Women entrepreneurs in rural Nigeria: formal versus informal credit schemes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study examines why low-wealth women entrepreneurs forgo mobile enabled money services and government supported micro finance for informal, community-based revolving loans in rural Nigeria. Design/methodology/approach Thematic analysis of 25 interviews with women in rural, south-west Nigeria. Entrepreneurial ecosystem theory, in the gendered context of micro finance and community-based lending, is employed. Findings This study explains the paradox of forgoing seemingly accessible mobile enabled credit, and formal credit schemes (e.g. micro-finance programs) for informal, one-on-one borrowing. Convenience and trust-based relationships with respected community members ease the burden of time scarcity and vulnerability associated with formal capital. Flexible terms, autonomy, self-reliance and knowing who one is dealing with make Esusu a preferred source of finance. Findings are discussed in the context of gendered entrepreneurial ecosystems in which participants conduct business. Research limitations/implications The sample is not representative of women entrepreneurs in rural Nigeria. Survivorship bias is acknowledged. Further research is needed on the psychological risks of informal capital and the benefits of community-based lending. Practical implications Measures to scale mobile enabled credit, without commensurate interventions to address time management and other structural issues that confront women traders, limit their utility and impacts. Power differentials between women traders and lenders must also be considered in the design of lending products. Training of women traders and formal lenders should incorporate curricula about gender gaps in capital markets and systematic gender challenges to support entrepreneurs who seek to grow beyond subsistence enterprises. Originality/value This study documents decision criteria that motivate informal rural women traders to employ community-based revolving credit or Esusu. Findings inform measures to increase women entrepreneurs' access to capital in a rural sub-Saharan Africa contexts.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".