Is agricultural microcredit really more risky? Evidence from Tanzania
Is agricultural microcredit really more risky? Evidence from Tanzania
复制标题
农业小额信贷真的风险更大吗？
DOI：
10.1108/00021461211277268
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
O. Musshoff
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ron Weber;O. Musshoff
目的-使用坦桑尼亚一家商业小额信贷机构(MFI)的独特数据集，本文的目的是首先调查农业公司是否有不同的贷款概率，以及它们的贷款数量配给是否与对非农业公司的贷款不同。其次，本文分析了农业企业是否存在与非农业企业不同的拖欠还贷行为。设计/方法/方法--作者估计获得贷款概率的概率模型，调查所有贷款申请的数量配给规模的赫克曼模型，以及审查小额信贷机构发放的所有小额贷款的贷款拖欠情况的OLS模型。调查结果--结果显示，农业企业在获得信贷方面面临更大的障碍，但一旦获得信贷，其贷款的额度分配与非农业企业没有什么不同。此外，与非农业企业相比，农业企业在偿还贷款时拖欠贷款的情况较少。研究限制/影响--即使作者可以证明，农业企业获得信贷和偿还贷款的机会是不同的，但小额信贷机构目前的区域重点只允许向大达累斯萨拉姆地区的农业企业提供贷款。因此，这些结果在农村环境中可能会发生变化。除了农村经济环境的普遍差异外，农业企业的生产类型也可能在农村地区有所不同。此外，这些结果可能会在不同的国家情况下发生变化。实际影响--研究结果表明，通常归因于农业生产的较高风险暴露不一定会导致更高的信贷风险。它们还表明，被调查的小额信贷机构高估了农业客户的信贷风险，因此应重新考虑其风险评估做法，以便能够增加对农业部门的贷款。此外，结果可能表明，农民获得贷款的资格较低，因为他们不适合标准的小额信贷产品。原创性/价值-据作者所知，这是第一篇同时调查农业企业获得信贷和偿还行为的论文。
Purpose - Using a unique dataset of a commercial microfinance institution (MFI) in Tanzania, the purpose of this paper is to investigate first whether agricultural firms have a different probability to get a loan and whether their loans are differently volume rationed than loans to non-agricultural firms. Second, the paper analyzes whether agricultural firms repay their loans with different delinquencies than non-agricultural firms. Design/methodology/approach - The authors estimate a Probit-Model for the probability of receiving a loan, a Heckman-Model to investigate the magnitude of volume rationing for all loan applications and an OLS-Model to examine the loan delinquencies of all microloans disbursed by the MFI. Findings - The results reveal that agricultural firms face higher obstacles to get credit but as soon as they have access to credit, their loans are not differently volume rationed than those of non-agricultural firms. Furthermore, agricultural firms are less often delinquent when paying back their loans than non-agricultural firms. Research limitations/implications - Even if the authors can show that access to credit and loan repayment is different for agricultural firms, the current regional focus of the MFI only allows for lending to agricultural firms in the greater Dar es Salaam area. Thus, these results might change in a rural setting. Besides general differences of the rural economic environment, the production type of agricultural firms might also differ in rural areas. Also, these results might change in different country contexts. Practical implications - The findings suggest that a higher risk exposition typically attributed to agricultural production must not necessarily lead to higher credit risk. They also show that the investigated MFI overestimates the credit risk of agricultural clients and, hence, should reconsider its risk assessment practice to be able to increase lending to the agricultural sector. In addition, the results might indicate that farmers qualify less often for a loan as they do not fit into the standard microcredit product. Originality/value - To the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper which simultaneously investigates access to credit and the repayment behavior of agricultural firms.