IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2103.01669.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How good is good? Probabilistic benchmarks and nanofinance+

Author

Listed:
  • Rolando Gonzales Martinez

Abstract

Benchmarks are standards that allow to identify opportunities for improvement among comparable units. This study suggests a 2-step methodology for calculating probabilistic benchmarks in noisy data sets: (i) double-hyperbolic undersampling filters the noise of key performance indicators (KPIs), and (ii) a relevance vector machine estimates probabilistic benchmarks with denoised KPIs. The usefulness of the methods is illustrated with an application to a database of nano-finance+. The results indicate that-in the case of nano-finance groups-a higher discrimination power is obtained with variables that capture the macro-economic environment of the country where a group operates. Also, the estimates show that groups operating in rural regions have different probabilistic benchmarks, compared to groups in urban and peri-urban areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Rolando Gonzales Martinez, 2021. "How good is good? Probabilistic benchmarks and nanofinance+," Papers 2103.01669, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2103.01669
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.01669
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael C. Knaus, 2021. "A double machine learning approach to estimate the effects of musical practice on student’s skills," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 282-300, January.
    2. Darrell Duffie & Piotr Dworczak & Haoxiang Zhu, 2017. "Benchmarks in Search Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 72(5), pages 1983-2044, October.
    3. Miruna Oprescu & Vasilis Syrgkanis & Zhiwei Steven Wu, 2018. "Orthogonal Random Forest for Causal Inference," Papers 1806.03467, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2019.
    4. Brian P. Greaney & Joseph P. Kaboski & Eva Van Leemput, 2016. "Can Self-Help Groups Really Be "Self-Help"?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(4), pages 1614-1644.
    5. Burlando, Alfredo & Canidio, Andrea, 2017. "Does group inclusion hurt financial inclusion? Evidence from ultra-poor members of Ugandan savings groups," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 24-48.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gonzales Martinez, Rolando & D’Espallier, Bert & Mersland, Roy, 2021. "Bifurcations in business profitability: An agent-based simulation of homophily in self-financing groups," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 495-514.
    2. Cassidy, Rachel & Fafchamps, Marcel, 2020. "Banker my neighbour: Matching and financial intermediation in savings groups," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    3. Lechner, Michael, 2018. "Modified Causal Forests for Estimating Heterogeneous Causal Effects," IZA Discussion Papers 12040, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP72/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    5. guido menzio & Gregor Jarosch & Maryam Farboodi, 2016. "Tough Middlemen," 2016 Meeting Papers 1371, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    6. Emily Breza & Cynthia Kinnan, 2021. "Measuring the Equilibrium Impacts of Credit: Evidence from the Indian Microfinance Crisis," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(3), pages 1447-1497.
    7. Jason Allen & Milena Wittwer, 2023. "Centralizing Over-the-Counter Markets?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 131(12), pages 3310-3351.
    8. Lerby Ergun & Andreas Uthemann, 2020. "Strategic Uncertainty in Financial Markets: Evidence from a Consensus Pricing Service," Staff Working Papers 20-55, Bank of Canada.
    9. Dirk Bergemann & Stephen Morris, 2019. "Information Design: A Unified Perspective," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 57(1), pages 44-95, March.
    10. Beaman, Lori & Karlan, Dean S. & Thuysbaert, Bram, 2014. "Saving for a (not so) Rainy Day: A Randomized Evaluation of Savings Groups in Mali," Center Discussion Papers 187189, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    11. Oyenubi, Adeola & Kollamparambil, Umakrishnan, 2023. "Does noncompliance with COVID-19 regulations impact the depressive symptoms of others?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    12. Michael C Knaus & Michael Lechner & Anthony Strittmatter, 2021. "Machine learning estimation of heterogeneous causal effects: Empirical Monte Carlo evidence," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 24(1), pages 134-161.
    13. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP54/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    14. Borup, Daniel & Christensen, Bent Jesper & Mühlbach, Nicolaj Søndergaard & Nielsen, Mikkel Slot, 2023. "Targeting predictors in random forest regression," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 841-868.
    15. Duffie, Darrell & Dworczak, Piotr, 2021. "Robust benchmark design," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 775-802.
    16. Yiyan Huang & Cheuk Hang Leung & Xing Yan & Qi Wu & Nanbo Peng & Dongdong Wang & Zhixiang Huang, 2020. "The Causal Learning of Retail Delinquency," Papers 2012.09448, arXiv.org.
    17. Krikamol Muandet & Wittawat Jitkrittum & Jonas Kubler, 2020. "Kernel Conditional Moment Test via Maximum Moment Restriction," Papers 2002.09225, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2020.
    18. Vladimir Asriyan & William Fuchs & Brett Green, 2017. "Information Spillovers in Asset Markets with Correlated Values," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(7), pages 2007-2040, July.
    19. Philipp Bach & Victor Chernozhukov & Malte S. Kurz & Martin Spindler & Sven Klaassen, 2021. "DoubleML -- An Object-Oriented Implementation of Double Machine Learning in R," Papers 2103.09603, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    20. Michael C Knaus, 2022. "Double machine learning-based programme evaluation under unconfoundedness [Econometric methods for program evaluation]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 25(3), pages 602-627.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2103.01669. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.