Empirical measurement of credit rationing in agriculture: a methodological survey
Empirical analysis of rural credit market failure has been of key scientific and political interest in recent years. The aim of this article is to give an overview of the various methods for measuring credit rationing that are employed in the literature. Furthermore, the methods are subjected to a comparative evaluation of their specific strengths or shortcomings. Six approaches are distinguished: measurement of loan transaction costs, analysis of qualitative information collected in interviews, analysis of quantitative information collected in interviews using the credit limit concept, analysis of spill-over effects with regard to secondary credit sources, econometric household modeling, and the econometric analysis of dynamic investment decisions. An explicit comparison with a first-best solution is impossible in the first three approaches, since they essentially rely on a subjective assessment of borrowers' access to credit, based on qualitative or quantitative indicators. The fifth and sixth approaches allow a rigorous interpretation in the framework of neoclassical equilibrium theory. The fourth approach takes an intermediate position, since spill-over on segmented loan markets reveals a willingness to pay with regard to the supposedly less expensive but rationed primary source. The approaches are fairly data demanding in general, usually requiring specific data on loan transactions. Even so, most approaches are applicable to cross-sectional household data. With the exception of the first, all methods surveyed might plausibly be used to empirically detect credit rationing. Copyright 2005 International Association of Agricultural Economics.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 33 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2 (09)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0169-5150|
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/subs.asp?ref=0169-5150|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- de Meza, David & Webb, David C, 1987. "Too Much Investment: A Problem of Asymmetric Information," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 102(2), pages 281-92, May.
- de Meza, David & Webb, David, 2000. "Does credit rationing imply insufficient lending?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 215-234, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:33:y:2005:i:2:p:191-203. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.