Sie sind auf Seite 1von 32

Reproduced from Meyer, Richard L.

Geetha Nagarajan and Elizabeth Dunn, Measuring Depth of Outreach: Tools for Microfinance, Bangladesh Development Studies, Special Edition on Poverty, Ed. Shahidur Khandker, April 2000.

Measuring Depth of Outreach: Tools for Microfinance

by

Richard L. Meyer Geetha Nagarajan The Ohio State University Elizabeth Dunn University of Missouri

Abstract
Measuring Depth of Outreach: Tools for Microfinance
Richard L. Meyer, Geetha Nagarajan and Elizabeth Dunn

The purpose of this paper is to describe one attempt to develop simple quantitative tools as proxies or yardsticks for measuring depth of poverty. The approach is based on the assumption that the quantitative methods used in national and international poverty assessments are too complicated, expensive and time consuming for microfinance institutions to emulate. Therefore, the central objective is to find proxies that correlate well enough with the national poverty benchmarks to be used as less expensive substitutes. The technical merits of three examples drawn from among several proxies tested with a Peruvian data set are also summarized. In addition, the relationships between the proxies and the benchmark indicator are discussed, and the proxies used for predicting levels of poverty are evaluated. Three tasks were involved in this analysis. First, the proxy indicators were constructed from survey data. Second, statistical tests and regression analysis were conducted to understand the distribution in the observations for each proxy, and to evaluate how well each proxy related to the benchmark indicator. Third, a poverty cut-off point was tested for the proxies and the resulting efficiency of each proxy to correctly predict poverty levels was evaluated. The paper is organized as follows. A brief review of the major targeting issues is presented fisrt followed by the methodology used in the study and a description of the data used for analysis. The results of the analysis are then reported, and the conclusions are presented in the last section.

Measuring Depth of Outreach: Tools for Microfinance


Richard L. Meyer, Geetha Nagarajan and Elizabeth Dunn

INTRODUCTION The microfinance industry has made good progress in improving understanding about issues related to institutional performance. Increasingly, outreach and sustainability have been adopted as the two main criteria used to assess the performance of microfinance organizations (MFOs). The concept of institutional sustainability has been debated and refined, methods have been developed to use MFO accounting data to measure sustainability, and several studies have reported the level of and trends in the sustainability of many MFOs.1 The conceptualization and measurement of outreach is not as well developed. On the one hand, some aspects of outreach are easy to measure (e.g., the number and gender of clients served) and are regularly reported by MFOs. On the other hand, little progress has been made in developing simple tools to measure the depth of poverty of the clients served, that is how far down in the income distribution do the MFOs reach. A frequent question is whether or not MFOs reach the poorest of the poor. Loan size is often used as a proxy indicator for the poverty level of clients in the absence of better measures, but it is suspected of being a poor approximation. The microfinance industry would benefit if it had simple, easy-to-use tools to estimate depth of outreach in the same way it has benefitted from improved tools to measure sustainability. The purpose of this paper is to describe one attempt to develop simple quantitative tools as proxies or yardsticks for depth of poverty. The approach is based on the assumption that the quantitative methods used in national and international poverty assessments are too complicated, expensive and time consuming for MFOs to emulate. Therefore, the central objective is to find proxies that correlate well enough with the national poverty benchmarks to be The work of Jacob Yaron and his colleagues in the World Bank is noteworthy in developing the Subsidy Dependence Index (SDI). Variations of the SDI have been applied to several MFOs in Bangladesh to evaluate their continuing dependence on subsidies.
1

used as less expensive substitutes. In this paper we summarize the technical merits of three examples drawn from among several proxies tested with a Peruvian data set. We report the relationships found between the proxies and the benchmark indicator, and evaluate the proxies for use in predicting levels of poverty. Three tasks were involved in this analysis. First, the proxy indicators were constructed from survey data. Second, statistical tests and regression analysis were conducted to understand the distribution in the observations for each proxy, and to evaluate how well each proxy related to the benchmark indicator. Third, a poverty cut-off point was tested for the proxies and the resulting efficiency of each proxy to correctly predict poverty levels was evaluated. The paper is organized as follows. A brief review of the major targeting issues is presented in the next section. The methodology used in the study and a description of the data is presented in the following section. The results of the analysis are then reported, and the conclusions are presented in the last section. POVERTY INDICATORS AND MICROFINANCE PROGRAMS The question of whether or not an MFO should target the poor is complex. On the one hand, there are reasons to argue they should attempt to serve only the poor. For example, if public resources are provided for the explicit purpose of aiding the poor, then the MFOs that accept such funds have an obligation to ensure that they reach the intended clientele. The targeting efficiency of the MFO is a concern because of the need to carefully allocate scarce resources. Second, although some MFOs prefer a portfolio of heterogeneous clients, there are some advantages to serving mostly homogenous clients. Their demands for financial services may be somewhat similar so a small range of standardized products may be offered by the MFOs. Third, there are issues of group dynamics to consider in membership organizations. When non-target group members (e.g richer persons) become large in number and influence, they may discourage target group members from borrowing or taking leadership positions within the organization (Montgomery, et al., 1996). Fourth, there is the issue of what types of persons will be selected to participate in joint-liability borrowing groups. It is unlikely that wealthier

members of MFOs will choose poorer persons to join their groups because they will be perceived to be less creditworthy. Moreover, it is unlikely that poorer members will want to join groups with richer members and become liable for their larger loans. Self-selection of group members may resolve this issue, but MFOs may want to reduce potential village-level conflicts by specifically targeting poorer households as potential clients. On the other hand, there are several reasons why MFOs might want a more heterogeneous group of clients than would occur if they limited themselves to just serving the poor. First, Hulme and Mosley (1996) fear that by striving to reach self-sufficiency, MFOs might abandon poor clients in order to serve richer, more profitable ones. But by achieving selfsufficiency, MFOs may serve more total clients and, therefore, in the long run serve more poor clients than an MFO that exclusively serves the poor but relies on uncertain subsidies for its survival. Second, self-sufficient organizations serving heterogeneous clients may become larger, better able to withstand adverse shocks, and develop a more diversified, less risky loan portfolio. Third, profits earned from serving larger clients may be used to cross-subsidize the costs of serving poor clients, so interest rates for the poor may be lower than if MFOs exclusively serve the poor. Fourth, incentives given to the non-poor may be a necessary part of a well-designed cost-minimizing program to reduce poverty. That is, the non-poor may support larger programs for the poor if they capture some of the benefits (Besley, 1996). Fifth, when job creation is the primary objective, loans to larger firms may generate more hired employment than is created by making many smaller loans to the self-employed. Sixth, village banks and other self-governed MFOs may benefit from (may even require) the leadership, literacy and numeracy skills possessed by richer, better educated members. All MFOs need good data about the characteristics of existing or potential clients. Some want to use the information to screen prospective clients. Subsidized MFOs want to demonstrate to their funding sources that most of their clients are poor. Some MFOs want information to improve management. For example, managers of some MFOs want to evaluate what products and services are demanded by different types of clients and anticipate how demand changes as

clients progress and become wealthier. High rates of drop-outs plague many MFOs and one cause may be that flexible services are not provided to meet the demands of clients as they become richer (Wright, 1999). Some of the most important MFOs in Bangladesh have developed techniques to target the poor. Both the Grameen Bank (GB) and the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) use simple criteria to target clients for their credit programs. The GB requires that its members have less than 50 decimals (0.5 acres) of land. BRAC requires that households have less than 50 decimals of land and have at least one family member engaged in manual labor as their main occupation. Analysis has revealed that mis-targeting (providing services to households that do not qualify) by the GB has reached 20-30 percent in recent years (Matin, 1998), while estimates reach 15 to 20 percent for BRAC (Zaman, 1998). Part of the mistargeting may be due to wealthier members joining later than poorer ones, to members becoming better off after joining, and to certain markets having become saturated with MFOs serving the poor. These simple targeting criteria may be highly efficient for the MFOs. They are easy to use and the magnitude of mis-targeting may be acceptable. The problem is that the MFOs cannot address the question of how poor their targeted clients are relative to the poor in the country as defined by comprehensive poverty assessments. Are their clients with less than 50 decimals among the poorest in the country? How well does land ownership proxy the more comprehensive poverty measures of income or consumption? How much of the mis-targeting is due to poor efficiency of the targeting criteria? Research in Bangladesh sheds some light on the relationship between land ownership and rural poverty. A rural poverty study used a minimum caloric concept to establish Taka (Tk) 4,790 per person per annum as the cut-off point for moderate poverty and Tk 2,810 for extreme poverty for the years 1989-90. A 62 village survey revealed that 55 percent of the rural population was extremely or moderately poor. Land ownership and poverty are correlated because nearly 72 percent of the extreme rural poor and 60 percent of the extreme and

moderately poor had no land or less than 0.5 acres (Hossain, 1995). Ravallion and Sen (1994) utilized the caloric concept with the 1989-89 Household Expenditure Survey of the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics to estimate the poverty profile by landholding class. They found that 61 percent of the rural landless (with 0 - 0.04 acres of owned land) were defined as poor while 54 percent of the near landless (0.05 - 0.49 acres) were poor. It appears, therefore, that land ownership is correlated with rural poverty but, since not all the landless or near landless are poor, some mis-targeting will occur if land is used as the only targeting criteria to define poverty. Wodon (1998) explored alternative indicators of poverty as measured by the 1991-92 Household Expenditure Survey. He found that education was always a better targeting indicator than land ownership in urban areas, while in most cases land ownership was better than education in rural areas. Housing variables also worked fairly well in both rural and urban areas. No indicator performed equally well at both the high and low levels of the poverty distribution. MFOs in most developing countries have not explored how their targeting criteria relate to the comprehensive national poverty measures.2 The targeting criteria used by some MFOs, such as housing indices, involve variables that cannot be as easily related to national poverty assessments as is land ownership in rural Bangladesh. Therefore, formal analysis is needed to ascertain how well poverty indicators correlate with national benchmark indicators, and to show how poor the MFO clients are relative to the poor defined by the benchmark. The choice of a poverty indicator for use by an MFO is complicated by two important issues. First, no proxy will correctly classify all households in the same way as the benchmark so there is the issue of deciding which of the resulting problems -undercoverage or leakage - is the most serious. Second, efficiency alone cannot be the sole criteria for evaluation because the cost of constructing, testing and using one proxy versus another may be important factors for a MFO to consider. These issues are beyond the scope of this study, however, so we concentrate only on analyzing the efficiency aspects of proxies. The only study found in which the poverty levels of MFO clients were explicitly compared to the poverty levels of the population was done for Bolivia by Navajas, et al. (2000).
2

A reviewer of the first draft of this paper made an important observation noting that verifiability of data reported by clients should be another important consideration in the choice of proxy. Some types of data are more difficult to manipulate than others by non-qualifying potential clients who desire access to MFO services. It was suggested that the use of land ownership as criteria is desirable because it can be easily verified by knowledgeable persons in a Bangladesh village. However, the well-known process of providing tea money in exchange for favors implies that even local data on land ownership is not immune from falsification. A second problem is that households may have incentives to alter their behavior in order to affect eligibility. For example, potential clients may learn that a housing index is being used which gives heavy weight to a tin roof. They might avoid investing in such roofs and make other investments that are not so visible. Therefore, the selection of variables to use as proxies involves many considerations that go far beyond our objectives for this paper. This paper is part of a larger study that tested a large number of proxies. We report here only three of the proxies tested as they illustrate the issues and are most relevant for Bangladesh and other low income Asian countries. We also limit ourselves to discussing some of the simpler methods of analysis that are within the scope of what most MFOs might consider using. More sophisticated techniques are available but they involve more complexity and technical expertise to implement than all but the largest, most well-endowed MFOs could expect to possess. DEVELOPING AND ANALYZING PROXY INDICATORS Collecting Information for Poverty Assessments Traditionally, poverty has been defined and measured through national poverty assessments based on the analysis of quantitative data collected through large scale surveys. As the definition of poverty has changed, so have the types and sources of data required. Quantitative methods usually involve survey techniques based on a well-defined sampling framework. The surveys involve highly detailed questions necessary to construct estimates of household income or consumption. Stratified random sampling is commonly used for selecting the households to be interviewed in the survey.

