Comments 4

Макропотенциал микрофинансирования

Dec 17, 2013 Prashant Thakker

ЛОНДОН. По своей сути микрофинансирование является попыткой обеспечить финансовые услуги людям, которые их не получают – или получают в недостаточном объеме – формальной банковской системой. С соответствующими, доступными и справедливо оцененными финансовыми услугами люди могут накопить сбережения, покрыть расходы на непредвиденные происшествия и вкладывать в здоровье членов их семьи, в жилищное строительство и образование.

Международная финансовая корпорация подсчитала, что микрофинансирование коснулось около 130 миллионов людей во всем мире за последние 15 лет. За этот период микрофинансирование похвалили за его потенциал в продвижении финансового вовлечения людей и в предоставлении возможности для людей избежать бедности. Но оно также столкнулось с жесткой критикой, а некоторых кредиторов обвинили в спекулятивных операциях.

Невзирая на широко оглашенные трудности этой индустрии, ее потенциал в улучшении жизней бедных людей не может быть не учтен. Вопрос в том, как обеспечить, чтобы микрофинансирование становилось индустрией, в которой нуждается мир. И с этой целью должны быть сделаны три важных шага.

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

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Featured

The West Must Face Reality in Turkey

Aug 15, 2018 Richard N. Haass
Protectionism for Liberals

Aug 14, 2018 Robert Skidelsky
Poland’s Dictatorship of Myth

Aug 13, 2018 Sławomir Sierakowski
Erdoğan’s Authoritarian Quackery

Aug 15, 2018 Nina L. Khrushcheva
Can Turkey Rewrite the Crisis-Management Rules?

Aug 16, 2018 Mohamed A. El-Erian

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.
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.
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
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?