Mikro Kredi Kullanımının Tarım Sektörü Açısından Değerlendirilmesi: Aydın İli Örneği

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 4, 310 - 339, 01.01.2018

Seda Korkmaz Ferit Çobanoğlu

Öz

Mikro kredinin, özellikle düşük gelirli kimselerin yaşam koşullarının belirli ölçüde de olsa iyileştirilmesi ve belki de diğer bir ifade ile topluma kazandırılması için önemli araçlardan biri olduğu ifade edilebilir. Çalışmada, Aydın ilinde, 2012-2013 yılları esas alınarak, mikro kredi sisteminden destek alan ve benzer özelliklere sahip olan hanehalkı geliri, arazi büyüklüğü gibi bazı sosyoekonomik karakteristikler 59 adet yararlanıcı ve mikro kredi desteğinden hiç yararlanmayan 61 adet birey de, karşılaştırma grubu olarak dikkate alınarak, toplam 120 adet birey ile anket çalışması yapılmıştır. Çalışmanın etki değerleme aşamasında; eğilim skoru eşleştirme yöntemi PSM ve ters olasılık ağırlıklandırması IPW tahmincileri kullanılarak, mikro kredi desteğinden yararlanmanın, hanehalkı geliri ve sahip olunan mal varlığı üzerindeki ortalama müdahale etkisi ve söz konusu destekten yararlanmış bireyler arasındaki ortalama müdahale etkisi hesaplanmıştır. Her iki tahminci kullanılarak yapılan analiz sonuçlarına göre, mikro kredi desteğinden yararlanmanın, yararlanmama durumuna göre bireyler ve dolayısıyla bu bireylerin içinde yaşamış oldukları hanehalkları gelirleri ve sahip oldukları mal varlıkları üzerinde pozitif etkilere sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. İzleyen çalışmalarda, özellikle tarım sektöründe faaliyet gösteren dar gelirli bireylere yönelik sağlanacak mikro kredi desteklerinin, yörelere, ürün desenlerine ve güncel gelişmelere göre dinamik bir şekilde planlanmasının faydalı olacağı tavsiye edilmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

eğilim skoru eşleştirme, mikro kredi, müdahale etkisi, refah düzeyi, ters olasılık ağırlıklandırması

Evaluation of Microcredit Usage Intended For Agriculture Sector: The Case Study of Aydın Region

Öz

It can be argued that microcredit is one of the most important tools for improving the living conditions of low-income individuals, in particular to some extent, and perhaps, in other words, reintegrating these individuals into the society. In the study, it is based on 2012-2013 years, 59 beneficiaries benefiting from the microcredit system and having similar characteristics some socioeconomic characteristics such as household income, land size, etc. and 61 individuals who did not benefit from microcredit, a total of 120 individuals are surveyed. In the treatment effect of the study, average treatment effect ATE and average treatment effect on the treated ATET on household income and possessed property for benefiting from the microcredit support are calculated using propensity score matching PSM and inverse probability weighting IPW estimators. According to the results of the analysis using both estimators, it is calculated that the use of microcredit support has positive effects on the incomes of the individuals and therefore the households they live in and the assets they own. It is recommended that in the following studies it will be useful to plan microcredit schemes for low-income individuals, particularly in the agriculture sector, in a dynamic way, based on locality, product patterns and current developments

Anahtar Kelimeler

propensity score matching, microcredit, treatment effect, welfare level, inverse probability weighting

Kaynakça

• Altunöz, U. (2015). Mikro kredilerinin kadın istihdamı ve kalkınmaya etkileri: Türkiye Örneği. ÇSGB Çalışma Dünyası Dergisi, 3 (1), 7-14.
• Armendáriz de Aghion, B. & Morduch, J. (2005). The economics of microfinance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Armendáriz de Aghion, B. & Morduch, J. (2010). The economics of microfinance. 2nd edn. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Arslan, Y. (2013). Müteşebbisin desteklenmesinde mikro kredilerin rolü ve uygulanmasıyla ilgili sorunlar ve öneriler. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Artukoğlu, M. M. (2000). Mikro kredi / mikro finans yaklaşımı: Tarım açısından bir değerlendirme. IV. Ulusal Tarım Ekonomisi Kongresi. 6-8 Eylül 2000. Tekirdağ.
• Bateman, M. (2010). Why microfinance doesn't work? The destructive rise of local neoliberalism. London: Zed Books.
• Blundell, R. & Costa Dias, M. (2000). Evaluation methods for non-experimental data. Fiscal Studies, 21 (4), 427-468.
• Blundell, R. & Costa Dias, M. (2002). Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, Department of Economics, University College London, Cemmap Working Paper No. CWP 10/02.
• Blundell, R. & Costa Dias, M. (2008). Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, Department of Economics, University College London, Cemmap Working Paper No. CWP 26/08.
• Caliendo, M. (2006). Microeconometric evaluation of labour market policies. Berlin: Springer.
• Caliendo, M. & Hujer, R. (2005). The microeconometric estimation of treatment effects - an overview. Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (IZA) Discussion Paper No. 1653, July.
• Ceyhan, H. (2010). Yerel iktisadi kalkınma bağlamında mikro kredi uygulamalarının istihdama etkisi ve Karaman ilinde bir uygulama. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Karaman.
• Coleman, B. E. (1999). The impact of group lending in northeast Thailand. Journal of Development Economics, 60 (1), 105-141.
• Coleman, B. E. (2006). Microfinance in northeast Thailand: who benefits and how much? World Development, 34 (9), 1612-1638.
• Collins, D., Morduch, J., Rutherford, S. & Ruthven, O. (2009). Portfolios of the poor: how the world's poor live on $2 a day. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Cox, D. R. (1958). Planning of experiments. New York: Wiley.
• Çak, D. (2007). Kalkınmanın finansmanının sağlanmasında mikrokredi yöntemi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• de Mel, S., McKenzie, D. & Woodruff, C. (2008). Returns to capital in microenterprises: evidence from a field experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123 (4), 1329-1372.
• Dichter, T. & Harper, M. (2007). What's wrong with microfinance? Warwickshire: Practical Action Publishing.
• Duvendack, M., Palmer-Jones, R., Copestake, J. G., Loke, Y. & Rao, N. (2011). What is the evidence of the impact of microfinance on the well-being of poor people? Systematic review. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, August 2011. London: University of London.
• Ece, S. (2014). Mikro kredi kullanan kadınlar: Şırnak örneği. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Fisher, R. A. (1935). The design of experiments. London: Oliver and Boyd.
• Gaile, G. L. & Foster, J. (1996). Review of methodological approaches to the study of the impact of microenterprise credit programmes. Report submitted to USAID assessing the impact of microenterprise Services (AIMS), June.
• Goldberg, N. (2005). Measuring the impact of microfinance: taking stock of what we know. Grameaen Foundation USA Publication Series, December.
• Gertler, P., Levine, D. I. & Moretti, E. (2009). Do microfinance programmes help families insure consumption against illness? Health Economics, 18 (3), 257-273.
• Heckman, J. J. & Vytlacil, E. (2007). Econometric evaluation of social programmes. Part I: Causalmodels, structural models and econometric policy evaluation. Heckman, J. J. & Leamer, E. E. (eds). Handbook of Econometrics, Volume 6B. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Holvoet, N. (2005). The impact of microfinance on decision-making agency: evidence from south India. Development and Change, 36 (1), 75-102.
• Hulme, D. & Mosley, P. (1996). Finance against poverty. London: Routledge.
• Hulme, D. (2000). Is micro debt good for poor people? A note on the dark side of microfinance. Small Enterprise Development,11 (1), 26–28.
• Imbens, G. & Wooldridge, J. (2008). Recent developments in the econometrics of programme evaluation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, Department of Economics, University College London, Cemmap Working Paper No. CWP 24/08.
• Johnson, S. (2005). Gender relations, empowerment and microcredit: moving forward from a lost decade. European Journal of Development Research, 17 (2), 224-248.
• Johnson, S. & Rogaly, B. (1997). Microfinance and poverty reduction. Oxford: Oxfam.
• Kalaç, M. Ö. (2016). Türkiye’de mikro kredi uygulamaları: Grameen mikro kredi modeli, Manisa ili örneği. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Manisa.
• Karlan, D. S. (2001). Microfinance impact assessments: the perils of using new members as a control group. Journal of Microfinance, 3 (2), 75-85.
• Khan, N., Jan, I., Rehman, M. U., Latif, M. U. & Ali, A. (2007). The impact of micro credit on
• livestock enterprise developmant in district Abbottabad (A case of SRSP micro credit programme). Sarhad Jornal of Agriculture, 23 (4), 1205-1210.
• Khandker, S. R. (1998). Fighting poverty with microcredit: experience in Bangladesh. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Khandker, S. R. (2005). Microfinance and poverty: evidence using panel data from Bangladesh. The World Bank Economic Review, 19 (2), 263-286.
• Khandker, S. R., Koolwal, G. B. & Samad, H.A. (2010). Handbook on impact evaluation: quantitative methods and practices. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
• Ledgerwood, J. (1999). Microfinance handbook: an institutional and financial perspective. Washington DC: The World Bank.
• Ledgerwood, J., White, V. & Brand, M. (2006). Transforming microfinance institutions: providing full financial services to the poor. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
• Mayoux, L. (2001). Tackling the downside: social capital, women’s empowerment and microfinance in Cameroon. Development and Change, 32, 421-450.
• Miller, C. (2011). Micro credic and crop cgrıculture: New approaches, technologies and other innovations to adress food insecurity among the poor. Commissioned Workshop Paper, 2011. Global Microcredit Summit. November 14-17. Valladolid, Spain.
• Morduch, J. (1995). Income soothing and consumption smoothing. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9 (3), 103-114.
• Neyman, J. S. (1923). On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. essay on principles. Section 9. Translated in Statistical Science, 5 (4), 465-480.
• Nino-Zarazua, M. & Copestake, J. (2009). Financial inclusion, vulnerability and mental models: from physical Access to effective use of financial services in a lowincome area of Mexico City. Savings and Development, 32(4), 353-380.
• Odell, K. (2010). Measuring the impact of microfinance: taking another look. Grameen Foundation USA Publication Series, May.
• Özmen, F. (2012). Türkiye’de kadın istihdamı ve mikro kredi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 3 (6), 109-130.
• Pitt, M. M., Khandker, S. R., McKernan, S. M. & Latif, M. A. (1999). Credit programmes for the poor and reproductive behavior of low-income countries: are the reported causal relationships the result of heterogeneity bias? Demography, 36 (1), 1-21.
• Pitt, M., Khandker, S. R., Chowdhury, O. H. & Millimet, D. L. (2003). Credit programmes for the poor and the health status of children in rural Bangladesh. International Economic Review, 44(1): 87-118.
• Pitt, M., Khandker, S. R. & Cartwright, J. (2006). Empowering women with microfinance: evidence from Bangladesh. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 791-831.
• Pitt, M. M. & Khandker, S. R. (1998). The impact of group-based credit programmes on poor households in Bangladesh: does the gender of participants matter? Journal of Political Economy, 106 (5), 958-996.
• Robinson, M. (2001). The microfinance revolution: sustainable finance for the poor. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
• Rosenberg, R. (2010). Does microcredit reallyhelp poor people? CGAP Focus Note, No. 59. Roy, A. (2010). Poverty capital: microfinance and the making of development. Routledge, London.
• Rutherford, S. (2001). The poor and their money. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Sebstad, J. & Chen, G. (1996). Overview of studies on the impact of microenterprise credit. Report submitted to USAID assessing the impact of microenterprise services (AIMS), June.
• STATA (2017). STATA treatment-effects reference manual: potential outcomes / counterfactual outcomes, release 15. StataCorp, 2017. Stata: Release 15, Statistical Software. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.
• Stewart, R., van Rooyen, C., Dickson, K., Majoro, M. & de Wet, T. (2010). What is the impact of microfinance on poor people? A systematic review of evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Technical Report, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, University of London.
• Zanbak, T. (2008). Kırsal kadının kalkındırılmasında mikrokredi kullanımı: Alaniçi köyü örneği. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ege Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
• Zeller, M., Sharma, M., Ahmed, A. U. & Rashid, S. (2001). Group-based financial institutions for the rural poor in Bangladesh: an institutional- and householdlevel analysis. Research Report of the International Food Policy Research Institute, (120), 97-100.