Navigating Bangladesh's political settlement: microfinance, civil society and possibilities for development

孟加拉国在国际上被誉为一个发展成功的故事：一个经济增长强劲的国家，一个模仿世界各地的创新之源，其人类发展数字让邻国印度相形见绌。考虑到仅仅几十年前，它还被视为世界上最贫穷的国家，以令人震惊的贫困、饥荒和洪水而闻名，这个名声就更加重要了。这一成功的一个主要来源被视为该国由大型非政府组织主导的充满活力的公民社会。在这些非政府组织（和银行）中，很多工作都集中在一项50年前甚至不存在的发展活动上：小额信贷。事实上，孟加拉国最伟大的发展成功故事——也是孟加拉国新的国际形象的主要催化剂之一——是由穆罕默德·尤努斯（Muhammad Yunus）带头的小额信贷革命，他后来与格莱珉银行（Grameen Bank）一起获得了诺贝尔和平奖。小额信贷行业提出了一个简单的主张：向农村妇女提供小额贷款可以使她们创办小企业，从而使她们摆脱贫困。从20世纪90年代开始，这种说法开始对捐助者产生巨大的吸引力，他们不再资助那些关注土地再分配或人权等集体目标的激进非政府组织。捐助者提供了大量资金帮助这些mfi（小额信贷机构），因为他们知道，更广泛地说，孟加拉国的非政府组织继续严重依赖捐助者的资金来维持其业务（孟加拉国是英国双边援助的第五大受援国）。我的研究旨在检验这样一个问题：孟加拉国农村小额信贷机构的社会绩效如何？换句话说，这个成功故事是真的吗？他们对贫困农村家庭的影响是否如他们所宣称的那样？在我进行研究的时候，大多数研究都是通过量化工具来考察孟加拉国的小额信贷。我使用了混合的方法，重点是花时间在两个村庄和小额信贷机构，他们的员工和他们的分支机构（我有很强的孟加拉语水平，以前住在吉大港的一个贫民窟）。随着研究的深入，我开始明白，小额信贷的实际情况与人们描述的非常不同。来自农村家庭的叙述讲述了一些不当行为，比如信贷员的辱骂、偿还贷款的极端压力、被迫出售贷款，以及在借款人无法偿还贷款时非法收回财产。我将这些做法追溯到特定的机构（在这些村庄的研究中，有10家小额信贷机构在运作），并了解到它们的商业结构方式转化为所观察到的不当行为。这些小额信贷机构的商业化给信贷员带来压力，从而导致该领域的滥用做法。结果往往是负面的，有时对这些家庭来说是毁灭性的——过度负债很常见，人们出售资产，并导致严重的心理问题。通过小额信贷机构可能实现的发展类型与所描绘的相去甚远。我的研究指出，有必要了解小额信贷机构的性质，以及它们在其运作的社会政治背景下带来的变化。在村一级，这可能意味着贫困客户与小额信贷机构信贷员之间的权力关系；在机构一级，这可能意味着小额信贷机构在更广泛的政治环境中的地位，这决定了它们如何运作。为了进一步理解这一点，对孟加拉国政治和国家角色的欣赏是必不可少的（在当前的学术术语中是“政治解决”）。事实上，在我的实地工作期间和之后，孟加拉国的政治动态发生了重大变化，国家显示出越来越多的威权主义迹象，这进一步威胁到非政府组织、记者和活动家等民间社会行动者的自主权。因此，我的研究提出了一个更广泛的问题：孟加拉国可能实现什么样的发展？

Bangladesh has been lauded internationally as a development success story: a county with strong economic growth, a source of innovation copied the world around, and human development figures that put its neighbour India to shame. This reputation is all the more significant given that only a few decades ago it was seen as the world's basket case, known for shocking poverty, famines and floods. One major source of this success is seen as the country's vibrant civil society, dominated by large NGOs.Among these NGOs (and banks), much work is focused around a development activity that did not even exist fifty years ago: microfinance. Indeed, the greatest development success stories to come from Bangladesh - and one of the main catalysts for Bangladesh's new international image - is the microfinance revolution, spearheaded by Muhammad Yunus, who later won a Noble Peace Prize along with the Grameen Bank. The microfinance industry makes a simple claim: tiny loans to rural women can enable them to start small businesses through which they can move themselves out of poverty. From the 1990s this narrative began to have enormous traction with donors, who moved away from funding radical NGOs concerned with collective aims such as land redistribution or human rights. Donors offered significant funds to help these MFIs (Microfinance Institutions) as they became known, and more generally NGOs in Bangladesh continue to rely heavily on donor funds to maintain their operations (Bangladesh is the 5th largest recipient of bilateral aid from the UK). My research set out to examine the question, what is the social performance of microfinance institutions in rural Bangladesh? In other words, was this success story true? Did they have the impact on poor rural households that they claimed? At the time of my research most studies had examined microfinance in Bangladesh through quantitative tools. I used mixed methods, with an emphasis on spending time ethnographically in both villages and with MFIs, their staff and in their branches (I have a strong level of Bengali having previously lived in a slum in Chittagong). As my research progressed I began to understand that the realities of microfinance were very different from how they had been portrayed. Accounts from rural families told of malpractices such as abusive loan officers, extreme pressures to repay loans, forced selling of loans and illegal repossession of belongings when borrowers could not repay. I traced these practices to particular institutions (in the villages studies ten MFIs were in operation) and understood that the way they were structured commercially translated into the malpractices observed. The commercialization of these MFIs put pressures on loan officers, which led to abusive practices in the field. The result was often negative and sometimes devastating for these families - over-indebtedness was common, people sold assets and it led to serious psychological problems. The type of development possible through MFIs was far from what was portrayed. My research pointed to the need to understand the nature of MFIs and the change they bring in relation to the socio-political contexts in which they operate. At the village level this can mean the power relationships between poor clients and MFI loan officers, and at an institutional level the place of MFIs in the broader political environment, which determines how they operate. To further understand this, an appreciation of Bangladesh's politics and the role of the state is essential (in current academic terminology the 'political settlement'). Indeed, during and following my field work Bangladesh's political dynamics have changed significantly, with the state showing increasing signs of authoritarianism which further threatens the autonomy of civil society actors such as NGOs, journalists and campaigners. My research therefore opens up a broader question: what type of development is possible in Bangladesh?