The Business and Management Review, Volume 11 Number 2 December 2020

Appraisal of the problems affecting microfinance banks in emerging

economies and the mitigating factors: Nigeria’s experience.
Israel S. Akinadewo
Ebenezer Y. Akinkoye
O. O. Olasanmi
Department of Management & Accounting
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria

Keywords
Entrepreneurs, Funding, Microfinance banks, Mitigating factors, MSMEs.
Abstract
This study appraised the problems of microfinance banks in Nigeria and evaluated the
mitigating factors. Survey research design through the administration of structured questionnaire was
adopted for data collection. The targeted population was 250 microfinance banks operators and micro,
small, and medium entrepreneurs. The respondents validly returned 223 copies of the questionnaire.
Descriptive statistics like table, mean, standard deviation and percentages were used for data analyses.
The findings revealed that high operating and financial expenses (99.6%); low revenue base (99.6%);
lack of effective corporate governance (99.6%); lack of standard and uniformity in financial
transactions (99.6%); insiders’ abuse (99.6%); and ineffective monitoring of the allocated funds to
ensure the utilisation as intended (99.6%) are highly critical among the twenty identified problem
confronting microfinance banks in Nigeria. The results also showed that majority of the respondents
believed that among the twenty identified mitigating factors to the problems of MFBs in Nigeria,
timely preparation of financial statements (99.6%); adoption of cost efficiency mechanism (99.6%);
investing more on information technology for enhancement of operations (99.6%); standardisation of
the quality, experience and qualifications of management of microfinance (99.6%); and effective
background check of staff and customers are the most important. The study therefore recommends the
need for government to evaluate these findings and timely deploy the mitigating factors for the
enhancement of the growth of microfinance banks in Nigeria.

Introduction
In recent years, scholars have showed increased interest in microfinance banks. Historically, the
efficient administration of these non-conventional banks is considered a key factor to the growth of Micro,
Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). This is achieved through the granting of credits. Evidence
suggests that most of the successful economies have attained this through MSMEs (Bakare, 2019). In
Nigeria, microfinance bank was established and designed as specialised institution to promote grassroots
banking in attaining rapid rural and entrepreneurial development (Obadeyi, 2015). It also emerged in the
nation’s economic fora as a noble substitute for informal credit system being in operation in rural areas,
and to serve as an effective instrument for poverty reduction among the economically deficient and
vulnerable people (Nwude and Anyalechi, 2018; Taiwo et al., 2016; Nwachukwu et al., 2017). Consequent
to this, the expected growth of the micro and medium businesses would arguably be achievable through a
strong financial base and efficiently managed Microfinance Banks (MFBs). Despite the expected positive
impact of these banks to MSMEs in Nigeria, there has been sceptical belief that this has been attained. This
doubtful position was reinforced in the literature of the operational problems and other issues that
fundamentally affect the development of microfinance banks in Nigeria.
According to Akande and Yinus (2015), microfinance industry is challenged in several ways. These
include the need to extend its products and services to the greater number of the poor; high operating
cost; repayment problem; inadequate experienced credit staff; lack of refinancing facilities, etc (Akande
and Yinus, 2015; Alalade et al., 2013). In furtherance of this, Ehigiamusoe (2005), cited by Alalade et al.
(2013) argued that it is only efficient institutions that can reach large number of people for substantial
impact on poverty. Questions have also been raised about the survival of MFBs amidst the problems
hindering the efficiency of their activities. Regarding this, it is also uncertain whether microfinance has

Conference proceedings of the Centre for Business & Economic Research, ICGEEE-2020, 10-12 December 89
 The Business and Management Review, Volume 11 Number 2 December 2020

impacted in the reduction of poverty for economic growth (Moruf, 2013). Scholars have also argued that
to achieve a sustainable performance, the banks should devise the necessary strategies to combat the
problems confronting them (Alalade et al., 2013). To substantiate for the need to proffer solution to the
hindering factors, Reusser and Stebler (1997) opined that every word problem has a solution. Thus, it is
then imperative to identify the solution to the identified problems of microfinance banks.
Studies have recognised the problems of microfinance banks though, but there is still paucity of
research on a systematic identification of specific problems and the associated mitigating factors. Most of
these studies have also been limited to a small number of problems and have failed to provide robust
solutions to these. The aim of this paper therefore is to identify twenty problems and twenty mitigating
factors, and to empirically appraise these from the perception of the stakeholders.
Review of related literature and theoretical framework
Microfinance banks in Nigeria were established and regulated by the appropriate authorities to
primarily bridge the lacuna between small businesses and accessibility to funding. It is one of the
measures of strategic approach to the enhancement of capacity building, in human resources and
industrial development of a social environment (Obasi et al., 2014). Regarding this, Ashamu (2014) argued
that the MFBs were established to be financially sound, stable, self-sustaining and integrate effectively in
the communities of their operations. Obokoh et al. (2016) argued in line with Ashamu (2014) that the
objective for the ushering of MFBs into the financial arena in Nigeria was to make them vehicles for social-
economic growth and rural transformation. The scholars further opined that the intent was to reduce the
burden of high interest rates and other financial charges hitherto charged by conventional banks, and to
provide financial, advisory, technical, and managerial supports for small scale enterprises. Dutse et al.
(2013) also believed that the primary objective for the establishment of MFBs is the provision of financial
services to entrepreneurs of MSMEs in improving the socio-economic condition and their income-
generation activities. Expectedly, these assertions should translate to rapid development for small scale
businesses entrepreneurs, but evidence from the literature suggests otherwise.
Regarding this, Andabai and Jessie (2018) believed that the activities of microfinance banks have
not significantly contributed to the growth of small-scale businesses in Nigeria. To these scholars,
premium should be placed on ethical and professional conducts by ensuring that soft loans are given to
credible and promising entrepreneurs. The position of Andabai and Jessie (2018) is slightly in agreement
with the study of Aliu et al. (2015). While Andabai and Jessie had concern over ethical and professional
conducts, Aliu et al. (2015) argued that over 70% of small-scale businesses still faced difficulties in
accessing credit facilities from microfinance banks. Contributing to this, Sussan and Obamuyi (2018)
agreed with Andabai and Jessie (2018) and Aliu et al. (2015) that microfinance bank has not significantly
impacted on the development of entrepreneurship in Nigeria. In the study conducted by Sussan and
Obamuyi (2018), it was argued that there are problems militating against the effective financing of
entrepreneurs by the microfinance banks. According to these authors, those problems hinder the
attainment of the objectives of MFBs in Nigeria. Sussan and Obamuyi (2018) further postulated that the
microfinance banks still have a lot to do to substantially increase the funding of small-scale businesses for
effective and positive impact on economic growth. Obasi et al. (2014), while agreeing with this, opined
that microfinance industry has not really distinguished itself from the practices of other community banks
in terms of credit to enhance the growth of small-scale entrepreneurs.
In contrast, Murad and Idewele (2017) opined that in the short run, microfinance loans will
positively and significantly improve economic growth in Nigeria. Murad and Idewele (2017) further
postulated that in the long run, microfinance do not have a significant impact on economic growth.
Ailemen et al. (2016) however argued that the challenges facing MFBs are global and are the causes for
their inability to realistically achieve their objectives.
According to Ailemen et al. (2016), these challenges include – consideration for cost management;
efforts to reach increasingly poorer and more remote people; the need to scale up the quality of MFBs
service deliveries; optimisation of technology; infrastructure deficiency; low level of leveraging cross-
border remittances of funds and other remote rural transfers; and difficulty in reaching the expected
beneficiaries of MFBs services in the remote areas. In the review of literatures, Abubakar et al. (2015)
argued that the quantum of problems hindering the activities of MFBs are – problems of regulation,
Conference proceedings of the Centre for Business & Economic Research, ICGEEE-2020, 10-12 December 90
 The Business and Management Review, Volume 11 Number 2 December 2020

inaccessibility of services to the poor, capital inadequacy, demand, and supply gap in the provision of
micro credit and micro saving, high transaction cost, non-availability of documentary evidence, and
problem of repayment tracking. The study of Abubakar et al. (2015), which was not empirically based,
suggests government intervention through participation in the area of infrastructure, employment of the
right caliber of staff, products diversification, associating with the right clients with high sense of integrity
as some of the measures needed to tackle the challenges of MFBs.
Deviating from the issues affecting MFBs, Ademoh and Zivkovic (2017) believed that the problems
should rather be from the expected beneficiaries of the services. These scholars asserted that some small-
scale entrepreneurs hardly approach MFBs for loans due to lack of collateral, ignorance of the existence of
these banks, and the inability to meet up with high interest rate. Ademoh and Zivkovic (2017) further
opined that businesses are ignorant of the existence of MFBs due to the latter’s lack of advertising their
services and the small business entrepreneurs lack the understanding of the significance of these banks.
What is striking in this paper that also differentiates it from the reviewed studies is the empirical
identification of the problems of MFBs in Nigeria and the relevant solution thereof.
To theoretically explain the focus of this study, it is globally acknowledged that funding is key to
the survival and growth of businesses. Khan (2020) meanwhile, states that elementary corporate finance
theory believes that investment project should be undertaken when the net present value is positive.
Despite this, availability of finance is a critical factor for consideration in any planned project. While the
reviewed studies showed that the primary objective of MFBs is to support the activities of MSMEs, the
challenges faced by the former have become the interruptive factor against effective support for the
financial and other needs of the latter. Thus, it could be deduced that whenever MFBs face challenges, the
MSMEs suffer. This conforms with the elementary accounting principle of double entry (every debit must
have a corresponding credit), the economics theory of demand and supply, and the accounting, as well as
the normal life principle of – where there is a giver, then there will be a receiver. It then implies that where
the expected giver is lacking, then the expected receiver will be waiting in vain. This position explains the
justification for this study to also proffer solution to the identified challenges facing MFBs in Nigeria.
Methodology
This study adopted research design method. Self-administered and structured questionnaires were
administered on respondents. The targeted population and the sample size were 250 microfinance
operators and micro, small, and medium entrepreneurs in Lagos State, Nigeria. The respondents were
purposively chosen from Lagos State, being the commercial hub of Nigeria and has the largest
concentration of microfinance banks and MSMEs in Nigeria. Meanwhile, only 223 (89.2%) respondents
validly returned the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were utilised to analyse data.
Data presentation, analysis, and discussion of findings
This section presents and discusses the results of the valid responses received from the respondents.
These were perceptually on the problems affecting microfinance banks in Nigeria and the likely factors for
mitigation. This study used the 5-points Likert scale to enable the respondents select the relevant columns
divided into strongly agree (SA - 5), agree (A - 4), undecided (U - 3), disagree (D - 2), and strongly
disagree (SD - 1). The perception of the respondents, to empirically identify twenty (20) problems of
microfinance banks in Nigeria and twenty (20) mitigating factors were appraised using tables, percentage,
mean and standard deviation. To make the discussion of findings much easier, the responses under SD
and D were grouped under a column, the U scale has a separate column, and A and SA, grouped in same
column.
Table 1 shows the descriptive results of the perception of the stakeholders on the problems that
have hindered the growth of microfinance banks in Nigeria. The structured problems identified and sent
through questionnaire to respondents for appraisal are – high operating and financial expenses; low
revenue base; lack of effective corporate governance; insufficient expertise; inadequate start-up capital
and poor funding; ineffectiveness of policy framework and regulatory monitoring; inability to adequately
extend funding to the larger number of poor citizens and small businesses; high level of non-performing
loans due to poor collateral; inefficient management; low funding of real sector like agriculture and
manufacturing; diversion of funds; inconsistencies of government policies; lack of standard and

Conference proceedings of the Centre for Business & Economic Research, ICGEEE-2020, 10-12 December 91
 The Business and Management Review, Volume 11 Number 2 December 2020

uniformity in financial transactions; insufficient publicity and awareness at the grassroots; insiders’ abuse;
inadequate business opportunities; low literacy of the expected target, leading to difficulty in effective
communication; poor data base of the expected fund target; fraudulent practices and corruption in the
industry; and ineffective monitoring of the allocated funds to ensure the utilisation as intended.
Interestingly, all the identified problems in table 1, were appraised and agreed with by the majority
of the respondents as hindrances to the growth of microfinance banks in Nigeria, but with slightly
different ratings ranging from 97.8% to 99.6%. This implies that these problems are hugely responsible for
the inability of Microfinance banks in Nigeria to achieve the purpose for the establishment. The
respondents, however, appraised: high operating and financial expenses (99.6%); low revenue base
(99.6%); lack of effective corporate governance (99.6%); lack of standard and uniformity in financial
transactions (99.6%); insiders’ abuse (99.6%); and ineffective monitoring of the allocated funds to ensure
the utilisation as intended (99.6%) as the most critical of the problems.
Table 1: Problems affecting microfinance banks in Nigeria.
Factors N SD + D U A + SA Total Min. Max. Mean Std.
Dev.
High operating and 223 1(0.4%) 0(0.0%) 222(99.6%) 223(100%) 1.00 5.00 4.7265 .50365
financial expenses
Low revenue base 223 0 (0,0%) 1(0.4%) 222(99.6%) 223(100%) 3.00 5.00 4.6502 .48731
Lack of effective corporate 223 0.0(0.0%) 1(0.4%) 222(99.6%) 223(100%) 3.00 5.00 4.4933 .50999
governance
Insufficient expertise 223 0 (0.0%) 2(0.9%) 221(99.1%) 223(100%) 3.00 5.00 4.4260 .51346
Inadequate start-up capital 1 (0.4%) 2(0.9%) 220(98.7%) 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.4439 .54131
and poor funding 223
Ineffectiveness of policy 223 2 (0.9%) 1(0.4%) 220(98.7%) 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.5695 .55618
framework and regulatory
monitoring
Inability to adequately 223 2 (0.9%) 1(0.4%) 220(98.7%) 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.5471 .55854
extend funding to the
larger number of poor
citizens and small
businesses
High level of non- 223 2 (0.9%) 1(0.4%) 220(98.7%) 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.6188 .54773
performing loans due to
poor collateral
Inefficient management 223 1 (0.4%) 4(1.8%) 218(97.8%) 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.5561 .55770
Low funding of real sector 223 1 (0.4%) 4(1.8%) 218(97.8%) 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.6188 .54773
like agriculture and
manufacturing
Diversion of funds 223 1 (0.4%) 4(1.8%) 218(97.8%) 223(100%) 1.00 5.00 4.5740 .57941
Inconsistencies of 223 2 (0.9%) 3(1.3%) 218(97.8%) 223(100%) 1.00 5.00 4.5874 .59292
government policies
Lack of standard and 223 0 (0.0%) 1(0.4%) 222(99.6%) 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.5785 .52150
uniformity in financial
transactions
Insufficient publicity and 223 1 (0.4%) 1(0.4%) 221(99.2%) 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.6637 .51015
awareness at the
grassroots
Insiders’ abuse 223 1 (0.4%) 0(0.0%) 222(99.6%) 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.6009 .51762
Inadequate business 223 2 (0.9%) 0(0.0%) 221(99.1%) 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.6054 .54224
opportunities
The low-level literacy of 223 4 (1.8%) 1(0.4%) 218(97.8%) 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.5426 .60533
the expected targets,
leading to difficulty in
effective communication
Poor data base of the 223 3 (1.4%) 1 219 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.5964 .57609

Conference proceedings of the Centre for Business & Economic Research, ICGEEE-2020, 10-12 December 92
 The Business and Management Review, Volume 11 Number 2 December 2020

expected funds target (0.4%) (98.2%)

Fraudulent practices and 223 1 (0.4%) 3 219(98.2%) 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.5112 .55232
corruption in the industry (1.4%)
Ineffective monitoring of 223 1(0.4%) 0 222 223(100%) 2.00 5.00 4.7175 .48025
the allocated funds to (0.0%) (99.6%)
ensure the utilisation as
intended
Valid N (listwise) 223
Source: Authors’ field work (2020)
Table 2 explains the rating of the factors that could mitigate the problems of microfinance banks in
Nigeria. The factors are: timely preparation of financial statements; adoption of cost efficiency mechanism;
development of sound microfinance practice with sustainable regulatory framework; timely prosecution
of fraudsters; introduction of more effective internal control system; investing more on information
technology for enhancement of operations; improvement on the know-your-customers (KYC) information
guidelines; standardisation of the quality, experience and qualifications of management of microfinance
banks; effective background check of staff and customers; timely investigation of any undercapitalisation
below the lower limit; the need for government and other stakeholders to inculcate sound banking culture
in management and customers; increase in revenue base through products diversification; creation of
more awareness to the poor and small businesses; the need for more workshops and training programs
for microfinance staff; building of investors’ confidence through government participation in areas like
provisions of security and infrastructure; the need for a more proactive corporate governance framework;
government should be more consistent with policies; appropriate tax incentives for MFBs to enhance
business growth; government should establish a more reliable data collection of small businesses in need
of funds; and the need for effective monitoring of how loans given to customers are utilised through
appropriate management-customer forum.
The results in table 2 showed that majority of the respondents agreed that these mitigating factors,
when deployed, will mitigate the problems confronting microfinance growth in Nigeria. This is affirmed
with the sum of the percentage for agreed (A) and strongly agree (SA) ranging from 97.4% to 99.6%. The
respondents however opinionated that: timely preparation of financial statements (99.6%); adoption of
cost efficiency mechanism (99.6%); investing more on information technology for enhancement of
operations (99.6%); standardisation of the quality, experience, and qualifications of management of
microfinance (99.6%); and effective background check of staff and customers are the most important
among the mitigating factors.
Table 2: Mitigating factors of the problems affecting microfinance banks in Nigeria.
Factors N SD + U A + SA Total Min. Max. Mean Std.
D Dev.
Timely preparation of financial 223 1 0 222 223 2.00 5.00 4.7623 .45719
statements (0.4%) (0.0%) (99.6%) (100%)
Adoption of cost efficiency mechanism 223 1 0 222 223 2.00 5.00 4.5695 .52278
(0.4) (0.0%) (99.6%) (100%)
Development of sound microfinance 223 2 2 119 223 2.00 5.00 4.6143 .77443
practice with sustainable regulatory (0.9%) (0.9%) (98.2%) (100%)
framework
Timely prosecution of fraudsters 223 1 2 220 223 2.00 5.00 4.3857 .53201
(0.4%) (0.9%) (98.7%) (100%)
Introduction of more effective internal 223 2 0 221 223 2.00 5.00 4.4619 .55111
control system (0.9%) (0.0%) (99.1%) (100%)
Investing more on information 223 0 1 222 223 3.00 5.00 4.5426 .50824
technology for enhancement of (0.0%) (0.4%) (99.6%) (100%)
operations
Improvement on the know-your- 223 1 1 221 223 2.00 5.00 4.5381 .53451
customers (KYC) information (0.4%) (0.4%) (99.2%) (100%)
guidelines
Standardisation of the quality, 223 1 0 222 223 2.00 5.00 4.4619 .52602

Conference proceedings of the Centre for Business & Economic Research, ICGEEE-2020, 10-12 December 93
 The Business and Management Review, Volume 11 Number 2 December 2020

experience, and qualifications of (0.4%) (0.0%) (99.6%) (100%)

management of microfinance banks
Effective background check of staff 223 1 0 222 223 2.00 5.00 4.4619 .52602
and customers (0.4%) (0.0%) (99.6%) (100%)
Timely investigation of any 223 2 5 216 223 1.00 5.00 4.4888 .61411
undercapitalisation below the lower (0.9%) (2.2%) (96.9%) (100%)
limit
The need for government and other 223 3 1 219 223 2.00 5.00 4.4574 .58257
stakeholders to inculcate sound (1.3%) (0.4%) (98.3%) (100%)
banking culture in management and
customers
Increase in revenue base through 223 3 3 217 223 2.00 5.00 4.4529 .59750
products diversification (1.3%) (1.3%) (97.4%) (100%)
Creation of more awareness to the 223 4 0 219 223 2.00 5.00 4.4395 .59628
poor and small businesses (1.8%) (0.0%) (98.2%) (100%)
The need for more workshops and 223 1 1 221 223 2.00 5.00 4.6009 .52625
training programs for microfinance (0.4%) (0.4%) (99.2%) (100%)
staff
Building of investors’ confidence 223 2 0 221 223 2.00 5.00 4.5919 .54469
through government participation in (0.9%) (0.0%) (99.1%) (100%)
areas like provisions of security and
infrastructure
The need for a more proactive 223 3 1 219 223 2.00 5.00 4.6637 .56063
corporate governance framework (1.3%) (0.4%) (98.3%) (100%)
Government should be more 223 1 1 221 223 2.00 5.00 4.6143 .52348
consistent with policies (0.4%) (0.4%) (99.2%) (100%)
Appropriate tax incentives for MFBs to 223 1 0 222 223 2.00 5.00 4.7040 .48614
enhance business growth (0.4%) (0.0%) (99.6%) (100%)
Government should establish a more 223 0 3 220 223 3.00 5.00 4.5964 .51847
reliable data collection of small (0.0%) (1.3%) (98.7%) (100%)
businesses in need of funds
Effective monitoring of how loans 223 0 3 220 223 3.00 5.00 4.7803 .44637
given to customers are utilised (0.0%) (1.3%) (98.7%) (100%)
through appropriate management-
customer forum
Valid N (listwise) 223
Source: Authors’ field work (2020)

Conclusion and policy recommendations

Microfinance banks in Nigeria were primarily set up to serve as the financial channel by which
small business entrepreneurs and the poor of the society would have access to funding. It is then expected
that the ability to actualise the objective would improve the services of MFBs, leading to the nation’s
economic growth. Scholars however opined that this has not been effectively achieved due to some
challenging issues (Akande and Yinus, 2015; Alalade et al., 2013; Ehigiamusoe, 2005; Moruf, 2013; Sussan
and Obamuyi, 2018; Andabai and Jessie, 2018). While studies have identified the problems confronting
microfinance banks in Nigeria, these findings provide additional problems through empirical
investigation that are relevant to both practitioners and policy makers. This study also establishes the
mitigating factors that are germane to solving the identified problems. The results revealed that high
operating and financial expenses; low revenue base; lack of effective corporate governance; lack of
standard and uniformity in financial transactions; insiders’ abuse; and ineffective monitoring of the
allocated funds to ensure the utilisation as intended, among others are the problems affecting the growth
of microfinance banks in Nigeria.
The findings also showed that timely preparation of financial statements; adoption of cost efficiency
mechanism; investing more on information technology for enhancement of operations; standardisation of
the quality, experience, and qualifications of management of microfinance; and effective background

Conference proceedings of the Centre for Business & Economic Research, ICGEEE-2020, 10-12 December 94
 The Business and Management Review, Volume 11 Number 2 December 2020

check of staff and customers, among others would mitigate the problems of MFBs in Nigeria. In view of
these findings, this study therefore recommends the need for government to set up a body comprises of
all stakeholders to ensure that the problems identified, and the mitigating factors are critically and
objectively examined to adequately and timely address the issues raised. It is also recommended that the
terms of reference for this body should be stressed upon to include procedural handling of ethical and
professional breach without conflicting the roles of the existing regulatory bodies.
Limitations of this study
The use of Lagos State, one state out for the 36 states and Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, as the
research area for a study about Nigeria is the limitation to this study.
Areas for further research
For further study, researchers could use the number of the officially licensed microfinance banks
and increase the number of the small entrepreneurs across the six geo-political zones in Nigeria to
determine the population and the sample size. Further research could also seek for the opinion of the
external auditors to microfinance banks for a more objective identification of the problems confronting
these institutions.
References
Abubakar, L. S., Zainol, F. A. & Abdullahi, M. S. (2015). Lingering challenges of Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) and
the way forward. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management, 4(3), 31-37. Doi:
10.6007/IJAREMS/v4-i3/1815
Ademoh, F. & Zivkovic, J. (2017). Hindrances to microfinancing: A Nigerian case study. International Journal of
Development and Economic Sustainability, 5(1), 45-60.
Ailemen, I. O., Asaolu, J. N. & Areghna, I. (2016). Microfinance and poverty alleviation in South West Nigeria:
Empirical Evidence. Journal of South African Business Research, 2016(2016), 1-19.
Akande, O. O. & Yinus, O. (2015). An assessment of micro finance banks impact on entrepreneurship development in
Nigeria. International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics, 4(3), 148-154.
Alalade, Y. S., Amusa, B. O. & Adekunle, O. A. (2013). Microfinance bank as a catalyst for entrepreneurship
development in Nigeria: Evidence from Ogun State. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(12),
286-303.
Aliu, N. A., Gakure, R. W. & Orwa, G. (2015). Effects of Microfinance Bank’s (MFBs) customer relationship
management on services to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Nigeria. International Journal of Advanced
Studies in Business Strategies and Management, 3(1), 99-108.
Andabai, P. W. & Jessie, I. C. (2018). Microfinance banks’ credit and the growth of Small and Medium Scale Businesses
(SMBS) in Nigeria (1990-2016): Investigating the nexus. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 9(6),
28-33.
Ashamu, S. O. (2014). The impact of micro-finance on small scale business in Nigeria. Journal of Policy and
Development Studies, 9(1), 179-193.
Bakare, M. A. (2019). Microfinance credits and growth of business firms in Nigeria. International Journal of Innovation
and Research in Educational Sciences, 6(6), 782-790.
Dutse, A. Y., Ningi, S. I. & Abubakar, S. (2013). Technopreneurship and enterprise growth in Nigeria: An exploration
into the latent role microfinance banks. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 12(2), 25-32.
Ehigiamusoe, G. (2005). Tested institutional practices for efficient microfinance services delivery. A paper presented at
the launching of microfinance policy, regulation and supervisory framework for Nigeria and the national
seminar to mark the United Nations International Year of Microcredit (IYMC), Abuja.
Khan, B. (2020). Microfinance banks and its impact on small and medium scale enterprises in Nigeria. World Scientific
News, 141, 151-131.
Murad, A. B. & Idewele, I. S. O. (2017). International Journal of Development and Management Review
(INJODEMAR), 12(1), 1-17.
Nwachukwu, C., Chladkova, H, & Zufan, P. (2017). Empirical assessment of microfinance banks in Nigeria using
EFQM excellence model. International Journal for Quality Research, 11(2), 279-294. Doi – 10.18421/IJQR11.02-
03
Nwude, E. C. & Anyalechi, K. C. (2018). The impact of microfinance on rural economic growth: The Nigerian
experience. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 8(4), 27-31.
Obadeyi, J. A. (2015). Microfinance banking and development of small business in emerging economy: Nigerian
Approach. IOSR Journal of Economics and Finance (IOSR-JEF), 6(2:1), 50-60. Doi: 10.9790/5933-06215060.

Conference proceedings of the Centre for Business & Economic Research, ICGEEE-2020, 10-12 December 95
 The Business and Management Review, Volume 11 Number 2 December 2020

Obasi, N. J., Chukwuka, O. I. & Akwawa, U. A. (2014). Impact of microfinance lending on economic growth of third
world nations: Study of Nigeria. International Journal of Business, Economics and Management, 1(8), 201-215.
Obokoh, L. O., Monday, J. U. & Ojiako, U. (2016). Microfinance banks and small and medium sized Enterprises access
to finance: The Nigerian experience. Banks and Bank Systems, 11(4), 111-121.
Reusser, K & Stebler, R. (1997). Every word problem has a solution – the social rationality of mathematical modelling
in schools. Learning and Instruction, 7(4), 309-327.
Sussan, M. U. & Obamuyi, T. (2018). The impact of microfinance banks on entrepreneurship development in Nigeria.
Journal of Business and Economic Development, 3(2), 51-61. Doi: 10.11648/j.jbed.20180302.13
Taiwo, J. N., Onasanya, A. Y., Agwu, M. E. & Benson, K. N. (2016). The role of microfinance institutions in financing
small businesses. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 21(1), 1-20.

Conference proceedings of the Centre for Business & Economic Research, ICGEEE-2020, 10-12 December 96