The welfare impact of microcredit on rural households in China

Microcredit has gained worldwide acceptance in recent years as a flexible mechanism to expand individuals' (especially the poor's) access to financial services, which is considered as an efficient way to achieve poverty reduction and other social development. A large number of empirical studies have been done to examine the welfare effects of microcredit on the borrowers and such effects are well documented in many other countries such as Bangladesh. However, the impacts of microcredit on China rural households' livelihood are not well documented. This paper attempts to empirically evaluate the impact of microcredit on household welfare outcomes such as income and consumption in rural China. The estimation is based on the difference-in-difference approach which is an increasingly popular method of tackling the selection bias issue in assessing the impacts of microcredit. The study uses a two-year panel dataset, including both primary and secondary data collected through a household survey in rural China. Our empirical results favour the wide belief in the literature that joining microcredit programme helps improve households' welfare such as income and consumption. Despite the optimistic findings on how microcredit has changed the rural households' living conditions, our results show that the vast majority of the programme participants are non-poor, which casts some doubts on the social potential (such as poverty reduction) of China's microcredit programmes.

[1]  S. Khandker,et al.  The impact of Group‐Based Credit Programs on Poor Households in Bangladesh: Does the Gender of Participants Matter? , 1998, Journal of Political Economy.

[2]  J. Morduch The microfinance promise , 1999 .

[3]  M. Niño-Zarazúa The impact of credit on income poverty in urban Mexico , 2007 .

[4]  S. Yehuala,et al.  Determinants of smallholder farmers access to formal credit: the case of Metema Woreda, North Gondar, Ethiopia , 2008 .

[5]  B. E. Coleman The impact of group lending in Northeast Thailand , 1999 .

[6]  S. Khandker Micro-Finance and Poverty: Evidence Using Panel Data from Bangladesh , 2003 .

[7]  C. Nguyen,et al.  Poverty Targeting and Impact of a Governmental Micro-Credit Program in Vietnam , 2007 .

[8]  A. Park,et al.  Microfinance with Chinese Characteristics , 2001 .

[9]  O. Ashenfelter,et al.  Estimating the Effect of Training Programs on Earnings , 1976 .

[10]  Bruce D. Meyer Natural and Quasi- Experiments in Economics , 1994 .

[11]  A. Kritikos,et al.  The individual micro-lending contract: is it a better design than joint-liability?: Evidence from Georgia , 2004 .

[12]  Orley Ashenfelter,et al.  Using the Longitudinal Structure of Earnings to Estimate the Effect of Training Programs , 1984 .

[13]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach , 1999 .

[14]  T. Maloney,et al.  Evaluating active labour market programmes in New Zealand , 2007 .

[15]  Alberto Abadie Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators , 2005 .

[16]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[17]  Alberto Abadie Difference-in-Difference Estimators , 2010 .

[18]  T. Islam Microcredit and Poverty Alleviation , 2006 .

[19]  J. Angrist,et al.  Empirical Strategies in Labor Economics , 1998 .

[20]  J. Heckman Instrumental Variables: A Study of Implicit Behavioral Assumptions Used in Making Program Evaluations. , 1997 .

[21]  J. Morduch Does Microfinance Really Help the Poor? New Evidence from Flagship Programs in Bangladesh , 1998 .

[22]  E. Duflo,et al.  How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates? , 2001 .

[23]  F. Gale,et al.  New Directions in China's Agricultural Lending , 2006 .