|
Poverty and Microcredit : New Realities and Strategic Issues
Dr.
Salehuddin Ahmed
Managing Director
Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation (PKSF)
|
In recent years, in its wider dimension microcredit
known as microfinance, has become a much favoured intervention for poverty
alleviation in the developing countries and least development countries.
There is scarcely a poor country and development oriented donor
agency (multilateral, bilateral and private) not involved in promotion (in
one form or other) of a microfinance programme.
Many achievements are claimed about the impact of microfinance
programmes, and an outside observer can not but wonder at the range of
diversity of the benefits claimed.
With an
estimated 1.3 billion people of the world (around 1/3 of the world's
population) living on incomes of less than $1 a day, the governments of the
poor countries face enormous challenge to reduce poverty.
This is particularly so in the countries of South and East Asia where
the majority of the world's poor live.
|
|
|
|
Various studies demonstrate that rapid and sustainable poverty
reduction depends on interaction of a wide range of policy measures and
interventions at macro, meso and micro levels.
The availability of microfinance, broadly defined as the provision of
financial services such as savings and credit to the poor household is
necessary but not a sufficient condition for rapid poverty reduction.
Nevertheless, microfinance can
play an important role. One
element of an effective strategy for poverty reduction is to promote the
productive use of the poor's labour.
This can be done by creating opportunities for wage employment, by
raising agricultural productivity among small and marginal farmers, and by
increasing opportunities for self-employment.
Microfinance is particularly relevant to increasing the productivity
of self-employment in the informal sector of the economy.
In an environment where economic growth is occurring, microfinance
also has the capacity to transmit the benefits of growth more rapidly and
more equitably through the informal sector.
It is well documented that for many microentrepreneurs, lack of
access to financial services is a critical constraint to the establishment
or expansion of viable microenterprises. Microfinance may also enable small
and marginal farmers to purchase the inputs they need to increase their
productivity, as well as financing a range of activities adding value to
agricultural output and in the rural off-farm economy.
Access to savings facilities also plays a key part in enabling the
poor to smooth their consumption expenditures, and in financing investments
which improve productivity in agriculture and other economic activities.
In recent years MFIs have moved
from the margins of the financial system towards the mainstream.
It is now more widely accepted that populations traditionally
excluded by the formal financial sector can, in fact, be a profitable market
niche for innovative banking services.
The 1997 Microcredit Summit launched a global movement to reach 100
million of the world's poorest families with credit for self-employment
and other financial and business services by the year 2005.
Much remains to be done, however, to integrate microfinance fully
into the mainstream of domestic financial systems, and for orthodox
financial institutions, notably commercial banks, to recognise its full
potential.
|
Despite recent records of favourable economic growth
rates compared to many other countries, the current economic growth rate in
Bangladesh is in decline at just over 5%, a long way short of the double
digit figure assumed necessary by many to lift the country out of poverty.
This is significantly attributed to a decline in the investment ratio. Part
of the problem has been the assumption among many economists, especially
within the international agencies, that such growth can only be led by those
already established in purportedly dynamic sectors of the market, stimulated
by various forms of public sector investment such as infrastructure. However
the widespread rent-seeking in these sectors of the economy is consistent
with investment strike, thus removing the intended trickle-down effects
envisaged by conventional economics.
The alternative argument suggests that the poor
themselves can positively contribute to economic growth rather than relying
on trickle down from others. It is argued that the poor, still largely
confined to the agricultural sector, broadly conceived, can themselves lead
this dynamic sector with appropriate financial support through both larger
scale trading and services activities, as well as through investment in
higher return technologies in production, processing, transportation and
marketing activities. There are also related prospects for the poor in
leading the development of rural infrastructure and gaining much value-added
from it. However to facilitate this approach to economic growth with equity,
it is essential to remove the distortions in rural and urban financial
markets which at present encourage both rent-seeking and allocative
inefficiency, while functioning to exclude the enormous unmet demand from
poorer classes for capital widening and deepening.
Money begets money.
