Rhetorical Question: Is all this rhetoric good for Microfinance?
August 20, 2008, Evelyn Stark
(Why can't we all just get along)
We're in the middle of campaign season here in America and we're being bombarded with headlines about how this candidate is unqualified, and how that candidate is out of touch with the "common man". It's such a distraction that even the politically aware start to tune it out.
So, what does this have to do with microfinance? Recently I've been reading articles with headlines like: "Did Yunus Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize: Microfinance or Macrofarce?" as well as dueling articles and Op-Eds in the Economist and the Wall Street Journal that make it seem like microfinance only exists at rhetoric's polar opposites. All good. Or all bad.
At what point will it be all right to admit - to proclaim - that microfinance has a place in the toolkit of anti-poverty and pro-growth development? And, that it may not be the right tool in all circumstances; it may be a great driver and leader in some instances, and it may be useless or even negative in others? Is all of this name-calling helping us move forward as a field, or is it a distraction? Are there really so many competing (even nefarious?) interests at play? Are people trying to simply profit off the poor? Are poor-to-middling NGOs really trying to capture subsidies just to keep their headquarters staff employed?
Or, are we all imperfect, but striving towards the same goals? And, if so, can we agree that we need solid, profitable (you can call it sustainable) financial services firms (of many types) with strong financial and social interests and incentives in serving poor, underserved people? And, then can we agree to divide up our expertise to make that happen and move forward?
There are a lot of poor and very poor people who couldn't care less about the rhetoric, but who might find access to good financial services really useful.
