Autore: graziosiascanio

Abbiamo omesso il punto di domanda perché dovremmo sapere che il Paese va alla deriva.

Dove va l’Italia è il tema trattato da Limes rivista che condivide con il lettore/ascoltatore l’analisi geopolitica Italia-Resto del Mondo. 

Prima di L. Caracciolo, ci siamo occupati dell’argomento e studiato l’andamento dei cicli dell’economia internazionale succedutisi nelle passate quattro decadi, che abbiamo interpretato attraverso il comportamento dei Decision-Makers.

Abbiamo valutato gli eventi facendo ricorso alla teoria del cambiamento intesa come “un processo di negoziazione continua tra gli Attori dello Sviluppo chehanno differenti interessi / aspirazioni / obiettivi /aspettative nel perseguire un obiettivo di sviluppo” [1]. 

In tale contesto abbiamo osservato che l’andamento delle fasi economiche è stato determinato dal prevalere delle posizioni ora dell’uno ora dei citati Decisori, cioè dalla loro forza contrattuale nel perseguimento degli obiettivi di sviluppo. In altri termini abbiamo trasferito a livello macroeconomico il paradigma che definisce la performance dei progetti di sviluppo attraverso la condotta dei giocatori. Il modo di operare dei citati Attori ha avuto un comprensibile riscontro nell’economia italiana in quanto connessa e interdipendente con il Sistema con cui condivide i valori.

Quali sono stati gli obiettivi della crescita del Paese dichiarati dalla politica nelle precedenti quattro decadi? Ci sono state sette legislature e diciassette Esecutivi che non hanno prodotto risultati di rilievo per la precarietà dell’insediamento, il Governo Renzi più longevo tra i brevi. Con la diciottesima legislatura   il movimento Populista ha enunciato una serie di slogan (Uno vale Uno, modello Costaricano) che hanno fatto presa sull’elettorato insoddisfatto, desideroso di voltare pagina e affascinato dal flauto magico Grillino che ha portato il Paese alla deriva. La maggioranza parlamentare ha dato vita a due governi definiti giallo/verdi e giallo/rosa guidati da un avvocato – Conte – di una causa persa. 

La causa era perdente in quanto priva di un quadro logico di riferimento in termini di visione, obiettivi e modalità d’intervento, ma ideologico e utopico. In altri termini un progetto di governo insostenibile che è stato possibile per la datata incongruenza e incoerenza dell’opposizione parlamentare di sinistra, circostanza che, poi, ha premiato la cosiddetta destra che nell’attuale legislatura (XIX) guida il Paese. 

Trenta governi negli ultimi 40 anni. Se la storia ha un senso, la progettazione del domani dovrà tener conto di questo dato storico perché il futuro è la proiezione del presente figlio del passato. Nulla è accaduto per avvenimento fortuito ma come risultato di cause e concause legate in un processo di sviluppo instabile e insostenibile.

Quello attuale è un Esecutivo che ha più di una novità, prima fra tutte, una donna nella posizione di Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri: G. Meloni che ha impresso un attivismo nelle relazioni internazionali tradottisi in una politica più Atlantica e meno Europeista, più USA e India e meno Cina e Russia; all’elettorato è stato promesso un nuovo indirizzo di politica economica che possa davvero incidere per attenuare i divari di reddito generazionali e territoriali.

Salvo marcati distinguo a livello di politica estera, sul piano interno, il parlamento ha dato delega al governo in materia fiscale, ma soltanto con i decreti attuativi sarà possibile valutare se e come ci sarà stata una redistribuzione del reddito e una politica dell’occupazione e dell’immigrazione. 

Pertanto, la “cifra” del governo in carica sarà data dalla capacità e volontà politica di attivare una politica fiscale che favorisca massicci investimenti del settore l pubblico e privato, accompagnata da una decisa lotta all’evasione fiscale: si parla di 120/130 miliardi di euro all’anno. L’evasione fiscale è un fenomeno globale, ma, statistiche alla mano, in Italia il livello è decisamente inaccettabile. Questo è il problema.

