In our last class, Ira brought up the fact that the WTCs and the MTCs (from our Rama Reddy case) showed the same delinquency rate - proving that men and women show equal risk as borrowers. However, most of our subsequent reading focused on women as better borrowers regarding their repayment rate. What do you think??
It seems to me that the WTCs and MTCs are set up in a way that levels the playing field between men and women. For example, the WTCs and MTCs require an accumulated contribution to withdraw greater amounts. Which means the delinquency would result in little to no additional loans, and motivate borrowers to repay. Perhaps the initial success of the WTC generated loyalty among the MTCs? Another explanation is that men, in fact, are not any more risky than women. That also brings up the question - is it low risk that is important...or high impact?
Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Ellen,
Interesting question! From my reading and experience, it seems that there are a few risk factors that come into play when discussing gender -- repayment and risk is more complicated than just man vs woman. For instance, in a lot of countries there is an asymmetry in the distribution of the loan portfolio: because of social status, contextual norms, and ability, women often only have the access and freedom to undertake small scale activities, and hence smaller loans. So, taking this one factor, if you're looking at risks and repayment, perhaps it's not that women are inherently more responsible, but that smaller loans are easier to pay back.
But then again, of course, we all know that women are more responsible ;)
Sorry if this was already discussed in class on Tuesday, as I wasn't there!
-Rishma
Post a Comment