Source: World Bank Private Sector Development Blog.
Original article available online.
The verdict is in on microfinance, and it’s not pretty. The results from the first large-scale randomized trial of access to microfinance indicate that it comes up short in many areas of human development. 52 of 104 slums in Hyderabad were randomly selected to receive new branches of a microfinance outfit called Spandana. Abhijit Banerjee and the other randomistas from the Poverty Action Lab describe the results in The Miracle of Microfinance? Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation:
“…microcredit does have important effects on business outcomes and the composition of household expenditure. Moreover, these effects differ for different households, in a way consistent with the fact that a household wishing to start a new business must pay a fixed cost to do so. Existing business owners appear to use microcredit to expand their businesses: durables spending (i.e. investment) and business profits increase…
“…While microcredit succeeds in affecting household expenditure and creating and expanding businesses, it appears to have no discernible effect on education, health, or womens’ empowerment. Of course, after a longer time, when the investment impacts (may) have translated into higher total expenditure for more households, it is possible that impacts on education, health, or womens’ empowerment would emerge. However, at least in the short-term (within 15-18 months), microcredit does not appear to be a recipe for changing education, health, or womens’ decision-making.”
I have no doubt these findings will provoke strong reactions in the microfinance community – I expect a deluge of rebuttals. There’s one thing that’s worth noting right now, though. Unfortunately, this particular trial may not go that far in ending the debate around microfinance.
As the authors note, the impact of microfinance in education, health, etc. may not appear for quite some time. In normal times, we would just wait another year or so and take another survey. However, the financial crisis means these are not normal times. If, in a year or two, a new set of results appears to indicate no impact on human development, the randomistas could claim this as a failure of microfinance. In turn, the microfinance proponents will claim that the financial crisis invalidates the findings, arguing that the ROI for small-scale entrepreneurs was abnormally low due to the crisis. Unfortunately, we’ll simply have no way to know for sure who’s right.
Similar Posts:
- MICROFINANCE PAPER WRAP-UP: “Child Labor, Rainfall Shocks and Financial Inclusion: Evidence from Rural Households,” by Carolina Bernal and Razvan Vlaicu, Published by IDB
- MICROFINANCE PAPER WRAP-UP: “Impact of Microcredit on Household Consumption and Assets in Nepal;” by Shalik Ram Pokhrel
- MICROFINANCE PAPER WRAP-UP: “Green Energy Finance and Gender Disparity: The Case of Mountain Areas in Bangladesh,” by Sakib Bin Amin et al, Published by Copenhagen Business School
- MICROCAPITAL BRIEF: 60 Decibels Microfinance Index Data from 32 Countries Indicates Higher Confidence Among Group Borrowers, Greatest Debt Burden in Cambodia
- MICROFINANCE PAPER WRAP-UP: “The Impact of Microfinance Institutions on Poverty Alleviation,” by Collin Chikwira et al, Published by Journal of Risk and Financial Management
