Brave New Traveler - Online Travel Magazine

Handup Or Handout? The Case Against Micro-Loans

Print This Post Print This Post    12 Dec 2007 in Life, Politics by Josh Kearns
Is the principal effect of micro-lending to further hook people into dependence upon the money economy? Josh Kearns explains.

Micro LoansI want to urge caution in what has become a widespread and unqualified enthusiasm for the whole micro-finance thing. Since Yunus won the Nobel Prize, people have been afraid to criticize the idea of micro-finance.

But I hold a great degree of skepticism about the effectiveness of micro-loans to promote authentic well-being and prosperity for folks in the so-called “developing world” over the long term. I hasten to add that I am not dismissing the concept 100%, out-of-hand. But I have serious doubts.

I fear that the principal effect of micro-lending is to further hook people into dependence upon the money economy. In the so-called “developed” world, we can scarcely imagine a thing such as independence - we are totally reliant on money to buy everything we need and want for our lives.

But the rural “poor” of the world - the subsistence farmers, for example - can and do maintain a significant degree of independence from the money economy.

They do this by producing much of what they use themselves or within their immediate communities. This kind of locally self-reliant economy is preferable - it is far more stable, more ecologically sound, and more preservative of community than the global economy.

Development For Good?

My fear is that micro-lending provides yet another mechanism (under the failed rubric of “development”) for inducing folks off the land and out of their local communities, estranging them from their traditional cultures and thrusting them into the cities, which is to say the slums.

The best strategy to “help the poor” is to reduce their requirements for money, not find ways to make them more dependent upon it

The best strategy to “help the poor” is to reduce their requirements for money, not find ways to make them more dependent upon it, even if those ways involve giving them a little money and even perhaps appear helpful in the short term.

Micro-lending involves giving the “poor” a little bit of money at the outset, which from our perspective (as rich Westerners) looks good because we can’t imagine a life without money.

We think the problem of the poor is that they don’t have enough money. On the contrary, their problem is lack of entitlement to the necessities of life. Money is only one way to obtain this entitlement, and it’s not a very good way in the long run, neither for the world’s “poor” nor ourselves.

The Trouble With Loans

A better way to secure entitlement to the necessities of life - in either the “developing” or “developed” worlds - is to increase local capacity for their direct creation; promoting local self-reliance.

Micro LoansA loan, micro- or otherwise, has to be repaid. That means an enterprise started on a micro-loan must not only be solvent, but must produce a surplus and earn sufficient profit above the interest rate of the loan.

The possibility of earning a profit is largely beyond the control of the micro-loan recipient. It is subject to the fluctuations and instabilities of the global economy and the decisions of far-flung bureaucrats in governments and international financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank: all complex forces well beyond the ken, let alone the control, of a Kenyan peasant woman selling bread from an urban sidewalk stand.

If we want to “help the poor,” the surest strategy is to work with them to increase their independence from the money economy. This is unfamiliar territory to nearly everyone in the West. Since we (most of us, comparatively speaking) have money, it is our stand-by solution to everything. “Throw money at the problem” is our strategy in research, public welfare programs, environmental issues and politics.

What we must do in order to be able to “help the poor” is to first learn ourselves how to live without money, or at least with a lot less of it. We must learn, or rather re-learn, the techniques of self-reliant, agrarian living wherein local needs are met primarily by goods produced locally.

I am not suggesting - God forbid - that everyone ought to “go be a farmer.” We need “urban agrarians” just as desperately as rural ones.

We must familiarize ourselves with our local ecosystems and devise solutions for living that make sense within our particular ecological and social contexts. And we must re-establish the health of community that makes locally self-reliant living feasible, as it cannot be done by the individualist “loners” under the influence of “modern” society and market culture.

Breaking Control

When we consider that we must first help ourselves in these formidable tasks before helping the world’s poor, we reach the ineluctable conclusion that we are, at present, woefully unqualified for the task. Our standard answer to life’s problems - to spend more money - cannot produce the needed long-term solutions.

The last thing these communities need are more enticements into the money economy and the overly-consumptive modern urbanized lifestyles.

