This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A suitable instrument for poverty reduction?
It is over 30 years now since microcredit started off, and over 20 years since
the movement caught on internationally, principally fuelled by the efforts of
Mohammad Yunus, who was later, in 2006, rewarded the Nobel Peace Prize
for his work.
The goal of the movement is to reduce poverty through the
access to and provision of microloans, which usually do not exceed a few
This brief will look at the existing evidence in how far this
goal is being achieved. It mainly does so by comparing the results of various
more recent reviews that systematically analyse the impact of microcredit
and draw preliminary conclusions.
The impact of microcredit on the different dimensions of poverty can be
divided into three categories. Microcredit can: 1) reduce poverty by
increasing people's disposable income (the income-generating effect of
microcredit); 2) alleviate poverty by helping people to smoothen
expenditure requirements so that they can better cope with their plight (the
vulnerability-reduction effect); and 3) generate non-financial benefits by
reducing social exclusion through, for example, improved education or
ǁŽŵĞŶ͛Ɛ empowerment (the empowerment effect).
Measuring the impact of microcredit
The core value proposition is that microcredit enables poor people to make
profitable investmentsͶusually into micro-businesses, thus increasing their
income and consumption potential and lifting them out of poverty. In fact,
many do regard a ŵŝĐƌŽĐƌĞĚŝƚ ĂƐ ͚ŐŽůĚĞŶ ďƵůůĞƚ͛ ĂŶĚ ĞŵƉŚĂƐŝƐĞ ŝƚƐ ďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ
especially for the poorest of the poor.
But as Duvendack et al. (2011) show, based on a review of 58 studies, this
claim is not supported by the evidence: ͞Almost all impact evaluations of
microfinance suffer from weak methodologies and inadequate data [...],
thus the reliability of impact estimates are [sic] adversely affected. This can
lead to misconceptions about the actual effects of a microfinance
programme, thereby diverting attention from the search for perhaps more
pro-ƉŽŽƌ ŝŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶƐ͟ ;Ɖ͘ ϰͿ͘ 1ŚĞǇ ĐŽŶĐůƵĚĞ that no well-known study
would robustly show any strong impacts of microfinance.
This result should not surprise: after all, the impact of credit depends on
how it is spent. Do borrowers use it profitably? What is the time frame for
measuring changes in profitability?
Moreover: the precise use of funds
cannot easily be tracked because of their inherent fungibility.
Accepting the inherent methodological flaws of most studies, it is nevertheless useful to look at the
existing research results related to the identified three categories.
Evidence of the impact of microcredit on poverty reduction
Chowdhury (2009), in a UN/DESA study referring to over 20 research papers, concludes that its
impact on poverty reduction remains in doubt. Stewart et al. (2010, p. 6), in a review of 15 studies of
͚ŐŽŽĚ ĞŶŽƵŐŚ ƋƵĂůŝƚǇ͛ ŽŶ SƵď-Saharan Africa,
similarly conclude that microcredit has mixed impacts
in relation to incomes of poor people. Many other studies come to similar conclusions.
Of course ŝŶĐŽŶĐůƵƐŝǀĞ Žƌ ŵŝǆĞĚ ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ ŽĨ ŵŝĐƌŽĐƌĞĚŝƚ͛Ɛ ŝŵƉĂĐƚ ŽŶ ƉŽǀĞƌƚǇ ƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ reflects
studies that found positive as well as negative impact. So it is worth looking at some details. An
influential research by Hulme and Mosley in 1996 found that microcredit had little, none or even
negative impact on the poor and poorest, but positive impact on the slightly better off (in terms of
human or financial assets) and those who are already in business. Other studies, among others SIDA
(2004), confirm these results.
Banjeree et al. (2009, pp. 20f.), in a randomized study of 104 slums in
India for the Centre for Micro Finance, find that when provided with access to microcredit, existing
businesses, better-off households and also households with a high propensity to start a business
reduce consumption of non-ĚƵƌĂďůĞƐ ĂŶĚ ͚ƚĞŵƉƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŐŽŽĚƐ͛ ƚŽ ďĞ ĂďůĞ ƚŽ ĨŝŶĂŶĐĞ ĂŶ ĞǀĞŶ ďŝŐŐĞƌ
initial investment, and improve their well-being.
Why does microcredit not lift poor people above the poverty line? First, loans might be much less
frequently invested in income generating activities than it is assumed. Although donors and many
microfinance organizations claim that credit is predominantly provided to promising start-ups and
ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐ ;ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ?ƵŶƵƐ͛ CƌĂŵĞĞŶ 8ĂŶŬͿ͕ few studies attempt to verify the claimed use
of the microloans. One research showed that borrowers usually and significantly underreport their
loan use for consumption purposes (stating it to be about one third to one half of the actual value).
