Do Microcredit Programs Alleviate Poverty
and Foster Environmentally Sustainable Development? A Review of African Case
Studies
Desta, Asayehgn, Ph.D. Sarlo Distinguished Professor of Sustainable Economic Development, Dominican
University of California
An
Abstract
With the hastening of the global poverty
crisis and the absence of an adequate social safety net for those marginalized
and vulnerable sections of society in the less developed countries, a number of
researchers have moved beyond the relentless pursuit of short-term toward
long-term anti-poverty, environmentally sustainable paradigms to assist
chronically poor sectors of society. Though a remarkably polarizing issue, in
the last three decades microcredit programs have been made available to the
chronically poor as a viable option to involve them in the formal economic
sector. It is assumed that the disadvantaged groups will become productive
members of society if they involve themselves in small businesses that may
contribute to powerful changes within their lives. Based on anecdotal
assessment of the impact of microcredit as a financial instrument, the United
Nations declared 2005 as the International Year of Microcredit. Realizing that
chronically poor people merit the greatest international attention, using the
year 1990 as a baseline, the United Nations has advocated the reduction of both
extreme poverty and hunger by half or more by the year 2015, those whose income is below US $1 per person/day.
A review of the existing literature
which has burgeoned over the past decades indicates that it would be an over
exaggeration to claim that microcredit programs have significantly helped to
lift the poor out of poverty. The existing microcredit programs seem to be
focusing on borrowers living above the poverty line rather than on the hard
core poor. Based on few analyzed
empirical case studies, it can be ascertained that the microcredit programs in
Africa may not be effective in achieving
sustainable development unless the projects are based on longitudinal studies
that could: a) systematically address the cause of
poverty, b) identify the poverty segments of the population, c) pay special
attention to raising the awareness of the chronically poor, and d) train the participants to specialize in
environmentally-sensitive new business ventures.
A Review of African Case Studies
The
area of sustainability that appears to be receiving the most attention from
microcredit lenders is the reduction in land degradation and the development of
healthier, more permanent and less destructive farming practices in Rwanda’s
Eastern Province, Kigali city Northern Provinces, and Huye
District in the Southern Province.
According to the Rwandan Red Cross- RRC (2009, p.1), “The Rwandan
economy is based on the largely rain-fed agricultural production of small, semi
subsistence and increasingly fragmented farms. It has few natural resources to
exploit, and a small uncompetitive industrial sector. Food security is
threatened by a decline in soil fertility and poor crop management, pests,
diseases, poor storage, …, scarcity of farm land, poor
agricultural practices and population density.” The RRC also indicates that
over the past five years, chronic childhood malnutrition rates in the country
have increased from 43 percent to 45 percent, and that “Rwandan households are
exposed to some vulnerability in access to or consumption of food while 28 per
cent of households suffer from malnutrition” (2009, p. 1).
The
aim of the microcredit projects spearheaded by the RRC is to improve
communities’ livelihoods by contributing to effective poverty reduction and
complimentary economic development activities for sustainable food security. As
stated by RRC, the overall objectives is to provide a venue for income-generating
activities through a rotating microcredit scheme which is aimed at a number of
sectors including in-kind agricultural inputs, livestock, commerce, retail, and
carpentry. As stated by RRC (2009, p. 1), Examples of projects developed from
this microcredit program include preparing agro-forestry and forestry nurseries
for cooperatives and associations involved in the program, and the distribution
of proper tools, seeds, and fertilizers.
A snapshot of some of the benefits reaped from
the microcredit initiatives in Rwanda include:
1.
Increased agricultural production and
other incomes
2.
Improved household nutritional status
3.
Boosted communities’ capacity to manage
their rotating funds
4.
Provided the means for small shops and
stock in the community
5.
Enhanced knowledge and skills in
families to resolve problems, manage projects, and participate in cooperative
organizations and group works
6.
Replicated new practices in other areas
so that more associations and vulnerable communities are being served
7.
Improved RRC staff and volunteers’
capacity to plan, monitor, and evaluate their projects
In
short, the lessons learned from the microcredit projects in Rwanda are that,
“…the fact that in order for projects activities to be sustained there must be
a concordant level of understanding between all stakeholders. Additionally, it
is imperative that vulnerable groups are encouraged to participate in the
steering committees and working groups. It is imperative that assessments of
the associations be conducted with all members and that the information is then
disseminated to others involved in the same line of activities” (RRC, 2009, p.
2).
Another case study which shows an example of
the association between sustainable development and microcredit took place in Machakos in east central Kenya. As stated by Duran (2002 , p. 1), “In the
last decade alone, drought periods in 91/92, 95/96, and 98/2000, and the
devastating floods in 1997/98, and again in 2002 in different parts of the
country have been recorded. These phenomena have had the cumulative effects of
reducing household food availability, purchasing power, and coping capacity,
impoverishing the rural population”
In
2001, a year after a devastating drought that left 4 million people in dire
need of food, the International Federation, in conjunction with the Kenya Red
Cross Society (KRCS), developed a program in the Machakos
district of Kenya that would deal with the impact of drought and famine before
problems developed. As documented by
Duran (2004, p. 1), more than 50 per cent of the residents of Machakos were categorized as the absolute poor (i.e. those
who cannot afford to meet the basic minimum food requirement even after
spending all their total incomes on food only).
The
International Federation of Red Cross initiated a bilateral cooperation with
the Kenya Red Cross Society, contributed microcredit funds and designed a
Drought Preparedness program for the Machakos
District. More specifically, the Machakos program
focused on “…developing branch capacities through training to enable the Machakos branch to mobilize volunteers, and through
training to work closely with and from within rural communities. The three-year
project, implemented by the KRCS – Machakos branch
with technical support from the International Federation , aims at
strengthening the local and district capacities, through local and innovative
mechanisms to predict , cope with and recover from recurrent drought impacts”
(2002, 2).
In
addition, the microcredit projects implemented in the Machakos
District included agriculture that
focused on farming drought-resistant crops, education on storing and developing
seed banks on a community level, development of small-scale water systems that
were built with community assistance, and the formation of water committees
that would provide stable water management practices. Kenya experienced another
drought in 2004. The Machakos district, which was most
affected by the 2001 drought, was able to work with the conditions in 2004 and
was ultimately unaffected by the drought.
In Duran’s words, “Developing all these activities through microcredits we were able to mobilize the community, to
reinforce the social tissues, and support their initiatives for their own
development” (2004, p. 4).
For
the last five years, with microcredits disbursed for
food production in Gambia, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Tanzania, farmers increased
their output and attained food security (Tsogde,
2002). For example, in Tanzania, after the Tanzanian Government approved a
national microfinance policy in May 2000, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), a
specialized agency of the United Nations dedicated to eradicating rural Poverty
in developing countries, helped mobilize savings and disbursed funds
as credits to the agricultural sector.
As a result, the poor, including women as user-owners were
empowered. And the country’s
substantially improved in food security and income. Thus microcredits
have become a formidable economic tools for
agricultural policy makers (2002). In Gambia, the IFAD contributed to a rapid
increase of rice growers with increases in different villages ranging from 50%
to 200%. In Nigeria, the Cassava multiplication Program increased cassava
production in the country, from less than 14 million tons in 1987 to over 30
million tons in 1998, becoming the world’s largest producer of cassava. In
Mozambique, microcredits improved the level of
income, employment, and food security of fishermen and their families, through
the provision of fishing inputs and credit. As summarized by Tsogbe (2002, p. 22), the
examples taken from the four case
studies show that microcredit can be a catalyst for reaching the goal of
increasing agricultural production by creating
both backward and forward linkages.
To
test their hypothesis that the success of micro-finance institutions is
measured according to the extent of their outreach to the poor and their
financial viability or sustainability, Adams et al. (2002) studied four case
sites on microfinance initiatives in South Africa. The case studies included the following
sites: Mathabatha village) Limpopo Province), Kgautswane village (Limpopo Province), Oudtshoorn (Western Cape) and Mtshabe
(Eastern cape). The finding of the research indicates that the village banks do
not charge interest rates to cover costs. But, the informal group (i.e., credit
unions, moneylenders, money keepers, families, relatives and friends, etc) charged minimum
interest rates. Since microcredit financial institutions in the studied regions
depend on external funds, Adams et al, proposes that microfinancial
institutions need to incorporate interest rates in order to enhance
self-sustainability of village banks and other group-based credit
arrangements. In their own words, Adams
and his group (2002) suggest that “Micro-finance institutions in South Africa
therefore need to encourage clients and support the pooling of material
resources. Nonetheless, since the objective of moneylenders is
based on interest-seeking activities and not on altruism, there is a need for
appropriate regulation by government” (p.125).
The
main findings of the South African case studies included :
1)
In Oudtshoorn, most of microcredit
lending operations deepen the poverty levels of the poor.
2)
Among the microfinancing institutions’ services and
operations, there are common aims and objectives, to serve the poor and help
them develop sustainability by achieving financial and food security.
3)
The microfinancing institutions need to cover the
costs they incur. For that, they should charge high interest rates to cover
these costs and grow.
4)
Except for the Mathabatha Bank the other three microfinancial institutions are highly dependent on outside
funding. Thus, the other banks need to
begin weaning themselves away from their dependence on external subsidies.
5)
Since funding does not mean money only, the case study village banks need
educational advice on how to follow their savings’ progress to determine
whether or not they are really valuable to the community
6)
Since women are diligent savers at the village bank and are always members of
the village savings club, the empowerment of women should receive a lot of
attention in the process of development.
7)
Since most rural areas are led by traditional chiefs and follow strict cultural
rules and formalities, village banks need to work in cooperation with village
authorities to ensure the smooth operation of development programs.
8)
Incentives should be provided to community-based savings schemes to encourage
saving and investment. For example, the model of savings used by the school in Oudtshoorn could be adapted for use by schools and
communities.
9)
Despite an adequate supply of consumer credit in Oudtshoorn,
the research findings concluded that credit was needed for productive purposes
in short supply for those with no conventional collateral.
10)
The village banks need to improve their marketing/promotion/outreach activities
and re-engineering delivery systems.
The
South African case studies were very extensive. Although the analysis was based
at the village level, the case studies fail to address the status of poverty
level of the client or households. The
focus of the case studies seem to be more on the sustainability of the microcredit village
banks and their financiers rather than on the effect that the sustainability-focused microcredits can have on the participants, the community,
and the environment.
Since
the issuance of Proclamations No. 40/1996, a number of finance (MFI)
institutions were established in Ethiopia as share companies in accordance with
the Commercial Code of Ethiopia. The
ownership of Ethiopia’s MFIs is based on the country’s administrative
structure. For example, in 2002, six out of 20 MFIs were largely owned by
regional governments and non-profit organizations in the regional states. In
other MFIs, the equity structures were sponsored by foreign donors who have
contributed the initial capital for required registration. Seventy eight percent of the clients are from
rural households and 41 percent of the clients are women (Al-Bagdadi and Bruntrup, 2002).
To
minimize recurring costs and improve operational efficiency, and in order for clients to effectively invest
microcredit funds into productive
income-generating initiatives, almost all microcredit institutions in Ethiopia
have established training formats for their clients. Though a survey conducted
by Amha et al., indicates that business development
services (BDS) “ had very limited vocational and technical training (before
starting business), received few short-term training, extension and counseling, and marketing services” (2006), the African Village Academy’s claims
to provide the following seven step training methods. These are:
Step
one introduces various types of financial institutions and tools. Step two
encourages participants to discuss and examine themselves and their markets to
identify potential microenterprise activities, which they then research
individuals. In step three, participants discuss in detail their market
findings (i.e. materials, transportation, and market costs), and then re asked
to form groups of typically four or five people. Step four elaborates the
purpose of group formation in creating support and collateral for individuals,
as well as developing specific business plans and budget planning. In step
five, participants meet each other’s groups in units of up to ten groups, and
discuss specific credit arrangements and requirements of Savings and Credit for enterprise
Development program .In step six, group members present their basic plans for
final approval of the unit, and in step seven all steps are reviewed to
reinforce understanding of the program. (Un/OSCAL Model,
2002, p. 80-81).
To
assess the outcomes of an Ethiopian Microfinance program (which was established
in Ethiopia, as an affiliate of the World Vision microfinance–WISDOM) on the
livelihoods of poor populations , a survey studied 819
rural households in Southern Ethiopia (i.e., Adama,
located in the East Shewa Zone of the Oromiya
Regional State and Sodo branches, located in Wolayita, in the State of Southern Nations, Nationalities ,
and peoples region). The indicators used to asses the
socioeconomic status of the respondents were a) monthly households income, b)
per capita monthly household income, c) household assets and livestock value,
d) household asset, and e) livestock index score. In addition to assess the
food security status of the respondents were assessed using household diet,
child nutrition status, and food aid receipt. As stated by Doocy
et al., (2005) in its methodological design:
The
study compared two groups of clients that received loans (incoming clients who
had completed one loan cycle or less and had been participating in the program
for no more than ten months, and established clients who had completed two or
more loan cycle) and one group of community controls who were eligible to
participate in the WISDOM lending program but had not received a loan
within the past year and were not seeking a loan. A total of 408 established
clients, 205 incoming clients, and 206 community controls participated in the
survey. The sample was stratified by survey site and clients sex, participants were
systematically selected from client
lists of the microfinance institutions. (p.82)
As pointed out by the
researchers the two case studies are based on a cross-sectional design, thus it
was very difficult for the researchers to ascertain whether the clients in the
two regions have moved towards sustainability or away from it. However, the
aggregate findings of the questionnaire-based interviews indicate that “While
the majority of WISDOM clients reported an increase in asset value since
enrolling in the lending program, differences in household asset data between
clients and community controls were statically insignificant. Findings from this
study also indicate that participation in the WISDOM microfinance program did
not result in increased household wealth” (Doocy,
2005, p. 87). In terms of wealth, “No
significant correlations were observed between length of program participation
(time in months or loan cycles) and
either measure of change in asset value suggesting that participation in the
lending program is not associated with an increase in client wealth” (Doocy et al., 2005, p. 88). Similarly, it was ascertained
that there was no association between participation in the program and monthly
household income. Nonetheless, in their conclusion, Doocy
(2005) and his group showed that the WISDOM microfinance programs (i.e. in Adam
and Sodo, Ethiopia,) improved client retention,
increased savings, and increased the active participation of women.
Another study
conducted in the Wereda of Atsbi-wemberta
in the Tigray Regional State, northern Ethiopia in
2002 analyzed the
impact of formal and informal credit on households’ livelihoods. As reported by Vilei
and Chisholm (2002), the results of a survey in 97 households and 5 group
discussions showed that the interviewed
households perceived that having access to credit had a positive impact. It
contributed to enhancing the self-esteem of the beneficiaries by becoming less
dependent on food aid. However, several of the interviewed households indicated
that the local microfinance institutions such as the Dedebit
Saving and Credit Institution (DESCI) lent higher sums of money but they
imposed inflexible repayment conditions and lacked the skills to monitor
successfully the invested loans. Many clients used the credits for food
consumption and eventually the beneficiaries were forced to sell their
livestock in order to repay their loans on time. Also it was reported that
though informal credit from money lenders at interest rates of up to 60 percent
are generally very small sums when compared with formal microcredits,
they are widely used to cover food consumption or pay for additional social
events such as marriage and funeral services.
Table 1: Microcredit
programs for Sustainability in selected African countries
Case |
Author |
Purpose |
Examples
of projects |
Findings |
Observation |
Rwanda’s Eastern Province, Kigali city Northern
Provinces and Huye District in the Southern Province. |
Rwanda Red
Cross ( 2009) |
Reduce in land degradation and the development of less destructive
farming practices |
Preparing agro-forestry ; forestry nurseries for
cooperatives; distribution of proper tools, seeds and fertilizers |
Improved agricultural production; improved household
nutrition ; small shops and stock available in the community |
The study showed that for sustainability to be
achieved stock holders need to participate in the planning and implementation
process. |
Machakos District of
Kenya |
Duran , International Federation of Red Cross (2001) |
To tackle the impact of drought and famine before
problems developed |
Farming drought-resistant crops, education on
storing and developing seed banks on a community level, development of small-scale
water systems |
Microcredit helped to mobilize the community and
support the local initiatives |
The case study identified that 50 percent of the
district were absolute poor and could not afford to meet basic minimum food
requirements. |
Tanzania |
International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD) , 2002 |
Eradicate rural poverty |
Mobilize savings and disbursed as credits to poor
women and the poor |
Microcredits resulted food security and empowerment of women as users |
The study was
not conducted to show how micro credit
empowered the poor women |
Gambia |
IFAD (2002) |
An increase in rice
growing in different villages |
Rice growing |
Microcredits contributed to a rapid increase of rice growers
with the increase in different villages ranging from 50% to 200% |
The case study failed to demonstrate if the poor
benefited from an Increase in rice production and did not ascertain the impact on
resource utilization on the clients. |
Nigeria |
IFAD (2002) |
To increase the production of Cassava |
The cassava Multiplication Program |
Cassava production in the country increased from 14
million tons in 1987 to over 30 million tons in 1998, as a result Nigeria
became the world’s largest producer of cassava |
The case study might have contribute both backwards
and forward linkages. But it has failed to show the beneficiaries of
the increase in cassava production. In addition, an analysis of the impact of fertilizers on the environmental degradation was not attempted. |
Mozambique |
IFAD (2002) |
Increase food security of fishermen and their
families |
Microcredits for fishing inputs and credit |
Microcredits improved the level of income, employment and food
security of fishermen and families |
The fish project in Mozambique seems to be focused
on mostly on those whose income is above the poverty line. |
Mathabatha, Kgautswane, oudtshoorn and Mtshabe villages
in South africa |
Adams et al ( 2002) |
Investigate the outreach of
micro-finance institutions reach the poor |
Most of Microcredit lending operation (Oudtshoorn village) deepen the poverty level of the
poor. The women participants did not get enough attention. . |
|
Though extensive, the study failed to demonstrate
the extent of poverty level of the clients on the studied households. The focus of the case
studies seems to be more on the sustainability of microcredit village banks
rather the effects of
sustainability-focused microcredit on the participants and the
community. |
Adama , Oromiya Regional state
and Sodo , State of Southern nations…, Ethiopia |
Doocy etal (2005) |
To assess the outcome of an micro finance program on
the livelihoods of poor population |
The indicators used to assess the socioeconomic
status of the respondents in the sample were: 1)Monthly households income 2)per capita monthly household income 3) household assets and livestock value 4)household asset 5) livestock index score 6) household diet 7)child nutrition status 8) food aid receipt |
As a result of the WIDOM micro credit: 1) the
majority reported that their assets the market value of the participants
increased. 2)No significant correlations was observed between
length of program participation 3) No
association was ascertained between participation in the microcredit program and monthly household income. |
1) The Adama and Sodo case studies were well-designed and very instructive.
As admitted by
the researchers since the case studies are
based on cross-sectional design , the researchers seem to have difficulty
to ascertain whether the clients in the two regions have ever moved
toward sustainability or away from it. 2) The case studies did not attempt to demonstrate
if the participants were / or not pursuing
environmentally-friendly approaches in their productive
activities. |
Atsbi-wemberta, Tigray Regional State |
Sonja Vilei and Nick
Chisholm February –March 2002 |
To assess the impact of formal and informal credit on
households |
65 male headed and 32 female-headed households whose age ranged from 18-65. . The survey
covered about respondents’ assets, livelihoods, size and use of credit. |
The results of a survey in 97 households and 5 group
discussions showed that the interviewed households perceived that having
access to credit had positive impact. It contributed to enhancing the
self-esteem of the beneficiaries to be less dependent on food aid. |
The study identified the participants in the study
based on household asset s indicator.
The study indicates that formal credits were used for the purchase of
oxen, cows,, cereal
trade , basket making and home-made beer. However, since the study was
conducted in about six months, it failed to address the environmental impact
of the various activities on the region.
|
As shown in Table 1, it is very important to note that the
efforts made by the case studies presented above show that the various
microcredit projects
initiated in a number of
African countries have attempted to minimize the degree of poverty of the
participants. However, since the core concept of poverty and sustainability development are not fully
operationally defined and the case studies were based on cross-sectional rather
than on longitudinal designs, they lagged to help their readers realize how
Microcredit be made to minimize poverty and foster sustainable development in
the long run.
Conclusions, Policy and Research Implications
The
United Nations declared 2005 the international Year of Microcredit. Microcredit
is a provision for very small loans and deposit services to predominantly poor,
under-served, rural borrowers, who are excluded from the financial system. It
has achieved a preponderant place as a lending instrument in the sphere of
international finance in the last three decades (Jain, 2003). Microcredit or
microfinance programs have become a popular approach, especially to reach those
with low income, who would normally be excluded from formal lending
institutions because they lack the collateral and credit history, necessary to
borrow and establish their own businesses and become innovative
entrepreneurs.
Though microcredit is not seen as a panacea
for poverty and development, but rather as an important tool in the mission of
poverty eradication (UN/OSCAL MODEL, 2002), it has captured the imagination of
policy-makers and development practitioners.
In addition, Africa’s policy-makers fully understand that there no
blueprint for microcredit initiatives and each program must adjust to the
specific socio-cultural and economic setting in which it operates. Realizing
this, a number of African countries
have introduced microcredit programs to
replicate the delivery system of Grameen Bank of Bangladesh as a strategy for poverty
alleviation in rural areas (where a large portion of Africa’s population lives), and as a means for
fostering environmentally sustainable
development goals for the 21st Century.
Given
the ambiguity of poverty and sustainable development as concepts, it is
challenging to evaluate and map out the progress made by the beneficiaries of
microcredit towards sustainability so that decision makers can be able to
monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the program and adjust it as
necessary. In simple terms, the
effectiveness of any policy of poverty needs to be articulated around the
definition of poverty in order to evaluate the number of poor and design a
microcredit program of intervention to alleviate poverty and foster sustainable
development in the long run. To be
effective, the idea of environmentally sustainable development “…is the
persistence of certain necessary and desired characteristics of people, their
communities and organization, and the surrounding ecosystem over a very long
period of time” (Hardi and Zdan,
1997).
The central evaluating
and monitoring requirements need to be seen
as the association between microcredit programs as a strategy, and
sustainability as an outcome, so that they can be tracked systematically over
time (Hardi and Zdan,
1997). More specifically, if microcredit
programs are to act as a foundation for the hard core poor to develop products
and services to increase their wellbeing while integrating sustainability, the
pertinent questions that need to be addressed for Africa should include: a) Are
the chronically poor segments of the population involved in microcredit
programs? If so, b) How are the beneficiaries affecting the
ecosystem? and c) Do the activities of the
microcredit beneficiaries contribute to environmental sustainability?
As shown in Table 1,
the African case studies conducted by the microcredit researchers rightly show
that the various microcredit projects
were designed to tackle poverty in the rural setting of Africa (where majority of the Southern African
population lives and subsistence farming is the main stay of the economy). With the exception of the Ethiopian case
studies conducted by Doocy et al., (2005), and Vilel and Chisholm (2002), which operationally measured
poverty income using the beneficiaries’ income and assets of households, the
other case studies did not specifically identify the poverty status of the
microcredit clients. In general, based
on the notion that the existence of a ‘poverty-environment trap’ in Africa
could be minimized by the implementation of micro credit programs most
researchers targeted their microcredit research to focus on all rural people regardless
whether or not they were supposed to be beneficiaries of micro credit programs.
In other words, with their sampling techniques, the case studies failed to
identify that the actual beneficiaries of the microcredit programs in Africa
were indeed hard core poor.
In addition, as the Asian studies briefly mentioned before,
the microcredit programs in Africa didn’t seem to help significantly to lift
the poor out of poverty. The case studies did not attempt to show whether or
not the micro studies yielded an income effect or manifested positive/negative
spillover effects on the local communities. That is, the researchers presented
above seem to be focusing mainly on borrowers living above the poverty line
rather than the hard core poor. In addition, most of the case studies conducted
in Africa were based on cross-sectional rather than on longitudinal data. So the studies did not effectively demonstrate
that the various microcredit activities of the participants could be
environmentally sustainable.
Household-level impacts in rural Africa should have been incorporated in
their studies when new enterprises began, to determine if the identified
microcredit programs ever increased the amounts spent on durable assets and if
the beneficiaries ever used environmentally-sensitive inputs in their various
activities.
Table2: The Composite Core theme and indicators of
Human –well being, Economic, social
and Environmental well-being Sustainability Index
Core Theme |
Indicator |
Achievement in
years |
|
T1 |
T4 |
||
|
|
||
Human wellbeing Index* |
a)
Living below poverty line
(earning US $1 per day) b)
Subjective assessment
of felt need c)
Access to land d)
Nutritional status
of children e)
Mortality rate under 5 years old f)
Access to housing facilities/ floor area per person g)
Access to sanitary
latrine h)
Access to safe drinking water i)
Regularly employed person in the family j)
Children going to
school k)
Access to primary health care facilities l)
Adult literacy rate |
|
|
Eco-system
wellbeing** |
a)
Activities impact on land b)
Activities impact on water
quantity c)
Activities on water quality d)
Activities impact on Air quality e)
Activities on energy use f)
Activities on water
use g)
Activities impact on
species h)
Activities impact on genes a)
Activities impact on Biodiversity i)
Resource use |
|
|
Environmentally
Sustainability Index** |
1) Environmental systems: a)
deforestation b)
Carbon emissions c)
Sulfur emissions d)
Toxic waste 2) Reducing environmental stress: a)
Air pollution b)
Water stresses c)
Ecosystem stress d)
Waste e)
Consumption pressures f)
Population growth 3) Reducing human vulnerability: a)
Basic human sustenance b)
Environmental health 4) Social and institutional capacity: a)
Environmental governance b)
Eco-efficiency c)
Economic and Human loss due to natural disaster |
|
|
|
|
|
Source:
*V.P. Raghavan, “ Likelihoods
and Empowerment: The Kudumbashree Projects in Kerala,
India-A New Paradigm of Participatory Economy.
International Association for the Economics of Participation, July
13-15, 2006.
**Thomas M. Parris and Robert W. Kates, “Characterizing and Measuring Sustainable
Development.” Annual
Review of Economic Resources (2003).
Though worthwhile, the African case studies reviewed above
should have tracked systematically the activities of the chronically poor
people in the sample to determine if they had positively or negatively affected
the ecosystem, and to ascertain if the various microcredit activities are
environmentally beneficial. As stated by Armendariz
and Morduch (2007), “…there is no study yet that has
achieved wide consensus as to its reliability; and this reflects the inherent
difficulty in evaluating programs in which participation is voluntary and
different customers use the services with varying degree of intensity” (p.
222).
As shown in Table 2, to better serve policy decision-making
needs in evaluating the impact of microcredit access and participation on
sustainability, the three standardized core themes of a) the human-well being,
b) eco-system well-being, and c) environmental index, incorporate
the 2015 UN Development Goals suggested to evaluate microcredit programs in the
long run in developing countries. More specifically, as suggested by Armendariz and Morduch (2007), to
calculate the impacts of microcredit on poverty alleviation and sustainable
development any study however, needs to have a Treatment group, poor individuals who get access to microcredit
measured in T1 (year 0) and then measured in T2 (after 4 years) to measure the microcredit impact. For the Control
group, hard core poor individuals from an area without access to
microcredit, measured in time CT0 and CT2 could be used. The difference between
T2 and T1 captures the microfinance impact. However, since it might reflect
broader economic and social changes that occur between year 0 and year 4, that
are independent of microfinance, it is worthwhile to compare T2 and CT2 to
address biases due to the broadly felt economic and social changes. Thus, isolating the true microfinance impact
requires comparing the difference between T2-T1 with the difference between
CT2-CT1 which is a so-called difference-in-difference approach
. “… the difference-in-difference approach is adequate to deliver accurate
measures of microfinance impacts. But in reality, these characteristics may
change over time (perhaps a borrower gets more education or strengthens his/her
social networks, for reasons unrelated to microfinance” (Armendariz
and Morduch, 2007, p. 205).
The conclusion that can be derived from an analysis of the
African case studies presented above is that in order to be useful for policy
makers, the core concept of poverty and sustainability development need to be
operationally defined. In addition, if microcredit programs are expected to
minimize poverty and foster sustainable development in the studied countries,
to measure the impact of the microcredit programs, the participants need
to be systematically sampled and the framework of the studies need to be based
on longitudinal design.
References:
Ageba, Gebrehiwot.
“Micro-finance Institutions in Ethiopia: Issues of Portfolio Risk,
Institutional Arrangements and Governance.” Retrieved September 31, 2007 from http://www.eeaecon.org/eje/v7n2/gebrehiwot/GEBRH-A.htm
Ajit, D, Sunil, R, and Raman, K.R (2006).
“Micro-credit and Repayment Rates: A case study of Kudumbashree
Micr-Enterprise Program in Kerala.”
Al-bagdadi H. and Bruntrup, M.
(2002).
Microfinance Associations: The Case of the Association of Microfinance
Institutions Ethiopia(AEMFI). Division
4, Economic Development and Employment Promotion.
Alson J. and Shepherd A
(2008-09). “Escaping Poverty Traps” The
Chronic Poverty Report 2008-09. Manchester: Chronic Poverty research
Centre, 2008-09, p, vii.
Amha, W. et al.
(2006).
“Business development services (BDS) in Ethiopia; Status, prospects and
challenges in the micro and small enterprise sector.” International Journal of Emerging markets. Vol.1, Iss. 4 and ABI/INFORM Global.
Armendariz, B and Morduch, J. (2007). The Economics of Microfinance. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Banerjee A. B and Duflo, E. (2006). “The Economic Lives of the
Poor,” Journal of Economic Perspectives.
Becker,
G. (1991). A Treatise
on the Family. Cambridge, Harvard University.
Bradshaw, J. and Finch N.
(2003).
“Overlaps in Dimensions of Poverty.” Journal
of Social Policy. Oct. 2003;32. Pp.
513-525.
Carney, D.
(ed.) 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contributes can We Make? London: Department
of International Development (DFID).
Chowdhury, A. Gosh, D. and Wright, R. E. (2005).
“ The Impact of Microcredit on Poverty: Evidence from
Bangladesh.” Progress in Development Studies. Vol. 5 , No.
4, 298-309.
Desta,
A. (1998). Environmentally
Sustainable Economic Development. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Doocy,
S. et al, “Outcomes of an Ethiopian Microfinance Program and Management Actions
to Improve Services.” Journal of Microfinance, 7.1, Summer 2005.
Duran, J. (2004). “Kenyan Drought:
A Community Based Approach With Micro credits.” International Federation of Red Cross, Africa Department.
Elahi, Khandakar Q. i
and Danopoulos.Constantine P. “Microfinance and Third
World Development: A critical Analysis.” Journal
of Political and Military Sociology, Vol. 32, No. 1, summer 2004, pp. 61-77
Ellis, F. 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in
Developing countries. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Fisher ,
T and Sriram, M.S. ed.(2002). Putting Development
Back into Microfinance: New Delhi: Oxfam r Publishing.
Flynn, P. (2007). “The Newest Financial Technology of the Washington Consensus.” Challenge:
The Magazine of Economic Affairs. Vol. 50, No. 2.
Gehlich-Schillabeer, M. (2008). “Poverty alleviation
or poverty traps? Microcredits and Vulnerability in Bangladesh.” Disaster Prevention and Management. Vol.17, Iss.3; p. 396.
Gibson, B. Robert, et al.
(2007). Sustainability Assessment: Criteria
and Processes. London: Earthscan.
Hagenaars,
A. (1987). “A Class of
Poverty Index”. International Economic
Review. Vol 28, no.3, 583-607.
Hardi,
P. and Zdan, T. ( 1997). Assessing Sustainable
Development: Principles in Practice. International Institute for Sustainable
Development. Winnipeg:
Canada.
Harkness,
S. (2004). “Social and Political Indicators of Human
Well-being.” Research Paper No. 2004/33, United Nations University,
World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER).
Hume, D. and Mosley, P. (1996).
Finance Against Poverty (London: Rutledge, 1996.
Hulme,
D. and McKay A. (June, 2005). Identifying and Measuring Chronic Poverty: Beyond
Monetary Measures, Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC)-IIPA Working Paper
30, Indian Institute of Public Administration.
International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Socities
(2009). Case Study: Micro-credit, A Rwandan Experience.
International
Institute for Environment and Development (2002). Development
Strategies: A resource Book Sustainable. London: EARTHSCAN.
Jain, S.
(2003). “The Microfinance Revolution: Sustainable Finance for the
Poor.” Journal of Economic Literature, Dec
2003, 41,4; ABI/Inform
Global.
Karnani,
A. (2007). “Microfinance Misses its Mark.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved
July 8, 2009 from http://www.ssireview.org/site/printer/micrifinance_misses_its_mark/
Khandker,
S.R. (1998). Fighting
Poverty with Microcredit Experience in Bangladesh. Washington, D.C.:
World Bank
_________, (April, 2003).
Microfinance and Poverty: Evidence from Bangladesh. Grameen Dialogue, no. 54.
Lamarre,
J. (2000). From a multidimensional to a socio-political
definition of poverty.” Understanding
Poverty in Vietnam and the Philippiness: Concepts and
Context, edited by De Koninck
et al. Université de Montreal, 2003. .
Lamarre, J. and Miller, M. (2003).
“An Organizational Approach to Poverty.” Understanding Poverty in
Vietnam and the Philippiness: Concepts and Context,
edited by De Koninck etal. Université de Montreal .
Latifee,
H. I. (2003). “Micro-credit and Poverty Reduction.” A
paper presented at the International Conference on ‘Poverty Reduction
through Micro-credit ‘ held at Ceylon Inter-Continental Hotel, Taksim-Istanbul, Turkey
from June 9-10, 2003.
Macfarlane, A. (2002). “The Dimensions of Famine.”
Working Paper, Department of Anthropology, Cambridge
University.
Microcredit
Summit (1997), Declaration and Plan of
Action.
Retrieved July 2, 2009 from http://www.microcreditsummitt.org
Nazret,
“Ethiopia-Amhara Credit and Savings Institution and Dedebit Credit and Savings Institution among Top 50
Microfinance Institutions.” Top Microfinance
Institutions. Retrieved December 1, 2009 from http://nazret.com/blog/index.php?title=ethiopia_amhara_and_Dedbit
_among _top_50-&mo…
Neff, G. (October 1996). “Microcredit,
Micro results.” The
Left Business Observer. No. 74.
Njeru,
E.H.N. ( 2004). “Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative
Methods of Poverty Analysis. “ Paper written for workshop on saga qualitative-Quantitative Methods
for poverty analysis, March 11, 2004.
Oyen, E.
et al. (1996). “Poverty Research Rethought.”
Poverty, A Global Review. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 3-17.
Parris, M.
Thomas and Kates, M. Roberts (2003).
“Characterizing and Measuring Sustainable Development.” Annual Review Environmental Resources. 2003, 28: 13.1-13.28.
Pearce, W.
David and Warford, J. Jeremy.
World without End: Economics,
Environment and Sustainable Development.
New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
Prosterman. R. (April 2005). “The U.N.'s empty plan for
poverty.” Far Eastern
Economic Review, Vol. 168, No. 4, pp. 43-45.
Scoones,
I. 1998 “ Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A framework
for Analysis”, IDS Working Paper 72, Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex.
Sen,
A. (1983).”Poor Relatively Speaking.” Oxford Economic
Papers, 35, 153-169.
Sen,
A. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities, Amesterdam:
North Holland.
Sen ,A. (1992). Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen,
A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New
York: Alfred Knopf.
Shannon Doocy,
et al., (2005). “Outcomes of an Ethiopian Microfinance
Program and Management Actions to Improve Services.” Journal of Microfinance; Summer 2005; 7, 1. Pp.79-94.
Sharma, M.
(2005). “Emerging Contours of Micro Finance: Where do we go from
Here?” The Business Review, Cambridge:
Summer 2005; 4,1.
Shimeles,
A and Thoenen, R. (2005). “Poverty Profiles: A
Methodological note on measuring poverty”, Poverty and Social Policy Team,
Economic and Social Policy Division, United Nations Economic Commission for
Africa, ESPD/NRP/04/05.
Somilleda,
A. (2010). “Sustainability-Focused Microcredits: A Temporary Movement or Lasting Solution?” Dominican University of California.
Stiglitz,
J.E (1990). “Peer Monitoring and Credit Markets.” World Bank Economic Review. 4, pp. 351-366.
Thinkquest.org
, “A Dollar a Day: Poverty Overview: Measuring Poverty.” Retrieved June 28,2009
from http://
library_thinkquest.org/05aug/00282/over measure1.htm
Thirlwall,
A.P. (1995). Growth
and Development (Fifth Edition). Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner, p. 12.
Tsogbe,
Y. Edem (2002). “Microcredit,
Agricultural Output, and Food Security” Africa
Advocacy Forum II, Microcredit – A solution for Africa? New
York: United Nations, 14 November, 2002.
UNDP (2003). World Population
Prospect: The 2002
Revision – Highlights, www.un.org/esa/population/puplications
/wpp2002/WPP2002-HIGHLIGHTSrev1.PDF.
United Nations, (14 November
2002). Africa Advocacy Forum II:
Microcredit—A solution for Africa? New York: United Nations.
United Nations
Environmental Programme (UNEP), (1995). Poverty and the Environment. Nairobi, Kenya, p.10.
United Nations World Commissions on Environment and
Development, (1987), Our
Common Future. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Vargas, C. M. (Feb. 2008).
“Community development and micro-enterprises: fostering sustainable
development.” Sustainable Development. Vol. 8, No. 1; ABI/INFORM Global.
Varian, H.
(1990). “Monitoring Agents with Other Agents.”
Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics.
146, pp. 153-174.
Vilei, S. and Chisholm, N. (2002).
“Impact of credit as perceived by resource-poor Ethiopian
households.” Department of Food Business and Development, National
University of Ireland, Cork.
Wikipedia, the
free encyclopedia, “Measuring Poverty.” Retrieved June 28, 2009 from http://en-wikipedia.org/wiki/Measuring_poverty
World Bank, World Development Report. “Development and the Environment.” New York:
Oxford University Press, 1992.
United
Nations World Summit on Social development, the Copenhagen Declaration……..
Yunus, M. (2003). “Halving Poverty by 2015-We
can actually make it happen.” Commonwealth Lecture, Commonwealth Institute,
London, March 11, 2003.
Zamperetti, F. and Franca Dalla Costa, G.
(2008). Sharing
Trust: Women and Microcredit in Eritrea. Trenton, NJ: The Red Sea Press, Inc.