Effects of microfinance services on the performance of small and medium enterprises in Kenya
Citations
36 citations
Cites background from "Effects of microfinance services on..."
...Capital adequacy and revenue maximization are positively correlated (Rahmat and Maulana 2006; AkotoSampong 2011; Fauster 2014; Irene, Charles, and Japhet 2015)....
[...]
10 citations
7 citations
Cites background from "Effects of microfinance services on..."
...This supports the argument that lack of assets among the rural poor reduces their access to credit [22]....
[...]
...livelihoods [22] and rely on their accumulated assets as collateral when they apply for loans from micro-finance...
[...]
6 citations
References
1,160 citations
"Effects of microfinance services on..." refers background in this paper
...Microfinance is also defined as provision of small- scale financial services to the low- income people (Robinson, 2001; Nair, 2001)....
[...]
1,004 citations
"Effects of microfinance services on..." refers background in this paper
...Effectiveness and efficiency are the two fundamental dimensions of performance (Neely et al., 2002)....
[...]
614 citations
"Effects of microfinance services on..." refers background in this paper
...Coleman (1999) also finds little evidence of an impact on the programme participants....
[...]
572 citations
"Effects of microfinance services on..." refers background or methods in this paper
...A study by Amin et al. (2003) used a unique panel dataset from northern Bangladesh with monthly consumption and income data for 229 households before they received loans. They found that while microcredit is successful in reaching the poor, it is less successful in reaching the vulnerable, especially the group most prone to destitution (the vulnerable poor). Coleman (1999) also finds little evidence of an impact on the programme participants. The results, Coleman further explains, are consistent with Adams and von Pischke’s assertion that “debt is not an effective tool for helping most poor people enhance their economic condition” and that the poor are poor because of reasons other than lack of access to credit. According to Mosley (1999), microfinance makes a considerable contribution to the reduction of poverty through its impact on income and also has a positive impact on asset level. But the mechanism through which poverty reduction works varies between institutions. Generally, institutions that give, on average, smaller loans reduce poverty much more by lifting borrowers above the poverty line, whilst institutions giving larger loans reduce it much more by expanding the demand for labour amongst poor people. Hulme and Mosley (1998) found evidence of a trade-off between reaching the very poor and having substantial impact on household income. They found that programmes that targeted higher-income households (those near the poverty level) had a greater impact on household income. Mosley (2001), in his research on microfinance and poverty in Bolivia, assessed the impact of microfinance on poverty, through small sample surveys of four microfinance institutions. Two urban and two rural, using a range of poverty concepts such as income, assets holdings and diversity, and different measures of vulnerability. All the institutions studied had on average, positive impacts on income and asset levels, with income impacts correlating negatively with income on account of poor households choosing to invest in low-risk and lowreturn assets. The studies revealed also that in comparison with other anti-poverty measures, microfinance appears to be successfully and relatively cheap at reducing the poverty of those close to the poverty line. However, it was revealed to be ineffective, by comparison with labour-market and infrastructural measures, in reducing extreme poverty. Nichols (2004) used a case study approach to investigate the impact of microfinance upon the lives of the poor in the rural China and found that the participation of poor in MFI program had led to positive impact in their life....
[...]
...A study by Amin et al. (2003) used a unique panel dataset from northern Bangladesh with monthly consumption and income data for 229 households before they received loans. They found that while microcredit is successful in reaching the poor, it is less successful in reaching the vulnerable, especially the group most prone to destitution (the vulnerable poor). Coleman (1999) also finds little evidence of an impact on the programme participants....
[...]
...A study by Amin et al. (2003) used a unique panel dataset from northern Bangladesh with monthly consumption and income data for 229 households before they received loans. They found that while microcredit is successful in reaching the poor, it is less successful in reaching the vulnerable, especially the group most prone to destitution (the vulnerable poor). Coleman (1999) also finds little evidence of an impact on the programme participants. The results, Coleman further explains, are consistent with Adams and von Pischke’s assertion that “debt is not an effective tool for helping most poor people enhance their economic condition” and that the poor are poor because of reasons other than lack of access to credit. According to Mosley (1999), microfinance makes a considerable contribution to the reduction of poverty through its impact on income and also has a positive impact on asset level....
[...]
...Aczel (2000) conducted a study in Thailand on the role of microfinance in supporting micro entrepreneurial endeavor. The findings of the study indicated that the involvement of microfinance institutions in promotion of micro enterprise and processing industry plays a key role in economies of developed countries as a source of goods and services, income, savings and employment. Mochona (2006) studied the impact of microfinance in Addis Ababa-Ethiopia. He assessed the impact of microfinance on women micro enterprises that were clients of Gasha Microfinance Institution. The research findings indicated that only a few of the women clients of the Gasha Microfinance Institution reported increased incomes from their micro enterprise activities. Rahmat and Maulana (2006) researched on the Impact of Microfinance to Micro and Small Enterprise’s Performance Indonesia. Bowen et al. (2009) researched on Management of business challenges among small and micro enterprises in Nairobi Kenya....
[...]
...A study by Amin et al. (2003) used a unique panel dataset from northern Bangladesh with monthly consumption and income data for 229 households before they received loans. They found that while microcredit is successful in reaching the poor, it is less successful in reaching the vulnerable, especially the group most prone to destitution (the vulnerable poor). Coleman (1999) also finds little evidence of an impact on the programme participants. The results, Coleman further explains, are consistent with Adams and von Pischke’s assertion that “debt is not an effective tool for helping most poor people enhance their economic condition” and that the poor are poor because of reasons other than lack of access to credit. According to Mosley (1999), microfinance makes a considerable contribution to the reduction of poverty through its impact on income and also has a positive impact on asset level. But the mechanism through which poverty reduction works varies between institutions. Generally, institutions that give, on average, smaller loans reduce poverty much more by lifting borrowers above the poverty line, whilst institutions giving larger loans reduce it much more by expanding the demand for labour amongst poor people. Hulme and Mosley (1998) found evidence of a trade-off between reaching the very poor and having substantial impact on household income....
[...]
454 citations