Social Impact Assessment of Microfinance Programmes - weman

More documents

Recommendations

Info

present results where we compare the Active Borrower with Pipeline Borrowers, and in some cases we compare both Active Borrowers and Pipeline Borrowers with the two combined categories of neighbours, that of Non-Borrowers. The tables in the Appendix of this Chapter describe some of the key findings from our survey. Unlike all our partner MFIs, NRSP is the only purely rural MFI in our sample, and hence one needs to keep this factor in mind when evaluating its results. This fact also makes comparison with the other MFIs in our sample difficult. Moreover, NRSP is a development organisation involved in poverty alleviation and microcredit is one of its main activities. Hence, it is also possible that the results from the microfinance intervention could be affected by other inputs from NRSP, such as the social organisation skills the organisation relies on. This broad package of development interventions also makes NRSP unique in our sample, thus making comparisons with specialised MFIs somewhat problematic. From our sample, we observe that about one-fifth of NRSP clients are in the fourth and greater loan cycle. Table A.7.2.3 shows that the educational characteristics of those who are Active Borrowers as well as those who are not part of the programme, are fairly similar, an unsurprising result. A large majority of NRSP Active Borrowers are involved in Agriculture in Crop Production, as well as in Livestock Management. The proportion of NRSP clients in these two categories seems to be higher than both that of Non- Borrowers and new (Pipeline Clients), suggesting perhaps that NRSP loans are used for agricultural purposes and perhaps non-clients, over time, shift from Business/Retail Shop type activities to Agriculture and Livestock. The Housing Quality data seem to be fairly similar across the sample – Table A.7.2.6 – with perhaps more NRSP Active Borrowers having Cemented Floors than the other three categories of clients. Table 7.1 in the text below, confirms this observation showing that the difference are not statistically significant, except in the Cemented Floors category. What is surprising, however, is that the so few Active Borrowers have Houses with RCC Roofs compared to the new clients and Non-Borrowers, a difference which is statistically significant. Table – 7.1 NRSP – Housing Variables Category Mean Standard Deviation t-value Significance Level House owners Active Borrowers 98.1481 13.50254 .362 .717 New and Non- Borrowers 97.7528 14.84210 Person per room Active Borrowers 2.7030 1.57825 -1.739 .083 New and Non- Borrowers 2.9093 1.51554 Houses with baked bricks Active Borrowers 69.1358 46.26475 .403 .687 New and Non- 67.6966 46.82936 13
Borrowers Houses with RCC Roof Active Borrowers 5.2469 22.33160 -3.262 .001 New and Non- Borrowers 12.3596 32.95827 Houses with Cemented Floor Active Borrowers 41.9753 49.42818 3.018 .003 New and Non- Borrowers 30.8989 46.27269 Note: There are 324 and 356 respondents in each category respectively. t-value greater than 1.6 indicates the mean difference between two categories is statistically significant. The negative t indicates that average value of category 2 is greater than the average value of category 1. Table A.7.2.8 shows the average Income, Expenditure and Value of Household Assets of Active Borrowers, Pipeline Borrowers and Non-Borrowers, where Active Borrowers have higher average Income Per Capita and Expenditure Per Capita than both categories. Table 7.2 shows that both the Expenditure Per Capita and Income Per Capita for Active Borrowers is higher than it is for Pipeline and Non-Borrowers and this difference is statistically significant. Similarly, the Value of Household Assets and the Household Asset Score are both greater for Active Borrowers and here again, this difference is statistically significant. Both these sets of data may suggest that NRSP Active Borrowers are ‘better-off’ than the new clients and non-clients. Table – 7.2 NRSP – Economic Status Variables Category Mean Standard Deviation t-value Significance Level Expenditure Per Capita Active Borrowers 1051.6925 492.86872 2.317 .021 New and Non- Borrowers 971.8186 405.06757 Income Per Capita Active Borrowers 1632.7789 1358.04301 3.846 .000 New and Non- Borrowers 1303.4008 835.43774 Household Asset Score Active Borrowers 8.46 2.752 2.213 .027 New and Non- Borrowers 7.99 2.868 Value of household Active Borrowers assets 1189218.7307 1572360.69310 3.742 .000 New and Non- Borrowers 772059.8596 1331138.08740 Note: There are 324 and 356 respondents in each category respectively. t-value greater than 1.6 indicates the mean difference between two categories is statistically significant. The negative t indicates that average value of category 2 is greater than the average value of category 1. One does not find much difference in the indicators for Children’s Education – Table A.7.2.9 – although there is a difference in the Monthly Expenditure incurred on Education, where Active Borrowers spent far more than New and Non-Borrowers – Table 7.3 – and this difference was statistically significant. In most of our other (urban) 14