Adam Smith said "Money, says the proverb, makes money. When
you have got a little, it is often easy to get more.
The great difficulty is to get that little" ("The Wealth of
Nations" 1937, p. 93). It is very difficult for the poor to get small
working capital from formal banking system for various reasons.
A collateral free working capital loan is the requirement at the door
steps of the poor at the right time to help them facilitate and start
feasible intended IGAs. It is
with this background that, microfinance
is seen as one of the significant approaches to poverty alleviation.
Among other factors, the basis of emergence of
microfinance (specially in the semiformal sector) is the mismatch between,
supply perspective (mostly formal sector) and the demand factors (need of
microfinance) which may be summarised in the table 1 below:
|
Table 1: Comparison/Mismatch
between Demand and Supply
|
Demand Perspective (Needs of the Poor)
|
Supply Perspective (Traditional Formal Sector)
|
Credit + : Savings, emergency needs,
Consumption & Productive loans
|
Credit alone: Poor cannot save and cannot
repay loans.
|
Interest Rate is not a determinant
factor for credit. Subsidy
welcomed
|
Poor cannot afford higher interest
rates. They avail loan
primarily at subsidised rate.
|
Credit at door step
|
Cannot reach due to high Cost.
|
Empowerment leads to economic
upliftment
|
Empowerment is not envisaged in the
system.
|
Grassroots participatory organisations
to address socio-economic issues
|
Co-operatives are meant for this
purpose.
|
A favourable environment to facilitate
economic decisions by the poor
|
The planners and executives know
better as to what is in the best interest of the poor.
|
Government programmes are charity
oriented
|
Political systems give wrong signals.
|
|
|
Two decades of development practice in Bangladesh
have established that micrcredit, savings and other financial services are
important tools to fight poverty. Although on-going research is yet to
establish whether financial services to the poor actually eliminates
poverty, it is clear that access to financial services does indeed alleviate
poverty. On-going efforts to at least contain poverty is thus crucial
alongside specific poverty eliminating strategies. There is an argument to
be made therefore, that financial services should be made accessible to all
kinds of poor in Bangladesh. These efforts should aim not only to address
the needs of today's poor and the poorest, but also to address the needs
of tomorrow's poor as well.
Studies have established that different groups of
the poor need diverse financial services. For example, a strong case can be
made for providing savings services to the poorest of the poor to include
them in the financial system. It has been documented that the poorest of the
poor may not have the debt capacity to be regular borrowers of microcredit
programs; that they self-select themselves out of these programs or are
intentionally excluded by the credit-providing institutions themselves.
Comprehensive package of financial services with flexible mechanism is
needed to reach the poorest of the poor. On the other hand, poor producers
or marginal farmers may be in a position to effectively use loans to raise
their income levels, and eventually be in a position to afford other
financial services such as crop insurance, health insurance, consumer
credit, housing improvement loans, mortgages, and educational loans. There
is case therefore, for developing a financial system that will offer
diversified and flexible financial services to the poor.
|
The global picture regarding the outreach of
microcredit provides the contributions made by the programme. Till December 31, 2001, a total of 2186 MFIs have reported
reaching 54.9 million clients with a current loan, 26.8 million of whom were
among the poorest when they started with the programme.
Out of the 2186 institutions that had reported to the Microcredit
Summit Campaign, 1075 are in Asia, 740 are in Africa, 230 are in Latin
America and the Carribean, 59 are in North America, 59 are in Europe and the
NIS, and 23 of them are in the Middle East. Out of the total global clients
of 54.9 million, 47.9 million are in Asia, 4.5 million are in Africa and 2
million are in Latin America and Carribean.
Asia can rightfully boast about a vibrant microcredit sector which
stands high above all other achievements elsewhere on the globe.
The MFIs and other financial
institutions providing microfinance services have expanded their outreach
from a few thousand clients in the 1970s to over 23 million in the late 2000
in the Asia-Pacific region. The
developments in microfinance in the region have set in motion a process of
change from an activity that was entirely subsidy dependent to one that can
be a viable business.
