Abstract
Microfinance institutions (MFIs) have been championed since the 1970s as a tool to help poor households by providing small loans, savings, and other services. This review examines whether microfinance actually lifts people out of poverty. We survey the historical origins of microcredit (e.g. Grameen Bank), its global spread, and key case studies in South Asia and Africa. Data indicate that microcredit has reached tens of millions worldwide – about 140 million clients (80% women) by 2018 – and appears correlated with higher incomes and asset accumulation in places like Bangladesh. For example, MFIs in Bangladesh helped reduce rural poverty by ~10% over 20 years (lifting ~2.5 million people). Key indicators such as high repayment rates (often >90%) and large female membership suggest MFIs are financially sustainable. However, randomized studies and critics also emphasize limits: microloans mainly smooth consumption or support existing small businesses, without dramatically raising long-term incomes. High interest rates (20–30%+ in some countries), over-indebtedness, and occasional crises (e.g. Andhra Pradesh 2010) underscore challenges. We analyze financial and economic data, and discuss outcomes from illustrative MFIs (Bangladesh’s Grameen/BRAC, India’s SKS/Bandhan, Ghana’s MASLOC). The article concludes with a balanced view: microfinance has expanded financial inclusion and aided many poor, but it is not a standalone “silver bullet” for poverty. Future prospects depend on digital innovation, better regulation, and linking finance with training and markets.
Introduction
Microfinance – broadly defined as providing financial services (loans, savings, insurance) to low-income people – arose as a response to chronic financial exclusion in the developing world. Its pioneers argued that even very poor people could become micro-entrepreneurs if given collateral-free credit. The most famous example, Bangladesh’s Grameen Bank (founded 1976 by Muhammad Yunus), inspired a global movement: micro-lending to women in group-based schemes. Over the past few decades, thousands of MFIs (NGOs, cooperatives, and for-profit lenders) have emerged in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, backed by NGOs, governments, and private investors. Early enthusiasm held that microcredit would dramatically reduce poverty; recent scholarship, however, finds more nuanced effects. This paper reviews the evidence on microfinance’s effectiveness in alleviating poverty. We first outline historical roots and global expansion of MFIs. We then present detailed case studies (Bangladesh, India, Africa) showing how microfinance has been applied. Next we analyze financial and economic data – including outreach figures, repayment rates, income impacts and gender effects – to assess performance. We then discuss major challenges and criticisms of the model (indebtedness, high interest, etc.), and finally consider future prospects (digital finance, regulatory reforms). The goal is a balanced, evidence-based assessment, with emphasis on recent research and diverse regional perspectives.
Historical Context of Microfinance
The modern microfinance movement began in the late 20th century. Informal credit had long existed in rural communities (moneylenders, rotating savings groups), but formal institutions rarely served the poorest. Two developments shifted this: cooperative banking in the mid-1900s, and microcredit from the 1970s onward. The founding story is Bangladesh: in 1976 Muhammad Yunus started Grameen Bank to lend tiny amounts to landless villagers (mainly women) for income-generating projects. By providing collateral-free loans, Grameen demonstrated that poor borrowers could repay with discipline. These early successes attracted global attention. Grameen won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, and other pioneers like BRAC (another major Bangladeshi MFI) expanded rapidly. Parallel experiments arose in Latin America: Bolivia’s BancoSol (1992) formalized rural credit, and Mexico’s Compartamos (originally a non-profit, later a bank) popularized micro-banking. The basic model – group lending, weekly payments, joint liability – allowed lenders to minimize default and costs.
By the 1990s the World Bank, IFC, and UN agencies actively promoted “microcredit” as a development tool. Authoritative reports lauded its potential to empower women and transform poverty. Early accounts suggested unrealistically large impacts (coining slogans like “the poverty miracle” and “self-solving poverty”). However, by the 2000s critical voices emerged. Some observers noted that many loans served consumption or were actually refinanced from informal debt. Concerns grew over commercialization: MFIs in India (e.g. SKS) converted to for-profit NBFCs and raised private capital, leading to debates on ethics and sustainability. Regulatory crises (like Andhra Pradesh in 2010) highlighted the downsides of unchecked growth. Still, microfinance had by then become entrenched worldwide: by 2010, millions of borrowers were served in dozens of countries.
Global Evolution of Microfinance Institutions (MFIs)
Globally, microfinance expanded enormously since the 1990s. According to MIX and Convergences data, the number of micro-borrowers worldwide grew from under 50 million in 2000 to roughly 140 million by 2018. Notably, about 80% of these borrowers are women, reflecting an emphasis on female clients (sometimes as proxy for household welfare). In 2018 MFIs held an outstanding portfolio of ~$124 billion. Growth was especially rapid in South Asia: India, Bangladesh and Vietnam rank as the top three markets by borrower count. South Asia alone accounted for 85.6 million borrowers in 2018 (almost two-thirds of the global total). By contrast, Latin America had 22 million borrowers with larger average loan sizes (44% of global portfolio), and East Asia/Pacific about 21 million clients. Microfinance in Sub-Saharan Africa has also grown fast: the African region saw portfolio growth of +56% and borrower growth of +46% from 2012–2018, reaching ~6.3 million clients. However, African MFIs often have higher default risk (with non-performing loans ~13.6% in 2017) compared to Asia.
Institutionally, MFIs evolved from NGO or charity models to a diverse marketplace. Some remained cooperatives or non-profits, but many (especially in India) became regulated financial institutions or small banks. For example, India’s largest MFI, Bandhan, started in 2001 as a non-profit in West Bengal; after years of growth it won a commercial banking license in 2015 (becoming Bandhan Bank). South Asian governments also promoted self-help group (SHG) programs, which function similarly to microfinance by linking rural groups to bank credit. In parallel, technology changed the scene: mobile money and fintech have started to complement microcredit. Africa’s ubiquitous mobile banking (e.g. Kenya’s M-Pesa and micro-loans) shows how digital finance can extend inclusion beyond traditional MFIs. In sum, over the past 20 years MFIs have become a global financial sector: billions in credit outstanding, hundreds of millions of clients (mostly rural, mostly female).
Global Outreach and Key Indicators
By 2018, roughly 140 million borrowers benefited from MFIs worldwide. Figure 1 could illustrate this growth: for example, global MFI borrowers rose from under 100 million in 2009 to ~140 million by 2018 (Convergences data). Similarly, Figure 2 might compare regions: South Asia (85.6m borrowers) dwarfs East Asia (~21m) and Sub-Saharan Africa (~6m). Operating efficiency also improved: despite rising costs, MFIs’ operating expense ratio fell over the past decade. Loan portfolio-at-risk (30+ days) was relatively low (6.4% in 2009 rising slightly to 7.0% in 2018), implying typical repayment rates of ~93% or higher. (Indeed, MFIs often report recovery >90%; for example Grameen Bank’s internal data showed ~96% repayment.) On financial inclusion, microfinance has helped reduce the unbanked. For instance, the World Bank’s Global Findex reports that by 2024 about 79% of adults globally had a bank account, up from 62% in 2014, with much growth in developing regions due to mobile/digital banking. MFIs have contributed by providing accounts and credit to many low-income adults who otherwise had none.
Figure 1:
Source: Convergences. 2019. Global Microfinance Figures: What Are the Trends? Microfinance Barometer 2019.
Figure 2:
Source: Convergences. 2019. Global Microfinance Figures: What Are the Trends? Microfinance Barometer 2019.
Case Studies
Bangladesh
Bangladesh is the classic microfinance success story. Grameen Bank (and peers like BRAC, ASA) pioneered rural credit programs in the 1970s–80s. A recent World Bank/IFPRI study finds sustained benefits: over 20 years, microcredit in Bangladesh contributed to a 10% reduction in rural poverty, lifting about 2.5 million people above the poverty line. MFIs grew to enormous scale: by the 2010s they served ~32 million members and disbursed $7.2 billion per year. These loans fueled income diversification: household incomes rose notably, especially when families used credit to start small non-farm businesses. For example, households that expanded into commerce earned ~29% more income than those that remained in farming, and saw greater poverty reduction. Even farm households benefited: a 10% rise in women’s credit use raised crop income ~3.5% and total farm income ~0.7%. In other words, microfinance aided both entrepreneurs and even smallholders. The Bangladeshi evidence is strong partly because the country sustained microfinance for decades and tracked outcomes with large surveys (1991–2010). Researchers note that the largest MFIs in Bangladesh (Grameen and BRAC) are among the most efficient worldwide. In practical terms, Grameen’s cost per borrower is low and it reports ~96% repayment. Nonetheless, Bangladeshi MFIs charge substantial interest (often ~20–25%), which has led regulators to cap rates (e.g. 27% cap under the Microcredit Regulatory Authority). Policymakers continue to debate how much to reduce rates while keeping institutions viable.
India
India hosts one of the world’s largest microfinance sectors. The NGO Grameen model influenced many Indian programs (e.g. local Grameen Bank in Gujarat), but by the 2000s commercial MFIs proliferated. In Andhra Pradesh, the private MFI boom in the 2000s reached a climax: by 2010 the largest MFI, SKS Microfinance, had about 5.5 million clients (mostly women). That same year SKS had its IPO, drawing international capital. However, the AP expansion also triggered a crisis: aggressive lending without adequate credit checks led to over-indebtedness and borrower distress. Analysts note that some microloans ended up funding consumption (TVs, weddings, etc.) rather than businesses. AP’s government responded with strict caps on interest and collection practices in 2010, causing many MFIs to lose outreach. Meanwhile, success stories emerged as well: Bandhan, founded in 2001, grew to over 6.5 million borrowers by 2015. Bandhan received international awards (World Economic Forum, Forbes) and became a full bank in 2015, aiming to further financial inclusion. By 2025, roughly one-third of India’s micro-borrowers were served by IFC-funded MFIs (about 11 million customers). Overall, Indian MFIs have reached tens of millions of rural poor. Key performance figures include high repayment (often kept near 99% by loan policies), but also complaints about interest: RBI noted MFIs charging ~25–27% on loans (though still below local moneylender rates). The broader evaluation in India is mixed. Some economists (e.g. Panagariya) argue there is no “compelling evidence” microfinance alone has eradicated poverty there. Rigorous studies in India (such as Banerjee et al.’s Hyderabad experiment) found microcredit expanded small businesses and durable goods purchases, but did not significantly change overall consumption, schooling or health. In sum, Indian experience shows both potential (millions helped, women’s empowerment in many cases) and pitfalls (over-lending, high rates).
Africa
In Sub-Saharan Africa, microfinance spread more slowly but now reaches millions. Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Ghana and others have local MFIs (e.g. FINCA, Equity Bank’s micro-loans, village savings groups). Mobile banking has also bridged credit gaps. A case study from Ghana illustrates impacts: the government-run Microfinance and Small Loans Centre (MASLOC) was examined recently and found to “play a pivotal role in poverty reduction”. MASLOC borrowers reported higher incomes, greater spending on food and education, and accumulation of assets after receiving micro-loans. In other words, Ghana’s MFI program lifted living standards for participants. The study also noted challenges: MASLOC struggled with loan-repayment management and staff capacity. Similar themes appear in other African contexts: microloans often boost consumption and small trade, but the extreme poor may remain difficult to reach. According to MIX data, African MFIs had ~6.3 million clients by 2018 – a small share compared to other regions – but this number is growing (e.g. +46% since 2012). The gender balance is improving too (women account for ~73% of East African MFI clients). Nonetheless, African MFIs tend to charge higher interest and face credit risk, so many focus on business clients rather than subsistence farmers. Overall, African case studies suggest microfinance can help the poor access credit for business or crisis needs, but outcomes vary widely by country and program.
Financial and Economic Analysis
To quantify microfinance performance, we examine key metrics. Outreach is one: as noted, ~140 million people borrowed from MFIs worldwide by the late 2010s. Figure 1: Global microfinance borrowers (2009–2018) could illustrate this growth (data from the Microfinance Barometer). Another indicator is the scale of lending: global MFI loans outstanding totaled about $124 billion by 2018, reflecting an average loan size of roughly $900 per borrower. In South Asia, the densest microfinance market, countries like India and Bangladesh dominate the borrower count (India alone had ~67 million, Bangladesh ~38 million by 2017, per MIX data). In Africa, although client numbers are smaller, portfolios yield high returns (up to 20% ROI) and operating expense ratios are often higher due to smaller scale. Efficiency has generally improved: Convergences reports that despite a 56% rise in cost per borrower between 2009–2018, the operating expense ratio fell by ~2.7 percentage point (showing MFIs serving more clients with somewhat better technology and practices).
Loan repayment performance is another critical metric. Most MFIs report very low default rates. For example, Grameen Bank famously reported ~96% repayment. (Source: (Grameen Bank Annual Report, 2009). Industry analyses note “near-zero defaults” among large MFIs. Convergences data likewise show a PAR>30-day around 7% in 2018 (implying ~93% repaid on time). This success rests on group-lending discipline and mandatory weekly payments. High repayment underpins viability: many MFIs claim they cover costs with interest income (though early start-ups needed subsidies). It should be noted, however, that artificial pressure (weekly visits, peer monitoring) can skew these figures – defaults often spike if loan terms change or regulators intervene (as seen in India’s 2010 crisis).
Income and poverty outcomes are harder to quantify but have been measured in long-term studies. In Bangladesh, panel data (1991–2011) showed that access to microcredit raised household income and reduced moderate poverty, especially for those who diversified into non-farm trades. A 10% increase in credit to women raised their crop income by ~3.5% and total farm income by ~0.7%. For microfinance’s impact on the extreme poor, researchers estimate that lending contributed directly to about 10% of Bangladesh’s rural poverty decline. In India, RCTs found that introducing microcredit in poor neighborhoods increased small enterprise activity but had no clear effect on average consumption, education or health in the short term. In Mongolia and Morocco similar experiments saw business expansion but no change in poverty headcounts. Broadly speaking, the evidence suggests MFIs boost incomes for those who take loans (e.g. entrepreneurs investing in livestock or trade), but the poorest of the poor often use microloans for emergencies or smoothing consumption without large productivity gains.
Gender is a key dimension: since ~80% of micro-borrowers are women, MFIs have aimed at female empowerment. Anecdotally and in some surveys, many women report increased decision-making and autonomy thanks to access to credit. However, rigorous studies (e.g. Banerjee et al. 2015) find “no significant changes in … women’s empowerment” after microcredit access. This may reflect that social norms change slowly, or that empowerment is hard to measure. Still, MFIs often provide an entry point to formal finance for women, who historically had low account ownership. Financial inclusion data confirm progress: the World Bank finds that the percentage of adults (especially women) with bank accounts has risen sharply in the last decade (now ~79% globally), helped by microfinance and mobile banking initiatives. In India, government accounts programs and MFIs together have greatly reduced the unbanked population.
In cost terms, microloan interest rates remain high compared to traditional loans. MFIs justify rates (often 20–35%) by their high transaction costs; in India for example RBI noted MFI rates around 25–27%. These rates are above commercial bank loans but below informal moneylenders’. High interest has drawn criticism (see next section), but it is a factor in the economics: microfinance is a delicate balance between sustainability and affordability. One could imagine comparing interest rates of MFIs versus loan sizes and repayment rates (for instance, plotting Grameen’s ~96% repayment at ~22% interest).
Overall, the data-driven picture is mixed: MFIs have achieved impressive scale (tens of millions served, high repayment) and there are cases of meaningful income gains. However, the average uplift per borrower is typically modest, and often below early claims. The economics thus suggest MFIs can be financially viable and useful for many poor households, but they are not a panacea by themselves.
Challenges & Criticisms
Despite successes, microfinance faces substantial critiques. One major critique is limited impact on poverty. Serious scholars (Panagariya 2010, Morduch 1999, Banerjee et al. 2015) observe that there is little rigorous evidence MFIs have eradicated poverty. As Panagariya notes, “so far there is no compelling evidence that microfinance has led to sustained poverty reduction anywhere”. Indeed, randomized trials in India, Morocco, Mongolia and elsewhere generally found no significant change in poverty measures, consumption, education or health after introducing microcredit. Instead, microloans often serve as short-term coping funds or to bolster existing small businesses. From this view, microcredit’s “essential contribution…is modest: to help recipients cope with the ups and downs of poverty”. In other words, microfinance may alleviate cash flow problems but does not by itself transform poor economies or create widespread wealth.
Another concern is over-indebtedness and credit saturation. In some regions the rapid growth of MFIs led to multiple borrowing by households. Reports from India’s AP crisis (2010) found many families holding loans from several MFIs and even loan sharks, creating debt spirals. One study found 45% of rural households in Tamil Nadu had two or more MFI loans simultaneously. Similar overlaps occurred in Bangladesh. Over-indebtedness raises default risk: AP’s “no-payment” movement in 2010 was fueled by farmers unable to repay high-rate loans. There are also allegations of abusive collection practices: weekly home visits by loan officers have sometimes involved threats or public shaming of defaulters. Such incidents tarnish microfinance’s image and highlight the thin line between discipline and coercion.
Interest rates and fees are often criticized as exploitative. As noted, MFIs usually charge double-digit rates, well above standard bank loans. In 2010 critics argued that an MFI IPO (SKS) that enriched its founders was ethically questionable when borrowers were so poor. Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus himself has criticized MFIs like Mexico’s Compartamos for earning large profits off the poor. High rates matter: even if loans are smaller, the effective cost can limit the profitability of microenterprises and leave little net gain for borrowers. Some MFIs have sought to reduce rates over time (e.g. Bangladesh’s regulators lowered rate caps), but in many cases borrowers still pay 20–30% annualized interest, which can be burdensome for marginal projects.
Another set of critiques addresses targeting and social objectives. Skeptics note that many microfinance clients are the moderately poor or near-poor, not the ultra-poor. Entry requirements (though minimal) and group pressures filter out the very destitute who have no income to repay. Studies show about 80% of microloans end up financing existing small businesses or consumption, with only ~20% going to new entrepreneurs. Moreover, evidence on gender empowerment is mixed: while many clients are women, programs have not consistently delivered changes in gender equality beyond increased financial access. Critics argue that MFIs sometimes prioritize financial metrics (growth, repayment) over social outcomes, leading to “mission drift”. For instance, by the mid-2000s many of India’s now-profit MFIs had access to cheap capital (commercial bank funding), which accelerated expansion but raised questions about whether social objectives were being sidelined.
Finally, broader concerns include economic sustainability. Classic economic theory suggests that if microenterprises face limited profitable opportunities, mass lending can lead to diminishing returns or even bubbles. Scholars like Bateman argue that saturating rural markets with credit without complementary support (training, market access) may do more harm than good. In practice, some villages saw proliferation of similar small businesses (e.g. multiple tailors or traders) competing in thin markets. The empirical results – lack of large-scale income leaps – hint at these limits.
In summary, while MFIs clearly offer benefits (credit access, high repayment discipline, women’s outreach), one must be cautious about the hype. The criticisms highlight that microfinance is not a stand-alone cure for poverty. Instead, it often acts as one tool among many (including education, infrastructure, macroeconomic growth). Studies illustrate a stylized “hype vs reality” line: early advocates predicted steep poverty reduction, but actual measured effects are modest and often concentrated among near-poor entrepreneurs. Balanced assessments conclude microfinance has important strengths (scalability, sustainability in many cases) but also real limitations.
Future Prospects
Looking ahead, microfinance is evolving with technology and new models. A major trend is digitalization. Mobile money and digital credit platforms are reaching clients faster and at lower cost. Many MFIs now partner with fintech or issue loans via mobile apps, reducing the need for weekly field visits. For example, India’s JAM trinity (Jan Dhan accounts, Aadhaar ID, mobile) has brought tens of millions into the financial system, enabling even micro-loans via banks. In Africa, mobile lending (often instantaneous small credit via phone) is expanding. This digital shift is expected to increase efficiency and could allow even smaller loans to the poorest. A financial-industry report notes that “the microfinance sector is being rapidly digitalized…to streamline operations and improve customer experience”
Another prospect is product diversification. Many MFIs are no longer credit-only; they now offer microsavings, microinsurance, pension funds, and even remittance services. Such comprehensive services can deepen impact: for instance, savings accounts can build resilience for poor families. Global initiatives (e.g. the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals) now emphasize financial inclusion as a whole, not just credit. This aligns with microfinance: expanding the net beyond lending to include insurance and savings can better protect against shocks.
In some countries microfinance is also increasingly integrated into mainstream finance. We saw Bandhan Bank in India emerge from an MFI to a universal bank, and other MFI founders aim to get banking licenses. This can lower costs (by funding through deposits instead of expensive wholesale funds) and offer broader products. Similarly, governments and development banks continue to invest in microfinance – for example, IFC and the World Bank have funded MFI capacity-building projects in Asia and Africa. One forward-looking idea is combining microfinance with training or market access programs. Some NGOs now “layer” microcredit with skills training or health education, trying to amplify the social outcome.
