Food delivers energy, nutrients and a pleasurable experience. Slow eating and prolonged oro-sensory exposure to food during consumption can enhance the processes that promote satiation. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of oral processing on subjective measures of appetite (hunger, desire to eat) and objectively measured food intake. The aim was to investigate the influence of oral processing characteristics, specifically "chewing" and "lubrication", on "appetite" and "food intake". A literature search of six databases (Cochrane library, PubMed, Medline, Food Science and Technology Abstracts, Web of Science, Scopus), yielded 12161 articles which were reduced to a set of 40 articles using pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. A further two articles were excluded from the meta-analysis due to missing relevant data. From the remaining 38 papers, detailing 40 unique studies with 70 subgroups, raw data were extracted for meta-analysis (food intake n = 65, hunger n = 22 and desire to eat ratings n = 15) and analyzed using random effects modelling. Oral processing parameters, such as number of chews, eating rate and texture manipulation, appeared to influence food intake markedly but appetite ratings to a lesser extent. Meta-analysis confirmed a significant effect of the direct and indirect aspects of oral processing that were related to chewing on both self-reported hunger (-0.20 effect size, 95% confidence interval CI: -0.30, -0.11), and food intake (-0.28 effect size, 95% CI: -0.36, -0.19). Although lubrication is an important aspect of oral processing, few studies on its effects on appetite have been conducted. Future experiments using standardized approaches should provide a clearer understanding of the role of oral processing, including both chewing and lubrication, in promoting satiety.

In recent years, the microfinance industry has received a substantial amount of cross-border funding from both public and private sources. This funding reflects the increasing interest in microfinance as part of a more general trend towards socially responsible investments. In order to be able to secure sustained interest from these investors, it is important that the microfinance industry can show evidence of its contribution to reducing poverty at the bottom of the pyramid. For this, it is crucial to understand under what conditions microfinance institutions (MFIs) are able to reduce poverty. This paper contributes to this discussion by investigating the relationship between the extent to which social capital formation is facilitated within different societies and the financial and social performance of MFIs. This focus on social capital formation is important, because in many cases MFIs use group loans with joint liability to incentivize asset-poor borrowers to substitute the lack of physical collateral by their social capital. Hence, the success of a large part of the loan relationship between MFIs and their borrowers depends on the social capital those borrowers can bring into the contract. We carry out a cross-country analysis on a dataset containing 100 countries and identify different social dimensions as proxies for how easy social capital can be developed in different countries. We hypothesize that microfinance is more successful, both in terms of their financial and social aims, in societies that are more conducive to the development of social capital. Our empirical results support our hypothesis.

Microfinance group lending with joint liability allows asset-poor individuals to replace physical collateral by social collateral. The literature on microfinance lacks a rigid framework for analyzing the consequences of using social collateral for borrowing behavior and repayment. This paper fills the gap by providing a theoretical framework to evaluate the impact of social collateral pledged by group borrowers on group lending repayment. Our approach is novel as we take into account the external ties of group borrowers, i.e. the social ties linking borrowers to non-borrowers from their community, whereas previous work in this field has looked solely at internal ties (i.e. between group members). One of the important features of our model is that we stress the impact of network configuration on the amount of social collateral pledged. Our model shows why the group lending methodology works better in rural areas than in urban areas, namely because rural social networks are typically denser than urban ones, which results in higher social collateral. AbstractMicrofinance group lending with joint liability allows asset-poor individuals to replace physical collateral by social collateral. The literature on microfinance lacks a rigid framework for analyzing the consequences of using social collateral for borrowing behavior and repayment. This paper fills the gap by providing a theoretical framework to evaluate the impact of social collateral pledged by group borrowers on group lending repayment. Our approach is novel as we take into account the external ties of group borrowers, i.e. the social ties linking borrowers to non-borrowers from their community, whereas previous work in this field has looked solely at internal ties (i.e. between group members). One of the important features of our model is that we stress the impact of network configuration on the amount of social collateral pledged. Our model shows why the group lending methodology works better in rural areas than in urban areas, namely because rural social networks are typically denser than urban ones, which results in higher social collateral.

Microfinance group lending with joint liability allows asset-poor individuals to replace physical collateral by social collateral. The literature on microfinance lacks a rigid framework for analyzing the consequences of using social collateral for borrowing behavior and repayment. This paper fills the gap by providing a theoretical framework to evaluate the impact of social collateral pledged by group borrowers on group lending repayment. Our approach is novel as we take into account the external ties of group borrowers, i.e. the social ties linking borrowers to non-borrowers from their community, whereas previous work in this field has looked solely at internal ties (i.e. between group members). One of the important features of our model is that we stress the impact of network configuration on the amount of social collateral pledged. Our model shows why the group lending methodology works better in rural areas than in urban areas, namely because rural social networks are typically denser than urban ones, which results in higher social collateral. AbstractMicrofinance group lending with joint liability allows asset-poor individuals to replace physical collateral by social collateral. The literature on microfinance lacks a rigid framework for analyzing the consequences of using social collateral for borrowing behavior and repayment. This paper fills the gap by providing a theoretical framework to evaluate the impact of social collateral pledged by group borrowers on group lending repayment. Our approach is novel as we take into account the external ties of group borrowers, i.e. the social ties linking borrowers to non-borrowers from their community, whereas previous work in this field has looked solely at internal ties (i.e. between group members). One of the important features of our model is that we stress the impact of network configuration on the amount of social collateral pledged. Our model shows why the group lending methodology works better in rural areas than in urban areas, namely because rural social networks are typically denser than urban ones, which results in higher social collateral.