Tag Archives: microfinance

Kiva, Marketised Philanthropy and the Mythology of the Poor


I have been reading some pretty interesting articles that look at Kiva and the whole concept of democratised microcredit as development from a different angle. In my opinion the articles bring up some good points, and from the lectures it seems that most people are pretty keen on Kiva, so I thought that for the discussion post, I would present my take on these views and see what people’s views are.

The two main articles I have based my argument around are Marketized Philanthropy: Kiva’s Utopian Ideology of Entrepreneurial Philanthropy, by Domen Badje, and A Critique of the Discourse of Marketized Philanthropy, by Patricia Nickel and Angela Eikenberry.

Marketised philanthropy is the adoption of free market principles in the field of philanthropy (Eikenberry and Kluver 2004). This can be seen in the case of Kiva, where loans, not unilateral, non-contractual donations are provided for poverty alleviation (Bajde 2013).

Marketised philanthropy tends to narrow the discussion of what social progress is, and how it could be achieved, thereby limiting it’s ability to provoke comprehensive social transformation (Edwards 2010).

Mythology of the “Working Poor”

Kiva’s slogan is “We let you loan to the working poor” (Barry 2012), and Kiva’s story is on in which our ideas about the hopelessness of poverty are replaced with the triumphant imagery of impoverished individuals using microloans to “lift” themselves by their proverbial bootstraps, out of poverty (Bajde 2013).

Philanthropy is an inherently ideological exercise, as philanthropic acts bring about a sense of empowerment and identification in philanthropists, it is through these acts that they can attempt to implement their moral vision of what constitutes a “good society” (Friedman and McGarvie, 2003).
Bajde (2013) argues that Kiva is incredibly ideological in it’s approach, the ideology of entrepreneurial philanthropy, which presents with a strong reliance on entrepreneurial values and beliefs, and contractual (economic) arrangements. This ideology promotes a flattering representation of Kiva lenders as socially aware, and of the lender-borrower relationship as a dignified, equal business partnership, as opposed to an undignified benefactor-recipient relationship. This egalitarian relationship promotes Kiva as morally superior to traditional forms of philanthropy.

Two years ago I traipsed through Kenya and Tanzania and I saw something that shattered the images the media always show us to portray the region (violence and passive helplessness): really hardworking people limited only by their means. I want to help. Not out of guilt or a sense of North- South fairness, but just because I hate to see human potential go to waste.’ (Louis-Eric, male, Canada)
I have been a business owner and entrepreneur for many years and firmly believe in the talent and optimism of the individual . . . I am anxious to see the results of my lending and look forward to passing the word and changing the world – one person at a time! (Shirley, female, Canada)
I believe one’s appetite for work should be the only barrier to success and consider it a privilege to put some of my capital out there to make a difference for a few enterprising people. (StevePPS, male, USA)

The above examples in Bajde (2013), show how lenders identify with the borrowers’ entrepreneurial qualities and see the loan as an affirmation of their personal moral beliefs.

In her 2010 TED conference talk, co-founder Jessica Jackley, in describing her reasons for creating Kiva, describes the traditional way of approaching poverty alleviation, such as foreign aid, as being about helplessness, dependence and imperialism. In contrast she presents micro lending as hopeful and facilitating agency, a way for individuals to lift themselves out of poverty with just a little help.


Jackley contrast beggars with the ‘working poor’, the ‘working poor’ are presented as worthy individuals, who have a strong work ethic, and entrepreneurial prowess, they are not looking for a hand out, they are now business partners (Bajde 2013).

“Imagine how you feel when you see someone on the street who is begging … Imagine how you feel. And then imagine the difference when you see somebody, who has a story of entrepreneurship and hard work … somebody with full hands, with something to offer, not empty hands asking for you to give them something.” (Jackley 2010)

Jackley is equating morality with specific values, the “working poor” are hard working, they have jobs instead of being beggars on the street. However does this mean that people living on the street are immoral or somehow less worthy?

From our learning this semester we are all too aware that microfinance doesn’t reach the poorest of the poor, and language like that which Jackley uses reinforces the neoliberal view that people who are experiencing hardship have somehow done something to deserve it, that there is enough wealth to go around, and if only the poor had a more entrepreneurial spirit, they wouldn’t be in the situation in which they find themselves (Bajde 2013). Making a blanket call that aid is patronising and ineffective, and linking entrepreneurship and worth, betrays a lack of understanding about the structural causes of poverty and inequality.

David Roodman (2013) in writing about Kiva’s misleading practice of presenting the loans as person-to-person, when in fact the loans had been approved before appearing on the website, admitted that

Kiva has thrived while mythologising the power of microcredit because storytelling works.

Despite the knowledge that we have now as a result of our learning this semester, about how microloans are often spent on day to day expenses and that the effects on poverty are varied and rarely result in significant improvements. Kiva tells an easy story, the borrowers are poor, but they have the “entrepreneurial spirit”, which makes them better somehow, and our loans, which we give so altruistically, “lift” them out of poverty.

The Problem With Marketised Philanthropy

Nickel and Eikenberry (2009) place our discussion about microcredit within the larger neoliberal global capitalist system, the push for smaller government has put more responsibility on the private sector and now individuals to solve larger social and environmental problems, such as poverty and inequality, while celebrity endorsement of philanthropy has led to greater awareness and desire for individuals to become involved.

However when we as individuals want to engage in social or philanthropic action, we find that the only space in which we can do this, is the market, which I would argue is one of the major causes of inequality and social problems. The lack of alternative spaces is not because of a lack of benevolence, but because of the encroachment of the market into all spaces in which profit can be made. Thus consumerism becomes the most common means of expressing political action (Ibid).

The idea behind marketised philanthropy is as that we cannot overcome the global capitalist system, but by engaging with it we can cause positive change, for example by buying certain products which donate to charity. However as Agger (1989) argues, one must have distance from that which one would critique in order to imagine alternatives.

The crux of Nickel and Eikenberry’s (2009) argument is that the most important aspect of philanthropy is it’s potential for social transformation, and that marketised philanthropy depoliticises the issues by removing negative associations between the market and social problems, which strips philanthropy of it’s transformative potential.

Marketised philanthropy is insidious as it gives the lender the impression that they are giving back, when in fact they are engaging with the structures that take away. Philanthropic products, such as Kiva tell a story of the benevolence of the market, however if we are to engage capitalism in the championing of causes that aim to eradicate poverty, we must recognise that capitalism created the need for such philanthropy in the first place (Ibid).

Nickel and Eikenberry (2009) argue that without the political element, philanthropy does not recognise that social and environmental problems are rooted in inequality, and therefore is not a viable means toward meaningful social change. Furthermore, that the best way to end suffering is not to provide money, but to give voice to those who suffer, they evidence labour organising (Caesar Chavez), political leadership (Eugene Debs and Jane Addams) and social movement leadership (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) as being more in line with transformative philanthropic alternatives.

What do you think? I would argue that we cannot affect large scale structural change through microfinance alone, and I believe that there is certainly an element of futility in attempting to change problems of poverty and inequality from within the structures that cause poverty and inequality.
However does this mean that the impact that microfinance has is piecemeal? And if so, would it be worthwhile focusing on alternatives?
Are loans and debt and capitalism and free trade the only means that we have available to help people? Should we be raising our voices and stamping our feet to give voice to those who have less than us? Or is money the best way to exercise our voice?


Agger, B. (1989) “Fast capitalism: A critical theory of significance”, Urbana, University of Illinois Press

Bajde, D (2013) “Marketised Philanthropy: Kiva’s Utopian Ideology of Entrepreneurial Philanthropy” Marketing Theory, 13(3), pp. 3-18

Barry, J (2012) “Microfinance, the Market and Political Development in the Internet Age” Third World Quarterly, 33(1), pp. 125-141

Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004) “The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?”
Public Administration Review, 64, pp. 132-140.

Friedman, L.J. and McGarvie, M.D. (2003) Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nickel, P. M., and Eikenberry, A. M., (2009) “A Critique of the Discourse of Marketized Philanthropy”, American Behavioural Scientist, 52(7), pp. 974-989

Roodman, David “Kiva Is Not Quite What It Seems” in Centre for Global Development blog accessed 8 May 2013 <http://www.cgdev.org/blog/kiva-not-quite-what-it-seems&gt;


Afghani Women, Empowerment, and Microfinance


“A woman is not beaten by her husband because she has done something wrong. She is beaten just because he feels like it.” (Bangladeshi woman in Schuler and Hashemi 1998)

There were many different points of interest in the lecture Yaso gave, as it was the topic with which I connected most strongly, I have decided to engage with her discussion of the article “Afghan Values or Women’s Rights?” and her argument that when working in the field, we need to work within the systems of the society in which we are placed, even though they may clash with our personal values.

I found the introduction of microfinance into a post conflict society such as Afghanistan interesting. As a student of peace building, I have learnt that post conflict societies tend to experience a backlash against new rights that women may have acquired during conflict (Burnet 2012, Meintjes, Pillay and Turshen 2001, Pankhurst 2003, SAP 2002), eg. the phenomenon of women entering traditionally male roles to deal with the absence of men.

This backlash is usually cloaked in language referring to a “restoration”, or a “return”, to a romanticised idea of pre war society and “tradition” (Pankhurst 2003, Hoogensen and Vigeland Rottem 2004).

The post conflict environment in which men, and the patriarchy in general, are reasserting their dominance over women, lends itself to an increased risk of domestic violence (Pankhurst 2003).

As a result, I was very interested to read the articles about Afghani women, their rights, and how their situations changed with their involvement in microfinance.

As I argued last week, we, meaning those of us living in western society, tend to assume that engagement in economic activity will bring empowerment to poor women living in the “third world”.

However, those of us lucky enough to study microfinance, including myself, are more than aware of the complexities of women’s involvement in microfinance, we have learned of the pitfalls that come from poor loan usage, or predatory lending, leading to unmanageable debt, family breakdown, and social ostracisation.

It was this understanding that led me to look closely at not simply whether involvement in microfinance empowered the Afghani women in the Kabeer, Kahn and Aldparvar (2011) article, but how it affected their experience of domestic violence in a highly patriarchal, post conflict society.

In looking at Afghani women’s empowerment, I found an interesting tension between the arguments of Kabeer et al (2011) article, and that of Barakat and Wardell (2002). While neither desires to paint Afghani women as “victims” or remove their agency, their portrayals of life within a highly patriarchal society for an average Afghani woman were strikingly different. 

As a result of growing up in a Christian, western, neo liberal, democracy, I had not known a lot about Panchayat and Syariah law, if anything, the views I had held were negative.

Dr. Nadarajah’s lecture challenged my pre-existing views, when she explained that these laws were not inherently misogynistic.

Barakat and Warell (2002) contend that we need to look at Afghani women through Afghani eyes, and that western feminism can’t be applied. They argue that even though Afghani women are not active in the public sphere, that they have great influence and decision making power within the home and community.

However, this contention is at odds with the results of Kabeer et al’s (2011) fieldwork, which shows a society in which women consistently find themselves with less rights than men.

While Kabeer et al (2011) agree that the Qu’ran holds women in high esteem, they argue that there is a disconnect between how women are seen in the religious texts, and how they are treated in real life. Though the Qu’ran exalts mothers and wives, and Afghani patriarchy is based on a system of mutual rights and responsibilities, in reality they women bear more responsibilities and it is the men who enjoy most of the rights (Kabeer et al 2002). 

Kabeer et al (2011) confirmed my suspicions that in the post conflict period, the problems of patriarchal society; psychosocial trauma resulting from war; emasculation from loss of breadwinner status; and war time socialisation towards violent forms of conflict resolution, compounded, and led to increased domestic violence.

Despite women’s involvement in microfinance, they were not financially independent, and were unable and/or unwilling to leave their husbands. The patriarchal society creates a disincentive for women to divorce, through the elimination custodial rights for women, to their children (Kabeer et al 2011).

One woman said that her husband was “psychotic”, she divorced him, but at the cost of her three sons (Kabeer et al 2011).

While Kabeer et al (2002) do not claim to represent all Afghani women in their sample, they do provide several strong accounts of women who have experienced domestic violence. Through this we see that Barakat and Wardell’s (2002) theory doesn’t seem to be able to account for the concerns that are raised in Kabeer’s fieldwork.


