HOLY MAMMON why microfinance—especially when married to ministry—is leading the fight against poverty BY BRUCE WYDICK
B
y virtually all accounts, microfinance represents one of the most exciting and dynamic movements of our time in the fight against world poverty. It involves lending small amounts of money, often as little as $50 to $100, to low-income entre preneurs, generally in developing countries. The entrepreneur taking a microfinance loan then uses the borrowed capital to invest in small productive assets such as a sewing machine or oven. He or (as is most often the case today) she may also use the loan as working capital to purchase wholesale goods for later resale or for hiring additional employees. The loan is then typically repaid in biweekly or monthly installments, and another, often larger, loan is then granted when the last one has been paid off. These “dynamic incentives” used so often in microfinance bring to mind the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30, Luke 19:12-27) in which those who have proven themselves faithful in small things are then given responsibility for bigger things. With last year’s Nobel Peace Prize given to the founding father of microfinance, Muhammad Yunus, the microfinance movement has attracted so much media attention that one could say microfinance itself has now become famous. This newfound captivation with microfinance by the multitudes is in many respects justified, but it is also fraught with the usual biases and misconceptions of early infatuation. Many of these misconceptions view microfinance as a silver bullet that can single-handedly end world poverty. This is not the case, and it is important that infatuation develop into a more mature commitment based on a clearheaded understanding of strengths and weaknesses. In this article I will discuss several aspects of microfinance: its increasing importance as a strategy to empower the poor in the fight against world poverty, what seems to make it work, the impact it has on the poor, and its actual and potential integration into the holistic mission of Christians in poor
countries. I write this both as one trying to look at the microfinance movement objectively and as an insider who was involved with the microfinance movement early on, and who has since made it the subject of a great deal of academic research. By any standard, the growth in the number of microfinance borrowers in the last decade has been breathtaking. The Microfinance Summit, the gatekeeper of worldwide microfinance statistics, reports that the number of microfinance borrowers increased from 13.5 million worldwide in 1997 to 113.3 million in 2006, these borrowers taking small loans from about 3,100 microfinance institutions (MFIs). Certainly part of what is responsible for the mushrooming growth of microfinance is that it has enormous political appeal across the political and economic spectrum. Free-market types and others leaning toward the right side of the spectrum point to the self-sustaining nature of MFIs, which allow them to remain free of significant subsidies. They are attracted to its roots in market-based activity and its emphasis on entrepreneurial families lifting themselves up by their own bootstraps. Yet even on the other end of the spectrum, socially oriented liberals are equally enamored with microfinance, because it is targeted directly at the poor, is environmentally benign (unlike many large, invasive development projects), and empowers women and artisans. Everybody loves microfinance. The Christian community is not left out in this respect. A large percentage of MFIs are faith-based, and the overwhelming majority of the faith-based MFIs are Christian, including one of the oldest and largest, Opportunity International (opportunity.org), which today boasts over 1 million borrowers worldwide. Christian development practitioners bring to their work a different perspective from their secular counterparts, viewing the poor not just through an economic lens but also in terms of their spiritual and social relationships within the community and their relationship
PRISM 2007
24