IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/afrpps/v72y2012i3p416-435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is agricultural microcredit really more risky? Evidence from Tanzania

Author

Listed:
  • Ron Weber
  • Oliver Musshoff

Abstract

Purpose - Using a unique dataset of a commercial microfinance institution (MFI) in Tanzania, the purpose of this paper is to investigate first whether agricultural firms have a different probability to get a loan and whether their loans are differently volume rationed than loans to non‐agricultural firms. Second, the paper analyzes whether agricultural firms repay their loans with different delinquencies than non‐agricultural firms. Design/methodology/approach - The authors estimate a Probit‐Model for the probability of receiving a loan, a Heckman‐Model to investigate the magnitude of volume rationing for all loan applications and an OLS‐Model to examine the loan delinquencies of all microloans disbursed by the MFI. Findings - The results reveal that agricultural firms face higher obstacles to get credit but as soon as they have access to credit, their loans are not differently volume rationed than those of non‐agricultural firms. Furthermore, agricultural firms are less often delinquent when paying back their loans than non‐agricultural firms. Research limitations/implications - Even if the authors can show that access to credit and loan repayment is different for agricultural firms, the current regional focus of the MFI only allows for lending to agricultural firms in the greater Dar es Salaam area. Thus, these results might change in a rural setting. Besides general differences of the rural economic environment, the production type of agricultural firms might also differ in rural areas. Also, these results might change in different country contexts. Practical implications - The findings suggest that a higher risk exposition typically attributed to agricultural production must not necessarily lead to higher credit risk. They also show that the investigated MFI overestimates the credit risk of agricultural clients and, hence, should reconsider its risk assessment practice to be able to increase lending to the agricultural sector. In addition, the results might indicate that farmers qualify less often for a loan as they do not fit into the standard microcredit product. Originality/value - To the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper which simultaneously investigates access to credit and the repayment behavior of agricultural firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Ron Weber & Oliver Musshoff, 2012. "Is agricultural microcredit really more risky? Evidence from Tanzania," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 72(3), pages 416-435, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:afrpps:v:72:y:2012:i:3:p:416-435
    DOI: 10.1108/00021461211277268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00021461211277268/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00021461211277268/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/00021461211277268?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:afrpps:v:72:y:2012:i:3:p:416-435. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.