출처: http://www.portfoliosofthepoor.com/book.asp; 구글도서; ...
지은이들: Daryl Collins, Jonathan Morduch, Stuart Rutherford & Orlanda Ruthven
※ 발췌 (excerpt):
About 40% of the world's poor, more than a billion, live on incomes of $2 a day or less...[T]he first book to explain systematically how the poor find solutions [:]
- The authors report on the yearlong "financial diaries" of villagers and slum dwellers in Bangladesh, India, and South Africa─records that track penny by penny how specific households manage their money. ...
- Most poor households do not live hand to mouth, spending what they earn in a desperate bid to keep afloat.
- Instead they employ financial tools, many linked to informal networks and family ties. They push money into savings for reserves, squeeze money out of creditors whenever possible, run sophisticated savings clubs, and use microfinancing wherever available.
( ... ) In turning to prescription, the authors ask how the financial tools offered by the microfinance industry can be made better. A revealing chapter looks at the success of The Grameen Bank of Bangladesh─...─but the authors argue that more is needed [:]
- They call for financial institutions to provide better cash flow management systems that allow for small deposits and withdrawals at any time; long-term contractual savings products that allow the poor to limit the effects of expensive events like weddings and funerals or with emergencies and large purchases; and general purpose loans (a departure from the current trend of loaning for the purpose of setting up a business).
Chapter 1. The Portfolios of the Poor (p. 1)
Chapter 2. The Daily Grind (p. 28)
Chapter 3. Dealing with Risk (p. 65)
Chapter 4. Building Blocks: Creating Usefully Large Sums (p. 95)
Chapter 5. Price of Money (p. 132)
Chapter 6. Rethinking Microfiance: The Grameen II Diaries (p. 154)
Chapter 7. Better Portfolios (p. 174)
Appendix 1: The Story behind the Portfolios (p. 185)
Appendix 2: A Selection of Portfolios (p. 211)
Acknowledgments (p. 243)
Notes (p. 247)
Bibliography (p. 265)
Index (p. 273)
※ 발췌 (excerpt): From Chapter 1, The Portfolios of the Poor
( ... ... ) For those of who don't have to do it, it is hard to imagine what it is like to live on so small an income. We don't even try to imagine. We suppose that with incomes at these impossibly low levels the poor can do little for themselves beyond hand-to-mouth survival. Their chances of moving out of poverty must depend, we assume, either on international charity or on their eventual incorporation into the globalized economy. The hottest public debates in world poverty, therefore, are those about aid flows and debt forgiveness, and about the virtues and vices of globalization.[n.1] Discussion of what the poor might do for themselves is less often heard. ( ... )
[n.1] To get a sense of the debates, the most sharply worded arguments for aid-fueled strategies are in Sachs(2005), which is countered by Easterly (2006). Wolf (2005) makes the case for globalization, while Stiglitz (2005), for example, points to its limits.
CF. J. Sachs (2005), ....
W. Easterly (2006), ....
Wolf (2005), ...
J. Stiglitz (2005), ....
Most of your money is spent on the basics, above all food. ( ... ... ) In short, how do you manage your money if there is so little of it? These are practical questions that confront billions every day [:]
- They are also starting points for imagining new ways for businesses to build markets that serve those living on one or two or three dollars per day.
- They are obvious starting points as well for policymakers and governments seeking to confront persistent inequalities.
( ... ) several years ago we launched a series of detailed, yearlong studies to shed light on how families live on so little. ( ... ) [:]
- The first findings was the most fundamental: no matter where we looked, we found that most of the households, even those living on less than one dollar a day per person, rarely consume every penny of income as soon as it is earned.
- They seek, instead, to "manage" their money by saving when they can and borrowing when they need to.
- ( ... ) a surprisingly large proportion of income gets managed in this way─diverted into savings or used to pay down loans. In the process, a host of different methods are pressed into use: storing savings at home, with others, and with banking institutions; joining savings clubs, savings-and-loans clubs, and insurance clubs; and borrowing from neighbors, relatives, employers, moneylenders, or financial institutions. At any one time, the average poor household has a fistful of financial relationship on the go.
- First, we came to see that money management is, for the poor, a fundamental and well-understood part of everyday life. It is a key factor in determining the level of success that poor households enjoy in improving their own lives. ( ... ) often fundamental to achieving those─health, education, wealth─broader aims.
- Second, we saw that at almost every turn poor households are frustrated by the poor quality─above all the low reliability─of the instruments that they use to manage their meager incomes.
- Some of that rethinking has already started through the global "microfinance" movement, but there is further to travel.
- The findings revealed in this book point to new opportunities for philanthropists and governments seeking to create social and economic change, and for businesses seeking to expand markets.
To discover the crucial importance of financial tools for poor people, we had to spend time with them, learning about their money-management methods in minute detail. We did so by devising a research technique we call “financial diaries.”
- ( ... ) we interviewed poor households, at least twice a month for a full year, and used the data to construct “diaries” of what they did with their money. Altogether we collected more than 250 completed diaries.
- Over time the answers to our questions about how poor households manage money started to add up and reinforce each other—and,
- importantly, they meshed with what we had seen and heard over the years in our work in other contexts: in Latin America and elsewhere in Africa and Asia.
- Our understanding of these choices was enriched by the real-time commentary of the householders themselves. We listened to what they had to say about their financial lives: why they did what they did, what was hard and what was easy, and how successful they felt they had been.
- It was, surprisingly, the tools of corporate finance—balance sheets and cash-flow statements—that offered the structure with which we could begin to understand what it takes, day by day, for poor households to live on so little.
[A case of such financial diaries of a couple in Bangladesh: ]
- (description of their background and housing in Dhaka, the capital.)
- A fifth of the $70 was spent on rent (not always paid on time), and much of the rest went toward the most basic necessities of life—food and the means to prepare it. By the couple’s own reckoning, which our evidence agrees with, their income put them among the poor of Bangladesh, though not among the very poorest. By global standards they would fall into the bottom two-fifths of the world’s income distribution tables.
- a partly educated couple trying to stay alive, bring up a child, run a one-room home, and keep Ha-mid’s health in shape—on an uncertain $0.78 per person per day. You wouldn’t expect them to have much of a financial life. Yet the diversity of instruments in their year-end household balance sheet (table 1.2) shows that Hamid and Khadeja, as part of their struggle to survive within their slim means, were active money managers.
- Far from living hand-to-mouth, consuming every taka as soon as it arrived, Hamid and Khadeja had built up reserves in six different instruments, ranging from $2 kept at home for minor day-to-day shortfalls to $30 sent for safe-keeping to his parents, $40 lent out to a relative, and $76 in a life insurance savings policy. In addition, Hamid always made sure he had $2 in his pocket to deal with anything that might befall him on the road.
- ( ... ... )
- Hamid and Khadeja’s involvement in finance did not mean that they ended up with debts that they found impossible to manage. Although their “net worth” (the balance of their financial assets and liabilities) was negative, the amount was small relative to their total annual income, and their “debt service” ratio—...—was manageable. Negative net worth was in fact quite rare in our sample: among the 152 households we studied in South Africa, only 3 percent were in this position. We should not assume, then, that poor households are always deeply in debt and always have negative net worth. The reasons for this phenomenon, and for many other aspects of balance sheets like Hamid and Khadeja’s, are explored in more detail in later chapters, and are on show in the portfolios found in appendix 2.
- Balance sheets like this one, however revealing, don’t tell the story of how Hamid and Khadeja managed their money on a day-today basis. That story comes from studying cash flow rather than balances—from tracing the ebb and flow of cash into and out of savings and loan and insurance instruments. ( ... ... )
- This book reviews the recorded behavior and commentary of our 250 diarists to show how and why they intermediated as they did, and how and why better, more reliable instruments would help them do it more successfully.
- ( ... ... )
- But because our story is focused on how poor households manage money, we have focused our discussion only on those transactions where cash was involved.
- tracking a “net worth profile,” including physical as well as financial assets, over time. ( ... ... )
- Physical assets certainly made up the larger proportion of net worth ( ... ) However, we found that physical assets changed very little over the year. ( ... )
- The action was instead in financial assets. Taking a snapshot of household portfolios would have missed the dramatic change in financial assets and led us to mistakenly focus on physical assets as the more important part of net worth to understand. The data suggest that although households certainly can and do save in physical assets, financial management is the stepping-stone to understanding how households build net worth.
Following Hamid and Khadeja’s financial activity every two weeks allowed us to discover other types of behaviors, constraints, and opportunities that are not revealed in large, nationally representative surveys.
- ( ... ... )
- they had credit with a shopkeeper, for example, took loans from neighbors, lent out a little to others, and stashed money in a hiding place at home for themselves and for others.
- ( ... ) these practices form a large part of their financial lives.
- It took roughly six rounds of interviews and visits before we felt confident we had something close to the full story.
- ( ... ... )
- But those fragments of data eventually resolved into yearlong movie reels that changed our understanding. The frame-after-frame views revealed much greater levels of financial activity than large surveys usually show, and much more active management of finances.
- Without the pieces, it would have been easy to imagine that Hamid and Khadeja would be unsophisticated about their finances because they are only partially literate, or would be unable to save in a disciplined way because they are so poor. We might have blindly accepted arguments that they are especially eager for loans to run a small business, or that, if offered loans, they would fall rapidly into deep debt. Or we might have assumed that because money is tight, they would always demand rock-bottom prices.
- All of those assumptions are right some of the time. But they are wrong much of the time. Uncorrected, they can mislead businesses that plan strategies to work with households like Hamid and Khadeja’s, and misdirect policymakers who design interventions to hasten their escape from poverty.
- First, in the worst case, ( ... ... )
- Second, you may be able to raise the money by selling assets, ( ... ... )
- Third, in the best case, you can use past income or future income to fund today’s expenses.
- Small incomes mean that poor people are more often than others placed in the position of needing to intermediate. The uncertainty and irregularity of their income compounds the problem by ratcheting up the need to hold reserves, or to borrow when the income fails to arrive.
- For these reasons, we would argue that poor people need financial services more than any other group.
- Poor households with a pressing need to intermediate have to manage a collection of relationships and transactions with others—family, neighbors, moneylenders, and savings clubs, constituting a set of formal, semiformal, and informal financial providers—that can fairly be described as a portfolio.[n.11]
[n.11] By “semiformal providers” we mean microfinance organizations and other nonbank providers, such as NGOs, that offer services to poor clients. They are sometimes referred to as “MFIs”─microfinance institutions.Economists and anthropologists have built rich and independent literatures on the constituent parts of these portfolios. We now know quite a bit about how moneylenders set prices and how local savings clubs operate.[n.12] Economists have further contributed to understanding how well the pieces come together to smooth the ups and downs of household consumption.[n.13]
- But what has been missing is a close look at how portfolios function: not just how well the pieces work but how they work together. Focusing on how gives new insight into the day-to-day nature of poverty and yields concrete ideas for creating better solutions for it.
( ... ... )
It would be wrong to claim that Hamid and Khadeja’s is a “typical” portfolio of the poor. ( ... ... ) Therefore, we cannot claim that the behavior of our 250 households is typical of poor households throughout the world. Nevertheless, it is striking how many commonalities we found among our households, despite the differences in their environments.
Every household in our 250-strong sample, even the very poorest, held both savings and debt of some sort. No household used fewer than four types of instrument during the year: ( ... ... )
- These numbers refer to the type of instruments used: the number of times these instruments were used in the year was of course much greater. In Bangladesh, for example, the 42 households between them used just one instrument—the interest-free loan—almost 300 times in the year.
- In all three countries total cash turnover through instruments was large relative to total net income: in Bangladesh and India it ranged between 75 percent and 330 percent of annual income, and in South Africa reached as high as 500 percent for some households.
- Some instruments seem universal: almost every household borrowed informally from family and friends, and many, including the very poor, reciprocated by offering such loans to others. Certain kinds of savings clubs and savings-and-loan clubs were found in all locations in all three countries, though with local variations.
- We heard the same themes over and over again when we asked our households to comment on what they were doing: many of the diarists told us they found informal transactions unpleasant but unavoidable; many, like Khadeja, also said they wished they had better ways to save.
- In the villages, farmers earn the bulk of their income during two or three peak harvest months, earning nothing during troughs. Farm laborers get a daily wage when there’s work to do; at other times they sit around idle, migrate to towns, or scratch a living from other sources.
- In the cities and urban townships, self-employed folk like Hamid have good and bad days. Women’s paid work in the town, such as maidserving, is often part-time, occasional, or temporary.
- Unless they are very fortunate, even full-time, permanently employed poor people suffer at the hands of employers who pay irregularly.
- ( ... ... ) If you did earn a steady two dollars per day per person, you could plan more easily and enter into more fruitful relationships with financial partners. ( ... )
- The “dollar-a-day” view of global poverty ( ... ) It captures the fact that incomes are small, but sidelines the equally important reality that incomes are often highly irregular and unpredictable.
- For all the households we came to know through the diaries, living on under two dollars a day requires unrelenting vigilance in cash-flow management—strategies to cope with the irregularities of income.
- Short-term cash-flow management is vital to ensure that the family doesn’t go hungry, and chapter 2 takes a closer look at how the diary households manage this basic task.
- The first is how to cope with risk. ( ... ... ) in Chapter 3.
