Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Anuradha Mittal: First of all, I would say that we have to get over this idea that “one size fits all”; that’s not how it works. So, it’s not about whether it is micro-finance or macro-finance but really the ability of developing countries to be able to decide for themselves, for the people in those countries to have the freedom instead of the pressure from outside to decide what is going to be the best for themselves. Definitely, in terms of micro-financing schemes, where the communities have power over the projects and the whole democratic process, that is the way to go. But in terms of solutions itself, we have to leave the answers to Asia, Africa, Latin America and let the people decide for themselves instead of “one answer fits all.” We have seen with solutions that have been offered of Third World countries grow cash crops for export and that is going to be the solution out of poverty, which has basically converted Third World countries into this exotic food baskets while the people, the citizens are starving. So given that, I would say, yes, in terms of rather than this large mega scale development projects which are being sent to Third World countries, which basically displace people, work against nature, work against people, have to be dismantled. We have to talk about building power from the bottom up, where people at the grass roots level can decide for themselves what works, what solutions work for them: is it a cooperative they want to start or whatever it is, but basically something which is rooted in local economy. So, I think the answer comes down, therefore, to local economies which are sustainable, which can flourish. We need to support them. They are not about “big is beautiful” but really cutting back to the principle of “small is beautiful.”

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Ashok Gangadean: I find this question has two parts. And before we look at micro-finance or macro-finance, there is a prior question in terms of how should the development of developing countries takes place. Again it focuses on what do we mean by development. Often development is measured by economic standards and ergonomic standards rather than human standards of spirituality and becoming whole flourishing human beings. If we look at development in terms of the standards of awakened spiritual culture, then that kind of development is a different form of development than money, market, ergonomic forms of development. So, I think before we go to the question of micro-finance or macro-finance, we need to be clear on what is the consciousness that is the basis of development itself. And, in terms of my prior responses, to the extent that we are moving from egocentric, ego-based culture to a whole systems integral compassion and culture based upon care and mutual respect and sacredness of life, the question of development will be handled differently. And, one of the forces in that context that would be a great adjuster of the impoverished people from the money point of view. A micro-finance bringing finances out to the people, especially the women in villages would be - has known to be a powerful transformative force of empowerment of individuals and reverse those old trends of the dominance of an ego-based culture. So, I think macro-finance also, looking at the dynamics of money in a large scale in terms of governments and shifting funding both at the macro and the micro level together in terms of the top-down and the bottom-up, both of those strategies will be required for the mass transformation from an ego-based culture to a culture based upon economic social justice.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: I think [next two words unclear] with respect to this question, we really have to see what is going on with respect to that particular country. I personally favor having the local economies prosper and supporting local economies so that you have communities that are self-sustain, that address the needs of the people, bring in the voice of the people, bring in the contributions of the people, and see how these local communities can be self-sustain. So to the extent that you have micro-finance projects that can assist the local people in that regard, I think that that is a very positive way to go. Understand, though, that micro-finance as well as macro-finance both have experienced problems. With respect to macro- finance, I think for the development of the country as a whole, we need to look at the institutions that actually do these financing projects because the financial institutions that have created this whole aspect of financing with huge debt loads that ultimately saddle the country in a way that does not allow the country to get out of debt and actually relegates the countries into positions where they're not able to get ahead needs to be examined very carefully and reformed as well.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: First [minute], we must respect the cultures and customs of these countries that we are saying that we need to develop. Then, we have to ask what is appropriate for these cultures and customs? What is the appropriate technology? What is the appropriate development? That can benefit their culture that can be mutually beneficial in the relationship that then evolves from this contribution. We must look at it as the way to contribute to their culture, not forcing our western ways. Small localized self-reliant systems, the micro-financing developing the system that is localized, that is self-reliant that has the choice of how they want to contribute to the whole? And what they need from the whole? Macro-finance sometimes gets lost and doesn’t ask the question of what is appropriate? Nor does it sometime have the respect of this local indigenous native ways. He's tapping into the indigenous wisdom.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Benson Venegas: Poverty comes when each of the basic systems for a society as a whole is not working properly, creating an overall crisis. That doesn't allow anything to work, and bring back the system together. So micro and macro finance is necessary. At the micro level, we need [hunt out] with support, and not end up with charity. So society need to involve in this process of change, and we need to pour the local economies from a top-down approach, to poor poverty, poor people to get out of their situation. At the macro level, we need government that will establish good governance basis that will allow society to really grown in a more positive way. A government that can really insure that public and private investment is reaching all over the country in a more fair way. So, also, for that we need fair tax systems. We need to create a conditions where we're reducing the gap between the poor and the rich, we really have the benefits goes to a large number of the population who have investment in public and health systems. And also the involvement of the private sector is vital, in a way that they could be more responsible, socially and environmentally, to be able to create a society that is more integrated in a holistic way, and that are prepared to take the challenges in the actual situation of globalization.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Beverly Schwartz: I love micro-finance because it empowers people to help themselves and to sustain themselves. So that the whole difference between giving money to a country versus giving money in small groups to people is a very different concept. And I think there is less room for corruption. There is less room for waste when you do a micro-finance system for the people. And for the people to work on things that mean the most to them, that they feel good about doing, that they feel capable about doing, that they do together in groups because, of course, micro-finance for the most part, depends on groups of people working together and agreeing to pay back their loans. And hopefully at the end of the loan period these people have businesses that are self sustaining. So I think that the spreading of micro-finance has much promise for the world and has much promise for developing countries. It has much promise for every country. And I think for that system, and if you want to think of that as an economic system, I think I appreciate that more than micro -- the macro. But of course, macro-finance has its place as well. But I think macro-finance has to be watched more carefully, has to be controlled more carefully, and has to be thought of in a much more careful and deliberate way. So probably a bit of both. But I do think there is much promise in a system of micro-finance and proliferating that system, grow that system, to scale that system, to replicate that system. I think that has much promise and we need to look at that as solutions to many developing country needs.

by Beverly Schwartz

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Bill Joy: Well, I’m a strong supporter of the notion of microfinance. I had the great pleasure of meeting a number of years ago Jacque Attali who’s starting a organization called PlaNet Finance which was trying to help microfinance institutions get started. And we’ve seen some incredible success stories about microfinance. But I think quite frankly that while it can help some and the early stages of development we also need is to create great institutions of higher education, of research and that can educate the smartest people in every culture to be innovators so that they can create new wealth and compete on the world stage because to bring economies all the way from a state of limited development to a really competitive position on the world stage requires the kind of miracles we’ve seen in South Korea and other places where you see truly innovative scale ability to manufacture, to produce amazing new things. I think many different countries can achieve similar success but it will take not only the beginnings of moving out of poverty through microfinance but also scale institutions that can educate and train people to be truly world class. And there are smart people everywhere. We can do this but it takes large scale effort to really move to the forefront.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Bora Cosic: Once again I’m not expert in economics. Probably is micro financing better idea, hence it’s about helping small economic groups then other way around. Macro financing activates in me an antipathy of some huge, tense up, over dimensional systems. I immediately think about [Deacon] or [Daicon], and about global larceny.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Brian J. Weller: My God, what a tough question. Let’s see, well I think it’s going to be a combination of macro- and micro-financing. If we go back and look at a little bit of history, the Bretton Woods Institutions, notably the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, these should be dismantled and decommissioned. I believe an international insolvency court should be established to determine the proper disposition of outstanding debts that are owed to the IMF. I would release all the staff from these institutions and I would return all the assets that remain over to the United Nations. This will open the way to put in place a macro-international financial system that favors long-term investment over short-term speculation, stability over volatility, and local (i.e. micro) over foreign investment and ownership. So, this is a re-engineering of our financial system and it’s long overdue.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Catherine David: I think this question is a bit naive. I believe that it is not possible to say if micro- or macrofinance is better. The advantage of microfinance for example depends on the context and on the moment. Sometimes macrofinance is a prelude to make the people more responsable and independant concerning their destiny and it can't be a solution to impose a panacea or a miracle solution upon these people or even to search for such a miracle. It depends on as the case arises. In Asia for example microfinance seems to function but we have to lance several equal projects before we get a definite answer if it also works in other countries like France, for example, the small country where I come from. So we have to ask these questions more precisely and do not have to wait for a miracle, which unfortunately does not exist, I believe.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

China Keitetsi: Looking at my background I don't know the difference of macro and micro, but I have an example. For example, in Rwanda where in villages and poor households, women are given some kind of little money, and then are made to come in groups and get this money and work together, or come up with an idea, for example, farming. They give them money, begin to farm which was very, very successful and that means even women go on making small associations where they put money every month. Then at the end of one month, one woman gets this money. This was a very big help and I liked it because women in Africa, for example, in poor countries are very, very concerned with the well being of their children. And I came to this point where I said the African women are carrying Africa. Without the African women there would be no Africa. And they were very much successful. Monies to send their children in school. But also a micro or macro finance to work, we have to be very, very interested that it works. We have to have our leaders or those who provide it to people to really do it with love, with care, not just to give and leave everything to the people who receive it.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: For many generations it was believed that only by economic investments on the level of macro-finance it would be possible to succeed in the Third World countries. This was believed by countries and World Bank organisations. The last 10 or 15 years have shown, through the examples of e.g. Mohammed Junus, inventor in Bangladesh, or the Swiss family Schmidtheini, achieving a lot in South America, that micro-finance is very important. The "Guamin" Bank is highly successful nowadays in 50 or 60 states worldwide with the micro-finance, with micro credits which have proven that whole families, that women can be incorporated much stronger in the economy. Nowadays one needs to find a balance between so-called macro-finance of the industrialised nations, the so-called development aid, and the micro-finance and its success. There is not only the "Guamin" Bank, but a lot of other banks or institutions worldwide, showing that those "grass root" politics can be highly successful economically. It is astonishing that now micro-finance is offered e.g. in Switzerland as a possible investment by the big banks. I believe that it is possible to achieve a lot in this field, as the so-called development aid stagnates at about 0.37 %, e.g. in Germany, where the necessary 0.7 % are not reached, as well the Netherlands and the Northern European states cannot reach this. North America´s value is at about 0.1 %, and only Japan has a slightly higher value. That is to say, the macro-finance alone will not be sufficient for the Third World countries, the micro-finance is an important part of it and should be as well in the future, to create a balance.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Cornel West: Development of developing countries is one in which -- what is most important is the ways in which we put the needs and rights and dignity of ordinary people at its center. I do not believe there is one way, one method, one strategy, one algorithm or development; but what ought to be at the center is education, healthcare, protection of rights and liberties and jobs with a living wage against the backdrop of the protection of environment. No one of us have an overnight solution or a push button panacea regarding exactly how this is to take place. But, we do know that when our priorities put on military budgets and priorities put on the quest for profits that downplay the satisfaction of the basic needs of human beings, that development remains not simply uneven, but it hemorrhages wealth at the top; and it makes it difficult for poor people to gain assess to the kind of healthcare, education and right to liberties that they deserve.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: There are many ways where developing countries can develop as long as they have the political will to develop their own self. Since the colonization era, there had been an issue of other countries trying to dictate how Third World countries developed. But now most of the Third World countries are dependent and, therefore, they should really develop their own countries based on the assets that we have. This is developing their own countries based on their existing assets. And perhaps those lacking ones which can be complemented by outside countries or foreign countries can be welcome because the moment that Third World countries will be dependent, especially on loans, there is no way, there is no way Third World countries will develop because to be more indebted is becoming too dependent to the one who is giving the loan. It's just like an organization that a country should have a vision, mission, goals and objectives in order to be developed. They should practice good governance. They should design a strategy on effective delivery of social services to the people. And these are the things, the key ingredients where developing countries can at least develop their own and perhaps go to the next level off -- to the second countries.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: Hello Mr. Jadamba. I come from Macedonia. I’m born there. Mongolia and Macedonia might not have so much in common but something really important. We were both socialist or communist countries that are undergoing a transition to a more open market economies and democracy. In Macedonia, I don't know how it is in Mongolia, but in Macedonia there was a lot of focus on macro-economy. It was run by the Monetary Fund and they were telling Macedonia how to run its economics on macro level. And yes, Macedonia has very low inflation and everything is fine and has a very stable macro economics. It has debts that are manageable in macro level but we have 36% unemployment in Macedonia because there was no thought or no action being taken in micro-level. Nothing to empower the individual to take actions to believe that whatever it endeavors, it might come to some economic benefit for the individual. So basically, yes, the micro-economics is fine but there is no possibility for initiatives by individuals and I feel that in order for any economy to really be developing further has to run on both tracks. Both macroeconomics and microeconomics. Both to have a control over the macro aspects and also to give the power to the individual to be able to use its creativity for creating--[AUDIO ENDS]

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Eliane Potiguara: I think in this matter the voice of the people, the groups, the persons who do have a common objective must be heard. Let’s say if in a community the biggest environmental richness is fruits, prawns or fish one should invest in those local projects, ideas and see what’s best for each individual. But it is not like that. The investor arrives and decides because he’s got the machines, he’s got the money, he’s got the funds. And he goes on patronizing and deciding like “I’m going to make”, “I’m going to build” and so on. He’s not interested in a cooperation and collaboration, he takes the land of the people who lives there and adopts it as its own. Now, this is no economical system but a system of opression. In my opinion it’s the micro-projects and the micro-financing that are more important, because those would be more under control of the people, of the own community.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Eliot Weinberger: Obviously, you need both. You need -- on the one hand, you need aid to build wells in villages. On the other hand, you do need large scale projects to generate electricity and so forth. The problem of course has been that the IMF and the World Bank and organizations such as that have been preoccupied with the big projects and haven’t thought at all about the small projects. So, obviously, you need some sort of balance between the two, and a thinking – much less of a corporate thinking and more of a community thinking in terms of what development means. I think there is probably too much thought given to development on a national scale and thinking of the nation’s state and less thought given to development on the village scale. So, it’s not an either/or proposition, it’s a question of some sort of balance and probably greater emphasis on the village scale than on the nation scale.

by Eliot Weinberger