Pallavi Chavan and Bhaskar Birajdar*
World over, micro finance is looked upon as means of credit-based poverty alleviation
and financial inclusion. This study uses secondary and primary data on SHGs in order to
evaluate the role played by these institutions towards financial inclusion of the groups/
regions excluded from the formal financial system. In this connection, the study also
analyses the geographical spread of micro finance institutions, access and affordability of
micro finance for women borrowers and movement of women borrowers out of SHGs. The
findings of this study reflect the significantly limited scale and spread of micro finance in
India. The continued dependence of women members belonging to mature SHGs on informal
sources, as revealed from the primary data, further corroborates the point regarding the
limited spread of micro finance. The relatively high rates of interest on SHG loans, which
are comparable with the rates of informal sector, underline the issue of affordability of
micro finance for poor borrowers. Further, an issue related to interest rates is that of dropouts
of members. The most commonly noted cause for dropouts among SHG members is the
irregular repayments of loans. The members complain of an inability to repay their loans on
time and subsequently drop out. Hence, the observations of this note reflect the considerable
scope for micro finance to evolve as an effective means of financial inclusion that is
accessible and affordable for the excluded groups/regions and that can help loosen the grip
of informal sources of finance and ensure permanent inclusion of the excluded sections in
the ambit of formal finance.
JEL Classification : G21
Keywords : Micro-finance, SHGs, Financial Inclusion
This is an evaluation study of micro finance in India using
secondary and primary data on SHGs. The primary objective of this
study is to evaluate SHGs as a means of financial inclusion of the
groups/regions excluded from the formal financial system. In this connection, the study looks at the issues of geographical spread of
micro finance institutions and SHGs, access and affordability of micro
finance for women borrowers and movement of women borrowers
out of SHGs.
The study uses secondary data from the annual publication of
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) on
micro finance, namely, “Progress of SHG-Bank Linkage Programme
in India”. Further, it also uses secondary data from the latest round
of All India Debt and Investments Survey conducted by National
Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO). The primary data are drawn
from a field level survey of SHGs and SHG members conducted
in 2006 in Kancheepuram district of Tamil Nadu, a State that has
been known to be one of the leading States in the country in the
development of micro finance.
The study is organised as follows. In Section I, we introduce
the concept of micro finance as it is understood worldwide and as it
has been implemented in India. In Section II, we discuss the concept
of financial inclusion as it is described officially in India and its
link with micro finance and the issues involved therein. In Section
III, we discuss the secondary data on micro finance to analyse the
geographical and agency-wise spread of micro finance in India. We
also look at the existing scale of micro finance in India. In Section
IV, we discuss first the features of the primary dataset used for the
present study and then, our major findings from the primary data. We
provide our concluding observations in Section V.
Section I
Concept of Micro Finance and its Implementation in India
Micro finance originated in Bangladesh with the institution of
Grameen Bank in 1983. The basic principles of micro finance that
distinguish it from the earlier modes of credit delivery are small
amounts of loan, lack of physical collateral but emphasis on social
collateral or peer monitoring and focus on women borrowers. With
these three factors, micro finance is expected to effectively tackle the three problems that are often encountered in any credit delivery
programme designed for the poor namely, targeting, screening
of borrowers, and enforcement of the credit contract.1 Under the
model of micro finance promoted by the Grameen Bank, women
borrowers are organised into Self-Help Groups (SHGs), which would
be entitled to borrow from the lending institution either for their
individual or group requirements. Such groups are normally created
by women from similar socio-economic background that strengthen
the solidarity among these women. The involvement of the entire
group at each stage of seeking the loan and its repayment is essential
in ensuring peer monitoring.
In several countries across the world, micro finance originated
from the activity of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) that
were aided largely or partly by foreign donors for their lending
operations.2 There were also cases such as in Indonesia, where
micro finance was promoted directly through state owned banks/
organisations.
Against this background, the Indian experiment with micro
finance was different in mainly two respects. First, India involved
its public banks network to provide micro finance. The commercial
banking network, whose development after bank nationalisation in
terms of geographical spread and functional reach is often deemed
unparalleled in the world, was roped in for micro finance. The micro
finance experiment in India has been described by NABARD as
relationship banking rather than parallel banking elsewhere in the
world.3 In this experiment, there exists a link between SHGs, NGOs
and Banks. The SHGs are formed and nurtured by NGOs and only
after accomplishing a certain level of maturity in terms of their
internal thrift and credit operations; they are entitled to seek credit
from the banks. There is an involvement of the concerned NGO
before and even after the SHG-Bank linkage. This variant of micro
finance is most popular in India.4
Secondly, thrift first and not credit first was considered to be
the basis for micro finance in India. SHGs in India were encouraged
towards saving within the group and managing their own finances and giving loans internally and then to deposit their savings with a
bank thus providing them access to the banking network and finally,
negotiating with the bank for credit.
The SHG-Bank linkage programme, which was undertaken
since 1992 in India, had financed about 22.4 lakh SHGs by 2006.
It involved commercial banks, Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) and
cooperative banks in its operations, the details of which would be
discussed in Section III.
Section II
Micro Finance and Financial Inclusion
Financial inclusion has been defined as the “provision of
affordable financial services” (RBI, 2006a) to those who have been
left unattended or under-attended by formal agencies of the financial
system. These financial services include “payments and remittance
facilities, savings, loan and insurance services” (ibid.). Micro finance
has been looked upon as an important means of financial inclusion
in India (RBI, 2006b). As already discussed, the Indian concept of
micro finance encourages access of SHGs to banks both as means
of savings and providers of loan services. However, going a step
further, we can say that micro finance has to act proactively not
just as a means of financial inclusion and also has to work towards
reducing dependence of poor borrowers on various informal sources
of credit that are often notorious for the onerous terms at which they
offer credit. An effective financial inclusion is possible only with the
accomplishment of the second.
Given the definition of financial inclusion, any means for
financial inclusion, to begin with, has to be not just easily accessible
but also affordable to the borrowers, who do not have access to
formal financial system. Secondly, it should ensure that over time the
borrowers are able to reduce their dependence on informal sources
of finance and a certain degree of loyalty towards SHGs, which can
work towards permanent or effective inclusion of these borrowers
into the formal banking network.
Section III
Certain Issues regarding the Scale and Spread of
Micro Finance in India
The pace at which micro finance has spread in India has been
undoubtedly impressive. Taking data from NABARD, we find that
the number of SHGs increased significantly from 637 in 1994 to
22.4 lakh by 2006 (Table 1).5 Similarly, there was a vast increase in
the amount of bank credit provided to the SHGs during this period.
This includes credit provided by all three key institutions, namely
commercial banks, Regional Rural Banks and cooperative banks.
Of these, commercial banks have been instrumental in financing the
largest number of SHGs till now (Table 2).
Notwithstanding its expansion, there are three observations
that need to be made about the scale and spread of micro finance
in India. First, regarding its scale, micro finance still remains a
minuscule portion of total bank credit in India. The micro finance
provided by the two major institutions, namely commercial banks
and RRBs constituted less than one per cent of the total credit from
these institutions in 2007 (Table 3).6
Another interesting albeit rough statistic that can highlight the
relatively small scale of finance to SHGs is that the total cumulative
credit disbursed through SHG-Bank linkage programme right from its
inception in 1992 to 2006 by commercial banks, RRBs and cooperative
banks formed only 6 per cent of the total agricultural credit disbursed
in just one year of 2005-06 by these institutions together.
Table 1: Cumulative number and amount of credit to SHGs |
(Amount in Rs. lakh) |
Year |
Cumulative number of SHGs |
Cumulative amount of bank credit |
India |
Tamil Nadu |
India |
Tamil Nadu |
1994 |
637 |
74 |
80 |
9 |
2006 |
2238565 |
312778 |
113975400 |
27121900 |
Note : Figures for 1994 pertain only to 11 States, where the pilot project of SHG-Bank linkage was implemented.
Source : NABARD (2006), Nanda (1995). |
Table 2: Cumulative number of and amount of credit to SHGs, by agency, 2006 |
(Amount in Rs. crore) |
Agency |
Cumulative number of SHGs |
Cumulative amount of bank credit |
1. Commercial banks |
1188040 |
698745 |
|
(53.1) |
(61.3) |
1.1 Public sector banks |
1141570 |
643968 |
|
(51.0) |
(56.5) |
1.2 Private sector banks |
46470 |
54777 |
|
(2.1) |
(4.8) |
2. Regional Rural Banks |
740024 |
332215 |
|
(33.1) |
(29.1) |
3. Cooperative banks |
310501 |
108795 |
|
(13.9) |
(9.5) |
All banks |
2238565 |
1139754 |
|
(100.0) |
(100.0) |
Note: Figures in brackets indicate percentage share in total.
