See this poll on: https://poll.fm/1720762/embed
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
As a long time lender and previously enthusiastic supporter of Kiva, I am extremely disappointed in this move. It has seriously turned me off Kiva.
Poverty is relative, period.
After 15 years in West Africa, 15 years in innercity Oakland, CA, and 1 year in Guatemala, I've seen different types of poverty, all of which could use a hand from Kiva.
Vote with your wallet.
When Martin Luther King was asked by the media why he was doing for poor people who weren't black, he responded with a question,"Are they poor?"
It dilutes nothing to expand Kiva's process to people in the developed world - and if we are to create a true redistribution of wealth (so people do not have to rely on aid/welfare), we must include everyone.
I believe the vast majority of people who receive a Kiva loan are inclined to share their resources long before they gain what most Kiva lenders would call security... If people in NA who have been marginalized economically and socially are empowered and gain more influence in our democracy we would see a cultural shift towards the developing world that would multiply what Kiva has already been able to accomplish several fold.
Kiva is welcome in the USA. This involvement is to give opportunities not only to Americans who do not have access to a bank loan but also to those who left their own countries in search of a better future. $25 would not dry my bank account and I happily support new small business owners. Congratulations Kiva and congratulations Accion USA.
I This is direct from the ABOUT section:
"Kiva's mission is to connect people through lending for the sake of alleviating poverty.
Kiva is the world's first person-to-person micro-lending website, empowering individuals to lend directly to unique entrepreneurs around the globe."
While some are reading more into that than is written, adding a US MFI to their list does not in any way contravene their stated aims.
That being said, I'm not impressed with the first MFI, as there do seem to be frivolous loans involved, and I don't see any reason why anyone should provide collateral free loans to those people - especially when the $ could do more good elsewhere. Let them use their credit cards, or go to a bank, or pawn something they have, or go to friends and family that might be able to fund the $3000 or $10,000 they're looking for. Now some of them may be newly legalized immigrants with no credit history, no assets, or might have been through bankruptcy. Some people might be willing to be the hand up to those people, but I just can't be that person because I do see how much more effective my $ would be elsewhere. But I think they have a right to be on this site, in case someone else feels differently.
But I wouldn't be against them being lower visibility on the site, or in a different area where they don't detract from where we can much more effectively support people who have no other option. I do agree with many of you that:
- Microfinance is needed most by entrepreneurs without access to credit due to lack of banking systems or lack of collateral
- That small amounts go a lot farther in 3rd world countries
- That the impact of loaning to a 3rd world entrepreneur is far more bang for your buck and helps more people
But at the end of the day, this is a market-based solution - so put your money where your mouth is and fund the people here that deserve it. Those people aren't Kiva - Kiva just helps to facilitate US reaching THEM. Wherever THEY are. But you have the right and obligation to choose wisely.
So that's the theory, but in practice I do think that this particular MFI should be under some scrutiny, because I think many of the loans involved do NOT reflect well on Kiva or their stated aims. There seem to be some people that are just taking advantage of this.
I really do hope Kiva has some way of monitoring the flows of loans to US borrowers vis-à-vis those in developing countries. If net lending has increased, that's fine. But if US borrowers have in some sense pushed aside those from the developing world, then this pilot project should be put to an end.
The argument that one should look at one's own backyard first is flawed. Unlike the US, many developing countries don't have the resources to look after the well-being of their own citizens. The failure of the US in this regard shouldn't be borne by farmers in e.g. Peru or Azerbaijan.
I believe there are deserving people all around the world, including the US, but so far many of the loans have been for people that have university degrees, have decided to change careers and other non-essential loans. I think that the current loans from the US, that are approximately 10-20 times larger than the loans from other countries, are not in the true spirit of Kiva. If they want to offer loans in the US, I think they should be much better screened.
I am so diappointed you offer US loans, sorry.
I am conflicted over the decision to lend to US borrowers. The feel good of this project for me was that the people who were being supported were starting businesses like me but i was a little better off and had a little to be able to share. It gave me a good feeling to share. The US borrowers are asking for more money as a loan than i have in my savings account! I need them to support ME!! What i had hoped to see from KIVA over the years was that the developing nations would flourish to the point of becoming lenders themselves.
I will vote with my wallet and i will NOT loan to US borrowers, however i do feel that this policy is taking away from the developing nations borrowers and lining the pockets and the over indulgences of those who do have other alternatives. There are other site like prosper.com that already served the developed nations borrowers.
Just another example of the US hijacking a good idea and twisting it for it's own benefit. A very sad day, though just another example of the contempt that the US has for the rest of the world, combine that with the arrogance and sense of entitlement detected from shore to shore and the real face of America is shown once again.
I understand the relativity of poverty all to well. I full-heartedly support this move and hope to see it with other "developed" countries as well (Brazil and other Central/South American countries that have huge social divides between haves and have-nots come to mind.) I can understand people's frustration with this move, but I believe the intent of Kiva is still fulfilled with this move. We are still here to help people who can not get help other ways. I don't see that it matters if they are in Africa, Asia, or next door. Keep up the good work.