Page 1 and 2:
Social Impact Assessment of Microfi
Page 3 and 4:
indicators which are more difficult
Page 5 and 6:
• Since Asasah has been in operat
Page 7 and 8:
Akhuwat • Akhuwat was established
Page 9 and 10:
and economic change in their surrou
Page 11 and 12:
development. NRSP's mandate is to h
Page 13 and 14:
Kashf Urban Poverty Alleviation Pro
Page 15 and 16:
clients’ amounts to Rs.5.6 millio
Page 17 and 18:
Pakistan, Official Poverty Line - R
Page 19 and 20:
Contents Executive Summary Acknowle
Page 21 and 22:
7.5 UPAP Survey Results 7.6 UPAP Re
Page 23 and 24:
microfinance operations. This ordin
Page 25 and 26:
and not other services such as savi
Page 27 and 28:
elow. While we examined the traditi
Page 29 and 30:
Ideally, baseline studies and panel
Page 31 and 32:
members of these organizations are
Page 33 and 34:
Microfinance Branch District/City I
Page 35 and 36:
factor. For this survey, the sample
Page 37 and 38:
loans and might have increased cons
Page 39 and 40:
Chapter Three: Asasah 3.1 Instituti
Page 41 and 42:
insufficient resources. Furthermore
Page 43 and 44:
Figure 3.1: Asasah’s Target Marke
Page 45 and 46:
for SBF, two in Lahore and one in K
Page 47 and 48:
to Regional Managers as the organiz
Page 49 and 50:
undertake thorough research which e
Page 51 and 52:
According to Asasah the only time a
Page 53 and 54:
Figure 3.3 Funding Sources NGO 5% D
Page 55 and 56:
Borrower’, is that client who has
Page 57 and 58:
Note: There are 237 and 273 respond
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
orrowers spend less on education by
Page 63 and 64:
Jewellery and livestock were genera
Page 65 and 66:
Appendix Chapter 3 A 3.1.1 Institut
Page 67 and 68:
A3.1.4 Organizational Structure Boa
Page 69 and 70:
Table - A.3.2.4 Respondent Characte
Page 71 and 72:
Table - A.3.2.9 Child Education [AS
Page 73 and 74:
Table - A.3.2.14 Household Assets O
Page 75 and 76:
Table - A.3.2.17 Women’s Empowerm
Page 77 and 78:
Table - A.3.2.20 Women’s Empowerm
Page 79 and 80:
Table - A.3.2.22 Borrowers - Loan A
Page 81 and 82:
Table - A.3.2.27 Non-Borrowers’ P
Page 83 and 84:
Chapter Four: Orangi Charitable Tru
Page 85 and 86:
these, as many as 7,301 units are c
Page 87 and 88:
• Loan for Livestock: OCT also su
Page 89 and 90:
guarantees of two local entrepreneu
Page 91 and 92:
CEBEMO, a Dutch funding agency, has
Page 93 and 94:
MFIs claim. Hence, its criteria and
Page 95 and 96:
Table - 4.4 OCT - Household Assets
Page 97 and 98:
difference, we found that active bo
Page 99 and 100:
mainly because they don’t have to
Page 101 and 102:
Term/D uration Loan size improveme
Page 103 and 104:
Table - A. 4.2.4 Respondent Charact
Page 105 and 106:
Average Indebtedness 19300 6375 340
Page 107 and 108:
Table - A. 4.2.14 Household Assets
Page 109 and 110:
Table - A. 4.2.19 Borrowers’ Perc
Page 111 and 112:
Table - A. 4.2.23 Non-Borrowers’
Page 113 and 114:
which also became the head office.
Page 115 and 116:
problem of group lending is that me
Page 117 and 118:
uy insurance, which covers the risk
Page 119 and 120:
activities with other NGOs and Soci
Page 121 and 122:
5.1.5.3 Policy Environment As Akhuw
Page 123 and 124:
are also working on a marketing pla
Page 125 and 126:
We first discuss results based on t
Page 127 and 128:
New and Non- Borrowers 506072.7273
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
From these results we can judge tha
Page 133 and 134:
Appendix Chapter 5 A 5..11 Institut
Page 135 and 136:
Table - 5.4.2.1 Sample Information
Page 137 and 138:
Table - A. 5.2.6 Housing Characteri
Page 139 and 140:
Table - A. 5.2.12 Sources of Househ
Page 141 and 142:
Table - A. 5.2.16 Women’s Empower
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Table - A. 5.2.25 Borrowers’ Perc
Page 149 and 150: Table - A. 5.2.29 Non-Borrower’s
Page 151 and 152: in the contextual needs of the comm
Page 153 and 154: 6.1.4.1 Products and Services Offer
Page 155 and 156: Other filters related to the specif
Page 157 and 158: management reveal the significance
Page 159 and 160: have been chosen from ‘old/establ
Page 161 and 162: School Going Children - Boys % Acti
Page 163 and 164: The Difference in Differences (DID)
Page 165 and 166: Table 1: Regression results Young B
Page 167 and 168: • Participants were also not very
Page 169 and 170: Impact on Quality of Life & Social
