| |
The loans taken by all the three types of
households in the urban, as well as the rural areas have been
predominantly for meeting consumption needs. The proportion of loans
used for consumption purposes is 56.8% in case of the extremely poor
and 65.1% in case of the poor, in the urban areas, and 69.0 and 57.5
percent, respectively, in the rural areas. Since institutional
creditors would not officially provide loans for consumption purposes,
friends and relatives are the major lenders.
Data on the annual mark ups provide interesting insights: average
mark-up is only 2.1 percent and even lower for the poor and the
extremely poor. However, this is because they receive loans from
relatives which are interest free. By contrast the average mark-up by
the money lender is around 48 per cent. It rises to 58.8% in the case
of the extremely poor and 60 percent in the case of the poor, but
falls sharply to just 17% for the non-poor. In the very few cases
where NGOs are providing loans to the extremely poor, they are
interest free. The interest rate rises to 19% for the non-poor. The
same pattern is observed in the case of ADBP. Here the rate of
interest for the extremely poor is 8%, which rises to 17% for the
non-poor. However, access to a public sector development bank such as
the ADBP or even NGOs is rather limited. The commercial banks on the
other hand do not provide any loan to the extremely poor. The rate for
the poor is 19% and for the non-poor only 10%. The mark-up charged by
factory/mill owners is 13.0 percent for the extremely poor, but it
falls to 3.0 and 5.1 percent in the case of the poor and the non-poor.
That 70% of the rural households never applied for any loan is
significant and may be mainly the result of a lack of collateral.
While 75 percent could not provide the collateral, the lack of
awareness relating to the procedure of obtaining loans has been
another problem. At least one-quarter of the extremely poor households
reported that their loan application was rejected because they did not
pay any bribe. In some cases, however, the loan application has been
rejected because the household has not returned the previous loan.
Further, the loans have been a high percentage of their incomes
especially for the poor. Since the loans have been used to meet the
consumption needs by an overwhelming proportion, there is little
likelihood that they will be repaid. Therefore, the indebtedness in
both the rural and urban areas has increased sharply. The extremely
poor persons on average (all Pakistan) are indebted to the extent of
Rs.28,137 and the figure rises to Rs.57,780 in the case of the
non-poor. Indebtedness as a proportion of income shows the acuteness
of the problem. The indebtedness of the extremely poor is 276.1% which
declines to 75.8% for the poor and 53.2% for the non-poor. The high
indebtedness is a major hurdle in poverty alleviation programs based
on credit alone.
* NHDR 2003, Page
74-75
PURPOSE OF LOAN BY ECONOMIC STATUS
|
|
Extremely Poor |
Poor |
Non-Poor |
Total |
|
All
PAKISTAN |
|
|
|
|
|
Agricultural
inputs |
4.9 |
6.5 |
11.9 |
7.0 |
|
Purchase of
any other property |
4.6 |
7.8 |
7.0 |
6.5 |
|
Shop/Hotel/Other Non-Farm Activity |
5.6 |
5.5 |
6.9 |
5.8 |
|
Consumption
Purposes including Ceremonies |
67.2 |
58.3 |
51.6 |
60.2 |
|
Others |
17.7 |
21.9 |
22.6 |
20.5 |
|
URBAN |
|
|
|
|
|
Consumption
Purposes including Ceremonies |
56.8 |
65.1 |
35.7 |
57.4 |
|
Shop/Hotel/Other Non-farm Activity |
4.5 |
4.7 |
-- |
4.0 |
|
Purchase of
any other Property |
4.5 |
2.3 |
-- |
3.0 |
|
Others |
34.1 |
28.0 |
64.3 |
35.6 |
|
RURAL |
|
|
|
|
|
Agricultural
inputs |
5.7 |
7.3 |
13.1 |
7.9 |
|
Purchase of
any other property |
4.6 |
8.0 |
7.6 |
6.7 |
|
Shop/Hotel/Other Non-Farm Activity |
5.7 |
5.6 |
7.6 |
6.0 |
|
Consumption
Purposes including Ceremonies |
69.0 |
57.5 |
53.1 |
60.6 |
|
Others |
15.0 |
21.6 |
18.6 |
18.8 |
SOURCE: NHDR/PIDE Survey 2001.
AVERAGE ANNUAL INTEREST/MARKUP RATE BY SOURCE OF
LOAN AND ECONOMIC STATUS

SOURCE: NHDR/PIDE Survey 2001.
TOTAL INDEBTEDNESS (MEAN) OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS
BY ECONOMIC STATUS
 SOURCE: NHDR/PIDE Survey 2001.
|
|