This article investigates the economic impact of continuing borrowers’ participation in the microcredit programme on poverty eradication in Bangladesh. A panel data set was collected through a field survey for the years 2013–2016 to identify the impact of a microcredit programme on continuous participation borrowers. The propensity score matching (PSM) method is used to eliminate selection bias and the difference-in-difference (DID) model is applied for the empirical analysis. The findings of the study demonstrate that more benefits are realized from continued participants compared to discontinued participants.
AbadieA.ImbensG. W. (2011). Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. Journal of Business and Economics Statistics, 29(1), 1–11. Retrieved from doi:10.1198/jbes.2009.07333
3.
ArmendarizB.MorduchJ. (2005). The economics of microfinance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. (2017–2018). Population and Housing Census 2016, (National report, volume 4, Socio-economic and Demographic Report). Dhaka: Ministry of Planning, Peoples Republic of Bangladesh (various issues).
5.
BertrandM.DufloE.MullainathanS. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), 249–275. Retrieved from doi:10.1162/003355304772839588
6.
CheminN. (2008). The benefits and costs of microfinance: Evidence from Bangladesh. Journal of Development Studies, 44(4), 463–484. Retrieved from doi:10.1080/00220380701846735
IslamA. (2011). Medium- and long-term participation in microcredit: An evaluation using a new panel dataset from Bangladesh. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(3), 847–866. doi:10.1093/ajae/aar012.
10.
KhandkerS. (2001). Does micro-finance really benefit the poor? Evidence from Bangladesh. Paper delivered at Asia and Pacific Forum on Poverty: Reforming Policies and Institutions for Poverty Reduction held by the Asian Development Bank, Manila.
11.
KhandkerS.HussainS. (2013). Microfinance growth and poverty reduction in Bangladesh: What does the longitudinal data say? (Working Paper 16). Dhaka: Institute of Microfinance (InM). Retrieved from http://inm.org.bd/publication/workingpaper/workingpaper16.pdf
12.
KhandkerS.KhalilyM.SamadH. (2016). Beyond ending poverty: The dynamics of microfinance in Bangladesh. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
13.
ManuelaA.DeanK.JonathanZ. (2015). Microcredit impacts: Evidence from a randomized microcredit program placement experiment by Compartamos Banco. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(1), 151–182.
14.
MazumderM. S.LuW. (2015). What impact does microfinance have on rural livelihood? A comparison of governmental and Non-governmental microfinance programs in Bangladesh. World Development, 68, 336–354. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.12.002
15.
MRA. (2018). NGO-MFI in Bangladesh, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2018 (various issues). Dhaka: Microcredit Regulatory Authority. Retrieved from http://www.mra.gov.bd/
16.
OsmaniS. R.MahmudW.SenB.DagdevirenH.SethA. (2003). Macroeconomics of poverty reduction: The case study of Bangladesh. Dhaka: UNDP.
17.
PittM.KhandkerS. (1998). The impact of group-based credit programs on poor households in Bangladesh: Does the gender of participation matter?Journal of Political Economy, 106(5), 958–996.
18.
RoodmanD.MorduchJ. (2014). The impact of microcredit on the poor in Bangladesh: Revisiting the evidence. The Journal of Development Studies, 50(4), 583–604. doi:10.1080/00220388.2013.858122.
TedeschiG. A.KarlanD. (2010). Cross-sectional impact analysis: Bias from drop-outs. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 9(3), 270–291. doi:10.1163/b9789004252189_006.
21.
TesfayG. B. (2009). Econometric analysis of microfinance credit group formation, contractual risks and welfare impacts in northern Ethiopia (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands. Retrieved from http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/12479
