Search results

Rural poverty has been a significant problem in Indonesia for decades. To address this issue, rural microfinance institutions play an essential role. Badan Kredit Desa (Village Credit Institution/BKD) is an existing microfinance institution at the village level. This study aims to assess the financial health of BKD and explore whether transformation into a formal form of microfinance institutions can be done to help improve the welfare and economy of people in rural areas. This study used a mixed-method approach to understand the rural microfinance institution's condition by analyzing financial data for the 2016–2018 period and conducting an in-depth interview with BKD stakeholders to explore the possibility of transformation. This study found 15 out of 20 BKDs with relatively healthy criteria that can be transformed into a formal microfinance institution. In comparison, five BKDs that fall under the criteria cannot be transformed into formal ones. Moreover, BKDs have to face internal and external problems that might cause their low financial performance in conducting their operational activities. This research has several significant implications; first, as a baseline for local governments to determine the future of BKDs; second, transformed BKD will foster entrepreneurship by giving productive loans to village people; third, more economic activities as a result of increased entrepreneurship will lower poverty levels in the village; fourth, increased entrepreneurship and reduced poverty will support positive economic growth for Indonesia.

The chapter looks for the conditions of a contribution of microcredit to poverty alleviation.

It uses socioeconomical hypotheses for defining a direct and fast positive effect of microcredit on the income of the poorest. The contribution raises ten issues or conditions at a micro, meso and macro level.

It is not often that these ten conditions are all completely met. So, the impact of microcredit is generally low as regards the alleviation of poverty. The problems to achieve them are linked to the specificities of the clients and of the prevailing institutions in various sub-Saharan Africa countries.

The chapter clearly identifies the limits of microcredit and their reasons.

This chapter is a contribution to a recent restricted literature dealing with the return of microfinance investment in the financial markets. We study the performance of public microfinance investment vehicles (MIVs). Microfinance is an asset class with a double bottom line: social and financial returns have to be generated. Despite a significant currency risk, we find that the integration of microfinance assets diversifies the investor’s risks and improves the efficient frontier. We conclude that microfinance institutions, via investment vehicles, are likely to attract capital from socially responsible investors seeking new investment opportunities.

Woller, Dunford, and Woodworth (1999) and Morduch (2000) were among the first to discuss the existence of a “schism” in the study of microfinance. Although the exact dimensions of this divide are stated differently by various authors, the existence of alternative schools of thought is widely accepted (Brett, 2006; Bhatt & Tang, 2001; Mitlin, 2002; Robinson, 2001; Rhyne, 1998).

This chapter sketches a new development in responsible investing, namely impact investing. Impact investing, which we define as the entire spectrum of investments deliberately aiming to create shared value, can be seen as an integrative approach to wealth creation through investments. The case of microfinance is used to illustrate this new development.

The chapter combines a viewpoint and a case study that serves to illustrate the practical relevance of the viewpoint.

The chapter starts with a brief overview of the origin and rise of responsible investments, followed by a description of mission-related investments and impact investing as its latest development. Microfinance is presented as a special case, thereby focusing on the investors, the asset allocation and the meaning – and application – of the notion of impact.

The chapter shows that a focus on social and financial returns can be combined without having to make serious financial sacrifices. It also demonstrates that investments can come from investors as diverse as pension funds, foundations or high net-worth individuals.

If impact investing really takes off – particularly supported by institutional money – there will be much more opportunity to tackle social and environmental innovation than without those investments.

The chapter challenges (institutional) investors to evaluate their responsible investment strategy and to rethink their asset allocation. Impact investing can become an important addition to the responsible investment landscape.

The microfinance industry (MFI) has crossed the threshold into a period of tremendous growth. This growth was significantly accelerated by media attention to the industry during the United Nations Year of Microcredit in 2005 and the awarding of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize to Grameen Bank founder Mohammed Yunus, as well as the interest of high-profile donors and investors, including eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and Microsoft founder Bill Gates. Despite the promise for international development, despite the proven track record of exceptional loan repayment rates, and despite the development of competitive markets in countries like Bolivia, Peru and Bangladesh or the global expansion of microfinance access to tens of millions of new clients, little research has explored the impact this expansion has had on global poverty and economic and social development, in general.

We apply data envelopment analysis to compare the relative efficiency of different forms of microfinance institutions (MFIs): banks, cooperatives, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and nonbank financial institutions. We find that MFIs that operate as NGOs are technically more efficient than bank MFIs. Using the same inputs (labor and physical and financial assets), NGOs serve more clients (number of borrowers or depositors) than bank MFIs.

Despite the remarkable expansion of microfinance over the past several decades, the industry remains in a developmental period of experimentation and rapid growth, exploring which approaches work best under different circumstances. Widespread diffusion and local adaptation of techniques and innovations from pioneering organizations such as ACCION International, Grameen Bank, FINCA, Bank Rakyat Indonesia, BancoSol, and many others fostered the emergence of a global industry that by most counts now serves more than 100 million clients. Yet along many dimensions of the industry – for example, client methodologies, information technologies and infrastructures, transparency and performance monitoring, product and service portfolios, funding structures, human resource management, health and environmental amelioration, and regulations – significant barriers remain to achieving the broad vision of microfinance as a major contributor in fighting global poverty.

This chapter aims to provide a review of women's empowerment indicator in Arab countries. It estimates the determinants of women's economic empowerment in Arab countries to conclude some insights related to the effect of access to finance on empowering women. Moreover, the chapter aims to assess MFIs performance in supporting women's empowerment, based on actual data during the period 2008–2016 for selected Arab countries. Results show that women access to finance indicator is not sufficient to give clear evaluation for the role of MFIs in Arab Countries in empowering women. This issue requires many efforts from various parties from micro to macro players in the economy. In addition, the analysis of percentage of female borrowers and their share of gross loan portfolio concludes that performance in terms of empowering women through MFIs seems to be effective for some Arab countries while poor for others.