Backlash against microcredit grows
A storm is brewing. For the past few years, micro-credit [the lending of relatively small amounts of money without requiring collateral to entrepreneurs and small business owners in impoverished countries, aiming to stimulate the SMB stratum there and create jobs] has promised a great deal. Mohammed Yunus famously won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize jointly with his micro-finance institution (MFI), the Grameen Bank.
But 2008 has seen the start of a major backlash. Accusations are flying of heavy-handed mafia-like behaviour:
Korshed Alom, a former debt collector, was put into early retirement for having questioned the Grameen Bank’s methods: “Their technique is to scare borrowers and insult them. We tell them to sell their clothes, that they have no other choice. I’m not proud of myself, but several times, I had even been obliged to say ‘sell your children.’”
I’m not going to be as quick as others have been to jump on the anti-microfinance bandwagon though. A finance system relies on debt repayment, or there’s no incentive to loan the money. The interest rates are not onerous, so repayment should be achievable if the business it was loaned to is sound and the repayment rates set by the Grameen Bank were reasonable. But the fact is, in some cases people are being plunged further into debt, rather than escaping from it; that’s always a risk when you take on debt, but if this is happening too much, then the poor will stay poor and the beneficiaries will be the vendors of business services, equipment and inventory whose stuff is bought with Grameen’s loans. There are four possible failures here; I think it’s unfair to criticise the Grameen Bank for insisting on recovering its loans - these are helping hands, not handouts, and the money will dry up if default rates grow.
- Failure to properly assess the viability of the business or the entrepreneur’s talent. If someone is likely to default, don’t give them the rope with which to hang themselves!
- Failure to properly educate people, first to determine whether this is the right thing for them, secondly what the consequences and expectations attached to these loans are, and thirdly, maybe closer monitoring and business training over the term of the loan could be provided to reduce default rates organically
- Interest rates are too onerous. Reportedly they’re in the region of 20%. That’s a remarkable growth rate to achieve.
- Failure to set the right repayment schedule, demanding money back before it’s had time to provide returns
But what worries me a great deal more than a few unhappy endings for loans (it has 100 million clients, aiming for half a billion loanees by 2020!), is this. The Grameen Bank, its employees, and even the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mohammed Yunus, have gone to ground - journalists are met with total impasse and obscurity when they try talking to these people for their side of the story, finding out more about default rates, etc. I refuse to believe that anything that’s truly good or humanity and treating humans respect should have the slightest thing to hide - from the most boring memo, to the opinions of its staffers, to its accounts, etc. What needs to happen after this story is not a call to end microfinance, but a call for total openness and transparency.
Related:
- WTF-of-the-day
- http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec69619a-f8f9-11dc-bcf3-000077b07658.html The Zimbabwe government under President Robert Mugabe has embarked on a borrowing and spending spree ahead of Saturday’s presidential and parliamentary elections. In the six weeks to March 7, government debt increased 65-fold from Z$25,000bn to Z$1,600,000bn (£26bn, US$53bn, €34bn), according to official figures. While the increase in government expenditure is exaggerated by inflation, running at a rate of at least 150 per cent a month, the surge in borrowing – more than half of it by overdraft from the central bank – can be considered a direct measure of the ruling Zanu-PF party’s desperation to secure Mr Mugabe’s re-election. Central bank officials say that Z$166,000bn was spent to increase salaries of public servants, especially teachers and security force personnel. Another Z$500,000bn went on buying farm equipment, according to central bank officials. There have been reports that Zanu-PF is also distributing industrial and commercial machinery. The spending is intended to counter what opposition parties say is a big swing against Mr Mugabe in the countryside, traditionally the bedrock of his support. Election observers from the Southern African Development Community have rejected suggestions that the electoral process is unfair. What the fuck: Why are the Zimbabwean people tolerating this?...
- Self-replicating, open source 3D printers
- This...is...awesome: The RepRap (Replicating Rapid-prototyper) printer can replicate and update itself. It can print its own parts, including updates. The 3D printer works by building components up in layers of plastic, mainly polylactic acid (PLA), which is a bio-degradable polymer made from lactic acid 3D printer tech already exists, y'see - these guys want to make it available to anyone around the world, infinitely copyable (though I wonder where the natural resources will come from?) It wants to make the machine available to anybody — including small communities in the developing world, as well as people in the developed world, says Olliver. Accordingly, the RepRap machine is distributed, at no cost, under the GNU (General Public Licence). In the true spirit of open-source, it's envisaged as perpetual beta RepRap’s open-source project aims to keep on improving the machine. “So it can do what people want it to do”, says Olliver. Improvements will go back to users and, in this way, the machine as a whole evolves, he says. The idea of evolution is important, he adds. The device Olliver is creating now will probably bear very little resemblance to the device that will appear on everybody’s desks in the future,...
- iPlayer; licence fee subsidies
- The ISP industry sez: People use the iPlayer <>. The iPlayer has massively boosted the average Internet consumption of those people as they watch more video than ever<>. This is costing ISPs money <>. If the BBC doesn't give the ISPs the money to match this marginal cost, or BT doesn't reduce the cost of renting extra copper pipes from them, their margins will go down <>. This means they have to pass the cost onto the end user, you and me. Ashley Highfield, at the BBC, slaps their outstretched hand<>, but others at the BBC suggest a BBC-sponsored hardware rollout to help the ISPs cope<>. If the cost is passed onto the end user, i.e. my ISP fee every month goes up, as a result of a project I have already paid for by my annual TV license, isn't BT costing me money once for the license, and then every month for providing the iPlayer to the UK population, whether I personally use it or not? Is this double-taxing for the iPlayer fair (irrespective of whether I use it)? What's the solution? PS: the ISP's claims are logical (if undeserving of pity, given they chose to build themselves on...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Add New Comment
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks
(Trackback URL)