The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Diffusion of Microfinance
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: How do the network positions of the first individuals in a society to receive information about a new product affect its eventual diffusion? To answer this question, we develop a model of information diffusion through a social network that discriminates between information passing (individuals must be aware of the product before they can adopt it, and they can learn from their friends) and endorsement (the decisions of informed individuals to adopt the product might be influenced by their friends’ decisions). We apply it to the diffusion of microfinance loans, in a setting where the set of potentially first-informed individuals is known. We then propose two new measures of how “central” individuals are in their social network with regard to spreading information; the centrality of the first-informed individuals in a village helps significantly in predicting eventual adoption. Methods: Six months before a microfinance institution entered 43 villages in India and began offering microfinance loans to villagers, we collected detailed network data by surveying households about a wide range of interactions. The microfinance institution began by inviting “leaders” (e.g., teachers, shopkeepers, savings group leaders) to an informational meeting and then asked them to spread information about the loans. Using the network data, the locations in the network of these first-informed villagers (or injection points), and data regarding the villagers’ subsequent participation, we estimate the parameters of our diffusion model using the method of simulated moments. The parameters of the model are validated by showing that the model correctly predicts the evolution of participation in each village over time. The model yields a new measure of the effectiveness of any given node as an injection point, which we call communication centrality. Finally, we develop an easily computed proxy for communication centrality, which we call diffusion centrality. Results: We find that a microfinance participant is seven times as likely to inform another household as a nonparticipant; nonetheless, information transmitted by nonparticipants is important and accounts for about one-third of the eventual informedness and participation in the village because nonparticipants are much more numerous. Once information passing is accounted for, an informed household’s decision to participate is not significantly dependent on how many of its neighbors have participated. Communication centrality, when applied to the set of first-informed individuals in a village, substantially outperforms other standard network measures of centrality in predicting microfinance participation in this context. Finally, the simpler proxy measure—diffusion centrality—is strongly correlated with communication centrality and inherits its predictive properties. Discussion: Our results suggest that a model of diffusion can distinguish information passing from endorsement effects, and that understanding the nature of transmission may be important in identifying the ideal places to inject information.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment
Centola, D. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1185231 · Cited by 2,692
A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization
Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., & Fowler, J. H. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11421 · Cited by 2,575
Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana
Conley, T. G., & Udry, C. R. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.100.1.35 · Cited by 2,180
Learning by doing and learning from others: Human capital and technical change in agriculture
Foster, A. D., & Rosenzweig, M. R. (1995) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/601447 · Cited by 2,038
Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks
Aral, S., Muchnik, L., & Sundararajan, A. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0908800106 · Cited by 1,207
Identifying influential and susceptible members of social networks
Aral, S., & Walker, D. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1215842 · Cited by 1,047
Cited by
The Miracle of Microfinance? Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation
Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C. (2015) · American Economic Journal: Applied Economics · doi:10.1257/app.20130533 · Cited by 2,076
Self-citationChanging climates of conflict: A social network experiment in 56 schools
Paluck, E. L., Shepherd, H., & Aronow, P. M. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1514483113 · Cited by 610
(2014) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta11991 · Cited by 586
Do Political Protests Matter? Evidence from the Tea Party Movement*
Madestam, A., Shoag, D., Veuger, S., & Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2013) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjt021 · Cited by 431
Gomes, F., Haliassos, M., & Ramadorai, T. (2021) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20201461 · Cited by 396
Metadata
- Authors
- Banerjee, A., Chandrasekhar, A. G., Duflo, E., & Jackson, M. O.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2013-07-26
- Volume
- 341
- Issue
- 6144
- Pages
- 1236498-1236498
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2892304178
- Cited by
- 1,248
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 42.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Diffusion of Microfinance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1126/science.1236498
- The paper
- Banerjee, A., Chandrasekhar, A. G., Duflo, E., & Jackson, M. O. (2013). The Diffusion of Microfinance. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236498
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.