蝎子蜇咬人的狗:女性不同职位对小额信贷性别歧视的影响

Stefano Mengoli, V. Odorici, S. Gudjonsson
{"title":"蝎子蜇咬人的狗:女性不同职位对小额信贷性别歧视的影响","authors":"Stefano Mengoli, V. Odorici, S. Gudjonsson","doi":"10.22381/jrgs7120175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"I prefer male enemies to female ones; I can survive a dog's bite better than a scorpion's sting.\"(Matshona Dhliwayo)IntroductionEquitable access for women to employment, entrepreneurship and credit cannot be considered simply a \"women's issue\" (Joshi et al., 2015). In light of the causes of the recent financial crisis, the question can be raised of whether a more balanced representation of women, in industrial and financial firms, would have avoided corporate scandals and poor performance (Adams and Funk, 2012). Recent institutional policy interventions, such as gender quotas in corporate leading positions, show clear proof that gender equality and discrimination are now strategic issues.These reasons contributed to the success of microfinance institutions (MFIs) that are considered women paladins in the financial industry giving them access to credit. MFIs are a valid alternative to a conventional bank when providing financing to disadvantaged and poor people (Yunus et al., 2010; Quayes, 2012). Through smaller loans (outreach depth) granted to as many clients as possible (outreach breadth), MFIs promise to fight poverty, contribute to pro-poor growth (Mayoux, 2010) and to the empowerment of women who are the natural borrowers of these organizations (Strom et al., 2014). This evidence is driven by at least four reasons. First, in poor countries, women are poorer than men (Agier and Szafarz, 2013) and consequently they are natural candidates for MFIs to the point that their percentage on total borrowers has been used as a proxy of outreach depth (Mori et al., 2015). Second, women are usually considered credit constrained (Fletschner, 2008; 2009), investing in small-scale projects that are unattractive to conventional banks (Armendariz and Morduch, 2010). Third, capital access to women ensures more social (Aggarwal et al., 2015) and economic (Fletschner, 2008) benefits to their households than would occur if borrowers were men. Finally, women are better re-payers, enhancing the persistence of the usually fragile business model of the MFIs (Boehe and Cruz, 2013; D'Espallier et al., 2011).While women are the main target of MFIs and their empowerment has become crucial in microfinance, a still unanswered question is whether they face gender discrimination in credit conditions. In fact, in an attempt to grant smaller loans to as many clients as possible, credit rationing could potentially damage women, moving MFIs away from their mission of improving the condition of women and promoting their rights. Although gender discrimination cannot be treated as a marginal issue in microfinance (Mayoux, 2010), there are few studies on the topic and evidence ispuzzling, to say the least. For example, Storey (2002) does not find any denial rate divergence between men and women, as well as Corsi and De Angelis (2017) who find no evidence of gender discrimination against women borrowers in loan size. Agier and Szafarz (2013) document that women are discriminated in the size of loan, while Sagamba et al. (2013) observe a slight preference for female applicants.Our paper provides a perspective with the potential for accommodating the divergences found in the literature. We investigate the discrimination suffered by women borrowers, looking at the effect enhanced by women lenders in mitigating the phenomenon. The main idea is straightforward and fairly intuitive. We expect that the percentage of women employed in the MFIs shrinks the effect of smaller loans granted to women on the demand side for a sort of solidarity in sharing the \"same traits.\" The failure to consider this aspect could be the reason for the mixed findings documented so far. To investigate this issue, we discriminate MFIs based on the roles of women inside the organization: top roles (CEO or board members) and operational roles (managers, officers, and staff). As we will show, a study which abstains from considering this distinction would be missing any robust explanatory power. …","PeriodicalId":342957,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Gender Studies","volume":"7 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Scorpion Who Stings the Dog Who Bites: The Effect of Women's Different Job Positions on Gender Discrimination in Microfinance\",\"authors\":\"Stefano Mengoli, V. Odorici, S. Gudjonsson\",\"doi\":\"10.22381/jrgs7120175\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\\"I prefer male enemies to female ones; I can survive a dog's bite better than a scorpion's sting.\\\"(Matshona Dhliwayo)IntroductionEquitable access for women to employment, entrepreneurship and credit cannot be considered simply a \\\"women's issue\\\" (Joshi et al., 2015). In light of the causes of the recent financial crisis, the question can be raised of whether a more balanced representation of women, in industrial and financial firms, would have avoided corporate scandals and poor performance (Adams and Funk, 2012). Recent institutional policy interventions, such as gender quotas in corporate leading positions, show clear proof that gender equality and discrimination are now strategic issues.These reasons contributed to the success of microfinance institutions (MFIs) that are considered women paladins in the financial industry giving them access to credit. MFIs are a valid alternative to a conventional bank when providing financing to disadvantaged and poor people (Yunus et al., 2010; Quayes, 2012). Through smaller loans (outreach depth) granted to as many clients as possible (outreach breadth), MFIs promise to fight poverty, contribute to pro-poor growth (Mayoux, 2010) and to the empowerment of women who are the natural borrowers of these organizations (Strom et al., 2014). This evidence is driven by at least four reasons. First, in poor countries, women are poorer than men (Agier and Szafarz, 2013) and consequently they are natural candidates for MFIs to the point that their percentage on total borrowers has been used as a proxy of outreach depth (Mori et al., 2015). Second, women are usually considered credit constrained (Fletschner, 2008; 2009), investing in small-scale projects that are unattractive to conventional banks (Armendariz and Morduch, 2010). Third, capital access to women ensures more social (Aggarwal et al., 2015) and economic (Fletschner, 2008) benefits to their households than would occur if borrowers were men. Finally, women are better re-payers, enhancing the persistence of the usually fragile business model of the MFIs (Boehe and Cruz, 2013; D'Espallier et al., 2011).While women are the main target of MFIs and their empowerment has become crucial in microfinance, a still unanswered question is whether they face gender discrimination in credit conditions. In fact, in an attempt to grant smaller loans to as many clients as possible, credit rationing could potentially damage women, moving MFIs away from their mission of improving the condition of women and promoting their rights. Although gender discrimination cannot be treated as a marginal issue in microfinance (Mayoux, 2010), there are few studies on the topic and evidence ispuzzling, to say the least. For example, Storey (2002) does not find any denial rate divergence between men and women, as well as Corsi and De Angelis (2017) who find no evidence of gender discrimination against women borrowers in loan size. Agier and Szafarz (2013) document that women are discriminated in the size of loan, while Sagamba et al. (2013) observe a slight preference for female applicants.Our paper provides a perspective with the potential for accommodating the divergences found in the literature. We investigate the discrimination suffered by women borrowers, looking at the effect enhanced by women lenders in mitigating the phenomenon. The main idea is straightforward and fairly intuitive. We expect that the percentage of women employed in the MFIs shrinks the effect of smaller loans granted to women on the demand side for a sort of solidarity in sharing the \\\"same traits.\\\" The failure to consider this aspect could be the reason for the mixed findings documented so far. To investigate this issue, we discriminate MFIs based on the roles of women inside the organization: top roles (CEO or board members) and operational roles (managers, officers, and staff). As we will show, a study which abstains from considering this distinction would be missing any robust explanatory power. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":342957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Research in Gender Studies\",\"volume\":\"7 1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Research in Gender Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22381/jrgs7120175\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Gender Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22381/jrgs7120175","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

“比起女性敌人,我更喜欢男性敌人;我被狗咬比被蝎子螫更能活下来。(Matshona Dhliwayo)引言女性公平获得就业、创业和信贷不能被简单地视为“女性问题”(Joshi et al., 2015)。鉴于最近金融危机的原因,可以提出的问题是,在工业和金融公司中,是否有更平衡的女性代表,可以避免公司丑闻和业绩不佳(亚当斯和芬克,2012)。最近的制度性政策干预,如企业领导职位的性别配额,清楚地证明,性别平等和歧视现在已成为战略问题。这些原因促成了小额信贷机构(mfi)的成功,这些机构被认为是金融业的女性骑士,使她们能够获得信贷。小额信贷机构在向弱势群体和穷人提供融资时是传统银行的有效替代方案(Yunus等人,2010;Quayes发言,2012)。通过向尽可能多的客户提供小额贷款(延伸深度)(延伸广度),小额信贷机构承诺消除贫困,促进扶贫增长(Mayoux, 2010),并赋予作为这些组织自然借款人的妇女权力(Strom et al., 2014)。这一证据至少有四个原因。首先,在贫穷国家,女性比男性更穷(Agier和Szafarz, 2013年),因此她们是小额信贷机构的自然候选人,以至于她们在总借款人中的比例被用作扩展深度的代表(Mori等人,2015年)。其次,女性通常被认为信贷受限(Fletschner, 2008;2009年),投资对传统银行没有吸引力的小规模项目(Armendariz和Morduch, 2010年)。第三,与男性借款人相比,女性获得资本可以确保其家庭获得更多的社会(Aggarwal et al., 2015)和经济(Fletschner, 2008)利益。最后,女性是更好的再还款人,增强了小额信贷机构通常脆弱的商业模式的持久性(Boehe和Cruz, 2013;D’espallier et al., 2011)。虽然妇女是小额信贷机构的主要目标,赋予她们权力在小额信贷中已变得至关重要,但一个尚未解决的问题是,她们在信贷条件中是否面临性别歧视。事实上,为了向尽可能多的客户提供小额贷款,信贷配给可能会损害妇女,使小额信贷机构偏离其改善妇女状况和促进妇女权利的使命。虽然性别歧视不能被视为小额信贷中的一个边缘问题(Mayoux, 2010),但关于这一主题的研究很少,至少可以说证据令人困惑。例如,Storey(2002)没有发现男性和女性之间存在任何拒绝率差异,Corsi和De Angelis(2017)也没有发现女性借款人在贷款规模上存在性别歧视的证据。Agier和Szafarz(2013)指出,女性在贷款规模上受到歧视,而Sagamba等人(2013)则观察到对女性申请人的轻微偏好。我们的论文提供了一个具有容纳文献中发现的分歧的潜力的观点。我们调查了女性借款人遭受的歧视,看看女性贷款人在缓解这一现象方面所发挥的作用。主要思想是直截了当和相当直观的。我们预计,小额信贷机构中妇女就业的比例缩小了向妇女提供小额贷款的影响,因为在共享“相同特征”方面存在某种团结。没有考虑到这方面可能是迄今为止记录的各种结果的原因。为了调查这个问题,我们根据女性在组织中的角色对小额信贷机构进行了歧视:高层角色(首席执行官或董事会成员)和运营角色(经理、官员和员工)。正如我们将展示的,一个不考虑这种区别的研究将失去任何强有力的解释力。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Scorpion Who Stings the Dog Who Bites: The Effect of Women's Different Job Positions on Gender Discrimination in Microfinance
"I prefer male enemies to female ones; I can survive a dog's bite better than a scorpion's sting."(Matshona Dhliwayo)IntroductionEquitable access for women to employment, entrepreneurship and credit cannot be considered simply a "women's issue" (Joshi et al., 2015). In light of the causes of the recent financial crisis, the question can be raised of whether a more balanced representation of women, in industrial and financial firms, would have avoided corporate scandals and poor performance (Adams and Funk, 2012). Recent institutional policy interventions, such as gender quotas in corporate leading positions, show clear proof that gender equality and discrimination are now strategic issues.These reasons contributed to the success of microfinance institutions (MFIs) that are considered women paladins in the financial industry giving them access to credit. MFIs are a valid alternative to a conventional bank when providing financing to disadvantaged and poor people (Yunus et al., 2010; Quayes, 2012). Through smaller loans (outreach depth) granted to as many clients as possible (outreach breadth), MFIs promise to fight poverty, contribute to pro-poor growth (Mayoux, 2010) and to the empowerment of women who are the natural borrowers of these organizations (Strom et al., 2014). This evidence is driven by at least four reasons. First, in poor countries, women are poorer than men (Agier and Szafarz, 2013) and consequently they are natural candidates for MFIs to the point that their percentage on total borrowers has been used as a proxy of outreach depth (Mori et al., 2015). Second, women are usually considered credit constrained (Fletschner, 2008; 2009), investing in small-scale projects that are unattractive to conventional banks (Armendariz and Morduch, 2010). Third, capital access to women ensures more social (Aggarwal et al., 2015) and economic (Fletschner, 2008) benefits to their households than would occur if borrowers were men. Finally, women are better re-payers, enhancing the persistence of the usually fragile business model of the MFIs (Boehe and Cruz, 2013; D'Espallier et al., 2011).While women are the main target of MFIs and their empowerment has become crucial in microfinance, a still unanswered question is whether they face gender discrimination in credit conditions. In fact, in an attempt to grant smaller loans to as many clients as possible, credit rationing could potentially damage women, moving MFIs away from their mission of improving the condition of women and promoting their rights. Although gender discrimination cannot be treated as a marginal issue in microfinance (Mayoux, 2010), there are few studies on the topic and evidence ispuzzling, to say the least. For example, Storey (2002) does not find any denial rate divergence between men and women, as well as Corsi and De Angelis (2017) who find no evidence of gender discrimination against women borrowers in loan size. Agier and Szafarz (2013) document that women are discriminated in the size of loan, while Sagamba et al. (2013) observe a slight preference for female applicants.Our paper provides a perspective with the potential for accommodating the divergences found in the literature. We investigate the discrimination suffered by women borrowers, looking at the effect enhanced by women lenders in mitigating the phenomenon. The main idea is straightforward and fairly intuitive. We expect that the percentage of women employed in the MFIs shrinks the effect of smaller loans granted to women on the demand side for a sort of solidarity in sharing the "same traits." The failure to consider this aspect could be the reason for the mixed findings documented so far. To investigate this issue, we discriminate MFIs based on the roles of women inside the organization: top roles (CEO or board members) and operational roles (managers, officers, and staff). As we will show, a study which abstains from considering this distinction would be missing any robust explanatory power. …
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hierarchical Femininities and Masculinities in Australia Based on Parenting and Employment: A Multidimensional, Multilevel, Relational and Intersectional Perspective Microfinance for Wives: Fresh Insights Obtained from a Study of Poor Rural Women in Pakistan The Impact of Gender Stereotypes on the Appraisal of Civic Virtue Performance Gender Studies in Communication Research: A Longitudinal Analysis of Scientific Papers Published in Spanish Journals Indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (Jcr) and the Scimago Journal Rank (Sjr) (1988–2017) The Consequences of Blurred Boundaries between Private and Public Spheres in Patriarchal Societies: Evidence from Druze Women in Israel
×
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