HTML last revised 10th October, 2003.Microfinance as a tool to encourage enterprise development, poverty alleviation or the empowerment of women has spread worldwide in the last 25 years. Since the formalisation of the lending activities of the eminent Mohammed Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh in the 1970s, similar institutions have emerged worldwide. From Asia to Latin America, and North America to Europe, microfinance institutions (MFIs) have been established for a number of reasons.
The rationale for the formation of these MFIs has ranged from simple philanthropy to the not-so-simple realisation that an exploitable niche in finance provision existed. However, for the most part, microfinance has been touted as another tool in the fight against poverty by the provision of small loans for entrepreneurial purposes.
At this level the provision of finance for enterprise development with the goal of alleviating poverty appears straightforward. However in examining the experiences and practices in microfinance provision, the situation appears much more complex, especially when the specific contingent circumstances that exist in the Caribbean are taken into consideration.
In examining these complexities in a Caribbean context, the issues range from establishing whether an entrepreneurial culture actually exists among lower income persons, to whether the provision of such financial services can be sustainable or profitable in the small economies of the Eastern Caribbean. In relation to these issues, a number of questions are also raised, including:
Despite these questions, one of the most fundamental issues that appears to be retarding the successful implementation of microfinance services in the Caribbean is an incongruence of aims/goals for microfinance. This is especially where donors are providing funds with the hope of realising one outcome, while providers and governments are following difference paths. These divergences mainly surround disparities in the expected goals of microfinance, may it be poverty alleviation, enterprise development, institutional sustainability, or simply as an arm of the welfare state.
Some of these issues will be dealt with below, but the primary aim of this paper is to examine whether there is sufficient demand for the provision of microfinance, and secondly, review the delivery options available for microfinance services.
Initially however the paper will examine the main issues in microfinance in general, as well as in the Eastern Caribbean context. The following analysis draws on research initially conducted in Barbados and Dominica, which was recently enhanced by research undertaken in St Vincent and the Grenadines and Grenada. Demand figures and discussion of delivery options will concentrate on the data to emerge from the St Vincent and Grenadines study.
MFIs have been established worldwide in both the developed and developing world with the aim of poverty reduction through enterprise development, by the provision of financial services to the poor (Gulli & Berger, 1999). Although "not a panacea for development problems" (Woller & Woodworth, 2001: 279) it has clearly been demonstrated that MFIs do have some role to play in the development process and poverty alleviation, especially when access to credit has been touted as a serious problem for poor microentrepreneurs (Gulli & Berger, 1999) and small business in general (Lashley, 2002a).
The very poor suffer several problems that make access to finance difficult and affects their ability to make productive use of what resources they do have. These problems include their lack of skills, discrimination, and social exclusion, which have all tended to exacerbate the risk-averse nature of the poor (Bhatt & Tang, 2001). They have hence self-excluded themselves from participation in programs such as those promoted by MFIs.
What the microfinance literature has shown is that there are a variety of perspectives on microfinance and its role in poverty alleviation and microenterprise development. In terms of MFIs as institutional entities, the debate has centred on whether they should be minimalist (financial services alone) or integrated (finance and human development services) in their approach to serving the poor, and whether the correct direction should be to attempt to achieve self-sufficiency or concentrate on reaching the poorest of the poor, while relying on subsidised funding from governments or donor agencies. Other debates include the role of savings-led strategies, group versus individual lending and the level of interest charged. These polarised perspectives are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Polarised Perspectives in Microfinance
| Breadth of Outreach - aim is to reach many of the poor | Depth of Outreach - aim is to reach the poorest of the poor |
| Institutionalist | Welfarist |
| Minimalist | Integrative |
| Self-sufficiency | Subsidisation |
| High Interest Rates | Low Interest Rates |
| Market-led | Government-Influenced |
| Group Lending | Individual Lending |
| Credit-Led Approach | Savings-Led Approach |
| Urban Operations | Rural Operations |
Related to these debates, several points from the literature also need to be highlighted as they relate directly to the Caribbean experience. These points include:
From an analysis of successful organisations and related conceptual issues, several recommendations can be made as regards the formation of more effective microfinance programs in the Eastern Caribbean, from both institutional and poverty alleviation perspectives. These policy recommendations include:
In addition to these recommendations, Morduch (1999) makes an important observation:
promise of microfinance can only be realised by returning to the early commitments to experimentation, innovation, and evaluation (p. 1572).
