17

Behind the naïve devotion expressed by the media during the international year of microcredit, recent events show that we do not have a consensus on a robust methodology to assess the advantages and disadvantages of different microfinance models.The question of social performance is crucial as the financial markets are increasingly dominating the sector. But evaluating the social performance of microfinance provokes strong responses. The violence of the discourse may be a symptom of underlying anxiety. The humanist consensus is no longer sufficient to justify microfinance.One of the results of the International Year of Microcredit was to convince large international banks and asset managers that the microfinance sector offers returns on investment. And the Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP) is clear: microfinance institutions (MFIs) must above all free themselves from public subsidies. But CGAP admitted in 2004 that of 7,000 MFIs, only 100 are profitable and have access to international financial markets.The big retail banks see their involvement in microfinance as an opportunity to explore new markets, to create better clients and to test new tools such as credit scoring. The developed world, with its significant financial assets and low returns on investment, sees investing in mature MFIs as an opportunity for increasing profits.The ideal of high returns while investing in microfinance is called into question by MFIs social performance evaluation. Experience shows that private capital, by bringing finance to the sector, increases the pressure to generate profits. It is important therefore to assess whether there is a link between financial pressure for returns and MFIs practices, and whether social objectives are compatible with financial ones. In 2005, representatives of 23 countries and several national networks made a declaration of principle on social performance. The declaration said that to meet large numbers of poor successfully, microfinance must be guided by strong financial and strong social performance objectives, which mutually reinforce one another. In addition, MFIs must behave in a socially responsible manner towards their staff and clients. The main question is how to translate an MFI’s social mission into practice.Work on social performance has barely begun and already there are two new challenges that go beyond the question of social performance. These challenges are systematic and societal.