This is hard to do. Microcredit got into a right old muddle when DC lobbyists positioned it as the most pivotal tool of millennium goals. This wasn't what our 1984 book on the net generation intended in proposing millennium goal debates and the critical need for grassroots networks collaborating around the identification of 30000 microfranchises needed to end poverty through open replication of solutions across communities suffering similar sustainability challenges
Worse, with hindsight it can be said that the timing of 1996/7 when Alex Counts brought Grameen Foundation to DC and Sam Daley-Harris started up microcredisummit could hardly have been worse. Up until then Microcredit had involved extremely manual grassroots networking through Bangladesh vilages designing support networks for village mothers. Real microcredit blended far more practical brilliance than American financiers could begin to understand. It converged the financial services the village mothers needed , education and the redesign of value chains round them communally(the exact opposite of the loan shark who had previously trapped them but also the exact opposite of every agricultural value chain where middle men offer the worst prices to smallest producers). Morever womens village centres maximized non-financial exchanges making the very definition of a millennium goal in dollar terms a day misleading
Further Bangladesh had started nut just as the poorest country but one of the most illiterate and with millions of refugees who had returned after the war of independence. The true microcredit networks during Bangladesh's first quarter of a century actioned these sort of goal-oriented curricula vitae
and they weaved together these sorts of micro and massive collaboration-processes
What accelerated from 1997 was mobile connectivity . Where this came to the villages it ended the manual labour of account keeping that had required bank managers to live by the village centres. While this remained absolutely essential in true microcredits, others started to fund competitors claiming they were designing more efficient banking processes. And since the true microcredits were also the village mothers investment banks for advancing intergenerational goals -all the relationship flows involved investing in such innovation choices sped up with digital power. While Grameen and BRAC were famous enough to attract funds for the major transformation that microcredit in the digital age needed, many of the faithful grameen ineternational replications were not so fortunate. This may help to explain why today there are very few Grameen replicates that pre-existed 1996 and which have scaled nationally. In some cases thy have hung on to regional communities where they were deeply embedded in bottom up agricultural markets. BRAC hadn't expanded replications internationally prior to 1996 so it wasn't faced with the same problem
The worst thing of all about how the DC fundraisers took over the worldwide push to microcredit is that the last thing in the world such dfundraisers are concerned with is educating how to replicate the real models. So today just when millions of youth are being connected by Massive Open Onlice Curricula there is no real course on how to design microcredit to be pivotal to the realkity of progressing enbd of poverty rather than the PR.
We welcome other views if you are prepared to publish a link to exactly who you represent. And if you know of anyone who is aiming to provide millions of youth ree online access to curricula of microcredit please tell us - firstname.lastname@example.org Norman Macrae Foundation for pro-youth economics and pro-youth education.