Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-lvtpz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-10T02:23:47.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual Preferences Over Development Projects: Evidence from Microlending on Kiva

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Pierre Ly  and
Geri Mason
Pierre Ly*
Affiliation:
International Political Economy, University of Puget Sound, 1500 N. Warner St. CMB#1057, Tacoma, WA 98406, USA
Geri Mason*
Affiliation:
School of Business and Economics, Seattle Pacific University, 3307 3rd Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98119, USA
*
e-mail: ply@pugetsound.edu
e-mail: geri@spu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Peer-to-peer microfinance connects philanthropic citizens with poor entrepreneurs in the developing world, offering new ways to channel charitable contributions. Although the literature suggests that donors’ perceptions of effectiveness affect charitable giving, very little is known about what types of projects individuals perceive as more effective. Using data from Kiva.org, this article presents evidence on the relative popularity of competing development projects. We present estimates of the impact of publicly visible project characteristics on funding speed. Assuming that Kiva lenders are motivated by poverty alleviation, the results shed light on individual philanthropists’ perception of project effectiveness. Knowing this can help practitioners design fundraising strategies more effectively, especially for projects that are inherently less popular.

Résumé

Résumé

Le microcrédit pair-à-pair (P2P) connecte les citoyens philanthropes aux entrepreneurs pauvres dans le monde en voie de développement, proposant ainsi des manières nouvelles pour acheminer les dons caritatifs. Bien que les publications suggèrent que les perceptions par les donateurs concernant l’efficacité ont un impact sur les dons caritatifs, on en sait fort peu pour ce qui a trait aux types de projets perçus par les individus comme plus efficaces. Cet article, se basant sur des données issues du site Kiva.org, expose des éléments indicateurs de la popularité relative de projets de développement concurrents. Nous présentons des estimations de l’impact sur la rapidité du financement des caractéristiques d’un projet ayant une visibilité publique. Si l’on tient pour acquis que les prêteurs de Kiva ont pour motivation de réduire la pauvreté, les résultats apportent un éclairage sur la perception par les philanthropes de l’efficacité d’un projet. Cette connaissance est susceptible d’aider les intervenants à concevoir des stratégies de collecte de fonds plus efficaces, notamment pour des projets qui sont par nature moins populaires.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Die Peer-to-Peer (P2P)-Mikrofinanzierung verbindet philanthrophische Bürger und mittellose Unternehmer in Entwicklungsländern und bietet neue Wege zur Einbringung wohltätiger Beiträge. Zwar lässt die Literatur darauf schließen, dass gemeinnützige Spenden davon abhängen, wie die Spender ihre Effektivität einschätzen, doch ist nur sehr wenig darüber bekannt, welche Projektarten einzelne Personen als effektiver betrachten. Mithilfe von Kiva.org erfassten Daten erbringt der vorliegende Beitrag den Nachweis über die relative Beliebtheit konkurrierender Entwicklungsprojekte. Wir schätzen den Einfluss öffentlich sichtbarer Projektmerkmale auf die Geschwindigkeit bei der Mittelbeschaffung ein. In der Annahme, dass Kiva-Geldgeber von einer angestrebten Armutsverminderung motivert werden, gaben die Ergebnisse Aufschluss über die Wahrnehmung individueller Philantropisten hinsichtlich der Projekteffektivität. Diese Kenntnis kann den Praktizierenden helfen, Strategien zur Mittelbeschaffung effektiver zu gestalten, insbesondere für Projekte, die von sich aus schon weniger beliebt sind.

Resumen

Resumen

Las microfinanzas de igual a igual (P2P) conecta a los ciudadanos filantrópicos con los emprendedores pobres en el mundo en vías de desarrollo, ofreciendo nuevas formas de canalizar las aportaciones caritativas. Aunque el material publicado sugiere que las percepciones de los donantes sobre la efectividad afectan a las donaciones caritativas, se sabe muy poco sobre qué tipo de proyectos perciben los individuos como más efectivos. Utilizando datos de Kiva.org., este documento presenta pruebas sobre la relativa popularidad de proyectos de desarrollo que compiten. Presentamos estimaciones del impacto de las características de los proyectos visibles públicamente sobre la velocidad de financiación. Asumiendo que los prestamistas de Kiva están motivados por aliviar la pobreza, los resultados esclarecen la percepción de los filántropos individuales sobre la efectividad de los proyectos. Conocer esto puede ayudar a los profesionales a diseñar estrategias de recaudación de fondos de manera más efectiva, especialmente para proyectos que son inherentemente menos populares.

