FINANCIAL INCLUSION OF WOMEN AND ECONOMIC PROFITABILITY OF MICROFINANCE INSTITUTIONS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17320130 154 ISRG PUBLISHERS Abbreviated Key Title: Isrg J Econ Bus Manag ISSN: 2584-0916 (Online) Journal homepage: https://isrgpublishers.com/isrgjebm/ Volume – III Issue - V (September-October) 2025 Frequency: Bimonthly FINANCIAL INCLUSION OF WOMEN AND ECONOMIC PROFITABILITY OF MICROFINANCE INSTITUTIONS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA TSAGUE Joel Romuald, PhD.1*, TIONA WAMBA Joseph Herman, PhD.2 1 Assistant Lecturer Management Sciences’ Research Laboratory-IUC Institut Universitaire de la Côte, DoualaCameroon 2 Senior Lecturer & Maitre-Assistant CAMES Research Laboratory for Corporate Governance and Performance Univesity of Douala, Cameroon | Received: 04.10.2025 | Accepted: 09.10.2025 | Published: 11.10.2025 *Corresponding author: TSAGUE Joel Romuald, PhD. Assistant Lecturer Management Sciences’ Research Laboratory-IUC Institut Universitaire de la Côte, DoualaCameroon Abstract The study analyzes the impact of the percentage of female borrowers on the profitability of microfinance institutions (MFIs) in subSaharan Africa. Based on the observation that some MFIs fail to achieve financial viability or stray from their social mission by prioritizing profitability, the study examines whether offering services to women contributes to their success or failure. The difficulties faced by MFIs include poor governance, credit risk, exchange rate risk, liquidity risk, and over-indebtedness. The hypothesis tested is that the percentage of female borrowers significantly influences the profitability of MFIs. Using a hypotheticaldeductive method and data from Mix-Market (2012-2016) on 140 MFIs, analyzed via linear regression in panel data (STATA 14), the results show that the percentage of female borrowers and the 30-day risk portfolio have a significant negative impact on the profitability of MFIs. This is due to the small scale of women's economic activities, often intended for everyday consumption, and their family responsibilities, which increase the risk of micro-project failure. These findings confirm some studies (Adair & Berguiga, 2018) but diverge from others (Churchill & Marr, 2017) due to contextual differences (cultural, social, economic, political). Keywords: Financial inclusion; Profitability; Women's inclusion; Microfinance institutions; Database; Sub-Saharan Africa. Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17320130 155 Introduction The role of women's financial inclusion in the fight against poverty in Africa is well established. Financial inclusion, defined as access to, and use of formal financial services such as bank accounts, credit, insurance, and payment services, is an essential lever for economic and social development. In Africa, where women represent more than half of the population and play a key role in local economies, their financial inclusion remains a major challenge. Despite the progress observed in some African countries, structural, cultural, and technological barriers continue to limit their access to financial opportunities, perpetuating gender inequalities and hindering sustainable development. Generally excluded from the traditional banking system, women very often turn to microfinance institutions, which unfortunately have to balance economic and social objectives. More broadly, Honohan (2006) notes that the mobilization of wealth among poorer segments of the population is often overlooked. At the macroeconomic level, financial accessibility for lower-income households helps to balance opportunities and reduce inequality and poverty within the population (Honohan, 2006; UNCDF, 2006; Hermes and Lensink, 2007; World Bank, 2008; Honohan, 2008). “Access to financial services is a prerequisite for employment, economic growth, poverty reduction, and social cohesion” (IMCE, 2006). On the microeconomic side, financial services help individuals regulate their cash flows by allowing them to transfer their purchasing power over time (Beck and De la Torre, 2004; Boyé et al., 2006; UNCDF, 2006). Furthermore, financial access particularly enables the poorest to increase and diversify their income, build and accumulate financial assets, and even expand their economic opportunities (Beck and De la Torre, 2004; UNCDF, 2006; Ashcroft, 2008). In light of these findings, financial inclusion for “all” has become an important goal of international development (Helms, 2006; World Bank, 2008; BCEAO 2019; BEAC, 2019). Despite the efforts made, the level of access to and use of formal financial services remains very low internationally (World Bank 2012). According to MERCY CORPS (2016), 2.5 billion people worldwide are underserved or excluded from the financial system, and without access to financial services, poor and marginalized populations cannot fully participate in the economy and therefore cannot ensure their own security, growth, and resilience. 