You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Fletcher’ tag.
> Posted by Kim Wilson, Fellow, Center for Emerging Market Enterprises and the Feinstein International Center, Tufts University
#103296651 / gettyimages.com
“Everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler.” This aphorism credited to Albert Einstein inspires our call to Lean Research.
Two Fridays ago at MIT a group of 50 of us met to hash out some principles that, if followed, might generate better research in development and social science contexts. NGOs, universities, foundations, corporations, government, and multi-lateral agencies were represented in our group.
Our analogy of choice was Toyota. If “the Toyota way,” or lean manufacturing as it has come to be called, could cause profound and beneficial disruptions in production processes, might lean research cause equally profound and beneficial disruptions in research processes?
> Posted by Ignacio Mas, Independent Consultant
That was a fun debate at Fletcher.
This or that? Formal or informal? Pro or con? Of course the answer always lies somewhere in the middle, it’s about and rather than or, to use the trite expression. It would certainly be ironic to seek to be inclusive by excluding options.
But in the case of financial inclusion, where a number of formal and informal services vie for relevance, what does this happy medium look like? I don’t see it as a bountiful fruit platter that people can pick from (now formal, now informal) as much as a richly layered cake.
The cake analogy is to represent the idea of platforms, of capabilities arranged horizontally and interworking with each other. Each layer brings a flavor, a texture, a color to the cake, but it is only when slices cut through the entire stack that the full cakeness comes through.
Let’s count the layers of financial inclusion. You need an identity layer, so that information can be traced back to individuals and histories can be constructed. You need an efficient money transfer layer, so that money can move efficiently and without delay between the various players when they are near or far. You need a cash distribution layer, with a multitude of localities where you can exchange various forms of money (cash to electronic, large bills into small change), on demand. You need enforcement mechanisms, so that IOUs can be trusted. You need a reliable accounting layer to keep track of all these contracts and IOUs. You need creative packaging of money transfers and IOUs into higher-level financial contracts (savings, credit, insurance, and combinations of all these) that connect more directly with people’s problems and needs. You need social connections and knowledge, so that people can variously give, lend, guarantee, and vouch for each other. You need people who can become evangelists, connectors, educators, marketers, to get others involved. You need, you need, you need…
I don’t mean to make it sound more complicated than it really is, or to bias the discussion towards formal just because I used some big words in there. Go through the list again: each of these functions can be done formally or informally, and in fact savings groups do all of the above in their own way. But we shouldn’t strive to create two layered cakes, the nutritious-but-wobbly and the glitzy-but-indigestible. The formal and informal layers need to mix in seamlessly.
> Posted by Jenny C. Aker, Assistant Professor of Economics, Tufts University
Today’s post continues the debate from the Extreme Inclusion conference at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. The proposition, as you will recall: “Financial inclusion means formal inclusion.” Yesterday, we heard from the Pro side of the argument (represented by green high heels), and today we hear from the Con side (pink flip flops). The Con team is represented here by Jenny C. Aker on behalf of herself and teammates Ignacio Mas and Daryl Collins.
What we have heard from the opposing team is that financial inclusion – real financial inclusion – means “formal” financial inclusion. We heard that in order to get out of the poverty trap, poor individuals want – and need – financial services that build financial security, manage risks against shocks, and invest in new business opportunities. In other words, things that the informal sector can’t fully provide.
But is formal always better? Formal services are often laden with fees (how many of you know the APR on your credit card?), unfamiliar, or simply unsafe. The 1999 banking crisis in Uganda depleted smallholder savings. It was a formal system. The collapse of the Russian banking system defrauded depositors. This, too, was a formal system. And as the financial sector has become wider and deeper in many countries, the effects of such volatility — boom one day, bust the next — are felt by more people, including the poor.
Even without these formal sector collapses, the poor must often choose between high-priced formal financial services or none at all. We often criticize the moneylenders for being usurers. But what about Banco Compartamos, which has interest rates well above 70 percent and still doesn’t offer savings services? Is that fair? Or the compulsory two savings account system of the Grameen Bank, each with separate rules? Is that useful?
> Posted by Elisabeth Rhyne, Managing Director, CFI
Kim Wilson, of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, is a consummate educator who knows that drama leads to learning. That’s why she staged a competitive debate to kick off her Extreme Inclusion conference.
The Proposition: Financial inclusion means formal inclusion.
On the Pro side were myself and my esteemed colleagues Marguerite Robinson, emerita extraordinaire, Lauren Hendricks, of Care’s Access Africa conference, with coaching from Ahmed Dermish of Bankable Frontier Associates.
Taking the Con side were Ahmed’s colleague from BFA, Daryl Collins, together with Ignacio Mas, unaffiliated innovative thinker, and Jenny Aker of Fletcher, coached by Nick Sullivan, author of Money Real Quick: The Story of M-PESA.
Peter Walker of Tufts wielded the gavel with wit and a tiny hint of malice. He symbolized the Pro side with a green spike heeled shoe, and the Con side with a pink flip flop.
Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking, I took up the last position on the Pro side, with three minutes to make my points. Here’s what I said:
1. Development is about building societies that offer opportunity and connection to everyone. The important word is building. Let’s look where we are going. While many low income people today use and possibly even prefer informal financial services, one cannot consider this the path to the future. If we want to see the bottom 20 percent of the population become economically successful, there must be a path to success. We need only look to the accomplishments of microfinance in bringing microcredit to hundreds of millions in the past two decades to be confident about the prospects for major change in the future.
Facebook
Twitter
Recent Comments