|
A
Study of Perception Analysis of MFIs Officials: Uttar Pradesh (India) Research
Scholar, FMS-WISDOM,
BanasthaliVidyapith Dr.
Megha Aggarwal Assistant
Professor, FMS-WISDOM,
BanasthaliVidyapith |
Abstract
Micro finance is a mechanism for the
development of country with especially focus on poor women in rural areas. Micro Finance has
had several successful initiatives, including the range of outreach, as well as
the development of innovative products and local institutions that reach out to
marginalized communities. Micro-finance has been accepted at the national
policy level for poverty reduction. Micro Finance
has emerged as a powerful instrument for poverty alleviation and empowering
poor. The global nature of the Micro Finance movement is reflected in the
growing number of organizations providing Micro finance to poor people. Micro Finance
is indicated as one of the financially savvy and beneficial mechanisms of
provincial credit transfer framework that encourages speedy and opportune
access to commercial credit to needy person in compelling and affordable way.
Main objective of expansion of development is to decrease degree of deprivation
by arranging business openings and creating the levels of the income generation. There has been exceptional advancement in the
outreach and expansion of MFIs in India. The
paper is based on mainly primary data. Research design is partly descriptive
and partly exploratory. The data for the present study is based on a major
research study on micro finance in the state of Uttar Pradesh conducted in 2019
by the researcher. The primary data has been collected through field survey in
selected districts viz. Lucknow, Rai-Bareilly, Varanasi, Gorakhpur, Meerut and
Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. The variable used in study is univariate. The
survey was conducted in rural areas with the support of MFIs (Arohan, Satin
Credit Care Ltd, Margdarshak, Spandana, Bharat, Shikhar, SVCL, Superfine and
Ujjivan). The data was processed through application of
Keywords: Employment,
Empowerment, Micro finance institutions, Micro finance, Poverty
Microfinance may be conceptualized as the accessibility of monetary offering to the neglected section of the society who does not have any accessibility of funds. Microfinance provides working capital loans to entrepreneurs through which they can start their own business. It helps to create employment not only to entrepreneurs but also generates employment opportunities to others too. Banks are not best suited to offer microfinance since they do not take a long-term view; do not offer non-financial services such as training; and lack the combined qualitative and quantitative approach that is unique to microfinance institutions. The concept of micro finance and micro credit is usually used for mutual exchange. But micro credit is always given with the thrift and therefore a more appropriate expression rather than a micro finance. This includes the entire gamut of financial services, such as savings required by poor, loans, insurance, equipment leases, remittances etc. Micro finance programs are expected to make significant contributions to eradicating poverty and empower women in economic, social and political sectors. “Currently, MFIs exist in 29 States, 4 Union Territories and 563 locale in India. 21 MFIs with a huge effort and portfolio have activities in excess of5 states, out of which four driving MFIs are working in excess of15 states. An aggregate of 57 MFIs (34 percent) are working in two to five states. MFIs working in different states, by and large, are regularly bigger in estimate and follow the authoritative document of a NBFC-MFI.”
Ukanwa
(2017)
analyzes
to find out
reasons behind getting low benefits
from
microfinance
generated by
women of
rural
African
region.
Jose (2016) finds
out that the basic
objective
for microfinance
institution to
sustain the borrower, but
that is
not
satisfactory achievable
due
to diversification
of funds. Matthew
and Kurian (2016) highlight that the world focusing on microfinance has always
been on serving women. Mishra and Haque (2016) opine that economic time of financial
change had significant effect on financial in every single significant zone.
Globalization has given many benefits to the banking sector in India. Sa-Dhan
(2016) said that the presence of MFIs has become widespread in areas across the
country, although they are still concentrated in some states. Tassel (2015)
focused on a model which
is emphasis on
lender who gets
funds from external sources.
In this study,
the researcher tries
to find out
lender types and
ignore investors. Mukherjee (2014) analyzes the policies of the
Government of India, which is enough to provide credit facilities to the
poorest of the poor, there is no competition between microfinance institutions
to provide loans to poor borrowers, subsidies Whether or not it plays a key
role in micro finance. Norwood (2014) conducts a study in which the researcher
focused on microcredit with those practitioners and scholars who interested in
economic and social conditions of the world. Dwivedi and Mishra (2013) are of
the view that women are considered as better half of the country.
Traditionally, the women limited to their house boundaries but now they come
forward to contribute their efforts in each and every field. In India,
entrepreneurship is also handle by women which is the good indicator of women
empowerment, economic development and social evolution.
Firdausi
(2013) measures the relative efficiency of microfinance institutions in India,
Bangladesh and China. Kumbhar (2013) reveals the study about women entrepreneur
in rural areas of India. Brown, Guin and Kirschenmann (2012) in their article
highlighted that commercialization of
microfinance and mission of MFIs are
far away from their actual target
customers i.e., poor people, women, and rural customer to earn more revenue but
less deprived customers still the topic of much debate among practitioners,
policy makers and researcher. Goel& Rishi (2012) highlighted that measures
and norms that can develop entrepreneurship skills among the poorest people.
Klapper& Parker (2011) studies relationship between gender and entrepreneurship.
Bubna&Chowdhry (2009) analyze conditions for franchising microfinance to
enhance welfare schemes.
Hermes and Lansink (2007)
conducted an important survey on the effect of microfinance. Dixon, Ritchie and
Siwale (2006)analyze that creating
of a framework to deal the problems in obligations and determine client needs
and prepare the work-layout as per their needs. Roodman and Qureshi (2006)
analyze microfinance institutions as businesses. The poor people need credits
and savings greater
than rich or medium class
people. Kabeer (2005) reveals
that focus on examining the social and economic impacts on the beneficiaries.
Basu and Srivastav (2005) analyzes
adequate determinations and a huge set-up of rural banks, the rural poor people
still remain neglected by bank, and they depend on informal lending system. Microfinance
approaches framed to reach each and every needy people. Morduch (2000) critics
“win-win” theory, the microfinance institutions which focus on the alleviation
of poverty by their banking system norms but in general situation, these norms
are not completely proved by logically or by real evidence. Kaladhar (1997)
opined that Indian microfinance was wide and basically rural. Changes are
required at functioning level as required in the loan policy and procedures,
transparency, flexible working hours of banks, etc.
Present paper purports to examine the
perception of MFIs official pertaining to micro financial services. The paper
is based on primary data. The data has been collected through field survey in
selected MFIs in the districts of Lucknow, Rai-Bareilly, Varanasi, Gorakhpur,
Meerut and Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. Overall 150 officials of selected MFIs
were surveyed with the help of structured interview schedule/ questionnaire. The selected MFIs are Arohan, Bandhan Bank,
Bharat, Margdarshak, Muthoot, Satin, Shikher, Superfine, SVCL, Ujjivan and Utkarsh.
Research design is partly descriptive
and partly exploratory. Chi Square Test and F-test applied for data analysis while
the following hypotheses were empirically tested:
·
There is relationship
among MFIs and their active borrowers;
·
There is relationship
among MFIs and their outreach;
·
There is relationship
among MFIs and tenure of loan;
·
There is relationship
among MFIs and services provided to client.
·
Discussion of Survey Results:
Nature of job of officials is reveals in Table 1.
About 55 per cent officials stated that their nature of job is field work (Bandhan
Bank,Ujjivan, Sattin Credit Care Ltd., SVCL and MargDarshak). About 22 per cent
officials stated that their nature of job is monitoring and supervision
(Arohan, Shikher and SVCL)
Table:
1
Nature
of Job of Respondents
|
Name Of MFI |
Administration/ Management |
Field Work |
Monitoring/Supervision |
Accounting and Finance |
Others |
Total |
|
Arohan |
0 |
0 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
|
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bandhan
Bank |
0 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bharat |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
|
0.0% |
50.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
50.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Margdarshak |
7 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
|
36.8% |
63.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
9 |
|
0.0% |
33.3% |
0.0% |
33.3% |
33.3% |
100.0% |
|
|
Satin |
0 |
18 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
26 |
|
0.0% |
69.2% |
30.8% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Shikhar |
0 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
0.0% |
50.0% |
50.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Superfine |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
12 |
|
33.3% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
66.7% |
100.0% |
|
|
SVCL |
0 |
8 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
0.0% |
66.7% |
33.3% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Ujjivan |
4 |
23 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
28 |
|
14.3% |
82.1% |
3.6% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Utkarsh
Bank |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
|
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Total |
15 |
82 |
33 |
6 |
14 |
150 |
|
10.0% |
54.7% |
22.0% |
4.0% |
9.3% |
100.0% |
Source: Field-Survey
Experience of job of officials is stated in Table 2. Around 2/3rd officials had
experience of less than 5 years. However, less than 1/4th
respondents had experience of 5 to 10 years. All the respondents from Utkarsh
Bank and majority of the respondents from Superfine Micro Finance had
experience of more than 10 years.
Table:
2
Experience
of Job of Respondents
|
Name Of MFI |
Less Than 3 Yrs |
3 to 5 Yrs |
5 to 8 Yrs |
8 to 10 Yrs |
10 And Above Years |
Total |
|
Arohan |
0 |
0 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
|
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bandhan
Bank |
0 |
0 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
|
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bharat |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Margdarshak |
12 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
|
63.2% |
36.8% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
9 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Satin |
4 |
14 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
26 |
|
15.4% |
53.8% |
0.0% |
15.4% |
15.4% |
100.0% |
|
|
Shikhar |
4 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
50.0% |
50.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Superfine |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
12 |
|
33.3% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
66.7% |
100.0% |
|
|
SVCL |
4 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
33.3% |
33.3% |
33.3% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Ujjivan |
16 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
28 |
|
57.1% |
42.9% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Utkarsh
Bank |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
|
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Total |
59 |
41 |
31 |
4 |
15 |
150 |
|
39.3% |
27.3% |
20.7% |
2.7% |
10.0% |
100.0% |
Source: Field
Survey
Type of organization is defined in Table 3. Majority
of the officials reported that their organizations are NBFC but around 28 per
cent officials reported that their MFIs are banks. Bandhan Bank, Utkarsha Bank
and Ujjivan Micro Finance are working as banks.
Table:
3
Type
of Organization
|
Name Of MFI |
NBFC |
Bank |
Others |
Total |
|
Arohan |
16 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bandhan
Bank |
0 |
11 |
0 |
11 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bharat |
6 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Margdarshak |
4 |
0 |
15 |
19 |
|
21.1% |
0.0% |
78.9% |
100.0% |
|
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
9 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Satin |
26 |
0 |
0 |
26 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Shikhar |
0 |
0 |
8 |
8 |
|
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Superfine |
0 |
0 |
12 |
12 |
|
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
SVCL |
12 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Ujjivan |
0 |
28 |
0 |
28 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Utkarsh
Bank |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Total |
73 |
42 |
35 |
150 |
|
48.7% |
28.0% |
23.3% |
100.0% |
Source: Field
Survey
Outreach of selected MFIs is shown in Table 4. The outreach of selected MFIs was reported
wider. However, MargDarshak, Shikher, Superfine and SVCL are functioning in
limited states and districts. The number of branches of MFIs were reported high
for Bharat Micro Finance, Bandhan Bank, Spandana and Arohan Micro Finance
Institutions.
Table:
4
Outreach
of Selected MFIs
|
Name Of MFI |
States/UTs |
Districts |
Branches |
Villages |
No. of
Clients |
|
Arohan |
14 |
212 |
663 |
5904 |
2
Million |
|
Bandhan
Bank |
34 |
463 |
986 |
-- |
1.65
Crores |
|
Bharat |
12 |
342 |
1567 |
1,00,000 |
7.2
Million |
|
Margdarshak |
5 |
57 |
147 |
2426 |
1.96
Lakh |
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
17 |
217 |
557 |
-- |
16.96
Lakh |
|
Satin |
22 |
-- |
180 |
-- |
3.97
Lakh |
|
Shikhar |
5 |
16 |
39 |
1783 |
8.81
Lakh |
|
Superfine |
7 |
-- |
34 |
-- |
5.0
Lakh |
|
SVCL |
8 |
208 |
-- |
-- |
5.0
Lakh |
|
Ujjivan |
24 |
233 |
552 |
-- |
7.0
Lakh |
|
Spandana |
15 |
222 |
694 |
-- |
4.1
Million |
Source: Annual
Reports
Most active among borrowers are shown in Table 5.
Household women, businessmen and farmers were most active borrowers of micro
finance institutions. However, preference is given to women in many micro
financial institutions such as Arohan, Utkarsh, Shikher, Sattin Credit Care
Ltd. etc.
Table:
5
Most
Active among Borrowers
|
Name Of MFI |
Farmers |
Household Women |
Businessmen |
Others |
Total |
|
Arohan |
0 |
16 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bandhan
Bank |
0 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bharat |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
|
50.0% |
50.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Margdarshak |
0 |
4 |
8 |
7 |
19 |
|
0.0% |
21.1% |
42.1% |
36.8% |
100.0% |
|
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
6 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
|
66.7% |
33.3% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Satin |
0 |
18 |
4 |
4 |
26 |
|
0.0% |
69.2% |
15.4% |
15.4% |
100.0% |
|
|
Shikhar |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Superfine |
0 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
12 |
|
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
SVCL |
4 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
33.3% |
66.7% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Ujjivan |
11 |
17 |
0 |
0 |
28 |
|
39.3% |
60.7% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Utkarsh
Bank |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Total |
24 |
91 |
24 |
11 |
150 |
|
16.0% |
60.7% |
16.0% |
7.3% |
100.0% |
|
|
Chi square value |
177.667** |
||||
Source: Field
Survey ** Sig. at 1% level of significance
The respondents were asked that whether they provide
loan to individuals who are outside of the coverage of JLG and SHG. About 77
per cent respondents admitted that their MFIs also provide loan to individuals
who are not covered under JLG or SHG. However, respondents from Bharat, Utkarsh
Bank, Muthtoot Micro Finance Ltd. reported that they provide loan to JLGs or
SHGs (Table 6).
Table:
6
Do
You Provide Loan to Individuals Who Are Outside Coverage of JLG and SHG
|
Name Of MFI |
Yes |
No |
Total |
|
Arohan |
16 |
0 |
16 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bandhan
Bank |
11 |
0 |
11 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bharat |
0 |
6 |
6 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Margdarshak |
8 |
11 |
19 |
|
42.1% |
57.9% |
100.0% |
|
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
0 |
9 |
9 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Satin |
23 |
3 |
26 |
|
88.5% |
11.5% |
100.0% |
|
|
Shikhar |
8 |
0 |
8 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Superfine |
12 |
0 |
12 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
SVCL |
12 |
0 |
12 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Ujjivan |
25 |
3 |
28 |
|
89.3% |
10.7% |
100.0% |
|
|
Utkarsh
Bank |
0 |
3 |
3 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Total |
115 |
35 |
150 |
|
76.7% |
23.3% |
100.0% |
Source: Field
Survey
The respondents were questioned that to whom they
sanction loan. About 2/3rd officials stated that they sanction loan
to only group members. However, all the respondents from Superfine and Bandhan Bank
as well as most of the respondents from Ujjivan Micro Finance reported that
they sanction loan to group and individuals (Table 7).
Table:
7
To
Whom Do You Sanction Loan
|
Name Of MFI |
Only Group Members |
Group and Individuals |
Total |
|
Arohan |
16 |
0 |
16 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bandhan
Bank |
0 |
11 |
11 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bharat |
6 |
0 |
6 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Margdarshak |
19 |
0 |
19 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
9 |
0 |
9 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Satin |
26 |
0 |
26 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Shikhar |
8 |
0 |
8 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Superfine |
0 |
12 |
12 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
SVCL |
12 |
0 |
12 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Ujjivan |
1 |
27 |
28 |
|
3.6% |
96.4% |
100.0% |
|
|
Utkarsh
Bank |
3 |
0 |
3 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Total |
100 |
50 |
150 |
|
66.7% |
33.3% |
100.0% |
Source: Field
Survey
Average tenure of loan is stated in Table 8. Around
80 per cent respondents stated that average tenure of loan is 1-2 yrs. Morever,
around 15 per cent respondents informed that the average tenure of loan is less
than one year. It was found more pronouncing in Shikher, Utkarsh Bank and
Superfine Micro Finance. Around 37 per cent respondents from MargDarshak stated
the average tenure of loan as 3-5 years.
Table:
8
Average
Tenure of Loan
|
Name Of MFI |
Less Than One Year |
1-2 Years |
3-5 Years |
Total |
|
Arohan |
0 |
16 |
0 |
16 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bandhan
Bank |
0 |
11 |
0 |
11 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bharat |
0 |
6 |
0 |
6 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Margdarshak |
4 |
8 |
7 |
19 |
|
21.1% |
42.1% |
36.8% |
100.0% |
|
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
0 |
9 |
0 |
9 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Satin |
0 |
26 |
0 |
26 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Shikhar |
8 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Superfine |
8 |
4 |
0 |
12 |
|
66.7% |
33.3% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
SVCL |
0 |
12 |
0 |
12 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Ujjivan |
0 |
28 |
0 |
28 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Utkarsh
Bank |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Total |
23 |
120 |
7 |
150 |
|
15.3% |
80.0% |
4.7% |
100.0% |
|
|
Chi square value |
158.154** |
|||
Source: Field
Survey ** Significant at 1% level of significance
Provision of collateral security for providing loan
is shown in Table 9 and 10, approx2/3rdof respondents stated that
there is no provision of collateral security for providing loan. However, all
the respondents from Arohan and majority of the respondents from Sattin Credit
Care Ltd., and SVCL admitted that there is provision of collateral security for
loan to borrowers.
Table:
9
Level of Services provided by MFIs in the Area
|
Name of MFI |
Mean score of Services Provided By MFIs |
|
Arohan |
11.00 |
|
Bandhan
Bank |
2.00 |
|
Bharat |
2.50 |
|
Margdarshak |
1.00 |
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
3.33 |
|
Satin |
1.00 |
|
Shikhar |
1.00 |
|
Superfine |
1.00 |
|
SVCL |
1.00 |
|
Ujjivan |
10.18 |
|
Utkarsh
Bank |
3.00 |
|
Total |
4.09 |
|
F
test |
263.55** |
** Significant at 1% level of significance
Table:
10
Provision
of Collateral Security for Providing Loan
|
Name Of MFI |
Yes |
No |
Total |
|
Arohan |
16 |
0 |
16 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bandhan
Bank |
0 |
11 |
11 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bharat |
0 |
6 |
6 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Margdarshak |
7 |
12 |
19 |
|
36.8% |
63.2% |
100.0% |
|
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
0 |
9 |
9 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Satin |
23 |
3 |
26 |
|
88.5% |
11.5% |
100.0% |
|
|
Shikhar |
0 |
8 |
8 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Superfine |
0 |
12 |
12 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
SVCL |
8 |
4 |
12 |
|
66.7% |
33.3% |
100.0% |
|
|
Ujjivan |
0 |
28 |
28 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Utkarsh
Bank |
0 |
3 |
3 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Total |
54 |
96 |
150 |
|
36.0% |
64.0% |
100.0% |
Source: Field
Survey
Income limit for borrowers in selected MFIs is shown
in Table 11. Most of MFIs have different income limit for borrowers from rural,
semi-urban and urban areas. The income limit was stated high for metro areas as
comparison to provincial areas. Most of MFIs provide loan to borrowers from
below poverty line in rural and urban areas.
MFIs are charging processing and insurance fee and GST besides interest
charges. However, charges and interest rate varies depending upon loan
portfolio and MFIs.
Table:
11
Income
Limit for Borrowers in Selected MFIs
(Amount
in Lakh Rs.)
|
Name Of MFI |
Rural |
Urban |
Semi-Urban |
|
Margdarshak |
₹1,00,000 |
₹1,60,000 |
₹1,20,000 |
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
₹1,00,000 |
₹1,60,000 |
₹1,20,000 |
|
Satin |
₹1,00,000 |
₹1,60,000 |
₹1,20,000 |
|
Superfine |
₹1,00,000 |
₹1,60,000 |
₹1,20,000 |
|
Ujjivan |
₹1,44,000 |
₹2,00,000 |
₹2,00,000 |
|
Utkarsh
Bank |
₹1,00,000 |
₹1,60,000 |
₹1,20,000 |
Source: Field
Survey
Cycle of loan of selected MFIs is tabulated in Table
12. The cycle of loan varies across the MFIs and loan portfolio. Generally,
minimum average amount has been reported to be Rs. 5000 and maximum amount is
Rs. 50000 to a individual person. However, average amount of loan to JLG may be
higher depending upon the size of JLG. In the first cycle of loan MFIs
generally provide loan in the range of Rs. 25000 to 50000 however, the loan
amount in second and third cycle ranges Rs. 50000 to Rs. 4 lakh. The average
amount of loan in second and third cycle was reported high for SVCL and
MargDarshak.
Table:
12
Cycle
of Loan of Selected MFIs
(Amount
in Rs.)
|
Name Of MFI |
Cycle-I |
Cycle-II |
Cycle-III |
|
Bandhan
Bank |
₹30,000 |
₹50,000 |
₹1,00,000 |
|
Margdarshak |
₹30,000 |
₹2,50,000 |
₹3,50,000 |
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
₹40,000 |
₹50,000 |
₹60,000 |
|
Satin |
₹30,000 |
₹40,000 |
₹50,000 |
|
Superfine |
₹50,000 |
₹50,000 |
₹50,000 |
|
SVCL |
₹30,000 |
₹3,50,000 |
₹4,00,000 |
|
Ujjivan |
₹26,000 |
₹35,000 |
₹45,000 |
|
Utkarsh
Bank |
₹25,000 |
₹50,000 |
₹60,000 |
Source: Field
Survey
Repayment system of MFIs is revealed in Table13.
About 37 percent respondents reported that their MFIs have weekly repayment
system. It was found more pronouncing in Utkarsh Bank, Superfine, Bandhan Bank
and Arohan. About 1/3rdofficialsalso reported that their MFIs have
monthly repayment system. It was found more pronouncing in Ujjivan, Shikher and
Muthtoot Micro Finance Ltd. About 15 percent officials reported that they are
having fortnightly repayment system while Sattin Credit Care Ltd., have other
type of repayment system such as daily and quarterly.
Table:
13
Repayment
System of MFIs
|
Name Of MFI |
Weekly |
Fortnightly |
Monthly |
Others |
Total |
|
Arohan |
16 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bandhan
Bank |
11 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bharat |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
6 |
|
50.0% |
0.0% |
50.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Margdarshak |
4 |
11 |
4 |
0 |
19 |
|
21.1% |
57.9% |
21.1% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
3 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
9 |
|
33.3% |
0.0% |
66.7% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Satin |
3 |
0 |
0 |
23 |
26 |
|
11.5% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
88.5% |
100.0% |
|
|
Shikhar |
0 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
|
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Superfine |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
SVCL |
0 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Ujjivan |
0 |
0 |
28 |
0 |
28 |
|
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Utkarsh
Bank |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
|
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Total |
55 |
23 |
49 |
23 |
150 |
|
36.7% |
15.3% |
32.7% |
15.3% |
100.0% |
Source: Field
Survey
Type of services provided by MFIs in the area is
shown in Table 14. Livelihood
development, women empowerment, education, empowerment of weaker sections,
training and entrepreneurship development, community development, environment
conservation, poverty alleviation, health and sanitation are some of the
services which are being provided by MFIs in their operational areas.
Table:
14
Type of Services Provided By MFIs in the Area
|
Name Of MFI |
Community
Development |
Women
Empowerment |
Empowerment
Of Weaker Section |
Environment
Conservation |
Poverty
Reduction |
Livelihood
Development |
Education |
Health |
Sanitation |
Training
And Entrepreneurship Development |
Others |
|
Arohan |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
16 |
|
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|
|
Bandhan
Bank |
0 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
Bharat |
0 |
6 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
50.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
50.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
50.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
Margdarshak |
0 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0.0% |
36.8% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
63.2% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
Muthoot
Micro Finance Ltd |
3 |
9 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
|
33.3% |
100.0% |
33.3% |
33.3% |
33.3% |
0.0% |
33.3% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
66.7% |
0.0% |
|
|
Satin |
0 |
8 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0.0% |
30.8% |
11.5% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
57.7% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
Shikhar |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
Superfine |
0 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
SVCL |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
Ujjivan |
27 |
28 |
27 |
23 |
26 |
27 |
27 |
26 |
26 |
26 |
22 |
|
96.4% |
100.0% |
96.4% |
82.1% |
92.9% |
96.4% |
96.4% |
92.9% |
92.9% |
92.9% |
78.6% |
|
|
Utkarsh
Bank |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
100.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
|
|
Total |
46 |
88 |
61 |
45 |
48 |
90 |
63 |
42 |
42 |
51 |
38 |
|
30.7% |
58.7% |
40.7% |
30.0% |
32.0% |
60.0% |
42.0% |
28.0% |
28.0% |
34.0% |
25.3% |
Source: Field Survey.
Micro finance programs are expected to make significant contributions to eradicating poverty and empower women in economic, social and political sectors. Micro-credit is likewise end up being a significant wellspring of financing of monetary exercises, job advancements and work age for the more fragile segments of society. A few projects, plans and ventures have been actualized for advancing gathering based miniaturized scale credit in India both in urban and rustic regions. Several MFIs are providing micro finance to poor, women and marginalized communities. These financial institution also provide financial services for development and promotion of livelihoods, enterprises and thus, playing curial role in reducing poverty and empowerment of poor, marginalized and women.
Banerjee, Abhijit V.,
and Esther Duflo.(2011), Poor Economics. New York: PerseuBooks.
Basu, P.,
&Srivastava, P. (2005), Exploring Possibilities: Microfinance and Rural
Credit Access for the
Poor in India. Economic and
Political Weekly, 40(17), 1747-1756. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4416534
Bauchet, J., C.
Marshall, L. Starita, J. Thomas, and A. Yalouris (2011), “Latest Findings from
Randomized Evaluations of Microfinance.”Access to Finance Forum, Reports by
CGAP and Its Partners, No. 2.Consultative Group to Assist the Poor.
Bauchet, Jonathan,
Cristobal Marshall, Laura Starita, Jeanette Thomas, and Anna Yalouris.(2011),
“Latest Findings from Randomized Evaluations of Microfinance.”Forum 2.
Washington, D.C.: CGAP, Financial Access Initiative, Innovations for Poverty
Action, and Abdul LatifJameel Poverty Action Lab.
Beck, T.,
Demirgüç-Kunt, A. and Levine, R., (2007), Finance, inequality and the
poor.Journal of economic growth, 12(1), pp.27-49.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Finance_Inequality_and_the_Poor.pdf
Beck, T., R. Levine,
and N. Loayza.(2000), “Finance and the Sources of Growth.”Journal of Burgess,
Robin, and RohiniPande. 2005. “Do Rural Banks Matter? Evidence from the Indian
Social Banking Experiment.” American Economic Review, Vol. 95, No. 3: 780–95.
Brown, M., Guin, B.,
&Kirschenmann, K. (2012), Microfinance Commercialization and Mission Drift.
Die Unternehmung, 66(4), 340-357. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24187680
Bubna, Amit, BhagwanChowdhry (2010), Franchising Microfinance, Review of
Finance, Volume 14, Issue 3, 1 July, Pp451–476, Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfp005
Cole, Shawn, Xavier
Giné, Jeremy Tobacman, PetiaTopalova, Robert Townsend, and James Vickery.(2013),
“Barriers to Household Risk Management: Evidence from India.” American Economic
Journal— Applied Economics, 5 (1): 104–35.
Dixon, R.,
Ritchie, J., &Siwale,
J. (2006), Microfinance:
accountability from the grassroots. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 19(3), 405-427.
Dupas, Pascaline, and
Jonathan Robinson (2013),“Savings Constraints and Microenterprise Development:
Evidence from a Field Experiment in Kenya.” American Economic Journal—Applied
Economics, 5 (1): 163–92. Financial Economics 58 (1): 261–300.
Dwivedi, A.K.,
&Dwivedi, N. (2011),Women-empowerment
through women entrepreneurship
:A study of Faizabad zone of Uttar-Pradesh, Electronic copy available at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1886250
Ferdousi, F. (2013,
December),Performance of microfinance institutions in Asia. DEA based
efficiency analysis. In International Conference on the Modern Development of
the Humanities and Social Sciences, Atlantis Press, Paris (pp. 91-94).
Goel, G. and Rishi, M.
(2012), Promoting entrepreneurship to alleviate poverty in India: An overview
of government schemes, private-sector programs, and initiatives in the
citizens' sector. Thunderbird Int'l Bus Rev, 54: 45–57. doi:10.1002/tie.21437
Ilcan, S.,
& Lacey, A.
(2011),Governing the poor:
Exercises of poverty
reduction, practices of global aid. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP, P 70
Kabeer, N. (2005),Is
microfinance a 'magic bullet' for women's empowerment? Analysis of findings
from South Asia. Economic and Political weekly, 4709-471
Kaladhar. J. K.
(1997), Microfinance in India:
Design, Structure and Governance. Economic and
Political Weekly, 32(42), 2687-2706.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4405979
Karlan, D. S. (2001),
Microfinance impact assessments: The perils of using new members as a control
group. Journal of Microfinance/ESR Review, 3(2), 5
Karlan, Dean, Isaac
Osei-Akoto, Robert Osei, and Chris Udry.(2014), “Agricultural Decisions after
Relaxing Credit and Risk Constraints.”Quarterly Journal of Economics.
Kumbhar, V. M. (2013),Some
critical issues of women entrepreneurship in rural India. Retrieved from
http://www.euacademic.org/UploadArticle/13.pdfKusum Mukherjee, A.
(2014). Microfinance and credit to the ultra poor. International Journal of
Social Economics, 41(10), 975-993
Leora F. Klapper,
Simon C. Parker(2011), Gender and the Business Environment for New Firm
Creation, The World Bank Research Observer, Volume 26, Issue 2, 1 August
Pp 237–257, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkp032
Mathew,Jaya and
KurianReeba (2016), Engendering Women’s Access to Credit through Financial
Inclusion in India, International Journal of Economics and Finance, Vo. 8, No.6
Mishra , A and Zia
–UlHaque (2016), Technological Innovations in Financial Inclusion in India,
Journal of Asian Business Management, Vol. 8 , No2, July- December
Morduch, J. (2000),
The microfinance schism, World development, 28(4), 617-629.
NABARD (2019), Status
of Microfinance in India, NABARD, Mumbai
Niels Hermes,
&Lensink, R. (2007),
Impact of Microfinance: A
Critical Survey. Economic
and Political Weekly, 42(6), 462-465. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4419226
Norwood C.(2014), Women’s Empowerment
and Microcredit: A
Case Study from
Rural Ghana. Journal of international studies and development.;4:1-22.
Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4513662/\
Roodman, D.,
&Qureshi, U. (2006), Microfinance asbusiness.Center for
Global Development, 2.
Sa- Dhan (2016),The
Bharat Micro Finance Report, Sa –Dhan, New Delhi
Saju Jose, Jacob
Chacko, (2017), "Sustainable development of microfinance customers: An
empirical investigation based on India", Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 30 Issue: 1, pp.49-64, Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-02-2016-0056
Tassel, Eric
Van (2016), Subsidies and
capital markets: implications
for microfinance loan portfolios, Oxford Economic Papers,
Volume 68, Issue 2, 1 April ,Pp 398-418, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpv064
Ukanwa, I., Xiong, L.,
& Anderson, A. (2017), Experiencing microfinance: “Effects on poor women
entrepreneurs” livelihoodstrategies, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development