Microfinance: The Solution to Global Poverty?

This is a cross-post from the Huffington Post.

I spent two months this summer living in a rural village in Western Kenya where I taught optimistic, bright women basic accounting skills, coached them in computer literacy, and led community development exercises. I arrived animated and eager to achieve every goal outlined on my job description, but when I left the country eight weeks later I had not accomplished a single one of my original objectives. Instead, I had gained a clearer pictures of the complexities associated with microfinance and with the challenges that it seeks to address.

The effectiveness of microfinance in alleviating poverty is both championed and criticized by development experts in the international community. Mohammed Yunuschampions microfinance as a tool capable of ending global poverty. He sees the poor as a vast resource of fresh, entrepreneurial ideas just waiting to be unleashed, and believes that micro-loans provide the masses with this opportunity.

Yunus sketches the Grameen Bank's largely successful model of micro lending. The bank gives small loans to individuals who are expected to repay the money over the period of one year in weekly installments at a twenty percent interest rate. The bankrequires prospective borrowers to form into groups of five prior to receiving a loan, and to undergo a weeklong training program that culminates in an oral examination. Group formation ensures that, "if an individual is unable or unwilling to pay back her loan, her group may become ineligible for larger loans in subsequent years," which pressures group members to honor their agreement. Borrowers undergo an intense screening process by local authorizes before they are given loans, and "all business conducted during center meetings [is] done out in the open," in order to promote honesty, accountability and transparency throughout the loan process.

Microfinance institutions such as the Grameen Bank have many positive impacts on the individuals and communities that they work with. In my own experience working with a microfinance organization in Western Kenya, flourishing businesses supported by these loans enabled families to put their children through school, buy fresh produce and meat, expand their homes and more. Despite these inarguably positive results, microfinance, like all business ventures, is not without its flaws and limitations.

One of major challenges faced by the international microfinance organization I worked with was a communicative and visionary disconnect between the organization's leaders in the United States and the women who had volunteered to run the organization's branch in the village. Many of the instructions given to the women on the ground were either culturally inappropriate or unrealistic. For example, the Kenyan leaders hesitated to give names of the defaulters to the local chiefs capable of seizing repayments because the leaders feared the societal repercussions they would face from ruining their neighbors financially. Nuances like this are difficult to notice from abroad, and in this specific situation were compounded by the fact that the villagers only criticized one another's ideas indirectly. Because of this many of the leaders' procedural complaints about went unnoticed over the phone during our conversations with the United States.

Similarly, the business model imposed on the village was not fitting with their pace of life. Women showed up to meetings late after stopping to chat with neighbors or deciding to pick their beans before the clouds they saw on the horizon turned to rain. Repayment schedules did not account for the starvation months, before families could sell their ripe crops, and many women defaulted on their loans in order to feed their families. The villagers needed education to learn how to communicate via email, and none were familiar with the accounting skills used in the States to track loan repayments.

My skepticism about the effectiveness of the operation was also fueled by an observation about the scale of the businesses. The income generated from these businesses was barely enough to cover the costs of repaying the loan, and I met many women whose businesses failed altogether. The most successful businesses did generate income that enabled families to put their children through school, buy fresh produce and meat or expand their homes, but it seemed unrealistic that any of the family-owned businesses were on the path to expansion. As Banerjee & Duflo observe,"The enterprises of the poor often seem more a way to buy a job when a more conventional employment opportunity is not available than a reflection of a particular entrepreneurial urge."

Microfinance has inarguably positive impacts on the individuals and families who succeed in adopting its dogma, however, the challenges that I observed illustrate several of the limitations on the scale of its potential impact. Perhaps it is time to accept that microfinance is only one of the many tools we can use to put an end to global poverty, and, as Banerjee and Duflo say, to "stop pretending that there is some solution at hand and instead join hands will millions of well-intentioned people across the world... in the quest for the many ideas, big and small, that will eventually take us to that world where no one has to live on 99 cents per day."

© Elizabeth "Elise" Sidamon-Eristoff 9 September 2014

Women's Voices from Fragile States and Why They Matter

Today I was lucky enough to attend a talk at the United Nations Foundation titled, "Courage to Change the Narrative: Women's Voices from Fragile States and Why They Matter."

The panel was introduced and moderated by Ambassador Melanne Verveer, who is now the Executive Director of the Georgetown Institute for Women. Also included on the panel were Krista Hendry from The Fund for Peace, Amy Slaughter and Yar Ayuel from RefugePoint, and Elaisha Stokes from The International Women's Media Foundation.

The panel was only an hour long, but touched on some of the major issues faced by women in war torn countries. Amy Slaughter spoke of the huge demand for education in refugee camps, and Yar Ayuel spoke from personal experience about how women have less access then men to quality education while in these camps due to physical danger and the time taken up by their obligatory domestic duties.

Elaisha Stokes spoke about how the narratives of these women are often influenced by the story tellers, who are usually white, well-educated men, which can lead to inaccurate reporting. She also spoke of the tendency for Western media to portray women in war-torn countries solely as victims instead of as the leaders they are in order to appeal to the viewer.

The problems mentioned during the panel are important and pressing, but are not novel issues. During the question and answer portion of the event the conversation had the potential to break new ground when one man from Sudan asked how Elaisha Stokes can be sure that the women she interviews are not victimized for speaking out. Elaisha responded that when she reports she always seeks the advice of local women before publishing a video if she is unsure whether it has the potential to be harmful or not.

While her response was appropriate and it is clear she does much to ensure the safety of the women she interacts with, this man's question raised an important point. How can we be sure that these women will be safe once the Western reporters leave? Are the women she seeks advice from being completely honest, or are they, too, influenced by her presence? And can a Western reporter from a privileged background ever truly understand what victims of sexual violence in a refugee camp in the Congo have been through? Yar Ayuel's reluctance to speak freely about her own experience in a refugee camp in Sudan suggests otherwise.

© Elizabeth "Elise" Sidamon-Eristoff May 2, 2014

Russia, Ukraine and Western Media

My close friend Laura Jaffee recently drew my attention to an interview of Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at New York University and Princeton University, conducted on February 21, 2014 on the recent events in Ukraine. In the interview Cohen exposes much of the rhetoric that we are fed through Western news channels that promote the image of a morally corrupt Russia that is acting in flagrant violation of international law.

The media often tells me that Russia wants the violence in Ukraine to escalate, but Cohen counters this assertion by mentioning that Putin attempted to avoid conflict in November of 2013 when the European Union told Ukraine that the country had to choose between Europe and Russia by asking, “Why does Ukraine have to choose?” Similarly, in another article written on March 5, 2014 Jeffrey Sommers, associate professor at senior fellow of the Institute of World Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, reminds us that, "we have to remember now that before the Russians took this action into Crimea, Putin offered the prospect of a tripartite agreement with the US and the EU" which was essentially ignored.

Cohen also points out that the media is often guilty of oversimplifying the relationship between Russia and Ukraine in order to portray Russia in a solely negative light. In his interview Cohen talks about how Ukraine is not as unified as the media portrays it to be. “Historically, ethnically, religiously, culturally, politically, economically,” the Ukraine is two countries, and Cohen claims that for this reason it makes sense that one half wants to bond with the West while the other half wants to retain its close ties to Russia. Monroe also points out that Ukraine has solid reasons for wanting to remain close to Russia, including the fact that Russia gave the country $15 billion of aid to bail out the economy while the EU only made empty promises.

The assertion that Russia violated international law by intervening in Crimea is also less black and white then Western media often lets on. John Quigley, professor emeritus of international law at Ohio State University, points out that, "in principle it is a violation of international law to intervene in the territory of another state," however, the Ukraine and Russia have many bilateral treaties one of which "requires Ukraine to ensure the linguistic and other rights of minority populations within" the country. From a Russian perspective, the rights of minority populations in Crimea are being violated due to recent conflicts and so it is their obligation to protect these peoples. One of Russia’s major military bases is located within Crimea’s borders, further complicating the relationship between Russia and Ukraine. 

