小額信貸扶貧資金【外文翻譯】

1、外文翻譯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.小額信貸扶貧資金9資料來(lái)源：小額信貸扶貧資金，

48、2002(06)作者：大衛(wèi) s吉本斯，詹妮弗瓦特米漢二、需要一種新型的融資范例小額信貸服務(wù)的需求毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，小額貸款服務(wù)在貧困世界存在著強(qiáng)勁需求,據(jù)全球外展小額貸款機(jī)構(gòu)(mfis)的報(bào)告， 2000年 12 月 31日, 有超過(guò) 30 萬(wàn)的家庭有權(quán)申請(qǐng)小額信貸服務(wù)。其中， 19 萬(wàn)是特困家庭。這個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)既令人振奮又令人生畏。令人振奮的原因是自 1997年小額信貸峰會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)推出至今， 小額信貸需求在大體上是有所增長(zhǎng)的。而令人生畏是因?yàn)榧僭O(shè)峰會(huì)的目標(biāo)是1 億個(gè)特困家庭參加此項(xiàng)運(yùn)動(dòng)，那么 2005年已經(jīng)有 8100萬(wàn)個(gè)這樣的家庭參加了。從地域來(lái)看，這個(gè)運(yùn)動(dòng)的覆蓋面并不是很廣。在亞洲，只有近15 萬(wàn)的家庭有

49、資格參加小額信貸服務(wù)，還有9.3%的家庭在努力申請(qǐng)此項(xiàng)服務(wù)。而在非洲和拉丁美洲，只有6%的特困家庭有資格獲得金融幫助10。但是，非政府組織小額信貸機(jī)構(gòu)有理由相信，通過(guò)他們必要的機(jī)構(gòu)能力和資金，在窮人中推廣此項(xiàng)服務(wù)增加新客戶是沒(méi)有任何難度的11。9作者首先要感謝小額信貸峰會(huì)邀請(qǐng)他們寫(xiě)此篇文章，還要感謝小額信貸峰會(huì)在整個(gè)過(guò)程中都很配合他的工作。在文章初稿期，峰會(huì)秘書(shū)處就收到了大量讀者提出的寶貴意見(jiàn)。這些寶貴的意見(jiàn)，有來(lái)自加拿大國(guó)際發(fā)展署、bellamkonda監(jiān)獄、 brigit helms,dushyant kapoor,john lewis,benji montemayer ， 也有來(lái)自菲律賓

50、的cashpor-philnet小額信貸扶貧資金。我們衷心的感謝，感謝大家在百忙之中還抽出時(shí)間給我們提意見(jiàn)。我們會(huì)虛心接受大家提出的建議，盡力完善文章。在文章完稿后，海倫托德仔細(xì)閱讀了文章，并提出了最后的修改意見(jiàn)。最后，在此聲明，我們會(huì)對(duì)我們所寫(xiě)的文章負(fù)責(zé)。10數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)源：小額信貸報(bào)告(2001)第 11 頁(yè)。11例子來(lái)源：印度書(shū)籍share ，菲律賓書(shū)籍card ，烏干達(dá)書(shū)籍finca 和玻利維亞書(shū)籍 crecer小額信貸在本土拓展業(yè)務(wù)（除孟加拉國(guó)）失敗的原因，不是因?yàn)槿鄙傩☆~信貸機(jī)構(gòu)。 截止到 2000年 12 月，已有超過(guò) 1600個(gè)小額信貸機(jī)構(gòu) （大多數(shù)是非政府組織小額信貸機(jī)構(gòu)）參加小額

51、信貸峰會(huì)運(yùn)動(dòng)。但是，主要成員機(jī)構(gòu)的規(guī)模都比較小，一般一個(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)都不超過(guò)2500個(gè)成員12。12世界銀行通過(guò)農(nóng)村郵局、公共電話亭這些公共事業(yè)扶助“一體化”小額貸款，還是受窮人歡迎的。但是，這些措施還剛剛實(shí)施，而且世界銀行很不明智的忽略了小額信貸峰會(huì)大多數(shù)的小額信貸都是為窮人提供的。小額信貸成員人數(shù)比例圖小于2,500 客戶63%小于10,000客戶22%大于100,0002%10,000和100,000之間13%如果目前只有 10%的小額信貸機(jī)構(gòu)為特困家庭提供信貸，或者是大約162個(gè)小額信貸機(jī)構(gòu)為大約500,000特困家庭提供服務(wù)，再或者是324 個(gè)小額信貸機(jī)構(gòu)為 250,000特困家庭提供服務(wù)，

52、 那么 1997年一次小額貸款峰會(huì)所確定的到2005 年達(dá)到 1 億戶的目標(biāo)看來(lái)可以實(shí)現(xiàn)。我們必須承認(rèn)在先，不是所有的小額信貸機(jī)構(gòu)都想真正擴(kuò)大機(jī)構(gòu)內(nèi)部成員(250，000500,000)；甚至有些機(jī)構(gòu)根本就沒(méi)能力去提升自己的機(jī)構(gòu)能力?？辞逡陨蟽牲c(diǎn)是很重要的。但是據(jù)小額信貸峰會(huì)介紹，其中有10%的機(jī)構(gòu)還是有這個(gè)意愿和這個(gè)能力去完成以上兩項(xiàng)任務(wù)。能力建設(shè)是永遠(yuǎn)的任務(wù)全世界的小額信貸峰會(huì)努力擴(kuò)大他們的服務(wù)范圍，也在努力制定制度。因?yàn)橛邢袷澜玢y行、 seep、 小額信貸網(wǎng)絡(luò)、世界婦女銀行組織、 accion 、 finca 、the grameen trust 和 cashpor 為小額信貸事業(yè)做出先

53、鋒模范作用，所以制定制度相比以前， 已經(jīng)容易了許多。 許多受訓(xùn)資料都可能這些機(jī)構(gòu)的網(wǎng)頁(yè)上下載。一方面，越來(lái)越多具有成本效益的新型管理工具被開(kāi)發(fā)，被傳播；另一方面，小額信貸峰會(huì)也被要求去利用這些新型管理工具。雖然目前的工作是提升能力，但將來(lái)會(huì)有更多方面需要慢慢提升。如果不這么做，人力資源只會(huì)被限制13。無(wú)論捐贈(zèng)人和創(chuàng)辦人是否來(lái)自于非政府組織或金融中介，同樣都需要從小13在許多貧窮的國(guó)家，例如印度、印尼這些大國(guó)，雖然有大批的知識(shí)青年，但就業(yè)極低。而經(jīng)驗(yàn)告訴我們的是，在三個(gè)月內(nèi)，大批貧窮的婦女可以通過(guò)訓(xùn)練認(rèn)識(shí)到，小額信貸是一個(gè)脫離貧窮的好跳板，他們可以申請(qǐng)小額信貸。我們同樣也知道，對(duì)于從未接觸過(guò)電腦

54、、來(lái)自偏遠(yuǎn)地區(qū)的知識(shí)青年，可以學(xué)習(xí)來(lái)掌握信息。對(duì)貧窮國(guó)家的人來(lái)說(shuō)，最重要的事就是等待小額信貸的降臨。小額信貸成員人數(shù)中特困家庭比例所占圖小于10,000客戶18%小于2,500 客戶70%大于100,0002%10,000和100,000之間10%額信貸機(jī)構(gòu)獲取大量有用信息。他們一直都在尋求更大的金融透明度。拿美國(guó)國(guó)際開(kāi)發(fā)署來(lái)說(shuō)，他們不僅需要形式審計(jì)包括子公司的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表，還需要把財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表轉(zhuǎn)換成世界銀行扶貧協(xié)商小組所要要求的國(guó)際格式，盡可能精確的分析經(jīng)濟(jì)。所以，小額信貸峰會(huì)必須要制定制度。認(rèn)識(shí)資本作為一個(gè)至關(guān)重要的約束14雖然我們認(rèn)識(shí)到能力建設(shè)的重要性, 但我們不認(rèn)為這是唯一的限制。 即使能力建

55、設(shè)，也會(huì)因?yàn)槿狈Y本而難以迅速擴(kuò)張。最近， 扶貧協(xié)商小組最近發(fā)表了一篇有趣而又帶有挑釁性的文章，名為 水，到處都是水， 但是沒(méi)有一滴能喝 ，這為小額信貸機(jī)構(gòu)的融資環(huán)境進(jìn)行了評(píng)估。其承認(rèn)隨著捐款和政府參與度的逐漸的提升，私人投資者投入到小額貸款中的經(jīng)費(fèi)也在逐漸的上升。 然后其提出了一個(gè)非常重要的問(wèn)題： “當(dāng)所有的資金都投入到這個(gè)領(lǐng)域，為什么小額的信貸機(jī)構(gòu)依舊很難獲得所需資金；為什么許多極具潛力的小額信貸機(jī)構(gòu)管理人員面臨著嚴(yán)重的資金約束”。在扶貧協(xié)商小組的回答中提到：“小額信貸的資金大部分是無(wú)效的，針對(duì)性狹隘和結(jié)構(gòu)性不足?！钡谝粋€(gè)問(wèn)題是，雖然在建立初期，捐贈(zèng)者在向早期開(kāi)拓者提供金融支持中發(fā)揮了重要作用，他們看似勉強(qiáng)的成為了新一代的行業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。每一個(gè)人都想資助勝利者的建立而不是冒風(fēng)險(xiǎn)去建立和資助在成千上百個(gè)小型的扶貧協(xié)商小組中脫穎而出的新一代的勝利者。這就意味著扶貧協(xié)商小組將獲得除了擁有大量的資源來(lái)加速發(fā)展的的商業(yè)投資者外的其他資金資源。資金捐助者風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資的作用將被潛在具有遠(yuǎn)見(jiàn)去達(dá)到大多數(shù)的貧困卻強(qiáng)大的管理團(tuán)隊(duì)所取代，而這個(gè)管理團(tuán)隊(duì)在承諾去保持其透明度和專業(yè)性的同時(shí)又朝著高效和穩(wěn)定在努力。扶貧協(xié)商小組的觀點(diǎn)陳述是：捐助者的主要任務(wù)應(yīng)該是識(shí)別并選擇有潛力的小額貸款機(jī)構(gòu)，遠(yuǎn)離已知處于優(yōu)勢(shì)的商業(yè)投資者。第二個(gè)問(wèn)題是