MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952654711 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v10n5p280

Measuring the Outreach Level of Micro-finance Institutions in Bangladesh

2019· article· en· W2952654711 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Naziruddin Abdullah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachMicrofinanceBusinessLoanCollateralFinancial systemEconomic growthFinanceActuarial scienceEconomicsDemographic economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reaching the poor is one of the main objectives embedded in the programs of microfinance institutions (MFIs). However, there is the question of how well MFIs have fared in terms of meeting this objective, which has been heavily surveyed as an issue by many researchers. In Bangladesh, while not discounting other factors such as the financial assistance received from institutions such as the IMF/World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB), and Islamic Development Bank (IDB), the impetus for the speedy reduction in the number of poor people in the country can be attributed to the existence of MFIs. This study attempts to investigate the depth of MFIs’ outreach level in the country. Specifically, using an econometric model, it examines the determinants of the outreach level of MFIs operating in Bangladesh. Overall, this study looks at the eleven (11) biggest MFIs in Bangladesh in terms of their share of active borrowers. The data are compiled from the most reliable sources pertaining to the economic activities of MFIs. The results indicate that the number of years an MFI has spent serving clients, its ratio of borrowers to staff, the size of its assets, and the number of branches all has a positive effect on its outreach level. In contrast, the average loan balance per borrower and cost per borrower have a negative effect on the outreach level of MFIs in Bangladesh. Indeed, as far as outreach level and its relationship with the independent variables are concerned, all of the results obtained in this study are consistent with the expected signs, thereby implying that MFIs in Bangladesh are no different from the conventional wisdom.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.321
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.056 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207