Some of the salient features of
the Asia-Pacific region are:
MFIs mobilizing voluntary savings have
shattered the myth that poor households cannot and do not save, and proved
that savings can be successfully mobilized from poor households. This is perhaps a more important achievement of microfinance
in the region than the expanded outreach in access to credit.
(ii)
MFIs and their clients have shown that
the poor are creditworthy (poor women, in particular) and financial services
can be provided to and accessed by the poor on a profitable basis at low
transaction costs without relying on physical collateral, if it is done with
appropriate financial technology and a commitment to achieve efficiency.
(iii)
Microfinance services have triggered a
process toward broadening and deepening of rural financial markets.
(iv)
Microfinance services have strengthened the social and human capital
of the poor, particularly women, at the household, enterprise, and community
level.
Sustainable delivery of microfinance
services on a large scale in some countries has generated positive
developments in microfinance policies and practices among all stakeholder:
governments, central banks, microfinance service providers, and external
funding agencies.
|
Back during late 1970s, when the Jobra experiment
was underway under Professor M. Yunus, the Dheki Rin Prokolpa was initiated by the Bangladesh Bank in
collaboration with the Swanirvar Bangladesh, and several other pilot schemes
were initiated by a handful of the NGOs who were active then. At that time,
it was difficult then to conceive that these initiatives would lead to a
major micro-credit movement, which would make Bangladesh known to the rest
of the world. Even during the 1980s, in spite of Grameen Bank's success,
the main discourse amongst development practitioners in Bangladesh centred
around the desirability of micro-credit program as opposed to
concientization. By 1990, unhindered experimentation in the fields led to a
quiet resolution of the debate and the country experienced a massive
expansion of micro-finance activities during the 1990s. This is borne out by
the figures on the time path of MFI expansion (see Figure 1), as well as, by
the expansion in membership in these MFIs (see Figure 2). This rapid
expansion drew attention from all important quarters – policymakers,
academia and development practitioners – each trying to grapple with the
unfolding stream of issues and trying to shape the course of the social and
economic dynamics initiated due to introduction of microcredit. With a view
to meet the demand for fund for re-lending by the development partners (NGO/MFIs),
and due to an urge to coordinate the flow of such fund to appropriate use,
the Palli Karma Sahayak Foundation (PKSF) came into being in late 1990. Over
the years, their share in the revolving loan fund of the MFIs increased –
from 9 percent in 1996 to 24 percent in 1999 (see Table 2). It was therefore
quite natural that PKSF took keen interest in initiating a study on
monitoring and evaluation of the microcredit programs in Bangladesh and the
Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS) undertook study during
1997-2000.
|
Figure 1

Note: This captures only those MFIs which responded to CDF query during their
bi-annual
surveys. |
Source: Compiled from CDF data.
|
Figure
2
 |
Note:
Each unit along the horizontal axes is two years, except for the last unit
(between 12 & 13), which captures the difference between 1996 and 1997.
Source: BIDS Census of 91
villages, October-December 1997.
|
Source
|
December,
1999
|
June,
2001
|
Member's savings
|
25.37
|
25.74
|
Service charge
|
12.47
|
17.21
|
Foreign
donation
|
19.11
|
17.43
|
Local
bank
|
11.33
|
9.15
|
PKSF
|
23.81
|
23.50
|
Others
|
7.91
|
6.97
|
Of
which, own fund
|
(3.79)
|
(4.14)
|
Local donation
|
n.av.
|
n.av.
|
BRAC+Proshika+ASA
|
(0.27)
|
(0.49)
|
Number
borrowing from PKSF
|
122
(22.85)
|
119(20.00)
|
Number
of MFIs included
|
534
|
601
|
Number
borrowing from PKSF
|
122
(22.85)
|
119(20.00)
|
|
Note:
Figures in parentheses in the last row are percentages.
Source:
Compiled from CDF Statistics, different volumes.
|
Of the various
employment activities (mainly self-employment), small-scale
business/trade is the most important, accounting for more than 40%
of fund disbursed by the MFIs. On the other hand agriculture, food
processing, transport, housing and livestock sectors were getting
relatively small portions of fund.
This is shown in Table-3 below.
|
Sub-Sector
|
%
disbursed up to June 2000 (476 MFIs)
|
%
disbursed up to December 2000 (469 MFIs)
|
%
disbursed up to June 2001 (468 MFIs)
|
Agriculture
|
12.63
|
12.77
|
12.23
|
Fisheries
|
4.74
|
4.48
|
4.91
|
Food
Processing
|
6.99
|
7.11
|
3.78
|
Small
business
|
41.31
|
41.81
|
43.02
|
Cottage
industries
|
3.03
|
3.08
|
3.03
|
Transport
|
3.42
|
3.49
|
2.78
|
Housing
|
1.28
|
1.30
|
1.16
|
Health
|
0.39
|
0.37
|
0.45
|
Education
|
0.02
|
0.02
|
0.08
|
Livestock
|
20.91
|
20.53
|
18.11
|
Others
|
5.28
|
4.71
|
10.45
|
Total
|
100.00
|
100.00
|
100.00
|
|
Sources : CDF Statistics,
Various Volumes.
|
The table shows that a transformation is taking
place in the economic activities of the poor households in the rural
areas. In the initial years of microcredit operation during
eighties, the traditional sector including fisheries and poultry
accounted for a larger segment of self-employment activities of the
poor. BIDS surveys conducted during 1997 to 2000 for PKSF funded
MFIs, show the predominance of small-scale trade and lately medium
and large-scale trading has assumed prominence.
|
The major objective of microcredit (MC) is to create
income among poor households and thereby alleviate poverty. In this respect the question can be asked at two levels,
first, whether MC leads to an improvement in income and second
whether the increase in income is sufficient to lift them above the
poverty level. There is
also a third aspect related to the second, that is whether poverty
alleviation takes place on a sustained basis.
Though most impact assessment studies examine the impact of
MC on income, the analyses concentrated on mainly the first
question. It should be
mentioned that most studies consider
the total impact on growth of income
and do not examine whether a redistribution of credit fund has a
redistributive impact on poverty and income of households.
A summary of the findings of some impact assessment
studies is presented in table 4.
|
Source
|
Economic
Indicators
|
Type
of Change
|
Social
Indicators
|
Type
of Change
|
Hossain
1985
|
Return
on investment
Household
income
Employment
|
+
+
+
|
|
|
Hossain
1988
|
Working
Capital
Non-agricultural
investment
Agricultural
investment
Labour
force participation rate
Income
|
+
+
?
+
+
|
Social
Investment
|
+
|
BIDS
1990
|
Income
Expenditure
Employment
Land
Purchase
|
+
?
+
+
|
Child
woman ratio
School
enrollment
|
?
+
|
IMEC
1995
|
Economic
empowerment
|
+
|
Social
empowerment
|
+
|
Pitt
& Khandker 1995
|
Various
labour supply
Men's
labor supply
Household
Expenditure
|
+
-
+
|
Girl's
schooling
Contraceptive
use
Women's
non land asset
|
+
?
+
|
Rahman
1996
|
Household
expenditure on consumption
Human
Capital and fixed investment
Employment
|
+
+
+
|
Number
of meals taken by men
Number
of meals taken by woman
School
enrolment rate
Attitude
to education
pure
drinking water
|
?
?
+
?
+
|
|
Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation (PKSF) commissioned a
longitudinal Monitoring and Evaluation Study (MES) which was
conducted by the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS).
Started in 1997, the studies were completed in 2001. The study
covered 3026 sample households spread over 91 villages located in 13
of PKSF POs operational areas. A census was administered in late
1997, covering 19151 households in 91 villages. The first and the
second round surveys under the study were administered in 1998 and
1999 and the third and final round survey was conducted in 2000.
Some findings on the impacts of microcredit as presented here are
gleaned from the reports and papers prepared by BIDS.
The summary of the PKSF-ME Study
by BIDS is shown in the Table-5.
|
Broad
Category
|
Indicatiors
|
Type
of Change
|
Cause
of Change
|
Economic
Impact
|
Income
|
+
|
Self
employment activities
|
Food
Security
|
+
|
Greater
access to cultivable land through the rental market
|
Wage
(land poor)
|
+
|
Transport
and other non-agril activities sup. by MC
|
Employment
(land poor)
|
+
|
better
access to the land rental market
wage
emoloyment in non-ag. sector
|
Assets
(land poor)
|
+
|
av.
low land size than non-participants
larger
operational holding
impact
of MF (poultry livestock, bi-cycles, rickshaw/van)
|
Social
and other development impacts
|
Fertility
and contraceptive use
|
+
|
program
participation
female
methods dominate
|
Health
and Nutrition
|
+
|
program
placement effect
|
Sanitation
and drinking water
|
+
|
program
participation
|
Literacy
and school enrollment of children
|
+
|
program
participation
|
Social
mobility
|
?
|
do
not vary significantly
|
Women
participation and HH welfare
|
+
|
participation
in a MC program
increasing
women's income
|
|
Studies of microcredit programs show that these
have been successful in improving the economic condition of the
members. Macro studies,
however, show that there has not been any significant decline in the
overall levels of poverty. This
apparent contradiction may be partially due to the fact that the
microcredit programs have not been very successful in including the
hard core poor, who constitute about half of the poor in Bangladesh.
The poorest may have been left out because quite often the
destitute themselves feel they are not credit worthy and the
microcredit programs also do not judge them to have the
entrepreneurial ability necessary to invest the credit properly.
Perhaps microcredit, especially in the form that is currently
in practice, is not the answer for the hard core poor.
|
Currently, MFIs cover approximately 35 percent of
the target households in Bangladesh. This means that MFIs have the
potential to expand horizontally—devising ways to include more
people from the target group. As
older borrowers graduate to higher income brackets, new products
need to be devised to meet their changing needs.
These new products may also help the MFIs to expand
vertically by tapping borrowers outside the target group.
A possible way to expand horizontally is to include more men.
Research in Bangladesh and elsewhere show that men usually
borrow larger amount. However,
their repayment record is not as good as women.
Including more men will allow MFIs to attain sustainability
quickly, but it will also mean that the repayment performance of an
institution will suffer as well.
As the microcredit movement matures it faces the varied
requirements of the borrowers and the need to offer a larger package
of products.
|
It is fair to say that donor funding and
enthusiasm for microcredit will diminish in the future.
This means that MFIs have to look for new avenues to fund
their activities, potential source of fund will be to mobilize
saving deposits of members and non-members.
Another alternative is to try to tap commercial source of
funding such as commercial banks, the local stock market and
financial market. This
option might be open only to large and well-established MFIs and may
not be feasible for small MFIs.
|
Research in
Bangladesh and other places show that a crucial element for the
success of a credit granting NGO-MFI is the quality of leadership.
Most successful NGO-MFIs were started by a charismatic leader
or a group of energetic leaders.
This phenomenon has positive as well as negative consequence.
The positive aspect is that society is able to produce these
innovators, but then it raises the issue of where is the next
generation of leaders going to come from?
There
is an understanding that the microcredit movement has evolved in a
regulatory vacuum. In
particular, there is no regulatory framework that caters to the
special nature of MFIs. Given
the current outreach of microcredit it may be necessary to develop a
rational regulatory framework through consensus.
|
The issue of service charge (interest rate) that
an MFI should charge on its loan given to the poor borrowers has
received attention with mixed interpretations. Many think that it is
too high and many think it is tolerable. In most of the countries
the MFIs change at a flat rate ranging from 12% to 27% per annum. In
Bangladesh, the predominant rate is 15% flat per annum. What should
be the ideal or optimum rate, is a million dollar question. This has
been bothering the MFIs, the academics, policy makers, the
politicians and the other stakeholders in Bangladesh. For the sake
of competitiveness and provision of quality services, I do not agree
to cap the rate of service charge, but I think, a range or a band
for the rate may be agreed upon by all concerned with the objective
of maximizing benefit to poor people. Time has come to resolve this
issue in Bangladesh.
|
This issues
has come to the forefront because MFIs are providing financial
services and products to the poor, outside the formal banking
system.
In view of the
history of MFIs (most of which are NGOs or self help groups), it can
be argued that the conventional regulatory framework such as that of
formal banks and financial institutions is not appropriate and hence
not required under the circumstances prevailing in many countries.
This is particularly in view of the fact that many MFIs are
not accepting deposits with checking facilities.
The unique features of MFIs in the field of social and
financial services with the core objectives of poverty alleviation
differentiate the industry from the formal financial sector and
further justify this proposition.
However, that does not in any way downplay the importance of
having some strategic monitoring measures that are compatible and
appropriate to MFIs' objectives, institutional operation and
development culture. The
measures should incorporate user-friendly prudential
norms/indicative guidelines in the form of a concrete 'Code of
Norms/Conduct' which would ensure sound and organized growth of
MFIs on a sustainable basis.
A
set of financial standards, reporting formats and performance
standards may be an effective way to keep the MFIs on the right
track. There is a broad range of experiences to draw from in
establishing appropriate standards, including the work being done by
PKSF in Bangladesh.
|
In most of the
countries around the world donors, business houses, private
individuals and governments are providing fund to various domestic
microfinance institutions (MFIs) to carry out microcredit programs (MCPs). In order to fulfill the Microcredit Summit goal of reaching
100 million of the world's poorest families with microcredit by
the year 2005, steps must be taken to ensure more resources to
promote microcredit and to ensure that those resources are provided
to MFIs in cost-effective ways.
The present mechanism of channeling funds to MFIs, especially
government and donor funds, has proved to be inefficient.
The total cost of providing funds directly to microcredit
programs (or "retailers") is usually high when the cost of
feasibility studies, appraisal missions, monitoring, evaluation,
reporting and so on are included.
This is particularly true in cases where the funding agency
does not have a permanent office or adequately trained personnel
near the MCP being funded. MCPs
require flexible, user-friendly, consultative and fast-moving
processes located near their areas of operation.
As a result of the high cost involved in providing funds
directly to MCPs, as well as the high costs incurred by many MCPs in
receiving and administering these funds, a relatively small amount
of these funds are actually provided as loans to the poorest.
It is very difficult to give figures on how much donor funds
go to the poor. Some
estimates may be made. About
51% of CGAP's core fund reached the poorest as direct lending in
its first 3 years of operation and the rest was spent on capacity
building, technical assistance, conferences, etc.
Another estimate made regarding USAID's fund: a maximum of
25% of the total funds reached the poorest.
About 10% to 25% of donor funds actually reach the poorest,
while the rest is spent on administration, overhead, training,
institution building and consultants (Yunus, 1999). Therefore, there
is a need to create autonomous and cost-effective microcredit funds
(MCFs). In a large
country or in a country where MCPs have great potential, national
funds can be created. In
small countries where MCPs are not well developed, sub-regional
funds can be created.
A major
advantage of autonomous microcredit funds is their ability to screen
and monitor microcredit programs (MCPs) according to standard
criteria, compared to often inconsistent 'ad hoc' evaluations of
individual MCPs by donor and government agencies.
Funding and support based
on uniform standards create a level playing field.
Standard monitoring requirements also contribute to more
professional MCPs which may be converted to professional
microfinance institutions for poverty eradication.
It may be worthwhile to recall how PKSF in Bangladesh played
the role of both financial intermediary and market developer.
The rational emphasis recently placed by many donors
and governments to fund "institutions" rather than "ad hoc
projects" is in line with the arguments put forward for creating
autonomous microcredit funds.
Recent
attempts to establish such microcredit funds (MCFs) in other
countries (like PPAF in Pakistan, RMDC in Nepal, LID in Bosnia-Herzogovina,
FONCAP in Argentina, MWF in Mexico etc.) are a move in the right
direction, because, among other functions, MCFs will be an effective
institutional option to fund startup microcredit programs within a
poor/poorest friendly regulatory framework. An independent
autonomous apex body outside the government's control may be
formed to ensure that the 'code of conduct' and the microcredit
standards are complied with by the MFIs which are essential aspects
of a regulatory framework discussed in section 7(f). Non-compliance by the MFIs may ultimately result in canceling
the permission/registration of a defaulting MFI.
|
In this paper,
we have discussed different facts and broad issues that we believe
will be critical for the future success of the microcredit movement. Microcredit has proven to be an effective tool of poverty
alleviation. As the
microcredit movement matures, we get a clearer idea of what its
strengths are and what are its limitations.
To move forward, we need to be more effective, and increase
outreach, design products to include the poorest, and any other
measure needed to spread the poverty alleviation net wider, so that
significant decline in poverty takes place.
We also need to have transparency in the management systems
of the MFIs and prepare for the eventuality of decreased donor
funding and move towards sustainability.
The seminar, we hope, will be a suitable forum towards our
moving forward.
1.
Moving beyond conventional impact
assessment-more important is to contribute towards monitoring
program variables.
2.
Overlapping, competition, encroachment
problems.
3.
A different framework for understanding
graduation.
4.
Deepening in lieu of widening –
different needs, different products.
5.
Innovating risk-responsive financial
products.
6.
Promoting the institutional capital:
increase the impact of microcredit.
1.
Provide capacity building support that will enable MFIs to
achieve sustainability.
2.
Support the establishment of national apex bodies, e.g. PKSF-Bangladesh;
PCFC Philippines; RMDC Nepal.
3.
Strengthen capacity of apex bodies to support savings
mobilisation and microenterprise development, especially to enable
microenterprises to link with market outlets and providers of
technological resources.
4.
Help build database on requirements for strategic resources
of MFI-financed enterprises; publish database in websites with links
to other websites.
Support networking of MFIs within and outside the
country to share information, experience and expertise.
|
|
(1)
Ahmed, Salehuddin; 2000 : "State
of the Microcredit Program in Bangladesh", Palli Karma-Sahayak
Foundation (PKSF), Dhaka.
(2)
Ahmed, Salehuddin; 2000 : "Creating
Autonomous National and Sub-Regional Microcredit Funds",
Microcredit Summit Campaign paper (English, French, Spanish),
Washington D.C.
(3) Ahmed,
Salehuddin; 2002 : "Emerging
and Strategic Issues and Concerns of Microfinance", Paper
presented at the INAFI Asia Regional Workshop, Bangkok, January
16-18, 2002.
(4) Asif Ud Dowla and L.K. Mahmud; 1998 : "Future
Issues in Microcredit : An Overview", paper at PRPA Workshop,
Dhaka, June.
(5) Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS) : "Census
Report, Survey Reports and other Reports on PKSF-MES Study",
Dhaka.
(6) Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS); 2001 :
"Final Report on BIDS Study
on PKSF's Monitoring and Evaluation System (MES)", October,
Dhaka.
(7) Credit Development Forum (CDF); "CDF
Statistics : Various Volumes", Dhaka.
(8) Microcredit Summit Campaign; 2002; "State
of the Microcredit Summit Campaign Report 2002", November,
Washington D.C.
(9)
Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation (PKSF); "Annual
Reports of various years", Dhaka.
(10) Sharif, Iffath and Geof Wood; 1998 : "Towards
New Frontiers of Finance : Summary and Findings", Paper for
final Session of the Workshop, Dhaka, July.
(11) Smith,
Adam; 1937; "An Inquiry into
the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", Edwin Cannan
(Ed.), The Modern Library/Random House Inc., New York.
(12)
Yunus, Muhammad; 1999; "How Donor Funds Could Better Reach
and Support Grassroots Microcredit Programs Working Towards the
Microcredit Summit's Goal and Core Themes", Abidjan, June.
|
|