Advertisement

Small Business Economics

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 263–275 | Cite as

Subjectivity in credit allocation to micro-entrepreneurs: evidence from Brazil

  • Isabelle AgierEmail author
  • Ariane Szafarz
Article

Abstract

This paper estimates the impact of loan officer subjectivity on microcredit granting by exploiting an exceptionally detailed database from a Brazilian microfinance institution. The loan officers collect field data, meet with applicants, and make recommendations to the credit committee, which has the final say on both loan approval and loan size (LS). The loan officer’s subjectivity is captured through gender bias. Our estimations indeed show subjective gender gap in LS. This gap is almost exclusively attributable to loan officers. We interpret this finding as evidence that, despite monitoring and wage incentivization, microcredit officers let their subjective preferences interfere with loan granting. We conclude by suggesting alternative means to curb subjectivity in credit allocation to micro-entrepreneurs.

Keywords

Subjectivity Microcredit Gender Loan officer Loan size Entrepreneurs 

JEL Classifications

O16 D82 J33 L31 

References

  1. Agier, I., & Szafarz, A. (2010). Microfinance and gender: Is there a glass ceiling in loan size? Université Libre de Bruxelles CEB Working Papers 10-047.Google Scholar
  2. Alesina, A. F., Lotti, F., & Mistrulli, P. E. (2008). Do women pay more for credit? Evidence from Italy. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series 14202.Google Scholar
  3. Armendáriz, B., & Morduch, J. (2010). The economics of microfinance (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Armendáriz, B., & Szafarz, A. (2011). On mission drift in microfinance institutions. In B. Armendariz, & M. Labie (Eds.), The handbook of microfinance (pp. 341–366). London: World Scientific Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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(1), 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates, T., & Bradford, W. (2009). The impact of institutional sources of capital upon the minority-oriented venture capital industry. Small Business Economics, 33(4), 485–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellucci, A., Borisov, A., & Zazzaro, A. (2010). Does gender matter in bank–firm relationships? Evidence from small business lending. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(12), 2968–2984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berger, A. N., & Udell, G. F. (1995). Relationship lending and lines of credit in small firm finance. Journal of Business, 68(3), 351–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blanchflower, D. G., Levine, P. B., & Zimmerman, D. J. (2003). Discrimination in the small-business credit market. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 930–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boot, A. W. A. (2000). Relationship banking: What do we know? Journal of Financial Intermediation, 9(1), 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brana, S. (2011). Microcredit: An answer to the gender problem in funding? Small Business Economics. doi: 10.1007/s11187-011-9346-3.
  12. Buvinic, M., & Berger, M. (1990). Sex differences in access to a small enterprise development fund in Peru. World Development, 18(5), 695–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cavalluzzo, K., & Cavalluzzo, L. (1998). Market structure and discrimination: The case of small businesses. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 30(4), 771–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavalluzzo, K., & Wolken, J. (2005). Small business loan turndowns, personal wealth, and discrimination. Journal of Business, 78(6), 2153–2178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Churchill, C. F. (1999). Client focused lending—the art of individual lending. Toronto, ON: Calmeadow.Google Scholar
  16. Coleman, S., & Robb, A. (2009). A comparison of new firm financing by gender: Evidence from the Kauffman firm survey data. Small Business Economics, 33(4), 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Conning, J. (1999). Outreach, sustainability and leverage in monitored and peer-monitored lending. Journal of Development Economics, 60(1), 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Janvry, A., McIntosh, C., & Sadoulet, E. (2010). The supply- and demand-side impacts of credit market information. Journal of Development Economics, 93(2), 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeMartino, R., & Barbato, R. (2003). Differences between women and men MBA entrepreneurs: Exploring family flexibility and wealth creation as career motivators. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(6), 815–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. D’Espallier, B., Guérin, I., & Mersland, R. (2011). Women and repayment in microfinance: A global analysis. World Development, 39(5), 758–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Diagne, A., Zeller, M., & Sharma, M. (2000). Empirical measurements of households’ access to credit and credit constraints in developing countries: Methodological issues and evidence. IFPRI Food Consumption and Nutrition Division Discussion Paper 90, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Dixon, R., Ritchie, J., & Siwale, J. (2007). Loan officers and loan ‘delinquency’ in microfinance: A Zambian case. Accounting Forum, 31(1), 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Egli, D. (2004). Progressive lending as an enforcement mechanism in microfinance programs. Review of Development Economics, 8(4), 505–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fay, M., & Williams, L. (1993). Gender bias and the availability of business loans. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(4), 363–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuentes, G. A. (1996). The use of village agents in rural credit delivery. Journal of Development Studies, 33(2), 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ghosh, S., & Van Tassel, E. (2008). A model of mission drift in microfinance institutions. Department of Economics, College of Business, Florida Atlantic University Working Papers 08003, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  27. Hand, D. J., & Henley, W. E. (2007). Statistical classification methods in consumer credit scoring: A review. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 160(3), 523–541.Google Scholar
  28. Hartarska, V. (2005). Governance and performance of microfinance institutions in Central and Eastern Europe and the newly independent states. World Development, 33(10), 1627–1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holland-Noronha, N. (2010). Economic and sociocultural experiences of female entrepreneurs in Brazil and the United States: An exploratorial and empirical analysis. PhD Dissertation, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  30. Karlan, D., & Zinman, J. (2009). Observing unobservables: Identifying information asymmetries with a consumer credit field experiment. Econometrica, 77(6), 1993–2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Labie, M. (2001). Corporate governance in microfinance organizations: A long and winding road. Management Decision, 39(4), 296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Labie, M., Méon, P.-G., Mersland, R., & Szafarz, A. (2010). Discrimination by microcredit officers: Theory and evidence on disability in Uganda. Université Libre de Bruxelles CEB Working Papers 10-007.Google Scholar
  33. Lewis, E. M. (1994). Introduction to credit scoring. San Rafael, CA: Athena Press.Google Scholar
  34. McIntosh, C., & Wydick, B. (2005). Competition and microfinance. Journal of Development Economics, 78(2), 271–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McKim, A., & Hughart, M. (2005). Staff incentive schemes in practice: Finding of a global survey of microfinance institutions. MicroFinance Network, CGAP.Google Scholar
  36. Méon, P.-G., & Szafarz, A. (2011). The modern corporation as a safe haven for taste-based discrimination: An agency model of hiring decisions. Labour Economics, 18(4), 487–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mersland, R., & Øystein Strøm, R. (2010). Microfinance mission drift? World Development, 38(1), 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mueller, S. L., & Dato-On, M. C. (2011). A cross cultural study of gender-role orientation and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. doi: 10.1007/s11365-011-0187-y.
  39. Pelegrino, A. I. C. (2006). Trabalho informal: a questão das mulheres das favelas de Praia da Rosa e Sapucaia. In Cidade, Transformaçõesno mundo do trabalho e políticas públicas. A questão do comércio ambulante em tempos de globalização (pp. 31–49). Rio de Janeiro, Maria de Fatima Cabral Marques Gomes (Ed): DP&A editora.Google Scholar
  40. Riding, A. L., & Swift, C. S. (1990). Women business owners and terms of credit: Some empirical findings of the Canadian experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(5), 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ross, S. L., & Yinger, J. (2002). The color of credit: Mortgage discrimination, research methodology, and fair-lending enforcement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Stiglitz, J. E., & Weiss, A. (1981). Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. American Economic Review, 71(3), 393–410.Google Scholar
  43. Storey, D. (2004). Racial and gender discrimination in the micro firms credit market?: Evidence from Trinidad and Tobago. Small Business Economics, 23(5), 401–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tra, P. T. T., & Lensink, R. (2007). Lending policies of informal, formal and semiformal lenders. Economics of Transition, 15(2), 181–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Warning, M., & Sadoulet, E. (1998). The performance of village intermediaries in rural credit delivery under changing penalty regimes: Evidence from Senegal. Journal of Development Studies, 35(1), 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson, F., Carter, S., Tagg, S., Shaw, E., & Lam, W. (2007). Bank loan officers’ perceptions of business owners: The role of gender. British Journal of Management, 18(2), 154–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR 201—Développement et Sociétés (Sorbonne/IRD)Université Paris I Panthéon SorbonneNogent sur MarneFrance
  2. 2.Centre for European Research in Microfinance (CERMi)BrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), SBS-EM, Centre Emile Bernheim, and CERMi, ULBBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations