Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating the unobserved heterogeneity effect on outreach to women: lessons from microfinance institutions

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main objective of this study is to assess the impact of unobserved heterogeneity on microfinance social efficiency analysis. Based on recent nonparametric techniques and directional distances, we identify a latent heterogeneity factor related to the microfinance institute (MFI) manager’s ability to promote women, independent of MFI size. We test for the significance of this unobserved factor and analyze the impact of MFI social inefficiency measures. Using a cross-country sample of 501 MFIs in 2011 from six main regions of the world, our findings reveal a significant effect of unobserved heterogeneity on the frontier and hence stress the importance of subjective factors in defining the set of production possibilities. We assess the robustness of our findings with the considered profit-oriented status and analyze the link between our unobserved heterogeneity factor and institutional and socioeconomic indicators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that several papers have documented the methodological issues raised by two-step methods, as in Simar and Wilson (2007) or Simar and Wilson (2011).

  2. Note that the analysis performed below has also been repeated in 2010 and 2012 to check for robustness of our results. The results were consistent with 2011 but we chose not to include them in the paper to save space.

  3. This explains in particular why our sample size is smaller than in Fall et al. (2021). Indeed, we have introduced several new variables to characterise the unobserved heterogeneity (one auxiliary variable and six external socio-economic variables) and datapoints for these variables were sometimes missing for the year 2011. Dropping cross-sections with missing data lead us to base our analysis on a sample of 501 MFIs.

  4. Note that, as suggested by a peer reviewer, we could have completed the analysis by using the number of female loan officers as an additional observed heterogeneity factor [as in Fall et al. (2021)]. We chose a single heterogeneity factor and favored the representation of women on the boards of directors for one main reason: targeting women is a strategic decision in MFIs and this strategic decision must be ratified by the board of Footnote 4 Continued

    directors. Having women represented on the boards of directors can therefore encourage MFIs to deliver more financial services to women (financial inclusion of women).

References

  • Abdullah, S., & Quayes, S. (2016). Do women borrowers augment financial performance of MFIs? Applied Economics, 48(57), 5593–5604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreou, P. C., Philip, D., & Robejsek, P. (2016). Bank liquidity creation and risk-taking: Does managerial ability matter? Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 43(1–2), 226–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aragon, Y., Daouia, A., and Thomas-Agnan, C. (2005). Nonparametric frontier estimation: a conditional quantile-based approach. Econometric Theory, 21, 358–389.

  • Armendáriz, B. and Morduch, J. (2010). The economics of microfinance. MIT press.

  • Assefa, E., Hermes, N., & Meesters, A. (2013). Competition and the performance of microfinance institutions. Applied Financial Economics, 23(9), 767–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C. (2015). The miracle of microfinance? evidence from a randomized evaluation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(1), 22–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, A., Karlan, D., & Zinman, J. (2015). Six randomized evaluations of microcredit: Introduction and further steps. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bank, W. (2021). The World Bank Annual Report 2021: From Crisis to Green, Resilient, and Inclusive Recovery. The World Bank.

  • Banna, H., Rana, M. S., Ismail, I., & Ismail, N. (2019). Quantifying the managerial ability of microfinance institutions: Evidence from latin america. Journal of International Development, 31(7), 578–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, T. A., & Tacneng, R. (2014). The impact of governance and institutional quality on mfi outreach and financial performance in sub-saharan africa. World Development, 58, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, A. N., & Udell, G. F. (2002). Small business credit availability and relationship lending: The importance of bank organisational structure. The Economic Journal, 112(477), F32–F53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanco-Oliver, A., Reguera-Alvarado, N., & Veronesi, G. (2021). Credit risk in the microfinance industry: The role of gender affinity. Journal of Small Business Management, 59(2), 280–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branisa, B., Klasen, S., & Ziegler, M. (2013). Gender inequality in social institutions and gendered development outcomes. World Development, 45, 252–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branisa, B., Klasen, S., Ziegler, M., Drechsler, D., & Jütting, J. (2014). The institutional basis of gender inequality: The social institutions and gender index (sigi). Feminist Economics, 20(2), 29–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cazals, C., Florens, J.-P., & Simar, L. (2002). Nonparametric frontier estimation: a robust approach. Journal of Econometrics, 106(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. G., Chung, Y., & Färe, R. (1996). Benefit and distance functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 70(2), 407–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., & Lu, C.-C. (2021). The impact of the macroeconomic factors in the bank efficiency: evidence from the chinese city banks. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 55, 101294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozarenco, A., & Szafarz, A. (2018). Gender biases in bank lending: Lessons from microcredit in france. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3), 631–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cull, R., Demirgü ç Kunt, A., & Morduch, J. (2007). Financial performance and outreach: A global analysis of leading microbanks. The Economic Journal, 117(517), F107–F133.

  • Cull, R., Demirguc-Kunt, A., & Morduch, J. (2011). Does regulatory supervision curtail microfinance profitability and outreach? World Development, 39(6), 949–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curi, C., & Lozano-Vivas, A. (2020). Managerial ability as a tool for prudential regulation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 174, 87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daraio, C., & Simar, L. (2005). Introducing environmental variables in nonparametric frontier models: a probabilistic approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 24(1), 93–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daraio, C., & Simar, L. (2007). Advanced robust and nonparametric methods in efficiency analysis: Methodology and applications. Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daraio, C., & Simar, L. (2014). Directional distances and their robust versions: Computational and testing issues. European Journal of Operational Research, 237(1), 358–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daraio, C., Simar, L., and Wilson, P. W. (2020). Fast and efficient computation of directional distance estimators. Annals of Operations Research, 288, 1–31.

  • Daraio, C., Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (2021). Quality as a latent heterogeneity factor in the efficiency of universities. Economic Modelling, 99, 105485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Franco, G., Hope, O.-K., & Lu, H. (2017). Managerial ability and bank-loan pricing. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 44(9–10), 1315–1337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demerjian, P., Lev, B., & McVay, S. (2012). Quantifying managerial ability: A new measure and validity tests. Management Science, 58(7), 1229–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demerjian, P. R., Lev, B., Lewis, M. F., & McVay, S. E. (2013). Managerial ability and earnings quality. The Accounting Review, 88(2), 463–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’espallier, B., Guerin, I., & Mersland, R. (2013). Focus on women in microfinance institutions. The Journal of Development Studies, 49(5), 589–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fall, F. S., Tchuigoua, H. T., Vanhems, A., & Simar, L. (2021). Gender effect on microfinance social efficiency: A robust nonparametric approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 295(2), 744–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodell, J. W., Goyal, A., & Hasan, I. (2020). Comparing financial transparency between for-profit and nonprofit suppliers of public goods: Evidence from microfinance. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 64, 101146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez-Nieto, B., Serrano-Cinca, C., & Mar Molinero, C. (2009). Social efficiency in microfinance institutions. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(1), 104–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartarska, V., & Mersland, R. (2012). Which governance mechanisms promote efficiency in reaching poor clients? evidence from rated microfinance institutions. European financial management, 18(2), 218–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartarska, V., & Nadolnyak, D. (2007). Do regulated microfinance institutions achieve better sustainability and outreach? cross-country evidence. Applied economics, 39(10), 1207–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartarska, V., Nadolnyak, D., & Mersland, R. (2014). Are women better bankers to the poor? evidence from rural microfinance institutions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 96(5), 1291–1306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermes, N., & Lensink, R. (2011). Microfinance: its impact, outreach, and sustainability. World Development, 39(6), 875–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues1. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2), 220–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mastromarco, C., & Simar, L. (2021). Latent heterogeneity to evaluate the effect of human capital on world technology frontier. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 55(2), 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meager, R. (2019). Understanding the average impact of microcredit expansions: A bayesian hierarchical analysis of seven randomized experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(1), 57–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moradi-Motlagh, A. and Emrouznejad, A. (2022). The origins and development of statistical approaches in non-parametric frontier models: a survey of the first two decades of scholarly literature (1998–2020). Annals of Operations Research, 318, 1–29.

  • Nyarko, S. A. (2022). Gender discrimination and lending to women: The moderating effect of an international founder. International Business Review, 31(4), 101973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piot-Lepetit, I., & Nzongang, J. (2014). Financial sustainability and poverty outreach within a network of village banks in cameroon: A multi-DEA approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 234(1), 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piot-Lepetit, I. and Tchakoute Tchuigoua, H. (2021). Ownership and performance of microfinance institutions in latin america: A pseudo-panel malmquist index approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, pages 1–14.

  • Pitt, M. M., Khandker, S. R., & Cartwright, J. (2006). Empowering women with micro finance: Evidence from bangladesh. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 54(4), 791–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racine, J. (1997). Consistent significance testing for nonparametric regression. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 15(3), 369–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (2014). Development as freedom (1999). The globalization and development reader: Perspectives on development and global change, 525.

  • Shahriar, A. Z. M., Unda, L. A., & Alam, Q. (2020). Gender differences in the repayment of microcredit: The mediating role of trustworthiness. Journal of Banking & Finance, 110, 105685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simar, L. (2003). Detecting outliers in frontier models: A simple approach. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 20(3), 391–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simar, L., & Vanhems, A. (2012). Probabilistic characterization of directional distances and their robust versions. Journal of Econometrics, 166(2), 342–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simar, L., Vanhems, A., & Van Keilegom, I. (2016). Unobserved heterogeneity and endogeneity in nonparametric frontier estimation. Journal of Econometrics, 190(2), 360–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (2007). Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. Journal of Econometrics, 136(1), 31–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (2011). Two-stage DEA: caveat emptor. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 36(2), 205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vo, X. V., Pham, T. H. A., Doan, T. N., & Luu, H. N. (2021). Managerial ability and bank lending behavior. Finance Research Letters, 39, 101585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P. W. (2018). Dimension reduction in nonparametric models of production. European Journal of Operational Research, 267(1), 349–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, H. (2021). The impact of competition and bank market regulation on banks’ cost efficiency. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 61, 100677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, C., & Zhang, J. (2021). The impact of covid-19 on the efficiency of microfinance institutions. International Review of Economics & Finance, 71, 407–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LEREPS, Université de Toulouse, UT2J, Toulouse, France

    F. S. Fall

  2. Kedge Business School, Talence, France

    H. Tchakoute Tchuigoua

  3. TBS Business School, 1 Place Alphonse Jourdain, 31068, Toulouse, France

    A. Vanhems

  4. Institut de Statistique, Biostatistique et Sciences Actuarielles, Université Catholique de Louvain, Voie du Roman Pays 20, B1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    L. Simar

Authors
  1. F. S. Fall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Tchakoute Tchuigoua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Vanhems
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Simar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Vanhems.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Tables and Figures

Appendix: Tables and Figures

See Tables 1, 2 and 3.

Table 1 MFI distribution by institutional form and region
Full size table
Table 2 Variable definition
Full size table
Table 3 Descriptive evidence
Full size table

1.1 Impact of heterogeneity variables on the frontier and inefficiency

See Figs. 1, 2 and 3.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Gender effect (unobserved and observed heterogeneity) for the full sample. The three figures on the left correspond to the effect on the frontier, and the three figures on the right correspond to the effect on the inefficiency level. The two figures on the top correspond to the 3D plot with the observed and unobserved heterogeneity (observed heterogeneity is % of Female board members). The two figures in the middle (in the bottom) correspond to the 2-D plot with the observed heterogeneity (unobserved heterogeneity) for the quantile values of the unobserved heterogeneity (observed heterogeneity). The symbols for the three quantile values are \(\triangledown \) for Q1, * for Q2 and o for Q3. The pvalues correspond to the test evaluating the impact of the heterogeneity variable on the frontier or on the inefficiency level

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Gender effect (unobserved and observed heterogeneity) for the for-profit sample. The three figures on the left correspond to the effect on the frontier, and the three figures on the right correspond to the effect on the inefficiency level. The two figures on the top correspond to the 3D plot with the observed and unobserved heterogeneity (observed heterogeneity is % of Female board members). The two figures in the middle (in the bottom) correspond to the 2-D plot with the observed heterogeneity (unobserved heterogeneity) for the quantile values of the unobserved heterogeneity (observed heterogeneity). The symbols for the three quantile values are \(\triangledown \) for Q1, * for Q2 and for Q3. The pvalues correspond to the test evaluating the impact of the heterogeneity variable on the frontier or on the inefficiency level

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Gender effect (unobserved and observed heterogeneity) for the nonprofit sample. The three figures on the left correspond to the effect on the frontier, and the three figures on the right correspond to the effect on the inefficiency level. The two figures on the top correspond to the 3D plot with the observed and unobserved heterogeneity (observed heterogeneity is % of Female board members). The two figures in the middle (in the bottom) correspond to the 2-D plot with the observed heterogeneity (unobserved heterogeneity) for the quantile values of the unobserved heterogeneity (observed heterogeneity). The symbols for the three quantile values are \(\triangledown \) for Q1, * for Q2 and o for Q3. The pvalues correspond to the test evaluating the impact of the heterogeneity variable on the frontier or on the inefficiency level

Full size image

1.2 Characterization of the unobserved heterogeneity

See Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Link between the unobserved heterogeneity and external variables: a Government effectiveness; b Voice and accountability; c Rule of law; d Gender Inequality Index (GII); e Gender Development Index (GDI); and f Human Development Index (HDI). The inverted triangles represent the local linear fit to the sample of points. The pvalues correspond to the test evaluating the impact of the external variable on the unobserved heterogeneity

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fall, F.S., Tchakoute Tchuigoua, H., Vanhems, A. et al. Investigating the unobserved heterogeneity effect on outreach to women: lessons from microfinance institutions. Ann Oper Res 328, 1365–1386 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05353-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05353-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation