Sophie Sirtaine & Buhle Goslar
Also Read
Over the past five decades, microfinance has grown into a $1.5 trillion global industry, reaching hundreds of millions of households that conventional banks have never served and likely never would. It has enabled unbanked people around the world to start businesses, build assets, keep children in school, and withstand shocks that might otherwise have been devastating. Yet microfinance has also faced vocal criticism. In some markets, rapid expansion has outpaced consumer protections, leading to over-indebtedness and encouraging lenders to prioritize commercial interests over client welfare. These concerns should be taken seriously. Any industry that serves millions of people—from consumer goods to construction and manufacturing—has had to confront issues like poor governance, bad actors, and harmful practices by strengthening safeguards and improving standards. Microfinance is no exception.
For too long, however, the industry has been focused on the wrong question: Does microfinance work? Decades of randomized controlled trials, whose findings on average were often treated as definitive yes-or-no verdicts, have reinforced a deeply misleading framing. Asking whether microfinance works is like asking whether a certain medicine works without specifying the patient, dose, or condition being treated. A recent analysis by the CGAP—an inclusive finance innovation lab (of which one of us is CEO)—helps move the conversation forward. Drawing on more than 400 impact studies, it replaces the facile question of whether microfinance works with more useful ones: When does credit create opportunity? When does it strengthen resilience? When does it leave people worse off? Why do outcomes vary so dramatically across borrowers and markets? Microcredit tends to work best when borrowers already have some experience running a business and control how the funds are used. It is also more effective when repayment schedules are aligned with household cash flows, rather than following demanding, rigid weekly installments, and when loans finance investments that generate steady returns over time. Pay-as-you-go solar is a prime example.
Households that cannot afford a large upfront purchase can often manage small monthly payments that are lower than what they previously spent on kerosene. Here, microcredit finances an investment that quickly pays for itself. Microcredit can play an equally important role in strengthening resilience, though its benefits are often underestimated by randomized trials that focus on short-term changes in income or consumption. A family that uses financing to acquire a productive asset—a solar panel, a water pump, or income-generating equipment—is often better positioned to withstand a bad harvest, a medical emergency, or an economic shock. While this buffer effect may not show up in an 18-month trial, it is real and well-documented. The evidence on enterprise growth is similarly encouraging. For existing business owners, access to well-structured loans is consistently associated with higher profits, greater investment, and expansion. The mechanism is straightforward: credit acts as a lever, enabling entrepreneurs who already have customers, skills, and viable opportunities to invest and grow faster. Women’s economic empowerment offers another powerful illustration of how the same loan can produce very different outcomes. Women account for the majority of microfinance borrowers worldwide, and when they control how loans are used, the benefits often extend throughout the household, leading to higher spending on children’s health and education, more diversified income sources, and greater financial security. But a loan issued in a woman’s name and controlled by someone else, such as a spouse or male relative, can leave her with the obligation to repay without any power over how the money is used.
Direct disbursement into women-controlled accounts, transaction privacy, and products that reflect how women actually work and make decisions are therefore essential for credit to translate into genuine economic empowerment. The debate over the virtues and limitations of microfinance has obscured a crucial fact. Microcredit itself is neither inherently good nor inherently bad; its impact depends on how it is designed, delivered, and regulated. And even then, credit is only part of the financial toolkit people need, alongside insurance, savings, and payments. Responsibility therefore rests with all participants, from the institutions that provide credit and the investors and donors that fund it to the governments that oversee it. Rather than continuing to ask settled questions, the focus should be on the hundreds of millions of people who depend on microcredit. We now have a far clearer understanding of what separates success from failure than we did a generation ago. The challenge is to put that knowledge into practice.
Sophie Sirtaine is CEO of the CGAP. Buhle Goslar is Executive Committee Chair of the CGAP.
Orissa POST – Odisha’s No.1 English Daily
