Bill Gates, Mosquitoes, and Microfinance

Hongqing Chen

Hongqing, from Wokai's Seattle Chapter, has written a wide variety of posts for this blog, chronicling her experiences with microfinance.  She invites you to debate the ideas she's shared here. 

Should microfinance be for profit or not-for-profit?  Bill Gates' recent words have made me think more about this question. 

“Bill Gates playfully frees swarm of mosquitoes” read a recent headline from the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference.

"There is more money put into baldness drugs than into malaria," Gates quipped, triggering laughter. "Now, baldness is a terrible thing and rich men are afflicted. That is why that priority has been set."

I agree with Bill about 20%.  The main reason why there has been more investment in developing baldness drugs than in malaria, in my humble opinion, is that there is (a lot of) money to be made in the former.  The fundamental principle of market economy provides more incentive to developing drugs for vanity because people are willing to pay premium prices for them.  The priority was set not because rich men are afflicted, but due to the fact that a large population of lower-, medium-, and upper-middle class men and women (especially baby boomers) want to look good for a small price. 

The following message is from the World Health Organization.

Malaria and HIV are two of the most devastating global health problems of our time. Together they cause more than 4 million deaths a year. Both are diseases of poverty, and both are causes of poverty. To a considerable extend, both are concentrated in the same geographical regions. The resulting co-infection and interaction between the two diseases have major public health implications.

 HIV-infected people must be considered particularly vulnerable to malaria

I agree 100% with the above statement that malaria is a “disease of poverty.”  Effective drugs are available, but (for reasons we can all speculate) out of reach for poor people. 

Bill Gates’ comments got me thinking about a long-debated issue.

To eradicate poverty, a root of the evil, Grameen and ICICI banks proved that microfinance is an effective tool.  While the number of MFIs worldwide has mushroomed to over 7,000 in the past decade, many have failed for lack of…

Sustainability

This has got to be the most frequently used word these days.  Or maybe I have been noticing it more because I have been associated with different people lately?  I think that sustainable living requires sacrifice by humans in terms of convenience, speed, and/or cost.  While many are motivated by conscience, more are motivated by the need of survival.  Thus, high energy costs are good for promoting environmentally-friendly behavior.

Similarly, sustainable growth in microfinance cannot be achieved by donations.  To attract capital, MFIs need to tap into the capital markets.  Thus, they need to attract investors with healthy returns.

To Be or Not To Be (Profitable)

That is a crucial question.  I had the pleasure to discuss this topic with friends in Wokai and people I’ve met in the microfinance community in Seattle.  On the same day when Bill Gates’ playful act was reported on Yahoo!, I met with Chevenee Reavis, Senior Manager at Unitus and picked her brain on this very subject.

"We emphasize a commercial approach to eradicating poverty," she explained.  Here's my summary of her ideas:

•    Without proper checks and balances, capitalism promotes greed.  “Where is the soul?”  “What is the limit of excess return?”
•    A commercial approach can allow for reasonable returns while limiting exploitation.
•    Using a commercial approach, MFIs can become more efficient and sustainable.

Unitus' success stories regarding MFIs it has helped and micro entrepreneurs it has assisted demonstrate the power of this approach.

A Reformed Capitalism

For more ideas about this question, I turned to Muhammad Yunus' book Banker to the Poor, published in 1999. 

I believe in the central thesis of capitalism: The economic system must be competitive.  Competition is the driving force for all innovation, technological change, and improved management.

Another central feature of capitalism is profit maximization.  Profit maximization ensures the optimal use of scarce resources.  This is the feature of capitalism that led us to create the image of a greedy (almost bloodthirsty) person in the role of profit maximizer.  We have presumed that the profit maximizer has no interest in achieving social objectives… .

The moment we open the door to making a social impact through investments, investors will start putting their investment dollars through this door as well.  Initially, some investors will divert only a part, and maybe a small part, of their investment money to social enterprises.  But if social entrepreneurs show concrete impact, then this flow will become larger and larger.  Soon, a new type of investor will begin appearing on the scene --- those who will put all or almost all their investment money into social investments.

If the social enterprises can demonstrate high impact and creative enterprise designs, a day may come when personal profit-driven enterprises will find themselves hard-pressed to protect their market share.  They’ll be forced to imitate the language and style of social enterprises to stay in business.”

Ten years later, organizations like Kiva and MicroPlace are featured in the Wall Street Journal. Ed Bland, President of Unitus, was recently featured on Bloomberg News to discuss this work. 

I believe that profit seeking is the ultimate motivator for human nature.  A reformed capitalism can be achieved only when the day Dr. Yunus envisions, when profit-driven enterprises are forced to imitate social enterprises to stay in business! 

So Bill, we need to find a way to make eradicating malaria, AIDS, and poverty so profitable that everyone wants to be part of it!

P.S. Here's a great article that Bill Gates wrote for Time Magazine that describes these efforts in more detail: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1828069,00.html 

Editor's Note: Corrections and amendments added 2/19/09, following comments from Ms. Reavis.  Thank you so much for your feedback!  We look forward to others' comments as well.