Syndicate content

microcredit

Counting Financial Inclusion and Debating its Merits

Leora Klapper's picture

Shedding light on and engaging in debate regarding financial inclusion is important and we can now be more informed on the topic thanks to the release last month of the Global Financial Inclusion Database, or Global Findex. With this in mind, I want to react from my point of view as supervisor of the Global Findex project to a recent post by Milford Bateman on The Guardian’s Poverty Matters blog.

Global Findex makes a valuable contribution to our development work, because it means that now researchers and policymakers no longer have to rely on a patchwork of incompatible household surveys and aggregated central bank data for a comprehensive view of the financial inclusion landscape.

It also means debates about financial inclusion can be rooted in more solid facts.

How Many More Bangladeshis are Now Breaking out of Poverty?

Naomi Ahmad's picture

Bangladesh reduced poverty from 40 percent to 31.5 percent between 2005 and 2010, according the new Household Income & Expenditure Survey (HIES) 2010. Progress can also be seen in other dimensions of development.

The HIES is a major source of socio-economic information at the household level in Bangladesh. It provides data on household expenditure, income, consumption, savings, housing conditions, education, employment, health, sanitation, water supply, electricity usage, etc.

Microcredit deserves support to benefit the poor

Shahid Khandker's picture

Microcredit has been in the spotlight lately. This innovative banking program, pioneered by Professor Muhammad Yunus, has created the option for millions of poor people, especially women, to become self-employed entrepreneurs.  By empowering women, microcredit has created opportunities to lift countless families out of abject poverty.  Clearly, this has been a net gain for society.  Yet current criticism of microcredit points to its failure to alleviate poverty, high indebtedness of borrowers, high interest rates, coercive loan-collection tactics, lack of transparency in public fund management, and uncertainty of succession in leadership.