Syndicate content

Add new comment

David, I am sure your book manuscript is important, but resolving this mystery is surely a matter of high priority—not least at this time in which microfinance is facing a crisis. So we all look forward to your reply. But I hope it will not be about the instruments used by Pitt and Khandekar, which was a much studied topic prior to your paper with Morduch. (See my discussion of PK’s identification strategy in my review of evaluation methods in the Handbook of Development Economics- http://bit.ly/g5hS4O.) The headline issue of your paper—the issue that grabbed much attention, especially amongst critics of Grameen Bank—was your claim that PK’s data did not in fact indicate any consumption gains to GB borrowers—negative gains in fact. This directly refutes PK. Yet, Pitt has clearly gone deeply into the issue, and come back with a proposed solution to the mystery, indicating that the main mistakes are in your paper, and that the original PK findings are robust. That is the issue at hand. Martin