Gendered Impact of Microcredit in Mali: An Evaluation by Propensity Score Matching

Koloma, Yaya and Alia, Hayyan (2014): Gendered Impact of Microcredit in Mali: An Evaluation by Propensity Score Matching. Published in: Strategic Change , Vol. 23, No. 7-8 (18 November 2014): pp. 517-530.

Abstract

The objective of the paper is to rigorously test whether the potential effects of microcredit on poverty reduction are more significant for female beneficiaries than for male in Mali. The dataset we use comes from surveys conducted in 2007–2008 in Mali. It covers a large sample that compares 2400 microfinance client households, of which around 70% are microcredit beneficiaries. To do this, we perform the propensity score matching (PSM) method. Statistically, the study shows that older women have more chance of getting loans than younger women. In terms of amounts (borrowed and saved), men outweigh women. However, regarding loan amounts, women seem to use greater proportions of the loan and are more committed to using the money for income-generating purposes. At the same time, the level of savings relative to the loan amount is the same for the two genders. From an econometric perspective, this research confirms that microfinance in Mali has a positive impact on poverty alleviation in total, and higher for female than for male beneficiaries. The findings, therefore, present the importance of the length of the membership with the MFI for women. Based on these results, we can interpret this as meaning that women show efficiency in using loans for economic activity but rather in the longer term than in the short term compared to men. In light of these results, microcredit in the case of Mali seems to be effective in alleviating poverty for both men and women. In term of policy recommendations, MFIs should target men in rural areas, although this may lead to higher distribution costs in the short term, in the long term it may reduce risk and lead to higher profits. The government in partnership with donors should provide support to women entrepreneurs so that their initial learning curve is enhanced and enable them to benefit from microfinance loans, even in the short term.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Microfinance, Gender, Poverty, Propensity score matching, Mali
• Subjects: G - Financial Economics > G2 - Financial Institutions and Services > G21 - Banks ; Depository Institutions ; Micro Finance Institutions ; Mortgages; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty; J - Labor and Demographic Economics > J1 - Demographic Economics

References

Armendáriz B, Morduch J. 2010. The Economics of Microfinance. MIT Press: Boston, MA.

Aroca P, Hewings GJD. 2009. Microcredit impact assessment: The Brazilian and Chilean cases. Panorama Socioeconómico 27(39): 98 – 110.

Bashir R, Shafq ur R, Hassan A. 2012. Domination of female microfinance clients in Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business 3(11): 445 – 455.

Becker SO, Ichino A. 2002. Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. Stata Journal 2(4): 358 – 377.

Chakravarty SR, Mukherjee D, Ranade RR. 1998. On the family of sub-groups and factor decomposable measures of multidimensional poverty. Research on Economic Inequality 8: 175 – 194.

de Haan L, Lakwo A. 2010. Rethinking the impact of microfinance in Africa: ‘Business change’ or social emancipation. European Journal of Development Research 22(4): 529 – 545.

Duvendack M , Palmer-Jones R , Copestake JG , Hooper L , Loke Y, Rao N. 2011. What is the evidence of the impact of microfinance on the well-being of poor people? EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, London.

Gubert F, Roubaud F. 2003. Le financement des très petites entreprises urbaines: étude d’impact d ’ un projet de microfinance à Antananarivo (Madagascar). DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).

Guo S, Barth RP, Gibbons C. 2006. Propensity score matching strategies for evaluating substance abuse services for child welfare clients. Children and Youth Services Review 28(4): 357 – 383.

Heckman JJ. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1): 153 – 161.

Imai K, Arun T. 2008. Does microfinance reduce poverty in India? Department of Economics, The University of Manchester.

Islam A. 2011. Medium- and long-term participation in microcredit: An evaluation using a new panel dataset from Bangladesh. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93(3): 843 – 862.

Khandker SR. 1998. Fighting Poverty with Microcredit: Experience in Bangladesh. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Khandker SR. 2003. Micro-finance and Poverty: Evidence Using Panel Data from Bangladesh. World Bank, Development Research Group.

Koloma Y. 2011. Microfnance and gender: Poverty assessment of benefciaries in Mali. Cahiers du Ceren, Working Papers No. 36.

Lamberte MB, Manlagñit MCV. 2003. Poverty and access to microfinance with gender dimension. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

Lechner M. 2002. Some practical issues in the evaluation of heterogeneous labour market programmes by matching methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 165(1): 59 – 82.

Li H, Yue LQ. 2008. Statistical and regulatory issues in nonrandomized medical device clinical studies. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 18(1): 20 – 30.

Lorenceau A. 2009. L’impact d ’ exonérations fiscales sur la création d’établissements et l’emploi en France rurale: une approche par discontinuité de la régression. Économie et Statistique 427(1): 27 – 62.

Manolova TS, Brush CG, Edelman LF. 2008. What do women entrepreneurs want? Strategic Change 17(3/4): 69 – 82.

Milana C, Ashta A 2012. Developing microfinance: A survey of the literature. Strategic Change 21(7/8): 299 – 330.

Observatoire du Développement Humain Durable (ODHD). 2008. Microfinance et réduction de la pauvreté au Mali. Rapport national sur le développement humain durable. MDSSPA, PNUD, République du Mali, Bamako.

Pitt MM, Khandker SR. 1998. The impact of group-based credit programs on poor households in Bangladesh: Does the gender of participants matter? Journal of Political Economy 106(5): 958 – 996.

Rosenbaum R, Rubin DB. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1): 41 – 55.

Setboonsarng S, Parpiev Z. 2010. Microfinance and the millennium development goals in Pakistan: Impact assessment using propensity score matching. eSocialSciences, Working Paper 2380.

Shetty S. 2010. Microcredit, poverty, and empowerment: Exploring the connections. Perspectives on Global Development & Technology 9(3/4): 356 – 391.

Smith JA, Todd PE. 2005. Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics 125(1/2): 305 – 353.

Strier R. 2010. Women, poverty, and the microenterprise: Context and discourse. Gender, Work & Organization 17(2): 195 – 218.

Yunus M. 1997. Vers un monde sans pauvreté. JC Lattès: Paris.