|
on Microfinance |
| By: | Rahmat (Department of Economics, Padjadjaran University); Megananda (Department of Economics, Padjadjaran University); Achmad maulana (Department of Economics, Padjadjaran University) |
| Abstract: | This study finds that microfinance has positive impact to improvement of MSE’s ferformance indicated by sales; the difference in regional characteristic of MSE is also play role in determining its business scale. Since doubling amount of loan has negative impact to the performance, it’s very important to allocate the loan to the productive activities, such as investment, to improve the business opportunity. |
| Keywords: | microfinance, small and medium enterprises |
| JEL: | G21 |
| Date: | 2006–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:unp:wpaper:200601&r=mfd |
| By: | Mersland, Roy; Strøm, R. Øystein |
| Abstract: | Suppliers of microfinance are typically Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), cooperatives or specialized microfinance institutions incorporated as Shareholder Firms (SHFs). Leaving out the cooperatives we study whether NGOs and SHFs differ in bringing along social benefit to their clients. Specifically, is there a trade-off between different dimensions of social benefits, and can these tradeoffs predict ownership type? To frame the comparison of NGOs and SHFs we make use of Schreiner’s (2002) framework for discussion of the social benefits of microfinance. A self constructed dataset with unusually high-quality rating information from 132 NGOs and 68 SHFs in 53 countries is used to carry out the statistical tests. Our findings indicate that SHFs and NGOs are more similar than different. Our hypothesis that NGOs are more socially oriented than SHFs is rejected. SHFs’ benefit in scale and scope seems not related to ownership, but to legal constraints impeding NGOs to mobilize savings. Our second conclusion is that we cannot find a trade-off among outreach variables. Specifically, the return on assets is higher in NGOs. We conclude that ownership doesn’t influence the performance of microfinance organizations. Our conclusion is in line with findings in the general banking industry. |
| Keywords: | Microfinance; outreach tradeoffs; transformation; commercialization; ownership; corporate governance |
| JEL: | O16 G32 |
| Date: | 2007–01–30 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:2063&r=mfd |
| By: | Mersland, Roy |
| Abstract: | This article analyses the cost of ownership in microfinance organizations. We specifically compare the ownership-cost of Shareholders Firms (SHFs), Non Profit Organizations (NPOs) and Cooperatives (COOPs). A paradoxical situation motivates us: Most providers of microfinance, both historically and today, are NPOs or COOPs, while several policy papers advocate SHFs. Based on an extension of Hansmann’s (1996) economic theory of ownership we propose that cost variables related to market contracting of microfinance services favor NPOs and COOPs, whereas most cost variables related to the practice of ownership favor SHFs. We conclude that in severe imperfect markets, where most microfinance organizations operate, NPOs and COOPs are still needed. |
| Keywords: | Microfinance; ownership; corporate governance; nonprofits; transformation; global study |
| JEL: | O16 G32 |
| Date: | 2007–01–15 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:2061&r=mfd |