- The second concern around which longer-term money management revolves in poor households is the need to build or borrow usefully large sums of money, the subject of chapter 4. ( ... ... )
- 1. Managing basics: cash-flow management to transform irregular income flows into a dependable resource to meet daily needs. <Chapter 2>
- 2. Coping with risk: dealing with the emergencies that can derail families with little in reserve. <Chapter 3>
- 3. Raising lump sums: seizing opportunities and paying for big-ticket expenses by accumulating usefully large sums of money. <Chapter 4>
- In reality, life doesn’t always allow us to match instruments with uses quite so neatly. We all know of cases where an insurance policy or a pension had to be unexpectedly cashed in to serve some unexpected need, for example. ( ... ) The poor households we met in the diaries were especially likely to combine many different kinds of instruments to achieve their needs, and this is one of the main reasons their portfolios turned out to be surprisingly complex.
- For example, ( ... ... )
- The kind of saving needed to manage day-to-day basics, for example, is different from the kind of saving needed to raise usefully large sums. For the first kind, poor households seek to keep money in places that they can access freely and frequently, both to maximize the amount they save and to ensure that they can retrieve the savings at short notice. Security is important, but so is convenience. Reward (in the form of interest receivable) is of less importance: thus they may hide savings at home or entrust cash to their next-door neighbor.
- When households try to build savings into large sums, the mix of characteristics shifts. Now security is very important, since the money may have to be stored for some time as it builds, and reward is valued more highly.
- But a new characteristic enters the mix—structure. The poor, like all of us, tend to want to have their savings cake and eat it, but when you’re more hungry than average, the temptation to eat it is all the stronger. Structure—in the form of curbs on the liquidity of the savings, and rules defining the term, timing, and value of deposits—helps self-discipline, as the poor often know. ( ... ... )
- Sometimes local informal lending, which tends to be interest-free, will be best for day-to-day management, but on the other hand it may also make sense to take a larger loan from a more formal lender in order, say, to buy a stock of food if it can be stored safely at home.
- The diaries show that in Bangladesh, for example, bigger loans often come from microfinance institutions, but sometimes diarists deliberately choose a more expensive moneylender because the looser repayment schedule fits their needs better, or because the money must be found quickly after an emergency has struck or a not-to-be-missed opportunity has arisen.
[n. 17] While the main problem of poor households is lack of choice, there are local markets in which competition among microfinance providers has grown considerably, including markets in Peru, Nicaragua, the Philippines, and Bangladesh. Real competition will likely increase, but it remains far from the norm.
- We would not have spotted them if we had just looked at how households use individual instruments, or looked at their mix of instruments at just one moment in time.
- We would have missed the way in which sums are “patched” together from an array of instruments, and we could not have fully appreciated the hopes and stresses that accompany this process, nor the play of intrahousehold relationships.
- For example, we wouldn’t have discovered that while Khadeja stores money for others, her husband chooses to keep some of his reserves out of her hands, storing it instead with his employer: ( ... ... ) The financial diary methodology forced us to confront our assumptions and take a fresh look at the financial lives of poor people.
- Some poor households pay fees for good ways to save—an idea that may be puzzling to those of us used to being paid interest on bank deposits, rather than having to pay for the service.
- Our surprise is amplified when the fees, interpreted as interest rates and expressed on an annualized basis, seem very high. Savers who use roving deposit collectors—the susus of West Africa are the best-known examples— generally save daily for a month and then get back, at the month’s end, all their deposits less one day’s worth. That’s a monthly rate of minus 3.3 percent, or minus 40 percent at an annualized rate.
- Minus 40 percent a year on savings? Can that be rational? But to a mother in a poor household saving 10 cents a day to ensure she can buy 3 dollars’ worth of schoolbooks for her daughter before the school term starts next month, 10 cents is an eminently affordable fee. Where else can she be sure of getting the money out of temptation’s way, and enjoy the discipline of having a collector call on her each day to make sure she saves?
- According to the diaries, however, few of these “high cost” loans are actually held for a full year. In South Africa, for example, most are held for less than a month; some for just a week.
- The conversion into annualized interest rates allows us to compare interest charges on loans of different durations, and the year is a convenient standard. But the diaries show that the attempt to gain clarity by annualizing may distort the nature of the costs and choices.
- For example, a 25-cent fee charged for a moneylender loan of $10 for a week may sound quite reasonable even to Hamid the motor-rickshaw driver, who earns just $2.33 per day and for whom a $10 loan may mean the difference between being able to buy his son new clothes for the Eid festival and having him go to the mosque in last year’s rags.
