2005年是聯合國定下的 "小額貸款年" (year of microcredit), 很多非政府組織都透過小額貸款, 幫助貧窮農村的村民去改善其生活, 如投資生產工具和物資. 它也得到聯合國的高度讚揚.
在電視和街上的海報, 我們也常看到貧窮的中國農民抱到小額貸款買來的羊或牛或種子, 高興淚流, 旁白說: 從此他們可以自力更生了.
但從我們最近熟識的潮州水源事件看, 農民連灌溉用的水都被官方搶奪, 還釀成人命死傷, 難道我們不用問, 以小額貸款買來的種子, 究竟可否長出幼苗呢? 農民是否可以從此自力更生呢? 問題究竟是農民缺乏基本的資金進行生產工具的投資, 還是他們在政治經濟制度裡不斷被剝奪呢? 這些發展NGO宣傳裡的非政治化圖像, 對改善制度性不公會造成怎樣的反效果呢?
這裡有一篇更細緻的分析:
Hype and Hope: The Worrisome State of the Microcredit Movement
節錄一段: the truth is that microcredit changes poor people's lives marginally.
It is a stretch to go from the modest microcredit impacts that emerge
from the little serious research we do have
to suggesting as the UN's International Year of Microcredit website
does, that road side sellers of a few bananas, used clothes, a few tea
bags, or even 50 kilos of rice, are budding entrepreneurs standing at
the threshold of participation in the wider economy, and who play a key
role in wealth creation. It’s just not so.
What would permanently help these poor people, and if not them,
their children, are governments that get their acts together and
provide structures, laws, and institutions under which people's evident
interest in getting ahead in the world could be transformed into
reality. Microcredit is not just a stopgap while we wait for that to
happen. To the extent it is hyped as a genuine solution to poverty, it
is a diversion.