Not sure I agree, or maybe I was not clear in what I said, possibly because of a bad internet connection I rushed my response a little (you'll see I lost a sentence or two when I uploaded it to the web).
The livelihoods of the clients immediately supported appear to be improved, I get that. But surely we are looking at the NET impact in the community here? Otherwise, aren't we just improving the lives of some (the clients), which leads to much celebration (as in The Guardian), while the fact that the program might also be degrading the lives of others equally poor (the non-clients working in the same sector) gets lost, partly because no-one knows or cares about this negative externality (researchers and microcredit advocates are not that interested to explore it for obvious reasons). I can't believe the objectives of the BRAC program really were all about improving JUST the lives of the clients, and the issue of whether or not there was a negative impact on others in the community was of no importance – to me that would seem like a very bad program design indeed.
Posted by: milfordbateman@yahoo.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (8) |
No comments:
Post a Comment