Cohen notes Russia has been criticized recently by the West for its opposition to uprisings that took place in the Arab Spring. The West claims that Russia's lack of enthusiasm surrounding the uprisings its evidence of Russia's opposition to democracy. In reality, Cohen notes that it is more likely that Putin has been wary the uprisings because he realizes that destabilized states can result in power vacuums that can be filled by radical groups, as it has been in Libya and Egypt.  

Cohen then draws our attention to the recently leaked conversation between US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt and top US diplomat for Europe Victoria Nuland. The media focused nearly all its attention on Nuland's unsavory choice of vocabulary during the recording, but Cohen points out that if we pay attention to the actual content of the conversation instead it becomes apparent that Pyatt and Nuland are discussing who would be the best strategic replacement for the current president in Ukraine. Pyatt and Nuland hardly seem primarily concerned with the wishes of the Ukrainian people, and instead appear to be supporting a coup that is a much less democratic approach than waiting a year for the next election.

I do not claim to know everything about the situation in Crimea or the terrible violence taking place there, however, Cohen’s article has opened my eyes to the possibility that the situation may be more complex than the good-guy bad-guy rhetoric that we are continuously fed through our major media channels.

© Elizabeth "Elise" Sidamon-Eristoff April 16, 2014

Meanwhile, in Russia...

Earlier this December the organization where I am interning, Human Rights First, held their annual Human Rights Summit at the Newseum. Panels covered a variety of human rights issues, and you can find a full list of speakers and topics here.

During the panel on the topic of LGBT rights I was especially affected by what Masha Gessen; a Russian author, journalist and LGBT activist; had to say. A full video of the discussion can be found here. 

The situation in Russia is so dangerous for LGBT activists that one of the planned speakers for the panel, Igor Kochetkov, was unable to attend the summit due to threats sent to his organization, the Russian LGBT Network. Mr. Kochetkov wrote a letter during which he stated that the Russian state refuses to respond to or to investigate threats or crimes motivated by ethnic hatred or homophobia, and that the state "looks for any excuse, real or fictitious, for termination of activities by human rights organizations."

After the conclusion of Mr. Kocketkov's letter, Ms. Gessen candidly remarked that his explanation of the situation was entirely understated. She feels that the state has launched an all-out war on LGBT people that has been going on for nearly two years. Ms. Gessen noted that LGBT people are not the only target, but that they are especially targeted through a series of laws that have recently been passed in the country. 

These laws began with the banning of any NGO from that receives foreign funding, which I wrote about in a prior post. According to Ms. Gessen, there has recently been an expansion of the law on espionage and high treason that making it possible for anyone to go to jail for anything that could be construed as one of these two things. There have also been a ban on adoptions by US citizens, a ban on US citizens from serving as heads or members of NGOs in the country, and a ban on adoptions by same sex couples or single people from countries where same sex marriage is legal. The judiciary now has the right to shut down any organization that receives private or public American funding, and there is now a law claiming to protect children from harmful information that shuts down access to many resources deemed contaminating including online resources or book publishers that could be available to minors.

Ms. Gessen notes that the ban on homosexual propaganda was just held up by the Russian Constitutional Court this week. This law says that homosexual propaganda  is "the uncontrolled and goal-directed distribution of information that can cause harm to the physical or spiritual development of children, including forming in them the erroneous impression of social equality of traditional and non-traditional marital relations." The law implies that it is illegal for citizens to speak of social equality, and that it is technically illegal for Ms. Gessen not to tell her three children that they are worse than the neighbors because of her nontraditional marriage. 

The entire campaign has led to massive violence targeted towards LGBT people in Russia, including Ms. Gessen, who will be leaving the country with her family this month. She is mostly concerned about young activists and those who protest openly on the streets. She notes that there are people who feel that they are doing the motherland's bidding if they kill or attack these activists. 

Unfortunately, Putin's ideals are finding traction outside the country. Putin is forming the Traditional Values Coalition within the United Nations to enforce his view, and similar laws and sentiments are showing up in countries within what Russia wishes to reclaim under its sphere of influence from Ukraine to Lithuania.  

Ms. Gessen feels adamantly that these laws are here to stay as long as Putin is in power. She feels that to advocate for change is futile, and calls for more basic assistance for LGBT individuals. She calls for the international community to help mitigate the effects of these laws by helping people leave the country and by ensuring their physical safety. Ms. Gessen says it is imperative that the Kremlin stay informed that the world is watching, and encourages American citizens to pressure their government to uphold human rights so that every time they meet Russian officials they feel obligated to ask about these issues. 

When asked whether she is concerned that pressuring Russia might strengthen the brutality of Putin's policy as he sees himself more and more as the champion of traditional values, Ms. Gessen replied that it would be immoral not to do so. According to her every one of us has an obligation to ensure that we live in a world where all people can live without the infringement of their own basic and fundamental rights by their governments, and if the world turns its back on Putin, the effects will be devastating.  

© Elizabeth "Elise" Sidamon-Eristoff December 26, 2013

Delta's Blue Lightning Initiative

Earlier this December the organization where I am interning, Human Rights First, held a two-day human rights summit at the Newseum. Panels covered a variety of human rights issues, and you can find a full list of speakers and topics here. 

I found the panel on the subject of human trafficking to be especially thought-provoking. A video of the discussion in its entirety can be found here. Letty Ashworth, the General Manager of Global Diversity at Delta Airlines, spoke about Delta's Blue Lightning Initiative, which is a voluntary training program for employees that teaches them to spot signs indicative of trafficking situations. Delta was one of the first major airlines in the country to take up this cause. 

Since the program is still in its infancy it is difficult to measure its long-term impact, but the program has been successful thus far in that since its implementation on September 9, 2013, 47,000 employees have been trained worldwide. Since the training began the airline has had a number of incidents reported. Ms. Ashworth noted that one of the benefits of the program is that employees now feel empowered to make the call and to escalate a potentially hazardous situation. 

Ms. Ashworth hopes that Delta will lead the way for other companies and businesses, but explains that many companies are hesitant to implement similar programs for a number of reasons. It took over a year for Delta to do the groundwork to put together a basic program and to get everyone on board. Many companies do not have budgets to hire teams for trafficking issues, and are scared that there will be a negative impact on their brand or their profits if they associate themselves with the issue of human trafficking. At a basic level, Ms. Ashworth explains that many are simply scared of the unknown and of what they may discover once they dip their toe into the water. 

Hopefully, Delta's Blue Lightning Initiative will pave the way for other businesses to get involved with the issue of human trafficking. At the very least, Delta's involvement has opened up a dialogue surrounding the ways that businesses can take responsibility for human rights violations that occur within their domain. Change starts at the top, and Delta has provided an example of a successful business that has tackled the terrifying issue of trafficking head on. 

© Elizabeth "Elise" Sidamon-Eristoff December 4, 2013

Understanding Synthetic Biology

            In this month’s issue of Foreign Affairs Ronald K. Noble published an article titled, “Keeping Science in the Right Hands: Policing the New Biological Frontier.” The frontier to which he is referring encompasses the recent uptick in developments surrounding synthetic biology, including J. Craig Venter’s construction of a man-made DNA genome that enabled him to create an entirely novel organic life form.

These developments are ripe with potential to be put to good use by the scientific community. Scientists could use synthetic biology to “help produce better medicines and cleaner manufacturing processes,” to develop beneficially resistant bacterium, or to attempt to restore extinct species (49).

