Mohammed Yunus has created a microfinance program that is devoted to microloans in Bangladesh (“Finance for the Poor: Your Inflexible Friend,” 2016). The program has a number of advantages for those people whose salary is low or who are dependent on informal money lenders. The article focuses on the problem of the influence of privatizing microloans on gender roles and the ethical issue of similar microfinance institutions in India.
There are not many gender-related factors relevant to the issue concerning microfinance institutions. However, one of the greatest positive impacts of this phenomenon is the fact that these loans are likely to help women become self-sufficient and respected (Morris, 2012). Women in India are likely to gain more self-employment opportunities if they get access to such microloans.
The ethical issue of microfinance institutions can be viewed from the two perspectives. The first point of view is a capitalistic one. It suggests that the market is a self-regulated mechanism that operates on the basis of maintaining a balance between supply and demand. Therefore, the problem of microfinance loans’ fairness is irrelevant. If the demand on such services exists, providing an appropriate amount of supply is necessary. The other perspective is connected with the humanistic theories. Owners of such microfinance institutions do not collaborate with such organizations as the UN in trying to help people in emerging countries. They may be seen as rich businesspersons that take advantage of the poor. Despite this argument, it seems justified to assume that these loans are of paramount importance in India. They provide chances for a large number of poor people to fulfill their business ideas and satisfy their current needs.
To sum up, microfinance institutions play a vital role in the modern Indian society. They can help women to become successful entrepreneurs; hence, gender inequality is likely to decrease in this country within some period of time. However, there are also ethical problems associated with such programs. One of them is connected with unfair intentions of institutions’ owners who can be seen as businesspersons who want to gain more money from exploiting poor people who earn $2 a day. Nevertheless, application of the free market theory to this case leads to a conclusion that the operations of microfinance institutions are justified because they satisfy the existing needs of customers.