The U.K. has seen a positive economic growth rate of 0.8 over the last two quarters. This has been moderate growth since last year. This rate is comparatively a good sign when considering the -2.5 growth rate of 2009 and 2010. London especially is poised to bring in one-third of the economic growth for the U.K. London’s economy is forecasted to increase by 4.2 percent by the end of this year and another 3.4 percent in 2015. In the next five years, London’s economy is expected to increase by 15 percent, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research.
The forecast bodes well for the members of the upper class, but for the rapidly expanding lower class and the diminishing middle class, this means harder times and a larger socioeconomic gap to bridge. According to the London Poverty Profile, 28 percent of Londoners live below the poverty line. There are at least 20 extremely impoverished child areas, or English Authorities. Of them seven are inside the city limits of London. The unemployment rate is still a staggering 7 percent. The number of 16-24 years olds has increased in the city to one million, and the unemployment for this group has risen from 15 percent to 25 percent.
Londoner Jennifer Evans is a member of the shrinking middle class. As she has no car, she is much more exposed to London than those who drive to work in their own worlds. She explained how poverty in London affects her daily life: “I see homeless people asking for money often. Usually sitting in doorways in central areas or coming around and asking people that are standing outside bars and pubs.”
“Working poverty, which is essentially talking about people who are in full time work still being in poverty and not being able to afford to feed their families properly. This is a bigger problem in London because the cost of living is so high but wages, especially in lower paid jobs, do not match up,” said Evans.
Others have echoed similar sentiments. According to the BBC, the average monthly rent in England is 475 pounds, compared to outer London, which costs 950 pounds, and inner London, which costs 1,300 pounds. The Trust for London reinforced the lack of living wages for many Londoners when it reported that “Almost 1 in 5 working Londoners (17 percent) were paid below the London Living Wage in 2012.” This is “more than a 40% increase over 5 years – meaning there are 600,000 people in low-paid jobs.” Data Blog also noted that “for the fifth consecutive year, inflation was higher than the rise in median weekly earnings” in the U.K.
Evans notes that “The government has made some harsh changes to benefits, or welfare, recently. They have penalized people financially if they are out of work and miss a job interview or anything like that. There are cases where people have fallen into dire straights because of it.” For families with young children, poverty presents additional problems.
The BBC reported that the government allocates 15 hours a week of free daycare. However, if a parent were to leave their child in daycare for 25 hours a week, many parents would have to pay an extra seven pounds a week in addition to the earned wages. If the child were left in daycare for the full 40 hours a week, the parent would be spending an extra 25 pounds a week plus their extra wages for the child care.
One of the ways the homeless in England try to make money is by selling The Big Issue. The Big Issue is a publication made free to the homeless, who sell it on the streets to the passerby, like Evans. Evans said she feels that “inequality in the UK is really bad and is increasing. Government policies need to address this.” This is something that many others have spoken out about as well.
Hannah Aldridge, author of the London Poverty Report, wrote, “To tackle London’s poverty and inequality, policymakers must focus on solutions such as building more affordable housing and encouraging employers to pay a Living Wage.” The Mayor of London’s spokeswoman responded by saying that “The mayor continues to lobby the government on behalf of all Londoners for the critical funding and investment needed to help people facing financial hardship.”
– Frederick Wood II
Sources: BBC 1, BBC 2, The Guardian 1, The Guardian 2, Trading Economics, Trust for London, London’s Poverty Profile
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Poverty in London: A Gap Being Masked
The U.K. has seen a positive economic growth rate of 0.8 over the last two quarters. This has been moderate growth since last year. This rate is comparatively a good sign when considering the -2.5 growth rate of 2009 and 2010. London especially is poised to bring in one-third of the economic growth for the U.K. London’s economy is forecasted to increase by 4.2 percent by the end of this year and another 3.4 percent in 2015. In the next five years, London’s economy is expected to increase by 15 percent, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research.
The forecast bodes well for the members of the upper class, but for the rapidly expanding lower class and the diminishing middle class, this means harder times and a larger socioeconomic gap to bridge. According to the London Poverty Profile, 28 percent of Londoners live below the poverty line. There are at least 20 extremely impoverished child areas, or English Authorities. Of them seven are inside the city limits of London. The unemployment rate is still a staggering 7 percent. The number of 16-24 years olds has increased in the city to one million, and the unemployment for this group has risen from 15 percent to 25 percent.
Londoner Jennifer Evans is a member of the shrinking middle class. As she has no car, she is much more exposed to London than those who drive to work in their own worlds. She explained how poverty in London affects her daily life: “I see homeless people asking for money often. Usually sitting in doorways in central areas or coming around and asking people that are standing outside bars and pubs.”
“Working poverty, which is essentially talking about people who are in full time work still being in poverty and not being able to afford to feed their families properly. This is a bigger problem in London because the cost of living is so high but wages, especially in lower paid jobs, do not match up,” said Evans.
Others have echoed similar sentiments. According to the BBC, the average monthly rent in England is 475 pounds, compared to outer London, which costs 950 pounds, and inner London, which costs 1,300 pounds. The Trust for London reinforced the lack of living wages for many Londoners when it reported that “Almost 1 in 5 working Londoners (17 percent) were paid below the London Living Wage in 2012.” This is “more than a 40% increase over 5 years – meaning there are 600,000 people in low-paid jobs.” Data Blog also noted that “for the fifth consecutive year, inflation was higher than the rise in median weekly earnings” in the U.K.
Evans notes that “The government has made some harsh changes to benefits, or welfare, recently. They have penalized people financially if they are out of work and miss a job interview or anything like that. There are cases where people have fallen into dire straights because of it.” For families with young children, poverty presents additional problems.
The BBC reported that the government allocates 15 hours a week of free daycare. However, if a parent were to leave their child in daycare for 25 hours a week, many parents would have to pay an extra seven pounds a week in addition to the earned wages. If the child were left in daycare for the full 40 hours a week, the parent would be spending an extra 25 pounds a week plus their extra wages for the child care.
One of the ways the homeless in England try to make money is by selling The Big Issue. The Big Issue is a publication made free to the homeless, who sell it on the streets to the passerby, like Evans. Evans said she feels that “inequality in the UK is really bad and is increasing. Government policies need to address this.” This is something that many others have spoken out about as well.
Hannah Aldridge, author of the London Poverty Report, wrote, “To tackle London’s poverty and inequality, policymakers must focus on solutions such as building more affordable housing and encouraging employers to pay a Living Wage.” The Mayor of London’s spokeswoman responded by saying that “The mayor continues to lobby the government on behalf of all Londoners for the critical funding and investment needed to help people facing financial hardship.”
– Frederick Wood II
Sources: BBC 1, BBC 2, The Guardian 1, The Guardian 2, Trading Economics, Trust for London, London’s Poverty Profile
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Ethiopian Sugar to Reduce Carbon Footprint
Ethiopia has a bold and innovative plan to reduce the entire country’s carbon footprint to almost zero, and the country plans on achieving it by 2025. The plan, currently set into motion, centers entirely around sugar.
Ethiopia’s day to day life relies heavily on sugar for their tea, coffee and cooking. So much so that Ethiopia can’t meet its own sugar demands and has to import 200,000 tons of sugar a year. The cost of petroleum, used to refine the sugar, has also risen. Ethiopia does not produce its own oil and has to import petroleum, pushing the cost of sugar even higher.
Six years ago, the country turned to itself to solve its own problems. Implementing hydro-electric, geothermal, and wind energy, but Ethiopia found it could also produce molasses as a byproduct of sugar refinement. This molasses can then be turned into an ethanol based bio-fuel. Co-generation, which is the use of agricultural waste to create energy, began to be explored as well.
There are currently three sugar plants in full production producing over 300,000 tons of sugar a year as well as 62MW of electricity due to co-generation and ethanol production. These numbers are a significant increase since the program began when half of all power was used by the plant.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. “Ethiopia’s Minister of Water, Irrigation and Energy, Gossaye Mengiste, was reported as saying that the country has the potential to produce 600MW of electricity once the 13 factories, currently under construction are complete.” Once complete the 16 factories are slated to generate exportable sugar quantity in excess of its 200,000 tons it already imports. This will give Ethiopia projection earnings of $300 million.
More importantly than making up the sugar deficit, the emissions produced by these sugar-based bio fuels, when used in cars, stoves and generators, are nearly zero. The elimination of car emissions is one of the biggest steps to reducing the country’s carbon footprint and achieving its stated goal of zero emissions by 2025.
These ambitious talks have come under fire by some who say that it is a “condescending plan drawn up mainly by people living in highland areas but affecting the lowland population.” Sugar plantations require huge tracts of land. Many officials are turning to pastoralists to solve this problem. The pastoralist people are southern nomadic groups that herd grazing animals from pasture to pasture. They comprise roughly 11 percent of the population and use about 63 percent of the land.
The Ethiopian Sugar Development Agency cautioned the government about this as early as 2008, saying, “Government’s strong support in clearly defining the policy with respect to bagasse energy development is critical to the successful achievements of substituting bagasse cogeneration for imported fossil fuels or diversifying electric energy source based on renewable energy source.”
– Frederick Wood II
Sources: New Agriculturist, Reuters, ESI-AFRICA
Photo: AFK Insider
Child Poverty In the UK
Child poverty in the UK? According to child protection and poverty charities, child poverty is rising in the United Kingdom, despite the government’s promise to eradicate it by 2020.
Bernado’s children’s charity and Child Poverty Action Group say that 3.5 million children live in poverty in Britain today. The government measures child poverty differently, not accounting for housing costs, and so they claim that the number is in fact 2.3 million.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions spoke to the BBC about the need for “better measures of child poverty that are not so heavily dependent on where we draw the poverty line.”
Child poverty charities also accuse the government of perusing a series of economic cuts, which have hit the poor hardest and caused an unprecedented number of children to be living under the poverty line, but actually living in working homes.
On their Website, The Child Poverty Action Group remarks about the increasing trend for children living in poverty being from working homes: “Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. Two-thirds [66 percent] of children growing up in poverty live in a family where at least one member works.”
They predict that the government will not fulfil its promise to eradicate child poverty in 2020 and claim that due to current government policies, 4.7 million children will be living in poverty in the UK by 2020.
Statistics released last year also reveal that child poverty is unevenly dispersed across England, with urban areas most affected and no rural areas featuring in the top 20 list of worst affected constituencies. Manchester Central reported that 47 percent of children lived in poverty where as a few miles north in the picturesque countryside constituency of Ribble Valley, child poverty is less that 7 percent.
In London Councils, the average child poverty rate is 21 percent; however the disparity between councils can easily be seen when considering that 57 percent of children who live in Tower Hamlets in East London live in poverty, compared to only 6 percent in Wimbledon.
– Charles Bell
Sources: BBC 1, BBC 2, Child Poverty Action Group, Barnados
Photo: The Guardian
ONE Uncovers “Trillion Dollar Scandal”
Extreme poverty around the world has been cut in half over the last 20 years and has a possibility of being completely eradicated by the year 2030. However, the ground that is being gained toward a better tomorrow is being threatened by what some are calling the “Trillion Dollar Scandal.”
A recent report released by the ONE campaign revealed that money is being stolen from developing countries. How? That is a great question. As the report details in depth, ONE has found that through a variety of unethical means, there have been “shady deals for natural resources, the use of anonymous shell companies, money laundering and illegal tax evasion.”
ONE’s studies show that $20 trillion is being held offshore, with $3.2 trillion being withheld from poor countries. Since a trillion sounds just like a big number to most of us, how much is it, really? A stack of one trillion one dollar bills would be 67,866 miles high or about one-third of the way to the moon. Multiply that by three. The amount money that is annually being taken from our poorest countries in the world is truly staggering.
While these estimates are jarring, they do not take into account international aid that is being given to these countries. The stolen money is coming out of their own economies, making fighting poverty ten times more difficult. ONE estimates that as many as 3.6 million deaths in the world’s poorest countries could be prevented each year if this scandal is put to an end by world leaders.
Illegal manipulation of cross-border trade is the biggest source of economic loss for poor countries. If the right steps are taken to end this Trillion Dollar Scandal, ONE suggests the money should go back and be invested in health systems and education. The money stolen from these countries could educate 10 million more children a year, provide around 165 million vaccines and help put an end to preventable child deaths.
Focused on a way to end this, ONE is hoping to get the word out before the upcoming G20 leaders meeting in November. The G20 is currently highlighting economic growth as its number one objective. Clearly though, without putting a stop to the money being stolen from poor countries, economic progress will be impossible.
