Measuring the Impact of Microfinance Grameen Foundation Publication Series
Taking Another Look by Kathleen Odell Measuring the Impact of Microfinance 2 choices andinterpretations presented here becompletely my own. to take onthisproject andespeciallyfor thefoundation’s insistence thattheeditorial number ofpointsinthetext. Thanks alsoto Grameen Foundation for theopportunity substantive comments whichwere essential infocusing thisreport andclarifyinga Nathanael Goldberg, BethHoule,ElisabethRhyne, andDavid Roodman allprovided readers. NimishAdhia, Peter Cowhey, AsifDowla, Christopher Dunford, GeetaGoel, Counts, andCamillaNestor atGrameen Foundation, aswell asanumberof external researchers andpractitioners inthemicrofinance field,includingNigel Biggar, Alex The authorisgrateful for comments onanearlierdraft ofthispaperfrom several Acknowledgements Global Peace through Commerce. work onthisproject was generously by supported theBrennan School’s Center for global policymakingatRoskilde University inDenmark2003-2004. Kathleen’s at Chicago. As aFulbright Scholar, Kathleenstudiedsustainabledevelopment and and amaster’s degree inurbanplanning andpolicyfrom theUniversity ofIllinois areas ofeconomic growth anddevelopment. KathleenholdsaPhDineconomics Brennan SchoolofBusiness inRiver Forest, Illinois.Sheconducts research inthe Kathleen Odellisanassistant professor ofeconomics atDominicanUniversity’s About theAuthor ©Grameen® Foundation, USA. Allrightsreserved. www.grameenfoundation.org Table of Contents 3 Foreword 4 Executive Summary 4 Randomized (Experimental) Studies 5 Non-Randomized (Quasi-Experimental) Studies 7 Section 1 Introduction 7 What the Popular Press is Saying 10 Section 2 Where to Start: Summary of the 2005 Paper 11 Section 3 What Are the Questions? 13 Section 4 Evaluation Methods (Pros and Cons) 16 Three Technical Points 17 Section 5 Experimental (Randomized) Studies 17 Traditional Microcredit in India 18 Individual Lending in the Philippines 19 Consumer Credit in South Africa 20 The Role of Savings Constraints in Kenya 21 Evidence on Returns to Capital in Microenterprises 22 Section 6 Quasi-Experimental Studies 22 The Impact of Microcredit in Bangladesh 23 The Coleman Method (as applied to the Philippines) 24 The Effect of New Bank Branches in Mexico 25 Microfinance in Thailand (Revisited) 27 Section 7 Non-Experimental Studies 27 The Goldin Institute 28 Microcredit for the Very Poor in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India 29 Section 8 The Macroeconomic Effects of Microfinance 30 Section 9 Conclusions and Directions for Future Research 32 References 34 Appendix Measuring the Impact of Microfinance: Taking Stock of What We Know Executive Summary 35 The AIMS Studies 35 Wider Impacts 35 Empowerment 35 Contraceptive Use 35 Nutrition 36 Determinants of Impact 36 Control of Loan 36 Incoming Poverty Level 36 Family Crises Measuring the Impact of Microfinance 2 www.grameenfoundation.org FOREWORD
During the International Year of Microcredit (IYMC) get feedback on her early drafts, and my colleagues and in 2005, I became frustrated when many speakers at I participated in this review process. I am pleased that so international fora routinely mischaracterized the findings many of the leading thinkers of our field took the time to of the growing body of research that looks into whether, read and comment on this paper in draft form. and how, microcredit was effective in addressing global The debate about microfinance’s effectiveness in poverty. As part of our contribution to the success of the reducing poverty and addressing other societal problems, IYMC, we commissioned Nathanael Goldberg to survey and related discussions about how to make microfinance the literature and report, in layman’s terms, what we even more potent, has often degraded into polemics and knew at that time. unsubstantiated claims, and sometimes become very As it turned out, the report seemed to fill a critical gap technical in nature. The media and other stakeholders, in our movement’s learning agenda and was used by an such as regulators and social investors, have been impressive group of policy makers, donors, investors, increasingly confused by conflicting claims about what academics, and practitioners. Goldberg himself has gone we know and don’t know. This paper should help to on to do great things as a researcher at Innovations for inform these important discussions, which go to the Poverty Action. heart of how we think about making microfinance the Not surprisingly, the field moved on. New research was most effective tool that it can be and how can we set published, some of which (at least according to media expectations appropriately about its potential and reports) appeared to contradict some of the main findings current limitations. of the Goldberg report. In addition, criticisms of earlier The executive summary of the original Goldberg paper research—both specific studies and entire categories of is appended to this paper. Both this paper and the entire scholarly inquiry into the effectiveness of microfinance— Goldberg paper are available for download from Grameen emerged and sparked fascinating and impassioned Foundation’s website, www.grameenfoundation.org. debate that was often difficult for non-specialists to track My colleagues Camilla Nestor, Nigel Biggar, Liselle and decipher. Yorke, Shannon Maynard, and Angie Sanders were I saw a need to commission an updated literature essential partners in bringing this paper to fruition. I am review, and I was pleased to meet Professor Kathleen grateful to Dean Arvid Johnson of Dominican University’s Odell last year at an impressive conference that Brennan School of Business and Kathleen Houlihan, Dominican University’s Brennan School of Business the founding director of the Global Center for Peace (where Odell is an assistant professor of economics) through Commerce, who organized the conference that convened in Chicago. In a hurried conversation between got the ball rolling on this paper. Dean Johnson was also sessions, I explained the need as I saw it and encouraged instrumental in helping to free up Professor Odell to focus her to read the Goldberg report to see if she was up to on this paper for several months. Most of all, I would like taking it forward. She agreed and rapidly convinced the to thank the author for treating the subject rigorously, Brennan School of Business to lighten her teaching load writing elegantly, explaining clearly, and judging fairly. 3 this spring so that she could produce the paper on a She exceeded my high expectations and in doing so has Microfinance of Impact the Measuring compressed schedule. She was willing to do this through made a major contribution to our rapidly changing field. our Bankers without Borders™ volunteer program, which, in the meantime, got a major boost in the form of a large scaling-up grant from J.P. Morgan’s Social Finance Group. We told Professor Odell, as we had done with Goldberg, that she had complete editorial control of the Alex Counts, President final product to ensure independence and credibility. Of Grameen Foundation course, we encouraged her to reach out to as many of May 3, 2010 the industry’s leading researchers and practitioners to
www.grameenfoundation.org Measuring the Impact of Microfinance 4 1 negative interpretations appearing in the press. public statements disputing the oversimplifications and of the research papers cited in the articles have made with a healthy dose of skepticism, as even the authors of its proponents. These media stories should be read powerful an anti-poverty tool as suggested by many slant, collectively suggesting that microfinance isn’t as Times Economist good deal of media coverage. Stories published in the impact assessment evaluations in 2009 precipitated a survey a much-needed update. microfinance impact assessment, making this current have been a number of important developments in the years since Goldberg’s paper was released, there Foundation and authored by Nathanael Goldberg. In released in 2005, which was sponsored by Grameen comprehensive impact assessment literature survey between 2005 and 2010. It is an update of a impact assessment evaluations released or published This paper is a survey of several significant microfinance programs already on the ground. Also, because the RCT Thus the RCT methodology is not useful for evaluating put into place in advance of program implementation. be identified, and the evaluation structure must be limitations. Programs to be evaluated with an RCT must methodology provides a solution to this challenge. plagues much of social science research), and the RCT impact assessment (in fact, the selection bias problem standing and well-known challenge in microfinance difference between clients and non-clients is a long- different from non-clients. The possibility of inherent microfinance institutions (MFIs) may be systematically eliminates the problem of selection bias, where clients of RCT is that in cases where it can be effectively used, it (RCT) first studies employing the assessment since 2005 is methodological; in 2009, the actual findings reported. studies, disentangling the media interpretation from the of this paper is to summarize the results of these new http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/the-role-of-microfinance/ The release of a handful of prominent microfinance On the other hand, the RCT methodology has One of the key developments in microfinance impact presented the new research with a negative methodology were released. The benefit of the magazine, the Boston Globe randomized controlled trial , and the EXECUTIV SUMMAR www.grameenfoundation.org Financial 1 One aim and social well-being. (positive or negative) on broader measures of poverty investment and outcomes but did not have impacts periods, microfinance had positive impacts on business three studies suggest that over relatively short time overall health and well-being). Collectively, these in children’s school enrollment, or improvements in microcredit (such as women’s empowerment, increases test for, but do not find, evidence of social impacts of poverty. Banerjee et al. and Karlan and Zinman both borrowers only but has no overall effects on income or leads to an increase in business profits for male microlending to a new population in Manila, Philippines, Karlan and Jonathan Zinman) finds that the expansion of to Estimate the Impacts in Manila” [2010b] by Dean Credit Access: Using Randomized Supply Decisions for women. The third study (“Expanding Microenterprise accounts increase business investment and expenditure investment in Kenya, and find that formal savings of the introduction of savings accounts on business small businesses. Dupas and Robinson study the effect investment and supports the creation and expansion of in Hyderabad, India, supports household borrowing and Banerjee et al., find that the introduction of microcredit impacts of microfinance on the lives of poor clients. examined closely, report evidence of a number of positive by Pascaline Dupas and Jonathan Robinson), when Evidence from a Field Experiment in Kenya,” [2009] “Savings Constraints and Microenterprise Development: evaluation,” [2009] by Abhijit Banerjee et al. and miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized three randomized studies. Two of these studies (“The The popular press coverage primarily addressed R references and a more complete discussion. economics is ongoing. See Section 4 of this report for the use of the RCT as an evaluation tool in development everyone has access to microfinance. The debate over to implement the RCT methodology because nearly has been in place for years, it is virtually impossible (such as Bangladesh, for instance) where microfinance are necessarily short. Finally, in many environments services) from a specified group, time horizons for study works by withholding andomized ( E xperimental) Y treatment S (in this case microfinance tudies Clients of Al Sol (Mexico)
In addition to the impact assessment studies above, impact assessment since 2005, there have been other two studies by Suresh de Mel, David McKenzie, and important (non-randomized) studies as well. As of 2005, Christopher Woodruff (2008 and 2009) provide a particularly well-respected study of the impact of some evidence about returns to capital in small microfinance was a study of microcredit in Bangladesh businesses (microenterprises) such as the businesses written by Shahidur Khandker of the World Bank. This most frequently owned by microcredit borrowers. In study, which expanded upon earlier impact assessment in the 2008 study, the authors find that small grants to Bangladesh, showed a strong positive impact on income microenterprise owners were almost completely invested as a result of borrowing from microlending institutions. A 5 in business expansion, and that the grants increased 2009 study by David Roodman and Jonathan Morduch Microfinance of Impact the Measuring average profits of microenterprises by about 60 percent revisits Khandker’s study, as well as two earlier related per year. In the 2009 study, the authors investigate the studies (Morduch, [1998]; Pitt and Khandker, [1998]), difference in returns to capital for male versus female and raises questions about the validity of the results borrowers. They find increases in business profits only for of all three papers. Roodman and Morduch argue that male business owners. methodological concerns about the earlier work should lead readers to be skeptical of the positive results of Non-Randomized microfinance these studies report. (Quasi-Experimental) Studies Work by Brett Coleman (2006) of the Asian Though the release of these randomized studies Development Bank found that for two microlending was one of the major developments in microfinance programs in northeast Thailand, the services were more
www.grameenfoundation.org Measuring the Impact of Microfinance 6 these services. improves the lives of borrowers and savers who use (though sometimes qualified) evidence that microfinance of additional studies provide context and additional and income (Kaboski & Townsend, 2009). A handful participating villages and led to increases in consumption microlending program, relieved credit constraints in that Thailand’s “Million Baht Village Fund,” a government reduced reliance on moneylenders. A second study found consumption smoothing, and occupational mobility, and those targeted at women, promoted asset growth, and Robert Townsend (2005) finds that MFIs, especially was opened. Research in Thailand by Joseph Kaboski and income for residents of municipalities where a branch increase in informal business ownership, employment, Banco Azteca in neighborhoods across Mexico led to an Love (2009) found that the opening of branches of products are reaching their intended recipients. raise important questions about whether microfinance borrowers actually see negative effects. These studies accrue only to relatively wealthy borrowers; the poorest formal saving. However, these positive effects appear to per capita incomes, expenditures, food expenditures, and participation in the lending program leads to increases in program are actually relatively wealthy. Kondo finds that Similar to Coleman, Kondo finds that borrowers in the 30 percent of the rural population in the Philippines. study a microfinance operation aimed at the poorest Development Bank uses Coleman’s methodology to In a related paper, Toshio Kondo (2007) of the Asian target group of the “poorest of the poor.” likely to reach relatively wealthy borrowers than the World Bank researchers Miriam Bruhn and Inessa www.grameenfoundation.org
insights into these critical questions. Hopefully, the next wave of research will provide further such as education, health, and women’s empowerment. effects of microfinance on measures of social well-being, rates of microfinance clients is less clear, as are the this survey, the overall effect on the incomes and poverty and microsavings instruments. Based on the studies in different microfinance services, including microcredit for microbusinesses. This result is observed across different settings) suggesting that microfinance is good of studies (using a variety of methodologies across encouraging results. There is evidence from a number has emerged over the last five years offers some the poor. functions in the world and how it affects the lives of of knowledge about how microfinance, in all its forms, must be interpreted as a small piece of a growing body and the specific questions in mind, each impact study very specific context. Rather, keeping both the general to us, since each study necessarily applies only to a to over-interpret the empirical results that are available greatest errors researchers and practitioners can make is and so on. Given this extreme heterogeneity, one of the Asia, some are in Africa, some are in Eastern Europe, globe: some are urban, some are rural, some are in South MFIs also operate in diverse environments around the products, and various combinations of these services. services including loans, savings accounts, insurance different types of clients. These institutions offer various tool but a collection of tools. MFIs around the world serve impossible to answer, because The research into the impact of microfinance that Ultimately, the question, does microfinance work? microfinance is not a single is section 1 Introduction
In 2005, Grameen Foundation released a study, dollars would have more powerful effects if they were authored by Nathanael Goldberg, entitled “Measuring spent on some other program, such as conditional the Impact of Microfinance: Taking Stock of What cash transfers, teacher training, vaccinations, or any We Know.” Goldberg (now at Innovations for Poverty of the many, many other areas where development Action) surveyed dozens of impact assessments aid is spent. (Though in the absence of rigorous and of microfinance and prepared a literature review comparable impact assessments across a variety of many of the most significant. See Appendix for of development interventions, the answer to this the executive summary of Goldberg’s paper. Of question remains out of reach.) On the other hand, course, since the 2005 paper, microfinance impact in areas where microlending is profitable, concerns assessment has moved forward. Today, in early 2010, arise about whether the lending agencies remain it seems important to again survey the literature, committed to the goal of fighting poverty or whether looking this time at the new studies released since profit is the primary motive. Finally, while there 2005 and addressing the continuing debate about are many inspiring stories of entrepreneurs whose some of the earlier studies. lives have been changed for the better21 (Counts, The past five years have been an exciting time in 2008) by access to credit, there are also stories of microfinance and microfinance impact assessment. borrowers who have been adversely affected by credit, Professor Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank experiencing credit dependency and cyclical debt were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. As of (Goldin Institute, 2007). December 2007, the Microcredit Summit Campaign The main goal of the impact assessment literature counted 3,552 microfinance institutions (MFIs) is to estimate the average effects of microfinance worldwide, serving nearly 155 million borrowers programs overall, notwithstanding the sometimes (Daley-Harris, 2009). In the area of impact conflicting anecdotal evidence and intuition which is assessment, new research methodologies have been so widely available. Further, a well-designed impact used, and the questions that are being asked have been assessment study can provide insight into the causal refined. The year 2009 was a particularly lively year factors behind the success and failure of various in impact assessment, with new studies emerging that microfinance interventions. The aim of this literature initiated a vigorous debate in the popular press about survey is to step away from the popular debate, to look the merits and potential of microfinance. critically at the new research, and to seek (to whatever 7
It is important to study the impact of microfinance extent possible) consensus on the question of what Microfinance of Impact the Measuring for several reasons. First, many MFIs receive is rigorously and empirically known about the effect subsidies from governments, development agencies, of microfinance on the lives of the poor people it is and foundations. To the extent that microfinance intended to reach. receives scarce subsidies or preferential regulatory treatment based on its anticipated impact on poverty What the Popular Press is Saying reduction, it is necessary to evaluate whether the In 2009, impact assessment of microfinance became development dollars spent in this area are having a mainstream media topic, with a collection of articles the desired effects (reducing poverty, improving the that could broadly be interpreted as bad press. These lives of the poor) and whether regulatory preferences articles were based on a small wave of research make sense. A related question is whether these same 2 www.kiva.org
www.grameenfoundation.org Measuring the Impact of Microfinance 8 poor,” work approaches. work as 3 released Clients of Maata-N Tudu (Ghana) just Economist market to microcredit and Thepressarticlesreferencedherereferprimarily tomicrolending,which microfinance. SeeSection3foramore complete discussion. headingof is onlyoneofthefinancialservicescollected underthegeneral A
the the
short over other
wonders, to
microfinance some was
rates date
in half
article donors,
published magazine.
early
3 of
2
based
from of
has
the
but
the
entitled 2009,
its
it
most aid
it
on $11.7
is industry
“advertised
does
in This
agencies, important the
which
the important
billion “Microcredit
studies’
help article
July
in has
the
2008 multilateral
that 16,
effects.”
to widely argues
methodological
impact entrepreneurial
2009 know
was
came
may
been that
committed
issue
Specifically, whether
assessment
at www.grameenfoundation.org not
banks,
because
below- received
of
the since spent microcredit calls speaking, unpublished) Zinman reduced 2009). misleading are Section controlled trial of medical The
the
built
attention
there
on, studies two
While
5.
trials, (2010b) poverty” on
donors neither
studies
are conclusion, a
as
similar
technically are Banerjee
where
to an or other
studies,
should the
examined
RCT study anti-poverty
(“Microcredit cited
methodology, recently things a .
control
RCTs
et however, in found
evaluate
concluding correct,
al. the
that in
(2009)
work
released
Economist that
more
group tool.
may aid
once the this
microcredit similarly the
The money and detail.
that
not is effectiveness
is
the
(but
randomized established
a
Karlan article
article
work,” “broadly somewhat
results
See
could as
to
yet
also
then and
be
of to isolate the effect of some treatment – in this case Perhaps most important to this discussion is the access to credit through MFIs. For a number of appearance, on December 28, 2009, of a post on technical reasons, the RCT is considered to be a very Nicholas Kristof’s New York Times blog. This post, effective approach to impact assessment. See also written by Abhijit Vinayak Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Section 4. These two studies are the first RCTs to look and Dean Karlan (co-authors of two randomized at the broad question of the impact of microcredit. studies cited in the Economist, the Boston Globe, On September 20, 2009, the Boston Globe and the Financial Times), reminds readers of the published a particularly negative article entitled difference between popular journalism and academic “Billions of dollars and a Nobel Prize later, it looks research. Journalism can be sensationalized; like ‘microlending’ doesn’t actually do much to fight research, while perhaps more dull to read, takes more poverty.” Again drawing on Banerjee et al. and Karlan careful account of subtleties and ambiguities that and Zinman (2010b), the Globe article suggests that arise. The authors conclude as follows: “by most measures, microcredit does not offer a …as we see it, microcredit seems to have way out of poverty” (Bennett, 2009). Though the delivered exactly what a successful new article goes on to discuss some of the subtleties of the financial product is supposed deliver—allowing papers’ results, the casual reader comes away from people to make large purchases that they this article with the general impression that rhetoric would not have been able to otherwise. The fact about the transformational potential of microfinance that some people expected much more from may have been “simple hype.” In a similar spirit, a it (and perhaps they are right, may be it will Financial Times article from December 5, 2009 was just take longer), is perhaps inevitable given titled “Perhaps microfinance isn’t such a big deal after how eager the world is to find that one magic all.”43Again, Banerjee et al. and Karlan and Zinman bullet that would finally “solve” poverty. But to (2010b) were used as the basis for the argument; the actually blame microcredit for not promoting article also mentioned a 2009 microsavings study by the immunization of children is no different Dupas and Robinson. from blaming immunization campaigns for A response to the Globe article appeared in Foreign not generating new businesses.5 Policy on October 26, 2009. This article reminds us So, what can be said, in summary, of this popular that “microfinance … is young, evolving, and ripe press debate? David Roodman, a research fellow at with innovation” (Banerjee, 2009). Importantly, we the Center for Global Development, writes “public must keep in mind that microcredit – that is, loans to conversations about complex topics are inevitably the poor – is only one aspect of microfinance. Other cacophonous and inefficient.”6 Let this cacophonous products, most notably savings accounts for the poor, public conversation be a starting point to examine the also can be classified as microfinance, and there is research that has emerged over the last five years. 9 evidence that these products are quite effective, Microfinance of Impact the Measuring 5 http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/the-role-of-microfinance/ especially when delivered as part of a complete set of 6 http://blogs.cgdev.org/open_book/2009/12/randomistas-attempt-mes- financial products to clients. sage-control.php
4 David Roodman outlines on his blog some of the follow-up on the Financial Times article. Particularly notable is a tweet from Tim Harford (author of the Financial Times piece): “Note to all microfinance enthusiasts: I DO NOT WRITE MY OWN HEADLINES.” http://blogs.cgdev.org/open_ book/2009/12/making-headlines.php
www.grameenfoundation.org 10 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance surveyed The Where to section 2 by of published conducted seventeen conclusions: research presented
the
Mahabub directions: about; the and On (Goldberg,
first
effect
many does the
edition
and several
up a
years and impact
balanced of
whole,
Hossain
not S ended to
Client of CASHPOR (India)
ways Grameen
tart: 2005, 2) 1)
that
of
of
work of
there there
assessment
work this
the
with
in year. the
p. S and overview
for
which
ummary of the 2005 most paper, 46)
is
is
that Bank
a evidence
different
Beginning navigating much
much few
prominent followed,
published microfinance
loans studies optimistic,
of
to to
the
be types discover points
in
with through
existing
enthusiastic
released
Bangladesh Goldberg
and in
of
a if
2005, www.grameenfoundation.org 1988 clients. in
cautious,
works carefully about
the two
or
study P aper many, also limitations looked studies sometimes might studies, questions is literature of results
Goldberg
a these
key
expressed
provide many
forward have starting of
and randomized
microfinance’s review. of
in of expressed
the been positive microfinance’s
conflicting the
some concerns
to point debate
studies widely
the
incontrovertible
studies findings
for
results overall
that
about
read
this ways. impact, available
effectiveness. has
are
of second
in optimism and
the The
the accompanied
the available,
suggesting
broadly
methodological at
first release literature,
edition
that answers
given randomized
time.
Today, and interpreted,
of
that of
these them, the
to their but
the He
the some these section 3 What Are the Questions?
The goal of microfinance as an economic Insurance and money transfer services are also development tool71is to improve the lives of the important but newer, so that not much assessment poor. An interpretation of this goal is that if has been completed as yet on their effectiveness. microfinance gets poor people out of poverty, then Second, there is new research available that it must be working as it was intended. This would suggests that microcredit plays an important role be mainly an income measure—if incomes rise as a in helping poor people mitigate the unreliability of result of access to microfinance, then microfinance their income. Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s is effective as an anti-poverty tool. But over the Poor Live on $2 a Day, a 2009 book by Daryl Collins, years, some microfinance enthusiasts have made Jonathan Morduch, Stuart Rutherford, and Orlanda claims beyond the effect on the income of the Ruthven provides us with new insight into the poor. Microfinance has been heralded not only as complicated financial lives of the very poor. Portfolios a strategy for increasing income and consumption presents the results of year-long financial diaries kept among the poor, but also as a tool for improving by poor households in India, Bangladesh, and South measures of health, children’s education, and Africa. The diaries show the many ways in which women’s empowerment. See also, as one example, poor households rely on financial instruments not the CGAP website answer to the question “How Do only for investment and entrepreneurship purposes, Financial Services Help the Poor?”8 Various studies but also for consumption smoothing and easing the presented in Goldberg’s 2005 paper showed evidence unpredictability of daily life. Portfolios is not impact of positive effects of microfinance on several of assessment research, but rather a rigorous qualitative these “noneconomic” measures, including women’s study that contributes heavily to the understanding empowerment, contraceptive use, and children’s of microfinance’s role in borrowers’ lives. As one of a nutrition. Microfinance scholars, critics, lenders, variety of financial instruments regularly used by the donors, and practitioners alike seek to know to what poor households surveyed, microfinance emerges as a extent microfinance actually achieves these goals. tool providing reliable and predictable access to loans But it turns out that answering this question is not so and savings. The evidence presented in Portfolios simple. demonstrates the importance of microfinance not First, the term microfinance refers to a range of only as a means of reducing poverty, but also as a financial services for low-income people, including means of improving the quality of daily life within the 11 credit, savings, insurance, and money transfers. condition of poverty. Microfinance of Impact the Measuring Most of the studies included here study the effect of Third, while many impact assessments have microcredit—small loans to poor borrowers, but there been conducted about the effects of microlending are also a few studies on the impact of microsavings. on individuals, there is relatively little literature Though microcredit is the best known and most addressing the macroeconomic effects of widely practiced of the microfinance services, interest microfinance. Yet, there are theoretical arguments in microsavings and other services is growing. that if microfinance is successful at any one of its aims (raising incomes, promoting entrepreneurship, increasing children’s education, encouraging savings), 7 It is important to note, however, that as microfinance has matured, it is in some cases implemented not as an economic development tool, but as a then, over time, positive effects on macroeconomic profit-making enterprise. measures (such as the rate of economic growth, 8 http://www.cgap.org/p/site/c/template.rc/1.26.1305/
www.grameenfoundation.org 12 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance per Client of Yehu (Kenya) poverty difficult methodological understanding recipients microlending development MFIs), is or borrowers. the a the
single
Finally, Ultimately, impossible
can
question world capita
it
or
tool
and to be
an
whether serve
GDP,
(“the address,
both? This
but inequality)
important of
to
the tool, expands,
the what
different and
answer, issues poorest a question
question collection
or the broader
their
economy-wide
microlending
is
make loans
credit it
question
should because of
answers types
a is
does microfinance work? the profit-making
impacts very
of
tend these
is
poor” tools.
of be
reaching
much
microfinance is
clients. to
are observed.
questions
is:
whether, measures
of
go
MFIs for
essential is
microfinance.
entangled to
it some
its These
wealthier enterprise, an
around www.grameenfoundation.org
intended
Though as economic
of
is
to
not
with institutions savings combinations in urban, are Given errors over-interpret very to of must and functions the
knowledge diverse us,
in poor.
the
specific
be
since
Africa,
this
researchers some
accounts, specific
interpreted
in environments
extreme
each
offer
the
context. are some
about
of
the
questions
world
study rural, these
various insurance
empirical and are
heterogeneity,
how
as
Rather,
some necessarily
and services. in
a practitioners
small
microfinance, around
Eastern services
in
how
products,
are
mind, results
keeping
piece
it MFIs in
the
affects
Europe,
including
applies South one
each
that of
globe: can
both also
and
of a
in
impact growing
the
are make Asia, the
all
only
and operate various
the some
loans,
available lives
its greatest
some so
general to is
forms, study
are
to body on.
a of section 4 Evaluation Methods (Pros and Cons)
Evaluation of microfinance programs attempts group. The fact that borrowers and non-borrowers to determine how some outcome measurement may be systematically different from each other is (income, consumption, children’s participation in called selection bias, and it presents a formidable education, etc.) is affected by access to microfinance. challenge to program evaluators. If, for whatever Answering a question of this nature is surprisingly reason, selection bias persists and the treatment and difficult, however, due to an ultimately unsolvable comparison groups are not comparable, then any problem which evaluators refer to as the absence estimates of the effect of microfinance will be biased of the counterfactual. It is a relatively simple (that is, incorrect). matter to look at incomes, for example, before and Researchers have worked for years on methods of after participation in a lending program and to eliminating selection bias with varying success. The determine whether those incomes increased. But most robust way to generate reliably comparable the counterfactual would indicate what would have treatment and comparison groups is to assign happened to those incomes in the absence of the households randomly to one or the other group, lending program. Might those families have gotten similar to the way patients are assigned to groups in richer anyway? Is the observed increase in incomes clinical medical research. Since the first version of a result of the lending program, or perhaps a result this literature review in 2005, several studies have of some other, possibly unobserved, factor, such emerged that use random assignment, and some as entrepreneurial spirit, work ethic, or inherent innovative non-random approaches also have talent for business? For an impact assessment to been taken. be considered statistically rigorous, some approach The impact assessment literature can be broken must be taken to approximate the counterfactual. into studies with experimental design, quasi- Generally, this requires designating a treatment group experimental design and non-experimental design. which has access to a lending program, for example, Experimental design assigns households randomly to and a comparison group which is identical to the treatment and control groups in advance of applying treatment group in every way, save for access to the the treatment (in this case, making microfinance lending program and some unavoidable random instruments available) to the treatment group. Quasi- variation. experimental studies attempt to eliminate selection But how should this comparison group be bias through statistical strategies, which can be very 13 identified? Simply including households that did complicated. Non-experimental assessments include Microfinance of Impact the Measuring not participate in the lending program will not qualitative studies and studies which do not attempt work, because these households are likely to be to identify treatment and comparison groups or to systematically different from the households that address the selection bias problem. These studies, chose to borrow. Comparing households in a village while problematic, are also relatively quick and with an MFI with similar households in a village inexpensive, and can provide useful snapshots of the without an MFI seems a reasonable strategy, except effectiveness of microfinance on the ground. Also, that there is likely to be a reason that the MFI chose while methodologically rigorous qualitative studies, to locate in one village over the other. If the reason is such as the financial diaries reported in Portfolios anything other than random choice, the comparison of the Poor, do not provide impact assessment in group will not be truly comparable to the treatment the conventional sense, they do provide invaluable
www.grameenfoundation.org 14 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance systematic has that research. insights see results treatment studies known over hand, be program researcher received that because research average these problem statistics effective where significant to intervene microfinance that initiation. groups design. potential neighborhoods a not individuals randomize
new The Several On
the identified
in been be
it has researchers experimental
the
studies
quasi-experimental the institution questions
problem is possible, randomized
of and must First, can
impacts that been the
impossible
well-deserved
of strategy does is eliminated;
other
or
ethical the
randomized following
in
In
and
challenges
differences can already
participation. selection widely
be are
squabbles RCT
the
be can
to
the
assignment study
identify on
is
not challenged
comparison
hand, evaluate
granted
with
generate
but made it about
introduction
being
of must the concerns
case complement
methodology
locates which
is become
respected
design.
programs in
evaluation will
not discussion, often to
quasi-experimental ground
bias. despite
there
place. of
in advance are
inherent to identify be asked. over experimental
may
others). attention access be
microfinance, the produces
be a
(selecting,
certain
reliable to While
possible at
Therefore,
design comparison It bogged inaccurate. about
are
methodology. groups,
introduced,
remain
If
effectiveness treatment
this for
can
researchers’ quasi-experimental being
process
a
and
to is
at markets
eliminates
even to defensible
years. Setting
randomizing
level.
be feasible, of
this microfinance that
least
has in
estimates
experimental
believable down
to inform
the evaluated, in
between conducted
for recent
studies the
randomize approach
the an
selection which
in
As On three
this and
group, program’s
example,
aside where and
in advantage most
order
design
impacts
readers
it of In
the best
quantitative
the
method
complex means months
control is www.grameenfoundation.org
of
a
then
very have cases
case the
answers
the
a
other program which
then
well-
and
the efforts,
to
after
may highly (which bias
is
where
some
the will that
the
can a
a not can and identified, to maintained. which for a access be implemented period study non-randomized Armendáriz all to varied conclusions the important in in pervasive, control of share effect and the impact effect happened? But 155 some impact borrowers,
short Second, Third, Quasi-experimental
studies
places a other other relatively impact
random
results treatment
every million often country is implementation half
borrowers a to of suggests
this
the
contexts to
of
time,
assessment assessment common group
evaluation situations. assess realizes the because
where microfinance
years.
be situation
often
when treatment evaluations,
a it
there point
of
though
Indeed,
borrowers introduction
realistic
program
like tend will
addressed While and difficult it
randomized
in unaffected group
will that long-run
Thus, and report
it
an
a is Bangladesh,
be is a experience
Morduch limitation,
randomized
to studies
is
particular
decrease
often
that
be
the
it
appropriate
lends Though virtually
strategies. will literature
microfinance
with possible be large
description
realizes and
might is to
will it very
worldwide, and only
development more regardless
from relatively with
randomization generalize find is
a impacts respect
often itself of
control
by geographical
likely
difficult limited studies
difficult (2010) experimental
be in average microfinance
this
which that
thoughtful
negative access impossible controlled the to
widely
an where
reveals studies
income,
feasible
to
make build
be
environment
increase limitation
control of
to this
of
groups expensive experimental
had time of note (p.
to it
close
the
is
what
microcredit, to to
microfinance.
impacts. applicable
microfinance methodology,
is
community use
a that 307).
use close-to-zero
little
outcomes; are, do microcredit. little
results inevitable control
the to that horizon areas, is
study setting,
to to
group
actually
can
this a
of in studies possible
withhold
these can by
randomized
average identify about Another zero.
applies
effect.
data
because income compared
be necessity,
If over
their
be design), obtained
group;
for than
half
over design, types
it
An
with from the
also these that may
may
only a is
to
a of Clients of Grameen Koota (India) at a group meeting 15 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance of Impact the Measuring be rightly concerned about negative results, even if randomization in development economics, see Rodrik they are not the norm. (2009) and Deaton (2010). See also Chapter 9 of Armendáriz and Morduch for Given the advantages and disadvantages of the a more comprehensive discussion of the challenges various study methodologies, it is clear that at the very facing both quasi-experimental and experimental least, the use of the term gold standard (pervasive in designs with respect to microfinance impact the literature) to describe the randomized study, or assessment. Armendáriz and Morduch also provide any methodological approach, is overly enthusiastic. a more detailed overview of the specific methods Studies with various research designs are possible, employed in the various types of studies. For a broader though all must be designed and interpreted discussion of the ongoing debate over the use of carefully. Ultimately, given the limitations of any
www.grameenfoundation.org 16 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance Several T single what methodologies) reading microfinance us actually a of offered offered The holds that groups ence not tween decline. despite actually being offered (ToT) loan. question sumptions. the policy effect of affects the investigates difference in difference have after methodology hree
treatment,
Several
a treatment with
intention other the program.
treatment not
in been a This is
. are
program
T study,
makers the
Estimating year,
actual
echnical after
known effect outcomes
loans. loans, some being of
and Therefore, accepted. choose every
might
randomly hand,
studies
the is treatment identified.
From
and
comparing
called the some
it
regardless on a
insight
The borrowers, of to works offered industry
studies The the
household are
is loan.
as group
availability
be
the
to actually taking effect the treat of treatment
P the
the also
a
control
between
oints ITT
interested
For
take this period study the various the
policy the
desired
selected treated
In
as body
into
and
intention to treat (ITT)
The credit,
effect will described
employ
of effect example,
effect of treatment on the treated is effect
methodology.
many is follows: a
difference
of many
will
the loan; access
serving
then
control
in of
how, group
difference be perspective, of whether
markets,
has the and
information
may that the time.
knowledge
effect of some
the to then requires cases, in
studies
what for it
treatment and on
actually taking
be
comparison knowing a
to
treatment
suppose
in will
is is group
be
its loan,
groups
various
Notice,
measure
a
offered
in credit
the households required. this of
the how
the sufficient
community. is poor
that
be in outcomes
being Suppose
(with known
additional
estimated
but
an
paper treatment of more difference the
well, gained
is will on
measures that the
clients.
households however,
reasons, estimate and loans
the how
group
group offered
the www.grameenfoundation.org
varying income groups
effect overall
provide relevant
as the report house if
control
a effect the
may
differ be from
a the
a study or
If,
as effect loan
will
not - is
not.
