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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Own House Active Borrowers 98.4568 16.62074 -.111 .911<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 98.5955 15.86011<br />

Refrigerator Active Borrowers 26.5432 44.22460 -1.173 .241<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 30.6180 46.15540<br />

Colour TV Active Borrowers 56.1728 50.31339 1.311 .190<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 51.1236 50.05773<br />

Motor Cycle Active Borrowers 21.6049 41.21849 .351 .726<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 20.5056 40.43109<br />

Prize Bonds Active Borrowers .9259 9.59267 -.255 .799<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 1.1236 10.55510<br />

Washing Active Borrowers<br />

Machine<br />

43.2099 49.61342 -.454 .650<br />

Sewing<br />

Machine<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 44.9438 49.81371<br />

Active Borrowers<br />

68.2099 46.63811 -.250 .803<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 69.1011 46.27269<br />

Bed with Foam Active Borrowers 17.5926 38.13461 -1.321 .187<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 21.6292 41.22952<br />

Urban Property Active Borrowers 1.5432 12.34544 .150 .881<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 1.4045 11.78418<br />

Gold Active Borrowers 45.6790 49.88999 1.826 .068<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 38.7640 48.78975<br />

Mobile phone Active Borrowers 38.2716 48.68017 .019 .985<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 38.2022 48.65658<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 at least at 90<br />

percent level <strong>of</strong> significant. The negative t indicates that average value <strong>of</strong> category 2 is greater<br />

than the average value <strong>of</strong> category 1.<br />

Another unexpected result relates to Women’s Empowerment, where, as in the case <strong>of</strong><br />

many MFIs, we find that there is little difference between Active Borrowers and others –<br />

Table A.7.2.17-21 and Table 7. 6. While we found similar results for urban MFIs as well,<br />

we did find that in the case <strong>of</strong> Economic Empowerment, Active Borrowers were far<br />

‘better-<strong>of</strong>f’ than new clients and Non-Borrowers. In the case <strong>of</strong> NRSP, we do not get this<br />

result perhaps due to greater rigidity in the social structure in rural Punjab where women<br />

are less physically and socially mobile.<br />

Table – 7.5<br />

NRSP – Women Empowerment<br />

Variables Category Mean Standard<br />

Deviation<br />

t-value<br />

Significance<br />

Level<br />

Economic Empowerment<br />

Score out <strong>of</strong> 14 Active Borrowers 8.8065 2.26765 -1.701 .091<br />

New and Non-<br />

Borrowers<br />

9.6486 3.29978<br />

Income Empowerment<br />

Score out <strong>of</strong> 5 Active Borrowers 2.7419 1.29229 -2.234 .027<br />

Assets Empowerment<br />

New and Non-<br />

Borrowers<br />

3.2568 1.37553<br />

16

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!