|
It is interesting to see how readers come away with different gists of this article. I do think that Kiva could be a lot better than it currently is, and other similar companies have addressed some of the issues, only they are not as well-known, perhaps because their PR/marketing is not as effective. See some of the later comments in the Next Billion article when Zidisha is mentioned, for example. But I think you touch on a CRUCIAL point - it helps our conscience. Phil Mader's original post, which I reference, is well worth reading: http://governancexborders.com/2013/12/10/kivanomics-101-or-d... It is a short piece and eye-opening. I cite a phrase from this article in my piece: Kiva enables us "to consume the feeling of charity without financial loss" To say that Kiva simply "just doesn't work" is tricky, because we have to define "work". It depends what the objective is. If the idea is to make people feel that they have done something useful with their $25, which they get back a few months later, it works wonderfully. If the idea is to efficiently transfer spare capital in "rich" countries to "poor" countries (forgive the simplification of terms), it doesn't work very well, as there are far more efficient mechanisms. If it is to provide low-cost funding to entrepreneurs, then it has pretty mixed results which are hard to verify as Kiva (mysteriously) don't publish the actual interest rates. In some cases you can find them out though. In summary, you are very wise to suggest that an endorsement requires you to be convinved that this is a good business. It appears Kiva did not meet your standards, and I am inclined to agree with you. |
This is a poison on humanity.