What seems ironic, though only from our own perspective, is that some of the “poorest” communities in the world are in a better position to help us than we them. Some subsistence farming communities of Asia, Africa and Latin America still practice a lifestyle that involves a high degree of local self-reliance, strong community bonds, ecological literacy, and a well-developed sense of place.

The last thing these communities need are more enticements into the money economy and the overly-consumptive and ultimately unsatisfying modern urbanized lifestyles. To the extent that micro-lending programs draw folks further into the money economy and market culture, they create financial dependence and advance the attendant breakdown of community and destruction of ecosystems.

So as far as micro-lending tourism is concerned, I would suggest instead that travelers seek first-hand experience and insight into self-sufficient community lifestyles.

Such agrarian projects are developing worldwide, and our participation as travelers helps both to advance the communities’ independence from the global economy and provides us with invaluable experiential learning possibilities that prepare us to help our own society break its addiction to globalization, growth and monetary dependence.

Are micro-loans good for people in the developing world? Join the discussion below!

Josh Kearns is a bona fide hill-billy who currently runs AqueousSolutions, an NGO devoted to developing and promoting self-reliant forms of water purification. He’s been a researcher in environmental chemistry and ecological economics and is into techniques for high quality self-reliant living like organic farming, natural building, permaculture and bluegrass music.

Josh Kearns

Josh Kearns is a bona fide hill-billy who currently runs AqueousSolutions, an NGO devoted to developing and promoting self-reliant forms of water purification. He’s been a researcher in environmental chemistry and ecological economics and is into techniques for high quality self-reliant living like organic farming, natural building, permaculture and bluegrass music.

| Share on Facebook | Stumble it!

17 Comments »

  1. Comment by Gary — December 12, 2007

    If we want to “help the poor,” the surest strategy is to work with them to increase their independence from the money economy.

    The more I read that, the more I want to nominate it for the funniest line of the year.

    It is a good thing we have rich white people to tell the poor of the world what is good for them. They will be happy to know that all their problems can be solved with a stone age economy.

  2. Comment by Ashley — December 12, 2007

    The most condescending thing Westerners do is tell the world’s poor what is “best for them” whether it’s the type of government they “should” have of the type of economy they “should” have. I think they can handle themselves personally. These are people who are capable of making their own decisions, and if they want more money so that they can put their kids through school or have better medical care, more power to them. If they decide the best way to acheive those goals is to open a store and get a loan from Westerners through kiva.org, who are we to judge? Just because we have a romantisized view of agrarian life doesn’t mean we should stop people from trying to find innovative ways to help.

  3. Comment by Dan — December 12, 2007

    It’s an interesting perspective and not one I wholey agree or disagree with. The recipients of micro loans do want them, they want to build a business and who are we to tell them that they should not want that? Economically and Ecologically it makes sense to as you say, keep their independence from the money economy but hearing that and looking at bigger picture it looks to me like some sort of medieval idea of how the world should be.
    A sustainable economy needs to develop, maybe we do have to go backwards to move forwards.

  4. Comment by Tim Patterson — December 12, 2007

    Looking at the big picture, as Dan suggests, is freaking scary. Climate change, nuclear proliferation, the ecological destruction of much of the world, as epitomized by China’s economic boom…it is very difficult to look at the globalized economy as anything but a malignant force that must be dismantled in favor of ecologically sane economies on a human scale. That said, who am I - wearing Patagonia brand clothing in Patagonia and typing on my apple laptop in front of a flatscreen TV - to tell the rural poor that money will make them worse off, not better. As Josh suggests, I think one of the most important things we wealthy travelers can do is to visit self-reliant communities in the developing world - places where the locals are fighing hard to preserve traditional ways of life, and keep big dams and armies from destroying the land where they have always lived.

  5. Comment by Josh — December 12, 2007

    While microlending might be the newest fad in development circles, the evidence is not so clear that it’s actually beneficial.

    Globalization critic Helena Norberg-Hodge of the International Society for Ecology and Culture, for instance, has remarked that on the whole, micro-loans have not been effective for alleviating poverty; rather they have simply encouraged more migration from the country to the cities (in other words, to the slums).

    Consider that microlending is just a new bit of jargon, a new buzzword, for a particular facet of ages-old forms of exploitation. We used to have “colonialism” - now we have “economic globalization.” If you make an honest look at the social and ecological effects of “development” you’ll see they’re not much different than those of colonialism. Maybe the format is different but the effects on people and nature are very similar.

    Ashley — You make some good points that need to be addressed further and I will try to do this, perhaps in a future essay. This is an often-made argument and deserves careful attention. I have dealt with this argument within myself and I arrive at the perspectives evinced in the essay above having gone through this process. Let’s keep the conversation going.

    Gary — You have shown yourself to be an enthusiastic naysayer, but have yet to produce anything of real positive utility in your comments. I’m interested if you have any useful contributions that move the discussion forward — something more than just poo-pooing the ideas of others in a very mundane, conventional and mediocre way.

  6. Comment by Cedric Pieterse — December 13, 2007

    Once again, exellent post Josh!
    I have lived in a developing country for most of my live. I have been an employer to 37 people. Rural people. I have also travelled extensively in Africa, and I agree with what you say. From experience, in being a treveller, and an employer I have seen the following.
    One of my workers went to a micro-loan company to borrow money for a new bed and a pair of shoes for her child. She borrowed the equivalent of 300 USD. This company did not require any credit checks, or security from her. They charged her 32% interest per week! Not per year. The result was that after a year, through her default in payments, irregular payments, and borrowing from other lenders to pay the first, she ended up with a debt of 7000USD! I know at this point everyone reading this is shouting “why did you not pay a proper wage!”
    I did pay very good wages, the best in industry, and 45% more than government minimum regulations. I believe in rewarding my workers.

    The problem lies with the organisations that lend the money in the first place, and the governments. Firstly, the NGO’s who lend the money to the governments do not follow up on how the loans are administered, and then the governments put a very high interest rate in place, because they are there for the money. There are very little laws if at all, to protect the borrowers from the lenders, who charge massive interest rates.
    As long as the governments get their share, they do not give a shit.
    Another reason for the popularity of micro-finance amongst developing world governments are that it is a “loan” that they can repay. This is far more “responsible” than just asking for money from the developed world, as there is a lot of pressure from the developed world on the developing countries for resposnible, and sustainable developement.
    This in turn gives the mostly corrupt governments a chance to hang the carrot on the stick, and lure people in to debt. It is a new way for the government to collect taxes from the poor, and soon the carrot is gone, and just the stick is left over to punnish the people.

  7. Comment by Tim Patterson — December 13, 2007

    Cedric, I can’t tell you how wonderful it is to have your perspective on these issues! Thanks for reading, and please keep the comments rolling :)

  8. Comment by Josh — December 13, 2007

    Right on Cedric — thanks for the assist on this controversial topic.

    I wanna briefly address the accusation that perspectives such as those evinced in my essay amount to Westerns telling people in the so-called “developing” world how to live.

    Hopefully Cedric’s comment makes clear that really the opposite is true - that “development” programs such as microlending are actually the strong hand of the West telling folks what to do. These programs tell them that in order to be successful, to be “developed,” in order to get out of poverty they have to move to the city and fling themselves headlong into the global market economy.

    So often, when people such as myself challenge this “logic” we are told that we are elitists in saying that folks should not take these “opportunities” but rather should “remain poor and backward country people.”

    But what I/we am/are suggesting is the complete opposite of this. I’m saying that folks ought to be left alone by Western power to constitute their own local economies, rather than be cajoled or dragged into the global economy.

    I’m interested in folks having the freedom and capability to lives the lives they choose and enjoy their own culture and traditions. “Development” programs such as microlending denigrate the local and diverse in favor of the (Western) global and homogenized. Security and self-reliance are exchanged for dependence and insecurity; a rich tapestry of community-centered ancient cultures are exchanged for an alienating commercial monoculture.

    I am not an elite Westerner romanticizing traditional cultures and telling the world’s “poor” how I think they ought to live. I want to learn how many traditional cultures have been successful, for example in their agricultural systems that have worked well for centuries or millenia. Our Western industrial agricultural systems are failing fast and we need solutions - pronto. It’s natural to look at different systems around the world and see what has worked.

    The small-scale, biologically diverse agriculture of places like Ladakh and the Quechua farmers of the Andes have successfully farmed and raised livestock on steep slopes at high elevations with short growing seasons, little water and harsh climates for something like 4,500 years.

    Meanwhile, in a few decades in the “ideal” agricultural lands of places like Iowa we lose 5 or 6 or 10 bushels of topsoil for every bushel of corn we get. In eastern Washington State we lose 20 or 30 pounds of topsoil for every pound of wheat we harvest.

    In a field the size of a kitchen garden Andean farmers raise several dozen varieties of potato. Meanwhile, nearly 100% of the rice grown in enormous paddy monocultures in India under “modern” industrial conditions is of one or two hybrid varieties dependent upon huge inputs of pesticides and fertilizers (derived from fossil fuels) to produce a *lower* yield per hectare and are *less* tolerant of drought flood and disease than the 65,000 folks varieties they’ve replaced.

    Additionally, I see the cultural effects of globalization and modernization on communities around the world. Many of these effects are clearly destructive, and are clearly not chosen by the people they affect. I would like to see people free to choose to adopt Western “development” schemes if they want them - as it is now they are imposed by powerful institutions.

    And I would like for us in the West to have open enough minds to challenge the notions of “modernity” and “progress” and “well-being” that we have taken for granted, and to find creative ways to pursue authentic well-being while regenerating ecosystems instead of obliterating them.

    Does this make things clearer?

  9. Comment by Daniel Harbecke — December 14, 2007

    Interesting article, Josh -

    You have to admit that your topic is a lightning rod! Sure woke me up pretty quick: “What?!? What’s wrong with microloans?!?” Thanks for the wake-up call!

    Talking about the “money economy” suggests there are other economies at work, especially in smaller and more familiar communities - cooperation, trade, barter, religious or traditional participation - all of which “money” may have little or nothing to do with.

    Joseph Stiglitz in “Globalization and its Discontents” talks about his days at the World Bank. In the case of Russia, they predicted a depression similar to postwar Germany following the collapse of the Iron Curtain. The solution: loans, wonderful loans - despite the fact that Russia is naturally blessed with immense stores of natural resources.

    Russia supplies around 10% of world oil, incredible expanses of land for wheat and hardy grains (though corn doesn’t work too well, discovered Khruschev) and God only knows what kind of minerals they have out in Siberia. The lumber supplied by the taiga (mountain forest regions) alone is incredible. With all this potential, Stiglitz warned that Russia was (and is) theoretically able to support itself without relying on loans, once the infrastructure is revamped. They certainly don’t need to pay the interest…

    The result: Stiglitz and the WB was amazed how quickly the money disappeared from Russian banks and into offshore accounts in Malta, Switzerland and elsewhere. He thought it would take at least a week to drain the coffers; it took about three days. No less a winning personality than that piece of work Anatoly Chubais (who privatized the electric company and proceeded to gouge the country, shutting OFF power to whole regions who cried foul) said, in effect, “Of course we stole the money! You were stupid enough to give it to us!”

    The lesson learned is that while loans can undoubtedly be used to great advantage, thinking of them as an automatic fix-it for the world’s ills is simplistic. By all means, I support reasonable and supervised support. It does a lot of good to people who don’t have any access to small sums for sustainable fixes. But throwing money around blindly, however small, is reckless. We’re still talking about debt by design, here - sometimes the design doesn’t quite happen as planned! Student loans, anyone? Recent examples include the S&L Scandal as well as the current housing crisis (wonder where the bailout for THAT is going to come from…)

  10. Comment by Andrea Kikrby — December 15, 2007

    As a feminist I see microlending as a financial technique that really benefits women in developing countries, who are often excluded from formal economic structures. While microlending is not a panacea for all ills, it allows investment and aid to be directed to the marginalised and under-represented - which has to be a good thing.

  11. Comment by Kango Suz — December 16, 2007

    I think that microlending isn’t bad in and of itself. People seeking microloans are, as I understand more of the upstanding programs, people who are already part of the money economy and need a way like Andrea said to become a viable part of it. I do agree with your idea though that if people can stay out of the money economy they should. Money is too easy to get drawn into and to disassociate from your product (yay Marx) so that you no longer become a part of a community. Thanks for the post that woke me up to some of the other parts of the micro lending stuff that I’ve not been aware of.

  12. Comment by beth — December 17, 2007

    Josh-
    Suffice it to say that this is an extraordinarily complex topic, and in no way can be boiled down to a 500 word essay (i.e. microloans, good or bad). There are many factors at play: who is giving the loan out, location of the loan, support that the lender is giving the lend-e, terms of the loan, what “business” the loan is being used for, etc. I think generalizing is a big mistake, as there is incredible diversity. I believe there are things that microloans are “useful” or even “good” for, and other things it is certainly not. (But, as Ashley pointed at, there is great concern if a lender makes such value judgments as to what is good/bad.) It is important to be critical of microloans, of which several points you brought up. However, certainly there are stark rural/urban differences with regards to the money economy. Disregarding (to the extent possible) my opinions of the capitalist system, certainly in the short-term there isn’t going to be “urban dispersal” to rural communities and thus it is important to consider ways in which your belief system of self-reliant practices happen in those (urban) environments. And, yes, in some cases, and to some extent some microloans are giving people more control (than, for instance working for a multinational corporation). And, yes, in some cases it is causing families to move into the city and enter a money economy. It is certainly an issue of degree, as in some cases these loans are giving more control than previously. City dwellers just cannot escape the money economy in the same way as people living in farming communities; it just doesn’t make sense to apply a rural framework to urban-lifestyle. There is an entirely different set of rules for “self-reliance”. (Whether or not you prefer one to the other is a moot point.)

    I guess the point of the above long, rambling, not well formulated paragraph is: as a question of function vs. form– there are plenty of arguments regarding faults of the function of microloans (default, lack of support to the lendee, unfair interest, etc.); however you were critical of the form of microloans (more reliance on money economy). In a rural environment your arguments make perfect sense (the introduction of microloans brings in an ‘outside element’ that ultimately results in the sale of goods/services, which wasn’t their previously.) However, in an urban environment, I don’t quite follow– as it seems that microloans (speaking “form”) offer a degree of greater freedom from multinational enterprises.

    On another note, as we are being critical of microloans, I would urge you to think about how they are different/similar to different “grants” you (and others) have applied for or received to work on an individualized project/ideas. The clear difference is certainly a loan vs. grant, i.e. thing need to be “paid back”. But there certainly are similarities and while being critical of microloans, I think you too must be critical of all philanthropic grants to ‘educated do-gooders,’ as many of the same arguments about self-reliance and capitalism, and the money economy can apply.

    As always, I appreciate your thoughfulness of issues and ideas, and ability to “mull over and think with things” without quickly defending, arguing, and replying. It is a very good quality in you. Have a very Merry Christmas! I will make a snow angel for you!

    -Beth

  13. Comment by Lise — December 19, 2007

    Great post and one that really made me think. There I was all fired up about Kiva and what a wonderful thing it did plus others and whilst your post and the comments have given me new scope/another piece of the puzzle to look at, I want to ask ‘what is the intention’ behind microloans. I see in a wholistic world that the energy in which something is given (the African model mentioned in the comment above obviously shows greed at work - 32% interest!!). Its the ripple effect, if something is given (or loaned in this case) with goodness involved (am I being too idealistic?) and as the prime outcome, then bravo I say.

    I do relate to the western world’s ideal of the ‘poor third world countries’ ~ they just need what we have MONEY ~ and then they’ll be all happy families ~ WRONG! Look at our modern world, more money than we can shake a stick at but we are a depressed society in the main, more money less time, more friends less love, bla bla. I liked seeing tribal peoples like the Aborigines and KhoiSan living in their own home environment without our interference of ‘modern infrastructure’ and alcohol living on the land at peace with the world around them ~ from that I see we have a lot to learn. Our judgement of it being too hard, they must want what we want but ultimately in so many cases all I see is destitution. May be its time to ask them what do they want?

    I want for all the people’s of the world to have a beautiful life full of everything that makes life good and how you get there is ultimately your own call.

  14. Comment by Zack Bass — December 26, 2007

    Lise -

    You ask, “May be its time to ask them what do they want?”
    Well, what they want is a low-interest loan.
    Kiva says their loans are lower interest than the banks, and far lower than the local moneylenders. If they are charging 32% per week, I think the news reports are all serious misrepresentations. Or perhaps the 32%-per-week loan was NOT one of the micro-loans we hear about at all?

  15. Comment by UrbanMari — January 23, 2008

    Josh, thanks for the pics of the building–the way that I stumbled upon this discussion. I have been a ‘lender’ through Kiva, but did not realize that there was interest being charged. I’m not really pleased to learn that.

    The story that made me seek out microfinance as a direct, effective, way to help someone “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” was actually of a small farmer that received a microfinance loan to purchase a pedal-powered water pump with which to draw up water to irrigate. What would you make of that kind of scenario? He was staying in his homeland, but would be able to provide for his family with a more stable supply of food, and would be able to sell or store any surplus.

    Additionally, I wonder what you all think of Oxfam?

    Americans, or many of us, do want good things to happen for everyone in the world. Giving money directly from our pockets is evidence of that. It is *not* sustainable to try to give the rest of the world our standard of living, and that is a problem not all of us yet realize, but some of us think that we could give the developing world new & sustainable technologies (even without gadgetry as evidenced by Punpun) and thereby satisfy our consciences that we of the developed world are neither keeping others in the dark, nor expanding our wasteful ways/technologies.

    Besides, isn’t there much more of a problem with the Big Finance? The IMF, and the World Bank, and such?

  16. Comment by Tim Patterson — January 24, 2008

    Don’t even get Josh started on the IMF and Worldbank. Smoke will start coming out out of his ears :)

    Seriously though - look at the people in charge of the Worldbank - McNamara, Wolfowitz - the same men who advocate bombing the 3rd world into submission.

  17. Comment by judith — February 8, 2008

    I very much appreciate your thoughts on microloans, Josh. I’ve lived and worked in Haïti for a number of years now; and I have not yet seen these loans truly do what they have done in Bangladesh, neither in the rural or the urban sections of the country.

    I would add another thought to the issue of ways to avoid a money-based economy. Not only are developing countries more likely to have an agrarian base, but those in a culture of poverty (for want of a better term) are more likely to barter services: share some bananas with a teen who lends his brawn to a big task; fix a large meal after the neighboring farmers help clear a piece of land or grind grain in large family mortars, etc. It’s this bartering system that tends to keep the desperately poor from falling off the end of extreme poverty.

    In terms of money, one system that does work here is the “sòl”, something generally used by those with a more regular income. A group of close friends or families each contribute to a common pot of money that one member receives each week. This allows the equivalent of a microloan without interest. When a family lives in poverty, they face a daily, even hourly, tradeoff with priority needs; thus “robbing Peter to pay Paul” is the modus operandi. For that reason something like a “sòl” works well since it removes a piece of income from this cycle and allows a family to pay for something very important, such as a child’s school fees, or the purchase of an income-producing item such as a pig or a goat. One generally does not get greatly ahead, but it is a hedge against abject poverty.

    The problem is, however, that in a culture of poverty, the wealth of a single person or family is discouraged by the group. Any person or family with a little more is called upon to share with the others with less. In Haïti that is often avoided by storing any extra income in the construction of a more substantial home. In that way they remove their small profit from the cultural obligation to share it with extended family members or friends.

    Encouraging the traditional ways does make sense; but it will be very difficult given the tremendous influx of Western thinking and values. It can be done, just like we’ve had to do by encouraging women to return to breastfeeding after artificial infant formulas killed countless numbers of small children through the use of unclean water and hyper dilution; but it will take some time. Perhaps this proverb best fits the issue, “Piti piti zwazò ap fè nich li” (little by little the bird builds its nest). Little by little those in poverty will first stabilize and then pull out, together.

Leave a comment

Please note: If this is your first comment, it will be moderated.

Get BNT by Email


Jump To Category:

Latest In Life

Latest Comments