Using three indicators of quality, the authors investigate whether microinsurance can help improve the quality of healthcare provided to poor patients. The three indicators are: structure (material and human resources available to patients at healthcare facilities), process (what steps are followed in giving care to patients) and outcome (the effects of the care on a patient’s health status). The find that health insurance status is not significantly associated with better quality care as measured by the three dimensions of quality.
- Behavioral Economics 4
- Big Picture 17
- Commercialization 7
- Commitment Devices 4
- Credit 37
- Customer Protection 2
- Customers 17
- Data 6
- Debt 2
- Economics 1
- Education 1
- Entrepreneurship 1
- Financial Literacy 1
- Health 5
- Impact Evaluation 10
- Income 1
- Informal Providers 4
- Information Technology 1
- Insurance 13
- Interest Rates 7
- Methodology 6
- Mexico 3
- Microfinance 6
- Microsavings 1
- Migration 4
- Mobile Money 4
- Operations 1
- Participation 1
- Payments 6
- Portfolios of the Poor 28
- Poverty 18
- Product Design 17
- Randomized Control Trials 8
- Regulation 6
- Remittance 5
- Research 1
- Rural 6
- Savings 27
- Social Finance 4
- Sociology 1
- Subsidy 3
- Take Up 1
- Technology Adoption 1
- US Financial Diaries 2
- Ultra Poor 8
- Urban 3
- Women 4
We investigate whether microinsurers can help improve the quality of healthcare, and not just its price. We study Indian patients who had a caesarean section, appendectomy, hysterectomy, or abdominal hernia surgery. We compare indicators of facility’s infrastructure; doctor’s qualification and knowledge; process of care; and patient satisfaction. Two thirds of insured patients contacted the insurer about their choice of provider. They are directed towards facilities that are part of the insurer’s network, which have better infrastructure than non-network facilities. Being insured, however, is not significantly associated with receiving better-quality care, even when controlling for several patient and facility characteristics.
Can the poorest be reached with finance? "Ultra poor" members of society face a series of constraints and deprivations that distinguish them from the general poor. Limited social networks, chronic malnutrition, and reliance on patronage systems characterize a socioeconomic class that is hard to "bank."
It’s not surprising that saving is hard for many of us. We’re impatient, temptations are at hand, and savings devices are seldom ideal. By the same token, it would not be surprising to find that we have a hard time keeping money in the bank. But, puzzlingly, new studies give examples of people withdrawing funds less often than neoclassical economic theory suggests they should (e.g., relative to the simulations of optimal savings in Deaton 1991). And, paradoxically, it is often the same people who had trouble saving who also have trouble drawing down their savings. Some are so reluctant to dis-save that they willingly borrow at expensive interest rates to avoid touching their savings.
Can the poorest be reached with finance? If yes, there are two main routes. The first option is for institutions to extend existing products and services to even poorer customers. The other is to design independent approaches that target the particular challenges faced by the ultra poor.
A presentation for the Microfinance Club of New York.
Microfinance banks use group-based lending contracts to strengthen borrowers’ incentives for diligence, but the contracts are vulnerable to free-riding and collusion. We systematically unpack microfinance mechanisms through ten experimental games played in an experi- mental economics laboratory in urban Peru. Risk-taking broadly conforms to theoretical predictions, with dynamic incentives strongly reducing risk-taking even without group-based mechanisms. Group lending increases risk-taking, especially for risk-averse borrowers, but this is moderated when borrowers form their own groups. Group contracts benefit borrowers by creating implicit insurance against investment losses, but the costs are borne by other borrowers, espe- cially the most risk averse.
Daryl Collins, co-author of Portfolios of the Poor and Senior Associate, Bankable Frontier Associates continues her discussion on implementing lessons from Portfolios of the Poor in South Africa.
Daryl Collins, co-author of Portfolios of the Poor and Senior Associate, Bankable Frontier Associates talks about implementing lessons from Portfolios of the Poor in South Africa.
Sukhwinder Singh Arora, co-author of two books Small Customer, Big Market: Commercial Banks in Microfinance (with Malcolm Harper) and The Poor and their Money (with Stuart Rutherford) talks about how the lessons from Portfolios of the Poor help providers design better products.
