Final Report

Monitoring and Evaluation of Microfinance Institutions

Sajjad Zohir
Simeen Mahmud
Binayak Sen
M. Asaduzzaman
Md. Jahirul Islam
Nazneen Ahmed
Arif Al Mamun

October 2001
Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies
E-17, Agargaon, Sher-e-Banglanagar, Dhaka-1207, Bangladesh

FORWARD

This Report presents the principal findings of the BIDS Study on Monitoring and Evaluation of microfinance. It is however one of several reports that the study team has prepared over the last three and half years. The study was sponsored by the Palli Karma Sahayak Foundation (PKSF), which had received assistance from the World Bank to undertake the study.

The present report primarily draws upon a large set of data at member, household, village and MFI levels. Since members of the research team had different tasks to perform at various stages of the project period, not all of them have contributed to drafting of this report. Chapters 1 to 5 and chapter 10 have been prepared by Sajjad Zohir, who had collaboration from Jahirul Islam and Arif-Al Mamun in preparing two technical annexures. Chapters 6 and 7 were written by Simeen Mahmud, while Binayak Sen contributed Chapter 8. M. Asaduzzaman and Nazneen Ahmed had jointly prepared Chapter 9.

The research team is indebted to the various Partner Organization of PKSF, whose Executives had extended generous support during field surveys and had provided valuable comments during several workshops over the study period. Salehuddin Ahmed and M. Hakim of PKSF and Reazul Islam of the World bank had given moral and professional supports to endure through this long period. The study team owes a great deal to a big pool of field enumerators and research assistants, who collected, computerized and cleaned the data. Zahirul Islam and Ashabul Haque provided the finishing touches to the printing of the report, to whom the team remains indebted.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The BIDS Study on PKSF’s Monitoring & Evaluation System had developed a database on a sample of rural households and participants in microfinance programs, with a view to monitor and assess the impacts of microfinance programs undertaken by the Partner Organizations of the PKSF. In order to be more comprehensive, the Study covered other microfinance institutions as well, who are operating in the study area. The study area included 13 regions in the country, covering 91 villages spread over 23 thanas. Following a census of all households in the 91 villages during October 1997, the BIDS Study administered three repeat surveys, on a matched sample of about 3000 rural households, during 1998, 1999 and 2000. Besides collecting information at household levels, separate modules were administered on MFI-members from these households and for village and Samity-level information. Some of the important findings of the Study, with a primary focus on the area of impacts, are summarized below.

Growth in microfinance industry in Bangladesh over the last two decades had three distinct phases: a slow take-off period during the 1980’s; rapid expansion during the 1990’s; and the current phase of apparent saturation in the widening of the market with increased competition among the MFIs. Available aggregate statistics and our findings on net drop-out during the last two years of the survey period suggest that the third phase may have commenced during 1997-98. During the last two years of the survey, on an average, about 16 percent of the members left while 8 percent had joined, implying a net exit. The study however notes that in an increasing number of cases, such exit and entry are temporary. The survey period was also characterized by increases in multiple program participation. The complexity in defining participation raises methodological problems in assessing impacts upon cross-sectional comparison. The study therefore looks into changes over time across such broad groups as, regular participants, occasional participants, and non-participants.

Increasing incidence of temporary participation in microfinance programs clearly points at the limited roles being played by these programs – that of providing credit to rural population. Targeting of such credit is rarely enforced. Thus, participation is observed across all socio-economic groups, even though, the well-off amongst the poor households and the worse-off among the land-rich households are found to be relatively more represented in these programs. Those who borrow do not necessarily use the money for the purposes stated on papers. About a quarter of the loan money is spent on meeting household consumption needs, while a significant proportion finds its way into the land rental/mortgage market. Survey data for the last two years also show noticeable signs of using part of the loan money for repaying past debt. Consistent with these findings, the Study also observes decline in recovery rates in case of most of the MFIs in the survey area.

In spite of the aforementioned weaknesses surfacing over the recent past, the MFI lending has supported numerous income-generating activities, mostly of self-employment nature. Even though the new entrants (and occasional participants), especially in the north-west region of the country, use (often) almost a quarter of their borrowing to rent-in/mortgage-in land for cultivation, the regular program participants are found to be increasingly reducing their dependence on land. There is however limited evidence that these participants have been better able to raise returns per unit of land, possibly due to better access to credit. Microfinance programs, in themselves (i.e., not packaged a priori) do not appear to have any impact on pond fishery. However, a larger percentage of program participants own cattle, and controlling for land ownership, these participants earn higher income from livestock than non-participants.

In line with the claims made by the MFIs, the study finds the programs to have contributed immensely towards promoting self-employment activities. While rural households have increasingly looked towards self-employment for their livelihood, the latter accounts for a higher share of (regular) program participants’ annual income, compared to others. However, trading activities dominate, accounting for almost half the income earned from self-employment activities. While the direct and indirect effects of microfinance have all led to increases in rural self-employment activities, it is primarily in the area of transport services where the programs have made significant contribution.

An important finding from our study is the vulnerability of self-employment income to such natural disaster as the 1998 flood. Estimates on household income showed that self-employment activities were most severely affected by the flood. This was particularly true for the type of activities (small trade) mostly undertaken by the poor households. As a consequence, real income of poor households declined during the flood year, even though the average income of all sample households had increased. Participation in programs and access to credit had however helped in ensuring that the negative effects of flood were minimal. The study finds that the increase in income of regular participants during the flood year was higher than all other sample groups, except the new participants. In contrast, the nominal income of the drop-out households virtually stagnated during the flood year.

Relationship between food consumption and borrowing from MFIs is less obvious. Data on food consumption are generally for short recalls, and are biased by the timings of the surveys. On the conceptual side, source of financing current borrowing will depend on whether it is being spent on current consumption or on investment. The two will have opposite implications for consumption. In general, there is no a priori reason to suggest that consumption will increase in the short term, except in the case where the borrowing household had previously depended on sources charging exorbitant interest rates. Multivariate analysis show that there is significant positive effect of regular program participation on income and on average consumption of poor households. Particularly, increases in the consumption of pulse, fish and milk are more prominent among MFI borrowers, when controlled for land ownership.

Some of the findings on income changes across different groups of households are further corroborated by an in-depth analysis of poverty and changes in poverty indices over the three rounds of surveys. Squared poverty-gap index, which takes into account of the situation of the poor households, increased from 0.231 in 1997-98 to 0.317 in 1998-99. The post-flood recovery was however remarkably quick, showing resilience capacity of the poor rural households in Bangladesh. The 1998 flood was particularly disastrous for the poorest of the poor, while more affluent members of the poor were relatively better poised in protecting themselves from short-term shocks. The group-specific squared poverty-gap (SPG) index show noticeable impact of program participation in protecting from such shocks – value of SPG increased by only two percentage points between the first and the second round, for the regular participants. During the same period, SPG had increased by 11 percentage points for the non-participants. Both head-count and poverty gap measures show that regular participants registered a faster rate of poverty reduction than occasional participants, and reduction poverty among the latter was faster compared to non-participants. A cohort comparison across the first and the third round shows that a larger percentage of program participants tend to invest on both human and physical capital.

Given that the programs have been in place for quite a number of years, and there have been spillover effects on the community, cross-sectional analyses are less likely to reveal significant social impacts of the microfinance programs. The study finds general improvements in living standards of all sample households, some of which may be related to regularity in program participation. One example is the decline in the use of open space by adults for toilet purpose – the decline being largest for occasional and regular participants. While access to modern health care increased marginally for all groups, the increase in such access was higher among the regular participants. Similarly, access to child immunization improved for all, however, the gender gap for both DPT and measles vaccinations reduced relatively more among children in regular participant households. The rise in contraceptive prevalence has been particularly high in households that are regular participants or past participants, compared to the non-participants or new participants. One interesting finding from the survey is the decline in reliance on female methods, which is more visible among the regular participants.

Participation in MFI programs is found to have led to reduced gender gap in access to schooling and to modern health care. While it has also led to increase in women’s access to service providers and to information and knowledge, it had little effect on women’s access to labor market.

Generally, the study finds program participants to be less vulnerable to crises even though they face similar degree of crises as non-participants. In the process of monitoring a same set of households over a period of more than two years, the BIDS study points at a number of issues. These include, among other things, net dropout in membership during recent years, increased competition among MFIs leading to multiple membership, and use of significant proportion of loan for purpose other than income-generating activities. More importantly, the study has identified a distinct group of participants, called the occasional participants, who are growing in number.

Finally, a number of issues have been raised in this report for future consideration. It is proposed that rather than engaging in costly impact assessment studies, focusing on households, future effort may be directed towards assessing wider impacts and to monitoring, especially of the occasional participants. It is noted that the microfinance industry is currently in a transition that is characterized more by competition than cooperation. It is important to ensure that the smaller MFIs, who have been more effective in reaching out to the poor, do not lose out during this transition period. It is also noted that an important gain to the society has been the emergence of institutions, in the name of MFIs, which hold much potential to undertake pro-poor development efforts. It is important that these institutions graduate in the right direction to play that role.

List of Contents

Forward

Executive Summary

List of Tables

List of Figures

Acronyms

1.1 Growth of Micro-finance industry in Bangladesh:

Background to the Study 1

1.2 Study Objectives 3

1.3 Outline of the Report 4

2.1 Prior Thoughts and the Design of the Field Survey 6

2.2 After Thoughts and the Method of Data Analysis 9

Annexure to Chapter 2: Statistical Tables 12

Evidence from Rural Bangladesh 17

3.1 Preambles 17

3.2 Defining participation and Related Conceptual Issues 18

3.3 Evidence on Participation in MFI Programs 19

3.4 Rethinking Participation in MFIs 30

Annexure to Chapter 3 34

Annex 3.A: Determinants of Choice of Program Villages by MFIs 34

Annex 3.B: Micro-Finance Programs: Explaining the Participation Behavior 38

4.1 Introduction 52

4.2 Ownership of Land, Access in the Land Rental Market and Income from Crop Production 52

4.3 Livestock and Poultry 56

4.4 Pond Fishery 60

4.5 Participation in Labor Market and Wage Income 62

4.6 Self-employment Activities 64

4.7 Household Income from Various Sources 67

4.8 Household Expenditure and Consumption 70

4.9 An Exercise on Effect of Program Participation on Income Change 75

Annexure to Chapter 4: Statistical Tables 78

Evidence on MFI Role in Promoting Self-Employment 82

5.1 Introduction 82

5.2 Participation in Rural Labor Market: Concepts 83

5.3 Participation in Rural Labor Market: Evidence 84

5.4 Impact of Microfinance on Rural Employment 87

5.4.1 General Impact on Wage and Self-Employment Activities 87

5.4.2 Impact on Seasonal Variability in Employment and Income 91

5.4.3 Impact on Self-Employment Activities 92

Annexure to Chapter 5: Statistical Tables 99

6.1 Background and Hypotheses 105

6.2 Methodology 108

6.3 Socio-economic Profile of Sample Households 110

6.4 Effect of Participation on Social Well-being 112

6.5 Exposure to Crisis and Vulnerability 122

6.6 Conclusions 125

Annexure to Chapter 6: Statistical Tables 127

7.1 Program Participation and its effects on Women’s Position 134

7.2 Women’s Intra-household Position 139

7.3 Conclusions 145

8.1 Introduction: Background, Scope and Methodology 147

8.2 Poverty Measures 148

8.3 Microcredit and Income-Poverty Trends: Evidence from Panel Survey 150

8.3.1 Participation Categories 151

8.3.2 A Faster Poverty Reduction Rate for MFI Participants ? 151

8.3.3 Small is Beautiful ? 153

8.4 Determinants of Income-Poverty: Does Participation in MFIs make a Difference 154

8.4.1 Multivariate Analysis of the Determinants of Consumption 154

8.4.2 Multivariate Analysis of Determinants of Poverty 155

8.5 Microcredit and Vulnerability of the Poor 156

8.6 Rethinking “Graduation”: Emerging Trends 158

8.6.1 Graduation: What it is not 158

8.6.2 “Process View” of Graduation 158

8.6.3 “Threshold” View of Graduation 159

8.6.4 Investment in Human Capital 159

8.6.5 Investment in Physical Capital 160

9.1 Introduction 189

9.2 Historical Context of Local MFIs 189

9.2.1 Emergence of MFIs-Where and Why 189

9.2.2 Early Days of MFIs no Easy Lunch 192

9.3 Organizational and Other Characteristics of the POs 193

9.3.1 Age of the POs 193

9.3.2 Activity Jurisdiction 193

9.3.3 Length of Activity Period 194

9.3.4 Spread of Activity 194

9.3.5 Number of Activities 197

9.3.6 Financing of Programs 198

9.4 The Characteristics of the Staff of the POs 198

9.4.1 Age of Staff 198

9.4.2 Sex of the Employees 199

9.4.3 Education 199

9.4.4 Length of Service in PO 199

9.4.5 Present Post and length of service 199

9.4.6 Prior Job-holding 200

9.4.7 Salary Structure 201

9.4.8 PO Staffing: An Assessment 201

9.5 Management the MFIs-One men Shown or Anything else? 204

9.5.1 A Management Protype 204

9.5.2 Decision Mating 205

9.5.3 List of Documents Maintained within a PO 207

9.5.4 Member Program Alliance 209

9.5.5 Marketing Service 209

9.6 Performance of the POs 210

9.6.1 Issues in Understanding Performance 210

9.6.2 Organization of Samity and Samity Membership 211

9.6.3 Eligibility of Samity Membership and Nature of Involvement 213

9.6.4 Temporal Changes in Membership 215

9.6.5 Historical links with NGOs 219

9.6.6 Credit Operations (based on information from POs) 220

9.6.7 Credit Operations (based on information from PO members) 225

9.6.8 Does the Organization have a Role? 231

9.7 Programs Other than Microfinance - Why and for Whom 244

9.8 Struggle to Sustain Problems Faced by the Small MFIs 245

9.9 Concluding Remarks 246

10.1 Impacts 249

10.2 Outcome of monitoring 252

10.3 Looking ahead 254

Appendix A: Summary of Description of the Services 256

Appendix B: Key Personnel 258

Appendix C: List of Support Staffs 259

Appendix D: List of Reports 260

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Source of Revolving Loan Fund of MFIs (percentages of total)

Table 2.1: Distribution of Oosha Partner Organisations in terms of their ctivities

Table 2.2: Distribution of Surveyed Households in terms of Participation Status

Table 2.3: Distribution of Survey Households in terms of Stability of the units and availability during the survey rounds

Table 2.A.1: Number of Surveyed Households in the Program Villages, by Participation Status

Table 2.A.2: Number of Surveyed Households in the Control Villages, by Participation Status

Table A.2.3: Factors underlying Missing Households

Table 2.A.4: Distribution of sample Households in terms of Availability of Data in 3 Rounds and Household Splits

Table 3.1: Distribution of Current MFI Members in terms of their Past Affiliation and Nature of Involvement, by Current Primary Affiliation

Table 3.2: Extent of Borrowing among Program Participant Households, by Study Area

Table 3.3: Estimate on Multiple Membership – at Member level

Table 3.4: Percentages of Rural Households Participating in MFIs, by Regions and Landownership Groups

Table 3.5: Distribution of Census Households in terms of their Participation in MFIs

Table 3.6: Estimate on Multiple Membership – at the Household level

Table 3.7: Extent of Member-level Overlapping for a Selected First Affiliation

Table 3.8 Changes in MFI Participation at the Member Level, 1998-1999

Table 3.9 Changes in MFI Participation at the Member Level, 1999-2000

Table 3.10: Results of Cluster Analysis among Participant Households in MFI Participation at the Member Level, 1999-2000

Table 3.11: Distribution of Sample Households, based on Alternative Classification of Participation

Table 3.A1: Determinants of Selection of Villages by NGO

Table 3.A.2: Factors Causing Delayed Intensive NGO Involvement at Village Level

Table 3.B.1: Results of Model 1

Table 3.B.2: Results of Model 2

Table 3.B.3: Results of Model 3
Table 3.B.4: Results of Model 4 & 5

Table 4.1 Changes in (total) Land Ownership

Table 4.2 Changes in Land Rental Market and Operational Holding

Table 4.3 Gross Income from Crop and its Distribution by Source and by Use
Table 4.4 Percentages of Households Owning Livestock
Table 4.5 Income from Livestock
Table 4.6 Income from other livestock products

Table 4.7 Expenses on Livestock

Table 4.8 Information Pertaining to Pond Fishery (averages of all households)

Table 4.9 Average Annual Wage Income, and their distribution by Activity
Table 4.10 Participation of Females in Rural Wage Labor Market
Table 4.11 Distribution of Wage Income by Type of Contract
Table 4.12 Percentages of Households reporting income from self-employment sources
Table 4.13 Distribution of Self-Employment Income by Sources

Table 4.14 Income from Other Sources
Table 4.15 Household Income and Its Distribution by Sources

Table 4.16 Consumption of Selected Food Items per Household, in Three Rounds of Surveys

Table 4.17a Annual Food Expenditure of Selected Regions, Round 1

Table 4.17b Annual Food Expenditure of Selected Regions, Round 3
Table 4.18 Annual Non-Food Expenditure
Table 4.19 Determinants of Income Change During 1997-98 to 1999-2000

Table 4.A.1: Distribution of Wage Income by Activity-specific Contracts

Table 4.A.2 Average Number of Members present during meals and Percentage of Households reporting guests during one of the meals
Table 4.A.3 Percentages of Consumption Bought from the Market
Table 4.A.4 Annual Food Expenditure and its Distribution, All Households in Round 1

Table 4.A.5 Non-Food Expenditure on Selected Items, commonly recorded in all rounds

Table 5.1 Schema of Participation in Various Labor Markets

Table 5.2 Distribution of 14-59 Years old persons, according to their participation

In wage labor market and self-employment

Table 5.3 Characteristics of Different Labor and Non-Labor Groups

Table 5. 4 Average Days of Employment per Year per Person, 1999-2000

Table 5.5 Average Number of Activities undertaken by Persons engaged
in both wage labor and Self-Employment Activities

Table 5.6 Highlights on Reduction in Seasonal Variability in Male

Employment and Income due to Program Participation

Table 5.7 Distribution of All Reported Self-employment Activities, 1997-98

Table 5.8 Distribution of All Reported Self-employment Activities, 1999-2000

Table 5.8 Percentages of 14-59 Years Aged Population who are Engaged in
Year-round Self-Employment Activities, 1997-98 to 1999-2000

Table 5.9 Percentage of Year-round Self-employed Persons,
who did not engage in Wage Employment

Table 5.10 Degree of Turnover and extent of full-time activity in Self-Employment

Table 5.11 Returns to Self-employment Activities and Seasonal Distribution of Labor, 1997-98

Table 5.12 Average Capital Requirements, Costs and Returns to Self-Employment

Table A.5.1 Distribution of 14-59 Years Old Persons by the Nature of their Participation in The Wage Labor Market and in Self-Employment Activities

Table 5.A.2 Coefficient of Variation in Employment & Income (average of all individuals within each group)
Table 5.A.3 Coefficient of Variation in Employment & Income
Table 5.A.4 Distribution of total Standardized Labor Days by Self-employment Activities

(column percentages)

Table 5.A.5 Distribution of Income from Self-Employment, by Activities, 1999-2000

Table 5.A.6 Returns to Self-Employment Activities and Seasonal Distribution of Labor, 1997-98

Table 5.A.7 Returns to Self-Employment Activities and Seasonal Distribution of Labor, 1999-2000

Table 5.A.8 Returns to Petty Trade, by Households’ Eligibility and MFI Participation, 1997-98

Table 5.A.9 Returns to Petty Trade, by Households’ Eligibility and MFI Participation, 1999-2000

Table 6.1: Percentage of households with improvement in selected indicators of living standard between 1998 and 2000 according to nature of participation

Table 6.2: Proportion of school-age children currently enrolled and percentage of households experiencing no decline/increase between 1998 and 2000 in the proportion of school-age children enrolled according to nature of participation

Table 6.3: Proportion of sick family members receiving modern treatment and percentage of households experiencing increase in use of modern treatment between 1998 and 2000 according to nature of participation

Table 6.4: Proportion of sick family members receiving traditional treatment and percentage of households with decline between 1998 and 2000 in the proportion receiving traditional treatment according to nature of participation

Table 6.5: Proportion of children immunised and percentage of households with increase between 1998 and 2000 in the proportion of children immunised according to nature of participation

Table 6.6: Expenditure on house repair, schooling and health care, difference in expenditure and percentage of households with increase between 1998 and 2000 in expenditure according to nature of participation

Table 6.7: Percentage of participating households that perceive improvement due to taking MFI credit in selected indicators of socio-economic well-being according to nature of participation

Table 6.8: Percentage of households experiencing different crises during the last three years prior to 2000 and coping strategies adopted according to nature of participation

Table 6.A.1: Indicators of household demographic status according to nature of participation

Table 6.A.2: Indicators of household landownership status according o nature of participation

Table 6.A.3: Initial occupation of household head according to nature of participation

Table 6.A.4: Education level of household head according to nature of participation

Table 6.A.5: Indicators of initial household poverty status according to nature of participation

Table 6.A.6: Indicators of initial household poverty status according to nature of participation

Table 6.A.7: Indicators of MFI membership for participating households according to nature of participation

Table 6.A.8: Indicators of MFI membership for participating households according to nature of participation

Table 6.A.9a: Mean values of selected indicators of household living standard in 1998 and 2000 according to nature of participation

Table 6.A.9b: Mean values of selected indicators of household living standard in 1998 and 2000 according to nature of participation

Table 6.A10: Number of children currently enrolled in school and percentage of households experiencing no decline/increase between 1998 and 2000 in the number of children enrolled according to nature of participation

Table 6.A.11: Proportion of family members sick in the last two weeks and percentage of households experiencing decline between 1998 and 2000 in the proportion of sick family members according to nature of participation

Table 6.A.12 : Proportion of sick family members receiving modern and traditional treatment in 2000 according to nature of participation
Table 6.A.13. Proportion of children immunised in 2000 according to nature of participation

Table 7.1: Percentage of households in which women are self or wage employed, number of days of employment and change between 1998 and 2000 according to nature of participation

Table 7.2: Percentage of households in which women visited various places outside the homestead and change between 1998 and 2000 according to nature of participation

Table 7.3: Percentage of households in which currently married couples (with wives under 50 years of age) use contraceptives and change between 1998 and 2000 according to nature of participation

Table 7.4: Percentage of households in which women have access to household income from different sources and change between 1998 and 2000 according to nature of participation

Table 7.5: Percentage of households in which women participate in household expenditure decision making and change between 1998 and 2000 according to nature of participation

Table 7.6: Percentage of participating households with a female participant perceiving improvement due to taking MFI credit in selected indicators of social status according to nature of participation

Table 8.1 Mean Rural Consumer Unit Values Calculated from HES : PKSF Survey (Round – 1 and Round – 3)
Table 8.2 Change in Poverty by Participation Status, 1997/98 – 1999/00: Results for the Eligible (Target) Group
Table 8.3 Poverty Dynamics by Organisational Status, Round-1 and Round-3: Results for the Eligible Group
Table 8. 4: Poverty Estimates by Programme Participation and Target Group Status, 1997/98, Consumption Expenditure Data

Table 8. 5 Determinants of Consumption of the Poor
Table 8. 6 Determinants of Consumption of the Target Households
Table 8. 7 Determinants of Consumption of the Participant Households

Table 8. 8 Determinants Poverty: Results for Poverty-Gap Regression

Table 8. 9 Determinants of Poverty: Results for Squared Poverty-Gap Regression

Table 8.10 Coping with Crisis by Participation Status, Round-1 and Round-3: Results for the Eligible Group

Table 8.11 Private Investment in Education by Participation Categories and Poverty Status
Table 8.12 Asset Ownership by Participation Categories and Poverty Status, Round 1: Results for the Eligible Group

Table 8.13 Asset Ownership by Participation Categories and Poverty Status, Round 3: Results for the Eligible Group

Table 8.14 Changes in Asset Status, Round-1 and Round-3: Results for Panel Survey

Table 8.15 Changes in Enrollment Ratio at Primary and Secondary Levels, Round-1 and Round-3: Results for Panel Survey

Table 8.16 Change in Credit Accessibility, Round-1 and Round-3: Results for Panel Survey Annex Table 1: Estimates of Poverty by Village

Table 9.1: Spatial Spread and Starting Dates of PO Branches

Table 9.2: Number of Villages under PO Activity in the Specified Branches

Table 9.3: Cumulative Number of Samitys and Members by Branch of POs over 1995-1997

Table 9.4: Current Position of NGO Members in the Samity by Eligibility Status

Table 9.5: Position of NGO Members in Group[ by Eligibility Status

Table 9.6: Membership Category by PO and Non-PO Membership

Table 9.7: Length of Membership in POs and Non-PO NGOs

Table 9.8: Continuation of Membership of NGOs between Round 1 and Round 2

Table 9.9: Prior Involvement of NGO Members in Other Samity by Eligibility Status

Table 9.10: Branch Performance in Credit Distribution and Repayment

Table 9.11: New Loanees of POs

Table 9.12: Average Annual Cumulative Net Savings by Samity Members, 1995-1997

Table 9.13: Time to Get First Loan Since Membership

Table 9.14: Time to Get Loan upon Application

Table 9.15: Distribution of Loan Approved and Received

Table 9.16: Use of Loan by Loan Order

Table 9.17: Average Amount of Loan Taken by Members

Table 9.18: Amount of Loan by Length of Membership

Table 9.19: Logistic Regression Equations for Retention of Membership in Round 1 NGO till Round 2 Survey

Table 9.20: Reasons Stated by Members for Discontinuation of Membership or Inactivity

Table 9.21: Regression Equations Explaining Amount of Loan by PO and Non-PO Members
Table 9.22: Cost Effectiveness of Branches of POs
Table 9.23 Purchases of Land by SSS
List of Figures

Figure 1 : Growth in Micro-finance Institution
Figure 2 : Growth in MFI memvber in the Survey Area, 1974 to 1997
Figure 3.1 : Trend in Joining MFIs
Figure 3.2 : Trend in Leaving MFIs
Figure 3.B.1 :
Figure 5.1 : Trend and Fluctuation in the Share of Self-employment in Total Wage Self–Employment, Males of Eligible Households

Figure 5.2 : Trend in Share of self-employment in Total Wage & Self-employment, Males in Non-eligible Households.
Figure 5.3 : Trend in Share of Self-employment in Total Wage & Self-employment, Females in Eligible Households.
Figure 5.4 : Trend in Share of self-employment in Total Wage & self-employment, Females of Non-eligible Households.

Acronyms

ASA - Association for Social Advancement

BBS - Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

BIDS - Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies

BM - Benchmark

BRAC - Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee

CEB - Children Ever Born

EHH - Eligible Household

ENP - Eligible Non-Participant

EP - Eligible Participant

GDP - Gross Domestic Product

GNP - Gross National Product

GUP - Gano Unnoyan Prochesta

HES - Household Expenditure Survey

HH - Household

HKI - Helen Keller International

HTW - Hand Tube-well

IAS - Impact Assessment Study

IGA - Income Generating Activity

INFS - Institute of Nutrition & Food Sciences

LFS - Labor Force Survey

MC - Micro-credit

MES - Monitoring and Evaluation System

MFI - Micro-finance Institution

MUAC - Mid-Upper Arm Circumference

NEHH - Non-eligible Household

NENP - Non-eligible Non-participant

NEP - Non-Eligible Participant

NGO - Non-government Organization

NGSS - Noabeki Ganomukhi Samabay Samity

OSDER - Organization for Social Development and Research

PKSF - Palli Karma Sahayak Foundation

PO - Partner Organization

PPD - Programmes for People’s Development

PRP - Poverty Removal Program

RDRS - Rangpur Dinajpur Rural Service

SSS - Society for Social Services

SUS - Sabolamby Unnoyan Samity

TMSS - Thengamara Mohila Sabuj Sangha