2020
DOI: 10.1002/jid.3487
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microcredit and Economic Welfare: Experience of Poor Rural Households from Pakistan

Abstract: Summary This research article effort to empirically assess the effect of microcredit on household economic welfare consequences, for example income and consumption in rural Pakistan. The valuation is based on the difference‐in‐difference method that is a progressively popular technique of tackling the selection bias issue in measuring the influences of microcredit. This paper uses a 2‐year panel data set, together with both primary and secondary data gained through a household survey in rural Pakistan. Our emp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
(52 reference statements)
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The 10 items (DFC) and 13 items (LI) are potential constructs to quantify the economic welfare shock. And this is in line with the assertion of Ravallion (1996), Latif et al. (2020) that welfare is not definite; therefore, literature has succumbed to proxies like income and food consumption.…”
Section: Literature Reviewsupporting
confidence: 78%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The 10 items (DFC) and 13 items (LI) are potential constructs to quantify the economic welfare shock. And this is in line with the assertion of Ravallion (1996), Latif et al. (2020) that welfare is not definite; therefore, literature has succumbed to proxies like income and food consumption.…”
Section: Literature Reviewsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the DFC and LI pulled from the economic welfare module out of the seven modules of conflict exposure modules developed by Br€ uck et al (2013). The economic welfare module comprises three dimensions (LI, loss of assets and DFC); based on the content validity, loss of assets are considered to be part of the LI, as loss of (1996), Latif et al (2020) that welfare is not definite; therefore, literature has succumbed to proxies like income and food consumption.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, Nelson (2007) considers household economic status amongst the essential factors mediating the impact of microcredit on intended outcomes. In the quest for the economic welfare impact of microcredit access to rural households in Pakistan, Latif et al (2020) found the effect of microcredit to differ with household economic status. The study discovered that microcredit mainly benefitted borrowers from households with relatively more robust financial conditions than those in deprived and low-income families.…”
Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reasons behind the increment in consumption expenditure are the use of nutritious foods and educational and health expenses. Several studies found a positive effect of microcredit on the livelihood status of clients (Siyoum et al, 2012;Luqman, 2016;Latif et al, 2020;Sahu et al, 2021;Mazumder, 2022).…”
Section: Inferential Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…,Crépon (2011),Al- Mamun et al (2014),Latif et al (2020), andDhungana and Ranabhat (2022) found significant effects of microfinance services on the saving habits of clients.…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%