CHAPTER – 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Profile of...

110

CHAPTER – 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Profile of respondent

Table 4.1

Age of the borrower

Age of Respondents

[Years]

No. of Respondents Percent

Mysore Chamarajanagar Mysore Chamarajanagar

18-25 20 28 13.33 % 18.66 %

26-35 80 60 53.33 % 40 %

36-45 25 35 16.66 % 23.33 %

46-55 15 20 10 % 13.33 %

Above 56 10 07 6.66 % 4.66 %

Total 150 150 100 100

The frequency table (4.1) of Age is shown above. The Table shows in Mysore

district that there were total 150 respondents out of which (13.33%) were between 18-

25 years, 80 respondents (53.33%) were between 26-35 years, 25 respondents

(16.66%) were between 36-45 years, 15 respondents (10%) were between 46-55 years

and 10 respondents (6.66 %) above 56 years of age.

The frequency table of Age is shown above. The Table shows in

Chamarajanagar district that there were total 150 respondents out of which (18.66%)

were between 18-25 years, 60 respondents (40%) were between 26-35 years, 35

respondents (23.33%) were between 36-45 years, 20 respondents (13.33%) were

between 46-55 years and 7 respondents (4.66 %) above 56 years of age.

111

Table 4.2

Gender classification

Age of Respondents [Years]

No. of Respondents Percent


Male 60 70 40 % 46.66 %

Female 90 80 60 % 53.34 %

Total 150 150 100 100

The frequency table (4.2) shows of Mysore district that there were total 150

respondents out of which (40%) were the male respondents and (60%) were the

female respondents.

The frequency table (4.2) shows of Chamarajanagar district that there were

total 150 respondents out of which (46.66%) were the male respondents and (53.34%)

were the female respondents.

Table 4.3

Qualification of respondents

Qualification No. of Respondents Percent


Illiterate 20 35 13.33 % 23.33%

Up to 10th Standard 40 50 26.67% 33.34%

Up to 10 + 2 60 40 40% 26.66%

Graduates 20 25 13.33% 16.67%

Post Graduates 10 0 6.67% 0

Total 150 150 100 100

The frequency table (4.3) of qualification is shown above. The table shows

Mysore district that there were total 150 respondents out of which 20 respondents

(13.33%) were Illiterate, 40 respondents (26.67%) were Up to 10th Standard, 60

respondents (40%) were Up to 10 + 2, 20 Respondent (13.33%) were graduates and

10 respondents (6.67%) were post graduates.

112

The frequency table (4.3) of qualification is shown above. The table shows

Chamarajanagar district that there were total 150 respondents out of which 35

respondents (23.33%) were Illiterate, 50 respondents (33.34%) were Up to 10th

Standard, 40 respondents (26.66%) were Up to 10 + 2, 25 Respondent (16.67%) were

graduates.

Table 4.4

Occupation of respondents



Agriculturist 50 80 33.33% 53.34%

Industrialist 10 5 6.67% 3.33%

Employee 70 50 46.67% 33.33%

Business 20 15 13.33% 10%

Total 150 150 100 100

Table (4.4) about occupation indicate Mysore district out of 150 respondents,

(33.33%) of respondents are agriculturist, (6.67%) of respondents are Industrialist,

(46.67%) of respondents are employed, and (13.33%) of respondents are from

business.

Table (4.4) about occupation indicate Chamarajanagar district out of 150

respondents, (53.34%) of respondents are agriculturist, (3.33%) of respondents are

Industrialist, (33.33%) of respondents are employed, and (10%) of respondents are

from business.

113

Monthly Income Profile

Table 4.5

Individual monthly income



<10,000 45 80 30% 53.33%

10,001-20,000 80 60 53.33% 40%

20,001-30,000 20 10 13.33% 6.67%

30,000-40000 5 0 3.33% 0

> 50000 0 0 0 0

Total 150 150 100 100

The above table (4.5) show that in Mysore district that there were total 150

respondents out of which (30%) of respondent earn less than 10,000, 80 respondents

(53.33%) earn between 10,000-20,000, 20 respondents (13.33%) earn between

20,000-30,000,5 respondents (3.33%) earn between 30,000-40,000.

The above table (4.5) show that in Chamarajanagar district that there were

total 150 respondents out of which (53.33%) of respondent earn less than 10,000, 60

respondents (40%) earn between 10,000-20,000, 10 respondents (6.67%) earn

between 20,000-30,000.This shows earning in Chamarajanagar district is very less

compared to Mysore district.

Monthly Expenditure Profile

Table 4.6

Individual monthly Expenditure

Qualification No. of Respondents Percent (%)


<10,000 22 40 14.66 26.66

10,001-20,000 90 90 60 60

20,001-30,000 30 20 20 13.33

30,000-40000 8 0 5.33 0

> 50000 1 0 0.66 0

Total 150 150 100 100

114

The above table (4.6) shows monthly Expenditure in Mysore district that

there were total 150 respondents out of which (14.66%) of respondent expenditure is

less than10,000, 90 respondents (60%) expenditure between 10,000-20,000, 30

respondents (20%) expenditure between 20,000-30,000. 8 respondents (5.33%)

expenditure between 30,000-40,000 and only 1 respondents (0.66) spends above

50,000

The above table (4.6) shows monthly Expenditure in Chamarajanagar district

that there were total 150 respondents out of which (26.66%) of respondent

expenditure is less than 10,000, 90 respondents (60%) expenditure between 10,000-

20,000, 20 respondents (13.33%) expenditure between 20,000-30,000.

To analyze the performance of Microfinance Institution in relation to the purpose of

Microfinance funds being used.

The purpose of microfinance institute is to provide finance to those who are

not included. A number of Financial Institutions, NGOs etc., are set up in order to

provide funds to those persons through microfinance inclusion, who are excluded. In

this connection, nine reasons for use of the micro finance were identified and the

opinion of the respondent’s was sought. It is observed that for maximum number of

respondents has obtained the microfinance facility for starting a business (22.33%)

and for agriculture (23%). Together, these two reasons constitute 45.33%. Asset

building is the next reason for which the microfinance is sought at 11.667%. While

Animal Husbandry and Medical Expenses both are equally identified in requirement

of funds at 6.3% each, it is disheartening to note that relatively a higher percentage of

respondents (9.33%) require funds for medical expenses.

115

Table No 4.7

Reasons for which Microfinance is used.

Reason N Percent Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Coefficient of

Variation

Agriculture 67 22.33% 6.28 3.228 10.418 51.40%

Animal Husbandry 19 6.33% 6.89 2.685 7.211 38.97%

Asset Building 35 11.67% 5.40 3.449 11.894 63.87%

Starting Business 69 23.00% 5.12 3.279 10.751 64.04%

Household Expenditure

19 6.33% 5.05 3.153 9.942 62.44%

Educational Expenses 23 7.67% 5.26 3.532 12.474 67.15%

Medical Expenses 28 9.33% 5.36 3.070 9.423 57.28%

Social Security 13 4.33% 5.38 3.124 9.756 58.07%

Farm Mechanisation 27 9.00% 5.11 3.588 12.872 70.22%

Total 300

The above table (4.7) Animal Husbandry is the only reason that shows the

coefficient of variation less than 50%. This indicates that there is no consistency in

the respondents having a reason for which microfinance is sought. It is quite likely

that the beneficiaries of the microfinance may be using the finance for more than one

purpose. The main objective behind providing microfinance is uplifting the poor.

Thus providing funding through microfinance is aimed at protecting them from the

moneylenders who charge exorbitant rate of interest for the loan provided by them.

Repayment of loan availed is one major aspect which is seen by the Institution when

the loan is provided. As long as the beneficiaries repay the loan within the prescribed

period, there should be no reason for apprehension by the institute. It is also likely

that some of the reasons are sudden requiring immediate funding. Thus, a portion of

money for a specific purpose might have been used and Other purposes also.

116

Table No 4.8

Financial Institution from which Microfinance is sought.

Institution N Percent Mean Std. Deviation

Variance

Coefficient of

Variation

Grameena Financial Services

45 15.00% 4.29 2.519 6.346 58.72%

SpandanaSpoorthy Financial

33 11.00% 5.00 2.574 6.625 51.48%

Ujjivan Financial Services

22 7.33% 4.73 2.334 5.446 49.34%

SKS Micro Finance 22 7.33% 4.27 2.374 5.636 55.60%

ShriKshetraDharmasthala Project

37 12.33% 4.41 2.702 7.303 61.27%

Asmitha Micro Finance

15 5.00% 5.33 2.160 4.667 40.53%

BSS Micro Finance 15 5.00% 3.47 1.995 3.981 57.49%

Sanghamitra Rural Finance

43 14.33% 3.23 2.671 7.135 82.69%

Fullerton India Gramashakti

8 2.67% 3.50 2.000 4.000 57.14%

MYRADA 52 17.33% 3.81 2.521 6.354 66.17%

BharatiyaSamruddi Finance

8 2.67% 5.75 2.915 8.500 50.70%

Total 300

From the above table (4.8) Eleven Financial Institutions were considered in

the sample. MYRADA at 17.33% is the biggest microfinance provider in the form of

a number of funding. This is closely followed by Grameena Financial Services (15%)

and Sanghamitra Rural Finance (14.33%). Fullerton India Gramashakti and Bharatiya

Samruddi Finance each at 2.67% is the least microfinance provider in the form of a

number of funding. It is noticed that a relatively higher number of people are covered

by Sri Kshetra Dharmasthala and Spandana Spoorthy Financial (12.33% and 11%

respectively.). The higher coefficient of variation of most of the Institutions indicates

that finance may be provided in varied manner of which Sanghamitra Rural Finance

117

stands out. MYRADA and Sri Kshetra Dharmasthala also have higher variation and

these institutions may also be funding for varied reasons. Asmitha Microfinance is

covering only 5% of the members and the coefficient of variation is 40.53%. This

indicates that this institute is more selective in funding.

To compare the micro finance model for financial inclusion in Mysore and

Chamarajanagar district

The effectiveness of micro finance models in bringing about the positive

progress in the financial inclusion in the districts of Mysore and Chamarajanagar was

sought through a question. The effectiveness of the model for comparison between the

districts Mysore and Chamarajanagar is possible as the sample size is equally divided

between the two districts. Three different models are considered for the purpose of

study; SHG model, Grameena Bank and Cooperative Bank.

The Self Help Group (SHG)

The Self Help Group (SHG) is an indigenous model formed out of a small

group of members who are homogenous in terms of income. The savings are pooled

and lending is done for promoting development. SHGs are also financed and

supported by NGOs.

Table No 4.9

Ranking of Mysore and Chamarajanagar District on the opinion of SHG

Opinion on SHG Mysore Rank Chamarajanagar Rank Total

Strongly Disagree 9(6%) 2 10(6.67%) 2 19

Disagree 30(20%) 4 57(38%) 5 87

Neither Agree nor Disagree 80(53.33%) 5 49(32.67%) 4 129

Agree 29(19.33%) 3 31(20.67%) 3 60

Strongly Agree 2(1.33%) 1 3(2%) 1 5

Total 150 150 300

The above table (4.9) nine respondents (6%) “Strongly Disagree” with the

view that the overall benefits provided by SHG Model are good while the

118

corresponding figure for Chamarajanagar is 10 (6.67%). While 80 numbers of

respondents (53.33%) have remained neutral on the issue in Mysore district, 57

numbers of respondents (38%) have disagreed that the SHG model is good. The

number of respondents who have agreed that the SHG model is good is 29 (19.33%)

in Mysore district, while the corresponding figure for Chamarajanagar district is 31

(20.67%). Only 2 respondents (1.33%) have strongly agreed that the benefit provided

by SHG as good while 3 respondents (2%) of Chamarajanagar has strongly agreed

with this view.

Rank correlation is established between the two districts on the opinion of the

respondents. The rank correlation derived is 0.9 and indicates a high correlation

between the two districts. However, as seen from the above table, large numbers of

respondents of Mysore district have remained neutral, but there is higher

disagreement in the district of Chamarajanagar compared to Mysore District. Thus,

there may be a higher probability of respondents of Mysore district forming a better

association and promoting financial inclusion through SHG.

The Grameena Bank Model:

The Grameena Bank Model is focused on providing finance for

entrepreneurial women who are already into some small jobs. The grouping, which is

made up of about five members and financing of this model is a substitute collateral

tool taking care of default and also possible risks. The guarantee is on one on another

in the group.

119

Table No 4.10

Ranking of Mysore and Chamarajanagar District on the opinion of Grameena

Bank

Opinion on Grameena Mysore Rank Chamarajanagar Rank Total

Strongly Disagree 26(17.33%) 2 31(20.67%) 2 57

Disagree 48(32%) 3 40(26.67%) 3 88

Neither Agree nor Disagree 72(48%) 4 64(42.67%) 4 136

Agree 4(2.67%) 1 15(10%) 1 19

Strongly Agree 0 0 0

Total 150 150 300

The above table (4.10) none of the respondents of Mysore and

Chamarajanagar districts have strongly agreed on the opinion that overall benefits

provided by Grameena Model are good. A large number of respondents have

remained neutral on this view in Mysore district 72 (48%) and 64 (42.67%). While

only 4 respondents (2.67%) of Mysore district have agreed with the view that the

overall benefits provided by Grameena model are good, 15 respondents (10%) of

Chamarajanagar have the same opinion.

The table shows a higher number of respondents of both Mysore district and

Chamarajanagar district have disagreed with this opinion. The number of respondents

disagreeing in Mysore district is 48 (32%) and in Chamarajanagar district is 40

(26.67%).

The opinion of respondents established through rank correlation between the

two districts shows a perfect positive correlation of +1. This is because the rankings in

both the districts are the same. This also implies that in the opinion of the respondents

of both the districts, the perception about the overall benefits provided by Grameena

model is same in both the district. However, looking at the table,

The Cooperative Model

Through this model, individual village banks and credit unions are established.

The individual village banks consist of 30 to 50 members. The village banks return

the principal with interest/profits to the implementing agency at the time when

120

individual loans are repaid on weekly basis. Subsequent loans are considered only

when repayment is made in full.

Table No 4.11

Ranking of Mysore and Chamarajanagar District on the opinion of Cooperative

Bank

Opinion on Cooperative Bank Mysore Rank Chamarajanagar Rank Total

Strongly Disagree 16(10.67%) 2 17(11.33%) 2 33

Disagree 56(37.33%) 3 56(37.33%) 3 112

Neither Agree nor Disagree

73(48.67%) 4 69(46%) 4 142

Agree 5(3.33%) 1 8(5.33%) 1 13

Strongly Agree 0 0 0

Table (4.11) 16 respondents (10.67%) “Strongly Disagree” with the view that

the overall benefits provided by Cooperative Model are good while the corresponding

figure for Chamarajanagar is 17 (11.67%). The number of respondents who have

agreed on the overall benefits in Mysore district is 5 (3.33%) while it is 8 (5.33%) in

Chamarajanagar. 56 numbers of respondents (37.33%) have disagreed on this issue in

both the districts. In both the districts, none of the respondents have strongly agreed to

this view. A higher number of respondents, 73 (48.67%) from Mysore district and 69

(46%) from Chamarajanagar have chosen to be neutral in this regard.

Rank correlation is established between the two districts on the opinion of the

respondents. The rank correlation derived is a perfect positive +1 due to the rankings

in both the districts being the same.

It is thus observed that all the three models show a high positive rank

correlation between the two districts yet the opinion of the respondents between the

two districts differ. Therefore, it has become necessary to analyze the data with multi-

dimensional scale.

121

Figure 4.1

SM – SHG Model Mysore; SC – SHG Model Chamarajanagar; GM – Grameena Model Mysore; GC – Grameena Model Chamarajanagar

CM – Cooperative Model Mysore CC – Cooperative Model Chamarajanagar.

From the above figure (4.1) it is observed that Grameena model in

Chamarajanagar and cooperative model in Mysore are closer compared to other

different models. These indicate that the services provided by the two models are

more closely related. The study indicates that a particular model in Mysore and

Chamarajanagar district is not rendering the same type of service in both the district in

the same magnitude.

122

Table No 4.12

Stress and Squared Correlation in Distances

Stress RSQ Stress RSQ

0.334 0.59 0.348 0.556

0.347 0.559 0.336 0.586

0.353 0.544 0.346 0.56

0.353 0.544 0.353 0.544

0.347 0.558 0.316 0.634

0.343 0.568 0.353 0.544

0.351 0.549 0.353 0.544

0.353 0.543 0.337 0.544

0.351 0.548 0.334 0.584

0.353 0.544 0.353 0.545

0.317 0.63 0.344 0.565

0.334 0.59 0.34 0.575

0.347 0.559

The above table (4.12) RSQ values is the proportion of variance of the scaled

data (disparities) in the partition (row, matrix or entire data) which is accounted for by

their corresponding distances. Stress values are Kruskal’s stress formula 1. In 25

matrices, the average stress and RSQ values arrived are 0.3446 and 0.56428. Stress

indicates how far the model is from the original dissimilarity matrix and RSQ (R2)

indicates the squared correlation. The lower values of stress and higher RSQ are better

for the model. Though average stress value is lower, RSQ value is not very high.

123

H0: There is no relationship between the product of a microfinance institution and

factors of empowerment in financial inclusion

H1: There is a relationship between the product of microfinance institution and

factors of empowerment in financial inclusion

In order to understand the influence of various products of Micro Finance

Institutions on the Factors of Empowerment, paired t - test was conducted. For

this purpose, four products of Micro Finance Institution viz., Micro Credit,

Micro Savings, Micro Insurance and Micro Finance were identified. Five factors

of Empowerment, viz., Economic Empowerment, Political Empowerment,

Socio-Cultural Empowerment, Personal Empowerment and also Family

Empowerment were identified. The results of the paired t - tests are presented in

the following tables.

Table No 4.13

Paired Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 Micro Credit 3.48 300 .646 .037

Economic Empowerment

3.7106 300 .59869 .03457


Political Empowerment 3.6587 300 .66304 .03828


Personal Empowerment 3.7679 300 .55421 .03200


Socio Cultural Empowerment

3.6767 300 .50660 .02925


Family Empowerment 3.7854 300 .58848 .03398

The above table (4.13) reveals that the sample size is 300 and the mean value

of Micro credit as a product is lesser than the mean value of all the Factors of

124

Empowerment. The standard deviation of Political Empowerment only is marginally

higher than the standard deviation of the product micro credit. The Standard Error of

Mean is derived by dividing the standard deviation by the square root of sample size

(σ/√N). These calculations hold good for the remaining comparisons as well. The

difference between the standard error mean is small and this implies that most pairs of

samples from the population will have similar means.

Table No 4.14

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Micro Credit & Economic Empowerment 300 .382 .000

Pair 2 Micro Credit & Political Empowerment 300 .309 .000

Pair 3 Micro Credit & Personal Empowerment 300 .237 .000

Pair 4 Micro Credit & Socio Cultural Empowerment 300 .404 .000

Pair 5 Micro Credit & Family Empowerment 300 .257 .000

Table (4.14) presents the correlation between Micro Credit as a Product of

Microfinance Institution and various Factors of Empowerment. It is seen that the

correlation coefficients are large as seen from the above table and also they are

significantly correlated because (p < 0.05).

125

Table No 4.15

Paired Statistics of Micro Credit and Factors of Empowerment

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Mean Difference

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair 1 Micro Credit - Economic Empowerment

-.23056 .69324 .04002 -.30932 -.15179 -5.760 299 .000

Pair 2 Micro Credit - Political Empowerment

-.17867 .76988 .04445 -.26614 -.09119 -4.020 299 .000

Pair 3 Micro Credit - Personal Empowerment

-.28788 .74480 .04300 -.37250 -.20326 -6.695 299 .000

Pair 4 Micro Credit - Socio Cultural Empowerment

-.19667 .64007 .03695 -.26939 -.12394 -5.322 299 .000

Pair 5 Micro Credit - Family Empowerment

-.30542 .75375 .04352 -.39106 -.21978 -7.018 299 .000

126

The above table (4.15) shows the paired statistical values derived between

Micro credit and other Factors of Empowerment. The mean value indicated in the

table is the difference in the mean value shown in the table titled paired statistics. The

Standard Error of Mean is derived by dividing the standard deviation by the square

root of sample size (σ/√N). The value of t is derived by dividing the mean differences

by the standard error of differences. For instance, the value of t for Pair 1 is -

0.23056/0.04002 = -5.760. The degrees of freedom is N-1 (300 – 1 =299). The 95%

Confidence Interval of difference indicates that the true mean difference lies between

the two intervals (for Pair 1: limits lies between -0.30932 and -0.15179.) These

calculations hold good for the remaining comparisons as well.

The derived value of t is less than significance value at 5% directs the reject

Null hypothesis (p < 0.05). The fact that the value of t being negative and less than the

mean value of Micro credit being lesser than the mean value of Empowerment this

implies that exposure to Micro credit has caused greater influence on all the Factors of

Empowerment.

In order to find out if the effect is substantive, effect sizes (r) are evaluated

using the following formula.

Table No 4.16

Effect Size values of Product and Factor Empowerment Paired.

Product and Factor of Empowerment paired Effect size values (r )

Micro Credit - Economic Empowerment 0.316

Micro Credit - Political Empowerment 0.226

Micro Credit - Personal Empowerment 0.361

Micro Credit - Socio Cultural Empowerment 0.294

Micro Credit - Family Empowerment 0.376

From the above table (4.16) the value of r for all the paired comparison as seen

from the above table is less than 0.5.

Therefore, it can be concluded that on average, respondents had a significant

influence of Micro credit as a means of Microfinance Institution, the value of (r<0.5).

127

Table No 4.17

Paired Statistics

Mean N Std.

Deviation Std. Error

Mean

Pair 1 Micro Savings 3.49 300 .852 .049

Economic Empowerment 3.7106 300 .59869 .03457






Socio Cultural Empowerment 3.6767 300 .50660 .02925



From the above table (4.17) Micro Savings as a product of Microfinance

Institution and different Factors of Empowerment are paired together in order to

understand the effect of Micro Savings on the Factors of Empowerment. From the

above table, it is observed that there is not much variation in the mean values of

Micro savings and the Factors of Empowerment. The standard deviation of Micro

savings is also higher than the standard deviations of all the Factors of Empowerment.

The Standard Error of Mean is derived by dividing the standard deviation by the

square root of sample size (σ/√N).

128

Table No 4.18


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Micro Savings & Economic Empowerment 300 .276 .000

Pair 2 Micro Savings & Political Empowerment 300 .257 .000

Pair 3 Micro Savings & Personal Empowerment 300 .270 .000

Pair 4 Micro Savings & Socio Cultural Empowerment 300 .333 .000

Pair 5 Micro Savings & Family Empowerment 300 .264 .000

Table (4.18) presents the correlation between Micro Savings as a Product of

Microfinance Institution and various Factors of Empowerment. It is seen that the

correlation coefficients are large as seen from the above table and also they are

significantly correlated because (p < 0.05).

129

Table No 4.19

Paired Statistics of Micro Savings and Factors of Empowerment


Mean Difference

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean


Pair 1 Micro Savings - Economic Empowerment

-.22389 .89580 .05172 -.32567 -.12211 -4.329 299 .000

Pair 2 Micro Savings - Political Empowerment

-.17200 .93524 .05400 -.27826 -.06574 -3.185 299 .002

Pair 3 Micro Savings - Personal Empowerment

-.28121 .88173 .05091 -.38139 -.18103 -5.524 299 .000

Pair 4 Micro Savings - Socio Cultural Empowerment

-.19000 .83340 .04812 -.28469 -.09531 -3.949 299 .000

Pair 5 Micro Savings - Family Empowerment

-.29875 .89841 .05187 -.40083 -.19667 -5.760 299 .000

130

From the above table (4.19) the derived value of t is less than significance

value at 5% directs the reject the Null hypothesis. The fact that the value of t being

negative and less than the mean value of Micro Savings being lesser than the mean

value of Empowerment this implies that exposure to Micro Savings has caused greater

influence on all the Factors of Empowerment.

Table No 4.20



Micro Savings - Economic Empowerment 0.243

Micro Savings - Political Empowerment 0.181

Micro Savings - Personal Empowerment 0.304

Micro Savings - Socio Cultural Empowerment 0.223

Micro Savings - Family Empowerment 0.316

From the above (4.20) the value of r for all the paired comparison as seen from

the above table is less than 0.5. Therefore, it can be concluded that on average,

respondents had a significant influence of Micro Savings as a means of Microfinance

Institution, the value of (r < 0.5).

Table No 4.21

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 Micro Insurance 3.36 300 .804 .046










131

From the above table (4.21) Micro Insurance as a product of Microfinance

Institution and different Factors of Empowerment are paired together in order to

understand the effect of Micro Insurance on the Factors of Empowerment. From the

above table, it is observed that there is not much variation in the mean values of

Micro Insurance and the Factors of Empowerment. The standard deviation of Micro

Insurance is also higher than the standard deviations of all the Factors of

Empowerment. The Standard Error of Mean is derived by dividing the standard

deviation by the square root of sample size (σ/√N).

Table No 4.22


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Micro Insurance & Economic Empowerment 300 .301 .000

Pair 2 Micro Insurance & Political Empowerment 300 .204 .000

Pair 3 Micro Insurance & Personal Empowerment 300 .339 .000

Pair 4 Micro Insurance & Socio Cultural Empowerment

300 .291 .000

Pair 5 Micro Insurance & Family Empowerment 300 .213 .000

From the above table (4.22) the above table shows that the correlation between

Micro Insurance as a Product of Microfinance Institution and various Factors of

Empowerment. It is seen that the correlation coefficients are large as seen from the

above table and also they are significantly correlated because p<0.05.

132

Table 4.23

Paired Statistics of Micro Insurance and Factors of Empowerment


Mean Difference

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean


Pair 1 Micro Insurance - Economic Empowerment

-.35056 .84555 .04882 -.44663 -.25449 -7.181 299 .000

Pair 2 Micro Insurance - Political Empowerment

-.29867 .93186 .05380 -.40454 -.19279 -5.551 299 .000

Pair 3 Micro Insurance - Personal Empowerment

-.40788 .80682 .04658 -.49955 -.31621 -8.756 299 .000

Pair 4 Micro Insurance - Socio Cultural Empowerment

-.31667 .81585 .04710 -.40936 -.22397 -6.723 299 .000

Pair 5 Micro Insurance - Family Empowerment

-.42542 .88902 .05133 -.52643 -.32441 -8.288 299 .000

133

The above table (4.23) shows that the correlation between Micro Insurance as

a Product of Microfinance Institution and various Factors of Empowerment. It is seen

that the correlation coefficients are large as seen from the above table and also they

are significantly correlated because (p < 0.05).

The derived value of t is less than the significance value at 5% directs the

reject Null hypothesis. The fact that the value of t being negative and less than the

mean value of Micro Insurance being lesser than the mean value of Empowerment

this implies that exposure to Micro Insurance has caused greater influence on all the

Factors of Empowerment.

Table No 4.24



Micro Insurance - Economic Empowerment 0.384

Micro Insurance - Political Empowerment 0.306

Micro Insurance - Personal Empowerment 0.452

Micro Insurance - Socio Cultural Empowerment 0.362

Micro Insurance - Family Empowerment 0.432


from the above table is less than 0.5. Therefore, it can be concluded that on average,

respondents had a significant influence of Micro Savings as a means of Microfinance

Institution, the value of (r < 0.5).

134

Table No 4.25

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 Micro Finance Training 3.45 300 .893 .052










From the above table (4.25) Training as a product of Microfinance Institution

and different Factors of Empowerment are paired together in order to understand the

effect of Micro Finance training on the Factors of Empowerment. From the above

table, it is observed that there is not much variation in the mean values of Micro

Finance and the Factors of Empowerment. The standard deviation of Micro Finance is

also higher than the standard deviations of all the Factors of Empowerment. The

Standard Error of Mean is derived by dividing the standard deviation by square root

of sample size (σ/√N).

135

Table No 4.26


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Micro Finance Training & Economic Empowerment

300 .268 .000

Pair 2 Micro Finance Training & Political Empowerment

300 .280 .000

Pair 3 Micro Finance Training & Personal Empowerment

300 .281 .000

Pair 4 Micro Finance Training & Socio Cultural Empowerment

300 .359 .000

Pair 5 Micro Finance Training & Family Empowerment

300 .269 .000

The above table (4.26) shows that the correlation between Microfinance

Training as a Product of Microfinance Institution and various Factors of

Empowerment. It is seen that the correlation coefficients are large as seen from the

above table and also they are significantly correlated because (p < 0.05).

136

Table 4.27

Paired Statistics of Micro Finance and Factors of Empowerment


Mean

Difference

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Pair 1 Micro Finance Training -

Economic Empowerment

-.25722 .93213 .05382 -.36313 -.15132 -4.780 299 .000


Political Empowerment

-.20533 .95124 .05492 -.31341 -.09726 -3.739 299 .000


Personal Empowerment

-.31455 .90898 .05248 -.41782 -.21127 -5.994 299 .000



-.22333 .85375 .04929 -.32033 -.12633 -4.531 299 .000


Family Empowerment

-.33208 .92806 .05358 -.43753 -.22664 -6.198 299 .000

137

From the above table (4.27) the derived value of t is less than significance

value at 5% directs the reject Null hypothesis. The fact that the value of t being

negative and less than the mean value of Micro Finance Training being lesser than the

mean value of all Empowerment this implies that exposure to Micro Finance Training

has caused greater influence on all the Factors of Empowerment.

Table No 4.28

Effect Size values of Product and Factor Empowerment Paired


Micro Finance Training - Economic Empowerment 0.266

Micro Finance Training - Political Empowerment 0.211

Micro Finance Training - Personal Empowerment 0.328

Micro Finance Training - Socio Cultural Empowerment 0.253

Micro Finance Training - Family Empowerment 0.337


from the above table is less than 0.5. Therefore, it can be concluded that on average,

respondents had a significant influence of Micro finance training and all Factors of

Empowerment.

Thus, it is observed that the t value for all the Products of Microfinance

contrasted with the Factors of Empowerment are lesser than the significant value

directing to reject the Null Hypothesis and it is concluded that there is a positive

relationship between the products of Micro finance Institution and factors of

empowerment in financial inclusion. The effect size value (r) for all the Products of

Microfinance contrasted with the Factors of Empowerment are also lesser than hence

it is concluded that the positive relationship derived.

138

2) H0: There is no significant relationship between all Economic Characteristic and

development of the rural by the use of borrowed funds from MFI.

H2: There is a significant relationship between all Economic Characteristic and

development of the rural by the use of borrowed funds from MFI.

Table 4.29

Relationship between all Economic Characteristic and development of the rural

Dimensions Variables Mean S.D F Sig

Economic

Increase in Saving 3.72 .997 1.265 .000

Increase in Income 3.22 .968 1.895 .001

Women economically empowered

3.80 1.10 1.649 .000

Poverty Reduction 3.24 1.34 1.815 .000

Improved decision power 3.67 1.07 1.542 .002

Political

Awareness Political 3.16 1.12 1.458 .001

Participation in political activities

2.98 .995 1.652 .001

Position of power 3.12 1.14 1.546 .002

Social

Access to various organizations

3.23 .987 1.706 .000

Participation in social development activities

3.15 1.09 1.854 .000

Personal

Ability and involvement in decision making

3.19 .985 1.648 .001

Self esteem 3.22 .965 1.784 .000

Improvement in health 3.17 .945 1.820 .001

Gender equality 3.48 1.33 2.117 .000

Family

Improved in basic facilities and amenities

3.36 1.05 1.885 .000

Improved in standard of living 3.50 1.17 1.854 .000

Education to children 3.26 .892 1.687 .001

139

From the above table (4.29) ANOVA was conducted from the above table

shows; it could be interpreted for analyzing the effects Economic Characteristic and

development of the rural by the use of borrowed funds from MFI. For the dimension,

economic the calculated values of variables are found significant at the 5 percent

level, so null hypotheses is rejected. Hence, it is concluded that there is a significant

relationship between economic and use of borrowed funds from MFI.

For the dimension, political the calculated values of variables are found

significant at the 5 percent level, so null hypothesis are rejected and alternate

hypothesis is accepted. Hence, it is concluded that there is a significant relationship

between political and use of borrowed funds from MFI.

Similarly, for the dimension Social values of p are found significant at the 5

percent level, so null hypotheses are rejected and alternate hypotheses are accepted.

So it could be concluded that there is a significant relationship between social and use

of borrowed funds from MFI.

For the remaining dimensions personal and Family values are found

significant at the 5 percent level, so the related null hypothesis will be rejected and

alternate hypothesis will be accepted. So it could be concluded that there is a

significant relationship between personal and use of borrowed funds from MFI.

Family and development of the rural by use of borrowed funds from MFI

140

H0: Financial inclusion through micro finance models is not a function of effective

implementation of NABARD financial apex institution.

H3: Financial inclusion through micro finance models is a function of effective

implementation of NABARD financial apex institution.

The various models designed for reaching the beneficiaries by the apex

financial institution indicate the effectiveness of the financial institution itself.

NABARD is the financial apex institution and is controlling invariably all the

activities of microfinance. This function has been put to test using one-way

ANOVA by taking the opinion of respondents on the working of NABARD as

the apex financial institution and comparing it with the various models viz.,

SHG, Grameena Bank and Cooperative Models

141

Table No 4.30

Opinion of NABARD Apex Institution

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Neither Agree nor Disagree 14 4.7 4.7 4.7

Agree 213 71.0 71.0 75.7

Strongly Agree 73 24.3 24.3 100.0

Total 300 100.0 100.0

From the above table (4.30) the opinion about the working of the financial

institution is agreed by 213 respondents (71%) and another 73 persons strongly agree

(24.3%). The number of persons who remain neutral is only 14 (4.7%) but there are

no respondents who either strongly disagree or disagree in this regard. Therefore,

NABARD as an apex micro financial institution in its role as a coordinator, regulator,

refinance, trainer and assistance provider is well accepted by the respondents.

142

Table No 4.31

Descriptive Statistics of Financial Models and Working of Apex Institution

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean

Std. Deviation

Std.

Error Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Minimum Maximum

SHG Neither Agree nor Disagree 14 3.1250 .61823 .16523 2.7680 3.4820 2.50 4.50

Agree 213 3.2758 .65138 .04463 3.1878 3.3638 1.38 4.75

Strongly Agree 73 3.2740 .64066 .07498 3.1245 3.4234 1.38 4.50

Total 300 3.2683 .64599 .03730 3.1949 3.3417 1.38 4.75

GRAMEENA Neither Agree nor Disagree 14 2.8750 .43301 .11573 2.6250 3.1250 1.75 3.25

Agree 213 2.9982 .54655 .03745 2.9244 3.0721 1.75 4.25

Strongly Agree 73 2.9229 .62452 .07310 2.7772 3.0687 1.75 4.25

Total 300 2.9742 .56159 .03242 2.9104 3.0380 1.75 4.25

COOPERATIVE Neither Agree nor Disagree 14 2.9732 .61468 .16428 2.6183 3.3281 2.00 4.13

Agree 213 2.9765 .48931 .03353 2.9104 3.0426 1.88 4.13

Strongly Agree 73 3.1164 .50661 .05929 2.9982 3.2346 2.25 4.13

Total 300 3.0104 .50161 .02896 2.9534 3.0674 1.88 4.13

143

From the above table (4.31) the descriptive statistics of financial models vis-à-

vis the working of the apex micro finance institution. It is observed that there is mean

value of SHG Model is the highest, followed by Cooperative and Grameena Models.

Table No 4.32

One way ANOVA

Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.

SHG

Between Groups .302 2 .151 .360 .000

Within Groups 124.472 297 .419

Total 124.774 299

GRAMEENA

Between Groups .453 2 .226 .716 .000


Total 94.300 299

COOPERATIVE

Between Groups 1.085 2 .542 2.172 .000


Total 75.233 299

From the above table (4.32) the ANOVA table for all the three models of

financial inclusion is presented in the above table. It is observed that the F value at

2,297 degrees of freedom is significant at a value less than 0.05 (p < 0.05). Therefore,

the null hypothesis is rejected for all the three microfinance models.

144

H0: The performance of a micro finance institution in financial inclusion is not

dependent on the level of awareness of services provided.

H4: The performance of a micro finance institution in financial inclusion is

dependent on the level of awareness of services provided.

The awareness level of microfinance facilities by the respondents and

the availability of Financial Institutions for providing the microfinance facility

were studied. Four levels viz., “Not aware”, “Partially Aware”, “Fairly Aware”

and “Fully Aware” of microfinance awareness and eleven Financial Institutions

were considered for this purpose.

Table No 4.33

Cross Tabulation of Overall awareness of Microfinance and Financial Institution

Overall awareness of Microfinance

Financial Institution Not

Aware

Partially

Aware

Fairly

Aware

Fully Aware

Total

Grameena Financial Services 4 20 16 5 45

Spandana Spoorthy Financial 3 14 10 6 33

Ujjivan Financial Services 2 7 9 4 22

SKS Micro Finance 1 8 9 4 22

ShriKshetra Darmasthala Project 1 11 18 7 37

Asmitha Micro Finance 1 4 8 2 15

BSS Micro Finance 0 9 4 2 15

Sanghamitra Rural Finance 4 14 19 6 43

Fullerton India Gramashakti 2 2 4 0 8

MYRADA 2 23 21 6 52

Bharatiya Samruddi Finance 0 3 5 0 8

Total 20 115 123 42 300

From the above table (4.33) it is observed that the number of respondents who

are fully aware and also those who are not aware of the microfinance facilities are

lesser compared to the number of respondents who are “Partially aware” and also

“Fairly aware”. Sanghamitra Rural Finance and Bharatiya Samruddi Finance are

145

represented by eight numbers of respondents each while the maximum number of

responses is for MYRADA.

The study of the awareness level of microfinance facilities by the respondents

and the availability of Financial Institutions for providing the microfinance facility is

carried out through t Test. The result of the test is presented in the following tables.

Table No 4.34

Group Statistics

Awareness Average

N Mean Std.

Deviation Std. Error

Mean

Financial Institution >= 2.53 123 5.54 3.347 .302

< 2.53 177 5.58 3.236 .243


>= 2.53 123 2.73 .800 .072

< 2.53 177 2.55 .804 .060

From the above table (4.34) the mean score for facility awareness is 2.53. This

value is considered for testing the hypothesis. 123 responses are equal or fall above

the mean value while the remaining 177 responses are less than the mean value. The

mean and standard deviation values of different Financial Institution and Overall

awareness of Microfinance are presented in the Table.

146

Table No 4.35

T Test statistic on Awareness and Performance of Micro Finance Institutions

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances t-test

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

F Sig. t df Sig. (1-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

Lower Upper

Financial Institution

Equal variances assumed .623 .430 -.082 298 .001 -.032 .385 -.790 .727

Equal variances not assumed -.081 256.872 .001 -.032 .388 -.795 .732


Equal variances assumed .003 .959 1.949 298 .000 .184 .094 -.002 .369

Equal variances not assumed 1.951 263.392 .000 .184 .094 -.002 .369

147

The value of t is derived by dividing the difference of mean value from the

resultant figure from the following formula:

+

2

22

1

21

N

s

N

s

From the above table (4.35) the t value of -0.082 for Financial Institution is

arrived by dividing -0.032 (difference of mean: 5.54-5.58; the difference to four

decimal places is actually 5.5447-5.5762 =-0.03150) by the resultant figure obtained

from the formula (N1 = 177, N2 = 123, S1=3.347 S2=3.236). The value of -0.081 is

derived using the same method; except that N1 and N2 are interchanged as mean

value is used as cut-off as a value for computing the test. (Correct and closer value are

obtained if the decimal in the calculation is higher without rounding off to two or

three digits). This method is applicable to the rest of the t test carried out for overall

awareness of microfinance also. The significance value under Levene’s Test for

equality of variance shows a value less than 0.05 ( p< 0.05) and suggests that the

assumption “Equal variances assumed” has to be considered. Therefore the t-test

values against Equal variances assumed has to be considered in interpreting the data.

The value of t is assessed against the value of 0.05. As Financial Institution and also

the Microfinance facility awareness levels are intended for positive performance, one-

tail significance is considered. The significant value of p shown under the column Sig

1 tailed. While the Financial Institution shows a significance value less than 0.05 (p <

0.05), the other aspect viz., overall awareness of factors shows the significance value

less than 0.05. (p< 0.05).

Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected with respect to the overall awareness of

microfinance. The functions of Financial Institutions are multifarious and it is likely

that the eleven institutions may be catering to various needs of the people. As many

financial institutions are available, an individual may be inclined to take facility from

any one of the institution and may also recommend the same financial institution who

ask him. This is evidenced by the fact that the number of respondents who have

partial and fair knowledge about the outnumbering the respondents those who have no

knowledge about overall awareness of microfinance and also the variation between

the various financial institutions are not high excluding “Sanghamitra Rural Finance”

and “Bharatiya Samruddi Finance” who are represented by eight numbers of

148

respondents each. However, as the null hypothesis is accepted with respect to the

overall awareness of microfinance, this is a good sign of positive progress of the

microfinance.

H 0: There is no significant effect of microfinance in poverty reduction.

H5 : There is a significant effect of microfinance in poverty reduction.

Table 4.36

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Poverty reduction 4.1900 .59786 300

Accessibility of Microfinance Service 4.1524 .68302 300

utilize of Microfinance 4.0365 .78965 300

knowledge of Microfinance 4.1708 .58754 300

Terms & Condition 4.1820 .66508 300

From the above table (4.36) Descriptive statistics reveal the Mean value and

Standard Deviation of dependent and independent variables.

Poverty reduction is the dependent variable and 4.19 mean of poverty

reduction shows that most of the respondents are agreeing that by using microfinance

in their poverty has reduced while their standard of living, level of income, savings

and investment has increased.

Accessibility of Microfinance Service (AMFS) having the mean of 4.15 which

means that respondents are agreed that the availability of microfinance services is

easily accessible to them.

Utilize of Microfinance (UMF) having the mean 4.03 which shows that

respondents are also agreeing to that microfinance has helped them to fulfill their

basic needs and for starting a new business.

Knowledge of Microfinance (KMF) with mean 4.17 which shows that

respondents are agreeing to that they have awareness about the microfinance.

Terms & condition with mean 4.18 which shows that many respondents are

agreeing that the terms and conditions of microfinance.

149

Table 4.37

Correlations

Poverty

Reduction

Accessibility of Microfinance Service

utilize of

Microfinance

knowledge of Microfinance

Terms & Condition

Poverty Reduction

Pearson correlation 1 .695** .795** .684** .789**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 300 300 300 300 300


Pearson correlation .695** 1 .687** .625** .690**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 1 .000 .000 .000

N 300 300 300 300 300

utilize of Microfinance

Pearson correlation .795** .687** 1 .620** .860**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 300 300 300 300 300


Pearson correlation .684** .625** .620** 1 .654**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 300 300 300 300 300

Terms & Condition

Pearson correlation .789** .690** .860** .654** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 300 300 300 300 300

150

The above table (4.37) shows that the Pearson Correlations and significant

values between dependent and independent variables. It shows that availability of

microfinance services having the highest positive relationship (+.695) with the

poverty reduction and also having the significant value .000. There is a positive

relationship between Accessibility of Microfinance Service and Poverty reduction” at

5% and at the 1% level of significance.

From the above table it shows that utilize of Microfinance having the highest

positive relationship (+.795) with the poverty reduction and also having the

significant value .000. There is a positive relationship between Utilize of

Microfinance and Poverty reductions” at 5% and at the 1% level of significance.

From the above table it also shows that knowledge of Microfinance having the

highest positive relationship (+.684) with the poverty reduction and also having the

significant value .000. There is a positive relationship between knowledge of

Microfinance and Poverty reduction” at 5% and at the 1% level of significance.

From the above table it shows Terms & Condition having the highest positive

relationship (+.789) with the poverty reduction and also having the significant value

.000. There is a positive relationship between Terms & Condition and Poverty

reduction” at 5% and at the 1% level of significance.

From the above table it shows the overall scenario of our model. It shows the

overall significant value of our model .000 which indicates that the combination of

these independent variables is significantly predicting the dependent variable (poverty

reduction).

151

Table No 4.38

Coefficients a

Model Unstandardized

coefficients

standardized

coefficients

B Std. Error Beta t Sig

(Constant) .985 .281 4.216 .001


.140 .049 .168 2.815 .000

utilize of Microfinance .260 .090 .360 3.218 .002


.210 .085 .218 3.452 .000

Terms & Condition .245 .120 .280 3.248 .000

Dependent Variable: Poverty Reduction

From the above table (4.38) Coefficient table shows that Accessibility of

Microfinance Service having the value .000. It shows statistically significant at 5%

and 1% level of significance.

Utilize of Microfinance having the value .002. It shows statistically

significant at 5% and 1% level of significance.

Knowledge of Microfinance having the value .000. It shows statistically

significant at 5% and 1% level of significance

Terms & Condition are also significant at 5% and 1% level of significant

having the value .000.

152

Table No 4.39

Paired Statistics

Mean N

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 SHG 3.36 300 .648 .046


Pair 2 SHG 3.36 300 .648 .046


Pair 3 SHG 3.36 300 .648 .046


Pair 4 SHG 3.36 300 .648 .046


Pair 5 SHG 3.36 300 .648 .046



of SHG as microfinance Models is lesser than the mean value of all the Factors of

Empowerment.

The Standard Error of Mean is derived by dividing the standard deviation by

the square root of sample size (σ/√N). These calculations hold good for the remaining

comparisons as well. The difference between the standard error mean is small and this

implies that most pairs of samples from the population will have similar means.

153

Table No 4.40


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 SHG & Economic Empowerment 300 .376 .000

Pair 2 SHG & Political Empowerment 300 .316 .000

Pair 3 SHG & Personal Empowerment 300 .289 .000

Pair 4 SHG & Socio Cultural Empowerment 300 .356 .000

Pair 5 SHG & Family Empowerment 300 .384 .000

Table (4.40) presents the correlation between SHG as microfinance Models

and various Factors of Empowerment.

It is seen that the correlation coefficients are large as seen from the above table

and also they are significantly correlated because (p < 0.05).

These exist greater relationship between SHG as microfinance Models and

various Factors of Empowerment.

154

Table No 4.41

Paired Statistics of SHG and Factors of Empowerment


Mean Difference

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean


Pair 1 SHG - Economic Empowerment -.24587 .68258 .04358 -.30185 -.20356 -5.760 299 .000

Pair 2 SHG - Political Empowerment -.16897 .61147 .03354 -.36754 -.15689 -4.020 299 .000

Pair 3 SHG - Personal Empowerment -.25784 .68452 .04852 -.34785 -.20584 -6.695 299 .000

Pair 4 SHG - Socio Cultural Empowerment -.18756 .65879 .03753 -.27428 -.18658 -5.322 299 .000

Pair 5 SHG - Family Empowerment -.34521 .68452 .04352 -.39584 -.25874 -7.018 299 .000

From the above table (4.41) the derived value of t is less than the significance value at 5%. The fact that the value of t being negative and

less than the mean value of SHG as microfinance Models and various Factors of Empowerment.

This implies that exposure to SHG as microfinance Models has caused greater influence on all the Factors of Empowerment.

155

Table No 4.42

Effect Size values of SHG and Factor Empowerment Paired.

SHG and Factor of Empowerment paired Effect size values (r )

SHG - Economic Empowerment 0.386

SHG - Political Empowerment 0.358

SHG - Personal Empowerment 0.348

SHG - Socio Cultural Empowerment 0.354

SHG - Family Empowerment 0.338




influence of SHG as microfinance Models and various Factors of Empowerment.

This implies that exposure to SHG as microfinance Models has caused greater

influence on all the Factors of Empowerment.

Table No 4.43

Paired Statistics

Mean N Std.

Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 Cooperative 3.42 300 .636 .034








3.4852 300 .50280 .03758



156


of Cooperative bank as microfinance Models is lesser than the mean value of all the




comparisons as well. The difference between the standard error mean is small and this

implies that most pairs of samples from the population will have similar means.

Table No 4.44


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Cooperative & Economic Empowerment 300 .348 .000

Pair 2 Cooperative & Political Empowerment 300 .336 .000

Pair 3 Cooperative & Personal Empowerment 300 .224 .000

Pair 4 Cooperative & Socio Cultural Empowerment

300 .344 .000

Pair 5 Cooperative & Family Empowerment 300 .375 .000

Table (4.44) presents the correlation between Cooperative bank as

microfinance Models and various Factors of Empowerment.


and also they are significantly correlated because (p < 0.05). These exist greater

relationship between Cooperative bank as microfinance Models and various Factors

of Empowerment.

157

Table No 4.45

Paired Statistics of Cooperative and Factors of Empowerment


Mean Difference

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean


Pair 1 cooperative - Economic Empowerment -.22854 .69486 .04127 -.30825 -.25874 -5.760 299 .000

Pair 2 Cooperative - Political Empowerment -.17528 .78594 .03854 -.26574 -.12574 -4.020 299 .000

Pair 3 Cooperative - Personal Empowerment -.25874 .73785 .04285 -.28547 -.20248 -6.695 299 .000

Pair 4 Cooperative - Socio Cultural Empowerment

-.18975 .68574 .03753 -.35987 -.12485 -5.322 299 .000

Pair 5 Cooperative - Family Empowerment -.28546 .74852 .04287 -.36587 -.12857 -7.018 299 .000

From the above table (4.45) the derived value of t is less than significance value at 5%. The fact that the value of t being negative and less than the mean value of Cooperative bank as microfinance Models and various Factors of Empowerment.

This implies that exposure to Cooperative bank as microfinance Models has caused greater influence on all the Factors of Empowerment.

158

Table No 4.46

Effect Size values of cooperative and Factor Empowerment

cooperative and Factor of Empowerment paired Effect size values (r )

Cooperative - Economic Empowerment 0.298

Cooperative - Political Empowerment 0.284

Cooperative - Personal Empowerment 0.328

Cooperative - Socio Cultural Empowerment 0.294

Cooperative - Family Empowerment 0.364




influence of Cooperative bank as microfinance Models and various Factors of

Empowerment.

This implies that exposure to Cooperative bank as microfinance Models has

caused greater influence on all the Factors of Empowerment.

Table No 4.47

Paired Statistics

Mean N Std.

Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Pair 1 Grameena 3.42 300 .864 .046


Pair 2 Grameena 3.42 300 .864 .046


Pair 3 Grameena 3.42 300 .864 .046


Pair 4 Grameena 3.42 300 .864 .046


Pair 5 Grameena 3.42 300 .864 .046


159


of the Grameena bank as microfinance Models is lesser than the mean value of all the




comparisons as well.

The difference between the standard error mean is small and this implies that

most pairs of samples from the population will have similar means.

Table No 4.48


N Correlation Sig.

Pair 1 Grameena & Economic Empowerment 300 .280 .000

Pair 2 Grameena & Political Empowerment 300 .265 .000

Pair 3 Grameena & Personal Empowerment 300 .275 .000

Pair 4 Grameena & Socio Cultural Empowerment 300 .348 .000

Pair 5 Grameena & Family Empowerment 300 .298 .000

Table (4.48) presents the correlation between Grameena bank as microfinance

Models and various Factors of Empowerment.


and also they are significantly correlated because (p < 0.05).

These exist greater relationship between Grameena bank as microfinance

Models and various Factors of Empowerment.

160

Table No 4.49

Paired Statistics of Grameena and Factors of Empowerment


Mean Difference

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Lower Upper t df Sig.

(2-tailed)

Pair 1 Grameena - Economic Empowerment -.21854 .87452 .06854 -.35875 -.17596 -4.329 299 .000

Pair 2 Grameena - Political Empowerment -.16897 .97542 .05854 -.28542 -.07854 -3.185 299 .002

Pair 3 Grameena - Personal Empowerment -.28524 .85284 .05652 -.38785 -.16842 -5.524 299 .000

Pair 4 Grameena - Socio Cultural Empowerment -.19875 .82864 .04962 -.29854 -.09528 -3.949 299 .000

Pair 5 Grameena - Family Empowerment -.22854 .87985 .05428 -.48954 -.19458 -5.760 299 .000

From the above table (4.49) the derived value of t is less than significance value at 5%. The fact that the value of t being negative and

less than the mean value of Grameena bank as microfinance Models and various Factors of Empowerment.

This implies that exposure to the Grameena bank as microfinance Models has caused greater influence on all the Factors of

Empowerment.

161

Table No 4.50

Effect Size values of Grameena and Factor Empowerment Paired.

Grameena and Factor of Empowerment paired Effect size values (r )

Grameena - Economic Empowerment 0.284

Grameena - Political Empowerment 0.246

Grameena - Personal Empowerment 0.318

Grameena - Socio Cultural Empowerment 0.258

Grameena - Family Empowerment 0.328




influence of Grameena bank as microfinance Models and various Factors of

Empowerment.

This implies that exposure to Grameena bank as microfinance Models has

caused greater influence on all the Factors of Empowerment.

162

Table 4.51

Level of Education and Microfinance funds being used by borrowers

Means Std. Deviation N

Microfinance funds being used by borrowers 4.12 .58794 300

Up to 10th standard 4.16 .48597 300

Up to 10+2 4.09 .68975 300

Graduate 4.18 .78254 300

Post graduates 4.20 .62846 300

Professional 4.14 .58975 300

From the above table (4.51) Descriptive statistics are given in table above

shows the Mean vale and Std. Deviation of the dependent variable and independent

variables.

Microfinance funds being used by borrowers is the dependent variable. 4.12

mean of Microfinance funds being used by borrower’s shows that most of the

respondents are agreed that level of Education will have an impact on the use of

borrowed funds from MFI.

163

Table 4.52

Level of Education and Microfinance funds being used by borrowers

Correlations

Microfinance funds being used by borrowers

Up to 10th standard

Up to 10+2

Graduate Post

graduates Professional

Microfinance funds being used by borrowers

Pearson correlation 1 .685** .758** .628** .642** .618**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 000

N 300 300 300 300 300 300

Up to 10th standard

Pearson correlation .685** 1 .668** .640** .676** .624**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 000

N 300 300 300 300 300 300

Up to 10+2

Pearson correlation .758** .668** 1 .622** .788** .658**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 000

N 300 300 300 300 300 300

Graduate Pearson correlation .628** .640** .622** 1 .654** .670**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 000

N 300 300 300 300 300 300

Post graduates Pearson correlation

.642** .676** .788** .654** 1 .648**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 000

N 300 300 300 300 300 300

Professional Pearson correlation .618** .624** .658** .670** .648** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 300 300 300 300 300 300

164


values between dependent and independent variables. It shows that level of education

Up to 10th standard having the highest positive relationship (+685) with the

Microfinance funds being used by borrowers and also having the significant value

.000. There is a positive relationship between level of education and Microfinance

funds being used by borrowers.

It shows that level of education Up to 10+2 having the highest positive

relationship (+.758) with the Microfinance funds being used by borrowers and also

having the significant value .000. There is a positive relationship between level of

education and Microfinance funds being used by borrowers.

It shows that level of education Graduate having the highest positive

relationship (+.628) with the Microfinance funds being used by borrowers and also



It shows that level of education Post Graduate having the highest positive

relationship (+642) with the Microfinance funds being used by borrowers and also



It shows that level of education Professional having the highest positive

relationship (+618) with the Microfinance funds being used by borrowers and also



The table shows the overall scenario of our model. It shows the overall

significant value of our model .000 which indicates that the combination of these

independent variables is significantly predicting the dependent variable.

165

Table 4.53

Coefficients level of education and Microfinance funds being used by borrowers

Coefficients a


coefficients

standardized

coefficients

B

Std. Error

Beta t Sig

(Constant) .856 .298 3.158 .001

Up to 10th standard .2.58 .038 .218 2.254 .000

Up to 10+2 .242 .078 .260 3.246 .001

Graduate .238 .065 .243 3.854 .000

Post graduates .264 .142 .225 3.468 .000

Professional .228 .058 .242 3.828 .000

Dependent Variable: Poverty Reduction

From the above table (4.53) Coefficient table shows that there exists positive

relationship between level of education and Microfinance funds being used by

borrowers.

Table 4.54

Level of income and Loan borrowed from MFI

Means Std. Deviation N

Loan borrowed from MFI 4.08 .52468 300

monthly income of family 4.12 .38975 300

monthly expenditure

Family

4.24 .57468 300

Increased standard of living 4.16 .53987 300

From the above table (4.54) Descriptive statistics is given in table above

shows the Mean vale and Std. Deviation of the dependent variable and independent

variables.

166

Loan borrowed from MFI is the dependent variable. 4.08 mean of Loan

borrowed from MFI shows that most of the respondents are agreed that loan borrowed

from MFI will have an impact on a monthly income of family.

It also shows that loan borrowed from MFI will have an impact on monthly of

expenditure family. It also shows that loan borrowed from MFI will have an impact

on increased standard of living.

Overall, it shows a positive relationship between monthly income of family,

monthly expenditure of family and increased standard of living with Loan borrowed

from MFI.

Table 4.55

Level of income and Loan borrowed from MFI

Correlations

Loan borrowed from MFI

monthly income

of family

monthly expenditure

Family

Increased standard of living

Loan borrowed from MFI

Pearson correlation

1 .628** .658** .648**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 300 300 300 300

monthly income of family

Pearson correlation

.628** 1 .642** .638**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 300 300 300 300

monthly expenditure Family

Pearson correlation

.658** .642** 1 .626**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 300 300 300 300


Pearson correlation

.648** .638** .626** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 300 300 300 300


values between dependent and independent variables.

167

It shows that level of monthly income of the family having the highest positive

relationship (+628) with the Loan borrowed from MFI and also having the significant

value .000. There is a positive relationship between level of monthly income of the

family and Loan borrowed from MFI.

It shows that level of monthly expenditure of the family having the highest

positive relationship (+658) with the Loan borrowed from MFI and also having the

significant value .000. There is a positive relationship between monthly expenditure

of family and Loan borrowed from MFI.

It shows that the increased standard of living having the highest positive

relationship (+648) with the Loan borrowed from MFI and also having the significant

value .000. There is a positive relationship between increased standard of living and

Loan borrowed from MFI.

The table shows the overall scenario of our model. It shows the overall

significant value of our model .000 which indicates that the combination of these

independent variables is significantly predicting the dependent variable.

168

Table 4.56

CoefficientsLevel of income and Loan borrowed from MFI

Coefficients a


coefficients

standardized

coefficients

B

Std. Error

Beta t Sig

(Constant) .786 .268

monthly income of family

.228 .184 .248 2.157 .001

monthly income of expenditure

.234 .058 .258 3.468 .001


.228 .095 .241 3.584 .002

From the above table (4.56) Coefficient table shows that there exist positive

relationship between Coefficients Level of income, expenditure and increased standard

of living and Loan borrowed from MFI.

169

Table 4.57

Respondents opinion on Co-operative Bank, Mysore

Parameter

S D D NA Nor DA

A S A Mean SD

convenient to save

No. of respondents

28 32 30 32 28 4.01 1.12

% of respondents

18.66 21.33 20 21.33 18.66

low interest No. of respondents

30 40 40 30 10 4.04 1.08

% of respondents

20 26.66 26.66 20 6.66

Availability of time

No. of respondents

28 40 30 32 20 3.96 1.15

% of respondents

18.66 26.66 20 21.33 13.33

Repayment facilities

No. of respondents

32 38 30 35 15 4.05 1.10

% of respondents

21.33 25.33 20 23.33 10

Matching credit needs of borrowers

No. of respondents

30 35 35 30 20 4.07 1.09

% of respondents

20 23.33 23.33 20 13.33

Transaction cost is high

No. of respondents

20 20 35 50 25 4.04 1.05

% of respondents

13.33 13.33 23.33 33.33 16.66

Easy access to loan

No. of respondents

35 25 35 35 20 4.08 1.20

% of respondents

23.33 16.66 23.33 23.33 13.33

enterprise development

No. of respondents

30 30 35 35 20 4.10 1.24

% of respondents

20 20 23.33 23.33 13.33

From the above (4.57) table Co-operative bank of Mysore it shows that

respondent preferred convenient to save, availability of time, repayment facilities and

matching credit needs of borrowers. But many respondents are not satisfied with

transaction cost and by accessing to co-operative bank it has helped in enterprise

development.

170

Table 4.58

Respondents opinion on SHG, Mysore

From the above table (4.58) SHG of MYSORE are preferred by a majority of

the borrowers due to convenient to save, low interest, Availability of time, Repayment

facilities, matching credit needs of borrowers, Easy access to loan. However the

transaction cost was not suitable by some of the respondents. SHG borrowers have

used the loan for enterprise development which has helped to increase in family

income and improved in saving.

Parameter S D D NA Nor DA

A S A Mean SD

convenient to save

No. of respondents

10 20 30 60 30 4.15 1.09

% of respondents

6.66 13.33 20 40 20


20 20 35 40 35 4.16 1.05

% of respondents

13.33 13.33 23.33 26.66 23.33


No. of respondents

25 25 35 45 20 4.02 1.15

% of respondents

16.66 16.66 23.33 30 13.33


No. of respondents

20 30 30 40 30 4.05 1.02

% of respondents

13.33 20 20 26.66 23.33


No. of respondents

30 30 40 30 20 4.10 1.04

% of respondents

20 20 26.66 20 13.33


No. of respondents

40 30 30 30 20 4.08 1.06

% of respondents

26.66 20 20 20 13.33

Easy access to loan

No. of respondents

10 10 30 50 50 3.96 1.10

% of respondents

6.66 6.66 20 33.33 33.33


No. of respondents

05 15 30 40 60 4.12 1.16

% of respondents

3.33 10 20 26.66 40

171

Table 4.59

Respondents opinion on Grameena Bank, Mysore


A S A Mean SD

convenient to save

No. of respondents

30 30 35 35 20 4.09 1.12

% of respondents

20 20 23.33 23.33 13.33


25 25 40 30 30 4.15 1.09

% of respondents

16.66 16.66 26.66 20 20


No. of respondents

30 35 30 35 20 4.13 1.05

% of respondents

20 23.33 20 23.33 13.33


No. of respondents

28 32 35 35 20 4.24 1.08

% of respondents

18.66 21.33 23.33 23.33 13.33


No. of respondents

32 38 35 30 15 4.18 1.07

% of respondents

21.33 25.33 23.33 20 10


No. of respondents

20 25 40 35 30 3.86 1.10

% of respondents

13.33 16.66 26.66 23.33 20

Easy access to loan

No. of respondents

37 28 30 30 25 4.01 1.12

% of respondents

24.66 18.66 20 20 16.66


No. of respondents

20 35 35 30 30 4.04 1.03

% of respondents

13.33 23.33 23.33 20 20

From the above table (4.59) Evaluating the credit from the Grameena bank of

Mysore table reveals that penchant factors behind utilizing this source of finance

convenient to save, matching credit needs of borrowers, and Easy access to loan. But

respondent are not satisfied with interest rate, Repayment facilities and Availability of

time.

172

Table 4.60

Respondents opinion on SHG, Chamarajanagar


A S A Mean SD

convenient to save

No. of respondents

15 15 40 30 50 1.16 4.13

% of respondents

10 10 26.66 20 33.33


15 20 30 50 35 1.12 3.97

% of respondents

10 13.33 20 33.33 23.33


No. of respondents

20 20 35 40 35 1.15 4.26

% of respondents

13.33 13.33 23.33 26.66 23.33


No. of respondents

20 25 30 45 30 1.09 4.18

% of respondents

13.33 16.66 20 30 20


No. of respondents

25 30 35 40 20 1.05 4.12

% of respondents

16.66 20 23.33 26.66 13.33


No. of respondents

45 35 30 20 20 1.07 4.08

% of respondents

30 23.33 20 13.33 13.33

Easy access to loan

No. of respondents

20 20 30 40 40 1.19 4.21

% of respondents

13.33 13.33 20 26.66 26.66


No. of respondents

10 20 20 30 70 1.24 4.28

% of respondents

6.66 13.33 13.33 20 46.66

From the above table (4.60) SHG of Chamarajanagar are preferred by a

majority of the borrowers due to convenient to save, low interest, Availability of time,

matching credit needs of borrowers, Easy access to loan. However transaction cost

and repayment facilities were not suitable by some of the respondents. SHG

borrowers have used the loan for enterprise development which has helped to increase

family income and improved in saving, status and women empowerment.

173

Table 4.61

Respondents opinion on Co-operative Bank, Chamarajanagar


A S A Mean SD

convenient to save

No. of respondents

25 35 35 30 25 1.02 4.10

% of respondents

16.66 23.33 23.33 20 16.66


35 30 40 25 20 1.05 4.08

% of respondents

23.33 20 26.66 16.66 13.33


No. of respondents

28 32 30 32 28 1.08 4.03

% of respondents

18.66 21.33 20 21.33 18.66


No. of respondents

37 38 30 30 15 1.04 3.98

% of respondents

24.66 25.33 20 20 10


No. of respondents

20 25 35 40 30 1.06 4.18

% of respondents

13.33 16.66 23.33 26.67 20


No. of respondents

20 20 35 50 25 1.03 4.21

% of respondents

13.33 13.33 23.33 33.33 16.67

Easy access to loan

No. of respondents

35 30 35 30 20 1.11 4.17

% of respondents

23.33 20 23.33 20 13.33


No. of respondents

30 25 35 35 25 1.10 4.22

% of respondents

20 16.67 23.33 23.33 16.67

From the above table (4.61) co-operative bank Chamarajanagar it shows that

respondent preferred Co-operative banks for Availability of time, matching credit

needs of borrowers and enterprise development. But many respondents are not

satisfied with transaction cost, repayment facilities, and low interest.

174

Table 4.62

Respondents opinion on Grameena Bank, Chamarajanagar

Parameter S D D C S A S A Mean SD convenient to save

No. of respondents

28 30 30 34 28 1.11 4.02

% of respondents

18.66 20 20 22.66 18.66


32 38 35 30 15 1.19 4.07

% of respondents

21.33 25.33 23.33 20 10


No. of respondents

20 25 40 35 30 1.15 4.04

% of respondents

13.33 16.66 26.66 23.33 20


No. of respondents

35 20 40 30 25 1.14 4.08

% of respondents

23.33 13.33 26.66 20 16.66


No. of respondents

28 20 32 40 30 1.12 4.16

% of respondents

18.66 13.33 21.33 26.67 20


No. of respondents

20 20 35 45 30 1.14 4.12

% of respondents

13.33 13.33 23.33 30 20

Easy access to loan

No. of respondents

35 30 40 30 15 1.08 4.14

% of respondents

23.33 20 26.66 20 10


No. of respondents

20 20 30 40 40 1.20 4.17

% of respondents

13.33 13.33 20 26.66 26.66

The above table (4.62) reveals the credit of Grameena bank of

Chamarajanagar that penchant inclination factors behind utilizing this source of

finance convenient to save, matching credit needs of borrowers and enterprise

development. But most of the borrowers are neutral in Availability of time,

Repayment facilities, and easy access to loan. Respondents are not satisfied with low

interest and Transaction cost is high.

175

Table No 4.63

Initiative taken in Mysore and Chamarajanagar district for financial inclusion

Service Mysore Chamarajanagar

Yes No Yes No

No Frills account 60 40 45 55

Mobile Banking 55 45 40 60

E-Banking 48 52 35 65

Tie up with NGOs 58 42 48 52

Business Corresponding model 40 60 25 75

Financial Literacy and Counseling Centre 25 75 10 90

Advertisement for financial inclusion 35 65 20 80

Kisan Credit Card 40 60 25 75

The above table (4.63) shows that the depicts out of 100 banks (commercial

and co-operative banks), 60% of the banks have offered no frills account in MYSORE

and only 45% in Chamarajanagar , 55% of banks are providing mobile banking in

MYSORE and in Chamarajanagar district its only 40%.E- banking facilities are also

provided by banks in Mysore and Chamarajanagar district its around 48% and 35%

respectively.42% of the banks have not tied up with NGOs in MYSORE and in

Chamarajanagar it is 52% the remaining 58% and 48% of the banks have been tied up

with NGOs to disseminate their service. 60% of the banks have not preferred business

correspondent in Mysore and the rest 40% of the banks have preferred business

correspondent in Mysore whereas only 25% have prefers business correspondent in

Chamarajanagar district.75 % of the banks have not established financial literacy and

counseling center and the remaining 25% of the banks have established financial

literacy and counseling in Mysore. But in Chamarajanagar only 10% banks have

established financial literacy and counseling center to educate the customers.65% of

the banks have not given advertisement for financial inclusion in Mysore and 80% in

Chamarajanagar and the left over 35% and 20% of the banks have given

advertisement for financial inclusion.60% and 75% of the banks have not issued

Kisan credit card and the remaining 40% and 25% of the banks have issued the Kisan

credit card to the farmers in Mysore and Chamarajanagar district.

CHAPTER – 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Profile of...

Documents

Transcript of CHAPTER – 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Profile of...