Kiva can only be as good as it's field partners and their particular innovations. The field partners in the US have not yet found a way to be working with the very poor, and I think that that is what some of us would like.
Difficulties for the very poor trying to meet basic needs in the USA include that having housing and adequate nuitrition are essential for employment or self-employment, and in the US, even meeting these is very costly.
I am myself a below-poverty-level Kiva lender who has much personal experience with homelessness, For the homeless, microfinance help would do well to incorporate access to good shelter and food during the time of "getting on one's feet" economically. Not all the very poor are without housing, and certainly inner-city persons, including youth, should also be a focus of the MFIs.
I think it would be helpful if the loan requests would give us more financial information about how the money will be used, and about the finances of the person asking, because it is hard for us to be informed otherwise. The person may have gotten the MFI's support because of doing pretty good already, or because they are eating out of dumpsters and food kitchens--if it's not in the description, I can't guess. And some will prefer to loan to the former, and some to the latteer.
And a person wanting to start a day care center--what do I know of the costs? Maybe it costs $3000 for the classes to qualify for a license. And If there are $2000 in remodeling needs absolutely required by law, I need to understand that.
Having been involved in an NPO-supported project to make and sell greeting cards while I was homeless, I think I have more experience than a lot of people to imagine how projects might be designed that help persons in difficulty obtain some self-employment income. But a very poor person in the USA hasn't the infrstructure in their life to do it alone. A homeless person in India may cook and sell her cooking on the same place on the sidewalk, while in the USA you absolutley cannot.
An innovative program that might allow us to reach out to the very poor in the USA might be one that offers some extra helps, such as workshop spaces in which self-employed persons may do their sewing, creative or mechanical work. NPO's might take over the marketing for them as well, buying at wholesale, and retailing through their own catalogs. This isn't in place yet.
Kiva and the MFI's can only build step by step. Now that the Kiva-MFI doors are open in the USA, innovative programs to move further down the poverty curve can develope, if people with these goals are in the MFIs or or are talking to them.
Whether you are a supporter of Kiva in the USA or one who doesn't support this, I hope you will keep thinking about and articulating how you think microfinance could work best in the USA, and maybe we will get there.
Imagine through Kiva you lend 25 dollars to a women in Uganda. Later she immigrates to the United States and finds that she has few other options than to again run a microenterprise in the US. Selling African handicrafts on the street lets say. She cannot get a loan from a bank for many reasons, she cannot speak the language and doesn't have credit, she would most certainly be turned away from a bank. She could however get a loan from a microfinance institution in the US to start her business. At the microfinance institution they will help her build her credit, they will do everything in their power to give her credit, this is their social mission. Would you Kiva lender have lent to this women in Uganda, but not this woman in the United States? Kiva's launch in the US, in the long run could open credit up to pockets of immigrant communities and rural impoverished communities that could truly benefit from microfinance. Kiva is paving the pathway for US microfinance to grow and expand in the US- I support this mission.
The whole premise of charitable giving (or loaning) is to help people who need help. The U.S. has its share of people who need a break. No matter how an individual feels, there is room for expression in the Kiva structure. If you approve of helping people in the U.S., then do so. If you don't, don't. This seems to be a non-problem to me. We are all free to choose, just as we have been to chose among the countries whose people were already included in Kiva's outreach.
I can understand the dismay expressed by some here. On balance though I find that I agree most with those who point out that: (a) there is disadvantage and impoverishment in developed economies and micro-credit is one way of addressing this; (b) lenders such as myself can vote with our wallets; and (c) the importance of Kiva as a platform for social change should not be limited to an 'overseas aid' mission. So I've no problem with the concept of Kiva listing entrepreneurs in the US or any other rich nation. My own lending will most likely continue to be in support of those in poor countries, but I can imagine supporting a project in the US if I was convinced it had social merit.
My problem with the U.S. loans is not that they're in the U.S., but that they're so much larger than the average loan request in the developing world. The average U.S. loan I see on the site now is more than $5,000, while the average loan in, say, Pakistan I see is around $200. This is just a quantitatively different thing.
When you say the U.S. loans will be "no more than 5%" of the portfolio, is that number of loan requests or dollar amount? Because if it's number of requests, that still means dollars for U.S. loans will be a substantial percentage of overall loans.
Completely contrary to the Kiva I joined a number of years ago. Am now considering alternatives.
For sure helping people is a great thing regardless of the people's location. However, I feel that Kiva should have opened a different platform for developed countries. As it allowed US-lenders to join it has to be consequent and open to ALL countries. Which would mean that a US web designer, a French winegrower, a Swiss watch designer or a German supplier for car industry would somehow compete for credits with the poorest of the poor. Does that make sense?
I'm appalled at Kiva's decision
there can be no justification for adding USA to the list as it is a developed country boasting the worlds richest economy. If the US qualifies then so should every country in the world.
$1000 in a third world country will make an immense difference - it will not buy a days training in a first world country so US borrowers would need to get a vastly disproportionate ratio of loans to be effective. This would then remove available funds from 3rd world borrowers.
I will be leaving Kiva once my current loans have been repaid if we continue to loan to First World countries as I believe it to be a political and selfish decision that is bound to attract some level of misguided support in these times of global economic downturn.
