“Microfinance After the Hype: Lessons from Bangladesh and Andhra Pradesh” by Aisha Rahman
- Jun 5
- 3 min read
Article Title: Microfinance After the Hype: Lessons from Bangladesh and Andhra Pradesh
Author: Aisha Rahman
Date Published: June 5, 2026
Publication: Agora Review
Category: Research Article
Discipline(s): Economics, Development Studies
Key Words: microfinance; poverty reduction; Bangladesh; Andhra Pradesh; over-indebtedness; financial inclusion; development economics; women’s empowerment
Suggested Citation: Rahman, Aisha. “Microfinance After the Hype: Lessons from Bangladesh and Andhra Pradesh” Agora Review, June 5, 2026.
Download Full Article PDF
Abstract
Microfinance was once widely celebrated as a breakthrough anti-poverty strategy capable of transforming the lives of poor households through small loans, especially to women. In recent years, however, both scholarly research and public debate have become far more cautious. While some long-running programs have shown meaningful benefits in household resilience, women’s participation, and gradual poverty reduction, other cases have revealed over-indebtedness, coercive collection practices, and weak effects on income growth. This paper argues that microfinance is still a potentially useful anti-poverty strategy, but only under specific institutional and social conditions. Its effectiveness depends less on the mere availability of credit than on how credit is delivered, regulated, and integrated into broader development systems. To make this argument, the paper centers on two case studies. The first is Bangladesh, where organizations such as Grameen Bank and BRAC helped build a relatively dense and socially embedded microfinance sector that, despite important limitations, has been associated with longer-term improvements in poverty reduction and household stability. The second is the 2010 microfinance crisis in Andhra Pradesh, India, where rapid commercialization, multiple borrowing, and aggressive repayment practices exposed the risks of treating microfinance as a profitable mass market rather than a carefully managed development tool. The contrast between these cases suggests that the real question is not whether microfinance “works” in the abstract, but what kind of microfinance is being practiced, for whom, and under what safeguards.
Author’s Note
I chose this topic because microfinance is one of those ideas that seems to carry two very different reputations at once. On one hand, it is often described as a powerful way to help poor people, especially women, start businesses, stabilize household income, and gain more independence. On the other hand, it has also been criticized for trapping borrowers in debt and for being oversold as a solution to poverty. I was interested in that tension because it reflects a larger issue in development policy: why some interventions that sound promising in theory produce very different outcomes in practice.
What drew me in most was the fact that the disagreement is not simply ideological. There is real evidence on both sides. Some studies show meaningful benefits, while others show modest or disappointing effects. The Andhra Pradesh crisis made the issue feel especially important because it demonstrated that microfinance can become harmful when the pressure to expand and collect loans overrides concern for borrower welfare. At the same time, the Bangladesh case suggested that it would be too simplistic to dismiss microfinance altogether.
In writing this paper, I wanted to avoid a binary conclusion. I was less interested in asking whether microfinance is good or bad in general than in understanding why it appears to help in some contexts and break down in others. That question felt worth exploring because anti-poverty policy often fails when people assume that a successful model can simply be scaled everywhere without regard to institutions, regulation, or local conditions. I hope this paper encourages readers to think more critically about what counts as success in development and why good intentions alone are not enough to make a policy effective.
References
[1] Dahal M, Fiala N, Thapa R. What do we know about the impact of microfinance? The problems of measurement, and some answers. World Dev. 2020;127:104755. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X1930422X
[2] Hudon M, Sandberg J. The ethical crisis in microfinance: issues, findings, and implications. Bus Ethics Q. 2013;23(4):561-589. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly/article/ethical-crisis-in-microfinance-issues-findings-and-implications/94CC69875C45DE5A636E8B1846C8D02C
[3] Khandker SR. Microfinance and poverty: evidence using panel data from Bangladesh. World Bank Econ Rev. 2005;19(2):263-286. Available from: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/284801468013215718/pdf/774910JRN020050ofinance0and0Poverty.pdf
[4] Khandker SR, Samad HA. Microfinance growth and poverty reduction in Bangladesh: what does the longitudinal data say? Bangladesh Dev Stud. 2014;37(1-2):127-157. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26538550
[5] Amin S, Rai AS, Topa G. Does microcredit reach the poor and vulnerable? Evidence from northern Bangladesh. J Dev Econ. 2003;70(1):59-82. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304387802000871
[6] Banerjee A, Karlan D, Zinman J. Six randomized evaluations of microcredit: introduction and further steps. Am Econ J Appl Econ. 2015;7(1):1-21. Available from: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20140287
[7] CGAP. Andhra Pradesh 2010: global implications of the crisis in Indian microfinance [Internet]. Washington (DC): CGAP/World Bank; 2010. Available from: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/300751468269382514/pdf/825620BRI0ENGL00Box379853B00PUBLIC0.pdf
[8] Nair TS. Microfinance lessons from a crisis. Econ Polit Wkly. 2011;46(6):23-26. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27918113
[9] Hulme D. What’s wrong and right with microfinance? Econ Soc Aff. 2011;24(1):23-26. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41319428
[10] Kabeer N. Is microfinance a 'magic bullet' for women’s empowerment? analysis of findings from South Asia. Econ Polit Wkly. 2005;40(44/45):4709-4718. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4417357