Anaïs Perilleux

Surplus Distribution in Microfinance Differences Among Cooperative, Nonprofit, and Shareholder Forms of Ownership

How do microfinance institutions (MFIs) allocate their surplus to stakeholders? This article shows that this allocation process varies depending on the MFI ownership structure. Nonprofit organizations and shareholders-held MFIs exhibit a tendency to largely keep their surplus within the MFI as a self-financing margin (reserve accounts, future investments, and capital increase) rather than transferring it to their clients (interest rate decrease) and their employees (salary increase). The surplus distribution in COOPs is more in favor of providers and employees. Finally, the article discusses the importance of these findings for the evaluation of MFIs by policy makers.

UNDERSTANDING COOPERATIVE FINANCE AS A NEW COMMON

The emerging field of common good socio-economics is promising not only for the preservation of common natural resources but also for common goods created by people through collective action, the importance of which has been emphasized by the recent financial and economic crisis. Based on the case of cooperative finance, this paper’s outcomes are threefold. First, it demonstrates that financial cooperatives can be understood as a human-made common. Second, it shows that while the boundaries between the nature and property regime of goods may be relatively clear for natural common goods, they appear much more interlinked for human-made goods, where commons are embedded in intergenerational reciprocity. Third, the paper proposes a new way of thinking about public policies and shows the need to recognize financial cooperatives as human-made commons so as to design adequate legislation to protect these commons from isomorphism, privatization and destruction.

Understanding Cooperative Finance as a New Common

The emerging field of common good socio-economics is promising not only for the preservation of common natural resources but also for common goods created by people through collective action, the importance of which has been emphasized by the recent financial and economic crisis. Based on the case of cooperative finance, this paper’s outcomes are threefold. First, it demonstrates that financial cooperatives can be understood as a human-made common. Second, it shows that while the boundaries between the nature and property regime of goods may be relatively clear for natural common goods, they appear much more interlinked for human-made goods, where commons are embedded in intergenerational reciprocity. Third, the paper proposes a new way of thinking about public policies and shows the need to recognize financial cooperatives as human-made commons so as to design adequate legislation to protect these commons from isomorphism, privatization and destruction.

When Social Enterprises Do Finance: Agents of Change in Lending Relationships, a Belgian Typology

The 2007-2009 financial crisis and its destructive consequences for the real economy have placed social finance in the spotlight. Social finance involves a wide spectrum of initiatives ranging from large institutions such as social or alternative banks to small informal initiatives such as savings groups, and includes microfinance as well as collaborative finance (crowdfunding). Social finance is a crucial source of funds for social enterprises. But social finance initiatives can also be social enterprises. The paper explains how social enterprises get involved in social finance and draws a typology of the main models based on the Belgium case. It compares those models and discusses how social enterprises are agents of change in lending relationships. Finally, it proposes an innovative perspective explaining how alternative currency could be used to reinforce reciprocity in lending relationships.