State of Microfinance in J&K - KashmirCorps

METHODOLOGY
This report is based on a six-week study of
microcredit institutions within Kashmir at
both the institutional and ground levels.
However, the political climate made it
difficult for the researchers to utilize the full
six weeks as strikes and demonstrations
were commonplace. The evaluators divided
the research into four separate phases.
Phase One involved creating questionnaires
for surveying microcredit in Kashmir at both
the institutional and grassroots levels 5 .
Phase Two was the first phase of the
research: interviewing those involved in
microcredit at the institutional level. This
report focuses on the four main financial
institutions currently conducting microcredit
programs in the Kashmir Valley:
• Jammu & Kashmir Bank (J&K Bank)
• Jammu & Kashmir State Women’s
Development Corporation (JKSWDC)
• Jammu & Kashmir State Cooperative
Bank (J&K State Cooperative Bank)
• National Bank for Rural and
Agricultural Development (NABARD)
Contact was established with these
organizations through KashmirCorps’
networks, interaction with local community
members, and prior research. Phase Three
involved interviewing those who received
loans from the institutions in Phase Two.
For each of the financial institutions
interviewed, the researchers conducted
interviews with the clientele. In both Phases
Two and Three of the research, the
evaluators used open-ended, semistructured
interviews with the subjects;
while the questionnaires served as a general
but comprehensive guide for the
information that the evaluators were looking
for, the information gathered was based on
interaction during the interviews.
Sampling Biases
Sampling biases occurred in three different
forms. First, at the institutional level, those
interviewed were senior management of the
microcredit programs for their institution,
which, while lending their statements
legitimacy, came at the cost of transparency
and objective review.
Second, at the ground-level, it was only
possible for the researchers to access the
microcredit recipients through the financial
institutions themselves; only borrowers who
had positive experiences with the
institution’s services were interviewed.
Third, to access the borrowers, the
evaluators were accompanied by someone
from the financial institution distributing the
credit. In this manner, even if the recipients
were not content with their loans, they
would not always admit it in the presence of
someone from the financial institution (as
they would not want this to affect their
ability to obtain a loan in the future). When
the evaluators did not identify the
representative from the financial institution
during the interview, the level of
cooperation dropped. The evaluators
attempted to mitigate sampling biases to the
greatest extent possible.
5 | See Appendices I, II, and III