Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Economica. 2018 May 25;85(340):671–700. doi: 10.1111/ecca.12271

Table 3.

Estimated Impacts of Treatment on Loan Renewal (Extensive and Intensive Margins)

First year after treatment: At time of endline survey:
Administrative data Self-reported Other MFI loan
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Panel F: Loan amount, full sample
Treatment −2075***
(340)
−1995***
(438)
72
(45)
Control group mean 7485 7195 63
Number of clients 5352 5353 5353
Panel G: Loan amount, business owners at baseline
Treatment −2713***
(418)
−2869***
(516)
110
(75)
Control group mean 8505 8343 64
Number of clients 2148 2149 2149
Panel H: Loan amount, business owners at baseline, business started before SKS entry
Treatment −2843***
(445)
−2724***
(562)
97
(96)
Control group mean 8669 8505 78
Number of clients 1714 1715 1715
Panel I: Loan amount, business owners at baseline, business started after SKS entry
Treatment −1902***
(664)
−2868***
(837)
191*
(113)
Control group mean 7725 7461 0
Number of clients 392 392 392
Panel J: Loan amount, non business owners at baseline
Treatment −1728***
(361)
−1552***
(464)
29
(44)
Control group mean 6802 6513 65
Number of clients 3071 3071 3071

Notes

The reported estimates correspond to those reported in Table 2, but report impacts on the amount of the loan (including zeros for non-renewal). All regressions control for the randomization stratification groups (SKS branch and above/below median number of clients within branch), and robust standard errors clustered by village are reported in parentheses.

***, **, *

denote statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, 10% level, respectively.