A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Angelucci, Manuela; Karlan, Dean S.; Zinman, Jonathan Working Paper Win Some Lose Some? Evidence from a Randomized Microcredit Program Placement Experiment by Compartamos Banco IZA Discussion Papers, No. 7439 Provided in Cooperation with: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Suggested Citation: Angelucci, Manuela; Karlan, Dean S.; Zinman, Jonathan (2013) : Win Some Lose Some? Evidence from a Randomized Microcredit Program Placement Experiment by Compartamos Banco, IZA Discussion Papers, No. 7439, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/80619 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu IZA DP No. 7439 Win Some Lose Some? Evidence from a Randomized Microcredit Program Placement Experiment by Compartamos Banco Manuela Angelucci Dean Karlan Jonathan Zinman June 2013 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor Win Some Lose Some? Evidence from a Randomized Microcredit Program Placement Experiment by Compartamos Banco Manuela Angelucci University of Michigan and IZA Dean Karlan IPA, J-PAL and NBER Jonathan Zinman IPA, J-PAL and NBER Discussion Paper No. 7439 June 2013 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 E-mail: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. IZA Discussion Paper No. 7439 June 2013 ABSTRACT Win Some Lose Some? Evidence from a Randomized Microcredit Program Placement Experiment by Compartamos Banco1 Theory and evidence have raised concerns that microcredit does more harm than good, particularly when offered at high interest rates. We use a clustered randomized trial, and household surveys of eligible borrowers and their businesses, to estimate impacts from an expansion of group lending at 110% APR by the largest microlender in Mexico. Average effects on a rich set of outcomes measured 18-34 months post-expansion suggest some good and little harm. Other estimators identify heterogeneous treatment effects and effects on outcome distributions, but again yield little support for the hypothesis that microcredit causes harm. JEL Classification: D12, D22, G21, O12 Keywords: microcredit, microcredit impact, microentrepreneurship, Compartamos Banco Corresponding author: Manuela Angelucci Department of Economics University of Arizona McClelland Hall 401AA Tucson, AZ 85721 USA E-mail: [email protected] 1 Approval from the Yale University Human Subjects Committee, IRB #0808004114 and from the Innovations for Poverty Action Human Subjects Committee, IRB #061.08June-008. Thanks to Tim Conley for collaboration and mapping expertise. Thanks to Innovations for Poverty Action staff, including Alissa Fishbane, Andrew Hillis, Elana Safran, Rachel Strohm, Braulio Torres, Asya Troychansky, Irene Velez, Sanjeev Swamy, Matthew White, Glynis Startz, and Anna York, for outstanding research and project management assistance. Thanks to Dale Adams, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Jake Kendall, Melanie Morten, David Roodman and participants in seminars at M.I.T./Harvard and NYU for comments. Thanks to Compartamos Banco, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Science Foundation for funding support to the project and researchers. All opinions are those of the researchers, and not the donors or Compartamos Banco. The research team has retained complete intellectual freedom from inception to conduct the surveys and estimate and interpret the results (contract available upon request). I. Introduction The initial promise of microcredit, including such accolades as the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, has given way to intense debate about if and when it is actually an effective development tool. A clear theoretical and empirical tension exists: innovations in lending markets, under the “microcredit movement”, aim to expand access to credit by lowering transaction costs and mitigating information asymmetries. Yet theories and empirical evidence from behavioral economics raises concerns about overborrowing at available rates, and have drawn much media and political attention in India, Bolivia, the United States, Mexico, and elsewhere. Moreover, there may be negative spillovers from borrowers to non-borrowers, such as business stealing. Revealed preference may not be a sufficient starting point for welfare analysis: people may borrow based on present-biases that make debt seem attractive ex-ante, yet ultimately make them worse off in the sense that in a moment of informed ex-ante reflection they would not have borrowed as much. These biases may work through preferences (e.g., beta-delta discounting), expectations (e.g., over-optimism), and/or price perceptions (e.g., underestimating exponential growth and decline).2 Both sets of theories can have merit. For example, unbiased borrowers may use credit well, and benefit from expanded credit access, while others may borrow too much, and suffer from expanded access. Does such heterogeneity in impacts exist? Existing empirical evidence is limited, and mixed. Most of the evidence on the impacts of small- dollar credit thus far has been on mean outcomes, or on a limited examination of heterogeneous treatment effects.3 But expanded credit access could produce welfare losses for some borrowers even in the absence of mean negative impacts. If enough people are harmed—where “enough” depends on one’s social welfare weights—null or even positive mean impacts can mask net negative welfare consequences. Using a large-scale clustered randomized trial that substantially expanded access to group lending in north-central Sonora, Mexico, we provide evidence on impacts of expanded access to microcredit on outcome means and distributions measured from detailed household surveys. We do this for a broad set of outcomes, including credit access, perceived creditworthiness, use of funds, business outcomes, income, consumption, health, education, female decision-making power, social attitudes, and subjective measures of well-being and financial condition. 2 See, e.g., DellaVigna (2009) for a discussion and review of such issues. 3 Randomized-control evaluations of joint-liability microlending at lower interest rates by non- profits (Banerjee et al. 2009; Crepon et al. 2011), or a for-profit bank (Attanasio et al. 2011), or individual liability loans (Karlan and Zinman 2010; Karlan and Zinman 2011; Augsburg et al. 2012) find somewhat positive but not transformational treatment effects. Further studies have found a wide range of impacts from business grants (de Mel, McKenzie, and Woodruff 2008; Berge, Bjorvatn, and Tungooden 2011; Fafchamps et al. 2011; Karlan, Knight, and Udry 2012), and from relatively large loans (Gine and Mansuri (2011)). See Karlan and Morduch (2009) for a broader literature review that includes non-experimental estimates of mean impacts. 1 Strong impacts in either direction seem plausible in our setting. The market rate for microloans is about 100% APR, making concerns about overborrowing and negative impacts plausible. But existing evidence suggests that returns to capital in Mexico are about 200% for microentrepreneurs (D. J. McKenzie and Woodruff 2006; D. McKenzie and Woodruff 2008), raising