Negative interest rate for microloans

This announcement by the Andhra Pradesh state government is certain to be another defining moment in the history of competitive populism in India, one that is certain to be emulated by atleast a few other states.

"The members of Self Help Groups in the Andhra Pradesh will get interest-free loans up to Rs 5 lakh from January 1... However, women would be eligible for interest waiver only if they ensure prompt repayment. As banks were now charging 14 per cent interest on loans to self help groups, the interest-free loans would cause a financial burden of Rs 1,400 crore on the State Government... To cater to the micro credit requirement, the government has set up a cooperative credit society under the name 'Stree Nidhi' with an initial corpus of Rs 1,054 crore."

Andhra Pradesh has an SHG bank linkage lending target of Rs 10000 Cr this year, nearly half the national target of Rs 22000 Cr. Of this Rs 10000 Cr, Rs 9000 Cr is in rural areas while the rest is for SHGs in urban areas. The state has 1.11 Cr women in SHGs.

Given the nearly 10% rate of inflation, the state government would actually be lending at minus 10% to these SHGs. It would form the most generous bank-lending program in scale anywhere (possibly anytime) in the world.

Incentivizing savings habit among the poor

The government of India have initiated a Total Financial Inclusion (TFI) program to ease formal institutional credit constraints and expand their ability to manage their finances more optimally. However, while the policies under implementation may achieve success with the former, the later remains a much more formidable challenge.



The prevailing set of policies, revolving around the TFI program and door-step banking through business correspondents, will deliver a savings bank account to every citizen. It is also being suggested that the Aadhaar number and Aadhaar-linked savings bank bank accounts could provide the ideal platform to implement the proposed cash transfer schemes to deliver subsidies. All these will still not address the ultimate objective of getting people to optimally utilize their savings bank account to manage their finances efficiently. The challenge will be all the more bigger in promotion of savings among those poor who are more acutely present-biased (or have greater self-control problems).



Promotion of savings habit among the poor has been an area of interesting research in recent years, driven mostly by trends and developments in behavioural economics. Economists like Sendhil Mullainathan have expanded on Richard Thaler's mental accounting framework to explain how people's subliminal predisposition to categorize and evaluate savings and spending decisions can be invoked to nudge people into managing their finances more optimally.



I had blogged earlier about the merits of a system which divides income into separate, end-use based mental accounts.

"It helps people manage their finances more effectively in two ways. One, people are inclined to save if they are aware of what they are saving for. For example, a "car account" is a strong nudge to get people to save for purchasing a car. Two, separation of expenditure heads with pre-defined allocations help in effective management of expenditures."

Based on the mental accounting framework, I have also blogged about the merits of use-directed multi-tier accounts to nudge people into saving for specific purposes.



In this context, the most recent research paper (pdf here) on incentivizing savings among the poor come from an experiment among the rotating savings and credit associations (ROSCAs) of Kenya by Pascaline Dupas and Jonathan Robinson. They provided members of 113 ROSCAs in Kenya with different household and ROSCA savings instruments (like individual lock and key boxes and ROSCA health pot) to save for health and other contingencies and found that it could "substantially increase investment in preventative health, reduce vulnerability to health shocks, and help people meet their savings goals".



They also found that providing people with a designated safe place to keep money was sufficient to overcome the common barriers to savings - transfers to other people and "unplanned expenditures" on temptation goods - through a mental accounting effect ("The money put into the box was seen by respondents as 'for savings' and was therefore less likely to be spent on luxuries or given away to others").



The find strong evidence that use-directed commitment savings products can be effective in promoting savings even among the more present-biased individuals. The ROSCA health pot was a commitment savings approach wherein a sub-group in a ROSCA could agree on a health product and provide additional contribution (over and above their ROSCA contribution), which could be redeemed each month to purchase the particular health product for one member at a time. They write about the present-biased members of the ROSCA,

"The enthusiasm that led them to sign up for the Health Pot tied their hands not only to spend the money a certain way, but also to continue to save on a regular basis (i.e., at each ROSCA meeting). This strong social commitment feature is the only one that enabled present-biased individuals in our sample to overcome their barriers to savings."

They point to an earlier study by the same authors from the same area in Kenya which found that providing simple bank accounts to wmone who run small vending businesses had substantial savings impact only on about 40% of them. They write,

"Since the bank accounts did not provide any form of earmarking or a strong commitment feature, their primary function was likely to provide a designated place to save. The present study suggests that more sophisticated devices that include stronger commitment features might be better suited for some of those individuals who did not use the simple savings account. For others, it appears that a less sophisticated but more easily accessible device such as a Safe Box would be better suited to save small sums on a regular basis."

The populist assualt on incentives - MFI loan defaults

I had blogged earlier about a study by Citigroup economists Willem H. Buiter and Ebrahim Rahbari where they identified factors that could affect future global economic growth. One of the more interesting factors pointed out was the dangers to growth genereated by "the populist assaults on the incentives to work, save and invest". Here is one such example.

Mint quotes Vijay Mahajan of Basix who claims that, thanks to the state-wide default on Microfinance Institution (MFI) loans by self-help groups (SHGs) in Andhra Pradesh, there could be "92 lakh households in Andhra Pradesh who are appearing on the defaulters list of the National Credit Bureau".

Even assuming an element of exaggeration in the figure, it is an extraordinary situation. As far as I can remember, this is the first truly big example of a full-scale debt default by a large section of population. Unlike the loan waivers, where governments decree to write-off loans, here is an example of borrowers deciding to collectively and unilaterally extinguish their debt obligations, without abrogating their loan contract with the MFIs.

First, there is the legal-technical issue of these defaulters, forming a major share of SHGs and women in Andhra Pradesh, losing their credit-worthiness in a single stroke. How would the banks classify or risk-weight future loans to this massive category of borrowers?

More importantly, the larger message that would have been internalized by these women and their communities is that their contractual obligations to their lenders is no longer sacrosanct. The hitherto entrenched belief among borrowers that their private debt will always have to be re-paid is now shaken (the loan waivers have long since shaken this belief on government debts).

Similarly, lenders, of all kinds (who lend to these people), will now be aware that the credit risk of their borrowers have suddenly spurted. Markets will price it accordingly, with higher rates and stronger conditions, which in turn will adversely affect access and hurt borrowers. Unfortunately, this moral hazard is not limited to just borrowers and lenders. It covers all forms of contracts, and this is an even bigger concern.

As standard economic theories have taught us, a market economy is underpinned by bonds of loyalty and trust which facilitates contracts that form the basis of most market-driven transactions. There are a number of studies which have shown that developing countries have weaker contract obligation and enforcement capital and they are binding constraints on economic growth in these economies. The MFI default would surely have diminished the already limited contract capital available in such societies.

In this context, governments need to ensure that their policy decisions do not distort incentives. In the instant case of MFI loan defaults in Andhra Pradesh, even if the government wanted to punish the MFIs, it would have been appropriate if it was done without distorting incentives.

One approach would have been to, in some form, recover the loans through the regular government SHG institutions, with or without interest. The recovered amounts could then have been returned back to the banks that financed the MFIs. This would have punished the MFIs, who would have been deprived off their profits and would suffer credibility loss, without distorting borrower incentives nor causing loss to the financial institutions that funded the MFIs.

Are SHGs a public good?

Over the past year or so, the micro-finance movement has been the subject of intense scrutiny, faced with charges of fraud and exploitation. In Bangladesh, the Grameen bank and its iconic founder Mohammed Yunus have been accused by the Government of accounting fraud and diverting money. In Andhra Pradesh, micro finance institutions (MFIs) have been found indulging in practices that exploit the poor.

I have already blogged and written about these allegations and will not dwell on them here. Suffice to say that there are critical procedural/administrative problems and more importantly, serious corporate governance issues with many MFIs. In the absence of meaningful steps to address them, there are strong headwinds against any sustainable progress for the MFI model.

However, there are two interesting macro-perspectives from this debate, especially in Andhra Pradesh, that deserve greater discussion.

1. There is the argument that the spectacular success of MFIs in Andhra Pradesh overlooks the role of the government in creating a million-strong Self Help Groups (SHGs) that the MFIs could readily use (a la "ready cooked food"). There is palpable resentment at the fact that the MFIs, who merely walked in and piggy-backed on the fruits of the state government's efforts of more than a decade to develop SHGs, are claiming and getting a disproportionate share of the credit for the success of micro-finance activities in Andhra Pradesh.

In fact, the officials of the state government have even gone on record to argue that MFIs should confine themselves to non-SHG lending, "They cannot make profit by lending to the poor. Let them lend to the rich and make profit and leave welfare of the poor to the Government."

Without getting into the merits of how the credit for the success of micro-finance should be apportioned, it may be useful to examine what should be respective roles of the government and private sector in such areas.

Clearly, there are two distinct activities - formation and strengthening of SHGs and micro-lending to these SHGs. The strength of the former determines the success with the latter. In other words, SHGs form the fixed social infrastructure on which micro-finance rides.

I am inclined to see striking parallels between SHGs and classic public goods. It is now well-documented that apart from being channel to funnel credit to the poor, SHGs also play a critical role in women's empowerment and is a platform for enhancing the effectiveness of government interventions in many areas. Therefore, the net social benefits of SHGs exceed its net private benefits to the agency forming such groups. Private agencies like MFIs will naturally have less of an incentive to invest time and resources in forming SHGs.

In the circumstances, as is the case with public goods, it may be appropriate if governments focus on the formation of SHGs and invite the private sector to play a greater role with micro-lending. This does not mean an exclusive role for each in their respective areas, but a major role. So the way forward may be for governments to focus on forming SHGs and strengthening them, and for private sector to partnering with governments in increasing the volume of micro-lending. And all this assumes that the governance and other problems related to MFIs are largely resolved.

2. The second issue is related to the respective roles of the government and the private sector in combating poverty. More specifically, the success of the MFIs (most conspicuously, the success of SKS with its IPO) has generated a strong feeling that MFIs are making super-normal profits by exploiting the poor. This in turn raises the issue of what should be ethical standard for private agencies working in the area of development, the so called social enterprises.

Is it alright for a private social enterprise firm, playing by the rules of the game (assuming that the rules are themselves fair), to make profits even as it delivers on certain social objectives (as being delivered through the regular government initiatives)? In this case, is it acceptable if MFIs follow the rules, make micro-loans, and in the process also make handsome profits? Or should their profits be capped at some level? Or should the cost of lending be brought down and thereby reduce the excessive profit margins? Or should a share of their huge profits be ploughed back into helping the poor in some other effective manner?

In other words, is it acceptable for a private social enterprise, functioning with its capitalist efficiency and playing by the letter and spirit of the rules of the game, to work towards the objective of maximizing its profits?