Women’s presence in top management and the performance of microfinance institutions in West Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between the presence of women in senior management and the performance of microfinance organizations in the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU). Design/methodology/approach Using a data set of 266 microfinance institutions (MFIs) for the period 2013–2017, the study assesses the impact of women’s representation in senior management and on the boards of West African MFIs on these institutions’ financial and social performance. Findings The results indicate that board size and diversity positively and significantly affect the social performance of MFIs, particularly in relation to women’s participation in decision-making regarding expanding services to poor people. In essence, greater gender diversity at the board and management levels promotes the social orientation of MFIs. Research limitations/implications The low representation of women on boards and as managers makes it difficult to more accurately determine the true impact of women in senior positions on MFIs performance. Practical implications The author recommends minimum quotas for women in the top management of MFIs. This would help these institutions incorporate key skills and actively involve all members. Also, regulation places constraints on the ability of West African MFIs to mobilize deposits and this negatively impacts their financial performance. Originality/value This investigation highlights the importance of including women in the top management of MFIs to improve these institutions’ performance. It also underscores an interesting problem and answers questions raised in the existing literature by either rejecting or confirming the findings. As players in the microfinance sector recognize that board diversity is important for the success of any microfinance institution, this paper helps shed light on the situation of these organizations in the WAEMU. Peer review The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-06-2019-0365
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".