Advertisement

Intermediate Participant Selection Phase: Assessment of Efficiency and Sustainability

  • Nadiya Marakkath
Chapter
Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)

Abstract

This chapter presents the intermediate participant selection phase, pursued in this research investigation. This phase is incorporated in the three-phased sequential explanatory mixed-methods research design, to accomplish the third objective of the research investigation. The third objective aims to identify the efficient and sustainable Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) in India. The Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Model, the Sustainability Diamond Model and Benchmarking Process used to fulfil this objective are presented in this chapter. Using these analytical models, the author identifies seven efficient Indian MFIs, which remained sustainable by levying a reasonable interest rate, even before the onset of the crisis and ceilings imposition, in Indian microfinance market. Among these identified MFIs some are found to be charging interest rates ranging from 13–16 per cent, which is much lower than the prevailing regulatory cap of 26 per cent. The managerial practices of these MFIs can be considered to be a reference point for the lesser efficient players in the sector, which aim to enhance their efficiency levels. The extent of inefficiencies that each of these lesser efficient MFIs can trim-off from their operating structure is also depicted in this chapter. Thus overall, this chapter presents a performance analysis on a sample of 50 Indian MFIs, using efficiency and sustainability assessment techniques. The author concludes this chapter by presenting the results of a regression and discriminant analysis undertaken on the efficiency scores of the sample MFIs. The results of this analysis depict the efficiency and sustainability statuses of Indian MFIs, to be independent of their institution specific variables. This makes the author inquisitive to know more about the sustainability management practices of these MFIs, and hence she subsequently pursues as a follow-up qualitative study.

