The New Horizon

A new world explored with a rational view

Reinstated The Yunus Story

with 10 comments

In my last article I thought that I don’t need to write more about Prof. Yunus today. But, a few blogs changed me. It’s quite shameful to see that a group of people spreading anti-Grameen Bank news across the internet. Most probably these are the reaction of jealous competitors of Prof. Yunus and his Bank.

The forwarded mail posted in the blog talks about various points. Let me try to clarify the reader about the person and his concept of Microcredit. Let me go through pointwise.

Do you know in most cases it is the husband / father/ elder brother who controls
the Grameen loan taken in the name of his wife/daughter/ sister?

– Well, this does not change the facts of repayment and the noble business cause the person is after.

Do you know the bank charges around 30% interest?

– It means that no other Bank in Bangladesh charges less than that. Otherwise how did the Bank grow?

Do you know that Grameen borrowers lend the borrowed money at 80% to 100%
interest to fellow villagers?

– Why the other villagers are not elligible to get the loans directly from the Bank? The information seems to be an isolated example and not a generic one.

Do you know any other business where someone can still make a living by
borrowing at 30% interest rate?

– So, they could not repay and the Bank would have vanished within days of it’s birth. Where from the money is coming that is adding to grow the Bank itself?

Do you know in some villages (especially in Sylhet) men take three/four wives to
get Grameen loan to run their lucrative money lending business?

– Again, some isolated examples of failure can not be treated as against the notion of generic success the Grameen Bank has achieved.

Do you know that the poorest of the poor (as touted by Yunus, Clintons and
others) are not eligible to Grameen loan as they cannot repay their loans in 52
instalments at 30% interest? Do you know that only middle peasants (having some
lands or assets) are eligible to the credit?

– come on man, had this been the case, the concept of micro-credit would not have any meaning at all. People are not that fool. Also, in a later point the same author has written that Grameen simply does nothing to a defaulter. So, what’s the use of the assets of the borrower?

Why do you think Monsanto, the giant US corporation, engaged in marketing
genetically modified seeds (disastrous in the long run as peansants will have to
buy the seeds before every sowing season) is a big promoter of microcredit?

– The concept of business is simple. Monsanto wants people to buy seeds. People has to have money to buy seeds. So, Monsanto would encourage micro-credit. The same concept is applied when Microsoft gives free training on Microsoft platforms in poor countries. They simply want people to use their products and make it a de-facto standard, which will give them an edge in emerging countries, that they could leverage later.

Why does Grameen Bank pay no income tax to Bangladesh?

– It’s a decision of Govt of Bangladesh and I hope they have found the cause reasonable enough.

This is the largest cellphone company in Bangladesh, charging for localincoming
calls as well.

– Charging for incoming calls is a part of their business strategy. If they can survive with that in the market, I see no reason why this should be criticised.

Is there a link between thisaward and Grameen Phone’s (Dr Yunus’s cell phone
company) partnership with the Norweigian telephone company, Nortel?

– First of all, Nortel is a Canadian company. Nortel is a giant and has relationships with many telecom service providers. We can not conclusively derive anything from this fact.

Do you know that the Nortel has been siphoning off millions of dollars to Norway
withoutpaying any income tax to Bangladesh?

– According to the author anybody else who would have supplied switches (Nortel is famous for switches) would have taken away money from Bangladesh. So, is there another company who gives similar equipment at lower cost? Why then Nortel is still a giant Telecom equipment manufacturing company.

If micro-credit could alleviate poverty, why on earth hundreds of thousands of
Bangladeshis are going to Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Singapore,
borrowinghundreds of thousands of takas (two lakh per head on the average) to
work as menials? If borrowing fifty or sixty dollars could alleviate poverty,
why are theydoing so? Are they stupids?

– The last argument exposes the stupidity of the author. Grameen Bank is not a panacea which will cure the poverty disease of Bangladesh. It’s an effort and each effort has it’s own limitation. He cannot make people rich overnight, nor he has ever claimed so. He has got the Nobel prize as a recognition of his effort. Regarding migration, everyone wants more. So, they migrate with the hope of more earnings, a better life.

It’s quite irritating to respond to these foolish anti-Yunus campaigns. Still, I can take the pain of writing my view so that I can stop the anonymous route of defamation messages. I think I have succeeded, but the reader has the last say.

N.B. – I am adding this after a few repercussions around this writing. I hereby explicitly declare that I have no stance for or against the blog which I am referring to at the beginning of my writing. The person has copied the mail into his blog. I was trying to counter the logic presented by the author of the mail (Taj Hasmi) only and I am aware of neutral position taken by the author of the blog.


Written by Diganta

October 14, 2006 at 11:45 pm

Posted in Bangladesh, Economy

10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Good to know about him. And about answering to ‘foolish anti-Yunus campaign’, it is always better to write as it gives a personal relief.


    October 15, 2006 at 12:52 am

  2. probably written by a stupid pakistani who only have jealously for bangladeshi successes. All leading indians congratulated Dr Yunus on his achievement but I havent seen any kudos from Pakistan. So much for muslim brotherhood.
    Anyhows, have you also seen the other bangladeshi achievement of the week. Jawed Karim one of the founders of youtube which just got sold to google this past week is 1/2 bangladeshi.


    October 15, 2006 at 4:06 am

  3. I don’t want to fall into useless debate. I got a mail, posted it to find out how people react. I neither endorse nor refute that mail. What hurts me is ‘A group of people spreading anti-Grameen bank news.’ I am not a group of people. And I have nothing to do with Grameen Bank as such. I would appreciate if you stop seeing sinister aims in every idea that you don’t like.

    “It means that no other Bank in Bangladesh charges less than that. Otherwise how did the Bank grow?”
    I find this comment baseless. A lot of banks are there that gives credits at far lessor interest. Even Credit cards do(they charge around 24%). Why Grameen Bank flourished is it gives micro-credits. Small amounts. Conventional banks don’t give that.

    “Why the other villagers are not elligible to get the loans directly from the Bank? The information seems to be an isolated example and not a generic one.”

    It is neither isolated nor non-generic, as per the mail goes. The poor arn’t elligible. So they have no option but to take money from the secondary lenders.


    October 15, 2006 at 8:18 am

  4. What hurts me is ‘A group of people spreading anti-Grameen bank news.’ I am not a group of people. – Very very sorry if you are hurt, but I never aimed at you. I was referring to the person who actually wrote it.

    Why Grameen Bank flourished is it gives micro-credits. Small amounts. – may be you are correct, but why people would take loans with 30% interest?

    It is neither isolated nor non-generic, as per the mail goes. – The author of the mail did not tend to give any statistics on this.

    The poor arn’t elligible. – This is totally his personal opinion, I don’t see any reason that poors are not elligible. They don’t depend on assets for repayment because they don’t do anything to defaulters.


    October 15, 2006 at 10:37 am

  5. Send Your Greetings For Dr Muhammad Yunus


    Its big day for all over the world..:)


    Samiha Esha 🙂

    Samiha Esha

    October 15, 2006 at 7:34 pm

  6. Send Your Greetings For Dr Muhammad Yunus


    Its big day for all over the world..:)


    Samiha Esha 🙂

    Samiha Esha

    October 15, 2006 at 7:34 pm

  7. i think its great tha the prof has brought some honour to bangladesh. a few days agoI spoke with an ex member of teaching staff who was teaching at chittagong university when he was there as a student. ‘brilliant student’ was the reflection.

    I know my people though our weaknesses strengths and limitations, and our tendancy to lose objectiviety under praise 🙂 Jump around!

    Diganta we are talking about grinding poverty here and so its not a question of jealousy or someones success or contratiness to want sober longitudinal study, independant from the ngo and microcredit industy to look at the effects on destitution, gender justice, rural philanthorpic channels and money culture.

    i do research in the rural areas, and i find opinion there is unfavourable. its not point scoring, theres no point in treating this like an idoelogical battle, there is so much more we need to know. Sytemmatic social research doesnt get doen in bangladesh, unless it is conducted by a self serving institution (foreign government, ngo or business).

