Microfinance and Poverty in Bolivia

Both in its institutional range and in its penetration of financial markets, the microfinance sector in Bolivia rivals any in the world, and has played a major part in extracting the macro-economy from meltdown since the mid-1980s. We seek specifically to assess its impact on poverty, and do this through small-sample surveys on four microfinance institutions, two urban and two rural, using a range of poverty concepts: income (generated both through the borrower's enterprise and through the labour market), asset holdings and diversity, and various measures of vulnerability. All the institutions studied had, on balance, positive impacts on income and asset levels, with income impacts correlating negatively with income on account of poor households choosing to invest in low-risk, low-return assets. Microfinance may, however, augment vulnerability: average debt-service ratios of microfinance clients are disturbingly high, and if the coping mechanisms used by borrowers fail, borrowers may be forced out of the microfinance system, possibly resulting in decapitalisation and impoverishment. Poorer households are more restricted in their choice of coping strategy, and many as a consequence 'choose' coping strategies more likely to jeopardise their long-term income prospects, in particular asset sales and cuts in children's schooling. The more successful low-income borrowers are those who have voluntary savings deposits and do not rush into fixed capital purchases too early: collapse back into poverty is associated with multiple crises and the failure of one or more 'safety nets', in particular of one or more 'safety nets', in particular support from a member's solidarity group. The following actions appear to be promising for the further reduction of poverty in Bolivia: stronger efforts to mobilise rural savings, removal of lower limits on loan size, and the introduction of appropriate insurance mechanisms. In comparison with other anti-poverty measures, microfinance appears to be successful and relative cheap at reducing the poverty of those close to the poverty line, but ineffective, by comparison with labour-market and infrastructural measures, in reducing extreme poverty.