English - Freedom from Hunger

Conclusion
What have we learned from qualitative interviews with our random sample of microfinance clients across
multiple countries?
First, we can conclude that by using an impact-story methodology, at least with mature and existing
clients, we are often telling the story of what success looks like in the lives of people participating in
a value-added microfinance program. We are not presenting a counterfactual, or what the client’s life
would look like without the program and presenting the benefits of microfinance in that manner. We are
presenting a picture of a client’s life and his or her experience with value-added microfinance and what it
aims to achieve—improved financial capacity and capability as well as improved health, food security and
overall family well-being.
Second, these stories reveal that the needs, hopes and dreams of the poor do not differ dramatically across
the world. This is usually a working assumption for many development interventions that are taken to
large scale, like microfinance.
Third, we are demonstrating how a simple methodology when utilized as part of an impact-monitoring
system (see appendix for full description) or when integrated with a broader research agenda can help us
learn about the clients best served by microfinance and we have some suggestions as to why it does not
work for everyone. Alongside the evidence that value-added microfinance has positive impact (through
randomized control trials, for example), this impact-story methodology can assist in our ongoing
understanding of whether our clients are on the right path to achieving long-term impact. When we
incorporate client follow-ups over time, including those who drop out, we should have a clearer picture of
how and when microfinance becomes less useful or ceases altogether to positively serve the client. We will
also have more confidence in our understanding about what makes the program useful to clients.
Fourth, the stories provide additional evidence that value-added microfinance can and does have a
positive impact for some and offer details about some of the specific effects of microfinance, especially
for longer-term clients. Many of the clients interviewed through this process have been in the program
for more than 2–3 years, some for more than 15 years. Recently conducted randomized control trials
have been constrained by a 2- to 3-year time frame (or less) to detect impact for new clients. Impact
stories, as presented here, are mainly assessing those who remain in the program beyond a year’s time.
The clients’ descriptions of how their lives have changed help us anticipate what could occur over time
as a client remains in a program. For example, the data suggest that the longer they remain clients, the
higher-level needs they are able to address, or choose to address. New clients, as we know from Freedom
from Hunger’s food-security statistics, experience more food insecurity on the whole. Likewise, the data
collected from the impact stories highlight how clients new to microfinance tend to focus on basic needs
such as food, health, and steady and profitable work, while longer-term clients appear to experience more
food security and begin discussing home improvements, education and car purchases. These outcomes,
which appear to be dependent on the length of program participation, should be explored further in
larger studies. If we suspect that greater, or different, changes occur in the long term than short term, then
we need to conduct studies that capture the long-term changes and consider those long-term changes as
ConClusIon
22