This is one of the important points that will need to be central to the implementation of effective microfinance initiatives in the Caribbean.
In the Caribbean in particular, von Stauffenberg (2000) has shown that not only are the issues highlighted above important, but that there are several specific problem areas that need to be overcome, primarily the problem of achieving economies of scale and eliminating inefficiencies. Von Stauffenberg (2000), makes several useful observations. These observations include:
Von Stauffenberg (2000) identifies two of the reasons for these failures in the MFI sector in the Caribbean, firstly the well-developed commercial banking sector which is crowding out MFIs, and the high level of government subsidies which is creating distortions and inhibiting the growth of MFIs.
Wenner and Chalmers (2001) provide another useful study of the Caribbean microfinance sector in comparison to a selection of its Latin American counterparts. Wenner and Chalmers find that MFIs in the Caribbean lack the same level of outreach and sustainability as their Latin American counterparts due to different historical legacies. The authors cite general economic stability and a strong government involvement in microfinance as the main constraints to the formation of a strong microfinance sector in the Caribbean.
In addition to the recognition by Wenner and Chalmers (2001) as to these issues, they also recommend a number of strategic interventions including:
There are a variety of other lessons to emerge from the literature that policy-makers and microfinance providers in the Caribbean will need to note. These lessons include a need to explicitly align the goals and missions of donors and MFIs by placing the institution within a specific area of the polarised perspectives outlined in Table 1.
Overall, one of the main lessons from the literature, and borne out in recent surveys (Lashley & Lord, 2002), was that for the small island states of the Caribbean, community banking is an important avenue to explore — especially as it relates to access, and the facilitation of character-based lending. Although it is claimed that this form of organisation will not be self-sufficient, if operated through an apex institution that has a Caribbean-wide remit, there may be a chance for success as this will be one of the only avenues through which economies of scale can be achieved.
It is important to note that these are only a few of the issues that need to be addressed in order for Caribbean microfinance to move forward. Overall, these main issues and potential solutions were categorised as follows in Lashley (2002b):
In addition to these Caribbean-wide issues, a number of issues were specifically raised in Lashley and Lord (2002), and in a recent study by Lashley (2003). These issues included a severe lack of institutional capacity in MFIs studied and a lack of information dissemination among organisations that purport to have the same social objectives.
Another revealing issue raised from related studies of small businesses in Barbados (Lashley, 2002a) has revealed that a large amount of information asymmetries exist where a large number of businesses are claiming one of the greatest hindrances to their business is lack of access to finance, while they have also stated that they have never used any of the services available from the MFIs in the island. Therefore, government will need to act as a facilitator to address this issue by supporting the marketing of these institutions. However, a lack of marketing on the part of the MFIs is only partly to blame, for distrust and suspicion has also been posited by entrepreneurs as a reason for their lack of participation (Lashley, 2002a).
More specifically, Lashley & Lord (2002) provides on-the-ground detail of certain issues relevant to the promotion of an efficient microfinance sector in the Caribbean, based on surveys conducted in Barbados and Dominica.
The main experiences from the survey indicate that loans are not micro-loans, and that the majority of MFIs are utilising assets-based lending, rather than the original MFI approach of character-based lending. More importantly, the clients are not poor, especially as assets and income are significantly above what one would consider the poverty line.
