小额信贷扶贫资金【外文翻译】

1、外文翻译financing microfinance for poverty reduction1by david s.gibbons and jennifer w.meehan ii.the need for a new financing paradigm demand for micro finance services there is no doubt that strong demand exists for microfinance services,among the poor around the world.recent statistics on the global o

2、utreach of microfinance institutions(mfis)report that as of december 31,2000,over 30 million families had access to microfinance services,of which more than 19 million qualified as poorest.this is both encouraging and daunting.encouraging because the number has increased substantially since 1997,whe

3、n the microcredit summit campaign was launched.daunting because that still leaves 81 million poorest families to be reached by 2005 if the campaign target of 100 million of the poorest is to be achieved.on a regional basis,coverage remains extremely low.in asia,where almost 15 million poorest famili

4、es have access to microfinance services,still only 9.3%of all poorest families are being reached.and in africa and latin america,only 6%of all poorest families have access to financial services.2it is not surprising,therefore,that ngo-mfis wanting to increase their outreach to the poorest,having the

5、 necessary institutional capacity and access to the necessary funding,have no difficulty in 1the authors would like to thank the microcredit summit for inviting them to write the paper and for extending full co-operation in the process.v aluable comments were received from a large number of readers

6、to whom an earlier draft was circulated by the summit secretariat.particularly valuable comments were received from cida,ramesh bellamkonda,brigit helms,dushyant kapoor,john lewis,benji montemayer,as well as participants in the cashpor-philnet financing microfinance for poverty reduction workshop in

7、 manila,the philippines,from june 5 th to june 7 th.we thank all commentators for the time they have taken out of their busy schedules.we have done our best to incorporate your suggestions,and feel the paper is much stronger because of them.helen todd proof-read the final draft and made valuable sug

8、gestions.nevertheless,we take final responsibility for what we have written. 2state of the microcredit campaign report 2001,p11. attracting new clients3. regional breakdown of access to microfinance157.861.512.13.514.73.80.70.4020406080100120140160180asiaafrica&middle eastla&carribeurope&

9、;nisno.ofpoorestfamilies#of poorest familiesmfi outreach9.3 % coverange6.2 % coverage6.1 % coverage10.6 % coveragethe failure of mfis outside of bangladesh to reach significant numbers of poor households in their own countries is not because of a shortage of mfis.as of december 2000,over 1,600 mfis(

10、mostly ngo-mfis)were reporting to the microcredit summit campaign.however,the significant majority of these mfis are very small,serving less than 2,500 clients each.43good examples are share in india,card in the philippines,finca in uganda and crecer in bolivia. 4efforts of cgap world bank(cgap)toma

11、ssifymicrofinance,through such intermediaries as rural post offices and even public telephone kiosks,are welcome.but these efforts are new and it would be unwise to neglect the institutions that to date have provided most of the micro finance for the poor,that is, mfis. outreach to all clients by si

12、ze of mfiless than 2,500 clients63%less than10,000clients22%greater than100,0002%between10,000&100,00013%outreach to poorest clients by size of mfiless than10,000clients18%less than 2,500 clients70%greater than100,0002%between10,000&100,00010%if only 10%of the mfis currently serving the poor

13、est,or approximately 162,could be scaled-up to serve an average of 500,000 very poor households,or 324(approximately 20%)to 250,000 clients,then the goal of the microcredit summit of reaching 100 million could be achieved. it is important to acknowledge up front that not all mfis want to grow to rea

14、ch truly large numbers(say 250,000-500,000)and certainly some will not be able to build the necessary institutional capacity.but there are many that do and can certainly more than 10%of all the mfis reporting to the microcredit summit campaign.capacity building as an ongoing task the mfis around the

15、 world that are interested in scaling-up their outreach to large numbers of poor households are already seeking the institutional capacity to do so.this is easier today than ever before because of the pioneering work of service providers in the industry,like cgap world bank,seep,the microfinance net

16、work, women sworld banking,accion,finca,the grameen trust and cashpor,among others.much of the training materials needed can be downloaded from the web sites of these organizations.new,more cost-effective management tools are being developed and disseminated continually and mfis are being required t

17、o build the capacity to utilize them.capacity for scaling-up is being built,and more will be built.there is little,if any, human resource constraint 5. donors and other funders are also requiring more and better information from the mfis,whether ngos or formal financial intermediaries,that they fina

18、nce.they are asking for greater financial transparency.usaid,for example,requires not only externally audited financial statements,but also that they be converted into the cgap standard international format to make possible accurate financial analysis.so mfis are having to build the institutional ca

19、pacity to do this. recognizing capital 6as a critical constraint while we recognize the on-going importance of capacity building,we do not see it as the only constraint.even when capacity is built,lack of capital blocks rapid expansion. cgap recently published an interesting and provocative viewpoin

20、t titled water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink,which undertook an assessment of the funding environment for mfis.it recognized that funding to the microfinance sector is on the rise,with donors and governments participating,often through apex and wholesale facilities as well as private inv

21、estors.but then it asked the critical question;with all the funds pouring into the sector,why do mfis find it difficult to 5in most poor countries,certainly in the bigger ones like india and indonesia,there are huge pools of under-employed,educated youth.experience tells us that within three months

22、most of them can be trained to identify and motivate poor women to see micro finance as a good opportunity for themselves,and to manage the provision of micro finance services to them.we know also that educated young people in the rural areas,who have never touched a computer,can learn to use effici

23、ently a user friendly software for purposes of data entry at the branch-level.the manpower is waiting for micro finance,at least in the poorer countries. 6the term “ capital” as used in this section refers to all sources of financing available to microfinance institutions.please see glossary,definit

24、ion a. access needed financing? why domanagers of many high-potential mfis face serious funding constraints?the answer cgap provided:much of the supply of funds to microfinance is ineffective narrowly targeted and poorly structured. the first problem is that while donors played a critical role in bu

25、ilding the microfinance industry by providing early support to pioneers,they seem reluctant to graduate a new generation of industry leaders.everyone wants to fund the established winners,rather than take the risk of funding and helping to build new winners from among the hundreds of smaller mfis lo

26、oking for funding.this means that profitable mfis get subsidized funding,crowding out the commercial investors who do have the vast resources to allow for rapid scaling-up.the venture capital role of the grant funding donors should instead be directed at potential winners,those with the vision to re

27、ach large numbers of the poorest,strong management teams,a commitment to transparency and professionalism and a drive towards efficiency and sustainability.as the cgap viewpoint statesthe principal task of donors shouldbe to identify and bet on promising mfis and leave the known winners to commercia

28、l investors. a second problem is that donors have a hard time moving money funding is not designed to meet the needs of the mfis,but rather the priorities of donors or governments.these can include country or regional priorities and/or an unhelpful insistence that the funds be used only for onlendin

29、g.limitations can be compounded by internal organizational concerns country-level vs.global programming and a lack of local knowledge. cgaps current peer review exercise among its member donors,aimed at disseminating best-practice financing for microfinance,should result in a significant reduction o

30、f the current funding mismatch.however,it is not directed specifically at the main funding problem of mfis,the dearth of equity and equity-like financing for microfinance institutions at any stage of maturity.in fact,this is the major funding problem in the industry and will remain so for the forese

31、eable future an issue that has yet to be accepted broadly by its non-practitioner actors. the primary obstacle is equity in the lively discussion that followed the posting of the cgap viewpoint on the internet,it became clear that it is not just a lack of supply in general,which is hindering growth

32、in outreach,but rather the type of financing being made available.practitioners in particular focused on this point.nejira nalic,executive director of mi-bospo in bosnia and herzegovina noted thatour decision making processes are lead by our environment and we are in a way suppressed by lack of capi

33、tal baseroshaneh zafar,managing director of kashf foundation in lahore,pakistan also expressed the need forsocially motivated equity funds.our experience in asia,through cashpor,reaffirms these views.a recent workshop in the philippines,financing microfinance forpoverty reduction7,attended by leadin

34、g mfis from across the region,indicated that 72% of those attending were constrained in their growth specifically by a lack of funds to cover operating losses,prior to break-even of the expansion. as we are targeting 81 million new clients,and if we assume an average loan outstanding of us100,then a

35、round$8.1 billion would be needed in onlending funds.assuming a capital adequacy requirement of 8%,about us$650 million would be needed as capital for leverage. international financier george soros,in his book george soros on globalization,observes that: the difficultyof microlendingis in scaling it

36、 up.successful microlending operations,although largely self-sustaining,cannot grow out of retained earnings,nor can they raise capital in financial markets.to turn microlending into a big factor in economic and political progress,it must be scaled-up significantly.this would require general support

37、 for the industry as well as capital for individual ventures8. we agree even when mfis become profitable,accumulated profits will not support the kind of large-scale growth required to reach large numbers.until now,many mfis have utilized grants from donors to support their operations both in the ea

38、rly years and as they scale up.yet such grants,already limited in size and availability,are becoming harder to come by as the pool of global mfis grows.unfortunately,beyond donors,there really are no private sources of equity financing available to mfis around the world,particularly those working wi

39、th the poorest.we must start thinking more innovatively as most commercial businesses do about our financing strategies.this will require the microfinance industry to embrace the concept of quasi-equity,to adjust their financial statements to reflect a truer and fairer picture of their financial str

40、ength,to challenge prevailing standards 7cashpor-philnet workshop from june 5th 7th,manila,the philippines. 8george soros on globalization,george soros,pp.83 and 84. for calculating capital adequacy and to set levels appropriate for different mfis,according to their risk profiles.iii.covering operat

41、ing deficits two decades ago pioneers such as muhammad yunus of the grameen bank showed the world that poor,rural women without collateral were bankable.it is time that we recognize that microfinance institutions working with the poor,but lacking conventional capital adequacy,are also bankable.the r

42、eason is the same:most poor women,supplied with capital on reasonable terms,will invest it profitably and repay the loans,plus interest,faithfully in full on time.just as this makes poor women bankable so too does it make mfis servicing them bankable. the problem is not onlending funds.local commerc

43、ial banks are being persuaded that mfis are worthy,if somewhat unconventional,customers;experience and asia and latin america prove this true.apex institutions have been established in some countries,particularly in asia,with the support of the world bank(pksf in bangladesh) and the asian developmen

44、t bank(pcfc in the philippines and rmdc in nepal),offering financing to mfis on semi-or near-commercial terms.and social investors and large international ngos still play an important role in financing loans for onlending.savings,where mfis are able to use this as a source of funds,can also play a c

45、ritical role. operating deficits to break-even are typically covered by grants,and where possible,private investment.after that,gradual expansion can be covered by retained profits.but few mfis working with the poor have been able to attract much investment.and few donors are keen to sink funds into

46、 what they see as the bottomless pit of operational losses.some donors insist that their grants be used only to finance onlending,ignoring the reality that onlending costs money.even were this to change,none of these traditional sources grants,investment(for non-ngo mfis)and profits-are available in

47、 anywhere near enough supply to propel mfis to meet the massive demand for microfinance that exists.given the potential of microfinance to reduce poverty,we must look for prudent alternatives to traditional equity that would allow for faster growth of its outreach to the poor.小额信贷扶贫资金9资料来源：小额信贷扶贫资金，

48、2002(06)作者：大卫 s吉本斯，詹妮弗瓦特米汉二、需要一种新型的融资范例小额信贷服务的需求毫无疑问，小额贷款服务在贫困世界存在着强劲需求,据全球外展小额贷款机构(mfis)的报告， 2000年 12 月 31日, 有超过 30 万的家庭有权申请小额信贷服务。其中， 19 万是特困家庭。这个数据既令人振奋又令人生畏。令人振奋的原因是自 1997年小额信贷峰会运动推出至今， 小额信贷需求在大体上是有所增长的。而令人生畏是因为假设峰会的目标是1 亿个特困家庭参加此项运动，那么 2005年已经有 8100万个这样的家庭参加了。从地域来看，这个运动的覆盖面并不是很广。在亚洲，只有近15 万的家庭有

49、资格参加小额信贷服务，还有9.3%的家庭在努力申请此项服务。而在非洲和拉丁美洲，只有6%的特困家庭有资格获得金融帮助10。但是，非政府组织小额信贷机构有理由相信，通过他们必要的机构能力和资金，在穷人中推广此项服务增加新客户是没有任何难度的11。9作者首先要感谢小额信贷峰会邀请他们写此篇文章，还要感谢小额信贷峰会在整个过程中都很配合他的工作。在文章初稿期，峰会秘书处就收到了大量读者提出的宝贵意见。这些宝贵的意见，有来自加拿大国际发展署、bellamkonda监狱、 brigit helms,dushyant kapoor,john lewis,benji montemayer ， 也有来自菲律宾

50、的cashpor-philnet小额信贷扶贫资金。我们衷心的感谢，感谢大家在百忙之中还抽出时间给我们提意见。我们会虚心接受大家提出的建议，尽力完善文章。在文章完稿后，海伦托德仔细阅读了文章，并提出了最后的修改意见。最后，在此声明，我们会对我们所写的文章负责。10数据来源：小额信贷报告(2001)第 11 页。11例子来源：印度书籍share ，菲律宾书籍card ，乌干达书籍finca 和玻利维亚书籍 crecer小额信贷在本土拓展业务（除孟加拉国）失败的原因，不是因为缺少小额信贷机构。 截止到 2000年 12 月，已有超过 1600个小额信贷机构 （大多数是非政府组织小额信贷机构）参加小额

51、信贷峰会运动。但是，主要成员机构的规模都比较小，一般一个机构都不超过2500个成员12。12世界银行通过农村邮局、公共电话亭这些公共事业扶助“一体化”小额贷款，还是受穷人欢迎的。但是，这些措施还刚刚实施，而且世界银行很不明智的忽略了小额信贷峰会大多数的小额信贷都是为穷人提供的。小额信贷成员人数比例图小于2,500 客户63%小于10,000客户22%大于100,0002%10,000和100,000之间13%如果目前只有 10%的小额信贷机构为特困家庭提供信贷，或者是大约162个小额信贷机构为大约500,000特困家庭提供服务，再或者是324 个小额信贷机构为 250,000特困家庭提供服务，

52、 那么 1997年一次小额贷款峰会所确定的到2005 年达到 1 亿户的目标看来可以实现。我们必须承认在先，不是所有的小额信贷机构都想真正扩大机构内部成员(250，000500,000)；甚至有些机构根本就没能力去提升自己的机构能力。看清以上两点是很重要的。但是据小额信贷峰会介绍，其中有10%的机构还是有这个意愿和这个能力去完成以上两项任务。能力建设是永远的任务全世界的小额信贷峰会努力扩大他们的服务范围，也在努力制定制度。因为有像世界银行、 seep、 小额信贷网络、世界妇女银行组织、 accion 、 finca 、the grameen trust 和 cashpor 为小额信贷事业做出先

53、锋模范作用，所以制定制度相比以前， 已经容易了许多。 许多受训资料都可能这些机构的网页上下载。一方面，越来越多具有成本效益的新型管理工具被开发，被传播；另一方面，小额信贷峰会也被要求去利用这些新型管理工具。虽然目前的工作是提升能力，但将来会有更多方面需要慢慢提升。如果不这么做，人力资源只会被限制13。无论捐赠人和创办人是否来自于非政府组织或金融中介，同样都需要从小13在许多贫穷的国家，例如印度、印尼这些大国，虽然有大批的知识青年，但就业极低。而经验告诉我们的是，在三个月内，大批贫穷的妇女可以通过训练认识到，小额信贷是一个脱离贫穷的好跳板，他们可以申请小额信贷。我们同样也知道，对于从未接触过电脑

54、、来自偏远地区的知识青年，可以学习来掌握信息。对贫穷国家的人来说，最重要的事就是等待小额信贷的降临。小额信贷成员人数中特困家庭比例所占图小于10,000客户18%小于2,500 客户70%大于100,0002%10,000和100,000之间10%额信贷机构获取大量有用信息。他们一直都在寻求更大的金融透明度。拿美国国际开发署来说，他们不仅需要形式审计包括子公司的财务报表，还需要把财务报表转换成世界银行扶贫协商小组所要要求的国际格式，尽可能精确的分析经济。所以，小额信贷峰会必须要制定制度。认识资本作为一个至关重要的约束14虽然我们认识到能力建设的重要性, 但我们不认为这是唯一的限制。 即使能力建

55、设，也会因为缺乏资本而难以迅速扩张。最近， 扶贫协商小组最近发表了一篇有趣而又带有挑衅性的文章，名为 水，到处都是水， 但是没有一滴能喝 ，这为小额信贷机构的融资环境进行了评估。其承认随着捐款和政府参与度的逐渐的提升，私人投资者投入到小额贷款中的经费也在逐渐的上升。 然后其提出了一个非常重要的问题： “当所有的资金都投入到这个领域，为什么小额的信贷机构依旧很难获得所需资金；为什么许多极具潜力的小额信贷机构管理人员面临着严重的资金约束”。在扶贫协商小组的回答中提到：“小额信贷的资金大部分是无效的，针对性狭隘和结构性不足。”第一个问题是，虽然在建立初期，捐赠者在向早期开拓者提供金融支持中发挥了重要作用，他们看似勉强的成为了新一代的行业领导者。每一个人都想资助胜利者的建立而不是冒风险去建立和资助在成千上百个小型的扶贫协商小组中脱颖而出的新一代的胜利者。这就意味着扶贫协商小组将获得除了拥有大量的资源来加速发展的的商业投资者外的其他资金资源。资金捐助者风险投资的作用将被潜在具有远见去达到大多数的贫困却强大的管理团队所取代，而这个管理团队在承诺去保持其透明度和专业性的同时又朝着高效和稳定在努力。扶贫协商小组的观点陈述是：捐助者的主要任务应该是识别并选择有潜力的小额贷款机构，远离已知处于优势的商业投资者。第二个问题是