Leaving Kiva will be a difficult move but I see little alternative as I cannot be part of what has effectively become a bank for First World borrowers.
I never imagined the introduction of US borrowers would be so controversial. The discussion however has shown how ground breaking Kiva's model has been. People are engaged and that is awesome.
Just one idea on a theme that I have heard many times regarding the fact that poverty in the US is not what it is in developing countries. Lets keep in mind that poverty in some developing countries is not quite what it is in others. Poverty and funding need in Bolivia is quite different from what it is in Ukraine; in my experience I have also seen differences within countries.
I generally feel like Kiva's move is an important one mostly because it is experimental and innovative in poverty alleviation. It is a chance to deal with poverty on a global scale. However, there are issues that may need attention and I think the debate has the chance of been enriching and help make Kiva even better.
Thank you Kiva for taking the risks no one else has been able to!
It could have been a great decision if Kiva had at least worked with most or all third world countries. So the timing is bad in my opinion.
I basically don't disagree with KIVA expanding the target of entrepreneurs US. But I have one term to adimit it. It is that KIVA should separate Homepage, for example KIVA of developed countries and KIVA of developing countries. Cartainly it's not a problem that separating web site is the way of resolving. For me, however, it's not forgivable that developing countries' entrepreneurs and developed ons is co-existing at one place psycologically, even if there are people cannot borrow the money from formal institution unregarding as places they live. What I want to say is that when I invest someone, psycological mind is different between developed and developing, therefour, KIVA should think about nature of borrowers.
This dilutes Kiva's core mission. To fund one American who needs some support will take away from several guys in other countries who are experiencing real poverty. I don't doubt there are poor people in the States but in a land of so much opportunity they don't compare to people in the Developing world. If you have to keep this going then at least separate the sites, but copy the engine. Ideally don't use the Kiva brand at all. I work for a charity, Kiva used to be my favourite charity, but not anymore. If I knew of a kiva replica I'd head that way now.
if the USA stops their silly wars all over the world, if they stop their nuclear program, their silly race to the moon, their prisons all over the world and choose for their own social system like the old world, there wouldn't be so many poor people.
If the idiot Bush saved the banking world in time instead of playing war, there was no crisis.
But the US does not know what heapens in the south. they only care for oil and drugs and warindustry.
Soon Kiva will offer loans for weapon shops in the US
Can people please read the FAQs About Microfinance and link to CGAP, www,cgap.org, as shown on KIVA's ABOUT US page. Its all about poor people and alleviating poverty. That's why I joined. Over the last few days I've looked at the US entrepreneurs stories and I can't see how they fit into the tenets of Microfinance.
My answer is, "Yes, but..."
Assuming Kiva will continue to allow five-figure loan requests from the U.S. and other countries for “low income, small businesses,” I have a few suggestions for it.
* Offer a clear statement of what “poverty” means in terms of Kiva’s mission. Include working definitions of levels of poverty that can be applied to specific loan requests.
* Clearly differentiate two or more levels of loan requests based on the level of poverty of the entrepreneur(s) involved. Consider a full rage of possibilities for implementing this differentiation, from adding a new sort/select category on the current Lend page, to separating different poverty level listings on different Lend pages on the current website, to creating completely distinct websites with distinct marketing plans for distinct loan products.
* Offer targeted donation options based on clearly defined operational elements, such as regional or country-based field operations.
My reasons for these suggestions are at the Kiva Friends discussion.
http://www.kivafriends.org/index.php/topic,3922.msg61025/topicseen.html#msg61025
So much discussion on both sides of this - allow me to add my two cents. Here are my personal reasons for not lending to US listings on Kiva: 1) People in the US - even the poorest of the poor - have access to assistance far greater than what is available in most of the rest of the world. Here in the US we have options - we may not always like our choices, but at least we have them. 2) Few of the loans would do much to actually change that individual's circumstances. 3) The difference in purchasing power....my little $25 can make so much more impact in other places. 4) There is a different culture in the US, one that more supportive of defaulted loans (See Jerry M comment above). This has been demonstrated in several other projects with default rates of 40% and more. I am so disappointed that some on here have resorted to name calling instead of a respectful discussion of different points of view. Once you call me stupid, obnoxious or hateful...I really don't care to even consider your point of view. You don't know me or my values.
I happen to care a lot about the poor in this country...and have spent most of my adult life working to actually help people move out of poverty. Years ago I made the personal decision to work in social services at far less pay so that I could do what I believed in...putting my money where my mouth is literally. No matter how you want to dress it up, spin it or justify it - loaning money to a graphic artist living in San Fransisco (bus # 114104) which has one of the highest costs of living in the US (and therefore the world) is not doing anything to help anyone out of poverty. If Kiva has changed their definition of "alleviating poverty" that this somehow qualifies...then I need to reconsider if it is still in harmony with my values.
I agree that, as mentioned above, the "bang for the buck" factor is much higher in other countries than the US, and you could improve 10 people's lives in other places with the amount that gets loaned to 1 person in the US.