61.5% and 27.4% of the world's population have a bank account and formal savings, respectively (World Bank Global Findex Database 2014). Financial inclusion indicators in Africa are all below the global average: 35% of the population has a bank account, compared to 61.5% worldwide; 15.4% save in a financial institution and 6.7% have a loan from a financial institution in 2014 (BSI-Economics, 2018). Financial inclusion is therefore less developed in developing economies, even though they have the highest rate of mobile accounts (Africa 13% compared to 2% for the world; (BSI-Economics, 2018)). For example, in Cameroon, less than 20% of men and 10% of women have an account with a formal financial institution (World Bank 2014). The low level of access, as highlighted in previous writings, is generally caused by the actions of traditional banks when offering financial services. Banks are financial and monetary intermediaries whose main activity is to act as intermediaries between agents with surplus resources and agents with financing deficits, receiving liquid demand or term deposits from the former in exchange for remuneration and granting the latter loans at interest rates that are significantly higher than the interest rates paid to depositors (Gurley and Shaw, 1960). Defined as such, in practice, it generally sorts through service offerings, particularly in the context of project financing through loans. For banks, project financing is a risky activity due to the possibility of nonrepayment. As a result, in order to invest, lenders must necessarily assess the economic risks of the project in question. Such an assessment generally leads them to offer their services to large companies and wealthy individuals. This choice results in credit rationing and therefore financial exclusion of the poor. To overcome the limitations of access to the formal system, individuals (rationed businesses and households) turn to informal services, which are more accessible but more expensive and less reliable (Adic et al., 2011). The emergence of microfinance was to solve out this problem of financial exclusion. The term “microfinance” refers to the provision of a range of modest financial services to low-income clients (Ledgerwood, 1999; Schreiner, 2002; Lafourcade et al., 2005; De la Torre and Vento, 2006; Onomo, 2010), but also to other individuals excluded from the traditional financial system, such as women and rural communities (Helms, 2006; Boyé et al., 2006). Historically, the role or social mission of microfinance was to offer affordable and secured financial products to excluded individuals, with the aim of reducing poverty (AMAF, 2008). Microfinance also contributes to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals: increased income, improved economic well-being, greater investment in education and healthcare, and the empowerment of women (Littlefield et al., 2003; World Bank 2014; BCEAO 2019). Over time, the pioneers of microfinance have proven that many associations can be profitable. Conversely, researchers have observed that the clientele served is becoming increasingly poor (Cull et al., 2009), while others believe that it remains virtually unchanged (Christen, 2001; Mersland and Strom, 2009). Many describe the commercialization of microfinance as a departure from its social mission (Helms, 2006; Cull et al., 2006; Cull et al., 2008; Armendàriz and Szafarz, 2009). Morduch (2000) refers to a “schism” given the disconnect between the initial objectives of microfinance organizations: financial performance or social performance. A survey by the Center for Study of Financial Innovation (CSFI) shows that the risk of microfinance deviating from its social mission rose from the 19th to the 9th place between 2009 and 2011. According to the World Bank's Global Findex (2021), approximately 65% of women in sub-Saharan Africa do not have a bank account, compared to 54% of men, reflecting a persistent gender gap. This gap has widened from 7% in 2011 to 12% in 2021, partly due to the uneven adoption of digital financial services. Women, particularly in rural areas, remain largely dependent on informal financial mechanisms, such as tontines or pawnbrokers, which are often costly and risky. African women make a big difference to the economy, especially in farming (where they make up as much as 60% of the workforce in some countries) and informal trade. However, their exclusion from formal financial systems limits their ability to invest, save securely, or access credit to develop their businesses. This situation has repercussions not only on their economic autonomy, but also on the well-being of their families, as women reinvest up to 90% of their income in health, education, and nutrition, compared to 3040% for men. Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17320130 156 However, the goal of women's financial inclusion should not overshadow the economic aspirations of microfinance institutions. In this regard, the question that arises is the following: what is the nature of the impact of women's financial inclusion on the economic profitability of MFIs in Sub-Saharan Africa? To answer this question, this article first outlines a theoretical framework designed to clarify the concepts highlighted and the theoretical link envisaged; then a methodological approach is developed; and finally, the results are presented and discussed. 1. Literature review 1.1. Financial intermediation: a high-risk mission for the performance of MFIs 1.1.1. The concept of financial inclusion: definition and challenges Financial inclusion refers to a universal and permanent access of individuals and businesses to a diverse range of financial products and services, such as transactions, payments, savings, credit, and insurance. These services must be affordable, tailored to users' needs, and provided by reliable and responsible providers (OFÉ, 2024). Bekkaoui Abdelmalek and Yahyaoui Taha (2025) indicate that financial inclusion supports the idea that every individual should have equitable and affordable access to financial services, regardless of where they live. Financial inclusion is therefore essential to ensuring equitable access to financial services, enabling individuals and businesses to participate fully in the economy. It plays a key role in reducing poverty and promoting sustainable economic growth. The Sub-Saharan Africa region shows a level of financial inclusion that reflects its specific challenges and opportunities. Financial inclusion remains a significant challenge in Frenchspeaking countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, where a large portion of the population is excluded from the financial system. The World Bank (2021) reports that approximately 57% of adults in French-speaking sub-Saharan African countries did not have a bank account, compared to a global average of 24%. The situation is particularly pronounced among women and rural populations. Data from the 2021 Global Findex report show that 33% of adults in the sub-Saharan region have a mobile money account, compared to only 10% globally. However, the region still lags behind in terms of overall access to accounts. Only 55% of adults have an account with a financial institution or mobile money provider, compared to an average of 71% for developing economies. Unfortunately, women are more severely affected by this problem, with only 49% of them having access, compared to 61% of men. This 12 percentage point gap between men and women in account ownership is one of the highest in the world, second only to the Middle East and North Africa. While there is a gender gap in favor of women in both microfinance institutions (80% of clients overall and 64% in Sub-Saharan Africa) and informal savings and credit cooperatives, loans granted by microfinance institutions (or informal loans) are primarily targeted at the most disadvantaged populations, and their lending conditions (small amounts, short maturities, and very high interest rates) differ from those of banks. 1.1.2. The notion of profitability in MFIs Many authors have attempted to define profitability. Profitability can be defined as a company's ability to generate profits over a given period (Deppacens, 1990). It is therefore the ratio between the income obtained or expected and the resources used to obtain it (Makelele, 2014). The evaluation of the performance of invested capital can also be a measure of the effectiveness of a company's management, and its analysis is therefore essential in a liberal economy (Lukuitshi, 2007). According to Tchakoute Tchuigoua and Mehdi Nekhili (2012), in the microfinance sector, performance can be understood primarily through the lens of economic profitability (ROA). Profitability is a constant and crucial objective for any organization, and microfinance institutions (MFIs) are not excluded. It is the barometer of financial performance, enabling the return on invested capital to be assessed and guiding strategic decisions. According to CGAP (2016) and INSEE, financial profitability specifically measures the ability to enhance equity value. More broadly, Lakehal (2000) defines it as the possibility of obtaining an economic or collective benefit from an investment. Dufumer (1996) distinguishes between financial profitability, measured monetarily, and economic profitability, which assesses collective benefits. For a MFI, the imperative of profitability meets two fundamental requirements: maintaining its capital and honoring its commitments to lenders and depositors. Many experts, including Ousseni (2009), consider profitability to be a prerequisite for the viability and sustainability of an MFI. Profitability is measured using specific ratios, which allow for accurate comparisons over different periods (Micro rate 2003; 2014). Among these ratios, return on assets (ROA) is the most commonly used to assess financial performance in microfinance. Return on assets (ROA) takes into account all of an MFI's assets, including equity and financial debt. It is an essential indicator for comparing the economic performance of different MFIs (MicroRate, 2014). MicroRate (2003) highlights its simplicity and its dependence on the composition of the institution's portfolio. ROA measures the overall economic performance of an MFI by assessing its ability to use all of its assets to generate profits (Tchakoute, 2012). It reflects both the profit margin and the operational efficiency of an organization (Bekkaoui Abdelmalek and Yahyaoui Taha, 2025). The return on assets is calculated as follows: Economic profitability ratio (ROA) = The prevalence of ROA in scientific literature is a testimony to its importance. Many researchers have used it to measure financial performance in their work, including Polanco (2005), Cull, Demirguc-Kunt & Morduch (2006), Cornée (2007), Tchakounté (2012), Ndioné (2019), and Mapouka (2020). This widespread use validates its relevance in assessing the performance of MFIs. However, all these definitions have a certain similarity in that profitability measures the ability of an economic operation to produce. 1.2. Review of empirical studies on the relationship between women's financial inclusion and the profitability of MFIs Empirical studies examining the link between women's financial inclusion and the economic profitability of MFIs have yielded mixed results. Some studies show that men are better at repaying loans (Kamalan and Kouakou, 2017), while other analyses show that women are better at repaying loans, thereby contributing to the economic profitability of MFIs (Yunus 1997; Nowak 2005). Furthermore, in the pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), microfinance institutions (MFIs) play a crucial role, particularly in Africa, by focusing on poverty reduction. Their Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17320130 157 strategy specifically targets women, a segment of the African population with remarkable potential to develop income-generating activities and ensure repayment of their loans (World Bank, 2014). Despite their vulnerability and marginalization, women are the preferred target of MFIs because of their ability to initiate and manage structured microprojects (Montalieu, 2002). They are known for their higher repayment rates than men, attributed to their ability to budget and manage their households rigorously (Espallier et al., 2009). These observations are corroborated by Ndioné (2019), who emphasizes that expanded access to credit for women contributes significantly to the economic and financial performance of MFIs. Several studies confirm the positive impact of women's involvement in microfinance in Africa: PLANET Finance (2014) reports an impressive repayment rate of 93% among 3,000 women borrowers in northern Ghana, in partnership with two local MFIs. In Cameroon, Kouty, Ongono & Ngueda (2015) demonstrated that being a woman increases the likelihood of accessing microcredit. These results are consistent with previous research (Johnson & Rogaly, 1997; Kobeer, 1998; Mayaux, 2001), which has consistently shown higher repayment rates among women. Churchill & Marr (2017) established a direct link between the number of female clients and the return on assets (ROA) of MFIs. Their work concludes that an increase in the number of female clients has a positive influence on ROA, a conclusion shared by Laheen (2010). More recently, Nzongang et al. (2020) asserted that the percentage of female borrowers significantly affects the sustainability of MFIs in Cameroon by influencing profitability and financial and operational self-sufficiency. These results highlight that women represent a significant potential market for MFIs, not only for achieving their social objectives of poverty reduction, but also for expanding the reach of their services and increasing their financial sustainability. Reach, as defined by Yaron et al. (1997), can be measured by an institution's ability to effectively reach its target clientele. While Abosede & Azeez (2011) acknowledge that microfinance lending to women promotes their empowerment, they also point to the lack of formal evidence regarding the widespread beneficial impact of this action on society as a whole. However, the existing literature, particularly in the African context, strongly suggests that women play a catalytic role. This review of the literature leads to the following hypothesis: the percentage of female borrowers significantly influences the economic profitability of microfinance institutions in sub-Saharan Africa. 2. Research methodology Our concern here is to choose the most appropriate approach for collecting and analyzing data. According to Yin (1994), “There is no single mode of inquiry, no single logic, because researchers can choose the method that seems most appropriate based on the specific characteristics of their research subject.” 2.1. Approach adopted Two methodological approaches are generally used, depending on the subject of the study or the researcher's position: quantitative approaches and qualitative approaches. It should also be noted that there is a hybrid approach between the first two (a combination of the quantitative and qualitative approaches). The choice of study type is therefore not random. It depends on the objective of the study itself. The objective of a study may be to explore a phenomenon, explain it, predict it, or identify its causes and highlight the causal link. Given that our study seeks to show the degree of impact of women's financial inclusion on the profitability of MFIs, we have decided to analyze the causal link between the number of women borrowers and the profitability of MFIs using a hypothetical-deductive approach. There are two main reasons for our choice. First, we believe it is interesting to analyze in depth the understanding of financial inclusion and the performance of MFIs. Second, the quantitative approach allows us to measure or evaluate in a concrete way the relationship between women's financial inclusion and the profitability of MFIs in subSaharan Africa. Finally, our study applies an experimental research design because it aims to test a theory's prediction by determining whether an independent variable (the number of female borrowers) has an influence on the dependent or explained variables (ROA, ROE, OSS, and FSS). 2.2. Model specification and data analysis techniques 2.2.1. Specification of variables In this study, the data we have used is primarily quantitative, as it comes from a secondary database. To make the best use of this database, we need to specify the indicators for measuring the variables using a table known as a variable operationalization table. Tableau 1. Operationnalization of variables Hypothese Variables Indicators Proxies Auteurs The number of female borrowers significantly influences the profitability of MFIs. Indpt Var Women entrepreneurs Percentage of women entrepreneurs Nomber of wemen entrepreneurs/Number of active borrowers Ndione M. (2019) Mapouka F. (2016) Dpt Var Rentabilité des IMF Economic profitability (ROA) Net operating income / Invested assets Tchuigoua, H ; T. (2011) ; Tchakouté, (2013) Mapouka, F. (2016) ; Solhi& Mehdi, (2012); Corhay & Mbangala, (2007) Cull, Demirguc-kunt & Morduch (2006) Financial profitability (ROE) Net income / Equity Operational self-sufficiency (OSS) Operating revenues/Operating expenses Control variables Risk Portfolio (PAR > 30 days) Average balance of loans >30 days past due / gross outstanding loans Microrate (2003); Microrate (2014) Cost per borrower/GNP per capita Cost per borrower/GNP per capita Cost per saver/GNP per capita Cost per saver/GNP per capita Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17320130 158 Épargnants par effectif du personnel Number of savers/Total number of employees Ratio capital/actif Equity/total assets Average loan balance per borrower Gross outstanding loans/number of borrowers Source: The Authors The sample on which our work is based is located in sub-Saharan Africa and covers the period 2012-2016 (in cylindrical panel data). Our database consists of 140 MFIs, whose origins differ according to the sub-regions that make up sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, we have 21 MFIs located in Southern Africa, 15 in Central Africa, 51 in East Africa, and 53 in West Africa. The large number of MFIs observed in Southern Africa and West Africa, respectively, could be explained by the nature of the financial information they provide. The low rate in Central Africa is due to the high information asymmetries sometimes caused by the governance system of these MFIs. 2.2.2. Research model In order to verify whether women's financial inclusion has an impact on the profitability of MFIs in sub-Saharan Africa, we use a multiple regression model with panel data. Our model is based on the works of well knowned authors (Nzongang and Kemdong, 2020); (Ndioné, 2019); Churchill and Marr (2017); and Nyamsogoro (2010). This econometric model is presented as follows: Yit = ∝t + ΣβXit + eit………… (1). Where: Yit = explained or dependent variable at each time “t”; ∝t = specific individual effect which is steady overtime but proper to each individual firm; Β = model parameter to be estimated; Χit = independent or explanatory variables observed at each time “t”; eit = is the error term; i et t = denote the study population and time, respectively. By introducing the explained and explanatory variables of the observation period and the number of observations, we obtain our specific equation as follows: ROAit = + β1lognombempactifit + β2pfemp + β5ppit + β6 cptal_tactifit + β7par30it +β8par90it + β9pfpb_tactifit + β10logctempit + β11rendn_pfbit + β12renn_pfbit + β13lognobdepit + β14mpit + β15smpe_rnbhit + εit………………………… (2) Where i and t stand respectively for the MFIs and time. (i=1…140, t = 1 to 5, k = 15) In this model, Lognomempactif = Logarithm of the number of active borrowers; pfemp = percentage of female borrowers; pp = staff productivity; cptal_tactif = capital structure; par = portfolio at risk; pfpb_tactif = portfolio as a percentage of total assets; logctemp = cost per borrower ratio; rendn_pfb = real return; renn_pfb = nominal return; lognobdep = average number of deposits ratio; mp = profit margin; smpe_rnhb = average loan balance per borrower ratio. In this study, based on the results of the Hausman test, we opted to estimate fixed effects models. The selected models were estimated using STATA 14 analysis software, and the generalized least squares method was used. 3. Research results The aim here is to test the hypothesis that the number of female borrowers has an impact on the profitability of microfinance institutions. In this study, the effect of the variation in the percentage of female borrowers on profitability was captured by ROA. This choice is justified by the fact that we are assessing not only the return on equity (ROE), but also the return on all invested assets. However, for MFIs, sources of financing are not limited to equity capital. Thus, disregarding sustainability, the estimation model is as follows: ROAit = + β1pfemp + β2par30it + β3par90it + β4pfpb_tactifit + β5ppit + β6cptal_tactifit + εit (i=1…140, t = 1 à 5, k = 6) Based on the ordinary least squares (OLS) method, the regression results are as follows, covering 140 MFIs over the period 2012 to 2016: Tableau n° 07 : Regression model of the percentage of female borrowers on the economic profitability of MFIs Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17320130 159 ROAit = 0,0329355 – 0,0194459pfemp – 0,2289526par30it + εit (i=1…140, t = 1 à 5, k = 2) Indeed, for the corrected empirical model, we find that the effect of the percentage of female borrowers on the economic profitability of MFIs is negative and significant (reg coefficient = -0.0194459 and sig = 0.025 < 0.05). This negative influence is accentuated by a risky portfolio, which further deteriorates the relationship studied (reg coefficient = -0.2289526 and sig = 0.000). From the above, we conclude that economic profitability is negatively and significantly related to the percentage of female borrowers and the 30-day risky portfolio. Any 1% increase in the percentage of female borrowers leads to a 1.94459% decrease in economic profitability. Similarly, a 1% increase in the 30-day risk portfolio leads to a 22.89% decrease in the same ratio. 4. Results discussions and managerial implications At the end of this analysis, using the specific model described above, we note that the percentage of female borrowers (pfemp) and the 30-day risk portfolio (par 30) have a significant negative impact on economic profitability. We thus confirm that the percentage of female borrowers has a negative effect on the economic performance of MFIs in sub-Saharan Africa. This assertion validates our hypothesis. This result is consistent with the idea that women's businesses are generally very small in scale. In practical terms, the income generated by these women is largely used to meet everyday consumption needs, leaving little room for wealth accumulation in the form of savings. It is therefore entirely logical that the percentage of women borrowers has a negative impact on economic profitability due to the high probability of their microprojects failing. It should be noted that this influence is also due to the fact that African women are extremely concerned about their families. These results are consistent with those of Adair and Berguiga (2018) in the MENA region, who show in their work that the high percentage of female borrowers has a negative impact on asset profitability. The convergence of the results observed above could be justified by the fact that, in Africa in general, women are less entrepreneurial and do not favor the performance of MFIs in contractual relationships. In contrast, (Churchill and Marr, 2017) find that the percentage of women (pfemp) is positive and statistically significant for economic profitability. Other authors have concluded that an increase in the number of female borrowers does not influence asset profitability (Abosede & Azeez, 2011; Mahnane, 2016; Laheen, 2010; Ndione, 2019). It is important to note that the divergence in the results of these authors could stem mainly from the context of the study. This could be due to a number of contingency variables such as cultural differences, level of development, and the social, economic, and political environment, to name but a few. Conclusion In brief, we sought to measure the impact of the percentage of female borrowers on the profitability of MFIs in sub-Saharan Africa. We started from the observation that several microfinance institutions offering financial services to those excluded from the traditional banking system have gone bankrupt or failed to achieve financial viability. Others, however, have remained in the market because their main objective has been to seek profit, which distances them from their social missions. This situation is justified by the low rate of access to banking services for women in subSaharan Africa, despite the large number of MFIs. However, despite the commercialization of microfinance, it must play a dual role, namely to include the poor while remaining profitable. Inclusion reduces poverty and improves the standard of living of the poor. Profitability, on the other hand, allows investors to be remunerated and contributes to the sustainability of MFIs. Given this observation, the question arises as to whether the provision of financial and non-financial services by MFIs to women is a reason for their failure or success. In seeking an answer to this question, it should be noted that MFIs encounter many difficulties in their activities. These include poor governance, credit risk, exchange rate and liquidity risk, and borrower overindebtedness, which have led to the failure of MFIs in several countries (Guérin, Labie, Servet, 2015). Thus, our review of the literature has led us to formulate the following hypothesis: the percentage of female borrowers significantly influences the economic profitability of MFIs in sub-Saharan Africa As part of this work, we opted for causal research. Our research method is hypothetical-deductive. We used data on MFI financial statements from Mix-Market (World Bank) for the five-year period from 2012 to 2016. The data used, covering a sample of 140 MFIs, were analyzed using STATA 14 software. We used a fixed-effects panel data linear regression model. Following our various regressions, we arrived at the following results: the percentage of female borrowers and the 30-day risk portfolio have a significant negative impact on the economic profitability of MFIs. We thus confirm that the percentage of female borrowers has a negative effect on the economic performance of MFIs in sub-Saharan Africa. This assertion validates our hypothesis. The analysis shows that the percentage of female borrowers (pfemp) and the 30-day risk portfolio (par30) have a significant negative impact on the economic profitability of microfinance institutions (MFIs) in sub-Saharan Africa. This is explained by the small scale of women's economic activities, whose incomes are mainly used to cover day-to-day consumption needs, limiting savings and increasing the risk of microproject failure. In addition, African women's family responsibilities reinforce this negative influence. These results confirm those of Adair and Berguiga (2018) in the MENA region, but contrast with Churchill and Marr (2017), who find a positive effect of the percentage of women borrowers on profitability. Other studies (Abosede & Azeez, 2011; Mahnane, 2016; Laheen, 2010; Ndione, 2019) conclude that there is no influence. These differences can be explained by differences in cultural, social, economic, and political contexts. References 1. Abdelmalek, B., & Taha, Y. (2025). Cadre juridique et performance financière et sociale de la microfinance au Maroc. ; 2. Abosede, A. J., & Azeez, B. A. (2011). Microfinance and gender in the context of millennium development goals (MDGs) in Nigeria. Journal of development and Agricultural Economics, 3(3), 98-106. Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17320130 160 3. Adair, P., & Berguiga, I. (2023). Financial inclusion and hurdles to funding Tunisian female entrepreneurs. IEMed, European Institute of the Mediterranean.; 4. Armendáriz, B., & Szafarz, A. (2009). Microfinance mission drift. Research Institute in Management Sciences. 5. Arthur, J. U. R. U. S. (2019). Statuts associatifs, BSI Economics, 21 décembre 2018 Article 1–Constitution. 6. Attali, J. (2014). Les nouveaux visages de la microfinance en Afrique. Revue d'économie financière, 116(4), 243-258 ; 7. Ashcroft, R. E. (2008). The declaration of Helsinki. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, 21, 141-148. 8. Beck, T., & De La Torre, A. (2007). The basic analytics of access to financial services. Financial markets, institutions & instruments, 16(2), 79-117. 9. Bekkaoui, A., & Yahyaoui, T. (2025). Tendances actuelles et perspectives d'évolution du secteur de la microfinance au Maroc (No. hal-04973077). 10. Boye, H. R., & Mithi, F. (2023). Firm characteristics and non-performing loans of microfinance banks in Kenya. The Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management, 10(4), 368-381. 11. Chambers, R., CIA, Q., & CGAP, C. (2016). When Culture Is the Culprit. In General Audit Management (GAM) Conference presentation. Used with permission. 12. Christen, R., & Drake, D. (2001). Commercialization of microfinance. Microenterprise Best Practices, working paper, Bethesda, available at: http://mfbbva. org/uploads/tx_bbvagbmicrof/Commercialization_of_Mi crofinance. pdf (accessed March 26, 2014). 13. Churchill, S. A., & Marr, A. (2017). Sustainability and outreach: a comparative study of MFIs in South Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. Bulletin of Economic Research, 69(4), E19-E41. 14. Cornée, S. (2007, May). Au-dela de la necessite de considerer les performances sociales dans la microfinance: une proposition d'evaluation. In Journées interuniversitaires sur l'ess. 15. Cull, R., Davis, L. E., Lamoreaux, N. R., & Rosenthal, J. L. (2006). Historical financing of small-and medium-size enterprises. Journal of banking & finance, 30(11), 30173042. 16. Cull, R., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Morduch, J. (2008). Does microfinance regulation curtail profitability and outreach?. NYU Wagner Research Paper, (2011-06). 17. Cull, R., Demirgüç–Kunt, A., & Morduch, J. (2011). Microfinance trade-offs: Regulation, competition and financing. In The handbook of microfinance (pp. 141157). 18. D’espallier, B., Guérin, I., & Mersland, R. (2011). Women and repayment in microfinance: A global analysis. World development, 39(5), 758-772. 19. Gaudens-Omer, K. T. (2025). Le rôle du genre dans la relation entre performance sociale et performance financière: cas de la microfinance en Côte d’Ivoire. Savings and Development. 20. Guérin, I., Labie, M., & Servet, J. M. (2015). The crises of microcredit (pp. xi-207). London: Zed Books. 21. Helms, B. (2006). Access for All, Building an Inclusive Financial System: Capturing 10 years of CGAP experience, CGAP, Washington DC, USA 22. Hermes, N., & Lensink, R. (2007). Impact of microfinance: A critical survey. Economic and political weekly, 462-465. 23. Honohan, P., & Beck, T. (2007). Making finance work for Africa. World Bank Publications. 24. Johnson, S., & Rogaly, B. (1997). Microfinance and poverty reduction. Oxfam. 25. Kendi, B., Kamaria, K., & Kamaria, K. (2016). Impact Of Organizational Culture In The Effectiveness Of The Transformation Process Of Microfinance Organizations In Kenya Into Deposit Taking Institutions. International Journal of Business Strategies, 1(2), 65-82. 26. Kouty, M., Ongono, P., & Ngo Ngueda, D. (2015). L’accès des femmes au microcrédit au Cameroun. La microfinance en Afrique centrale: Le défi des exclus, 13. 27. Lafourcade, A. L., Isern, J., Mwangi, P., & Brown, M. (2005). Overview of the outreach and financial performance of microfinance institutions in Africa. Microfinance Information eXchange, Washington, DC. http://www. mixmarket. org/medialibrary/mixmarket/Africa_Data_Study. pdf. 28. Lakehal, L., & Mahiout, K. (2021). Le leasing industriel: un nouveau moyen d’aide au développement des PME cas de financement d’un projet au niveau de la direction régionale BADR n° 015 Tizi-Ouzou (Doctoral dissertation, Université Mouloud Mammeri). 29. Ledgerwood, J. (1999). Sustainable banking with the poor microfinance handbook. 30. Littlefield, E., Morduch, J., & Hashemi, S. (2003). Is microfinance an effective strategy to reach the Millennium Development Goals. Focus note, 24(2003), 1-11. 31. Mahnane, L., & Hafidi, M. (2016). Automatic detection of learning styles based on dynamic Bayesian network in adaptive e-learning system. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 20(3), 289-308. 32. Mersland, R., & Strøm, R. Ø. (2009). Performance and governance in microfinance institutions. Journal of Banking & Finance, 33(4), 662-669. 33. Ndione, M. (2019). Déterminants de la performance des institutions de micro-crédits: UEMOA et BRICS (Doctoral dissertation, Université Bourgogne FrancheComté). 34. Nowak, M. (2008). Introducción a la sección especial: Microcredits in Europe. Revista de Economía Mundial, (19), 27-32. 35. Nyamsogoro, G. D. (2010). Financial sustainability of rural microfinance institutions (MFIs) in Tanzania (Doctoral dissertation, University of Greenwich). 36. Nzongang, J., & Nimpa, A. T. (2020). Chapitre 32. L’impact sociétal des Institutions de =Microfinance (IMF): le cas du modèle MC2 du Cameroun. In Africa Positive Impact (pp. 334-343). EMS Editions. 37. Olivares-Polanco, F. (2005). Commercializing microfinance and deepening outreach? Empirical evidence from Latin America. Journal of Microfinance/ESR Review, 7(2), 5. 38. Onomo, M. B. C. (2010). Mécanismes de gouvernance en microfinance: apport sur la performance des institutions de microfinance au Cameroun (Doctoral dissertation, Rouen). Copyright © ISRG Publishers. All rights Reserved. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17320130 161 39. Sierra, J., Muriel-Patino, V., & Rodríguez-López, F. (2024). A comprehensive framework for understanding microfinance performance evaluation methods. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-11. 40. Schneider, P. (2011). p-adic Lie groups (Vol. 344). Springer Science & Business Media. 41. Schreiner, M., & León, J. (2002). microfinance for microenterprise: the state of the art/microfinance pour microentreprise: la situation actuelle. Savings and Development, 329-354. 42. Tchuigoua, H. T., & Nekhili, M. (2012). Gestion des risques et performance des institutions de microfinance. Revue d'économie industrielle, (138), 127-148. 43. Tchakoute-Tchuigoua, H. (2012). Active risk management and loan contract terms: Evidence from rated microfinance institutions. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 52(4), 427-437. 44. Yaron, J., & Manos, R. (2007). Determining the selfsufficiency of microfinance institutions. Savings and development, 131-160. ; 45. Yunus, M. (1997),-Vers un Monde Sans Pauvreté, Edition Jean-Claude Lattes, Paris.