How empowering is micro entrepreneurship developed through microfinance?

Basargekar, Prema

Introduction

Entrepreneurship development is seen as one of the important tool to alleviate poverty and reduce gender biases in an economy. As a result, more and more Micro Finance Institutions (MFIs) are providing micro credit to poor people especially women through individual or group lending mechanisms. At the same time by looking at multidimensional and qualitative aspects of poverty, to inculcate entrepreneurship among socio-economically weaker section of women poses a great challenge before any organization (Mayoux 1995). Few of the organizations like SEWA, Working Women's forum, Annapurna Mahila Mandal, etc. have focused their efforts in capacity building of their clients for inculcating entrepreneurship. In general there are two approaches which are followed by MFIs such as minimalist or 'credit only' approach where only credit is provided with the assumption that poor women will use it for economic activity without requiring any additional support and maximalist or 'credit plus' approach where MFIs help women in capacity building through various programmes such as business related training, access to markets, information, networking, etc along with the provision of credit. Today there are more than 24 million households covered directly and another 10 million covered indirectly by microfinance programmes run all over India (Ghate, 2007). The credit made available through microfinance programme is used for variety of purposes by SHG members. Broadly these can be classified in to productive (to set up new business or to expand existing business) and non-productive (consumption loans) uses. One study reveals that around 25 percent of the loans are used for productive purposes to set up entrepreneurial activities, but as the size of average productive loan is higher than that of consumption loan, total 39 percent of loan amount is spent on entrepreneurial activities (Care, MSDF & ICICI Bank, 2008). An another study done by EDA Rural System finds that nearly 63 percent of total credit is used for investment purposes out of which around one third is used for setting new enterprises (EDA Rural Systems Pvt. Ltd. 2005).

Empowerment

Before finding out in what way micro credit used for productive purpose leads to empowerment, it is necessary to understand the context in which the term 'empowerment' is used. Empowerment as a concept can be interpreted in different ways such as to express self strength, control, self-power, self-reliance, own choice, life of dignity in accordance with one's values, capable of fighting for one's rights, independence, own decision making, being free, awakening and capacity building. In the broadest sense it means expansion of freedom of choice and action (Narayan, et al., 2002). It also means increasing one's authority and control over the resources and decisions that affect their lives. Kabeer states that empowerment is more closely related to the people who are powerless due to some socio-economic and cultural barriers in the society of which they are part of (Kabeer, 1999). The choices of these powerless people are extremely limited due to lack of resources and lack of better negotiations with the range of formal and informal institutions. Since this powerlessness is embedded in the institutional relations, the empowerment as a concept also needs to be defined in a broader framework. Rolands (1997) defines empowerment as a process whereby women become able to organize themselves to increase their own self reliance, to assert their independent right to make choices and to control resources which will assist in challenging and eliminating their own subordination (Rolands, 1997). Rowlands states that the idea of power is at the root of the term empowerment. This power can be understood in number of ways such as "power within" which tales about self awareness and confidence building, "power to" which related to capacity building, "power with" which relates to social mobilization and collective bargaining and "power over" which talks about changing underlying inequalities and bringing wholesome development. She further states that empowerment process addresses various combinations of these dimensions by affecting at various levels such as household, community, national or international level. Moser (1989) states that empowerment is an enhancement of inner capacity of women to increase their own self reliance and internal strength (Moser, 1993). Kabeer (1999) believes that collective action is important to bring out this consciousness for individual as well as social and political empowerment (Kabeer, 1999). She states that three interrelated element of empowerment are resources (pre-condition), agency (process) and achievements (outcomes). Resources include material resources as well as human and social resources which help to enhance the ability to exercise choices. Agency refers to the ability to define one's goals and act upon them. It takes in to consideration motivation and the purpose which individuals bring to their activity or power within. It also refers to people's capacity to define their life choices and pursue their life goals. Capability is a combination of resources and agency brought together.

Linkage between Microfinance and Empowerment

Empowerment of women receives a special attention specifically when seen impact assessment of microfinance programme. The relationship between the two is very clearly explained by Mayoux. Mayoux (1996) explains that micro finance programmes are assumed to bring out virtuous spirals by assisting poor women in giving access to credit (Mayoux, L. 2002). Women's access to credit and savings will help them to improve economic status which will further help them to take a bigger role in decision making and it will help them to optimize their own and family level welfare. Access to credit and savings will result in to improved skills, mobility, and knowledge and support network. Collective action will lead to wider social and political movement. At the same time Mayoux also states that empowerment may not be a natural outcome of any microfinance programme. One has to positively design a programme which will lead to empowerment. Study made by Goetz and Sen Gupta (1996) supports this statement by concluding that microfinance prgramme can also increase intra household tensions due to higher burden of repayment (Goetz and Sen Gupta, 1996). Pitt and Khandker (1995) state that mere access to credit may not empower women, if they do not have control over it (Pitt and Khandker, 1995).

Economic Empowerment

Economic empowerment is perhaps one of the most important parameter of the overall empowerment which includes social, self or psychological and political empowerment. Economic empowerment emphasizes on reduction in poverty, enhancement in the resources available for utilization, reduction in vulnerability and diversification towards higher income activities. It is expected that micro entrepreneurship promoted with the help of micro finance is likely to bring out positive impact on asset base owned by women, monthly income, savings, decision making ability related to enterprises, reduction in the vulnerability in case of emergencies and improvement in the monthly consumption level and family welfare. At the same time, it must be made clear that improvement in income generating activity may not naturally and directly lead to overall economic empowerment of poor women. It will only serve as a one prerequisite of provision of resource. If Kabeer's analogy of resources followed by agency and outcome is used for assessing empowerment, then it is equally important that the women have full control over the resources such as income, loan and savings and have decision making ability and power to use them for pursuing their own interests. Thus it is also equally important that increase in income generating ability should get translated in important goals such as control over income and profits and using them for their own and family's welfare. Number of studies has been conducted to see the relationship between microfinance and economic empowerment. Based on the empirical study of microfinance projects of nearly seven countries, Hulme and Mosley (1996) conclude that the programmes have been successful in reducing the poverty level of upper and middle segment of poor class (Hulme and Mosley, 1996). In 2002, Cheston and Kuhn state that though microfinance does not address all the barriers to women's empowerment; it has shown a positive impact on some of the indicators such as decision making in girl's education, family planning, buying and selling of property, etc (Cheston and Kuhn, 2002). The impact assessment studies conducted by ICICI Bank in collaboration with UNDP in 2002 about seven microfinance prgrammes in India conclude that though these projects could not reach to the poorest of the poor, they have become successful in building savings, reducing migration in search of employment, bringing gender issues on the common platform and reducing economic vulnerability and dependence on moneylender (ICICI and UNDP, 2002). Sharma (2005) states that microfinance projects in India have demonstrated positive changes in asset position increase in savings, increase in employment and increase in consumption expenditure and reduction in feminization of poverty (Sharma, 2005).

Objectives of the Research

The literature review of various aspects related to empowerment and the relationship between microfinance and empowerment brings out certain interesting findings. Though the overall impact of microfinance has been found out to be positive, the degree and the extent of impact may differ from programme to programme. The level of empowerment varies with number of things such as minimalist or maximalist approach taken by MFI, capacity building programmes undertaken by MFI and actual utilization of loan by SHG members. It is also seen that empowerment does not come automatically with mere provision of credit, but as Kabeer has stated agency to use credit (capacity building in terms of having control over resources and capability to use them efficiently) is also equally essential for achievements. Thus it is important to see when resources are made available to all SHG members, how effectively they are used by micro entrepreneurs and non entrepreneurs to build up their capacity and to increase their own wellbeing.

The objective of the paper is find out how the difference in the loan utilization affects the overall economic empowerment of the SHG members assessed on various levels of resources, agency and achievements.

Research Methodology

The research is based on the empirical survey of randomly selected 217 SHG members belonging to different SHGs set up by Forbes Marshall Ltd. as a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activity. The pre-constructed questionnaires were filled in by trained field workers after appropriate training and pilot testing of few questionnaires. Along with this focused group discussions and interviews of the key personnel involved in this propgrammes were also conducted to confirm the outcomes of the survey and get the insight of certain issues. Some of the indicators selected for measuring economic empowerment are as follows:

(i) Resources related indicators: access to savings, access to loan (no of times the loan taken, amount of loan), creation of economic assets, creation of other assets, etc.

(ii) Agency/ capability related indicators: Perception of SHG members related to control over use of earnings, control over use of loan, control over use of savings, decision making ability and power to use of earnings and savings, etc.

(iii) Outcome related indicators: increase in monthly earnings, increase in savings, perception of women regarding change in regularity of income, security of income, reduction in vulnerability in the times of crisis, increase in the overall workload (domestic as well as work place), reduction in dependence on money lenders, etc.

The hypothesis is that the economic empowerment is related to the utilization of credit. The productive loans will lead to more economic empowerment than non-productive or consumption loans. To find out this impact, the sample is distributed in two categories such as SHG members who have mainly used credit for non-productive or consumption purposes (nonentrepreneurs category) and SHG members who have used credit mainly for setting up or expanding their own business (micro entrepreneur's category).

Company Profile

Forbes Marshall, a leading firm in steam engineering and control instrumentation, started its operation in Kasarwadi, Pune in 1958. It is mainly in the business of providing solutions in energy, efficiency and process automation to the sectors as diverse as textile, food process, paper, power and chemicals (http:// forbesmarshall.com). It has started Corporate Social Responsibilities programmes (CSR) from 1960s which are run by Department of Social Initiatives, a department specially established to serve this purpose. Its CSR activities are spread across various fields such as education, health promotion and community development. Its microfinance programme was started in 1997. Today it has set up more than 60 SHGs having an average 20 members per SHG.

Analysis and Results

Brief Profile of the Member Beneficiaries

The general demographic profile given in table 1 shows that average age of the member is 39 years. Nearly 33 percent of the women are 7th standard pass. Around 88 percent are married and around 43 percent belong to the category of lower social sector. The average family members are 4.6 and the average number of earning members are 1.6. The average family income is around Rs. 7300/-ranging from Rs. 500/- minimum to Rs. 50,000/-maximum. Percentage of widows is more in case of micro entrepreneurs. In case of level of education and social class also there is a significant difference in favour of micro entrepreneurs. The ANOVA test given in table 2 shows that in case of age and number of family members there is no significant difference in the socio-economic profile of the two categories. The significant difference is found out in number of earners in the family, the average family income, years of association with SHG and average monthly income of SHG members. It is seen that micro entrepreneurs are having significantly positive impact on all these parameters.

Access to Credit and Utilization of Credit:

Table 3 gives the details of average number of times the loan was taken, amount of loan taken and the average amount of times the loan was taken for consumption and for productive purposes. The average number of times loan taken by non entrepreneur is 2.43 whereas by entrepreneur is 4.01.

The average amount of loan taken by non entrepreneur is Rs. 14,200 whereas it is Rs. 39,000 by entrepreneur. The data shows that on all the four indicators of utilization of loan, micro entrepreneurs show higher values as compared non-entrepreneurs. The ANOVA test given in table 4 shows that P values are also significant which indicates that there is significant difference between these two groups.

Actual Economic difference in SHG Members

The impact assessment of any programme is usually done with finding out the change in any parameter such as savings, income, etc. before and after joining programme. The actual economic difference here is measured in terms of the difference between average monthly earnings before and after joining SHG, average monthly savings before and after joining SHG and average value of economic assets, working capital and household assets bought with the use of loan. Table 5 gives the details of both the groups on these parameters and table 6 shows the P values of the difference between the two groups. The data reveals that the difference between micro entrepreneurs and non micro entrepreneurs is significant in average monthly earnings and average monthly savings though not significant in remaining two parameters.

