Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Economic Development Quarterly
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hung, C.-k. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Rules and Actions: Determinants of Peer Group and Staff Actions in Group-Based Microcredit Programs in the United States

Chi-kan Richard Hung

University of Massachusetts Boston

This article examines the variety of program features and their impact on staff and participant behavior in peer group lending programs in the United States. The results show that program rules are consistent with the mission of these programs to enhance the access to business credit by creating opportunities and incentives for peer group members to engage in screening, monitoring, and enforcement functions of loan officers. Both peer groups and program staff performed important functions. Overall, program rules had tangible and intended effects on staff and peer group behavior. Program staff consistently performed as the program structure dictated. Program rules had differential impact on peer group actions. Peer screening appeared to be more random but had positive spillover effect on monitoring and enforcement. Peer monitoring was most responsive to program rules. Active peer enforcement followed peer screening and monitoring. More attention needs to focus on systematically encouraging peer group screening.

Key Words: microcredit • program rules • peer group • screening • monitoring • enforcement

Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1, 75-96 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0891242405279361
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?