Richard Rosenberg, consultant to CGAP, continues his discussion of the value proposition of microfinance and how this relates to the price for financial services.
Richard Rosenberg, consultant to CGAP, talks about the value proposition of microfinance and how this relates to the price for financial services.
Richard Rosenberg, consultant to CGAP, highlights the biggest findings of Portfolios of the Poor.
Jonathan Morduch, co-author of Portfolios of the Poor shares his opinion on what the book tells us about reimagining microfinance.
Jonathan Morduch, co-author of Portfolios of the Poor shares his opinion on what the book tells us about reimagining microfinance.
Stuart Rutherford, co-author of Portfolios of the Poor, discusses three MFIs that have redesigned their products to more adequately meet the three fundamental challenges poor households face. These challenges are outlined in Part 3 of this video series: Identifying and Meeting the Financial Needs of the Poor.
Stuart Rutherford outlines the three major challenges Portfolios of the Poor authors continually observed among diarists: 1) extreme poverty is not only about being very poor, but about managing daily expenses with unpredictable earnings and unreliable jobs: 2) the hardships of limited earnings are compounded by emergencies to which the poor are so vulnerable, forcing already-poor households to patch together an adequate level of cash; and 3) low wages and frequent emergencies prevent households from assembling usefully large sums for bigger expenses, such as housing, marriages, and education, etc.
Co-author Stuart Rutherford identifies the key lessons from Portfolios of the Poor and highlights misconceptions about the financial practices of poor households that its research helped to correct. Rutherford also answers questions about the diverse and complex saving methods employed by Portfolio diarists.
Stuart Rutherford, the founder of SafeSave, talks about the importance of understanding the financial needs of poor customers.
Bob Christen, director of the Financial Services for the Poor Initiative at Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, offers a thoughtful introduction to Portfolios of the Poor. Critical to the value of microfinance, he states, is the recognition and understanding of the nuances in the financial lives of the poor: broader financial inclusion can be achieved in ways that extend beyond loans for investment purposes. Portfolios revealed that what poor households need are better ways to manage and save their limited resources. Christen emphasizes that with this awareness, microfinance practioners can design a better generation of financial instruments for the poor, and identifies Portfolios of the Poor as the "guide" to achieve this goal.
NYU's William Easterly explains how Portfolios of the Poor gives us a more realistic look at the poor people, and how it changes the perspective on loans for daily consumption.
Yaw Nyarko, Professor of Economics at New York University and Director of NYU Africa House, talks about the particulars of the research for Portfolios of the Poor and how it will influence the development of new research trends.
Answering surveys is usually voluntary, yet much of our knowledge about microfinance depends on the willingness of households and institutions to respond to survey questions. In this study, Financial Access Initiative Managing Director Jonathan Morduch and Jonathan Bauchet explore the implications of voluntary reporting on knowledge about the performance of microfinance institutions, specifically focusing on the MixMarket and Microcredit Summit Campaign databases. They show patterns of systematic biases in microfinance institutions’ choices about which survey to respond to and which specific indicators to report. These patterns in turn affect analyses of key questions on trade-offs between financial and social goals in microfinance. The results highlight the conditional nature of our knowledge and the value of supporting social reporting.
The Grameen Bank of Bangladesh is the best-known and most widely imitated microfinance pioneer. But Grameen found itself in trouble in the late 1990s as the quality of its loan portfolio began to decline sharply, and a devastating flood further eroded loan repayments. It responded by adopting a new model in 2001, dubbed Grameen II. Grameen II was designed to be more flexible than the original model: aligning repayment schedules with household income flow, meeting the demand for secure and reliable savings products, and acknowledging the varied needs of clients. These new features were a shift from beliefs underpinning the original Grameen model, which emphasized the need for loans over savings, expectations that loans would be used only for micro-entrepreneurial investment, and the necessity of a strict repayment regiment. The research in Portfolios of the Poor includes sets of financial diaries collected from Grameen clients both before and after these changes, from 1999-2005.
If you listen to the strongest pitches for microfinance, you would imagine that everyone offered microfinance would leap at the chance to be a customer. Yet this is not so. Evidence shows that it’s usual that under half of eligible households participate in microfinance. Moneylenders are still in business, and many individuals in develop- ing countries still rely primarily on family and friends to meet their needs for money. This is not necessarily a bad thing: informal sources of credit provide a useful way to finance profitable investments or respond to life events. But it shows that the demand for existing microfinance institutions and products can’t be taken for granted.
How do the world’s poorest households manage their financial lives on $1 and $2 a day? The authors of Portfolios of the Poor tracked the earning, borrowing, spending, and saving practices of 250 households in Bangladesh, India, and South Africa. The resulting “financial diaries” reflect a mixed-research methodology that is systematic in data collection, and simultaneously captures the complexity of people’s lives. This brief takes a closer look at the research samples from all three countries.
The financial diaries provide insight into the prices poor households paid for financial instruments, and the logic behind their financial decisions. Researchers revealed that surviving on small, irregular, and unpredictable earnings often generates financial behaviors that at first seem counter-intuitive-such as paying or borrowing to save. Through the financial diaries approach, (see the “Research Methodology” Briefing Note) researchers were forced to confront assumptions and take a fresh look at understanding the price of microfinance-paying close attention to what price means to poor households, the cost financial institutions assume in lending to the poor, and the universal tension between the impatience to meet financial demands today, and the desire to save for the future.
When it is difficult to save, those who manage to build up a lump sum are reluctant to draw down on it. In fact, they are often so loathe to touch their savings that they willingly borrow at expensive interest rates. While the phenomenon of borrowing while saving is puzzling from the standpoint of traditional economics, it’s a regular feature in the financial diaries described in Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day. This brief describes simultaneous borrowing and saving, and provides evidence for an explanation rooted in the difficulty of rebuilding savings. This evidence leads to another seeming contradiction—why high interest rates on loans may in fact be a desirable attribute for some borrowers.
Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day examines the basic question of how the world’s poorest households survive on such modest incomes. The authors report on yearlong "financial diaries" of villagers and slum dwellers in Bangladesh, India, and South Africa-surveys that track penny by penny how households manage their money (see Research Methodologies Briefing Note). The stories of these families are often surprising and sometimes inspiring. Most poor households do not live hand to mouth, spending what they earn in a desperate bid to keep afloat. Instead, they rely upon an array of complex tools, and lead active financial lives because they are poor, not in spite of it. They create “portfolios” that leverage both informal networks and formal institutions to address their immediate and long-term needs.
This brief offers insight into the ways poor households manage risks. Based on the financial diaries research outlined in Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day (see the "Research Methodologies" Briefing Note), this brief describes the formal and informal risk management tools used by poor households in Bangladesh, India and South Africa, and examines how these tools can be improved to help the poor mitigate risk and plan for the future.
The Portfolios of the Poor financial diaries in Bangladesh span 1999-2005. As well as giving a unique insight into the challenges faced by poor households, they show how the households interact with the uniquely saturated and rapidly growing microfinance industry in the country. Unlike many studies of microfinance that feature poor Bangladeshi households, these financial diaries depict the entire financial picture, showing how they use microfinance alongside the many informal financing mechanisms and the few formal services available to the poor.
Portfolios of the Poor offers new thinking about how the world’s poorest communities manage their financial lives. To uncover these intimate details, researchers designed a study in which they interviewed poor households twice a month over the course of a year, and recorded the details of how they lived their financial lives. These “financial diaries” encompass data from nearly 250 households in Bangladesh, India, and South Africa, and reflect a mixed-research methodology that is systematic in data collection while simultaneously captures the complexity of people’s lives.
Randomized experiments are increasingly popular ways to evaluate the impacts of development interventions. They provide hope that we can overcome important biases common to nearly all statistical evaluations. When done well, randomized control trials (RCTs) can provide clear, transparent, and credible evidence in complicated contexts, and it’s not surprising that they dominate clinical research in medicine.
Attempts to broaden financial access in poor communities usually take one of two directions. The first is providing credit to small- scale microenterprises, an idea pioneered by Bangladesh’s Grameen Bank. The second involves fostering long-term saving for education, housing, or other worthy goals. But low-income families usually have a more fundamental financial need, one that families often pay dearly for: basic, reliable ways to manage cash flow.