Source: NABARD (2006). |
Secondly, not only that credit to SHGs had an extremely small
share in total credit and total loan accounts, we find that there was a
falling trend in these shares during the five-year period from 2002 to
2007 (Table 3).
The third point regarding the regional spread of micro finance is
that there has been a significant concentration of these institutions in the
Southern region of the country (Table 4).7 By 2006, more than half of
the SHGs were located in the Southern region and about three fourth of the bank credit was given to SHGs located in this region.8 Of the total
number of SHGs in the Southern region, one fourth were located in
Tamil Nadu, the State from which we have primary level information.
Table 3: Percentage share of credit outstanding to SHGs in total credit outstanding of scheduled commercial banks (including RRBs) |
Year |
Amount of credit outstanding to SHGs (in Rs. crore) |
Total credit outstanding (in Rs. crore) |
Number of loan accounts for SHGs |
Total loan accounts |
2002 |
41321 |
2258529 |
290904 |
483280 |
|
(1.8) |
|
(0.5) |
|
2007 |
81156 |
10094629 |
53034408 |
166820470 |
|
(0.8) |
|
(0.3) |
|
Note : Figures in brackets indicate percentage share of accounts/amount to SHGs in total accounts/amount.
Source : Basic Statistical Returns, various issues. |
Table 4: Cumulative number of and amount of bank credit to SHGs, by regions, 2006 |
Region |
Cumulative number of
SHGs |
Cumulative amount of
bank credit |
Northern region |
133097 |
39859 |
|
(5.9) |
(3.5) |
North-Eastern region |
62517 |
16570 |
|
(2.8) |
(1.5) |
Eastern region |
394351 |
93542 |
|
(17.6) |
(8.2) |
Central region |
267915 |
80501 |
|
(12.0) |
(7.1) |
Western region |
166254 |
52514 |
|
(7.4) |
(4.6) |
Southern region |
1214491 |
856769 |
|
(54.3) |
(75.2) |
Tamil Nadu |
312778 |
271219 |
|
(14.0) |
(23.8) |
India |
2238565 |
1139754 |
|
(100.0) |
(100.0) |
Notes : 1. Figures in brackets indicate percentage share in total for India.
2. The region-wise classification of States follows from the NABARD publication.
Source : NABARD (2006). |
Interestingly, the Southern region has historically been the most
vanguard region in terms of banking development in the country.
A greater concentration of micro finance is possibly owing to the
already well-developed banking infrastructure in the region but it
further reinforces the existing inequality between regions in the
development of banking infrastructure.
Further, as micro finance is essentially driven towards including
the poorer sections of the population into the ambit of banking, it
is useful to compare the supply of micro finance to the number of
poor across regions in order to judge the effective spread of micro
finance. We find taking this indicator too, the spread of micro finance
works out to be the largest in the Southern region and the smallest
in the Central region. We find that the number of SHGs (formed on a cumulative basis) per 1,000 poor persons in the Southern region was
about four to five times more than the corresponding figure in other
regions.9 Given that an SHG normally comprises 15 members and
that about 60 per cent of SHGs in the country have members from
families belonging to the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category (as
found by NCAER, 2008), we can estimate that even for the Southern
region, only about one third of its poor population is covered by
SHGs (Table 5). Further, in the case of Tamil Nadu, the coverage of
poor persons by SHGs is only about 8 per cent. Here, however, we
need to remember that there are arguments from scholars that the
official poverty line under-estimates the number of poor persons in
the country (Swaminathan, 2000). In this case, the coverage by SHGs
of poor persons is expected to be even narrower.
Fourthly and finally, as micro finance is regarded as a means
of drawing greater number of women into the banking system, we
analyse the trends in bank credit to and deposits from women and
juxtapose the same with the figures for men in order to understand
the degree of absolute and relative financial exclusion of women.