- of on -
of - treatment to the have interest in difference by and zero; interpreted along statistically significant of relies that overused, (2008) than said 5, occurring misinterpretation further community statistically caution the than the Income, Year 2 Income, Year 1
Now, If Finally, Work
or larger
the be the
control magnitude need
the
D-C
to measured
1
actual, the changed zero however,
with on percent.
absence
loan
be
argues
B-A
argue program
by in is
populations, results’ will statistical for
statistically
empirical
and
in due
how
mind, group. in Stephen an
program. group.
is significant, as
program-related would additional either
be differences:
that, indication
the over
that to that
the
of any effects Effect and the
equal,
Treatment group
statistical
results chance did
the
D-C difference
effect These
of
change
the be it in difference this case; inference
importance
Ziliak results
not
can loan
results. To
many
=
better there significant
may
is suggesting . year
(B research. test Because should
A
find B that
the it of
is
affect of lead differences
program. and
–
is
in sufficiently
the be significance.
whether
are of (for cases, is
A)
difference
served
likely in
this, are Ziliak
income
based
differences.
to due in
always probability
Deirdre
–
program.
income, be income generally
of
better
oversight
B-A empirical (D substantial,
if
calculate
that
taken the to the
that
its
Comparison group
and
– by The on
the
chance
and are C) has the
research probability
results,
the
analysis or low,
McCloskey
small
in
for incomes then McCloskey
findings Keeping as question
not
possibility D-C reported been worse)
income
can A effect and
research the evidence
usually the
D C
result
rather
expected
B-A samples but
rather be can
affected
of
would
is
even
are not this
of
of for
be is
10,
of section 5 Experimental (Randomized) Studies
This section presents the results of the existing returns to capital will be higher for female, relative to experimental (or randomized) studies of the male, microbusiness owners. impact of microfinance. Banerjee, et al. (2009) has received well-deserved attention from the Traditional Microcredit in India microfinance community and policy makers as the In “The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a first experimental study of traditional microlending. randomized evaluation,” Abhijit Banerjee, Esther This study is set in Hyderabad, India. Spandana, Duflo, Rachel Glennerster, and Cynthia Kinnan the lender under study, made relatively small loans (all researchers or students at MIT affiliated with to relatively poor borrowers. The findings of the The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab) report Hyderabad study (though widely interpreted in the on the first randomized evaluation of the group- press as suggesting that microfinance is “not so great”) lending microcredit model. The study is performed are actually quite positive overall. The next two studies in Hyderabad, India, where fifty-two of 104 by Karlan and Zinman (2010a and 2010b) are set in neighborhoods were selected for opening of a branch the Philippines and South Africa, respectively. These of Spandana (one of the fastest growing MFIs in the studies also provide some useful insights, although area), while the remaining fifty-two neighborhoods in both cases there are important qualifications. were not selected. Data was then collected by Borrowers in the Philippines study were relatively sample survey fifteen to eighteen months after the wealthy and well-educated compared to traditional branch opening in each area. Despite the fact that microcredit borrowers. Rates of late payment and loan microcredit was spreading through all neighborhoods default were high relative to microfinance industry of Hyderabad during the study period, the authors standards. The South Africa study looks at cash loans find that the probability of receiving an MFI loan was for consumption (rather than investment) purposes. 27 percent for borrowers in areas with a Spandana Finally, the fourth study by Dupas and Robinson branch, compared to 18.7 percent in areas without (2009) is an assessment of the effects of microsavings, a branch. These findings suggest that the treatment rather than microlending, in Kenya. Dupas and of establishing a Spandana branch had an impact on Robinson find that access to savings accounts for borrowing in the treated neighborhoods (Banerjee microentrepreneurs had several positive effects on et al., 2009). the business endeavors of the savers. The authors evaluate the effect of treatment on a 17
Also included in this section are two studies by variety of measures, some directly related to poverty Microfinance of Impact the Measuring de Mel, McKenzie, and Woodruff (2008, 2009) that (consumption, business income, etc.) and some investigate returns to capital in microenterprises. broader human development measures (education, While these studies are not impact assessments of health, women’s empowerment). Spandana offers microfinance projects (as study participants received loans to members of self-selected groups where cash or in-kind grants, rather than financial services), members meet the following criteria: (a) female, (b) they do address two important questions which are aged eighteen to fifty-nine, (c) residing in the same relevant to microfinance. First, these authors test the area for at least one year, (d) has valid identification, assumption that microenterprises hold the potential and (e) at least 80 percent of women in a group for income growth which will be spurred by capital must own their home. Spandana does not insist that investment. Second, they address the assumption that the loans be used for business investment, nor is
www.grameenfoundation.org 18 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance investment business households, surveys 10 9 productivity loan treatment durables percent increases spending (1 increase find investment. to because the suggesting tobacco, in significant likely businesses There supported and on spending versus that Despite compared profits not and spending percent RecallZiliakandMcCloskey (2008) here;thedifferencesisestimated
adjusted increaseoflessthan$1. is anincreasefromabout5to12 rupeespermonth,whichisaPPP al., 2009, p. 13).The127percentincreaseinspending onbusinessdurables ratesisabout$2.50(Banerjee etrupees permonth,whichatPPPexchange 18.9 percentincreaseinspendingondurablesisan increase from116to138 The authorsnote issmall;the thattheabsolutemagnitudeofthese changes for furtherinvestigation. positive effectsfoundintheseareasareinteresting,the large atleast calling zero;nonetheless,profit, revenue, andinputspendingareall“statistically”
All With The
percent) monthly microfinance
business
arrival
statistically
weaker estimated
a estimated eligibility
findings
stronger small
estimated is
control in
respect
administered
not higher higher.
the also
gambling,
in
can used
treated on on is are
to
areas). of in
9 that
but respond total
spending
18
(2 for for
finding profits, reported
Finally, generally
rupee
nondurables. business
of evidence
550 plausibly the part
found of
in
percent percent)
monthly
areas. determined
for profits statistically in
9 this households the to
the
significant.
the dramatically
per
a effects
Spandana
neighborhoods rupees 10
treatment household by
business households
decrease
food investment.
increased
Spending population,
statistical monthly
in
study differently capita the
decreased
The
on
effects
inputs
to are
fifteen
spending that higher be
but
business
of and authors
temptation goods samples in
estimated interpreted
nearly
are Statistically access
expenditures
households
based the
insignificant statistically that branch. The (127
(a tea
areas)
are are
business expenditures,
to
on increased business in ITT significance,
that
10.7
control
than temptation
suggesting
eighteen outside
estimated did
on treatment
percent
ITT, find all durables
double
revenues are of to on
effects
actually percent and
durables
positive, Keep
not neighborhood microfinance
monthly
households the
1,025 a the
as
revenues,
statistically
neighborhoods. significant investment
with
spending
insignificant borrow.
the business
in
expected business
increase
higher
and
effects months in based
(alcohol, used
rupees business
treatment are that
it
areas, www.grameenfoundation.org
the spending. drop)
borrowed home),
mind
existing though
(18.9
is a input
20 small
notable
in authors
access on in
are and
on
in after a that
was in without Dean I there spending. women’s estimates in that Yale in study associated covered The conducted introduced, co-authored lending conduct Credit microcredit Estimate second year-olds, important olds, composition may invest, on et a short reasonable this expenditures by first off), has study possibility its proponents ndividual Lending in the
longer
With The
al., the or children’s
this introduction its
many
study,
Abdul
(within microfinance
University not with spending were
2009, Karlan
time are behalf, period.
is business authors
Access: and
study), generation respect
by
consistent
by existing period, be a
empowerment,
no
the
social
positive
are randomized
and
in
would
effects with frame First Latif that
before this create
the story, p.
found suggest).
organization fifteen
statistically
education
the
school. of
and but Impacts
One (after also 21).
followed 84 conclude Using
on
‘miracle’ and to
study. those
household
and
Innovations changes the Jameel
Macro (though
study
businesses,
it be of Jonathan
not percent
children’s
The the and on
the
interesting small. effects had
that
designation does with
to
the
the results those Dartmouth, that
business Randomized
inconsistent
effects
human
Spandana The
eighteen in expand
authors
an “Expanding
evaluation
98
was Bank, latter
study,
by
Poverty
the allow
that that
Manila” significant The occurring business
also
child
P
that effect in
of investments
percent
author’s an expenditure.
hilippines
might
Zinman quite
story education. twelve- Manila,
with are for
microcredit
is
results consistent increasing development
increase
a
note
indicating households businesses” appear
outcomes
also
health,
sometimes second generation months,
indicates in
Poverty Action branches not respectively;
in
high that
be the
investment
of these with
Supply of
is last. baseline acknowledge Microenterprise
effects 2010.
(economists
to as Philippines.
the
different. do seven- that
former in
microcredit or in
in fifteen-year- strong
begin
The the Lab not Overall,
as “Microcredit
stages areas
effects
with consumption
Action
and that the participation overall that
does The
participation
Decisions
were to
(Banerjee suggested claimed
on
measures, results
suggest
point at survey, to
areas
borrow,
the
to
investing
over the
the as
both over authors comes
MIT),
One eleven- have after
of pay
and
this some
the at The
of the
to lender resembles in many ways a more traditional of financial constraints on household members’ lender; First Macro Bank is a for-profit lender that likelihood of visiting a doctor. They also find almost no makes individual loans to microentrepreneurs. First significant effect on a panel of subjective measures of Macro Bank receives implicit subsidies from a U.S. well-being, such as optimism, calmness, and stress (in Agency for International Development (USAID)- fact, the authors find a slight increase in stress for male funded program. The loan size in this study ranged borrowers). from 5,000 to 25,000 pesos, ($111 to $440 USD Several of these results can be seen as contrary using the exchange rate used in the paper), which to the conventional wisdom of microfinance. Some the authors note is substantial relative to borrower effects are strongest on male borrowers, though income. The loans in the sample also had substantial traditional microcredit arrangements target delinquency and default rates, with one-third paying women on the assumption that they will make late at some point, and 7.4 percent written off (p. 8). better use of the credit. Access to credit does not Karlan and Zinman’s methodology is to randomly appear to increase incomes or decrease poverty. select borrowers from a pool of marginally Karlan and Zinman point out, though, that this may creditworthy applicants, whose applications for loans be the result of the combined decrease in outside were neither clearly approved nor clearly denied based employment and increase in school enrollments on the lender’s credit scoring system. The treatment that they do observe (i.e., income formerly brought group in this study is the group of marginal applicants in by children is replaced by added business income, who were offered credit, and the control group is the and those children now attend school). But in light group of marginal applicants who were not offered of the complexity of these results, it is the authors’ credit.11 Karlan and Zinman study the effects of conclusions that perhaps bear the strongest mention: being offered credit on measures of borrowing, “Our results highlight the importance of replicating business outcomes and inputs, human capital, assets, tests of theories and interventions across different investments, and risk sharing. The authors describe settings” (p. 17). In particular, it will be interesting to their results as “varied, diffuse, and surprising in many see going forward whether studies employing a similar respects” (p. 3). research design in different settings find comparable, The authors find a statistically significant increase or different, results. in borrowing from formal sector lenders such as First Macro Bank or a similar lender. With respect Consumer Credit in South Africa to business outcomes, the authors find a statistically In an earlier study “Expanding credit access: Using significant increase in profits for household businesses randomized supply decisions to estimate the impacts,” when borrowers were male but not when borrowers Karlan and Zinman (2010a) study the effects of were female. They also find that profits increase access to individual credit for the salaried poor in more dramatically in households with above median South Africa. The lender dispensed relatively small income. There is evidence that businesses reduce (median size $127 USD) cash loans to borrowers who the number of employees, especially paid employees. were salaried workers (not microentrepreneurs). Two significant effects on human capital measures Though this study was performed in a microlending are found: (1) male borrowers are less likely to be environment that most certainly is not traditional, the 19 employed outside the family business, and (2) male study has interesting results worth including here. Microfinance of Impact the Measuring borrowers are more likely to send their children to The authors worked with the lender to randomly school. Little effect is found on business investment, reconsider the applications of potential borrowers or other types of household investment. Importantly, who were initially rejected but who could be the authors find no significant effect on household considered marginally creditworthy. The treatment incomes, poverty, or remittances received and no group then consisted of borrowers whose applications significant impact on food quality or the effect were reconsidered. The control group contained individuals who were marginally creditworthy but
11 By specifying the treatment group as the borrowers who were offered whose initial rejections were not reconsidered. credit, this study estimates intention to treat effects. In this case, of the Surveys were conducted six to twelve months after the 1,272 applicants who were offered loans, 351 did not actually take the loans. initial loan application This is a take-up rate of 72 percent (Karlan & Zinman, 2010b, p. 8).
www.grameenfoundation.org 20 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance 12 Microenterprise In T fees, paid authors study Experiment any negative decision-making food Robinson was The respectively) given increased selected business as participants health reported women, profitable. savings study debt earners a over in findings small credit problem completed. asked income, bankwas locatedinBumalamarket, village aruralmarket center This he
a savings accountwith aformalbank(Dupas&Robinson,2009, p. 8). conducted atthebeginningofstudy, only2.2percentofindividuals had branch ofKREP, aKenyan microfinanceorganization.Inabaselinesurvey Enterprise ProgramDevelopment Agency, theresearchanddevelopment The bankiscommunity-owned andreceives support fromtheKenya Rural along themainhighway connectingNairobi,Kenya andKampala, Uganda. randomly The The
this they the
savings. R high
study
no two effectively was consumption
ole of
and amount
used
design.
directly,
was results authors 2009
situation information,
maintained
accounts
interest
(such
find
but consumption,
of
for
effect with to among investment found logbooks
received, productive (economists
also
used
No this the
four
This
selected
S
denial study
Nonetheless, not in positive were
avings
study The
suggest
survey as
for evidence
key and
shows loans is Kenya,”
study
in
offering
primarily
and men.
enhanced months, women, data market
Development: on
in control,
each
authors the supported “Savings
source by detailing quality often
the their and
a
investment,
mental
C featured sample
for
in effects
data,
village is
collection that investment the that onstraints in study.
week
and
at
effect
that
Pascaline Kenya,
of negative
consumption a vendors).
only logbooks.
and
and
lender,
UCLA
and
negative of
for the
overborrowing
the most opened and welfare, in
so Constraints
health
increased
income, of on data An bank the
by
which
that consumption.
participants of
substantial
authors once, on. mental loans,
quantity, poor
using
job
interpretation borrowers microsavings
trained Evidence strategy
logbook and
labor
income turned
were
Dupas
Data and in
the 12 interest-free
(principally interest Logbooks retention, even
K
about respondents
daily
The
rural though enya UC
expenditure, a
outlook. savings
expenditures
find
purposes. credit supply,
randomized daily, collected
enumerators and
household
out Santa though and
accounts addresses
was shocks.
withdrawal income
or
From Kenya changes
were
that in www.grameenfoundation.org rate
initially to
self- cyclical Jonathan access
properly
were this
accounts
income, on transfers
One Cruz,
of be
usage stress).
paid
on a
the
this The
Study for are
the Field
in
kept the
for
a Client of Amhara Credit and Savings Institution [ACSI] (Ethiopia) way can be flawed; the logbook data should be more several successive waves of the survey. accurate due to the collection strategy. The authors find that the grants increase the The findings of the study are that despite the average profits of microenterprises by more than 5 negative interest rates offered by the savings percent per month, or at least 60 percent per year. accounts, 89 percent of the 122 respondents offered The treatment effects appear to be flat or decreasing an account opened one. Fifty-five percent of the (not increasing over the survey period) and returns 122 actively used the account (59 percent of women are higher for recipients with more entrepreneurial and 51 percent of men). An important finding is that ability. (The authors outline their measure of business investment increased significantly among entrepreneurial ability in an online appendix to the women with access to savings accounts; a minimum paper.) A surprising finding is that these positive estimate of the increase in average daily investment returns are almost exclusively limited to male-owned is 40 percent. A second important finding is an overall businesses; no positive return to capital is found for increase for women, but not men, in expenditures, female business owners. The authors note that the especially on food (14-29 percent increase) and average results may be misleading as there is high personal expenditures (37-44 percent increase). The variability in the returns across different firms. savings accounts do not appear to crowd out other In the 2009 study, “Are Women More Credit forms of saving, such as participation in Rotating Constrained? Experimental Evidence on Gender Savings and Credit Accounts (ROSCAs). and Microenterprise Returns,” the authors further Overall, Dupas and Robinson’s findings offer strong investigate the difference between returns to capital evidence that microentrepreneurs in Kenya face for male and female microenterprise owners. Data saving constraints, and that the provision of formal from the same experiment reported in the 2008 savings accounts increases both business investment study are used, with the study population being small, and expenditures for women. informal business owners in Sri Lanka. The findings of the 2009 study are that while men invest a substantial Evidence on Returns to Capital in Microenterprises portion of both small and large grants, their profits Two randomized studies by de Mel, McKenzie, and increase by 6.5-14 percent of the grant amount. In Woodruff provide some evidence about returns to contrast, women invest only large grants and earn no capital in microenterprises such as the businesses return on these investments. most frequently owned by microcredit borrowers. Taken together, these studies have important These studies provide insights into two fundamental implications for microfinance, although they do not assumptions that underpin the microcredit industry: directly measure microfinance impacts (since the (1) that small, informal businesses hold the potential programs studied are not microfinance programs). for income growth for their owners; and (2) that First, the finding that there are large positive returns returns to capital will be higher for microenterprises to capital on average is encouraging. Microcredit is owned by women, since women are more credit- often aimed at microenterprises, and these results constrained than men in low-income countries. suggest that investing in these microbusinesses is A 2008 paper, “Returns to Capital in profit generating. Similarly, microsavings programs Microenterprises: Evidence from a Field will create opportunities for microentrepreneurs 21
Experiment,” reports the findings of a study in to save for capital investment; this suggests that Microfinance of Impact the Measuring Sri Lanka. Microenterprise owners were asked to microsavings programs will be very helpful when participate in several waves of survey data collection. business owners face savings constraints. On the Survey participants were selected at random to other hand, the finding that these returns appear for receive US$100 or US$200 (10,000 or 20,000 Sri men (but not for women) is important, since many Lankan rupees) in either cash or equipment for their microfinance products are targeted toward women. businesses. Although no stipulations were made Clearly further research is needed to determine about the use of the cash grants, these as well as the whether returns to capital vary by gender in multiple equipment grants were almost completely invested contexts or whether this result is particular to the in business expansion. The authors then measured experiment conducted by de Mel, McKenzie, and the returns to these randomized capital shocks over Woodruff in Sri Lanka.
www.grameenfoundation.org 22 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance In T This Quasi- section 6 included In Khandker section experimental Matter?” in Group-Based this for Goldberg bias attempted economic men, borrowing They and including in serious a consumption Morduch Using exacerbated, Khandker model. to Morduch’s with some consumption he
response Pitt
Bangladesh: borrowing consumption 1998, some
a
I improvements study. and
more section mpact of Microcredit in access
as found
evidence
and the
Morduch
are concerns
well
Mark cases, non-random E
in
This
(2005) found
an same
study
Khandker’s xperimental
(World used
detailed
to
for from study
extensions
the to an
as presents
increase
rather deal
families.
Credit from for
studies
credit
Pitt women, study
the
18
Does a in
first data to
little of
smoothing, Jonathan number
and
argued is
borrowing with percent
Morduch’s
with
Bank) correct
discussions (Brown the
that discussion borrowing. in
edition than
was with the smooth Programs
Roodman
impact
of in the physical
program
results Pitt This effect
or compared the
access
the
girls’
Gender
that
influential published
corrected,
of further
an results
return for
Morduch and University) problems
paper of S other impact
reducing families.
alternative
of
not study
on the
tudies selection B school
were
this
of
presented
to
health
Khandker’s A angladesh microfinance on placement.
and
household
of
only
the to key strategy of
analysis microfinance
to positive was
Poor literature
Participants
that
largely “The of income several
as the Morduch 11
(1998)
methodology enrollment result
of
There
consumption of large microfinance.
followed
the percent
and
bias
selection Households households
problem.
methodology, children
Impact
in
that
of
first impacts
positive.
Shahidur data See
quasi-
swings www.grameenfoundation.org of
from citing
actually this
is
studies review.
which
(2009) also Pitt
serious for
also leads by
and
of
and of in
challenging to but that Neither been over paper Goldberg’s Using been] microfinance data) the that across study. areas that reduction study Khandker and Pitt weak. conclude Morduch’s leads and microcredit replicate inconsistencies, several of a approach
number Using Roodman
the the
new
also
and Khandker, do
Morduch’s was microfinance the
published.
was to
with
period, the robustness Roodman criticisms in Panel The
all
not methodological
consumption
labor Morduch’s additional
study Khandker’s
intervening 2005 even
Khandker’s
that villages
most a to of
of
data, access
study
find strongest literature positive
Morduch’s
and
Data on controlling concerns moderate
1991/92
to
income.
stronger all (“Microfinance (which
Morduch,
reliable the strong
methodology
and
date”
Roodman and Morduch in
also three
to in from of
accounted
data
Morduch’s level
study
impact
microcredit. the the the
positive
Morduch years,
result). showed core review
used to
smoothing
as about evidence Mark
studies’ poverty
than Bangladesh”) key
impact
concerns. study which Khandker methods
for
of 1998/99. of
nor and
results;
revisit
household
and
updated
Khandker 2005. arguments, on selection
in
Pitt Khandker’s suggested Despite findings
for a
Pitt’s was
with
Khandker
and
article, income had
are the
decline evaluation evidence Morduch in
that
(1999) 40
Khandker used
The the (contradicting
Bangladesh
not Statistical
however,
unable Pitt Poverty:
results
become a response
and percent
access larger
Pitt
some which bias,
for appropriate. key strongly wrote consumption
from in
and
in “may and
responded
more
statistical for studies
the the are poverty and
to
finding suggests leading on
Khandker decline
data available to
Evidence suggesting
they
concluded Nathanael
borrowing impact
a of replicate
testing effects has Pitt able [have
second credit over robust
the
and
raise
to of rates
in his
is of Roodman and Morduch to be less than confident that Coleman (2006) demonstrates that for two Khandker’s results accurately indicate causality from microlending programs in northeast Thailand, the credit to household consumption. services are more likely to reach relatively wealthy The fact that Roodman and Morduch’s analysis borrowers than the target group of the “poorest raises doubts about the results of these three studies of the poor.” Though Thailand is, by Coleman’s is notable. As the authors point out, the three own argument, not a typical environment for the studies in question presented prominent and widely evaluation of microfinance (due to its overall relative disseminated empirical support for four foundational wealth and the widespread availability of credit), ideas about microcredit in South Asia: (1) that it Coleman presents his empirical methodology as a is effective as a tool for poverty reduction, (2) that portable set of analytical tools that can be used in this effectiveness is particularly pronounced when other contexts. women are the borrowers, (3) that the extremely poor A 2007 paper, “Impact of Microfinance on Rural benefit most, and (4) that microcredit access enables Households in the Philippines: A Case Study from consumption smoothing. If these empirical results do the Special Evaluation Study on the Effects of not stand up to rigorous testing, then the most widely Microfinance Operations of Poor Rural Households recognized evidence of large, sustained impacts and the Status of Women” by Toshio Kondo of the of microcredit disappears. Of course, this doesn’t Asian Development Bank, uses the Coleman model mean that the effects do not exist; they may, but the to study the effect of a microfinance operation on Roodman and Morduch study raises questions about poor rural households in the Philippines. The stated the existing empirical evidence.13 objective of the project Kondo evaluates is to “reduce Ultimately, Roodman and Morduch’s key conclusion poverty, create employment opportunities, and is not about the effectiveness of microfinance, but enhance the incomes of the poorest of the rural poor about the difficulty of obtaining credible results – the bottom 30 percent of the rural population as from non-randomized studies. The authors do measured by income” (p. 1). not suggest that the randomized study is the only Kondo’s study design compares households in credible approach to impact assessment, but they treatment villages where microcredit is available to do conclude in the paper’s analysis that in order for households in comparison villages where credit is not non-randomized studies to be credible, the methods yet available. In the comparison villages, households for addressing selection bias must be explicit and of have been identified and organized into groups in demonstrated high quality. preparation for the expansion of credit, but they have not yet received loans. In both the treatment The Coleman Method (as applied to the Philippines) and comparison villages, participating households Goldberg (2005) outlines the work done by Asian as well as qualified (i.e., eligible for credit) but non- Development Bank economist Brett Coleman in participating households are interviewed. Finally, to 1999 and in a follow-up article in 2002. This follow- address concerns about attrition from the program, up article was published in World Development in Kondo includes graduates and problem households 2006. Coleman’s innovation was to address the in the treatment group. This adjustment makes the selection bias problem by having borrowers who treatment households more similar to the comparison 23 were interested in microcredit, but who lived in households where future drop-outs and problem Microfinance of Impact the Measuring villages where it was not yet available, sign up a borrowers are certain to be included in the group. year in advance of the arrival of village banks. These Kondo then uses a difference in difference borrowers made up the comparison groups, but since approach to estimate the impact of participation they had expressed an interest in obtaining credit, in the lending program. The difference he studies Coleman argues that they made an appropriate is between participating households and qualified comparison group to borrowers in villages where (but non-participating) households in the treatment credit was available. and control villages. The study includes about ten participating and ten non-participating households in 13 To date, the Roodman and Morduch study is available as a Center for each of the fifty-five treatment villages and sixty-one Global Development working paper; it has not been published in a peer- comparison villages. Over the 116 villages included reviewed journal.
www.grameenfoundation.org 24 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance many assets household other income, represented. 14 in poverty human several intended the percent the health). increases. food program. while this increased increased loaned, to These among also maintain However, however, of per children’s Coleman relatively income food of the targeting his important potential loans but not yet receivingloans). loans) andthecomparisongroup(signed uptoparticipateintheprogram are averagesforthetreatmentgroup(alreadyreceiving These percentages Looking When
hunger. borrowing the have
results on-the-ground poorest poorest child,
case, more
expenditures expenditure
and financial 4
additional
study, (farm households
program
positive
capital savings percent
income
is
threshold. in Despite expenditure, breaking
below
a client (2006), of of
higher Per
various
wealthy
Kondo more considered, by by likely school
The
Kondo’s should at related enterprises major
households borrowers. the poor
twenty-eight equipment,
12 38 the
Outcome on capita
results investments
transactions
accounts
pesos. groups. increased borrowed
careful are pesos, effects the
to
the per participants balances.
clients
groups
and enrollment,
finds
Kondo qualification
health are the
indicate
borrowers, issue
were have
exhibited
Still, identification
sample
subsistence food
incomes, program’s capita
regressive. low-income groups
savings,
suggest borrowing Saving
and
no
and variables of Overall, screening
household in is 23 this are
as
measures, livestock, threshold). finds and
participation
significant
by different having funds.
rural These
a food
a income, percent of employment),
near
(such
(such need suggests
whole,
statistically
47
into were
in
was
respondents expenditures,
education but
that food that
emerges. stated
Kondo expenditure treatment pesos, poor Philippines,
include: When (but Perhaps
households
positively
different and
for income for also negatively
as households
as
also appliances), for
the
enterprises.
expenditures, more or expenditure, MFIs Kondo
14
education
other
effect
more (meaning, the
a aim
inclusion above)
the
However, every more
consumption
positive
challenge
suggests likely in borrower
Similar expenditures
productive significant
likely
per
an are
categories, incidence the of household
villages. are www.grameenfoundation.org loans, product identifies careful on
affects
prevalent and 100
reaching
only affects
the capita were to
lending
for poor,
and
effects and
of
in
that to pesos
and
in 10
the
Impact Love World T or offerings products Mexico.” approach income 2002. opened products of Azteca in of Banco income that low- and documentation borrowers’ changes a branches is Banco average Branches; municipalities have poverty, before encouraging, their steps income. informal openings an but informal owners original he
difference-in-difference
Taking
As
that
informal its employment,
near-poor; increase
the
E motorcycle-riding
Banco
and
indicated
significantly
parent (2009) results ffect of to
The
systematic Bank Azteca Azteca
the
led
actual of
in
815 strata. in
correct
income
sample The and in
middle-income This
business business
advantage for lead lead
on opened
exploiting
Banking
the municipalities municipalities authors
branches to
business
Azteca
homes. business branches in
researchers company,
key coauthored are lower different
finding
a
N showing
it
branches branches. sample to to study increase the
7.6 above, ew with
may
for
average lending in
and unbiased. good bad outcome
simultaneously,
differences percent higher percentage
B owners ownership,
is
municipalities
find rates the these
ank
and
of
uses
ownership,
arrive.
be the of a comparable outcomes owners,
simultaneously
the of
outcomes
7
sub-segments
positive the
Grupo
Unbanked:
a loan is
the
that
opened percent
B requirements,
is 0.0062 A
without fact
of 7.6
Miriam
the
groups. incomes,
a
differences small. where results ranches in Mexico selected
variables concern
0.0821 increase fact is strategy
quasi-experimental
unemployment
case
However,
percent officers the
statistically study that
a
Elektra exist
of
employment,
that
1.4 effects regardless
(or
The within opening
that
employment, increase informal a while
Banco
Bruhn of The to Banco (or
with branch
percent
the
to Evidence
lower “The
between about to 0.62 the
in this
including MFIs
that
increase authors
appropriate
8.21 of receive and
authors
the compare and in
the authors
of
inappropriate
and
existing Banco small
the
study Azteca
and percent). Azteca Economic
Mexico
of branch come significant,
rates
in
percent).
argue this authors
opened. number business
due
catered of increase
Banco poor without even
average
the
Inessa
and from
find
branches
loans, in
study
are Azteca argue
to and
use of to
stores that
in low-
The
take to The increases may be too small to raise individuals out of poverty. Overall, the Bruhn and Love study has some encouraging results but is perhaps less conclusive than the headline results would suggest.
Microfinance inT hailand (Revisited) Two papers by Joseph Kaboski and Robert Townsend provide an alternative perspective on the role of microfinance in Thailand (Coleman’s studies were also set in Thailand). “Policies and Impact: An Analysis of Village-Level Microfinance Institutions” (2005) uses survey data from 1997. Institutions represented in the survey were either production credit groups which provided saving and lending services (though not always both), rice banks (which make small emergency consumption loans in the form of rice), women’s groups (with various services targeted only at women), and buffalo banks (institutions that formally lend out buffalo or cattle). Of the four types of institutions, the production credit groups could be considered MFIs. The survey data also included a household survey. The key findings are that production credit groups, and especially women’s groups, can promote asset growth, consumption smoothing, and occupational mobility and reduce reliance on moneylenders. The provision of saving services was particularly important for the success of an MFI because the services provided positive outcomes for members. An important qualification is that several of the key results are not statistically significant when instrumental variables are used to control for selection bias; however, the same basic results (sign and magnitude of the estimated effects) appear regardless of estimation method. Client of Al Sol (Mexico) Kaboski and Townsend’s 2009 study, “The Impacts of Credit on Village Economies,” provides an impact Taken together, these numbers suggest that the evaluation of Thailand’s Million Baht Village Fund 25 percentage of community residents owning informal program, a government microfinance initiative Microfinance of Impact the Measuring businesses increased from 8.21 to 8.83 percent in the launched in 2001. The objective of the Million Baht Banco Azteca neighborhoods – not exactly a dramatic program was to “improve the economic and social increase. Further, in a sample split by gender, this status of villagers, and to enable villages to be less finding appears only for men. The income increase dependent on government aid in the future” (Kaboski in Banco Azteca neighborhoods is statistically & Townsend, 2009, p. 13). The program involved the significant and slightly stronger for women than transfer of one million baht ($24,000USD using the for men. However, despite the finding of rising exchange rate used in the paper) to participating incomes, there is little evidence of an improvement villages; these funds were used to form an in the proportion of people receiving income independent village bank for lending within above minimum wage, suggesting that the income the village.
www.grameenfoundation.org 26 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance Clients of Mitra Dhuafa in post-tsunami Banda Aceh years was before to (2002-2003), Each received Baht further the implemented research per each of availability, growth. credit some increased. This The
money estimate
2001 household
launched
participating Fund
of 1997-2003. evidence
actually outcome
data paper
argue
the The
the and for
regardless
Though
was
(1997-2001)
sixty-four the consumption,
two findings one
uses 2002
that in which quickly,
increased
varied
of conducive
village-level variables
2001, reasons. million
Since
a
survey
the
village
survey this multiplier
of the
suggest
with
villages program completely the
village the is
and
authors
baht
by
data
used not First, was
to data periods.
asset village
Million
more effects two
quasi-experimental
that
surprising,
funding. given effect in collected size.
in
provides
design the
growth,
years the
argue this
population, than credit rolled
Second,
Baht of program
the
where authors’
study the
of
of
The allows the
same over
and five
availability
program out
after there the
program.
program
available
authors the www.grameenfoundation.org are
years
between income was the Million
panel amount
them because data
is credit credit
of to rate results credit Million impacts households find borrowing female- of the percentage the female- are positive Female-headed clothing, shift in Kaboski
income, spending have
also study ways
no of
toward
constraints
asset
point significant
rising
Baht
differences and and and of
that meat,
shows
and credit credit or
of
than on
male-headed growth, male-headed consumption above-average
program. to
the
microfinance income. female-headed
Townsend
children’s
and the
households that
for are causes overall
that differences
presence alcohol in
male-headed
but
different when
consumption The
were
a households change
education
also larger households households,
of
authors
looking
at business credit injected. baht 2.1 they as consumption also significant). results the infusion consumption advocates
did somewhat
(before auto-repair
households
home.
a in examine for
baht
multiplier
result not
find
increase in find of the
female-headed
seemed households.
income. are village at argue
show
of
but
patterns
behavior were of that
The income. the an
sources
in might of
additional
though not
credit
relieved whether
estimated did The
the terms
program)
services,
non-durable
that additional
in an
increased for
reporting
more credit
effect to statistically
However, show the
program;
increase authors expect.
lower
each between (though There
the of not
They of
likely by
the
a
in
the of the section 7 Non-Experimental Studies
The Goldin Institute Often loans were taken from one lender in order to Over the period of May 2007-August 2007, the repay another, demonstrating the presence of cyclical Goldin Institute, an NGO in Chicago, conducted a debt. The researchers further found that rather than study of microcredit recipients in Arampur, a village empowering women in household decision making, in Northern Bangladesh. The study relied on “oral women were often used as conduits for credit; male testimony” (i.e. structured and semi-structured relatives would force women to take out loans and interviews with credit recipients) conducted by turn over the money, while the women remained trained village residents. A return visit to Arampur financially responsible for the loans.15 Respondents was conducted in 2009, with results not yet available also reported using microloans to pay for their from the institute. The qualitative nature of this daughters’ dowries. study does not address the problem of selection Borrowers offered several suggestions for bias; on the other hand, the study provides some improving microcredit in the village. One was to insight into borrowers’ lives in Bangladesh, where push back the initiation of repayment, now often the pervasiveness of microcredit makes it difficult to beginning within one week of taking a loan, to allow a identify a control or comparison group unaffected by more realistic time-frame for productive investment access to credit. (especially planting crops) to pay off. Another The Goldin Institute reports that in Arampur, suggestion was for NGOs to provide services such as there are ten different microlending organizations health care and education, in addition to lending. for about 1,000 households. The authors of the study While the published report provides a somewhat write that “while all of these organizations seek to unfavorable overall impression of the effect of provide poverty alleviating loans to the rural poor, microcredit on the lives of these villagers, there our research found that the climate of saturation, are several qualifications. First, it is difficult to competition, and the ready access to loans have assess what life in this village would have been like produced mixed results” (p. 4). The stories in the in the absence of microcredit. Second, the report Goldin Institute report illustrate these mixed results. is a very brief and deeply edited summary of the Some respondents in this study reported being responses. Overall, though, this study certainly offers forced to take loans from traditional moneylenders an interesting counterpoint to the many positive in order to make their microcredit loan payments anecdotes available about the impact of microcredit 27 on time; this is obviously in direct conflict with in Bangladesh. The study provides a window on Microfinance of Impact the Measuring the desire (generally agreed upon as a founding potential problems that can emerge in other countries principle of microfinance) to reduce dependence on as microfinance becomes as prevalent as it is today in moneylenders. Of course, it isn’t clear from the report Bangladesh. whether overall reliance on moneylenders increased or decreased with the introduction of microcredit; it’s possible that while some borrowers still turn to moneylenders in specific circumstances, overall 15 Goldberg’s 2005 paper presents research by Helen Todd (Women at the Center) and Anne Marie Goetz and Rina Sen Gupta (”Who Takes the Cred- borrowing from moneylenders may have decreased. it? Gender, Power, and Control Over Loan Use in Loan Programs in Rural Recipients reported that loans were often used Bangladesh”) which looks in some detail at the practice of women turning for consumption rather than investment purposes. over loans to their husbands. Goetz and Sen Gupta argue that transferring a loan does not, in and of itself, signal a loss of power for women.
www.grameenfoundation.org 28 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance 16 The P Microcredit for the Very PPI Alleviation: an association poverty a CASHPOR’s data was Pradesh at impact conducted with four five poor CASHPOR study study due There the out absence counterfactual no day called PPIisacountry-specific assessmenttoolthatwillhelpinstitutions The
radesh, information, pleasevisitwww.progressoutofpoverty.org. Ford Foundation L.L.C. andMicrofinanceRiskManagement, For more tion, incollaborationwithConsultative GrouptoAssist thePoor (CGAP), Bank’s 10-Point System, thePPIwas commissioned byGrameenFounda- fectiveness ofprogramsandservices. Buildingontheconcept ofGrameen well-being ofclients, andprovideimprove datathathelps managers theef- objectively measureoutreachtothepoor, ineconomic monitorchanges household
The The least
impact longer
Indian
of
poverty
loans to provides conducted
Royal
years
for progress women
authors therefore
Poverty
the assessment study was practical
questions. five
lines. this
of region.
