- This article is specific to small loans. For financial services to the poor, see Microfinance. For small payments, see Micropayment.
Microcredit is the extension of very small loans (microloans) to impoverished borrowers who typically lack collateral, steady employment and a verifiable credit history. It is designed not only to support entrepreneurship and alleviate poverty, but also in many cases to empower women and uplift entire communities by extension. In many communities, women lack the highly stable employment histories that traditional lenders tend to require. Many are illiterate, and therefore unable to complete paperwork required to get conventional loans. As of 2009 an estimated 74 million men and women held microloans that totalled US$38 billion. Grameen Bank reports that repayment success rates are between 95 and 98 per cent.
Microcredit is part of microfinance, which provides a wider range of financial services, especially savings accounts, to the poor. Modern microcredit is generally considered to have originated with the Grameen Bank founded in Bangladesh in 1983. Many traditional banks subsequently introduced microcredit despite initial misgivings. The United Nations declared 2005 the International Year of Microcredit. As of 2012, microcredit is widely used in developing countries and is presented as having "enormous potential as a tool for poverty alleviation."
Critics argue, however, that microcredit has not had a positive impact on gender relationships, does not alleviate poverty, has led many borrowers into a debt trap and constitutes a "privatization of welfare". The first randomized evaluation of microcredit, conducted by Esther Duflo and others, showed mixed results: there was no effect on household expenditure, gender equity, education or health, but the number of new businesses increased by one third compared to a control group. Professor Dean Karlan from Yale University says that whilst microcredit generates benefits it isn't the panacea that it has been purported to be. He advocates also giving the poor access to savings accounts.
Ideas relating to microcredit can be found at various times in modern history. Jonathan Swift inspired the Irish Loan Funds of the 18th and 19th centuries. In the mid-19th century, Individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner wrote about the benefits of numerous small loans for entrepreneurial activities to the poor as a way to alleviate poverty. At about the same time, but independently to Spooner, Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen founded the first cooperative lending banks to support farmers in rural Germany. In the 1950s, Akhtar Hameed Khan began distributing group-oriented credit in East Pakistan. Khan used the Comilla Model, in which credit is distributed through community-based initiatives. The project failed due to the over-involvement of the Pakistani government, and the hierarchies created within communities as certain members began to exert more control over loans than others.
The origins of microcredit in its current practical incarnation can be linked to several organizations founded in Bangladesh, especially the Grameen Bank. The Grameen Bank, which is generally considered the first modern microcredit institution, was founded in 1983 by Muhammad Yunus. Yunus began the project in a small town called Jobra, using his own money to deliver small loans at low-interest rates to the rural poor. Grameen Bank was followed by organizations such as BRAC in 1972 and ASA in 1978. Microcredit reached Latin America with the establishment of PRODEM in Bolivia in 1986; a bank that later transformed into the for-profit BancoSol. Microcredit quickly became a popular tool for economic development, with hundreds of institutions emerging throughout the third world. Though the Grameen Bank was formed initially as a non-profit organization dependent upon government subsidies, it later became a corporate entity and was renamed Grameen II in 2002. Muhammad Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his work providing microcredit services to the poor.
Microcredit is ideally based on a unique set of principles that are readily distinguished from trends in the wider credit market. Microcredit organizations were initially created as alternatives to the "loan-sharks" known to take advantage of clients. Indeed, many microlenders began as non-profit organizations and operated with government funds or private subsidies. By the 1980s, however the "financial systems approach," influenced by neoliberalism and propagated by the Harvard Institute for International Development, became the dominant ideology among microcredit organizations. The commercialization of microcredit officially began in 1984 with the formation of Unit Desa (BRI-UD) within the Bank Rakyat Indonesia. Unit Desa offered ‘kupedes’ microloans based on market interest rates.
Ironically, many microcredit organizations now function as independent banks. This has led to their charging higher interest rates on loans and placing more emphasis on savings programs. Notably, Unit Desa has charged in excess of 20 per cent on small business loans. The application of neoliberal economics to microcredit has generated much debate among scholars and development practitioners, with some claiming that microcredit bank directors, such as Muhammad Yunus, apply the practices of loan sharks for their personal enrichment. Indeed, the academic debate foreshadowed a Wall-street style scandal involving the Mexican microcredit organization Compartamos.
Even so, the numbers indicate that ethical microlending and investor profit can go hand-in-hand. In the 1990s a rural finance minister in Indonesia showed how Unit Desa could lower its rates by about 8% while still bringing attractive returns to investors. Today, smaller investment firms are adopting the microlending movement's original ideals. For instance, whereas small coffee farmers in Honduras are typically charged an 18% bank rate, a private investment firm in the US has room to offer more ethical loan terms and offer an attractive return to investors.
Though lending to groups has long been a key part of microcredit, microcredit initially began with the principle of lending to individuals. Despite the use of solidarity circles in 1970s Jobra, Grameen Bank and other early microcredit institutions initially focused on individual lending. Indeed, Muhammad Yunus propagated the notion that every person has the potential to become an entrepreneur. The use of group-lending was motivated by economics of scale, as the costs associated with monitoring loans and enforcing repayment are significantly lower when credit is distributed to groups rather than individuals. Many times the loan to one participant in group-lending depends upon the successful repayment from another member, thus transferring repayment responsibility off of microcredit institutions to loan recipients.
Lending to women
Lending to women has become an important principle in microcredit, with banks and NGOs such as BancoSol, WWB, and Pro Mujer catering to women exclusively. Pro Mujer also implemented a new strategy to combine microcredits with health-care services, since the health of their clients is crucial to the success of microcredits. Though Grameen Bank initially tried to lend to both men and women at equal rates, women presently make up ninety-five percent of the bank’s clients. Women continue to make up seventy-five percent of all microcredit recipients worldwide. Exclusive lending to women began in the 1980s when Grameen Bank found that women have higher repayment rates, and tend to accept smaller loans than men. Subsequently, many microcredit institutions have used the goal of empowering women to justify their disproportionate loans to women.
Grameen Bank in Bangladesh is the oldest and probably best-known microfinance institution in the world. In India, the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) finances more than 500 banks that on-lend funds to self-help groups (SHGs). SHGs comprise twenty or fewer members, of whom the majority are women from the poorest castes and tribes. Members save small amounts of money, as little as a few rupees a month in a group fund. Members may borrow from the group fund for a variety of purposes ranging from household emergencies to school fees. As SHGs prove capable of managing their funds well, they may borrow from a local bank to invest in small business or farm activities. Banks typically lend up to four rupees for every rupee in the group fund. In Asia borrowers generally pay interest rates that range from 30% to 70% without commission and fees. Nearly 1.4 million SHGs comprising approximately 20 million women now borrow from banks, which makes the Indian SHG-Bank Linkage model the largest microfinance program in the world. Similar programs are evolving in Africa and Southeast Asia with the assistance of organizations like IFAD, Opportunity International, Catholic Relief Services, Compassion International, CARE, APMAS, Oxfam, Tearfund and World Vision.
Grameen Bank launched their US operations in New York in April 2008. Bank of America has announced plans to award more than $3.7 million in grants to nonprofits to use in backing microloan programs. ACCION USA, the US subsidiary of the better-known ACCION International, has provided US$117 million in microloans since 1991, with an over 90% repayment rate. One research study of the Grameen model shows that poorer individuals are safer borrowers because they place more value on the relationship with the bank. Even so, efforts to replicate Grameen-style solidarity lending in developed countries have generally not succeeded. For example, the Calmeadow Foundation tested an analogous peer-lending model in three locations in Canada during the 1990s. It concluded that a variety of factors — including difficulties in reaching the target market, the high risk profile of clients, their general distaste for the joint liability requirement, and high overhead costs — made solidarity lending unviable without subsidies. Microcredits have also been introduced in Israel, Russia, Ukraine and other nations where micro-loans help small business entrepreneurs overcome cultural barriers in the mainstream business society. The Israel Free Loan Association (IFLA) has lent more than $100 million in the past two decades to Israeli citizens of all backgrounds.
Peer-to-peer lending over the Web
The principles of microcredit have also been applied in attempting to address several non-poverty-related issues. Among these, multiple Internet-based organizations have developed platforms that facilitate a modified form of peer-to-peer lending where a loan is not made in the form of a single, direct loan, but as the aggregation of a number of smaller loans—often at a negligible interest rate. There are several ways by which the general public can participate in alleviating poverty using Web platforms.
New platforms that connect lenders to micro-entrepreneurs are emerging on the Web, for example Kiva, Zidisha, and the Microloan Foundation. Another WWW-based microlender United Prosperity uses a variation on the usual microlending model; with United Prosperity the micro-lender provides a guarantee to a local bank which then lends back double that amount to the micro-entrpreneur. United Prosperity claims this provides both greater leverage and allows the micro-entrepreneur to develop a credit history with their local bank for future loans. In 2009, the US-based nonprofit Zidisha became the first peer-to-peer microlending platform to link lenders and borrowers directly across international borders without local intermediaries. Vittana allows peer-to-peer lending for student loans in developing countries.
Impact of microcredit
The impact of microcredit is a subject of much controversy. Proponents state that it reduces poverty through higher employment and higher incomes. This is expected to lead to improved nutrition and improved education of the borrowers' children. Some argue that microcredit empowers women. In the US and Canada, it is argued that microcredit helps recipients to graduate from welfare programs.
Critics say that microcredit has not increased incomes, but has driven poor households into a debt trap, in some cases even leading to suicide. They add that the money from loans is often used for durable consumer goods or consumption instead of being used for productive investments, that it fails to empower women, and that it has not improved health or education.
The available evidence indicates that in many cases microcredit has facilitated the creation and the growth of businesses. It has often generated self-employment, but it has not necessarily increased incomes after interest payments. In some cases it has driven borrowers into debt traps. There is no evidence that microcredit has empowered women. In short, microcredit has achieved much less than what its proponents said it would achieve, but its negative impacts have not been as drastic as some critics have argued. Microcredit is just one factor influencing the success of a small businesses, whose success is influenced to a much larger extent by how much an economy or a particular market grows.
Many scholars and practitioners suggest an integrated package of services ('a credit-plus' approach) rather than just providing credits. When access to credit is combined with savings facilities, non-productive loan facilities, insurance, enterprise development (production-oriented and management training, marketing support) and welfare-related services (literacy and health services, gender and social awareness training), the adverse effects discussed above can be diminished. Some argue that more experienced entrepreneurs who are getting loans should be qualified for bigger loans to ensure the success of the program.
One of the principal challenges of microcredit is providing small loans at an affordable cost. The global average interest and fee rate is estimated at 37%, with rates reaching as high as 70% in some markets. The reason for the high interest rates is not primarily cost of capital. Indeed, the local microfinance organizations that receive zero-interest loan capital from the online microlending platform Kiva charge average interest and fee rates of 35.21%. Rather, the principal reason for the high cost of microcredit loans is the high transaction cost of traditional microfinance operations relative to loan size. Microcredit practitioners have long argued that such high interest rates are simply unavoidable. The result is that the traditional approach to microcredit has made only limited progress in resolving the problem it purports to address: that the world's poorest people pay the world's highest cost for small business growth capital. The high costs of traditional microcredit loans limit their effectiveness as a poverty-fighting tool. Borrowers who do not manage to earn a rate of return at least equal to the interest rate may actually end up poorer as a result of accepting the loans. According to a recent survey of microfinance borrowers in Ghana published by the Center for Financial Inclusion, more than one-third of borrowers surveyed reported struggling to repay their loans. In recent years, microcredit providers have shifted their focus from the objective of increasing the volume of lending capital available, to address the challenge of providing microfinance loans more affordably. Analyst David Roodman contends that in mature markets, the average interest and fee rates charged by microfinance institutions tend to fall over time.
- Cooperative banking
- Count Me In (charity)
- Crowd sourcing
- Flat rate (finance)
- Micro credit for water supply and sanitation
- Project Enterprise
- Solidarity lending
- The Women's Development Bank
- Microfinance Information Exchange, Inc. (2009-12-01). "MicroBanking Bulletin Issue #19, December, 2009, pp. 49". Microfinance Information Exchange, Inc.
- Grammen Bank report
- Bateman, Milford (2010). Why Doesn't Microfinance Work?. Zed Books.
- Jason Cons and Kasia Paprocki of the Goldin Institute, "The Limits of Microcredit—A Bangladeshi Case", Food First Backgrounder (Institute for Food and Development Policy), Winter 2008, volume 14, number 4.
- Gina Neff:Microcredit, microresults The Left Business Observer #74, October 1996
- Banerjee, Abhijit; Esther Duflo, Rachel Glennester, Cynthia Kinnan. "The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized evaluation". Retrieved 17 April 2012.
- BBC:Business Weekly, 2 August 2009
- Aidan Hollis (University of Calgary); Arthur Sweetman (University of Victoria) (March 1997). "Complementarity, Competition and Institutional Development: The Irish Loan Funds through Three Centuries". Retrieved 30 January 2012.
- Spooner, Lysander (1846). "Poverty: Its illegal causes and legal cure.". Boston. Retrieved 30 January 2012.
- Deutscher Raiffeisenverband:The Raiffeisen organization: Beginnings, tasks, current developments, March 2011
- Drake, Deborah (2002). The Commercialization of Microfinance. Kumarian.
- Armendariz, Beatriz (2005). The Economics of Microfinance. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
- Nobel Prize.org:The Nobel Peace Prize 2006:Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank, retrieved on 13 February 2012
- Vrajlal Sapovadia:Micro Finance: The Pillars of a Tool to Socio-Economic Development, Development Gateway, 2006
- Microfinance - Healthy Clients http://www.dandc.eu/en/article/pro-mujer-why-microfinance-institutions-should-offer-healthcare-services-too
- Nimal A. Fernando:Understanding and Dealing with High Interest Rate on Microcredit, Asian Development Bank, May 2006, p. 1
- University of Michigan, Urban and Regional Planning Economic Development Handbook: Microcredit strategies for assisting neighborhood businesses, 22 March 2005, retrieved on 13 February 2012
- "Bank of America Issues Grants for Microloans". Wall Street Journal. October 6, 2010. Retrieved 30 January 2012.
- Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, The Creditworthiness of the Poor: A Model of the Grameen Bank, April 2010
- Cheryl Frankiewicz. "Calmeadow Metrofund: A Canadian Experiment in Sustainable Microfinance", Calmeadow Foundation, April 2001.
- Svivatomehet.org.il (Hebrew)
- Israel Free Loan Associantion, History of IFLA, http://israelfreeloan.org.il/about/history, July 26, 2013
- "Zidisha Set to "Expand" in Peer-to-Peer Microfinance", Microfinance Focus, Feb 2010
- Rao. L. (2010). Vittana Applies The Kiva Model To Help Finance Education In Developing Countries. Retrieved March 9, 2011, from http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/15/vittana-applies-the-kiva-model-to-help-finance-education-in-developing-countries/
- Holvoet, Nathalie. The Impact of Microfinance on Decision-Making Agency: Evidence from South India.
- Goetz; Gupta (1996). World Development. Who takes the credit?Gender, Power, Control over loan use in Rural credit program in Bangladesh 24 (1) http://www.citt.ufl.edu/portfolio/genders/Readings/ReadingsW10/Whotakesthecredit.pdf
|url=missing title (help).
- McFarquhar, Neil (April 13, 2010). "Banks Making Big Profits From Tiny Loans". New York Times.
- "Kiva Help - Interest Rate Comparison". Kiva.org. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
- Roodman, David. "Due Diligence: An Impertinent Inquiry Into Microfinance." Center for Global Development, 2011.
Following is a selected bibliography about microcredit.
- Adams, Dale, Doug Graham and J.D. Von Pischke (eds.). Undermining Rural Development with Cheap Credit. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 1984.
- Drake, Deborah, and Elizabeth Rhyne (eds.). The Commercialization of Microfinance: Balancing Business and Development. Kumarian Press, 2002.
- Rhyne, Elizabeth. Mainstreaming Microfinance: How Lending to the Poor Began, Grew and Came of Age in Bolivia. Kumarian Press, 2001.
- Fuglesang, Andreas and Dale Chandler. Participation as Process – Process as Growth – What We can Learn from the Grameen Bank. Grameen Trust, Dhaka, 1993.
- Gibbons, David. The Grameen Reader. Grameen Bank, Dhaka, 1992.
- Harper, Malcolm and Shailendra Vyakarnam. Rural Enterprise: Case Studies from Developing Countries. ITDG Publishing, 1988.