Challenges remain: regulatory oversight is improving (e.g. many countries now cap MFI rates or require transparency), but enforcement varies. Ensuring responsible lending and protecting client rights will be crucial. If technology enables credit scoring, MFIs may better target the poorest or prevent over-lending, but they may also move towards profit-oriented fintech models that risk over-indebtedness. Sustainable impact measurement is another future focus: donors increasingly demand evidence of social outcomes, not just financial growth. This may push MFIs to refine their missions.
To illustrate future trends with data: the decline in the unbanked population exits alongside the rise of digital payments (source: Global Findex). Another chart (Figure 3) might project microfinance market growth (the global market was valued at $215.68 B in 2023, forecast to ~ $591 B by 2033) alongside an increase in financial inclusion indicators. Overall, the future of microfinance likely involves convergence with mobile finance and formal banking. The core goal remains financial inclusion: reducing poverty by giving the poor tools to manage money. If digital tools and better regulation succeed, MFIs could reach far more people efficiently.
Source: Global Microfinance Market Insights Forecasts to 2033
Conclusion
Microfinance has matured from a hopeful experiment to a global industry. Review of the evidence suggests that MFIs have meaningfully expanded financial access to the poor – tens of millions of clients, mostly women, now borrow and save through microfinance. In case-study countries like Bangladesh, microcredit has contributed to real poverty reduction and income growth. The sector boasts high repayment rates and growing efficiencies, and it aligns with broader financial inclusion goals (e.g. increasing account ownership worldwide). Yet, there is no consensus that microfinance is a standalone solution. Rigorous impact evaluations often find modest gains: small increases in business output or household assets, but little effect on extreme poverty or education in the short run. Critics rightly remind us that credit alone cannot solve structural poverty; factors like market access, education and infrastructure also matter.
In sum, microfinance is arguably a valuable but imperfect tool. It empowers many borrowers and gives poor women unprecedented financial autonomy, but it also demands caution: high interest rates, potential over-indebtedness, and mission drift remain concerns. For students and policymakers, the lesson is to maintain balance: pursue microfinance but within a broader poverty reduction strategy. Future improvements – digital platforms, diversified products, careful regulation – offer promise to enhance microfinance impact. Continuing research (especially long-term and comparative studies) will be needed to track whether the next generation of MFIs can more effectively transform livelihoods. The journey of microfinance underscores a broader lesson: innovative financial services can lift many people in modest ways, but sustainable poverty alleviation ultimately requires a multifaceted approach, combining finance with human development and economic growth.
References
- Banerjee, A. V., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C. (2015). The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(1), 22–53. [doi:10.1257/app.20130533].aeaweb.org
- Chandran, R. (2010, April 9). Profiting from poverty? Microfinance IPO sparks debate. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/asia/profiting-from-poverty-microfinance-ipo-sparks-debate-idUSTRE63814G reuters.comreuters.com
- Gustafson, S., & Khandker, S. (2016, September 20). How microfinance has reduced rural poverty in Bangladesh. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Retrieved from https://www.ifpri.org/blog/how-microfinance-has-reduced-rural-poverty-bangladesh ifpri.orgifpri.org
- International Finance Corporation (IFC). (2015, August 22). IFC plays pivotal role in microfinance institution Bandhan’s transformation into India’s newest bank. World Bank Group. Retrieved from https://www.ifc.org/en/stories/2010/ifc-plays-pivotal-role-in-microfinance-institution-bandhans-transformation-into-indias-newest-bank ifc.orgifc.org
- Panagariya, A. (2010, December 17). Does microfinance reduce poverty? An analysis of India’s crisis. Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/does-microfinance-reduce-poverty-an-analysis-of-indias-crisis/ brookings.edubrookings.edu
- Roodman, D. (2011, December 23). Randomized test of microcredit in Mongolia. Center for Global Development (blog). Retrieved from https://www.cgdev.org/blog/randomized-test-microcredit-mongolia cgdev.org
- Stephens, B., & Khemar, M. (2019). Global microfinance figures: what are the trends? Convergences (Microfinance Barometer). Retrieved from https://www.convergences.org/en/119115/ convergences.orgconvergences.org
- Sulemana, M., Fuseini, M. N., & Abdulai, I. A. (2023). Effects of microfinance and small loans centre on poverty reduction in Wa West District, Ghana. Heliyon, 9(12), e22685. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22685pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- World Bank. (2024). The Global Findex 2025: Financial inclusion and digital finance [Databank Summary]. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/globalfindex