ONE suggests a four step plan: first, shine light on anonymous companies. Second, publish what you pay. Third, crack down on tax evasion. Fourth, publish government data. To learn more or get involved with spreading the word to the G20, visit their website.
– Brooke Smith
Sources: ONE 1, ONE 2, The Guardian
Photo: OxFam
Returning the Rainforest to the Awa
For decades, illegal loggers have invaded the Awa’s ancestral lands, which lie deep in the eastern corners of the Amazon rainforest. After them, settlers arrived, who farmed and built structures where there was once an abundance of nature, wildlife and a source of food for the Awa.
As their land has been ripped up by deforestation, most of the Awa have given up on their traditional lifestyle and moved into villages for protection.
Illegal loggers have often been aggressive to the tribe when they have been confronted, and loggers have even shot and killed indigenous people in the past.
Many of the Awa can tell stories of being on the run from the loggers and being driven away from the lands, on which their families have lived in for generations. Some have missing children who got lost when it became necessary to flee from the loggers, their machines and the destruction, which always follows the loggers’ arrival.
But now the Brazilian government is taking a stand and trying harder than ever to protect the rights of the Awa.
Dubbed “Operation Awa,” the government is cracking down on illegal logging farms and resettling the people who occupy areas where there was once rainforest. Families are given notice to pack up and are offered new homes on legal territory by the state.
The great news is that it seems to be working.
The Brazilian environmental agency is working alongside the military police and air force and ripping down any illegal structures they find. They often bring indigenous people along so the Awa can personally witness the efforts being made to help them claim back their land.
The Awa are thought to number around 450, with some still living in the rainforest uncontested. Brazil‘s National Indian Foundation believes that there are 77 isolated indigenous tribes in the amazon, while in 2013, only 30 had been located.
– Charles Bell
Sources: BBC 1, BBC 2 Survival International
Photo: Crystal Links
10 Child Labor Facts
Child labor, as defined by the International Labor Organization (ILO), is “work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential, and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development.” The persistence of child labor is one of the biggest obstacles to human rights globally. Child Labor perpetuates poverty by depriving children of education and leaving them without the skills needed to secure the future of themselves and their communities. This article sheds light on key child labor facts and the countries where child labor prevails.
Top 10 Child Labor Facts
Many parents in impoverished countries push their children into work out of necessity, unable to sustain their families on their own incomes.
One of the best ways to combat child labor is to provide fair wages and safe working conditions for parents so that they can provide for their families without being forced to depend on their children. To fight against child labor is the fight against global poverty.
– Matt Berg
Sources: Huffington Post, allAfrica, SMH, Rescue, Human Rights Watch, The Guardian, ILO 2, U.S. Department of Labor, Pew Research Center
Photo: Geneva Mission
1. Donate
2. Email Congress
3. Volunteer
The Aspen Institute
All it took was one visit to Aspen, Colorado for Walter Paepcke (1896-1960) to see the potential that this area has as a gathering place for thinkers and leaders. Just four years after his visit, in 1949, Paepcke created what we now know as the Aspen Institute. There is now also another site for the institute; the Wye River on Maryland’s Eastern Shore houses another campus.
The Aspen Institute is an educational and policy studies organization, and focuses on creating leadership initiatives globally. The institute achieves this by doing four things continuously: seminars, young-leader fellowships, policy programs and public conferences and events. A recent network launched by the institute is aimed at educating people so that one day we can break the poverty cycle. This network is called The Two Generation Approach.
The Two Generation Approach recognizes that it is not usually good enough to just educate children, but parents must also be educated. How it works is by creating opportunities that address the needs of both parents and children. Three main components make up the approach: education, economic support and social capital.
Through focusing on education, programs with the Two Generation Approach give opportunities for children and parents. Giving the tools to parents to go back to school and get a degree that will land them a good job is the starting block to educating their children as well.
Economic support is also given to those in the program and these can include “housing, transportation, financial education and asset-building, tax credits, child care subsidies, student financial aid, health insurance … food assistance” and more. This relieves the parents of these stressors, so pursuing education can become their primary focus. Social capital is the last key component of the Two Generation Approach. Social capital research has proven that peer support and maintaining family relationships help lead to success.
Launching the Aspen Institute Ascend Network on April 24, 2014 required a lot of help. A group of around 60 national organizations teamed up with the Institute to represent 24 states creating two-generation approaches to end poverty.
The Aspen Institute website states that “[t]he goal of the Aspen Institute Ascend Network is to mobilize empowered two-generation organizations and leaders to influence policy and practice changes that increase economic security, educational success, social capital, and health and well-being for children, parents and their families.”
– Brooke Smith
Sources: NHSA, Aspen Institute, Aspen Institute 2
Photo: PRWeb
A Dollar a Day – A Harmful Statistic?
The $1 a day poverty line drawn up by the United Nations in the 1980s has been called a “successful failure” by Lant Pritchett. Pritchett is an ex-World Bank economist who is now Professor of the Practice of International Development at Harvard University’s Kennedy School.
He has described the dollar a day measurement of poverty as a successful PR stunt, which has raised awareness to the issue but has failed to translate to real improvements to the lives of the poor.
His main criticism is that donating money has been encouraged rather than economic development, which is greatly needed. Pritchett believes that at the expense of developing the world’s poorest economies for sustained growth and prosperity, we have just been throwing money at the problem, which has not been an effective solution.
Perhaps this $1 benchmark for measuring global poverty has been set too low? Someone earning $1.25 or even $3 a day still lives in dire poverty and the target number, according to Pritchett, should be $10 a day.
Regardless, the $1-a-day poverty line has for some time been out of date; in 2005 it was readjusted to modern prices and is now set at $1.25 a day. This has played a valuable role to tackling poverty over the years, according to economist Martin Ravallion, who came up with the catchy figure in the 1980s while having dinner with his wife.
Like others at the World Bank in D.C., Ravallion had noticed that poor countries were drawing their poverty lines at around $370 a year. Chatting to his wife one evening at the dinner table, Ravallion had a “eureka” moment and realised that by dividing $370 by 365 you get just over $1 – thus the simple and catchy $1 a day idea was born.
But here’s where things get complicated. The $1 a day does not mean $1 converted into local currency, say Indian Rupee. Instead economists use a formula called PPP, Purchasing Power Parity, to figure out the value of an equivalent basket of goods a dollar would buy you in the U.S.
This forms the basis of the poverty line. If you cannot afford that basket of goods worth $1 in the U.S, you are under the poverty line.
Despite the apparent contention that this way of measuring poverty has caused, it is true that the $1 a day idea has caught the public attention and raised awareness about the issue. In fact, the first UN Millennium Goal aimed at reducing global poverty aims to: “halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day.”
This high profile target was agreed upon by the UN General Assembly and embraced by most of the world’s development institutions.
Encouragingly, the World Bank has publicly announced only this month, that the goal has been met early.
– Charles Bell
Sources: BBC, World Bank
Photo: Flickr
Tanzanian Solar Power Overcoming Barriers
“Tanzania has some of the most talented artisans and technicians, but we use very old, outdated equipment, mostly from Italy, from the 1960s and ‘70s,” said Dotto Said, the supervisor at Yasir Ahmed a shop that makes windows, doors and gates.
Yet using outdated tools or “sawdust piled ankle deep” are not the biggest problems facing Tanzanians and Africans as a whole. Electricity has been identified, by many Africans, as the single biggest inhibitor of its success. Alex Adrian, a carpenter at Yasir Ahmed said. “All we need Obama [sic] to help us with is a reliable supply of electricity.”
While the President has made several trips to Africa, once to pledge 7 billion dollars to the energy relief fund, Tanzanians like Said and Adrian would like to be able to turn to themselves for help. Relief of this kind has come in the form of Helvetic Solar, a Tanzanian-based company whose goal is to supply solar panels to all those looking for electricity across Africa.
“The electrification issue was a major one and I just figured out that Tanzanians might be receptive to an alternative energy source,” said owner of Helvetic Solar, Patrick Ngowi. He discovered a love of solar power on one of his many trips to China. At this time, only 10 percent of Tanzania was on a power grid. Most companies, wealthy families and government agencies relied on generators.
In the beginning the idea struggled, but in 2007 the word spread of the benefits and Ngowi was contacted by several government, non-government agencies, and multi-national corporations to install solar panels. His company grossed 6.8 million dollars in 2012.
For a country whose GDP is low and poverty so high, is it even economically feasible for this country to convert to solar power? Forbes broke the numbers down and found it was economically more sound to install solar panels in Tanzania than Oregon. The average homeowner in Oregon will take anywhere from 15-27 years to recoup the initial investment solar panels require. This is due to a very large electrical grid already providing relatively cheap power.
When you take the same principles, apply them to Tanzania and compare the cost of fuel to run a generator in rural Tanzania to the initial cost of solar power, one find that Tanzanians can recoup their losses well enough to sell their generators.
Giant leaps in innovation like this have helped several in rural Tanzania. Lusela Murandika, a 76-year-old farmer who lives in Kanyala village in northern Tanzania, installed his solar panels for a little over 400 dollars. Murandika said that the hardest part was installation. He now runs a small side business, earning 12 cents for every cell phone he charges. Edward Buta, a solar power shop dealer, said business is booming in the Tanzanian town of Katoro. Electricity is slowly inching across Africa, but until the grid makes it into the outskirts solar power will continue to be king.
– Frederick Wood II
Sources: Mother Jones, NY Times, Forbes 1, Forbes 2
Photo: Face2Face Africa
Mongolian Microfinance: Mercy or Menace
Microlending began with the innovation of currency. Friends and family would get together and pool their money to offer help in times of hardship. Mary Coyle, director of the International Institute at St. Francis Xavier University in Nova Scotia, Canada, has found many such groups throughout history and around the globe, “In West Africa, they were known as ‘tontines;’ in Bolivia, ‘pasanaku;’ and across Mexico and Central America, ‘tandas.’”
The shift from microlending to modern day microfinance came about in the 1970s. Groups such as ACCION International in Venezuela and Yunus’s Grameen Bank in Bangladesh began to institutionalize the process. They formalized the loan process and expanded on already existing microlending practices. This enabled small businesses to generate capital instead of just paying for basic necessities.
With the initial success it has long been thought that microfinance was a long term solution to the problem of poverty. While it has brought some out of poverty, it has also kept others where they were financially before the loan and in some cases worse off.
In 2009 two studies were released on the use and impact of microfinance on those that were lent money, conducted by Karlan & Zinman in Manila and Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Rachel Glennerster and Cynthia Kinnan of J-PAL in Hyderabad, India. Neither study found that key factors of poverty had been directly impacted, though it was established that those in the Hyderabad study shifted their spending from temptation goods to durable goods. Another study in 2010 by Duflo and Co. in rural Morocco found similar results. There was no major change in poverty, but those that already had businesses did diversify.
These results have done little to curb the continued lending of XacBank in Mongolia. XacBank reported to the U.S.-based nonprofit Microfinance Information Exchange total assets of 594 million dollars and a gross loan portfolio of 393 million dollars with approximately 77,345 borrowers. The company helped a Mongolian baker turn a 100 dollar enterprise into a 75,000 dollar operation. The company and its investors have touted that many people across rural Mongolia have been helped in such ways.
This was put to the test by research done by Orazio Attanasio, Britta Augsburg, Ralph De Haas, Emla Fitzsimons and Heike Harmgart. All are affiliated with London-based institutions: the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and University College London. The study was a random selection of three rural villages across Mongolia. Loans were explained, applicants were screened as individuals and groups and then finally money was offered. Only 50 percent of those offered loans took them.
The findings were in line with the three previous studies. “Although the loans provided under this experiment were originally intended to finance business creation, we find that in both the group—and in the individual-lending villages, about one half of all credit is used for household rather than business goals. Women who obtained access to microcredit often used the loans to purchase household assets, in particular large domestic appliances. Only among women that were offered group loans do we find an impact on business creation.”
With such little change in the poverty rate, some wonder why we would continue this trend of microlending. It has proven to help some, but the vast majority either can’t access the funds or are turned down due to credit issues.
Hope comes from the Norwegian Nobel Committee, when they spoke of Yunus and his work: “Yunus’s long-term vision is to eliminate poverty in the world. That vision cannot be realized by means of microcredit alone. But Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank have shown that in the continuing efforts to achieve it, microcredit must play a major part.”
– Frederick Wood II
Sources: UNDP, NY Times, MicroCapital, The World Bank, Center for Global Development, NPR, PBS
Photo: Bloomberg Business Week