Abstract
Abstract: We present evidence from a randomized field experiment in rural Mongolia on the comparative poverty impact of group versus individual microcredit. We find a positive impact of group loans but not of individual loans on entrepreneurship and food consumption. Moreover, group borrowers are less likely to make informal transfers to families and friends while the opposite holds true for individual borrowers. This suggests that joint liability may deter borrowers from using loans for non-investment purposes with stronger impacts as a result. We find no difference in repayment rates between both types of microcredit.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Place of Publication | Tilburg |
| Publisher | Finance |
| Number of pages | 68 |
| Volume | 2013-074 |
| Publication status | Published - 2013 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Publication series
| Name | CentER Discussion Paper |
|---|---|
| Volume | 2013-074 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 1 No Poverty
-
SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth
Keywords
- Microcredit
- poverty
- randomized field experiment
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Group Lending or Individual Lending? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment in Rural Mongolia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver