De la Educación Especial a la atención a la diversidad

Microcredit has impacted the poor in various aspects via improving their accessibility to credit, and such impacts can be classified as economic impacts and non-economic or social impacts (World Bank, 2006). By extending small collateral-free loans to underprivileged people at affordable costs, microcredit enables its borrowers to actively take up job-creating activities which generate a range of improvements in their economic conditions. Islam (2007) notes that microcredit can positively impact the poor’s welfare in terms of income, employment, assets/capital accumulation, and productivity. According to Islam (2007, p101), microcredit can create a ‘virtuous circle’ for poor borrowers: low income, credit, investment, more income, more credit, more investment, and more income. The continued growth in income will then push

up the total consumption levels of the households, which constitutes an immediate welfare result from borrowing from microcredit programmes. In addition, enhanced income from borrowing encourages the poor to increase investment in working capital (for example, raw materials, seeds, and fertilisers) and assets (physical, such as machinery, and financial such as cash savings). As the microcredit loan is repaid in small instalments at relatively short intervals (usually one week), it is easy for a borrower to pay the instalment from their income while leaving the original capital untouched (Aghion and Morduch, 2005; Hossain and Diaz, 1999). Capital/assets accumulation, which is a long-lived welfare effect brought about by microcredit, in turn reinforces the income-generating capabilities of borrowers (Islam, 2007).

Microcredit also contributes greatly to borrowers’ productivity, which is a crucial determinant of the economic condition of the rural poor (Islam, 2007). For example, financial support from microcredit allows the poor to invest in high-yielding varieties and advanced technology, which significantly stimulates productivity and promotes production. According to Islam (2007), increased productivity is important for a ‘concomitant’ and ‘secular’ rise in income, which is crucial for rural poverty reduction. Furthermore, microcredit also creates employment opportunities for a vast under-utilised labour resource by undertaking economic activities on a self-employed basis. As the self-businesses expand over time, more labour is demanded. On the other hand, owing to the advantages of self-employment such as flexible working time and low opportunity costs in terms of foregone household production, a number of microcredit borrowers substitute self-employment for wage employment (Islam, 2007; Hossain and Diaz, 1999). The wage employment opportunities given up by microcredit borrowers may be pursued by those who, for example, cannot obtain microcredit loans to start self-businesses. As a result, the total employment is improved through the intervention of microcredit.

Microcredit has been universally accepted as an efficient tool for fighting poverty due to its positive impact on the poor households’ economic well-being such as increasing

income/consumption levels and creating employment opportunities. In addition, microcredit has the potential to empower the poor, women in particular, which reflects the social impact of microcredit. Microcredit generally targets poor women who are the most marginalised group among the poor in many developing countries, being both economically and socially disadvantaged (Ang, 2004). The rationale for lending to women also relates to the fact that women are a better credit risk and have a greater tendency to use increased earnings to improve their family’s well-being, compared to male borrowers (Ang, 2004; Mourji, 2000).

Osmani (2007) described how poor women can be empowered through participation in microcredit programmes. First, microcredit enables poor women to earn an independent income and contribute financially to their families, which immediately raises their self-esteem as well as their esteem in the eyes of others. This is supposed to give women greater power within the household. Second, women will free themselves from the narrow confines of household precincts and move into a wider world in the process of taking out loans and using loans to initiate income-generating activities. The exposure to the outside world, together with the formation of networks with other women in the community, is expected to help women foster self-confidence and courage so as to exercise more power both within and outside households. Women’s empowerment can be manifested in various dimensions, such as increased decision-making, a more equitable status of women in the family and community, and being more active and mobile in participating in social networks and the commercialisation process (Cheston and Kuhn, 2002; Maclsaac, 1997).

Malhotra, Schuler, and Boender (2002) further point out that women become more conscious about the quality of their life and family welfare as a result of empowerment, leading to beneficial effects on other outcomes including fertility control, child health and education, and household well-being. For example, a study by Schuler, Hashemi, and Riley, (1997) reveals that poor women in Bangladesh become empowered from participation in microcredit programmes. Such

empowerment leads to more use of contraceptives, which greatly contributes to reducing fertility rates in Bangladesh. The authors emphasised that the reduction in fertility rates substantially helped ameliorate poverty situations through population control given the limited natural and financial resources available in most developing countries such as Bangladesh.

According to Basher (2007, p1), microcredit functions as a catalyst in transforming its participants from a “passive credit recipient to a well responsive and active agent in economic and non-economic aspects of life”. Because of the potential to reduce poverty and empower women, microcredit plays a major role in many countries’ gender and development strategies.

However, microcredit can have negative impacts on the poor as well. Islam (2007) found that microcredit borrowers who are extremely poor experienced a further deterioration rather than improving their situation. Islam (2007) noted that those who experience further deterioration are either trapped in previous debts from informal lenders so that they could not use microcredit loans for productive purposes; or for any natural calamity or illness, or sudden incidents such as theft or death of livestock purchased with microcredit loans. Likewise, Maclsaac (1997) observes that microcredit is less effective, or even counter-productive, in helping the poorest of the poor to raise their living standards. This may be because the worse-off borrowers use the loans only for consumption or invest in less risky (and generally less remunerative) activities compared to the better-off borrowers who tend to invest in riskier and more productive ventures including technological improvements, which provide opportunities for generating a greater income to improve their living standards.

Considering these negative impacts, microcredit, or credit in a wider sense, cannot ultimately reduce poverty by itself, and it will be more effective when combined with other financial interventions such as savings and insurance (Islam, 2007; Maclsaac, 1997). For example, Islam (2007) emphasises that accessibility to reliable and

monetised saving facilities can improve the economic security of the extremely poor and it is only when they acquire some economic security that accessibility to credit can help lift them out of poverty by increasing the productivity of their businesses or creating new sources of livelihood. Khandker (1998) suggests that the ultra-poor need initial help provided by public work programmes to get over the food, health, or labour market thresholds before they can respond to the positive changes brought by any financial programmes.