Microfinance and Poverty—A Macro Perspective
Introduction
Most of the recent studies of the impact of microfinance on poverty or income have relied on micro-level evidence based on household data or entrepreneurial data (e.g., Hulme and Mosley, 1996, Imai et al., 2010a, Imai et al., 2010b, Khandker, 2005, Mosley, 2001). Due to the scarcity of reliable macro data on microfinance, macro-level studies of the impact of microfinance on poverty are rather limited. However, there are a few recent works that investigate the relationship between the macro economy and microfinance activities and/or performance, such as Ahlin et al., 2011, Ahlin and Lin, 2006 and Kai and Hamori (2009), among others. The thrust of these studies is either to examine the environmental context in which microfinance operates, or investigate the potential effect of microfinance on key macroeconomic variables, such as gross domestic product or inequality. The findings of a significant relationship between operations of Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) and the macro economy corroborate the recent evidence based on household data sets which posits that microfinance has a poverty reducing effect (e.g., Gaiha and Nandhi, 2009, Imai et al., 2010a, Imai et al., 2010b, Khandker, 2005).
This study redirects the attention to macro studies given the mixed results of microfinance impact studies at the micro level in recent years. As the separation of causal effects of microcredit from selection effects is unsatisfactory in many of the micro-level studies, Armendariz and Morduch (2005) pointed to a potential bias arising in the impact of microfinance in these studies. In view of this, studies that have recently emerged have used one of the following three approaches: (i) randomized control trials (Banerjee et al., 2009, Feigenberg et al., 2010, Karlan and Zinman, 2010); (ii) financial diaries/portfolios of the poor (Collins, Morduch, Rutherford, & Ruthven, 2009) and (iii) use of other variants of quasi-experimental estimation techniques such as treatments effect and propensity score matching in both cross-sectional and panel data setting (Imai et al., 2010a, Imai et al., 2010b). Evidence from such studies remains mixed due to different microfinance outcome measures and/or different methodologies adopted by these studies, leading to the perception that microfinance is likely to have little impact on poverty.1 Our econometric analysis points to robust poverty reducing effects of microfinance, as elaborated below.
The challenges for empirical macro studies of microfinance include: (a) identifying an appropriate measure of microfinance activities, in terms of “availability” or “intensity”; (b) identifying the effects of “performance,” distinguished from “presence” and “scale” of microfinance on macro indicators; and (c) examining the robustness of coefficient estimates related to microfinance. Building on the small but emerging literature on analyzing the impacts of microfinance from a macro perspective, the present study aims to examine the relationship between MFI’s gross loan portfolio per capita and FGT class of poverty indices.2 The results would be useful for development agencies, governments, and other investors, as there are important implications for microfinance’s potential role in reducing poverty at macro level. Our counterfactual simulations illustrate the possible effects on aggregate poverty expected from the decrease in MFIs’ gross loan portfolio per capita, GDP per capita, or domestic credit which may be caused as a consequence of global recession or financial crisis.
Drawing upon econometric estimations of the cross-country data—including a panel—we find consistently that a country with higher MFIs’ gross loan portfolio per capita tends to have lower levels of FGT class of poverty indices, which corroborates the poverty reducing role of microfinance. It is notable that microfinance loans per capita are negatively associated with not only the poverty headcount ratio, but also with the poverty gap and squared poverty gap, implying that even the poorest benefit from them.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section provides a brief explanation of the data which the present study draws upon. Econometric specifications are discussed in Section 3. The main results and simulations are given in Sections 4 Results, 5 Simulations, respectively. The final section offers concluding observations.
Section snippets
Data
The present study analyzes the role of microfinance—volume/scale of activities (not performance/quality)—on poverty, using cross-sectional data covering 48 countries in the developing regions for 2007.3 The cross-sectional data are supplemented by a two-period (2003 and 2007) panel covering 61 countries.
Specification of models and estimation
Our analysis is based on the data for 2007 (for cross-sectional estimations), and 2003 and 2007 (for panel data estimations), not only because extensive and reliable historical data on microfinance do not exist9 but also because international poverty estimates are available only for one or two specific years for most of the countries.
Results
Figure 1, Figure 2 describe the patterns and trends in size and outreach of the microfinance industry using real gross loan portfolio (after adjusting for inflation), number of MFIs and active borrowers. Figure 1 shows the trend and patterns of real gross loan portfolio for different regions. Overall, the compound growth rate of the median gross loan portfolio increases for all regions over the period 2005–09. However, there are variations (steep and gentle) in the year-by-year upward slopes,
Simulations
That microfinance is impervious to the global recession following the financial crisis is debatable.19 Some have argued that the slowdown of the global economy will impact negatively on microfinance as MFIs are now more closely linked to global financial markets than before. So there will be: (i) a funding or liquidity impact, with greater refinancing risks for MFIs and (ii) an economic impact, with financial performance affected by
Concluding observations
Recent assessments of impact of microfinance—based largely on randomized trials—have led to questioning of claims of women’s empowerment and poverty reduction. The so-called “magic” of microfinance has thus come under deep scrutiny and the findings of little or weak impacts are beginning to turn the tide against it. The faltering global economy has also raised serious concerns about the immunity of the microfinance sector and its potential for poverty reduction. From this perspective, the
Acknowledgments
This study is funded by IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). We are grateful to Thomas Elhaut, Director of Asia and the Pacific Division, IFAD, for his support and guidance throughout this study. The first author thanks generous research support from RIEB, Kobe University, during his stay in 2010, and valuable comments from Shoji Nishijima, Takahiro Sato, and seminar participants at Kobe University. The second author would like to thank Bish Sanyal for the invitation to work
References (28)
- et al.
Where does microfinance flourish? Microfinance institution performance in macroeconomic context
Journal of Development Economics
(2011) - et al.
Does regulatory supervision curtail microfinance profitability and outreach?
World Development
(2011) The role of subsidies in microfinance: Evidence from the Grameen Bank
Journal of Development Economics
(1999)- Ahlin, C., & Lin, J. (2006). Luck or skill? MFI performance in macroeconomic context, bureau for research and economic...
- et al.
The economics of microfinance
(2005) - et al.
The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomised evaluation
(2009) - Chen, S., & Ravallion, M. (2008). The developing world is poorer than we thought, but no less successful in the fight...
- et al.
Portfolios of the poor: How the world’s poor live on $2 a day?
(2009) - et al.
Financial performance and outreach: A global analysis of leading microbanks
The Economic Journal
(2007) - et al.
Building social capital through microfinance
(2010)
A class of decomposable poverty measures
Econometrica
Microfinance, self-help groups and empowerment in Maharashtra
Cited by (125)
Risk preference and relative poverty: An analysis based on the data of China Family Panel Studies
2024, Economic Analysis and PolicyDigital wealth management and consumption: Micro evidence from individual investments
2023, China Economic ReviewDigital financial inclusion and poverty alleviation: Evidence from the sustainable development of China
2023, Economic Analysis and PolicyCitation Excerpt :A diverse range of researches has studied the impact concerning inclusive finance on economic operation currently. Inclusive finance helps to optimize income distribution and reduce economic inequality (Hermes, 2014; Lacalle-Calderon et al., 2019; Seven, 2022) to improve residents’ income level and promote economic growth (Ahlin and Jiang, 2008; Imai et al., 2012; Swamy, 2014; Tiwari et al., 2022). By virtue of the boom of the Internet of China, the combination of digital technology and finance, and the popularization concerning fintech, on the basis of inclusive finance, gave birth to digital inclusive finance.
Spatial dependence in microfinance credit default
2022, International Journal of ForecastingMicrofinance through the Self Help Group-Bank Linkage Programme: impact on ancillary employment
2024, Canadian Journal of Development StudiesLifting You up or Dragging You Down? The Role of Financial Inclusion in Poverty Transitions Among Italian Households
2023, Review of Income and Wealth