In 2009, the results from two microcredit impact studies in Hyderabad, India, and Manila, the Philippines were released to mixed responses (Banerjee, Duflo, Glennerster, and Kinnan 2010; Karlan and Zinman 2011). Some media declared microfinance a failure (Bennett 2009). Many in the microfinance community dismissed these randomized studies as too limited to be a true reflection of the entire sector.

These first randomized studies caused a sensation because they challenged the dominant impact narrative for microcredit—a narrative that rests on loans to capital-constrained microentrepreneurs who earn a steep return on marginal capital and thus can repay a relatively high interest rate and re-invest to grow out of poverty—and the way in which that narrative had been universalized in the popular imagination. In fact, the results were more nuanced. What the microcredit studies really showed is that this model of microcredit works for some populations—those who successfully grow businesses—but not for others.

Many now agree that the expectations for micro- credit in the popular discourse were overblown. For some, the pendulum had swung: far from a pan- acea against poverty, some argued that microcredit was actually doing harm. The evidence supports neither extreme view.

Read the paper and let us know what do you think?
PS: You can also download the file using the link http://www.cgap.org/gm/document-1.9.55766/FORUM2.pdf