    I read a rant by taj hashmi on a very hard core lefty and atheist ‘free thinkers forum’. i found it a little deranged, but empirical observations matched my own.

    do you agree with me if i sa that the bigger beneficiaries have been the microcredit technocracy?

    I hope and I pray that the theory and practice of microcredit and other justice laden technologies continues to refine itself and that back slapping doesnt hamper this.


    October 28, 2006 at 3:04 pm

  8. See all theories and practises has some flaws. But, it does not mean that they are failure cases.


    November 2, 2006 at 10:25 am

  9. Burning question: Has micro credit done a lot?
    found a good article and book on micro credit and grameen
    Contributors of this blog are Doug Henwood, Patrick Bond, Bosse Kramsjo, Badruddin Umar, Susan F. Feiner and Durcilla K. Barker, Farooque Chowdhury, Robert Pollin, Gina Neff , Anu Mohammad, Omar Tareq Chowdhury.

    Here of the excellent article of this book:

    The metamorphosis of micro-credit debtor
    Farooque Chowdhury

    Micro-credit, the well-propagated mantra in the fight against poverty, is now expanding crossing the national boundaries as capital has done for centuries. Countries in the centre and in the periphery in the present world system are near-spellbound by this mantra. The actors include kings, queens, statesmen, bankers, charity foundation initiators, economists, development workers and the poor. Only the last one is at the receiving end.
    The metamorphosis of the micro credit debtor exposes the acts the capital plays in the act of micro credit and makes all its pious pronouncements hollow. The metamorphosis takes not only to the debtor, but also to other members of the debtor-household.
    The debtor of the micro credit turns owner of the tools or raw materials necessary for producing commodity as the debtor returns home from market after purchasing these with the credit money. But with the joy of ownership a poor debtor enjoys through this metamorphosis there comes a new burden, the burden an industrial proletariat does not have to bear: the burden and responsibility of maintaining, repairing and replacing the tools, equipments or parts of these and the costs that accompany it as the debtor is going to produce and going to be a producer of commodities. It is an extra burden. Usually the job is done not only by the debtor, but also by the other members of the debtor—household. That means time, necessary or surplus labour, depending upon a situation. The proud ownership carries another intricate calculation. An industry owner provides premise, shade, light, water, storage facilities, transport, etc. for producing a commodity and before hiring a wage slave the owner has to spend money for these ranging from construction, power and water connections, supervision, etc. which are calculated before the surplus value is appropriated. But in case of the micro credit debtor turned independent owner of tools of production all these burdens fall upon the debtor. It is the responsibility of the debtor turned owner to repair/replace/heal and to spend money for these. That means the debtor has to arrange the constant capital, and sometimes, the variable capital. The creditor does not always provide the money required for these purposes or the debtor has to set aside a portion of the credit money for these purposes. If the debtor sets aside a portion then the person has to extend extra time to the portion of labour that produces surplus. Moreover, the debtor turned owner has to construct/raise a shed for carrying on the production activity and spend money and labour power belonging to the debtor and the debtor’s household. Actually, the debtor, most of the time, uses own premise, rent for which is paid by the owner of the production unit, the debtor. Maintenance and repair is paid by the debtor, now turned into an independent producer. An industrialist has to pay rent for the premise, utilities and other facilities while they are within the premises producing commodity. But in case of the micro-credit all these are the debtor’s responsibility. The metamorphosis of the debtor to owner of tools, etc., to independent producer thus does nothing but increase the surplus labour time and squeeze necessary labour time so that the repayment of the loan can be made as per schedule.
    The debtor turned producer has to plan, search and work out comparative advantage, and procure and transport required raw materials for the commodity to be produced. The debtor, now acting as procurement manager of the household-based production unit, procures and carries or transports the raw materials for the commodity to be produced. Sometimes it is the spouse or sibling who performs the task, unpaid and unaccounted labour power put into the process. Is the equation in favour of the fellow who went to the banker for the poor to realise the fundamental right the banker propagates? Reality is that the shortened necessary labour time and the lengthened surplus labour time, obviously provide the answer. What about the level of appropriation? It is, certainly, not at the level Marx ‘calculated’. It is super-appropriation, never imagined by the mine owners of Rome, the colonial plunderers, the plantation owners, the slave owners in pre-slavery America, the multi-nationals operating in the countries on the periphery, not even the plundering-lumpen capitalists in a number of underdeveloped countries, but only by the multi-national micro credit capital. So, Michael Lipton and John Toye said in ‘Does Aid Work in India?’ : Rates of return on credit projects are particularly high in India; and Joe Remenyi said in ‘Where Credit is Due: Income Generating Programmes for the Poor in Developing Countries’: Credit – based income generating projects may be the most profitable way in which society can invest…Diminishing return has not set in this field…;…banking on and with the poor is a very good thing to do…. The typical successful CIGP …required an investment well below $1,000 per sustained wage – paying position created (one – tenth of the ratio in the formal sector)…[W]hen one is living at the margin of survival earning around $1 a day, an increase in earning capacity of 50 cents a day represents a substantial improvement in cash flow. These statements tell the truth.
    The metamorphosis of the debtor moves further as the fellow turns wage labourer. The micro credit finds a new commodity as, borrowing from Engels, the ‘source of new value,’ source of surplus ‘income’ with which the debtor will repay and ‘this commodity is labour-power’. The labour power is stored up in the bodies of the micro credit debtors and other members of the debtor-household who extend respective labour power to extend the surplus labour time so that the repayment could be made on schedule. As an independent producer the debtor has to fix the pace of production and that determines the debtor turned wage labourer’s pace and length of working hour. Even, the debtor wage labourer has to borrow labour power of others in the household, who are actually paid only by bare subsistence. To make the statement complete it is not the debtor only, but other members in the debt ridden household, along with the debtor, also, turn wage labourer, at least, part time. Does it not appear more intense than the conveyor belt or the Taylor system innovated by the industrialists to increase surplus value? Thus, the entire household turns into a household of wage labourers, full time or part time. Actually, the pace of work is determined by the time schedule of the repayment. Within the scheduled time for repayment the independent producer turned wage labourer, along with the co-workers in the household have to produce and sell that quantity or that number of commodity that can bring in at least the amount of money needed to repay the instalment of the debt. If seasonal variations, changes in market, health problems, other unseen troubles, non-availability of raw materials or transport, in short, major and minor forces, i.e. ‘acts of god and acts of reality’, coordination with the marketing day and the instalment day are taken into account then the pace of production of a debtor turned independent producer turned wage labourer can be imagined. The person has to forget 8-hour working day, rest, amusement and attending to family chores. It is only to produce surplus enough for repayment. Does it sound like the sweating system? Does an industrialist having a supervisor or a foreman appear fool? While an industrialist has to devise a mechanism, a supervisory system and keep a physical appearance in the work place the micro credit capital does not require all these. Its mere regimentation, mere providing credit at the doorsteps of the poor and its higher level of ‘consideration’ or attention regarding collection of part of the credit from the debtor’s home so that the poor fellow does not turn a defaulter that determine the pace of production. This is the condition of the micro credit wage labourer, obviously a bit different from an industrial wage labourer. An industrialist ‘purchases the use of one week’s labour of [a] worker’ if the worker is paid on weekly basis, but the micro creditor purchases the labour of the debtor for an entire year, if, assumed that the loan will be repaid within a year, or for the entire period until the loan is repaid. With the payment for necessary labour time, a specific amount of money paid for subsistence of a worker and members of the worker’s family, an industrialist ‘ensures the continuance of labour-power even after his [the worker’s] death’, but the micro-creditor ensures the simultaneous use of labour – power of the household members of the debtor along with that of the debtor. The labour, through persistent struggles, has won, in relative terms, a number of measures to safeguard own body and soul and the capital has to compromise for its own sake. But the micro credit debtor turned wage worker toils without coverage of any such measure. The micro credit capital that finances micro-production units at household level is smart enough to escape, till today, the struggle of the debtor turned wage worker, by pass all rules, even norms attained so far, and stay safe. There is no working hour; no weekly holiday; no law, rule, regulation governing working time, working condition, safety measures, child labour, female working hour, etc.; no inspectorate looking at the working condition. This makes life miserable for the micro credit debtor turned wage worker and for the members of the household including the minors who help create surplus value without any legal coverage.
    Now, only a few numbers quoted from Microfinance Statistics (vol.17, Dec., 2004), a publication of the Credit and Development Forum. These will help comprehend, at least partially, the width and length of the micro credit net and the surplus value it appropriates in a single country. In Bangladesh, in 2004, the number of active members in the 721 micro financing organisations (MFO), reporting to the CDF, was 16,622,047 and in 2000, it was 11,021,663 in 585 MFOs. In 2004 the number cumulative borrowers from 721 MFOs was 16,244,242 in a country of 140 million. It was 7,409,773 from 585 MFOs in 2000. There are many other MFOs that have not reported to the CDF, many others are operating in different guises and many other programmes and projects operating not as MFOs but carrying on micro credit business. From how many souls do a group of industrialists in a poor country appropriate surplus value? Are those always more than the number just cited? There are answers, obviously, to this question. It is expected that a reader will search the answers.
    The metamorphosis of the micro-credit debtor continues further as the person moves to market with the commodity produced. The debtor then turns to an independent trader competing with peer debtors turned independent traders in the market place and at the same time they together fall prey to the vagaries of market governed by the mighty market forces. While carrying the commodity to the market, sometimes, some other members of the household, shares the load. This labour is unpaid in terms of wage. If counted or paid, the amount comes from the surplus value already generated. If it is unpaid then the amount thus saved stays within the surplus value to be paid to the creditor waiting for the next instalment of repayment. As an independent trader the debtor turned independent producer turned wage worker has to bear all the responsibilities of a trader. But an industrial labourer does not have to take all these responsibilities. The wage slave in a factory just completes respective job and gets compelled to be appropriated of the surplus labour time. Market, supply, demand, transportation of commodity to market, storage, taxes and tolls, speculation, price, etc. are not part of a factory worker’s business. But as an independent trader the micro credit debtor has to bear these extra burdens which are not the creditor’s concern at all. The creditor has tactfully, through the modus operandi, has put it upon the poor debtor’s weak shoulder. There are commodities in the market that are produced in larger, mechanised production units, with higher productivity, which means a cheaper commodity, and, commodities that enjoy facilities created by the WTO. This situation puts the debtor into an unfavourable, uneven playing field, cuts down the debtor’s competitive edge and presses down price of the commodity produced in the household by semi-skilled and unskilled workers and produced with artisan method and tools. There is the packaging, marketing and advertising factor. The person has to reconcile with the situation and that means further tightening of belt. The micro-credit thus pushes the debtor to such a situation with extra burdens while it demands regular repayment of the credit.
    The data on the sectors or sub-sectors that use micro credit in Bangladesh show the sources of surplus value appropriated and who ‘offered’ the surplus labour to generate the surplus value. In 2004, according to the data published in the above mentioned CDF publication, of the 379 MFOs reporting to the CDF, 27.94 percent of cumulative disbursement was in the agricultural sector that included crops, livestock and fisheries sub-sectors while only petty trading sub-sector covered 40.61 percent. The percentage of food processing and cottage industries was 6.28 and of transport it was 2.20. In the years 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000 the petty trading dominated. From where does trading, whatever its size is, produce the profit? A portion of it is surplus value generated by others in other places. What about the transport, the rickshaw van or the boat, and the cow fattening? The same answer. It is also the surplus value generated by and in different segments of the broader society that is appropriated by micro credit capital that gets in through the debtor’s hand. Other sectors and sub-sectors also provide similar explanation found in political economy. The above mentioned CDF publication provides a few more startling facts: ‘utilisation of loan by sector or sub-sector (as percentage of cumulative disbursement)’ in ‘social sectors’ in 2004 was 1.70 (health:0.44, education: 0.06 and housing:1.20); in 2003 it was 1.58 (0.45 for health, 0.04 for education and 1.09 for housing); in 2002 it was 1.41 (0.39, 0.05 and 0.97); in 2001 it was 1.76 (0.42, 0.11 and 1.23); and in 2000 it was 1.69 (0.37, 0.02 and 1.3). The ‘social sector’ meant by the cited publication was health, education and housing which are actually required for ensuring the debtor’s and the debtor household’s survival, keeping the body and soul of the household based producers or of the trader or of the transport operator together, ensuring that production or trading could be carried on or transport could be operated so that surplus value generation or taking share of surplus value generated by some other is ensured, so that the repayment that includes surplus value is ensured. If a debtor does not have a house or a shed the production unit will be inoperative or will face problems in the production activities; the raw materials, the tools, the fuel, the cow or goat or poultry, the commodity produced could not be stored in; the producer and others in the household joining in the production activities could not survive. So, the housing sub-sector was emphasized most while lending out money in the CDF defined ‘social sectors’. Of course, the façade was benevolence by the micro creditor. Then came health with the same arguments. A judicious choice of the appropriator! Material interest tops the list over human consideration. The extent of concern for health of debtor and debtor household is directly related and tied to the extent of concern of continuation of production, etc. activities. It was followed by education. The level of production and the level of transaction determine the extent of education required and the level of emphasis put into education. None can override this rule. The micro-creditor, also, faithfully follows this one and the life of debtor goes through this metamorphosis.
    Thus, the circuit of metamorphosis of micro-credit debtor moves on and ultimately it completes a full path: a poor, an appropriated person turns debtor, the debtor turns owner of tools of production., the owner turns household based independent producer, the independent producer turns wage worker, the worker turns independent trader, the trader stays entrapped into debt with worsened condition and bigger debt turning one to debt slave. In its circuit the micro credit debtor only produces surplus value or takes a portion of surplus value produced by some other debtor or some other person or persons in the society producing surplus value and transfers a portion of it to micro credit capital. The circuit is both, a closed and an open, signifying the contradiction. The closed circuit keeps the debtor in perpetual and worsening poverty; sometimes, borrowing from the micro-credit literature, graduating a percentage of the borrowers, but pushing down or entrapping others in increased number; and often, throwing back the graduated debtor to the den of poverty again; and in these cases, the mainstream economics finds the rationale in ‘shocks’, ‘setbacks’, etc., natural and social, as their terminology defines. But whatever happens in the lives of a certain percentage of the debtor that does not change the basic structure of the circuit in the broader social matrix, in the process of appropriation of surplus value. Ignoring the macro scenario and putting forth the micro, a few individual cases, putting forth the exceptions instead of the general rule does nothing but vulgarises the arguments itself pushed forward by the mainstream. The open circuit intensifies and accelerates the pauperisation process and thus creating pressure on the system that creates poverty, makes a person poor, and appropriates surplus value. The vulgar economics with ‘hollow eye and wrinkled brow’ (Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice) extending support to micro credit capital may construct a façade by resorting, again, to vulgar arguments. It may argue that a certain percent of micro credit debtors have improved their living condition with the aid of the panacea as a few days ago they used to mean the micro credit. But this does not nullify the fact of appropriation of surplus value from others in the broader society. Rather, it puts the evidence that surplus value has been appropriated from some other persons. There are many economists in the bandwagon of micro credit who cite cases of increased consumption by the micro credit debtors. But it should not be missed that consumptions are of two types: productive and individual; while the first one is to create products the other is turned into means of subsistence. So, data of debtors’ increased consumption, claims regularly made by the mainstream economics, carry no meaning other than better and ensured supply of surplus labour power which is expropriated. The fact should not be missed that the entire system rests on the appropriation of surplus value and micro credit is a part and, now is an institution of the system. It is sustained by the system and it helps sustain the system.
    The socialisation of micro-credit, with its profit profile, allures other capitals in banks and financing companies to join in. The capital engaged in micro-credit ties, quoting from Shakespeare, the ‘poor man’s cottages [to] princes palaces,’ organises and regulates debtors including members of the debtor-households, keeps them entrapped in the micro credit web, appropriates surplus labour power of them and others in the broader society. Moreover, it now regulates, based on its global power, the analytical process of a section of economists who overlook the process of appropriation of surplus value upon which the micro credit thrives, and try to ignore definitions of political economy and propagate vulgar ideas.


    June 16, 2008 at 11:10 am

  10. Very Nice

    Sean Reynolds

    May 29, 2009 at 10:57 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: