IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rem/wpaper/1191.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is the model loans-plus-savings better for microfinance in ECA? A PSM comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Knar Khachatryan
  • Vardan Baghdasaryan
  • Valentina Hartarska

Abstract

Microfinance institutions are gradually evolving into multi-service organisations offering not only loans but also savings, and other financial and non-financial services. Both in practice and in academic writing, savings is gaining interest in microfinance programs, and is becoming a significant part of MFIs service portfolio. The current evolution of microfinance leads the MFIs to diversify their portfolios to better meet their clients needs as well as to benefit from economies of scope. We contribute to the literature aimed at identifying how combining credit with savings affects outreach and sustainability in microfinance institutions (MFIs). We apply the propensity score matching (PSM) method as well as its augmented dose response version to compare the performance of loans-plus-savings MFIs to that of lending-only in a sample of 710 observations from Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ECA).We use new panel data from MFIs operating in the ECA region during the 2005 -2009 period. Owing to our unique capital structure data, we control for the use of subsidised capital, which related work ignores while recent evidence points to tradeoffs between subsidies and savings (Cozarenco et al., 2016). We find that financial performance and breadth of outreach are positively associated with savings mobilisation, while the evidence on depth of outreach points to a possible mission drift. In the light of the ongoing debate on the mission drift (Armendariz and Szafarz, 2011) which creates new forms of exclusion, this question is important for policymakers, practitioners and scholars. We also note that in most countries in the region, only regulated financial institutions are allowed to mobilize savings, suggesting difficulties in overcoming entry barriers to becoming deposit-collecting MFI.We contribute to the literature by using PSM approach to establish if in the ECA region savings collection by MFIs improves financial sustainability and credit outreach and thus strengthens the case for continuing the trend toward commercialisation that is taking place across the industry. Another major contribution is our ability to control for the role of subsidy, which has not been previously considered. The empirical results clearly show advantages (better financial results and breadth of outreaches) and disadvantages (mission drift since depth of outreach suffers) for a sample of MFIs in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia region. Further research could use a larger sample of institutions from different regions of the world or a worldwide sample of MFIs for which the capital structure variables including subsidies (donations, non-conventional loans, in-kind payments, subsidised interest loans etc). Further research could also recognise the diversity of the savings products. Moreover, since other work has found that around 25 percent of MFIs experience diseconomies of scope, largely stemming from environmental factors, more research is needed to understand the role of microfinance regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Knar Khachatryan & Vardan Baghdasaryan & Valentina Hartarska, 2018. "Is the model loans-plus-savings better for microfinance in ECA? A PSM comparison," Working Paper c5a69366-4231-479c-879d-c, European Microfinance Network.
  • Handle: RePEc:rem:wpaper:1191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.european-microfinance.org/sites/default/files/document/file/Is%20the%20model%20loans-plus-savings%20better%20for%20microfinance%20in%20ECA.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:ags:stataj:122599 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Steven B. Caudill & Daniel M. Gropper & Valentina Hartarska, 2009. "Which Microfinance Institutions Are Becoming More Cost Effective with Time? Evidence from a Mixture Model," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(4), pages 651-672, June.
    3. Michael Delgado & Christopher Parmeter & Valentina Hartarska & Roy Mersland, 2015. "Should all microfinance institutions mobilize microsavings? Evidence from economies of scope," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 193-225, February.
    4. Hudon, Marek & Traca, Daniel, 2011. "On the Efficiency Effects of Subsidies in Microfinance: An Empirical Inquiry," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 966-973, June.
    5. Dean Karlan & Aishwarya Lakshmi Ratan & Jonathan Zinman, 2014. "Savings by and for the Poor: A Research Review and Agenda," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 60(1), pages 36-78, March.
    6. Marco Caliendo & Sabine Kopeinig, 2008. "Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 31-72, February.
    7. Koen Rossel-Cambier, 2012. "Can Combined Microfinance Boost Economic Results? An Empirical Cross-sectional Analysis," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 2, pages 79-94, August.
    8. Robert Cull & Asli Demirgüç-Kunt & Jonathan Morduch, 2018. "The Microfinance Business Model: Enduring Subsidy and Modest Profit," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 32(2), pages 221-244.
    9. Beatriz Armendáriz & Ariane Szafarz, 2011. "On Mission Drift in Microfinance Institutions," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: The Handbook Of Microfinance, chapter 16, pages 341-366 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Abadie, Alberto & Imbens, Guido W., 2011. "Bias-Corrected Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 29(1), pages 1-11.
    11. Cozarenco, Anastasia & Hudon, Marek & Szafarz, Ariane, 2016. "What type of microfinance institutions supply savings products?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 57-59.
    12. Jessica Schicks, 2007. "Developmental Impact and Coexistence of Sustainable and Charitable MFIs - Analysing BancoSol & Grameen Bank," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/94191, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    13. D’Espallier, Bert & Goedecke, Jann & Hudon, Marek & Mersland, Roy, 2017. "From NGOs to Banks: Does Institutional Transformation Alter the Business Model of Microfinance Institutions?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 19-33.
    14. Hermes, Niels & Lensink, Robert & Meesters, Aljar, 2011. "Outreach and Efficiency of Microfinance Institutions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 938-948, June.
    15. Valentina Hartarska & Christopher F. Parmeter & Denis Nadolnyak & Beibei Zhu, 2010. "Economies Of Scope For Microfinance: Differences Across Output Measures," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 464-481, October.
    16. Beatriz Armendáriz & Jonathan Morduch, 2010. "The Economics of Microfinance, Second Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262014106.
    17. Robert Cull & Asli Demirguç-Kunt & Jonathan Morduch, 2007. "Financial performance and outreach: a global analysis of leading microbanks," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(517), pages 107-133, February.
    18. Robert Cull & Asli Demirgüç-Kunt & Jonathan Morduch, 2009. "Microfinance Meets the Market," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 23(1), pages 167-192, Winter.
    19. Ganna Sheremenko & Cesar L Escalante & Wojciech J Florkowski, 2017. "Financial Sustainability and Poverty Outreach: The Case of Microfinance Institutions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(1), pages 230-245, January.
    20. Steven B. Caudill & Daniel M. Gropper & Valentina Hartarska, 2012. "Microfinance institution costs: effects of gender, subsidies and technology," Journal of Financial Economic Policy, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 4(4), pages 292-304, November.
    21. repec:eee:jbfina:v:93:y:2018:i:c:p:162-182 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Tassel, Eric Van, 2004. "Household bargaining and microfinance," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 449-468, August.
    23. Guardabascio, Barbara & Ventura, Marco, 2014. "Estimating the dose–response function through a generalized linear model approach," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 14(1).
    24. Michela Bia & Alessandra Mattei, 2008. "A Stata package for the estimation of the dose–response function through adjustment for the generalized propensity score," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 8(3), pages 354-373, September.
    25. Jessica Schicks, 2007. "Developmental Impact and Coexistence of Sustainable and Charitable Microfinance Institutions: Analysing BancoSol and Grameen Bank," The European Journal of Development Research, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 551-568.
    26. Steven B. Caudill & Daniel M. Gropper & Valentina Hartarska, 2012. "Microfinance institution costs: effects of gender, subsidies and technology," Journal of Financial Economic Policy, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 4(4), pages 292-304, December.
    27. Frederick Murdoch Quaye & Valentina Hartarska, 2016. "Investment Impact of Microfinance Credit in Ghana," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(3), pages 137-150, March.
    28. Hartarska, Valentina & Shen, Xuan & Mersland, Roy, 2013. "Scale economies and input price elasticities in microfinance institutions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 118-131.
    29. repec:mes:eaeuec:v:55:y:2017:i:5:p:395-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    30. Malikov, Emir & Hartarska, Valentina, 2018. "Endogenous scope economies in microfinance institutions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 162-182.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Microfinance; Savings;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rem:wpaper:1191. 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: (Nicola BENAGLIO). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/euminea.html .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.