With that said, I'm sure there's a place for microfinance in the US as well. I'm sure the agreement with Kiva gave those two microlending organizations some useful exposure, now I wish they would continue to promote their US activity on their own or in a loose partnership with Kiva, but that we keep Kiva's high visibility, resources and lenders focused on countries with a more urgent need.
I voted yes because I don't mind in principle which country the loan request comes from; but doesn't Kiva lend at 0% interest as a favour to those in need, and to get businesses to start in undeveloped areas which need those businesses to become self-dependent and eventually prosperous? Even in times like these I'd expect an infomercials director in Florida to find a regular loan, or some other work to save up the capital.
The US "entrepreneurs in need" include a photographer, a special events organizer and a computer person. (Being an online coach myself, I KNOW it doesn't cost thousands of dollars to start.) Furthermore, there are microloans available for US entrepreneurs. There's Grammeen, Lenders for Community Development, SBA Microloans, Accion USA, and programs in many states, such as the Nevada Microenterprise Initiative and the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund. Where are the microloans in Afghanistan? Kiva. I think our mission is clear.
I support loans being made to any business in ANY country. I know how hard it is to be a minority and start your own company. It's been 10 years now and I can finally say I am a success, but I was fortunate to be able to get funding through my local bank, a lot of people can't. Isn't is discriminative to not fund our own country?
Everyone deserves a chance, and everyone deserves a cash injection to get going.
But seeing Dorothy from Ghana, Samir from Tajikistan, Salama from Afghanistan and Johnny from Manhattan in one list of applicants, comes across as:
1/ mixing up priorities
2/ forgetting what 'poverty' is
3/ the US is really in a bad shape (maybe it is)
P.
I am happy to support those in my country as well as other countries who are in need of a helping hand. If people are concerned about diluting foreign aid , I would suggest either alternating loans or doubling your support.
I have been involved in US charities and find many of the receipients to be experts at "playing the system", while the truly needy go unhelped. You should not be offering loans in any US cities, as there are abused programs galore. The only place I can accept you offering loans in the US are in very rural areas like Appalachia where people really need this type help, but don't want handouts. Most charities ignore these rural people and focus on the city areas where the poor wear $150 sneakers, have 2 - 3 TV's, and have no intention of actually earning anything. In the rural areas people are too proud to take charity, but a loan to help them help themseves would be a good fit.
I am the sole owner of a small, American-based company that received loans from two microfinance institutions in the last 3 years. Whereas I was not poverty-stricken, I was in a place to grow and unable to do so without the help of this funding -- our bank would not give us a much needed loan. Because our company has been able to thrive and prosper, I am now able to provide employment to 8 individuals (3 of whom had been laid off from other jobs). Just as in the third world, one woman prospering benefits others and the local community at large.
My hope is that with Kiva's domestic microlending initiative, entrepreneurs will emerge from the inner cities and communities that are have a lack of access to opportunity. And I believe that individuals in need of funding abroad will still have the same access to Kiva's community of lenders, and not lose out to Americans in need. I think what we're seeing is that there is a great deal of need, both here and abroad, and our focus should be on casting the widest net to help the most people possible.
I think it's absolutely fine that you're allowing people from the US to make requests.
If people don't like it, then they don't have to give their money to help, and trying to stop OTHER people who DO want to help from doing so is downright awful. I wonder if you would tell people to their face, "I'm sorry, not only do I not care enough about you to help you, I'm going to bitch and moan in hopes that no one else can."
Wow.
And then there are the people who feel that all US citizens are evil people who don't want to do anything to help the rest of the world (never mind that Kiva's headquarters are in the USA...), and really there's nothing I can say to that, and I hope that Kiva isn't going to be swayed by their hateful comments.
So yeah, I don't have a problem with this at all, and I'm looking forward to lending money in both my own country and around the globe.
There are people struggling in all countries. I am glad that KIVA is piloting microfinancing in the USA. Perhaps it will provide a model that can be applied to other developed countries as well. To be honest, I would be happy if there were loans to small entrepreneurs in need in Australia, Japan, the UK, etc as well. KIVA's online community is growing, and as more lenders join (whether to support US entrepreneurs, or those of other countries/regions), more entrepreneurs will be supported across the globe. I think it is the next step in the growth of the organization.
I think it is fine that you are offering loans to people in the USA. I personally prefer to continue lending to people in developing nations, but I don't think it's my place to stop others from offering a loan to an American, if they so choose. I would ask, though, that you consider carefully the kinds of loans you are offering people. There are many neighborhoods throughout the USA in great poverty, such as places in the Gulf Coast region where people are still living in FEMA trailers four years after Katrina and Rita, inner cities where people do not even have banks in their neighborhoods (let alone get credit), etc. These are the people we need to assist via Kiva, in my opinion; people who need a hand and do not have the options available to the middle and upper classes. I don't think you should offer loans to people who are capable to getting loans through more traditional means. Thank you for what you do!
I believe some valid points from different perspectives are being expressed, but I am saddened that a few have decided to use profanity and personal attacks to make their point. This approach only devalues the message and the credibility of the person delivering it.
Great idea -- poverty knows no geographical boundaries and there are people in this country who desperately need help. If some Kiva lenders don't want to help Americans, no one is forcing them to. Help whomever you like, for goodness sake!
