Opportunity International - Efficacy of Microfinancing

Efficacy of Microfinancing

There is no evidence presented in Opportunity International (OI) publications of summary-level improvements in household income or jobs created by OI's borrowers. This is not surprising, since scientific testing of the impact of microcredit is surprisingly difficult. Dozens of studies have looked at the experience of people who received microloans. The challenge has been to identify a control group for comparison: it is difficult and expensive to find a group of people who are like the loan recipients in all relevant ways except for not having gotten a loan. Two studies looked at standard microcredit clients over a short period (12–18 months) using randomized controlled trials found no evidence of improvements in household income or consumption. For now, it seems an honest summary of the evidence to say that we simply do not know yet whether microcredit or other forms of microfinance are helping to lift millions out of poverty.

Further, one of the least remarked-on problems facing the world's poor living on two dollars a day is that they do not literally get that amount each day. In other words, economic poverty is not just a matter of low incomes, but also of irregular and uncertain incomes. To put food on the table every day and meet other basic consumption needs, poor households have to save and borrow constantly. One research team presented results of year-long financial diaries collected about twice a month from hundreds of rural and urban households in India, Bangladesh, and South Africa. They consistently found the poor use credit and savings to smooth consumption, to deal with emergencies like health problems and to accumulate the larger sums they need to seize opportunities—occasionally business opportunities—and pay for big-ticket expenses like education, weddings and funerals. Over the year, the average diary household used 8 to 10 different types of financial instruments; most types were used multiple times. The notion that microcredit brings loans to people who previously had no access to them is widespread but mistaken, as is the notion that the strong majority of microloans are used for business purposes.

Finally, it seems unlikely that a year of microlending helps poor people as much as a year of girls' primary education, for example. The true advantage of microfinance is not that each "dose" is more powerful, but rather that each dose costs much less than subsidies. Social programs like primary education and health care usually require large continuing subsidies, using up scarce tax dollars year after year. Microfinancing is different: when it is done right, relatively small up-front subsidies lead to permanent institutions that can continue providing services year after year with no further subsidy needed, and can expand those services to reach many millions of low-income clients.