995 22 Desember
Indonesia 1995
10. PT. Asuransi Jiwa KEP-762/KM.01/2012 27 Desember
Reliance 2012
11. PT. Asuransi Jiwa Sequis KEP-572/KMK.017/1997 13 November
Financial 1997
12. PT. Asuransi Jiwa Sequis KEP-106/KM.13/1992 18 April 1992
Life
Source: www.ojk.go.id
4.1.4 Descriptive Analysis
Descriptive analysis is an analysis in which data is collected and classified
then analyzed and interpreted objectively so that provide information and an
overview of the topics covered. Processing The data in this study was carried out
using the help of DEAP software version 2.1 to manage data and obtain results
from the variables studied, namely premium income, capital, and employee
expenses. DEAP version 2.1 is used to analyze efficiency conventional life
insurance.
4.1.4.1 Input-Output Description
1) Conventional Life Insurance Input-Output
Based on the results of data collection, three types of variables for each
insurance are obtained, namely two input data (Capital and Labor Costs) and
one output data (Premium Income), as listed in the table below:

Table 4.2 Conventional Input Variabel Data (Capital) 2016-2020 (In Millions of
Rupiah)
Statistik Deskriptif 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Average 971,320 1,910,844 1,910,844 1,910,844 1,910,844
Max 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500
Min 324,051 597,816 603,324 664,574 662,516
StaDev 326,789 637,502 633,602 649,508 650,897
Based on Table 3.4 above, in general the collection of input variables the
capital of each conventional life insurance company continues to increase or
remain.
Table 4. 3 Conventional Life Insurance Input Variable Data (Employee
Expenses) 2016-2020 (In Millions of Rupiah)
Statistik Deskriptif 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Average 383,373 414,023 474,698 526,769 592,052
Max 8,053 10,114 11,384 11,690 6,968
Min 112,976 130,099 148,724 170,294 179,322
StaDev 100,808.92 110,912.60 126,573.70 134,595.91 152,093.59
Table 4.3 above shows that the compilation of labor cost inputs
conventional life insurance companies generally tends to be up-and-down
(fluctuating) while the average per year tends to increase.

Table 4.4 Conventional Life Insurance Input Variable Data (Premium
Income) 2016-2020 (In Millions of Rupiah)
Statistik
Deskripti 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
9,126,65 10,208,71 12,410,35 13,123,47 13,591,08

Average
2 2 7 1 6
Max 47,418 42,338 56,527 54,787 42,190
2,447,75
Min 2,713,920 3,075,391 3,032,226 2,910,982
2
2,779,39
StaDev 2,777,430 3,278,330 3,542,033 3,619,543
7
Table 3.6 shows that, in general, the level of output of premium income on
conventional life insurance companies in 2016-2020 generally experienced ups
and downs (fluctuating). Only 1 company that always experiences an increase,
namely PT. Astra Aviva Life.

4.2 Result of Data Analysis
Input dan output Oriented CCR
Constan returns to scale (CRS) means that the addition of inputs has an
impact on the constant addition of outputs. Input oriented is a measurement by
minimizing inputs but still maintaining the resulting output. Output oriented is a
measurement that aims to maximize output while maintaining the existing input
level.
Table 4.5 Input and Output Oriented CCR
No Insurance Firm 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average
1 PT. Asurransi Jiwa Sinarmas 0.229 0.336 0.27 0.623 0.348 0.362
2 PT. Panin Dai Chi Life 0.225 0.204 0.27 0.271 0.302 0.256
3 PT. AIA Finalcial 0.384 0.366 0.33 0.397 0.296 0.354
4 PT. Avrist Assurance 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 1
5 PT. Equity Life Indonesia 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 1
6 PT. Great Eastern Life 0.367 0.557 0.47 0.446 0.412 0.451
7 PT. Asuransi Jiwa Indosurya 0.803 0.406 0.20 0.991 1.000 0.681
8
8 PT. Astra Aviva Life 0.287 0.251 0.25 0.249 0.186 0.246
9 PT. Sun Life Financial 0.557 0.591 0.65 0.539 0.489 0.566
10 PT. Asuransi Jiwa Reliance 0.255 0.213 0.25 0.330 0.099 0.230
11 PT. Asuransi Jiwa Sequis 1.000 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 1
Financial 0
12 PT. Asuransi Jiwa Life 0.468 0.643 0.57 1.000 0.579 0.653
Rata rata 0.546 0.547 0.52 0.654 0.559
6
Chart 4. 1 CRS
CRS
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 CRS
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5
In the table above, it can be seen that in 2016-2020, 12 conventional life
insurance companies with a constant return to scale model means that the addition
of inputs has an impact on the constant addition of outputs can be explained that it
has an average efficiency of 0.566 which means that conventional life insurance
companies in Indonesia in 2016-2020 are still inefficient, because only 3
insurances (PT. Avrist Assurance, PT. Equity Life Indonesia, PT. Sequis
Financial Life Insurance) which reaches a scale of 1 which means efficient while
the other 9 insurances are still inefficient because they have a value away from 1
(have not reached the 100% efficiency level). This can show that some of the
conventional life insurance in Indonesia studied is not enough to be able to collect
premium income. Suboptimal management of inputs and outputs is the cause of
the inefficiency of conventional life insurance companies in Indonesia in 2016-
2020.
4.2.1 Input oriented BCC
Input oriented is a measurement by minimizing inputs but still maintaining
the output. VRS has the meaning that each addition of one input unit is
meaningless followed by the addition of one output unit. In the DEA method, the
company will experience one of the 3 Return to Scale (RTS) conditions, the three
conditions are: Increasing Return to Scale (IRS), Constant Return to Scale (CRS),
and Decreasing Return to Scale (DRS). A constant return to scale is when an
increase in input results in a proportional increase in output. Increasing returns to
scale is when the output increases in a greater proportion than the increase in
input. Decreasing returns to scale is when all production variables are increased
by a certain percentage resulting in a less-than-proportional increase in output.
Table 4. 6 Input Oriented BCC
No. Insurance firm 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Avera
ge
1 PT. Asurransi Jiwa 0.237* 0.353* 0.293* 0.651* 0.394* 0,386
Sinarmas
2 PT. Panin Dai Chi Life 0.234* 0.214* 0.318* 0.333* 0.377* 0,295
3 PT. AIA Finalcial 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1
4 PT. Avrist Assurance 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1
* * * * *
5 PT. Equity Life 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1
Indonesia * * * * *
6 PT. Great Eastern Life 0.376* 0.828* 0.609* 0.617* 0.595* 0,605
7 PT. Asuransi Jiwa 1.000* 0.792* 0.407* 1.000* 1.000* 0,840
Indosurya ** ** *
8 PT. Astra Aviva Life 0.300* 0.263* 0.265* 0.285* 0.192* 0,261
9 PT. Sun Life Financial 0.707* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 0,941
10 PT. Asuransi Jiwa 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1
Reliance ** ** ** ** **
11 PT. Asuransi Jiwa 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1
Sequis Financial * * * * *
12 PT. Asuransi Jiwa Life 0.551* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 0,910
* *
Average 0,700 0,787 0,741 0,823 0,796
*DRS, **CRS, ***IRS

Chart 4. 2 VRS
Table 4.1 has an average technical efficiency (BCC) score of the least
efficient in 2016 of 0.700 and the most efficient in 2016-2020 was in 2020 which
had a score of 0.796. In 2016-2020, there were 5 conventional life insurance
companies that were efficient, namely; Pt. AIA Financial, PT. Avrist Assurance,
PT. Equity Life Indonesia, PT. Reliance Life Insurance, PT. Life Insurance. The
insurance with the lowest efficiency score is PT. Astra Aviva Life because the
efficiency score is far from the number 1. The inefficient insurance company is
PT. Sun Life Financial, PT. Astra Aviva Life, PT. Indosurya Life Insurance, PT.
Great Eastern Life, PT. Panin Dai Chi Life and PT. Sinarmas Life Insurance. This
can show that some of the conventional life insurance in Indonesia studied is not
enough to be able to collect premium income optimally. Suboptimal management

of inputs and outputs is the cause of inefficiency of conventional life insurance
companies in Indonesia.
The results of the DEA process using DEAP 2.1 version produce 7 times
the IRS (Increasing Return to Scale) condition meaning that the increase in output
is greater than the input,18 times the CRS (Constant Return to Scale) condition
means that 18 times the input increase condition results in a proportional increase
in output and 35 in drs (Decreasing Return to Scale) conditions means an
unprofessional increase in output.
4.2.2 Output Oriented BCC
Output oriented is a measurement that aims to maximize output while
maintaining the existing input level. VRS has the meaning that each addition of
one input unit is meaningless followed by the addition of one output unit. In the
DEA method, the company will experience one of the 3 Return to Scale (RTS)
conditions, the three conditions are: Increasing Return to Scale (IRS), Constant
Return to Scale (CRS), and Decreasing Return to Scale (DRS). A constant return
to scale is when an increase in input results in a proportional increase in output.
Increasing returns to scale is when the output increases in a greater proportion
than the increase in input. Decreasing returns to scale is when all production
variables are increased by a certain percentage resulting in a less-than-
proportional increase in output.

Table 4. 1 Output Oriented BCC
No. Insurance Firm 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average
1 PT. Asurransi Jiwa 0.753* 0.600* 0.590* 0.699* 0.669* 0.662
Sinarmas
2 PT. Panin Dai Chi 0.469* 0.414* 0.512* 0.518* 0.570* 0.496
Life
3 PT. AIA Finalcial 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1
4 PT. Avrist Assurance 1.000** 1.000** 1.000** 1.000** 1.000** 1
5 PT. Equity Life 1.000** 1.000** 1.000** 1.000** 1.000** 1
Indonesia
6 PT. Great Eastern 0.460* 0.887* 0.696* 0.745* 0.744* 0.706
Life
7 PT. Asuransi Jiwa 1.000*** 0.489*** 0.227* 1.000* 1.000** 0.743
Indosurya
8 PT. Astra Aviva Life 0.535* 0.468* 0.468* 0.469* 0.407* 0.469
9 PT. Sun Life 0.831* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000* 0.966
Financial
10 PT. Asuransi Jiwa 1.000*** 1.000*** 1.000*** 1.000*** 1.000*** 1
Reliance
11 PT. Asuransi Jiwa 1.000** 1.000** 1.000** 1.000** 1.000** 1
Sequis Financial
12 PT. Asuransi Jiwa 0.867* 1.000* 1.000* 1.000** 1.000* 0.973
Life
Rata rata 0.825 0.821 0.791 0.869 0.886

Chart 4. 3 VRS
An efficient insurance company in 2016-2020 is PT. AIA Finalcial, PT.
Avrist Assurance, PT. Equity Life Indonesia, PT. Reliance Life Insurance, and
PT. Sequis Financial Life Insurance. These 5 companies can maximize premium
income while maintaining the existing employee and capital costs. while the other
6 insurances are still inefficient because they have a value away from 1 (have not
reached the 100% efficiency level), namely; Pt. Asurransi Jiwa Sinarmas, PT.
Panin Dai Chi Life, PT. Great Eastern Life, PT. Indosurya Life Insurance, PT.
Astra Aviva Life, PT. Sun Life Financial, PT. Life Insurance. A company that is
almost close to perfect efficiency is PT. Sun Life Financial and PT. Life
Insurance. Through the table, it can also be seen that the average most efficient
technology efficiency value is in 2020 reaching 0.886 (BCC). This can show that
some of the conventional life insurance in Indonesia studied is not enough to be
able to collect premium income.
The results of the DEA process using DEAP version 2.1 produce 7 times
the IRS (Increasing Return to Scale) condition which means 7 output increase
conditions greater than the input ,17 times the CRS (Constant Return to Scale)
condition means that 17 times the input increase condition results in a
proportional increase in output and 36 in the DRS (Decreaseing Return to Scale)
condition means 36 times the unprofessional output increase condition.

CHAPTER V
5.1 Summary
Based on the results of the analysis and discussion that have been previously
stated, the conclusions of the study are as follows:
1. The results show that the most efficient average conventional life insurance
company using the CCR and BCC methods is in 2019.
2. The results of this study indicate that the most efficient company in 2016-
2020 using the CCR method, and BCC are PT. Avrist Assurance, PT.
Equity Life Indonesia, and PT. Sequis Financial Life Insurance.
3. The results of this study indicate that the most inefficient companies in
2016-2020 using the CCR and BCC (Input and Output oriented) methods
are PT. Panin Dai Chi Life and PT. Astra Aviva Life.
5.2 Research Implication
1. For conventional life insurance management who have not yet
achieved an efficient condition, they should focus more attention on
things that make insurance companies still not run optimally or
efficiently both in terms of output and input. So that later it can
optimize its performance to achieve efficiency.
2.
5.3 Recommendations
1. It is hoped that they can continue similar research with using different
input-output variables, objects, and timescales different and take longer for
future researchers so that they can lead to different interpretations.

BIB99LIOGRAPHY
Abidin Z, Cabanda E, 2011. “Efficiency of non-life insurance in Indonesia”.
Journal of Economics Business and Accountancy Ventura, 14 (3): 197-202
Al-Amri, K. (2015). “Takaful insurance efficiency in the GCC countries,” Sultan
Qaboos University, 31 No.3, hal. 344–353.
Benarda, Ujang Sumarwan dan Muhammad N. H, 2016. “Tingkat Efisiensi
Industri Asuransi Jiwa Syariah Menggunakan Pendekatan Two Stage
DEA”. Jurnal Aplikasi Bisnis dan Manajemen, Vol. 2 No. 1.
Coelli T.J., Rao D. S., O’Donnell C.J., & Battese G.E. (2005). Introduction to
Efficiency and Productivity Analysis. Boston: Springer.
Kader, H. A., Adams, M., & Hardwick, P. (2010). The cost efficiency of takaful
insurance companies. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues
and Practice, 35(1), 161-181.
Ningsih, Y. W., & Suprayogi, N. (2017). Analisis Efisiensi Asuransi Umum
Syariah di Indonesia Tahun 2013-2015: Aplikasi Metode Data
Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Jurnal Ekonomi Syariah Teori dan Terapan,
4(9), 757-772.
Otoritas Jasa Keuangan, 2015. Daftar Perusahaan Asuransi Umum Syariah dan
Konvensional, Statistik Perasuransian Indonesia 2015

Rahman MA, 2013.” Comparative Study on The Efficiency of Bangladeshi
Conventional and Islamic Life Insurance Industry: A Non-Parametric
Approach”. Journal Asian Bussiness Review 2 (3): 88-99.
Sabiti, M. B., Effendi, J. dan Novianti, T. (2017). “Efisiensi Asuransi Syariah di
Indonesia dengan pendekatan Data Envelopment Analysis,” Al-Muzara’ah,
hal. 69–87
Shieh, Hwai-Shuh, et al. "A Comparison of Efficiency of Life Insurance
Companies in Mainland China and Taiwan Using Bootstrapped Truncated
Regression Approach." Cogent Economics & Finance 10.1 (2022):
2043571.
Shieh, Hwai-Shuh, Jin-Li Hu, and Yong-Ze Ang. "Efficiency of life insurance
companies: an empirical study in Mainland China and Taiwan." SAGE
Open 10.1 (2020): 2158244020902060.
Sunarsih, S., & Fitriyani, F. (2018). Analisis efisiensi asuransi syariah di
Indonesia tahun 2014-2016 dengan metode Data Envelopment Analysis
(DEA). Jurnal Ekonomi dan Keuangan Islam, 9-21.
Suryoaji, O., & Cahyono, E. F. KOMPARASI EFISIENSI & PRODUKTIVITAS
PERUSAHAAN ASURANSI JIWA KONVENSIONAL DAN SYARIAH
DI INDONESIA PADA TAHUN 2014–2017, DENGAN PENDEKATAN
DEA & INDEKS MALMQUIST1. Sumber, 2, 0.

Tuffahati, H., Mardian, S. dan Suprapto, E. (2016). “Pengukuran Efisiensi
Asuransi Syariah Dengan Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA).” Jurnal
Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Islam, 4(1), hal. 1–23.

APPENDIX
1. Tahun 2016
No. Input Output
Perusahaan Asuransi Modal Biaya Pegawai Pendapatan Premi
1 PT. Asurransi Jiwa Sinarmas 105,000 148,583 6,045,793
2 PT. Panin Dai Chi Life 1,067,339 100,565 3,590,865
3 PT. AIA Finalcial 477,711 383,373 9,126,652
4 PT. Avrist Assurance 4,500 147,211 1,386,083
5 PT. Equity Life Indonesia 217,000 92,246 742,230
6 PT. Great Eastern Life 657,767 50,585 950,933
7 PT. Asuransi Jiwa Indosurya 118,700 16,939 136,948
8 PT. Astra Aviva Life 823,440 104,180 2,938,117
9 PT. Sun Life Financial 971,320 129,384 1,666,173
10 PT. Asuransi Jiwa Reliance 100,000 8,053 280,549
11 PT. Asuransi Jiwa Sequis 230,542 17,086 47,418
Financial
12 PT. Asuransi Jiwa Life 77,630 157,502 3,129,272
2. Tahun 2017
No. Perusahaan Asuransi Input Output
Modal Biaya Pendapatan Premi

Pegawai
3 PT. AIA Finalcial 1,910,844 414,023 10,208,712
6 PT. Great Eastern Life 1,057,767 115,880 1,247,828
9 PT. Sun Life Financial 1,420,030.00 241,211 2,857,984
Financial
3. Tahun 2018
Modal Biaya Pegawai Pendapatan Premi
3 PT. AIA Finalcial 1,910,844 474,698 12,410,357

7 PT. Asuransi Jiwa Indosurya 193,700 36,397 1,545,288
9 PT. Sun Life Financial 1,420,129 265,384 2,887,021
Financial
4. Tahun 2019
3 PT. AIA Finalcial 1,910,844 526,769 13,123,471
8 PT. Astra Aviva Life 1,323,440 125,299 3,406,166

Financial
5. Tahun 2020
3 PT. AIA Finalcial 1,910,844 592,052 13,591,086
8 PT. Astra Aviva Life 1,323,441 125,194 3,784,262
Financial
CRS- Input Oriented 2016-2020
Results from DEAP Version 2.1

Instruction file = ak6-ins.txt
Data file = ak6-dta.txt
Output orientated DEA
Scale assumption: CRS
Slacks calculated using multi-stage method
EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
firm te
1 0.229
2 0.225
3 0.384
4 1.000
5 1.000
6 0.367
7 0.803
8 0.287
9 0.557
10 0.225
11 1.000
12 0.468
mean 0.546
FIRM BY FIRM RESULTS:
Results for firm: 1
Technical efficiency = 0.229
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
variable original radial slack projected
value movement movement value
output 1 148583.000 498856.935 0.000 647439.935
input 1 6045793.000 0.000 0.000 6045793.000
input 2 105000.000 0.000 0.000 105000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 4.149
5 0.39
Results for firm: 2
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 100565.000 346619.993 0.000 447184.993
input 1 3590865.000 0.000 0.000 3590865.000
input 2 1067339.000 0.000 0.000 1067339.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 4.833
11 0.081
Results for firm: 3
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 383373.000 613950.986 0.000 997323.986
input 1 9126652.000 0.000 0.000 9126652.000
input 2 477711.000 0.000 0.000 477711.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 2.088
4 5.466
Results for firm: 4
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 147211.000 0.000 0.000 147211.000
input 1 1386083.000 0.000 0.000 1386083.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 92246.000 0.000 0.000 92246.000
input 1 742230.000 0.000 0.000 742230.000
input 2 217000.000 0.000 0.000 217000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 6
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 50585.000 87215.494 0.000 137800.494
input 1 950933.000 0.000 0.000 950933.000
input 2 657767.000 0.000 0.000 657767.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.169
11 1.753
Results for firm: 7
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 16939.000 4144.555 0.000 21083.555
input 1 136948.000 0.000 0.000 136948.000
input 2 118700.000 0.000 0.000 118700.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.161
11 0.363
Results for firm: 8
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 104180.000 258752.846 0.000 362932.846
input 1 2938117.000 0.000 0.000 2938117.000
input 2 823440.000 0.000 0.000 823440.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.089
5 3.793
Results for firm: 9
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 129384.000 102703.281 0.000 232087.281
input 1 1666173.000 0.000 0.000 1666173.000
input 2 971320.000 0.000 0.000 971320.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 2.102
11 2.235
Results for firm: 10
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 8053.000 27742.933 0.000 35795.933
input 1 280549.000 0.000 0.000 280549.000
input 2 100000.000 0.000 0.000 100000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.373
11 0.083
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 17086.000 0.000 0.000 17086.000
input 1 47418.000 0.000 0.000 47418.000
input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 157502.000 179065.292 0.000 336567.292
input 1 3129272.000 0.000 0.000 3129272.000
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 2.089
5 0.314
EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
firm te
1 0.336
2 0.204
3 0.366
4 1.000
5 1.000
6 0.557
7 0.406
8 0.251
9 0.591
10 0.213
11 1.000
12 0.643
mean 0.547
Results for firm: 1
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 110741.000 218903.679 0.000 329644.679
input 1 3796408.000 0.000 0.000 3796408.000
input 2 105000.000 0.000 0.000 105000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.409
4 2.159
Results for firm: 2

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 103505.000 402976.998 0.000 506481.998
input 1 4195053.000 0.000 0.000 4195053.000
input 2 1067339.000 0.000 0.000 1067339.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 4.570
4 0.559
Results for firm: 3
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 414023.000 715868.589 0.000 1129891.589
input 1 10208712.000 0.000 0.000 10208712.000

input 2 1910844.000 0.000 0.000 1910844.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 8.149
4 2.679
Results for firm: 4
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 134841.000 0.000 0.000 134841.000
input 1 1622431.000 0.000 0.000 1622431.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 94329.000 0.000 0.000 94329.000
input 1 719446.000 0.000 0.000 719446.000
input 2 233000.000 0.000 0.000 233000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 6
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 115880.000 91980.239 0.000 207860.239
input 1 1247828.000 0.000 0.000 1247828.000
input 2 1057767.000 0.000 0.000 1057767.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 3.015
5 1.557
Results for firm: 7
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 29582.000 43316.481 0.000 72898.481
input 1 621738.000 0.000 0.000 621738.000
input 2 143700.000 0.000 0.000 143700.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.615
4 0.111
Results for firm: 8
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 105620.000 314954.100 0.000 420574.100
input 1 3597143.000 0.000 0.000 3597143.000
input 2 823440.000 0.000 0.000 823440.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.656
5 3.521
Results for firm: 9
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 241211.000 166983.855 0.000 408194.855
input 1 2857984.000 0.000 0.000 2857984.000
input 2 1420030.000 0.000 0.000 1420030.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 2.280
5 3.838
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 10114.000 37430.612 0.000 47544.612
input 1 394149.000 0.000 0.000 394149.000
input 2 100000.000 0.000 0.000 100000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.053
5 0.428
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 20231.000 0.000 0.000 20231.000
input 1 42338.000 0.000 0.000 42338.000
input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 181114.000 100394.789 0.000 281508.789
input 1 3263805.000 0.000 0.000 3263805.000
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight

5 0.297
4 1.880
EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
firm te
1 0.275
2 0.279
3 0.331
4 1.000
5 1.000
6 0.477
7 0.208
8 0.258
9 0.655
10 0.255
11 1.000
12 0.575
mean 0.526
Results for firm: 1
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 125017.000 329588.915 0.000 454605.915
input 1 4353240.000 0.000 0.000 4353240.000
input 2 105000.000 0.000 0.000 105000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 2.529
5 0.376
Results for firm: 2
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 136758.000 353435.837 0.000 490193.837
input 1 3903845.000 0.000 0.000 3903845.000
input 2 1067339.000 0.000 0.000 1067339.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.381
5 4.280
Results for firm: 3
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 474698.000 957950.400 0.000 1432648.400

input 1 12410357.000 0.000 0.000 12410357.000
input 2 1910844.000 0.000 0.000 1910844.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 4.085
5 7.600
Results for firm: 4
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 164931.000 0.000 0.000 164931.000
input 1 1607177.000 0.000 0.000 1607177.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 99844.000 0.000 0.000 99844.000
input 1 768974.000 0.000 0.000 768974.000
input 2 249000.000 0.000 0.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 6
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 123640.000 135461.270 0.000 259101.270
input 1 1763260.000 0.000 0.000 1763260.000
input 2 1057767.000 0.000 0.000 1057767.000

LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 2.124
11 2.294
Results for firm: 7
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 36397.000 138240.233 0.000 174637.233
input 1 1545288.000 0.000 0.000 1545288.000
input 2 193700.000 0.000 0.000 193700.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.767
4 0.594
Results for firm: 8

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 118135.000 339167.362 0.000 457302.362
input 1 3784581.000 0.000 0.000 3784581.000
input 2 823440.000 0.000 0.000 823440.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.779
5 3.293
Results for firm: 9
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 265384.000 139532.783 0.000 404916.783
input 1 2887021.000 0.000 0.000 2887021.000
input 2 1420129.000 0.000 0.000 1420129.000

LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 3.586
11 2.287
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 11384.000 33191.158 0.000 44575.158
input 1 352554.000 0.000 0.000 352554.000
input 2 100000.000 0.000 0.000 100000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.027
5 0.401

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 20488.000 0.000 0.000 20488.000
input 1 56527.000 0.000 0.000 56527.000
input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 208013.000 154033.536 0.000 362046.536
input 1 3471867.000 0.000 0.000 3471867.000
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.275
4 2.029
EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
firm te
1 0.623
2 0.271
3 0.397
4 1.000
5 1.000
6 0.446
7 0.991
8 0.249
9 0.539
10 0.330
11 1.000
12 1.000
mean 0.654
Results for firm: 1
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 163569.000 99054.630 0.000 262623.630
input 1 3289042.000 0.000 0.000 3289042.000
input 2 210000.000 0.000 0.000 210000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 0.824
5 0.587
Results for firm: 2
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 141789.000 381271.826 0.000 523060.826
input 1 3900107.000 0.000 0.000 3900107.000
input 2 1067339.000 0.000 0.000 1067339.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 4.237
12 0.159
Results for firm: 3
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 526769.000 798609.446 0.000 1325378.446
input 1 13123471.000 0.000 0.000 13123471.000
input 2 1910844.000 0.000 0.000 1910844.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 2.214
5 6.984
Results for firm: 4
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 174805.000 0.000 0.000 174805.000
input 1 3284520.000 0.000 0.000 3284520.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 114553.000 0.000 0.000 114553.000
input 1 791880.000 0.000 0.000 791880.000
input 2 249000.000 0.000 0.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 6
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 148665.000 184658.225 0.000 333323.225
input 1 2196591.000 0.000 0.000 2196591.000

input 2 1057767.000 0.000 0.000 1057767.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.721
5 2.655
Results for firm: 7
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 114553.000 1047.395 0.000 115600.395
input 1 791880.000 0.000 0.000 791880.000
input 2 273700.000 0.000 0.000 273700.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.992
11 0.116
Results for firm: 8

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 125299.000 378138.349 0.000 503437.349
input 1 3406166.000 0.000 0.000 3406166.000
input 2 1323440.000 0.000 0.000 1323440.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.183
5 4.220
Results for firm: 9
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 267610.000 229090.806 0.000 496700.806
input 1 3323649.000 0.000 0.000 3323649.000

input 2 1420129.000 0.000 0.000 1420129.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.758
5 4.076
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 11690.000 23684.630 0.000 35374.630
input 1 220931.000 0.000 0.000 220931.000
input 2 150000.000 0.000 0.000 150000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 0.378
5 0.253

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 16971.000 0.000 0.000 16971.000
input 1 54787.000 0.000 0.000 54787.000
input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 237257.000 0.000 0.000 237257.000
input 1 3429068.000 0.000 0.000 3429068.000
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000

LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 1.000
EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
firm te
1 0.348
2 0.302
3 0.296
4 1.000
5 1.000
6 0.412
7 1.000
8 0.186
9 0.489
10 0.099
11 1.000
12 0.579
mean 0.559
Results for firm: 1
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 171902.000 322214.378 0.000 494116.378
input 1 3668658.000 0.000 0.000 3668658.000
input 2 210000.000 0.000 0.000 210000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.799
4 2.446
Results for firm: 2
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 139421.000 321819.489 0.000 461240.489
input 1 2488341.000 0.000 0.000 2488341.000
input 2 1067339.000 0.000 0.000 1067339.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 0.648
5 3.687
Results for firm: 3
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 592052.000 1406198.960 0.000 1998250.960
input 1 13591086.000 0.000 0.000 13591086.000
input 2 1910844.000 0.000 0.000 1910844.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 7.554
4 6.670
Results for firm: 4
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 162417.000 0.000 0.000 162417.000
input 1 1281589.000 0.000 0.000 1281589.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 121116.000 0.000 0.000 121116.000
input 1 667540.000 0.000 0.000 667540.000
input 2 249000.000 0.000 0.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 6
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 152905.000 218210.986 0.000 371115.986
input 1 1912198.000 0.000 0.000 1912198.000

input 2 1057767.000 0.000 0.000 1057767.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.604
5 2.763
Results for firm: 7
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 121116.000 0.000 0.000 121116.000
input 1 667540.000 0.000 0.000 667540.000
input 2 249000.000 0.000 0.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 8

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 125194.000 548360.459 0.000 673554.459
input 1 3784262.000 0.000 0.000 3784262.000
input 2 1323441.000 0.000 0.000 1323441.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 5.312
4 0.186
Results for firm: 9
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 298123.000 311036.391 0.000 609159.391
input 1 3281603.000 0.000 0.000 3281603.000
input 2 1420129.000 0.000 0.000 1420129.000

LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 0.913
5 4.858
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 6968.000 63257.501 0.000 70225.501
input 1 384511.000 0.000 0.000 384511.000
input 2 150000.000 0.000 0.000 150000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 0.031
5 0.574

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 22728.000 0.000 0.000 22728.000
input 1 42190.000 0.000 0.000 42190.000
input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 237916.000 172689.888 0.000 410605.888
input 1 3162262.000 0.000 0.000 3162262.000
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.270
4 2.327
Scale assumption: VRS
EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
firm crste vrste scale
1 0.229 0.753 0.305 drs
2 0.225 0.469 0.480 drs
3 0.384 1.000 0.384 drs
4 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
5 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
6 0.367 0.460 0.799 drs
7 0.803 1.000 0.803 irs

8 0.287 0.535 0.536 drs
9 0.557 0.831 0.671 drs
10 0.225 1.000 0.225 irs
11 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
12 0.468 0.857 0.546 drs
mean 0.546 0.825 0.646
Results for firm: 1
Scale efficiency = 0.305 (drs)
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 148583.000 48783.810 0.000 197366.810
input 1 6045793.000 0.000 -3015776.988 3030016.012
input 2 105000.000 0.000 0.000 105000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight

4 0.788
3 0.212
Results for firm: 2
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 100565.000 113913.113 0.000 214478.113
input 1 3590865.000 0.000 0.000 3590865.000
input 2 1067339.000 0.000 -928052.126 139286.874
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.285
4 0.715
Results for firm: 3

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 383373.000 0.000 0.000 383373.000
input 1 9126652.000 0.000 0.000 9126652.000
input 2 477711.000 0.000 0.000 477711.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 1.000
Results for firm: 4
Scale efficiency = 1.000 (crs)
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 147211.000 0.000 0.000 147211.000
input 1 1386083.000 0.000 0.000 1386083.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000

LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 92246.000 0.000 0.000 92246.000
input 1 742230.000 0.000 0.000 742230.000
input 2 217000.000 0.000 0.000 217000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 6

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 50585.000 59477.738 0.000 110062.738
input 1 950933.000 0.000 0.000 950933.000
input 2 657767.000 0.000 -509648.231 148118.769
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.324
5 0.676
Results for firm: 7
Scale efficiency = 0.803 (irs)
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 16939.000 0.000 0.000 16939.000
input 1 136948.000 0.000 0.000 136948.000

input 2 118700.000 0.000 0.000 118700.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
7 1.000
Results for firm: 8
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 104180.000 90383.004 0.000 194563.004
input 1 2938117.000 0.000 0.000 2938117.000
input 2 823440.000 0.000 -724058.143 99381.857
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.201
4 0.799
Results for firm: 9

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 129384.000 26372.446 0.000 155756.446
input 1 1666173.000 0.000 0.000 1666173.000
input 2 971320.000 0.000 -949697.012 21622.988
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.036
4 0.964
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 8053.000 0.000 0.000 8053.000
input 1 280549.000 0.000 0.000 280549.000
input 2 100000.000 0.000 0.000 100000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
10 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 17086.000 0.000 0.000 17086.000
input 1 47418.000 0.000 0.000 47418.000
input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 157502.000 26205.462 0.000 183707.462
input 1 3129272.000 0.000 -546961.924 2582310.076
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.155
4 0.845

EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
1 0.336 0.600 0.560 drs
2 0.204 0.414 0.494 drs
3 0.366 1.000 0.366 drs
4 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
5 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
6 0.557 0.887 0.628 drs
7 0.406 0.489 0.830 irs
8 0.251 0.468 0.537 drs
9 0.591 1.000 0.591 drs
10 0.213 1.000 0.213 irs
11 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
12 0.643 1.000 0.643 drs
mean 0.547 0.821 0.655
Results for firm: 1

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 110741.000 73850.346 0.000 184591.346
input 1 3796408.000 0.000 -428915.103 3367492.897
input 2 105000.000 0.000 0.000 105000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.015
12 0.985
Results for firm: 2
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 103505.000 146666.163 0.000 250171.163
input 1 4195053.000 0.000 0.000 4195053.000
input 2 1067339.000 0.000 0.000 1067339.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.164
9 0.513
12 0.323
Results for firm: 3
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 414023.000 0.000 0.000 414023.000
input 1 10208712.000 0.000 0.000 10208712.000
input 2 1910844.000 0.000 0.000 1910844.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 1.000
Results for firm: 4
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 134841.000 0.000 0.000 134841.000
input 1 1622431.000 0.000 0.000 1622431.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 94329.000 0.000 0.000 94329.000
input 1 719446.000 0.000 0.000 719446.000
input 2 233000.000 0.000 0.000 233000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 6
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 115880.000 14740.057 0.000 130620.057
input 1 1247828.000 0.000 0.000 1247828.000
input 2 1057767.000 0.000 -531480.051 526286.949
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 0.247
5 0.753
Results for firm: 7
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 29582.000 30917.878 0.000 60499.878
input 1 621738.000 0.000 0.000 621738.000
input 2 143700.000 0.000 0.000 143700.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.356
10 0.049
11 0.595
Results for firm: 8
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 105620.000 120122.599 0.000 225742.599
input 1 3597143.000 0.000 0.000 3597143.000
input 2 823440.000 0.000 0.000 823440.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.075
9 0.454
12 0.472
Results for firm: 9

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 241211.000 0.000 0.000 241211.000
input 1 2857984.000 0.000 0.000 2857984.000
input 2 1420030.000 0.000 0.000 1420030.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 10114.000 0.000 0.000 10114.000
input 1 394149.000 0.000 0.000 394149.000
input 2 100000.000 0.000 0.000 100000.000

LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
10 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 20231.000 0.000 0.000 20231.000
input 1 42338.000 0.000 0.000 42338.000
input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 181114.000 0.000 0.000 181114.000
input 1 3263805.000 0.000 0.000 3263805.000
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 1.000
EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
1 0.275 0.590 0.466 drs

2 0.279 0.512 0.545 drs
3 0.331 1.000 0.331 drs
4 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
5 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
6 0.477 0.696 0.685 drs
7 0.208 0.227 0.917 drs
8 0.258 0.468 0.552 drs
9 0.655 1.000 0.655 drs
10 0.255 1.000 0.255 irs
11 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
12 0.575 1.000 0.575 drs
mean 0.526 0.791 0.665
Results for firm: 1
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 125017.000 86977.624 0.000 211994.624
input 1 4353240.000 0.000 -747920.784 3605319.216
input 2 105000.000 0.000 0.000 105000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.015
12 0.985
Results for firm: 2
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 136758.000 130245.192 0.000 267003.192
input 1 3903845.000 0.000 0.000 3903845.000
input 2 1067339.000 0.000 0.000 1067339.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.089
9 0.616
12 0.295
Results for firm: 3
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 474698.000 0.000 0.000 474698.000
input 1 12410357.000 0.000 0.000 12410357.000
input 2 1910844.000 0.000 0.000 1910844.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 1.000
Results for firm: 4

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 164931.000 0.000 0.000 164931.000
input 1 1607177.000 0.000 0.000 1607177.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 99844.000 0.000 0.000 99844.000
input 1 768974.000 0.000 0.000 768974.000

input 2 249000.000 0.000 0.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 6
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 123640.000 53914.317 0.000 177554.317
input 1 1763260.000 0.000 0.000 1763260.000
input 2 1057767.000 0.000 -258997.723 798769.277
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.531
9 0.469
Results for firm: 7

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 36397.000 123830.865 0.000 160227.865
input 1 1545288.000 0.000 0.000 1545288.000
input 2 193700.000 0.000 0.000 193700.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.220
4 0.684
9 0.096
Results for firm: 8
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 118135.000 134083.168 0.000 252218.168
input 1 3784581.000 0.000 0.000 3784581.000
input 2 823440.000 0.000 0.000 823440.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.065
9 0.466
12 0.468
Results for firm: 9
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 265384.000 0.000 0.000 265384.000
input 1 2887021.000 0.000 0.000 2887021.000
input 2 1420129.000 0.000 0.000 1420129.000

LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 11384.000 0.000 0.000 11384.000
input 1 352554.000 0.000 0.000 352554.000
input 2 100000.000 0.000 0.000 100000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
10 1.000

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 20488.000 0.000 0.000 20488.000
input 1 56527.000 0.000 0.000 56527.000
input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 208013.000 0.000 0.000 208013.000
input 1 3471867.000 0.000 0.000 3471867.000
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000

LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 1.000
EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
1 0.623 0.699 0.891 drs
2 0.271 0.518 0.523 drs
3 0.397 1.000 0.397 drs
4 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
5 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
6 0.446 0.745 0.598 drs
7 0.991 1.000 0.991 drs

8 0.249 0.469 0.531 drs
9 0.539 1.000 0.539 drs
10 0.330 1.000 0.330 irs
11 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
12 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
mean 0.654 0.869 0.733
Results for firm: 1
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 163569.000 70426.880 0.000 233995.880
input 1 3289042.000 0.000 0.000 3289042.000
input 2 210000.000 0.000 0.000 210000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight

12 0.858
9 0.092
5 0.049
Results for firm: 2
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 141789.000 131680.972 0.000 273469.972
input 1 3900107.000 0.000 0.000 3900107.000
input 2 1067339.000 0.000 0.000 1067339.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 0.283
3 0.056
9 0.661
Results for firm: 3

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 526769.000 0.000 0.000 526769.000
input 1 13123471.000 0.000 0.000 13123471.000
input 2 1910844.000 0.000 0.000 1910844.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 1.000
Results for firm: 4
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 174805.000 0.000 0.000 174805.000

input 1 3284520.000 0.000 0.000 3284520.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 114553.000 0.000 0.000 114553.000
input 1 791880.000 0.000 0.000 791880.000
input 2 249000.000 0.000 0.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 6

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 148665.000 50809.196 0.000 199474.196
input 1 2196591.000 0.000 0.000 2196591.000
input 2 1057767.000 0.000 -158985.054 898781.946
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 0.555
5 0.445\
Results for firm: 7
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 114553.000 0.000 0.000 114553.000
input 1 791880.000 0.000 0.000 791880.000
input 2 273700.000 0.000 -24700.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 8
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 125299.000 142014.074 0.000 267313.074
input 1 3406166.000 0.000 0.000 3406166.000
input 2 1323440.000 0.000 0.000 1323440.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.008
9 0.918
12 0.075
Results for firm: 9
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 267610.000 0.000 0.000 267610.000
input 1 3323649.000 0.000 0.000 3323649.000
input 2 1420129.000 0.000 0.000 1420129.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 11690.000 0.000 0.000 11690.000
input 1 220931.000 0.000 0.000 220931.000
input 2 150000.000 0.000 0.000 150000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
10 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 16971.000 0.000 0.000 16971.000
input 1 54787.000 0.000 0.000 54787.000
input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 237257.000 0.000 0.000 237257.000
input 1 3429068.000 0.000 0.000 3429068.000
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 1.000

EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
1 0.348 0.669 0.520 drs
2 0.302 0.570 0.530 drs
3 0.296 1.000 0.296 drs
4 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
5 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
6 0.412 0.744 0.553 drs
7 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
8 0.186 0.407 0.456 drs
9 0.489 1.000 0.489 drs
10 0.099 1.000 0.099 irs
11 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
12 0.579 1.000 0.579 drs
mean 0.559 0.866 0.627

Results for firm: 1
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 171902.000 85052.116 0.000 256954.116
input 1 3668658.000 0.000 0.000 3668658.000
input 2 210000.000 0.000 0.000 210000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 0.033
12 0.919
3 0.048
Results for firm: 2
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 139421.000 104987.561 0.000 244408.561
input 1 2488341.000 0.000 0.000 2488341.000
input 2 1067339.000 0.000 -2600.108 1064738.892
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.303
9 0.697
Results for firm: 3
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 592052.000 0.000 0.000 592052.000
input 1 13591086.000 0.000 0.000 13591086.000
input 2 1910844.000 0.000 0.000 1910844.000

LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 1.000
Results for firm: 4
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 162417.000 0.000 0.000 162417.000
input 1 1281589.000 0.000 0.000 1281589.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 121116.000 0.000 0.000 121116.000
input 1 667540.000 0.000 0.000 667540.000
input 2 249000.000 0.000 0.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
7 1.000
Results for firm: 6
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 152905.000 52490.980 0.000 205395.980
input 1 1912198.000 0.000 0.000 1912198.000
input 2 1057767.000 0.000 -251146.515 806620.485

LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.524
9 0.476
Results for firm: 7
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 121116.000 0.000 0.000 121116.000
input 1 667540.000 0.000 0.000 667540.000
input 2 249000.000 0.000 0.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
7 1.000
Results for firm: 8

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 125194.000 182134.924 0.000 307328.924
input 1 3784262.000 0.000 0.000 3784262.000
input 2 1323441.000 0.000 0.000 1323441.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.050
9 0.860
12 0.090
Results for firm: 9
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 298123.000 0.000 0.000 298123.000
input 1 3281603.000 0.000 0.000 3281603.000
input 2 1420129.000 0.000 0.000 1420129.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 6968.000 0.000 0.000 6968.000
input 1 384511.000 0.000 0.000 384511.000
input 2 150000.000 0.000 0.000 150000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
10 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 22728.000 0.000 0.000 22728.000
input 1 42190.000 0.000 0.000 42190.000
input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 237916.000 0.000 0.000 237916.000
input 1 3162262.000 0.000 0.000 3162262.000
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 1.000
VRS-Input Oriented 2016-2020
Input orientated DEA
EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
1 0.229 0.237 0.970 drs
2 0.225 0.234 0.962 drs
3 0.384 1.000 0.384 drs

4 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
5 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
6 0.367 0.376 0.978 drs
7 0.803 1.000 0.803 irs
8 0.287 0.300 0.956 drs
9 0.557 0.707 0.789 drs
10 0.225 1.000 0.225 irs
11 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
12 0.468 0.551 0.850 drs
mean 0.546 0.700 0.826
Results for firm: 1
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 148583.000 0.000 0.000 148583.000

input 1 6045793.000 -4614740.612 0.000 1431052.388
input 2 105000.000 -80146.271 -17604.576 7249.153
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.006
4 0.994
Results for firm: 2
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 100565.000 0.000 0.000 100565.000
input 1 3590865.000 -2751187.295 0.000 839677.705
input 2 1067339.000 -817755.470 -64745.588 184837.942
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.849
4 0.151
Results for firm: 3
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 383373.000 0.000 0.000 383373.000
input 1 9126652.000 0.000 0.000 9126652.000
input 2 477711.000 0.000 0.000 477711.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 1.000
Results for firm: 4
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 147211.000 0.000 0.000 147211.000
input 1 1386083.000 0.000 0.000 1386083.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 92246.000 0.000 0.000 92246.000
input 1 742230.000 0.000 0.000 742230.000
input 2 217000.000 0.000 0.000 217000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight

5 1.000
Results for firm: 6
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 50585.000 0.000 0.000 50585.000
input 1 950933.000 -593835.554 0.000 357097.446
input 2 657767.000 -410760.201 -22500.502 224506.297
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.446
11 0.554
Results for firm: 7
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 16939.000 0.000 0.000 16939.000
input 1 136948.000 0.000 0.000 136948.000
input 2 118700.000 0.000 0.000 118700.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
7 1.000
Results for firm: 8
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 104180.000 0.000 0.000 104180.000
input 1 2938117.000 -2056093.646 0.000 882023.354
input 2 823440.000 -576243.135 -76334.862 170862.003
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.217
5 0.783
Results for firm: 9
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 129384.000 0.000 0.000 129384.000
input 1 1666173.000 -488913.204 0.000 1177259.796
input 2 971320.000 -285019.127 -612879.969 73420.904
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.676
5 0.324

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 8053.000 0.000 0.000 8053.000
input 1 280549.000 0.000 0.000 280549.000
input 2 100000.000 0.000 0.000 100000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
10 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 17086.000 0.000 0.000 17086.000
input 1 47418.000 0.000 0.000 47418.000

input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 157502.000 0.000 0.000 157502.000
input 1 3129272.000 -1405885.812 0.000 1723386.188
input 2 77630.000 -34876.775 -17632.573 25120.652
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 0.044
4 0.956

EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
1 0.336 0.353 0.952 irs
2 0.204 0.214 0.955 drs
3 0.366 1.000 0.366 drs
4 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
5 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
6 0.557 0.828 0.673 drs
7 0.406 0.792 0.513 irs
8 0.251 0.263 0.956 drs
9 0.591 1.000 0.591 drs
10 0.213 1.000 0.213 irs
11 1.000 1.000 1.000 -

12 0.643 1.000 0.643 drs
mean 0.547 0.787 0.739
Results for firm: 1
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 110741.000 0.000 0.000 110741.000
input 1 3796408.000 -2457286.340 0.000 1339121.660
input 2 105000.000 -67962.944 0.000 37037.056
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.799
10 0.100
11 0.102
Results for firm: 2

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 103505.000 0.000 0.000 103505.000
input 1 4195053.000 -3297607.278 0.000 897445.722
input 2 1067339.000 -839003.668 0.000 228335.332
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.142
9 0.023
5 0.835
Results for firm: 3
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 414023.000 0.000 0.000 414023.000
input 1 10208712.000 0.000 0.000 10208712.000
input 2 1910844.000 0.000 0.000 1910844.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 1.000
Results for firm: 4
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 134841.000 0.000 0.000 134841.000
input 1 1622431.000 0.000 0.000 1622431.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight

4 1.000
Results for firm: 5
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 94329.000 0.000 0.000 94329.000
input 1 719446.000 0.000 0.000 719446.000
input 2 233000.000 0.000 0.000 233000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 6
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 115880.000 0.000 0.000 115880.000
input 1 1247828.000 -214608.819 0.000 1033219.181
input 2 1057767.000 -181921.007 -468681.129 407164.864
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.853
9 0.147
Results for firm: 7
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 29582.000 0.000 0.000 29582.000
input 1 621738.000 -129490.208 0.000 492247.792
input 2 143700.000 -29928.592 0.000 113771.408
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.139
10 0.653
11 0.207
Results for firm: 8
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 105620.000 0.000 0.000 105620.000
input 1 3597143.000 -2652467.639 0.000 944675.361
input 2 823440.000 -607189.637 0.000 216250.363
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 0.023
5 0.782
4 0.194
Results for firm: 9
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 241211.000 0.000 0.000 241211.000
input 1 2857984.000 0.000 0.000 2857984.000
input 2 1420030.000 0.000 0.000 1420030.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 10114.000 0.000 0.000 10114.000
input 1 394149.000 0.000 0.000 394149.000
input 2 100000.000 0.000 0.000 100000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
10 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 20231.000 0.000 0.000 20231.000
input 1 42338.000 0.000 0.000 42338.000
input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 181114.000 0.000 0.000 181114.000
input 1 3263805.000 0.000 0.000 3263805.000
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 1.000

EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
1 0.275 0.293 0.937 irs
2 0.279 0.318 0.876 drs
3 0.331 1.000 0.331 drs
4 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
5 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
6 0.477 0.609 0.784 drs
7 0.208 0.407 0.512 irs
8 0.258 0.265 0.974 drs
9 0.655 1.000 0.655 drs
10 0.255 1.000 0.255 irs
11 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
12 0.575 1.000 0.575 drs
mean 0.526 0.741 0.742
Results for firm: 1

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 125017.000 0.000 0.000 125017.000
input 1 4353240.000 -3076214.398 0.000 1277025.602
input 2 105000.000 -74198.186 0.000 30801.814
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.739
10 0.250
11 0.011
Results for firm: 2
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 136758.000 0.000 0.000 136758.000
input 1 3903845.000 -2661252.161 0.000 1242592.839
input 2 1067339.000 -727605.276 0.000 339733.724
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.242
9 0.128
5 0.630
Results for firm: 3
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 474698.000 0.000 0.000 474698.000
input 1 12410357.000 0.000 0.000 12410357.000
input 2 1910844.000 0.000 0.000 1910844.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 1.000
Results for firm: 4
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 164931.000 0.000 0.000 164931.000
input 1 1607177.000 0.000 0.000 1607177.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 99844.000 0.000 0.000 99844.000
input 1 768974.000 0.000 0.000 768974.000
input 2 249000.000 0.000 0.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 6
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 123640.000 0.000 0.000 123640.000
input 1 1763260.000 -689821.542 0.000 1073438.458
input 2 1057767.000 -413818.985 -226600.875 417347.141
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 0.144
5 0.856
Results for firm: 7
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 36397.000 0.000 8888.451 45285.451
input 1 1545288.000 -915727.348 0.000 629560.652
input 2 193700.000 -114785.326 0.000 78914.674
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.221
10 0.779
Results for firm: 8

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 118135.000 0.000 0.000 118135.000
input 1 3784581.000 -2780346.238 0.000 1004234.762
input 2 823440.000 -604941.024 0.000 218498.976
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.752
4 0.227
9 0.021
Results for firm: 9
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 265384.000 0.000 0.000 265384.000
input 1 2887021.000 0.000 0.000 2887021.000
input 2 1420129.000 0.000 0.000 1420129.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 11384.000 0.000 0.000 11384.000
input 1 352554.000 0.000 0.000 352554.000
input 2 100000.000 0.000 0.000 100000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
10 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 20488.000 0.000 0.000 20488.000
input 1 56527.000 0.000 0.000 56527.000
input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:

output 1 208013.000 0.000 0.000 208013.000
input 1 3471867.000 0.000 0.000 3471867.000
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 1.000
EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
1 0.623 0.651 0.957 irs
2 0.271 0.333 0.814 drs
3 0.397 1.000 0.397 drs
4 1.000 1.000 1.000 -

5 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
6 0.446 0.617 0.722 drs
7 0.991 1.000 0.991 drs
8 0.249 0.285 0.874 drs
9 0.539 1.000 0.539 drs
10 0.330 1.000 0.330 irs
11 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
12 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
mean 0.654 0.824 0.802
Results for firm: 1
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 163569.000 0.000 0.000 163569.000
input 1 3289042.000 -1147602.265 0.000 2141439.735

input 2 210000.000 -73272.544 0.000 136727.456
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 0.269
12 0.551
10 0.181
Results for firm: 2
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 141789.000 0.000 0.000 141789.000
input 1 3900107.000 -2601839.051 0.000 1298267.949
input 2 1067339.000 -712043.103 0.000 355295.897
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 0.092
9 0.104
5 0.804
Results for firm: 3
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 526769.000 0.000 0.000 526769.000
input 1 13123471.000 0.000 0.000 13123471.000
input 2 1910844.000 0.000 0.000 1910844.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 1.000
Results for firm: 4
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 174805.000 0.000 0.000 174805.000
input 1 3284520.000 0.000 0.000 3284520.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 114553.000 0.000 0.000 114553.000
input 1 791880.000 0.000 0.000 791880.000
input 2 249000.000 0.000 0.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 6
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 148665.000 0.000 0.000 148665.000
input 1 2196591.000 -840452.559 0.000 1356138.441
input 2 1057767.000 -404719.396 -143036.658 510010.947
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 0.223
5 0.777
Results for firm: 7

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 114553.000 0.000 0.000 114553.000
input 1 791880.000 0.000 0.000 791880.000
input 2 273700.000 0.000 -24700.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
5 1.000
Results for firm: 8
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 125299.000 0.000 0.000 125299.000
input 1 3406166.000 -2436532.681 0.000 969633.319
input 2 1323440.000 -946696.318 -45519.724 331223.957

LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 0.070
5 0.930
Results for firm: 9
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 267610.000 0.000 0.000 267610.000
input 1 3323649.000 0.000 0.000 3323649.000
input 2 1420129.000 0.000 0.000 1420129.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 1.000

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 11690.000 0.000 0.000 11690.000
input 1 220931.000 0.000 0.000 220931.000
input 2 150000.000 0.000 0.000 150000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
10 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 16971.000 0.000 0.000 16971.000
input 1 54787.000 0.000 0.000 54787.000

input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 237257.000 0.000 0.000 237257.000
input 1 3429068.000 0.000 0.000 3429068.000
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 1.000

EFFICIENCY SUMMARY:
1 0.348 0.394 0.884 drs
2 0.302 0.377 0.802 drs
3 0.296 1.000 0.296 drs
4 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
5 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
6 0.412 0.595 0.693 drs
7 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
8 0.186 0.192 0.966 drs
9 0.489 1.000 0.489 drs
10 0.099 1.000 0.099 irs
11 1.000 1.000 1.000 -
12 0.579 1.000 0.579 drs

mean 0.559 0.796 0.734
Results for firm: 1
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 171902.000 0.000 0.000 171902.000
input 1 3668658.000 -2224920.109 0.000 1443737.891
input 2 210000.000 -127358.076 0.000 82641.924
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 0.029
9 0.054
4 0.917
Results for firm: 2

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 139421.000 0.000 0.000 139421.000
input 1 2488341.000 -1550470.317 0.000 937870.683
input 2 1067339.000 -665052.514 -32175.364 370111.122
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 0.103
7 0.897
Results for firm: 3
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 592052.000 0.000 0.000 592052.000

input 1 13591086.000 0.000 0.000 13591086.000
input 2 1910844.000 0.000 0.000 1910844.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
3 1.000
Results for firm: 4
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 162417.000 0.000 0.000 162417.000
input 1 1281589.000 0.000 0.000 1281589.000
input 2 4500.000 0.000 0.000 4500.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 1.000
Results for firm: 5

PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 121116.000 0.000 0.000 121116.000
input 1 667540.000 0.000 0.000 667540.000
input 2 249000.000 0.000 0.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
7 1.000
Results for firm: 6
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 152905.000 0.000 0.000 152905.000

input 1 1912198.000 -775193.805 0.000 1137004.195
input 2 1057767.000 -428812.511 -169629.362 459325.127
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 0.180
7 0.820
Results for firm: 7
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 121116.000 0.000 0.000 121116.000
input 1 667540.000 0.000 0.000 667540.000
input 2 249000.000 0.000 0.000 249000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
7 1.000
Results for firm: 8
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 125194.000 0.000 0.000 125194.000
input 1 3784262.000 -3056327.614 0.000 727934.386
input 2 1323441.000 -1068866.076 0.000 254574.924
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
4 0.041
9 0.013
5 0.945
Results for firm: 9
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 298123.000 0.000 0.000 298123.000
input 1 3281603.000 0.000 0.000 3281603.000
input 2 1420129.000 0.000 0.000 1420129.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
9 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 6968.000 0.000 0.000 6968.000
input 1 384511.000 0.000 0.000 384511.000
input 2 150000.000 0.000 0.000 150000.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
10 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 22728.000 0.000 0.000 22728.000
input 1 42190.000 0.000 0.000 42190.000
input 2 230542.000 0.000 0.000 230542.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
11 1.000
PROJECTION SUMMARY:
output 1 237916.000 0.000 0.000 237916.000
input 1 3162262.000 0.000 0.000 3162262.000
input 2 77630.000 0.000 0.000 77630.000
LISTING OF PEERS:
peer lambda weight
12 1.000

Final Thesis-Miftah Arifyani

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Thesis-Miftah Arifyani

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITAS ANDALAS

ANALYSIS OF THE TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY OF CONVENTIONAL

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINEES

1.2 Problem Formulation.................................................................................6

1.3 Research Objectives..................................................................................6

1.4 Benefits of Research..................................................................................6

1.5 Scope and Limitations of the Research.....................................................7

1.6 Systematic Writing....................................................................................7

CHAPTER II THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK.....................................................9

2.1 Grand Theory............................................................................................9

2.1.1 The Definition of Efficiency and the Concept of Efficiency.............9

2.1.2 Types of efficiency..........................................................................10

2.1.3 Efficiency Measurement..................................................................12

2.1.4 Non-Parametric Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Approach......13

2.1.6 Financial Institution.........................................................................16

2.1.7 Non-Bank Financial Institutions......................................................18

2.2 Past Research...........................................................................................20

2.3 Research Framework...............................................................................22

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..................................................24

3.1 Specific Research Objectives..................................................................24

3.2 Time and Place of Research....................................................................24

3.3 Research Methods...................................................................................24

3.4 Sampling Techniques..............................................................................24

3.5 Data Collection Techniques....................................................................27

3.6 Data Analysis Techniques.......................................................................27

3.6.1 Data of Variable...............................................................................27

3.6.2 Descriptive Analysis........................................................................28

3.6.3 Input-Output Description.................................................................29

3.6.4 DEA Analysis Methods...................................................................36

3.6.5 Models in Data Envelopment Analysis............................................36

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH RESULT AND DISCUSSION................................44

4.1 Variable Description................................................................................44

4.1.1 Input variables..................................................................................44

4.2 Result of Data Analysis...........................................................................45

Input dan output Oriented CCR......................................................................45

Input oriented BCC.........................................................................................48

4.2.3 Output Oriented BCC............................................................................51

5.2 Research Synthesis..................................................................................55

5.3 Research Implication...............................................................................55

Table 3. 2 List of Company...................................................................................26

Table 3. 3 Company Profile...................................................................................27

Table 3. 4 Conventional Input Variabel Data (Capital) 2016-2020 (In Millions of

Table 3. 5 Conventional Life Insurance Input Variable Data (Employee Expenses)

2016-2020 (In Millions of Rupiah)........................................................................32

Table 3. 6 Conventional Life Insurance Input Variable Data (Premium Income)

2016-2020 (In Millions of Rupiah)........................................................................34

Table 4.2. 1 Input and Output Oriented

Table 4.2. 2 Input Oriented BCC...........................................................................48

Table 4.2. 3 Output Oriented BCC........................................................................51

Figure 1. 1 Growth in the number of conventional insurance companies...............2

Figure 1. 2 Growth of Premiums, Assets, Claims and Investments in Conventional

Live Insurance in 2016-2020...................................................................................3

Figure 2. 1 Technical Efficiency Model 11

Figure 2. 2 Framework of Thought........................................................................22

including insurance companies. (Directorate General of State Treasury:2020)

According to the Big Indonesian Dictionary, insurance is coverage, an

agreement between two parties. The definition of insurance according to the

Financial Services Authority, which is an agreement between the insurance

insurance company in exchange for or reducing losses. While, according to Law

Number 2 of 1992 Insurance or coverage is an agreement between two or more

insurance premiums to provide reimbursement to the insured for loss, damage, or

or life of an insured person.