Why Borrow?
“Does microcredit work?” It’s a question we hear a lot. But the answer depends on what the question really is. Does microcredit slash poverty? (Not clearly.)
Does microcredit increase micro-enterprise profit? (Some of the time, but capital often gets channeled to other uses and not everyone is a great entrepreneur.) Does microcredit improve the lives of borrowers? (Yes it can, but seldom dramatically and sometimes microcredit can get borrowers into trouble.)
Rather than being a single tool used to solve a single problem (like funding a business), microcredit is often one among a set of tools, whose usefulness as a set may be fundamental but whose individual impact is often incremental and thinly spread.
Read More...At the most basic level, credit provides the opportunity to move consumption or investment to the present. Borrowing can help smooth periodic ups and downs caused by the irregular income flows common in poor families. Borrowing also allows families to acquire a “usefully large” sum of money to be used for a big purchase. The alternative is waiting to accumulate such a sum through savings—a challenge that many households may find difficult or impossible. As a result, microcredit loans—even microloans targeted to entrepreneurs—are used in a variety of ways.
- http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/economics/workingpapers/wp0136.pdf
- http://financialaccess.org/sites/default/files/publications/pop-briefing-note-7-grameen-ii-and-portfolios-of-the-poor.pdf
- http://karlan.yale.edu/p/JDE-ListRandomization.pdf
A big view can be seen through the Global Findex study, conducted by Gallup, which shows the uses of loans from all lending sources (not just microfinance institutions) across all income groups (not just low-income). The survey shows that 16% of households in low-income countries and almost 15% of households in lower-middle-income countries had borrowed to cover the costs of health-related emergencies. We also see that a significant percentage of households in both country groups had borrowed to offset the costs of school fees, housing construction, funerals or weddings, or to purchase housing. Respondents were allowed to report more than one reason for borrowing, so many households may have taken loans out to cover more than one type of expense. (Borrowing for business was not an option in this survey.)
A Behavioral Twist
There’s another reason to borrow, and it has a behavioral twist. Behavioral economics gives psychological reasons for why it can be hard to save, and that naturally makes borrowing more of a necessity when you need money. But there’s also a subtler (though more direct) connection: the activities around saving and borrowing look pretty similar in important ways. Saving usually involves making small, periodic deposits into an account in order to have a big sum in the future. Borrowing through microcredit also usually requires making small, periodic transfers and getting a stream of big sums in the future. Borrowing, however, has a useful commitment device attached; it is harder to skip periodic payments to a lender (who has the power to enforce a contract) than to skip deposits to yourself. It is also often easier for a poor household to obtain a loan than a secure, regulated, and convenient savings account. One implication is that if you have already managed to put away some savings, you have a good reason to want to protect them, maybe even by borrowing. Another implication is that if you don’t have great ways to save, microcredit borrowing can be a substitute accumulation device, as suggested by evidence from India. In the end, saving and borrowing are often complements, not substitutes. Being able to borrow can help you hold on to your hard-earned savings. When important needs arise, you may use your savings plus borrow. Those who argue that credit is more important than saving – or vice versa – are missing the point.
Too Much Debt
Of course, the use of credit is not always so rosy. Some people continue to borrow because they are caught in “debt traps.” It is not hard to find yourself in a debt trap; you borrow to cover the cost of an urgent need and use the income you earn in the following weeks or months to pay back the loan. But once you have used your income to pay it back, you do not have enough left over to cover your current expenses and you must borrow again to stay afloat. Some households may be able to escape these traps, but many others are stuck in them indefinitely or until they must default.
The Value of Options
So why not borrow? Take-up rates of microcredit in poor communities are always well under 100 percent, and usually well under 50 percent. Some families choose to ration their use of credit out of fear of over-indebtedness. Other households may not borrow because the credit products available are expensive or do not suit their particular borrowing needs. Even as attention turns to other financial products, there’s further in credit product design.
...Read Less|
Jan 2012
|
FAI
|
|
|
|
High quality evidence on the state of financial access around the world is advancing rapidly, as the chapters of this book illustrate. A happy consequence of increasing knowledge is the ability to better recognize what we don’t yet know. Here are ten questions, some micro, some macro, that need answers if we are to make informed decisions on how to improve financial access. |
|||
|
Mar 2008
|
External
|
Paper
|
|
|
We expect a lot from the middle classes. At least three distinct arguments about the special economic role of the middle class are traditionally made. In one, new entrepreneurs armed with a capacity and a tolerance for delayed gratification emerge from the middle class and create employment and productivity growth for the rest of society. In a second, perhaps more conventional view, the middle class is primarily a source of vital inputs for the entrepreneurial class: it is their "middle class values" -- their emphasis on the accumulation of human capital and savings -- that makes them central to the process of capitalist accumulation. The third view, a staple of the business press, emphasizes the middle class consumer, whose demand for quality consumer goods feeds investment in production and marketing, which in turn raises income levels for everyone. |
|||
|
Oct 2006
|
External
|
Paper
|
|
|
This paper uses survey data from 13 countries to document the economic lives of the poor (those living on less than $2 dollar per day per capita at purchasing power parity ) or the extremely poor (those living on less than $1 dollar per day). We describe their patterns of consumption and income generation as well as their access to markets and publicly provided infrastructure. The paper concludes with a discussion of some apparent anomalous choices. |
|
Expert
|
Themes
|
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Apr 2013
|
|
Big Picture, Credit, Poverty, Product Design
|
|
|
Mar 2013
|
|
Agriculture, Credit
|
|
|
Nov 2011
|
|
Behavioral Economics, Credit, Savings
|
|
|
Oct 2010
|
|
Big Picture, Credit, Gender, Women
|
|
|
Oct 2010
|
|
Big Picture, Credit
|
|
|
Oct 2010
|
|
Big Picture, Credit
|
|
|
Feb 2009
|
|
Big Picture, Credit
|
There are currently no quick links for this question.
|
Apr 2013
|
FAI
|
Article
|
|
|
In this essay for the Milken Review, Jonathan Morduch surveys the history, the evidence and the narrative of microfinance to uncover the assumptions and contradictions at work. While there is evidence that micro-lending helps poor families better cope with poverty if not escape it, there has been too little attention paid to uncovering what poor households actually need from financial services. He says, "if microfinance deserves continuing support, it’s because poor families deserve reliable, hassle-free ways to save and to borrow along with tools to cope with risk." Ultimately, he concludes, the future of microfinance must be built on providing families with a variety of ways to match cash flows with consumption and investment needs. |
|||
|
How and Why Do People Borrow?481 KB
Infographic
|
Aug 2012
|
FAI
|
Infographic
|
|
Why do People Borrow?167 KB
Infographic
|
Jul 2012
|
FAI
|
Infographic
|
|
Apr 2012
|
External
|
Paper
|
|
|
This paper provides the first analysis of the Global Financial Inclusion (Global Findex) Database, a new set |
|||
|
Feb 2012
|
External
|
Paper
|
|
|
Most people in rural Africa do not have bank accounts. In this paper, we combine experimental and survey evidence from Western Kenya to document some of the supply and demand factors behind such low levels of financial inclusion. Our experiment had two parts. In the first part, we waived the fixed cost of opening a basic savings account at a local bank for a random subset of individuals who were initially unbanked. While 63% of people opened an account, only 18% actively used it. Survey evidence suggests that the main reasons people did not begin saving in their bank accounts are that: (1) they do not trust the bank, (2) service is unreliable, and (3) withdrawal fees are prohibitively expensive. In the second part of the experiment, we provided information on local credit options and lowered the eligibility requirements for an initial small loan. Within the following 6 months, only 3% of people initiated the loan application process. Survey evidence suggests that people do not borrow because they do not want to risk losing their collateral. These results suggest that, while simply expanding access to banking services (for instance by lowering account opening fees) will benefit a minority, broader success may be unobtainable unless the quality of services is simultaneously improved. There are also challenges on the demand side, however. More work needs to be done to understand what savings and credit products are best suited for the majority of rural households. |
|||
|
Jan 2012
|
FAI
|
|
|
|
High quality evidence on the state of financial access around the world is advancing rapidly, as the chapters of this book illustrate. A happy consequence of increasing knowledge is the ability to better recognize what we don’t yet know. Here are ten questions, some micro, some macro, that need answers if we are to make informed decisions on how to improve financial access. |
|||
|
Dec 2011
|
FAI
|
Paper
|
|
|
In 2009, the results from two microcredit impact studies in Hyderabad, India, and Manila, the Philippines were released to mixed responses (Banerjee, Duflo, Glennerster, and Kinnan 2010; Karlan and Zinman 2011). Some media declared microfinance a failure (Bennett 2009). Many in the microfinance community dismissed these randomized studies as too limited to be a true reflection of the entire sector. These first randomized studies caused a sensation because they challenged the dominant impact narrative for microcredit—a narrative that rests on loans to capital-constrained microentrepreneurs who earn a steep return on marginal capital and thus can repay a relatively high interest rate and reinvest to grow out of poverty—and the way in which that narrative had been universalized in the popular imagination. In fact, the results were more nuanced. What the microcredit studies really showed is that this model of microcredit works for some populations—those who successfully grow businesses—but not for others. |
|||
|
Sep 2011
|
External
|
Paper
|
|
|
This paper examines whether and how repayment structure of a debt contract influences entrepreneurship. Using a field experiment, we contrast the classic microfinance contract which requires repayment begin immediately after loan disbursement with a contract that includes a two-month grace-period. The shift to a grace-period contract increased short-run business investments and long-run profits. Alongside, variance of profits and default rates increase. These findings suggest that liquidity constraints imposed by debt structure inhibit investment in high-return but illiquid investment opportunities. Debt contracts that require early repayment discourage risky investments but limit the potential impact of microfinance on entrepreneurship and household poverty. |
|||
|
Jan 2011
|
External
|
Working Paper
|
|
|
Using credit report records and data collected from several household surveys, we analyze changes in household debt and saving during the 2007 recession. We find that, while different segments of the population were affected in distinct ways, depending on whether they owned a home, whether they owned stocks, and whether they had secure jobs, the crisis’ impact appears to have been widespread, affecting large shares of households across all age, income, and education groups. In response to their deteriorated financial situations, households reduced their average spending and increased their saving. This increase in saving―at least in 2009―did not materialize through an increase in contributions to retirement and savings accounts. If anything, such contributions actually declined on average during that year. Instead, the higher saving rate appears to reflect a considerable decline in household debt, as households paid down mortgage debt in particular. At the end of 2009, individuals expected to continue increasing their saving and paying down of debt, which is consistent with what we have observed so far in 2010. In contrast, consumers were pessimistic about the availability of credit, expecting it to become harder to obtain during 2010. |
|||
|
Oct 2010
|
FAI
|
Brief
|
|
|
This reading list includes suggested background reading in the areas of dynamic optimization and the neoclassical benchmark; evidence from high-frequency data; returns to capital; credit innovations and microfinance; saving; property rights and land reform: and social enterprise. |