29.12.2014 Views

Social Impact Assessment of Microfinance Programmes - weman

Social Impact Assessment of Microfinance Programmes - weman

Social Impact Assessment of Microfinance Programmes - weman

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

MFIs, we did not find a similar result, where there was no such marked difference. In the<br />

urban areas, the Education levels were higher than they are for rural areas, and perhaps<br />

Education in rural areas has a somewhat lower priority than it does in cities and towns.<br />

Hence, it is possible, that only after some years <strong>of</strong> improved income do rural parents<br />

spend extra on the Education. Perhaps, as Incomes rise in rural areas, the additional<br />

Income allows parents to send more children to school or then send their children to<br />

better schools.<br />

Table – 7.3<br />

NRSP – Children’s Education<br />

Variables Category Mean Standard<br />

Deviation<br />

t-value<br />

Significance<br />

Level<br />

School Going Children % Active Borrowers 91.3612 18.76740 1.089 .277<br />

New and Non-<br />

Borrowers<br />

89.3238 20.63974<br />

School Going Children - Boys Active Borrowers<br />

%<br />

90.1341 26.42924 .459 .647<br />

New and Non-<br />

Borrowers<br />

88.8194 26.55939<br />

School Going Children - Girls Active Borrowers<br />

%<br />

73.2108 41.67856 .600 .549<br />

New and Non-<br />

Borrowers<br />

70.4734 42.75401<br />

Children going to Private Active Borrowers<br />

School %<br />

27.2728 41.28501 1.069 .286<br />

New and Non-<br />

Borrowers<br />

23.2768 40.34627<br />

Monthly Expenditure on Active Borrowers<br />

Education<br />

393.9461 868.26460 2.976 .003<br />

New and Non-<br />

Borrowers<br />

207.6695 417.82755<br />

Note: There are 324 and 356 respondents in each category respectively. t-value greater than 1.6<br />

indicates the mean difference between two categories is statistically significant. The negative t<br />

indicates that average value <strong>of</strong> category 2 is greater than the average value <strong>of</strong> category 1.<br />

One <strong>of</strong> our unexpected and surprising results is that there does not seem to be much<br />

difference on Household Asset Ownership amongst the three categories <strong>of</strong> respondents –<br />

Table A.7.2.14 and Table 7.4. One would have expected Active Borrowers, as their<br />

income rise, to perhaps invest in additional Household Assets.<br />

Table – 7.4<br />

NRSP – Household Assets Ownership<br />

Variables Category Mean Standard<br />

Deviation<br />

t-value<br />

Significance<br />

Level<br />

15

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!