|2011 – Census (village<br>level)–matched|0.49||
|---|---|---|
|2016-17 – Survey (full<br>sample)-matched|0.404<br>0.459|.055|
|Percentage difference bet<br>non-participant|ween participant and|13.6%|

Although we cannot conclusively say much about Labor Force Participation Rates (LFPR) as we do not have data on the part-time and full-time nature of this work, ongoing evaluations may be able to collect and report on these data. Overall, we conclude that, in terms of labor outcomes, the program is achieving or is on track to achieve its objective of improving livelihoods by increasing employment opportunities for women in rural areas with more women now being engaged in self-employment (farm and non-farm) in the short-run.<sup>19</sup>

# **4.1.2 Borrowing, savings and assets**

As noted earlier the theory of change for the intervention is that women can gain agency and economic empowerment through formation of social networks and greater access to low-cost credit, combined with skills development (Sanyal, Rao, and Majumdar 2015). The primary funding mechanism for NRLM is micro-loans through community grants and the SHG-Bank Linkage program. The program also has a major focus on promoting savings using the group membership as a commitment device. Therefore, we investigate outcomes related to the extent and nature of borrowings, savings and various asset classes.

We start by looking at overall current savings and the amount saved in the previous 12 months.<sup>20</sup> We find that overall savings have gone up almost 18.6 percent and most of this increase is due to households shifting their savings to formal sources (45.3 percent higher savings in formal sources). But overall, there is only a 5.2 percent increase in share of formal savings to informal savings. We hypothesize that this could be because the share of formal savings is already 83 percent in the whole sample, as the national government has aggressively promoted financial inclusion. Lastly, we find that 6.5 percent more women have a bank account in the treatment group.

Next, we analyze the extent and nature of household borrowing. Consistent with the program focus, the reach of financial services has been expanded in treatment areas, which are completely un-penetrated by other institutional providers. For instance, less than 1 percent of households have a current loan from micro-finance companies and less than 2 percent have loans from commercial banks in the full sample (directly as individuals). But, 35 percent of the households, have a current loan through SHGs in treatment areas and 12 percent in the whole sample. Overall, 24 percent more households have a current outstanding loan in treatment areas when compared to treatment areas. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most of these borrowers are accessing credit for the first time from institutional sources such as these.

As NRLP has been able to facilitate lending of over $1.2 billion since 2011 (World Bank 2018), we examine if this often reported overall borrowing figure has translated into

> 19 As we do not have data on number of hours worked, we cannot estimate if this transition from casual wage to self-employment has resulted in more productivity (such as higher per hour wage etc.).

> 20 Savings as defined as amount saved and invested in commercial banks, co-operative banks, self-help groups (SHGs), microfinance institutions (MFIs), relatives, friends, post office, landlord, money lenders, chit funds, life insurance, and money saved at home.

17