Advertisement

Financial Inclusion, Deepening and Efficiency in Microfinance Programs: Evidence from Bangladesh

  • Md Aslam Mia
  • Lucia Dalla Pellegrina
  • Patrick Van Damme
  • Mahinda Wijesiri
Original Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

The economic literature provides evidence that growth is associated with positive performance of the financial sector. This aspect is particularly important for developing countries. This study aims to investigate whether, in an environment of growing competition and regulation, the maintenance of their social mission may have led microfinance institutions (MFIs) to compromise their performance, in terms of efficient production of credit services. To this purpose, we use a two-stage approach to analyze the relationship between outreach and efficiency of MFIs in Bangladesh. In the first stage, a dynamic data envelopment analysis is exploited to measure the efficiency of MFIs from 2009 to 2014. The results show that most of the MFIs are operationally inefficient over the period, suggesting a considerable potential for future improvement. In the second stage, the study examines the potential trade-off between MFIs’ commitment to financial inclusion and depth of outreach on the one hand and efficiency on the other hand, using a double bootstrapping methodology that helps in limiting the problems arising from the endogenous nature of the measures of outreach with respect to efficiency. The results show that financial inclusion is positively associated with MFIs’ efficiency, whereas the relationship between deepening and efficiency turns up negative, providing partial evidence in support of ‘mission drift’ in the Bangladesh microfinance industry. This may be indicative of the fact that MFIs with stronger commercial objectives have expanded their business and their margins of efficiency to compete with other intermediaries. In contrast, the MFIs with a more intense social strategy may have suffered a decrease in their operating efficiency in order to maintain their social mission. Policy implications point towards a greater degree of awareness on the part of the regulatory authorities of the consequences of imposing constraints on the operating mechanisms of the microfinance industry, such as interest rate caps. We also suggest that rules disciplining competition should not be uniform, but rather tailored to specific outreach indicators.

Keywords

Microfinance Financial inclusion Efficiency Bangladesh 

Resume

Dans la littérature économique, on trouve ample évidence que la croissance est associée avec une performance positive du secteur financier. Ce dernier est particulièrement important pour les pays en voie de développement. Cette étude analyse si, dans un environnement caractérise par une hausse de la compétition et de la régulation, les institutions de microfinance (acronyme anglaise: MFIs) ont dû compromettre leur performance (en termes de production effective de services de crédit) afin de maintenir leur mission sociale. Dans cette étude, on utilise une approche en deux étapes pour analyser la relation entre l’efficacité et la portée communautaire des MFIs en Bangladesh. Dans la première étape, une analyse dynamique d’enveloppement des données (acronyme anglaise: DEA) a été utilisé pour mesurer l’efficacité des MFIs entre 2009 et 2014. Les résultats montrent que la plupart des MFIs sont opérationnellement inefficaces pendant cette période, ce qui suggère un considérable potentiel d’amélioration. Dans la deuxième étape, l’étude examine le possible compromis entre deux aspects des opérations des MFIs: d’un côté, leur engagement d’inclusivité et portée communautaires; de l’autre, leur efficacité. Pour cette deuxième étape, la méthodologie utilisé (« double bootstrapping ») limite les problèmes dérivants de la nature endogène des mesures de la portée communautaire envers les mesures de l’efficacité. Les résultats indiquent que l’inclusivité financière est positivement associée à l’efficacité des MFIs. Cependant, la relation entre la portée communautaire et l’efficacité est négative. Cela offre une preuve partielle a l’appui de la théorie du « détournement de mission » en acte dans l’industrie micro financière en Bangladesh. On peut théoriser que les MFIs avec des objectifs commerciaux plus forts ont élargi leurs affaires et augmenté leur efficacité pour compétir avec d’autres intermédiaires. Cependant, les MFIs avec une stratégie sociale plus forte ont diminué leur efficacité opérationnelle afin de maintenir leur mission sociale. Les implications politiques tendent vers la nécessité d’une conscience plus marqué (de la part des autorités réglementaires) à propos des conséquences entrainés par l’imposition de certaines contraints sur les mécanismes opératifs de l’industrie micro financière, tels qu’un plafond des taux d’intérêt. On suggère aussi que la réglementation compétitive doit prendre en considération les spécificités des indicateurs de portée communautaire.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Managing Editor (Prof. Natalia Lorenzoni), the area editor (Prof. Wendy Olsen) and three anonymous referees for their constructive suggestions on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Any remaining errors are solely the authors’ responsibility.

References

  1. Ahlin, C., J. Lin, and M. Maio. 2011. Where does microfinance flourish? Microfinance institution performance in macro-economic context. Journal of Development Economics 95 (2): 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allaire, V., A. Ashta, L. Attuel-Mendes, and K. Krishnaswamy. 2009. Institutional analysis to explain the success of Moroccan microfinance institutions. First European Research Conference on Microfinance, Brussels.Google Scholar
  3. Armendáriz, B., and A. Szafarz. 2011. On mission drift in microfinance institutions. In The handbook of microfinance, ed. B. Armendariz and M. Labie, 341–366. Singapour: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armendáriz, B., B. D’Espallier, M. Hudon, and A. Szafarz. 2013. Subsidy uncertainty and microfinance mission drift. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1731265. Accessed 10 Nov 2016.
  5. Balkenhol, B. (ed.). 2007. Microfinance and public policy: Outreach, performance and efficiency. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Banker, R.D. 1984. Estimating most productive scale size using data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 17 (1): 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basharat, B., M. Hudon, and A. Nawaz. 2015. Does efficiency lead to lower prices? A new perspective from microfinance interest rates. Strategic Change 24 (1): 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benston, G.J. 1965. Branch banking and economies of scale. The Journal of Finance 20 (2): 312–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berg, S. 2010. Water utility benchmarking: Measurement, methodology, and performance incentives. International Water Association.Google Scholar
  10. Berger, A.N., and D.B. Humphrey. 1992. Megamergers in banking and the use of cost efficiency as an antitrust defense. Antitrust Bulletin 37: 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhatt, N., and S.Y. Tang. 2001. Delivering microfinance in developing countries: Controversies and policy perspectives. Policy studies journal 29 (2): 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bhuiyan, M. M. 2018. Half of Bangladesh adults remain unbanked: WB. The Financial Express. Available at https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/trade/half-of-bangladesh-adults-remain-unbanked-wb-1524886500. Accessed 3 June 2018.
  13. Blitz, R.C., and M.F. Long. 1965. The economics of usury regulation. Journal of Political Economy 73 (6): 608–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brand, M. 2000. More bang for the buck: Improving efficiency. MicroBanking Bulletin 4: 13–18.Google Scholar
  15. CGAP. 2018. What is financial inclusion and why is it important? Available at, http://www.cgap.org/about/faq/what-financial-inclusion-and-why-it-important. Accessed 5 May 2018.
  16. CGAP. 2004. The impact of interest rate ceilings on microfinance donor brief, No. 18. Retrieved from https://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/CGAP-Donor-Brief-The-Impact-of-Interest-Rate-Ceilings-on-Microfinance-May-2004.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2018.
  17. Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2 (6): 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chowdhury, A. 2009. Microfinance as a poverty reduction tool: A critical assessment. DESA Working Paper No. 89, DESA-UN.Google Scholar
  19. Conning, J. 1999. Outreach, sustainability and leverage in monitored and peer-monitored lending. Journal of Development Economics 60 (1): 51–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Copestake, J. 2007. Mainstreaming microfinance: Social performance management or mission drift? World Development 35 (10): 1721–1738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cull, R., A. Demiguḉ-Kunt, and J. Morduch. 2007. Financial performance and outreach: A global analysis of leading microbanks. Economic Journal 117 (517): 107–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cull, R., A. Demirguc-Kunt, and J. Morduch. 2011. Does regulatory supervision curtail microfinance profitability and outreach? World Development 39 (6): 949–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dalla Pellegrina, L. 2011. Microfinance and investment: A comparison with bank and informal lending. World Development 39 (6): 882–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Das, A., and S.C. Kumbhakar. 2012. Productivity and efficiency dynamics in Indian banking: An input distance function approach incorporating quality of inputs and outputs. Journal of applied Econometrics 27 (2): 205–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dorfleitner, G., M. Leidl, C. Priberny, and J. von Mosch. 2013. What determines microcredit interest rates? Applied Financial Economics 23 (20): 1579–1597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dowla, A. 2001. In credit we trust: Building Social Capital by Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  27. Dowla, A. 2006. In credit we trust: Building social capital by Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. The Journal of Socio-Economics 35 (1): 102–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dowla, A., and D. Barua. 2006. The poor always pay back: The Grameen II story. Bloomfield: Kumarian.Google Scholar
  29. Drake, D., and E. Rhyne (eds.). 2002. The commercialization of microfinance: Balancing business and development, 101–114. Bloomfield: Kumarian.Google Scholar
  30. Färe, R., S. Grosskof, M. Norris, and Z. Zhang. 1994. Productivity growth technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. American Economic Review 84 (1): 66–83.Google Scholar
  31. Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and M. Norris. 1997. Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries: Reply. American Economic Review 87 (5): 1040–1044.Google Scholar
  32. Farrel, M.J. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 120: 253–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ferro-Luzzi, G., and S. Weber. 2006. Measuring the performance of microfinance institutions. Mimeo, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  34. Fukuyama, H., and R. Matousek. 2011. Efficiency of Turkish banking: Two-stage network system. Variable returns to scale model. Journal of International Financial Markets 21 (1): 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Glaeser, E.L., and J. Scheinkman. 1998. Neither a borrower nor a lender be: An economic analysis of interest restrictions and usury laws. The Journal of Law and Economics 41 (1): 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gutierrez-Nieto, B., C. Serrano-Cinca, and C.M. Molinero. 2007. Microfinance institutions and efficiency. Omega 35 (2): 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Haq, M., M. Skully, and S. Pathan. 2010. Efficiency of microfinance institutions: A data envelopment analysis. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets 17 (1): 63–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hartarska, V., and D. Nadolnyak. 2007. Do regulated microfinance institutions achieve better sustainability and outreach? Cross-country evidence. Applied Economics 39 (10): 1207–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hermes, N., R. Lensink, and A. Meesters. 2011. Outreach and efficiency of microfinance institutions. World Development 39 (6): 938–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hossein, C.S. 2014. The politics of resistance: Informal banks in the Caribbean. The Review of Black Political Economy 41 (1): 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hudon, M., and D. Traca. 2011. On the efficiency effects of subsidies in microfinance: An empirical inquiry. World Development 39 (6): 966–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hulme, D., and P. Mosley. 1996. Finance against poverty. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  43. Isik, I., and M.K. Hassan. 2002. Technical, scale and allocative efficiencies of Turkish banking industry. Journal of Banking & Finance 26: 719–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kapoor, M., J. Morduch, and S. Ravi. 2007. From microfinance to m-finance innovations case discussion: M-PESA. Innovations 2 (1–2): 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. King, R.G., and R. Levine. 1993. Finance and growth: Schumpeter might be right. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (3): 717–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lapenu, C., and M. Zeller. 2002. Distribution, growth, and performance of the microfinance institutions in Africa, Asia and Latin America: A recent inventory. Savings and Development 1: 87–111.Google Scholar
  47. Mader, P. 2018. Contesting financial inclusion. Development and Change 49 (2): 461–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Makame, A.H., and V. Murinde. 2006. Empirical findings on cognitive dissonance around microfinance outreach and sustainability. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press.Google Scholar
  49. Martínez-Campillo, A., M. Wijesiri, and P. Wanke. 2018. Evaluating the double bottom-line of social banking in an emerging country: How efficient are public banks in supporting priority and non-priority sectors in India? Journal of Business Ethics 21: 1–22.Google Scholar
  50. McGuire, P.B., and J.D. Conroy. 2000. The microfinance phenomenon. Asia Pacific Review 7 (1): 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McIntosh, C., G. Villaran, and B. Wydick. 2011. Microfinance and home improvement: Using retrospective panel data to measure program effects on fundamental events. World Development 39 (6): 922–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mersland, R., and R.Ø. Strøm. 2010. Microfinance mission drift? World Development 38 (1): 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mia, M.A. 2016. Microfinance institutions and legal status: An overview of the microfinance sector in Bangladesh. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 3 (2): 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mia, M.A., and H.A. Lee. 2017. Mission drift and ethical crisis in microfinance institutions: What matters? Journal of Cleaner Production 164: 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mia, M.A., H.-A. Lee, V.G.R. Chandran, R. Rasiah, and M. Rahman. 2017. History of microfinance in Bangladesh: A life cycle theory approach. Business History.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2017.1413096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mia, M.A. 2017a. An overview of the microfinance sector in Bangladesh. The East Asian Journal of Business Management 7 (2): 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mia, M.A. 2017b. Interest rate caps in microfinance: Issues and challenges. International Journal of Industrial Distribution and Business 8 (3): 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mimouni, K., and M.A. Ali. 2012. The impact of socioeconomic factors and financial access on microfinance institutions. International Journal of Economics and Finance 4 (4): 61.Google Scholar
  59. Mohane, H., G.K. Coetzee, and W. Grant. 2000. The effects of the interest rate ceilings on the micro lending market in South Africa. Agrekon 39 (4): 730–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Morduch, J. 1999. The role of subsidies in microfinance: Evidence from the Grameen Bank. Journal of Development Economics 60 (1): 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. MRA. 2011. NGO-MFIs in Bangladesh: A statistical publication. Retrieved from Dhaka, Bangladesh.Google Scholar
  62. MRA. 2015. NGO-MFIs in Bangladesh: A Statistical Publication. Bangladesh: Microcredit Regulatory Authority.Google Scholar
  63. Nawaz, S. 2010. Microfinance and poverty reduction: Evidence from a village study in Bangladesh. Journal of Asian and African Studies 45 (6): 670–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Olivares-Polanco, F. 2005. Commercializing microfinance and deepening outreach? Empirical evidence from Latin America. Journal of Microfinance/ESR Review 7 (2): 5.Google Scholar
  65. Pasiouras, F., and K. Kosmidou. 2007. Factors influencing the profitability of domestic and foreign commercial banks in the European Union. Research in International Business and Finance 21 (2): 222–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pastor, J.T., J.L. Ruiz, and I. Sirvent. 1999. An enhanced DEA Russell graph efficiency measure. European Journal of Operational Research 115 (3): 596–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Paxton, J. 2007. Contrasting methodologies for expanding microfinance outreach to the rural poor: Trade-offs and lessons from Mexico’s PATMIR project. Savings and Development 31: 283–306.Google Scholar
  68. Paxton, J., and C. Cuevas. 2002. Outreach and sustainability of member-based rural financial intermediaries, 135–151. The Triangle of Microfinance: Financial Sustainability, Outreach, and Impact.Google Scholar
  69. Quayes, S. 2012. Depth of outreach and financial sustainability of microfinance institutions. Applied Economics 44 (26): 3421–3433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Quayes, S. 2015. Outreach and performance of microfinance institutions: A panel analysis. Applied Economics 47 (18): 1909–1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Racioppi, L. 1994. Soviet policy towards South Asia since 1970. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rhyne, E., and M. Otero. 2006. Microfinance through the next decade: Visioning the who, what, where, when and how. Boston, MA: ACCION International.Google Scholar
  73. Sealey, C.W., and J.T. Lindley. 1977. Inputs, outputs, and a theory of production and cost at depository financial institutions. The Journal of Finance 32 (4): 1251–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sebstad, J., and Cohen, M. 2001. Microfinance, risk management and poverty: Synthesis study. Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP), World Bank.Google Scholar
  75. Servin, R., R. Lensink, and M. van den Berg. 2012. Ownership and technical efficiency of microfinance institutions: Empirical evidence from Latin America. Journal of Banking & Finance 36 (7): 2136–2144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Shaw, E. S. 1973. Financial deepening in economic development. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
  77. Simar, L., and P.W. Wilson. 2007. Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. Journal of Econometrics 136 (1): 31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stiglitz, J.E., and A. Weiss. 1981. Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. American economic review 71 (3): 393–410.Google Scholar
  79. Sufian, F. 2011. Banks total factor productivity change in a developing economy: Does ownership and origins matter? Journal of Asian Economics 22 (1): 84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sufian, F., and M.S. Habibullah. 2012. Globalization and bank efficiency nexus: Symbiosis or parasites? Review of Development Finance 2 (3): 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tone, K. 2001. A slacks-based measure of efficiency in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 130 (3): 498–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tone, K., and M. Tsutsui. 2010. Dynamic DEA: A slacks-based measure approach. Omega 38 (3): 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Van Damme, P., M. Wijesiri, and M. Meoli. 2016. Governance and efficiency of microfinance institutions: Empirical evidence from Sri Lanka. South Asia Economic Journal 17 (2): 236–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vanroose, A., and B. D’Espallier. 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 (15): 1965–1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vatn, A. 2009. Sustainability, institutions and behavior. In Institutions and sustainability, ed. V. Beckmann and M. Padmanabhan, 293–314. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wijesiri, M., L. Viganò, and M. Meoli. 2015. Efficiency of microfinance institutions in Sri Lanka: A two-stage double bootstrap DEA approach. Economic Modelling 47: 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wijesiri, M., and M. Meoli. 2015. Productivity change of microfinance institutions in Kenya: A bootstrap Malmquist approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 25: 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wijesiri, M. 2016. Weathering the storm: Ownership structure and performance of microfinance institutions in the wake of the global financial crisis. Economic Modelling 57: 238–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wijesiri, M., J. Yaron, and M. Meoli. 2017. Assessing the financial and outreach efficiency of microfinance institutions: Do age and size matter? Journal of Multinational Financial Management 40: 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. World Bank. 2017. Bangladesh continues to reduce poverty but at slower pace. Available at, http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/10/24/bangladesh-continues-to-reduce-poverty-but-at-slower-pace. Accessed 10 Nov 2017.
  91. World Bank. 2018. Financial inclusion. Available at, http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialinclusion. Accessed 5 Nov 2018.
  92. Yunus, M. 2003. Banker to the poor: The story of the Grameen Bank. London: Aurum.Google Scholar
  93. Yunus, M. 2007. Banker to the poor. New Delhi: Penguin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Md Aslam Mia
    • 1
  • Lucia Dalla Pellegrina
    • 2
  • Patrick Van Damme
    • 3
    • 4
  • Mahinda Wijesiri
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.School of Management (SOM)Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM)Pulau PenangMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Management and Statistics (DEMS)University of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly
  3. 3.Laboratory of Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture and Ethnobotany, Department of Plants and Crops, Faculty of Bioscience EngineeringGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  4. 4.Faculty of Tropical AgriSciencesCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePrague 6 – SuchdolCzech Republic
  5. 5.Department for Management of Science and Technology DevelopmentTon Duc Thang UniversityHo Chi Minh CityVietnam
  6. 6.Faculty of Business AdministrationTon Duc Thang UniversityHo Chi Minh CityVietnam

Personalised recommendations