No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The idea of microfinance has burst into the area of global poverty reduction. Many comments have been made about its benefits such as; it is an alternative tool for poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Many studies have attempted to assess different facets of the impact of microfinance, especially trying to show its potential for greater financial inclusion and economic benefits using advanced rigorous quantitative approaches. Although some studies have evaluated this topic in the past there remains some significant gaps in the literature, including the impact of microfinance on other dimensions such as the social impact, education or environmental impact, the impact on happiness and subjective wellbeing of its clients has been hardly examined. This study aims to fill this gap by using rigorous quantitative methods with a rich qualitative dataset to assess the impact of microfinance on both economic and non-economic aspects, especially the happiness and psychological dimension. I Use primary data from a household survey and an ethnographic approach combining quantitative methods such as matching estimators, propensity score matching with nonparametric regression. The mixed methods were employed in order to evaluate the impact of the microfinance schemes on the improvement of borrowers’ wellbeing, household condition and local economic and environmental development. The most notable findings were that the borrowers from the savings group using group lending schemes utilised the loan for mainly entrepreneurial purposes and household spending, performed better than other groups of borrowers. This could be seen from the increase in household income and a high repayment rate. In addition, by observing the social impacts, it indicated that the group lending together with the ecotourism project generated and strengthened the social ties in the community. The group members also produced high positive psychological indicators compared to the non-member households. Easterlin’s paradox was revisited and found that not only was it income that affected happiness and wellbeing, but other factors seemed to have an influence on self-reported happiness. Those factors included health or health condition of family members which significantly influenced self-reported happiness in all models. Considering the impact of microfinance on happiness and wellbeing, it was found that clients of the group lending scheme can repay better and led to a higher level of self-reported happiness and subjective wellbeing. The ability to repay also affected a low level of stress or negative moods.

This study is one of the first attempts to understand the long-term mechanisms of poverty dynamics at the household level in rural villages in Thailand. It does so by identifying dynamic patterns of poverty and by examining the factors and processes that underlie poverty dynamics in two major rice production regions of Thailand, namely, Khon Kaen province in the Northeast, Thailand's poorest region, and Suphanburi province in the Central plain, one of the richest regions of the country. The study is based on a survey of a panel of 240 households that were originally interviewed in 1988, and followed and interviewed again in 2009 for the purpose of this longitudinal study. The contrast between the survey areas is deliberate and has been useful for comparing economic and social structural changes of rural households across two decades, as well as examining disparities in the opportunities and resources between the two regions. In order to capture the complex and multidimensional nature of poverty, the study combines quantitative and qualitative methods in the analysis of poverty dynamics in Thailand. A quantitative survey analysis was merged with qualitative assessments by using the same sampling frame and then sequentially integrating life history interviews. The results show that both quantitative and qualitative approaches provide similar patterns of poverty transition. Notably, the study has found that the proportions of households moving into and out of poverty were higher than those remaining in chronic poverty, similarly to most experiences of poverty mobility in other developing countries. In addition, the study demonstrates the benefits of using a mixed-method approach for examining the factors underlying poverty dynamics. The study argues that combining these two approaches provides a richer insight of how rural households' economic, social and demographic characteristics have been associated with poverty dynamics. A number of similar factors that influence households' poverty dynamics were identified in both quantitative and qualitative approaches. These include asset factors, demographic factors and employment factors. However, the qualitative approach has provided further insight into additional contextual factors and processes not easily identified by the quantitative approach, notably the impact of ill-health shocks and behavioural factors. Understanding the distinction between the patterns of poverty dynamics and the mechanisms explaining them is of crucial importance for policy interventions. The implications derived from this study of poverty dynamics seek to strengthen poverty reduction efforts in Thailand, as well as to derive useful lessons to other developing countries.