- But on an annualized basis (assuming compounding of the interest) such a loan costs 261 percent per year. That doesn’t sound at all reasonable. One of the lessons from the diaries is that interest paid on very short-duration loans is more sensibly understood as a fee than as annualized interest. ( ... ... )
- For example, when policy-makers say ( ... ) that microcredit providers offer a good price as long as it beats the annualized interest rate charged by moneylenders, there is something amiss.
- The diaries show that few borrowers would expect to pay the high moneylender rates for a relatively large, long-term loan. Annualized rates may not be the most appropriate way to compare a large, yearlong microcredit loan with a small, short-term loan from a moneylender, and poor households may not be behaving irrationally if they sometimes choose the moneylender over the microcredit provider.
- For example, they may be quite happy to take a loan—paying a high price for doing so—even when they could instead draw on their own savings accounts. That may sound odd when opportunities for secure saving are plentiful, but when it’s hard to find a safe place to save, the perceived value of savings already made is that much higher.
- To give themselves security, the poor may even borrow in order to have something to save. Khadeja did just that. [:]
- She spent part of a loan she took from a microlender (at about 36 percent interest for a yearlong term) to buy gold. The microcredit loan represented a rare opportunity to get her hands on a sum large enough to buy a substantial lifelong asset offering security against the disruptions in family life so common and so painful for women like her—divorce, desertion, or death of her husband.
- She wasn’t often given the chance to borrow in this way, so she thought it best to grab the opportunity at once. The fact that the loan could be repaid in a series of small weekly payments made it manageable: it allowed her to use a year’s worth of small weekly savings to achieve a single big lump of savings. Price was only one aspect of the loan, less important than the repayment schedule that matched installments to the household’s cash flow.
- This transformation in thinking provides great hope for the households we came to know.
- Part of the credit goes to Muhammad Yunus, the Bangladeshi economics professor who, in December 2006, received he Nobel Peace Prize for the work that he and the Grameen Bank have done over the last 30 years. The Grameen Bank proves that households like those in the diaries can save and borrow—and repay their loans promptly and with interest.
- By 2006, Grameen was serving over six million poor customers in villages throughout Bangladesh. Two competitors, ASA (Association for Social Advancement) and BRAC (a name, not an acronym), operate at similar scales and fully cover their costs by charging interest and fees. Early pioneers in Latin America and elsewhere in Asia have independently helped to lead this movement.
- Is credit the main need for financial services felt by poor households?
- Should the credit go exclusively to small enterprises, or can other ways of fighting hardship and lack of opportunity be identified?
- Should most of it be disbursed to women, organized into groups who share responsibility for each other’s loans?
- Is making sure that everyone has a bank account enough to achieve that broader purpose?
- ( ... ... )
- The financial diaries show in daily detail why the shift from an exclusive focus on microcredit to the broader microfinance is an important and welcome advance. But the diaries also show the need to push further.
- Microcredit has thus come to be closely associated with the customers’ “microenterprises” (the name signals their small scale; often such enterprises employ just the owner and no other workers.)
- When the turn toward microfinance opened possibilities, it did not entail a reassessment of the uses for micro-credit. A fundamental but easily overlooked lesson from the diaries is that the demand for microcredit extends well beyond the need for just microenterprise credit.
- The poor households in the study seek loans for a multitude of uses besides business investment: to cope with emergencies, acquire household assets, pay schooling and health fees, and, in general, to better manage complicated lives.
- In chapter 6 we show that microcredit is often diverted from its intended uses (of running businesses) to other uses ranked more important by households. This lesson has not yet been well recognized by promoters of microcredit and microfinance.
- In this endeavor, they can learn from the cash flows of borrowers and the individual lending arrangements of the informal sector, reported in detail in these financial diaries.
- But the Indian experience shows that developing the physical (branch) infrastructure of banks, and even pushing accounts and subsidized loans toward the poor, will not address issues of access unless products are priced to allow banks a good return, and designed to suit the lifestyle, income levels, and cash flows of the poor.
- general environment of unreliability ( ... )
- That is, the loan officers came to the weekly meetings on time, in all kinds of weather; they disbursed loans in the amount they promised at the time they promised and at the price they promised; they didn’t demand bribes; they tried hard to keep passbooks accurate and up-to-date; and they showed their clients that they took their transactions seriously.
- In return, we noticed that these Bangladeshi microfinance clients often prioritized the repayment of microcredit loans above those of other providers. ( ... ... )