The same research estimates that borrowers in fact spend 20 percent to 30 percent of their loans on
household expenses, health or education. But in a debate between Bateman and Roodman,
Bateman claimed that only 20 percent of the microloans are really invested in micro-businesses ʹ
the rest being invested in consumption ʹ a claim that Roodman did not contest.
No wonder, then,
that the impact of microcredit is lower on income generation than on more consumption-oriented
Second, credit alone does not turn a poor person into an entrepreneur: entrepreneurial motivation,
skills and opportunity are also required (see also PS Brief #1). In most countries, being a micro-
entrepreneur means the equivalent of not having a job. As so-ĐĂůůĞĚ ͚necessity entrepreneurs͛ ƚŚĞǇ
usually invest in low skill - low capital businesses such as retail, where price competition is intense
because of overcrowding. Hence, they often do not manage to improve their income situation
through these business activities.
Why do the poorest benefit less from microcredit than the better off? First and foremost, there
appears to be a bias in the selection of clients by microfinance institutions: many microfinance
institutions do exclude the poorest, as this might endanger their repayment rate, or because there is
a methodological bias in client selection. Instead, they focus on those clients that ĂƌĞ ͚ďĂŶŬĂďůĞ͛͘ 1ŚĞ
above mentioned focus of donors confirms this.
Second, the poorest often exclude themselves from micro-borrowing, as they are too risk averse or
lack the confidence.
Third, while the better-off may have to struggle to generate additional income from their business
activities, the poorest will have even more problems.
Does microcredit create jobs? One could therefore conclude that microcredit has the potential to
help the better off to establish or expand businesses, thus creating jobs which again might help the
even less fortunate. For most microfinance institutions, employment creation is their declared
mission statement, and it is widely acknowledged that employment creation is a key link to poverty
reduction. Unfortunately, also here there is little conclusive evidence.
In a survey of 46 MFIs the ILO found that ŵŝĐƌŽĨŝŶĂŶĐĞ ŝŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶƐ ƚŚĞŵƐĞůǀĞƐ ĂƌĞ ͚ƌĞůĂƚŝǀĞůǇ
ŝŐŶŽƌĂŶƚ͛ ĂďŽƵƚ ƚŚĞ ĞŵƉůŽǇŵĞŶƚ ƐƚĂƚƵƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞŝƌ ĐůŝĞŶƚƐ͕ which is inconsistent with their declared
mission statements (Balkenhol, 2006, p. 5). Studies devoted to the topic use very different
ĚĞĨŝŶŝƚŝŽŶƐ ŽĨ ͚ĞŵƉůŽǇŵĞŶƚ͛ ĂŶĚ ŽĨ ŵĞĂƐƵƌŝŶŐ ͚ĞŵƉůŽǇŵĞŶƚ ĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶ͛ ǁŚŝĐŚ ŚĂƐ ŝƚƐ ŽƌŝŐŝŶ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ
nature of most microcredit clients being household enterprises. Some studies focus only on salaried
employment while others include any family employment; some look only at the impact on the
ďŽƌƌŽǁĞƌ͛Ɛ ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ ǁŚŝůĞ ŽƚŚĞƌƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ƐƵďƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶ ŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞ ďŽƌƌŽǁĞƌ͛Ɛ ŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚ ĂŶĚ
the community. Mostly, a positive impact on employment is only found in those studies that use the
broader concept of employment. But once the substitution effect is accounted for it turns out that
households mostly re-compose their activities and concentrate more of their time on the income
generating activity for which the loan has been taken up.
The European Commission (2003, p. 37) finds that microcredit created between zero and one
additional job (besides the founder) in 10 European countries. But for the reviewed 15 Sub-Saharan
countries, Stewart et al (2010, p. 38) found little evidence that microcredit has any impact on job
creation. Given the higher formality of European businesses and business start-ups, both findings
appear to ďĞ ŝŶ ůŝŶĞ ǁŝƚŚ 8ĂůŬĞŶŚŽů͛Ɛ ĨŝŶĚŝŶŐ ;2006, p. 8) that borrowers with larger business
operations at the point of first contact are more likely to increase employment. This again is in line
with other findings that businesses beyond a certain size are more likely to create jobs (see PS Brief
Evidence of the impact of microcredit on poverty alleviation
The idea of poverty alleviation through microcredit is that poor people experience high variations in
expenditure requirements. MicrocreditsͶwhich are still cheaper than funds obtained via local
money lendersͶcan help to smooth these variations and therefore spread expenditure patterns
All studies that focused on this type of impact found supportive evidence for it.
SIDA, however, warns ƚŚĂƚ ͞ƚŚĞ ůĂƌŐĞ ƉƌŽƉŽƌƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ŵŝĐƌŽĨŝŶĂŶĐĞ ůŽĂŶƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĂƌĞ ďĞŝŶŐ ƵƐĞĚ ĨŽƌ
consumption-smoothing purposes raise [sic] additional concern about long-term improvement for
ƚŚĞ ƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŶŐ ŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐ͘͟
SluA͛Ɛ ƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ ŝƐ ƚŽ ďĞ ƚĂŬĞŶ ǀĞƌǇ ƐĞƌŝŽƵƐůǇ, given the interest rates of microloans. The valid
question arises if microcredit (that is, micro-debt) is better suited for consumption smoothing than
micro-saving? As Harper (2011) and others point out, this is rather counter-intuitive: reductions in
consumption to service and amortize debt incurred at high interest rates always places a higher
burden on households than do reductions in consumption necessary to yield savings. Roodman and
Qureshi (2006, p. ŝǀͿ ŐŽ ĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ďǇ ƐƵŐŐĞƐƚŝŶŐ ƚŚĂƚ ͞ƚŚĞ ŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐĂů ĞŵƉŚĂƐŝƐ ĂŵŽŶŐ MllƐ ŽŶ ĐƌĞĚŝƚ
rather than savings appears to have arisen for practical business reasons rather than because it has
been shown that credit helps ĐůŝĞŶƚƐ ŵŽƌĞ͘͟
Evidence of the impact of microcredit on non-financial benefits
Researched non-financial benefits of microcredit usually include housing, food, health, education
and especially women͛Ɛ empowerment. Improvements in these areas can reduce the impact of
poverty, increase social inclusion, and as a consequence help to lift people out of poverty in the
longer term. Studies usually find no or some positive effect.
One notable exception is the recent review by Stewart et al (2010, p. 36) who found considerable
evidence that microcredit may result in reduced school attendance, and thus do even harm.
finding is in line with the mentioned effect of re-composition of employment within a householdͶ
i.e., families who receive microcredits are more likely to pull their children out of school.
Conditioning microcredit on the maintenance of school attendance, as some microcredit institutions
do, would help countering this effect.
The analyses of the impact of microcredit are in all aspects rather inconclusive. Still, a moderately
positive potential can be attributed in all but the core claim of microcredit: its poverty reduction
impact, especially for the poorest.
Researchers as well as microcredit advocates frequently agree (although to quite different extents)
that microcredit can only be one of the instruments used for poverty reduction. Poverty is multi-
facetted, so the instruments to reduce it need to be multi-facetted as well.
It is for example
obvious that the capacity of people to generate additional income to reduce poverty does not only
depend on finance, but on many other factors within and beyond their control. The creation of
income generating activities or micro-enterprises cannot be seen as a panacea. As Scully (2004)
emphasises: ͞AƐ ůŽŶŐ ĂƐ ŵŝĐƌŽ-enterprise development is offered as a substitute for meaningful
social development [...] it will only impede progress towards finding real answers to the very real
ƉƌŽďůĞŵ ŽĨ ƉŽǀĞƌƚǇ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ SŽƵƚŚ͘͟
Microfinance institutions are often encouraged to provide training and advice in addition to loans.
But the resulting potential for conflicts of interests when finance as well advice or training are
provided is often overlooked. A loan officer might be reluctant to admit that an advice provided was
wrong and attempt to cover this mistake up with more loans. Similarly, a debtor might be
encouraged to blame the loan officer if the advice provided did not have the desired success. As this
topic has been emerging in more recent discussions on microfinance, it might indicate that this
problem is slowly being recognised.
It is encouraging thatͶin recent yearsͶthe microfinance industry has woken up to the challenge of
͚ĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂů ůŝƚĞƌĂĐǇ͛͗ while 500 to 800 million poor people have access to finance, only 110 to 130
million of these had ever received any sort of financial capability training (Monitor, 2012)Ͷwhich,
officially, is a precondition for the provision of credit in most countries. Once people are really
capable of assessing the financial implications of their borrowing, the demand for credit might sink.
But Bateman and Ha-!ŽŽŶ ;ϮϬϬϵ͕ Ɖ͘ ϰͿ ƐĞĞ ŵŝĐƌŽĐƌĞĚŝƚ ĂƐ Ă ŶĞǁ͕ ƉŽǁĞƌĨƵů ͚ƉŽǀĞƌƚǇ ƚƌĂƉ͛͘
principal reasons are given by them and others for this. First, micro-enterprises are unable to
capture scale economies, and can crowd out other micro-enterprises and even small industrial
businesses, reducing a ĐŽƵŶƚƌǇ͛Ɛ chance to become competitive.
This, however, is more a critique
of microenterprise development than of microfinance. Second, microcredit (like other forms of
credit) can lead to a vicious debt spiral, bringing borrowers into ever more desperate
Third, for a number of years there has been an oversupply of microfinance capital,
leading at times to aggressive competition for clients and the resulting underwriting of loans that
should not pass sound eligibility criteria.
Still, the potentially positive effects on poverty alleviation and non-financial benefits should not be
How should we approach microcredit now?
In short: very carefully! Even after 30 years and much investment, the evidence is inconclusive. But is
the evidence inconclusive because there is a problem with microcredit itself? Or is it inconclusive
because of inadequate evaluation methods? The resulting more moral question is: if an intervention
intended to reduce poverty and affecting the lives of so many people has a not insignificant
likelihood of continuing or even increasing poverty, should it be continued?
Since the apparent net effect of microcredits is neutral,
a more financial question arises: is
microcredit a cost-effective poverty alleviation or reduction strategy?
Microcredit advocates can
rightfully reply to these questions with a business argument: as long as there is a high and
unsatisfied demand for credit, credit should be supplied. Is this a sufficient answer for development
Stewart et al. (2010, pp. 6, 7 and 49) ƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚ͗ ͞There is an obligation amongst donors and
policy-makers not to falsely raise expectations with development aid in this way. The apparent
failure of microfinance institutions and donors to engage with evidence of effectiveness perpetuates
the problems by building expectations and obscuring the potential for harm. A growing microfinance
industry may as easily be a cause for concern as one of hope.͟ There is nothing to add.
example, the following topics: Business incubators; Cooperatives; Domestic migration; Economic
aspects of gender; Functionalareas; Cool storage and cooltransport; Household heating systems;
The local development trap; Market assessment; Networks and associations; Paying for business
human development. If you would like to contribute a brief for dissemination, please be in touch
Please note that microcreditͶcollateralised and uncollateralisedͶhas existed since the advent of money and business, if not of
mankind. The microcredit movement just changed somewhat the form of delivery.
According to Mixmarket, the average loan balance per microcredit borrower is in by far highest in Eastern Europe and Central Asia
($1,934.5), followed by Latin America and the Caribbean ($1,037.0), Middle East and North Africa ($655.1), Africa ($477.9), East Asia and
the Pacific ($431.2) and South Asia ($156.8). Source: http://www.mixmarket.org/mfi, accessed September, 25, 2012.
Cf. also Balkenhol (2006, p. 3, FN4), Duvendack (2011, p. 13), Osthoff (n.D., pp. 8ff), World Bank (2000, pp. 74f), Majoux (2001), Steward
(2010, pp. 40 and 60).
See also de Aghion and Morduch (2005 and 2010), Goldberg (2005), Odell (2010), Orso (2011), all referred to in Duvendack et al (2011).
Also SIDA (2004, p. 26).
Zeller and Johannsen (2006, p. 32), e.g., observe in Bangladesh and Peru declining poverty rates with increasing length of client
ƌĞůĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŝƉ ĂŶĚ ŶŽƚĞ ƚŚĂƚ ͞ƚŚĞ ƉŽǀĞƌƚǇ ƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐ ŝŵƉĂĐƚ ŽĨ ŵŝĐƌŽĨŝŶĂŶĐĞ ŝƐ ůŝŬĞůǇ ƚŽ ŽĐĐƵƌ ŽǀĞƌ ƚŝŵĞ͘͟
As money is interchangeable (fungible), specific funds cannot reliably be linked to specific expenditures. It is therefore not possible to
associate specific funds with specific changes in well-being.
The 15 studies reviewed in-depth resulted from a rigorous screening process starting with 383 studies, and 35 analysed studies. 12 of the
15 are of newer date (since 2005).
See also Copestake (2002), Hermes and Lensink (2007), Khandker (2005), Roodman and Morduch (2009), Westover (2008), World Bank
See also Copestake et al., (2001), Copestake et al., (2005) for Peru, Cuong (2008) for Viet Nam, Kondo et al. (2008, p. 68) for the
Philippines Morduch (1998), Scully (2004) and SIDA (2004, pp. 3, 26). The opposite resultͶthe very poor benefitting more than the poor or
better offͶhas been identified by Eda Rural Systems (2004), Khandker (2005) and Nichols (2004).
Cf. also Beck et al. (2009, pp. 14ff), Hartarska & Nadolnyak (2008), Imai & Annim (2010). For similar results see Chowdhury (2009, p. 9).
Karlan and Zinman (2011). See also Karlan (2011)
Bateman and Roodman (2012). See also Rosenberg (2009).
See also Galusek (2007, p. 6)
See Li (2011), Thornton (2008) and Simanowitz (2002).
See Chowdhury (2009, p. 2)
See Balkenhol (2006, pp. 7ff.)
See also World Development Report 2000/2001, p. 74, describing the two poverty impacts of microfinance, income-generating effect
ĂŶĚ ǀƵůŶĞƌĂďŝůŝƚǇ ĞĨĨĞĐƚ͕ ƚŚĞ ůĂƚƚĞƌ ŝŵƉƌŽǀŝŶŐ ƉŽŽƌ ŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐ͛ ƌŝƐŬ ŵĂŶĂgement.
Some evidence was found by Stewart (2010, pp. 6, 49); clear support by SIDA (2004, p. 3), Alemu (2006), and Chowdhury (2009)
Housing: Stewart et al. (2010, p. 6) found a positive impact. Food: Dean and Zinman (2009, p. 1) found no discernible effects, but Karlan
and Zinman (2007), Montgomery and Weiss (2011) and Stewart et al (2010, p. 6) all found positive impact, partially even among very poor
households. Health: Banerjee et al (2009) found no impact, but Montgomery and Weiss (2011) and Stewart et al (2010, p. 6) found
positive impact, in the former case especially on the health of children and even in very poor households. Interestingly, Karlan and Zinman
(2007) found a significant and negative impact on other aspects of mental health (depression and stress). Empowerment: Banerjee et al
(2009) again found no impact, but Stewart et al (2010, p. 6) found at least some evidence, though inconsistent, and Montgomery and
Weiss (2011) as well as Rajendran and Raja (2010) confirm effectiveness. Note that there are a number of pre-2005 surveys that found
negative impacts such as exploitation of women, increased income inequality, increased workloads, creation of dependencies and creating
barriers to sustainable local economic and social development (referred to in Steward, 2010, p. 14).
Note that there might be additional external effects of group lending. Marr (2004, p. 7), analysing group lending schemes in Peru, warns
ƚŚĂƚ ŵŝĐƌŽĐƌĞĚŝƚ ͞ŝŶ ŝƚƐ ƉƵƌƐƵŝƚ ŽĨ ĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂů ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇ͕ ŝƐ ĚĞƐƚƌŽǇŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ǀĞƌy foundations of these schemes by disrupting the social fabric
ŽĨ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ͕ ĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐ ŵŽƌĞ ƉŽǀĞƌƚǇ͕ ĂŶĚ ĞǆĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ƉŽŽƌĞƐƚ ĂŶĚ ŵŽƐƚ ǀƵůŶĞƌĂďůĞ ĨƌŽŵ ĂŶǇ ŐŝǀĞŶ ŐƌŽƵƉ͘͟ AƐ ƚŚĞ ŐƌŽƵƉƐ ĂƌĞ
͞ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐůǇ ŝŶĨůŝĐƚŝŶŐ ƐĞǀĞƌĞ ƐĂŶĐƚŝŽŶƐ ƚŽ ŐƌŽƵƉ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐ ŝŶ ŽƌĚĞƌ ƚŽ ĂĐŚŝĞǀĞ ŚŝŐŚ ƌĞƉĂǇŵĞŶƚ ƌĂƚĞƐ͟ ǁŚŝĐŚ ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌůǇ Śŝƚ ŚĂƌĚĞƐƚ ƚŚĞ
poorest and most vulnerable (pp. 38f.). Bateman and Ha-Joon (2009) express similar warnings.
For example, Appah et al. (2012, p. 38), Chowdhury (2009, p. 3), Daley-Harris et al. (2007, p. 1), Yunus (2003, p. 171), Zaman (2004, p.
See the more recent blogs and articles http://www.socialedge.org/blogs/kiva-chronicles/moral-hazard-with-ducks,
http://www.gdrc.org/icm/micro/counseling.html, mftransparency.org (2011a, 2011b).
For further information see CGAP (2009), Gonzalez et al. (no date) and MicroRate, Luminis (2011).
See also Feiner and Barker (2012).
See Bateman (2007, pp. 2f), Bateman and Ha-Joon (2009, pp. 7ff), and SIDA (2004, p. 26).
See for example Steward (2010, pp 44, 48). Also note the massive suicides by Indian farmers.
See MicroRate and Luminis (2011, pp. 4, 5), Bateman and Roodman (2012), Bateman et al., (2012).
