EFFECTS OF THE USE OF LOCAL SANCTION BY SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN AGRICULTURE LOAN RECVERY UNDER THE COMMUNITY BANKING SYSTEM
ABSTRACT . ..
Distress problems in .Nigerian financial institutions res

ulted into their liquidation.I Prior to the distress syndrome, many financial institutions could not respond very effectively ~

to the needs of small-holder farmers in Nigeria.

However, empirical evidence shows that debt recovery is one major constraint ofmost financial institutions. It was in view of the identified problem that a research wascarried out in Enugu State of Nigeria to investigate how effective is the use )of local sanction I ‘strategies for agricultural loans by farmers under the community banking system.The result of final statistics of factor analysis showed that three factors accounted for72.3 percent of the total variance observed in farmer’ loan recovery ‘rankings of nine Iattributes. Factor one alone accounted for 35.4% of the observed variance compared to I23.3 % accounted for by factor two, and 13.6% by factor three., Thus, factor one maytherefore, be regarded as “the group’s refusal of loan-debtors having share in annual feasts

amongst others or stoppage of social benefit”, factor two as “non participation in elective

ABSTRACT . ..
Distress problems in .Nigerian financial institutions res

ulted into their liquidation.I Prior to the distress syndrome, many financial institutions could not respond very effectively ~

to the needs of small-holder farmers in Nigeria.

However, empirical evidence shows that debt recovery is one major constraint ofmost financial institutions. It was in view of the identified problem that a research wascarried out in Enugu State of Nigeria to investigate how effective is the use )of local sanction I ‘strategies for agricultural loans by farmers under the community banking system.The result of final statistics of factor analysis showed that three factors accounted for72.3 percent of the total variance observed in farmer’ loan recovery ‘rankings of nine Iattributes. Factor one alone accounted for 35.4% of the observed variance compared to I23.3 % accounted for by factor two, and 13.6% by factor three., Thus, factor one maytherefore, be regarded as “the group’s refusal of loan-debtors having share in annual feasts

amongst others or stoppage of social benefit”, factor two as “non participation in elective

Request Complete Work Here