Table 5: Cumulative number of and bank credit to SHGs per person below poverty line, 2005 |
Region |
Cumulative number
of SHGs per thousand
persons below poverty line |
Cumulative bank credit
to SHGs per person below
poverty line (Rs. ‘000) |
Northern region |
8 |
24 |
North-Eastern region |
10 |
28 |
Eastern region |
5 |
13 |
Central region |
3 |
10 |
Western region |
5 |
16 |
Southern region |
36 |
252 |
Tamil Nadu |
9 |
37 |
India |
9 |
48 |
Note : Figure for population below poverty line is taken from NSSO for the year 2004-05. The comparison here assumes that the cumulative number of SHGs were all functional in 2005.
Source : NABARD (2006), GOI (2007). |
Here, for women’s credit, we consider together (group) credit to
SHGs and (individual) credit to women as provided in the Basic
Statistical Returns. In the case of deposits, however, as data on
(group) deposits from SHGs are not separately available, we consider
only the (individual) deposits from women. It may be noted that the
(group) credit to SHGs may not be entirely credit to women but it
is principally credit to women and hence, can be clubbed together
with individual credit to women for arriving at a proxy for total bank
credit to women.
On the bank credit front, there was an evident disparity between
women and men. On an average, there were 21 loan accounts per
10,000 women as against 118 loan accounts per 10,000 men in 2007
(Table 6). Further, the average amount of credit outstanding per
woman in 2007 was Rs. 1,139 as compared to Rs. 5,652 per man
(Table 7). These statistics need to be contrasted with the fact that
women constituted half (48.4 per cent) of the total population making
93 women per every 100 men in the country in the same year. If we
considered deposits, the proportion worked out to be much higher
(Tables 6, 7). During the six-year period considered in Tables 6 and
7, there appeared to be a change towards reducing the gender gap but
even then, women’s access to basic banking facilities remained at
disquietingly low levels.
Table 6 : Loan and deposit accounts per 10,000 persons, for women and men |
Year |
Loan accounts per 10,000 persons |
Deposit accounts per 10,000 persons |
Women |
Men |
Women |
Men |
2001 |
2 |
19 |
2149 |
5731 |
|
(11) |
|
(37) |
|
2007 |
21 |
118 |
2123 |
5858 |
|
(18) |
|
(36) |
|
Notes : 1. Figures in brackets indicate percentage share of accounts of women to those of men.
2. Loan accounts for women for 2007 includes individual loan accounts for women and loans accounts of SHGs.
Source : Basic Statistical Returns, various issues, . |
Table 7: Amount of credit and deposits per capita, for women and men |
Year |
Credit per capita |
Deposits per capita |
Women |
Men |
Women |
Men |
2001 |
625 |
4290 |
3219 |
10669 |
|
(15) |
|
(30) |
|
2007 |
1139 |
5652 |
5310 |
17721 |
|
(20) |
|
(30) |
|
Notes : 1. Figures in brackets indicate percentage share of amount of women to that of men.
2. Credit amount for women for 2007 includes individual credit to women and credit of SHGs.
Source : Basic Statistical Returns, various issues, . |
Section IV
Access and Affordability of Micro Finance as Evident from
Primary Data
The primary data are drawn from a field level survey conducted
in 2006 in Kancheepuram district of Tamil Nadu by Centre for Micro
Finance (CMF).10 These data are collected through interviews of
both SHGs and SHG beneficiaries in the district using structured
schedules. These SHGs were promoted and nurtured by Hand-in-
Hand, a non-Governmental organisation based on Tamil Nadu that
has been working in the field of micro finance. There were 35 SHGs
selected for the survey and three members from each SHG were
interviewed making the total sample size of 105 members. The SHGs
were randomly selected from the group of SHGs who were operational
for five years or more in the district. The information on the operation
of SHGs was taken from the loan registers maintained with Handin-
Hand. Further, from each group, the animator or the group leader
along with two members were randomly selected for interview.
Certain general observations about the SHG members
The sample of SHG members selected for the survey reveals
the following points. First, the entire sample was of women SHG
members. Secondly, about 56 per cent of the women interviewed
reported a family income of less than Rs. 40,000 per annum making their monthly family income approximately Rs. 3,300. Thirdly, about
26 per cent of these women were housewives, but the rest 74 per
cent were engaged in various occupations. The most important being
agricultural labour followed by cultivation and then, weaving. Given
that Kancheepuram district is known for its silk weaving business,
weaving offered an important source of livelihood for these women
(though that might not have been the main source of income for their
families). Fourthly, about 77 per cent of these women belonged to
landless category with no land owned by their respective families.
Even those few families, which owned land, had land less than 2
acres making each of such families “marginal” landowners.
Heavy reliance on informal sources of finance
The sampled women members belonging to various SHGs in the
studied region relied heavily on other informal sources of finance
notwithstanding the fact that they were associated with the SHGs for
over five years and in the micro finance parlance, were considered as
matured members.
The informal sources, which the surveyed members drew
upon, were primarily professional moneylenders (Table 8). There
were also members that reported loans from relatives and friends,
which as revealed by most primary level surveys, is an innocuous
source of finance that is drawn on by any individual in times of need.
These loans normally come interest free. However, the loans from
moneylenders are loans taken often at heavy (explicit and implicit)
rates of interest. Hence, for the present discussion, we mainly focus
on loans from moneylenders.
Table 8: Number of loans of SHG members, by
sources other than SHGs |
Source |
Number of loans |
Percentage of loans |
Bank |
10 |
10.8 |
Professional moneylenders |
39 |
41.9 |
Relatives and friends |
25 |
26.9 |
Other sources |
19 |
20.4 |
Total |
93 |
100.0 |
Source: Primary data. |
Juxtaposing the data provided by the All India Debt and
Investment Survey (AIDIS) in 2003 for Tamil Nadu, we get a fairly
similar picture of the predominance of informal sources in general,
moneylenders in particular. We find that of the total number of rural
households in the State, 68 per cent reported having taken at least
one loan from informal sources and of these, 53 per cent reported
at least one loan from professional moneylenders (Table 9). Further,
only 14.4 per cent of the rural households in the State reported at
least one loan from commercial banks. Evidently, there was greater
dependence on informal sources, particularly moneylenders in Tamil
Nadu than in India as a whole.
High interest cost of micro finance
The interest cost of micro finance was high as revealed by the
survey and was in fact comparable to the rates charged by moneylenders.
Over 75 per cent of the SHGs surveyed charged rates in the range
of 24 to 36 per cent per annum (Table 10). These rates were almost
double the rates charged by banks. The modal rate of interest charged by banks as revealed by the survey was 12 per cent per annum (Table
11). Interestingly, however, the rates of interest on SHG loans were
fairly comparable to the rates charged by moneylenders in the study
region; about one third of moneylenders’ loans were in the range of
24 to 36 per cent (Table 12). Moneylenders in the region charged even
higher rates of interest going up to 240 per cent per annum. Given the fact that most of the loans from SHGs were taken towards production
related purposes (Table 13), we expect that any member borrowing
from SHGs has to get a rate of return of over 24-36 per cent from her
business venture in order to break even, which indeed is a high rate
of return to be expected from the small business ventures that these
women put their funds to.11
Table 9: Percentage of households reporting at least one loan outstanding, by source |
Source |
Tamil Nadu |
India |
Formal Sources |
44.4 |
50.7 |
Government |
1.9 |
3.0 |
Cooperatives |
26.1 |
26.1 |
Commercial banks |
14.4 |
21.5 |
Other sources |
5.6 |
2.5 |
Informal Sources |
68.0 |
58.3 |
Landlord |
1.4 |
1.4 |
Agricultural moneylender |
4.6 |
12.3 |
Professional moneylender |
53.1 |
25.9 |
Trader |
0.9 |
3.3 |
Relatives and friends |
7.4 |
14.1 |
Others |
4.3 |
3.9 |
Note : The figures may not add up to 100 as there are households that have taken loans from more than one source.