There are however some positive lessons that can be taken from the study. These lessons include:
Overall, the survey demonstrated the development of social capital is extremely important for the success of both client and institution. From these issues raised it can be seen that there are a number of steps that need to be taken to achieve the goal of sustainable microfinance provision. Examining the main issues (small size, inefficient MFIs, lack of savings-led strategies, bias towards small enterprises, heavy reliance on subsidies/government intervention) and the lessons that can be learnt, raises two important points. Firstly, is there sufficient demand for these services; and secondly, in looking at the other points, what is the most efficient form of delivery for microfinance.
In investigating these issues the rest of this paper will review the results of a recent demand survey conducted in St Vincent, and examine the potential of the credit union movement as a delivery option that addresses the other issues and lessons learnt from previous studies.
The Eastern Caribbean islands have been characterised as having high levels of poverty, in excess of 30% in St Vincent and the Grenadines and Grenada. In an attempt to provide a sustainable climb out of poverty, donor agencies have recognised microfinance as a tool in the fight against poverty. In a small, targeted survey, the demand for such services were investigated among lower income groups in both St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Grenada. The details of the survey process are outlined below.
As the aim of the donor institutions was enterprise development with the explicit goal of poverty alleviation, the target group for the surveys were lower income households. In each selected country, due to time constraints, only 105 households were surveyed. These 105 households were separated into three geographical areas, one urban, one suburban, and one rural.
The specific locations to be surveyed were determined through discussions with local contacts and reference to existing poverty data. The main mode of investigation was a questionnaire survey of households in the three locations in each country.
The questionnaire sought information on productive and non-productive credit needs, demographic data, previous experience with financial institutions, educational levels and views on preferences for service provision. Data was analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The country background for the St Vincent survey and the main results to emerge as regards demand are shown in the next section.
St Vincent and the Grenadines, by UNDP estimates is the worse performing of the OECS countries with a Human Development Index (HDI) of 0.678 (UNDP Human Development Report, 2002). In terms of poverty estimates, 30.6% of households and 37.5% of the population are considered poor (Kairi Consultants, 1996). As relates to extreme poverty, 20% of households and 25.7% of the population were considered indigent. Kairi consultants (1996) identified the following points as the main causes of poverty in St Vincent and the Grenadines:
In looking to establish the feasibility of microfinance as a tool in the fight against poverty in St Vincent and the Grenadines, a questionnaire survey was conducted among households in three lower income communities. The three communities surveyed were selected because they had a relatively larger share of self-employed or unemployed persons, the groups that would most benefit from microfinance provision. Communities were also selected depending on whether they were urban, suburban or rural. A brief outline of each community selected is shown in the table below.
Table 2: Selected Profiles for Communities Selected
| Community | Location | Employed (%) | Self-Employed (%) | Unemployed (%) | Other (%) |
| Rose Place | Urban | 44 | 28 | 28 | - |
| Stubbs | Suburban | 36 | 8 | 56 | - |
| Keartons | Rural | 17 | 44 | 22 | 17 |
Source: Kairi Consultants (1996)
These household surveys within the above communities were conducted over a two-week period in March 2003. The surveys yielded a total of 105 useable questionnaires, 35 in each community. This equated to approximately 23% of households in Rose Place, 35% in Stubbs, and 18% in Keartons. The backgrounds of these communities are shown below.
Rose Place is situated in the capital of St Vincent, Kingstown. Number of households in the community was estimated as 150, consisting of mainly wooden structures along the shores of Kingstown Harbour (Kairi Consultants, 1996). The average household size was estimated as five (5) persons, with 68% being female headed. In terms of monthly household income, the CPA averaged this as EC$1236.35.
As regards educational levels, 72% had only completed primary level education. The corresponding figure for the 35 households surveyed for the current research was 61.5%. In terms of involvement in the formal loan sector, 84% of respondents had no knowledge of any economic organisations such as credit unions operating in the community, and none of the respondents to the CPA survey had ever held a formal sector loan.
However, 4% had accessed credit from a shopkeeper, 4% from an informal moneylender, 24% from a sou sou and 12% from family or friends.
The most major community problems identified in Rose Place were unemployment, drugs and poor environmental conditions.
Stubbs is located on the outskirts of the capital Kingstown, on the southeast windward side of the main island of St Vincent. Kairi Consultants (1996) estimated approximately 100 households in this community, consisting of a mix of concrete wall houses, wooden houses and wattle and daub. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of respondents to the CPA household survey believed that they were poor, with an average household monthly income of EC$583.87. Average household size was five (5) persons with a fairly even split between male and female headed households. In terms of educational levels, 84% had only completed primary school.
Even though there was knowledge of economic organisations in the area (12%), none of the respondents were members or users. In addition to this, none of the respondents has held a formal loan, while 28% had been extended credit from a shopkeeper.
The main community problems experienced in Stubbs were unemployment, lack of sanitary facilities and single parenting/teenager pregnancy.
Keartons village is situated on the leeward side of the island. The estimated household population consisted of 196 households which were on the whole not well constructed, mostly both concrete and wood, although relatively well kept (Kairi Consultants, 1996). In relation to perceived poverty, 65% of respondents to the CPA survey believed that they were poor.
Average household size in Keartons was 4 people, with the majority being female headed (57%). As related to educational levels, 9% had never undertaken any form of schooling, while 78% had only completed primary school. Average monthly household income was EC$618.32.
In relation to formal credit sector participation, Keartons was more active than the other communities sampled for the current research as 44% were aware of credit union activity in the area and 17% were members. As regards informal loan activity, 35% had received credit/loans from a shopkeeper or merchant, 26% from a sou sou, and 39% had borrowed from family or friends.
The most serious community problems in Keartons were cited as unemployment, poor sanitation, lack of toilet facilities, and poor political representation.
One hundred and five (105) questionnaires were considered useable, 35 in each community. The results presented below will utilise percentage figures to negate confusion in the eventuality of missing values, which were however negligible in number.
In terms of demographics, respondents ranged in age from 20 to 89, with a median of 39. Two-thirds of the respondents were female and average household size was 4, ranging from 1 to 15. For the majority of cases, average monthly household income was low with 66.7% citing it as less than EC$1000. As regards changes in standard of living, only 28.6% remarked that it had increased in the previous two years.
In terms of other financial information, over three-quarters had never held a formal sector loan, and nearly 40% had no savings. So indeed the survey has managed to reach the lower income segment of the population in St Vincent. In addition, it has also revealed that there is a significant untapped market where over 75% of those surveyed revealed that that they had never been involved in the formal credit sector. Further investigation also revealed that this lack of involvement was partially due to misconceptions about interest rate levels and actual services provided. With the right approach these persons could be enticed to become involved in the formal credit sector.
In looking in more detail at the potential market for microfinance, the desire to enter self-employment and credit needs was investigated among employed and unemployed persons. Self-employed persons were asked about current productive credit needs or their business. The analysis by occupational category is shown below.
The following analysis examines the results of the questionnaire by occupational status. Due to the fact that there was only one (1) homeworker respondent, these results will not be analysed extensively here. With respect to retired persons, they were not required to complete this element of the survey due to their lack of economic activity. The breakdown by current status is shown in the table below.
Table 3: Current Status of Respondents
| Status | Frequency | Valid % |
| Employed | 32 | 30.5 |
| Self-Employed | 39 | 37.1 |
| Unemployed | 25 | 23.8 |
| Retired | 8 | 7.6 |
| Homeworker | 1 | 1.0 |
| TOTAL | 105 | 100 |
Of the employed respondents, 68.8% cited that their current job was their main source of income. Other sources of income included remittances, petty trading and farming. One-quarter cited employment as their only source of income.
In terms of approximate income, 72% earned less than EC$1000 per month, while 40.6% were professionals, 31.3% were in sales or services, and 12.5% were skilled technicians.
However, of particular interest was the fact that all but one of the employed respondents remarked that they would enter self-employment if the opportunity arose, with a fairly even split as to the source of funding to start a business. Over 45% said they would go to a bank for funding while 38.7% said they would go to a credit union. Only 9.7% said they would approach friends or relatives for funds to start a business.
In terms of the level of funds required to start a business, nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%), believed that they would require less than EC$5000. However, these results must be treated with caution as only 28% of employed respondents had ever been self-employed and were unlikely to know the intricacies of business start-up.
For those respondents that were self-employed, 92% cited their business as their main or only source of income. In terms of occupational category, 43.2% were in sales or services, while 24.3% were involved in agriculture in one way or another. Types of businesses operated ranged from service provision (37.8%), to retail (24.4%), to agriculture (21.6%). Only 8.1% were involved in crafts, while 5.4% were in manufacturing.
In terms of monthly business income categories, 75% earned EC$1500 or less, with 36% earning between EC$201 and EC$500, and 22.2% earning between EC$501 and EC$1000. As regards employment generation, 73% of self-employed respondents operated the business by themselves.
Of this potential client pool for financial institutions, there appears to be the potential for new business generation as over 80% of self-employed respondents had never held a loan for their business, while those that had held a loan had done so to start-up their business.
However this potential for new business generation is hampered by the fact that only one-third of respondents remarked that they currently had a need for credit for their business, mainly to purchase supplies or start-up a new business. However, in extrapolating this result, of the 3,483 microbusinesses in St Vincent (data from Fisseha and White, 1997), this provides a potential client pool demanding loans of 1,161 microbusinesses for credit providing financial institutions in St Vincent to serve.
As a note of encouragement, 53% of self-employed respondents remarked that their business had been improving recently, establishing a potential for the provision of business expansion loans.
One-quarter of unemployed respondents in the sample had been unemployed for less than one year, whereas 50% had been unemployed for over two and one-half years, suggesting that the majority of this element of the sample can be termed long term unemployed.
Of these respondents, nearly one-half (45.8%) had previously been in sales or service, while 20% had been in agriculture. Only 42.3% had previously been self employed, citing slow turnover as the main reason for business failure.
As another sign of significant demand for the opportunity to enter self-employment, 96.2% of respondents remarked that they would enter self-employment if afforded the opportunity. In reference to where they would source such credit to start a business, 44% cited they would approach a credit union, while 24% said they would go to a commercial bank. The same proportion would approach family for such funding.
As seen with the employed persons in the sample, however to a greater degree, 81.8% believed that they would require EC$5000 or less to start their own business.
The main problems that exist with the provision of microfinance in the Caribbean, as discussed above, have been shown to include:
In looking at these issues and potential solutions, the options for the delivery of the microfinance product is one area of crucial concern. The various delivery options range from informal systems such as sou sou to formalised government agencies, NGOs, commercial banks and credit unions.
However, in considering these options it is of crucial importance to recognise that in the initial stages of operation, and most probably the medium term, that donor funding will be important to organisational operation. Due to this fact, low default rates and a concerted move towards efficiency and sustainability are usually required to retain such donor funding. This will be an important point to remember when considering the delivery options for microfinance.
In considering the options of a government agency, an NGO, or a commercial bank for the delivery of microfinance, a number of operational and historical issues arise to discredit their consideration as delivery options.
In looking at the issue of small size, where it is difficult for a dedicated microfinance institution to achieve economies of scale, it would appear that more diversified organisations may be more appropriate to provide microfinance. In this situation the provider of microfinance is better able to achieve economies of scope by the provision of a varied financial package to customers, not just microfinance.
In terms of inefficiency in service provision, this is especially seen in government-operated schemes, where there is no profit motivation or impulse to act efficiently. In addition to this internal inefficiency, government agencies are also plagued by high default rates, where repayment problems are believed to stem from political messages that see default as acceptable. This leads to the creation of a bad repayment culture where there is an "ambivalence about defaulting on government-backed loans" (Woller and Woodworth, 2001: 620).
In addition to the above points, none of these institutional forms encourage a savings-led element to their product, mainly because of complex legislation that makes this difficult, with the exception of commercial banks.
Small, not microenterprises are benefiting most from microfinancing initiatives. For commercial banks this is mostly due to a historical risk-averseness that has created this bias. Among NGOs and government agencies, this is mostly due to the fact that loans are heavily subsidised and interest rates are low, leading to increased leakage where wealthier clients, who are considered more credit-worthy, are pushing out those in greater need.
As regards the role of subsidies and high levels of government involvement, these have a role to play in terms of causing some of the other problems experienced, especially in terms of inefficiency and the bias towards small enterprises. However, as noted above, in terms of subsidies, if there can be congruence in aims, MFIs can get on the correct path to sustainability. The problem is that governments encourage lower interest rates and have created a bad repayment culture, negating their selection as a delivery option.
By looking at the discussion of these problems, it can be seen that the credit union movement can be proposed as a delivery option suitable to address these difficulties experienced with microfinance provision in the Eastern Caribbean.
In reviewing the main problems in microfinance provision in the region (small size, inefficient MFIs, lack of savings-led strategies, bias towards small enterprises, heavy reliance on subsidies/government intervention), it can be argued that the credit union movement can provide more effective solutions to these problems that any other delivery option. Two of the most important points that can be made in support of the credit union as a delivery option is firstly, the organisational ethos of the movement is not dissimilar to that of the microfinance movement, and secondly, the credit union movement in the Eastern Caribbean is one of the most visible according to the World Council of Credit Unions. This not only provides an already existing framework through which to provide the microfinance product, it will also be done within an accommodating atmosphere. These two points alone could provide sufficient grounds for donor agencies to adopt the credit union movement as their delivery option of choice, however, in returning to the problems experienced in the Caribbean specifically the credit union as a delivery option appears even more attractive.
Small size and the inability to achieve economies of scale. In essence the credit union movement can address this problem by its provision of a variety of services to its members, charging appropriate interest rates for different purpose loans. In essence, small size may negate the achievement of economies of scale but it does not negate the achievement of economies of scope.
Inefficient MFIs. Due to the nature of the microfinance product, there will always be learning periods where inefficiencies might ensue. However, due to the stake that staff, who are also credit union members, and the experience they have in other forms of finance provision, these problems will be much easier to overcome than in other forms of organisations providing microfinance.
Lack of savings-led approaches. This problem is negated by the fact that credit unions require members to save for a certain period of time before they are allowed to borrow. This not only encourages financial discipline among members, it also provides funds for on-lending which will substantially increase the depth of outreach of microfinance if operated through a credit union.
Bias towards small, not microenterprises. Due to the nature of the financial packages offered by credit unions, and one of the benefits of diversifying the financial products available, is that the credit union can offer a different package dependent on the needs of the borrower. Therefore, a small businessperson would attain access to one financial package suitable to their needs, while the microentrepreneur may gain access to another. However, difficulties have been seen in this area with credit unions, however with donor guidance these problems are slowly being overcome.
Heavy reliance on subsidies and government intervention. Although in the initial phase of operation, credit unions are relying on subsidies to enable their microfinance programmes to get off the ground, due to the nature of the unions, to provide a return to their clients, and close monitoring by donor organisations, it appears that these unions are on the path to sustainability and self-sufficiency. In the case of credit unions as delivery options for microfinance, the difficulties seen with excessive government involvement are removed.
The above discussion has revealed that even though microfinance has been shown to be an effective tool in poverty alleviation elsewhere in the world, that there are a number of specific contextual issues that need to be considered in the Eastern Caribbean. The first issue that was dealt with was whether there was sufficient demand for such services. The demand survey conducted in St Vincent and the Grenadines, despite its small size, has shown a significant level of demand among those surveyed. There appears to be a sufficient demand for both productive and non-productive credit amongst the lower income communities surveyed. Over 25% of household respondents have remarked that they had non-productive credit needs, which were on the most part housing related.
If the issue of productive credit is addressed, the results of the surveys in St Vincent have shown a high level of demand. While only one-third of self-employed respondents indicated a need for credit, for the most part both employed and unemployed respondents have indicated an overwhelming desire to enter self-employment if the opportunity arose.
However, despite the existence of demand for credit, there appears several provision failures that will need to be addressed. These problems have been especially addressed and highlighted by the comments and suggestions made by respondents to the questionnaire surveys. Of primary importance it would appear the information dissemination is of utmost importance as the perceptions of clients and non-clients are significantly different, especially as regards views on interest rate levels. What also needs to be considered here is that due to high levels of poverty seen on the island, that any initiative aimed at alleviating poverty should be utilised.
In considering the various options for the delivery of microfinance, the use of credit unions was also discussed. In looking at the main problems that the microfinance movement is experiencing in the Caribbean, the credit union approach may prove the most efficient means of delivery available, especially as the Eastern Caribbean has such a large credit union presence.
Bhatt, N, Tang, S. 2001. Delivering Microfinance in Developing Countries: Controversies and Policy Perspectives. Policy Studies Journal 29: 319-333.
Caribbean Development Bank. 2001. Poverty in the Caribbean. Caribbean Development Bank: Barbados.
Downes, A. S. 2000. Human Resources Development in the Caribbean: Overcoming the Unemployment Problem. Journal of Education and Development in the Caribbean 4: 19-39.
Gulli, H, Berger, M. 1999. Microfinance and poverty reduction- evidence from Latin America. Small Enterprise Development 10: 16-28.
Hickson, R. 2001. Financial Services for the Very Poor- Thinking Outside the Box. Small Enterprise Development 12: 55-67.
Hulme, D. 2000. Is microdebt good for poor people? A note on the dark side of microfinance. Small Enterprise Development 11: 26-28.
Kairi Consultants. 1995. St Lucia Country Poverty Assessment. Kairi Consultants: Trinidad and Tobago.
Kairi Consultants. 1996. St Vincent Country Poverty Assessment. Kairi Consultants: Trinidad and Tobago.
Lashley, J. 2001. Micorenterprises, Poverty and Human Resource Development. Paper presented to the UNDP/CARICOM Regional Consultation on Financing for Development, December 5th to 6th 2001, St Vincent and the Grenadines.
Lashley, J. 2002a. Survey of Barbadian Businesses: Main Findings and Issues. Paper Presented to SALISES Seminar Series, 27th February, 2002.
Lashley, J. 2002b. Microenterprises, Human Resource Development and Poverty Eradication: Time for Change. Paper presented at the Caribbean Studies Association Annual Conference, May 24th to June 1st 2002, Nassua, Bahamas.
Lashley, J, Lord, K. 2002. Microfinance: Experiences and Best Practice in the Caribbean. Report to IADB May 2002, Poverty Reduction Network: Washington D.C.
Lashley, J. 2003. Draft Market Demand Survey - Microstart. UNDP.
Morduch, J. 1999. The Microfinance Promise. Journal of Economic Literature 37: 1569-1614.
Morduch, J. 2000. The Microfinance Schism. World Development 28: 617-629.
Mosley, P. 2001. Microfinance and Poverty in Bolivia. Journal of Development Studies 37: 101-132.
von Stauffenberg, D. 2000. Microfinance in the English Speaking Caribbean. Report Prepared for the Caribbean Development Bank, September 2000.
Wenner, M, Chalmers, G. 2000. Microfinance Issues and Challenges in the Anglophone Caribbean. Sustainable Development Department, IADB: Washington D.C.
Wooler, G. M, Woodworth, W. 2001. Microcredit as a Grassroots Policy. Policy Studies Journal 29: 267-282.
© Jonathan Lashley, 2003.
HTML last revised 10th October, 2003.
Return to Conference papers.