High Noon for Microfinance Impact Evaluations: Re-investigating the Evidence from Bangladesh

By Maren Duvendack, R. Palmer-jones. 2012

141 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab6b9e787f50cc2f80903447a4b3f03d245ab4c7

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Maren Duvendack
2. Matthieu Clément
3. M. Bateman
4. L. Hooper
5. N. Rao
6. Y. Loke
7. R. Palmer-jones
8. Ha-Joon Chang

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

1. Matthieu Clément
2. M. Bateman
3. Maren Duvendack

In Safety Research

1. Matthieu Clément
2. M. Bateman
3. Maren Duvendack
4. Ha-Joon Chang
5. R. Palmer-jones
6. J. Brinckmann
7. J. Copestake

Citations in the corpus

• Microfinance and the Illusion of Development: From Hubris to Nemesis in Thirty Years (2012, background): “Roodman and Morduch (2009), joined by Duvendack and Palmer-Jones (2011), mounted a serious challenge to the single most important piece of evidence routinely cited as the best evidence that microfinance had a strong poverty reduction impact – a study undertaken in the 1990s by then World Bank…”
• The Impact of Microcredit on the Poor in Bangladesh: Revisiting the Evidence (2014, unknown): “While questions have been raised about the robustness of results to alternative estimation methods (Morduch, 1998; Chemin, 2008; Duvendack and Palmer-Jones, 2012), Pitt (1999; 2012) has strongly defended PK against”
• IS MICROCREDIT A BLESSING FOR THE POOR? A META-ANALYSIS (2015, background): “…from the reference sections of studies that had already been identified as relevant through the initial database search, as well as from reference sections of qualitative reviews on MC (Duvendack & Palmer-Jones, 2011; Goldberg, 2005; Morduch & Haley, 2002; Stewart et al., 2010; Woller, 2004).”
• Is fin-tech the new panacea for poverty alleviation and local development? Contesting Suri and Jack’s M-Pesa findings published in Science (2019, background): “Even though Pitt and Khandker’s impact evaluation was largely debunked many years later (Duvendack and Palmer-Jones 2012a, 2012b; Roodman and Morduch 2014), this hardly mattered because in the meantime the World Bank had achieved its goal to ensure that the microcredit model became globally…”
• Systematic Review. What is the evidence of the impact of microfinance on the well-being of poor people? (2011, methodology): “The reliability of the PnK results has been contested (Morduch 1998), Pitt (1999) vigorously rebutted these criticisms, but neither paper was published, and although Goldberg (2005) clearly views PnK as unreliable (p17-20), he writes that Khandker (2005) is ‘much less controversial’ (p19).”
• Remittances and Household Expenditure Patterns in Tajikistan: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis (2011, background): “As explained by Duvendack and Palmer-Jones (2011) if the lowest Γ producing a confidence interval that includes 0 is small (i.”