Where the words come from
How banks reduce the risk of lending (credit checks, collateral, cosigners), and why households in low-income countries cannot save or invest enough to escape poverty, with the research of Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo — Principles of Economics 2e, OpenStax, licensed CC BY 4.0. https://openstax.org/books/principles-economics-2e/pages/16-1-the-problem-of-imperfect-information-and-asymmetric-information and https://openstax.org/books/principles-economics-2e/pages/32-2-improving-countries-standards-of-living. Changes: Block 2 condensed from 16.1 ("the bank conducts a credit check … require a cosigner … require collateral, often property or equipment that the bank would have a right to seize and sell") and 32.2 ("any incomes that people receive are spent immediately on necessities such as food. … Lack of saving means a lack of capital accumulation and a lack of loanable funds"; Banerjee and Duflo's research "has confirmed that the households in these economies are trapped in low incomes because they cannot muster enough investment", given as "finds"). The sentence "The poorest households in low-income countries seldom have any of these" is ours. The dollar income figure dropped. British spelling..
Interest rates of 25 per cent or more; the advocates' case; the review's findings on savings, spending, assets, housing, health, shocks, children's education and job creation; its conclusions that some people are made poorer, that lending may work better focused on entrepreneurs, and that micro-savings may be a better model — What is the impact of microfinance on poor people? A systematic review of evidence from sub-Saharan Africa (EPPI-Centre, University of London, 2010), research output funded by the Department for International Development, published on GOV.UK by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, Open Government Licence v3.0. https://www.gov.uk/research-for-development-outputs/what-is-the-impact-of-microfinance-on-poor-people-a-systematic-review-of-evidence-from-sub-saharan-africa and https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08af4ed915d3cfd000a40/MicroFinance_ForWeb.pdf. Changes: Conclusions 1 to 4 of the GOV.UK abstract condensed and paraphrased ("some people are made poorer, and not richer, by microfinance, particularly micro-credit clients … they consume more instead of investing in their futures; their businesses fail to produce enough profit to pay high interest rates … the context in which microfinance clients live is by definition fragile"; "some evidence … better placed to deal with shocks, but this is not universal"; the entrepreneurs point; micro-savings "does not require an increase in income to pay high interest rates and so implications of failure are not so high … the evidence on micro-savings is small and further rigorous evaluation is needed"). The technical report at url2 (Stewart, van Rooyen, Dickson, Majoro and de Wet; EPPI-Centre and University of Johannesburg) carries no licence statement of its own, so the Open Government Licence in `name` covers the GOV.UK record alone; only facts, not wording, are taken from the report, all in our own words. Facts from its executive summary: interest rates "of 25% or more"; the advocates' view ("hailed by many as a solution to poverty alleviation, which allows market forces to operate, enabling the poor to invest in their futures"); the synthesis results on savings, expenditure, assets, housing, health ("generally positive"), children's education ("considerable evidence that micro-credit may be doing harm") and job creation ("little evidence"). Ours: "as families struggle to pay school costs" condenses the review's explanation ("clients have difficulties paying school expenses"); the recap is our summary of the page..
The finding that almost all impact evaluations of microfinance suffer from weak methods and inadequate data, and the warning that this can mislead and divert attention from more pro-poor interventions — Systematic Review. What is the evidence of the impact of microfinance on the well-being of poor people? (Duvendack and others, EPPI-Centre, University of London, 2011), research output funded by the Department for International Development, published on GOV.UK by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, Open Government Licence v3.0. https://www.gov.uk/research-for-development-outputs/systematic-review-what-is-the-evidence-of-the-impact-of-microfinance-on-the-well-being-of-poor-people. Changes: The GOV.UK abstract paraphrased: "almost all impact evaluations of microfinance suffer from weak methodologies and inadequate data, thus the reliability of impact estimates are adversely affected. This can lead to misconceptions about the actual effects of a microfinance programme, thereby diverting attention from the search for perhaps more pro-poor interventions." "Perhaps more pro-poor" given as "that may do more for the poor". The second paragraph of block 6 is from the 2010 review, credited in that source..
Questions, options, diagrams and feedback are our own. Figures credited to a source above are that source's; every other figure is invented to show the method.