议定书:改善低收入和中等收入国家中小微企业获得金融服务的干预措施的效果:证据和差距图

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Campbell Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2023-07-05 DOI:10.1002/cl2.1341
Nina Ashley Dela Cruz, Alyssa Cyrielle B. Villanueva, Lovely Ann Tolin, Sabrina Disse, Robert Lensink, Howard White
{"title":"议定书:改善低收入和中等收入国家中小微企业获得金融服务的干预措施的效果:证据和差距图","authors":"Nina Ashley Dela Cruz,&nbsp;Alyssa Cyrielle B. Villanueva,&nbsp;Lovely Ann Tolin,&nbsp;Sabrina Disse,&nbsp;Robert Lensink,&nbsp;Howard White","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) account for the vast majority of firms in most economies, particularly in developing nations, and are key contributors to job creation and global economic development. However, the most significant impediment to MSME development in low- and middle-income countries is a lack of access to both investment and working capital financing. Due to a lack of essential track record, appropriate collateral, and credit history, MSMEs are frequently denied business loans by traditional lending institutions. In addition, SMEs’ inability to access funding is hindered by institutional, structural, and non-financial factors. To address this, both the public and private sectors employ indirect and direct finance interventions to help MSMEs in developing and emerging economies enhance and increase their financing needs. Given the importance of MSMEs in the economy, a comprehensive overview of and systematic synthesizing of the evidence of the effects of financial access interventions for MSMEs, capturing a wide variety of outcome variables, is useful.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The objective of this evidence and gap map (EGM) is to describe the existing evidence on the effects of various interventions dedicated to supporting and improving MSMEs’ access to credit, as well as the corresponding firm performance and/or welfare outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>An EGM is a systematic evidence product that displays the existing evidence relevant to a specific research question. An EGM's end product is a research article or report, but it can also be shared via an interactive map drawn as a matrix of included studies and their corresponding interventions and outcomes. Interventions in low- and middle-income countries that target specific population subgroups are included on the map. The EGM considers five types of interventions: (i) strategy, legislation and regulatory; (ii) systems and institutions; (iii) facilitate access; (iv) lending instruments or financial products; and (v) demand-side interventions. The map, on the other hand, covers outcome domains for policy environment, financial inclusion, firm performance, and welfare. Impact evaluations or systematic reviews of relevant interventions for a previously defined target population are included in the EGM. Studies using experimental or non-experimental designs, as well as systematic reviews, are eligible. The EGM excludes before-and-after study designs with no suitable comparison group. Furthermore, the map excludes literature reviews, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and descriptive analyses. Search strings were used to conduct electronic searches in databases. To ensure that the research team had identified a significant portion of relevant research works, the search strategy was supplemented with gray literature searches and systematic review citation tracking. We have compiled studies that are either completed or in progress. For practical reasons, studies are limited to papers written in English and are not restricted by publication date.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\n \n <p>We included studies that examined interventions to enhance MSMEs’ access to finance in low- and middle-income countries targeting MSMEs including households, smallholder farmers and single person enterprise as well as financial institutions/agencies and their staff. The EGM considers five types of interventions that aim to: (i) deliver strategy, legislation, and regulatory aspects; (ii) systems and institutions that enable financing; (iii) facilitate access to finance; (iv) deliver different lending instruments or financial products, including traditional forms of microcredit; and (v) demand-side interventions such as programs on financial literacy. The map includes outcome domains surrounding policy environment, financial inclusion, firm performance, and welfare. Eligible studies must be experimental, non-experimental, or systematic reviews. In addition, the study designs must have a suitable comparison group before and after the implementation