Comments 4

微观金融的宏观潜力

Dec 17, 2013 Prashant Thakker

迪拜—说到底，微观金融是向无法从正式银行系统获得服务（或服务不充分）的人提供金融服务的业务。有了合适、易得、价格公平的金融服务，人们就能建立自己的储蓄，覆盖意料之外的紧急情况的成本，并投资于家庭健康、住房和教育。

国际金融公司（International Finance Corporation）估计，在过去15年中，微观金融触及了1.3亿人。在此期间，微观金融因为其能够增加金融包容度、让人们摆脱贫困而广受赞誉。但它也招来了严厉的批评，一些贷款者被指攫取暴利。

尽管微观金融业具有诸多众所周知的缺陷，但其改善穷人生活的潜力不可忽视。现在的问题是如何确保微观金融成为世界所需要的行业。在这方面，必须做三件重要的事。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

The End of Scandinavian Non-Alignment

Oct 17, 2018 Carl Bildt
The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

Oct 15, 2018 Daoud Kuttab
The Brexit Endgame

Oct 16, 2018 Robert Skidelsky
People vs. Money in America’s Midterm Elections

Oct 11, 2018 Joseph E. Stiglitz
The Big Blockchain Lie

Oct 15, 2018 Nouriel Roubini

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 in all 4 Comments on this article

Mukesh Adenwala Dec 26, 2013

The essential question to ask is: Can finance be regulated successfully? All need for credit arises to smooth out the differences in cash flows. So far as micro-finance is concerned, poorer people need finance for various reasons like expenses required to be incurred on social customs, illness, etc. Also their cash flows are seasonal and not very robust. The mismatch in cash flows hence cannot have a viable solution. And it is this lack of viable solution that preempts regulation of micro-finance.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mr Econotarian Dec 23, 2013

Microfinance is not a solution. It is a symptom of an over-regulated banking sector, often state-owned, and typically one that does not face competition from foreign banks.

It is also something else. Studies of micro finance have identified micro finance as a tool for women to save money without it being raided by their husbands. They could save up for a purchase, but then their husband might find their money and drink or gamble it away. So instead they borrow the money for the purchase, then have to pay it back, or if they don't the shame falls on their husbands as well. If these women could open small personal bank a accounts, they would not need micro finance, but in some countries wives can't do that, or the stodgy bank sector can't even serve their community.

Also if a country has a pro-woman culture where women can become educated and have opportunities to work (in a legal formal sector), they are less likely to need micro finance. They will be making more money as well.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joaquín Saldain Dec 19, 2013

I agree with Mr. Thakker's approach. In particular, with his last comment. Financial inclusion is only one aspect of exclusion, and should be fostered jointly with other dimensions of exclusion. We should worry about avoiding negative effects like this one: http://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/some-unexpected-effects-microcredit-children-guest-post-pedro-aratanha
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hugh Sinclair Dec 18, 2013

I applaud Mr. Thakker's suggestion that microfinance should be appropriate, accessible and fairly priced. Coming from someone as senior has Global head of Microfinance at Standard Chartered, with an obvious footprint in developing countries, this is encouraging. However, perhaps Mr. Thakker could explain how Standard Chartered managed to invest in the Nigerian microfinance institution LAPO while the MFI was charging interest rates of 126% to poor, mainly female clients? The bank was described as "illegal" in a number of rating reports, all of which were publicly available, due predominantly to capturing savings from the poor without a license. This was merely one of an extensive list of criticisms two seperate rating agencies reported over an extended period. When the New York Times investigated the bank and wrote a particularly critical piece on it, most investors pulled out of LAPO, including the darling of the sector, Kiva. Indeed, about the only positive thing the rating reports were able to conclude about LAPO was it's astonishng profitability, presumably related in part to the exploitatively high interest rates.

It seems only one of two possible explanations are possible here. Either Standard Chartered is prepared to turn a convenient blind eye to such practices if the financial upside is sufficient. Or their due diligence was sub-standard and they actually had no idea they were lending to such a questionable institution. I suspect the latter, as the deal was actually manged and guaranteed by Grameen Foundation USA.

There is a lot of debate currently about the effectiveness of microfinance, as Mr. Thankker aludes to. Some praise still remains, but for some reason this tends to emerge from people with direct interests in the sector recovering. I firmly agree with Mr. Thankker's suggestion for improved regulation of MFIs, but I have one remaining question: who is regulating Standard Chartered's activities in this sector, and what did they think of their investment in LAPO?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.