# Appendix B. Definitions and Summary statistics (cont.)

|**Variable Name**|**Level**|**Definition**|**Obs#**|**Mean**|**Median**|**Min**<br>**Max**|**St. Dev.**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Regulatory Framework and<br>Practices<br>(0-100)|Country|Regulatory Framework and Practices (RFP) is calculated as the weighted sum of the scores in this<br>category: Regulation and supervision of microcredit portfolios, Formation of regulated/supervised<br>microcredit institutions, Formation/operation of non-regulated microcredit institutions, Regulatory<br>and supervisory capacity for microfnance (including credit and other services) and Regulatory<br>framework for deposit-taking. Usingthe Microscope scores in 2010.|41|49.02|50|20<br>75|15.05|
|Regulatory and supervisory<br>capacity for microfinance (0-4)|Country|Sub-categories of Regulatory Framework and Practice (RFP).<br>Regulatory and supervisory capacity for microfinance (including credit and other services): “Do<br>regulatory institutions possess an adequate capacity for the regulation and supervision of<br>microfinance? Is supervision truly risk-based and not focused arbitrarily on strictly traditional<br>indicators (for example, collateral)? Does regulatory capacity match or reflect the pace of innovation<br>in non-traditional forms of microfinance that are allowed and that exist in the country (such as<br>insurance, mobile banking, and remittances)? Are data on the industry collected, and are institutional<br>checks conducted when and where relevant?” Scoring: 0=Very weak capacity to regulate or supervise<br>microfinance operations; 1=Limited capacity to regulate and supervise; 2=Some capacity to regulate<br>and supervise;3=Substantial capacity to regulate and supervise; 4=Excellent capacity to regulate.<br>Using the Microscope scores in 2010.|41|1.73|2|0<br>4|1.00|
|58<br>Regulatory framework for<br>deposit-taking (0-4)|Country|Sub-categories of Regulatory Framework and Practice (RFP).<br>Regulatory framework for deposit-taking: “Are regulated MFIs permitted to take deposits? Are the<br>regulations reasonable and not overly burdensome? Are deposits (any type; for example, time, sight<br>and contractual savings) only taken by regulated entities? Are regulations, including know-your-<br>client regulations/anti-money laundering regulations, present without being burdensome? Do they<br>have minimum balance requirements or fees that limit micro-deposits?” This indicator assigns more<br>points to countries that do not inhibit more varied forms of deposit-taking. It also strikes a balance<br>between the need for prudential regulation and the removal of unnecessary obstacles to deposit-<br>taking. Scoring: 0=Regulated institutions may not take deposits; 1=Regulated institutions can take<br>deposits, but are limited in the types they may accept and most regulations are<br>burdensome ;2=Regulated institutions may take a reasonably broad range of deposits and regulation<br>is only moderately burdensome; 3=Regulated institutions can take a reasonably broad range of<br>deposits and regulations are prudent, posing only minor obstacles; 4=Regulated institutions can take<br>the widest range of deposits and regulations are prudent, posing no significant obstacles.<br>Usingthe Microscope scores in 2010.|41|1.63|2|0<br>3|0.83|
|Formation/operation of non-<br>regulated microcredit<br>institutions (0-4)|Country|Sub-categories of Regulatory Framework and Practice (RFP).<br>Formation/operation of non-regulated microcredit institutions: “Is the legal framework conducive to<br>the formation and functioning of non-regulated microcredit institutions? Do non-regulated<br>institutions take deposits? ”Scoring: 0=Unregulated institutions are barredfrom offering micro-loans;<br>1=Unregulated institutions face many obstacles to establishing operations; 2=Unregulated institutions<br>face some obstacles; 3=Unregulated institutions face only minor obstacles; 4=Unregulated<br>institutions face no significant obstacles.<br>Using the Microscope scores in 2010.|41|1.98|2|0<br>4|0.99|

58