外文翻譯---小額信貸機構的有效性研究

1、<p><b>　　中文2060字</b></p><p><b>　　外文翻譯原文 </b></p><p>　　Efficiency of Microfinance Institutions</p><p>　　Material Source: Springer Science+ Business Media

2、, LLC.</p><p>　　Author: Mamiza, Haq · Michael, Skully · Shams</p><p>　　Microfinance institutions (MFIs) provide a range of financial services to poor households. Their worldwide growth

3、 in numbers has had a positive impact by providing the poor with loans, savings pro ducts, fund transfers and insurance facilities. This has helped create an encouraging socio-economic environment for many of these devel

4、oping countries households. The nature of these institutions is quite different from traditional financial institutions (such as commercial banks). MFIs are significan</p><p>　　The pure technical efficient f

5、rontier is dominated by South Asian NGO-MFIs. Large bank-MFIs like BRI, Banco Solidario and Grameen Bank, which were efficient under intermediation approach, are now inefficient under production approach. Yet, bank-MFIs

6、such as Ruhuna, DECSI, and NGO-MFIs such as CEP and Wilgamuwa are all efficient under production approach. Under the input oriented VRS measure, FINCOMUN is the least efficient. In order to be efficient, these MFIs shoul

7、d reduce their inputs by 98% a</p><p>　　Similarly, the output-oriented measure shows that ACLEDA in Cambodia is the least efficient MFI. As shown on the data, the NGO-MFIs have the highest overall mean effic

8、iency score followed by the cooperative-MFIs. The bank-MFIs, however, are better than the NBFI-MFIs. Among the bank-MFIs and NGO-MFIs, there is at least one efficient MFI under both CRS and VRS measures. There is highest

9、 dispersion in the bank-MFIs’ efficiency score. Data also shows that NGO-MFIs are the most productive under all m</p><p>　　There are two main types of Microfinance institutions. Data behind this paragraph pr

10、esent efficiency scores and their rank ordering from the model, in which both controllable and uncontrollable inputs are incorporated. Our findings show that the magnitudes of the efficiency scores are higher in Model 2

11、compared to Model 1. Our uncontrollable variable is the percentage of rural population to total population. This may also represent the urbanization rate for each region. </p><p>　　Data 1 presents the result

12、 of the efficiency scores under intermediation approach. The mean score of technical efficiency under constant return to scale is approximately 50%, however since we consider that MFIs do not operate in optimal level so

13、we also report the variable return to scale results for the pure technical efficiency and scale efficiency under both output and input oriented and the mean score ranges between 0.65 and 0.86. </p><p>　　The

14、rank orderings are quite similar to those based on residual values ∧μ in Model 1. The Pearson correlation coefficient is 84%, indicates that the two rank ordering are positively correlated at 1%significance level. Compar

15、ing individual rankings between model 1 and model 2 we find remarkable difference which is the change in ranking for ASA, BRI, Grameen Bank, and CMAC. These are now ranked as 1 or the most efficient. However, the peer su

16、mmary reflects that these DMUs are efficient by default </p><p>　　Data 2 presents the result of the efficiency scores under production approach. The mean score of technical efficiency under constant return t

17、o scale is approximately 64%, however the mean efficiency score for pure technical efficiency and scale efficiency under variable return to scale, both output and input oriented; ranges between 0.73 and 0.88. The rank or

18、derings are quite similar to those based on residual values ∧ μ in Model 1. The Pearson correlation coefficient is 76%, indicates that the </p><p>　　This study investigated the cost efficiency of MFIs (bank-

19、MFIs, NBFI-MFIs, cooperative-MFIs and NGO-MFIs) in Africa, Asia, and the Latin America using the data envelopment analysis (DEA). The MFIs were compared using the intermediation and production approaches to identify whic

20、h MFI type is the most efficient in minimizing costs and providing financial services to poor households. Our findings show that under the intermediation approach four out of thirteen bank-MFIs are both input and output

21、or</p><p><b>　　譯文 </b></p><p>　　小額信貸機構的有效性研究</p><p>　　資料來源: 科學與商業媒體</p><p>　　作者: 馬米扎， 哈克· 邁克爾， 思科力 · 山姆</p><p>　　小額信貸機構(即 MFIs) 為貧困家庭

22、提供金融服務。 他們的數量在全球持續增長，并通過提供貸款給窮人、儲蓄親管、資金轉移和保險設施造成許多積極影響。這有助于為許多發展中國家的家庭創造一個有利的社會經濟環境。這些機構的性質完全不同于傳統的金融機構(如商業銀行) 。小額信貸機構規模較小，服務僅限于向貧困家庭提供，經常提供小額免擔保貸款。大多數的小額信貸機構依賴于捐助者的資金，不以營利為目的導向，成員之間共享一個共同的紐帶 他們的不同之處還在于他們的兩個主要經營目標。首先，正如前

23、面提到的，為貧困戶扮演金融中介機構的角色。這就要求小額信貸機構能產生足夠的收入來滿足其營運和融資成本，可被稱為“模范機構”。其次，他們有一個社會目標。這可以被定義為“社會福利主義”模式，其中包括致力于消除貧困和深度拓展財務上的可持續發展。 一個有效的小額信貸機構管理就是應該促進這兩個目標的實現。正式的小額信貸機構(銀行小額信貸機構，非銀行金融機構的小額信貸機構和小額信貸機構合作)受到審慎監管并需要活動許可; 主要向他們的成員提供信貸.

24、其中一些還吸收非成員的儲蓄。與此相反，半正式的小額信貸機構的機構，一般是非政府組</p><p>　　南亞非政府組織小額信貸機構在純技術角度而言的效率上占有一定優勢。大型銀行貸款機構，如印度尼西亞人民銀行，陽光銀行和鄉村銀行，之前在中介理論中都是高效的，但在現在的生產方式上效率很低。然而，銀行小額貸款機構(如盧哈納， 三豐銀行) 和非政府組織小額信貸機構(如歐洲能力機構和沃格木瓦) 在生產方式上都是十分高效的。

25、而在輸入導向工具這種方法中，菲格木是最低效的。 為了提高效率，這些小額信貸機構應該像三豐銀行和沃格木瓦那樣，削減 98%的輸入量。 </p><p>　　同樣，導向輸出的方法顯示，柬埔寨的阿克萊達銀行是最低效的小額信貸機構。如數據中所示，非政府組織小額信貸機構，排在合作性小額信貸機構之后，具有最高的總平均效率。然而銀行小額信貸機構，比非銀行小額信貸機構要更好些。在銀行小額信貸機構和非政府組織小額信貸機構中，在多邊

26、投資框架下至少有一個有效的小額信貸機構。銀行小額信貸機構的效率評分具有很高的分散性。 就如數據顯示，在合作性小額信貸機構中實行的所有措施中，非政府組織小額信貸機構的可生產性最強。而效率最低的也是非銀行小額信貸機構。</p><p>　　小額信貸機構有兩種主要的類型。段后的數據顯示的是他們各自的有效性評分和在包含了可控和不可控的投入模型中的排序。 我們的研究結果表明，模型 2 的效率值的幅度高于模型 1。我們無法控

27、制的變量是農村居民人口占總人口的百分比。 這可能也正代表了每個地區的城市化速度。 </p><p>　　由于這些機構大多不受管制或比其他小額信貸機構所受監管要少，政策制定者應該對非政府性小額信貸機構的監管予以更多關注，以使其有效性實現不受到阻礙。然而，一些銀行小額信貸機構在提供小額信貸上的效率更高，特別是在非洲的三豐銀行。隨著越來越多的銀行小額信貸機構有權使用本地資本以及全球金融市場，他們被確立為最有競爭優勢的金