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.

Note: There are 237 and 273 respondents in each category respectively. t-value greater than 1.6 indicates<br />

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

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

Table – 3.2<br />

ASASAH – Housing<br />

Variables Category Mean Standard<br />

Deviation<br />

t-value<br />

Significance<br />

Level<br />

House owners Active Borrowers 89.45 .30783 .160 .873<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 89.01 .31333<br />

Person per room Active Borrowers 3.5265 1.72231 .867 .387<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 3.3917 1.77734<br />

Houses with baked bricks Active Borrowers 92.41 .26548 -.782 .435<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 94.14 .23532<br />

Houses with RCC Ro<strong>of</strong> Active Borrowers 34.60 .47670 -.220 .826<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 35.53 .47949<br />

Houses with Cemented Floor Active Borrowers 40.93 .49274 -1.765 .078<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 48.72 .50075<br />

Note: There are 237 and 273 respondents in each category respectively. t-value greater than 1.6 indicates<br />

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

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

With most children going to school in all categories, as we show above, the impact <strong>of</strong><br />

micr<strong>of</strong>inance on is negligible. However, what is surprising from Table 3.3 is that the<br />

Monthly Expenditure <strong>of</strong> those in the programme is significantly lower than those who are<br />

new or not part <strong>of</strong> the programme. Also, it is quite curious that the difference in the<br />

proportion <strong>of</strong> children going to Private Schools is significantly lower for Active<br />

Borrowers than it is for new or Non-Borrowers.<br />

Table – 3.3<br />

ASASAH – – Children’s Education<br />

Variables Category Mean Standard<br />

Deviation<br />

t-value<br />

Significance<br />

Level<br />

School Going Children % Active Borrowers 85 23.2 .187 .852<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 84 23.2<br />

School Going Children - Boys % Active Borrowers 82 33.2 -.145 .885<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 83 31.3<br />

School Going Children - Girls % Active Borrowers 70 42.2 -.406 .685<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 72 38.8<br />

Children going to Private School % Active Borrowers 39 46.6 -2.168 .031<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 50 46.7<br />

Monthly Expenditure on Education Active Borrowers 227 263.2 -2.100 .037<br />

New and Non-Borrowers 308 395.2<br />

Note: There are 237 and 273 respondents in each category respectively. t-value greater than 1.6 indicates<br />

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

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

19

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!