Abstract
What accounts for the discrepancy between microfinance impact claims of development practitioners and the far smaller impacts found in experimental studies? We demonstrate in a simple theoretical framework why “before-and-after” observations of practitioners overstate microfinance impacts and why estimations in some recent randomized trials understate the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT). Our empirical study uses a unique data set from eastern Nepal to study the impact of microfinance in villages where microfinance did not previously exist. We find that approximately three-fourths of the apparent impact of microfinance observed by practitioners is an illusion driven by correlated unobservable factors.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
