Market Structure and Double Bottom Line Commitments: Are They Aligned in Indian Microfinance Industry?

Abstract

This article empirically examines the structure of Indian microfinance market and assesses its relationship with the double bottom line commitments of microfinance institutions. The market is found to be monopolistic in nature with high degree of concentration at the top, though a slow tendency of increased competition during the post-Andhra Pradesh crisis period is observed. Market share is found to be negatively related to average loan size and positively with number of active borrowers, indicating social commitments but with no relationship with profitability and sustainability. However, the post-crisis period portrays a departure from their social mission.

Keywords

Microfinance institution market share double bottom line social commitments Andhra crisis

References

Ab-Rahim

Chiang

S. N.

2016. ‘Market Structure and Performance of Malaysian Banking Industry’. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting 14 (2): 158–177.

Assefa

Hermes

Meesters

2013. ‘Competition and the Performance of Microfinance Institutions’. Applied Financial Economics 23 (9): 767–782.

Bikker

J. A.

Haaf

2002. ‘Competition, Concentration and Their Relationship: An Empirical Analysis of the Banking Industry’. Journal of Banking and Finance 26 (11): 2191–214.

Bolarinwa

S. T.

Obembe

O. B.

2017. ‘Concentration–Profitability Nexus: New Approach from Causality’. Studies in Microeconomics 5 (1): 84–98.

Carlton

Manndorff

Obara

Reiter

Rhyne

2001. ‘Microfinance in Uganda’. A Study Commissioned by the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department for Development Cooperation. www.oecd.org/countries/uganda/35481055.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2017).

CGAP. 2004. ‘Financial Institutions with a “Double Bottom Line”: Implications for the Future of Microfinance’. Occasional Paper No. 8. http://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/CGAP-Occasional-Paper-Financial-Institutions-with-a-Double-Bottom-Line-Implications-for-the-Future-of-Microfinance-Jul-2004.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2017).

CGAP. 2010. ‘Andhra Pradesh 2010: Global Implications of the Crisis in Indian Microfinance’. Focus Note No. 67 November. http://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/CGAP-Focus-Note-Andhra-Pradesh-2010-Global-Implications-of-the-Crisis-in-Indian-Microfinance-Nov-2010.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2017).

Cull

Demirgüç-Kunt

Morduch

2009. ‘Microfinance Meets the Market’. Journal of Economic Perspectives 23 (1): 167–192.

Ghosh

2013. ‘Microfinance and the Challenge of Financial Inclusion for Development’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 37 (6): 1203–1219.

10.

Guha

Choudhury

2014. ‘Borrower Targeting Under Microfinance Competition with Motivated Microfinance Institutions and Strategic Complementarity.’ The Developing Economies 52 (3): 211–240.

11.

Hakimi

Hamdi

Djelassi

2015. ‘Testing the Concentration-Performance Relationship in the Tunisian Banking Sector.’ East West Journal of Economics and Business XVIII (2): 41–62.

12.

Hoff

Stiglitz

1998. ‘Moneylenders and Bankers: Price-Increasing Subsidies in a Monopolistically Competitive Market.’ Journal of Development Economics 55 (2): 485–518.

13.

Hulme

Maitrot

2014. ‘Has Microfinance Lost Its Moral Compass?’ Economic and Political Weekly 49 (8): 77–85.

14.

IFIR. 2014–15. Inclusive Finance India Report. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

15.

Kai

2009. ‘Competition and Wide Outreach of Microfinance Institutions.’ Economic Bulletin 29 (4): 2628–2639.

16.

Kar

A. K.

2016. ‘Measuring Competition in Microfinance Markets: A New Approach.’ International Review of Applied Economics 30 (4): 423–440.

17.

Kar

A. K.

Swain

2014. ‘Competition in Microfinance: Does It Affect Performance, Portfolio Quality and Capitalisation.’ In Microfinance Institutions, edited by Mersland

Strom

, 208–226. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

18.

McIntosh

Wydick

2005. ‘Competition and Microfinance.’ Journal of Development Economics 78 (2): 271–298.

