chapter 4 analysis of impact assessment of microfinance...

96

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF

MICROFINANCE IN HARYANA

.

In this chapter an attempt has been made to analyze the socio-

economic impact of Microfinance in Haryana State. To analyze the ‘socio-

economic’ impact, study of all those social factors is necessary to be

undertaken which are having economic implications. The impact studies

generally follow three types of approaches:

(i) Comparing before and after situations (i.e., Pre-post technique)

(ii) Comparing with and without situations (i.e., Control sampling technique)

(iii) Studying the longitudinal samples (i.e., Panel data)

However, for the present study, first approach has been followed

depending on data suitability to assess different issues and parameters. Pre-

post technique was followed to assess the impact of Self Help Group Bank

Linkage Program (SBLP) particularly on borrowing and asset creation, impact

on income, savings and employment. In addition to this technique, the study

also uses impressions/ judgments, views and sayings of SHG members to

assess and touch certain vital issues pertaining to the study. Before analyzing

the impact of Microfinance in the State, it is necessary to first study the

demographic profile of the study area, socio-economic profile of the

members, SHG formation and participation and finally the socio-economic

impact of the microfinance.

4.1 Demographic Profile of the Study Area

The various demographic indicators viz. area, population, percentage

of rural population, density of population, sex ratio and literacy has been

given in the demographic profile of the study area in following Table 4.1:

97

Table 4.1

Demographic Profile of the Study Area

District Area

(Km2)

Population

(2011)

Rural

Populatio

n (%)

Density of

Populatio

n per Km2

Sex

Rati

o

Literac

y Rate

(%)

Kaithal 2,317 10,72,861 78.03 463 880 70.56

Kurukshetr

a

1,530 9,64,231 71.07 630 889 76.70

Hisar 3,983 17,42,815 68.27 438 871 73.24

Fatehabad 2,538 9,41,522 80.96 371 903 69.13

Haryana 44,212 2, 53, 53,081 65.21 573 877 76.64

India 32,87,24

0

1,21,01,93,42

2

68.84 382 940 74.04

Source: Census of India, 2011

Above Table shows the demographic profile of the study area as well

as of the State and country. The area of the State of Haryana is only 1.34

percent of the country’s area whereas population is 2.09 percent that is why

the density of population of the State is much higher than the national figure1.

Among the districts, Hisar is having maximum area as well as population.

Maximum rural population is in Fatehabad district and maximum density of

population is in Kurukshetra district. Literacy rate is highest in Kurukshetra

district. The sex ratio in the State is much lower than the national ratio

whereas density of population is much higher than the national population

density2. Following Figure 4.1 show the map of the State showing the

population of the different districts of the State.

98

Figure 4.1

Districts of Haryana with Population

Source: Census of India, 2011

4.2 Socio- Economic Profile of the Study Sample

The Interview- Schedule prepared for the survey comprised of

background questions about gender, age, education, number of family

members and living standards and questions related to income, saving, assets

etc. Structured questions and some dichotomous questions were asked to

collect the information from the respondents. Questions were very specific

with a fixed range of answers. Our structured schedule had multiple-choice

questions in which the researcher provided a choice of answers and

99

respondents were asked to select one or more of the alternatives and

dichotomous questions had only two response alternatives, Yes or No.

The socio-economic profile of the study sample is depicted in the table

and figures below. In the table and figures various factors like age, gender,

marital status, caste, religion, occupation, education level, family type and

economic group of the 325 sample beneficiaries has been given with

percentages.

Table 4.2

Socio-Economic Profile of the Sample Beneficiaries

S

No.

Factors Category Frequency(N-

325)

Percentage

(%)

1 Age 20-30 (years)

31-40

41-50

51-60

More than 60

83

147

69

19

7

26

45

21

6

2

2 Gender Male

Female

53

272

16

84

3 Marital Status Married

Unmarried

Widow

Divorced

313

-

12

-

96

-

4

-

4 Caste SC

ST

BC

General

189

-

120

16

58

-

37

5

5 Religion Hindu

Muslim

Sikh

Others

271

7

46

1

84

2

14

-

6 Occupation Agriculture

Allied Activity

Casual Labor/

Agriculture Labor

Business/

Manufacturing

-

177

-

148

-

55

-

45

7 Education

Level

Illiterate

Primary

Metric

Graduate

Post Graduate

204

96

25

-

-

63

30

7

-

-

8 Family Type Nuclear

Joint

234

91

72

28

100

9 Economic

Group

BPL

APL

304

21

94

6

Source: Compiled from Primary Data

Figure 4.2

Socio-Economic Profile of the Sample Beneficiaries

104

It is revealed from the above table and figures that in the survey sample

taken for the study, maximum number of members (45 percent) are in the age

group of 31-40, 272 (84 percent) are women members, 189 (58 percent)

belong to scheduled caste, 271 (84 percent) are Hindu, 177 (55 percent) are

engaged in the allied activities, 204 (63 percent) are illiterate, 234 (72

percent) are from nuclear families and 304 (94 percent) are from BPL

families.

Occupational Pattern of sample SHGs

The occupational pattern of the members of sample SHGs is given in

the Table 4.3 and Figure 4.3 below:

Table 4.3

Occupational Pattern of Members of Sample SHGs

S. No. Category No. of Members Percentage

1 Agriculture - -

2 Allied Activities

1.Dairy

2 Piggery

3.Fishery

4.Sheep Rearing

177

169

-

-

8

55

95

-

-

5

3 Casual Labor/ Agriculture Labor - -

4 Business/ Self

Employed/Manufacturing

1.Kariyana Shop

2.Maniari Shop

3.Tailoring/Embroidery

4.Fan Making

5.Soft toy making

6.Dari Making

7.Cloth Selling

8.Sabun/Surf making

9.Papad, Badian making

10.Mushroom selling

148

20

52

11

4

10

22

6

3

8

12

45

14

35

7

3

7

15

4

2

5

8

Total 325 100


105

Figure 4.3

Occupational Pattern of Members of Sample SHGs

It is evident from the above table and figures that in the allied activities

the members of the SHGs have undertaken only two activities i.e., dairy and

sheep rearing with a majority of dairying where as in the

business/manufacturing, ten different activities have been undertaken by the

members with a maximum of Maniari/General store.

Family members of Sample SHGs members

Table 4.4 presents the details of total family members of the members

of sample SHGs:

106

Table 4.4

Details of total family members of Sample SHGs members

Category Adults Children Total Dependent Working

Male 318 273 591 279 316

Female 324 243 567 265 313

Total 642 516 1158 544 629


There are in total 1158 family members belonging to 325 members of

sample SHGs. The average members per family come out to be 3.56. 55

percent family members are adult and 45 percent are children, 54 percent are

working and 46 percent are dependent. The ratio of male/female comes out to

be nearly fifty percent in the total of adults, children, dependent and working.

Family size of Sample SHG members

Frequencies of family size of sample SHG members are given in the

Table 4.5 and Figure 4.4 below:

Table 4.5

Frequency of family size of Sample SHG members

No. of members in family Frequency Percentage (%)

2 8 2.5

3 12 3.7

4 73 22.5

5 101 31.1

6 66 20.3

7 35 10.8

8 16 4.9

9 7 2.2

10 4 1.2

11 - -

12 3 .9

Total 325 100


107

Figure 4.4

Family size of Sample SHG members

Table 4.5 and Figure 4.4 show the frequencies of family size of sample

SHG members. It is revealed that 101 (31.1 percent) members are having five

family members, 73 (22.5 percent) four family members and 66 (20.3 percent)

are having six family members in their families. The average size of the

family comes out to be 3.56.

Credit needs and Sources of Credit (Before joining SHG)

Before joining the SHG, 190 (58 percent) of the members took a loan

to meet out their credit needs whereas 135 (42 percent) never took a loan. The

amount of loan taken and sources of the credit are given in the Table 4.6

given below:

Table 4.6

Amount of Loan taken and Sources of Credit

Amount of

Loan (Rs.)

No. of

Members

Percentage

(%)

Source of

Credit

No. of

Members

Percentage

(%)

Up to 10000

10001-20000

20001-30000

Above 30000

140

39

6

5

74

20

3

3

Village Money

Lender

Bank

Relative

Friend

180

3

1

6

94

2

1

3

Total 190 100 Total 190 100


108

Figure 4.5

Amount of Loan taken and Sources of Credit

It is evident from above table and figure that 74 percent of the

members of SHG had taken loan up to Rs.10000 only and 94 percent had

taken it from village money lenders. Only 26 percent members found the loan

amount sufficient to meet their credit needs whereas 74 percent found it

insufficient which means that even moneylenders are not fulfilling the

required credit needs of the rural masses.

4.3 SHG formation and Participation

The first step of Microfinance is the formation of SHG and then active

participation of its members in various socio-economic activities. The various

aspects concerning formation and participation in the group activities of the

study sample SHGs can be studied with the help of various tables in respect of

109

age of the SHG, number of members in a SHG, purpose of joining,

participation in the meetings, loan amount taken, marketing of their products

and repayment of loan etc. as follows:

Age of the Group (Since Formation)

Distribution of sample SHGs according to age is given in the Table 4.7

and Figure 4.6 below:

Table 4.7

Distribution of Sample SHGs according to Age

S. No. Age No. of SHGs Percentage (%)

1 Up to 3 years 21 38

2 3-6 years 32 57

3 6-9 years 3 5

4 More than 9 years - -

Total 56 100


Figure 4.6

Age of Sample SHGs

Above table and figure show that 32 (57 percent) of the SHGs are in

the age group of 3-6 years (since formation) whereas 21 (38 percent) are up to

3 years old. 3 (5 percent) are in the age group of 6-9 years. No SHG of the

110

study sample is more than 9 years old which gives an apprehension that as the

SHG become older and older, the chances of its survival becomes less.

Number of members in a SHG

The number of members in a SHG is shown in the Table 4.8 and

Figure 4.7 below:

Table 4.8


S. No. No. of Members No. of SHGs Percentage (%)

1 Up to 5 - -

2 6-10 39 70

3 11-15 17 30

4 16-20 - -

Total 56 100


Figure 4.7


It is clear from the above table and figure that 39 groups (70 percent)

are having 6-10 members whereas 17 groups (30 percent) are having 11-15

members. No group is having less than six members and more than 15

members in it which means that larger groups are not preferred by the

members.

111

Purpose of joining the SHG

Out of the 325 sample members 257 were helped/ encouraged to form/

join the group by the government agencies like DRDA and 45 by the bank

officials. NGOs and others have played a very limited role in formation of

SHGs in the State. All the members have expressed their purpose of joining

the SHG was for savings but 315 members have also expressed that

employment / income generation along with savings was the purpose of

joining. A few members have expressed social security also as the purpose of

joining the SHG.

Participation in Group meetings

98 percent of the members have expressed that the meeting of their

groups are being held regularly. The frequency of meeting held is on monthly

basis in case of majority of the groups. The participation level of the members

in the group meetings is given in the Table 4.9 below:

Table 4.9

Participation Level of members in group meetings

Participation Level No. of Members Percentage (%)

High (90-100%)

Medium (60-90%)

Low (less than 60%)

321

4

-

99

1

-

Total 325 100


It is clear from the table that the participation level of the members is

high (90-100%) in case of 99 percent of members which shows that the

members are taking keen interest in the group activities which is one of the

crucial factors for success of a group.

112

Drop out from the group

67 members have admitted that some members dropped from the group

because of some reason. Difficulty in meeting repayment and monthly saving

obligations is the first main reason where as heterogeneity of the group is the

second main reason of drop out from the group.

Group Corpus and balance in saving account of sample SHGs

The total group corpus amount of the SHGs and balance in the saving

account maintained in the bank branch was verified from records

maintained/Bank passbooks of the SHGs. Amount of the same is shown in the


Table 4.10

Group Corpus and balance in Saving Account of Sample SHGs

Group Corpus

of SHGs (Rs.)

No. of

SHGs

Percentage

(%)

Balance in SB

account (Rs.)

No. of

SHGs

Percentage

(%)

Below 10000 - - Below 10000 13 23

10001-20000 11 20 10001-20000 22 39

20001-40000 16 29 20001-40000 19 34

40001-60000 26 46 40001-60000 2 4

Above 60000 3 5 Above 60000 - -

Total 56 100 - 56 100


113

Figure 4.8

Group Corpus and balance in Saving Account of Sample SHGs

The corpus amount and the balance in the saving account of the SHG

depend upon the number of members, monthly collection amount and the age

of the group. It is evident from the table and figures that 26 groups (46

percent) are having corpus amount between 40001-60000 and 22 (39 percent)

are having balance in the saving account between 10001- 20000. It is also

revealed from the table that balances in the saving account are in the lower

range which shows that the members are getting credit facility from the group

corpus and thus the amount is in circulation.

Training for taking up Economic Activities

As per SGSY guidelines, DRDA or the similar agency is supposed to

provide training to the members and create suitable infrastructure so that they

114

can undertake an economic activity easily. Special funds have been earmarked

for the same under the SGSY funds allocation. It is revealed from the survey

that 187 (58 percent) members were provided training to undertake an

economic activity where as 138 (42 percent) were not provided any training

which amounts to be the major lapse under the scheme. This is also evident

from the figures regarding expenditure incurred under SGSY in the State of

Haryana (Chapter 3, Table 3.15).

4.4 Availing of Bank loan and Marketing of products

After the group attains maturity, it is provided with a loan by the bank

operating in the vicinity of the village/area. The details of loan amount

provided to the members of the group under the SHG- Bank Linkage

Program, repayment of loans and marketing of products etc. is given in the

different tables as follows-

Loan amount provided by different Banks

Loan amount provided and the different financing banks are given in the


Table 4.11

Loan Amount provided by different Banks to the members

Loan

Amount (Rs.)

No. of

Members

Percentage

(%)

Bank No. of

Members

Percentage

(%)

Below 20000

20001-40000

40001-60000

Above 60000

127

175

13

10

39

54

4

3

Commercial

Banks

Regional Rural

Banks

Cooperative

Banks

305

20

-

94

6

-

Total 325 100 Total 325 100


115

Figure 4.9

Loan Amount given by different Banks to the members

It is revealed from the above table that 175 (54 percent) member

availed loan amount between Rs. 20001-40000. Only 10 members have

availed loan more than Rs. 60000. Commercial Banks have advanced loan to

94 percent of members which means that these banks still dominate rural

financing in Haryana as RRBs has a very limited role and cooperatives have

not advanced to any member from the study sample. 95 percent of the

borrowers have admitted that loan was provided to them in time.

