Recent Lessons from international Best Practice in Small Enterprise Finance
In order to assess Namibias financial services to small enterprises, we need to understand the international discussion on this subject. In recent years a major shift in thinking about financing small enterprises in developing countries has taken place, based on accumulated experience in many countries. There are common strands in this thinking and major lessons have been learned. These lessons provide the background for our evaluation of the credit system in Namibia. We can evaluate the current system of credit provision to small enterprises in this country by comparing it with the "best practice" in other countries.
This short section of the booklet summarises this theoretical background. The bibliography at the end of the booklet provides references for further reading, and includes documentation containing very practical advice which service providers can use in a "hands-on" manner making use of the relevant findings and lessons. The first subsection below summarises the evolution of approaches to finance in development in general, which has implications for the thinking on financing small enterprises. This summary is followed by a discussion of the principles underlying successful small enterprise finance.
The dominant thinking about the importance and role of finance in development has changed significantly over the last 40 years (Krahnen & Schmidt, 1994). Broadly speaking we can distinguish four phases in the mainstream thinking, each of which emphasises different elements.
At the birth time of development economics in the 1950s, development was equated with growth, which in turn was largely regarded as a process of capital accumu-lation. According to this model, growth of capital is seen as the result of saving, that is, of foregone consumption out of current income. Poverty perpetuates itself because incomes are too low to enable saving, which would be necessary to invest and increase income. Development capital comes in to close the savings gap. Although there is obviously some merit to this view, it is certainly much too narrow and simplistic: a number of other factors determine the success of development interventions of this sort; such capital is not a simple function of the amount of savings. Furthermore, this view emphasises finance in the sense of capital and ignores the crucial aspect of the financial system. It simply assumes the existence of proper mechanisms that transform savings into investment capital. This is an improper assumption in developing countries especially. In fact, it is reasonable to suggest that an "institution gap" is one of the key features these countries have in common.
This mechanistic view of development was questioned in the 1970s. It was realised that the infusion of foreign capital into large development projects had seldom resulted in a significant growth and "trickle down" of positive effects into the traditional economy. Instead, dualism, poverty, unemployment and rural-urban migration were enforced. As a result, economists shifted their attention from the economy in its entirety to target groups, aiming at poverty alleviation, employment creation and income generation rather than growth. However, the basic perception of "finance" remained the same: provision of capital to those who would be able to use it optimally. Credit was perceived as the critical bottleneck to the development of small-scale farmers and small business. Because existing banks were found to be unwilling as well as unsuited for use as institutions for channeling credit to disadvantaged groups, specialised development banks were set up. These provided generally subsidised credit and did not operate on a commercial basis. Efficiency and effectiveness were not high on their agenda, due to the conviction that their target groups were too poor and too risky for these criteria to be applied.
The failure of this subsidised target-group credit provision led to a process of rethinking on finance. The third view strongly attacks the financial repression on which the two preceding views are based. The third view instead emphasises the strategy of liberalising and strengthening the financial system, such emphasis being based on the premise that a functioning financial system which is not constrained by unnecessary regulation will be able to mobilise large volumes of savings, to transform these savings into investible funds, and to allocate these funds to socially valuable projects. Emphasising the importance of the quantity and quality of financial inter-mediation for development and its determination by economic policy, a policy of drastic deregulation was recommended. It was demonstrated that on the one hand, low interest rates made people save less, which led to less rather than more investment as hoped for, and on the other hand, the subsidisation of capital made borrowing attractive also for projects which had not been profitable at market interest rates. Credits had to be rationed, and were frequently allocated according to non-economic criteria, leading to a lower average productivity rate. It was largely those with the best political connections who benefited, rather than those most in need. Thus, the quality of investment was also negatively affected. Furthermore, it was not only savings, investment, growth and distribution that were negatively affected, but also the financial institutions themselves.
The micro-economic implications of this third view are as follows:
This view can be regarded as basically correct. However, the empirical evidence supporting this radical view on liberalisation is as yet limited. There is also not enough theoretical underpinning for this view. The implicit model on which the view of radical liberalisation is based looks at financial institutions as monolithic, profit-maximizing firms. Furthermore, financial markets are seen as functioning in the same way as any other markets. These two assumptions, however, are too crude.
The fourth view on the role of finance in development is based on recent insights into the theory of organisation, finance and markets, known as "new theoretical institutionalism". This view emphasises the idea that economic development is more dependent on "good institutions" than on anything else. It rejects the claim of the third view that a financial system which is not repressed functions optimally by itself. Rather, the issue is how institutions function, based on the information they have and the incentives to which its agents are subject. Information is not available at no cost and neither is it evenly distributed, as is implicitly assumed by the third view. Thus, an intervention should aim at improving the way that institutions function, and at improving the incentive system. The basis for such aims should be an analysis of the current functioning of the market as well as the institutions.
Any thinking on SME finance should commence with a reflection on why such consideration is necessary, or in other words, why SMEs experience problems in gaining access to credit from the formal banking system.
The following elements are relevant (Levitsky, 1993: 6-7):
These are real and not just perceived obstacles, which have to be taken into account in designing programmes to provide financial services to SMEs.
The general evolution of our understanding of the role of finance in development has had profound implications for the practice of providing finance for small enterprises. The most recent approach to small- and micro-enterprise financing is based on the fourth view described in the previous subsection. However, most existing finance programmes are still based on the second view, or otherwise they are undergoing the process of evolving towards the new view and practice. This is especially true for African countries (World Bank, 1997).
The traditional practice of small enterprise finance:
By contrast, successful programmes (Christen et al., 1994; Rhyne & Otero, 1994) following the new approach:
As mentioned above, some programmes manage to become fully profitable, but the debate continues as to whether this is feasible for most institutions. When it comes to micro enterprises and rural areas in particular, there are limits to full profitability. Institutional performance can be analysed in terms of four levels of self-sufficiency which institutions can attain (Rhyne & Otero, 1994). The lowest level pertains to traditional, highly subsidised programmes. Grants or soft loans cover operating expenses and establish a revolving loan fund, but the fund erodes through delinquency and inflation. There is a continuous need for grants.
At the second level programmes raise funds by borrowing on terms near, but still below, the market rate. Interest income covers the cost of funds and part of the operating cost, but grants are still needed.
At level three most subsidising is eliminated, but a dependence on some subsidy persists. The programmes operating at this level are generally not required to move further, as donors are satisfied with such a degree of performance. The Grameen Bank programme is perhaps the most prominent example in this category.
At the fourth and final level, programmes are self-sufficient, that is, they are fully financed from the savings of their clients and from funds raised at commercial rates from formal financial institutions. Fees and interest cover the real cost of funds, including loan loss reserves (for many, programme losses amount to less than 3% of principal).
While the fourth level is of course the most desirable to attain, programmes should be judged less by their current level of operation than by the progress they are making towards a higher performance level. In Namibia, the experience on this count is very encouraging. During the field work for the first study in 1995, it was found that the "new approach" to finance service provision, which emphasises sustainability and outreach, was largely unknown to Namibian service providers and met with a lot of skepticism. By contrast, just over two years later, these concepts had become widely accepted and institutions are now on their way to restructuring their operations accordingly.
Providing increases in finance to small and micro enterprises can be effected within different institutional structures. Three promising avenues have been identified (Rhyne & Otero, 1994):
The importance of including savings elements in the financial services package is increasingly being recognised. This can be done either through a joint credit and savings scheme in which a loan is conditional upon savings, or through separate savings and credit schemes, each with its own clients. The importance of savings lies in the following areas:
One insight of the "new view" on SME finance is that financial services should be separated from non-financial services. If both kinds of services are provided by the same institution, it is not advisable that the same personnel who advise the entrepreneurs decide on the credit to be provided. Service providers following the "minimalist approach" they do not provide any other service and do not concern themselves about the use of the credit provided are very successful. However, this approach does not point to an absence of need for non-financial services. On the contrary, it is increasingly recognised that the financial constraint of a borrower must not be seen and addressed in isolation (see Finance Policy). Although few entrepreneurs would reject the offer of financial assistance, their perceived need for credit often emanates from deeper problems, and often masks other problems, or otherwise it relates to other issues. For example, entrepreneurs may not approach financial institutions because they are not informed about the services offered, or an application for credit is rejected because the institution does not have enough information about the entrepreneur and business, or the entrepreneur does not keep records due to a limited ability to present the necessary data. Also, although one may discern a solution to every problem in accessing capital, this may not be a sustainable solution. For example, there may not be enough demand for the entrepreneurs products or services because of limited purchasing power, or the business idea may not be feasible for other reasons. In such cases the solution to the entrepreneurs problems does not lie in the provision of finance but in other areas, or in a combination of finance and one or more other areas. For financial assistance to make sense, it has to be ensured that appropriate use can be made of the capital through the provision of other services, such as training and business advice.
© Friedrich Ebert Stiftung | technical support | net edition fes-library | Mai 1999