of interventions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The EGM includes 413 studies. The majority of the studies (379 studies) analyzed microenterprises, such as households and smallholder farmers; 7 studies analyzed community groups; while 109 studies analyzed small and medium enterprises. There were 147 studies on interventions that targeted multiple firm sizes. Lending instruments/financial products are the most common intervention across all firm types. When it comes to the types of firms that receive the said financial intervention, the data is overwhelmingly in favor of microenterprises (278 studies), followed by systems and organizations (138 studies) that support better access to such financial products and services. Welfare outcomes have the most evidence out of all of the outcomes of interest, followed by firm performance and financial inclusion. Among all firm types, welfare outcomes are primarily targeted at microenterprises. With 59 studies, we can say that small businesses have a significantly large number of enterprise performance outcomes. of the 413 studies, 243 used non-experimental or quasi-experimental designs (mainly propensity score matching and instrumental variable approaches), 136 used experimental methods, and 34 were systematic reviews. 175 studies (43%) provided evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa, 142 studies (35%) from South Asia, 86 studies (21%) from East Asia and the Pacific, 66 studies (16%) from Latin America and the Caribbean, 28 studies (7%), Europe and Central Asia, and 21 studies (5%) from the Middle East and North Africa. Most of the included evidence covers low-income (26%) and lower-middle income countries (66%), and to a lesser extent upper-middle-income countries (26%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This map depicts the existing evidence and gaps on the effects of interventions to enhance MSMEs’ access to financial services in low and middle-income countries. Interventions directed at microenterprises with welfare outcomes have a significant number of research outcomes in the literature. SME evaluations have looked at firm performance, with less focus to employment and the welfare effects on owners and employees, including poverty reduction. Microcredit/loans have been the focus of a large number of research papers (238 studies), indicating the field's growing popularity. However, emerging financial interventions such as facilitating access to digital financial services are relatively under-studied. Several studies also investigate rural or population in remote areas with 192 studies, 126 studies on poor and disadvantaged, and 114 papers on women. Most of the research is conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa (175 studies) and South Asia (142 studies) so further research in other regions could be conducted to allow a more holistic understanding of the effects of financial inclusion interventions. Credit lines, supply chain finance, and trade financing, which are some of the ADB's financial tools have limited evidence. Future studies should look into strategy, law, and regulation interventions, as well as interventions targeted at SMEs, and examine policy and regulatory environment outcomes as well as welfare outcomes. Interventions on the demand side and their impact on the policy and regulatory environment, as well as facilitating access are relatively understudied.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1341","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PROTOCOL: Effects of interventions to improve access to financial services for micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence and gap map\",\"authors\":\"Nina Ashley Dela Cruz,&nbsp;Alyssa Cyrielle B. Villanueva,&nbsp;Lovely Ann Tolin,&nbsp;Sabrina Disse,&nbsp;Robert Lensink,&nbsp;Howard White\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cl2.1341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) account for the vast majority of firms in most economies, particularly in developing nations, and are key contributors to job creation and global economic development. However, the most significant impediment to MSME development in low- and middle-income countries is a lack of access to both investment and working capital financing. Due to a lack of essential track record, appropriate collateral, and credit history, MSMEs are frequently denied business loans by traditional lending institutions. In addition, SMEs’ inability to access funding is hindered by institutional, structural, and non-financial factors. To address this, both the public and private sectors employ indirect and direct finance interventions to help MSMEs in developing and emerging economies enhance and increase their financing needs. Given the importance of MSMEs in the economy, a comprehensive overview of and systematic synthesizing of the evidence of the effects of financial access interventions for MSMEs, capturing a wide variety of outcome variables, is useful.