Microfinance in Indian Context

Improve this article by Introducing more precise citations. (February 2013) community-based savings bank In Cambodia. There Is a rich variety of financial institutions which serve micro-entrepreneurs and small businesses. Micromanage is a form of financial services for entrepreneurs and small businesses lacking access to banking and related services. The two main mechanisms for the delivery of financial services to such clients are: (1) relationship-based banking for individual entrepreneurs and small businesses; and (2) group-based models, where several entrepreneurs come together to apply for loans and other services as a group.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In some regions, for example Southern Africa, micromanage is used to describe the supply of financial services to low-income employees, which is closer to the retail finance model prevalent in mainstream banking. For some, micromanage is a movement whose object is “a world in which as many poor and near-poor households as possible have permanent access to an appropriate range of high quality financial services, including not Just credit but also savings, insurance, and fund transfers. “[1] Many of those who promote micromanage generally believe that such access will help poor people out of poverty.

For others, micromanage is a way to promote economic development, employment and growth through the support of micro-entrepreneurs and small businesses. Micromanage is a broad category of services, which includes microcircuit. Microcircuit is provision of credit services to poor clients. Microcircuit is one of the aspects of micromanage and the two are often confused. Critics may attack microcircuit while referring to It Indiscriminately as either ‘microcircuit’ or ‘micromanage’. Due to the broad range of micromanage services, It Is difficult to assess impact, and very few studies have tried to assess Its full

Hopes of quickly putting them out of business have proven unrealistic, even in places where micromanage institutions are active. Citation needed] Although much progress has been made, the problem has not yet been solved, and the overwhelming majority of people who earn less than $1 a day, especially in rural areas, continue to have no practical access to formal sector finance. Micromanage has been growing rapidly with $25 billion currently at work in micromanage loans. [6] It is estimated that the industry needs $250 billion to get capital to all the poor people who need it. 6] The industry has been growing rapidly, and concerns have arisen that the rate of capital flowing into micromanage is a potential risk unless managed well. 7] As seen in the State of Andorra Pradesh (India), these systems can easily fail. Reasons for failure include lack of use by potential customers, over-indebtedness, poor operating procedures, neglect of duties and inadequate regulations. [8] Micromanage and poverty[edit source I editable] Financial needs and financial services.

In developing economies and particularly in rural areas, many activities that would be classified in the developed world as financial are not monitored: that is, money is not used to carry them out. This is often the case when people need the services none can provide but do not have dispensable funds required for those services, forcing them to revert to other means of acquiring them. In his recent book The Poor and Their Money, Stuart Rutherford cites several types of needs:[9] Lifestyle Needs: such as weddings, funerals, childbirth, education, homebuilding, widowhood and old age.

Personal Emergencies: such as sickness, injury, unemployment, theft, harassment or death. Disasters: such as fires, floods, cyclones and man-made events like war or bulldozing of dwellings. Investment Opportunities: expanding a business, eying land or equipment, improving housing, securing a Job (which often requires paying a large bribe), etc. Poor people find creative and often collaborative ways to meet these needs, primarily through creating and exchanging different forms of non- cash value. Common substitutes for cash vary from country to country but typically include livestock, grains, Jewelry and precious metals.

As Marguerite Robinson describes in The Micromanage Revolution, the sass demonstrated that “micromanage to develop as an industry” (2001, p. 54). In the sass, the micromanage industry’s objective is to satisfy the unmet demand on a much larger scale, and to play a role in reducing poverty. While much progress has been made in developing a viable, commercial micromanage sector in the last few decades, several issues remain that need to be addressed before the industry will be able to satisfy massive worldwide demand.

The obstacles or challenges to building a sound commercial micromanage industry include: Inappropriate donor subsidies Poor regulation and supervision of deposit-taking Miff Few Miff that meet the needs for savings, remittances or insurance Limited management capacity in Miff Institutional inefficiencies Need for more dissemination and adoption of rural, agricultural micromanage methodologies Ways in which poor people manage their money[edit source I Saving up Rutherford argues that the basic problem poor people as money managers face is to gather a ‘usefully large’ amount of money.

Building a new home may involve saving and protecting diverse building materials for years until enough are available to proceed with construction. Children’s schooling may be funded by buying chickens and raising them for sale as needed for expenses, uniforms, bribes, etc. Because all he value is accumulated before it is needed, this money management strategy is referred to as ‘saving up’. [citation needed] Often, people don’t have enough money when they face a need, so they borrow.

A poor family might borrow from relatives to buy land, from a moneylender to buy rice, or from a micromanage institution to buy a sewing machine. Since these loans must be repaid by saving after the cost is incurred, Rutherford calls this ‘saving down’. Rutherford point is that microcircuit is addressing only half the problem, and arguably the less important half: poor people borrow to help them save and accumulate assets. Microcircuit institutions should fund their loans through savings accounts that help poor people manage their myriad risks. Citation needed] Saving down Most needs are met through a mix of saving and credit. A benchmark impact assessment of Grahame Bank and two other large micromanage institutions in Bangladesh found that for every $1 they were lending to clients to finance rural non- farm micro-enterprise, about $2. 50 came from other sources, mostly their clients’ savings. [10] This parallels the experience in the West, in which family businesses are funded mostly from savings, especially during start-up. Recent studies have also shown that informal methods of saving are unsafe.

For example, a study by Wright and Materials in Uganda concluded that “those with no option but to save in the informal sector are almost bound to lose some money-?probably around one quarter of what they save there. “[11] The work of Rutherford, Wright and others has caused practitioners to reconsider a key aspect of the microcircuit paradigm: that poor their income. The new paradigm places more attention on the efforts of poor people to reduce their many vulnerabilities by keeping more of what they earn and building up their assets.

While they need loans, they may find it as useful to borrow for consumption as for misinterprets. A safe, flexible place to save money and withdraw it when needed is also essential for managing household and family risk. [citation needed] Micromanage debates and challenges[edit source I editable] There are several key debates at the boundaries of micromanage. Interest rates[edit source I editable] This shop in South Sudan was opened using money borrowed from the Finance Sudan Limited (FSML) Program. This program was established in 2006 as one of the only micromanage lenders in the country.

One of the principal challenges of micromanage 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. [12] The reason for the high interest rates is not primarily cost of capital. Indeed, the local micromanage organizations that receive zero-interest loan capital from the online microfilming platform Kava charge average interest and fee rates of Rather, the main reason for the high cost of micromanage loans is the high transaction cost of traditional micromanage operations relative to loan size. 14] Micromanage practitioners have long argued that such high interest rates are simply unavoidable, because the cost of making each loan cannot be reduced below a certain level while still allowing the lender to cover costs such as offices and staff salaries. For example in Sub-Sahara Africa credit risk for micromanage institutes is very high, because customers need years to improve their livelihood and face many challenges during this time.

Financial institutes often do not even have a system to check the person’s identity. Additionally they are unable to design new products and enlarge their business to reduce the risk. 1 5] The result is that the traditional approach to micromanage 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 micromanage loans limit their effectiveness as a poverty-fighting tool.

Offering loans at interest and fee rates of 37% mean that borrowers who do not manage to earn at least a 37% rate of return may actually end up poorer as a result of accepting the loans. [16] Example of a loan contract, using flat rate calculation, from rural Cambodia. Loan is or 400,000 riel’s at 4% flat (16,000 riel’s) interest per month. According to a recent survey of micromanage borrowers in Ghana published by the Center for Financial Inclusion, more than one-third of borrowers surveyed reported struggling to repay their loans.

Some resorted to measures such as reducing their food intake or taking children out of school in order to repay micromanage debts that had not proven sufficiently profitable. In recent years, the micromanage industry has shifted its focus from the objective of increasing the volume of lending capital available, to address the challenge of providing micromanage loans more affordable. Micromanage analyst David Roadman contends that, in mature markets, the average interest and fee rates average interest rates for micromanage loans are still well above 30%.

The answer to providing micromanage services at an affordable cost may lie in rethinking one of the fundamental assumptions underlying micromanage: that micromanage borrowers need extensive monitoring and interaction with loan officers in order to benefit from and repay their loans. The PAP microfilming service Caddish is based on this premise, facilitating direct interaction between individual lenders and borrowers via an internet community rather than physical offices.

Caddish has managed to bring the cost of microcosms to below 10% for borrowers, including interest which is paid out to lenders. However, it remains to be seen whether such radical alternative models can reach the scale necessary to compete with traditional micromanage programs. [18] Use of loans[edit source I editable] Practitioners and donors from the charitable side of micromanage frequently argue for restricting microcircuit to loans for productive purposes-?such as to start or expand a misinterprets.

Those from the private-sector side respond that, because none is fungible, such a restriction is impossible to enforce, and that in any case it should not be up to rich people to determine how poor people use their money[citation needed]. Who should provide micromanage services? [edit source I editable] Perhaps influenced by traditional Western views about usury, the role of the traditional moneylender has been subject to much criticism, especially in the early stages of modern micromanage.

As more poor people gained access to loans from microcircuit institutions however, it became apparent that the services of moneylenders continued to be valued. Borrowers were prepared to pay very high interest rates for services like quick loan disbursement, confidentiality and flexible repayment schedules. They did not always see lower interest rates as adequate compensation for the costs of attending meetings, attending training courses to qualify for disbursements or making monthly collateral contributions.

They also found it distasteful to be forced to pretend they were borrowing to start a business, when they were often borrowing for other reasons (such as paying for school fees, dealing with health costs or securing the family food supply). 19] The more recent focus on inclusive financial systems (see section below) affords moneylenders more legitimacy, arguing in favor of regulation and efforts to increase competition between them to expand the options available to poor people. Modern micromanage emerged in the sass with a strong orientation towards private-sector solutions.

This resulted from evidence that state-owned agricultural development banks in developing countries had been a monumental failure, actually undermining the development goals they were intended to serve (see the compilation edited by Adams, Graham ; Von Picked). 4] Nevertheless, public officials in many countries hold a different view, and continue to intervene in micromanage markets. Reach versus depth of impact[edit source I editable] These goats are being raised by Rwanda women as part of a farm cooperative funded by micromanage.

There has been a long-standing debate over the sharpness of the trade-off between ‘outreach’ (the ability of a micromanage institution to reach poorer and more remote people) and its ‘sustainability’ (its ability to cover its revenues). Although it is generally agreed that micromanage practitioners should seek o balance these goals to some extent, there are a wide variety of strategies, ranging from the minimalist profit-orientation of Bannocks in Bolivia to the highly integrated not-for-profit orientation of BRACE in Bangladesh.

This is true not only for individual institutions, but also for governments engaged in developing national micromanage systems. Gender[edit source I editable] Micromanage experts generally agree that women should be the primary focus of service delivery. Evidence shows that they are less likely to default on their loans than men. Industry data from 2006 for 704 Miff reaching 52 million borrowers includes Miff using the solidarity lending methodology (99. 3% female clients) and Miff using individual lending (51% female clients). The delinquency rate for solidarity lending was 0. % after 30 days (individual lending-?3. 1%), while 0. 3% of loans were written off (individual lending-?O. 9%). [20] Because operating margins become tighter the smaller the loans delivered, many Miff consider the risk of lending to men to be too high. This focus on women is questioned sometimes, however a recent study of misinterpretations from Sir Lankan published by the World Bank found that the turn on capital for male-owned businesses (half of the sample) averaged 11%, whereas the return for women-owned businesses was 0% or slightly negative. 21] History of micromanage[edit source I editable] Over the past centuries, practical visionaries, from the Franciscan monks who founded the community-oriented pawnshops of the 1 5th century to the founders of the European credit union movement in the 19th century (such as Frederica Wilhelm Refiners) and the founders of the microcircuit movement in the sass (such as Muhammad Yuan’s and AY Whittaker), have tested practices and built institutions signed to bring the kinds of opportunities and risk-management tools that financial services can provide to the doorsteps of poor people. 22] While the success of the Grahame Bank (which now serves over 7 million poor Bangladesh women) has inspired the world,[citation needed] it has proved difficult to replicate this success. In nations with lower population densities, meeting the operating costs of a retail branch by serving nearby customers has proven considerably more challenging. Hans Dieter Seibel, board member of the European Micromanage Platform, is in favor of the group model. This particular model (used by many Micromanage institutions) makes financial sense, he says, because it reduces transaction costs.

Micromanage programmer also need to be based on local funds. Local Roots The history of micromanaging can be traced back as far as the middle of the sass, when the theorist Alexander Spooned was writing about the benefits of small credits to entrepreneurs and farmers as a way of getting the people out of poverty. Independently of Spooned, Frederica Wilhelm Refiners founded the first cooperative lending banks to support farmers in rural Germany. [23] The modern use of the expression “micromanaging” has roots in the sass when organizations, such as

Grahame Bank of Bangladesh with the micromanage pioneer Muhammad Yuan’s, were starting and shaping the modern industry of micromanaging. Another pioneer in this sector is Aztar Hammed Khan. Micromanage standards and principles[edit to resell. Poor people borrow from informal moneylenders and save with informal collectors. They receive loans and grants from charities. They buy insurance from state-owned companies. They receive funds transfers through formal or informal remittance networks. It is not easy to distinguish micromanage from similar activities.

It could be claimed that a government that orders state banks to open deposit counts for poor consumers, or a moneylender that engages in usury, or a charity that runs a heifer pool are engaged in micromanage. Ensuring financial services to poor people is best done by expanding the number of financial institutions available to them, as well as by strengthening the capacity of those institutions. In recent years there has also been increasing emphasis on expanding the diversity of institutions, since different institutions serve different needs.

Some principles that summarize a century and a half of development practice were encapsulated in 2004 by GAP and endorsed by the Group of Eight leaders at the 68 Summit on June 10, Poor people need not Just loans but also savings, insurance and money transfer services. Micromanage must be useful to poor households: helping them raise income, build up assets and/or cushion themselves against external shocks. “Micromanage can pay for itself. “[24] Subsidies from donors and government are scarce and uncertain and so, to reach large numbers of poor people, micromanage must pay for itself.

Micromanage means building permanent local institutions. Micromanage also means integrating the financial needs of poor people into a entry’s mainstream financial system. “The Job of government is to enable financial services, not to provide them. “[25] “Donor funds should complement private capital, not compete with it. “[25] “The key bottleneck is the shortage of strong institutions and managers. “[25] Donors should focus on capacity building. Interest rate ceilings hurt poor people by preventing micromanage institutions from covering their costs, which chokes off the supply of credit.

Micromanage institutions should measure and disclose their performance-?both financially and socially. Micromanage is considered tool for socio-economic development, and can be clearly distinguished from charity. Families who are destitute, or so poor they are unlikely to be able to generate the cash flow required to repay a loan, should be recipients of charity. Others are best served by financial institutions. Scale of micromanage operations[edit source I Two women talk about financial matters.

The woman on the right is a loan officer for The Small Enterprise Foundation (SEE). The conversation shown is taking place in Taken, South Africa. February 2010. No systematic effort to map the distribution of micromanage has yet been undertaken. A benchmark was established by an analysis of ‘alternative financial institutions’ in the developing world in 2004. [26] The authors counted approximately 665 million client accounts at over 3,000 institutions that are serving people who are poorer than those served by the commercial banks.

Of these accounts, 120 million were with institutions normally understood to practice micromanage. Reflecting the diverse historical roots of the movement, however, they also included postal savings banks (318 million accounts), state agricultural and (35 million accounts) and specialized rural banks (19 million accounts). Regionally, the highest concentration of these accounts was in India (188 million accounts representing 18% of the total national population).

The lowest concentrations were in Latin America and the Caribbean (14 million accounts representing 3% of the total population) and Africa (27 million accounts representing 4% of the total population, with the highest rate of penetration in West Africa, and the highest growth rate in Eastern and Southern Africa [27] ). Considering that most bank clients in the developed world need several active accounts to keep their affairs in order, these gurus indicate that the task the micromanage movement has set for itself is still very far from finished.