- Hulme, David and Paul Mosley. Finance Against Poverty. Routledge, London, 1996.
- Johnson, Susan and Ben Rogaly. Microfinance and Poverty Reduction. Oxfam, Oxford UK, 1997.
- Kadaras, James & Elizabeth Rhyne. Characteristics of equity investment in microfinance. Accion International, 2004.
- Khandker, Shahidur R. Fighting Poverty with Microcredit. Bangladesh edition, The University Press Ltd, Dhaka, 1999.
- Ledgerwood, Joanna. Microfinance Handbook. Washington, D.C., World Bank, 1998.
- Rutherford, Stuart. ASA: The Biography of an NGO, Empowerment and Credit in Rural Bangladesh. ASA, Dhaka, 1995.
- Small Enterprise Development. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
- Todd, Helen Women at the Center: Grameen Borrowers After One Decade. University Press Ltd, Dhaka, 1996.
- Wood, Geoff D. & I. Sharif (eds.). Who Needs Credit? Poverty and Finance in Bangladesh. University Press Ltd., Dhaka, 1997.
- Yunus Muhammad, Moingeon Bertrand & Laurence Lehmann-Ortega, "Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the Grameen Experience”, April-June, vol 43, n° 2-3, Long Range Planning, 2010, p. 308-325"
- Yunus, Muhammad. Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty. Public Affairs, 2003.
- Padmanabahn, K.P., Rural Credit, Intermediate Tech. Publ. Ltd., London 1988.
- Germidis D. et al.,Financial Systems and Development: what role for the formal and informal financial sectors?, OECD, Paris 1991.
- Robinson, Marguerite S., The microfinance revolution, The World Bank, Washington D.C., 2001.
- Mauri, Arnaldo, (1995): A new approach to institutional lending and loan administration in rural areas of LDCs, International Review of Economics, ISSN 1865-1704, Vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 707–716.
- Goetz, A.-M., and R. Sengupta. 1996. Who Takes the Credit? Gender, Power and Control over Loan Use in Rural Credit Programmes in Bangladesh. World Development 24:45–63.
- Johnson, S. 1997. Gender and Micro-finance: guidelines for best practice. Action Aid-UK.
- Kabeer, N. 1998. 'Money Can't Buy Me Love'? Re-evaluating Gender, Credit and Empowerment in Rural Bangladesh. IDS Discussion Paper 363.
- Mayoux, L. 1998a. Women's Empowerment and Micro-finance programmes: Approaches, Evidence and Ways Forward. The Open University Working Paper No 41.
- Rahman, A. (1999). “Micro-credit Initiatives for Equitable and Sustainable Development: Who Pays?” World Development 27(1): 67–82.
- CHESTON, S. and KUHN, L. (2002). Empowering Women through Microfinance. Pathways Out of Poverty: Innovations in Microfinance for the Poorest Families.
- Harper, A. ( 1995). Providing women in Baltistan with access to loans – potential and problems. Lahore, AKRSP Pakistan.
- Mutalima, I. K., 2006, Microfinance and Gender Equality: Are We Getting There?: Micro Credit Summit, Halifa, Royal Tropical Institute and Oxfam Novib.
- Latest Findings from Randomized Evaluations of Microfinance Access to Finance Forum by CGAP and Its Partners No. 2, December 2011
- Building a Microfinance Institution from Scratch Institution's objective is to offer financial services on a self-sustaining yet efficient basis to microentrepreneurs.
- Journal of Microfinance, a forum for practitioners in microfinance and microenterprise development to exchange information and ideas
- Omidyar-Tufts Microfinance Fund, a partnership between Pierre Omidyar and Tufts University.
- "Microfinance in the U.S." Helping ensure egalitarian access to needed financial services.
- The Promise of Microfinance for Poverty Relief in the Developing World
- Microcredit Regulatory Authority, MRA The central body to monitor and supervise microfinance operation of NGOs of Bangladesh
- Alleviation and poverty and enpowerment of the poor, BRAC Bangladesh
- The European Union Project "Credit Cooperatives – Russian Federation" official web site
- Small Fortunes: Microcredit and the Future of Poverty web site for a PBS documentary