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>The objective of this evidence and gap map (EGM) is to describe the existing evidence on the effects of various interventions dedicated to supporting and improving MSMEs’ access to credit, as well as the corresponding firm performance and/or welfare outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>An EGM is a systematic evidence product that displays the existing evidence relevant to a specific research question. An EGM's end product is a research article or report, but it can also be shared via an interactive map drawn as a matrix of included studies and their corresponding interventions and outcomes. Interventions in low- and middle-income countries that target specific population subgroups are included on the map. The EGM considers five types of interventions: (i) strategy, legislation and regulatory; (ii) systems and institutions; (iii) facilitate access; (iv) lending instruments or financial products; and (v) demand-side interventions. The map, on the other hand, covers outcome domains for policy environment, financial inclusion, firm performance, and welfare. Impact evaluations or systematic reviews of relevant interventions for a previously defined target population are included in the EGM. Studies using experimental or non-experimental designs, as well as systematic reviews, are eligible. The EGM excludes before-and-after study designs with no suitable comparison group. Furthermore, the map excludes literature reviews, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and descriptive analyses. Search strings were used to conduct electronic searches in databases. To ensure that the research team had identified a significant portion of relevant research works, the search strategy was supplemented with gray literature searches and systematic review citation tracking. We have compiled studies that are either completed or in progress. For practical reasons, studies are limited to papers written in English and are not restricted by publication date.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\\n \\n <p>We included studies that examined interventions to enhance MSMEs’ access to finance in low- and middle-income countries targeting MSMEs including households, smallholder farmers and single person enterprise as well as financial institutions/agencies and their staff. The EGM considers five types of interventions that aim to: (i) deliver strategy, legislation, and regulatory aspects; (ii) systems and institutions that enable financing; (iii) facilitate access to finance; (iv) deliver different lending instruments or financial products, including traditional forms of microcredit; and (v) demand-side interventions such as programs on financial literacy. The map includes outcome domains surrounding policy environment, financial inclusion, firm performance, and welfare. Eligible studies must be experimental, non-experimental, or systematic reviews. In addition, the study designs must have a suitable comparison group before and after the implementation of interventions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The EGM includes 413 studies. The majority of the studies (379 studies) analyzed microenterprises, such as households and smallholder farmers; 7 studies analyzed community groups; while 109 studies analyzed small and medium enterprises. There were 147 studies on interventions that targeted multiple firm sizes. Lending instruments/financial products are the most common intervention across all firm types. When it comes to the types of firms that receive the said financial intervention, the data is overwhelmingly in favor of microenterprises (278 studies), followed by systems and organizations (138 studies) that support better access to such financial products and services. Welfare outcomes have the most evidence out of all of the outcomes of interest, followed by firm performance and financial inclusion. Among all firm types, welfare outcomes are primarily targeted at microenterprises. With 59 studies, we can say that small businesses have a significantly large number of enterprise performance outcomes. of the 413 studies, 243 used non-experimental or quasi-experimental designs (mainly propensity score matching and instrumental variable approaches), 136 used experimental methods, and 34 were systematic reviews. 