2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2010.05.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Informal lending amongst friends and relatives: Can microcredit compete in rural China?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

10
82
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 129 publications
(93 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
10
82
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Besides less access to material goods, rural residents are also characterized as relying more on informal institutions (such as kin networks) rather than formal institutions (such as the market). For example, the majority of farm households in rural China borrow money from friends and relatives rather than formal financial institutions (Turvey and Kong 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides less access to material goods, rural residents are also characterized as relying more on informal institutions (such as kin networks) rather than formal institutions (such as the market). For example, the majority of farm households in rural China borrow money from friends and relatives rather than formal financial institutions (Turvey and Kong 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rural households therefore relied heavily on informal networks based primarily on lending between relatives and friends for credit (Jia, Heidhues, & Zeller, 2010;Turvey & Kong, 2010).…”
Section: Microfinance In Chinamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This specification allows the model to reduce the number of estimates and analyse unobserved joint or net effects of shocks within the same category. In order to further support consistency of results, in Table XI we report estimates of another model where the number of alternatives is reduced to three, that is only-formal, only-informal and non-borrowing, a common methodology employed by studies in credit choice analysis (such as in Beer et al, 2010;Turvey and Kong, 2010;Mohieldin and Wright, 2000). The observations for "both" are split up randomly between "only-formal" and "only-informal."…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%