Barakat and Wardel (2002) discuss Pashtun refugees in UNHCR camps in Pakistan. As their men were away fighting it was the women who learned to organise and made decisions that would previously have been done jointly.

However in presenting this opportunity for empowerment, Barakat and Wardell (2002) fail to acknowledge the very real phenomenon of the loss of women’s empowerment with post conflict refugee and IDP repatriation.

While women in refugee and IDP camps do tend to organise collectively and gain greater decision making power, when these communities are lost as a result of repatriation and the return of men, women do not tend to consolidate their civil rights gains, and gender relations revert back to pre-existing norms (Meintjes, Pillay and Turshen 2001).

Both Kabeer et al (2011) and Schuler and Hashemi (1998) found that women’s involvement in microfinance alone was not consistent with a reduction in the incidence of domestic violence. The Schuler and Hashemi (1998) study found that the highest level of domestic violence was in fact within communities in which transformation of gender roles were underway. While Kabeer et al (2011) found that domestic violence was more likely if the loan money had been misused, leading to financial problems.

Both (Kabeer et al 2011, Schuler and Hashemi 1998) suggested that in such highly patriarchal societies violence against women was commonplace, and legitimised by the authority which men held over women. In some households women contributing to household income reduces stress, and in others in creates a new arena for hostility (Schuler and Hashemi 1998).

Kabeer et al (2011) argue that it is not surprising that in such a highly patriarchal society microfinance has not had a huge effect on the empowerment of women, however as they argue “we should notice the subtle shifts in agency, and almost imperceptible widening of the sphere of women’s social interactions.”

As Dr Nadarajah and Barakat and Wardell (2002) argued, we need to work within the system of the society in which we are placed. Though I agree with this, I must acknowledge that it is easier to say than to actually do. The following example illustrates the complexities associated with this approach:

“Once a member’s husband beat his wife while a Grameen Bank meeting was in progress, in front of all those assembled. He wanted to money she had saved to pay the loan instalment for gambling. The Bank worked admonished him, saying, “have you no decency, beating your wife in front of us?” (Schuler and Hashemi 1998)

 One Grameen Bank member opined that as most Grameen Bank staff were men, they would be less likely to want to intervene, and that the use of the phrase “in front of us” was used so as not to challenge the man’s authority to beat his wife if he so desired (Schuler and Hashemi 1998).

In the same study, one Grameen Bank staff member said:

“We never directly tell the men in the village not to beat their wives, because they might get angry with us if we did that.”

In this way we can see how the staff members are also working within the system in which they are placed, however is this ok? To what extent should we bend our morals to fit within those of the new culture? A greater issue, which is too large for this blog post alone is, are there some rights which we should hold universal? Or should all rights be looked at on a culture by culture basis? And as Barakat and Wardell (2002) argued, there is no such thing as “Afghani Women”, they are not homogenous, and in choosing a cultural relativism or universal human rights approach, aren’t we always going to be clashing with someone’s views?



Barakat, S., and Wardell, G., (2002) “Exploited by Whom? An Alternative Perspective on Humanitarian Assistance to Afghan Women” Third World Quarterly, 23(5) pp. 909-930

Burnet, J. (2012) “Situating Sexual Violence in Rwanda (1990-2001): Sexual Agency, Sexual Consent, and the Political Economy of War”African Studies Review, 55(2) pp. 97-118

Pankhurst, D (2003) “The ‘Sex War’ and Other Wars: Towards a Feminist Approach to Peace Building” Development Practice, 13(2-3), pp. 154 – 177

South Asia Partnership, (2002) Women and Leadership: Voice for Security and Development – Forum Report, accessed 22/4/2013

Kabeer, N., Khan, A., and Adlparvar, N., (2011) “Afghan values or Women’s Rights? Gendered Narratives about Continuity and Change in Urban Afghanistan” IDS Working Paper, 387, Institute of Development Studies, London

Hoogensen, G., and Vigeland Rottem, S., (2004) “Gender Identity and the Subject of Security”, Security Dialouge, 35(2) pp. 155-171

Meintjes,S., Pillay, A., and Turshen, M., (eds.) (2001) “The Aftermath: Women in Post Conflict Transformation” Zed Books, London