The diffusion of microfinance

Science

Volumn 341, Issue 6144, 2013, Pages

  Banerjee, Abhijit ^a   Chandrasekhar, Arun G ^b,c   Duflo, Esther ^a   Jackson, Matthew O ^c,d,e  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d SANTA FE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MICROFINANCE; SOCIAL NETWORK; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; VILLAGE;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ARTICLE; DIFFUSION; FINANCE; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MICROFINANCE; NEIGHBORHOOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RURAL POPULATION; SOCIAL NETWORK; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONSUMER; DECISION MAKING; FAMILY SIZE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; INDIA; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRE; THEORETICAL MODEL;

INDIA;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DECISION MAKING; FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HUMANS; INDIA; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIAL NETWORKING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84880712969     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1236498     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. M. Kitsak et al., Identification of influential spreaders in complex networks. Nat. Phys. 6, 888-893 (2010). doi: 10.1038/nphys1746
2. C. Ballester, A. Calv'o-Armengol, Y. Zenou, Who's who in networks. Wanted: The key player. Econometrica 74, 1403-1417 (2006). doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00709.x
3. There is an old and large literature that studies information diffusion (17-25). However, empirical evidence on the role of injection points is still sparse.
4. For experimental approaches to controlling for and analyzing the role of homophily in diffusion, see (26, 27).
5. Individuals were allowed to name as many as five to eight network neighbors, depending on the category. The data exhibit almost no top-coding; fewer than 10% of the respondents named the maximum number of individuals in any single category.
6. The main difference is the number of households: Villages that BSS entered had 223.2 households on average (SD = 56.17); those it did not enter had 165.8 households on average (SD = 48.95).
7. One could imagine that households need some time to think, or to process information from their neighbors, before adoption (21, 28). However, in our setting, one period (4 months) encompasses much of this decision time. It may be that in the long run (over a period of years) they would reconsider their decisions, which our model does not address, and so we do not capture long-run reactions to neighbors' experiences. For instance, it could be that there are coordination problems as people wait for others to participate before participating themselves. This seems unrealistic in our context: It takes about 1 to 2 years to learn how neighbors did with microfinance (whether they managed to repay, whether they benefited, etc.). Our data show that most of the adoption of microfinance takes place within the first year in a village (before the first cycle of loans is complete).
8. W. Kermack, A. McKendrick, A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 115, 700-721 (1927). doi: 10.1098/rspa.1927.0118
9. N. Bailey, The Mathematical Theory of Infectious Diseases and Its Applications (Griffin, London, 1975).
10. S. Aral, Social science: Poked to vote. Nature 489, 212-214 (2012). doi: 10.1038/489212a; pmid: 22972291
11. S. Aral, L. Muchnik, A. Sundararajan, Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 21544-21549 (2009). doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908800106; pmid: 20007780
12. D. McFadden, A method of simulated moments for estimation of discrete response models without numerical integration. Econometrica 57, 995-1026 (1989). doi: 10.2307/1913621
13. For an example of a method of simulated moments approach used in a spatial setting, see (29).
14. For example, 1000 runs of a simulated annealing search would be prohibitively slow.
15. The results are essentially identical without controls.
16. For background on centrality definitions, see (30).
17. B. Ryan, N. C. Gross, The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociol. 8, 15 (1943).
18. P. Lazarsfeld, B. Berelson, G. Gaudet, The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign (Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York, 1944).
19. E. Katz, P. Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communication (Free Press, New York, 1955).
20. J. Coleman, E. Katz, H. Menzel, Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study (Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, IN, 1966).
21. A. Foster, M. Rosenzweig, Learning by doing and learning from others: Human capital and technical change in agriculture. J. Polit. Econ. 103, 1176-1209 (1995). doi: 10.1086/601447
22. T. Conley, C. Udry, Learning about a new technology: Pineapple in Ghana. Am. Econ. Rev. 100, 35-69 (2010). doi: 10.1257/aer.100.1.35
23. M. Kremer, E. Miguel, The illusion of sustainability. Q. J. Econ. 122, 1007-1065 (2007). doi: 10.1162/qjec.122.3.1007
24. M. O. Jackson, L. Yariv, in Handbook of Social Economics, J. Benhabib, A. Bisin, M. Jackson, Eds. (North Holland, Amsterdam, 2010).
25. R. M. Bond et al., A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489, 295-298 (2012). doi: 10.1038/nature11421; pmid: 22972300
26. D. Centola, The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329, 1194-1197 (2010). doi: 10.1126/science.1185231; pmid: 20813952
27. S. Aral, D. Walker, Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks. Science 337, 337-341 (2012). doi: 10.1126/science.1215842; pmid: 22722253
28. B. Jovanovic, Y. Nyarko, Learning by doing and the choice of technology. Econometrica 64, 1299 (1996). doi: 10.2307/2171832
29. G. Topa, Social interactions, local spillovers and unemployment. Rev. Econ. Stud. 68, 261 -295 (2001). doi: 10.1111/1467-937X.00169
30. M. O. Jackson, Social and Economic Networks (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2008).