Repayment of the loan

Repayment of a loan is the most crucial factor for the success of a

scheme. Good repayment is the cause as well as effect of a successful lending

scheme. In the study sample 315 out of the total of 325 beneficiaries have

admitted that they are repaying the bank loan regularly. The main reason for

116

the good repayment is given to be the adequate income earning. Some

beneficiaries have also mentioned the group pressure as the main cause of the

good repayment. Only a few has cited availing of further loan as the reason

for good repayment.

Marketing of the product

A majority of the members (90 percent) have expressed that they are

having no problem in selling their products in the market. Only a few

members (particularly sheep rearing SHG members) have faced problems in

selling of their products because of excess charging by the middle man. 91

percent of the members are selling their products in the local market where as

rest are selling in urban areas or in the local exhibition and melas. 25 percent

of the members (particularly dairy SHG) are selling their products to the

middle man. It is also revealed that microfinance has not resulted in any

collective enterprise in the village/ area except diary in few cases.

4.5 Impact Assessment of Microfinance

In view of the importance of Self Help Groups in rural microfinance

and financial inclusion, it becomes necessary to ascertain the impact of the

microfinance program on the borrower-members of the SHGs.

The attribution of impact, however, presents a major problem. It is

difficult to establish a causal relationship between interventions and activities

of a particular scheme and changes observed in relevant variables

representing levels of benefits realized by the participants. It is particularly

problematic to attribute benefits to a component of the program in the case of

integrated interventions. This could also be the case of SHG microfinance

program simultaneously implemented with other economic and social

development initiatives. Besides, external changes in the infrastructure or

environment in the area may influence the factors mediating and facilitating

impact. Thus, several methodological weaknesses remain that prevent a

rigorous assessment of beneficiary-level impact. Even in a few studies

undertaken by NABARD and at its instance using the ‘before-after technique’

analysis, the effect of running government development programs is not taken

117

into account. Many SHG members have usually simultaneously benefited

from subsidized government programs for the poor such as housing,

irrigation, health and sanitation etc.

Table 4.12 presents comparative position of some of the economic

variables in respect of the sample member beneficiaries before and after

joining the SHG.

Table 4.12

Economic Variables before and after joining the SHG

S.

No.

Economic

variables

Category Before

joining

(N-325)

After

joining

(N-325)

1 Amount of loan

taken

Up to 10000

10001-20000

20001-30000

Above 30000

140(73.7)

39(20.5)

06(3.2)

05(2.6)

30(9.4)

135(42.2)

65(20.3)

90 (28.1)

2 Assets Owned Land

Domestic animals

Type of house-

i) Kutcha

ii) Semi-Pucca

iii) Pucca

Household goods

Any Other

13(4)

117(36)

206(63.4)

65(20)

52(16.0)

80(24.6)

-

14(4.3)

258(79.4)

97(29.8)

80(24.6)

145(44.6)

145(44.6)

03(0.9)

3 Annual Income Below 20000

20001-40000

40001-60000

Above 60000

252(77.5)

64(19.7)

07(2.2)

-

121(37.2)

175(53.8)

13(4.0)

10(3.1)

4 Annual Savings Below 10000

10001-20000

20001-30000

Above 30000

161(49.5)

04(1.2)

-

-

255(78.5)

48(14.8)

03(0.9)

-


*Figures in parenthesis are percentages.

118

It is revealed from the above table that after joining a SHG, the amount

of loan taken has increased considerably as number of loan takers has

increased and the members have moved to the higher category of loan amount

which means more investment in the economic activity undertaken. The

number of assets owned has also increased in case of domestic animals and

household goods whereas land remains almost the same. Out of the increased

income, the beneficiaries have invested in housing as number of members

living in Katcha house has reduced from 206 (63.4 percent) to 97 (29.8

percent) and number of members living in Pucca house has increased from 52

(16.0 percent) to 145 (44.6 percent).

The level of annual income has also increased as less members are now

having income below Rs.20000 as it reduced from 252 (77.5 percent) to 121

(37.2 percent). 131 members moved to the income level more than Rs.20000,

6 out of them to more than 40000 per annum and 10 to even above Rs.60000.

Annual savings has also increased considerably as 255 (78.5 percent) of the

members are now able to save as compared to 161 (49.5 percent) before

joining the group. 48 (14.8 percent) members are now able to save between

Rs.10001-20000 annually as compared to 4 (1.2 percent) before joining SHG.

3 members are now able to save more than Rs.20000 annually whereas no

member was in this category before joining the SHG.

4.5.1 Description of the Outcome Variables of Socio-economic Impact

For the purpose of the socio-economic impact analysis of

microfinance, the following ‘Outcome Variables’ have been prepared from

Part C (Impact Assessment: Economic and Social Determinants) of the

Interview Schedule(Annexed as Annexure I) on the basis of the response of

the beneficiaries of the microfinance to different questions as given in the

following Table 4.13:

119

Table 4.13

Description of Outcome Variables for Impact Assessment

Sr.

No.

Name of Outcome

Variable

Description

1 SATISFN Satisfaction from the scheme - Fully, Fairly,

Partially

2 OBMICR Achievement of Objectives of Microfinance – Get

rid of money lender, Fulfillment of immediate

credit needs, Repayment of old debt, Increase in

social status, Helped in income

generation/employment

3 QLIFE Qualitative change after utilization of loan in –

Food, clothing, education, health, recreation,

festival, maintenance of house, marriage

4 ASTIMPCT Assets after availing microfinance – Land,

domestic animals, type of house, household goods,

any other

5 ESTEEM Confidence level, Quality of life – leadership

quality, self decision making, brotherhood,

development through participation, self reliance

and increase in social status

6 WEMP Empowerment of women – Elected to village

panchayat, Role in governance of village, Role in

community decision and actions, Role in delivery

and maintenance of services and Social justice for

women - Helped in Ending domestic violence,

Preventing bigamy, Marriage of girls/ remarriage

of widows, Anti-alcoholism

7 IMPACT SATISFN + OBMICR + QLIFE + ASTIMPCT +

ESTEEM + WEMP

Source: Prepared from the Interview Schedule

120

Based upon the above description and by applying the scoring

technique, Satisfaction level has been given a score 3 for Fully, 2 for Fairly

and 1 for Partially whereas each objective of microfinance, each qualitative

change in quality of life, each increase in asset, each increase in esteem, each

aspect of women empowerment and social justice has been given equal

weight. For every positive occurrence, a score 1 has been given for the

purpose of analysis. In this way, all the variables have been measured on

interval scale. Therefore, it has also been possible to prepare a correlation

matrix of the same.

A correlation matrix of overall Satisfaction with the scheme

(SATISFN), Degree of achievement of objectives of microfinance

(OBMICR), Quality of Life Index (QLIFE), Impact on asset creation

(ASTIMPCT), Level of self esteem (ESTEEM), Women empowerment and

social justice (WEMP), Overall Impact (IMPACT), Age of the members

(AGE), Age of the group (GRAGE), Number of members in the group

(NUMBER), Education level (EDU), Size of the family (FSIZE) and Amount

of bank loan (BANKLN) has been prepared. The results are given in the

following Table 4.14.

There has been a moderate, positive and significant correlation

between quality of Life (QLIFE) and number of assets (ASTIMPCT) after

availing microfinance. Overall impact (IMPACT) has also moderately,

positively and significantly correlated with overall satisfaction with the

scheme (SATISFN), degree of achievement of objectives (OBMICR), quality

of Life (QLIFE), number of assets (ASTIMPCT) , confidence level

(ESTEEM) and women empowerment (WEMP).

Age (AGE) of the members has been found to be moderately,

negatively and significantly correlated with education level (EDU).

The quality of life (QLIFE) has been found significantly and positively

correlated with overall satisfaction with the scheme (SATISFN) and degree of

121

Table 4.14: Pearson’s Correlation Matrix

SATISF

N

OBMIC

R

QLIF

E

ASTIMPC

T

ESTEE

M

WEM

P

IMPAC

T AGE

GRAG

E

NUMBE

R EDU

FSIZ

E

BANKL

N

SATISFN 1.000 0.083 0.253* 0.068 0.183 0.051 0.345** 0.097 0.103 -0.068 0.011 0.033 0.193

OBMICR 0.137 1.000 0.225* -0.179 0.264* 0.090 0.338** 0.070 0.259* 0.032 -0.097 0.010 -0.114

QLIFE 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.327** 0.178 -0.075 0.545** 0.090 0.165 0.059 0.075 0.109 0.104

ASTIMPC

T 0.221 .001 0.000 1.000 -0.065 -0.120 0.521** 0.092 0.122 0.279* 0.111 0.195 0.178

ESTEEM 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.240 1.000 -0.010 0.309**

-

0.000 0.146 -0.095 -0.007 0.024 0.083

WEMP 0.354 0.103 0.176 0.030 0.851 1.000 0.567** 0.092 0.019 -0.043 -0.264* 0.060 -0.087

IMPACT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.169 0.242* 0.124 -0.116 0.187 0.090

AGE 0.080 0.207 0.103 0.097 0.997 0.094 0.002 1.000 0.060 -0.002

-

0.390**

0.259

* 0.014

GRAGE 0.063 0.000 0.002 0.027 0.008 0.720 0.000 0.277 1.000 -0.098 -0.074 0.165 -0.104

NUMBER 0.219 0.555 0.284 0.000 0.085 0.435 0.024 0.970 0.075 1.000 -0.106 0.037 -0.167

EDU 0.833 0.078 0.175 0.044 0.898 0.000 0.035 0.000 0.182 0.055 1.000 -0.145 0.174

FSIZE 0.553 0.847 0.048 0.000 0.656 0.279 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.505 0.008 1.000 0.031

BANKLN 0.000 0.041 0.062 0.001 0.137 0.118 0.106 0.790 0.063 0.002 0.001 0.569 1.000

Source: Computed from Primary Data

1. *, ** show the level of significance at 5% and 1% respectively.

2. The lower left part of the matrix shows significance (2-tail test) and upper right part shows the correlations.

122

3. High Correlation + 0.75 to 1 and -0.75 to -1, Moderate Correlation +0.25 to +0.75 and -0.25 to-0.75, Low Correlation 0 to +0.25 and 0 to -0.25.

123

achievement of objectives of microfinance (OBMICR) with low correlation.

A low, positive and significant correlation between degree of achievement of

objectives and confidence level (ESTEEM) has also been found. Group age

(GRAGE) has low, positive and significant correlation with degree of

achievement of objectives (OBMICR) and Overall impact (IMPACT).

Number of members in a group (NUMBER) and number of assets are also

correlated but at low level. Family size (FSIZE) is significantly correlated to

age (AGE) of the members but at the low level.

There is also found to be a low, negative and significant correlation

between education (EDU) and women empowerment (WEMP). It may be

inferred that women empowerment is not going with hand in hand with other

objectives. The impact on asset creation has not been found related with any

of the variables except quality of life (QLIFE). However this variable

(ASTIMPCT) has been designed in such a way that for an individual member

its maximum score can go up to 6 if a respondent is benefited in all asset

categories taken in our study. The average score in our study is found to be

1.44 which implies that on an average in twenty five percent of assets, all

members have been benefited.

4.5.2 Analysis of Impact Assessment within Districts

To find out the impact of microfinance, a within district impact

analysis of sample districts have also been worked out in respect of the

outcome variables. The following null hypothesis is formulated in respect of

overall impact assessment within districts:

Ho: There is no significant variation in overall impact due to change in

districts of the members.

It has been tested with one way ANOVA whether microfinance has a

significant impact on the sample districts. The descriptive in respect of the

mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum of the outcome variables

is presented in the following Table 4.15:

124

Table 4.15

Impact Assessment within Districts

Outcome

Variables

Districts Mean Std. deviation Minimum Maximum

SATISFN Kaithal 2.638 0.567 1.00 3.00

Kurukshetra 2.641 0.428 2.00 3.00

Hisar 2.714 0.454 2.00 3.00

Fatehabad 2.636 0.483 2.00 3.00

TOTAL 2.667 0.497 1.00 3.00

OBMICR Kaithal 2.890 1.144 0.00 5.00

Kurukshetra 2.435 0.846 1.00 5.00

Hisar 2.064 0.569 1.00 3.00

Fatehabad 2.409 0.599 1.00 3.00

TOTAL 2.455 0.868 0.00 5.00

QLIFE Kaithal 3.402 .9144 0.00 6.00

Kurukshetra 3.564 1.264 2.00 9.00

Hisar 3.363 .9164 1.00 6.00

Fatehabad 3.625 0.762 2.00 5.00

TOTAL 3.492 0.976 0.00 9.00

ASTIMPCT Kaithal 2.951 1.554 1.00 8.00

Kurukshetra 5.025 1.578 2.00 10.00

Hisar 5.000 2.146 1.00 12.00

Fatehabad 5.636 1.261 2.00 9.00

TOTAL 4.661 1.939 1.00 12.00

ESTEEM Kaithal 5.561 0.862 4.00 8.00

Kurukshetra 5.256 0.653 4.00 7.00

Hisar 5.168 0.833 2.00 7.00

Fatehabad 5.090 0.517 4.00 6.00

TOTAL 5.267 0.744 2.00 8.00

WEMP Kaithal 4.646 1.628 0.00 7.00

Kurukshetra 3.859 1.965 0.00 6.00

Hisar 3.792 2.413 0.00 6.00

Fatehabad 4.068 2.629 0.00 8.00

TOTAL 4.098 2.217 0.00 8.00

IMPACT Kaithal 22.036 3.028 12.00 28.00

Kurukshetra 22.782 3.856 15.00 33.00

Hisar 22.103 3.754 15.00 34.00

Fatehabad 23.465 3.413 15.00 33.00

TOTAL 22.618 3.551 12.00 34.00


125

It is revealed from the table that in overall satisfaction all the districts

are equally placed as the mean value of all the districts is close to the total

mean value of the districts. In the achievement of the objectives of

microfinance Kaithal district is on the top whereas Hisar district is at the

bottom. Improvement in the quality of life and increase in the number of

assets both comes out to be higher in Fatehabad district which means that

increase in the number of assets and improvement in quality of life are closely

related to each other. Esteem and women empowerment is higher in Kaithal

district showing close relation between the two. Fatehabad district is ahead of

the other districts in the overall impact of microfinance with a mean of 23.465

out of the total score of 33. Table 4.16 presents the One-way ANOVA

analysis in respect of the outcome variables.

Table 4.16

District-wise Impact on Outcome Variables (One-way ANOVA)

Outcome Variables Sum of

Squares

d.f. Mean

Square

F- ratio Sig.

SATISFN Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

0.329

79.115

79.444

3

318

321

0.110

0.249

0.441 0.724

OBMICR Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

27.463

217.140

244.603

3

321

324

9.154

0.676

13.533*** 0.000

QLIFE Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

3.889

305.342

309.231

3

321

324

1.296

0.951

1.363 0.254

ASTIMPCT Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

342.652

876.117

1218.769

3

321

324

114.217

2.279

41.848*** 0.000

ESTEEM Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

10.566

169.145

179.711

3

321

324

3.522

0.527

6.684*** 0.000

WEMP Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

36.390

1556.459

1592.849

3

321

324

12.130

4.849

2.502* 0.059

IMPACT Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

113.438

3973.252

4086.689

3

321

324

37.813

12.378

3.055** 0.029


* Significant at 10% significance level

** Significant at 5% significance level

*** Significant at 1% significance level

126

It is evident from the above table that in case of district wise impact

assessment in the achievement of the objective of the microfinance, increase

in the number of the assets and increase in esteem, the F-ratio comes out to be

significant at 1 percent significance level which shows positive impact on

these outcome variables. In case of women empowerment and social justice

the F-ratio comes out to be significant at 10 percent significance level. The F–

ratio in case of overall impact comes out to be significant at 5 percent

significance level. Therefore the formulated null hypothesis is rejected as

there is significant variation in overall impact of microfinance due to change

of the districts of the members.

4.5.3 Analysis of Impact Assessment with Age of the members

An impact analysis has also been made in respect of the age of the

members with the outcome variables. The following null hypothesis is

formulated in respect of overall impact:


age of the members.

It has been tested with one way ANOVA whether change in age of the

members affects the overall impact. The descriptive in respect of the mean,

standard deviation, minimum and maximum of the outcome variables is

presented in the following Table 4.17.

It is revealed from the table that in case of the overall satisfaction from

the scheme, mean value is higher in the age group of 41-50 and 51-60 years of

the members denoting near full satisfaction. The total mean value is also near

to the maximum value of 3 denoting near full satisfaction in case of all the

age groups. In case of the achievement of the objectives of the microfinance

all the age groups are placed close to the total mean value of 2.445 which is

nearly half of the maximum value of 5 which means that in nearly 50 percent

of the achievement of the objectives of microfinance, all the age groups has

been benefitted. In case of the improvement in the quality of life, all the age

groups are almost equally placed with a total mean value of 3.492 out of

maximum of 9 which means nearly 40 percent improvement.

127

Table 4.17

Impact Assessment with Age of the members

Outcome

Variables

Age Mean Std.

deviation

Minimum Maximum

SATISFN 20-30 years 2.592 0.519 1.00 3.00

31-40 years 2.664 0.502 1.00 3.00

41-50 years 2.739 0.474 1.00 3.00

51-60 years 2.736 0.452 2.00 3.00

More than 60 years 2.714 0.488 2.00 3.00

Total 2.667 0.497 1.00 3.00

OBMICR 20-30 years 2.289 0.876 1.00 5.00

31-40 years 2.523 0.846 1.00 5.00

41-50 years 2.507 0.933 0.00 5.00

51-60 years 2.421 0.837 2.00 5.00

More than 60 years 2.571 0.534 2.00 3.00

Total 2.455 0.868 0.00 5.00

QLIFE 20-30 years 3.373 0.971 1.00 6.00

31-40 years 3.469 0.923 1.00 9.00

41-50 years 3.637 1.097 .00 9.00

51-60 years 3.631 1.011 2.00 6.00

More than 60 years 3.571 0.786 3.00 5.00

Total 3.492 0.976 0.00 9.00

ASTIMPCT 20-30 years 4.590 1.919 1.00 9.00

31-40 years 4.578 1.793 1.00 12.00

41-50 years 4.579 2.039 1.00 10.00

51-60 years 5.578 2.567 1.00 12.00

More than 60 years 5.571 1.902 3.00 9.00

Total 4.661 1.939 1.00 12.00

ESTEEM 20-30 years 5.253 0.729 3.00 8.00

31-40 years 5.278 0.774 2.00 8.00

41-50 years 5.275 0.745 3.00 7.00

51-60 years 5.210 0.713 4.00 7.00

More than 60 years 5.285 0.488 5.00 6.00

Total 5.267 0.744 2.00 8.00

WEMP 20-30 years 3.386 2.393 0.00 7.00

31-40 years 4.170 2.165 0.00 8.00

41-50 years 4.463 2.090 0.00 7.00

51-60 years 3.684 2.212 0.00 7.00

More than 60 years 5.000 1.825 2.00 8.00

Total 4.098 2.217 0.00 8.00

IMPACT 20-30 years 21.722 3.778 12.00 28.00

31-40 years 22.666 3.223 16.00 34.00

41-50 years 23.202 3.696 15.00 33.00

51-60 years 23.263 3.493 17.00 33.00

More than 60 years 24.714 4.498 18.00 33.00

Total 22.618 3.551 12.00 34.00


128

The total mean value of assets is 4.661 out of total of 12 showing

insignificant increase in the number of assets. In the esteem, the age group of

more than 60 years is at the highest place. In women empowerment, the age

group of 41-50 is more benefitted whereas the total achievement comes out to

be nearly 50 percent. In overall impact, the age groups of 20-30 and more

than 60 years are more benefitted.

Table 4.18 presents the One-way ANOVA analysis in respect of the

different outcome variables.

Table 4.18

Impact of Age on Outcome Variables (One-way ANOVA)


Squares

d.f. Mean

Square

F- ratio Sig.


Within Groups

Total

0.917

78.527

79.444

4

317

321

0.229

0.248

0.925 0.450


Within Groups

Total

3.284

241.319

244.603

4

320

324

0.821

0.754

1.089 0.362


Within Groups

Total

3.119

306.11

309.231

4

320

324

0.780

0.957

0.815 0.516


Within Groups

Total

23.689

1195.080

1218.769

4

320

324

5.922

3.735

1.586 0.178


Within Groups

Total

0.105

179.606

179.711

4

320

324

2.620E-

02

0.561

0.047 0.996

WEMP Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

32.981

1559.868

1592.849

4

320

324

8.245

4.875

1.691 0.152


Within Groups

Total

129.124

3957.565

4086.689

4

320

324

32.281

12.367

2.610** 0.036



129

It is evident from the above table that in case of the overall impact, F-

ratio comes out to be significant at 5 percent level of significance. Therefore

the formulated null hypothesis is rejected as there is significant variation in

overall impact of microfinance due to change in age of the members. In case

of all other outcome variables this value is insignificant which means that age

in not significantly related to these variables.

4.5.4 Analysis of Impact Assessment with Caste of the members

An impact analysis has also been made in respect of the caste of the




caste of the members.

It has been tested with one way ANOVA whether change in caste of

the members affects the overall impact. The descriptive in respect of the


is presented in the following Table 4.19.

An analysis of the caste of the members with outcome variables has

been made. It is found that all the castes are equally placed in respect of the

satisfaction which comes out to be near full. In case of achievement of the

objectives, members of the BC category feel less benefitted whereas members

of the general category feels more benefitted. The quality of life of the general

category has further improved. SC members have been more benefitted than

BCs in case of increase in the assets. General category members are more

benefitted in case of esteem and women empowerment. In overall impact

General Category members are more benefitted as the mean score comes out

to be 26.125 which are more than the total mean of 22.618.

130

Table 4.19

Impact Assessment with Caste of the members

Outcome

Variables

Caste Mean Std. deviation Minimum Maximum

SATISFN SC 2.705 0.456 2.00 3.00

BC 2.579 0.559 1.00 3.00

General 2.875 0.341 2.00 3.00

TOTAL 2.667 0.497 1.00 3.00

OBMICR SC 2.486 0.860 1.00 5.00

BC 2.375 0.908 0.00 5.00

General 2.687 0.602 2.00 4.00

TOTAL 2.455 0.868 0.00 5.00

QLIFE SC 3.513 0.866 2.00 6.00

BC 3.441 1.172 0.00 9.00

General 3.625 0.500 3.00 4.00

TOTAL 3.492 0.976 0.00 9.00

ASTIMPCT SC 4.846 1.891 1.00 12.00

BC 4.283 1.879 1.00 10.00

General 5.312 2.522 1.00 9.00

TOTAL 4.661 1.939 1.00 12.00

ESTEEM SC 5.243 0.639 4.00 7.00

BC 5.225 0.874 2.00 8.00

General 5.875 0.619 5.00 7.00

TOTAL 5.267 0.744 2.00 8.00

WEMP SC 3.724 2.398 0.00 8.00

BC 4.466 1.855 0.00 7.00

General 5.750 1.000 4.00 8.00

TOTAL 4.098 2.217 0.00 8.00

IMPACT SC 22.492 3.448 12.00 34.00

BC 22.350 3.596 15.00 33.00

General 26.125 2.630 23.00 33.00

TOTAL 22.618 3.551 12.00 34.00


131


different outcome variables.

Table 4.20

Impact of Caste on Outcome Variables (One-way ANOVA)


Squares

d.f. Mean

Square

F- ratio Sig.


Within Groups

Total

1.879

77.565

79.444

2

319

321

0.939

0.243

3.864** 0.022


Within Groups

Total

1.824

242.779

244.603

2

322

324

0.912

0.754

1.209 0.300


Within Groups

Total

.672

308.559

309.231

2

322

324

0.336

0.958

0.351 0.704


Within Groups

Total

30.415

1188.354

1218.769

2

322

324

15.207

3.691

4.121** 0.017


Within Groups

Total

6.232

173.479

179.711

2

322

324

3.116

0.539

5.783*** 0.003

WEMP Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

86.289

1506.560

1592.849

2

322

324

104.201

12.044

8.651*** 0.000


Within Groups

Total

208.401

3878.288

4086.689

2

322

324

43.145

4.679

9.221*** 0.000




132

It is evident from the above table that in case of satisfaction and

increase in assets, F-ratio comes out to be significant at 5 percent level of

significance whereas in case of esteem, women empowerment and overall

impact, this ratio comes out to be significant at 1 percent level of significance.

Therefore the formulated null hypothesis is rejected as there is significant

variation in overall impact of microfinance due to change in caste of the

members. In other outcome variables this value is insignificant which means

that caste is not significantly related to these variables i.e. objectives of

microfinance and quality of life.

4.5.5 Analysis of Impact Assessment with Family Type of the members

An impact analysis has also been made in respect of the family type of

the members with the outcome variables. The following null hypothesis is



family type of the members.

It has been tested with one way ANOVA whether change in family

type of the members affects the overall impact. The descriptive in respect of

the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum of the outcome

variables is presented in the Table 4.21 below:

It is revealed from the above table that in case of the achievement of

objectives of the microfinance and esteem, nuclear families are more

benefitted whereas in all other outcome variables, joint families are more

benefitted. In overall impact also, joint families are more benefitted as the

mean value of 23.549 is above the total mean value of 22.618 out of the total

score of 34.

133

Table 4.21

Impact Assessment with Family Type of the members

Outcome

Variables

Family

Type

Mean Std.

deviation

Minimum Maximum

SATISFN Nuclear 2.653 0.503 1.00 3.00

Joint 2.703 0.482 1.00 3.00

TOTAL 2.667 0.497 1.00 3.00

OBMICR Nuclear 2.500 0.941 1.00 5.00

Joint 2.340 0.636 0.00 4.00

TOTAL 2.455 0.868 0.00 5.00

QLIFE Nuclear 3.465 0.994 1.00 9.00

Joint 3.560 0.933 0.00 6.00

TOTAL 3.492 0.976 0.00 9.00

ASTIMPCT Nuclear 4.427 1.875 1.00 10.00

Joint 5.263 1.982 1.00 12.00

TOTAL 4.661 1.939 1.00 12.00

ESTEEM Nuclear 5.303 0.745 3.00 8.00

Joint 5.175 0.739 2.00 7.00

TOTAL 5.267 0.744 2.00 8.00

WEMP Nuclear 3.940 2.281 0.00 8.00

Joint 4.505 1.996 0.00 8.00

TOTAL 4.098 2.217 0.00 8.00

IMPACT Nuclear 22.256 3.532 12.00 33.00

Joint 23.549 3.448 15.00 34.00

TOTAL 22.618 3.551 12.00 34.00



different outcome variables:

134

Table 4.22

Impact of Family Type on Outcome Variables (One-way ANOVA)


Squares

d.f. Mean

Square

F-ratio Sig.


Within Groups

Total

0.161

79.283

79.444

1

320

321

0.161

0.248 0.649 0.421


Within Groups

Total

1.664

242.940

244.603

1

323

324

1.664

0.752 2.212 0.138


Within Groups

Total

0.587

308.644

309.231

1

323

324

0.587

0.956 0.614 0.434


Within Groups

Total

45.834

1172.935

1218.769

1

323

324

45.834

3.631

12.622**

* 0.000


Within Groups

Total

1.067

178.644

179.711

1

323

324

1.067

0.553 1.929 0.166

WEMP Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

20.940

1571.910

1592.849

1

323

324

20.940

4.867 4.303** 0.039


Within Groups

Total

109.546

3977.143

4086.689

1

323

324

109.546

12.313 8.897*** 0.003




It is revealed from the above table that in case of the increase in assets

and the overall impact of family type, F-ratio comes out to be significant at 1

percent level of significance whereas in case of impact on women

empowerment, F-ratio comes out to be significant at 5 percent significance

level. Therefore the formulated null hypothesis is rejected as there is

significant variation in overall impact of microfinance due to change in family

type of the members. The impact of family type is insignificant on satisfaction

from the scheme, achievement of the objectives of the microfinance, quality

of life and esteem.

135

4.5.6 Analysis of Impact Assessment with Training of the members

An impact analysis has also been made in respect of the training of the



Ho: There is no significant variation in overall impact due to training

of the members.

It has been tested with one way ANOVA whether training of the



presented in the Table 4.23 below:

Table 4.23

Impact Assessment with Training of the members

Outcome

Variables

Training Mean Std. deviation Minimum Maximum

SATISFN Yes 2.641 0.524 1.00 3.00

No 2.702 0.458 2.00 3.00

TOTAL 2.667 0.497 1.00 3.00

OBMICR Yes 2.556 0.950 0.00 5.00

No 2.318 0.724 1.00 5.00

TOTAL 2.455 0.868 0.00 5.00

QLIFE Yes 3.385 0.874 0.00 6.00

No 3.637 1.087 2.00 9.00

TOTAL 3.492 0.976 0.00 9.00

ASTIMPCT Yes 4.369 1.756 1.00 9.00

No 5.058 2.105 1.00 12.00

TOTAL 4.661 1.939 1.00 12.00

ESTEEM Yes 5.229 0.779 2.00 7.00

No 5.318 0.693 4.00 8.00

TOTAL 5.267 0.744 2.00 8.00

WEMP Yes 4.331 2.062 0.00 8.00

No 3.782 2.382 0.00 7.00

TOTAL 4.098 2.217 0.00 8.00

IMPACT Yes 22.470 3.305 12.00 33.00

No 22.818 3.863 15.00 34.00

TOTAL 22.618 3.551 12.00 34.00


136

It is revealed from the above table that in case of the achievement of

objectives of the microfinance and women empowerment, members are

benefitted from training whereas in all other outcome variables, training was

not beneficial. In overall impact also, training was not of much benefit as

mean value of 22.818 is above the total mean value of 22.618 out of the total

score of 34.



Table 4.24

Impact of Training on Outcome Variables (One-way ANOVA)


Squares

d.f. Mean

Square

F-ratio Sig.


Within Groups

Total

0.299

79.145

79.444

1

320

321

0.299

0.247

1.210 0.272


Within Groups

Total

4.472

240.131

244.603

1

323

324

4.472

0.743

6.015** 0.015


Within Groups

Total

5.069

304.162

309.231

1

323

324

5.069

0.942

5.383** 0.021


Within Groups

Total

37.693

1181.076

1218.769

1

323

324

37.693

3.657

10.308*** 0.001


Within Groups

Total

0.627

179.083

179.711

1

323

324

0.627

0.554

1.132 0.288

WEMP Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

23.927

1568.922

1592.849

1

323

324

23.927

4.857

4.926** 0.027


Within Groups

Total

9.630

4077.059

4086.689

1

323

324

9.630

12.622

0.763 0.383




137

It is revealed from the above table that in case of the impact of training

on increase in assets, F-ratio comes out to be significant at 1 percent level of

significance whereas in case of the impact on women empowerment,

achievement of the objectives of the microfinance and quality of life, F-ratio

comes out to be significant at 5 percent significance level. The impact of

training is insignificant on satisfaction from the scheme, esteem and overall

impact of microfinance. Therefore the formulated null hypothesis is accepted

as there is insignificant variation in overall impact of microfinance due to

training of the members.

4.5.7 Analysis of Impact Assessment with Occupation of the members

An impact analysis has also been made in respect of the occupation of

the members with the outcome variables. The following null hypothesis is



the occupation of the members.

It has been tested with one way ANOVA whether occupation of the



presented in the following Table 4.25.

It is revealed from the table that in case of the satisfaction, quality of

life, esteem and women empowerment, members engaged in sheep rearing are

more benefitted whereas in achievement of the objectives of microfinance

members with business/ manufacturing occupation are more benefitted. In

case of the increase in the number of assets, members engaged in the dairy

activity are more benefitted. In overall impact also, members engaged in the

business/ manufacturing occupation are more benefitted as mean value of

22.844 is above the total mean value of 22.618 with a maximum score of 34.

138

Table 4.25

Impact Assessment with Occupation of the members

Outcome

Variables

Occupation Mean Std.

deviation

Minimum Maximum

SATISFN Business/Mfg 2.648 0.534 1.00 3.00

Dairy 2.674 0.469 2.00 3.00

Sheep 2.875 0.353 2.00 3.00

TOTAL 2.667 0.497 1.00 3.00

OBMICR Business/Mfg 2.662 0.986 0.00 5.00

Dairy 2.272 0.721 1.00 4.00

Sheep 2.500 0.534 2.00 3.00

TOTAL 2.455 0.868 0.00 5.00

QLIFE Business/Mfg 3.547 0.890 0.00 6.00

Dairy 3.432 1.056 1.00 9.00

Sheep 3.750 0.707 3.00 5.00

TOTAL 3.492 0.976 0.00 9.00

ASTIMPCT Business/Mfg 4.114 2.094 1.00 12.00

Dairy 5.224 1.610 1.00 10.00

Sheep 2.875 1.457 1.00 5.00

TOTAL 4.661 1.939 1.00 12.00

ESTEEM Business/Mfg 5.385 0.733 4.00 8.00

Dairy 5.153 0.748 2.00 7.00

Sheep 5.500 0.534 5.00 6.00

TOTAL 5.267 0.744 2.00 8.00

WEMP Business/Mfg 4.540 1.812 0.00 7.00

Dairy 3.656 2.476 0.00 8.00

Sheep 5.250 1.035 3.00 6.00

TOTAL 4.098 2.217 0.00 8.00

IMPACT Business/Mfg 22.844 3.306 12.00 34.00

Dairy 22.414 3.769 15.00 33.00

Sheep 22.750 3.327 17.00 27.00

TOTAL 22.618 3.551 12.00 34.00


139



Table 4.26

Impact of Occupation on Outcome Variables (One-way ANOVA)


Squares

d.f. Mean

Square

F-ratio Sig.


Within Groups

Total

0.406

79.038

79.444

2

319

321

0.203

0.248

0.820 0.441


Within Groups

Total

12.016

232.587

244.603

2

322

324

6.008

0.722

8.317*** 0.000


Within Groups

Total

1.594

307.636

309.231

2

322

324

0.797

0.955

0.834 0.435


Within Groups

Total

123.391

1095.378

1218.769

2

322

324

61.696

3.402

18.136*** 0.000


Within Groups

Total

4.663

175.047

179.711

2

322

324

2.332

0.544

4.289** 0.015

WEMP Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

72.498

1520.351

1592.849

2

322

324

36.249

4.722

7.677*** 0.001


Within Groups

Total

14.758

4071.932

4086.689

2

322

324

7.379

12.646

0.584 0.559




It is revealed from the above table that in case of impact of occupation

on achievement of the objectives of the microfinance, increase in assets and

140

women empowerment, F-ratio comes out to be significant at 1 percent level of

significance whereas the impact on esteem comes out to be significant at 5

percent significance level. The impact of occupation is insignificant on

satisfaction from the scheme, quality of life and overall impact of

microfinance. Therefore the formulated null hypothesis is accepted as there is

insignificant variation in overall impact of microfinance due to change in

occupation of the members.

4.5.8 Analysis of Impact Assessment with Education Level of the

members

An impact analysis has also been made in respect of the education

level of the members with the outcome variables. The following null

hypothesis is formulated in respect of overall impact:


the education level of the members

It has been tested with one way ANOVA whether education level of

the members affects the overall impact. The descriptive in respect of the


is presented in the following table 4.27.

It is revealed from the table that in case of the satisfaction, quality of

life, number of assets and esteem, members having matric educational level

feel more benefitted whereas in achievement of the objectives of

microfinance, women empowerment and overall impact, members who are

illiterate feel more benefitted. In overall impact also, illiterate members feel

more benefitted as the mean value of 23.034 is above the total mean value

22.618 with a maximum score of 34.

141

Table 4.27

Impact Assessment with Education Level of the members

Outcome

Variables

Education

Level

Mean Std.

deviation

Minimum Maximum

SATISFN Illiterate 2.681 0.497 1.00 3.00

Primary 2.595 0.514 1.00 3.00

Matric 2.833 0.380 2.00 3.00

TOTAL 2.667 0.497 1.00 3.00

OBMICR Illiterate 2.495 0.850 0.00 5.00

Primary 2.468 0.905 1.00 5.00

Matric 2.080 0.812 1.00 4.00

TOTAL 2.455 0.868 0.00 5.00

QLIFE Illiterate 3.475 0.827 0.00 6.00

Primary 3.406 0.990 1.00 6.00

Matric 3.960 1.719 2.00 9.00

TOTAL 3.492 0.976 0.00 9.00

ASTIMPCT Illiterate 4.593 1.879 1.00 12.00

Primary 4.489 1.835 1.00 12.00

Matric 5.580 2.420 1.00 10.00

TOTAL 4.661 1.939 1.00 12.00

ESTEEM Illiterate 5.274 0.711 3.00 8.00

Primary 5.250 0.807 2.00 8.00

Matric 5.280 0.791 4.00 8.00

TOTAL 5.267 0.744 2.00 8.00

WEMP Illiterate 4.514 2.066 0.00 8.00

Primary 3.583 2.217 0.00 6.00

Matric 2.680 2.478 0.00 6.00

TOTAL 4.098 2.217 0.00 8.00

IMPACT Illiterate 23.034 3.215 15.00 33.00

Primary 21.739 3.836 12.00 34.00

Matric 22.600 4.472 16.00 33.00

TOTAL 22.618 3.551 12.00 34.00


142



Table 4.28

Impact of Education on Outcome Variables (One-way ANOVA)


Squares

d.f. Mean

Square

F-ratio Sig.


Within Groups

Total

1.183

78.261

79.444

2

319

321

0.592

0.245

2.412* 0.091


Within Groups

Total

3.862

240.741

244.603

2

322

324

1.931

0.748

2.583* 0.077


Within Groups

Total

6.237

302.994

309.231

2

322

324

3.119

0.941

3.314** 0.038


Within Groups

Total

40.909

1177.860

1218.769

2

322

324

20.455

3.658

5.592*** 0.004


Within Groups

Total

4.332E-02

179.667

179.711

2

322

324

2.166E-02

.558

0.039 0.962

WEMP Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

111.120

1481.729

1592.849

2

322

324

55.560

4.602

12.074*** 0.000


Within Groups

Total

109.440

3977.249

4086.689

2

322

324

54.720

12.352

4.430** 0.013


* Significant at 10% significance level



It is revealed from the above table that in case of the impact of

education level on increase in assets and women empowerment, F-ratio comes

out to be significant at 1 percent level of significance whereas the impact on

satisfaction and achievement of the objectives of the microfinance comes out

143

to be significant at 10 percent significance level. The education impact on

quality of life and overall impact comes out to be significant at 5 percent


there is significant variation in overall impact of microfinance due to change

in education level of the members. The impact of education level is

insignificant on esteem of the members.

Overall Comparison

An overall comparison can also be made in respect of the impact of

microfinance due to the different socio-economic variables with the help of

the following Table 4.29:

Table 4.29

Overall Impact of different Socio-economic Variables

(One-way ANOVA) Socio-

economic

Variables

Overall Impact Sum of

Squares

d.f. Mean

Square

F-ratio Sig.

Age Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

129.124

3957.565

4086.689

4

320

324

32.281

12.367

2.610** 0.036

Caste Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

208.401

3878.288

4086.689

2

322

324

43.145

4.679

9.221*** 0.000

Family

Type

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

109.546

3977.143

4086.689

1

323

324

109.546

12.313

8.897*** 0.003

Training Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

9.630

4077.059

4086.689

1

323

324

9.630

12.622

0.763 0.383

Occupation Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

14.758

4071.932

4086.689

2

322

324

7.379

12.646

0.584 0.559

Education

Level

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

109.440

3977.249

4086.689

2

322

324

54.720

12.352

4.430** 0.013




144

It is evident from the above table that caste and family type have

overall impact significant at 1 percent significance level, age and education

level have overall impact significant at 5 percent significance level and

training and occupation have in significant impact.

4.5.9 Analysis of Impact on Income after Joining SHG

An impact analysis has also been made in respect of increase in the

income of the members after joining the SHG. The following null hypothesis

is formulated:

Ho: There is no increase in the income of the members after joining the

SHG

It has also been tested that whether the income of the members has

increased after joining the Self Help Group. A paired sample t-test has been

conducted and the results are given in Table 4.30 below:

Table 4.30

Impact on Income after Joining SHG

Mean Number (N) Difference of

Means

t-value

Pair-1 INCJOIN

INCLOAN

1.246

1.725

317

317

-0.4795

-13.79


INCJOIN – Income at joining the group

INCLOAN – Income after taking loan

Above table reveals that income of the members has increased

significantly after availing microfinance. The mean value of INCJOIN comes

out to be 1.246 and the mean value of INCLOAN comes out to be 1.725. The

difference of means is -0.4795 and t-value is -13.79.

Chi-square test has also been applied to test the increase in income of

the members after joining the SHG, results of the same is given in the

following Cross Table 4.31:

145

Table 4.31

INCJOIN-INCLOAN Cross Table

INCLOAN

Total

INCJOIN

Below

20000

20001-

40000

Above

40000

Below 20000 110 130 6 246

Above 20000 10 44 17 71

Total 120 174 23 317


Chi- square: 46.61 d.f. 2 Sig. 0.000

(For the purpose of the Chi-square test, one category each of INCJOIN and

INCLOAN has been merged)

Above table depicts the position of the number of members in the

various categories of income before and after joining of the SHG. It is evident

from the table that 246 members were having income below 20000 and 71

above 20000 before joining the SHG. After joining the SHG and availing of

the microfinance the position improved in the sense that now only 120

members remained in the below 20000 income category whereas number of

members increased to 174 in the category of Rs. 20001-40000 and to 23 in

above 40000 category. It is important to note that 23 members are now having

income above 40000 whereas no one was in this category before joining the

SHG. The chi-square value comes out to be 46.61 which are significant at 1%


there is significant increase in the income of the members after joining the

SHG.

4.5.10 Regression Analysis

The factors effecting IMPACT have also been analyzed using Simple

Linear Regression Model. The following regression equation has been

estimated:

IMPACT = b1AGE + b2 GRAGE + b3 NUMBER + b4 EDU + b5 BANK

146

Where, AGE, GRAGE, NUMBER, EDU and BANK represent the age

of the member, age of the SHG since formation, size of the group, education

of the member and the category of the bank loan amount respectively. These

variables have been selected after considerable experimentation. The intercept

has not been included as it has been found carrying high standard error. The

results of the regression equation are given in Table 4.32 below:

Table 4.32

Results of the Regression Equation

Independent Variables Coefficients t-value Sig.

1. AGE 1.276 5.627*** 0.000

2. GRAGE 3.088 9.339*** 0.000

3. NUMBER 4.113 12.941*** 0.000

4. EDU 1.012 3.014*** 0.003

5. BANK 1.273 6.191*** 0.000

R 0 .986 R2

0 .973 F-ratio 2283 (5, 315)



In the above table, the high value of R2

(0.973) shows that the list of

selected variables are able to explain 97.3 percent variation in the dependent

variable. The maximum contribution is from the size of the Self Help Group

represented by NUMBER. The performance of the group improves with the

AGE of the group and it is second most important contributor to the impact.

The amount of the BANK loan availed by SHG has proved to be a significant

contributor to overall impact. Education level of the members has also found

to be contributing significantly. There is always a scope for improvement in

the implementation of any program such as the microfinance for which we

need to learn lessons from the research studies of this kind. Let all the

stakeholders including the policy makers and bureaucratic innovators use the

policy implications flowing from the study for further monitoring and

evaluation of the microfinance scheme in all times to come.

147

References:

1. Profile of Haryana State at www.haryana.gov.in

2. Census of India 2011.

3. Statistical Abstract of Haryana-Various Issues.

4. 11th

Five Year Plan of Haryana.

5. Haryana Budget of different Financial Years.

chapter 4 analysis of impact assessment of microfinance...

Documents