2020
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3618847
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Flexible Microcredit: Effects on Loan Repayment and Social Pressure

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some studies have linked social networks [ 49 ], social capital [ 50 ] and social pressure [ 51 ] with microfinance. The social environment significantly affects the availability of credit.…”
Section: Institutional Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some studies have linked social networks [ 49 ], social capital [ 50 ] and social pressure [ 51 ] with microfinance. The social environment significantly affects the availability of credit.…”
Section: Institutional Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, we take a relatively 'light-touch' approach, by screening only on the basis of microentrepreneurs having graduated from borrowing and successfully repaying smaller loans. 7 A similar group of papers have used theory and lab experiments to demonstrate the benefits (and costs) of repayment flexibility in microfinance contracts: see Fischer (2013), Fischer and Ghatak (2016), Czura (2015), Barboni (2017) and Czura, John, and Spantig (2020). 8 Battaglia et al (2018) note that the relationship between risk aversion and flexibility is theoretically ambiguous; this result is driven by the possibility of selection into more risky or less risky projects.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It can be argued that such rigidity may cause a mismatch between the cash‐flow and investment needs of micro‐borrowers, inducing them to resort to the practices of multiple borrowing and overlapping, in addition to causing various kinds of inefficiency. On the general topic of flexible versus rigid schedules, see among others, Field et al (2013), Labie et al (2017), Barboni and Agarwal (2018), Czura et al (2020) and Battaglia et al (2021).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%