19.

McIntosh

de Janvry

Sadoulet

2005. ‘How Rising Competition Among Microfinance Institutions Affects Incumbent Lenders.’ The Economic Journal 115 (506): 987–1004.

20.

Mirzai

2011. ‘The Effect of Market Power on Stability and Performance of Islamic and Conventional Banks.’ Islamic Economic Studies 18 (1–2): 51–89.

21.

Morduch

2000. ‘The Microfinance Schism.’ World Development 28 (4): 617–629.

22.

Navajas

Schreiner

Meyer

R. L.

, . 2000. ‘Micro Credit and the Poorest of the Poor: Theory and Evidence from Bolivia.’ World Development 28 (2): 333–346.

23.

Nguyen

T. P. T.

Nghiem

2016. ‘Market Concentration, Diversification and Bank Performance in China and India: An Application of the Two-Stage Approach with Double Bootstrap.’ Managerial Finance 42 (10): 980–998.

24.

Oloniluyi

A. E.

Ogunleye

E. O.

2016. ‘Relevance of Structure, Conduct and Performance Paradigm in the Nigerian Banking Industry.’ Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development 7 (19): 71–81.

25.

Panzar

Rosse

1987. ‘Testing for Monopoly Equilibrium.’ Journal of Industrial Economics 35 (4): 443–456.

26.

Petersen

M. A.

Rajan

R. G.

1995. ‘The Effect of Credit Market Competition on Lending Relationships.’ The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110 (2): 407–443.

27.

Porteous

2006. ‘Competition and Microcredit Interest Rates.’ CGAP Focus Note No. 33. Washington, DC: The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/950371468003908731/Competition-and-microcredit-interest-rates (accessed on 28 April 2017).

28.

Pril

J. de.

Godfroid

2017. ‘How to Reconcile Financial Incentives and Prosocial Motivation of Loan Officers in Microfinance?’ CEB Working Paper No. 17/011. Solvey Brussels School-Economics and Management. https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/248473/3/wp17011.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2017).

29.

Rhyne

. 1998. ‘The Yin and Yang of Microfinance: Reaching the Poor and Sustainability.’ Micro Banking Bulletin 6–8. https://www.microlinks.org/library/yin-and-yang-microfinance-reaching-poor-and-sustainability (accessed on 13 March 2017).

30.

Rhyne

. 2001. ‘Commercialization and Crisis in Bolivian Microfinance.’ www.microfinancegateway.org/sites/default/files/mfg-en (accessed on 13 March 2017).

31.

Rinkevičiūtė

Martinkutė-kaulienė

2014. ‘Impact of Market Concentration on the Profitability of Lithuanian Banking Sector.’ Business: Theory and Practice 15 (3): 254–260.

32.

Sa-Dhan. 2015. ‘The Bharat Microfinance Report 2015’. New Delhi: Sa-Dhan.

33.

Sanyal

Sankar

2011. ‘Ownership, Competition, and Bank Productivity: An Analysis of Indian Banking in the Post-reform Period.’ International Review of Economics and Finance 20 (2): 225–247.

34.

Srinivasan

2011. Microfinance India, State of the Sector Report. New Delhi, India: SAGE Publications.

35.

Staikouras

C. K.

Wood

G. E.

2004. ‘The Determinants of European Bank Profitability.’ International Business & Economics Research Journal 3 (6): 57–68.

36.

Villas-Boas

J. M.

Schmidt-Mohr

1999. ‘Oligopoly with Asymmetric Information: Differentiation in Credit Markets.’ Rand Journal of Economics 30 (3): 375–396.

37.

Vogelgesang

. 2003. ‘Microfinance in Times of Crisis: The Effects of Competition, Rising Indebtedness and Economic Crisis on Repayment Behaviour.’ World Development 31 (12): 2085–2114.

38.

Zhao

Casu

Ferrari

2010. ‘The Impact of Regulatory Reforms on Cost Structure, Ownership and Competition in Indian Banking.’ Journal of Banking and Finance 34 (1): 246–254.