Global microscope on the microfinance business environment 2012

More documents

Recommendations

Info

15 licensing deposit-taking MFIs. Meanwhile, Madagascar’s category score worsened, primarily owing to the requirement that all microcredit organisations be licensed by the supervisory Commission de Supervision Bancaire et Financière (CSBF), which in effect barred all unregulated microfi nance institutions from offering microloans. Senegal’s score also dropped to zero owing to more stringent implementation of regulations, which inhibit and increasingly prohibit unregulated microfi nance. Deposit-taking frameworks improved in Kenya and Senegal, both increasing their scores to 3 out of 4, with accessible and well-balanced regulatory requirements for different levels of institution in each country. The bulk of the criteria under Supporting Institutional Framework show moderate increases. Most notably, Kenya is now the fi rst, and only country to have achieved a score of 4 out of 4 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2012 <strong>Global</strong> <strong>microscope</strong> on the microfi nance business environment 2012 for fi nancial transactions through agents. With over one-third of the population using M-Pesa, it now has one of highest rates of access to fi nancial services of any developing country in the world. The one area showing limited improvement in the region is the development of credit bureaus: Rwanda, the highest-scoring country in the region, has a score of 2, which acknowledges that a credit bureau exists in the country, but it has several structural and operational weaknesses. Four of the 11 Sub-Saharan African countries, including Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal, and Tanzania effectively have no credit bureau for microfi nance. Only seven other countries in the study (including Bangladesh, Haiti, Lebanon, and Tajikistan) also reported having no existing credit bureau. This, however, should improve in future years with several projects under way.
16 Overall microfi nance business environment rankings Weighted sum of category scores (0-100 where 100=most favourable) Rank Country Score Change 1 Peru 79.8 +12.0 2 Bolivia 71.8 +7.1 3 Pakistan 67.4 +4.6 4 Philippines 63.3 +4.8 5 Kenya 62.8 +2.5 6 El Salvador 56.3 -2.5 7 Colombia 56.0 – 8 Cambodia 55.7 +4.8 =9 Mexico 53.6 – =9 Panama 53.6 – 11 Ecuador 52.6 -2.5 12 Paraguay 52.0 -1.3 13 Chile 51.8 +5.0 14 Uganda 51.6 -2.1 15 Ghana 51.0 +4.8 16 Brazil 49.2 – 17 Rwanda 48.6 – 18 Armenia 47.4 +2.3 19 Tanzania 46.5 – 20 Honduras 46.3 – 21 Dominican Republic 46.1 – 22 India 45.7 +2.6 23 Bosnia and Hercegovina 45.3 +2.2 24 Indonesia 44.3 +5.1 =25 Mongolia 44.2 +2.4 =25 Uruguay 44.2 -0.2 27 Mozambique 44.0 +0.1 28 Nicaragua 43.9 +1.6 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2012 <strong>Global</strong> <strong>microscope</strong> on the microfi nance business environment 2012 Rank Country Score Change 29 Nigeria 43.4 – 30 Kyrgyz Republic 42.1 -3.1 31 Guatemala 41.4 +2.4 32 Costa Rica 39.7 – 33 Azerbaijan 38.4 -0.2 34 Tajikistan 36.3 -4.8 35 Madagascar 35.9 -1.1 36 China 34.4 +2.4 37 Senegal 34.1 +2.3 =38 Georgia 33.7 -9.6 =38 Morocco 33.7 – 40 Lebanon 33.5 – 41 Bangladesh 32.8 +1.9 42 Cameroon 31.6 – 43 Jamaica 31.5 +2.4 44 Nepal 31.3 +5.2 45 Yemen 30.4 +0.3 46 Haiti 29.1 +2.5 47 Argentina 28.8 – 48 Dem. Rep. of Congo 28.5 – 49 Sri Lanka 28.2 +0.8 50 Egypt 27.4 -4.0 51 Turkey 26.6 – 52 Thailand 25.4 +4.3 53 Venezuela 25.2 +0.1 54 Trinidad and Tobago 24.1 +2.3 55 Vietnam 21.5 +1.8
Page 1 and 2: Global mic
Page 3 and 4: 2 For further information, please c
Page 5 and 6: 4 Acknowledgements The following re
Page 7 and 8: 6 Executive summary The last few ye
Page 9 and 10: 8 Microscope indicators The three c
Page 11 and 12: 10 provision of mobile banking has
Page 13 and 14: 12 The Microscope recorded more var
Page 15: 14 Middle East and North Africa The
Page 19 and 20: 18 Supporting Institutional Framewo
Page 21 and 22: This article was prepared by Robert
Page 23 and 24: This article was prepared by IFC. 2
Page 25 and 26: 24 Microscope country profi les The
Page 27 and 28: 26 to state their interest rates on
Page 29 and 30: 28 l Successful experience of sever
Page 31 and 32: 30 ■ Nepal Key characteristics of
Page 33 and 34: 32 Representatives in early 2012, a
Page 35 and 36: 34 effectively crowd out private se
Page 37 and 38: 36 requirements, MFIs can be establ
Page 39 and 40: 38 These were established some time
Page 41 and 42: 40 Key changes and impacts since la
Page 43 and 44: 42 regulated entities. Many have be
Page 45 and 46: 44 l Credit bureau coverage of micr
Page 47 and 48: 46 Key changes and impacts since la
Page 49 and 50: 48 network and adoption by some ins
Page 51 and 52: 50 (IBIS). Launched in September 20
Page 53 and 54: 52 Middle East and North Africa ■
Page 55 and 56: 54 l The country’s Microfi nance
Page 57 and 58: 56 accounts. The lack of qualifi ed
Page 59 and 60: 58 been proposed, capping interest
Page 61 and 62: 60 l The government of Rwanda, know
Page 63 and 64: 62 l While most fi nancial institut
Page 65 and 66: 64 Sources To score the indicators
Page 67 and 68:
66 laundering regulations, present
Page 69 and 70:
68 Regional representation This ind
Page 71 and 72:
70 Table 1 © The Economist Intelli
Page 73 and 74:
Cover: Shutterstock 72 Whilst every
show all

Global microscope on the microfinance business environment 2012

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?