Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Focusnote
Focusnote
FocusNote
NO. 35 APRIL 2006
Microfinance is a worldwide success story. But how effective have aid agencies been in
their support to microfinance institutions (MFIs)? Since 2002, CGAP member agen-
The author of this Focus Note
cies have tackled this question through “peer reviews” and evaluations of project port-
is Richard Rosenberg, senior
advisor, Consultative Group to
folios and country programs.1 This Focus Note looks at the examples of two
Assist the Poor. Kiendel Burritt, agencies—the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme
Marc Jaquand, Joyce Lehman, (UNDP)—that took the courageous step of asking CGAP for an in-depth external eval-
Anne Ritchie, John Tucker,
uation of their microcredit portfolios. The World Bank evaluation reviewed only “lines
and Jacob Yaron all made
major contributions to the
of credit,” where project resources were used to fund microlending; thus, the study did
evaluations reported in this not include the Bank’s substantial activities in policy support for governments and
Focus Note. technical assistance to MFIs.2 The UNDP evaluation covered all that agency’s micro-
finance projects, but only two of those projects were policy-oriented and none of them
© 2006, Consultative Group to
Assist the Poor
provided technical assistance only.
The evaluations revealed a disappointing picture: in both agencies, less than a quarter
The Consultative Group to of the projects that funded microlending were judged successful. The rest failed, or
Assist the Poor (CGAP) is a
appeared unlikely, to produce long-lasting results—that is, retail institutions and pro-
consortium of 33 development
agencies that support micro-
grams that could continue offering clients quality financial services over the longer
finance. More information is term without losing their capital and needing continuing infusions of money from
available on the CGAP Web governments or development agencies.
site (www.cgap.org).
Both UNDP and the World Bank have talented, motivated staff managing their
microcredit. The root of the problem is not weak staff, but rather agency environments
and systems that do not give their staff the right incentives, information, and resources
for microcredit.
Top managers in the World Bank and UNDP have responded forcefully to the eval-
uation findings, not only with policy documents but also with concrete changes that
give staff better tools and incentives for effective microfinance.
Supporting microfinance is not an easy business. The problems identified in the eval-
uations are not unique to these two agencies. Most other microfinance funders face
similar challenges to a greater or lesser extent and may find some of the UNDP and
World Bank experiences relevant to their own microfinance work.
1 The Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP) is a consortium of 33 public and private development agencies
working together to expand access to financial services for the poor in developing countries.
2 The World Bank evaluation did not include microfinance operations of the International Finance Corporation, an affil-
iated organization that invests in and provides technical assistance mainly to private sector entities.
A broader statement of lessons gleaned from In 2003, the World Bank’s Operations Evaluation
peer reviews of 17 CGAP member agencies can be Department (OED) launched an intensive review of
found in “Global Results: Analysis and Lessons,” a all World Bank lines of credit during the preceding
report of the Aid Effectiveness Initiative.3 decade, and asked CGAP to evaluate the subset
that involved microcredit. Technical assistance,
Introduction policy support, and several other types of projects
that contribute to broadening access to finance
During the past two decades, there has been a great were not included.
deal of enthusiasm about microfinance—that is, the In the case of UNDP, the agency volunteered
delivery of loans, savings, and other financial serv- along with 16 other CGAP members to participate
ices to poor and near-poor clients. Evidence is accu- in a “peer review” process. Mark Malloch Brown,
mulating that access to microloans produces the former administrator of UNDP, helped spear-
significant improvements in household welfare.4 head this phase of the CGAP aid effectiveness
Poor borrowers demonstrate that they value these initiative. During each peer review, specialists from
services highly: even though the loans are not col- other agencies and CGAP core staff assessed whether
lateralized, borrowers repay them faithfully in order the agency’s vision, policies, systems, staff, and
to keep access to future loans. What is more, bor- funding instruments were well-suited for effectively
rowers are willing to pay interest rates that cover all supporting microfinance.
the costs of lending. Well-run MFIs can become The UNDP peer review in late 2002 identified
financially sustainable, maintaining and expanding significant issues and recommended, among other
their services without need of continuing infusions steps, that the agency organize a project-by-project
of scarce subsidized money. Almost all official inter- evaluation of the results of its on-the-ground micro-
national development agencies include micro- finance portfolio.7 Malloch Brown promptly
finance in the portfolio of activities they fund. Over accepted the recommendation of an in-depth evalu-
the past quarter-century, a substantial body of ation and asked CGAP to carry it out.
sound practice norms for microfinance funders Anyone familiar with the normal behavior of
has developed.5 development agencies will recognize how unusual it
The World Bank and UNDP have been among is for them to submit their operations to evaluation
the larger providers of such funding, alongside the by another agency. The decisions of the World Bank
regional development banks and the European and the UNDP in this case were particularly coura-
Community.6 By 2002–03, both agencies decided geous: even though both agencies knew that the
to take a hard look at the effectiveness of their
microfinance work. 3 CGAP, April 2004, www.microfinancegateway.org/files/19649_hlm_
In the case of the World Bank, several limited- docu_globalresults.pdf.
4
scope internal studies over the preceding decade had Littlefield, Morduch, and Hashemi. “Is Microfinance an Effective
Strategy to Reach the Millennium Development Goals?” CGAP Focus
questioned the quality and results of “lines of
Note 24. Washington, D.C.: CGAP, 2003. www.cgap.org/docs/
credit”—projects where financial institutions used FocusNote_24.pdf.
World Bank money to fund loans to a target clien- 5 CGAP. “Building Inclusive Financial Systems: Donor Guidelines on
tele, including microentrepreneurs in some cases and Good Practice in Microfinance.” Washington, D.C.: CGAP, 2004.
www.cgap.org/docs/donorguidelines.pdf.
larger borrowers in others. These early studies sug-
6 World Bank spending for lines of microcredit averaged $140 million
gested that default by borrowers was unacceptably per year over the evaluation period. UNDP spending averaged $5.5 mil-
high and that the credit line projects often hurt lion of its own funds, supplemented by another $18.1 million of other
rather than strengthened the participating financial funds managed by UNDP, for a total averaging $23.6 million per year.
These are large amounts in absolute terms, but for both agencies, micro-
intermediaries. The World Bank adopted policies to
finance accounted for less than 1 percent of annual spending.
address these problems, but it was not clear how well 7 The report of the UNDP peer review can be found at www.cgap.
these policies were being implemented in practice. org/docs/PeerReview_UNDPUNCDF.pdf.
2
90071_01-12_3A.qxd 4/26/06 3:28 PM Page 3
loan approval and collection, were managed by the satisfactory, and concentrated instead on policy support and technical
assistance/training.
group members themselves without paid, profes- 9 Client-level impact studies have been conducted in a wide variety of mi-
sional supervision. Most or all of the lending crofinance projects. The methodology of some of these studies could be
to group members were financed with a capital challenged, but a mounting number of credible studies tend to find that
continued access to microfinance over the years produces a range of sig-
injection by the funding agency, usually in grant
nificant benefits for client households (cf. footnote 4). A number of groups
form. As described below, these revolving fund are now trying to develop inexpensive methods that simply track client
projects were judged by different standards than progress without establishing what caused that progress. Future years may
the MFI projects. see tracking reports of this latter type in more microfinance projects.
3
90071_01-12_3A.qxd 4/26/06 3:28 PM Page 4
Good Good
24% 21%
Unacceptable Unacceptable
45% 43%
Weak Weak
31% 36%
4
90071_01-12_3A.qxd 4/27/06 9:26 AM Page 5
Figure 2 Average Grade by Start of Year for ■ MFIs that do not meet performance standards are
UNDP and the World Bank dropped from the project, unless the technical
service provider is confident that the MFI man-
4 ager will correct the problem.
■ UNCDF’s specialized microfinance unit collabo-
3
rates closely with the country office in designing,
implementing, and monitoring the project.
Grade
2
The MicroStart program works. Out of 16
1 MicroStart projects, 11 achieved a rating of Good,
which is strong performance in a risky endeavor like
0 01
supporting MFIs. Of a total of 14 successful UNDP
00
93
03
96
94
02
98
99
95
97
20
20
19
20
19
19
20
19
19
Year
model or at least used a MicroStart-qualified technical
UNDP The World Bank service provider.
This finding is very encouraging: it suggests that
UNDP could radically improve the effectiveness of
with input from financial-sector specialists tended to its microfinance support by the simple expedient of
perform better and to be more accurately evaluated requiring that country offices implement the
by their managers.) core elements of the MicroStart program whenever
they fund retail microlending. The track record of
Improvement over Time? other approaches at UNDP is so bad as to justify
There was no evidence of substantial improvement prohibiting them.11
over time in either agency. See Figure 2.
Performance Reporting
Two Portfolios in UNDP With the exception of the MicroStart projects, rela-
Although the overall picture at UNDP was trou- tively few of the projects in either agency reliably and
bling, closer examination revealed that the agency consistantly reported performance in key areas such
had one model that was working well in most of as outreach, loan repayment, and cost recovery.
the microcredit projects that used it. Microfinance specialists have known for years that
The headquarters technical office that sup- projects that report better are likely to perform bet-
ported microfinance in UNDP was located in a sis- ter. This pattern held true in the UNDP and World
ter organization, the United Nations Capital Bank evaluations.
Development Fund (UNCDF). UNCDF’s micro-
finance unit had developed a model for supporting Community-Managed Revolving Loan Funds
microcredit providers called “MicroStart,” which Revolving fund projects are becoming increasingly
includes four main elements: popular. For instance, World Bank use of this model
climbed from 10 in 1993–1997 to 17 in 1998–2002.
■ Project implementation is done, or closely
Despite the easier standards applied to these revolv-
guided by, a technical service provider from a
prequalified list of providers that have already ing fund projects, their ratings were very low. In
demonstrated their ability to produce sustain- UNDP, 14 of the 66 projects were revolving funds:
able microfinance. not a single one got a Good rating, and 10 of them
were graded Unacceptable. At the World Bank, 23
■ There is regular reporting, including reporting
of key indicators such as number of clients, 11 The World Bank had no equivalent to MicroStart. However, the eval-
average loan size (a very rough proxy for client uation found that World Bank projects done by units with financial-
poverty), repayment, and cost recovery. sector expertise tended to perform better than other projects.
5
90071_01-12_3A.qxd 4/27/06 10:40 AM Page 6
out of 64 projects were revolving funds, only one Despite this general pattern, some microfinance
of which was rated Good. components performed well. In the final analysis,
In the UNDP and World Bank revolving fund the quality of technical input and management that
projects, loans to group members were financed the microfinance activity receives is more important
mainly by an up-front capital injection by a develop- than the project structure. Nevertheless, the impor-
ment agency or government. This kind of project tant point is that microfinance components in
practically never works well: most of the revolving multisector projects are less likely to get strong
funds don’t revolve for very long, because defaulters technical input and management.
expropriate the resources that were meant to fund
lending services for all group members over time. Government Involvement
A subsequent CGAP study of 70 revolving funds UNDP prides itself on its close partnership with
financed by various agencies produced similar local governments. The World Bank’s main funding
results. However, successes were found in two instrument is lending to governments. Both of
other community loan fund models: savings-based these factors seem to be comparative disadvantages
groups and “self-help groups.” In savings-based when it comes to microcredit funding.
groups, members are lending out funds they have UNDP projects were categorized according to
contributed through their own deposits, rather the degree of government involvement. Of the 66
than external funds from development agencies or graded projects, 25 had substantial government
governments. Not surprisingly, lending and collec- involvement in their design and implementation,
tion are much more careful in groups that are including direct retail delivery of microcredit by the
working with their own money. government in one case. Of the 25 “government-
In the self-help group model, which is the dom- intensive” projects, only one produced sustainable
inant form of microfinance in India, groups often loan repayment and cost recovery. Almost all of
begin by collecting and then lending out their own UNDP’s successes occurred in projects where gov-
savings, but some groups eventually get external ernment involvement was low.
loans from formal banks. Some of these self-help The World Bank projects were not tagged and
group programs appear to be working well, statistically analyzed for level of government
although a majority of them seem to be weak. involvement, but a similar dynamic was visible.
These results are consistent with experience in
Stand-Alone Projects versus Components other agencies, but need to be interpreted carefully.
Most World Bank microcredit funding took the Designing, delivering, or supervising good retail
form of one component among several in a multi- lending is hard for governments. Sound credit
sectoral project where most of the components delivery involves time-consuming pilot tests before
were nonfinancial. In UNDP, a quarter of the moving large numbers of loans, exclusion of high-
microcredit operations were components in multi- risk borrowers, interest rates that cover costs
sectoral projects. (which are higher for microloans than ordinary
In both agencies, the components lodged in loans), and vigorous loan collection. None of these
broader projects averaged a full grade or more things is politically popular. They all run counter to
lower than the stand-alone projects. The result is the practical incentives of even the sincerest work-
not surprising. When microcredit is only one com- ing politician, who has to maintain support in order
ponent among many, it is less likely to receive spe- to govern. There are occasional instances of gov-
cialized technical input, the task managers’ ernment banks in which stable, competent manage-
attention is more likely to be diluted, and financial- ment is effectively insulated from political pressure
service objectives are more likely to be swamped by and produces good microcredit. But these are very
other project objectives. much the exception rather than the rule and
6
90071_01-12_3A.qxd 5/1/06 11:26 AM Page 7
involve a constant push against the natural flow of MFIs. In the World Bank, projects tended to be
political dynamics and incentives. Retail lending larger, and disbursement pressure was probably more
tends to work best when government involvement of an issue.
is low.
This is not to say that government has no role in Why Has Quality Been So Low?
microfinance. The incentive problems just
mentioned are specific to credit activity, and don’t The root cause of the problems with microcredit in
necessarily apply when a government offers deposit both the World Bank and UNDP is not staff incom-
services, money transfers, or insurance. Thus, it is petence or lack of commitment to doing good work
considerably easier to find good government sav- for poor people. On the contrary, the evaluators found
ings services than good government credit pro- a general pattern of motivated, capable professionals
grams. Furthermore, government has a critical role facing incentive, information, and resource problems.
in providing macroeconomic stability and enabling
regulations when microfinance is ready to move Incentives
into the formal financial sector and take deposits.12 Approval and Disbursement Pressure. The binding
But almost all of UNDP’s government-intensive constraint in microcredit is more often a shortage of
microfinance projects supported lending, not competent retail-level institutions than a shortage of
deposit mobilization or regulatory policy support. funding. Insisting on sound practice norms in micro-
credit often means an agency must be more selective
Project Size in the institutions it will fund and must disburse per-
A number of projects in the UNDP portfolio are formance-based funding in installments that are tied
smaller than is normal in microfinance. In 17 proj- to specific achievements. This approach inevitably
ects, the total budget, including UNDP and other reduces the amount of microcredit funding an
contributions, was below $500,000; in 14 other agency can move. To this extent, sound practice runs
projects, total budget was below $1 million. counter to the incentives of funding agency staff.
UNDP’s own contribution to the project was often Development agencies always face pressure to
quite low, in absolute terms (17 projects had defend their budget and staff levels by disbursing
UNDP funding of less than $500,000) and also in high funding volumes. Not surprisingly, promotion
relative terms (UNDP funded half or less of the and other rewards for employees in such agencies
project in at least 27 cases). depend significantly on getting projects approved
Where the total project budget was below $1 mil- and disbursed. When positions rotate frequently, it is
lion, only a single project achieved a Good rating. difficult to hold staff accountable for project
The same is true where the UNDP contribution was results—results that may not be clear until years after
below $500,000. The main reason for this pattern the people who were responsible for the decisions
may be that smaller projects tend to get less serious have moved elsewhere. One consequence of these
attention from the country office staff. It is probably patterns is the observed fact that UNDP and the
more difficult to bring in high-quality technical World Bank have funded too much microcredit in
assistance for smaller investments, especially since circumstances where success was highly unlikely
the present demand for microfinance consultants is from the beginning.
stronger than the supply of good ones, with the This incentive to move funds is not likely to
result that the good ones command high fees. change radically. Most, if not all, development fund-
On the other hand, bigger is not always better. ing agencies face a similar problem, to a greater or
Projects with very large budgets may experience
12 Duflos and Imboden. “The Role of Governments in Microfinance.”
pressure to disburse money rapidly even where
CGAP Donor Brief 19. Washington, D.C.: CGAP, 2004. www.cgap.
there is not adequate absorptive capacity in the org/docs/DonorBrief_19.pdf.
