Author:

Abstract

Today microfinance organizations are facing a challenge with how to balance poverty alleviation mission and sustainability. Hence, the importance of the sustainability of microfinance organizations goes beyond the poverty reduction mission. This research study was meant to determine the influential factors of financial sustainability in microfinance institutions in Sri Lanka. Existing two theories: Welfare Theory and Institutionalist theory were tested in MFIs in Sri Lanka with cause and effect relationship between variables, and the researcher adopted a cross-sectional research design with quantitative approach conducted in a field setting. Financial self-sufficiency is the dependent variable and twenty independent variables were used to test the determinant factors of sustainability. It was found that, the loan officer productivity, MFIs age, organization type, the yield on the gross loan portfolio, and profit margin have a positive and statistically strongly significance at 1% significant level. These factors profoundly affect the determination of the financial sustainability of MFIs in Sri Lanka. Further, the interest rate was positive with 5% statistically significant level, and active borrowers were positive with 10% in determining the financial sustainability of MFIs. Operating expenses ratio and capital structure negatively affected with 1% statistically significant level, where portfolio risk at 30 days affected negatively at 5% in determining the financial sustainability. Moreover, other factors: average loan size, the percentage of female borrowers, MFIs size, cost per borrower, number of MFIs products, lending methodology, geographic locations, write off ratio, risk coverage ratio and MFI regulations did not have a significant impact on financial sustainability in Sri Lanka.

Keywords: Microfinance, Sustainability, Financial self-sufficiency

How to Cite: Perera, H.S.C., 2021. Determinants of Financial Sustainability of the Microfinance Institutions in Sri Lanka. Kelaniya Journal of Management, 10(2), pp.91–116. DOI: http://doi.org/10.4038/kjm.v10i2.7694