Sep 16, 2008 5:01:38 PM cite

Alex Albertine gave a well developed line of thought summed up by: "The problem hindering the development of these countries is the "developed world's" attitude. We cannot continue to look at these countries as problems or places needing our help. We must look at them as opportunities needing our investment and partnership." I want to take this a step farther by saying: "The problem hindering the development of these countries is the "take care of number one" prevalent attitude of the human race. We cannot continue to look at these countries, inhabitants, as problems or places needing our help. We must look at them as opportunities needing our investment and partnership." In a conscious society we see that we are all linked to everything and that the development of responsible nations begin with the development of responsible individuals. Does that mean the answer begins in the micro? I would say yes. Although at the present level of consciousness the level of individual development needed may require a huge macro experiential shift to occur in order to bring about the necessary change of perception. This applies on all levels, economic, social and individual, etc.

by ingridbond

Sep 19, 2006 6:04:19 PM cite

While I think it is wonderful that Microfinance has reached a level of international success to warrant a discussion in this forum, I must say, a lot of what is being discussed is based on ill-facts and half-truths. First of all, Microfinance is not in competition with "Macrofinance." At least not in the way being discussed in this forum. The reality, there is no such thing as "Macrofiance." It's not a word, its not a thing, it's nothing. I think the author of this question, with the word "Macrofinance," was trying to get at the idea of traditional western banking and financial institutions. Just to be clear, these traditional institutions aren't in conflict with Microfinance either. Infact, some of the largest microfinance organizations and banks are funded, if not run by large multi-national banks. Second, the two do not compete. Microfinance, in its most recognizable form of Microcredit, has been getting large-scale international press for its use in all situations where traditional financial solutions fall short. In many places throughout the word, primarily in less-developed countries (LDCs), Microfinance has begun to fill this gap simply by providing access to financial solutions. (Most of these solutions are presented in the form of banking. As many of us realize, banking, specifically the ability to save and borrow, are key elements to our ability to maintain and gain wealth throughout our lives.) Microfinance is a communal way to establish 'Banking' services in places traditional financial companies would never work. Simply, one does all the work the other would never do. Third, Microfinance is hardly successful at providing massive changes for LDCs. It simply doesn't work all that well. It does do great things for small groups, but there is a lot more that will have to be done in order for a whole country to 'develop.' (Wow, this is getting boring. So let's get to my point.) Now, I could continue on with a greater history of Microfinance, but I have decided that I would try to keep this short. The reason I wanted to write this answer to this question is to present my a point. I believe that the economic development of the countries throught the world cannot be accomplished through microfinance, traditional banking, aid, grants, loans or any other method of assistance. The problem hindering the development of these countries is the "developed world's" attitude. We cannot continue to look at these countries as problems or places needing our help. We must look at them as opportunities needing our investment and partnership. Development can occur, and it can happen quickly if the international community--citizens, businesses and governments--take a proactive, not paternal approach to development. This is just a brief, imperfect description of a tangent to the author's question. I would recommend anyone interested in learning more about this to read "The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid." I forgot who wrote it, but it was published by the Wharton School of Business. I think everyone responding to the question could benefit from this book. Good luck to everyone on their continued exploration of this most-important of issues. AA

by Alex Albertine

Sep 14, 2006 8:21:22 AM cite

I think it depends on what is proposed. Transcommunity things like road systems need macro but small bussiness could benefit from micro-finance. IMF and the World Bank handle the former whilst indebting the nation but the valuable micro-finance is beneath their dignity or there is not enough profit for them. Let's see more micro-finance it fills empty bellies and creates community.

by Robert

Sep 14, 2006 2:20:28 AM cite

There is required a reasonable assessment of the needs of those who are on the ground, by those who are on the ground, aided by people whose role it is to support. To often it seem there are great meeting held, wringing of hands with platitudes of support for the people directly affected, and when it is all over they all fly home and nothing, save a ?Show Piece? good for Photo-ops is left behind. It was said by a learned gentleman once that it was the ?Small and the nimble? who made the difference after the 2004 tsunami. The Big would do well to remember and more over support that concept.

by RedSevenOne

Sep 12, 2006 8:23:24 PM cite

Both are required, but in different places and at different times. Micro-financing gives power to the people and rewards those with great ideas and/or skills and is the best long-term solution. Macro-financing helps create many jobs and develop regions in one fell swoop, but the jobs tend to be for those who conform to others' ideas and the development of regions will soon turn into taking advantage of land and people for profits. It is, therefore, a workable short-term solution, but strong guidelines must be set in place and enforced for long-term development, and the threat of corruption can ruin everything created this way.

by Cavalary

Sep 9, 2006 8:16:43 PM cite

The question has enbedded within it a potential for politization of economics, which should not be political. Economics should be focused upon the maximization of the individual's potential within the context of a dynamic and reinforcing system that benefits all. In the public sphere, micro-finance is best suited to that purpose, as it democratizes finance and the abilities of the individual. While macro-finance is needed for large projects for public benefit, it should evolve out of the accumulation of various micro-finance elements, not be dictated by political and economic power, as those elements will likely never ultimately serve the public good, but rather, only those among the power elite. Today, the majority of the world's economy is controlled by private banking systems, owned and controlled by a pyramidal system of a narrow group of increasingly wealthier individuals who attempt to control and manipulate politics and the economy to their sole benefit, much as was done in the Euro-Middle Ages. Instead of a feudal system of land, we now have a sub-infuedation of paper, relating financial institutions and corpoations.

by rmfoley

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: It’s a very interesting question, because I have a lot of friends around the world. I know a wonderful women, my friend Bibi Russel and other men and women who are engaged in helping people. But “help” is just a complicated word, because „charity“ is not a real help. Help is what Bibi Russel does. She is one of initiators of [Malcolm] Donation. People who become a small credit, become more than that. Besides they get a great possibility to develop their capacities. They could get material, equipment and produce, start their business. Usually these people are women, who get this small credit, then they grow vegetables and sell them, earning a bit more money. They open some shops and care about quality: they produce something. Here there is the hope concerning people who can start a proper initiative. And this fact is very important, because it is so called self-help and not a sort of parasitism, and therefore there is a great hope. It is of a great importance.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Abbas Beydoun: I do not know.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: This is again a question for economists. The only thing I can say from my point of view is that we have to start speaking of not only humanitarian economy, but humanistic economy. Values of mankind have to be taken into consideration in the process of developing strategies for developing the countries that need to develop. The question if it's micro-finance or macro-finance, I think I cannot answer. The only thing I claim for is for a humanistic vision of this kind of decisions.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Development of developing countries. We have to give the people the power and the ability to do their own development. What is best for them there, wherever it is, is not necessarily the best for others in another place. So we have to learn to do that. We cannot just say that development is good for everybody. Yes, it is good for everybody, but each region has its own special needs. And we have to learn to recognize it. If you don’t we will pour in money and put money upon money and we will always lose some. And yes, micro is much better than macro. Micro is that individuals are given moments in being able to do something about themselves. So without being dependent on a big corporation or big banks who just make their money on your failure rather than on your success. So when we base the development on the failure it will fail. But when we start to develop development on the success of each individual then it will succeed. I pray that my answer made sense to you.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Anthony Arnove: Actually, I would want to reframe the question, because the question on micro-finance or macro-finance assumes that the framework of the question is capitalists' development. It's a question of how countries in the third world are going to develop along a model which is based on the development of the current, existing enhanced capitalist countries. And really, it's based on the idea that the problems that exist in the third world; problems with poverty; problems of dispossession, political, social conflicts, insecurity, economic and global security, grow from problems having to do with the mismanagement of the economy often described as state interference in the otherwise smooth operation of the economic system of capitalism. And really, what we see is something far more complex that the normal operations of the system create in equality. The normal operations of the system depend on the underdevelopment of certain areas of the economy and the world. And even in those countries which are experiencing development on the terms that are considered standard under capitalist globalization, you find the social problems growing and inequality growing; poverty growing; not the opposite, which of course the defenders, the apologists of the system will claim. So micro-finance/macro-financing operate within that framework. And really, if we want true human development, human development that benefits everyone, the kinds of advancements that we would like to see in terms of meeting basic human needs for people; providing more meaningful lives; providing more freedom; more control over their lives, we're going to have to go beyond the question of the limits of development that can occur in the current economic system.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 10:45:00 AM cite

Anuradha Koirala: In developing countries, development is dissimilar to the developed countries, and micro-finance is better for them, because one country has to grow versus taking money from others, and that is what needed. So, micro finance is best possible step of development. Because if macro-finance is, I assume placed quickly, and that will also could make some destructions. So micro-finance is more suitable for the developing countries.

by Anuradha Koirala

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