Perceptions of SHG Members about Economic Empowerment:

Most of the earlier indicators such as amount of credit received, monthly savings done or number of times credit received indicate availability of resources. As we have already seen it is only the prerequisite for empowerment which further depends on development of agency or capability to use resources. Kabeer states that empowerment essentially implies that the person herself feels that she is better off than before in controlling her life by having control over resources and decision making ability. Likert scale was used to find out the perception of SHG members on these parameters. The respondents were asked to choose from five alternatives (moving from "bad than before"--1 to "very good than before" 5) to find out change between before they joined SHG and the present conditions. It means any score below 3 shows that there is decrease in empowerment and any score above 3 shows that there is improvement in empowerment. Total economic empowerment is derived by adding perceptions on all the 12 aspects mentioned below. Since 1 is the worst impact and 5 is the very good impact, the total economic empowerment is calculated as follows:

(i) 12--worst economic impact

(ii) 13 to 24--worse than before

(iii) 25 to 36--no change than before

(iv) 37 to 48--better than before

(v) 49 to 60--very good impact

Twelve parameters were selected to get the perceptions related to agency and outcomes of empowerment process of the SHG members. As mentioned earlier the empowerment process involves access to resources such as credit, savings, economic and domestic assets; agency or the process of building capabilities to use these resources for one's welfare and the actual outcome of the process in terms of economic wellbeing, reduction in vulnerability, etc. The perceptions related to agency and outcomes are grouped in to two parts.

Agency related perceptions: Out of twelve parameters of empowerment six parameters such as control over earnings, control over savings, control over use of loan, access to legal advice, decision making ability of use of income and use of savings try to measure the SHG member's enhancement in capacity building with the use of resources.

Outcome Related Perceptions: Remaining six parameters such as regularity of earnings, security of income, reduction in vulnerability in times of crisis, reduction on the dependence of moneylenders and increase in the workload at workplaces and at home try to measure the perception of SHG members of the outcome of the empowerment process.

Total economic empowerment indicates the overall perception of women on all these parameters. The overall total economic impact as mentioned in table 7 has been positive in both the categories. Table 8 shows the difference between two groups by using ANOVA analysis. It can be seen that the overall economic empowerment is significantly higher in micro entrepreneurs as compared to non-entrepreneurs. It is also seen that on some parameters like control over earnings, security of earnings and reduction in the vulnerability at the times of crisis the difference between the two groups is significantly higher. On some other parameters such as decrease in dependence on moneylenders, control over savings, decisions regarding use of savings and earnings the difference is no so significant which indicates that even non-productive loans can also have some empowerment effect in terms of building confidence and providing security.

The overall data analysis proves our hypotheses that micro-entrepreneurship through microfinance leads to higher level of economic empowerment and the utilization of loan is very important aspect of microfinance programme.

Conclusion and Suggestions

It can be concluded that there is a strong relationship between micro entrepreneurship and economic empowerment. It suggests that utilization of loan has a strong bearing on the economic as well as overall empowerment of women. The data analysis also reveals that proportion of socially weaker section of women is significantly less in entrepreneurship category. Secondly it also shows productive use of loan or entrepreneurship is positively related to the number of years of association with the SHG.

Based on these findings it can be suggested that various organizations like MFI involved in microfinance should closely monitor the utilization of credit by their clients and encourage them to use more for productive purposes. Secondly they should take positive action to stimulate entrepreneurial spirit of socially weaker section of the society. Thirdly as shown in the research, agency related inputs for capacity building in terms of various other non financial services such as development of forward linkages (motivating workshops, training activities, assisting in purchase of machinery and tools, locating suppliers, etc.) and backward linkages (such as marketing assistance, identification of dealer or sales persons, development of common brand, etc) are also required for the development of micro enterprises (Upadhyaya et al., 2002 and Shetty, 2008). The holistic approach of moving from "credit only" to "credit plus" will bring out the desirable effect on entrepreneurship development.

References

Care, MSDF & ICICI Bank. (2008), "A Promise to pay the Bearer: An Exploration of the potential Urban Microfinance in Indi", India.

Cheston, S. and Kuhn, L. (2002), "Empowering women through Microfinance", Draft paper prepared for Women's Opportunity Fund and its Funding partners.

EDA Rural Systems Pvt. Ltd. (2005), "The Maturing of Indian Microfinance: Findings and policy Implications from a National Study", India.

Ghate, P. (2007), Indian Microfinance: Challenges of Rapid Growth, Sage publication: New Delhi, pp 7-8.

Goetz, A and Sen Gupta, R. (1996), "Who takes the credit? Gender power and control over loan Use in Rural

Credit Programmes in Bangladesh", World Development, Vol. 24 (1), pp. 45-63.

Hulme, D., and Mosley, P. (1996), Finance against Poverty, Routledge: London, U.K.

ICICI and UNDP (2002), "Social Mobilization, Credit and women's empowerment", Report of the workshop organized by UNDP and ICICI Bank on 10th and 11th January, 2002.

Kabeer, N. (1999), "Resources, Agency, Achievement: Reflections on the Measurement of women's Empowerment", Development and change, Vol. 30, pp. 435-464.

Kabeer, N. (1999). "The conditions and consequences of choice: Reflections on the measurement of women's empowerment", UNRISD.

Mayoux, L. (1995), "From vicious to Virtuous Circles?: Gender and micro enterprise development", Occasional paper 3, UNDP.

Mayoux, L. (2002), "Questioning Virtuous Spirals: Micro finance & women empowerment in Africa", Journal of International development, Vol. 11 (7), pp. 957-984

Moser, C. (1993), "Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training", Routledge: London, U.K.

Narayan, D. Et al. 2002. "Empowerment and poverty Reduction: A sourcebook", Poverty and Economic Management (PREM), World Bank, Washington D.C.

Pitt, M. and Khandker, S. (1995), "Household and Intra-household Impacts of Grameen Bank and Similar Targeted Credit Programmes in Bangladesh", Paper presented at workshop on 'Credit Programmes for the Poor: household and intra household Impacts and Programme Sustainability, World Bank and Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, Dhaka.

Rolands, J. (1997), "Questioning Empowerment: Working with Women in Honduras", Oxford: Oxfam.

Sharma, M. (2005), "Emerging Contours of Micro Finance: Where do We go from Here?", The Business Review, Cambridge, Vol. 4 (1), pp 288-296.

Shetty, N. (2008), "Microfinance for Micro Enterprise Development: An Inquiry for a New Paradigm", The Icfai Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 6 (1), pp. 88-98.

Upadhyaya S., Mitchell E. and Reddy S. (2002), "White Paper on Micro Finance: Issues and Analysis", UDAI.

Prema Basargekar *

* K. J. Somaiya Institute of Management Studies & Research, Vidyanagar, Vidyavihar, Mumbai--400 077, Maharashtra, India

* E-mail: premabasargekar@yahoo.co.in

Table 1: Demographic Profile of SHG Members

S. No. Particulars Non-Entrepreneurs

1 Average age (years) 38.87(10.43)

2 Percent of population married (%) 91

3 Percent population widowed (%) 5

4 Percent of population illiterate (%) 11

5 Percent of population completed 21
 education up to 7th standard (%)

6 Percent of population belonging 37
 to lower caste (%)

7 Average number of family members 4.62(1.37)

8 Average number of earners 1.55(0.80)

9 Average number of years of 4.59(2.84)
 association with SHG

10 Average monthly family income (Rs.) 7289.87(4888.64)

11 Average monthly income of the 566.96(1046.70)
 SHG member (Rs)

S. No. Micro-Entrepreneurs Total

1 39.42(10.92) 39.02(10.54)

2 81 88

3 14 7

4 7 10

5 22 21

6 25 34

7 4.47(1.71) 4.58(1.46)

8 1.77(0.83) 1.61(0.81)

9 6.39(2.90) 5.08(2.96)

10 8559.32(7578.94) 7635.02(5754.58)

11 1577.96(1733.94) 834.56(1345.72)

Table 2: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) between Entrepreneurs and
Non-Entrepreneurs

S. No. Sum of Squares Difference

Age Between Groups 13.010 1
 Within Groups 24011.875 215
 Total 24024.885 216

Family members Between Groups .993 1
 Within Groups 465.680 215
 Total 466.673 216

Earning Between Groups 2.131 1
members Within Groups 141.123 215
 Total 143.253 216

Monthly family Between Groups 69227654.535 1
income Within Groups 7083666170.350 215
 Total 7152893824.885 216

Years of Between Groups 139.375 1
association Within Groups 1758.293 215
with SHG Total 1897.668 216

Income of the Between Groups 44782085.706 1
SHG member Within Groups 346388697.704 215
 Total 391170783.410 216

S. No. Mean Square F value Sig.

Age 13.010 .116 .733
 111.683

Family members .993 .458 .499
 2.166

Earning 2.131 3.246 .073
members .656

Monthly family 69227654.535 2.101 .149
income 32947284.513

Years of 139.375 17.042 .000
association 8.178
with SHG

Income of the 44782085.706 27.796 .000
SHG member 1611110.222

Table 3: Details about Utilization of Loan by SHG Members

S. No. Particulars Non-Entrepreneurs

1 Average no of times loan is taken 2.43(1.83)

2 Average amount of loan taken (Rs) 14208.86(15425.61)

3 Average amount of loan taken for 13987.34(15213.54)
 consumption purposes (Rs)

4 Average amount of loan taken 348.10(2265.57)
 for production purposes (Rs)

S. No. Micro-Entrepreneurs Total

1 4.01(2.17) 2.86(2.05)

2 39033.90(45894.54) 20958.53(29344.08)

3 23050.85(41480.12) 16451.61(25427.97)

4 15025.42(4338.71) 4338.71(11335.45)

Table 4: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) between Entrepreneurs and
Non-Entrepreneurs

Sr. No. Sum of Squares Difference

Business Between Groups 9254288543.923 1
 Within Groups 18500066294.787 215
 Total 27754354838.710 216

Nonproductive Between Groups 3528919794.312 1
 Within Groups 136132822141.171 215
 Total 139661741935.484 216

Amount of Between Groups 26474586929.784 1
loan (Rs) Within Groups 159524039798.327 215
 Total 185998626728.111 216

No of times Between Groups 107.274 1
loan taken Within Groups 805.850 215
from SHG Total 913.124 216

Sr. No. Mean Square F value Sig.

Business 9254288543.923 107.549 .000
 86046819.976

Nonproductive 3528919794.312 5.573 .019
 633175916.936

Amount of 26474586929.784 35.681 .000
loan (Rs) 741972278.132

No of times 107.274 28.621 .000
loan taken 3.748
from SHG

Table 5: Details about Actual Economic difference in SHG Members before
and after joining SHG

S. No. Particulars Non-Entrepreneurs

1 Avg. difference in Monthly 201.89(599.09)
 Earnings before and after
 joining SHG (Rs.)

2 Avg. difference in Monthly 136.07(71.79)
 Savings before & after joining
 SHG (Rs.)

3 Avg. value of Economic 9500.00(9124.14)
 Assets purchased (Rs.)

4 Avg. value of working capital (Rs) 10000(0.0)

5 Avg. value of household asset 8750(6273.52)

S. No. Entrepreneurs Total

1 800(1220.23) 364.51(855.47)

2 180.17(105.93) 147.91(84.40)

3 13593.75(12257.26) 12947.37(11696.26)

4 13500(14303.16) 13393.9(14091.08)

5 5500.75(5258.86) 7666.91(5928.51)

Table 6: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) between Entrepreneurs and
Non-Entrepreneurs

S. No. Sum of Squares Difference

Difference in Between Groups 15367343.814 1
monthly income Within Groups 142709430.380 215
 Total 158076774.194 216

Difference in Between Groups 82497.136 1
savings Within Groups 1449065.364 214
 Total 1531562.500 215

Economic assets Between Groups 42337993.421 1
before SHG Within Groups 2420109375.000 17
 Total 2462447368.421 18

Working capital Between Groups 11878787.879 1
 Within Groups 6342000000.000 31
 Total 6353878787.879 32

Household Between Groups 28153668.167 1
assets after Within Groups 358467006.750 10
SHG Total 386620674.917 11

S. No. Mean Square F value Sig.

Difference in 15367343.814 23.152 .000
monthly income 663764.792

Difference in 82497.136 12.183 .001
savings 6771.333

Economic assets 42337993.421 .297 .593
before SHG 142359375.000

Working capital 11878787.879 .058 .811
 204580645.161

Household 28153668.167 .785 .396
assets after 35846700.675
SHG

Table 7: Perceptions of SHG Members regarding Economic Empowerment

S. No. Particulars Non-Entrepreneurs

1 Control over earnings 3.56(0.68)
2 Control over savings 3.95(0.63)
3 Control over use of loan 3.82(0.54)
4 Decision of use of income 3.67(0.59)
5 Decision of use of savings 3.80(0.62)
6 Legal aid 3.54(0.59)
7 Regularity of income 3.44(0.57)
8 Security of earning 3.49(0.56)
9 Reduction in vulnerability 4.15(0.61)
10 Workload at workplace 3.02(0.26)
11 Domestic workload 2.99(0.14)
12 Dependency on moneylenders 4.01(0.87)
13 Aggregate economic empowerment 43.45(4.00)

S. No. Entrepreneurs Total

1 3.95(0.75) 3.66(0.72)
2 4.15(0.69) 4.00(0.65)
3 4.08(0.53) 3.89(0.55)
4 3.95(0.68) 3.75(0.63)
5 4.08(0.67) 3.88(0.65)
6 3.81(0.75) 3.62(0.65)
7 3.92(0.65) 3.57(0.62)
8 3.92(0.62) 3.66(0.61)
9 4.46(0.56) 4.24(0.61)
10 3.03(0.26) 3.02(0.26)
11 2.98(0.22) 2.99(0.16)
12 4.25(0.86) 4.08(0.87)
13 46.59(4.28) 44.30(4.30)

Table 8: Analysis of Variance between Entrepreneurs and
Non-Entrepreneurs

S. No. Sum of Squares Difference

Control on Between Groups 6.608 1
earnings Within Groups 105.835 215
 Total 112.442 216

Control over Between Groups 1.773 1
savings Within Groups 91.222 215
 Total 92.995 216

Control on Between Groups 3.092 1
loan use Within Groups 62.253 215
 Total 65.346 216

Decision--use Between Groups 3.326 1
of income Within Groups 81.734 215
 Total 85.060 216

Decision--use Between Groups 3.391 1
of savings Within Groups 87.494 215
 Total 90.885 216

Legal aid Between Groups 3.114 1
 Within Groups 88.139 215
 Total 91.253 216

Regularity Between Groups 9.579 1
of income Within Groups 75.564 215
 Total 85.143 216

Security of Between Groups 7.866 1
earnings Within Groups 72.051 215
 Total 79.917 216

Reduction in Between Groups 4.015 1
the Within Groups 76.998 215
vulnerability Total 81.014 216

Workload at Between Groups .010 1
the work Within Groups 14.875 215
place Total 14.885 216

Domestic Between Groups .005 1
work load Within Groups 5.977 215
 Total 5.982 216

Dependence Between Groups 2.507 1
on Within Groups 163.161 215
moneylenders Total 165.668 216

Aggregate Between Groups 424.594 1
empowerment Within Groups 3587.332 215
 Total 4011.926 216

S. No. Mean Square F value Sig.

Control on 6.608 13.423 .000
earnings .492

Control over 1.773 4.180 .042
savings .424

Control on 3.092 10.679 .001
loan use .290

Decision--use 3.326 8.750 .003
of income .380

Decision--use 3.391 8.332 .004
of savings .407

Legal aid 3.114 7.597 .006
 .410

Regularity 9.579 27.256 .000
of income .351

Security of 7.866 23.472 .000
earnings .335

Reduction in 4.015 11.212 .001
the .358
vulnerability

Workload at .010 .138 .711
the work .069
place

Domestic .005 .174 .677
work load .028

Dependence 2.507 3.304 .071
on .759
moneylenders

Aggregate 424.594 25.447 .000
empowerment 16.685