url
26
Jun
2014

THE IMPORTANCE OF MONITORING AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP CONCEPT AS FUTURE DIRECTION OF MICROFINANCE: Statistical inferences

Statistical inferences for the paired sample t-test for comparing between total incomes before and after participants’ involvement in microfinance programs are shown in Table 5. Results showed AIM, TEKUN and YBK programs with “mean difference” between both sets of data as very significant and high -1421.833 (AIM), -1202.388 (TEKUN) and -1028.571 (LZS). The t-values for AIM, TEKUN and LZS programs are negative -19.975 (AIM), -14.109 (TEKUN) and -8.249 (LZS). This is due to the fact that the mean scores of business income after involvement in microfinance programs at AIM, TEKUN and LZS are far greater than the total income before their involvement with the programs. The t-value for AIM program is also the highest as among other programs. This means that the participants of AIM, TEKUN and LZS programs have been able to increase their revenues beyond the poverty line and meet with the objectives of the programs.
On the other hand, for the YBK program, the ‘mean difference’ between the two sets of data are positive (59.063), small and almost insignificant. The t-value for YBK program is also positive (2.097) because of the higher mean scores before the participants’ involvement with the YBK compared to that of after the respondents’ involvement with the program. This means that the YBK program failed to help participants to improve their income level above the poverty line.
Statistical inference for the t-test for comparing between micro-finance program and control samples are shown in Table 6. Results showed that AIM and TEKUN programs have ‘mean difference’ between both sets of data which are very significant and positive at 320.408 (AIM) and 276.756 (TEKUN). The t-values for AIM and TEKUN programs are also positive 2.096 (AIM) and 1.695 (TEKUN); the reason being of the higher mean scores of business income after their involvement with AIM and TEKUN programs compared to that of the control group. This means that participants of AIM and TEKUN programs have been able to increase their income much higher than that of the control group. On the contrary, for the LZS and YBK programs the ‘mean difference’ between the two sets of data are negative -202.341 (LZS) and -1292.335 (YBK). The t-values for LZS and YBK programs are also negative -1.061 (LZS) and -7.219 (YBK), simply because of the lower mean income of LZS and YBK program participants than that of the control group. This means that LZS and YBK program participants generate business income lower than the control group. Based on Table 7, independent sample t-test showed that AIM program is more effective compared to those of TEKUN, LZS and YBK programs in assisting participants to generate profits above the poverty line. This is based on mean value of business income among AIM program participants of (2038.06) which is higher than those of TEKUN (1994.40), LZS (1515.31) and YBK (425.31). The study results showed that TEKUN program is more effective compared to LZS and YBK programs, with the exception of AIM program in generating business profits above the poverty line.
Nevertheless, study results indicate that YBK program is less effective compared to TEKUN, LZS and AIM programs in generating participants’ income above the poverty line. The study results also indicate that LZS program is less effective compared to TEKUN and AIM programs, except YBK program in generating participants’ income above the poverty line.

Table 5: Changes in Income Levels Before and After Joining the Program

Program n M SD df t sig- p
1. AIM (before-after) 180 -1421.833 955.004 179 -19.975 .000
Before (all income) 180 616.22 200.678
After (profit/income) 180 2038.06 951.805
2. TEKUN (before-after) 134 -1202.388 986.502 133 -14.109 .000
Before (all income) 134 792.01 232.352
After (profit/income) 134 1994.40 986.919
3. LZS (before-after) 49 -1028.571 872.783 48 -8.249 .000
Before (all income) 49 486.73 186.630
After (profit/income) 49 1515.31 895.138
4. YBK (before-after) 32 59.063 159.300 31 2.097 .044
Before (all income) 32 484.38 86.544
After (profit/income) 32 425.31 122.184

Table 6: Comparison of Business Incomes between Microfinance Programs and Control Group

Program n Min (M) SD MeanDifference dk T sig. p
1. AIM 180 2038.06 951.805 320.408 229 2.096 CO
Control 51 1717.65 1005.725
2. TEKUN 134 1994.40 986.919 276.756 183 1.695 .092
Control 51 1717.65 1005.725
3. LZS 49 1515.31 895.138 -202.341 98 -1.061 .291
Control 51 1717.65 1005.725
4. YBK 32 425.31 122.184 -1292.335 81 -7.219 .000
Control 51 1717.65 1005.725

Table 7: Comparison of Business Incomes between Microfinance Programs

Program n Min (M) s.p. (SD) MeanDifference dk t sig. p
1. AIM 180 2038.06 951.805 43.653 312 0.396 0.693
TEKUN 134 1994.40 986.919
2. AIM 180 2038.06 951.805 522.749 227 3.451 0.001
LZS 49 1515.31 895.138
3. AIM 180 2038.06 951.805 1612.743 210 9.553 0.000
YBK 32 425.31 122.184
5. TEKUN 134 1994.40 986.919 479.097 181 2.979 0.003
LZS 49 1515.31 895.138
6. TEKUN 134 1994.40 986.919 1569.090 164 8.957 0.000
YBK 32 425.31 122.184
8. LZS 49 1515.31 895.138 1089.994 79 6.832 0.000
YBK 32 425.31 122.184

Statistical inferences for the paired sample t-test for comparing between total incomes before and after participants’ involvement in microfinance programs are shown in Table 5. Results showed AIM, TEKUN and YBK programs with “mean difference” between both sets of data as very significant and high -1421.833 (AIM), -1202.388 (TEKUN) and -1028.571 (LZS). The t-values for AIM, TEKUN and LZS programs are negative -19.975 (AIM), -14.109 (TEKUN) and -8.249 (LZS). This is due to the fact that the mean scores of business income after involvement in microfinance programs at AIM, TEKUN and LZS are far greater than the total income before their involvement with the programs. The t-value for AIM program is also the highest as among other programs. This means

About The Author

Kevin J. Brandon

Home | Site Map | Contacts

Copyright © 2013 - 2019 Investment And Finance Online. All rights reserved