7
90071_01-12_3A.qxd 4/26/06 3:28 PM Page 8
lesser extent. The problem is widely recognized and agement decisions. Even though institutional capac-
deplored. Occasionally someone tries to fix it, but ity is the binding constraint more often than fund-
no one appears to have come close to eliminating ing is, governments usually don’t want to borrow to
it. The problem seems to be inherent in public finance technical assistance and other capacity
funding agencies, so that the best one can expect is building, because they don’t see these activities as
to control it, helping people make better decisions generating resources to repay a loan.
by providing them with information about good By contrast, UNDP grants are a somewhat more
practices, by developing sound corporate guide- flexible funding vehicle. Nevertheless, UNDP faces
lines, and especially by creating countervailing the same problem as the World Bank—a tendency
incentives, such as mandatory performance report- toward excessive government input in credit proj-
ing and real enforcement of policies that ects. UNDP’s culture of seeking especially close and
incorporate good practice norms.13 cooperative relationships with host-country govern-
Government priorities. Another incentive prob- ments is highly useful in some other areas of devel-
lem has to do with the two agencies’ relationship to opment, but doesn’t work well for microcredit.
host governments. UNDP prides itself on main- Problems that stem from institutional incentives
taining an especially close partnership with local cannot always be fixed by giving staff better infor-
governments and being more supportive of their mation. The incentive structure has to be realigned.
plans and aspirations than some other development Policy pronouncements need practical enforcement
agencies are. Similarly, the World Bank in recent
mechanisms. The two agencies need to find a way
years has laid special stress on becoming more
to ensure that credit projects managed by non-
client-responsive—clients being mainly the govern-
specialists get help from, and effective review by,
ments that borrow from the Bank.
financial services experts. Mandatory reporting of
The problems of government involvement in
core performance results is another powerful incen-
retail lending have been indicated above.
tive to design projects with care and to fix or end
Nevertheless, microcredit is currently very popular
them promptly when they don’t perform.
with governments, who are attracted both by the
“Tightening the screws” through process
promise of welfare benefits for their countries’ poor
requirements mandated by headquarters runs
population and by the political appeal of massive
against the grain in both agencies. UNDP has, and
loan programs. When a government is anxious to
probably should preserve, a culture of country
have a credit project in a particular place, or wants
office independence—headquarters constraints on
to exercise its authority over the operation, it is
hard for development agency staff to say no. An project operations are not embraced warmly. For its
agency’s refusal to accede to government wishes part, the World Bank has been trying hard in recent
can entail substantial costs, including souring of the years to simplify its bureaucratic processes. These
relationship, reduced ability to move funding, and orientations in both agencies are healthy, and man-
sometimes career consequences for the staff agement is rightly hesitant to add more rules,
involved. approval requirements, and reporting burdens. The
As noted earlier, the World Bank faces a particu- evaluation findings confronted UNDP and the
lar constraint: while most good microcredit is deliv- World Bank with a basic question: was the problem
ered by private organizations, the World Bank’s with their microcredit performance serious enough
predominant funding instrument is large loans to to justify making changes that may have some draw-
governments. Such loans are, or course, subject to backs from other perspectives?
the incentive problems mentioned above. In addi-
13 The World Bank’s long-standing official policy on lines of credit is
tion, even money destined for private microfinance
well aligned with sound practice norms. But this evaluation, like several
providers has to pass through the government, previous studies, revealed a lack of effective enforcement mechanisms to
often resulting in government involvement in man- ensure implementation of that policy.
8
90071_01-12_3A.qxd 4/26/06 3:28 PM Page 9
9
90071_01-12_3A.qxd 5/1/06 11:27 AM Page 10
financial services experts and transparency about agencies benefited from this expertise. Here
results will be helpful. again, the factors that prevent use of in-house
expertise vary from one agency to another, so
■ Meaningful reporting of a few core perform-
the appropriate remedial actions will vary.
ance indicators will probably improve aver-
age credit project performance markedly.15 Note that in some other problem areas
Staff in many development agencies are already (e.g., environmental impact of projects), many
burdened by too many reporting requirements, agencies require approval by designated techni-
some of which are not much related to project cal specialists before a project can move for-
effectiveness. So the recommendation to insist ward. Adding to the list of formal clearances
on specific reporting for all credit projects is required before a project is launched has
made reluctantly. But funders will continue to significant costs, including delay and dilution
lose resources in too many unsound microcredit of responsibility. Agencies require such clear-
projects unless meaningful project performance ances only when management is convinced that
reporting within the agency becomes the norm. they are needed to deal with a major problem.
Such performance reporting improves informa- An individual agency has to decide whether it
tion, but more important, it alters incentives. If has that kind of a problem with microfinance. 17
core indicators of outreach, loan collection, and ■ Community-managed revolving loan funds,
cost recovery are meaningfully reported within where the lending is funded mainly by a
the agency, then projects will be designed more development agency’s injection of capital and
carefully, attention will be better focused on the there is no professional management or over-
crucial dimensions of performance, and failed sight, should be abandoned as a delivery
activities will be terminated more quickly.16 mechanism, because the odds of success are
■ Generalist core staff who are responsible for unacceptably low. This conclusion does not
microfinance projects need some level of apply to savings-based funds, where the outside
microfinance literacy to do effective work. funder provides promotion, organization, and
Agencies cannot expect outside expertise to training/technical assistance, but injects no out-
produce good projects unless their own staff are side money into the group for on-lending, or
aware of basic microfinance principles. For most injects outside money in amounts that are both
staff, this means at least a few days of training, modest in comparison with the group’s own sav-
along with other means to disseminate good ings and made available only after the group has
practice messages. Such training will not turn proved successful in lending its own savings and
them into experts, but it will teach them how to collecting these loans. Likewise, the conclusion
think about microfinance, prevent some basic does not embrace the self-help group model as
errors, and improve the likelihood that the con- used in India, where the groups sometimes take
sultant experts they hire will be competent. This out loans from banks that are perceived as being
training can be expensive in the context of other serious about repayment.
demands on staff time and limited travel and
15 The indicators are outreach (number and economic status of clients),
training budgets. But the absence of training has
cost-recovery, loan collection, and efficiency (reasonable administrative
proven to be much more expensive.
costs). Guidance on calculating and interpreting these indicators can be
■ Agencies need to improve mechanisms, found at www.microfinancegateway.org/content/article/detail/32627.
incentives, and resources for bringing finan- 16 The list of indicators an MFI ought to report to its stakeholders, in-
cial-services expertise to bear on project cluding a funding agency, is fairly long—cf. www.cgap.org/docs/Guideline_
design and implementation. Having in-house disclosure.pdf. However, reporting within the funding agency itself can
be limited to a few basic indicators, including outreach, loan repayment,
microfinance specialists is important. But they
cost recovery, and efficiency. For a practical guide to calculating and
won’t have much effect if they are not used by
interpreting these core indicators, see www.microfinancegateway.org/
the others who are designing and managing
content/article/detail/32627.
microfinance projects. The World Bank has 17 As noted in the next section, both the World Bank and UNDP have
some top-flight microfinance experts, and adopted measures that ensure the design of microcredit projects will be
UNDP had one of the strongest headquarters reviewed by in-house specialists. However, at the World Bank, and to a
technical units of any of CGAP’s member agen- lesser extent at UNDP, rules for cross-charging in-house technical sup-
cies, but only a minority of projects in both port still make it more difficult to hire internal experts.
10
90071_01-12_3A.qxd 5/1/06 11:27 AM Page 11
■ Development agencies should usually avoid ■ Lines of credit that did not report specific key
credit projects where a government agency is performance indicators would not be given a
the retail provider of loans, or where the satisfactory evaluation rating.
government is actively involved in designing
■ Semi-annual project status reports and final
or supervising the credit delivery system.
completion reports would be required to
Nevertheless, such projects can be successful in
include core performance indicators agreed to
some unusual circumstances, so they should not
be prohibited completely. when the line of credit was approved.
Management agreed to designate an officer
■ Credit projects tend to perform poorly if who would regularly review all reports on lines
their amount is too small to command suit- of credit for compliance with this policy.
able expertise and management attention.
Microfinance components that are embedded ■ The overall quality of the Bank’s line-of-credit
in larger projects tend to perform less well, projects would be reviewed again in two years.
not only because they may attract insufficient UNDP. CGAP’s evaluation report was formally
expertise and management attention, but delivered to UNDP early in 2005 and disseminated
also because the project’s other objectives in the agency. The findings were taken seriously:
sometimes distort the financial services com- UNDP’s executive team approved an action plan
ponent. Microfinance components should not with the key recommendations of the Peer Review
be completely prohibited, because some of them and the Portfolio Review before mid-year.
perform well. However, inclusion of such a Subsequently, the new administrator of UNDP,
component in a larger nonfinancial project is a
Kemal Dervis, reviewed the evaluation and
risk factor that has to be addressed. Designers of
such components need to ensure that the micro- endorsed a strong program to improve UNDP’s
finance activity has solid technical input, suffi- effectiveness in microfinance. The agency adopted
cient management attention, and regular the executive team’s recommendations, some of
reporting of core performance indicators. which represent departures from normal UNDP
operations and culture. In particular, quality
How Have World Bank and UNDP of country programming will be ensured by UNDP
Management Responded? regional bureaus joining with UNCDF to provide
technical support and oversight for microfinance
in country offices. Additional changes included
The World Bank. When management received the
the following:
Bank evaluation department’s review of lines of credit
in October 2004, it responded with strong decisions: ■ Whenever UNDP funds (or administers others’
funding for) microlending, it will use the prin-
■ Regional and country units were instructed to ciples of the MicroStart program:
flag all new projects containing any line of
credit and submit them to the Bank’s network ■ Implementation will be guided by a tech-
of financial-sector specialists. (A year later, nical service provider with a proven track
after finding that most but not all lines of record of producing sustainable micro-
credit were complying with this rule, manage- finance, drawn from UNCDF’s list of
ment instituted a check-box on the cover sheet qualified providers.
for all new project appraisals, making it much ■ Regional microfinance specialists, who
easier to find lines of credit.) report jointly to UNCDF and their
■ Every line of credit would have to be reviewed regional bureau, will participate with the
by financial-sector specialists before the project country offices in design, implementa-
was approved, including, at a minimum, a rep- tion, and monitoring. A specialist certifies
resentative of the central financial-sector unit. that each new credit project complies with
UNDP microfinance policy.
■ The Bank’s quality assurance unit would over-
sample line-of-credit projects in its quality- ■ Key performance indicators will be repor-
at-entry and quality-of-supervision samples for ted every quarter to a public database, using
the next two years. industry-standard calculation methods.
11
90071_01-12_3A.qxd 5/1/06 11:27 AM Page 12
projects and update the policy as funding for microfinance projects are Focus Note with your
responsible for designing or imple- operations that funded microcredit, and your comments on this paper.
managed revolving loan fund proj- demonstrate their seriousness about Washington, DC 20433 USA
ects in which the loans are funded doing good microfinance work.
Tel: 202-473-9594
by UNDP infusions.18
18 Fax: 202-522-3744
This prohibition does not apply to UNDP funding for
UNDP’s new microfinance regime organization, training, and ongoing support of savings-
Email:
includes actions of real substance that based revolving funds. Likewise, it does not apply to mod-
cgap@worldbank.org
els like Indian self-help groups where the group starts out
directly address the core problems iden-
by lending out its members’ savings but later may borrow
tified by the evaluation. Implementation from a bank, as long as the bank in question has a track
of this regime will no doubt entail some record of being serious about collecting its loans.
■■■
References
CGAP. “Building Inclusive Financial Systems: Donor Guidelines on Good Practice in Microfinance.” Wash-
ington, D.C.: CGAP, 2004. www.cgap.org/docs/donorguidelines.pdf.
———. “Global Results: Analysis and Lessons.” CGAP Aid Effectiveness Initiative. Washington, D.C.: CGAP,
April 2004. www.microfinancegateway.org/files/19649_hlm_docu_globalresults.pdf.
———. “United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and United Nations Capital Development Fund
(UNCDF) Letter to Management.” 2002. www.cgap.org/docs/PeerReview_UNDPUNCDF.pdf.
Duflos, Eric, and Kathryn Imboden. “The Role of Governments in Microfinance.” CGAP Donor Brief 19.
Washington, D.C.: CGAP, 2004. www.cgap.org/docs/DonorBrief_19.pdf.
Littlefield, Elizabeth, Jonathan Morduch, and Syed Hashemi. “Is Microfinance an Effective Strategy to Reach
the Millennium Development Goals?” Focus Note 24. Washington, D.C.: CGAP, 2003.
www.cgap.org/docs/FocusNote_24.pdf.