|
on Microfinance |
| By: | Duvendack, Maren |
| Abstract: | Microfinance has been on the development agenda for more than 30 years, heralded as the wondrous tool that reduces poverty and empowers women (Hulme and Mosley, 1996; Rutherford, 2001; Morduch and Haley, 2002; Khandker, 1998). Doubts, however, have recently been raised about the success of microfinance (Dichter and Harper, 2007; Banerjee et al, 2009; Roodman and Morduch, 2009; Karlan and Zinman, 2009; Bateman and Chang, 2009). Given this context, this paper re-examines the microfinance impact evaluation of SEWA Bank conducted by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in India in 1998 and 2000. The USAID panel and a new cross-section data set are analysed using propensity score matching (PSM) and panel data techniques to address selection bias. Sensitivity analysis of the matching results is used to explore their reliability. Various sub-group comparisons between borrowers, savers and controls are also conducted to shed some light on the impact of savings versus credit. The paper concludes that doubts remain about the quality of the impact estimates obtained through advanced econometric techniques. Direct observation and the outcome of sensitivity analysis of the PSM analysis suggest that the application of PSM and differences-in-differences (DID) to these observational data were probably unable to account for selection on unobservables. |
| Keywords: | Impact evaluation; evaluation methods; selection bias; microfinance; India |
| JEL: | O1 O16 C01 |
| Date: | 2010–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:24511&r=mfd |
| By: | Abena D. Oduro |
| Abstract: | This paper presents evidence on the wide range of adverse shocks reported by African households. The current financial and economic crisis adds another layer of risk to al-ready vulnerable households and firms. In responding to an adverse shock, households are involved in a balancing act that is aimed at maintaining consumption and/or assets above critical levels. Households mainly use coping mechanisms that depend on family and other networks and self-insurance. There is limited recourse to public social protection and formal credit and insurance markets. The paper examines some informal financial arrangements. Some of these are not designed to smooth consumption when there is an adverse shock. These informal mechanisms have the potential to be the platform to expand access and utilisation of formal finance particularly in rural communities. There is a clear role for publicly provided interventions. This is because informal risk sharing mechanisms do not cover all shocks. The premium paid may not be adequate to cover the entire financial implications of the shock. Finally, the design of the risk-sharing institutions can result in the very poor being excluded. |
| Keywords: | shocks, coping strategies, financial institutions |
| Date: | 2010–04–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:rsc:rsceui:2010/31&r=mfd |