For several years now, there is increasing talk of international solidarity, through topics as diverse as debt relief, fair trade, ethical financial investments, the social economy (which even has its secretariat State now), and of course, micro-credit. Accumulated and amplified the ravages of globalization without rules eventually bring out an international conscience, civil, there are other ways.
According to legend, the micro-credit has been” invented" by Professor Yunus in 70 years, Bangladesh. The Grameen Bank, which resulted from this invention is based on an observation and a very simple principle: the poorest of the poor have no access to banks, and therefore credit, because they can not offer guarantees, possessing nothing . They are therefore thank you to the loan sharks and other street bankers, who lend them every morning what ensure minimal economic activity, generating a low-income most of which will be used to repay the loan in the morning, and what remains to buy something to feed themselves and their families. It’s a vicious circle that prevents release of any surplus, which generates most of the time the debts over several generations.
The solution of Professor Yunus is to lend to the poor, but collectively in solidarity. This is the logic and the link of the group is missing the guarantee to banks: the loan is granted to an individual, provided it is part of a group of 4 or 5 others who are committed to assist the borrower in its management of the loan, but also to repay the loan if the borrower is unable to do himself. In addition, if the loan is not repaid, any group member may not claim a loan to himself.
This system has been applied mostly to women(because it was discovered they were paying more), and in rural areas, to reach the poorest. It developed very quickly, and we quickly arrived at a rate of repayment of loans of more than 97%.Therefore, the "silver bullet" could be exported around the world.
In fact, micro-credit is now almost in all countries in the developing or transition from five continents. It exists even in developed countries, especially in France, in areas where the state was no longer sufficient. Of course, it was adapted every time, with varying degrees of speed, and more or less successfully, to the social, economic, religious, political Similarly, each compartment of concern.
Before continuing, it is necessary to do a little historical note: while the model of the Grameen Bank has played a major role in the evolution of development in the last 20 years, but not revolutionary. Indeed, microfinance existed long before, in other forms.
In Africa, for example, ROSCAs have existed for several decades (and some historians date the first traces the 16th century), and work perfectly, implementing the principle of prior savings, they are grouping (usually at the scale of one or more villages) of customers who can get a loan after saving up enough to guarantee the loan.
Mutualistic systems, also popular in the” developing", and for many years, have a local financing to less affluent population.
However, it is undeniable that the Grameen Bank and its tremendous success across the entire country, have allowed the issue of micro finance to know a decisive growth, both for its own perpetuation, and for countries that are now affected by the phenomenon.
However, the wide dissemination and replication of micro-finance systems over the past twenty years have brought about a number of questions about their success. Indeed, some systems have quickly collapsed, while others, in apparently similar circumstances, experience a booming success. The scientific literature has addressed many bankruptcy cases, little or later on successes. The failures are usually due to poor management, ill-suited to an environment misjudged, or economically fragile (especially rural), or a global economic crisis, the country or sector (e.g. coffee).
This focus on the failures was such that on the one hand we have seen a proliferation of systems "rating", lists adhere strictly economic criteria, and secondly, the issue of financial sustainability has become central : in studies, evaluations, the criterion is unacceptable, the microfinance institution (MFI) to become economically viable within a reasonable time, otherwise it does not get funding. But getting a medium-term economic viability and the need to generate profits, is not the purpose of a commercial bank? That is to say, even those that did not lend to the poorest, and in parallel which MFI were created? The risk then is possible that the IMF, for the viability, not move to adopt the reasoning and behavior more similar to those of banks, and would end up not then help those towards which they were conceived and created ...
And that brings a second question, which is too recent: the impact of microfinance. Who is really affected by these MFI ? And to what extent? The poorest of the poor are not they left out? Now it is very difficult to measure hangmen provided by microfinance throughout a home, neighborhood or village: a lot of "living better" provided can not be quantified: a power better, more varied, more balanced, children in school longer, more consistent care, living conditions more sanitary, more hygienic, etc..
