Esther, your point is correct but allow me to modulate it, in case
anyone is tempted to quote you verbatim.
"The family does not benefit" is an overstatement for the sake of
literary effect. More precisely: it is statistically shown that, in most
areas of the world (developing and developed), a greater percentage
of family income is spent on nutrition and the children's needs if the
income is administered by the woman than if it is administered by
the man. (Sorry, I can't think of a reference - it is just one of those
things you "know" when you work in this field.) By the way,
"Grameen" is the correct spelling (and an absolutely outstanding
initiative - has a place of honour in the history of socio-economic
development!)
Cheers!
Barbara
- who has so far recoiled from writing a message of introduction,
but I had better do it now. So, here goes: economics PhD
candidate, writing on social capital and human capital as factors in
development; many years in the United Nations development
system; rebellious but practicing Roman Catholic, married to an
equally rebellious Copt Orthodox; currently living in South Africa,
but of Central European background and basically an international
nomad. Interests: building bridges between cultures and faiths.
> It is interesting that the program of micro-loans, in Bangladesh and
> elsewhere, has found that loans to women are used productively and for the
> welfare of the entire family, better nutrition and education, family
> planning, etc., while when those loans are made to men the profits are
> spent on male recreation and the family does not benefit. The Grameen
> (sp?) program works almost entirely with women for that reason.
>
> Esther Walter
> Des Moines, Iowa, USA
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
|