My attraction to Kiva is the fact that I see it as a vehicle to assist those less fortunate than those of us in the "developed world".
Personally I find it as a dstraction and dilution of attention to expand to the US.
The only thing the US gave the world is the atombombing and war, war, war.
They give nothing to the poor .
Poor countries can have weapens, planes, weapens, war, weapens, death.
10.000 dollar is a microloan??
3500 dollar for a petshop.
Are all thes americans retardet? stupid?
Microloans is for me a political task. We can make economic growth in part of the world that is underdeveloped. Kiva could matter, not only to help a few people, but on long term change the world, and make it more equal.
When they lend to people in US, it is something completely different.
United states off ass citizens are chauvinist pigs. they keep the rest of the world poor and threaten them with their atom bombs.
They make war in the whole world. Even in Europe the leaders are afraid of the warmongers. After 60 years they still are occupiing every country in europe and everybody fears the warlords.
And know, they take away the money for the poor in africa en south america.
10.000 dollar for a pet shop??? A whole village in Peru is very happy with 1000 dollar.
Shame on you fucking americans.
allready 200 years you are taking lives from the indians and now from the poor worldwide.
Microlending is appropriate for every country in the world, not just the poorest. The first-world banking system is not set up for small loan amounts, and people who need them have to rely on credit cards or payday loans, with ridiculous interest rates. It's one of the things that keeps the working poor poor. We need to end that, just as much as we need to end extreme poverty. Everyone in the world should have access to reasonable lending sources.
Those in favor are USA citizens . We in the old world know how they think. They think they are the center of the world. They make war withe anybody who doesn't agree. They runed the lives of millions of people all over the world for there power over oil.
I'm sick to know i'm a member of a organisation that loans money for american citizens for computers, advertising, pet material, music industry, and many project that have nothing to do with poverty, food, surviving.
Shame on you Kiva.
Stop this nonsence
Rules, rules, rules.
Scarcity, relativity, force.
First, be polite and respectful. Don't force your choice on others - allow them the same freedom to choose that you expect.
Appeal, don't argue and demand. Scarcity is relative and folks here will vote with their selections.
The APPEAL of KIVA is what made it such a success.
I am very diappointed that Kiva is offering US loans. I think lending of these large amouts (I saw upto $ 10.000) during long periods of time is not in favour of the really poor Kiva helped until now.
I voted yes; there are many very poor people here in Los Angeles for example that are disinfranchised as much as in other countries. Did you ever think how an individuals success here will filter out to their own extended families and what that means for the global economy? Look the really big global picture. Many donors don't want to contribute to other lands - obviouslly I am not one of them - but this way I predict KIVA lenders will actually grow, not reduce loans to qualified persons. I often wondered why Kiva didn't already do this. Ultimately we lenders choose where our funds are loaned as you all know, make your choice on that table.
Although I understand why some may feel that offering loans in the U.S. dilutes the intended purpose, the choice is ultimately yours. If you don't feel that Americans are worthy of a Kiva loan, then simply put your money where you feel it belongs. I applaud Kiva's entry into the U.S. market and thank them for offering me the opportunity to lend to my fellow citizens who I feel are worthy. Thanks Kiva and keep up the great work!
Remember "Brother, Can You Spare A Dime"? My dad considered himself lucky to find a way to earn 25 cents a day during the Great Depression, when he was newly married in his 20s and with one child. My own birth was delayed for years by that financial meltdown. In mid-life, his (our) home burned, a total loss. Again and again, his efforts to rise financially failed. Decades later, he briefly supplemented his retirement by building shell homes at $750 a house. I have no doubt there were times when he would have welcomed a loan such as those we make through Kiva. Things are relative, folks. Though by choice I'll send my mite elsewhere, I don't object to the pilot US program so long as it doesn't inhibit what we're already doing. It might have helped Dad.
I am glad Kiva has allowed loans in the US.
1) We choose who we lend to
2) I want to lend where ever there are people in need. It doesn't matter what country they are in. This includes the US. I hope Kiva eventually is able to allow me to lend to anyone in the world who is living in poverty.
Thanks Kiva
I agree wholeheartedly with Jerry M.
It is an unfortunate failing of our nation that so many of our citizens have come to expect so much for free: handouts, help, and sympathy as if it is a commodity available to all. This is a subject that Jerry covered well, though. So, I digress.
My point is about branding.
If the overall Kiva mission is to make impact on the world, it is very important to understand a key mistake you have just made: you have compromised your brand through the dilution of your story. The story you now tell is much less unique, heart-felt (people around the world, including our own people, simply have much less sympathy for Americans), and impact-full.
When I first heard of the Kiva concept my heart skipped a beat - it is a beautifully crafted and well executed idea as a relationship between the 1st world and the 3rd world. But with the addition of the US, the story the Kiva brand tells is severely diluted. It is no longer poignant and succinct as it was before; it is general and marginal.
If it is your wish to expand in the US, as this new move clearly illustrates, then do so, but do it under a different brand name with a new core philosophy. Everything about the feel of your site, your logo, the brand name: it is all reflective of the third-world. Stay true to your roots and accentuate them. Grow through more clever branding and storytelling, not a strategic move to increase market share with one big gulp.
