POVERTY IMPACT

К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 

One of the early and most widely cited of the poverty impact studies

is Hulme and Mosley (1996). This employed a control group approach

looking at the changes in income for households in villages with microfi

nance programs and changes for similar households in non-program areas.

Table 7.2 Micro-fi nance impact studies

Study

Hulme and Mosley

(1996)

MkNelly et al.

(1996)

Khandker (1998)

Pitt and Khandker

(1998)

Coleman (1999)

Coverage (in Asia only)

Indonesia (BKK,

KURK, BRI), India

(Regional Rural

Banks), Bangladesh

(Grameen, BRAC,

TRDEP), Sri Lanka

(PTCCS)

Thailand (village

banks – Credit with

Education)

Bangladesh (Grameen,

BRAC)

Bangladesh (BRAC,

BRDB, Grameen

Bank)

Thailand (village

banks)

Methodology

Borrowers and control samples,

before and after.

Non-participants in non-program

villages used as controls

Double difference comparison

between eligible and ineligible

households and between program

and non-program villages

Double difference estimation

between eligible and ineligible

households with and without

micro-fi nance programs.

Estimations are conducted

separately for male and female

borrowing.

Double difference comparison

between participant and nonparticipant

households and

between villages in which program

introduced and villages where not

yet introduced