Abstract
Many microfinance institutions claim to be oriented to a double bottom line, but while methods of financial performance assessment are widely agreed the same cannot be said about social performance. Monitoring social performance is most useful when it reveals variation in both outreach and impact over time and between clients. Data from a village banking programme in Peru is used to compare two methods for assessing each. On poverty outreach, we favour monitoring of proxy indicators for clients against national household survey data, and on impact we recommend making more use of individual in-depth interviews.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 703-723 |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| Journal | Development Policy Review |
| Volume | 23 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Early online date | 23 Oct 2005 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Nov 2005 |
Keywords
- Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs (I380)
- Migration (O150)
- Human Development
- Financial Markets
- Government Programs
- Corporate Finance and Governance (O160)
- Welfare and Poverty
- Economic Development
- Saving and Capital Investment
- Human Resources
- Measurement and Analysis of Poverty (I320)
- Income Distribution