175 studies (43%) provided evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa, 142 studies (35%) from South Asia, 86 studies (21%) from East Asia and the Pacific, 66 studies (16%) from Latin America and the Caribbean, 28 studies (7%), Europe and Central Asia, and 21 studies (5%) from the Middle East and North Africa. Most of the included evidence covers low-income (26%) and lower-middle income countries (66%), and to a lesser extent upper-middle-income countries (26%).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>This map depicts the existing evidence and gaps on the effects of interventions to enhance MSMEs’ access to financial services in low and middle-income countries. Interventions directed at microenterprises with welfare outcomes have a significant number of research outcomes in the literature. SME evaluations have looked at firm performance, with less focus to employment and the welfare effects on owners and employees, including poverty reduction. Microcredit/loans have been the focus of a large number of research papers (238 studies), indicating the field's growing popularity. However, emerging financial interventions such as facilitating access to digital financial services are relatively under-studied. Several studies also investigate rural or population in remote areas with 192 studies, 126 studies on poor and disadvantaged, and 114 papers on women. Most of the research is conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa (175 studies) and South Asia (142 studies) so further research in other regions could be conducted to allow a more holistic understanding of the effects of financial inclusion interventions. Credit lines, supply chain finance, and trade financing, which are some of the ADB's financial tools have limited evidence. Future studies should look into strategy, law, and regulation interventions, as well as interventions targeted at SMEs, and examine policy and regulatory environment outcomes as well as welfare outcomes. Interventions on the demand side and their impact on the policy and regulatory environment, as well as facilitating access are relatively understudied.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.1341\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1341\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1341","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在大多数经济体中,特别是在发展中国家,微型、小型和中型企业(MSMEs)占公司的绝大多数,是创造就业机会和全球经济发展的关键贡献者。然而,中小微企业在低收入和中等收入国家发展的最大障碍是缺乏获得投资和营运资金的渠道。由于缺乏必要的业绩记录、适当的抵押品和信用记录,中小微企业经常被传统贷款机构拒绝提供商业贷款。此外,中小企业融资难还受到体制性、结构性和非金融因素的制约。为了解决这一问题,公共和私营部门都采取间接和直接融资干预措施,帮助发展中经济体和新兴经济体的中小微企业加强和增加融资需求。鉴于中小微企业在经济中的重要性,全面概述和系统综合中小微企业金融准入干预措施影响的证据,捕捉各种结果变量,是有用的。本证据和差距图(EGM)的目的是描述现有的证据,这些证据表明,致力于支持和改善中小微企业获得信贷的各种干预措施的效果,以及相应的企业绩效和/或福利结果。方法EGM是一个系统的证据产品,它展示了与特定研究问题相关的现有证据。EGM的最终产品是一篇研究文章或报告,但它也可以通过交互式地图共享,该地图绘制为包含研究及其相应干预措施和结果的矩阵。在低收入和中等收入国家针对特定人群的干预措施也包括在地图上。特别工作组审议了五种干预措施:(i)战略、立法和监管;(ii)制度和机构;(iii)便利进入;(四)贷款工具或金融产品;(五)需求侧干预。另一方面,该地图涵盖了政策环境、普惠金融、企业绩效和福利等成果领域。对先前确定的目标人群的相关干预措施的影响评估或系统审查包括在特别评估中。采用实验或非实验设计的研究,以及系统评价,都是合格的。EGM排除了没有合适的对照组的前后研究设计。此外,该地图排除了文献综述、关键信息提供者访谈、焦点小组讨论和描述性分析。检索字符串用于在数据库中进行电子检索。为确保研究团队已识别出相当一部分相关研究作品,检索策略以灰色文献检索和系统综述引文跟踪为补充。我们汇编了已完成或正在进行的研究。由于实际原因,研究仅限于用英文撰写的论文,并且不受出版日期的限制。我们纳入的研究考察了在低收入和中等收入国家加强中小微企业融资渠道的干预措施,目标是中小微企业,包括家庭、小农、个人企业以及金融机构/机构及其员工。特别工作组考虑了五种干预措施,旨在:(i)提供战略、立法和监管方面的内容;(二)筹资的制度和机构;便利获得资金;提供不同的贷款工具或金融产品,包括传统形式的小额信贷;(五)需求侧干预措施,如金融知识项目。该地图包括围绕政策环境、金融包容性、企业绩效和福利的成果领域。符合条件的研究必须是实验性、非实验性或系统评价。此外,在实施干预措施之前和之后,研究设计必须有合适的对照组。结果EGM共纳入413项研究。大多数研究(379项研究)分析了微型企业,如家庭和小农;7项研究分析了社区群体;109项研究分析了中小型企业。有147项针对多种企业规模的干预研究。贷款工具/金融产品是所有公司类型中最常见的干预措施。 当涉及到接受上述金融干预的公司类型时,数据压倒性地支持微型企业(278项研究),其次是支持更好地获得此类金融产品和服务的系统和组织(138项研究)。在所有感兴趣的结果中,福利结果的证据最多,其次是公司绩效和金融包容性。在所有类型的企业中,福利结果主要针对微型企业。通过59项研究,我们可以说小企业有大量的企业绩效结果。在413项研究中,243项采用非实验或准实验设计(主要是倾向得分匹配和工具变量方法),136项采用实验方法,34项采用系统评价。175项研究(43%)提供的证据来自撒哈拉以南非洲,142项研究(35%)来自南亚,86项研究(21%)来自东亚和太平洋,66项研究(16%)来自拉丁美洲和加勒比,28项研究(7%)来自欧洲和中亚,21项研究(5%)来自中东和北非。大多数纳入的证据涵盖低收入国家(26%)和中低收入国家(66%),在较小程度上涵盖中高收入国家(26%)。这张地图描述了在低收入和中等收入国家加强中小微企业获得金融服务的干预措施效果方面的现有证据和差距。针对具有福利结果的微型企业的干预措施在文献中有大量的研究成果。中小企业评价着眼于企业业绩,较少关注就业和对所有者和雇员的福利影响,包括减少贫困。小额信贷/贷款一直是大量研究论文(238项研究)的焦点,表明该领域越来越受欢迎。然而,促进数字金融服务获取等新兴金融干预措施的研究相对较少。一些研究还调查了农村或偏远地区的人口,其中有192项研究,126项研究是关于穷人和弱势群体的,114篇论文是关于妇女的。大多数研究是在撒哈拉以南非洲(175项研究)和南亚(142项研究)进行的,因此可以在其他地区进行进一步研究,以便更全面地了解金融包容性干预措施的影响。作为亚行的一些金融工具,信贷额度、供应链金融和贸易融资的证据有限。未来的研究应着眼于战略、法律和监管干预措施,以及针对中小企业的干预措施,并检查政策和监管环境的结果以及福利的结果。对需求方面的干预措施及其对政策和监管环境的影响以及便利获取的研究相对较少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
PROTOCOL: Effects of interventions to improve access to financial services for micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence and gap map

Background

Micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) account for the vast majority of firms in most economies, particularly in developing nations, and are key contributors to job creation and global economic development. However, the most significant impediment to MSME development in low- and middle-income countries is a lack of access to both investment and working capital financing. Due to a lack of essential track record, appropriate collateral, and credit history, MSMEs are frequently denied business loans by traditional lending institutions. In addition, SMEs’ inability to access funding is hindered by institutional, structural, and non-financial factors. To address this, both the public and private sectors employ indirect and direct finance interventions to help MSMEs in developing and emerging economies enhance and increase their financing needs. Given the importance of MSMEs in the economy, a comprehensive overview of and systematic synthesizing of the evidence of the effects of financial access interventions for MSMEs, capturing a wide variety of outcome variables, is useful.

Objectives

The objective of this evidence and gap map (EGM) is to describe the existing evidence on the effects of various interventions dedicated to supporting and improving MSMEs’ access to credit, as well as the corresponding firm performance and/or welfare outcomes.

Methods

An EGM is a systematic evidence product that displays the existing evidence relevant to a specific research question. An EGM's end product is a research article or report, but it can also be shared via an interactive map drawn as a matrix of included studies and their corresponding interventions and outcomes. Interventions in low- and middle-income countries that target specific population subgroups are included on the map. The EGM considers five types of interventions: (i) strategy, legislation and regulatory; (ii) systems and institutions; (iii) facilitate access; (iv) lending instruments or financial products; and (v) demand-side interventions. The map, on the other hand, covers outcome domains for policy environment, financial inclusion, firm performance, and welfare. Impact evaluations or systematic reviews of relevant interventions for a previously defined target population are included in the EGM. Studies using experimental or non-experimental designs, as well as systematic reviews, are eligible. The EGM excludes before-and-after study designs with no suitable comparison group. Furthermore, the map excludes literature reviews, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and descriptive analyses. Search strings were used to conduct electronic searches in databases. To ensure that the research team had identified a significant portion of relevant research works, the search strategy was supplemented with gray literature searches and systematic review citation tracking. We have compiled studies that are either completed or in progress. For practical reasons, studies are limited to papers written in English and are not restricted by publication date.

Selection Criteria

We included studies that examined interventions to enhance MSMEs’ access to finance in low- and middle-income countries targeting MSMEs including households, smallholder farmers and single person enterprise as well as financial institutions/agencies and their staff. The EGM considers five types of interventions that aim to: (i) deliver strategy, legislation, and regulatory aspects; (ii) systems and institutions that enable financing; (iii) facilitate access to finance; (iv) deliver different lending instruments or financial products, including traditional forms of microcredit; and (v) demand-side interventions such as programs on financial literacy. The map includes outcome domains surrounding policy environment, financial inclusion, firm performance, and welfare. Eligible studies must be experimental, non-experimental, or systematic reviews. In addition, the study designs must have a suitable comparison group before and after the implementation of interventions.

Results

The EGM includes 413 studies. The majority of the studies (379 studies) analyzed microenterprises, such as households and smallholder farmers; 7 studies analyzed community groups; while 109 studies analyzed small and medium enterprises. There were 147 studies on interventions that targeted multiple firm sizes. Lending instruments/financial products are the most common intervention across all firm types. When it comes to the types of firms that receive the said financial intervention, the data is overwhelmingly in favor of microenterprises (278 studies), followed by systems and organizations (138 studies) that support better access to such financial products and services. Welfare outcomes have the most evidence out of all of the outcomes of interest, followed by firm performance and financial inclusion. Among all firm types, welfare outcomes are primarily targeted at microenterprises. With 59 studies, we can say that small businesses have a significantly large number of enterprise performance outcomes. of the 413 studies, 243 used non-experimental or quasi-experimental designs (mainly propensity score matching and instrumental variable approaches), 136 used experimental methods, and 34 were systematic reviews. 175 studies (43%) provided evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa, 142 studies (35%) from South Asia, 86 studies (21%) from East Asia and the Pacific, 66 studies (16%) from Latin America and the Caribbean, 28 studies (7%), Europe and Central Asia, and 21 studies (5%) from the Middle East and North Africa. Most of the included evidence covers low-income (26%) and lower-middle income countries (66%), and to a lesser extent upper-middle-income countries (26%).

Conclusion

This map depicts the existing evidence and gaps on the effects of interventions to enhance MSMEs’ access to financial services in low and middle-income countries. Interventions directed at microenterprises with welfare outcomes have a significant number of research outcomes in the literature. SME evaluations have looked at firm performance, with less focus to employment and the welfare effects on owners and employees, including poverty reduction. Microcredit/loans have been the focus of a large number of research papers (238 studies), indicating the field's growing popularity. However, emerging financial interventions such as facilitating access to digital financial services are relatively under-studied. Several studies also investigate rural or population in remote areas with 192 studies, 126 studies on poor and disadvantaged, and 114 papers on women. Most of the research is conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa (175 studies) and South Asia (142 studies) so further research in other regions could be conducted to allow a more holistic understanding of the effects of financial inclusion interventions. Credit lines, supply chain finance, and trade financing, which are some of the ADB's financial tools have limited evidence. Future studies should look into strategy, law, and regulation interventions, as well as interventions targeted at SMEs, and examine policy and regulatory environment outcomes as well as welfare outcomes. Interventions on the demand side and their impact on the policy and regulatory environment, as well as facilitating access are relatively understudied.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
The relationship between homework time and academic performance among K-12: A systematic review Campbell title registrations to date – August 2024, and discontinued protocols Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews Protocol: Factors contributing to the discontinuation of breastfeeding upon women's return to work: A systematic review protocol Correction to “Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1