The Impact of Microcredit on the Poor in Bangladesh: Revisiting the Evidence - Working Paper 174
Publication Info
Publication Type
Download
Research Topics
CGD Expert
Articles
- Small Change (The Boston Globe)
- Latest Perspectives from the Nonprofit World (Chronicle of Philanthropy)
- Microfinance: The Next Bubble? (Newsweek Blog)
- Microfinance Open Book Blog: Q&A with David Roodman
- Roodman’s Microfinance Open Book Blog
- Interview with David Roodman on the Commitment to Development Index and Microfinance (PBS Show Foreign Exchange)
- The Future of Microcredit: At Home and Abroad (Kojo Nnamdi Show)
Events
- If It Doesn’t Get Counted, Does It Count? New Measures of Aid Quality for Microfinance, Humanitarian Aid, and Everything Else
- Microfinance and Development: Learning What Policies Work, What Do Not, And Why
Rights and Permissions
We welcome the use of CGD work-just let us know in advance! For contact information see our Rights & Permissions page. CGD rights and permissions are managed under the terms of the Creative Commons license below.
David Roodman and Jonathan Morduch
06/18/2009
The idea that access to small loans can help poor families build businesses, increase their income, and escape poverty has blossomed into a global movement. Its appeal is manifold. It is at once radical in its suggestion that the poor are creditworthy and conservative in its insistence on individual responsibility.
But how robust is the evidence that microcredit improves the lives of the poor by, for example, increasing or stabilizing household consumption? Three landmark studies put microfinance to that test in Bangladesh, but the contradictions among them have produced lasting controversy and confusion. While two of the studies indicate that microcredit raises household spending, the third instead suggests that it helps families stabilize spending.
In this working paper, research fellow David Roodman and Jonathan Morduch reevaluate the previous studies and find a way to end the impasse. They replicate the statistical analysis in each study, one of them with Roodman’s cmp program, and show that none convincingly rules out reverse causation. A positive association between microcredit and household spending, for example, may merely indicate that richer families borrow more. With these studies in doubt, solid academic evidence that microcredit reduces poverty is even scarcer than previously understood. For non-experimental methods to retain a place in the program evaluator’s portfolio, the quality of the claimed natural experiments must be high and demonstrated.
A complete version of Morduch's 1998 paper, "Does Microfinance Really Help the Poor: New Evidence from Flagship Programs in Bangladesh," is here.
Files needed to generate the paper's results are available for download:
Primary data not available at the World Bank site, obtained from Mark Pitt in the late 1990s
- CPIYEAR.DTA—Stata file with Consumer Price Indexes by month and region of Bangladesh
- LANDREL1.DTA—Details of relatives’ landholdings
- WGHT123.DTA—Sampling weights
Data sets
- Roodman & Morduch HH.zip—Stata file with one observation per household and survey round
- Roodman & Morduch ind.zip—Stata file with one observation per individual and survey round
- variable list.xls and variable list.pdf—describe the variables in these data sets
- RM db.zip—Microsoft SQL Server database that transforms the primary survey data into the Stata data sets. Also contains Morduch’s (1998) data set, and a partial data set obtained from Mark Pitt in 2008. Requires SQL Server (free version) to view
Stata .do files
- Compare R&M to Pitt.do—correlations in Table 1
- RDD.do—Figures 1, 2, and 8 and fuzzy RDD regressions reported in text
- Borrowing-consumption lowess regressions.do—Figures 3-7
- PK 98 reproduction.do—replication of Pitt and Khandker 1998
- Estimate from Pitt data set.do—checks reported in text
- M 98 reproduction.do—replication of Morduch 1998
- K 05 reproduction.do—replication of Khandker 2005
- cmp on Pitt simulated data set.do—Table 11, appendix





