PurposeThe paper validates the threshold argument in the informality–poverty nexus. Recent literature and policy have argued the existence of a threshold in the relationship.Design/methodology/approachThe study adopts dynamic panel threshold analysis, estimated within the framework of system Generalized Method of Moments (SGMM) to control for endogeneity and simultaneity. Data from 40 selected sub-Saharan African countries between 1991 and 2018 are used for the study.FindingsEmpirical results confirm the existence of an average threshold of 31% share of informality in GDP. Also, the paper finds that threshold of informality that addresses mild and severe poverty varies between 24.32 and 36.75%.Research limitations/implicationsThe work is limited to African economies. Evidence from other emerging and developed economies is suggested for further research.Practical implicationsOverall, the empirical results indicate a threshold in the informality–poverty nexus. Therefore, an excessive informality level does not benefit the African growth process. Policymakers and governments are advised to operate within the bounds of the threshold of informality that reduces poverty and improve the African economic growth process.Originality/valueThe paper is the first study to provide empirical findings on the nonlinear and threshold argument in the informality–poverty nexus, as far as the authors know.

This article seeks to assess the efficiency of 23 South African public universities using a Data Envelope Analysis (DEA) model for the period 2009-2016. A recent study on this subject matter found a decline in the average TE score of the South African public universities from 83 per cent in 2009 to 78 per cent in 2013. However, the study did not account for non-academic staff among other input variables that are assumed to potentially influence performance outcomes of the universities. We believed that a biased conclusion on the subject matter is likely if academic staff are assumed to dominate efficiency of public universities in South Africa, while the effort of nonacademic staff is not considered. In this respect, our model incorporates both academic and nonacademic staff as input variables among others. Our findings show that over the study period 2009-2016 the average Technical Efficiency (TE) of the South African public universities increased from 91 per cent to 95 per cent. For this result in particular, we deduce that in assessing efficiency of South African public universities, academic and non-academic staff can be deemed as mutually inclusive variables and therefore, neglecting either of the two can lead to biased estimated average TE scores. In addition to this empirical contribution, we also estimate scale and pure efficiency. Our findings show that on average South African public universities are relatively Nkohla, Munacinga, Marwa, Ncwadi A non-parametric assessment of efficiency of South African public universities 159 better off in scale efficiency (at 97%) as compared to pure technical efficiency (at 96%). The efficiency levels provided in this study can be used as performance benchmarks for identifying potential improvements required to reach a satisfactory level of efficiency.

Using a second-stage Data Envelope Analysis (DEA) model, this paper seeks to determine the drivers of efficiency for 23 public universities in South Africa for the period 2009-2016 with special attention given to the funding–efficiency nexus. Our Tobit results indicate that quality of staff, government funding, student fees, private income, and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita are positive factors of efficiency, while the proportion of non-white to white staff was found as the determinant of inefficiency. It was concluded that adequate funding and proper management of income by the universities, economic growth and employment of high educated academic staff can increase efficiency levels of the public universities in South Africa. On the other hand, an increase of non-white to white staff in the South African public universities is a threat to the universities’ efficiency. It is, therefore, vital to allocate adequate funding for universities to improve their efficiency.