Here's to changing the world!
GIVING TO THE U.S., WILL NOURISH THE WORLD.
I believe if we give here in the US, it will nourish and plant seeds that will eventually be given back to Kiva to give to those in the poorer countries. Americans are famous for big hearts and strong backs.
When we re-enforce our own infatrucsure, we will make our own world able to give more.
I am ambivalent about this, but primarily negative.
1. Most entrepreneurs or would-be entrepreneurs here in the United States enjoy a standard of living vastly greater - and with much more access to capital - than their counterparts in Third World or marginal countries.
More can be accomplished for the general good - spiritually, physically, quantitatively, and politically - by private people helping entrepreneurs in those latter countries than those here in the U.S.
2. I was an early lender at the now nearly defunct Prosper.com, where individuals loaned personally (somewhat a la Kiva) to recipients here in the United States, a number of them entrepreneurs or small-business people. The deadbeat factor (defaults) was and remains enormous. For many of us who loaned there, even quite carefully, it was and remains as high as 40 percent.
Borrowers here in the United States have a different character, a different relation to community (not much of one at all), and, sadly, a more egocentric and less responsible value system than do most of Kiva's previous borrowers. An escalating default rate caused by them could seriously inhibit Kiva's growth and deal a true blow to its ability to help - as it has been able to do, and quite effectively, for some time.
In the main, I am opposed to this new direction of Kiva. I believe it siphons off funds that could be *much* more effectively used - have far greater leverage and do more true good - if they continued to be lent to entrepreneurs in less privileged and more needful countries.
This new venture discourages me from inviting others to join Kiva, as I have done in the past.
I'm not sure how I feel about Kiva's decision to lend to US borrowers. I do think that there are areas of extreme poverty in the US. There are stretches of Appalachia where running water isn't something that's taken for granted. And what about the deplorable state of some Native American reservations? But I don't see any loans to people in areas that I think of as being hot beds of poverty. NYC? Miami? San Francisco?
I feel Kiva has taken a large step away from its self-defined mission. Not because they're loaning to US citizens, but because of what I consider to be the quality of need in the loans that they're offering.
Of course, everyone can just vote with their pocketbooks, but I AM disappointed.
If there are people that don't believe there are "really poor people" in the US, they need to take a road trip. I'm really glad to see that you've opened up opportunities here as well as around the world.
There is a risk that may not have been mentioned in these postings. It is the risk of disenfranchising the creative minds which brought Kiva to the world in the first place. Imagine if every idea you created was met with resistance. How long would you be willing to continue to share your ideas in such an environment? Fortunately for the world, the founders and staff of Kiva are apparently fairly impervious to such criticism, and if they weren’t Kiva would have never been born in the first place. New ideas need nurturing, and very little judgmental and/or scarcity-driven thinking. My guess is that this entire issue will sort itself out in the marketplace and “x” months from now the answer, and any necessary changes or improvements, will be fairly evident to everyone. What long-term harm is there to allow that short-tem process to work itself out in real time? What I’m more concerned about is whether or not the founders and team members of Kiva will be just as willing to try the next idea that comes along, or will some aspects of the postings here give them pause, and a reason to not take the next chance. Kiva has brilliant founders and leaders. Why don’t we cherish that fact, and support them as they try another yet one more idea that may or may not work out. But let us not discourage their willingness to try something new!
While I support loans to the US for those in POVERTY, I am very opposed to those who are "low income", most of which are on welfare for the past 5 generations or are illegal aliens. There must be extensive checks done to determine true need and who is playing the system. Loaning large amounts to improve or start a business when there are other means of obtaining the money seems to go against what Kiva is meant to be = Micro loans! Better by far to concentrate on countries without the opportunities that abound in the USA! If/when there are loans for people in true Poverty, then fine, so long as there is a field partner responsible for making that determination!
I responded to the poll that I was unsure about loaning to the US. Looking at what is available, there is no way I would loan money to any of these US borrowers, good people though they may be. I am in the Bay Area myself-the cost of living is outrageous here. I do not think my limited funds would make a difference for anyone living in this area. Additionally, I am noticing a lot of housing requests from Mexico. I thought the point of Kiva was to help people with businesses, that is, entrepreneurs. I do not understand all the "home loans" on this site now. Be that as it may, I will continue to do what I have done previously-loan to the projects and people that I can really connect with on a personal level. If the site included people from truly impoverished areas of the US (Indian reservations, Appalachia, rural Louisiana) I would be more on board with it. Having people from the Bay Area and NYC (where I am originally from) was a bad, bad way to start out the pilot.
I'm in the "voting with my wallet" category. I have no problem supporting a truly needy US entrepreneur - in fact I look forward to being able to do so. But loaning $10,000 to someone for 38 months so they can print our snappier wedding photos just isn't going to happen. I would seriously like to see some loan term restrictions on the US loans. 3 years is wayyyy too long to repay a loan. That's not even $1/month coming back to people who lend $25.00. If you can't pay it back in a year, you're asking for too much money.