[1] The theory of change applied to finance for development THE THEORY OF CHANGE APPLIED TO FINANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT: http://reader.ilmiolibro.kataweb.it/v/1252660/the-theory-of-change-applied-to-finance-for-development_1268103   

Ho il piacere d’informare la pubblicazione del libro PROGETTARE IL FUTURO, IL CASO ITALIA. Di seguito una descrizione succinta.

L’andamento dei cicli economici succedutisi nelle passate quattro decadi nell’economia internazionale ha avuto riscontro nell’economia italiana in quanto interconnessa e interdipendente con il Sistema con cui condivide i valori.

In Italia la narrazione dei fatti economici se non è partigiana, è perlomeno sostenitrice del potere di volta in volta dominante. All’estero la situazione è pressocché simile, ma la narrativa è meno omologata all’Editoria di appartenenza.

Il futuro peraltro risulta già scritto, essendo il Paese nella Fase della messa a terra dei programmi di ricostruzione PNRR. Ragion per cui al presente non occorre un nuovo disegno strategico, ma la ricerca di una strategia che faccia funzionare il processo decisionale.

il nuovo Governo sembra proporre un ritorno nostalgico a valori ancorché revisionati pur sempre obsoleti, e palesa inesperienza ministeriale associata a insufficienza comunicativa. Inoltre, sembra perseguire una politica di distinguo nel contesto Europeo e non solo.Ciò potrà avere risultati concreti a condizione di non oltrepassare il break-even politico cioè comportamenti che porterebbero il Paese a confrontarsi con l’UE e probabilmente ad agitazioni sociali.

Dai risultati della ricerca è emerso che l’obiettivo dell’inclusione finanziaria è stato conseguito a detrimento della sostenibilità. Da questo dato di fatto ha avuto origine la proposta di un Modello di Sviluppo che nel rispetto dei principi dell’Agenda ONU 2030, ne reinterpreta l’applicazione.

Il libro è disponibile cliccando https://www.morebooks.shop/shop-ui/shop/book-launch-offer/c49380915203db58dc97c68bbd48c13daae2b07b 

Buona lettura.

D’après ce que vous avez appris, à Davos les puissants du monde ont donné une réponse indéterminée en ce qui concerne l’avenir à cause de l’incertitude à la suite de la Tempête Parfaite (Covid & Crise & Guerre) qu’a modifié le cadre de référence. Ici, nous ne disons qu’avant la tempête les prévisions concernant l’avenir étaient faciles ; nous disons que les projetions avaient des écarts acceptables et physiologiques au système. De nos jours, il n’est plus faisable, pourquoi ? la réponse n’est pas simple car plusieurs variables rentrent dans l’équation avenir ; toutefois effectuer des remarques sur la méthodologie appliquée est une tâche à pratiquer.

Pour l’accomplissement de l’exercice dont au-dessus il est à considérer que le futur est la projection du présent fils du passé. Le fait est que la narrative socio-économique-financière a été basée sur le passé qu’a été raconté par les mêmes Acteurs qui ont causées les conséquences et donc la narration des événements a été homologuée.

Le premier pas à faire est de réécrire la narration des faits et des événements. Enfin, nous avons conclu que les effets négatives de la financiarisation de l’économie, ont produit une richesse virtuelle au lieu d’une prospérité solide.

En conséquence il faut dessiner un autre horizon en termes de vision, objectives et modalités d’interventions. Il faut se remettre en jeu, de recouvrer la capacité de projeter l’avenir tout en évitant les erreurs du passé. Dans un mot il faut reconsidérer la pauvreté en termes de croissance durable et transformation des économies.

Nous avons consacré quelques pages à cette question et ici nous disons que les interventions pour la croissance inclusive n’ont pas atteint le but en conséquence de :

1. La faillite des gouvernements dans lutte à la pauvreté.
2. Le rôle dominant de la finance au détriment de l’économie réelle.
3. Le marché incontrôlé pour le manque d’un cadre de référence institutionnel.
4. Le manque d’application des recommandations du Comité Basel III, en 2010.
5. L’insuffisant réalisation jusqu’à présent des objectifs de l’Agenda ONU 2030.
6. L’apparition sur un grand marché potentiel par des marchands sans scrupules. 

Toutes conclusions confondues, il est question de repenser le processus du développement en partant des requêtes venant de la base et d’ici l’importance d’une nouvelle approche méthodologique.

Nous avons proposé TO MOVE FROM CREDIT-BASED ECONOMY to COMMUNITY- BASED ECONOMY.

Le modèle dont à la page suivante vise à repenser l’ensemble de l’architecture de l’inclusion financière, afin d’atténuer la pauvreté par la création d’emplois et la promotion d’opportunités, en vue d’améliorer la vie des personnes et la viabilité des entreprises. Il n’est pas question de changer les règles du jeu de la finance, mais simplement de repenser le comportement des Acteurs du Développement en raison du fait qu’on ne peut pas changer la nature : “Homo homini lupus”, comme disaient les Latins (Plauto, II, 4, 88).

COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

° To have in place a country’s appropriate national economic policy along with a receptive environment for investments.

° To conjugate together financial and economic inclusion, countries’ inclusive growth being the goal, as per the 2030 UN Agenda for SDGs.

° To have Banks, Micro Banks, Investors, Development Agencies, and any suitable provider ready to partner with the Investment Fund and work as a driven belt between the Fund and Entrepreneurs for Start-up and Growth-up businesses.

° To have in place a suitable decision-credit model that has sustainability as a core business along with respect to eligibility criteria via correct and detailed market segmentation.

° To digitalize the services with a product that is sustainable for the providers, affordable for the clients, and market transparent: this can be reached with appropriate market segmentation.

° To have a clear and distinctive role among Lenders, Developers, and Philanthropists, having different sources of capital.

° To establish a National Investment Fund by financiers and entrepreneurs truly committed to the inclusive growth of their countries.

 Exemple pratique. BM-SFI pourrait mettre en place un fonds nationaux dans les vingt pays de la région MENA s’étendant de l’Iran au Maroc en utilisant une petite partie du budget de 2 milliards de dollars comme capital d’amorçage et encourageant les capitalistes nationaux d’être actionnaires véritablement engagés à financer à la fois le démarrage et la croissance des entreprises, qui sont l’épine dorsale des économies des pays.

La SFI, la BAfD, le PNUD et d’autres Agences de développement pourraient être facilitateur et conseiller, leur présence étant également une garantie de l’opération.

En Italie, la Cassa Depositi e Prestiti pourrait jouer un rôle décisif dans la mise en œuvre du PNNR en mettant à disposition des capitaux d’amorçage et en exhortant des capitaux privés pour la création de fonds dans le but d’investir localement aux fins de créer des emplois et de promouvoir des opportunités.

Pour en savoir plus :

FINANCIAL INCLUSION, Give people a job not a loan  https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01ENJP37S?ref_=k4w_oembed_XABBfUDmCDeygV&tag=kpembed-20&linkCode=kpd

POVERTY – An Alternative Paradigm, https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/poverty-an-alternative-paradigm/isbn/978-613-8-45817-3

The Gateway to Africa Inclusive Growth – JAMBO FUND  https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/the-gateway-to-africa-inclusive-growth-jambo-fund/isbn/978-620-2-28375-5

La troisième guerre mondiale est-elle prévisible ?OUI et NON. Oui, si vous projetez le futur en référant au passé, notamment aux années trente. Non, si vous changez le paradigme en termes des objectives à attendre, qui ne sont plus l’annexion de territoires, mais la conquête de marchés. En d’autres termes, dans le passé, les territoires ont été conquis pour vendre les marchandises, aujourd’hui les marchés sont conquis pour dominer les territoires. Donc, à présent, l’annexion de la Crimée et l’Ukraine sont des objectives basés sur une vision dépassée. 
Toutefois, la réponse pourrait être positive en se basant sur la chute de l’Empire URSS, comme nous enseigne l’histoire (Empire Romaine).  Enfin, la guerre conventionnelle est déjà une réalité, si vous pensez aux dizaines de conflits en cours dans le Planet. Bien plus important est la guerre commerciale, elle aussi est combattue dans chaque région du Planet : crise économique, pauvreté, inégalité, … .  Toutes conclusions confondues, la guerre est déjà une réalité, mais elle est bataillée avec des modalités inédites. Les batailles en Ukraine sont contre l’histoire et donc perdues pour l’envahisseur. 

« Repenser le Futur ». D’accord, mais les contributions et les commentaires sont toujours basés sur le Passé: nous avons approfondi et conclu que dans la mesure où nous aimons vraiment dessiner un différent horizon en termes de vision, objectives et modalités d’interventions, il faut d’abord récrire la narrative des faits et des événements car la narration a été écrite par les mêmes Acteurs qui ont causé les conséquences.

Enfin, nous avons conclu que : (A) Le passé a été mal raconté ; (B) le rôle dominant de la finance dans l’économie devrait être réduit, à raison que la financiarisation n’a pas produit une vraie prospérité mais la richesse virtuelle ; (C) donc, il incombe à la nouvelle génération réécrire la dynamique des événements et projeter le futur. Le modèle est aussi dans le Post https://www.linkedin.com/in/ascanio-graziosi-968ba43/recent-activity/shares/

Forwards – The financial capitalism is broken

Nowadays each one and everybody have been thinking about tomorrow, hoping that something will change for better. It is hard to think that it will happen. The future is the projection of the present that is son of the past: in the history there have been periods traumatised by calamities: from wars, to epidemics, earthquakes, floods and so on.

The day after any event, people tried to apply the lessons learned, but the intents have not been put into practice because, as it has been said, the road to hell is paved by good intentions.

It should be considered that the health crisis blew up in the middle of an ongoing crisis of the financial capitalism meaning that there are two crises to face at the same time. Currently, with the Ucraina invasion everything should be re-settled. 

This could be a good opportunity for digging into new fundamentals of economics. Despite any skepticism, there isn’t a choice, but to look forward and re-set the development’s paradigm.

It seems that the proposals worked out for Post Coronavirus have assumed the situation before Covid-19 was normal and acceptable, but this isn’t the case. In fact, when we measure the progress in achieving the objectives of the 2030 Agenda for SDGs, the related evaluations have shown poor results that have anticipated the non-accomplishment of the goals.

The extent to which this context is shared, when we are going to project the future, we should assume that financial capitalism is broken.

Before the health crisis, the people witnessed the crisis of capitalism, which has been highlighted by the everyday reality of the exploitation of natural and human resources, no longer accepted by both ordinary people and professionals & entrepreneurs involved and engaged in the system.

Not to mention the situations in the developing regions facing massive migrations and an ever-increasing inequality among people.

The Covid-19 along with Ucraina’s war has worsened the people’s living conditions: the poor have become poorer and those already integrated in the system have experienced a reduced income of already constrained access.

• Under the circumstances, what to do? There isn’t a need to make a revolution or to issue new rules of the game because it is possible to project a possible future, operating in the context in which we live. There is a need to review and revise the approach to market and the environment as well.
• It is up to the Establishment along with the Big Financial Players to change behaviour when it comes to dealing with development finance issues.

Everyone can find references in their own sector of work or interest; here we will refer to the financial component of the economy, we have been dealing with since the mid-60s the last century [1].

Over the past decades, Finance has continued to dominate the world of business and this is quite understandable bearing in mind that financial leverage is important and sometimes essential for the development of whatever activity.

But the problem is: which finance? Financialization with unsustainable interventions that instead of creating real wealth produced virtual affluence?

Currently, Finance although having a dominant position is not a constant but a variable of the development’s equation and therefore can be re-formed with appropriate revisions to achieve the objectives.

The data emerging from everyday reality has shown that the capitalist algorithm is no longer accepted by both the ordinary people and professionals & entrepreneurs involved and engaged in the system; not to mention the situations in the developing regions facing massive migrations and an ever-increasing inequality among people

Solidarity has been perceived as a response to the accumulation, but the related algorithm has not yet been proposed[2].

Under the circumstances whatever proposal should emerge from going through a new financial narrative namely not homologated to the Establishment standards; we did it using a toolbox updated to the changes to measure whether the targeted goals listed in the 2030 UN Agenda have been achieved:

POVERTY – An Alternative Paradigm: MOVING FROM CREDIT-BASED ECONOMY to COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMY https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/poverty-an-alternative-paradigm/isbn/978-613-8-45817-3

[1]  https://ascaniograziosi.net/my-journey

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-capitalism-broken-ascanio-graziosi/

“The debt is good and bad”: just two adjectives to phase out the unsustainable finance and indeed the way the borrowers do use the money makes the difference. The concept should be a reminder for each one and everybody responsible for the implementation of Next Generation EU. Let see the issue in the context of development financing.

Late 70s last century, the Populists proposed Microfinance to integrate the poor into the system. At that time circulated a story (it isn’t important whether it was true) of a lady who repaid a small number of Rupees; since then, the Populists fabricated on the episode a credit model, which had a worldwide echo. The model was supported by a slogan “everybody deserves a loan”, which found a good reception at the international level, on the grounds that: A) in the emerging economies the GVTs failed their duty to fight poverty; in other words, the Public Authorities made strong the Populism; B) the proposal was in line with the dominant role of finance in the economy, microfinance being a product of it.

The Populists succeeded because they intercepted the emerging demand from the discontent of three big segments of the population: 1) the emarginated people asking the freedom from the poverty trap, 2) the ordinary people demanding to be an equal part of the communities and 3) the people (professionals, entrepreneurs) already committed in the system but not yet have full access to the financial resources.

However, their Slogans couldn’t have a future and indeed, both field evidence and desk research dismantled the appealing and dangerous approach to tackle poverty. Why the idea has been successful? Besides the above points A) and B) there is a third one:  C) the opportunities for unscrupulous lenders.

In our opinion there are two ways of interpretation of the above Populist’s verdict: (*) they did believe in what they said because voluminous literature – documents/papers – on financial inclusion and inclusive growth have been just words, that’s to say the changes have been made to change nothing; (**) they did elude the evidence with arrogance using the same way of communication, namely via a buzzword: “sustainable finance doesn’t exist”.

Nowadays there is a movement – digitalization -, which aims at meeting the demand for discontented people making the financial resources available via an electronic device and the Technologists are the new Populists [2]. In the new picture, the establishment changed the methods and continued controlling the system, digitalization of the financial services being the new horse to ride.

So, is sustainable finance a buzzword? Try to answer this question: when a lender lends out the money, does he expect to be paid back? So, giving a loan to ineligible people and being sure that it wouldn’t be repaid, does generate a market distortion that is paid by the taxpayers, besides wasting resources.

In this understanding, how to deal with the market? The above three segments can be tackled with a well-defined approach focusing on the related market segments: enterprise development, income-generating activities and food aid, Poverty being a government duty and not a lender task, as we proposed since 1998, as Coordinator of a Finance Group with the UN-FAO Program Food into Cities [3] and again in 2011: Suggestions for designing a credit model [4].

Beginning this year, we worked out a Feasibility Study on poverty matter, taking from the Documents/Papers issued by the international financial establishment, basically there four sources: Documents/Papers to read on development finance issues: Basel III Committee [5], CGAP [6], UN 2030 Agenda on SDGs http://www.un.org.) and CSFI Banana Skins [7]

We didn’t fabricate anything but just elaborated on what the system has recommended, to mean, among other things, that poverty can be mitigated without changing the finance rules of the game but moving from a Credit-based economy to a Community-based economy.

Conclusions: The behavior of Investors/Capitalists has made finance unsustainable over the past four decades and not the rules. In 2008 they ignored the lessons of the financial crisis, in 2010 disregarded the development model proposed by Basel III Committee and in 2016 didn’t follow the UN 2030 Agenda recommendations focused on sustainable interventions. The paradox is the fact that the pandemic crisis and not the financial crisis forced to review the development’s paradigm.

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/from-mdgs-sdgs-technologists-new-populists-ascanio-graziosi/

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/from-mdgs-sdgs-technologists-new-populists-ascanio-graziosi/.

[3] http://www.fao.org/fcit/fcit-home/fr/

[4] http://www.microfinancegateway.org/p/site/m/template.rc/1.9.51017/.

[5] http://www.bis.org

[6] http://www.cgap.org/publications/new-funder-guidelines-market-systems-approach-financial-inclusion

[7] http://www.aboutmicrofinance.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Banana+Skins_07-16_v8.pdf

Forwards: The financial capitalism is broken

Nowadays each one and everybody have been thinking about tomorrow, hoping that something will change for better. It is hard to think that it will happen. The future is the projection of the past: in the history there have been periods shocked by calamities from wars, to epidemies, earthquakes, floods and so on.

The day after any event, people tried to apply the lessons learned, but the intents have not been put into practice because, as it has been said, the road to hell is paved by good intentions; moreover, it should be considered that the pandemic crisis blew up in the middle of an ongoing crisis of the financial capitalism meaning that there are two crises to face at the same time.

Paradoxically, this could be a good opportunity for digging new fundamentals of economics. Despite any scepticism there isn’t a choice, but to look forward and re-set the development’s paradigm.

It seems that the proposals worked out for Post Coronavirus have assumed the situation before Covid-19 as normal and acceptable, but this isn’t the case. In fact, when we measure the progress achieved in getting the objectives of the 2030 Agenda for SDGs, the related evaluations have shown poor results that have anticipated the non-accomplishment of the goals.

The extent to which this context is shared, – and the speakers of the Establishment confirmed the validity – when we are going to project the future, we should assume that the financial capitalism is broken.  

Before the pandemic explosion, the people have witnessed the crisis of the capitalism, which has been highlighted by the exploitation of natural and human resources; not to mention the situations in the developing regions facing massive migrations and an ever-increasing inequality within the communities.

The Covid-19 has worsened the people’s living conditions: the poor have become poorer and those already integrated in the system have experienced a reduced income of an already constrained access.

Under the circumstances, what to do? There isn’t a need to make either a revolution or to issue new rules of the game because it is possible to project a possible future, operating in the context in which we live, on condition to review and revise the approach to market and the environment as well.

It is up to the Establishment along with the Big Financial Players to change behaviour when it comes to deal with development finance issues.

Everyone can find references in their own sector of work; here we will refer to the financial component of the economy, we have been dealing with since the mid-60s the last century [1].

Over the past decades Finance has continued to dominate the world of the business and this is quite understandable because the financial leverage is important and sometimes essential for the development of whatsoever activity. But the problem is: which finance? Financialization with unsustainable interventions that instead of creating real wealth produced virtual affluence?

Currently, Finance although having a dominant position, it is no more a constant but a variable of the development’s equation and therefore can be re-shaped with appropriate revisions to achieve the objectives.

Solidarity has been perceived as a response to the accumulation, but the related algorithm has not yet been proposed (2)

The data emerging from everyday reality has shown that the capitalist algorithm is no longer accepted by both the ordinary people and professionals & entrepreneurs involved and engaged in the system.

Under the circumstances whatsoever proposal should emerge from going through the financial narrative; we did it using a toolbox updated to the changes to measure whether the targeted goals listed in the 2030 UN Agenda have been achieved.

[1]  https://ascaniograziosi.net/my-journey

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-capitalism-broken-ascanio-graziosi/

Fin du siècle passé, nous avons écrit : « La Mission Pauvreté est possible mais il faut changer the règles du jeu de la finance ». Les lignes ont été extraites du Document (Étude de faisabilité pour des interventions en faveur de la petite entreprise commerciale alimentaire dans la ville de Addis Abéba ) que nous avons préparé en 1997 dans le cadre du Programme UN-FAO « Aliments dans les villes », http://www.fao.org/fcit/fcit-home/fr/,  en tant que Coordinateur du Groupe de Travail Finance.

Récemment nous avons écrit : il n’est pas question des règles, plutôt du comportement des Grandes Acteurs de la Finance : POVERTY – An Alternative Paradigm: MOVING FROM CREDI-BASED ECONOMY to COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMY https://www.morebooks.de/store/gb/book/poverty-an-alternative-paradigm/isbn/978-613-8-45817-3.

Enfin, nous n’avons pas changé d’idée, le fait est que finalement les règles du jeu de la finance ont été changées, même s’il a fallu d’attendre le nouveau siècle. Toutefois les Acteurs n’ont pas donné la suite aux règles proposées par eux-mêmes, voir ci-dessus :  

In 2010 Basel III Committee released a document on microfinance activities filling the gap: https://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs175.pdf. Since then, the central banks in the emerging economies started regulating and monitoring the uncontrolled micro credit market. Taking inspiration from the document we worked out “Designing a credit model” that CGAP rated among the first three Papers consulted document in 2011: déchargé gratuitement  https://www.findevgateway.org/paper/2011/01/suggestions-designing-microcredit-model .

In 2015 the WB-CGAP: https://www.cgap.org/research/publication/new-funder-guidelines- market-systems-approach-financial-inclusion phased out the old-fashioned microfinance idea and Basel III Committee released a document on financial inclusion introducing the concept of Unserved and Underserved Customers: https://www.bis.org/bcbs/publ/d351.pdf.

A further and comprehensive step has been made with the release of UN 2030 Agenda with 17 goals and related targets: https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E  Taking from above sources, we published FINANCEINCLUSION with subtitle “Give people a job, not a loan” https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01ENJP37S?ref_=k4w_oembed_XABBfUDmCDeygV&tag=kpembed-%2020&linkCode=kpd   and proposed a new approach in favour of poor people, who aren’t only those living for less the $ 2/d but also those who although integrated in the system asked a wider access to the financial resources.

Dans le nouveau contexte le mot clé est « Soutenabilité » que dans le passé a été complétement négligé, au bénéfice du rôle dominant de la finance jusqu’à la financiarisation de l’économie qu’a produit l’affluence virtuelle au lieu d’une vraie richesse.

Le mouvement populiste

Le mouvement populiste apparu dans les années soixante-dix dans le Sous-Continent de l’Asie a promu l’idée « crédit pour tout le monde » aux fins d’éradiquer la pauvreté, avec l’étiquette nouveauté, qui a été autant fasciné que risquée. Il y a eu des rares situations notables, mais quel a été coût ? Qui a payé le compte ? Tous et chacun, institutions et citoyens, comme il a été démontré par l’implosion financière des organisations de la micro finance dans plusieurs Pays : Bangladesh, Bosnie, Cambodge, Inde, Maroc, Pakistan, Nicaragua.

On se demande pourquoi des Pays, particulièrement en Afrique, ont importé cette idée et négliger les traditions et les coutumes déjà expérimentés dans le domaine du petit crédit. Au contraire, ces Pays ont donné le bienvenu à un modèle fondé sur les coutumes des communautés (Bangladesh) basés sur une organisation de groupes de crédit hiérarchique et presque militaire (voir : Porter & Kramer).

Bien sûr, les populistes ont agi pour raison humanitaires, mais ils ont abandonné le processus de la prise de décision de crédit et n’ont pas élaboré une approche méthodologique compréhensive. De cette manière le concept de crédit a été dénaturé, tout en banalisant une profession qui demande plus d’une compétence ; enfin, crédit signifie confiance et il est approuvé à la discrétion du fournisseur qui peut le refuser même en présence d’une garantie totale.

Heureusement, à présent le secteur de la microfinance comprend centaines des réalités qui travaillent à côté des communautés et encadrées dans le coiffe législative et organisationnel des pays, à la suite des recommandations contenues dans le document Basel III publié en 2010 « Microfinance activities and the Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision”, http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs175.pdf. A partir de cette année les banques centrales des Pays ont commencé à mettre ordre dans le secteur de la microfinance auparavant incontrôlé et donc l’an 2010 trace la ligne de démarcation pour une nouvelle action sur le terrain.

Pour projeter la future il faut connaitre le passé

Il est question de se remettre en jeu, de recouvrer la capacité de projeter le future tout en évitant les erreurs du passé. Dans un mot il faut reconsidérer la pauvreté en termes de croissance durable et transformation des économies.

On peut se demander le pourquoi et comment il a été possible d’accepter l’idée populiste dont nous avons dit tantôt sans se poser des questions et, en plus, en donnant un soutien de propagande, qui a été élargi et gonflé avant les résultats.

Nous avons consacré quelques pages à cette question de base dans : FINANCIAL INCLUSION https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01ENJP37S?ref_=k4w_oembed_XABBfUDmCDeygV&tag=kpembed-20&linkCode=kpd. Ici, nous disons que la situation a été la conséquence de :

1) la faillite des gouvernements dans lutte à la pauvreté,

2) le rôle dominant de la finance dans l’économie au détriment de l’économie réelle ;

3) l’apparition sur le marché du crédit des nouveaux venus qui, en générale, n’avez pas d’expérience dans la nouvelle profession ;

4) un marché incontrôlé pour le manque d’un cadre de référence institutionnel au niveau de Pays.

5) un grand marché potentiel retenu profitable pour des marchands sans scrupules.

Vers un nouveau paradigme

Une toute première réflexion. Dans le contexte décrit au-dessus, il est question de réviser l’architecture des interventions en faveur des pauvres et des petits entrepreneurs, et remplacer le paradigme des approches couramment basées sur l’économie surendettée au niveau micro et macro avec des interventions soutenables et orientées vers la création d’emploi et la promotion des opportunités (voir Figure).

Dans tous les Pays le processus de développement est construit sur la dette. La lève financière est une composante importante et même nécessaire de l’équation investissement, à condition d’être bien balancée par les autres variables de l’équation et surtout, visée aux activités de l’économie réelle.

Le défi est colossal car il ne s’agit pas seulement d’aider ceux qui n’ont rien mais ceux qui nécessite de plus. Dans un mot c’est la lutte à la pauvreté : les pauvres n’étant pas seulement ceux qui vivent dans l’émergence (laissez pour compte) mais aussi ceux qui ont davantage besoin d’être mieux intégrés dans leurs communautés. La question est donc celle de dessiner un nouveau modèle de financement pour encadrer les actions de terrain dans un cadre logique.

Finally, going back to the above Figure, a question may be raised: what about the Unserved People?  We do think that we should think the other way around and agree with Mr. Elumelu – Nigerian tycoon and banker –, who in an interview (6 Jan. 2014) spelt out his vision on what to do and promote African entrepreneurial spirit: “There are some areas — flood disasters, for instance — where you must give charity. But I think the charity approach to solving other issues must be reassessed. It’s all about sustainability; it’s all about self-reliance. It’s catalytic philanthropy”. (http//www.devex.com/news/tony-elumelu-s-new-africapitalism-82590).