Tropophilia

In this, the first in a series of posts on philanthropic efforts utilizing the social web, I look to the microcredit site Kiva.org.*

Let me preface my comments by saying that I think the Kiva is a net positive contribution to the web (and microcredit), and that the good it is doing outweighs any of the secondary negatives I describe below. Right now. But my concerns about Kiva are less relevant to the still young and still expanding site as they are to what Kiva could become.

Kiva links willing donors in the developed world with opportunities to capitalize small loans for local entrepreneurs in developing countries. From Kiva’s site:

“Kiva lets you connect with and loan money to unique small businesses in the developing world. By choosing a business on Kiva.org, you can “sponsor a business” and help the world’s working poor make great strides towards economic independence. Throughout the course of the loan (usually 6-12 months), you can receive email journal updates from the business you’ve sponsored. As loans are repaid, you get your loan money back.“

As Kiva’s nearly 9,000 devotees on Facebook, or its growing group of microfinanciers, would tell you, Kiva connects individuals across the globe with opportunities to lend a hand on a person-to-person level…and unlike charity, you’ll likely see your loan repaid to lend again or use for other purposes. Sounds good, and it is…with a few qualifications and questions worth pondering:

Will Kiva experience a drought of donor engagement if the only choices present on the site are between projects judged to be loan-worthy by professional microfinance groups? Right now, nearly every project (as far as I can tell, every project, but I’ve not followed the site daily so I can’t be sure) on Kiva eventually receives a full loan. When waves of good press send droves of new visitors to the site, Kiva suffers from a limited supply of projects and even has to do things like institute a $25 limit on contributions so that as many individuals as possible can lend. This shortage is no doubt driven by the time-consuming due diligence performed thousands of miles away by local microfinance partners who supply Kiva with loan-worthy projects. There are great reasons why professionals are making the real selections, but doesn’t this system stagnate when donors realize that their choices are in fact a formality? What level of engaged and informed choice is appropriate with the sensitive subject of persons livelihoods, and what level is necessary to sustain donor interest?

Maintaining high donor attachment/engagement and preventing trivialization of low income individuals abroad is a challenge I believe Kiva will need to confront continually. Kiva provides a partial fish-bowl effect: we’re watching the progress of people half a world away. As such, it has the potential to divorce donors from the reality of conditions in the developing world, turning their loans into a sort of game gambling on the success of poor people.

I think the lenders could prevent this negative effect by making a stronger case for funding their projects on the front end—more information and specifics about individual enterprises, community needs and conditions, and potential markets for loan recipients’ businesses. Demonstrating the thought and planning behind individual projects costs time and resources for the lenders (primarily non profit organizations), but in turn engages donors in the success of the project from a more informed perspective. The best case scenario here seems to be threefold:

1. donors who are genuinely invested in the lives of other people thousands of miles away and encouraged to learn more about development issues
2. lenders who receive the financial backing they need to make loans
3. loan recipients who receive the necessary monies to finance a new business or grow an existing one (which in turn makes them self-sufficient)

In its current incarnation, KIVA serves the latter purposes well but faces an ongoing challenge with the first.

This may come off as a fairly harsh critique of a site that undoubtedly introduces new folks daily to the idea of microfinance and (to some degree) issues in the developing world. I don’t mean to be too harsh; as I said above, I think Kiva is a good thing. But just because something is a step in the right direction doesn’t mean that it can’t go further, do more, and not lose the momentum that IS so inspiring.

I’d love to hear other reactions to Kiva, particularly from any of you who have given or are considering giving. Share your thoughts in the comments.

*For those who are unaware, microcredit and microfinance (different things, as microcredit is limited to small loans while microfinance includes savings programs, insurance, and other banking products targeted to low income individuals) represent on a basic level the extension of banking services to low income individuals–particularly in the developing world–who are considered too risky to qualify for loans from traditional financial institutions. Small loans are intended to build assets by supporting entrepreneurs with no other avenue for securing start-up or growth capital for their business. This idea was pioneered in Bangladesh by Muhammed Yunus (who won a Nobel Prize for his efforts) in the 1970s. The impact of microfinance is an open question, though lenders can track loan repayment rates as a measure that funds were not squandered and presume that those dollars improved the financial situation of a loan recipient.