Format-MLA-Mod.II
Citations-04
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The pragmatic reality of Microfinance in the developing world.
Microfinance is the provision of financial services to low-income, poor, and very poor people.
From its inception in the 1970s, microfinance has evolved in astounding ways, incorporating
practical social and economic development concepts, as well as principles that underlie global
financial markets. This combination has led to the creation of a growing number of sustainable
microfinance institutions around the developing world. As microfinance continues to evolve as
a developmental strategy, it will be successful only if it is able to strike the right balance between two frameworks--development and finance--that underlie its core practice’s.
Modern microfinance has existed for almost four decades, it’s principals exist around the
premises that the lending institution considers credit as a human right. The first modern example
of microfinance was the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh founded by Professor Muhammad
Yunus. The Grameen Bank began as a research project by Yunus and the government of
Bangladesh at the University of Chittagong to test his method for providing credit and banking
services to the rural poor. The chief principal of the Grameen Bank is that “loans are based on
trust and not collateral.”[1] This principal establishes that the poor are not dumb and do in fact
possess skills and ambitions beyond their socio-economic stations in life. The value system of
the Grameen Bank are based on the tenant that charity is not an answer to poverty, it only helps
poverty to continue as it creates dependency and takes away the individual's initiative to break
through the cycle of poverty.
The very essence of Liberal Economic Perspective can be summed up as “Economic Growth is
best achieved with a minimum of Government intervention and a maximum of people willing to
invest their capital.”[2] This view that individuals within the developing nation must be willing
to invest into the the nation’s economic future intersects directly with the microfinance core
concept that encourages all borrowers to eventually become savers so that their local capital can
be converted into new loans and thereby self-perpetuating and creating an independent economic
growth strategy. In contrast dependency theorists advocate governmental interventions at all
levels of developing nations economies. This is in polar opposition to the self-help and
solidarity lending practices established and proven by the microfinance movement.
Participatory development theory offers a “do-it-now” approach to raising the economic
conditions of the world’s poor through technology and not industrialization. The
applications of Participatory development and microfinance are relatively close in standard
appearances. Both function to improve the developing economies directly and by-pass the
trickle down method seen in industrialization. The major difference between Participatory
development and microfinance is the latter’s focus on growth first whereas the former follows a
“basic needs strategy”[3] to provide life improvement essential’s first. Participatory
development theorist’s would argue that microfinance is pure commercial application of fighting
poverty and does not take into consideration the larger threat of natural disasters such
as drought or unsustainable population practices. For example: a labor intensive project to
improve infrastructure or population policy such as the adaptation of the Kerrala region of India
can vastly and quickly improve the quality of life of its people, it may not directly improve their
economic