摘要

摘要

在发达国家,点对点(P2P)小额贷款是连接善心人士和贫困企业主的桥梁,是传递慈善捐款的新方法。有资料表明,捐赠人如何看待善款的使用效果,会影响他们捐赠的积极性,但对于捐款人认为哪些项目更富成效,我们所知甚少。本文利用 Kive.org 的资料,提出了相互竞争的发展项目较受欢迎的证据。我们估计了公开可见项目的自身特点对筹款速度的影响。假设 Kiva 的放款人是为了扶助贫困,则扶贫结果可以解释慈善人士对项目成效的看法。了解这一点有助于从业者设计出效果更佳的筹款策略,尤其是那些天生就不太受欢迎的项目。

要約

要約

ピアツーピア(P2P)マイクロファイナンスは、偽善的な貢献という新しい方法を提供して、慈善的な市民を開発途上国における貧しい企業家に結び付ける。文献では、援助資金供与者の有効的な認知が偽善活動の提供を決定づけるが、個人がどのようなプロジェクトを最も効果的であると認識しているかについてはほとんど知られていない。本論ではKiva.org(キヴァ)のデータを用いて、競合する開発計画に相対的に人気の高い論拠を提示する。資金調達の速度において公的に可視できるプロジェクトの特性が与える影響を予測して提示する。キヴァの金融業者が貧困救済に動機づけられていると仮定すると、結果として個々の慈善家がプロジェクトの有効性を認知していることが解明できる。これを知るとそれほど人気がないプロジェクトにおいても、実践者がより効果的に資金集めをする戦略策定に役立つといえる。

ملخص

ملخص

التمويل الأصغر النظير للنظير (P2P) يربط بين المواطنين المحسنين وأصحاب الأعمال الفقراء في العالم النامي، يقدم وسائل جديدة لتوجيه التبرعات الخيرية. على الرغم من أن الأدب يشير إلى أن تصورات المانحين يؤثر على فعالية العطاء الخيري، القليل جدا هو المعروف عن أنواع المشاريع التي يعتبرها الأفراد أكثر فعالية. بإستخدام بيانات من(Kiva.org)، فإن هذا البحث يقدم دليلاً على شعبية المشاريع الإنمائية المتنافسة. نقدم تقديرات لتأثير خصائص المشروع الظاهرةعلناً على سرعة التمويل.على إفتراض أن المقترضين من كيفا (Kiva) لهم دوافع التخفيف من حدة الفقر، النتائج تسلط الضوء على تصور الفرد المحسن لفعالية المشروع. معرفة هذا يمكن أن يساعد الممارسين أن يصمموا إستراتيجيات لجمع التبرعات على نحو أكثر فعالية، خصوصاً للمشاريع التي هي بطبيعتها أقل شعبية.

Keywords

Peer-to-peer lendingMicrofinanceCharitable givingDonors’ preferences

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 1036 - 1055
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aldashev, G., & Verdier, T. (2010). Goodwill bazaar: NGO competition and giving to development. Journal of Development Economics, 91(1), 48–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2008.11.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. (2006). Philanthropy. In Kolm, S. C. & Ythier, J. M. (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of giving, reciprocity and altruism (pp. 1201–1269). North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. (2007). Giving gifts to groups: How altruism depends on the number of recipients. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 1731–1749. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armendariz De Aghion, B. (1999). On the design of a credit agreement with peer monitoring. Journal of Development Economics, 60, 401–420. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3878(99)00037-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barboza, G. A., & Barreto, H. (2006). Learning by association: Microcredit in Chiapas, Mexico. Contemporary Economic Policy, 24(2), 316–331. doi: 10.1093/cep/byj020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2007). Generosity and philanthropy: A literature review. Working paper. Utrecht University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2011). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 424–473. doi: 10.1177/0899764010380927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 12–29. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilodeau, M., & Slivinski, A. (1997). Rival charities. Journal of Public Economics, 66(3), 449–467. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(97)00046-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M., & Green, M. (2009). Philanthrocapitalism: How giving can save the world (2nd ed.). New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Bowman, W. (2006). Should donors care about overhead costs? Do they care? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 288–310. doi: 10.1177/0899764006287219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooley, A., & Ron, J. (2002). The NGO scramble: Organizational insecurity and the political economy of transnational action. International Security, 27(1), 5–39. doi: 10.1162/016228802320231217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Espallier, B., Guérin, I., & Mersland, R. (2011). Women and repayment in microfinance: A global analysis. World Development, 39(5), 758–772. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desai, R. M., & Kharas, H. (2009). Do philanthropic citizens behave like governments? Internet-based platforms and the diffusion of international private aid. Working paper. Wolfensohn Center for Development at Brookings.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreher, A., Mölders, F., & Nunnenkamp, P. (2007). Are NGOs the better donors? A case study of aid allocation for Sweden. Working paper. KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.10.2139/ssrn.1031672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugger, C. W. (2006). Peace prize to pioneer of loans to poor no bank would touch. The New York Times. October 14. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/14/world/asia/14nobel.html&ref=nobelprizes.Google Scholar
Ferris, J. S., & West, E. G. (2003). Private versus public charity: Reassessing crowding out from the supply side. Public Choice, 116(3–4), 399–417. doi: 10.1023/A:1024803611758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flannery, M. (2009). Kiva at four. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 4(2), 31–49. doi: 10.1162/itgg.2009.4.2.31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galak, J., Small, D., & Stephen, A. (2011). Micro-finance decision making: A field study of prosocial lending. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(Special Issue), S130–S137. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.48.SPL.S130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghatak, M. (1999). Group lending, local information and peer selection. Journal of Development Economics, 60, 27–50. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3878(99)00035-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghatak, M., & Guinnane, T. W. (1999). The economics of lending with joint liability: Theory and practice. Journal of Development Economics, 60(1), 195–228. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3878(99)00041-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, E. L., & Shleifer, A. (2001). Not-for-profit entrepreneurs. Journal of Public Economics, 81(1), 99–115. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00130-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W. H. (2011). Econometric analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Loseke, D. R. (1997). The whole spirit of modern philanthropy: The construction of the idea of charity, 1912–1992. Social Problems, 44(4), 425–444. doi: 10.2307/3097216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ly, P., & Mason, G. (2011). Competition between microfinance NGOs: Evidence from Kiva. World Development, 40(3). doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.09.009.Google Scholar
Mayoux, L. (2001). Tackling the down side: Social capital, women’s empowerment, and microfinance in Cameroon. Development and Change, 32(3), 435–464. doi: 10.1111/1467-7660.00212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morduch, J. (1999). The microfinance promise. Journal of Economic Literature, 37, 1569–1614. doi: 10.1257/jel.37.4.1569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nancy, G., and Yontcheva, B. (2006). Does NGO aid go to the poor? Empirical evidence from Europe. Wp/06/39. International Monetary Fund, IMF Institute.Google Scholar
Paxton, J., Graham, D., & Thraen, C. (2000). Modeling group loan repayment behavior: New insights from Burkina Faso. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48(3), 639–655. doi: 10.1086/452613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitt, M., Khandker, S. R., & Cartwright, J. (2006). Empowering women with microfinance: Evidence from Bangladesh. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 54(4), 791–831. doi: 10.1086/503580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawe, J. (2003). Globalization: Why micro matters. Time, November 24. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1006292,00.html.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits, and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 701–728.Google Scholar
Rowat, C., & Seabright, P. (2006). Intermediation by aid agencies. Journal of Development Economics, 79(2), 469–491. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2006.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, S. (2009). Confusion on where money lent via Kiva goes. The New York Times, November 9.Google Scholar
Ziliak, S. T. (2004). Self-reliance before the welfare state: Evidence from the charity organization movement in the United States. The Journal of Economic History, 64(2), 433–461. doi: 10.1017/S002205070400275X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar