[Type the document title]

Introduction
Microfinance is a source of financial services for entrepreneurs and small businesses lacking access to
banking and related services. The two main mechanisms for the delivery of financial services to such
clients are: (1) relationship-based banking for individual entrepreneurs and small businesses; and (2)
group-based models, where several entrepreneurs come together to apply for loans and other services as
a group.
For some, microfinance is a movement whose object is "a world in which as many poor and near-poor
households as possible have permanent access to an appropriate range of high quality financial services,
including not just credit but also savings, insurance, and fund transfers."[1] Many of those who promote
microfinance generally believe that such access will help poor people out of poverty, including participants
in the Microcredit Summit Campaign. For others, microfinance is a way to promote economic development,
employment and growth through the support of micro-entrepreneurs and small businesses.
The word "microcredit" did not exist before the seventies. Now it has become a buzz-word among the
development practitioners. In the process, the word has been imputed to mean everything to everybody. No
one now gets shocked if somebody uses the term "microcredit" to mean agricultural credit, or rural credit, or
cooperative credit, or consumer credit, credit from the savings and loan associations, or from credit unions,
or from money lenders. When someone claims microcredit has a thousand year history, or a hundred year
history, nobody finds it as an exciting piece of historical information.
The impact of microcredit is a subject of much controversy. Proponents state that it reduces poverty
through higher employment and higher incomes. This is expected to lead to improved nutrition and
improved education of the borrowers' children. Some argue that microcredit empowers women. In the US
and Canada, it is argued that microcredit helps recipients to graduate from welfare programs.

Critics say that microcredit has not increased incomes, but has driven poor households into a debt trap, in
some cases even leading to suicide. They add that the money from loans is often used for durable
consumer goods or consumption instead of being used for productive investments, that it fails to empower
women, and that it has not improved health or education.

The available evidence indicates that in many cases microcredit has facilitated the creation and the growth
of businesses. It has often generated self-employment, but it has not necessarily increased incomes after
interest payments. In some cases it has driven borrowers into debt traps. There is no evidence that
microcredit has empowered women. In short, microcredit has achieved much less than what its proponents
said it would achieve, but its negative impacts have not been as drastic as some critics have argued.
Microcredit is just one factor influencing the success of small businesses, whose success is influenced to a
much larger extent by how much an economy or a particular market grows.