Qualitative methods are increasingly used to supplement or substitute for large quantitative surveys and some methods involve participation by the poor in defining poverty. These methods include Rapid Appraisal (RA) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) based on purposive rather than random sampling. Short interviews and direct observations are used to obtain objective and subjective indicators of welfare. RA obtains information from focus groups and community interviews, as well as less formal individual or household interviews. PRA uses local people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of local life and conditions to identify the poor. These methods include poverty mapping and modeling, seasonal calendars to locate food insecurity, and wealth ranking and grouping to locate the poor (Chambers, 1994). Data collection involves making choices about the scale of inquiry, interview type (unstructured, open ended questions and structured questionnaires), number of observations and types of measurement tools, and frequency of data collection (single visit, multiple visits during year) (Maxwell and Frankenberger, 1992). These techniques were extensively used in the 1990s in poverty studies, especially to identify food insecure households (Haddad et al, 1995). Some financial institutions and MFOs also utilize wealth ranking techniques and poverty mapping to identify the target population (Gottschalk, 1997). Benchmark and Proxy Indicators For our purpose, two types of poverty indicators are defined: benchmark and proxies. The term benchmark indicator is used to refer to the true or best indicator of poverty against which proxy indicators are compared. In practice, there is disagreement about which is the best indicator. Benchmark indicators, developed through comprehensive income or consumption surveys and representative surveying, are expected to accurately reflect the degree of poverty found in a country at a particular point in time. Per capita income or expenditure levels are the most commonly used benchmarks by policy makers who are interested in anti-poverty measures to raise incomes and command over resource use (Ravallion, 1995). Therefore, these kinds of benchmark indicators are found in many countries where MFOs operate and are useful sources of information about poverty conditions. In spite of their limitations, they are often used to

establish the official measure of poverty in developing countries. Proxy indicators are desired by MFOs as substitutes for benchmark indicators, which are considered too cumbersome and expensive for use in daily operations. An important characteristic of a proxy is that it is easy to use and is accurate in identifying the poor. It is assumed that proxies can be constructed from data on readily available attributes or characteristics of households that will be highly correlated with the benchmark indicators. Therefore, proxy indicators are generally constructed from information that is readily obtainable through visual inspection or simple interviews that collect data on household demographics, housing characteristics, asset holdings, and educational attainment. Efficiency is an important

characteristic for proxies. A household defined as poor or non-poor by a benchmark indicator should be defined the same way by a proxy. Therefore, the rank order of a group of individuals or households constructed with a proxy should be similar, if not the same, as the rank order obtained using the benchmark. Constructing and Evaluating Proxies For this paper, we report the results for three proxies tested with the Peruvian data set. The data set and proxies are summarized in Appendix 1. The benchmark indicator, consistent with the national poverty assessment, was the value of annual per capita expenditures. It was calculated by simply dividing total annual household expenditures by total household size3. The first proxy selected was per capita income (INCPC) earned from all sources. The second was a housing index (HI), and the third was household size (HHSIZE). They are relevant examples for possible MFO use because the first and third proxies can be constructed with data obtained from quick interviews using simple questions, and the second can be constructed from data obtained simply by visually inspecting the exterior of houses. Variations of these types of measures are currently used by MFOs as described by Hatch and Frederick (1998) and Mathie (1998). The evaluation of the three proxies consisted of two interrelated steps. The first involved There are a number of limitations in this national assessment but it is beyond the scope of this paper to review them. It effectively served a useful purpose as a benchmark for this analysis.
3

statistical tests of association while the second involved evaluating efficiency. A proxy may produce results that are statistically correlated with poverty classifications obtained with a benchmark, but it may not be very efficient. Therefore, errors in predicting the poor and non-poor become a concern. Correlation analysis was used in the first step to check for the strength of association between the benchmark and the proxy indicators. Spearmans rank correlation was used to reduce the influence of outlier observations. Correlation coefficients and their significance levels indicate if the benchmark and proxy indicators are linearly correlated. A proxy that fails the test of statistical significance is a poor indicator because using it will identify some households as being poor when they are not, and/or identifying them as non-poor when in fact they are. A regression model was used to evaluate the predictive power of the proxies and to test a proxy composed of multiple variables. In the second step, the proxies were tested to determine their efficiency, that is how well do they predict the true poverty level of households. A proxy may be statistically significant but it may not be very efficient. The efficiency measures of undercoverage, leakage, positive and negative predictive power, and relative risk were used to assess targeting and predective efficiency. Undercoverage refers to the proportion of the poor that is excluded or missed because they are defined as non-poor, while leakage refers to the proportion of non-poor incorrectly defined as poor. Undercoverage can be measured as the number of persons (or households) identified by the proxy as non-poor when in fact they are actually poor divided by the total number of poor identified by the benchmark. Leakage can be measured as the number of persons identified as poor by the proxy when in fact they are actually non-poor divided by the number of persons predicted as poor by the proxy (Grosh and Baker, 1995).4 Obviously, lower rates of undercoverage and leakage are preferable to higher rates. The predictive power of a proxy is measured by the positive predictive value that considers the percentage of households correctly defined as poor by the proxy, and the negative predictive value is the percentage of Leakage corresponds to what is known as a type II error (inclusion) while undercoverage corresponds to a type I error (exclusion).
4

10

households correctly defined as non-poor by the proxy (Chung, et al., 1997). We define relative risk of a proxy as the positive predictive value divided by the negative predictive value. Establishing Poverty Cut-off Points for Proxies Poverty measurement requires defining poverty lines or cut-off points, which determine if a household is defined as poor or non-poor. The procedures used to select poverty cut-offs are by nature arbitrary. There are well established systematic ways to establish poverty lines based on the minimum levels of income or expenditures required to acquire food necessary to achieve some minimum standard of nutrition. But it is more difficult to specify that reaching a housing index of, say, X is required to meet basic needs so that a household with a score below X will be considered poor. Interestingly, studies that compare poverty classifications obtained from different measures focus on the potential errors caused by low levels of association between proxies and benchmarks, but rarely discuss the key related issue of setting appropriate cut-off points (e.g., Hagenaars and de Vos, 1987). We report the results for one cut-off point in which the proxy was given a value somewhat below the proportion of the poor actually found in the population of Lima. The Peruvian national poverty assessment survey reported that the incidence of poverty in Lima was around 49.5 percent; however, only about a third of the households in our sample were defined as poor using the benchmark indicator. Therefore, we arbitrarily set the poverty lines or cut-off points for the proxies at the lowest 30th percentile of the households in the sample. That is, the households were rank ordered by the scores for each proxy and the lowest 30 percent were defined as poor in each case. Data related to the household ranked at the 30th percentile were considered as the cut-off point.5 Efficiency analysis involved comparing the households defined as poor and non-poor by the proxies with the distribution obtained by using the national poverty assessment method. DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS Other studies using the 30th percentile as the poverty cut-off include Glewwe and van der Gaag (1990) in a study of the poor in Cote dIvoire and Grosh and Baker (1995) in a study of Jamaica, Bolivia and Peru.
5

11

Distribution of Households by Depth of Poverty The data presented in Table 1 show the distribution of the 700 sample households in urban Lima. In this analysis, the benchmark of per capita consumption expenditures was

calculated for each household following the procedure used in the national poverty assessment. This value was then compared with the national poverty lines to define each sampled household as either non-poor, poor or extremely poor. The data show that in the sample 465 (66.4%) were classified as non-poor, 213 (30.4%) were poor but not extremely poor, and 22 households (3.1%) were extremely poor based on the benchmark poverty lines defined for urban Lima in 1997. The benchmark was specified as per capita expenditures on basic food and non-food items. Average per capita consumption expenditures ranged from Nuevos Soles (NS) 4,367 for the non-poor category to NS 929 for the extremely poor (exchange rate as of August 1997: 1 US$ = NS 2.656). The highest level of per capita expenditures observed in the sample was NS 19,477 and the lowest was NS 543. The data in Table 2 report selected characteristics of the sampled households. Many variables reflect the characteristics of the poor in other countries and they are often reported in poverty profiles. The sample was divided into the three categories of poverty status shown in Table 1 and the numbers are percentages relative to the number of households classified in each category. A visual inspection of the data reveals that the heads of extremely poor households are generally older, more likely to be females, possess only primary education, and have larger sized households than the poor or non-poor. The poorer households tend to have smaller houses with fewer stories and are constructed of less durable materials. While access to the public services of piped water and sanitation is greater for richer households, access to electricity is similar across the poverty classes. This difference may be due to the fact that electricity is provided for a locality so access is less affected by the poverty level of individual households. Water and sanitary facilities are also provided on an area basis by the government, but it is necessary for individual households to incur the cost of extending hook ups from the public lines into their houses. These results suggest household demographics and housing characteristics may be

12

useful in constructing proxies, but access to public services may not be a useful distinction. Descriptive Statistics of the Proxy Indicators Descriptive statistics for the three proxies tested are presented in Table 3. Three observations can be made about the data. First, as expected, with the exception of household size, the mean values of the proxies fall reading from left to right, (i.e. as poverty rises). Second, the standard deviations are quite high suggesting there is considerable variation in the values obtained for households within the same poverty group. Third, indicative of wide variability, there are overlapping values. Consider per capita income (INCPC). The minimum value for the 465 non-poor households was NS 442, which is lower that the minimum value of NS 600 for the 213 poor households. The lack of clear distinctions in the values for the proxies is the first sign that the level of association between the benchmark and proxy indicators may not be as high as desired. This will result in low and/or insignificant correlation coefficients. A statistical Z test was used to determine if the differences were statistically different between two sets of means. With the three groups, there are three sets of tests to determine if the non-poor are different from the poor, the non-poor from the extremely poor, and the poor from the extremely poor. The results of the Z-tests showed that the three sets of comparisons were all significant for the proxy INCPC. However, for HI and HHSIZE, the means were not significantly different between the poor and extremely poor groups. This result suggests some proxies may work well in distinguishing poverty across the full range of a population, while others may perform well at only one end of a distribution. This finding has potential implications for MFOs that seek to design proxies that will distinguish the poorest of the poor from the poor. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PROXY INDICATORS The empirical analysis is divided into two parts. We first evaluated which of the proxies tested has the greatest potential to efficiently identify poverty. The efficiency question is one of determining how well the proxies perform in assigning individual households to the same three categories as the benchmark, that is what is the degree of association between two classifications.

13

There will be errors because no proxy is perfectly correlated with the benchmark. This section presents the correlations between the proxies and the benchmark indicator. We then present the results of the regression analysis. In the second part, we evaluate how the choice of cut-off point affects the definition of poverty. If a proxy is going to be used as a substitute for the benchmark indicator, then a poverty line or cut-off point must be established for it. The cut-off serves the same purpose as the national poverty line to determine which households will be defined as non-poor and poor. Each household with a value for the proxy that falls above the cut-off will be defined as non-poor, and those that fall below the cut-off will be defined as poor. We tested one cut-off and evaluated the targeting and predictive efficiency of the three proxies by comparing the classification of households obtained from the proxies with the classification obtained using the benchmark. This measures the degree of undercoverage and leakage that would occur if the proxies with the prescribed cut-offs were used to identify the poor. Correlation Analysis The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to test the degree of association between the values of the proxies and the values of the benchmark for the households. The correlation coefficients for the three proxies are reported in Table 4, first for the entire sample, then for each of the three poverty categories. The three proxies are significant and positively or negatively associated with the benchmark indicator when analyzing all 700 households. The highest level of correlation was found for per capita income (INCPC); however, the magnitude of the coefficient is less than 60 per cent indicating that less than 60 per cent of the households are correlated with the benchmark. In the other two cases, the results are statistically significant, but the correlations are lower. The correlation problem becomes even more serious when analyzing the three poverty subgroups independently. The correlation coefficient for the proxy INCPC is positive and significant for all three groups, although the size of the coefficient is particularly low for the 213 poor households. This means that the rankings of the poor households by the proxy and by the

14

benchmark indicator are quite different. Evidently some households have relatively high levels of per capita expenditures but relatively low levels of per capita income, and vice versa. The problem is more serious for the two other proxies. Not only are the correlation coefficients lower, they are insignificant in several cases. These results help explain why some proxies had significantly different means when comparing the non-poor group with the other two groups, but not when comparing the poor with the extremely poor. At the higher levels of poverty (i.e. lower levels of per capita expenditures), the proxy values do not show a consistent pattern of lower values associated with lower levels of expenditure. This implies problems of undercoverage and leakage if these proxies would be used for targeting. Multinomial Logit Estimation Correlation analysis is useful in examining the extent to which a linear relationship exists between the values calculated for the benchmark and for the proxies. It cannot, however, test the predictive power of a proxy, nor can it analyze how well two or more proxies perform in combination. These two questions require the use of regression models. We employed a multinomial logit regression model designed to analyze relationships between discrete dependent variables, such as poverty status of a household, and several independent variables (Amemiya, 1985; Maddalla, 1985).6 The dependent variable takes the values of 1, 2 or 3 for each household depending on how they are defined as non-poor, poor and extremely poor, respectively, by the benchmark. The independent variables are the proxies. We used this approach, first, to examine the relationship between the classification of households by the benchmark, (EXPPC), and by the proxies used independently and in combination. Second, the models were used to calculate predicted values for the proxies, which were compared with the actual poverty levels assigned by Ordinary least squares (OLS) and other methods that require continuous dependent variables can give overall information on the relationship between per capita expenditure and the proxies. However, they may not give information on the poverty classification of the households unless separate regressions are estimated for each poverty class. Multinomial logit analysis can provide information on the relationship between the poverty status of a household and several proxies.
6

15

the benchmark for each household. This approach permitted evaluating the predictive power of the proxies without having to assign arbitrary poverty cut-off points. Once a proxy is selected based on its predictive power, cut-off points can be established to define poverty levels of households. The results presented in Table 5 show that all models are statistically significant as determined by the chi-square statistics; therefore, all are potential candidates for use as proxies. The chi-square value is highest for model four suggesting that multiple variable proxies may be more efficient in defining poverty than single variable ones. The marginal effects for these models show the probability of change in the dependent variable (i.e. the group into which the household is classified) associated with a one unit change in the independent variable. Marginal coefficients closer to 1 imply that the proxy has considerable effect on the probability of the household being classified correctly. For example, for model one, an increase in per capita income of one Nuevo Sole increases the probability of the household being defined as non-poor by 0.80 (i.e. eighty out of 100 times ) and decreases the probability of being defined as poor and extremely poor by 0.74 and 0.06, respectively. Similarly, for model three, an increase of one member in the household decreases the probability of it being defined as non-poor by 0.61, while increasing the probability of being defined as poor and extremely poor by 0.54 and 0.07, respectively. For both models, unit increases substantially improve the probability of a household being defined as non-poor and poor; however, this is not true for being defined as extremely poor. In other words, income and household size are more effective in predicting the poverty status of the non-poor and poor than for the extremely poor households. Models one and three have significant probabilities of defining poverty correctly for all three groups, while models two and four were not as successful in defining the extremely poor. This result parallels the findings of Grosh and Baker (1995), but it needs to be interpreted with caution because it may be influenced by the relatively small number of extremely poor households in the sample and the design of the proxies created for the study. Testing Predictive and Targeting Efficiency

16

The regression results revealed that with some limitations the proxies can significantly predict poverty status, and provide a first order approximation of their efficiency in identifying poverty levels. This section explicitly examines predictive and targeting efficiency. After estimating the models with multinomial logit regression, the predicted poverty classification for each household was generated for each model and compared with the actual poverty levels defined by the benchmark. Targeting efficiency involves analyzing errors made in defining poverty. It concerns the problems of leakage and coverage. The two poverty lines defined for the poor and the extremely poor in Peru were studied. This analysis captures how well a proxy would perform at the upper poverty line, which separates the non-poor from the poor (including the extremely poor), versus at the lower poverty line, which separates the non-poor, including the poor, from the extremely poor. The latter case may reflect the challenge for MFOs that want to target only the poorest of the poor. Therefore, for our analysis, undercoverage at the upper poverty line is measured as the number of households identified by the proxy as non-poor when in fact they are actually poor or extremely poor divided by the total number of poor and extremely poor identified by the benchmark. Undercoverage at the lower poverty line is calculated by dividing the sum of households identified as extremely poor by 22, the total number of extremely poor households actually found in the sample. Similarly, leakage at the upper poverty line is measured as the number of households identified as poor by the proxy when in fact they are actually non-poor divided by the number of households identified as poor by the proxy. Leakage at the lower poverty line is calculated by dividing the number of households incorrectly identified as extremely poor when they are actually non-poor or poor by the total number of households identified as extremely poor. Positive predictive values reflect the percentage of households correctly defined as poor by the proxy, while negative predictive values represent the percentage of households correctly defined as non-poor. We define relative risk as the positive predictive value divided by negative predictive value. Generally, the higher the number obtained for relative risk, the better is the predictive power.

17

The results of the evaluation of predictive and targeting efficiency are provided in Table 6. The first major finding is that none of the proxies were able to correctly define any of the 22 extremely poor households. Therefore, leakage was the same for both the upper and lower poverty lines; undercoverage was 100 per cent in all cases with the lower poverty line. This implies that if any of the proxies would have been used to target the extremely poor for a poverty project, all the extremely poor households would have been denied benefits. The values in column 3 represent the percentage of non-poor households incorrectly predicted as poor and extremely poor; therefore they would be incorrectly included in a poverty program designed for the poor. The values in column 4 represent the percentage of poor and extremely poor households that are incorrectly predicted as non-poor. Ideally, both undercoverage and leakage should be close to zero. Leakage is considerably less than undercoverage for all proxies. Income per capita (INCPC) is promising among the single variable proxies because it shows relatively low levels of both leakage and undercoverage. Model four, which combines the three variables, also has relatively low levels of leakage and undercoverage compared to models two and three. The data in columns 5, 6 and 7 are the percentages of non-poor, poor and extremely poor households correctly predicted by the proxy which ideally should be close to 100. Generally, the proxies are more efficient at predicting the non-poor than the poor and, as noted, none of the extremely poor were correctly identified. The income proxy performs fairly well in predicting both non-poor and poor households. Both the housing and the household size indices correctly predict a larger proportion of the non-poor, but a much lower proportion of the poor. The combined model performs the best in correctly predicting the poor, and it also has the highest value for relative risk. The relative risk measure is useful in selecting among the proxies, but in practice organizations need to determine which type of error in prediction is most serious in their particular case. For example, the welfare implications for a starving population may be more serious if some poor households are missed by an emergency food distribution program than if

18

some non-poor households are incorrectly provided with food relief. The trade-off may not be so clear cut for many MFOs offering financial products using scarce government or donor funds. Selecting Poverty Cut-off Points A poverty cut-off point needs to be established for proxies in the same way a poverty line must be defined for national poverty assessments. For simplification in experimenting with the choice of cut-off point, we eliminated the distinction between poor and extremely poor, used only the three single variable models, and report one experiment with the cut-off set at the 30th percentile.7 The results of this analysis are reported in Table 7. The 210 households that fell below the 30th percentile (therefore defined as poor) were analyzed to see how they were defined as non-poor or poor (including the extremely poor) by the benchmark. The numbers in the table report the number of households falling into each of the two categories. The number in parentheses report the percent of households that were correctly defined by each proxy. Ideally, the percentages should be close to 100 percent and the numbers in columns 4 and 5 should be close to zero. The proxy for INCPC performed best because it correctly defined 84 per cent of the non-poor households and 58 per cent of the poor households. The higher the percentage in both cases, the greater the predictive power of the proxy as reflected by the smaller number of households incorrectly defined by INCPC. The proxy for HI performed second best, while HHSIZE performed much worse. The results presented in Table 7 were used to construct Table 8 to show the targeting and predictive efficiency of the proxies. INCPC produced the lowest levels of leakage and undercoverage, and had the highest value for predictive efficiency. HI followed as a fairly close second while HHSIZE was a distant third by comparison. The values in column 2 (leakage) represent the percentage of non-poor households that would be incorrectly included in a MFO Tied observations frequently exist, except for the income proxy which varies over a wider range. When ties occurred at the 30th percentile, the first households listed were selected for inclusion in the poor category of 210 households and any remaining tied households were defined as non-poor. Therefore, exactly 210 households were defined as poor for the three proxies.
7

19

program designed for the poor. The values in column 3 (undercoverage) represent the percentage of poor and extremely poor households that are incorrectly predicted as non-poor. Ideally, both undercoverage and leakage should be close to zero. Leakage is considerably less than undercoverage for all three proxies. The relative risk indicator presented in column 4 shows the relative risk with respect to columns 2 and 3. By this measure, INCPC performs the best followed closely by HI. HHSIZE is much inferior. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The purpose of this paper was to report on a study of poverty indicators tested for the urban area of Lima, Peru. MFOs are interested in identifying simple indicators for use in targeting clients and/or improving understanding about their existing clients and the evolving demand for financial services. The problem is that the indicators developed by MFOs have not been formally analyzed to determine how well they perform relative to national poverty assessments conducted using comprehensive income or consumption surveys. Therefore, there is little information available about how efficient the proxies are relative to the benchmarks. For example, it is clear that land ownership is correlated with poverty in rural Bangladesh, but there is no evidence to inform us about the degree of mis-targeting that may occur if this measure alone would be used to target clients for microfinance programs. This paper reports on three simple proxies tested with the Peruvian data. One was a measure of per capita household income (INCPC) constructed from simple income recall questions asked the respondents. The second (HI) was a housing index constructed from readily observable characteristics of urban housing, and the third represented household size (HHSIZE). The statistical correlations were reported for the proxies with the benchmark of per capita expenditures to determine how closely the proxies represented the benchmark. A multiple regression model was used to estimate predictive power and one experiment with setting poverty cut-off points was tested. Efficiency measures were constructed for each proxy to show the degree of leakage and undercoverage that would occur if the proxies were used instead of the

20

benchmark. The results represent good and bad news for MFOs that desire simple but reliable poverty indicators. The best part of the results is that these three relatively simple proxies show some promise as possible poverty proxies for urban areas of Peru. All three are easy to construct and require only a minimum of data that can be quickly collected. However, there are several negative implications. First, the efficiency of all three is relatively low so that large amounts of leakage and undercoverage would occur if they were used exclusively to target the poor. The use of a multiple variable proxy may improve efficiency but at the expense of greater complexity and cost. Second, these types of poverty indicators are likely to be quite site and time specific. For example, as noted in Wodons study in Bangladesh, efficient indicators for urban areas will likely be different than those for rural areas. A housing indicator for the dry upland areas will likely be different than the humid lowlands of interior Peru. Third, the results revealed quite different results for different poverty strata. MFOs that want to target the poorest of the poor may find it relatively more difficult to develop efficient indicators because the values for many variables potentially useful as proxies will be truncated at zero. MFOs need to explore how

well alternative indicators might work in specific situations. They have essentially three options. One is to evaluate the comprehensive data collected for national poverty assessments and determine if the data set contains variables that might serve as proxies. If there are, then it would be possible to do what we report here, that is test the correlation between proxies and existing benchmark data. The second would be to collect a small amount of additional data on alternative proxies that are not in the survey to correlate with the existing assessment data for the same households. The third, and most expensive, alternative would be to repeat the national poverty assessment survey on a small sample and obtain information from the same households on the specific proxies to be tested. In the end, MFOs will need to make choices considering objective criteria, as suggested by Hatch and Frederick (1998). They proposed simplicity, practicality, cost, level of poverty, data quality and reliability. As usual, tradeoffs will be required. Greater efficiency involves greater costs and complexity.

21

Donors face a challenge in that they need to demonstrate that they are supporting poverty programs that reach the very poor. They need good data to document who receives funds on-lent by MFOs, but do not want to impose costly measurement and reporting requirements on the MFOs. Additional research is required to identify proxies that are fairly robust, are easily adapted to different environments, and can be readily used by MFOs with their existing human resources and analytical capacity.

22

References Amemiya, Takeshi, Advanced Econometrics, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985. Besley, Timothy, Political Economy of Alleviating Poverty: Theory and Institutions, Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, 1996, pp. 117-134. Chambers, R., The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal, World Development, Vol. 22, No. 7, 1994, pp. 953-969. Chung, Kimberly, Lawrence Haddad, Jayashree Ramakrishna, and Frank Riely, Identifying the Food Insecure: The Application of Mixed-Method Approaches in India, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., 1997. Glewwe, Paul and Jacques van der Gaag, Identifying the Poor in Developing Countries: Do Different Definitions Matter? World Development, Vol. 18, No. 6, 1990, pp. 803-814. Gottschalk, Jan, The Visual Indicator of Poverty and the Poverty Test, Working Paper. South Africa: The Small Enterprise Foundation, 1997 Grosh, Margaret E. and Judy L. Baker, Proxy Means Tests for Targeting Social Programs: Simulations and Specialization, LSMS Working Paper No. 118, World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1995. Haddad, Lawrence, Kimberly Chung, and P. Yasoda-Devi, Alternative Approaches to Locating the Food and Nutrition Insecure: Work in Progress in South India, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 30, No. 7-8, 1995, pp. 392-402. Hagenaars, Aldi, and Klaas de Vos, The Definition and Measurement of Poverty, The Journal of Human Resources, Vol, 23, No. 2, 1987, pp. 211-221. Hatch, John K. and Laura Frederich, Poverty Assessment by Microfinance Institutions: A Review of Current Practice, Microenterprise Best Practices, Development Alternatives, Inc., Washington, D.C., August 1998. Hossain, Mahabub, Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Poor, in Rethinking Rural Poverty: Bangladesh as a Case Study, Hossain Zilbur Rahman and Mahabub Hossain, eds., Bangladesh: University Press Limited, 1995, pp. 157-169. Hulme, David and Paul Mosley, Finance Against Poverty, London: Routledge, 1996. Lipton, Michael and Martin Ravallion, Poverty and Policy, in Handbook of Development Economics, Vol.III B, J.Behrman and T.N. Srinivasan, eds., Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1995 Mathie, Alison, How Micro-Finance Providers Target the Poor: A Compendium of Strategies, CGAP, World Bank and Coady International Institute, Antigonish, NS, Canada, 1998.

23

Matin, Imran, Mis-Targeting by the Grameen Bank: A Possible Explanation, in IDS Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 4, October 1998, pp. 51-58. Maxwell, S., and T. Frankenberger, Household Food Security: Concepts, Indicators, Measurements: A Technical Review, International Fund for Agricultural Development/ United Nations Childrens Fund, 1992. Montgomery, Richard, Debprinya Bhattacharya, and David Hulme, Credit for the Poor in Bangladesh, in Finance Against Poverty, Volume 2, David Hulme and Paul Mosley, eds., London: Routledge, 1996, pp. 94-176. Navajas, Sergio, Mark Schreiner, Richard L. Meyer, Claudio Gonzalez-Vega, and Jorge Rodriguez-Meza, Microcredit and the Poorest of the Poor: Theory and Evidence from Bolivia, To appear in World Development, February, 2000. Ravallion, Martin and Binayek Sen, Impact on Rural Poverty of Land Based Targeting: Further Results for Bangladesh, World Development, Vol. 22, 1994, pp. 823-838. Wodon, Quentin, T., Targeting the Poor Using ROC Curves, World Development, Vol. 25, No. 12, 1997, pp. 2083-2092. Wright, Graham A. N., Drop-outs, Graduates, and the Excluded, chapter in Microfinance Systems: Straight-Jackets or Tailored Suits, Designing Quality Financial Services for the Poor, to be published by University Press Ltd. in Dhaka and Zed Books in London, 1999. Zaman, Hassan, ACan Mis-Targeting be Justified,@ in IDS Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 4, October 1998, pp. 59-65.

24

Appendix 1 Data Description The cross section data used for this study were collected in August-October, 1997 in Lima, Peru for the AIMS project funded by USAID. Elizabeth Dunn and her colleagues designed the data collection effort. The data were collected by CUANTO, the organization that conducts Peru=s national poverty assessments based on per capita expenditures for basic food and non-food items. The AIMS questionnaires included variables similar to those used in the national poverty assessment so the poverty level of each sampled household can be estimated using the same procedures and definitions used in the national survey. In addition, the information collected on income, housing characteristics and demographic characteristics was used to construct the three proxy indicators. The survey provided good data for 700 households for use in this research. Several limitations exist in using this data set. First, the data were not collected specifically for this study. It is not a representative survey and the sampled observations were limited to urban areas. We can only speculate about how the results might change if a sample would be collected from households representative of all regions and income levels. Second, we could only assess the technical merits of the proxies; a full analysis would involve estimation of costs and benefits for MFOs creating and using different proxies. Third, some issues specific to poverty in each locality can only be studied through selected case studies on the ground. We had to rely on information generally available about proxy indicators and from people knowledgeable about Peru. The national poverty assessment in Peru uses the Unsatisfied Basic Needs (UBN) approach. It involves calculations of annual per capita expenditures for basic food and non-food items. The poverty surveys collect detailed information on the following expense categories for the year: food consumed at home and away from home; expenses for rent, water, electricity, telephone, cooking gas/kerosene, living expenditures and education; frequent expenditures on transportation, personal items, cigarettes, cleaning materials, etc.; expenditures for clothing, medicines, furniture, cosmetics, entertainment, travel, legal services and on electro-domestic appliances, alimony, ceremonies and donations, and construction materials for home improvements. The value of annual expenditures per capita was obtained by simply dividing total annual household expenditures by total household size. Unlike some poverty assessments, the total expenditures are not adjusted with household equivalence scales constructed to reflect consumption requirements of different household members by age and gender. The poverty lines in Peru were drawn at Nuevo Soles (NS) 2,439.55 to define the poor and at NS 1,132.76 to define the extremely poor in Lima, Peru in 1997.8 The per capita income proxy was constructed based on household income as reporting in responses to a few simple questions. The housing index (HI) was constructed following procedures similar to those used by some CASHPOR affiliates in Asia in which rapid assessment methods are used as the source of information about households. It is a simple index in which 40 percent of the weight was based on number of stories of the dwelling (one to four stories), 40 percent on exterior wall materials (mats to cement blocks), and 20 percent on roof material
8

Exchange rate as of August 1997: 1US$ = NS 2.656.

25

(ranging from thatched straw or palm leaves to reinforced cement). The proxy for household size (HHSIZE) was simply the total number of adults and children actually in residence at the time of the survey.

26

Appendix 2 - Tables Table 1: Poverty Status of the Sample by Level of Per Capita Consumption Expenditures. Category of household No. of households (percent of total sample) 700 (100) 465 (66.4) 235 (33.6) 213 (30.4) 22 (3.2) 1,871 (360) 929 (159) 1,148 (2,419) 543 (1,104) Mean per capita expenditures1 (standard deviation) Minimum (Maximum) per capita expenditures1

1. Total sample 2. Non-poor 3. Total poor 3a. Poor but not extremely poor 3b. Extremely poor 1: in Nuevo Soles.

3,500 (2,094) 4,367 (2,064)

543 (19,477) 2,447 (19,477)

Table 2: Selected Characteristics of the Sample Households. Characteristics Non-poor n=465 Poor n=213 Extremely poor n=22

I. a. b. c. d. e. II. a. b. c. d. e. f.

Demographic characteristics Age of household heads above 45 Female household heads Household heads with only primary education Household heads with no education Household size (above six members) Housing characteristics Houses with thatch/mat roofs Houses with tin roofs Houses with cement exterior walls Houses with wood/mat exterior walls Houses with one story Houses with three or more stories

(% of households) 36.6 59.7 25.6 1.3 23.9 28.6 62.9 37.1 3.3 46.5 31.8 77.3 63.6 3.4 72.7

8.7 15.8 89.3 3.9 59.8 3.9

14.6 33.8 82.6 9.4 83.6 1.4

18.2 50.1 68.2 22.7 86.4 0

27

g. h. i. j. k.

Houses with proper titles Houses rented and under usufruct status Houses built on occupied lands Houses with polished wood and vinyl floors Houses with mud/false cement floors

63.1 16.5 3.0 9.7 75.1

56.3 19.7 4.2 2.8 90.6

45.5 22.8 9.1 0 95.5

III. Access to public infrastructure a. b. c. Access to water pipes within the house Access to sanitation hook-ups Access to electricity 86.5 86.3 98.3 74.6 76.5 99.1 68.2 68.2 95.5

Note: The table is interpreted as follows: About 36.6%, 28.6% and 31.8% of non-poor, poor and extremely poor households, respectively, are headed by persons above 45 years of age. Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Proxy Indicators by Poverty Group (Arithmetic Mean, Standard Deviation, Minimum and Maximum Values) Proxy indicator Total sample n =700 Non-poor n=465 Poor n=213 Extremely poor n=22

Mean (std) INCPC

min (max)

Mean (std)

Min (max)

Mean (std)

Min (max)

Mean (std) 1,946 (1,342) 2.54 (0.99) 6.14 (2.03)

Min (max) 333 (6,600) 0.40 (3.8) 3.0 (12.0)

4,757 333 (4,496) (66,000) 3.15 (0.74) 4.81 (1.98) 0.40 (4.6) 1.0 (15.0)

5,687 442 (5,064) (66,000) 3.28 (0.65) 4.39 (1.64) 0.40 (4.6) 1.0 (11.0)

3,018 600 (2,144) (16,000) 2.91 (0.79) 5.60 (2.32) 0.40 (4.2) 1.0 (15.0)

HI

HHSIZE

28

Table 4: Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients for all Households and by Poverty Group Poverty Indicators (1) INCPC HI HHSIZE All households n=700 (2) 0.58** 0.35** -0.36** Non-poor households n=465 (3) 0.46** 0.24** -0.29** Poor households n=213 (4) 0.25** 0.10 -0.11 Extremely poor households n=22 (5) 0.60* 0.05 -0.60*

**, * indicate the 0.001 and 0.005 probability levels, respectively, at which the null hypothesis of no correlation can be accepted. Table 5: Multinomial Logit Regression Results Model Indicators Chisquare value Marginal effects of independent variables

Non-poor (NP) n=465

Poor (P) n=213

Extremely poor (EP) n=22

1 2 3 4

INCPC HI HHSIZE INCPC HI HHSIZE

144.35*** 48.02*** 67.7*** 224.91***

0.80*** 0.16*** -0.61*** 0.00005*** 0.10*** 0.051***

-0.74*** -0.14*** 0.54*** -0.00004*** -0.10*** -0.049**

-0.06* -0.02 0.07* -0.0002 -0.22 -0.096*

***, ** and * represent significance at 1, 5 and 10 percent levels, respectively.

29

Table 6: Estimates of Targeting and Predictive Efficiency Model (1) Proxy indicators (2) Targeting efficiency (%)1 Predictive efficiency (%)

Leakage (3)

Undercoverage (4)

NonPoor as poor as poor non-poor (6) (5) 93.5 96.1 96.6 89.2 34.3 9.4 13.1 43.7

Extremel y poor as ext. poor (7) 0 0 0 0

Relative risk2 (8) 6) 5 0.37 0.10 0.13 0.49

1 2 3 4

INCPC HI HHSIZE INCPC HI INCPC

29.81 47.4 36.4 31.1

69 91.5 88.1 52.8

1. Targeting efficiency refers to upper poverty line because undercoverage was 100% for lower poverty line. Therefore, the values are not reported for lower poverty line. 2. Relative risk is calculated the percentage of poor households predicted correctly divided by percentage of households that are predicted correctly as non-poor. The relative risk for the lower poverty line is the percentage of extremely poor households predicted correctly divided by percentage of households that are predicted correctly as non-poor. Since it was 0 in all cases, it is not reported in the table.

Table 7. Number of Households Correctly and Incorrectly Classified by the Lowest 30th Percentile for the Proxies.1 Indicators (1) INCPC HI Non-poor correctly Poor correctly Poor incorrectly Non-poor incorrectly defined as non-poor defined as poor defined as non-poor defined as poor (2) (3) (4) (5) 391 (84.1) 373 (80.2) 136 (57.9) 118 (50.2) 99 117 74 92

30

HHSIZE

307 (66.1)

52 (22.1)

183

158

1: Numbers in parentheses are percentages. For column 2, the percentages refer to the proportion of households relative to 465. The percentages in column 3 refer to the proportion of households relative to 235. Table 8. Predictive and Targeting Efficiency using the Proxies with 30th Percentile as Cut-off. Indicator (1) Targeting efficiency Predictive efficiency

Leakage1 (2) INCPC HI HHSIZE 35.2 43.8 75.2

Undercoverage2 (3) 42.1 49.8 77.9

Relative risk3 (4) 0.69 0.63 0.33

1: Leakage is calculated as follows: Data in column (5) in table 5 divided by sum of data in column (3) and column (5) in table 5. 2: Undercoverage is calculated as follows: Data in column (4) of table 5 divided by 235, number of households classified as poor and extremely poor by benchmark. 3: Relative risk measures the ratio of the percentage of poor correctly predicted by both the benchmark and proxy to the percentage of the non-poor correctly predicted by both the benchmark and proxy i.e., data in parentheses for column (3) divided by data in parentheses for column (2).

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen