Microcredit is a simple idea, really: you lend people who have nothing a tiny bit of money so that they can begin to make some money, part of which they pay back to you so you can do the same thing for the next person. It has, generally speaking, been a smashing success, and will by 2005 have given as many as 100 million people a chance to escape the most dire poverty. But it's not enough.
The NYT recently called for a "microfinance" revolution. They're right. Microcredit is a powerful tool, doing vast amounts of good, and could (should) be extended to every eligible person in the developing world (though of course, it isn't a silver bullet).
But small loans are not the only business and financial needs of the poor. They also need financial institutions which will help them save money at interest, transfer funds at low charges (remittances from immigrant workers in the developed world to their relatives in the developing world, for instance, account for more money than all foreign aid programs put together), and receive short-term or emergency credit at non-usurious rates. Similarly, the poor need the skills, education and political organization to make use of these opportunities and not be victimized in the process.
Seems like a perfect example of a problem that calls for a transcommercial solution, something like the old-fashioned credit unions, run for the benefit of their members, except doing business internationally. No small job, but a needed one.








