Herramientas de gestión de áreas protegidas

A cross sectional study by Adedayo and Yusuf (2004) examined the structure and poverty reduction activities of cooperative societies with the use of nine anticipated benefits of cooperatives such as frequency of borrowing, loan amount, use of loan, consumer goods purchased and assets acquired as variables for poverty reduction and better standard of living condition. The study found that the amount of loan given to the members is significant when compared with the low standard of living in rural areas. Their findings on use of loan shows that 64.17% was used for trade and investment, 4.62% on children education, 8.46% on purchase of business inputs while 6.03% was deployed in acquisition of assets. However, the results of the study would have been further strengthened if non-member had been included in the sample. This would have provided a better understanding of impact of the cooperatives for comparison. The study lacked theoretical framework. Simple percentage was used for most of the result, while multiple regression was not carried out on all the nine criteria

Page | 38 used for poverty and standard of living. This was contrary to the methodology stated for the study.

Adebayo et al. (2010) focus on the impact of cooperatives on rural development and poverty reduction in Rwanda. Data was sourced through questionnaire, observation and oral interview. They reported that 93% of the members assert that the loan taken is adequate while 7% disagree. The use of loan reveals 46% for construction of houses, 31% for children education and 23% for family use. 92% of the members pay their loan as and when due while 8% finds it difficult to pay the loan. The justification for the choice of study locations was not stated. Empirical analysis was not carried out while the results were not compared with previous studies. The study therefore seems to be an orphan among other literature. The study by Idowu and Salami (2011) found that female entrepreneurs use more of cooperative loan (8%) than the formal microfinance bank loan (6%). This was due to lower interest rate charged by cooperative societies and their flexible loan repayment structure. The findings of Larocque et al. (2002) reveal that access to cooperative loan raises the beneficiaries and the household above the poverty level because members have access to cheap loan from the cooperative and the loan came as at when needed.

Oke et al. (2007) reported that the interest paid on a cooperative loan is lesser than those charged by the formal finance providers. Larocque et al. (2002) documented that it is not possible to get a low interest rate in the banking system as it is available within the cooperatives societies. The judicious use of credit coupled with an outstanding financial discipline may transform a poor person from one level of poverty to another until he or she emerges from the poverty circle. Tsekpo (2008) found that cooperative members frequently accessed loans from the scheme to support their businesses. Simkhada (2004) reported that instalment loan repayment in cooperatives is flexible because it is designed according to the loan purpose while the cooperative loan interest of between 15% and 20% per annum is on reducing balance method. The loan use result reveals that 67% was for productive activities, asset purchase and

Page | 39 repair (11%), 13% for social activities and 3% for repayment of previous loan. The study concluded that cooperatives build social capital, because money lenders had to reduce their interest on loan from 60% per annum before the introduction of cooperatives to 24% after cooperatives were established.

The qualitative desk study by Lohlein and Wehrheim (2003) used social capital theory to explore the potential role of cooperatives in rural areas in Russia. They found that participation in rural cooperatives lead to closer relationship in the community where the cooperatives are located. The study noted that this relationship may provide an explanation for creation of social capital which helps to improve the rate of loan repayment as a result of peer pressure from fellow members of the cooperative. The study reported that interest on loan compete favourably with those charged by other financial providers because the cooperatives charge 28% per annum while the banks charge between 27-32% per annum interest on loan. Wanyama et al. (2008) found that interest on loan is between 12 and 18% per annum on reducing balance in Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Cape Verde and Uganda. In terms of social capital, the study documented that emergency loans are given with shorter repayment period and higher interest rate for health related matter and for burial expenses. Sharma et al. (2005) found that most members used their loan for agricultural production (23.6), animal husbandry (22.3%) and business investment (20.8%), while cooperatives loan interest is lower than other informal providers. The study concluded that the expansion of trade through the cooperatives loan leads to social capital for the communities. Calkins and Ngo (2005) found that banks in Ghana charge interest on loan of about 40% per annum while banks loan take too long period with more administrative details before it is disbursed.

Enete (2008) studied the cooperative sectors and found that beneficiaries of cooperative loans use such funds for businesses such as petty trading or payment of their children’s school fees. Eisenhauer (1995) reported that the proportion of members that took loan from the cooperative increases which suggests that the cooperatives has improved their lending capacity. 61% of the

Page | 40 members feel that it is easier to get loan from cooperative than from the bank. 43.6% said that cooperative loan interest is higher than that of the banks while 36.2% agrees that bank interest on loan is higher than that of the cooperative. 20% do not know which of the interests is higher than the other. 45.3% agrees that cooperative loan takes a long time to approve and disburse, while 49% disagree. 33.7% agrees that the program lends loan to members with connections to staff and the committee, while 61.3% disagree. Its result on loan collateral shows that 73.3% agrees that cooperatives do not require much collateral as banks do, while 19.8% have contrary opinion. Loan repayment period was found to be long enough to allow members to pay their loan. Wanyama (2008) study in Kenya found that cooperative members used loans to meet other family obligation to ensure reduction in their poverty level.