Upload
others
View
19
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
P a g e | 186
CHAPTER – V
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter deals with the descriptive and statistical analysis and
interpretation of the primary data collected from the members of the Self
Help Groups functioning in Chennai District of Tamil Nadu. The
hypotheses framed are tested with the help of the relevant statistical
tools, results are interpreted and inferences are drawn
Socio Economic back ground of the Respondents
This section provides useful insight in to the socio-economic
characteristics of the respondents and the various dimensions of socio-
economic empowerment and also the analysis of the opinion towards
the functioning of SHGs in empowering women, resulting in awareness
to the members of the SHGs.
P a g e | 187
The table given below depicts age wise classification of the
respondents
Table 5.1
Age wise classification of the respondents
S. No. Particulars No. of respondents
(n=600)
Percentage
(100%)
1 Below 30years 196 32.7
2 31 to 40years 210 35
3 41 to 50years 146 24.3
4 Above 50 years 48 8
Source: Primary Data
The above table shows that out of the total number of
respondents 35 per cent belong to the age group of 31-40 years of age,
followed by 32.7 per cent belonging to the age group of below 30 years.
24.3 per cent are in the age group of 41-50 years and only 8 per cent
belongs to the age group of above 50 years.
It is clear that respondents in the age group of 31-40 years of age
constituting 35 per cent is the highest where as respondents in the age
group of above 50 years constitute only 8 per cent which is the lowest
per cent. It is also inferred that members who are below 40 years are
interested in their socio economic improvement prompted in joining and
promoting SHGs.
P a g e | 188
Chart 5.1a
Age wise classification of the respondents
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Below 30 years 31 to 40 years 41 to 50 years 51 years & above
32.7% 35%
24.3%
8%
Per
cen
ta g
e
Age of the respondents
P a g e | 189
The table given below indicates the religion wise classification of the
respondents.
Table 5.2
Religion wise classification of the respondents
S. No. Particulars No. of respondents
(n=600)
Percentage
(100%)
1 Hindu 306 51
2 Muslim 84 14
3 Christian 210 35
Source: Primary Data
The above data shows that 51 per cent of the sample
respondents belong to Hindu religion, 35 per cent belong to Christianity
and 14 per cent belong to Islam. Thus, the highest percentage of the
respondents belongs to Hindu religion exhibiting 51 per cent.
It is inferred that Christian members are relatively higher in
percentage than Muslim members in Chennai district which is a peculiar
feature. For all categories of religion, respondents are interested in
joining and promoting SHGs.
P a g e | 190
Chart 5.2a
Religion wise classification of the respondents
51%
14%
35%
Religion wise classification of the respondents
Hindu Muslim Christian
P a g e | 191
The table given below depicts mother tongue wise classification of the
respondents.
Table 5.3
Classification based on mother tongue
S. No. Particulars No. of respondents
(n=600)
Percentage
(100%)
1 Tamil 466 77.7
2 Telugu 118 19.7
3 Others 16 2.7
Source: Primary Data
The above table reveals that out of the total number of
respondents 77.7 per cent of the respondents’ mother tongue is Tamil,
19.7 per cent of the respondents’ mother tongue is Telugu and 2.7 per
cent of the respondents belongs to other mother tongue. Thus, the
highest number of respondents’ mother tongue is Tamil.
P a g e | 192
Chart 5.3a
Mother Tongue wise classification of the respondents
P a g e | 193
The table given below shows classification of the respondents based on
Community.
Table 5.4
Community wise classification of the respondents
S. No. Particulars No. of respondents
(n=600)
Percentage
(100%)
1 OC 88 14.7
2 BC 284 47.3
3 MBC 44 7.3
4 SC/ST 184 30.7
Source: Primary Data
The above table reveals that out of the total number of
respondents, 47.3 per cent belong to BC, followed by 30.7 per cent
belonging to SC/ST category, 14.7 per cent belonging to OC category
and 7.3 per cent belonging to MBC category. Thus, the highest
number of respondents belongs to BC category and the lowest number
of respondents belongs to MBC category indicating 47.3 per cent and
7.3 per cent respectively.
P a g e | 194
Chart 5.4a
Community wise classification of the respondents
OC14.7%
BC47.3%
MBC7.3%
SC/ST30.7%
Community wise classification of the respondents
P a g e | 195
The table given below shows classification of the respondents based on
educational qualification.
Table 5.5
Classification based on the educational qualification
S. No. Particulars No. of respondents
(n=600)
Percentage
(100%)
1 Illiterate 155 25.8
2 Primary 234 39
3 High School 171 28.5
4 H.Sec.School 27 4.5
5 Graduate 13 2.2
Source: Primary Data
The above table indicates that 39 per cent of respondents have
completed Primary School education; 28.5 per cent of respondents
have completed High School education; 25.8 per cent of respondents
are illiterate; 4.5 per cent of respondents have completed Higher
Secondary School education and only 2.2 per cent of respondents have
completed Under Graduation.
It is clear that 39 per cent of respondents are possessing primary
school education which is the highest among various other
qualifications and 2.2 per cent of respondents are Under Graduates
which is the least of all.
It is observed that SHG members who are qualified less than
under graduation are interested in the formation and management of
SHGs resulting in empowerment.
P a g e | 196
Chart 5.5a
Classification based on the educational qualification
Illiterate
Primary
High school
Hsc
Graduate
25.8%
39%
28.5%
4.5%
2.2%
Percentage
Edu
cati
on
al Q
ual
ific
atio
n
Classification based on the Educational Qualification
P a g e | 197
The table given below shows classification of the respondents based on
marital status.
Table 5.6
Classification of the respondents based on marital status
S. No. Particulars No. of respondents
(n=600)
Percentage
(100%)
1 Married 573 95.5
2 Unmarried 9 1.5
3 Separated 18 3
Source: Primary Data
The above table reveals that 573 respondents are ‘married’
constituting 95.5 per cent. There are 18 per cent of the respondents
who are separated and a meagre 9 per cent of the respondents are
unmarried.
It is inferred from the above table that the majority of the
respondents (95.5 per cent) are married. Therefore, it could be
interpreted that members who are married are largely interested in the
formation and promotion of SHGs, since the responsibility of married
members is relatively higher than that of the unmarried members.
P a g e | 198
Chart 5.6a
Classification of the respondents based on marital status
Married, 95.5%
Unmarried, 1.5% Separated, 3%
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
No
. of
Re
spo
nd
en
ts
Classification of the respondents based on marital status
P a g e | 199
The table given below shows classification of the respondents based on
Nativity.
Table 5.7
Classification of the respondents based on Nativity
S. No. Particulars No. of respondents
(n=600)
Percentage
(100%)
1 Chennai 540 90
2 Near Chennai 43 7.2
3 Other part of TN 9 1.5
4 Other 8 1.3
Source: Primary Data
It is clear from the above table that out of the total number of
respondents, 540 respondents’ nativity is Chennai itself constituting 90
per cent; 43 respondents have come from nearby Chennai constituting
7.2 per cent; 9 respondents have come from other parts of Tamil Nadu
constituting 1.3 per cent and only a meagre 8 per cent of the
respondents’ nativity comes under the head “others”. Thus, the highest
number of respondents’ nativity is Chennai and the lowest number of
respondents’ nativity belongs to other parts of Tamil Nadu or other
state.
It is observed that there are members whose native is Chennai,
need more improvement economically and socially, and this influenced
them in joining and promoting SHGs resulting in empowerment.
P a g e | 200
Chart 5.7a
Classification of the respondents based on nativity
90%
7%
2%1%
Classification of the respondents based on nativity
Chennai
Near Chennai
other part of TN
Other
P a g e | 201
The table given below shows classification of the respondents based on
family type.
Table 5.8
Classification of the respondents based on family type
S. No. Particulars No. of respondents
(n=600)
Percentage
(100%)
1 Nuclear 441 73.5
2 Joint 159 26.5
Source: Primary Data
From the above table it is evident that 441 respondents
constituting 73.5 per cent belong to nuclear families and the remaining
159 respondents who constitute 26.5 per cent belong to joint families.
Thus the highest numbers of respondents are in the nuclear type
families.
It is observed from the above table that the members of both
nuclear family and joint family are interested in SHG formation.
A peculiar feature is more membership of nuclear family members;
these members are also showing interest in SHGs because of their
interest in socio economic empowerment.
P a g e | 202
Chart 5.8a
Classification of the respondents based on family type
Nuclear
Joint
73.5%
26.5%
Percentage
Fam
ily t
ype
Classification of the respondents based on family type
P a g e | 203
The table given below shows classification of the respondents based on
the size of the family.
Table 5.9
Classification of the respondents based on the size of the family
S. No Particulars
No. of
respondents
(n=600)
Percentage
(100%)
1 Single 9 1.5
2 2 to 4 377 62.8
3 5 to 7 179 29.8
4 8 & above 35 5.8
Source: Primary Data
The above table shows that out of the total number of
respondents, 377 respondents constituting 62.8 per cent which is the
highest, have family members ranging from 2 to 4, followed by 179
respondents constituting 29.8 per cent, with 5 to 7 family members; 35
respondents constituting 5.8 per cent with 8 and above family members
and only 9 respondents constituting 1.5 per cent are not having any
other member in their family except themselves.
P a g e | 204
Chart 5.9a
Classification of the respondents based on the size of the family
P a g e | 205
The table given below shows classification of the respondents based on
the type of house.
Table 5.10
Classification of the respondents based on the type of house
S. No. Particulars
No. of
respondents
(n=600)
Percentage
(100%)
1 Thatched 348 58
2 Asbestos 140 23.3
3 Concrete house 76 12.7
4 Others 36 6
Source: Primary Data
The above table reveals that out of the sample respondents 58
per cent are residing in thatched type of the houses; 23.3 per cent of the
respondents are residing in asbestos type houses; 12. 7 per cent of the
respondents are residing in concrete houses and only 6 per cent of the
respondents’ are living in other type of houses like shed.
Therefore it is crystal clear that the highest percentage of the
respondents depicting 58 per cent live in thatched houses and only 12.7
per cent of the respondents live in concrete houses, which is
comparatively low. It is important to note, that 6 per cent of the
respondents are living in temporary shed. From the nature of houses
where the respondents are living, it is crystal clear that respondents are
economically backward and are in need of measures to improve their
socio-economic conditions. They ascertained SHGs as the best module.
P a g e | 206
Chart 5.10a
Classification of the respondents based on the type of house
58%
23.3%12.7%
6%0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Thatched Asbestos Concrete house Others
Per
cen
tage
Type of house
Classification of the respondents based on the type of house
P a g e | 207
The table given below shows classification of the respondents based on
their family income.
Table 5.11
Classification of the respondents based on their family income
S. No. Particulars No. of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Below 5000 189 31.5
2 5001 to 10000
317 52.8
3 10001 to 15000
59 9.8
4 15001 & above
35 5.8
Source: Primary Data
The above table reveals that out of the total number of
respondents’ family, 52.8% belong to 5001 - 10000 income group;
31.5% belong to below 5000 income group; 9.8% belong to 10001 to
15000 income group and the remaining 5.8% of the respondents
belong to 15001 & above income group. Thus, the maximum number of
respondents belongs to the income group of 5001 to 10000
constituting 52.8%.
So it is inferred that respondents who are member of SHGs, on
an average, are getting very low income which stimulated them to
become the members of the SHGs with an aim to improve their socio
economic condition and attain empowerment.
P a g e | 208
Chart 5.11a
Classification of the respondents based on their family income
31%
53%
10%
6%
16%
Classification of the respondents based on their family income
Below 5000
5001 to 10000
10001 to 15000
15001 & above
P a g e | 209
Functioning and Working of SHGs
The table given below emphasizes the satisfactory level of the
respondents towards the functioning and working of SHGs.
Table 5.12
Satisfactory level of the respondents towards the functioning and
working of SHGs
Functioning and Working of SHGs in terms of Conduct of Meeting, Record of Proceedings, Transparency and Formation and Management of SHGs
S.No. Statements Variables Nature of the responses
Strongly Agree
Agree No
opinion Disagree
Strongly Disagree
a) Meeting is conducted regularly
Conduct of Meeting
154 (25.7%)
131 (21.8%)
125 (20.8%)
121 (20.2%)
69 (11.5%)
b)
Members Attend meeting with spirit and involvement
207 (34.5%)
138 (23%)
131 (21.8%)
79 (13.2%)
45 (7.5%)
c)
There is no absenteeism in attending the meeting
215 (35.8%)
180 (30%)
118 (19.7%)
68 (11.3%)
19 (3.2%)
d)
Proper action is taken against the default to fails to attend the meeting
192 (32%)
177 (29.5%)
168 (28%)
56 (9.3%)
7 (1.2%)
e) I am attending meetings regularly
202 (33.7%)
176 (29.3%)
127 (21.2%)
75 (12.5%)
20 (3.3%)
a) Documentation is done in order
Record of Proceedings
243 (40.5%)
141 (23.5%)
89 (14.8%)
83 (13.8%)
44 (7.3%)
b) Minutes are recorded
238 (39.7%)
169 (28.2%)
144 (24%)
37 (6.2%)
12 (2%)
c)
There is a checking and review of Accounts
225 (37.5%)
115 (19.2%)
105 (17.5%)
90 (15%)
65 (10.8%)
d)
Recording of Accounts as per the guidelines
292 (48.7%)
138 (23%)
126 (21%)
26 (4.3%)
18 (3%)
P a g e | 210
e) I am involved in recording of proceedings
239 (39.8%)
163 (27.2%)
105 (17.5%)
50 (8.3%)
43 (7.2%)
a)
There is an access to the Document of the group
Transparency
359 (59.8%)
127 (21.2%)
50 (8.3%)
37 (6.2%)
27 (4.5%)
b)
Exercise of duties and responsibilities is in order
248 (41.3%)
115 (19.2%)
99 (16.5%)
94 (15.7%)
44 (7.3%)
c)
Calculations and computation is clear and understandable
257 (42.8%)
141 (23.5%)
80 (13.3%)
65 (10.8%)
57 (9.5%)
d) Objectives of the SHGs are clearly explained
228 (38%)
172 (28.7%)
155 (25.8%)
21 (3.5%)
24 (4%)
e)
I am capable of answering the questions related to SHGs
185 (30.8%)
184 (30.7%)
140 (23.3%)
47 (7.8%)
44 (7.3%)
a)
I have knowledge on initiating the formation
Formation and
Management of
SHGs
152 (25.3%)
136 (22.7%)
132 (22%)
99 (16.5%)
81 (13.5%)
b) I know the procedures for formation
258 (43%)
166 (27.7%)
112 (18.7%)
33 (5.5%)
31 (5.2%)
c)
I am very much clear about the regulations of SHGs
223 (37.2%)
165 (27.5%)
104 (17.3%)
88 (14.7%)
20 (3.3%)
d) I am aware of general function of SHGs
265 (44.2%)
144 (24%)
138 (23%)
35 (5.8%)
18 (3%)
e) Procedure for repayment is well understood
212 (35.3%)
165 (27.5%)
110 (18.3%)
68 (11.3%)
45 (7.5%)
Source: Primary Data
The table describes the respondents’ opinion on the functioning
and working of SHGs. In order to extract information and analyze the
Functioning and Working of SHGs, the researcher constructed
statements which are grouped such as Conduct of Meeting, Record of
Proceedings, Transparency and Formation and management of SHGs.
Views of the respondents are summarized which are closely and
directly associated with Functioning and Working of SHGs.
P a g e | 211
1. Conduct of Meeting;
a) Out of the total sample respondents, 25.7 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed that the meeting is
conducted regularly; another 21.8 per cent of the
respondents agreed with the regularity of the meetings.
Only 11.5 per cent of the respondents expressed
“strongly disagreed” for the regularity of the conduct of
meeting. Therefore, it is very much clear that meeting is
conducted regularly.
b) Among the total respondents, 34.5 per cent of the
respondents “strongly agree” followed by 23 per cent of
the respondents who “agree” that members attend
meeting with their spirit and involvement. Only 7.5 per
cent of the respondents strongly “dis- agree” to the
statement “Members attend meeting with spirit and
involvement”.
c) The highest percentage of respondents (35.8 per cent)
strongly agrees and another 30 per cent of the
respondents agree that there is no absenteeism. Only
3.2 per cent of the respondents viewed “strongly
disagreed” for the no absenteeism in attending the
meeting. Therefore, it is very much clear that meeting is
conducted with fewer absentees regularly.
d) The highest percentage of the respondents (32) strongly
agrees and 29.5 per cent of the respondents agree with
the statement that proper action is taken against the
defaulters from attending the meeting.
P a g e | 212
e) Of the total, 33.7 per cent of the respondents “strongly
agree” and 29.3 per cent of the respondents agree that
they are attending meeting regularly.
2. Record of proceedings;
a) Among the total, 40.5 per cent of the respondents
strongly agree which is the highest and 23.5 per cent of
the respondents agree with the statement that
documentation is done in order.
b) 39.7 per cent of the respondents strongly agree and
28.2 per cent of the respondents agree with the
statement that minutes are recorded properly. Only 2
per cent of the respondents strongly disagree with the
proper recording of minutes.
c) For the statement “There is a checking and reviewing
of the accounts”, 37.5 percentage of the respondents
strongly agree which is the highest and 19.2 per cent
agree and only 10.8 per cent of the respondents
strongly disagree.
d) The highest percentage of the respondents (48.7%)
strongly agrees and 23% per cent of the respondents
agrees with the statement that accounts are recorded as
per guidelines. Only 3 per cent of the respondents
strongly disagree with the proper recording of minutes.
e) 39.8 per cent of the respondents “strongly agree” and
27.2 per cent of the respondents “agree” that they are
involved in recording of proceedings.
P a g e | 213
3. Transparency
a) 59.8 per cent of the respondents “strongly agree” and
21.2 per cent of the respondents “agree” with the
statement that they have an access to the Document of
the group. Only 4.5 per cent of the respondents strongly
disagree with the statement an access to the Document
of the group.
b) The highest percentage of the respondents (41.3%)
strongly agrees and 19.2% per cent of the respondents
agrees with the statement that exercise of duties and
responsibilities is in order. Only 3 per cent of the
respondents strongly disagree with the view that the
exercise of duties and a responsibility is in order.
c) 42.8 per cent of the respondents “strongly agree” and
23.5 per cent of the respondents “agree” that
calculations and computation are clear and
understandable.
d) For the statement “Objectives of the SHGs are clearly
explained”, 38 percentage of the respondents strongly
agree which is the highest and 28.7 per cent agree and
only 10.8 per cent of the respondents strongly disagree.
e) 30.8 per cent of the respondents strongly agree and
30.7 per cent of the respondents agree with the
statement “I am capable of answering the questions
related to SHGs”.
P a g e | 214
4. Formation and Management of SHGs
a) 25.3 per cent of the respondents “strongly agree” and
22.7 per cent of the respondents “agree” with the
statement “I have knowledge on initiating the formation”.
b) 43 per cent of the respondents strongly agree and 22.7
per cent of the respondents agree with the statement “I
know the procedures for formation”.
c) 37.2 per cent of the respondents “strongly agree” and
27.5 per cent of the respondents “agree” with the
statement “I am very much clear about the regulations of
SHGs”. Only 3.3 per cent of the respondents strongly
disagree with their clarity about the regulations of SHGs.
d) The highest percentage of the respondents (44.2%)
strongly agrees and 24% per cent of the respondents
agrees with the statement “I am aware of general
function of SHGs”. Only 3 per cent of the respondents
strongly disagree with the awareness of general function
of SHGs.
e) For the statement “Procedure for repayment is well
understood”, 35.3 percentage of the respondents
strongly agree which is the highest and 27.5 per cent
agree and only 7.5 per cent of the respondents strongly
disagree.
P a g e | 215
Monthly Income and Expenditure of the Respondents
The given below table shows monthly income of the respondents
before and after their membership in SHGs.
Table 5.13
Monthly income of the respondents before and after their
membership in SHGs
S. No.
Range of Income Before Membership
% of Respondents
Range of Income After Membership
% of Respondents
1 Below 2000 381 (63.5%) Below 3000 101 (16.8%)
2 2001 to 3000 160 (26.7%) 3001 to 4000 212 (35.3%)
3 3001 to 4000 43 (7.2%) 4001 to 5000 155 (25.8%)
4 Above 4000 16 (2.7%) Above 5000 132 (22%)
Source: Primary Data
Out of the total respondents, before membership 63.5 per cent of
the respondents which is the highest earned the monthly income below
2,000, whereas after membership the highest percentage of the
respondents (35.3%) earned income ranging from 3001 to 4000.
Likewise before membership, 2.7 percentage of the respondents earned
monthly income above 4000, which is the lowest whereas after
membership the lowest 16.8 per cent of the respondents earned
monthly income below 3000.
Similarly the second largest per centage of the respondents
earned income ranging from 2001 to 3000 constituting 26.7 per cent.
On the other hand after membership, the second largest percentage of
the respondents earned monthly income ranging from 3001 to 4000
constituting 35.3 per centage. Therefore, it is crystal clear that
respondents’ income has increased after their membership reasonably
in comparison with economic condition before membership, resulting in
economic empowerment.
P a g e | 216
The given below table shows monthly expenditure of the respondents
before and after their membership in SHGs on Basic Needs.
Table 5.14
Monthly expenditure of the respondents before and after their
membership in SHGs on basic needs
Before Membership After Membership
Basic Needs
Range of Income % of Respondents
Range of Income % of Respondents
1 Food
Below 2000 333 (55.5%) Below 2000 122 (20.3%)
2001- 3000 125 (20.8%) 2001- 3000 170 (28.3%)
3001- 4000 94 (15.7%) 3001- 4000 206 (34.3%)
Above 4000 48 (8%) Above 4000 102 (17%)
2 Housing
Below 2000 333 (55.5%) Below 2000 142(23.7%)
2001- 3000 162 (27%) 2001- 3000 93(15.5%)
3001- 4000 57(9.5%) 3001- 4000 210 (35%)
Above 4000 48 (8%) Above 4000 155(25.8%)
3 Clothing
Below 2000 340(56.7%) Below 2000 146(24.3%)
2001- 3000 108 (18%) 2001- 3000 104(17.3%)
3001- 4000 75(12.5%) 3001- 4000 198 (33%)
Above 4000 77(12.8%) Above 4000 152(25.3%)
Source: Primary Data
1. Food:
Out of the total respondents, 55.5 percent of the respondents
were able to spend less than 2000 per month on food which is the
highest before their membership; where as 34.3 per cent of the
respondents are spending ranging from 3001 to 4000 on food after
their membership which is the highest of all. Similarly, 20.8 per cent of
the respondents, the second largest were able to spend ranging from
2001 to 3000 before their membership. On the other hand, 28.3 per
cent, the second largest number of the respondents, were spending on
food ranging from 2001 to 3000. Before membership, only 8 per
cent of the respondents which is the lowest of all spent above 4000
P a g e | 217
on food. But after membership, the members spending on food above
4000 constitute 17 per cent which is the lowest of all. Therefore, it is
crystal clear that SHG members after their membership could spend
sufficiently higher than what was spent before membership.
2. Housing:
Out of the total sample respondents, 55.5 percent of the
respondents were able to spend less than 2000 per month on housing
which is the highest before their membership, where as 35 per cent of
the respondents are spending ranging from 3001 to 4000 on housing
after their membership which is the highest of all. Similarly, 27 per cent
of the respondents, the second largest were able to spend ranging from
2001 to 3000 before their membership. On the other hand, 25.8 per
cent, the second largest number of the respondents, were spending on
housing, ranging from above 4000 after membership. Before
membership, only 8 per cent of the respondents which is the lowest of
all spent above 4000 on housing. But after membership, the members
spending on housing, ranging from 2001 - 3000 constitute 15.5 per
cent which is the lowest of all. Therefore, it is crystal clear that SHG
members after their membership could spend sufficiently higher than
what was spent before membership.
3. Clothing:
Out of the total sample respondents, 56.7 percent of the respondents
were able to spend less than 2000 per month on housing which is the
highest before their membership; where as 33 per cent of the
respondents are spending ranging from 3001 to 4000 on clothing
after their membership which is the highest of all. Similarly, 12.8 per
cent of the respondents, the second largest were able to spend ranging
P a g e | 218
from 4000 and above before their membership. On the other hand,
25.3 per cent, the second largest number of the respondents, were
spending on clothing ranging from above 4000 after membership.
Before membership, only 18 per cent of the respondents which is the
lowest of all spent ranging from 2001 to 3000 on clothing. But after
membership, the members spending on clothing ranging from 2001 -
3000 constitute 17.3 per cent which is the lowest of all. Therefore, it is
crystal clear that SHG members after their membership could spend
sufficiently higher than what was spent before membership.
Chart 5.14 a
Monthly expenditure of the respondents before and after their
membership in SHGs on basic needs
P a g e | 219
The table given below focuses the satisfactory level on the attribute of
expenditure incurred on other needs by the SHG members.
Table 5.15
Satisfactory level towards the attribute of expenditure incurred on
other needs by the Respondents
S.No.
Attribute of Eexpenditure incurred on other
needs
Responses
SA A N D SD
1
Education ( Become capable to spend on education)
150 (25%)
238 (39.7%)
130 (21.7%)
39 (6.5%)
43 (7.2%)
2
Entertainment ( Become Capable to spend on Entertainment)
166 (27.7%)
146 (24.3%)
147 (24.5%)
96 (16%)
45 (7.5%)
3
Use of Transport (Become Capable to use Transport)
135 (22.5%)
175 (29.2%)
152 (25.3%)
113 (18.8%)
25 (4.2%)
4 Scope for increase in expenditure on clothing
195 (32.5%)
186 (31%)
154 (25.7%)
43 (7.2%)
22 (3.7%)
5
Asset creation is possible (Housing)
217 (36.2%)
170 (28.3%)
99 (16.5%)
89 (14.8%)
25 (4.2%)
Source: Primary Data
SA – Strongly Agree, A – Agree, N – No opinion, D – Disagree, SD – Strongly
Disagree.
1. Education;
The highest percentage of respondents (39.7 per cent) agrees
and another 25 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that they
have become capable to spend on education. Only 3.2 per cent of the
respondents “strongly disagreed” with the capability to spend on
education. Therefore, it is very much clear that that they have become
capable to spend on education.
P a g e | 220
2. Entertainment;
For the statement “SHG members are capable to spend on
entertainment”, 27.7 percentage of the respondents strongly agree
which is the highest and 24.3 per cent agree and only 7.5 per cent of
the respondents strongly disagree. Therefore, it demonstrates that they
have become capable to spend on entertainment.
3. Use of Transport
Out of the total sample respondents, 29.2 per cent of the
respondents agree that the use of transport has become possible,
another 22.5 per cent of the respondents strongly agree with the
capability to use transportation. Only 4.2 per cent of the respondents
“strongly disagreed” with the capacity of using transportation. Therefore,
it is very much clear that they are capable of using transportation.
4. Scope for increase in income generation in future:
The highest percentage of the respondents (32.5) strongly
agrees and 31 per cent of the respondents agrees with the statement
that there is a scope for increase in income generation in future.
5. Asset creation is possible:
Among the total respondents, 36.2 per cent of the respondents
“strongly agree” followed by 28.3 per cent of the respondents who
“agree” that members’ Asset creation is possible. Only 4.2 per cent of
the respondents strongly “disagree” with the statement “Members Asset
creation is possible”.
P a g e | 221
The table given below explains the satisfactory level on the attribute of
social empowerment by the SHG members.
Table 5.16
Satisfactory level towards the attribute of social empowerment by the
SHG members
S.No Attribute of Social
Empowerment
Responses
SA A N D SD
1 Community Participation
a) Knowledge for Community Participation
266 (44.3%)
127 (21.2%)
83 (13.8%)
90 (15%)
34 (5.7%)
b) Ability to move with society
124 (20.7%)
138 (23%)
162 (27%)
142 (23.7%)
34 (5.7%)
2 Social Reasoning
a) Understanding Expectations
207 (34.5%)
114 (19%)
115 (19.2%)
147 (24.5%)
17 (2.8%)
b) Living by Reasoning
204 (34%)
116 (19.3%)
127 (21.2%)
93 (15.5%)
60 (10%)
3 Social analysis
a) Knowledge for Social Analysis
220 (36.7%)
130 (21.7%)
100 (16.7%)
88 (14.7%)
62 (10.3%)
b) Knowledge for the optimum use of resources
178 (29.7%)
182 (30.3%)
124 (20.7%)
93 (15.5%)
23 (3.8%)
4 Health and Hygienic Practice
a) Knowledge on Health and Hygienic Practices
153 (25.5%)
238 (39.7%)
89 (14.8%)
42 (7%)
78 (13% )
b) Sense of Possessing Essentials for living (Toilet Facilities, Drinking water, Electricity, Drainage facilities)
192 (32%)
128 (21.3%)
115 (19.2%)
69 (11.5%)
96 (16%)
P a g e | 222
5 Culture and Civilization
a) Sense of ideal understanding of different culture and Civilization
319 (53.2%)
125 (20.8%)
102 (17%)
34 (5.7%)
20 (3.3%)
b) Knowledge on Cultural and Civilization
226 (37.7%)
128 (21.3%)
134 (22.3%)
80 (13.3%)
32 (5.3%)
Source: Primary Data
The above table demonstrates that to assess the social
empowerment of self help group members, the researcher framed two
variables each under five factors namely Community participation,
Social Reasoning, Social analysis, Health and Hygienic Practice and
Culture and Civilization.
1. Community participation:
a) Knowledge for Community Participation:
Out of the total sample respondents, 44.3 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed that they are knowledgeable for
Community Participation; another 21.2 per cent of the
respondents agree with being knowledgeable for Community
Participation. Only 5.7 per cent of the respondents “strongly
disagreed” with Knowledge for the Community Participation.
Therefore, it is very much clear that they are knowledgeable
for Community Participation.
b) Ability to move with society:
For the statement “Ability to move with society”, 27 percentage
of the respondents have not registered any opinion about the
ability to move with society which is the highest and 23.7 per
cent of the respondents disagree and only 23 per cent of the
P a g e | 223
respondents agree. Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of
the respondents have to improve their ability to move with
society.
2. Social Reasoning:
a) Understanding Expectations:
The highest percentage of the respondents (34.5) strongly
agrees and 19 per cent of the respondents agrees with the
statement that they are Understanding Expectations.
b) Living by reasoning:
Among the total respondents, 34 per cent of the respondents
“strongly agree” followed by 21.2 per cent of the respondents
who have no opinion on the view that they are living by
reasoning. Only 10 per cent of the respondents strongly
“disagree” with the statement “Living by reasoning”.
3. Social analysis:
a) Knowledge for social Analysis:
The highest percentage of respondents (36.7 per cent)
strongly agrees and another 21.7 per cent of the respondents
agrees that they have Knowledge for social Analysis. Only
10.3 per cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with
their knowledge of social Analysis. Therefore, it is very much
clear that that they have become knowledgeable for social
analysis.
P a g e | 224
b) Knowledge for the optimum use of resources:
Among the total, 30.3 per cent of the respondents agree and
29.7 per cent of the respondents strongly agree with the
statement that they are knowledgeable for the optimum use of
resources.
4. Health and Hygienic Practice:
a) Knowledge on health and hygienic practices:
Of the total, 39.7 per cent of the respondents “agree” and 25.5
per cent of the respondents “strongly agree” that they have
Knowledge on health and hygienic practices.
b) Sense of Possessing Essentials for living (Toilet
Facilities, Drinking water, Electricity, Drainage facilities):
Out of the total sample respondents, 32 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed that they have Sense of
Possessing Essentials for living (Toilet Facilities, Drinking
water, Electricity, Drainage facilities); another 21.3 per cent of
the respondents agree with the Sense of Possessing
Essentials for living (Toilet Facilities, Drinking water,
Electricity, Drainage facilities). Only 16 per cent of the
respondents “strongly disagreed” with Sense of Possessing
Essentials for living (Toilet Facilities, Drinking water,
Electricity, Drainage facilities). Therefore, it is very much clear
that they have sense of Possessing Essentials for living (Toilet
Facilities, Drinking water, Electricity, Drainage facilities).
P a g e | 225
5. Culture and Civilization:
a) Sense of ideal understanding of different culture and
civilization:
For the statement “Sense of ideal understanding of different
culture and Civilization”, 53.2 percentage of the respondents
have strongly agreed that they have Sense of ideal
understanding of different culture and Civilization which is the
highest and 20.8 per cent of the respondents agree and only
3.3 per cent of the respondents strongly disagree. Therefore, it
demonstrates that majority of the respondents have the sense
of ideal understanding of different culture and civilization.
b) Knowledge on Cultural and Civilization:
The highest percentage of the respondents (37.7) strongly
agrees and 21.3 per cent of the respondents agrees with the
statement that they are Knowledgeable on Cultural and
Civilization.
P a g e | 226
The table given below presents the satisfactory level on the attribute of
awareness creation by the SHG members.
Table 5.17
Satisfactory level towards the attribute of awareness creation by
the SHG members
S.No. Attribute of Awareness
Creation
Responses
SA A N D SD
1 Knowledge on Schemes
a) Knowledge on Govt. Schemes
246 (41%)
162 (27%)
119 (19.8%)
40 (6.7%)
33 (5.5%)
b) Knowledge on Insurance facilities
108 (18%)
219 (36.5%)
156 (26%)
97 (16.2%)
20 (3.3%)
2 Knowledge on Rights and privileges
a) Knowledge on constitutional rights
135 (22.5%)
190 (31.7%)
180 (30%)
45 (7.5%)
50 (8.3%)
b) Knowledge on civil rights
201 (33.5%)
163 (27.2%)
97 (16.2%)
48 (8%)
91 (15.2%)
3 Knowledge on Development
a) Knowledge on political environment
170 (28.3%)
164 (27.3%)
113 (18.8%)
82 (13.7%)
71 (11.8%)
b) knowledge on pollution Control
193 (32.2%)
150 (25%)
122 (20.3%)
55 (9.2%)
80 (13.3%)
4 Knowledge on Employability
a) Creation of reasoning power
157 (26.2%)
216 (36%)
48 (8%)
94 (15.7%)
85 (14.2%)
b) Knowledge on progressive thoughts
200 (33.3%)
155 (25.8%)
163 (27.2%)
18 (3%)
64 (10.7%)
5 Knowledge on integration and survival
a) Knowledge on social evils
228 (38%)
170 (28.3%)
107 (17.8)
49 (8.2 )
46 (7.7)
b) Understanding the importance of Professional Development
224 (37.3%)
182 (30.3%)
128 (21.3%)
3 (.5%)
63 (10.5%)
Source: Primary Data
P a g e | 227
1. Knowledge on Schemes:
a) Knowledge on Govt. Schemes:
Out of the total sample respondents, 41 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed that they are knowledgeable on
Govt. Schemes; another 27 per cent of the respondents agree
with being knowledgeable on Govt. Schemes. Only 5.5 per
cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with being
knowledgeable on Govt. Schemes. Therefore, it is very much
clear that they are knowledgeable on Govt. Schemes.
b) Knowledge on Insurance facilities:
For the statement “Knowledge on Insurance facilities”, 36.5
percentage of the respondents have agreed with the opinion
that they have Knowledge on Insurance facilities which is the
highest and 18 per cent of the respondents have strongly
agreed that they are Knowledgeable on Insurance facilities
and only 3.3 per cent of the respondents disagree. Therefore,
it demonstrates that majority of the respondents have
Knowledge on Insurance facilities.
2. Knowledge on Rights and privileges:
a) Knowledge on constitutional rights:
The highest percentage of the respondents (31.7) agrees with
the view that they have knowledge on constitutional rights and
unexpectedly 30 per cent of the respondents which is the
second largest number have no opinion on the ground that
they have knowledge on constitutional rights but 22.5 per cent
of the respondents strongly agree with the statement that they
are Knowledgeable on constitutional rights.
P a g e | 228
b) Knowledge on civil rights:
The highest percentage of respondents (33.5 per cent)
strongly agrees and another 27.2 per cent of the respondents
agrees that they have Knowledge on civil rights. Only 15.2
per cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with their
knowledge on civil rights. Therefore, it is very much clear that
that they have become knowledgeable on civil rights.
3. Knowledge on Development:
a) Knowledge on political environment:
Among the total, 28.3 per cent of the respondents strongly
agree and 27.3 per cent of the respondents agree with the
statement that they are knowledgeable on political
environment. And, only 11.8 per cent of the respondents
strongly disagreed with the statement “Knowledge on political
environment”.
b) Knowledge on Pollution Control:
Of the total number of respondents, 32.2 per cent of the
respondents strongly agree and 25 per cent of the
respondents agree with the statement that they have
“Knowledge on Pollution Control”.
4. Knowledge on Employability:
a) Creation of reasoning power:
Out of the total sample respondents, 36 per cent of the
respondents agreed and another 26.2 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed with the view that they have the
knowledge on creation of reasoning power. Only 14.2 per cent
of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with the knowledge on
P a g e | 229
creation of reasoning power. Therefore, it is very much clear
that majority of the respondents are knowledgeable on
creation of reasoning power.
b) Knowledge on progressive thoughts:
Among the total respondents, 33.3 per cent of the respondents
“strongly agree” followed by 27.2 per cent of the respondents
who have no opinion on the view that they have Knowledge on
progressive thoughts. Only 10.7 per cent of the respondents
“strongly disagree” with the statement “Knowledge on
progressive thoughts”.
5. Knowledge on integration and survival:
a) Knowledge on social evils:
Out of the total sample respondents, 38 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed that they are knowledgeable on
social evils; another 28.3 per cent of the respondents agree
with the knowledgeable on social evils. Only 7.7 per cent of
the respondents “strongly disagreed” with being
knowledgeable on social evils. Therefore, it is very much clear
that majority of the respondents are knowledgeable on social
evils.
b) Understanding the importance of Professional
Development:
For the statement “Understanding the importance of
Professional Development”, 37.3 percentage of the
respondents have strongly agreed with the opinion that
majority of the respondents Understand the importance of
Professional Development which is the highest; another 30.3
P a g e | 230
per cent of the respondents have agreed that they Understand
the importance of Professional Development and only 10.5 per
cent of the respondents disagreed. Therefore, it is crystal clear
that majority of the respondents Understand the importance of
Professional Development.
The table given below depicts the satisfactory level on the attribute of
skills and competency by the Respondents.
Table 5.18
Satisfactory level towards the attribute of skills and competency
by the Respondents
S.No. Skills and Competency Responses
SA A N D SD
1 Managerial Skills
a) There is an acquisition of Managerial Skills
193 (32.2%)
184 (30.7%)
141 (23.5%)
22 (3.7%)
60 (10%)
b) Application of managerial Skills is learnt
374 (62.3%)
191 (%31.8)
11 (1.8%)
20 (3.3%)
4 (.7%)
2 Coordination and control
a) Effect of coordination and control is understood
310 (51.7%)
125 (20.8%)
73 (12.2%)
58 (9.7%)
34 (5.7%)
b) There is an improved application of Coordination and Control
346 (57.7%)
160 (26.7%)
37 (6.2%)
45 (7.5%)
12 (2%)
3 Leadership Qualities
a) Qualities like Initiation, interaction,flexibility,Adaptability, Adjustability acquired
308 (51.3%)
122 (20.3%)
91 (15.2%)
58 (9.7%)
21 (3.5%)
b) Acquired the traits of good consultant
280 (46.7%)
161 (26.8%)
91 (15.2%)
36 (6%)
32 (5.3%)
4 Group Dynamism
a) Effect of Group Interaction is understood
234 (39%)
198 (33%)
83 (13.8%)
63 (10.5%)
22 (3.7%)
b) Decision Making ability acquired 274 (45.7%)
210 (35%)
37 (6.2%)
37 (6.2%)
42 (7%)
5 Communication
a) Able to have effective communication
314 (52.3%)
157 (26.2%)
52 (8.7%)
65 (10.8%)
12 (2%)
b) Animating nature developed 253 (42.2%)
219 (36.5%)
91 (15.2%)
18 (3%)
19 (3.2%)
Source: Primary Data
P a g e | 231
1. Managerial Skills:
a) There is an acquisition of managerial skills:
The highest percentage of the respondents (32.2) strongly
agrees and 30.7 per cent of the respondents agrees with the
statement that there is an acquisition of Managerial Skills.
b) Application of managerial skills is learnt:
For the statement “Application of managerial Skills is learnt”,
62.3 percentage of the respondents have strongly agreed with
the opinion that they have learnt Application of managerial
Skills which is the highest and 31.8 per cent of the
respondents agreed with the view that they have learnt
managerial Skills. Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of
the respondents have learnt the Application of managerial
Skills.
2. Coordination and control:
a) Effect of coordination and control is understood:
Out of the total sample respondents, 51.7 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed that they have understood the
Effect of coordination and control; another 20.8 per cent of the
respondents agreed with the effect of coordination and control.
Only 5.7 per cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with
the effect of coordination and control. Therefore, it is very
much clear that majority of the respondents have understood
the effect of coordination and control.
P a g e | 232
b) There is an improved application of coordination and
control:
The highest percentage of respondents (57.7 per cent)
strongly agrees and another 26.7 per cent of the respondents
agrees that they have an improved application of Coordination
and Control. Only 2 per cent of the respondents “strongly
disagreed” with their improved application of Coordination and
Control. Therefore, it is very much clear that that they have an
improved application of coordination and control.
3. Leadership Qualities:
a) Qualities like Initiation, interaction, flexibility,
Adaptability, Adjustability acquired:
Among the total, 51.3 per cent of the respondents strongly
agree and 20.3 per cent of the respondents agree with the
statement that they have acquired the qualities like Initiation,
interaction, flexibility, Adaptability, and Adjustability. And, only
3.5 per cent of the respondents strongly disagreed with the
statement that they have acquired the qualities like Initiation,
interaction, flexibility, Adaptability, and Adjustability.
b) Acquired the traits of good consultant:
Of the total number of respondents, 46.7 per cent of the
respondents strongly agree and 26.8 per cent of the
respondents agree with the statement that they have
“Acquired the traits of good consultant”. Only 5.3 per cent of
the respondents have strongly disagreed with the statement
that they have “Acquired the traits of good consultant”.
P a g e | 233
4. Group Dynamism:
a) Effect of Group Interaction is understood:
The highest percentage of the respondents (39) strongly
agrees and 33 per cent of the respondents agrees with the
statement that an effect of group interaction is understood.
Only 3.7 per cent of the respondents disagreed that they have
understood the effect of Group Interaction.
b) Decision Making ability acquired:
For the statement “Decision Making ability acquired”, 45.7
percentage of the respondents have strongly agreed with the
opinion that they have acquired Decision Making ability which
is the highest and 35 per cent of the respondents agreed with
the view that they have acquired Decision Making ability.
Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of the respondents
have acquired Decision Making ability.
5. Communication:
a) Able to have effective communication:
Out of the total sample respondents, 52.3 per cent of the
respondents strongly agree that they are able to have effective
communication; another 26.2 per cent of the respondents
agree that they are able to have effective communication. Only
2 per cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with their
able effective communication. Therefore, it is very much clear
that majority of the respondents are able to have effective
communication.
P a g e | 234
c) Animating nature developed:
The highest percentage of respondents (42.2 per cent)
strongly agrees and another 36.5 per cent of the respondents
agrees that their Animating nature developed. Only 3.2 per
cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” that their
animating nature has not developed. Therefore, it is very
much clear that that they have an improved application of
Coordination and Control.
The table given below reveals classification of the respondents based
on savings
Table 5.19
Classification of the respondents based on savings
S. No
Savings
Before Membership After Membership
No. of
Resp.
% of
Resp.
No. of
Resp.
% of
Resp.
1 Less than 200 298 49.7% 121 20.2%
2 201 to 300 166 27.7% 71 11.8%
3 301 to 400 49 8.2% 74 12.3%
4 401 to 500 43 7.2% 143 23.8%
5 501 & above 44 7.3% 191 31.8%
Source: Primary Data
Out of the total sample respondents, 49.7 percent of the
respondents were able to save less than 200 per month which is the
highest before their membership, where as 31.8 per cent of the
respondents were able to save 501 and above after their membership
which is the highest of all. Similarly, 27.7 per cent of the respondents,
the second largest were able to save an amount from 201 to 300
before their membership. On the other hand, 23.8 per cent, the second
P a g e | 235
largest number of the respondents had, savings ranging from 401 to
500. Before membership, only7.2 per cent of the respondents which is
the lowest of all, had savings from 401 to 500. But after
membership, the members saving 201 to 300 constitute 11.8 per
cent which is the lowest of all. Therefore, it is crystal clear that SHG
members after their membership could save sufficiently higher than
what was saved before their membership.
Chart 5.19 a
Classification of the respondents based on savings
P a g e | 236
The table given below emphasizes the satisfactory level on the attribute
of factors for the success of SHGs.
Table 5.20
Satisfactory level towards the attribute of factors for the
success of SHGs
S.No. Factors for the
success of SHGs
Responses
SA A N D SD
1 Good Management
and Animation
323
(53.8%)
157
(26.2%)
24
(4%)
43
(7.2%)
53
(8.8%)
2 Proper Training and
Guidelines
309
(51.5%)
199
(33.2%)
19
(3.2%)
41
(6.8%)
32
(5.3%)
3 Interest and Attitude
245
(40.8%)
237
(39.5%)
71
(11.8%)
16
(2.7%)
31
(5.2%)
4 Stimulation and
Encouragement
234
(39%)
194
(32.3%)
86
(14.3%)
54
(9%)
32
(5.3%)
5 Best source of Income
238
(39.7%)
229
(38.2%)
58
(9.7%)
31
(5.2%)
44
(7.3%)
6 Scope to reach the
greater height
330
(55%)
158
(26.3%)
31
(5.2%)
39
(6.5%)
42
(7%)
Source: Primary Data
1. Good Management and Animation:
Out of the total sample respondents, 53.8 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed, and another 26.2 per cent of the
respondents agreed that the factors for their success of SHGs are
good management and animation. Only 8.8 per cent of the
respondents expressed “strongly disagreed” with the statement
“good management and animation”. Therefore, it is very much
clear that majority of the respondents opined that the factor for
the success of their SHG is “good management and animation”.
P a g e | 237
2. Proper Training and Guidelines:
For the statement “Proper Training and Guidelines”, 51.5
percentage of the respondents strongly agreed with the opinion
that the factors for their success of SHGs are Proper Training and
Guidelines which is the highest and 33.2 per cent of the
respondents agreed with the Proper Training and Guidelines.
Only 5.3 per cent of the respondents disagreed with the proper
training and guidelines. Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of
the respondents consider Proper Training and Guidelines as the
factors for their success of SHGs.
3. Interest and Attitude:
The highest percentage of the respondents (40.8) strongly
agreed and 39.5 per cent of the respondents agreed with the
statement that their Interest and Attitudes are factors for the
success of SHGs. Only 5.2 per cent of the respondents disagreed
that Interest and Attitudes are factors for the success of SHGs.
4. Stimulation and Encouragement:
Among the total, 39 per cent of the respondents strongly
agreed and 32.3 per cent of the respondents strongly agreed with
the statement that Stimulation and Encouragement are factors for
the success of SHGs. And, only 5.3 per cent of the respondents
are disagreed with the statement that Stimulation and
Encouragement are factors for the success of SHGs.
5. Best source of Income:
The highest percentage of respondents (39.7 per cent)
strongly agreed and another 38.2 per cent of the respondents
P a g e | 238
agreed that the Best source of Income is the factor for the
success of SHGs. Only 7.3 per cent of the respondents “strongly
disagreed” with the view that the best source of income are
factors for the success. Therefore, it is very much clear that the
best source of income is the factor for success of SHGs.
6. Scope to reach the greater height:
Of the total number of respondents, 55 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed and 26.3 per cent of the
respondents agreed with the statement that they have “Scope to
reach the greater height”. Only 7 per cent of the respondents
have strongly disagreed with the statement that they have “Scope
to reach the greater height”.
The table given below emphasizes the satisfactory level on the attribute
of problems faced by SHGs and its members (external problems) in
getting loans.
Table 5.21
Satisfactory level towards the attribute of problems faced by SHGs
and its members (external problems) in getting loans
S.No. External problems faced in getting loans
Responses
SA A N D SD
1 Too much of procedures
306 (51%)
151 (25.2%)
59 (9.8%)
38 (6.3%)
46 (7.7%)
2 Heavy interest rates 262
(43.7%) 201
(33.5%) 73
(12.2%) 61
(10.2%) 3
(.5%)
3 Unsuitable working hours
329 (54.8%)
136 (22.7%)
50 (8.3%)
19 (3.2%)
66 (11%)
4 No proximity of Banking centre
295 (49.2%)
185 (30.8%)
42 (7%)
22 (3.7%)
56 (9.3%)
5 Officials are not 240 206 77 19 58
P a g e | 239
friendly and encouraging
(40%) (34.3%) (12.8%) (3.2%) (9.7%)
6 “Too much of margin money”
278 (46.3%)
163 (27.2%)
52 (8.7%)
68 (11.3%)
39 (6.5%)
7 Deferred disbursement of Loanoan
320 (53.3%)
166 (27.7%)
20 (3.3%)
83 (13.8%)
11 (1.8%)
8 Incurrence of heavy transaction cost
261 (43.5%)
166 (27.7%)
60 (10%)
69 (11.5%)
44 (7.3%)
Source: Primary Data
1. Too much of procedures:
The highest percentage of the respondents (51%) strongly
agreed and 25.2 per cent of the respondents agreed with the
statement that due to too much of procedures, members of the
SHGs face problems in getting loans. Only 7.7 per cent of the
respondents disagreed that members of the SHGs face problem
due to too much of procedures.
2. Heavy interest rates:
Of the total number of respondents, 43.7 per cent of the
respondents strongly agree and 33.5 per cent of the respondents
agree with the statement that heavy interest rate of the bank is
the difficulty faced by the members of SHGs in getting loans. Only
0.5 per cent of the respondents have strongly disagreed with the
statement that due to higher interest rate they face problem in
getting loan.
3. Unsuitable working hours:
Out of the total sample respondents, 54.8 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed, and another 22.7 per cent of the
respondents agreed that a problem faced by the members of
SHG is the unsuitable working hours of Banks. Only 11 per cent
P a g e | 240
of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with the statement “good
management and animation”. Therefore, it is very much clear that
majority of the respondents opined that the factors for the
success of their SHG is “good management and animation”.
4. No proximity of banking centre:
The highest percentage of respondents (49.2 per cent)
strongly agreed and another 30.8 per cent of the respondents
agreed that the problem faced by the members of SHG is no
proximity of banking centres. Only 9.3 per cent of the respondents
“strongly disagreed” that the problem faced by members of SHG
is not proximity of banking centres. Therefore, it is very much
clear that problems faced by members of SHG are not the
proximity of banking centres.
5. Officials are not friendly and encouraging:
For the statement “Officials are not friendly and
encouraging”, 40 percentage of the respondents have strongly
agreed and 34.3 per cent of the respondents agreed with the
opinion that problems faced by members of SHG is “that Bank
officials are not friendly and encouraging” which is the highest of
all responses. Only 9.7 per cent of the respondents disagreed
with the view that the officials are not friendly and encouraging.
Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of the respondents
consider that the problem faced by members of the SHG is that
officials are not friendly and encouraging.
P a g e | 241
6. “Too much of margin money”:
Among the total, 46.3 per cent of the respondents strongly
agree and 27.2 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that
problems faced by members of the SHG in getting loan is “Too
much of margin money”. And, only 6.5 per cent of the
respondents disagreed with the “Too much of margin money”.
7. Deferred disbursement of Loan:
The highest percentage of the respondents (53.3%)
strongly agreed and 27.7 per cent of the respondents agreed with
the statement that “Deferred disbursement of Loan” is the
problem faced by members of SHGs in getting loan. Only 1.8 per
cent of the respondents disagreed with deferred disbursement of
Loan.
8. Incurrence of heavy transaction cost:
Of the total number of respondents, 43.5 per cent of the
respondents strongly agree and 27.7 per cent of the respondents
agree with the statement “Incurrence of heavy transaction cost” is
the problem faced by members of SHGs in getting loan. Only 7.3
per cent of the respondents have strongly disagreed “Incurrence
of heavy transaction cost” is the problem faced by the members
of SHG in getting loan.
P a g e | 242
The table given below emphasizes the satisfactory level on the attribute
of constraints of SHGs and its members
Table 5.22
Satisfactory level towards the attribute of constraints of SHGs and
its members
S.No.
Attribute of
constraints of SHGs
and its members
Responses
SA A N D SD
1 Lack of co-operation
and Co-ordination
338
(56.3%)
142
(23.7%)
43
(7.2%)
61
(10.2%)
16
(2.7%)
2 Insufficient
documentation
329
(54.8%)
185
(30.8%)
22
(3.7%)
30
(5%)
34
(5.7%)
3 Low Operating Skills 290
(48.3%)
181
(30.2%)
60
(10%)
16
(2.7%)
53
(8.8%)
4 Less understanding
of Regulations
313
(52.2%)
174
(29%)
21
(3.5%)
43
(7.2%)
49
(8.2%)
5 Ignorance 342
(57%)
166
(27.7%)
45
(7.5%)
25
(4.2%)
22
(3.7%)
6 Unfamiliarity of
banking Habits
291
(48.5%)
169
(28.2%)
63
(10.5%)
63
(10.5%)
14
(2.3%)
7 Communication
problem
313
(52.2%)
168
(28%)
24
(4%)
70
(11.7%)
25
(4.2%)
8 Lack of Leadership
Qualities
285
(47.5%)
167
(27.8%)
49
(8.2%)
41
(6.8%)
58
(9.7%)
Source: Primary Data
1. Lack of co-operation and co-ordination:
The highest percentage of the respondents (56.3%) strongly
agreed and 23.7 per cent of the respondents agreed with the
statement that Lack of co-operation and Co-ordination are the
constraints of SHGs and its members. Only 2.7 per cent of the
P a g e | 243
respondents strongly disagreed that Lack of co-operation and Co-
ordination are constraints of SHGs and its members.
2. Insufficient documentation:
Of the total number of respondents, 54.8 per cent of the
respondents strongly agree and 30.8 per cent of the respondents
agree with the statement that insufficient documentation is the
constraint of SHGs and its members. Only 5.7 per cent of the
respondents have strongly disagreed with the insufficient
documentation.
3. Low Operating Skills:
Out of the total sample respondents, 48.3 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed and, another 30.2 per cent of the
respondents agreed that Low Operating Skills are Constraints of
SHGs and its members. Only 8.8 per cent of the respondents
“strongly disagreed” with the statement that “Low Operating
Skills” are constraints of SHGs and its members. Therefore, it is
very much clear that majority of the respondents opined that the
Low Operating Skills are Constraints of SHGs and its members.
4. Less understanding of Regulations:
The highest percentage of respondents (52.2 per cent) strongly
agrees and another 29 per cent of the respondents agree that the
constraints of SHGs and its members are Less understanding of
Regulations. Only 8.2 per cent of the respondents “strongly
disagreed” that the constraints of SHGs and its members are less
understanding of regulations. Therefore, it is very much clear that
P a g e | 244
constraints of SHGs and its members are because of less
understanding of regulations.
5. Ignorance:
Among the total, 57 per cent of the respondents strongly agree
and 27.7 per cent of the respondents agree that ignorance is the
Constraint of SHGs and its members. And, only 3.7 per cent of
the respondents strongly disagreed that the ignorance is
Constraint of SHGs and its members.
6. Unfamiliarity of banking Habits:
For the statement “Unfamiliarity of banking Habits”, 48.5
percentage of the respondents strongly agreed and 28.2 per cent
of the respondents agreed with the opinion that “Unfamiliarity of
banking Habits” are Constraints of SHGs and its members which
is the highest of all responses. Only 2.3 per cent of the
respondents strongly disagreed with the Unfamiliarity of banking
Habits. Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of the
respondents consider the Unfamiliarity of banking Habits as the
constraints of SHGs and its members.
7. Communication problem:
The highest percentage of the respondents (52.2%) strongly
agrees and 28 per cent of the respondents agrees that
communication problem is the constraint of SHGs and its
members. Only 4.2 percent of the respondents disagree that
communication problem is constraint of SHGs and its members.
P a g e | 245
8. Lack of Leadership Qualities:
Of the total number of respondents, 47.5 per cent of the
respondents strongly agree and 27.8 per cent of the respondents
agree with the statement “lack of leadership qualities” is
constraint of SHGs and its members. Only 9.7 per cent of the
respondents have strongly disagreed that “lack of leadership
qualities” is constraint of SHGs and its members.
The table given below emphasizes the satisfactory level on the attribute
of causes for delayed repayment of loans
Table 5.23
Satisfactory level towards the attribute of causes for delayed
repayment of loans
S.No Causes for delayed
repayment of loans
Responses
SA A N D SD
1 Delayed collection from
members
357
(59.5%)
153
(25.5%)
40
(6.7%)
26
(4.3%)
24
(4%)
2 Low level of
marketability
317
(52.8%)
140
(23.3%)
51
(8.5%)
33
(5.5%)
59
(9.8%)
3 Lethargy 307
(51.2%)
162
(27%)
56
(9.3%)
58
(9.7%)
17
(2.8%)
4 Improper utilization of
funds
271
(45.2%)
187
(31.2%)
53
(8.8%)
25
(4.2%)
64
(10.7%)
5 Not adhering to the
purpose of loan
298
(49.7%)
199
(33.2%)
16
(2.7%)
16
(2.7%)
71
(11.8%)
Source: Primary Data
P a g e | 246
1. Delayed collection from members:
The highest percentage of the respondents (59.5%) strongly
agreed and 25.5 percent of the respondents agreed with the
statement that the cause for the delayed repayment of loan is
delayed collection from members. Only 4 per cent of the
respondents disagreed that the cause for the delayed repayment
of loan is delayed collection from members.
2. Low level of marketability:
Of the total number of respondents, 52.8 per cent of the
respondents strongly agree and 23.3 per cent of the respondents
agree with the statement that the low level of marketability is the
cause for delayed repayment of loan. Only 9.8 per cent of the
respondents have strongly disagreed with the statement that the
low level marketability is the cause for the delayed repayment due
to higher interest rate.
3. Lethargy:
Out of the total sample respondents, 51.2 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed, and another 27 per cent of the
respondents agreed that the cause for delayed repayment of loan
is their lethargy. Only 2.8 per cent of the respondents expressed
“strongly disagreed” with the statement “lethargy is the cause for
delayed repayment of loan”. Therefore, it is very much clear that
the majority of the respondents opined that the cause for delayed
repayment of loan is “lethargy”.
P a g e | 247
4. Improper utilization of funds:
The highest percentage of respondents (45.2 per cent) strongly
agreed and another 31.2 per cent of the respondents agreed that
the cause for delayed repayment of loan is improper utilization of
funds. And, 10.7 per cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed”
that the cause for delayed repayment of loan is improper
utilization of funds. Therefore, it is very much clear that improper
utilization of funds is the cause for delayed repayment of loans.
5. Not adhering to the purpose of loan:
For the statement “Not adhering to the purpose of loan”, 49.7
percentage of the respondents have strongly agreed and 33.2 per
cent of the respondents agreed with the opinion that the cause for
the delayed repayment of loan is “not adhering to the purpose of
loan” which is the highest of all responses. Only 11.8 per cent of
the respondents disagreed with not adhering to the purpose of
loan. Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of the respondents
consider that the cause for the delayed repayment of loan is “not
adhering to the purpose of loan”.
P a g e | 248
The table given below emphasizes the satisfactory level on the attribute
of assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office.
Table 5.24
Satisfactory level towards the attribute of assistance received from
NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office.
S.No Assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir
Thittam Office
Responses
SA A N D SD
1 Assistance by Initiation is good
313 (52.2%)
138 (23%)
49 (8.2%)
51 (8.5%)
49 (8.2%)
2 Assistance by Mediation is good
305 (50.8%)
161 (26.8%)
53 (8.8%)
13 (2.2%)
68 (11.3%)
3 Assistance by encouragement and support is remarkable
304 (50.7%)
138 (23%)
65 (10.8%)
47 (7.8%)
46 (7.7%)
4 Assistance by training is useful
304 (50.7%)
141 (23.5%)
72 (12%)
34 (5.7%)
49 (8.2%)
5 Assistance in getting loan is appreciable
291 (48.5%)
172 (28.7%)
31 (5.2%)
54 (9%)
52 (8.7%)
6 Assistance in getting raw materials
303 (50.5%)
200 (33.3%)
14 (2.3%)
25 (4.2%)
58 (9.7%)
7 Assistance in capacity building
280 (46.7%)
194 (32.3%)
49 (8.2%)
29 (4.8%)
48 (8%)
8 Assistance for participation
254 (42.3%)
175 (29.2%)
77 (12.8%)
23 (3.8%)
71 (11.8%)
9 Strengthens decision making
270 (45%)
195 (32.5%)
42 (7%)
31 (5.2%)
62 (10.3%)
10 Promotes Marketability
329 (54.8%)
141 (23.5%)
40 (6.7%)
25 (4.2%)
65 (10.8%)
Source: Primary Data
1. Assistance by initiation is good:
The highest percentage of the respondents (52.2%) strongly
agreed and 23 per cent of the respondents agreed with the
statement that assistance by Initiation is good. Only 8.2 per cent
of the respondents disagreed that assistance given by NGOs /
Mahalir Thittam regarding initiation is good.
P a g e | 249
2. Assistance by mediation is good:
Of the total number of respondents, 50.8 per cent of the
respondents strongly agree and 26.8 per cent of the respondents
agree with the statement that Assistance by Mediation is good.
And, 11.3 per cent of the respondents have strongly disagreed
with the statement that assistance by mediation is good.
3. Assistance by encouragement and support is remarkable:
Out of the total sample respondents, 50.7 per cent of the
respondents strongly agreed, another 23 per cent of the
respondents agreed that assistance by encouragement and
support is remarkable. Only 7.7 per cent of the respondents
“strongly disagreed” with the statement “assistance by
encouragement and support is remarkable”. Therefore, it is very
much clear that “assistance by encouragement and support is
remarkable”.
4. Assistance by training is useful:
The highest percentage of respondents (50.7 per cent) strongly
agreed and another 23.5 per cent of the respondents agreed that
assistance received from NGOs / Mahalirm Thittam Office by
training is useful. And, 8.2 per cent of the respondents “strongly
disagreed” that the assistance received from NGOs / Mahalirm
Thittam Office by training is useful. Therefore, it is very much
clear that assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office
by training is useful.
P a g e | 250
5. Assistance in getting loan is appreciable:
For the statement “assistance in getting loan is appreciable”, 48.5
percentage of the respondents strongly agreed and 28.7 per cent
of the respondents agreed with the opinion that assistance
received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office by getting loan is
appreciable which is the highest of all responses. Only 8.7per
cent of the respondents disagreed that assistance received from
NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office by getting loan is appreciable.
Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of the respondents
considers that assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam
Office by getting loan is appreciable.
6. Assistance in getting raw materials:
The highest percentage of the respondents (50.5%) strongly
agreed and 33.3 per cent of the respondents agreed with the
statement that the assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir
Thittam Office is getting raw materials. Only 9.7 per cent of the
respondents disagreed that the assistance received from NGOs /
Mahalir Thittam Office is getting raw materials.
7. Assistance in capacity building:
Of the total number of respondents, 46.7 per cent of the
respondents “strongly agreed” and 32.3 per cent of the
respondents “agree” to the statement that the assistance received
from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office is capacity building. Only 8
per cent of the respondents have “strongly disagreed” to the
statement that the assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir
Thittam Office is capacity building.
P a g e | 251
8. Assistance for participation:
Out of the total sample respondents, 42.3 percent of the
respondents “strongly agreed” another 29.2 percent of the
respondents “agree” that the assistance received from NGOs /
Mahalir Thittam Office is for the active “Participation”. Only 11.8
percent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with the
statement the assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam
Office is for the active “Participation”. Therefore, it is very much
clear that majority of the respondents opined that the assistance
received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office is for the active
“Participation”.
9. Strengthens decision making:
The highest percentage of respondents (45 percent) “strongly
agreed” another 32.5 percent of the respondents “agreed” that the
assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office
Strengthens decision making ability of the respondents. And, 10.3
percent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” that the
assistance received from NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office
“Strengthens decision making” ability of the respondents.
Therefore, it is very much clear that the assistance received from
NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office “Strengthens decision making”
ability of the respondents.
10. Promotes Marketability:
For the statement “Promotes Marketability”, 54.8 percentage of
the respondents “strongly agreed” and 23.5 percent of the
respondents “agreed” that the assistance received from NGOs /
Mahalir Thittam Office “Promotes Marketability” of the
P a g e | 252
respondents which is the highest of all responses. Only 10.8
percent of the respondents “disagreed” with the statement.
Therefore, it demonstrates that the assistance received from
NGOs / Mahalir Thittam Office “Promotes Marketability”.
The table given below emphasizes the satisfactory level on the attribute
of opinion on services of the banks
Table 5.25
Satisfactory level towards the attribute of opinion on services of
the banks
S.No.
Attributes of opinion on Services
of the Banks
Responses
SA A N D SD
1 There is an adequacy of loan level
323 (53.8%)
149 (24.8%)
35 (5.8%)
21 (3.5%)
72 (12%)
2 Loan is granted on time (timeliness)
304 (50.7%)
208 (34.7%)
28 (4.7%)
23 (3.8%)
37 (6.2%)
3 No. of days taken for sanctioning the loan is very much minimum
279 (46.5%)
192 (32%)
55 (9.2%)
14 (2.3%)
60 (10%)
4 There is a reasonable flexibility in recovering the loan
242 (40.3%)
207 (34.5%)
71 (11.8%)
23 (3.8%)
57 (9.5%)
5 Duration for repayment is sufficient
251 (41.8%)
205 (34.2%)
65 (10.8%)
17 (2.8%)
62 (10.3%)
Source: Primary Data
It is quite remarkable that out of the total number of respondents
“there is an adequacy of loan level”, 53.8% strongly agreed with the
statement “there is an adequacy of loan level”; 24.8% agreed; 12% are
strongly dissatisfied, 3.5% disagreed and only 3.5% of the respondents
strongly disagreed with the statement.
P a g e | 253
For the statement “Loan is granted on time (timeliness)”, 50.7
percentage of the respondents “strongly agreed” and 34.7 per cent of
the respondents agreed with the opinion on services of the bank that
“loans are granted on time” which is the highest of all responses. Only
3.8 per cent of the respondents disagreed with the services of banks on
timeliness of loans. Therefore, it demonstrates that majority of the
respondents consider that “banks grant loans timely”.
Out of the total sample respondents, 46.5% of the respondents
“strongly agreed” another 32% of the respondents “agreed” that the
number of days taken for sanctioning the loan is very much minimum.
Only 2.3% of the respondents “strongly disagreed” with the statement
“the number of days taken for sanctioning the loan is very much
minimum”. Therefore, it is very much clear that the majority of the
respondents opined that the number of days taken for sanctioning the
loan is very much minimum.
Of the total number of respondents, 40.3% of the respondents
“strongly agreed” and 34.5% of the respondents “agreed” with the
statement that “there is a reasonable flexibility in recovering the loan”.
And, 3.8% of the respondents have disagreed, and 9.5% of the
respondents have “strongly disagreed” with the statement that “there is
a reasonable flexibility in recovering the loan”.
The highest percentage of respondents (41.8%) “strongly
agreed” another 34.2% of the respondents “agreed” that the duration for
repayment is sufficient. And, 2.8% of the respondents “disagreed”, and
10.3 per cent of the respondents “strongly disagreed” that the duration
for repayment is sufficient. Therefore, it is very much clear that the
duration for repayment is sufficient in services rendered by the bank.
P a g e | 254
The table given below shows classification of the respondents based on
frequency of loan borrowed.
Table 5.26
Classification of the respondents based on frequency of
loan borrowed
S. No. Particulars No. of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 One 323 53.8
2 Two 146 24.3
3 Three 56 9.3
4 Four 49 8.2
5 More than four 26 4.3
Source: Primary Data
The table shows that 53.8% of the respondents have taken one
time only; 24% of them have taken two times; 9.3% have taken three
times loans, 8.2% have four times loans and only 4.3% of the
respondents have taken loan for more than five times. Thus, the
majority of the respondents have taken the loans for the first time and
the least percent of the respondents only have taken for more than four
times after the formation of their self-help group.
P a g e | 255
Chart 5.26a
Classification of the respondents based on frequency of
loan borrowed
54%
25%
9%
8%
4%
Classification of the respondents based on frequency of loan
borrowed
One
Two
Three
Four
More than four
P a g e | 256
The table given below shows classification of the respondents based on
Ownership.
Table 5.27
Classification of the respondents based on Ownership
S. No. Particulars No. of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Proprietors 127 21.2
2 Partners 473 78.8
Source: Primary Data
The above table reveals that out of the total number of
respondents, 78.8% of the respondents are proprietors of their business
and 21.2% of the respondents are one of the partners of their business.
Therefore, it is perceived that there is an entrepreneurial development
leading to empowerment.
P a g e | 257
Chart 5.27 a
Classification of the respondents based on Ownership
P a g e | 258
The table given below shows classification of the respondents based on
sources for knowledge of SHGs
Table 5.28
Classification of the respondents based on sources for knowledge
of SHGs
S. No. Particulars No. of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Nearby SHG 226 37.7
2 Through NGOs 183 30.5
3 Through Govt. 126 21
4 Through Friends 25 4.2
5 Through Local Leaders
40 6.7
Source: Primary Data
The above table shows that out of the total number of
respondents, 37.7% came to know about SHG through nearby SHG
which is the highest; 30.5% through NGOs; 21% through Government
officials; 6.7% through local leaders and 4.2% knew through their
friends. Thus, the maximum number of respondents knew the concept
and activities of SHGs through nearby SHGs.
P a g e | 259
Chart 5.28 a
Classification of the respondents based on sources for knowledge
of SHGs
P a g e | 260
The table given below shows classification of the respondents based on
reasons for joining and continuing in SHGs
Table 5.29
Classification of the respondents based on reasons for joining and
continuing in SHGs
S. No. Particulars No. of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Survival 157 26.2
2 Growth 179 29.8
3 Awareness 188 31.3
4 Motive 50 8.3
5 Social Gathering 26 4.3
Source: Primary Data
The above table demonstrates that 31.3% of the respondents
have joined and continued in SHGs for awareness; 29.8% of them for
growth; 26.2% for their survival; 8.3% for motive and only 4.3% for
social gathering. Thus, the highest 31.3% of the respondents have
joined and continued in SHGs for awareness and the least number of
respondents for social gathering.
P a g e | 261
Table 5.29 a
Classification of the respondents based on reasons for joining and
continuing in SHGs
P a g e | 262
The table given below focuses the distribution of the respondents based
on their various dimensions of functions of SHGs.
Table 5.30
Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions
of functioning and working of SHGs
S.No. Particulars No. of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Conduct of Meeting
Low 383 63.8
High 217 36.2
Mean:18.37 / Median:19.00 / S.D.: 2.999 / Min.: 8 / Max.: 24
2 Record of Proceedings
Low 325 54.2
High 275 45.8
Mean:19.25 / Median:19.00 / S.D.: 3.121 / Min.: 11 / Max.: 25
3 Transparency
Low 325 54.2
High 275 45.8
Mean:19.40 / Median:20.00 / S.D.: 3.362 / Min.: 9 / Max.: 25
4 Formation and management of SHGs
Low 367 61.2
High 233 38.8
Mean:18.81 / Median:20.00 / S.D.: 3.260 / Min.: 9 / Max.: 25
5 Overall Functioning and Working of SHGs
Low 332 55.3
High 268 44.7
Mean:75.82 / Median:77.00 / S.D.: 7.727 / Min.: 53 / Max.: 89
Source: Primary Data
The above table shows that 63.8% of the respondents have a low
level of conduct of meeting and the remaining (36.2%) of the
respondents have a high level of regularity, spirit and involvement and
no absenteeism in the meeting. It is clear that 54.2% of the respondents
P a g e | 263
were in low level and remaining 45.8% of the respondents were at high
level of Documentation, recording of minutes, checking and review of
Accounts, recording of accounts as per the guidelines and in recording
of proceedings in the meeting.
With regard to transparency 54.2% of the respondents were in
low level and remaining 45.8% of the respondents were at high level of
an access to the document of the group, exercise of duties and
responsibilities, clearly understandable calculations and computation,
Exercise of duties and responsibilities, Calculations and Computation,
well explained Objectives of the SHGs and capable of answering the
questions related to SHGs. 61.2% of the respondents were in low level
and remaining 38.8% of the respondents were at high level of
knowledge on initiating the formation, procedures for formation and
regulations of SHGs, general function of SHGs and procedure for
repayment.
With regard to the distribution of the respondents and their
various dimensions of functions of SHGs are concerned, 55.3% of the
respondents are in low level and 44.7% of the respondents are in high
level. The overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 75.82;
Median score is 77.00 and Standard Deviation is 7.727. The minimum
admitted count level from the given five point scale questions is 53 and
the maximum admitted count by the respondents is 89.
P a g e | 264
Chart 5.30a
Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions
of functions of SHGs
P a g e | 265
The table given below focuses the distribution of the respondents based
on their overall expenditure incurred (other).
Table 5.31
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall expenditure
incurred (other) on other needs
S. No Particulars No. of respondents
(n=600) Percentage
(100%)
1 Low 358 59.7
2 High 242 40.3
Mean:18.24 / Median:19.00 / S.D.:3.121 / Min.:8 / Max.:25
Source: Primary Data
In relation to overall expenditure incurred (other), 59.7% of the
respondents spend low level and 40.3% of them spend higher level on
their other needs like education, entertainment, use of transport, scope
for increase in income generation in future and asset creation. The
overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 18.24; Median
score is 19.00 and standard deviation is 3.121. The minimum admitted
count level from the given five point scale questions is 8 and the
maximum admitted count by the respondents is 25.
P a g e | 266
Chart 5.31a
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall expenditure
incurred (other)
Low High
59.7%
40.3%
Classification of the respondents based on their overall expenditure incurred (other)
P a g e | 267
The table given below focuses the distribution of the respondents based
on their various dimensions of social empowerment.
Table 5.32
Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions
of social empowerment
S.No. Particulars No.of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Community participation
Low 322 53.7
High 278 46.3
Mean:7.13 / Median:7.00 / S.D.:1.663 / Min.:3 / Max.:10
2 Social Reasoning
Low 446 74.3
High 154 25.7
Mean:7.10 / Median:8.00 / S.D.:1.934 / Min.:2 / Max.:10
3 Social analysis
Low 312 52
High 288 48
Mean:7.26 / Median:7.00 / S.D.:1.745 / Min.:2 / Max.:10
4 Health and Hygienic Practice
Low 411 68.5
High 189 31.5
Mean:7.00 / Median:8.00 / S.D.:2.418 / Min.:2 / Max.:10
5 Culture and Civilization
Low 396 66
High 204 34
Mean:7.88 / Median:8.00 / S.D.:1.639 / Min.:2 / Max.:10
6 Overall social empowerment
Low 348 58
High 252 42
Mean:36.36 / Median:36.00 / S.D.:5.106 / Min.:25 / Max.:50
Source: Primary Data
The above table shows that 53.7% of the respondents have a low
level and the remaining (46.3%) of the respondents have a high level of
knowledge for community participation and the ability to move with
P a g e | 268
society. It is clear that 74.3% of the respondents were in low level and
remaining 25.7% of the respondents were at high level of social
reasoning in the view of understanding expectations and living by
reasoning.
With regard to social analysis, 52% of the respondents were in
low level and remaining 48% of the respondents were at high level of
knowledge for social analysis and Knowledge for the optimum use of
resources. From the above table, 68.5% of the respondents were in low
level and remaining 31.5% of the respondents were at high level of
knowledge on health and hygienic practices and sense of possessing
essentials for living (toilet facilities, drinking water, electricity and
drainage facilities).
In relation to culture and civilization, 66% of the respondents have
low level and 34% of them experience higher level of sense of ideal
understanding of different culture and civilization and knowledge on
culture and civilization.
With regard to the distribution of the respondents and their
various dimensions of social empowerment of SHGs, 58% of the
respondents are in low level and 42% of the respondents are in high
level. The overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 36.36;
Median score is 36.00 and Standard Deviation is 5.106. The minimum
admitted count level from the given five point scale questions is 25 and
the maximum admitted count by the respondents is 50.
P a g e | 269
Chart 5.32a
Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions
of social empowerment
53.7%
74.3%52%
68.5%66% 58%
46.3%
25.7%48%
31.5%34% 42%
Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions of social empowerment
Low High
P a g e | 270
The table given below focuses the distribution of the respondents based
on their various dimensions of awareness creation.
Table 5.33
Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions
of awareness creation
S. No
Particulars No. of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Knowledge on Schemes
Low 346 57.7
High 254 42.3
Mean:7.41/ Median:8.00 / S.D.:1.716 / Min.:2 / Max.:10
2 Knowledge on Rights and
privileges
Low 375 62.5
High 225 37.5
Mean:7.08 / Median:8.00 / S.D.:2.206 / Min.:2 / Max.:10
3 Knowledge on Development
Low 364 60.7
High 236 39.3
Mean:7.00 / Median:8.00 / S.D.:2.232 / Min.:2 / Max.:10
4 Knowledge on Employability
Low 338 56.3
High 262 43.7
Mean:7.13 / Median:8.00 / S.D.:2.296 / Min.:2 / Max.:10
5 Knowledge on integration and
survival
Low 302 50.3
High 298 49.7
Mean:7.64 / Median:8.00 / S.D.:2.069 / Min.:2 / Max.:10
6 Overall awareness creation
Low 311 51.8
High 289 48.2
Mean:36.26 / Median:39.00 / S.D.:8.728/ Min.:19/ Max.:50
Source: Primary Data
The above table shows that 57.7% of the respondents have a low
level and the remaining (42.3%) of the respondents have a high level of
P a g e | 271
Knowledge on Govt. Schemes and Knowledge on Insurance facilities. It
is clear that 62.5% of the respondents were in low level and remaining
37.5% of the respondents were at high level of Knowledge on
constitutional rights and Knowledge on civil rights.
With regard to Knowledge on Development, 60.7% of the
respondents were in low level and remaining 39.3% of the respondents
were at high level of Knowledge on political environment and knowledge
on pollution Control. From the above table, 56.3% of the respondents
were in low level and remaining 43.7% of the respondents were at high
level of knowledge on creation of reasoning power and Knowledge on
progressive thoughts.
In relation to knowledge on integration and survival, 50.3% of the
respondents have low level and 49.7% of them experience higher level
of Knowledge on social evils and Understanding the importance of
professional development.
With regard to the distribution of the respondents and their
various dimensions of awareness creation, 51.8% of the respondents
are in low level and 48.2% of the respondents are in high level. The
overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 36.26; Median
score is 39.00 and standard deviation is 8.728. The minimum admitted
count level from the given five point scale questions is 19 and the
maximum admitted count by the respondents is 50.
P a g e | 272
Chart 5.33a
Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions
of awareness creation
Knowledge on Schemes
Knowledge on Rights and privileges
Knowledge on Development
Knowledge on Employability
Knowledge on integration and survival
Overall awareness creation
57.7
62.5
60.7
56.3
50.3
51.8
42.3
37.5
39.3
43.7
49.7
48.2
Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions of awareness
creation
Low High
P a g e | 273
The table given below focuses the distribution of the respondents based
on their various dimensions of skills and competency.
Table 5.34
Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions
of skills and competency
S. No
Particulars No.of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Managerial Skills
Low 315 52.5
High 285 47.5
Mean:8.23 / Median: 8.00/ S.D.: 1.249 / Min.:4 / Max.: 10
2 Coordination and control
Low 387 64.5
High 213 35.5
Mean:8.34 / Median: 9.00 / S.D.: 1.959 / Min.:2 / Max.: 10
3 Leadership Qualities
Low 398 66.3
High 202 33.7
Mean:8.10 / Median: 9.00 / S.D.: 2.163 / Min.:2 / Max.: 10
4 Group Dynamism
Low 326 54.3
High 274 45.7
Mean:7.99 / Median: 8.00 / S.D.: 2.017 / Min.:2 / Max.: 10
5 Communication
Low 425 70.8
High 175 29.2
Mean:8.28 / Median: 9.00 / S.D.: 1.733 / Min.:2 / Max.: 10
6 Overall skills and competency
Low 330 55
High 270 45
Mean:40.94 / Median: 44.00 / S.D.: 7.439 / Min.:17 / Max.: 50
Source: Primary Data
The above table shows that 52.5% of the respondents have a low
level and the remaining (47.5%) of the respondents had a high level of
an acquisition of Managerial Skills and application of Managerial Skills.
P a g e | 274
It is clear that 64.5% of the respondents were in low level and remaining
35.5% of the respondents were at high level of effective coordination
and control and improved application of Coordination and Control.
With regard to Leadership Qualities, 66.3% of the respondents
were in low level and remaining 33.7% of the respondents were at high
level of acquired qualities like Initiation, interaction, flexibility,
adaptability, adjustability and acquired traits of good consultant. From
the above table, 54.3% of the respondents were in low level and
remaining 45.7% of the respondents were at high level of Effective
Group Interaction and decision making ability.
In relation to communication, 70.8% of the respondents have low
level and 29.2% of them experience higher level of ability to have
effective communication.
With regard to the distribution of the respondents and their
various dimensions of skills and competency, 55% of the respondents
are in low level and 45% of the respondents are in high level. The
overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 40.94%; Median
score is 44.00 and Standard Deviation is 7.439. The minimum admitted
count level from the given five point scale questions is 17 and the
maximum admitted count by the respondents is 50.
P a g e | 275
Chart 5.34a
Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions
of skills and competency
52.5%
64.5% 66.3%
54.3%
70.8%
55%
47.5%
35.5% 33.7%
45.7%
29.2%
45%
Managerial Skills Coordination and control
Leadership Qualities
Group Dynamism Communication Overall skills and competency
Distribution of the respondents based on their various dimensions of skill and competency
Low High
P a g e | 276
The table given below focuses the distribution of the respondents based
on their overall factors for the success of SHG's.
Table 5.35
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall factors for
the success of SHG's
S. No
Particulars No. of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Low 337 56.2
2 High 263 43.8
Mean:24.40 / Median: 26.00 / S.D.: 5.948 / Min.:6 / Max.: 30
Source: Primary Data
From the above table with regard to the distribution of the
respondents and overall factors for the success of SHG's, 56.2% of the
respondents are in low level and 43.8% of the respondents are in high
level of overall factors for the success of SHGs such as Good
Management and Animation skill, Proper Training and Guidelines,
Interest and Attitude, Stimulation and Encouragement, Best source of
Income and Scope to reach the greater height. The overall mean score
for both levels (High and Low) is 24.40%; Median score is 26.00 and
Standard Deviation is 5.948. The minimum admitted count level from
the given five point scale questions is 6 and the maximum admitted
count by the respondents is 30.
P a g e | 277
Chart 5.35a
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall factors for
the success of SHG's
56.2%
43.8%
Low High
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall factors for
the success of SHG's
P a g e | 278
The table given below focuses the distribution of the respondents based
on their overall external problems.
Table 5.36
Distribution of the respondents based on their
overall external problems
S. No
Particulars No. of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Low 303 50.5
2 High 297 49.5
Mean:15.78 / Median: 13.00 / S.D.: 7.589 / Min.:8 / Max.: 38
Source: Primary Data
It is crystal clear from the above table with regard to the
distribution of the respondents and their overall external problems, that
50.5% of the respondents are in low level and 49.5% of the respondents
are in high level of overall external problems faced by SHGs and its
members in getting loans such as too much of procedures, heavy
interest rates, unsuitable working hours, no proximity of banking centre,
officials not being friendly and encouraging, “Too much of margin
money”, Deferred disbursement of Loan and Incurrence of heavy
transaction cost. The overall mean score for both levels (High and Low)
is 15.78%; Median score is 13.00 and Standard Deviation is 7.589. The
minimum admitted count level from the given five point scale questions
is 8 and the maximum admitted count by the respondents is 38.
P a g e | 279
Chart 5.36a
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall
external problems
Low High
50.5%
49.5%
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall external problems
P a g e | 280
The table given below focuses the distribution of the respondents based
on their overall constraints of SHG's and its members.
Table 5.37
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall constraints
of SHG's and its members
S. No
Particulars No.of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Low 311 51.8
2 High 289 48.2
Mean:14.90 / Median: 13.00 / S.D.: 7.308 / Min.:8 / Max.: 39
Source: Primary Data
The above table reveals with regard to the distribution of the
respondents and their overall constraints of SHG's and its members,
that 51.8% of the respondents are in low level and 48.2% of the
respondents are in high level of overall constraints of SHG's and its
members in getting loans such as lack of co-operation and co-
ordination, insufficient documentation, low operating skills, less
understanding of regulations, ignorance, unfamiliarity of banking habits,
communication problem and lack of leadership qualities . The overall
mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 14.90; Median score is
13.00 and Standard Deviation is 7.308. The minimum admitted count
level from the given five point scale questions is 8 and the maximum
admitted count by the respondents is 39.
P a g e | 281
Chart 5.37a
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall constraints
of SHG's and its members
Low51.8%
High48.2%
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall constraints of SHG's and its
members
P a g e | 282
The table given below focuses the distribution of the respondents based
on their overall causes for delayed repayment of loans.
Table 5.38
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall causes for
delayed repayment of loans
S. No
Particulars No.of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Low 343 57.2
2 High 257 42.8
Mean:9.48 / Median: 8.00 / S.D.: 5.075 / Min.:5 / Max.: 25
Source: Primary Data
The above table demonstrates with regard to the distribution of
the respondents and their overall causes for delayed repayment of
loans, that 57.2% of the respondents are in low level and 42.8% of the
respondents are in high level of overall causes for delayed repayment of
loans such as delayed collection from members, low level of
marketability, lethargy, improper utilization of funds and not adhering to
the purpose of loan.
The overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 9.48.
Median score is 8.00 and Standard Deviation is 5.075. The minimum
admitted count level from the given five point scale questions is 5 and
the maximum admitted count by the respondents is 25.
P a g e | 283
Chart 5.38a
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall causes for
delayed repayment of loans
57.2%
42.8%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Low
High
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall causes for delayed repayment
of loans
P a g e | 284
The table given below focuses the distribution of the respondents based
on the overall assistance received from NGOs / Mathi office.
Table 5.39
Distribution of the respondents based on the overall assistance
received from NGOs / Mathi office
S. No
Particulars No. of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Low 328 54.7
2 High 272 45.3
Mean:40.16 / Median: 44.00 / S.D.: 11.348 / Min.:10 / Max.: 50
Source: Primary Data
It is clear from the above table with regard to the distribution of
the respondents and their overall assistance received from NGOs /
MATHI office, that 54.7% of the respondents are in low level and 45.3%
of the respondents are in high level of overall assistance received from
NGOs / MATHI office such as initiation, mediation, training, assistance
in getting Loan, encouragement and support. The overall mean score
for both levels (High and Low) is 40.16. Median score is 44.00 and
Standard Deviation is 11.348. The minimum admitted count level from
the given five point scale questions is 10 and the maximum admitted
count by the respondents is 50.
P a g e | 285
Chart 5.39a
Distribution of the respondents based on the overall assistance
received from NGOs / Mathi office
Low54.7%
High45.3%
0%
0%
Classification of the respondents based on their overall assistance received
from NGOs / Mathi office
P a g e | 286
The table given below focuses the distribution of the respondents based
on their overall opinion on services of the banks.
Table 5.40
Distribution of the respondents based on their overall opinion on
services of the banks
S .No
Particulars No.of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Low 353 58.8
2 High 247 41.2
Mean:20.14 / Median: 22.00 / S.D.: 5.639 / Min.:5 / Max.: 25
Source: Primary Data
It reveals from the above table with regard to the distribution of
the respondents and overall opinion on services of the banks, that
58.8% of the respondents are in low level and 41.2% of the respondents
are in high level of overall opinion on services of the banks such as
adequacy of loan, timeliness, days taken for sanctioning, flexibility and
Duration for repayment.
The overall mean score for both levels (High and Low) is 20.14,
Median score is 22.00 and Standard Deviation is 5.639. The minimum
admitted count level from the given five point scale questions is 5 and
the maximum admitted count by the respondents is 25.
P a g e | 287
Table 5.41
Distribution of the respondents based on their activities involved
in SHGs
S. No
Particulars No. of
respondents (n=600)
Percentage (100%)
1 Embroidering 158 26.3
2 Fish Vendor 114 19
3 Confectionary(Snacks) 19 3.2
4 Masaala Preparation and Sales
20 3.3
5 Consignment of saree sales 12 2
6 Jute basket spinning 26 4.3
7 Fruits Vendor 29 4.8
8 Share Auto Business 4 .7
9 Waste paper Mart 6 1
10 Juice Centre 10 1.7
11 Iron scrap collection and sales 4 .7
12 Cane water sales 20 3.3
13 Napkin Making and Sales 9 1.5
14 Bamboo Basket Making 11 1.8
15 Painting 14 2.3
16 Centering Work 45 7.5
17 Flower Vendor 53 8.8
18 Vegetable Vendors 35 5.8
19 Creches 5 .8
20 Others 6 1
Source: Primary Data
The table demonstrates that the respondents are doing various
nature of the trade activities like Embroidering, Fish Vendor,
Confectionary (Snacks), Masala Preparation and Sales, Consignment of
saree sales, Jute basket spinning, Fruits Vendor, Share Auto Business,
Waste paper Mart, Juice Centre, Iron scrap collection and sales, Cane
P a g e | 288
water sales, Napkin Making and Sales, Bamboo Basket Making,
Painting, Centering Work and Flower Vendor.
It is clear that out of the total number of respondents, 26.3 per
cent of the respondents are of the Embroidering nature of trade activity;
19 per cent of the respondents doing as Fish Vendors, 8.8 per cent of
the respondents doing flower vending business, 7.5 per cent of the
respondents doing centring work, 5.8 percent of the respondents doing
vegetable vending, 4.8 per cent doing fruits vending, 4.3 per cent doing
jute basket spinning, 3.3 per cent doing cane water business and
masala preparation and sales, 3.2 per cent doing confectionary
(snacks) sales, 2.3 per cent doing painting work, 2 per cent doing
consignment of sari sales, 1.8 per cent Bamboo Basket Making
business, 1.7 per cent doing Juice Centre, 1.5 doing Napkin Making and
Sales, 1 per cent of the respondents doing very rare trade activities like
Waste paper Mart and others , 0.8 per cent running the crèches and
only 0.7 per cent doing Iron scrap collection and sales and Share Auto
Business.
P a g e | 289
Chart 5.41a
Distribution of the respondents based on their activities involved in
SHGs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Emb
roid
eri
ng
Fish
Ve
nd
or
Co
nfe
ctio
nar
y(Sn
acks
)
Mas
ala
Pre
par
atio
n a
nd
Sal
es
Co
nsi
gnm
en
t o
f sa
ree
sal
es
Jute
bas
ket
spin
nin
g
Fru
its
Ve
nd
or
Shar
e A
uto
Bu
sin
ess
Was
te p
ape
r M
art
Juic
e C
en
tre
Iro
n s
crap
co
llect
ion
an
d s
ale
s
Can
e w
ate
r sa
les
Nap
kin
Mak
ing
and
Sal
es
Bam
bo
o B
aske
t M
akin
g
Pai
nti
ng
Ce
nte
rin
g W
ork
Flo
we
r V
en
do
r
Ve
geta
ble
Ve
nd
ors
Cre
che
s
oth
ers
26.3
19
3.2 3.3 24.3 4.8
0.7 1 1.7 0.73.3
1.5 1.8 2.3
7.5 8.85.8
0.8 1
P a g e | 290
TEST OF HYPOTHESES
In this section, the hypotheses formulated are verified and tested
using the various statistical techniques and inferences are drawn based
on results.
One-way ANOVA TEST
The hypothesis given below is tested using One Way ANOVA test.
Hypothesis – 1
Research Hypothesis
H1: There is significant difference between educational qualification of
the respondents and their overall functioning and working of SHGs.
Null Hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between educational qualification
of the respondents and their overall functioning and working of SHGs.
Table 5.42
One-way ANOVA difference between Educational qualification of
the respondents and Overall Functioning and Working of SHGs
S.No Educational Qualification
Mean S.D SS Df MS Statistical inference
1 Conduct of Meeting F = 2.933 P > 0.05
Not Significant
Between Groups
104.187 4 26.047
G1(n=155) 18.27 3.155
G2(n=234) 18.37 2.952
G3(n=171) 18.58 2.841
G4(n=27) 18.89 2.044
G5(n=13) 15.77 4.475
Within Groups
5283.932 595 8.881
P a g e | 291
2 Record of Proceedings
F = .814 P > 0.05
Not Significant
Between Groups
31.759 4 7.940
G1(n=155) 19.00 2.810
G2(n=234) 19.40 3.193
G3(n=171) 19.40 3.026
G4(n=27) 18.89 3.826
G5(n=13) 18.38 4.770
Within Groups
5802.741 595 9.753
3 Transparency
F = .589 P > 0.05
Not Significant
Between Groups
26.711 4 6.678
G1(n=155) 19.32 3.417
G2(n=234) 19.63 3.301
G3(n=171) 19.18 3.353
G4(n=27) 19.00 3.340
G5(n=13) 19.69 4.151
Within Groups
6744.674 595 11.336
4 Formation and management of SHGs
F = .816 P > 0.05
Not Significant
Between Groups
34.723 4 8.681
G1(n=155) 18.56 3.428
G2(n=234) 18.87 3.129
G3(n=171) 19.05 3.212
G4(n=27) 18.07 3.980
G5(n=13) 18.92 2.465
Within Groups
6329.462 595 10.638
5 Overall Functioning and Working of SHGs
F = 1.201 P > 0.05
Not Significant
Between Groups
286.510 4 71.628
G1(n=155) 75.15 7.525
G2(n=234) 76.26 7.416
G3(n=171) 76.20 7.733
G4(n=27) 74.85 9.646
G5(n=13) 72.77 10.639
Within Groups
35477.408 595 59.626
G1 = Illiterate/ G2 = Primary / G3 = High school / G4 = Hsc/ G5 = Graduate
P a g e | 292
P = .020/ .516 / .671 / .515 / .309 Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level Inference The calculated value is F = 1.201 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated
value is greater than table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is
rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant difference between
educational qualification of the respondents and their overall functioning
and working of SHGs. It is further inferred that respondents have to
have proper educational facilities which would improve their overall
functioning and working of SHGs.
P a g e | 293
Chi - Square Test
The hypothesis given below is tested using Chi – Square test.
Hypothesis – 2
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant association between activity of the respondents
and their reasons for joining and continuing in SHGs.
Null hypothesis
Ho: There is no significant association between activity of the
respondents and their reasons for joining and continuing in SHGs.
Table 5.43
Association between activity of the respondents and their reasons
for joining and continuing in SHGs.
S.No Activity
Reasons for Joining and continuing in SHGs
Statistical
inference Survival
(n=157)
Growth
(n=179)
Awareness
(n=188)
Motive
(n=50)
social
gather
(n=26)
1 Embroidering 52(33.1%) 41(22.9%) 42(22.3%) 13(26%) 10(38.5%)
X2=149.658
Df = 76
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
2 Fish Vendor 26(16.6%) 48(26.8%) 29(15.4%) 9(18%) 2(7.7%)
3 Confectionary(Snacks) 2(1.3%) 8(4.5%) 5(2.7%) 3(6%) 1(3.8%)
4 Masala Preparation
and Sales 4(2.5%) 0 16(8.5%) 0 0
5 Consignment of saree
sales 4(2.5%) 4(2.2%) 3(1.6%) 1(2%) 0
6 Jute basket spinning 8(5.1%) 3(1.7%) 12(6.4%) 2(4%) 1(3.8%)
7 Fruits Vendor 11(7%) 7(3.9%) 7(3.7%) 2(4%) 2(7.7%)
8 Share Auto Business 1(.6%) 3(1.7%) 0 0 0
P a g e | 294
9 Waste paper Mart 1(.6%) 1(.6%) 2(1.1%) 2(4%) 0
10 Juice Centre 4(2.5%) 2(1.1%) 0 2(4%) 2(7.7%)
11 Iron scrap collection
and sales 1(.6%) 1(.6%) 1(.5%) 1(2%) 0
12 Cane water sales 2(1.3%) 1(.6%) 14(7.4%) 1(2%) 2(7.7%)
13 Napkin Making and
Sales 1(.6%) 1(.6%) 6(3.2%) 1(2%) 0
14 Bamboo Basket
Making 2(1.3%) 0 8(4.3%) 0 1(3.8%)
15 Painting 0 3(1.7%) 9(4.8%) 1(2%) 1(3.8%)
16 Centering Work 10(6.4%) 19(10.6%) 14(7.4%) 2(4%) 0
17 Flower Vendor 20(12.7%) 23(12.8%) 6(3.2%) 2(4%) 2(7.7%)
18 Vegetable Vendors 7(4.5%) 9(5%) 12(6.4%) 5(10%) 2(7.7%)
19 Creches 1(.6%) 2(1.1%) 1(.5%) 1(2%) 0
20 Others 0 3(1.7%) 1(.5%) 2(4%) 0
Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level
Inference
The calculated value X2=149.658 and (P > 0.05) shows no significance
in all levels. Hence, the calculated value is greater than the table value.
Therefore, the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is
accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significance association
between activity of the respondents and their reasons for joining and
continuing in SHGs. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table
value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is
accepted.
P a g e | 295
Hypothesis – 3
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant association between age of the respondents
and their reasons for joining and continuing in SHGs.
Null hypothesis
Ho: There is no significant association between age of the respondents
and their reasons for joining and continuing in SHGs.
Table 5.44
Association between Age of the respondents and their Reasons for
Joining and continuing in SHGs.
S.No
Reasons
for
Joining
and
continuing
in SHGs
Age
Statistical
inference
Below
30yrs
(n=196)
31 to
40yrs
(n=210)
41 to
50yrs
(n=146)
51yrs &
above
(n=48)
1 Survival 56(28.6%) 48(22.9%) 32(21.9%) 21(43.8%) X2=23.063
Df = 12
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
2 Growth 59(30.1%) 71(33.8%) 34(23.3%) 15(31.3%)
3 awareness 57(29.1%) 66(31.4%) 54(37%) 11(22.9%)
4 motive 18(9.2%) 16(7.6%) 16(11%) 0
5 social
gathering 6(3.1%) 9(4.3%) 10(6.8%) 1(2.1%)
Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level
P a g e | 296
Inference
The calculated value X2 =23.063 and (P > 0.05) shows no significance
in all levels. Hence, the calculated value is greater than the table value.
Therefore, the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is
accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant association
between age of the respondents and their reasons for joining and
continuing in SHGs. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table
value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is
accepted.
Hypothesis – 4
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant association between education of the
respondents and their reasons for joining and continuing in SHG.
Null hypothesis
There is no significant association between education of the
respondents and their reasons for joining and continuing in SHG.
P a g e | 297
Table 5.45
Association between Education of the respondents and their Reasons
for joining and continuing in SHG.
S.No
Reasons for joining
and continuing in SHG
Educational Level
Statistical inference
Illiterate (n=155)
Primary (n=234)
High School (n=171)
Hsc (n=27)
Graduate (n=13)
1 Survival 36
(23.2%) 70
(70%) 42
(24.6%) 6
(22.2%) 3
(23.1%)
X2=17.063 Df = 16 P > 0.05
Not Significant
2 Growth 51
(32.9%) 64
(27.4%) 46
(26.9%) 11
(40.7%) 7
(53.8%)
3 awareness 44
(28.4%) 75
(32.1%) 59
(34.5%) 8
(29.6%) 2
(15.4%)
4 Motive 12
(7.7%) 19
(8.1%) 17
(9.9%) 1
(3.7%) 1
(7.7%)
5 Social gathering
12 (7.7%)
6 (2.6%)
7 (4.1%)
1 (3.7%)
0
Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level
Inference
The calculated value X2 =17.063 and (P > 0.05) shows no
significance in all levels. Hence, the calculated value is greater than the
table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is rejected and the null
hypothesis is accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant association
between education of the respondents and their reasons for joining and
continuing in SHG. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table
value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is
accepted.
P a g e | 298
One Way ANOVA TEST
The hypothesis given below is tested using One Way ANOVA test.
Hypothesis – 5
Research Hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between age of the respondents
and their overall factors for the success of SHG's.
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between age of the respondents
and their overall factors for the success of SHG's.
Table 5.46
Oneway Anova difference between Age wise of the respondents
and Overall factors for the success of SHG's.
S.No
Overall
factors for
the success
of SHG's
Mean S.D SS Df MS Statistical
inference
1 Between
Groups 72.666 3 24.222
F = .683
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
G1(n=196) 24.41 6.049
G2(n=210) 24.63 5.664
G3(n=146) 23.86 6.595
G4(n=48) 25.02 4.555
Within Groups 21121.334 596 35.438
G1= Below 30yrs/ G2 = 31 to 40yrs/ G3 = 41 to 50yrs/ G4 = 51yrs & above P = .562
Source: computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level
P a g e | 299
Inference
The calculated value is F = .683 and (P<0.05). Hence, the
calculated value is greater than the table value. Therefore, the research
hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant difference between
the age of the respondents and their Overall factors for the success of
SHG's. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table value. So the
research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.
Chi - Square Test
The hypothesis given below is tested using Chi – Square test.
Hypothesis – 6
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant association between the age of the
respondents and their overall skills and competency of SHGs.
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant association between the age of the
respondents and their overall skills and competency of SHGs.
P a g e | 300
Table 5.47
Association between the age of the respondents and their overall
skills and competency of SHGs.
S.No. Skills and
Competency
Age
Statistical
Inference
Below
30yrs
(n=196)
31 to
40yrs
(n=210)
41 to
50yrs
(n=146)
51yrs &
above
(n=48)
1 Managerial Skills X2=3.675
Df = 3
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Low 101(51.5%) 106(50.5%) 86(58.9%) 22(45.8%)
High 95(48.5%) 104(49.5%) 60(41.1%) 26(54.2%)
2 Coordination and control X2=.859
Df = 3
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Low 125(63.8%) 138(65.7%) 91(62.3%) 33(68.8%)
High 71(36.2%) 72(34.3%) 55(37.7%) 15(31.3%)
3 Leadership Qualities X2=.981
Df = 3
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Low 132(67.3%) 139(66.2%) 93(63.7%) 34(70.8%)
High 64(32.7%) 71(33.8%) 53(36.3%) 14(29.2%)
4 Group Dynamism X2=1.944
Df = 3
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Low 103(52.6%) 119(56.7%) 75(51.4%) 29(60.4%)
High 93(47.4%) 91(43.3%) 71(48.6%) 19(39.6%)
5 Communication X2=5.974
Df = 3
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Low 141(71.9%) 158(75.2%) 97(66.4%) 29(60.4%)
High 55(28.1%) 52(24.8%) 49(33.6%) 19(39.6%)
P a g e | 301
6 Overall skills and competency X2=1.073
Df = 3
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Low 106(54.1%) 112(53.3%) 83(56.8%) 29(60.4%)
High 90(45.9%) 98(46.7%) 63(43.2%) 19(39.6%)
Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level
Inference
The calculated value X2=1.073 and (P > 0.05) shows no significance in
all the level of results. Hence, the calculated value is greater than the
table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is rejected and the null
hypothesis is accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant association between
the age of the respondents and their overall skills and competency of
SHGs. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table value. So the
research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.
Inter – Correlation Matrix Test
The hypothesis given below is tested using Inter – Correlation Matrix test.
Hypothesis – 7
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between skills and competency
factors of the SHGs - Communication and Group Dynamism.
P a g e | 302
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between skills and competency
factors of the SHGs - Communication and Group Dynamism.
Table 5.48
Inter Correlation matrix for the skills and competency of the
Respondents
Skills and
Competency
Manage
Skills
Coord -
and
control
Leadership
Qualities
Group
Dynamism Communi
Overall
skills and
competency
Managerial Skills 1 .283(**) .183(**) .115(**) .159(**) .364(**)
Coordination and
control .283(**) 1 .849(**) .730(**) .720(**) .924(**)
Leadership
Qualities .183(**) .849(**) 1 .710(**) .688(**) .898(**)
Group Dynamism .115(**) .730(**) .710(**) 1 .763(**) .867(**)
Communication .159(**) .720(**) .688(**) .763(**) 1 .856(**)
Overall skills and
Competency .364(**) .924(**) .898(**) .867(**) .856(**) 1
N 600 600 600 600 600 600
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Inference
S. No Group Dynamism Correlation value Statis. Inference
1 Communication .763(**) P < 0.01 significant
The calculated value is .763(**) and (P<0.01). Hence, the
calculated value is less than the table value. Therefore null hypothesis
is rejected and the research hypothesis is accepted.
Findings
It is apparent that, the level of significance is between the factors
of Overall skills and competency. It is further inferred that Managerial
P a g e | 303
Skills, Coordination and control, Leadership Qualities, Group
Dynamism, and Communication are strongly significant in the overall
skills and competency of the SHG members and they have strong
relationship with each other variables and are closely interrelated
among the all other variables significantly at 0.01 level (2-tailed).
KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST
The hypothesis given below is tested using Kruskal-Wallis Test.
Hypothesis – 8
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between no. of loan borrowed by the
respondents and their overall functioning and working of the SHG’s.
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between no. of loan borrowed by
the respondents and their overall functioning and working of the SHG’s.
Table 5.49
Kruskal-Wallis Test difference between no. of loan borrowed by the
respondents and their overall functioning and working of the SHG’s
Loan borrowed N Mean Rank
Conduct of Meeting
One 323 307.21
Two 146 268.86
Three 56 291.46
Four 49 342.15
More than four 26 335.81
P a g e | 304
Record of Proceedings
One 323 307.00
Two 146 271.75
Three 56 296.90
Four 49 345.43
More than four 26 304.29
Transparency
One 323 287.83
Two 146 332.48
Three 56 294.27
Four 49 272.11
More than four 26 345.21
Formation and management of SHGs
One 323 290.61
Two 146 289.99
Three 56 328.21
Four 49 316.61
More than four 26 392.38
Overall Functioning and Working of
SHGs
One 323 297.76
Two 146 284.15
Three 56 292.16
Four 49 337.09
More than four 26 375.35
P a g e | 305
Test Statistics (a,b)
Conduct of
Meeting
Record of Proceedings
Transparency
Formation and
management of SHGs
Overall Functioning
and Working of
SHGs
Chi-Square
9.547 7.910 9.950 10.997 8.571
Df 4 4 4 4 4
Asymp. Sig.
.049 .095 .041 .027 .073
a Kruskal Wallis Test
b Grouping Variable: loan borrowed
Findings
The above table shows that there is a significant difference
between no. of loan borrowed by the respondents and their overall
functioning and working of the SHG’s. Hence, the calculated value is
less than table value. So the research hypothesis is accepted and the
null hypothesis is rejected.
One-way ANOVA
The hypothesis given below is tested using One-way ANOVA test.
Hypothesis – 9
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between Nature of the group
Activities of the respondents and Overall Functioning and Working of
SHGs.
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between Nature of the group
Activities of the respondents and Overall Functioning and Working of
SHGs.
P a g e | 306
Table 5.50
One-way ANOVA difference between Nature of the group Activities
of the respondents and Overall Functioning and Working of SHGs.
S.No. Variables Mean S.D SS Df MS
Statistical
inference
1 Conduct of Meeting
Between Groups 492.955 19 25.945
F = 3.074
P < 0.05
Significant
G1(n=158) 17.91 3.309
G2(n=114) 18.06 3.199
G3(n=19) 18.11 2.580
G4(n=20) 20.85 1.785
G5(n=12) 19.75 1.865
G6(n=26) 18.15 2.738
G7(n=29) 18.62 2.624
G8(n=4) 18.50 2.082
G9(n=6) 20.17 2.137
G10(n=10) 17.20 3.190
G11(n=4) 17.25 3.948
G12(n=20) 19.95 1.504
G13(n=9) 20.78 1.856
G14(n=11) 18.73 3.003
G15(n=14) 19.93 2.336
G16(n=45) 18.33 2.532
G17(n=53) 17.09 3.260
G18(n=35) 19.23 2.030
G19(n=5) 19.40 2.302
G20(n=6) 19.33 1.966
Within Groups 4895.164 580 8.440
P a g e | 307
Record of Proceedings
F = 1.733
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Between Groups 313.374 19 16.493
G1(n=158) 18.44 3.135
G2(n=114) 19.36 3.278
G3(n=19) 19.84 2.478
G4(n=20) 19.10 2.245
G5(n=12) 19.67 4.008
G6(n=26) 19.88 2.503
G7(n=29) 19.86 3.170
G8(n=4) 17.50 4.203
G9(n=6) 19.50 3.937
G10(n=10) 18.80 2.440
G11(n=4) 19.25 .957
G12(n=20) 20.75 3.210
G13(n=9) 21.44 3.245
G14(n=11) 21.00 2.608
G15(n=14) 20.07 2.200
G16(n=45) 19.16 3.191
G17(n=53) 18.91 3.564
G18(n=35) 19.46 2.214
G19(n=5) 19.60 3.362
G20(n=6) 21.17 2.229
Within Groups 5521.126 580 9.519
Transparency F = 1.006
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Between Groups 216.105 19 11.374
G1(n=158) 19.40 3.491
G2(n=114) 19.66 3.120
G3(n=19) 19.68 3.215
G4(n=20) 19.50 2.724
G5(n=12) 20.42 4.400
P a g e | 308
G6(n=26) 19.42 2.701
G7(n=29) 19.14 3.777
G8(n=4) 19.75 4.573
G9(n=6) 17.83 2.639
G10(n=10) 20.00 3.232
G11(n=4) 19.50 2.887
G12(n=20) 17.65 2.059
G13(n=9) 17.56 2.555
G14(n=11) 20.27 2.195
G15(n=14) 18.00 2.909
G16(n=45) 19.27 3.440
G17(n=53) 19.51 4.379
G18(n=35) 19.31 3.270
G19(n=5) 21.80 .837
G20(n=6) 21.00 2.366
Within Groups 6555.280 580 11.302
Formation and management of SHGs
F = 1.243
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Between Groups 249.032 19 13.107
G1(n=158) 18.81 3.279
G2(n=114) 18.17 3.065
G3(n=19) 19.11 3.928
G4(n=20) 20.85 1.348
G5(n=12) 19.42 2.644
G6(n=26) 19.62 3.238
G7(n=29) 18.48 3.334
G8(n=4) 20.00 .816
G9(n=6) 16.83 3.312
G10(n=10) 17.80 4.417
G11(n=4) 19.25 2.754
G12(n=20) 18.70 3.045
P a g e | 309
G13(n=9) 18.00 3.000
G14(n=11) 20.09 1.868
G15(n=14) 19.21 2.190
G16(n=45) 18.47 4.398
G17(n=53) 18.83 3.657
G18(n=35) 19.49 2.306
G19(n=5) 18.20 2.864
G20(n=6) 19.50 2.881
Within Groups 6115.153 580 10.543
Overall Functioning and Working of SHGs
F = 1.505
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Between Groups 1680.526 19 88.449
G1(n=158) 74.56 8.153
G2(n=114) 75.25 7.563
G3(n=19) 76.74 7.248
G4(n=20) 80.30 2.638
G5(n=12) 79.25 8.313
G6(n=26) 77.08 6.675
G7(n=29) 76.10 7.862
G8(n=4) 75.75 9.845
G9(n=6) 74.33 5.465
G10(n=10) 73.80 9.636
G11(n=4) 75.25 2.872
G12(n=20) 77.05 5.624
G13(n=9) 77.78 7.172
G14(n=11) 80.09 3.885
G15(n=14) 77.21 4.758
G16(n=45) 75.22 8.166
G17(n=53) 74.34 10.130
G18(n=35) 77.49 5.982
G19(n=5) 79.00 5.148
P a g e | 310
G20(n=6) 81.00 5.477
Within Groups 34083.393 580 58.764
P = .000 / .028 / .451 / .217 / .077
G1 = Embroidering/ G2 = Fish Vendor / G3 = Confectionary(Snacks) / G4 =
Masala / Preparation and Sales/ G5 = Consignment of saree sales / G6 = Jute
basket spinning/ G7 = Fruits Vendor / G8 = Share Auto Business / G9 = Waste
paper Mart / G10 = Juice Centre / G11=Iron scrap collection and sales /
G12=Cane water sales/ G13=Napkin Making and Sales / G14=Bamboo Basket
Making / G15=Painting/ G16=Centering Work/ G17=Flower Vendor/
G18=Vegetable Vendors/ G19=Creches/ G20=others
Inference The calculated value is F = 1.505 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated
value is greater than table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is
rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant difference between
Nature of the group activities of the respondents and Overall
Functioning and Working of SHGs. Hence, the calculated value is
greater than table value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the
null hypothesis is accepted.
Hypothesis – 10
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between the Nature of the group
Activities of the respondents and Overall External Problems.
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between the Nature of the group
Activities of the respondents and Overall External Problems.
P a g e | 311
Table 5.51
One-way ANOVA difference between Nature of the group Activities
of the respondents and Overall External Problems.
S.No Variables Mean S.D SS Df MS
Statistical
inference
1 Overall External Problems
Between Groups 2304.726 19 121.301
F = 2.185
P < 0.05
Significant
G1(n=158) 16.64 7.708
G2(n=114) 15.03 6.949
G3(n=19) 19.42 9.365
G4(n=20) 9.55 2.946
G5(n=12) 14.17 3.298
G6(n=26) 14.35 7.059
G7(n=29) 16.24 7.661
G8(n=4) 16.75 3.862
G9(n=6) 23.50 12.973
G10(n=10) 16.40 8.383
G11(n=4) 19.25 12.420
G12(n=20) 13.95 10.195
G13(n=9) 12.22 9.497
G14(n=11) 14.00 7.603
G15(n=14) 14.86 8.411
G16(n=45) 16.13 6.469
G17(n=53) 15.32 4.441
G18(n=35) 16.63 8.499
G19(n=5) 21.00 11.874
G20(n=6) 21.33 10.912
Within Groups 32195.673 580 55.510
P = .003
P a g e | 312
G1 = Embroidering/ G2 = Fish Vendor / G3 = Confectionary(Snacks) / G4 =
Masala / Preparation and Sales/ G5 = Consignment of saree sales / G6 = Jute
basket spinning/ G7 = Fruits Vendor / G8 = Share Auto Business / G9 = Waste
paper Mart / G10 = Juice Centre / G11=Iron scrap collection and sales /
G12=Cane water sales/ G13=Napkin Making and Sales / G14=Bamboo Basket
Making / G15=Painting/ G16=Centering Work/ G17=Flower Vendor/
G18=Vegetable Vendors/ G19=Creches/ G20=others
Inference
The calculated value is F = 2.185 and P > 0.05. Hence, the
calculated value is less than table value. Therefore, the research
hypothesis is accepted and the null hypothesis is rejected.
Findings
The above table shows that there is a significant difference
between the Nature of the group Activities of the respondents and the
Overall External Problems. Hence, the calculated value is lesser than
table value. So the research hypothesis is accepted and the null
hypothesis is rejected.
TEST OF OTHER HYPOTHESES
T’ test
The hypothesis given below is tested using T’ test.
Hypothesis – 11
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between the Type of ownership and
their Overall External Problems of SHG's.
P a g e | 313
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between the Type of ownership
and their Overall External Problems of SHG's.
Table 5.52
Difference between Type of ownership and their Overall External
Problems of SHG's.