Source : NSSO (2006). |
Table 10 : Distribution of SHGs, by rates of interest |
Interest rate |
Number of SHGs |
Percentage of SHGs |
12.0 |
1 |
3.0 |
13.2 |
1 |
3.0 |
18.0 |
5 |
14.0 |
24.0 |
26 |
74.0 |
36.0 |
1 |
3.0 |
Not reported |
1 |
3.0 |
Total |
35 |
100.0 |
Source: Primary data. |
Table 11: Percentage distribution of loans by SHG members from banks, by interest rates |
Interest rate equal to |
Number of loans |
Percentage of loans |
9.0 |
1 |
10.0 |
10.0 |
2 |
20.0 |
12.0 |
3 |
30.0 |
Not reported |
4 |
40.0 |
Total |
10 |
100.0 |
Source: Primary data. |
Table 12: Percentage distribution of loans by SHG members from moneylenders, by interest rates |
Interest rate equal to |
Number of loans |
Percentage of loans |
24 |
1 |
2.6 |
36 |
13 |
33.3 |
60 |
3 |
7.7 |
120 |
13 |
33.3 |
144 |
3 |
7.7 |
240 |
2 |
5.1 |
Not reported |
4 |
10.3 |
Total |
39 |
100.0 |
Source: Primary data. |
Again, we compare the data available from the AIDIS in this
regard and find that 43 per cent of the rural households in the State
reported at least one loan outstanding at rates higher than 30 per cent
per annum (Table 14). This was in line with the observation made
earlier regarding the dominance of informal sources of finance for
households in the State.
Movement of members out of SHGs
Of the total number of SHGs surveyed, more than half of the
SHGs (18 SHGs) reported dropouts of up to 3 members since the
time of their formation (Table 15).12 As against this, only 6 per cent
of the SHGs (2 SHGs) reported an addition of members while about 43 per cent of the SHGs (15 SHGs) had the same number of members
since the time of their formation.
Table 13: Percentage distribution of loans from SHGs, by purpose |
|
Purpose |
Share in amount |
Share in number |
1 |
Directly income generating activities |
52.0 |
28.0 |
|
1.1 Agriculture |
12.0 |
5.0 |
|
1.2 Livestock |
1.0 |
1.0 |
|
1.3 Business/shop |
39.0 |
21.0 |
|
1.3.1 Silk business |
14.0 |
6.0 |
2 |
Consumption related activities |
44.0 |
70.0 |
|
2.1 House construction |
0.3 |
0.3 |
|
2.2 Education |
6.0 |
6.0 |
|
2.3 Health |
36.0 |
61.0 |
|
2.4 Ceremonial expenditure |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|
2.5 Others |
0.05 |
0.04 |
3 |
Not reported |
4.0 |
3.0 |
|
Total |
100 |
100 |
Source: Primary data. |
Table 14: Percentage distribution of households reporting at least one loan outstanding, by interest rate classes |
Interest rate class |
Tamil Nadu |
India |
0 |
13.8 |
17.3 |
0 < rate < 6 |
0.7 |
3.0 |
6 < rate < 10 |
2.5 |
2.8 |
10 < rate < 12 |
5.1 |
5.5 |
12 < rate < 15 |
20.2 |
26.3 |
15 < rate < 20 |
19.4 |
16.3 |
20 < rate < 25 |
15.6 |
14.4 |
25 < rate < 30 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
30 < rate |
43.2 |
26.8 |
Not reported |
0.0 |
0.9 |
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Note: Interest rate classes are as given in NSSO (2006).
Source: NSSO (2006). |
For the majority of the groups the dropout rate (number of
dropouts as a per cent of the initial number of members) varied
between 5 and 10 per cent (Table 16). The number of SHGs tended
to fall as we moved towards higher dropout rate classes. When the
information was collected from the SHGs to find the possible causes
of dropouts, it was observed that most of these members exhibited
irregular repayments of their loans. These members complained of
an inability to repay their loans and subsequently were either asked to leave by the organisers or they dropped out. The inability to repay
needs to be seen in the light of the earlier discussion on interest rates.
Table 15: Number of SHGs classified by the dropout/
addition of members |
SHGs |
Number of SHGs |
Percentage of SHGs |
With dropouts |
18 |
51.4 |
With no dropouts |
15 |
42.9 |
With additions |
2 |
5.7 |
Total |
35 |
100.0 |
Source: Primary data. |
Table 16: Number of SHGs with dropouts, by dropout rate |
Dropout rate |
Number |
Percentage |
0 < rate < 5 |
1 |
5.6 |
5 < rate < 10 |
8 |
44.4 |
10 < rate < 15 |
4 |
22.2 |
15 < rate < 20 |
4 |
22.2 |
20< rate < 25 |
1 |
5.6 |
Total |
18 |
100.0 |
Source: Primary data. |
There were natural causes like death and other causes, such as
migration or husband’s/family’s opposition for drop outs but they
appeared relatively less important. Most (60 per cent) of the members
who dropped out, kept their savings with the group, which were used
to settle their loans.
Section V
Concluding Observations
This note was a preliminary attempt to understand the scale and
spread of micro finance as an important tool of financial inclusion in
India using secondary and primary level data.
Following are the major concluding observations from the exercise
based on secondary data. First, micro finance albeit its expansion
has remained a minuscule of bank credit in India. In 2007, that is a
decade and half since its inception in the form of SHG-Bank linkage
programme, credit to SHGs constituted less than one per cent of the
total bank credit from scheduled commercial banks. Secondly, the
data available for the last five years show that there has been a falling
trend in the percentage share of bank credit to and loan accounts held
by SHGs. Thirdly, there has been considerable regional disparity in
terms of the spread of micro finance in India. The Southern region of
India is way ahead of the other regions not just in terms of the absolute number of SHGs formed and the bank credit supplied to these SHGs
but also in terms its coverage of poor persons residing in this region.
A comparison with the number of poor persons is useful as micro
finance is essentially a means of providing bank credit to the poor
sections of the population. Given that the Southern region has been
historically one of the well-developed regions in terms of banking
infrastructure, this concentration of micro finance undoubtedly adds
to regional disparity. Fourthly, as micro finance is primarily driven
towards women, the coverage of women under the existing banking
network can also be an indicator of the spread of micro finance.
Though there are about 93 women per 100 men in India, there were
only 21 loan accounts per 10,000 women as compared to 118 loan
accounts per 10,000 men in the country. Further, on an average, the
amount of bank credit outstanding per woman worked out to Rs. 20
for Rs. 100 outstanding per man. The disparity in terms of deposits
was little less but it still reflected the wide gap that prevailed in the
financial inclusion of women vis-à-vis men.
The major observations based on primary data collected from
Kancheepuram district of Tamil Nadu from SHG members and SHGs
(functional for over five years) are as follows. First, the surveyed SHG
members relied heavily on informal sources of finance in general,
moneylenders in particular, despite their longstanding association
with their respective SHGs. The dependence on professional
moneylenders of rural households in Tamil Nadu also came out
from the data provided by the recent All India Debt and Investment
Survey. Secondly, the rates of interest of SHG loans ranged between
24 and 36 per cent per annum, which was almost double the rate on
bank credit reported by SHG members and fairly comparable to the
rates of interest reported on moneylenders’ loans. Thirdly, more than
half of the surveyed SHGs reported dropouts of up to 3 members per
group and the major reason for dropping out as reported by SHGs was
the inability of the concerned members to repay on time and hence,
either the members dropped out on their own or they were asked to
leave by the organisers. Majority of these members, however, left
their savings with the groups which were used to settle their loans.
To conclude, the findings of this study reflect the significantly
limited scale and spread of micro finance in India. The continued
dependence of women members belonging to mature SHGs on
informal sources corroborates the point made earlier regarding the
spread of micro finance. The high interest rates on SHG loans also
points towards the affordability of micro finance for the poorer
borrowers who in effect are expected to have a very high rate of return
from their business ventures in order to just cover the interest cost.
Hence, the observations made in this note reflect the considerable
scope for micro finance to evolve as a means of financial inclusion
that is accessible and affordable for the excluded groups/regions and
that can help loosen the grip of informal sources of finance and bring
the excluded sections permanently into the ambit of formal finance.
Notes:
* The authors are Assistant Adviser, DEAP and Research Officer, DSIM,
respectively. Views expressed in this paper are personal views of the authors. The
authors thank Doug Johnson of the Centre for Micro Finance for sharing a part of the
Centre’s primary level database on SHGs.
1 See Hulme and Mosley (1996) for a discussion on this issue.
2 As regards Grameen Bank, it was originally sponsored by the central
bank of Bangladesh and some state owned commercial banks and foreign
donor institutions. It was subsequently made into an independent banking
organisation through government legislation. For a major part from its
inception, Grameen Bank relied on funds from foreign donors. However,
since 1995, Grameen Bank claims to have become self-reliant and does not
rely on foreign funds. See for these details.
3 See Jayaraman (2001).
4 There are two other major variants of micro finance popular all over
the world. In one of these, NGOs directly provide credit to SHGs. They
may be seeking credit themselves either from banks or from foreign donor
institutions. In the second one of these, banks themselves create and nurture
and provide credit to SHGs. For discussion on some other types of variants,
see Nanda (1994).
5 The SHG-Bank linkage programme as a pilot project was started in
1992. However, we were able to get the required information only from
1994 onwards.
6 For this comparison, we have used data from Basic Statistical Returns,
which from 2002 has started capturing the finance given to SHGs and
NGOs. It is noteworthy that in India, banks lend very little through NGOs
as compared to their own loans to SHGs. We find that credit to NGOs
formed only about 11 per cent of the total bank credit to SHGs and NGOs
in 2007, see NABARD (2008).
7 The Region-wise classification of Indian States is given in Appendix I.
It follows from the NABARD publications.
8 In the Southern region, it was Andhra Pradesh that topped the list in
terms of the development of micro finance. The regional inequality in micro
finance is a point that has been noted earlier in some studies; see for
example, Chakrabarti (2005).
9 As the number is cumulative, we assume here that all those SHGs were
functional in 2005.
10 The survey was conducted by Lucie Gadenne and Veena Vasudevan
for CMF. A part of these data were made available to us for our study by
the CMF. For various details regarding the survey, we have drawn on the
original report by Gadenne and Vasudevan (2007).
11 The question of what is an ideal rate of return for such small business
ventures started with SHG loans is difficult to answer. We found some
evidence regarding the rates that are expected by venture capitalists. Based
on a sample of venture capitalists from across five countries, one study
suggested that these capitalists require a rate of return between 36 and 45
per cent for early stages of investment and 26 and 30 per cent for later
stages involving expansions, acquisitions, etc. (Manigart et al).
12 It needs to be reiterated at this juncture that all the SHGs surveyed were
functioning for more than 5 years.
References:
Chakrabarti, Rajesh (2005), “The Indian Microfinance Experience -
Accomplishments and Challenges”, .
Gadenne, Lucie and Veena Vasudevan (2007), “How do Women in Mature
SHGs Save and Invest their Money? – Evidence from Self-Help Groups in
India, Centre for Micro Finance, Working Paper Series No. 18, Chennai.
Government of India (2007), “State-wise Poverty Estimates for 2004-05 –
Press Information Bureau”, March.
Hulme, David and Paul Mosley (1996), Finance against poverty, Volume I,
Routledge publications, London.
Jayaraman, B. (2001), “Micro Finance: Retrospect and Prospects”,
Occasional Paper, -20, NABARD.
Manigart, Sophie, Koen De Waele, Mike Wright and Ken Robbie (2008),
“Determinants of Required Return in Venture Capital Investments – A Five
Country Study”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 17, No. 4, July.
NABARD (2008), State of Micro Finance in India - 2006-07, Mumbai
NABARD, Progress of SHG-Bank Linkage in India, various issues.
Nanda, Y.C. (1994), Country Report- India, APRACA-GTZ Regional
Workshop on the Linkage Programme: Focus on Implementation Issues,
26-28 October.
Nanda, Y.C. (1995), “Significance of Establishing Linkages with SHGs and
Banks”, NABARD.
Reserve Bank of India (2006a), “Financial Inclusion and Millennium
Development Goals”, Address by Usha Thorat, Deputy Governor of the
Reserve Bank of India, January 16, available at http://www.rbi.org.in.
Reserve Bank of India (2006b), “Economic Growth, Financial Deepening
and Financial Inclusion”, Speech by Rakesh Mohan, Deputy Governor of
the Reserve Bank of India, November 20, available at http://www.rbi.org.in.
Reserve Bank of India, Basic Statistical Returns, various issues.
Swaminathan, Madhura (2000), Weakening Welfare – The Public
Distribution of Food in India, Leftword, New Delhi.
Appendix 1
Region-wise classification of States
Northern region |
Haryana |
Himachal Pradesh |
Jammu and Kashmir |
New Delhi |
Punjab |
Rajasthan |
North-Eastern region |
Arunachal Pradesh |
Assam |
Manipur |
Meghalaya |
Mizoram |
Nagaland |
Sikkim |
Tripura |
Eastern region |
Andaman and Nicobar Islands |
Bihar |
Jharkhand |
Orissa |
West Bengal |
Central region |
Chhatisgarh |
Madhya Pradesh |
Uttar Pradesh |
Uttarakhand |
Western region |
Goa |
Gujarat |
Maharashtra |
Southern region |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
Pondicherry |
Tamil Nadu |
India |
|