Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Household and Intrahousehold Impact of the Grameen Bank and Similar Targeted Credit Programs in Bangladesh

Pitt, Mark M., Khandker, Shahidur R.·1996·World Bank Discussion Papers

Abstract

This paper is one of several World Bank papers examining the sustainability and household and intrahousehold impact of credit programs for the poor in Bangladesh. The aim of the paper is to develop a method for estimating the costs and benefits of group-based credit programs and to determine under what conditions group-based credit programs are sustainable. Household outcome measures include school enrollment of boys and girls the labor supply of women and men the asset holdings of women recent fertility and contraceptive use consumption and the anthropometric status of children. Findings indicate that credit to women was more likely to influence 7 out of 8 outcome behaviors than credit to men (3 out of 8). Three credit programs are evaluated: Grameen Bank the BRAC and the BRDBs RD-12. The methods include a comparison of ordinary least squares and complex econometric methods using a quasi-experimental design. The comparison served to highlight the importance of accounting for endogeneity in evaluating credit programs in order to avoid mistaken conclusions drawn from naive estimates. Findings indicate that credit was a significant determinant of household behavior. Credit in the Grameen Bank program had the greatest positive impact on outcomes associated with household wealth and womens status. Grameen Banks credit to women had the largest impact on girls schooling womens labor supply and total household expenditure. Grameen Banks credit to men had the largest impact on fertility. Womens credit from the BRBD had the largest impact on boys schooling and the value of womens assets. Credit did not impact on the anthropometric status of children. The effect of credit programs on contraceptive use was measured differently in the two methods. Also the naive method underestimated the effect on increasing total household expenditure. Policy should consider that the credit program empowered women decreased poverty and had beneficial effects from credit given to men.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1596/0-8213-3594-4

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Metadata

Authors
Pitt, M. M., & Khandker, S. R.
Venue
World Bank Discussion Papers
Published
1996-06
ISSN
0259-210X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1586653185
Cited by
267
References
0
FWCI
26.45
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Household and Intrahousehold Impact of the Grameen Bank and Similar Targeted Credit Programs in Bangladesh. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1596/0-8213-3594-4
The paper
Pitt, M. M., & Khandker, S. R. (1996). Household and Intrahousehold Impact of the Grameen Bank and Similar Targeted Credit Programs in Bangladesh. World Bank Discussion Papers. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-3594-4

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.