Suchergebnisse

Some microfinance institutions (MFIs) can drift from their social mission, generating well-studied effects for their borrowers. We focus on the lesser-known effect of mission drift on the financial return to other stakeholders (employees, government, micro-savers, and banking creditors). Using a sample of 534 MFIs, we calculated the economic value distributed by the MFI to these stakeholders by considering salaries, taxes, and interest paid. We found a negative relationship between average loan size and return to employees (RTE), government, and banking creditors, and a positive relationship between women borrowers and RTE and government. This is explained by the fact that mission-focused MFIs are usually small, labor-intensive institutions with a stable business model. We found a positive relationship between average loan size and return to micro-savers, and a negative relationship between women borrowers and return to micro-savers. The reason is that many mission-focused MFIs do not offer micro-savings, undermining financial inclusion.

In the formative periods of American "open government" law, the idea of transparency was linked with progressive politics. Advocates of transparency understood themselves to be promoting values such as bureaucratic rationality, social justice, and trust in public institutions. Transparency was meant to make government stronger and more egalitarian. In the twenty-first century, transparency is doing different work. Although a wide range of actors appeal to transparency in a wide range of contexts, the dominant strain in the policy discourse emphasizes its capacity to check administrative abuse, enhance private choice, and reduce other forms of regulation. Transparency is meant to make government smaller and less egregious. This Article traces transparency's drift in the United States from a progressive to a more libertarian, or neoliberal, orientation and offers some reflections on the causes and consequences and on the possibility of a reversal. Many factors have played a part, including corporate capture of freedom of information laws, the exponential growth in national security secrecy, the emergence of the digital age and associated technologies of disclosure, the desire to facilitate international trade and investment, and the ascendance of market-based theories of regulation. Perhaps the most fundamental driver of this ideological drift, however, is the most easily overlooked: the diminishing marginal returns to government transparency. As public institutions became subject to more and more policies of openness and accountability, demands for transparency became more and more threatening to the functioning and legitimacy of those institutions and, consequently, to progressive political agendas. Coming to terms with transparency law's ambivalent legacy is the first step toward redeeming its promise in the present day.

In the formative periods of American "open government" law, the idea of transparency was linked with progressive politics. Advocates of transparency understood themselves to be promoting values such as bureaucratic rationality, social justice, and trust in public institutions. Transparency was meant to make government stronger and more egalitarian. In the twenty-first century, transparency is doing different work. Although a wide range of actors appeal to transparency in a wide range of contexts, the dominant strain in the policy discourse emphasizes its capacity to check administrative abuse, enhance private choice, and reduce other forms of regulation. Transparency is meant to make government smaller and less egregious. This Article traces transparency's drift in the United States from a progressive to a more libertarian, or neoliberal, orientation and offers some reflections on the causes and consequences – and on the possibility of a reversal. Many factors have played a part, including corporate capture of freedom of information laws, the exponential growth in national security secrecy, the emergence of the digital age and associated technologies of disclosure, the desire to facilitate international trade and investment, and the ascendance of market-based theories of regulation. Perhaps the most fundamental driver of this ideological drift, however, is the most easily overlooked: the diminishing marginal returns to government transparency. As public institutions became subject to more and more policies of openness and accountability, demands for transparency became more and more threatening to the functioning and legitimacy of those institutions and, consequently, to progressive political agendas. Coming to terms with transparency law's ambivalent legacy is the first step toward redeeming its promise in the present day.