【正文】
帶來(lái) 的 新證據(jù) 摘要: 小額信貸運(yùn)動(dòng) 使 金融中介 機(jī)構(gòu)得到了 創(chuàng)新 ,同樣使 貧困家庭減少了貸款的成本和風(fēng)險(xiǎn) 。 有資格獲 得貸款 的家庭,他們的消費(fèi)水平低于平均消費(fèi)水平,這種家庭中,絕大部分的孩子不可能上得起學(xué),男子也 往往會(huì) 有更多的工作壓力,而女子沒(méi)有工作。 評(píng)論家有大量的關(guān)于低收入國(guó)家的其他方案的研究經(jīng)驗(yàn)。小額信貸提供小額貸款,以促進(jìn)小規(guī)模的創(chuàng)業(yè)活動(dòng),而不是 向 貧困家庭提供救濟(jì)。 然而,體制創(chuàng)新下的小額信貸 運(yùn)動(dòng)似乎大大降低了風(fēng) 險(xiǎn)和提供金融服務(wù)和為貧困家庭提供服務(wù)的費(fèi)用。紐約時(shí)報(bào) (1997)還發(fā)表《慶祝這個(gè)“繼續(xù)的 反 貧窮方案的革命” 》文章呼吁支持。格拉米銀行的國(guó)際小額信貸旗艦運(yùn)動(dòng),其模式已經(jīng)被四大洲所 復(fù)制,包括在美國(guó)的阿肯色州和內(nèi)城芝加哥都取得明顯成就。而女孩的比例分別是 55%對(duì) 40%。這一結(jié)論是驚人的,關(guān)于小額貸款的反對(duì)聲音也頻繁的在國(guó)際響起。該項(xiàng)目得到了一億美金的援助,由此,我們也可以看到它的優(yōu)勢(shì)。反而,例如,孟加拉國(guó)鄉(xiāng)村小額貸款項(xiàng)目致力于“無(wú)地機(jī)能”,這條規(guī)定要求貸款的家庭必須有超過(guò)半英畝的可耕種土地。 但是我們不能從這個(gè)例子里推出任何有效結(jié)論,這個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)說(shuō)明人們經(jīng)常違反規(guī)則。鄉(xiāng)村中沒(méi)有參與項(xiàng)目 的組中,其采樣嚴(yán)格遵循半英畝規(guī)定。強(qiáng)制要求測(cè)試組需要同對(duì)照組一樣嚴(yán)格按照規(guī)定強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行要求。實(shí)際上,當(dāng)項(xiàng)目安置被 預(yù)測(cè)到針對(duì)目標(biāo)人群沒(méi)有觀察到影響時(shí),包括地區(qū)固定影響水平能使偏差增大。研究結(jié)果還表明如何判別簡(jiǎn)單的誤導(dǎo)性的指標(biāo),他們持有類似的在低收入國(guó)家其他社會(huì)項(xiàng)目評(píng)估如公共健康和低收入的經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn)。 they use the same data as used here). But the idea can not be implemented reliably in this sample. The data demonstrate frequent violations of the rules. For example, 30% of Grameen borrowers own more land than the halfacre cutoff, with landholdings as large as fourteen acres. Among households labeled in the survey as “eligible” to borrow and with access to programs, the fraction of borrowers is nearly twice as high for those holding over half an acre versus those below (63% versus 34% for the three programs bined。 Does Microfinance Really Help the Poor? New Evidence from Flagship Programs in Bangladesh Abstract The microfinance movement has built on innovations in financial intermediation that reduce the costs and risks of lending to poor households. Replications of the movement’s flagship, the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, have now spread around the world. While programs aim to bring social and economic benefits to clients, few attempts have been made to quantify benefits rigorously. This paper draws on a new crosssectional survey of nearly 1800 households, some of which are served by the Grameen Bank and two similar programs, and some of which have no access to programs. Households that are eligible to borrow and have access to the programs do not have notably higher consumption levels than control households, and, for the most part, their children are no more likely to be in school. Men also tend to work harder, and women less. More favorably, relative to controls, households eligible for programs have substantially (and significantly) lower variation in consumption and labor supply across seasons. The most important potential impacts are thus associated with the reduction of v