Abstract
Efficiency in microfinance requires accounting for a specific ambiguous production goal. Beyond financial performance, microfinance institutions are to be assessed with regard to their social impact. Based on a comprehensive data collection campaign on 15 Bulgarian agricultural credit cooperatives (ACCs), we compiled a database uniting financial (perennial data from 2000 to 2009) and social performance indicators (2009). The social performance assessment follows an internationally renowned methodology of social auditing. It provides the database for the construction of a social output, which, apart from outreach, evaluates social network quality, client benefits (protection from over-indebtedness) and other items that have not been assessed in efficiency analysis before. We develop a new analytical model for Data Envelopment Analysis and gain meaningful results for the sample of ACCs. Interestingly, the efficiency rankings revealed that only ACCs with sound financial performance can achieve a higher ranking in the specification including the social output.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Balkenhol B (2007). Microfinance and Public Policy: Outreach, Performance and Efficiency. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
Bédécarrats F, Angora RW and Lapenu C (2009). Is social performance profitable? The relationship between social and financial performance in microfinance. MicroBanking Bulletin 19: 22–29.
Berger AN and Humphrey DB (1997). Efficiency of financial institutions: International survey and directions for future research. European Journal of Operational Research 98 (2): 175–212.
CERISE (2011 forthcoming). Methodology to Update the SPI Questionnaire, CERISE Technical Note. Comité d’Echanges de Réflexion et d’Information sur les Systèmes d’Epargne-crédit (CERISE): Paris, France.
Cinca CS and Mar-Molinero C (2004). Selecting DEA specifications and ranking units via PCA. Journal of the Operational Research Society 55 (5): 521–528.
Coelli T (1996). A guide to DEAP version 2.1: A data envelopment analysis (computer) program. CEPA Working Papers: 8/96. Armidale, Australia: Department of Econometrics, University of New England.
Coelli T (2005). An Introduction to Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, 2nd edn. Springer: New York.
Copestake J (2007). Mainstreaming microfinance: Social performance management or mission drift? World Development 35 (10): 1721–1738.
Copestake JG, Greeley M, Johnson S, Kabeer N and Simanowitz A (2005). Microfinance and Poverty Reduction. Money With a Mission: Vol. 1. Intermediate Technology Publications: Burton-on-Dunsmore, Warwickshire, London, UK.
Doligez F and Lapenu C (2007). Stakes of measuring social performance in microfinance. SPI Working Paper No. 1. Comité d’Echanges de Réflexion et d’Information sur les Systèmes d’Epargne-crédit (CERISE): Paris, France.
Fare R, Grosskopf S and Lovell CAK (2008). Production Frontiers. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Goldberg N (2005). Measuring the impact of microfinance: Taking stock of what we know. Washington, DC, USA: Grameen Foundation USA, available at: http://www.grameenfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Measuring-Impact-of-Microfinance.pdf, accessed 8 October 2011.
Greene WH (2007). LIMDEP Version 9.0 Econometric Modeling Guide. Econometric Software: Plainview, New York.
Gutiérrez-Nieto B, Serrano-Cinca C and Mar-Molinero C (2009). Social efficiency in microfinance institutions. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60 (1): 104–119.
Gutiérrez-Nieto B, Serrano-Cinca C and Mar-Molinero C (2007). Microfinance institutions and efficiency. Omega 35 (2): 131–142.
Haq M, Skully M and Pathan S (2010). Efficiency of microfinance institutions: A data envelopment analysis. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets 17 (1): 63–97.
Hermes N, Lensink R and Meesters A (2008). Outreach and efficiency of microfinance institutions. SOM (Systems, Organisation and Management) Research Reports. Groningen, NL: Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, available at: http://som.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/reports/2008/08002/, accessed 26 November 2011.
Lapenu C, Zeller M, Greely M, Chao-Béroff R and Verhagen K (2004). Performances sociales: Une raison d‘être des institutions de microfinance et pourtant encore peu mesurées. Quelques pistes. Mondes en Développement 126 (2): 51–68.
Morduch J (2000). The microfinance schism. World Development 28 (4): 617–629.
Nghiem H, Coelli T and Rao DSP (2006). The efficiency of microfinance in Vietnam: Evidence from NGO schemes in the north and the central regions. International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability 2 (5): 71–78.
Sealey CW and Lindley JT (1977). Inputs, outputs, and a theory of production and cost at depository financial institutions. The Journal of Finance 32 (4): 1251–1266.
Yaron J (1994). What makes rural finance institutions successful? The World Bank Research Observer 9 (1): 49–70.
Zeller M, Lapenu C and Greeley M (2003). Social performance indicators initiative (SPI). Report, Zug, CH and Washington, DC, USA: Argidius Foundation and Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP), available at: http://www.cerise-microfinance.org/publication/pdf/impact/SPI-summary.pdf, accessed 8 October 2011.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Amersdorffer, F., Buchenrieder, G., Bokusheva, R. et al. Efficiency in microfinance: financial and social performance of agricultural credit cooperatives in Bulgaria. J Oper Res Soc 66, 57–65 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.162
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.162