【正文】 社會收益成本比公共支持 MFIs 會受到許多因素 ,包括宏觀政策、社會經(jīng)濟因素和農(nóng)業(yè)生態(tài)環(huán)境。 外部的外部環(huán)境 ,包括代表的宏觀經(jīng)濟政策影響以及部門的性能直接 或間接的金融機構(gòu)。為客戶提供一個更好的金融產(chǎn)品 ,會產(chǎn)生更大的經(jīng)濟效益 , ,因此影響大。更重要的是這種協(xié)同為儲戶必須有信心的制度的永恒所委托他們的積蓄。 例如 ,想要更多的支持是公開的 ,MFIs 特別針對窮人 ,如孟加拉使用特定的財富標(biāo)準(zhǔn) ,試圖排除那些生活在貧困線以上嗎 ? 這些問題時出現(xiàn)的代價是捐贈者和決策者考慮投資在農(nóng)村金融。那些僅高于或只是生活在貧困線以下可以使用貸款更有效地生產(chǎn)目的 ,最終提高收入和資產(chǎn)基地。潛在的權(quán)衡深度外延和金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展已經(jīng)提到過 ,但是他們或許還之間存在著影響和經(jīng)濟的可持續(xù)發(fā)展。 MFIs試圖為這些目標(biāo) (或間接透過金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展導(dǎo)致追求規(guī)模和為多位客戶或直接通過針對貧困階層的需要 ),但許多某一特定目的的壓力在另外兩個方面。補貼依賴指數(shù)已經(jīng)成為一種被廣泛接受的操作措施以量化的數(shù)量的社會成本低廉 ,一家金融機構(gòu)的支持業(yè)務(wù)。此外 ,大多數(shù)的 ,不是全部 ,MFIs 出現(xiàn)在 Microbanking 已達到論壇 ,訪問者要求公共投 資金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展的某些方面有她們的存在 ,使得技術(shù)協(xié)助或接受資本去規(guī)模以降低單位成本。第三個政策的目標(biāo)是發(fā)展金融系統(tǒng)的影響 ,特別是意在消除貧困。支付這些貸款的成本更高 ,利率需要或被設(shè)定更高的 ,或 MFI 可能會跟隨使用的策略范圍和規(guī)模經(jīng)濟 ,交叉補貼小型貸款的風(fēng)險。Conning Cuevas和帕克斯頓 ,2020。 根據(jù)俄亥俄州立大學(xué)的研究人員的工作和其他機構(gòu)在 80 年代的證明 ,這個觀點的出現(xiàn)論證了建設(shè)永久性金融機構(gòu)要求他們達到經(jīng)濟可持續(xù)性 ,也就是說 ,他們收回成本。在農(nóng)村金融在 80 年代后期有了轉(zhuǎn)變的范式 ,許多這樣的失敗可以追溯到補貼小農(nóng)戶信貸的成功一些 MFIs。因此 ,政府以及捐贈人他們也不同程度地強調(diào)自己在三大目標(biāo) ,農(nóng)村金融 ,即金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展、深度外延和福利的影響。例之一 ,這些原因鏈?zhǔn)菢I(yè)主企業(yè)進入使用金融服務(wù)創(chuàng)造額外對商品和服務(wù)的需求的窮人從而增加收入。這些目標(biāo)是減少貧困和改進各種維度的貧窮 (或福利 ,如 :教育、健康、營養(yǎng)和婦女的授權(quán)。因此 ,公共投資 ,農(nóng)村金融可以證明 ,例如 ,基金 (行動 )研究和初創(chuàng)企業(yè)良好的制度以及制度擴張直到達到在合理的時間金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展 ,并支持飛行員實驗和希望的新產(chǎn)品、技術(shù)或技術(shù)支持 ,比如員工培訓(xùn)和轉(zhuǎn)讓的最佳途徑。 新范式中與金融市場的自由化(如看到關(guān)于利率形成 )是一種必要的但不充分條件 ,能深化金融系統(tǒng)。相反 ,它集中于建立可持續(xù)的金融機構(gòu)和系統(tǒng) ,并 介紹了經(jīng)營政策目標(biāo) MFIs 金融的可持續(xù)性發(fā)展。簡單的常識 告訴我們 ,儲戶存錢的動機不同 ,借款人繼續(xù)償還貸款 ,和客戶定期支付健康和人壽保險的保險費，實際推導(dǎo)出在長時期內(nèi)的經(jīng)濟效益。目前絕大多數(shù)的窮人仍然生活在農(nóng)村地區(qū)。 Otero and Rhyne 1994) argued that increasing the depth of outreach and financial sustainability are patible objectives in the sense that increasing the scale of operations will also increase the absolute number of poor people among clients: “It is scale, not exclusive focus, that determines whether significant outreach to the poor will occur”. Several other authors present analysis that supports the notion of a tradeoff between improving depth of outreach, . reaching relatively poorer people, and achieving financial sustainability The tradeoff stems from the fact that transaction costs have a large fixed cost ponent so that unit costs for smaller savings deposits or smaller loans are high pared to larger financial transactions. This law of decreasing unit transaction costs with larger size transactions generates the tradeoff between improved outreach to the poor and financial sustainability, irrespective of the lending technology used. To cover the higher costs of these loans, interest rates need to either be set higher, or the MFI may follow a strategy of using economies of scale, scope and risk to cross subsidize smaller loans. Breadth of outreach (in terms of number of clientele) and depth of outreach (at present measured through the very imprecise, but widely used indicator of average loan size (or balance) in relation to percapita GDP are now regularly reported, . in the Microbanking Bulletin Wenner states that depth of outreach, specified as target maximum average loan size, has bee a criteria used by the IDB for certain instruments of (rural) microfinance policy. Financial sustainability of the financial institution and outreach to the poor are only two of the policy objectives of microfinance. The third policy objective relates to the impact of financial systems development, particularly on poverty reduction. When policy intervention and direct support for institution building requires public investments funded either by domestic or foreign taxes or donations, the question arises about the payoff or impact, for example in terms of economic growth and alleviation of poverty and food insecurity. Institutional innovation in microfinance following the new paradigm has relied on financial support by donors and governments and by other social investors such as philanthropic foundations. In fact, many, but not all, MFIs that reach large numbers of female and male clients below the poverty line require continued state or donor transfers to fully cover costs Moreover, most, if not all, of the MFIs featured in the Microbanking Bulletin that already reached financial sustainability have required public investment at some point in their existence, be it to enable technical assistance or to receive capital for going to scale so as to reduce unit costs. Some may consider these funds provided by governments, donors and other social investors as subsidies (with a negative connotation), but – from a policy perspective these funds constitute public investment (be it good or bad investment) in institution and systems building. Such public investments are justified from a public policy perspective if the discounted social benefits of public investment in microfinance are expected to outweigh the social costs. These costs include the opportunity costs of foregoing the social benefits of other pu