International aid work is always coming up with new models to end world poverty. ("It's so simple! Why didn't we think of it before?!") Simple mechanisms for water purification or cleaner latrines, to odd sounding notions like child-centered schools, and cash-for-work schemes have all been touted as ways to turn desperation into dignity.
Much of the same hope and excitement was invested in microfinancing when it first began being hailed as the solution du jour. A $10 loan to an illiterate village woman could be turned into a mini empire, female emancipation and regional security. It wasn't a hand out, it was a power tool! Thumbs up! And here, Mr. Mohammed Yunus of the Grameen Bank -- take this Nobel Peace Prize for your efforts.
The benefit of microfinance, is is said, lies in the small sums loaned, then paid back with interest in order to loan money onto other worthy borrowers (usually women), while enabling the lender to expand their tiny businesses into sustainable enterprises. But as time has gone on, many development wonks and economists are unable to pin down the long term benefits of microfinance.
The backlash started a few years ago when it became evident that even a $10 loan was crippling for some. Some women, some men, some villages became mired in debt, continually borrowing to extend their businesses and defaulting on loans. Commercial for-profit lenders became involved -- attaching the word 'microfinancing' to inflated loans and revenue raising practices (one noted African micro-lender charged 120% interest).
The new magic carpet of the development gurus has begun to look a little tatty around the edges. A Danish documentary has alleged Mr Yunus's Bangladesh based operation has been involved in complicated and multifaceted financial transactions that lead up one road and then disappear down another. (Mr Yunus has strongly defended himself).
One former microfinance project officer told me she was deeply disillusioned with the schemes -- as she saw people getting into debt they began using microfinance as an easy way to pay for their every day family expenses (and therefore not creating an income which would enable the loan to be paid back).
If the model is flawed, is there hope for microfinance with some re-tweeking? Or have the sharks and the commercial lenders destroyed what once seemed so promising, and yet again those least able to rise to the challenges they face, are left to manage with handouts, restrictive financing and the circle of desperation.
Follow Virginia M. Moncrieff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/vmmoncrieff
Gina Harman: 7 Women Leaders Speak On The Role Of Microfinance In Women's Entrepreneurship
Nicole Skibola: Bringing the 'Girl Effect' Back Home: Microfinance Projects for American Women
Gina Harman: Scaling Microfinance: An Economic Imperative
In the face of 3 billion people in poverty, the critics might take a moment to offer up their own solutions. It is well and good to raise quality improvement questions about microfinance, as I myself have, but the burden is on us to act, not carp. Even with 30 years of rapid growth, microfinance is still reaching only a fraction of the global poor. What do the critics propose?
Like you, I would hate to throw the baby out with the bath water, and like you I really do loathe carping from the sidelines from people in comfy chairs with central heating. I think we certainly agree on that point!
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment Jonathan.
Microfinance was certainly considered the new way out - and I am still a fan, I have to say - but I suppose the early heady days of it being seen as the final answer to world poverty are over and some tweeking must now begin.
I really appreciaite you taking time to respond.
Just like many other organizations, no doubt mistakes have been made in microfinance. Humans, not robots, are behind these programs. Here, the most capable and conscionable of organizations should rise to the occasion, take a step back and figure out how to restructure their programs (or internal management) to ensure that they continue improving the lives of others by helping them to help themselves.
I approve of the recent revelations of the ugly side of microfinance- institutions that take advantage of a growing phenomenon by exploiting the poor should be exposed. But do not discredit all microfinance nonprofits. There could not be a better time for small and up-and-coming microfinance organizations, like The Last Best Women, to step up to the plate and prove that giving individuals an opportunity they otherwise would not have, along with a support system, is effective in decreasing cycles of dependence and hardship.
And you are right - microfinance is not above a very rigorous appraisal - economic and social so that adjustments can be made. Banks in Africa and India that were fronted by profiteering loan sharks masquerading as development professionals have recently been unmasked and so that's a great start.
I think perhaps the model may also need adjustment, so that the notion of 'give a woman $10 and it miraculously lifts her from poverty' is erased and replaced with more meaningful and long term outcomes. Microfinance has been used as a miracle cure all (especially in the area of women's economic emancipation) so maybe these scandals and questions will help - in the long run - with creating a more sustainable models with greater outcomes.
Thanks so much for taking the time to read and respond so thoughtfully.