Page 1 of 1


Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:24 pm
1. Rephrase the topic to reflect the gender aspect. As it is, the emphasis is on rural outcomes. This is slightly different to the main question and objective that is on women.

2. The narrative puts emphasis on the differential effect of own-savings against micro-credit; gender only comes secondary.

3. Even where the paper brings in gender, it comes in with a balanced emphasis on men and women. This slightly counters the contribution that the paper strictly states that the target is women's outcomes.

4. The paper states that others have used IVs to settle a similar topic, but does not motivate the choice of their methods GSME and ETRM.

5. The land is an endogenous asset. Accumulation of it could be a reflection of ability that directly relates to business performance. Actually, people could be purchasing land using business profits. This violates exclusion restriction assumption of instrumental variables.

6. Our proposition is that you had better exploit much the Lewbel (2018) method that is independent of external instruments when instrument validity is not feasible.

7. The study could add value to a policy if it explores channels through which savings or credit operate to produce business performance effects. (Maybe draw a conceptual framework-theory of change and use it to exploit these synergies).