No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Microfinance is key to reducing poverty in Pakistan. While comprehensive finance is frequently considered as, it creates inclusive growth and poverty reduction in poor communities, and can be boosted by ease of finance. However, when the poor people are involved in the broader scale (different types of poverty level), can this microfinance work? We used an econometric model to test the symmetry approaches of the comprehensive financial organizations and the poor in poverty reduction activities to find the answers. Keeping this in view, we studied different determinants related borrowers for the poverty reduction with respect to access to Micro finance institutes (MFI) and productive loan. Despite some limitations, such as those arising from potential unobservable important determinants of access to MFIs, significant positive effect of MFI productive loans has been confirmed. The significance of “treatment effect” of coefficients has been verified by probit model. In addition, we found that loans for productive purposes were more important for poverty reduction by MFB (Microfinance banks) than MFI. However, in urban areas, simple access to MFIs has larger average poverty‐reducing effects than the access to loans from MFIs for productive purposes. This leads to exploring service delivery opportunities that provide an additional avenue to monitor the usage of loans to enhance the outreach. Therefore, the results showed by probit model that access to MFI was better in urban areas and male borrowers thus achieved more loan. Therefore, it is suggested that for the poverty reduction, there is a dire need to improve and localize the Microfinance institutions in rural areas as well as to promote group lending methodology to avoid risk of getting loans and increase the number of both male and female savers. Thus, the saving value will be increased and side by side interest rate will be significantly achieved. Hence, it is concluded that the goal of providing sustainable financial services implicitly implies that MFIs provide financial services to the poor, whenever they find it profitable to do so. The removal of subsidy and the absence of interest rate restrictions could make the market for the poor become even worse as the market occupiers may act in their own interest. The powerful push will be needed from national economic and social impacts for the increasing support for microfinance.