Like you said, we can vote with our wallet. I am glad that Kiva is approaching USA loans in such a thoughtful, patient fashion. I am not sure I will ever do a loan in the USA, but it is nice to have the option.
Once again we are treated to the disgusting drivel of the latte sipping, effete intellectual snobs who have their heads where the sun don't shine. If you people would fet off your duffs and go out to Indian Country you'd see the meaning of the word poverty. I am an American Indian. My father died of tuberculosis which he picked up in a boarding school. My 2 aunts died of diabetes and mt sister is dying of diabetes. Why don't you milksops try living out on Pine Ridge through a winter?
I am not fundamentally against having loans made to the US if the entrepreneurs were actually poverty stricken. Someone who already "has created a stable business that has allowed him to accomplish his dream of [...] providing for his family" and who is supporting a child through university is clearly NOT in that category. And don't even get me started on the storage shed.
Kiva, if you want to loan to the US, it would be best to start a separate offshoot website, so as not to dilute Kiva's focus on developing countries.
There is no question that too many in the US are, for a variety of reasons, well outside the stereotypical perception of the "American dream" that most people have who reside in the countries traditionally considered to be "developing". So, from that perspective, Kiva's expansion into the US is logical.
However, I am concerned that the almost-unbelievable statistical attraction of the Kiva model to date, which is best reflected in its imperceptible default percentage, will suffer a dramatic decline due to US micro-finance loan defaults. I believe this will occur because the whole group dynamic and cross-responsibility culture in most of the non-North American Kiva developing countries is substantially stronger than that in North America. I fervently hope that my cynicism is misplaced but, until proven otherwise, my small contributions to the Kiva model will continue to be directed to the traditional "developing" countries.
Please note that my comments are directed at the micro-finance non-profit "industry" because of the immense benefit that comes from re-lending money that has been repaid. The inherent strength of that model is based on a high probability of loan proceeds recovery to support re-lending.
On the other hand, the non-profit "aid" industry, focused as it is on raising funds in North America which are to be sent to the traditional developing countries to support one-time activities until the money is spent, does overlook the hardships and inequities of the US citizens who are truly in need and should do much more "at home".
Lastly, from an operational viewpoint, I would urge Kiva to bring added pressure to bear on its regional micro-finance lenders to substantially reduce the loan interest rates charged to borrowers. If nothing else, Kiva should require declining interest rates to borrowers on a sliding scale basis as the amount of Kiva support to an individual micro-lender organization increases. Sure they have expenses, but there are economies of scale that should be reflected in declining loan portfolio rates. I can't imagine North Americans being generally successful bearing an interest rate between 20% and 30% when we see what has been happening with 5%-6% rates. Why we would expect such rates to be sustainable in the developing world is questionable and that the Kiva default rate is so low given those interest rates is quite astonishing. Since many of the regional micro-finance lending organizations have "outside" supporters, their interest rates should trend lower as Kiva support trends higher.
i am concerned with the US lending only in that the ones listed so far don't seem that dire (ie: tired of one career and want to change to another? $7,000 for new camera equipment to build up and already successful business??)
if it were more like people still with no home from new orleans or something i would be more likely to lend... but for now i will just continue to lend to those outside of the US
What do you care how many options are available? You will still loan to those you choose. I will loan to the same kind of people in the US as the ones I support in other countries, not to someone who is already making a living and wants to expand his business.
In support of Kiva's decision to extend loaning capabilities to the United States and in response to: http://www.kiva.org/community/viewTeam?team_id=7326.
Kiva should absolutely facilitate loans in the United States. Those who contest that it siphons money from their definition of the more needy are missing the point. To me, the point is CHOICE. I am thrilled to have the choice and I would much rather do my U.S. giving through Kiva than I would through United Way as I believe the money is more wisely and more efficiently used. Those who rail against the idea of giving $7000 to a U.S. citizen who wants to develop websites, just may be the same people who deprive the world of the next Kiva. I applaud you for continuing to add choices instead of taking them away. To me, the whole idea behind Kiva is to help others help themselves. By limiting my choices, you limit my ability to help in the ways I choose. As our government continues to look for more and more ways to make our decisions for us, I'm glad Kiva is heading in the other direction. It is the sane direction. Thank you Kiva for all you do and continue to do.
I vote no. I believe that those who vote yes are not in line with how poor the real world is. I think this is a big mistake, Kiva.
Seriously, lend! Sometimes people through no fault of their own find themselves in situations where they need a hand. I'd rather lend to someone to help them contribute to their community than take handouts. We're giving people the opportunity to help themselves: to make their lives better irrespective of which country they live. We should have the courage to lend to them if they have the courage and gumption to try and help themselves. At the end of the day it's a personal choice so just get over it.
1) Kiva supporters have the choice to ignore the US borrowers. So those who don't like the idea can avoid it, without forcing their opinion down the throats of people who feel generosity can be shown towards ALL, not just "others."
2) I have had a certain amount on deposit, relending it as paid back, that will remain the funding for non-US borrowers. I will somehow find additional funds to add that will be used for folks in my own country. That way, there's still no added competition for my original amount.
