• 

"Microcredit provides thousands of 
people, most often women, with the 

means to pull themselves out of 
poverty. It has the power to improve 
the lives of individuals and empower 
them to be responsible for their own 

economic success." 



T H E R I G H T P A R A D I G M FOR P U N O 

A Micrqfinance Case Study 

K E R R Y B R E N N A N 

A M O N G T H E M A N Y P R O G R A M M O D E L S E M P L O Y E D T O S P U R E C O N O M I C D E V E L O P M E N T , 

M I C R O F I N A N C E H A S R I S E N T O T H E F O R E F R O N T B E C A U S E O F I T S P R O M I S E O F A " W I N -

W I N " S I T U A T I O N F O R D O N O R S A N D C L I E N T S . M I C R O F I N A N C E I N S T I T U T I O N S 

P R O V I D E F I N A N C I A L S E R V I C E S S U C H A S S M A L L B U S I N E S S L O A N S T O P O O R 

B O R R O W E R S W H O W O U L D O T H E R W I S E L A C K C R E D I T A C C E S S . B E C A U S E T H E S E 

I N S T I T U T I O N S B O A S T R E P A Y M E N T R A T E S A S G O O D A S O R B E T T E R T H A N T R A D I T I O N A L 

I N S T I T U T I O N S , T H E P R O M I S E O F S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y O R E V E N P R O F I T A B I L I T Y E X I S T S . 

A N D Y E T , W H I L E T H I S P R O M I S E A T T R A C T S A T T E N T I O N T O M I C R O F I N A N C E 

I N S T I T U T I O N S A N D T H E I R D E V E L O P M E N T G O A L S , IT M A Y P L A C E T O O M U C H P R E S S U R E 

O N S O M E P R O G R A M S . T W O B R O A D P A R A D I G M S A P P L Y T O T H E G O A L S O F M I C R O F I -

N A N C E ! T H E I N S T I T U T I O N I S T A N D T H E W E L F A R I S T . U S I N G T H E E X A M P L E O F A S M A L L 

M I C R O F I N A N C E P R O G R A M I N P E R U , T H I S P A P E R E X P L O R E S S O M E O F T H E I S S U E S S U R -

R O U N D I N G T H E U S E O F E A C H P A R A D I G M I N E V A L U A T I N G I N D I V I D U A L M I C R O F I N A N C E 

P R O G R A M S . 



Muhammad Yunus, an economist from Bangladesh, 
bought the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for 27 dollars. Of 
course, Yunus did not buy the Nobel Prize in a shady deal 
in Sweden. Rather, he won it because of his commitment 
to microcredit, a commitment that started with a loan of 
just 27 dollars in 1976. The concept of microfmance has 
been the darling of development programs for several 
years, but it has gained special exposure recently. Before 
Yunus was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2006, the United 
Nations declared 2005 the Year of Microcredit. This recent 
attention is well-founded: microcredit provides thousands 
of people, most often women, with the means to pull them-
selves out of poverty. It has the power to improve the lives 
of individuals and empower them to be responsible for 
their own economic success. The very virtue of microcredit 
is its simple concept-providing loans to poor individuals 
who would otherwise have no chance at obtaining credit to 
improve their situations. This seeming simplicity unfortu-
nately means that it is all too easy to create well-intentioned 
microfmance programs that are not self-sustainable or do 

T H E HILLS S U R R O U N D I N G PUNO, PERU ARE H O M E TO VERY 

POOR C O M M U N I T I E S 

not serve their clients as efficiently as possible. As microfi-
nance becomes more popular, it has garnered attention 
from mutual funds and formal finance institutions, push-
ing the need for sustainability. While microfmance appears 
to provide a "win-win" situation, there is something of a 
split between those who stress the welfare benefits of mi-
crofmance and those who stress institutional sustainability. 
Both goals cannot always be achieved simultaneously. This 
paper presents as a case study of a small microlending pro-
gram in the city of Puno, Peru. The responses garnered 
from a survey administered to microlending clients shed 
light on the impact of the program and the amount of work 
it has left to do. Rather than suggesting that either a wel-
farist or institutionist view is always the correct paradigm, 
it shows the need for the proper application of both per-
spectives when evaluating microfmance programs. 

Microfmance has gained much popularity because of its 
broad appeal as a "win-win" option for the problem of 
poverty alleviation. "Spurred by an accord reached at the 
Microfmance Summit i n 1997 to reach 100 mil l ion of the 
world's poorest households with credit, there is arguably 
more widespread support for microfmance than any other 
single tool for fighting world poverty." Clients of micron -
nance institutions (MFIs) benefit from access to money for 
investment or consumption, and, depending on the lend-
ing arrangement, eventual sustainability or even profitabil-
ity for MFIs appears within reach. "Advocates who lean left 
highlight the 'bottom-up' aspects, attention to community, 
focus on women, and, most importantly, the aim to help the 
underserved." On the other side of the spectrum, "those 
who lean right highlight the prospect of alleviating poverty 
while providing incentives to work, the nongovernmental 
leadership, the use of mechanisms disciplined by market 
forces, and the general suspicion of ongoing subsidiza-
tion." 1 1 1 With these myriad possibilities, it is no wonder that 
microfmance has garnered widespread adulation and MFIs 
have sprung up all over the developed and developing 
world. Providing credit access to poor borrowers epito-
mizes the charitable ideal of "teaching a man to fish." And, 
given the significance of gender inequalities worldwide and 

E L E M E N T S F A L L 07 



their detrimental effects on development, the fact that mi-
crofinance is more likely to produce a fisherivoman makes 
it even more attractive. The economic empowerment of 
women can have important consequences for human de-
velopment. Women are more likely to spend income on 
food, clothing, and education for their children, a tendency 
that translates into dynamic and self-reinforcing improve-
ments in the human capital of their community. 

Alleviating poverty is not a new goal; the innovation that 
draws praise for the most recent incarnations of microfi-
nance programs is less about improving the lives of the 
poor than it is about creating institutions that wi l l eventu-
ally become sustainable engines of poverty alleviation, 
without further subsidization. This innovation presents a 
very attractive alternative to what some may see as a con-
stant outflow of poverty aid dollars that produces intangible 
results. To begin with, it is worth distinguishing between 
two forms of sustainability. The first hurdle of sustainabil-
ity is operational sustainability. "This refers to the ability of 
institutions to generate enough revenue to cover operating 
costs—but not necessarily the full cost of capital." l v Once 
operational sustainability has been achieved, the next goal 
becomes financial sustainability, which "is defined by 
whether or not the institution requires subsidized inputs in 
order to operate." Some people insist that financial sus-
tainability is the only option for MFIs, arguing, "Only f i-
nancially sound, professional organizations have a chance 
to compete effectively, access commercial loans, become l i -
censed to collect deposits, and grow to reach significant 
scale and impact." ; This "best practices" conception of mi-
crolending stands i n contrast to the reality of most pro-
grams. "While subsidy rates wi l l surely fall as more pro-
grams gain age and scale, even many older, larger 
programs are far from being able to make ends meet with 
their own revenues."V!! It appears that the goals of sustain-
ability and eventual profitability are less attainable than was 
once thought. "What began as a grass-roots 'movement' 
motivated largely by a development paradigm is evolving 
into a global industry informed increasingly by a commer-
cial/financial paradigm."™ 1 This can be separated into two 

broad categories: the institutionist and the welfarist. 
Institutionists place greatest importance on the institu-
tional viability of programs as a means to their continued 
survival and financial sustainability. Welfarists take a dif-
ferent view of the concept of sustainability. In their concep-
tion, donors function as social investors who expect a social 
or intrinsic return on their investment as opposed to a fi-
nancial one. "Microfinance social investors take this notion 
to the l imit , generally earning zero financial returns and re-
lying totally upon intrinsic returns." While institutionists 
are likely to emphasize the importance of the 
commerical/financial paradigm, welfarists would fit better 
into the social development paradigm. 

Certainly the "win-win" possibilities of microfinance are 
largely responsible for its current position as the darling of 
the development world. Despite these possibilities, micro-
finance programs still fall under the umbrella of anti-
poverty programs, which have never been held to standards 
of financial sustainability or profit. The dual nature of mi-
crofinance means that there is much debate about its posi-
tion in the world of development and finance. The way it is 
treated in the literature reflects this as well. One study, pub-

"Spurred by an accord 
reached at the Microfinance 

Summit in lggy ... 
there is arguably more 
widespread support for 

microfinance than 
any other single tool for 
fighting world poverty." 

T H E R I G H T P A R A D I G M FOR P U N O 



lished i n 2004, calculated the frequency with which articles 
about microfinance appear in various journals. The jour-
nals containing the most articles were development fo-
cused: Small Enterprise Development, The Journal of 
Microfinance, World Development, The Journal of 
Developmental Entrepreneurship, and The Journal of 
International Development. Business and financial publi-
cations contain a min imum of articles, perhaps illustrating 
that "the challenge today is a more systemic one: finding 
ways to better integrate a full range of microfinance serv-
ices with mainstream financial systems and markets. " x l 

Recent coverage of microfinance programs has highlighted 
the social entrepreneurship aspect of microfinance and its 
newfound buzz factor within the financial community. 
One 2006 Financial Times article describes a decision by 
Citibank to invest in microfinance: "Ajay Banga, who heads 
Citigroup's consumer businesses outside the US, said such 
initiatives would help make microfinance 'sustainable as a 
business.' 'Hopefully, it wil l inspire similar moves in other 
countries.'"™ A more recent article spotlights the Acumen 
Fund, a non-profit venture mutual fund that "takes a busi-
ness-like approach to improving the lives of the poor," x m 

and has received grants from Google.org and the 
Rockefeller and Cisco Foundations. Helping the poor has 
always required funding from donors, and attracting the at-
tention of mutual funds and social investors ought to be 
seen as a positive development. This paradigm shift, how-
ever, has required MFIs to reevaluate their mission and the 
place that sustainability has within it. 

In evaulating sustainability, there are two main concerns. 
First, for donors attracted by the possibility of helping to 
create a self-supporting anti-poverty program, it presents 
the need for a reevaluation of their donation goals. I f they 
decide that sustainability and profitability outweigh other 
social benefits, it is possible they wi l l withdraw funding 
from non-fmancially sustainable projects. Morduch writes, 
"It is not clear why the starting point for so many is the be-
lief that, as a matter of course, funding wi l l be pulled away 
from programs, even those able to demonstrate sustained 
social effectiveness."X1V I f the goal is poverty alleviation, 

"[The] Acumen Fund ... 
'takes a husiness-like 

approach to improving the 
lives of the poor.777 

even microfinance programs that do not achieve full sus-
tainability can be beneficial and worth supporting. 
Secondly, the idea of long-running subsidies raises legiti-
mate concerns about the efficiency of microlending pro-
grams. Subsidized loan programs of the past fell victim to 
inefficiencies and low levels of repayment. Morduch ar-
gues, " I f constraints are kept hard and performance criteria 
are made clear, managers must cope with failures, and effi-
ciency can be maintained, even in nonprofit programs."x v 

As with other nonprofit organizations, incentives and con-
straints other than financial profit can be used to maintain 
efficient operations i n subsidized programs. 

The means of achieving sustainability are thought to be 
found in larger scale programs or increased interest rates. 
While microlending programs boast repayment rates as 
high as or higher than commercial lending operations, re-
payment cannot be equated with sustainability. With the 
small size of most microloans, increasing interest rates ap-
pears the most viable option. This choice, however, may 
prevent poorer borrowers from gaining access to funds. It 
also runs the risk of introducing a moral hazard into oper-
ations, as borrowers seeking funds for riskier (but higher 
return) investments are the ones more likely to borrow 
even in the face of high interest rates. Even i f these prob-
lems can be surmounted, interest rates may face con-
straints due to the entrance of new lenders into the micro-
finance market and increasing competition among MFIs. 
This competition can favor subsidized institutions because 
it allows them to maintain lower interest rates and attract 
more desirable clients.™ The question of sustainability 
continues to affect how MFIs evaluate day to day decisions 

http://Google.org


regarding their business operations. 

Unfortunately, measuring a MFI's financial position is 
much easier than measuring its social impact. A number 
of studies have attempted to measure the effect of mi-
croloans on the financial and social position of borrowers 
and the ability of loans to spur job creation and economic 
growth. Measuring the social impact of loans is very dif-
ficult for a number of reasons. First, it is difficult to pin 
down how a study should define "social impact." The myr-
iad benefits that are attributed to successful microlending 
operations—the empowerment of women and increased 
household consumption to name a couple—mean that so-
cial impact tends to be broadly defined. More than that, it 
is difficult to distinguish whether impacts are the result of 
microfinance programs or other changes in the lives of bor-
rowers. One recent development in the testing of microfi-
nance programs relies on randomized field trials that at-
tempt to control specific features of microfinance 
programs in order to isolate what causes their social and 
economic impacts. With the development of these research 
techniques, more reliable data is becoming available. 
Despite the increasing importance of these field experi-
ments, much research gauges social effect based on sur-
veys of microfinance clients . X V U 1 

The results of a survey I administered to clients of the small 
microlending program of the Centro de Apoyo al Desarrollo 
de la Mujer y el Nino (CEADMUN, Center for Support of the 
Development of Women and Children) provide a case study 
to reveal the institutionist and welfarist tensions that face 
all microfinance institutions struggling to reach levels of 
sustainability, be it operational or financial. CEADMUN is 
located in the city of Puno, Peru, a city in the Andean alti-
plano on the shores of Lake Titicaca. A popular tourist des-
tination with a population of around 100,000, Puno also is 
home to very poor communities living mostly in the hills 
surrounding the city. The work of CEADMUN combines 
women's empowerment, education, and capacity-building 
with a small microfinance program. As the name of the or-
ganization promises, their primary goals center upon in-
creasing the economic and social development opportuni-
ties of women and children. Profitability for their 
microlending program is seen as a possible future goal but 
not the main objective. Funding for CEADMUN's opera-
tions comes from donations from a Swiss priest living in a 
nearby city and from partnerships with other non-profit or-
ganizations, as well as the initial capital that was put up by 
the organization's four founding employees. 

Loans are generally made to solidarity groups that arise 
from neighborhood women's groups, though some loans 
to individuals are made as well. Borrowers use their loan 
funds to support small businesses that include the sale of 
handicrafts, knitted goods, clothing (usually used), ani-
mals, fish, cosmetic products, and kerosene, and the oper-
ation of small stores and restaurants. The geographic dis-
tribution of solidarity groups affects the businesses in 
which they participate, as well as their levels of prosperity. 
For example, Los Balseritos, the solidarity group of Los 
Uros, sells handicrafts to tourists and fish to punenos and is 
known for their timeliness in repaying loans. Los Uros are 
a chain of man-made floating reed islands where people 
have been living for centuries. They are the main attraction 
drawing tourists to Puno. This group's position stands in 
contrast to other groups from the neighborhoods in the 
muddy hills surrounding the city center, which are not nec-

T H E R I G H T P A R A D I G M FOR P U N O 



essarily guaranteed the captive customer audience of 
tourists visiting the floating islands. Clients are also re-
quired to make savings deposits that are available for with-
drawal twice during the year: once at the beginning of the 
school year to assist in the purchase of the materials neces-
sary for school attendance and again at Christmas time 
when extra consumption needs are expected. As an intern 
in the office during the months of January and February of 
2006, I wrote and administered a survey to gauge the im-
pact of the microlending program on the clients. The sur-
vey consisted of a series of questions regarding the per-
sonal, business, and social situation of each borrower. In 
particular, I was interested in determining the effects that 
loans had on the financial position of the women, but also 
the effect they had on their self-esteem. 

The survey sample included 31 surveys. A l l of the clients 
surveyed were women with the exception of one man, the 
husband of a CEADMUN borrower. Interestingly, the ma-
jority of the respondents (27 of 31) had previously borrowed 
from a microlending institution other than CEADMUN. 
The most common institution named was the popular 
ProMujer organization, which has offices in Peru, 
Nicaragua, Argentina, Mexico, and Bolivia. From a demo-
graphic perspective, it was a varied group. Al l those sur-
veyed had at least one child, with an average of almost three 
children each, and many were living in homes that in-
cluded members of their extended family. The education 
levels of those surveyed also varied greatly, ranging from 
three women who had no formal instruction to seven 
women with partial or complete university training. The 
range of education levels was apparent in the administra-
tion of the survey. The challenge of collecting reliable data 
from participants was occasionally hampered by a lack of 
mathematical experience on the part of the borrower, as in 
the case of estimating the effects of a loan on her business. 
Additionally, it is important to mention that these surveys 
asked questions from the perspective of comparing the bor-
rowers' lives with the loan to their lives without the loan. 
This means that environmental factors over time are not 
fully accounted for in the survey design. These considera-

tions make the interpretation of the survey results prob-
lematic from a statistical point of view, but do not necessar-
ily preclude all of their ability to assist in an understanding 
of the program's impact on the lives of borrowers. 

Overall, the results of the survey demonstrate that loans 
from CEADMUN were judged by borrowers to exert a pos-
itive impact on their lives. Loans from CEADMUN did not 
provide start-up capital for any of the women, who all had 
their businesses previous to their loans. They did, however, 
allow women to increase the size of their businesses or the 
consumption of their families. Twenty-seven women re-
sponded "yes" to the question of whether their business 
had improved after the loan. The improvement was gener-
ally attributed to an ability to buy more merchandise or ma-
terials. Pressed further for details of the increases, how-
ever, clients were often not able to state exactly how much 

PERSONAL B U S I N E S S E N T E R P R I S E S IMPROVE T H E 

I N D E P E N D E N C E OF M I C R O F I N A N C E C L I E N T S 



they had spent per week or month on merchandise prior to 
receiving the loan. 

Fourteen respondents also indicated that they re-invested 
their earnings into their business, and nearly all borrowers 
stated that they would borrow greater amounts and expand 
their businesses i f they were allowed to. This response with 
regard to borrowing more funds, however, contradicts the 
responses to other questions on the survey; it was made by 
even those women who had previously answered that their 
businesses had not improved or that they were experienc-
ing a decreased demand for their products. This suggests 
that either borrowers are too pessimistic in their judgment 
of their business or that they are too optimistic i n their 
hopes for new loans. 

Benefits regarding the support of borrowers' children were 
also widely reported. Fourteen respondents explicitly 
stated children, family, and education in their responses to 
the question of where they spent their increased earnings. 
Other responses included expenditures on housing, food, 
and clothing which can all contribute to the ability of a child 
to succeed in school. Two respondents in particular as-
serted that without their loans, they would not have been 
able to send their children to school. Apart from the mate-
rial well-being reported by respondents, the series of ques-
tions related to the borrowers' self-esteem and general per-
sonal satisfaction were enlightening. A l l respondents 
replied in a positive manner to the question, "How do you 
feel, as a person, upon carrying out your business?" Some 
individual responses show that the loans are achieving 
their goal of female empowerment. One 35-year-old 
woman expressed the independence that results from her 
loan: " I f I want to, I go out."X i X Echoing that freedom of de-
cision making are the responses: "What I want to buy, I 
can," x x and "Now I don't have to depend on anyone."™ 
Another client, trained in economics at the university level, 
said that her loan makes her feel optimistic and allows her 
more stability than other jobs. It is clear from these re-
sponses that running a business of their own, supported by 
access to credit, has improved the independence and free-

dom of opportunity for many clients of CEADMUN. 

As a way to gauge the economic and political awareness of 
CEADMUN's clients, I included the survey question, "How 
do you see the economic situation of Peru?" Responses 
tended towards laments about the lack of jobs and opportu-
nities to earn money. Perhaps the most interesting re-
sponses to this question touched on the issue of competi-
tion. While some literature on microfinance addresses the 
issue of competition between MFIs, the issue of increased 
competition between borrowers is also an issue. In the case 
of Puno, many women sell handicrafts and sweaters to the 
many tourists who pass through the city. With loans, they 
are able to purchase more merchandise to sell, but there 
has not necessarily been an accompanying increase i n 
tourists to the city. The street near the port from which 
tours of the floating islands depart is lined with women sell-
ing their colorful wares. The idea of a merchandise short-
age would not cross the mind of any observer. It is not sur-
prising, then, that several women mentioned that 
competition had contributed to a downturn in their busi-
ness. This problem should correct itself with borrowers 
borrowing less i f they are unable to sell increased levels of 
merchandise, but it is worth considering whether the loans 
themselves are creating problems by introducing too much 
supply into certain markets. Furthermore, the type of busi-
ness that many CEADMUN borrowers have—selling items 
on the street—is not likely to lead to the capital accumula-
tion that would allow them a real way out of poverty. The or-
ganization would do well to consider expanding their busi-
ness education to encourage more dynamic enterprises. 

A preliminary consideration of the case of CEADMUN i n 
Puno illustrates the tensions between the institutionist and 
welfarist positions. A n institutionist would likely criticize 
the small program's prospects for reaching the levels of op-
erational sustainability and financial sustainability that wi l l 
ensure its survival and continued ability to reach those in 
need. A welfarist, on the other hand, would emphasize the 
positive impact that the loans have had on borrowers' lives 
over the need for financial sustainability. The microfinance 

T H E R I G H T P A R A D I G M FOR P U N O 



literature provides support for both a development and a fi-
nancial paradigm, but which provides the best fit for this ex-
ample? In the case of CEADMUN, several institutional fac-
tors combine with the results of the monitoring survey to 
support a positive evaluation from a developmental, wel-
farist evaluation of the program. As a small institution fo-
cusing on a holistic approach to the question of economic 
and social development, CEADMUN was never created 
with the intention of becoming a profitable microlending 
institution. The resources it has available in terms of tech-
nical expertise and loanable funds do not provide a practi-
cal environment for the goal of financial sustainability. In 
a similar vein, the loans that it is able to make are not to bor-
rowers who are likely to achieve the kind of financial gains 
from their investments that could create profitable future 
lending possibilities. Investors interested in financial gain 
would take one look at their small office and the businesses 
the loan program supports and be certain that they were not 
interested. This, of course, is i f they find themselves in 
Puno at all. Yet while CEADMUN's loans do not appear to 
be producing truly great financial gains for either clients or 
the center, they do demonstrate a self-reported positive im-
pact on borrowers' lives. The impact on women's self con-
cept and independence is particularly promising, as is the 
increase in household income earmarked for spending on 
children. I f the microfinance program is seen as a way of 
stretching charity funds that would otherwise be spent on 
other development initiatives such as empowerment train-
ing or the provision of food and clothing, it can remain an 
important part of the organization's arsenal of develop-
ment activities without ever reaching sustainability. When 
MFIs are able to leverage their resources in a way that 
makes the "win-win" possibility of microfinance a real pos-
sibility, they should do just that. But the popularity and suc-
cess of such programs should not make it the sole para-
digm under which microfinance is considered. A 
"win-win" scenario might be ideal, but even a "win-break 
even" scenario is a useful tool in the fight against poverty. 

E N D N O T E S 
i . Mcintosh and Wydick (271-298) 
i i . Murdoch 1999 (1570) 

i i i . Murdoch 1999 (1570) 
iv. Murdoch 1999 (1588) 
v. Murdoch 1999 (1588) 
vi . Littlefield and Rosenberg 
v i i . Murdoch 2000 
v i i i . Brau and Woller (1-26) 
ix. Brau and Woller (1-26) 
x. Brau and Woller (1-26) 
xi . Littlefield and Rosenberg 
x i i . Wighton 
x i i i . Foster 
xiv. Foster 
xv. Murdoch 2000 
xvi. For a more in depth discussion of the issue of competition 
among MFIs, see Mcintosh and Wydick "Competition and 
Microfinance" 2002. 
xvii . Brau and Woller provide a comprehensive description of 
several o f these studies. 
xvii i . Duflo, E.R. Glennerster, & M . Kremer. 2006. Using ran-
domization i n development economics research: a toolkit. 
Handbook of Development Economics. 
xix. Original Spanish response from January 2006 interview: 
"Si yo quiero, salgo." 
xx. Original Spanish response from January 2006 interview: 
"Lo que yo quiero comprar, yo puedo." 
xxi. Original Spanish response from January 2006 interview: 
"Ya no tengo que depender de nadie." 

REFERENCES 
Brau, James C. and Gary M . Woller. 2004. "Microfinance: A 
Comprehensive Review of the Existing Literature." Journal of 
Entrepreneurial Finance and Business Ventures. 9(1). 

Foster, Lauren. 2007. "One fund stretches charity dollar." 
Financial Times, January 26. 

Littlefield, Elizabeth and Richard Rosenberg, 2004. 
"Microfinance and the Poor." Finance and Development, June. 

Mcintosh, Craig and Bruce Wydick. 2005. "Competition and 
Microfinance." Journal of Development Economics, 78(2), 
December. 

Murdoch, Jonathan. 1999. "The Microfinance Promise." 
Journal of Economic Literature. 37(4), December. 

Murdoch, Jonathan. 2000. "The Microfinance Schism." World 
Development. 28(4). 

Wighton, David. 2006. "COMPANIES THE AMERICAS: 
Citigroup i n microfinance programme." Financial Times, 
September 22. 

E L E M E N T S F A L L 07