The Social Construction of the Microfinance Industry: a comparison of donor and recipient perspectives

Abstract

Once driven fundamentally by development concerns, most importantly higher incomes for the poor, many scholars increasingly argue that microfinance "success" has become measured against the success of microfinance institutions themselves, gauged by their progress toward achieving financial self-sufficiency; a shift Gary Woller describes as a move from a welfarist to an institutionist model of microfinance. The regularity in which the institutionist position is articulated in most of the published literature in the field of microfinance is cited as evidence that institutionist perspectives have gained ascendancy over welfarist approaches (Woller 1999, p. 1). One key driver of this trend is the institutionist perspective's alignment with the interests of those with capital or in Bateman and Chang's (2009) words Microfinance's "supreme serviceability to the neoliberal/globalisation agenda" (2009, p.1). But to what extent is the ascendancy complete? Given the role of the media in framing public discourse and influencing public opinion, do institutionist or welfarist themes dominate the mass media, particularly in the major donor and recipient countries? This paper presents an analysis of media coverage of microfinance in one key donor country, the United States, and one major recipient country, India. It finds that while there are some differences in subject matter and style, overall both sets of media articles are dominated by business-oriented language, language that aligns with the institutionist view of microfinance. We argue that the microfinance community, in particular development focussed NGOs and agencies, have yet to come to terms with the implications of the emerging hegemony of the neoliberal institutionist world view. They face major and yet unresolved strategic challenges: Do these NGOs and agencies discard the welfarist model? Or can something be retrieved, if so what? Do they compete head on and become more commercialised themselves, or develop new methods and client bases, or do they exit? And what are the implications for academic understandings of the field -through institutionalism and welfarism -and to what extent do they shed light on the logic, or instead help obscure on-the-ground power relations? Given the dominance of institutionist thinking, we argue that welfarist oriented NGOs, agencies and academics must work together quickly and creatively to ensure that what began as a grassroots project to reduce poverty is not abandoned in favour of the pursuit of profit.Microfinance has been one of the fastest growing "industries" of the new millennium, with the sector now containing over 10,000 microfinance institutions (MFIs) with over $60 billion in assets (MacFarquhar 2010). This expansion has stimulated interest from both scholars and the mainstream media. There is a growing volume of academic research which broadly centres on two approaches: an "institutionist perspective" that highlights microfinance as an Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.4, No.2, 2012 63 innovation in appl...

Successes and limitations of microfinance in addressing financial exclusion in south east Queensland, Australia

“…Some others claim microfinance's success in poverty reduction alleviation lacks rigorous evidence (Bisen, Dalton, & Wilson, 2012;Morduch, 2000;Zeller & Meyer, 2002). Others argue that measures of microfinance's success must include its outreach, financial sustainability, and improved welfare impact (Singapurwoko, 2014;Zeller & Meyer, 2002), and not only on unsubstantiated claims of poverty reduction.…”

“…Enthusiasm for microfinance without evidence of poverty reduction has created what Morduch (2000) calls a microfinance schism. The non-profit version of microfinance was gradually phased out during the 1990s, and replaced with a market-oriented model that encourages for-profit microfinance (Ghosh, 2013) which measures its success based on its financial sustainability (Bisen et al, 2012). This shift results in mission drift in microfinance institutions (Armendariz & Szafarz, 2011), from a welfarist to an institutionist model of microfinance (Woller, Dunford, & Woodworth, 1999), and a movement from poverty-reduction to profit-orientated institutions (Pierson, 2001;Singh, 2013).…”

“…This practice has been questioned as it slows the development of a competitive market practice, resulting in the welfarist approach and hindering progress instead of accelerating change (Karlan, 2014). On the other hand, it is feared that the shift to the institutionist model may sideline the needy poor under the name of financial sustainability (Bisen et al, 2012). When this happens, microfinance will abandon its mission to serve the very poor and target their services instead to the not-so-poor (Mersland & Strom, 2010;Singh, 2013).…”

“…When this happens, microfinance will abandon its mission to serve the very poor and target their services instead to the not-so-poor (Mersland & Strom, 2010;Singh, 2013). Concerns exist over whether an institutionist model of microfinance is able to solve a social issue, such as poverty, by using market solutions; and whether a welfarist approach can realise their mission of poverty reduction, without a market solution (Bisen et al, 2012).…”

“…This requirement can be seen as an abandonment of the mission of the matched savings programs to serve the poor, and only target people who are not-sopoor (Bisen et al, 2012;Mersland & Strom, 2010;Singh, 2013). A matched savings worker (Worker 9) summed up microfinance limitations by saying that "I think the program in theory is, is fantastic but in reality, in the way it is administered I would like to see a lot of changes".…”