Microfinance Impact Assessments: The Perils of Using New Members as a Control Group

By Dean S. Karlan. 2001

172 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3fbbfe6732170498d15374da7b96b153467acdb7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Microfinance: its Impact, Outreach and Sustainability (2011, background): “Obviously, this biases any comparison between recipients of microfinance and the control group (Armendáriz de Aghion & Morduch, 2005; Karlan, 2001).”
Systematic Review. What is the evidence of the impact of microfinance on the well-being of poor people? (2011, background): “253 Tedeschi GA, Karlan D (2010) Cross-sectional impact analysis: bias from drop-outs. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 9 (3-4): 270-291. 71 Tesfay 2009 1.099 Tesfay GB (2009) Econometric analyses of microfinance credit group formation, contractual risks and welfare impacts in nort”
Overcoming Selection Bias in Microcredit Impact Assessments: A Case Study in Peru (2008, methodology): “Karlan (2001) has described several sources of potential bias caused by cross-sectional methods, including incomplete sample bias caused by programme dropouts which are not included in the sample.”
Impact of Microfinance on Rural Households in the Philippines (2009, methodology): “…on Rural Households in the Philippines Toshio Kondo, Aniceto Orbeta, Jr, Clarence Dingcong and Christine Infantado* address the attrition/dropout problem in using new clients as a comparison group, i.e., the new client group included would-be graduates and future problem clients (Karlan 2001).”
Does microfinance reduce rural poverty? Evidence based on household panel data from northern Ethiopia (2009, unknown): “For a thorough discussion on various problems that may arise using this method, see Karlan (2001) or Tedeschi and Karlan (2010).”