...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Development Economics >Pay, peek, punish? Repayment, information acquisition and punishment in a microcredit lab-in-the-field experiment
【24h】

Pay, peek, punish? Repayment, information acquisition and punishment in a microcredit lab-in-the-field experiment

机译:付钱,偷看,惩罚?小额信贷实地实验中的还款,信息获取和惩罚

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Despite remarkable repayment rates in microcredit group lending, anecdotal evidence from the field suggests that there is excessive punishment among group members. To quantify excessive peer punishment, I conduct a lab-in-the-field experiment with actual microcredit borrowers in rural India. I design a repayment coordination game with strategic default and the possibility of acquiring information about a peer's investment return (peer peeking) and of sanctioning a peer (peer punishment). I observe loan repayment of over 90% and punishment of around 85%. Punishment is classified as excessive compared to a game-theoretically derived benchmark of zero punishment and a behaviorally-rooted benchmark of unjust punishment. This gives solid support to the anecdotal evidence and manifests the concern of excessive peer pressure in microcredit group lending. The most promising explanation is that borrowers have internalized the mission indoctrination of the microlender of what constitutes a good borrower, namely repaying loans and disciplining peers. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
机译:尽管小额信贷团体贷款的偿还率非常高,但现场的轶事证据表明,团体成员之间受到了过度惩罚。为了量化过多的同伴惩罚,我对印度农村的实际小额信贷借款人进行了实地实验。我设计了一种具有战略违约的还款协调游戏,并有可能获取有关同伴的投资回报(同伴偷窥)和制裁同伴(同伴惩罚)的信息。我观察到贷款偿还率超过90%,惩罚程度约为85%。与基于博弈论得出的零惩罚基准和基于行为的不公正惩罚基准相比,惩罚被归类为过度处罚。这为传闻证据提供了有力的支持,并显示了小额信贷集团贷款中同伴压力过大的担忧。最有前途的解释是,借款人已经将小额贷款人的使命灌输内在化,即什么才是好借款人,即偿还贷款和惩戒同行。 (C)2015 Elsevier B.V.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号