See Duvendack (2011, p. 75), Roodman (http://www.microfinanceusaconference.org/blog/2012/01/30/david-roodman-and-milford-
bateman-debate-recap/ and https://irgltd.adobeconnect.com/_a984430303/p78xdnea97j?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pb
For example, Mahajan (2005, p.5) sees the resources better invested in social sector programmes, Chowdhury (2009) in broad-based
productive employment creation, Karnani (2007, quoted in Stewart et al, 2010, p. 14) in large labour-intensive industries for job creation.
References (recommended further reading in bold)
de Aghion, Armendáriz and B Morduch. (2005). The economics of microfinance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Alemu, Kassa Teshager. (2008). Microfinance as a Strategy for Poverty Reduction: A Comparative Analysis of ACSI and Wisdom
Microfinance Institution in Ethiopia. Institute for Social Studies.
Altay, Asuman. (2007). The Challenge for Global Women Poverty: Microfinance (or Microcredit) as a Solution for Women Poverty in Turkey.
International Conference on Globalization and Its Discontents, Cortland, 2007.
Appah, Ebimobowei, M. Sophia John and Soreh Wisdom. (2012). An analysis of microfinance and poverty reduction in Bayelsa State of
Nigeria. In: Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, Vol. 1, No.7; March 2012.
Balkenhol, Bernd. (2006). The Impact of Microfinance on Employment: what do we know? ILO
Banerjee, Abhijit, Esther Duflo, Rachel Glennerster and Cynthia Kinnan. (2009). The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized
Bateman, Milford (2007). Undermining sustainable development with commercial microfinance in Southeast Europe. In: Development and
Transition, Issue 7, July 2007
Bateman, Milford and Ha-Joon Chang. (2009). The Microfinance Illusion.
Bateman, Milford, Dean Sinkovic and Marinko Skare. (2012). ŽƐŶŝĂ͛ƐDŝĐƌŽĨŝŶĂŶĐĞDĞůƚĚŽǁŶ͘ In: American Economics Association Annual
Bateman, Milford and Rooman, David. (2012). Recording from a debate on microfinance. http://www.microfinanceusaconference.org/
blog/2012/01/30/david-roodman-and-milford-bateman-debate-recap/, accessed July, 12, 2012
Beck, Thorsten, Berrak Büyükkarabacak, Felix Rioja and Neven Valev. (2009). Who gets the credit? And does it matter? Households vs. firm
lending across countries. European Banking Center Discussion Paper No. 2009ʹ12.
Brau, James C. and Gary M. Woller. (2004). Microfinance: A Comprehensive Review of the Existing Literature. In: Journal of Entrepreneurial
Finance and Business Ventures, Vol. 9, Issue 1, 2004, pp. 1-26
CGAP. (2009). The New Moneylenders: Are the Poor Being Exploited by High Microcredit Interest Rates? Occasional Paper No. 15. Prepared
by Richard Rosenberg, Adrian Gonzalez, and Sushma Narain.
Chowdhury, Anis. (2009). Microfinance as a Poverty Reduction ToolͶ A Critical Assessment. UN/DESA Working Paper No. 89
Copestake J, S Bhalotra and S Johnson. (2001). Assessing the impact of micro-credit: a Zambian case study. Journal of Development Studies
CŽƉĞƐƚĂŬĞ !͘ ;ϮϬϬϮͿ͘ lŶĞƋƵĂůŝƚǇ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ƉŽůĂƌŝƐŝŶŐ ŝŵƉĂĐƚ ŽĨ ŵŝĐƌŽĐƌĞĚŝƚ͗ ĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞ ĨƌŽŵ ZĂŵďŝĂ͛Ɛ ĐŽƉƉĞƌďĞůƚ͘ Journal of International
Development 14(6): 743ʹ755.
Copestake J, P. Dawson, J.P. Fanning, A. McKay, K. Wright-Revolledo. (2005). Monitoring the diversity of the poverty outreach and impact
of microfinance: a comparison of methods using data from Peru. Development Policy Review, 23 (6): 703-723.
Cotler, P and C Woodruff. (2008). The impact of short-term credit on microenterprises: evidence from the Fincomun-Bimbo Program in
Mexico. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 56 (4): 829-849.
Crépon, Bruno, Florencia Devoto, Esther Duflo and William Parienté. (2011). Impact of microcredit in rural areas of Morocco: Evidence
from a Randomized Evaluation.
Cuong, NV. (2008). Is a governmental microcredit program for the poor really pro-poor? Evidence from Vietnam. Developing Economies,
46 (2): 151-187.
Daley-Harris, Sam (2007). Debate on Microcredit. Foreign Policy in Focus, http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4324
Duvendack, M., R. Palmer-Jones, J.G. Copestake, L. Hooper, Y. Loke and N. Rao. (2011). What is the evidence of the impact of
microfinance on the well-being of poor people? London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of
Eda Rural Systems. (2004). The Maturing of Indian Microfinance: A Longitudinal Study. Eda Rural Systems, New Delhi, India.
European Commission. (2003). Microcredit for small businesses and business creation: bridging a market gap.
Feiner, Susan F. and Drucilla K. Barker. (2012). A Critique of Microcredit - Microfinance and Women's Poverty. In: Economica ʹ Women
and the global economy. http://imow.org/economica/stories/viewStory?storyId=3693
Galusek, Grzegorz ;ϮϬϬϳͿ͘ ͚CŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů͛ ŵŝĐƌŽĨŝŶĂŶĐĞ͗ 1ŽŽ ŵƵĐŚ͕ Žƌ ŶŽƚ ĞŶŽƵŐŚ͍. In: Development and Transition, Issue 7, July 2007.
Goldberg N. (2005). Measuring the impact of microfinance: taking stock of what we know. Grameen Foundation USA Publication Series,
Gonzalez, Adrian and Richard Rosenberg (CGAP). (no date). The State of Microcredit ʹ Outreach, Profitability, and Poverty. Findings from
a database of 2600 microfinance institutions.
Harper, Malcolm. (2011). Microfinance Should Have Started with Savings. http://microfinance.cgap.org/2011/09/09/microfinance-should-
Hartarska, Valentina and Denis Nadolnyak. (2008). An Impact Analysis of Microfinance in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In: World Development
Vol. 36, No. 12, pp. 2605ʹ2619, 2008.
Hermes, Niels and Robert Lensink. (2007). Impact of Microfinance: A critical survey. Economic and Political Weekly - February 10, 2007. pp.
Hulme, David and Paul Mosley (1996). Finance Against Poverty. Routledge, London.
Imai, Katsushi and M.S. Azam. (2010). Does microfinance reduce poverty in Bangladesh? New evidence from household panel data.
Discussion Paper, DP2010-24, Kobe University, September.
Imai, Katsushi, Raghav Gaiha, Ganesh Thapa and Samuel Kobina Annim. (2012). Microfinance and PovertyͶA Macro Perspective. In: World
Development Vol. 40, No. 8, pp. 1675ʹ1689, 2012
Karlan, Dean and Jonathan Zinman. (2007). Expanding Credit Access: Using Randomized Supply Decisions To Estimate the Impacts. Center
for Global Development. Working Paper Number 108
Karlan, Dean. (2011). What Percentage of Microfinance Loans Actually Go to Business Investment?, http://www.freakonomics.com/
2011/09/19/what-percentage-of-microfinance-loans-actually-go-to-business-investment/, accessed Sep. 3, 2012.
Karlan, Dean and Jonathan Zinman. (2011). List Randomization for Sensitive Behavior: An Application for Measuring Use of Loan Proceeds
Karnani, Aneel. (2007). Microfinance Misses its Mark. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer.
Khandker, S. R. (2005). Microfinance and Poverty: Evidence Using Panel Data from Bangladesh. The World Bank Economic Review, Vol 19,
No 2, pp 263-86.
Kondo, T., A. Orbeta, C. Dingcong and C. Infantado. (2008). Impact of microfinance on rural households in the Philippines. In: Ids Bulletin-
Institute of Development Studies, 39 (1): 51-70.
Kristof, Nicholas. (2009). The role of microfinance. New York Times.
Lensink, Robert and Thi Thu Tra Pham. (2009). Is microfinance an important instrument for poverty alleviation? The impact of microcredit
programs on self-employment profits in Vietnam.
Li, Xia, Christopher Gan and Baiding Hu. (2011). The welfare impact of microcredit on rural households in China. The Journal of Socio-
Economics 40 (2011) 404ʹ411.
Madajewicz, Malgosia. (2010). Joint liability versus individual liability in credit contracts. In: Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
77 (2011) 107ʹ123.
Mahajan, Vijay. (2005). From Microcredit to Livelihood Finance. Economic and Political Weekly. Oct. 8.
Majoux, L. (2001). Women Empowerment or Ferminization of Debts? Towards a new agenda for African Microfinance. Discussion paper for
One World action Conference.
Marr, Ana. (2004). A Challenge to the Orthodoxy Concerning Microfinance and Poverty Reduction.
mftransparency.org. (2011a). African Microfinance Pricing Transparency Leadership Forum Discussion Insights: Financial Education
mftransparency.org. (2011b). African Microfinance Pricing Transparency Leadership Forum Discussion Insights: Stakeholder Roles &
MicroRate, MFInsights. (2010). State of microfinance investment ʹ The MicroRate 2010 MIV Survey.
MicroRate and Luminis. (2011). The state of microfinance investment 2011.
Mixmarket. Database. http://www.mixmarket.org/mfi, accessed September, 25, 2012
Monitor. (2012). Bridging the Gap: The business case for financial capability. Commissioned and funded by the Citi Foundation.
Montgomery, H. (2005). Serving the poorest of the poor: the poverty impact of the Khushhali bank's microfinance lending in Pakistan. In:
Poverty Reduction Strategies in Asia: Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) Annual Conference. Tokyo, 9 December 2005.
Montgomery, Heather and John Weiss. (2011). Can Commercially-oriented Microfinance Help Meet the Millennium Development Goals?
Evidence from Pakistan. In: World Development Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 87ʹ109, 2011.
Morduch, J. (1998). Does microfinance really help the poor? Evidence from flagship programs in Bangladesh. Washington DC: World Bank.
Nathan, Okurut Francis, Banga Margaret and Mukungu Ashie. (2004). Microfinance and poverty reduction in Uganda: Achievements and
challenges. Research Series No 41. Economic Policy Research Centre, Uganda.
Nichols, Shane. (2004). A Case Study Analysis of the Impacts of Microfinance upon the Lives of the Poor in Rural China. RMIT University,
Odell, K. (2010). Measuring the impact of microfinance: taking another look. Grameen Foundation USA Publication Series, May.
Orso, CE. (2011). Microcredit and poverty. An overview of the principal statistical methods used to measure the programme net impacts.
POLIS Working Paper No. 180, February.
Osthoff, Jens. (no date). Is Microfinance an Effective Development Tool in the Context of Poverty Alleviation? Evaluating the Case of Rural
Razzaque, Mohammad A. (2010). Microfinance and Poverty Reduction: Evidence from a Longitudinal Household Panel Database. The
Bangladesh Development Studies Vol. XXXIII, September 2010, No.3.
Roodman, David and Uzma Qureshi (2006). Microfinance as Business. Center for Global Development, Washington, DC.
Roodman, David and J. Morduch. (2009). The impact of micro-credit on the poor in Bangladesh: revisiting the evidence. Working paper no
174. Washington DC: Centre for Global Development.
Rosenberg, Richard. (2009). Does Microcredit Really Help Poor People? How? And how do we know?
Scully, Nan Dawkins. (2004): Micro-credit no panacea for poor women. Global Development Research Centre, Washington DC
SIDA. (2004). Is microfinance a good poverty alleviation strategy? Evidence from Impact Assessment.
Simanowitz, S. (2002). Microfinance for the Poorest: A Review of Issues and Ideas for Contribution of ImpAct. ImpAct-Improving the Impact
of Microfinance on Poverty: An Action Research Programme.
Smahi, Ahmed and Abderrezak Benhabib. (2011). The Impact of Microfinance Programs on Household Poverty Reduction: The Case of
Algeria. Second European Research Conference on Microfinance.
Stewart R., C. van Rooyen, K. Dickson, M. Majoro and T. de Wet. (2010). What is the impact of microfinance on poor people? A systematic
review of evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Technical report. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, University of London.
Thornton, Andrew James. (2008). Who are the poorest of the poor and does microcredit help them? Thesis submitted to The New School.
UNDP/BRC. (2012). Micro-enterprise growth: evidence-based policy implications. Private Sector Brief, Issue I. Prepared by Stephan
Waterfield, Chuck. (2011). The Challenge of Understanding Pricing of Micro-loans. MFTransparency.org
Westover, J. (2008). The record of microfinance: the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of microfinance programs as a means of alleviating
poverty. Electronic Journal of Sociology.
Widjaja, Henky. (no date). Microcredit (not) for the Poor. A Misleading Panacea Assumption. In: Academia.edu
World Bank. (2000). World Development Report 2000/2001 Attacking Poverty.
World Bank / ECSSD Microfinance Team. (2004). Microfinance and the Poor in Central Asia Challenges and Opportunities. Agriculture and
Rural Development Discussion Paper 6, Europe and Central Asia Region.
World Bank. 2007. Finance for all? Policies and pitfalls in expanding access. Washington DC: World Bank.
Yunus, Muhammad (2003). Banker to the Poor: Micro-lending and the Battle Against World Poverty. Public Affairs, New York.
Zaman, Hassan. (2004). Microfinance in Bangladesh: Growth, Achievements, and Lessons. IBRD/World Bank.
Zeller, Manfred and Julia Johannsen. (2006). Is There a Difference in Poverty Outreach by Type of Microfinance Institution? The Case of
Peru and Bangladesh.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.