The Impact of Microcredit on the Poor in Bangladesh: Revisiting the Evidence

Abstract

The most-noted studies on the impact of microcredit on households are based on a survey fielded in Bangladesh in the 1990s. Contradictions among them have produced lasting controversy and confusion. Pitt and Khandker (PK, 1998) apply a quasi-experimental design to 1991-92 data; they conclude that microcredit raises household consumption, especially when lent to women. Khandker (2005) applies panel methods using a 1999 resurvey; he concurs and extrapolates to conclude that microcredit helps the extremely poor even more than the moderately poor. But using simpler estimators than PK, Morduch (1999) finds no impact on the level of consumption in the 1991-92 data, even as he questions PK's identifying assumptions. He does find evidence that microcredit reduces consumption volatility. Partly because of the sophistication of PK's Maximum Likelihood estimator, the conflicting results were never directly confronted and reconciled. We end the impasse. A replication exercise shows that all these studies' evidence for impact is weak. As for PK's headline results, we obtain opposite signs. But we do not conclude that lending to women does harm. Rather, all three studies appear to fail in expunging endogeneity. We conclude that for non-experimental methods to retain a place in the program evalu-ator's portfolio, the quality of the claimed natural experiments must be high and demonstrated.The Center for Global Development is an independent, nonprofit policy research organization that is dedicated to reducing global poverty and inequality and to making globalization work for the poor.Use and dissemination of this Working Paper is encouraged; however, reproduced copies may not be used for commercial purposes. Further usage is permitted under the terms of the Creative Commons License. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and should not be attributed to the board of directors or funders of the Center for Global Development. Abstract: The most-noted studies on the impact of microcredit on households are based on a survey fielded in Bangladesh in the 1990s. Contradictions among them have produced lasting controversy and confusion. Pitt and Khandker (PK, 1998) apply a quasi-experimental design to 1991-92 data; they conclude that microcredit raises household consumption, especially when lent to women. Khandker (2005) applies panel methods using a 1999 resurvey; he concurs and extrapolates to conclude that microcredit helps the extremely poor even more than the moderately poor. But using simpler estimators than PK, Morduch (1999) finds no impact on the level of consumption in the 1991-92 data, even as he questions PK's identifying assumptions. He does find evidence that microcredit reduces consumption volatility. Partly because of the sophistication of PK's Maximum Likelihood estimator, the conflicting results were never directly confronted and reconciled. We end the impasse. A replication exercise shows that all these studies' evidence for impact is weak. As for PK's headline results, we obtain opposite si...

Contribution of Micro-Finance on Socio-Economic Development of Rural Community

“…It is the responsibility of the state to provide adequate policy framework for proficient and cost efficient mechanism for rural finance market to support agricultural and rural development (Barrett & Clay, 2003, p. 177). A majority of peasants in developing countries have no access to any banking system or microcredit (Schady, 2002).Microcredit has the potential to play a role in increasing access to financial services and proximity between clients and cooperatives (Roodman & Morduch, 2009). …”

From wealth to health: Evaluating microfinance as a complex intervention

“…The growth of RCTs has, in part, been a reaction to concerns around the quality and validity of initial microcredit impact evaluations, specifically in disentangling causation from correlation (Banerjee et al, 2015b;Roodman and Morduch, 2013), and a noted need for more rigorous studies that are suitably designed to correspond to their particular setting (Armendariz and Morduch, 2010;Hulme, 2000). Further, the proliferation of RCTs reflects a growing trend in other areas of development economics research where evaluations of social interventions seek to replicate methods previously thought to be largely the domain of the medical field.…”

Microfinance for poverty alleviation: Do transnational initiatives overlook fundamental questions of competition and intermediation?

“…Data and statistical methods are questioned (see e.g. the 15-years-and-ongoing dispute in Pitt, 2014;Pitt and Khandker, 1998;Roodman and Morduch, 2014), and some studies even suggest a lack of any significant effect (Nghiem, Coelli and Rao, 2012). Other studies find that microfinance is effective but that the poorest borrowers benefit less than less-poor borrowers (Islam, Nguyen and Smyth, 2015), particularly when longer time periods are taken into account (Banerjee, Breza, Duflo and Kinnan, 2015).…”