Unfortunately, the rapid developments made in synthetic biology have also introduced previously nonexistent risks. These risks are exacerbated by the fact that there are few national and international regulations concerning this technology. Most threatening is the intentional modification of preexisting diseases to create “highly pathogenic biological agents” that could infect populations at extremely high rates before an antidote is found (49).

The lack of policing of information makes it easy for criminals to get their hands on biological data. For example, the author notes that in 2006 a group of journalists were successful at ordering a segment of a smallpox genome from a DNA synthesis company and that they had it shipped to them for only slightly more than $60.

In another article in Foreign Affairs on a similar topic, Laurie Garrett notes that information can also be exchanged in less overt ways. Garret says that, “code can be buried anywhere—al Qaeda operatives have hidden attack instructions in porn videos, and a seemingly innocent tweet could direct readers to an obscure Internet location containing genomic code ready to be downloaded to a 3-D printer” (38).

If it gets into the wrong hands, the threat that this rapidly developing information poses to our country and to the globe could be enormous. In order to address this threat, the glaring absence of global security networks in place to monitor the exchange of this information needs to be addressed by the international community.

Noble outlines several, tangible methods for overcoming this security threat that begins with “the development of partnerships among all the relevant disciplines,” including the scientific community, intelligence organizations, and public health entities, and ends with national law enforcement of international agreed upon norms and (53).

The importance of continuing unhindered scientific research is obvious as it will counter naturally mutating diseases and other threats such as those that will inevitably result from impending climate change, however, without regulation of scientific development it is possible that synthetic biology itself will pose an even greater threat to mankind.

© Elizabeth "Elise" Sidamon-Eristoff December 4, 2013

Women2Drive

Since my internship this summer at Vital Voices, where I learned about an inspirational woman named Manal Al-Sharif, I have been following the women's rights to drive campaign in Saudi Arabia. In May of 2011 Al-Sharif was filmed by another activist while driving in Saudi Arabia, and uploaded the video to YouTube.

Women in the country are banned from driving by custom and must rely on a husband, male relative, or hired driver if they can afford it for transportation. Saudi Arabia remains the only country in the world that bans women from driving. This, and a myriad of other rules repress Saudi women, who remain unable to "conduct official government business, travel abroad, marry, pursue higher education or undergo certain medical procedures without permission from their male guardians--a husband, father, brother or even a young son."

Manal Al-Sharif

Following her demonstration, Al-Sharif was detained by the country's religious police for her actions for a number of days. After her release, she continued to advocate for women's rights and was named one the World's 100 Most Influential People in 2012 by TIME Magazine. As her group's Facebook page states, women's rights to drive campaigners want "to live as complete citizens, without the humiliation that we are subjected to every day because we are tied to a driver."

On October 26, 2013 the women to drive movement, also known by its twitter handle @Women2Drive, was planning on organizing another driving demonstration. The Saudi Arabian government took action by blocking their website, and Sheikh Saleh al-Lohaidan, one of the 21 members of the Senior Council of Scholars, an advisory group to the King Abdullah, stated, "If a woman drives a car, not out of pure necessity, that could have negative physiological impacts as functional and physiological medical studies show that it automatically affects the ovaries and pushes the pelvis upwards." 

Despite the dangers they faced, activists have already posted 12 videos of themselves driving on YouTube, and supporters claim that between 25 and 60 women drove on Saturday. Authorities tightened security around the Saudi capital, and many of the women drivers who were reprimanded were "kept in their vehicles until their male guardians arrived, at which point the women were released after signing pledges not to drive again."

With regards to the movement, Al-Sharif stated, "I started something, and I'm going to finish it--whether they like it or not... I'm not going to stop until the first driver's license has been issued to a woman in Arabia."

Hopefully her goal will be achieved soon so that women in Saudi Arabia will be able to dream about much more than getting behind the wheel of a car. 

On a lighter note, check out this Saudi comedian's satirical video, "No Woman, No Drive."

© Elizabeth "Elise" Sidamon-Eristoff October 28, 2013