First, to deal with commercial microfinancing: The article repeatedly makes the point that in order to expand microfinance to a more vast array of people you need more credit. By allowing for commercial microfinance institutions to enter the capital market, they will be able to raise money without relying solely on donors. Thus, I believe that the commercialization of microfinance is important as a means of expanding the user-base.

Secondly, to deal with private microfinance firms: I believe that these firms are out to make a profit and therefore may be losing sight of Yunus’s original goal of alleviating poverty. Furthermore, larger, commercial firms seem to be helping the “poor” not the “poorest.” Local microfinancing banks/organizations are able to help the poorest of the poor. As Munro points out, “My staff is not afraid, because they were born in the very same slum, and the thugs and thieves were their classmates in primary school.” In order to reach the most desperate people you must be incredibly “involved” as Munro says. This means having a personal investment in the well-being of those you are lending to.

Lastly, I agree with the individuals before me who have pointed out the benefit of social programs, focusing in areas such as education, health, sanitation, empowerment etc. These social programs are at the heart of this issue. To raise the poorest, most destitute people out of poverty, these people must have a minimum level of well-being that allows them to engage in economic activity.

In my opinion, I believe the commercialization should be kept at a minimum in order to preserve the original nature of microcredit; to bring up the bottom billion and have the poorest people live a sustainable life. I feel as though microcredit is linked to the idea that nations share a similar fate. If one fails, it can drag others down. Although commercializing microcredit will still in a way help the poor build their own businesses and depend on themselves, the profit that comes out of the funding that might not necessarily go back into the program makes it hard to support.

I do think that it is generally morally reprehensible for one to take advantage of the poor for one’s own gain. Thus, perhaps, nonprofits are a more moral way to help the poor. However, in the case of a commercialized microfinance industry, it seems that both the poor and the investors can benefit. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with profiting from an investment in microfinance, as long as doing so does not cause the poor to be short-changed; there is nothing wrong with making the rich richer, if doing so makes the poor richer, as well.

The article does mention that some people fear that, if microfinance is commercialized, loans will be given only to the “less poor,” who are a safer investment. I do not think that this is an issue, though. If microfinance institutions recognize that “credit alone is not a panacea” and introduce other initiatives to help the “very poor,” such as “education and health care,” it seems that all impoverished people can benefit–the less poor and the very poor.

In addition, the most successful of these microcreditors seems to be the ones in Kenya and Bolivia, because besides focusing on the actual loans, they also focus on the circumstances that surround the poor with which they deal. This success would be lost, I think, if microcredit were given at a macro level.

The issue that we face is that it would be very difficult to commercialize because of its risks as Michael said. I think there could be benefits to its commercialization, but I think it is unlikely. This is because most people need intensives and security; they are unwilling to invest money without a guarantee of return. Thus, it most likely will be governments, non-for-profits and wealthy benefactors who lead this filed.

Commercialization has definitely had its benefits, not least of which is far higher engagement and interest in the sector. However, I agree with Michael and Elizabeth that governmental organizations and non-for-profit groups should continue to play a major (if not the leading) role in the field. In so doing, they will continue to focus attention on what is, or should be, the heart of the issue: alleviating poverty. Those programs that incorporate education and healthcare programs best advance this goal and should be kept in the spotlight. Maybe philanthropy skews the statistics regarding which organizations are more self-sustaining, but I think that is a necessary consequence of keeping non-for-profit microcredit organizations afloat.