Overall External Problems Mean S.D Statistical
inference
Proprietors (n=127) 27.20 6.383 T = 30.485
P < 0.05
Significant Partners (n=473) 12.72 4.212
P = .000
Inference
The calculated value of student ‘t’ test shows significant difference in the
results. Hence, the calculated value is less than the table value.
Therefore, the research hypothesis is accepted and the null hypothesis
is rejected.
Findings
The above table shows that there is a significant difference between the
Type of ownership and their Overall External Problems of SHG's.
Hence, the calculated value is lesser than table value. So the research
hypothesis is accepted and the null hypothesis is rejected.
P a g e | 314
Chi - Square Test
The hypothesis given below is tested using Chi – Square test.
Hypothesis – 12
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant association between the age of the
respondents and their Overall External Problems in Getting Loans of
SHG's.
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant association between the age of the
respondents and their Overall External Problems in Getting Loans of
SHG's.
Table 5.53
Association between the age of the respondents and their Overall
External Problems in Getting Loans of SHG's.
S.No.
External Problems
in Getting Loans
Age Statistical Inference
1 Overall External
Problems
Below 30yrs
(n=196)
31 to 40yrs (n=210)
41 to 50yrs
(n=146)
51yrs & above (n=48)
Low 103
(52.6%) 104
(49.5%) 68
(46.6%)
28 (58.3%)
X2=2.488 Df = 3
P > 0.05 Not
Significant
High 93
(47.4%) 106
(50.5%) 78
(53.4%) 20
(41.7%)
Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level
P a g e | 315
Inference
The calculated value X2=2.488 and (P > 0.05) shows no significance in
all levels. Hence, the calculated value is greater than the table value.
Therefore, the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is
accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant association between
the age of the respondents and their Overall External Problems in
Getting Loans of SHG's. Hence, the calculated value is greater than
table value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the null
hypothesis is accepted.
One Way ANOVA TEST
The hypothesis given below is tested using One Way ANOVA test.
Hypothesis – 13
Research Hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between the educational
qualification of the respondents and their overall social empowerment.
Null Hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between the educational
qualification of the respondents and their overall social empowerment.
P a g e | 316
Table 5.54
One-way ANOVA difference between the educational qualification
of the respondents and their overall social empowerment.
S.No Community participation
Mean S.D SS Df MS Statistical inference
Between Groups
4.007 4 1.002
F = .361 P > 0.05 Not Significant
G1(n=155) 7.00 1.721
G2(n=234) 7.17 1.650
G3(n=171) 7.20 1.612
G4(n=27) 7.07 1.639
G5(n=13) 7.08 2.060
Within Groups 1653.111 595 2.778
Social Reasoning
F = .712 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups
10.666 4 2.667
G1(n=155) 6.94 2.004
G2(n=234) 7.10 1.989
G3(n=171) 7.18 1.813
G4(n=27) 7.11 1.908
G5(n=13) 7.77 1.739
Within Groups 2229.727 595 3.747
Social analysis
F = .485 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups
5.926 4 1.481
G1(n=155) 7.32 1.747
G2(n=234) 7.29 1.738
G3(n=171) 7.25 1.690
G4(n=27) 7.07 1.730
G5(n=13) 6.69 2.594
Within Groups 1817.993 595 3.055
Health and Hygienic Practice
F = 1.752 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups
40.786 4 10.196
G1(n=155) 7.29 2.307
G2(n=234) 7.04 2.389
G3(n=171) 6.68 2.479
G4(n=27) 6.56 2.665
G5(n=13) 7.62 2.631
Within Groups 3462.199 595 5.819
P a g e | 317
Culture and Civilization
F = 2.618 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups
27.841 4 6.960
G1(n=155) 8.07 1.612
G2(n=234) 7.91 1.633
G3(n=171) 7.58 1.619
G4(n=27) 7.93 1.900
G5(n=13) 8.62 1.325
Within Groups 1581.784 595 2.658
Overall social empowerment
F = .855 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups
89.296 4 22.324
G1(n=155) 36.63 5.365
G2(n=234) 36.51 5.112
G3(n=171) 35.89 4.779
G4(n=27) 35.74 4.629
G5(n=13) 37.77 6.870
Within Groups 15526.378 595 26.095 G1 = Illiterate/ G2 = Primary / G3 = High school / G4 = Hsc/ G5 = Graduate
P = .837 / .584 / .747 / .137 / .034 / .490
Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level
Inference The calculated value is F = .855 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated
value is greater than table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is
rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant difference between
the educational qualification of the respondents and their overall social
empowerment. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table value.
So the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is
accepted.
P a g e | 318
One-way ANOVA
Hypothesis – 14
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between the Educational
qualification of the respondents and their Overall External Problems.
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between the Educational
qualification of the respondents and their Overall External Problems.
Table 5.55
One-way ANOVA difference between the Educational qualification
of the respondents and Overall External Problems.
S.No Overall External Problems
Mean S.D SS Df MS Statistical inference
Between Groups
263.304 4 65.826
F = 1.144 P > 0.05 Not Significant
G1(n=155) 15.61 7.531
G2(n=234) 15.13 7.361
G3(n=171) 16.68 7.998
G4(n=27) 16.63 7.938
G5(n=13) 15.92 5.515
Within Groups
34237.095 595 57.541
G1 = Illiterate/ G2 = Primary / G3 = High school / G4 = Hsc/ G5 =
Graduate P = .335
Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level
P a g e | 319
Inference The calculated value is F = 1.144 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated
value is greater than table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is
rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant difference between
the Educational qualification of the respondents and their Overall
External Problems. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table
value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is
accepted.
Hypothesis – 15
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between the Educational
qualification of the respondents and the Overall assistance received
from NGOs / Mathi office.
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between Educational qualification
of the respondents and their Overall assistance received from NGOs /
Mathi office.
P a g e | 320
Table 5.56
One-way ANOVA difference between Educational qualification of
the respondents and the Overall assistance received from NGOs /
Mathi office.
S.No
Overall assistance received from NGOs / Mathi office
Mean S.D SS Df MS Statistical inference
Between Groups
344.054 4 86.014
F = .666 P > 0.05 Not Significant
G1(n=155) 40.08 11.568
G2(n=234) 40.89 11.099
G3(n=171) 39.11 11.748
G4(n=27) 40.07 11.685
G5(n=13) 41.69 6.263
Within Groups
76796.531 595 129.070
G1 = Illiterate/ G2 = Primary / G3 = High school / G4 = Hsc/ G5 = Graduate
P = .616
Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level
Inference The calculated value is F = .666 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated
value is greater than table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is
rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant difference between
the Educational qualification of the respondents and their Overall
assistance received from NGOs / Mathi office. Hence, the calculated
value is greater than table value. So the research hypothesis is rejected
and the null hypothesis is accepted.
P a g e | 321
Hypothesis – 16
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between the Monthly Income of the
family of the respondents and the Overall Functioning and Working of
SHGs.
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between the Monthly Income of the
family of the respondents and the Overall Functioning and Working of
SHGs.
Table 5.57
One-way ANOVA difference between the monthly Income of the
family of the respondents and Overall Functioning and
Working of SHGs.
S.No Income Mean S.D SS Df MS Statistical inference
1 Conduct of Meeting
F = .355 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups
9.607 3 3.202
G1(n=189) 18.24 2.999
G2(n=317) 18.45 2.913
G3(n=59) 18.19 3.511
G4(n=35) 18.63 2.931
Within Groups 5378.512 596 9.024
2 Record of Proceedings
F = .436 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups
12.768 3 4.256
G1(n=189) 19.35 3.107
G2(n=317) 19.26 3.196
G3(n=59) 18.83 2.872
G4(n=35) 19.37 2.971
Within Groups 5821.732 596 9.768
P a g e | 322
3 Transparency
F = 1.098 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups
37.205 3 12.402
G1(n=189) 19.30 3.323
G2(n=317) 19.60 3.257
G3(n=59) 18.88 3.710
G4(n=35) 18.94 3.865
Within Groups 6734.180 596 11.299
4 Formation and management of SHGs
F = .139 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups
4.464 3 1.488
G1(n=189) 18.91 3.038
G2(n=317) 18.79 3.354
G3(n=59) 18.64 3.305
G4(n=35) 18.66 3.581
Within Groups 6359.721 596 10.671
5 Overall Functioning and Working of SHGs
F = .680 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups
121.957 3 40.652
G1(n=189) 75.80 7.268
G2(n=317) 76.09 7.625
G3(n=59) 74.54 8.815
G4(n=35) 75.60 9.127
Within Groups 35641.962 596 59.802
G1 = Below 5000/ G2 = 5001 to 10000 / G3 = 10001 to 15000/ G4 =
15001 & above
P = .786/ .728 / .350 / .936 / .565
Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level Inference The calculated value is F = .680 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated
value is greater than table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is
rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.
P a g e | 323
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant difference between
the monthly Income of the family of the respondents and the Overall
Functioning and Working of SHGs. Hence, the calculated value is
greater than table value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the
null hypothesis is accepted.
Hypothesis – 17
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between the monthly Income of the
family of the respondents and the overall social empowerment.
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between the monthly Income of the
family of the respondents and the overall social empowerment.
Table 5.58
One-way ANOVA difference between the monthly Income of the
family of the respondents and the overall social empowerment.
S.No Variables
Mean S.D SS Df MS Statistical
inference
1 Community participation F = .269
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Between Groups 2.244 3 .748
G1(n=189) 7.06 1.736
G2(n=317) 7.16 1.627
G3(n=59) 7.08 1.684
P a g e | 324
G4(n=35) 7.29 1.601
Within Groups 1654.874 596 2.777
2 Social Reasoning
F = 1.073
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Between Groups 12.033 3 4.011
G1(n=189) 6.99 2.001
G2(n=317) 7.21 1.918
G3(n=59) 6.78 1.876
G4(n=35) 7.17 1.790
Within Groups 2228.360 596 3.739
3 Social analysis
F = .781
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Between Groups 7.141 3 2.380
G1(n=189) 7.19 1.846
G2(n=317) 7.35 1.682
G3(n=59) 7.02 1.843
G4(n=35) 7.29 1.582
Within Groups 1816.777 596 3.048
4 Health and Hygienic Practice
F = .578
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Between Groups 10.156 3 3.385
G1(n=189) 7.01 2.367
G2(n=317) 7.08 2.433
G3(n=59) 6.69 2.458
G4(n=35) 6.71 2.539
Within Groups 3492.829 596 5.860
5 Culture and Civilization F = 1.223
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Between Groups 9.852 3 3.284
G1(n=189) 8.01 1.537
G2(n=317) 7.87 1.685
G3(n=59) 7.64 1.448
P a g e | 325
G4(n=35) 7.57 2.004
Within Groups 1599.773 596 2.684
6 Overall social empowerment
F = 1.438
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
Between Groups 112.202 3 37.401
G1(n=189) 36.25 5.216
G2(n=317) 36.67 5.009
G3(n=59) 35.22 5.389
G4(n=35) 36.03 4.774
Within Groups 15503.472 596 26.013
G1 = Below 5000/ G2 = 5001 to 10000 / G3 = 10001 to 15000/ G4 =
15001 & above
P = .847/ .360 / .505 / .630 / .300 / .231
Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level Inference The calculated value is F = 1.438 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated
value is greater than table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is
rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant difference between
the monthly Income of the family of the respondents and the overall
social empowerment. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table
value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is
accepted.
P a g e | 326
Hypothesis – 18
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between the monthly Income of the
family of the respondents and the Overall factors for the success of
SHGs.
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between the monthly Income of the
family of the respondents and the Overall factors for the success of
SHGs.
Table 5.59
One-way ANOVA difference between the monthly income of the
family of the respondents and the overall factors for the
success of SHGs.
Overall
factors for
the success
of SHG's
Mean S.D SS Df MS Statistical
inference
Between Groups 72.141 3 24.047
F = .679
P > 0.05
Not
Significant
G1(n=189) 24.66 5.956
G2(n=317) 24.48 5.798
G3(n=59) 23.64 6.761
G4(n=35) 23.57 5.893
Within Groups 21121.859 596 35.439
G1 = Below 5000/ G2 = 5001 to 10000 / G3 = 10001 to 15000/
G4 = 15001 & above P = .565
Source: Computed from Primary Data
Not Significant at 5 percent level
P a g e | 327
Inference The calculated value is F = .679 and P > 0.05. Hence, the calculated
value is greater than table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is
rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant difference between
the monthly Income of the family of the respondents and the Overall
factors for the success of SHGs. Hence, the calculated value is greater
than table value. So the research hypothesis is rejected and the null
hypothesis is accepted.
Friedman Test
The hypothesis given below is tested using Friedman Test.
Hypothesis – 19
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between before and after income
earned and expenditure incurred on food, house and cloth.
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between before and after income
earned and expenditure incurred on food, house and cloth.
P a g e | 328
Table 5.60
Friedman test difference between before and after income earned
and expenditure incurred on food, house and cloth.
Ranks Mean
Rank Mean S.D Min Max
Statistical
inference
Monthly income
before
membership
3.16 1.49 .744 1 4
X2=1039.544
Df = 7
P < 0.05
Significant
Monthly income
after membership 5.44 2.53 1.014 1 4
Food before
membership 3.64 1.76 .988 1 4
Food after
membership 5.26 2.48 .999 1 4
House before
membership 3.53 1.70 .939 1 4
House after
membership 5.58 2.63 1.107 1 4
Cloth before
membership 3.86 1.82 1.083 1 4
Cloth after
membership 5.54 2.59 1.112 1 4
Inference
The calculated value of Friedman test shows significant difference in the
results between before and after income earned and expenditure
incurred on food, house and cloth. Hence, the calculated value is less
than table value. Therefore, the research hypothesis is accepted and
the null hypothesis is rejected.
P a g e | 329
Findings
The above table shows that there is a significant difference between
before and after income earned and expenditure incurred on food,
house and cloth. Hence, the calculated value is lesser than table value.
So the research hypothesis is accepted and the null hypothesis is
rejected.
Hypothesis – 20
Research hypothesis
H1: There is a significant difference between the age of the respondents
and their Overall skills and competency.
Null hypothesis
H0: There is no significant difference between the age of the
respondents and their Overall skills and competency.
Table 5.61
One-way ANOVA difference between the age of the respondents
and Overall skills and competency
S.No Managerial
Skills Mean S.D SS Df MS
Statistical inference
Between Groups 7.053 3 2.351
F = 1.510 P > 0.05 Not Significant
G1(n=196) 8.23 1.315
G2(n=210) 8.33 1.155
G3(n=146) 8.05 1.275
G4(n=48) 8.31 1.274
Within Groups 927.745 596 1.557
Coordination and control
F = .651 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups 7.504 3 2.501
G1(n=196) 8.38 1.995
G2(n=210) 8.38 1.819
P a g e | 330
G3(n=146) 8.15 2.214
G4(n=48) 8.52 1.544
Within Groups 2290.489 596 3.843
Leadership Qualities
F = .336 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups 4.727 3 1.576
G1(n=196) 8.13 2.103
G2(n=210) 8.09 2.182
G3(n=146) 7.99 2.298
G4(n=48) 8.33 1.917
Within Groups 2796.471 596 4.692
Group Dynamism
F = .407 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups 4.990 3 1.663
G1(n=196) 8.07 2.012
G2(n=210) 7.95 1.937
G3(n=146) 7.89 2.232
G4(n=48) 8.19 1.709
Within Groups 2432.983 596 4.082
Communication
F = 2.063 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups 18.496 3 6.165
G1(n=196) 8.22 1.805
G2(n=210) 8.27 1.601
G3(n=146) 8.16 1.908
G4(n=48) 8.85 1.321
Within Groups 1781.129 596 2.988
Overall skills and competency
F = .908 P > 0.05 Not Significant
Between Groups 150.871 3 50.290
G1(n=196) 41.04 7.604
G2(n=210) 41.02 7.073
G3(n=146) 40.25 8.086
G4(n=48) 42.21 6.161
Within Groups 32993.594 596 55.358
G1= Below 30yrs/ G2 = 31 to 40yrs/ G3 = 41 to 50yrs/ G4 = 51yrs &
above
P = .211 / .583 / .799 / .748 / .104 / .437
Source: Computed from Primary Data Not Significant at 5 percent level
P a g e | 331
Inference The calculated value is F = F = .908 and P > 0.05. Hence, the
calculated value is greater than table value. Therefore, the research
hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.
Findings
The above table shows that there is no significant difference
between the age of the respondents and their Overall skills and
competency. Hence, the calculated value is greater than table value. So
the research hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted.
The next chapter exposes all findings of the study, suggestions
and recommendation to the SHG members, to the organisations, to the
policy makers and to the Government, conclusion and scope for future
Research.