Gender Biases in Bank Lending: Lessons from Microcredit in France

Abstract

The evidence on gender discrimination in lending remains controversial. To capture gender biases in banks’ loan allocations, we observe the impact on the applicants of a microfinance institution (MFI) and exploit the natural experiment of a regulatory change imposing a strict EUR 10,000 loan ceiling on microcredit. Descriptive statistics indicate that the presence of the ceiling is associated both with bank-MFI co-financing and with harsher treatment of female borrowers. To investigate causal links, we develop an econometric approach that addresses the concerns of selection biases, multicollinearity, and endogeneity. Our empirical findings suggest that the change in the MFI’s gender-related attitude was triggered by banks through co-financing. Hence, we speculate that co-financing pushes ceiling-constrained MFIs to import whatever biases in loan granting that the banks are prone to. Overall, this paper stresses that apparently benign regulations such as loan ceilings can significantly harm the women’s empowerment efforts made by MFIs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Riding and Swift (1990), Coleman (2000) and Bellucci et al. (2010) find that collateral requirements are gender-related in Canada, the UK, and Italy, respectively. Alesina et al. (2013) and Agier and Szafarz (2013a) show that female micro-entrepreneurs receive smaller loans than male ones in Italy and Brazil, respectively. More generally, Bagus et al. (2015) discuss the ethicality of banks’ actions.

  2. 2.

    According to Field et al. (2014, p. 10) “much of today’s microcredit arrangements bear little resemblance to loans offered by organizations such as the United States Small Business Administration (SBA), which are also designed, ostensibly, to support the kind of entrepreneurial risk-taking necessary for success.”

  3. 3.

    This ceiling is significantly lower than the EUR 25,000 threshold recommended by the European Commission.

  4. 4.

    Most of them are unemployed people aiming at self-employment.

  5. 5.

    MFIs and banks have different statuses. MFIs are subsidized institutions maximizing social performance within a budget constraint, while banks are driven by profit maximization (Aubert et al. 2009). However, Armendariz and Szafarz (2011) provide evidence that the social mission varies across MFIs.

  6. 6.

    In the United States, the loan ceiling for microcredit is USD 50,000. The European Union (EU) recommends the use of a EUR 25,000 ceiling, but member states remain free to set their own rules. Some countries (Romania, Italy) have adopted the EU recommendation, while others, like Hungary, Portugal, Slovakia, and the UK, allow MFIs to grant loans exceeding EUR 25,000. France is the only EU member to impose a ceiling below the EU recommendation.

  7. 7.

    In our dataset, 71 % of the applicants with a secured bank loan ended up with a co-financing arrangement. Moreover, in 3 years out of four (2009, 2010, and 2011, but not 2012) the interest rates charged by the banks are significantly higher than the rate charged by the MFI.

  8. 8.

    As pointed out by Vanroose and D’Espallier (2013), microfinance reaches more clients in countries with low financial inclusion, which is not the case of developed countries in general, and France in particular.

  9. 9.

    http://www.microcreditsummit.org/uploads/resource/document/web_socr-2012_english_62819.pdf.

  10. 10.

    In 2010, the MFI opened two new branches and its staff passed from six to ten employees.

  11. 11.

    The granted loan size was smaller than the requested one in just 7.6 % of our sample. In contrast, most MFIs determine loan sizes in house (Agier and Szafarz, 2013b).

  12. 12.

    This threshold was hardly binding.

  13. 13.

    The sample size is smaller for the first period, which may result in larger standard deviations and less rejections of H0.

  14. 14.

    However, as pointed out by Johnson (2014), characteristics that are highly correlated with gender can hide an underlying reality involving gender discrimination.

  15. 15.

    Due to the specific nature of our sample, introducing the interaction term in Eq. (4) would make little sense. During the ceiling-free period, only six applicants came to the MFI with a bank loan and none of them ended up with a loan from the institution.

  16. 16.

    This argument involving credit risk is speculative since we do not observe the outcomes of the loans. This being said, the literature amply documents that women are more creditworthy than men, all else equal (D’Espallier et al. 2011).

  17. 17.

    This approach is consistent with the 2PLS estimation sequence that starts with project size. Another option would be to select only the applications involving no bank loan. In addition to making a break with our estimation strategy, this option would likely introduce a massive selection bias.

  18. 18.

    However, the authors detect a gender gap for loans exceeding EUR 25,000.

  19. 19.

    Conversely, reforms aiming at gender equality can also backfire (Bøhren and Staubo 2014).

  20. 20.

    In contrast, experimental data addresses the problem of unobservable characteristics (Beaman et al. 2009).

  21. 21.

    This approach is used by Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004) on the labor market.

References

  1. Agier, I., & Szafarz, A. (2013a). Microfinance and gender: Is there a glass ceiling on loan size? World Development, 42, 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agier, I., & Szafarz, A. (2013b). Subjectivity in credit allocation to micro-entrepreneurs: Evidence from Brazil. Small Business Economics, 41, 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alesina, A. F., Lotti, F., & Mistrulli, P. E. (2013). Do women pay more for credit? Evidence from Italy. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11, 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ananth, B. (2005). Financing microfinance: The ICICI bank partnership model. Small Enterprise Development, 16, 57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Andersen, T. B., & Malchow-Møller, N. (2006). Strategic interaction in undeveloped credit markets. Journal of Development Economics, 80, 275–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Armendariz, B., & Morduch, J. (2010). The economics of microfinance (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Armendariz, B., & Szafarz, A. (2011). On mission drift in microfinance institutions. In B. Armendariz & M. Labie (Eds.), The handbook of microfinance (pp. 341–366). London-Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Aubert, C., de Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (2009). Designing credit agent incentives to prevent mission drift in pro-poor microfinance institutions. Journal of Development Economics, 90, 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bagus, P., Gabriel, A., & Howden, D. (2015). Reassessing the ethicality of some common financial practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Beaman, L., Chattopadhyay, R., Duflo, E., Pande, R., & Topalova, P. (2009). Powerful women: Does exposure reduce bias? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124, 1497–1540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bellucci, A., Borisov, A., & Zazzaro, A. (2010). Does gender matter in bank-firm relationships? Evidence from small business lending. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34, 2968–2984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bennardo, A., Pagano, M., & Piccolo, S. (2015). Multiple bank lending, creditor rights and information sharing. Review of Finance, 19, 519–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Berger, A. N., & Udell, G. F. (2002). The economics of small business finance: The roles of private equity and debt markets in the financial growth cycle. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22, 613–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bernard, C., Le Moign, C. and Nicolaï, J.-P. (2013). L’Entrepreneuriat Féminin. Centre d’Analyse Stratégique, Working Paper 2013-06.

  15. Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are emily and greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94, 991–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Blanchard, L., Zhao, B., & Yinger, J. (2008). Do lenders discriminate against minority and woman entrepreneurs? Journal of Urban Economics, 63, 467–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Blanchflower, D. G., Levine, P. B., & Zimmerman, D. J. (2003). Discrimination in the small-business credit market. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 930–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bøhren, Ø., & Staubo, S. (2014). Does mandatory gender balance work? Changing organizational form to avoid board upheaval. Journal of Corporate Finance, 28, 152–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brabant, M., Dugos, P., & Massou, F. (2009). Rapport sur le Microcrédit. Inspection Générale des Finances.

  20. Brana, S. (2013). Microcredit: An answer to the gender problem in funding? Small Business Economics, 40, 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Carter, S., Shaw, E., Lam, W., & Wilson, F. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurship, and bank lending: The criteria and processes used by bank loan officers in assessing applications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 427–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cavalluzzo, K. S., Cavalluzzo, L. C., & Wolken, J. D. (2002). Competition, small business financing, and discrimination: Evidence from a new survey. Journal of Business, 75, 641–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cavalluzzo, K. S., & Wolken, J. D. (2005). Small business loan turndowns, and discrimination. Journal of Business, 78, 2153–2177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Coleman, S. (2000). Access to capital and terms of credit: A comparison of men- and women-owned small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 38, 37–52.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cornée, S., & Szafarz, A. (2014). Vive la Différence: Social banks and reciprocity in the credit market. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 361–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cozarenco, A., & Szafarz, A. (2013). Microcredit in developed countries: Unexpected consequences of loan-size ceilings, SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2269022.

  27. Cull, R., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Morduch, J. (2011). Does regulatory supervision curtail microfinance profitability and outreach? World Development, 39, 949–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. D’Espallier, B., Guérin, I., & Mersland, R. (2011). Women and repayment in microfinance: A global analysis. World Development, 39, 758–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Degryse, H., Lu, L., & Ongena, S. (2013). Informal or formal financing? Or both? First evidence on the co-funding of Chinese firms. SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2023751 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2023751.

  30. Fay, M., & Williams, L. (1993). Gender bias and the availability of business loans. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 363–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Field, E., Holland, A., & Pande, R. (2014). Microfinance: Points of Promise. In J. Kimmel (Ed.), Contemporary and Emerging Issues. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, forthcoming.

  32. Garikipati, S. (2008). The impact of lending to women on household vulnerability and women’s empowerment: Evidence from India. World Development, 36, 2620–2642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Guérin, I. (2011). The gender of finance and lessons for microfinance. In B. Armendariz & M. Labie (Eds.), The handbook of microfinance (pp. 589–612). London-Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Guérin, I., Roesch, M., Venkatasubramanian, G., & Kumar, S. (2013). The Social meaning of over-indebtedness and creditworthiness in the context of poor rural South Indian households (Tamil Nadu). In Guérin, I., S. Morvant-Roux & M. Villarreal (Eds.), Microfinance, debt and over-indebtedness. Juggling with money (pp. 125–150). London: Routledge.

  35. Gutiérrez-Nieto, B., Serrano-Cinca, C., & Camón-Cala, J. (2014). A credit score system for socially responsible lending. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hudon, M., & Traça, D. (2011). On the efficiency effects of subsidies in microfinance: An empirical inquiry. World Development, 39, 966–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jain, S. (1999). Symbiosis versus crowding-out: The interaction of formal and informal credit markets in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 59, 419–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Johnson, S. (2014). Why the gender dummy doesn’t speak: Explaining the gender gap in financial inclusion. Center for Financial Inclusion Blog. http://cfi-blog.org/2014/01/08/why-the-gender-dummy-doesnt-speak-explaining-the-gender-gap-in-financial-inclusion/.

  40. Johnson, S., & Nino-Zarazua, M. (2011). Financial access and exclusion in Kenya and Uganda. Journal of Development Studies, 47, 475–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ladd, H. F. (1998). Evidence on discrimination in mortgage lending. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Orser, B., Hogarth-Scott, S., & Riding, A. (2000). Performance, firm size, and management problem solving. Journal of Small Business Management, 38, 42–58.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Riding, A., & Swift, C. (1990). Women business owners and terms of credit: Some empirical findings of the Canadian experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Storey, D. J. (2004). Racial and gender discrimination in the micro firms credit market? Evidence from Trinidad and Tobago. Small Business Economics, 23, 401–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Vanroose, A., & D’Espallier, B. (2013). Do microfinance institutions accomplish their mission? Evidence from the relationship between traditional financial sector development and microfinance institutions’ outreach and performance. Applied Economics, 45, 1965–1982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wilson, F. (2015). Making loan decisions in banks: Straight from the gut? Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Renaud Bourlès, Olivier Chanel, Habiba Djebbari, Supriya Garikipati, Isabelle Guérin, Susan Johnson, Robert Lensink, Thierry Magnac, Marc Sangnier, and the participants in the “Microfinance and Women’s Empowerment: The Road Ahead” workshop (Liverpool, July 2013) for valuable comments. The two authors benefited from the financial support of the “Interuniversity Attraction Pole” on social enterprise, funded by the Belgian Science Policy Office. Anastasia Cozarenco is member of the Labex Chair “Entrepreneurship & Innovation”.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anastasia Cozarenco.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

See Tables 9 and 10.

Table 9 Correlations of project size and bank loan with other covariates
Table 10 Descriptive statistics on other financial characteristics

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cozarenco, A., Szafarz, A. Gender Biases in Bank Lending: Lessons from Microcredit in France. J Bus Ethics 147, 631–650 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2948-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Microcredit
  • Bank
  • Loan ceiling
  • Gender
  • France