Posts tagged with philanthropy.

Microfinance: where altruism and capitalism collide

Raksha Vasudevan, July 29, 2009 at 11:33 AM

 

Before arriving in Bangladesh, I was familiar with the basics of microfinance: that it involved giving small loans to people who were too poor to qualify for normal loans from regular banks, that the model had been pioneered by Dr. Muhammad Yunus here in Bangladesh over 30 years ago and, that the repayment rates were incredibly high, and overall, the concept was seen as being highly successful in helping people climb out of poverty. 

But after three months spent working for an organization whose core program is in providing microcredit to the rural poor, I've come to learn that the reality of microfinance is more intricate and dense than I'd realized.

But before offering my opinion about the industry (and make no mistake, it's a gargantuan, growing industry with over 30 million borrowers and 175 billion taka (about $2.8 billion Canadian), in loans outstanding in Bangladesh alone), I'll first state my disclaimer: In no way do I believe that a) a single blog post can do justice to the topic, and b) that the amount of time and exposure that I've actually had to the microfinance sector has been enough to give me a thorough understanding of this tricky topic. But luckily, I've had the chance to visit several villages that were populated almost exclusively with microcredit clients and interview some of them. On top of that, I've also been able to pick the brains of field staff and managers with years, sometimes decades, of experience in the field.

The biggest lesson I've learned is that microfinance is at least as much about business as it is about philanthropy. Although the microfinance institutions, or MFIs, take a risk by lending to people with almost no collateral, the high interest rates they charge - sometimes as high as 20% - can have the inverse effect of what's intended: Rather than giving the poor a hand to help them out of poverty, having to pay such high interest can prevent the families from being able to build their own savings, keeping them reliant on loans forever, or at least, for the foreseeable future. The longer they're on loans, the more money the MFI makes. The interest rates seem especially unnecessary when you consider the fact that some of the larger MFIs, such as the Grameen Bank and BRAC, had surpluses amounting to more than a million dollars in recent years. As one Bangladeshi man put it, the MFIs are often seen as doing nothing more than "drinking the people's blood."

There are other criticisms surrounding MFIs, including the fact that they receive lots of money from the government and international aid agencies but portray themselves as self-sustaining, along with the fact that not all poor people have the "entrepreneurial drive" that would allow them to use the loans they receive to build self-sufficient businesses (a key goal of microfinance).

But encouragingly, it appears that better models of microfinancing are emerging. As an example, Food for the Hungry (FH), another international NGO that has operations in Bangladesh, allows the poor to essentially borrow on their own savings. Participants of its program are organized into groups, which then decide how much they want its members to save every week (usually no more than a dollar a week per person). From these savings, the group can then disburse loans to any of its members. This innovative approach has several advantages:

1)      Since it's the members' own money at stake, the group is unlikely to give loans that it doesn't think can be paid back, so the chance of default is low.

2)      The members know that if they default on their loans, they're not just merely an annoyance to a bank that has seemingly bottomless coffers to begin with. More likely, they're taking food out of the hands of their neighbours, relatives or friends. Again, this makes the chance of default quite low.

3)      The group profits from the interest that members pay on the loans. Eventually, the savings pool, supplemented by the profit from interest, can become large enough that either larger loans can be given, or the account can be closed out, providing a significant return for the group members.

4)      Dignity and empowerment, for both clients and staff. Since the organization never touches the money, there's no need for debt collectors to chase down their clients and the self-determining nature of the groups (i.e. the group itself decides how much money to lend and what interest rate to charge) truly empowers the members, because it's exclusively their own money and effort that's allowed them to escape lives of impoverishment.

Despite the criticisms that it's received, I continue to believe that microfinance, while certainly having its fair share of drawbacks and glitches, is a critical part of Bangladesh's development and that the poor of the country are better off with it than without. After all, even if we agree that the MFIs are about business, not philanthropy, no business can survive without demand for its product, and the 30 million borrowers in this country represent a demand that's not going away any time soon.



Tagged with poverty, rural, bangladesh, development, microcredit, Bangladesh, poor, microfinance, business, philanthropy, interest | Comments (12) |