Keywords

Data Envelopment Analysis Efficiency Score Data Envelopment Analysis Model Sustainability Assessment Loan Portfolio 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Athanassopoulos AD (1997) Service quality and operating efficiency synergies for management control in the provision of financial services: evidence from Greek bank branches. Eur J Oper Res 9:300–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avkiran NK (2001) Investigating technical and scale efficiencies of Australian universities through data envelopment analysis. Socioecon Plann Sci 35(1):57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci 30(9):1078–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassem BS (2008) Efficiency of microfinance institutions in the Mediterranean: an application of DEA. Transit Stud Rev 15(2):343–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger AN, Humphrey DB (1997) Efficiency of financial institutions: international survey and directions for future research. Eur J Oper Res 98:175–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger AN, Mester LJ (1997) Inside the black box: what explains differences in the efficiencies of financial institutions? J Bank Financ 21:895–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhatt N, Tang SY (2001) Delivering microfinance in developing countries: controversies and policy perspective. Policy Stud Organ 29(2):319–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2:429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christen RP (2001) Commercialization and mission drift. The transformation of microfinance in Latin America. Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) Occasional Paper 5, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Cingi S, Tarim A (2000) Performance measurement in Turkish banking system: data envelopment analysis Malmquist TFP index application. Turkish banks association research proceedings series, report no. 2000, 2Google Scholar
  11. Coelli T (1996) A guide to DEAP version 2.1: a data envelopment analysis (computer) program. Centre for efficiency and productivity analysis working paper, Department of Econometrics, University of New England. http://www.une.edu.au/econometrics/cepa.htm. Retrieved 25 Dec 2011
  12. Darrat AF, Topuz C, Yousef T (2002) Assessing cost and technical efficiency of banks in Kuwait. Paper presented at ERFs 8th annual conference, CairoGoogle Scholar
  13. Desrochers M, Lamberte M (2003) Efficiency and expense preference behavior in Philippines cooperative rural banks. Centre Interuniversitairesur Les Risque, Les Politiques Economiques Et L’emploi (CIRPÉE.) Cahier de Recherché working paper series, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  14. Farrell MJ (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J Roy Stat Soc 120:253–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farrington T (2000) Efficiency in microfinance institutes. Microbank Bull 4:20–23Google Scholar
  16. Guitierrez-Nieto B, Serrano-Cinca C, Molinero CM (2007) Microfinance institutions and efficiency. OMEGA Int J Manage Sci 35(2):131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guitierrez-Nieto B, Serrano-Cinca C, Molinero CM (2008) A DEA approach to microfinance institutions efficiency. Paper presented at centre for European research in microfinance seminars, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. Haq M, Skully MT, Pathan S (2009) Efficiency of microfinance institutions: a data envelopment analysis. Asia Pac Financ Mark 17:63–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hassan MK, Tufte DR (2001) The X-efficiency of a group based lending institution: the case of Grameen bank. World Dev 29:1071–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Micro Rate and Inter-American Development Bank (2003) Performance indicators for microfinance institutions. A technical guide. http://microrate.com/pdf/Technical%20Guide%203rd%20Edition%20English.pdf. Retrieved 25 Dec 2011
  21. Kalim R, Salahuddhin T (2011) Micro financing of NGOS and government: collaborative impact on poverty eradication. Inform Manage Bus Rev 2(2):81–91Google Scholar
  22. Lafourcade A, Isern J, Mwangi P, Brown M (2005) Overview of the outreach and financial performance of microfinance institutions on Africa. http://www.mixmarket.org. Accessed 25 June 2010
  23. Malegam Committee Report (2011) Report of the Reserve Bank of India sub-committee of its Central Board of Directors to study issues and concerns in the Micro Finance Institutions (MFI) sector. Reserve Bank of India. http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=23780. Retrieved 25 Feb 2010
  24. Marakkath N, Ramanan RT (2012) Assessing the efficient and sustainable performance of indian microfinance institutions. Cost Manage. Thomson Reuters/RIA, 26(5):1–14Google Scholar
  25. Navajas S, Schreiner M, Richard M, Claudio G, RodriguezMeza J (2000) Microcredit and the poorest of the poor: theory and evidence from Bolivia. World Dev 28(2):333–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nghiem H, Coelli T, Rao DSP (2006) The efficiency of microfinance in Vietnam: evidence from NGO schemes in the north and the central regions. Int J Environ Cult Econ Soc Sustain 2(5):71–78Google Scholar
  27. Otero M (2000) Bringing development back to micro finance. J Micro Financ 1(1):8–19Google Scholar
  28. Qayyum A, Ahmad M (2006) Efficiency and sustainability of micro finance institutions in South Asia. MPRA Paper 11674, University Library of Munich. http://www.saneinetwork.net/pdf/SANEI_VI/SANEIVI%20PROJECT%207%20Efficiency%20and%20Sustainability%20of%20Micro%20Finance%20Institutions%20in%20South%20Asia.pdf. Retrieved 25 Dec 2010
  29. Ramanathan R (2003) An introduction to data envelopment analysis. Sage, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  30. Robinson SM (2001) The micro finances revolution: sustainable finance for the poor. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Schreiner M (2002) Aspects of outreach: a framework for discussion of the social benefits of microfinance. J Int Dev 14(5):591–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Siems TF, Barr RS (1998) Benchmarking the productive efficiency of US banks. Financial Industry Studies, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 11–24 Dec 1998Google Scholar
  33. Soteriou A, Zenios SA (1999) Operations, quality and profitability in the provision of banking services. Manage Sci 45(9):1221–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sufian F (2006) The efficiency of non-bank financial institutions: empirical evidence from Malaysia. Intern Res J Financ Econ 6:1450–2887Google Scholar
  35. Vassiloglou M, Giokas D (1990) A study of the relative efficiency of bank branches: an application of data envelopment analysis. J Oper Res Soc 41:591–597Google Scholar
  36. Woller G, Dunford C, Warner W (1999) Where to microfinance. Int J Econ Dev 1:29–64Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadiya Marakkath
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Management & Labour StudiesTata Institute of Social Sciences Centre for Social EntrepreneurshipMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations