000			02179nam a22002537a 4500
003			ZW-GwMSU
005			20240805093845.0
008			240805b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a02662426
040			_aMSU _bEnglish _cMSU _erda
050	0	0	_aHD2341.169
100	1		_aSiwale, Juliana N. _eauthor
245	1	0	_aDisclosing the loan officer’s role in microfinance development/ _ccreated by Juliana N. Siwale and John Ritchie
264	1		_aLondon: _bSage, _c2012.
336			_2rdacontent _atext _btxt
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated _bn
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume _bnc
440			_aInternational small business journal _vVolume 30, number 4
520	3		_aThe exclusion of the poor in developing countries requires radical enterprising solutions. Hence, microfinance was originally developed to intermediate through tailored double-bottom line initiatives, which would first supply more appropriate credit and, then other ‘financial services’, in an essentially participatory, ‘bottom-up’ way. This would support local, small-scale economic activity while enhancing well-being and social/gender justice. However, frontline local officers, originally recruited into microfinance institutions to help ‘empower’ the poor towards this end, have in practice been found to adopt unexpectedly different roles. Using original data from Zambia this article examines how this occurred in a frontier field situation. Here loan officers performed multiple, ambiguous and changeable roles while their home institution at first sought to decouple, and then prioritized its own immediate survival over their other founding aspirations. Where they acted more like ‘loan repayment agents’ and ‘debt collectors’ than genuinely participative ‘facilitators’ supporting the poor, further, unintended consequences resulted. Any further decoupling and retreat from committed double-bottom line working could bear heavily upon the further/future development prospects of microfinance.
650			_aCETZAM _vMicrofinance _xLoan officers _zZambia
700			_aRitchie, John _eco author
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/026624261037368
942			_2lcc _cJA
999			_c166497 _d166497