I
from
poor
CASHPOR
assessment ndia is
Bank
no the National
in
clients loans
with
An
line.
relies study is strongly operations
who a
2008.
control
The
out
estimate
Index poor loan
way
subject CASHPOR – in Impact
and lacks A of
CASHPOR
CASHPOR the from
2004, had
of
first
survey on shows also are Scotland
to
program. The
according
financial Poverty
poverty. TM situation
and
data any House or
estimate
taken no
(“Microfinance
impact
CASHPOR included to (PPI
Assessment that
in and 2008 comparison
P
that longer the instrument information positively
collected oor in India’s over
TM
Foundation 66
Micro and a uses Index Line,
Using international
limitations.
taking
second survey
) assessment to of
16 percent the
at
several poor
repaid country-specific the for
E
a
Eastern
least and astern over
likelihood Credit, targeting to
the
Survey”)
associated using
India.
borrowers and
group
included
survey ensure according used
and about 50
PPI, the four of
at social
India,
repaying
U
percent
This
mature the least
Uttar
survey
conducted
Poverty The
to ttar
past US$1 www.grameenfoundation.org specified,
the years.
method was
the that
of
collect that Progress
320
in
in to
per
the
are the majority Thus, are between is of social association For of there as the of the empowerment There observations strong that Although households. decision-making there and carefully, is argument borrowing of findings schooling,
This
The
difficult available.
a CASHPOR the the poverty
no very children
comparison example,
spouses they
was was
the
study, randomized impacts
results
was longer causal study
poor are
borrowing
of
felt
keeping
estimate 75
evidence no
that
to
health, rates no on
new
between
It
remarkably
however, as of percent
also draw
discernable
more
about 75 poor link
were
of clients evidence income is
but
microfinance
the a accompanying
this decrease borrowers interesting
percent group. result
status looked
between
in
and
decisive was
certainly studies, non-poor). that
respected in
that
school
and
study mind
social of were
school,
but there women’s
unable
of
of women
half
in
enrollment
poverty similar of at
difference their (70
an
do
poor that enrolled must
enrollment
which conclusions a impacts the microcredit are
to
or is
suggests
number increase
has
not
versus percent by
no
to Due note,
progress more
school below borrowing no
interviewed versus
empowerment.
to
be
their
reduction, establish
positive find way
show
comparison
the
interpreted to
in
and
however,
rates in 89 of
of support a
the
the to in of family, school, age
results
non-poor women’s rates.
relationship mature
percent
some
and in
potential
out microcredit. children women’s make
poverty impacts structure
increase
children
activity, the a
though of
strong these reported
friends,
effects
and
that
of
for absence poverty. a
group clients
of
some
of the
line.
on the
it
of section 8 The Macroeconomic Effects of Microfinance
A question that has been taken up very little in A 2005 study by Robin Burgess (London School of the impact assessment literature is the effect of Economics) and Rohini Pande (Yale) entitled “Do microfinance on macroeconomic measures of Rural Banks Matter? Evidence from the Indian Social economic well-being. Several macroeconomic Banking Experiment” examines the effects on rural studies are briefly surveyed in this section; a more poverty (using the head count ratio) of a state-funded comprehensive survey and additional studies of program of bank branch expansion into unbanked the macroeconomic effects of microcredit and rural locations. The intention of the branch expansion microsavings are badly needed. program was to increase rural household access to A 2010 survey from the Poverty Reduction and formal credit and saving opportunities, which should Equity Group at the World Bank, authored by theoretically lead to poverty reduction. Aphichoke Kotikula, Ambar Narayan, and Hassan An instrumental variables strategy is used to Zaman, studies recent poverty reduction in correct for the selection bias problem; in this case, Bangladesh. This study, titled “To What Extent Are the expected bias arises from the fact that relatively Bangladesh’s Recent Gains in Poverty Reduction richer regions receive greater branch expansion, but Different from the Past?” seeks to decompose the may also be more effective at poverty reduction in micro-determinants of poverty reduction between general. The authors’ main finding is that opening 2000 and 2005 and to compare these to the drivers of branches in rural, previously unbanked locations in poverty reduction in earlier decades. The head count India was associated with decreases in rural poverty. ratio (proportion of the population with per capita The evidence suggests that the branch expansion can income below the poverty line) fell from 49 percent to explain a 14-17 percentage-point decline in the rural 40 percent over the 2000-2005 period. head count ratio over the study period of 1961-2000. Among a number of other economic changes, Interestingly, a similar analysis finds no significant the authors note that microfinance participation effect of branch expansion on urban poverty. increased by 62 percent between 2003 and 2005. In an unpublished 2009 study (“Microfinance An interesting result of this study is that the decline and Inequality”), Hisako and Shigeyuki find that in poverty is greater in areas where microfinance access to microfinance reduces income inequality in access increased more sharply. For example, in a cross-sectional study of sixty-one countries. This areas where the number of microfinance members finding, if it can be replicated and expanded, could 29 increased by less than 20 percent, the poverty rate suggest another important impact of microfinance. Microfinance of Impact the Measuring fell by 3.9 percent (from 46.6 to 42.7 percent). In Certainly, additional studies of the macroeconomic areas where the number of microfinance members effects of microfinance are essential to a complete increased by more than 40 percent, the poverty rate understanding of the overall impact of this set of fell by 13.3 percent (from 54.4 to 41.1 percent). This financial services. Macroeconomic studies of this relationship can be interpreted only as a correlation nature present methodological challenges even and not as evidence of a causal relationship between more serious than those facing studies addressing microfinance and poverty reduction. Nonetheless, microeconomic questions; determination of a credible these results gesture toward an association between approach to studying macroeconomic outcomes is a microfinance access and poverty reduction in major research challenge. Bangladesh.
www.grameenfoundation.org 30 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance C section 9 Overall, development the study microfinance be being important the this some institution methodology, must adequately for be or be to (regardless one assessment Understanding a practitioners that the whether overall, recent and a microfinance investment, studies in for
particular number onclusions and Directions for This
particular what years interpreted observed? generalized,
the microsavings effectiveness poor, body
study from particular will
be other can studied
contributions survey predicted
showed a
extent
what
taken later
ultimately
microfinance
of
or few
different
provide of can
distinctions.
well-run
addressed?
evidence
of financial is evaluation
place,
and studies
appears
things
Can
to
and
tool?
does works is – the methodology) is has
definitively
into service carefully, can
given
is
the
increases good see an
profits.
as positive of
it
institution funding
the the an considering
this the settings)
attempt account. Again,
scope microlending, serve microfinance well how
(using are overall? universally.
service?
(not
answer to for
to that study problem
motivated
findings
is
is body The
What that
be clear.
Importantly,
as
the taking microbusinesses.
working
essential.
as
and
the effects in
every no answer agencies.
a microcredit. a
to time
be
a
Was
business suggesting clients promising
body
variety of
necessarily to Considering
single profit-driven,
results
guide Is There
type limitations piece
revisited a
of
evidence of the into
the impact
particular
Each
frame to there
by
selection
as a is of the
microsavings,
of
question
The particular
actually
are impact
to
institution
unrealistic.
together the of account an evidence, is
of
microfinance
ownership, question
this
microfinance new
evidence methodologies
enough
economic faring? financial
a
of that assessment
idea desire Microsavings some
say takes single
of
the the result
Various
study population?
F bias assessment www.grameenfoundation.org and
occur
impact
about that of several uture
the
study study study months
place and
to
time
Finally, whether of
offering
study)
been
is It from
holds
or most must help any
the is and
is
in R esearch instrument discovered. overall microfinance education, microfinance (or impact research some from people Angus or or consider As (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Further,
lack not,
incompletely
a
existing outcomes incomes continue studies results alleviate
the find programs? lead borrowers? microfinance evidence of inequality, Do
What Will To Can
poverty of
final
Deaton
but
of in effect settings? assessment
them.
the what poverty
will
not
similar
effectiveness to
low-income insightfully additional
impact also
health, about conclusion,
Based
whose positive business
about be
only
take research on
is clients on extent the rise
of to (2010)
over the able
unlikely
and
the
effects measures line? operate positive answered)
the
day-to-day
whether
steps and
evaluation on
and
social
potential programs? reasons
follows.
to
a incomes economic
outcomes
do studies
is
investments macroeconomic the
longer writes,
designed
countries
poverty lead replicate women’s
less of
a
in loans on
to
outcomes? list
studies their
results various
the
programs
come
poverty of to clear,
behind Hopefully,
questions
is (in of
time
“Finding
uncertainty
and
researchers social
and additional
direction
Is
only rates businesses? growth for important
lending
alternative
earlier empowerment.
can
there
of in from
as
poverty
interventions. period? savings
evidenced the
the
microsavings rates, this
beginning
are well-being
fall and
are
very
effects
the in convincing out in effectiveness
upcoming
positive
the programs survey, of as
do development
effective
a microfinance
rates
of
rates programs must
unanswered
Will empirical answering borrowers about variety
poorest Will
effects settings)
escape life
in of
to
of
such
the of
the below
new
be how
of
as Clients of Ahon sa Hirap, Inc. [ASHI] (Philippines) evaluation of actual projects or programs, whether eagerly anticipated by the microfinance community. through randomized trials or econometric methods As microfinance impact assessment continues, the that are designed to extract defensible causal combined results of well-designed and implemented 31 inferences, unless such analysis tries to discover randomized studies, innovative quasi-experimental Microfinance of Impact the Measuring why projects work rather than whether they work …” studies, and judiciously presented, non-experimental (p. 3) Answers to these important questions about the research will provide useful and reliable estimates mechanisms behind positive development outcomes of the effects of microfinance programs. As our are badly needed. understanding of the strengths and limitations of Additional randomized studies are underway various research methods deepens, the research in Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Bosnia, Mali, and community’s ability to answer these critical questions the Philippines.17 The results of these studies are will be enhanced.
17 Thanks to Dean Karlan of Innovations for Policy Action for providing the locations of upcoming studies.
www.grameenfoundation.org 32 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance Deaton, A. Understanding the Mechanisms of Economic Development. de Mel, S., McKenzie, D., & Woodruff, C. (2009). Are Women More Credit Constrained? Experimental Evidence on Gender and de Mel, S., McKenzie, D., & Woodruff, C. (2008). Returns to Capital in Microenterprises:Daley-Harris, Evidence S. from(2009). a Field Experiment. Counts, A. (2008). Collins, D., Morduch, J., Rutherford, S., & Ruthven, O. (2009). Coleman, B. (2006). Microfinance in Northeast Thailand: Who Benefits and How Much. Coleman, B. (1999). The impact of group lending in northeast Thailand. Burgess, R., & Pande, R. (2005). Do Rural Banks Matter? Evidence from the Indian Social Banking Experiment. Bruhn, M., & Love, I. (2009). Bennett, D. (2009, September 20). Billions of dollars and a Nobel Prize later, it Banerjee,looks like S. ‘microlending’(2009, October doesn’t26). How actually Microfinance do Changes the Lives of Millions, One person at a time. Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C. (2009). Armendáriz, B., & Morduch, J. (2010). Goldberg, N. (2005). Dupas, P., & Robinson, J. (2009). Hisako, K., & Shigeyuki, H. (2009). Harford, T. (2009, December 5). Perhaps microfinance isn’t such a big deal after all. Goldin Institute (2007). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Microenterprise Returns. Quarterly Journal of Economics Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Economic Review Bank Policy Research. much to fight poverty. (Working paper). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. www.princeton.edu/~deaton/papers.html (Working Paper #14693). National Bureau of Economic Research. Foundation USA. http://www.goldininstitute.org/microcredit ub.uni-muenchen.de/17572/ Small Loans, Big Dreams: How Nobel Prize Winner Muhammad Yunus and Microfinance Are Changing the World , Measuring the Impact of Microfinance: Taking Stock of What We Know 95 Improving Microcredit Programs: Listening to Recipients: A Summary of the Pilot Phase State of the Microcredit Summit Campaign Report (3), 780-795. The Boston Globe The Economic Impact of Banking the Unbanked: Evidence from Mexico American Economic Journal: Applied Economics Savings constraints and microenterprise development: Evidence from a field experiment in Kenya , Microfinance and Inequality 123 The Economics of Microfinance (4), 1329-1372. . www.grameenfoundation.org References The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day (MPRA Working Paper #17572). Retrieved from http://mpra. (Second Edition ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Journal of Development Economics Journal of Economic Perspectives . Washington, D.C.: Microcredit Summit Campaign. , 1 (3), 1-32. The Financial Times World Development . Washington, D.C.: Grameen (Working Paper #4981). World . Retrieved from http:// . , Foreign Policy 45 . Retrieved from , 105-141. , 34 The American (9), 1612-1638. . . . Kaboski, J., & Townsend, R. (2005). Policies and impact: An analysis of village-level microfinance institutions.Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(1), 1-50.
Kaboski, J., & Townsend, R. (2009). The Impact of Credit on Village Economies (Working Paper).
Karlan, D., & Zinman, J. (2010a). Expanding credit access: Using randomized supply decisions to estimate the impacts. Review of Financial Studies, 23(1), 433-464.
Karlan, D., & Zinman, J. (2010b). Expanding Microenterprise Credit Access: Using Randomized Supply Decisions to Estimate the Impacts in Manila (Working Paper).
Khandker, S. (2005). Microfinance and Poverty: Evidence Using Panel Data from Bangladesh.World Bank Economic Review, 19(2), 263-286.
Kondo, T. (2007). Impact of Microfinance on Rural Households in the Philippines: A Case Study from the Special Evaluation Study on the Effects of Microfinance Operations of Poor Rural Households and the Status of Women. Asian Development Bank.
Kotikula, A., Narayan, A., & Zaman, H. (2010). To What Extent Are Bangladesh’s Recent Gains in Poverty Reduction Different from the Past? (Working Paper #5199). World Bank Policy Research.
Microcredit may not work wonders but it does help the entrepreneurial poor. (2009, July 16). The Economist.
Morduch, J. (1998). Does microfinance really help the poor? New evidence on flagship programs in Bangladesh (Working Paper).
Pitt, M. (1999). Reply to Jonathan Morduch’s ‘Does Microfinance Really Help the Poor? New Evidence from Flagship Programs in Bangladesh (Working Paper).
Pitt, M., & Khandker, S. (1998). The impact of group-based credit programs on poor households in Bangladesh: Does the gender of participants matter? Journal of Political Economy, 106(5), 958-996.
RBS Foundation India (2008). Microfinance and Poverty Alleviation: An Impact Assessment Survey. The Royal Bank of Scotland.
Rodrik, D. (2009). What Works in Development: Thinking Big and Thinking Small. In J. Cohen & W. Easterly (Eds.), What Works in Development: Thinking Big and Thinking Small (pp. 24-37). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Roodman, D., & Morduch, J. (2009). The Impact of Microcredit on the Poor in Bangladesh: Revisiting the Evidence (Working Paper #174). Center for Global Development. Ziliak, S., & McCloskey, D. N. (2008). The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives. 33
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Microfinance of Impact the Measuring
www.grameenfoundation.org 34 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance to use statistical methods to generate a truly accurate influential because they were the first serious attempt and Mark Pitt, a Brown University economist, were the Gender of Participants Matter?” by Khandker Programs on Poor Households in Bangladesh: Does related paper, “The Impact of Group-Based Credit World Bank economist Shahidur Khandker, and the many of them. evaluations and limits the conclusions we can draw from households is prevalent among microfinance impact type of difference between participants and comparison nonmembers who were more likely to be landless. This were found to be younger and better educated than be overstated, however, because Grameen members warned it was likely that his impact findings would landless, followed by marginal landowners. Hossain the increase in income from Grameen highest for the target non-participants in comparison villages, with average household income to be 43 percent higher than Mahabub Hossain. Hossain found Grameen members’ Poverty: The Grameen Bank in Bangladesh,” (1988) by assessments was “Credit for the Alleviation of Rural reliability of each study. and guides readers through interpreting the results and evaluations that have been published as of mid-2005 paper surveys the most significant microfinance impact of microfinance impact evaluations vary greatly. This to improve it as well. However, the quality and rigor not just to prove the effectiveness of microfinance, but increased in recent years, with programs using studies The prevalence of microfinance impact evaluations has The 1998 book, One of the first comprehensive microfinance impact Fighting Poverty with Microcredit Measuring theImpactofMicrofinance: T aking StockofWhatWeKnow Executive Summary www.grameenfoundation.org N athanael Appendix by December 2005 G reduction of moderate poverty in rural Bangladesh. microfinance accounted for 40 percent of the entire per year, respectively. Khandker further calculated that percentage points per year and 1.6 percentage points poverty, which microfinance was found to reduce by 2.2 impact to be greater for extreme poverty than moderate is directly attributable to microfinance, and found the Khandker estimated that more than half of this reduction percentage points—about 3 percentage points per year. since 1991/92 poverty rates declined by more than 20 Among program participants who had been members areas and 13 percentage points in non-program areas. declined by 17 percentage points: 18 points in program 1991/92 and 1998/99 moderate poverty in all villages male borrowing at all. Khandker found that between by more than 20 taka. There were no returns to women increased total annual household expenditures showed that each additional 100 taka of credit to Panel Data from Bangladesh.” The updated findings the study, “Micro-finance and Poverty: Evidence Using to improve their model, published in a 2005 update to model. serious concerns with their data and their statistical from Flagship Programs in Bangladesh” (1998), citing “Does Microfinance Really Help the Poor? New Evidence economist Jonathan Morduch responded with the paper, return to income from borrowing. However, NYU taka to annual household expenditures—an 18 percent additional taka lent to a woman adds an additional 0.18 RD-12. The centerpiece of their findings was that every Bangladeshi programs: Grameen Bank, BRAC, and assessment of the impact of microfinance among three oldberg With the benefit of more data, Khandker was able
The AIMS Studies Case Study from Peru” (2001), by Elizabeth Dunn and J. Gordon Arbuckle Jr., found Mibanco clients earned In 1995 the United States Agency for International $266 more per household member per year than non- Development (USAID) launched the Assessing the participants. Impacts of Microenterprise Services (AIMS) Project, which developed five tools (two quantitative and three qualitative) designed to provide practitioners a low- Wider Impacts cost way to measure impact and improve institutional performance. The tools recommended comparing Empowerment existing clients to incoming clients and using the Hashemi, Schuler, and Riley, in “Rural Credit Programs difference between them to estimate program impact. and Women’s Empowerment in Bangladesh” (1996), The idea behind the methodology was that since both used a measure of the length of program participation the clients and the comparison households had chosen among Grameen Bank and BRAC clients to show that to join the program, there should be no difference in each year of membership increased the likelihood of their “entrepreneurial spirit.” Otherwise, higher incomes a female client being empowered by 16 percent. Even among participants might simply be driven by superior women who did not participate were more than twice business acumen. However, some experts, notably as likely to be empowered simply by virtue of living Dean Karlan in “Microfinance Impact Assessments: in Grameen villages. This may suggest that a positive The Perils of Using New Members as a Control Group” spillover from microfinance is affecting the norms in (2001), have called into question the validity of this communities, but it could also imply that Grameen type of comparison. Karlan warns that this design can selects relatively empowered communities for program yield biased estimates of impact because MFIs may placement. have originally started to work with different types of clients than they currently serve (for instance, an MFI Contraceptive Use may have cautiously started out working with better-off “Poverty Alleviation and Empowerment: The Second communities before branching out to poorer areas), and Impact Assessment Study of BRAC’s Rural Development because clients who chose to enroll earlier may differ Programme” (1998), by A. M. Muazzam Husain, reported from those who chose to wait and see before joining. that members who had been with BRAC the longest had The AIMS Core Impact Assessments of SEWA (India), significantly higher rates of contraceptive use. Fighting Zambuko Trust (Zimbabwe), and Mibanco (Peru) avoid Poverty with Microcredit found credit provided to women this problem through the use of longitudinal data and reduced contraceptive use among participants. However, non-client comparison groups. “Managing Resources, as discussed above, the results from Khandker’s earlier Activities, and Risk in Urban India: The Impact of SEWA work may be unreliable. “The Impact of an Integrated Bank” (2001), by Martha Chen and Donald Snodgrass, Micro-credit Program on Women’s Empowerment and compared the impact of clients who borrowed for Fertility Behavior in Rural Bangladesh” (1998), by Steele, self-employment to those who saved with SEWA Bank Amin, and Naved, estimated that, even after statistically without borrowing, and compared both groups to non- controlling for prior contraceptive use, borrowers were clients. Borrowers’ income was over 25 percent greater 1.8 times more likely to use contraceptives than the 35 than that of savers, and 56 percent higher than non- comparison group. Membership in a savings group Microfinance of Impact the Measuring participants’ income. Savers, too, enjoyed household was not found to have an effect. However, analysis of income 24 percent greater than that of non-participants. the actual number of births did not reveal a statistical These findings indicate that microfinance—credit or relationship between either savings or credit and fertility. savings—can be quite effective. “Microfinance Program Clients and Impact: An Assessment of Zambuko Trust, Nutrition Zimbabwe” (2001), by Carolyn Barnes, found that while Barbara MkNelly and Christopher Dunford, both of clients’ income was significantly higher in 1997 than the Freedom from Hunger, completed two comprehensive incomes of other groups, by 1999 the difference was no evaluations of Credit with Education programs: “Impact longer statistically significant, though continuing clients of Credit with Education on Mothers and Their Young still earned the most. “The Impacts of Microcredit: A Children’s Nutrition: Lower Pra Rural Bank Credit with
www.grameenfoundation.org 36 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance and net worth was 50 percent higher. Significantly fewer greater than those of comparison group households, that BRAC members’ non-land assets were 380 percent The Second Impact Assessment Study of BRAC found I comparison villages. empowered, compared to only 9 percent of women in with no control of their loans could be considered finding that 36 percent of Grameen and BRAC borrowers Empowerment in Bangladesh” confirms this conclusion, than without. “Rural Credit Programs and Women’s entire loans—women are better off with microfinance have the least control—i.e., women channeling their however, found that that even in the case where women participation were among this group. Other studies, of the borrowers who were still poor after 10 years of represent only 25 percent of the members, 41 percent as the most marginal in her sample; though they loans to their husbands. Todd described these women of clients in her sample were turning over their entire In C D negative effect. male borrowing, which had an insignificant or even circumference) from women’s borrowing, but not from on children’s health (as measured by height and arm Chowdhury, and Millimet, found substantial impact Children in Rural Bangladesh” (2003) by Pitt, Khandker, “Credit Programs for the Poor and the Health Status of for-age and weight-for-age for children of participants. These impacts paid off in a significant increase in height- had diarrhea by giving them oral rehydration solution. were more likely to properly rehydrate children who into their babies’ diets until the ideal age, and they and more likely to delay the introduction of other foods Participants were more likely to breastfeed their children of $36, compared to $17 for the comparison group. experienced an increase in monthly nonfarm income Program in Bolivia” (1999). In Ghana, participants Children’s Nutrition: CRECER Credit with Education Credit with Education on Mothers and Their Young Education Program in Ghana” (1998), and “Impact of ncoming ontrol of Loan eterminants Women at the Center P overty Level
, Helen Todd found that a quarter of I mpact www.grameenfoundation.org very poor benefited most from program participation. better than non-clients. Compared to non-clients, the an increase in household income, they didn’t do much showing that while non-poor clients most often reported (2004), by EDA Rural Systems, supports this conclusion, participation. “The Maturing of Indian Microfinance” found that the poorest clients benefited most from Poverty: Evidence Using Panel Data from Bangladesh,” impact for the poorer half. half of Promuc clients was 80 percent higher than the by Copestake et al., found that impact for the wealthier a comparison of methods using data from Peru” (2005), diversity of poverty outreach and impact of microfinance: (“the poor”) benefited most. Another study, “Monitoring the program, while those with 1-50 decimals of land landless clients (the poorest clients) benefited least from group). However, subgroup analysis revealed that households versus 68.6 percent of the comparison BRAC households were poor (52.1 percent of BRAC savings and insurance products for the poor. only. These results highlight the need to further develop percent for those who had experienced serious illness nearly 60 percent remained Very Poor, versus only 40 experienced both serious illness and death in the family, with a larger sample size). Among clients who had earlier findings from edited by David Gibbons, however, corroborates Todd’s rates. “Moris Rasik: An Interim Impact Assessment,” ability to cope with crises to their extraordinary savings increase or decrease in poverty. Todd attributed their they were no more-or-less likely to have experienced an family crisis or natural disaster in the previous four years, though 49 percent of SHARE clients had experienced a Poverty: The Impact of SHARE Microfin Limited,” found on the effect of crises. Another Todd study, “Paths out of husband or the wife. Other studies show mixed results to support the family through the loss of income from the forced to sell off assets to pay for medical treatment and to Todd, the families that suffer crises were almost always the family in the three years before her study. According decade, ten of them had experienced a serious illness in 17 Grameen Bank borrowers who were still poor after a In F amily However, other studies, including “Micro-finance and Women at the Center C rises Women at the Center , Helen Todd found that out of the (this time
Design: Lloyd Greenberg Design, LLC Client of Grameen Ghana 38 Measuring the Impact of Microfinance Fax: +1 206-325-0634 Phone: +1 206-325-6690 Seattle, WA 98121 Suite 1030 2101 4th Avenue G Fax: +1 202-628-3880 Toll Free (US): 1-888-764-3872 Phone: +1 202-628-3560 Washington, DC 20001 8th Floor 50 F Street NW G rameen rameen F F oundation oundation T echnology C enter www.grameenfoundation.org www.grameenfoundation.org