Page 171 and 172: Appendix Chapter 6 A.6.1.1 Institut
Page 173 and 174: Sample Information [SAFWCO] Table -
Page 175 and 176: Table - A. 6.2.7 Housing Characteri
Page 177 and 178: Table - A. 6.2.12 Sources of Househ
Page 179 and 180: Table - A. 6.2.16 Women’s Empower
Page 185 and 186: Table - A. 6.2.25 Borrowers’ Perc
Page 187 and 188: Table - A. 6.2.29 Non-Borrowers’
Page 189 and 190: incremental growth, it is emerging
Page 191 and 192: the purpose of the organization and
Page 193 and 194: Group loans are meant specifically
Page 195 and 196: Officer. If the Field Worker and Cr
Page 197 and 198: The worker’s degree of mobility d
Page 199: credit is disbursed to another woma
Page 203 and 204: Own House Active Borrowers 98.4568
Page 205 and 206: A Single Difference equation is als
Page 208 and 209: Table 7.6: Regression results Young
Page 210 and 211: Table - 7.8 UPAP - Economic Status
Page 212 and 213: Table - 7.10 UPAP - Household Asset
Page 214 and 215: Y ij = X ij α + C ij β + M ij γ
Page 216 and 217: Table 1: Regression results Young B
Page 218 and 219: to consider young unmarried clients
Page 220 and 221: influentials and people understand
Page 222 and 223: Client Profile Most of the women in
Page 224 and 225: Appendix Chapter 7 Appendix A.7.1 N
Page 226 and 227: Appendix A.7.2 Results from NRSP Su
Page 228 and 229: Table - A. 7.2.6 Housing Characteri
Page 230 and 231: Monthly Expenditure on Health 1526
Page 234 and 235: Do you operate Bank account in your
Page 236 and 237: Spouse without your suggestion .6 3
Page 238 and 239: No 17.6 14.1 20.3 9.6 16.7 100.0 15
Page 240 and 241: Appendix A.7.3 UPAP Institutional B
Page 242 and 243: Table - A.7. 4.4 Respondent Charact
Page 244 and 245: Table - A.7. 4.9 Child Education [U
Page 246 and 247: Table - A.7. 4.14 Household Assets
Page 248 and 249: Table - A.7. 4.17 Women’s Empower
Page 250 and 251:
Table - A.7. 4.20 Women’s Empower
Page 252 and 253:
Table - A.7. 4.23 Borrowers - Loan
Page 254 and 255:
Table - A.7. 4.27 Non-Borrower’s
Page 256 and 257:
Chapter Eight: Kashf 8.1 Institutio
Page 258 and 259:
were introduced at several levels a
Page 260 and 261:
Box 8.1 Kashf’s Core Values Servi
Page 262 and 263:
issues are in the social theme book
Page 264 and 265:
usiness address, attest to experien
Page 266 and 267:
the learning centre has been set up
Page 268 and 269:
development and undertaken market s
Page 270 and 271:
information has not been integrated
Page 272 and 273:
Table 8. 2 Financing Sources: Septe
Page 274 and 275:
We first discuss results based on t
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Table - 8.7 KASHF - Business Charac
Page 280 and 281:
The results from the estimation of
Page 282 and 283:
A total of three focus group discus
Page 284 and 285:
The positive impact of the credit w
Page 286 and 287:
Appendix Chapter 8 A.8.1.1 Institut
Page 288 and 289:
54 Jawarian R 55 Behra R 56 Sahiwal
Page 290 and 291:
A.8.1.5: GESA Activities Initiative
Page 292 and 293:
Table - A.8.2.1 Sample Information
Page 294 and 295:
Table - A. 8.2.6 Housing Characteri
Page 296 and 297:
Table - A. 8.2.12 Sources of Househ
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Table - A. 8.2.22 Borrowers - Loan
Page 306 and 307:
Table - A. 8.2.27 Non-Borrowers’
Page 308 and 309:
Chapter Nine: Conclusions For anyon
Page 310 and 311:
are necessary for impact to take pl
Page 312 and 313:
Another finding from the survey sug
Page 314 and 315:
of the microfinance sector in Pakis
Page 316 and 317:
Section 1 - IDENTIFICATION File:
Page 318 and 319:
1.9 Occupation - Primary __________
Page 320 and 321:
Section 4a - All Respondents File:
Page 322 and 323:
Section 4b - All Respondents File:
Page 324 and 325:
Section 5b - All Respondents File:
Page 326 and 327:
Section 7 - Only for Non-Agricultur
Page 328 and 329:
8) Do you regularly pay the loan in
Page 330 and 331:
Section 9 - All Respondents File:
Page 332 and 333:
10.2 Had you wanted to join a progr
Page 334 and 335:
11.7 Business Assets Business Asset
Page 336 and 337:
Section 14 - All Respondents File:
Page 338 and 339:
Section 16,17,18 - All Respondents
Page 340 and 341:
17.2 [If Yes in 17.1], Why you did
Page 342 and 343:
Section 19 - Only for Female Respon
Page 344 and 345:
19.8 Who in your household decides
Page 346 and 347:
Section 20a - Only for Agricultural
Page 348 and 349:
Section 20b - Only for Agricultural
Page 350 and 351:
Page is left intentionally blank Qu
Page 352 and 353:
Appendix: Additional Codes ________
Page 354 and 355:
___________________________________
Page 356 and 357:
___________________________________
Page 358 and 359:
Bibliography Carolyn Barnes and Jen
show all

Social Impact Assessment of Microfinance Programmes - weman

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?