I am very glad you have decided to offer loans in the U.S. We know how hard many people are struggling in the U.S. during this time and I'm glad to have this avenue to helping them. This doesn't take away money from the developing countries, as one poster opined, because I had not intended to add any loans to the ones I currently make until I heard of this development.
I voted 'yes' to Kiva's decision to extend loans to US projects. The really poor exist here in the US, too. They are almost invisible in the mainstream media, but they are here. Their lack of visibility and opportunity keeps them down. As does their lack of access to the resources that we who enjoy middle class lifestyles (anyone reading this is likely to own the computer they're reading it on) might find hard to imagine, but it's real. Racism plays a big part, too -- and this despite the "post-racist" era we're told we've moved into. It's time the US citizens faced the fact that wealth is distributed with institutionalized unfairness here, and that many poor people here are not poor by choice. Just ask anyone living in a tent city, or a Katrina FEMA trailer.
I am somewhat appalled by what I am reading here, however it explains what makes it difficult for so many non-profits. I have supported Kiva for several years, but I work for a non-profit that has been around for 40 years and helps Native American children get an education in the southwest (by the way MOST tribes do not have any Casinos and many believe they are bad for their people). Their are entire cultures/reservations in this country that have an ANNUAL acerage income of under $2,000 and where the average life span is under 50. Their are children that whether or not they can attend school is decided by $10.00 a month. I don't care about GDP or any of this stuff. We are extremely bad about taking care of our own, and that in itself is a crime. Many of you writing about how much we have in this country need to take a look at how many people in this country have nothing. $100.00 might help a person fix their old truck so they can drive the 5o miles each way into town and work a construction job. How absolutely naive we are is almost unfathomable.
I have made 163 loans to date and definitely do not support Kiva making so -called micro-loans in the US. Giving to families in countries where they are lucky to make $4.00US a day for a large family in no way compares to someone who sells Italian jewelery in New York or someone who "needs" better cameras to take pictures at too expensive weddings that most people can not or should not afford. In a country like the US where less than 20% of the population has a passport,they have not seen,nor can they even comprehend the suffering and poverty that abounds in so much of the world. Lets keep the money and loans flowing where the difference of $500.00 can mean,literally, the difference between life and death!
Jesus said the poor will always be with us - wherever we are. It is our obligation to share what we have with those in need everywhere. I support your efforts to offer microloans to all entrepeneurs, regardless of their location. People should follow their hearts as to where they want to invest their $. I hope you will continue to expand your country list until it includes every country possible!
On my first visit to USA in 1985 I was shocked at the level of poverty I saw and could not understand how so much American funds were sent abroad as forgein aid.
I feel that your new policy is right and it allows choice to all Kiva doners. I hope your new initiative prospers and I will support it while also supporting the traditional loans to developing nations.
Ultimately it's the lender's choice. I trust in Kiva's operations and logistics that the funds are going to the right people, and those who truly need it. If more people lend because of this, great. If people don't, it will be discontinued or minimized. But why is the option so controversial?
I think it is an act of courage to stand for ALL poor people in the world, wherever they are and regardless who they are. Well done
Although I'm very dismayed by the addition of the US to Kiva (my opinions are already covered in other posts), I'm happy to hear that the Kiva staff will attempt to determine its impact upon lending to other countries. I'm also a big fan of another user's comment that Kiva could start a separate site for those interested in lending to residents of developed countries.
I'm not against offering loans to people in 1st world countries, but I'm pretty sure I won't be giving them my money. I joined Kiva to help entrepreneurs in poor countries because those will make these countries better places in the long run. I'd withdraw from Kiva if I felt that loans for people in the US were taking precedence over loans to people elsewhere.
One other thing: I'm not in the US, and a lot of Kiva members I know aren't either. For us, supporting US entrepreneurs is not "helping our neighbors".
I think KIVA's decision to start facilitating loans to USA residents was a very bad decision for 2 reasons. First, USA residents already have plenty of other options, unlike those in other nations. Banks, finance companies, pawn shops, credit cards, friends, families, Small Business Administration and the list goes on. Second, as a general rule, even the poorest of Americans lives better than the richest of many other nations. Every loan thru KIVA that goes to a USA resident is a loan that is not going where it is really needed most. And I suspect that many KIVA lenders will have a bias towards making USA based loans, thus harming the ability of those outside the USA to get loans. I have made 2 token USA loans just to add the USA to my profile list of nations, but there will not likely be any more.
This is not to say I am against USA loans. I support USA lending, but I do it thru Prosper.com, not KIVA. When I loan to USA residents thru Prosper.com, I get to keep the interest on the loan. If I loan to USA residents thru KIVA, it is KIVA's field partner that gets to keep the interest. So it is sort of a no brainer to me that all my loans to USA residents should go thru Prosper.com, not KIVA.
I'm very disappointed with this decision Kiva. Your whole purpose when you started was to help out those living in countries that don't have the resources that we in North America do. Now by adding a rich country like the US to the list that is taking away opportunity for those who REALLY need it. Of course an American is going to support their fellow American rather than someone else in a country that they're not familiar with. They would feel safer lending to their fellow countryman as if it's a patriotic thing. I fear this is just adding to the American way of thinking that supporting your own country is better. And that's a step back not a step forward.
It will be interesting to see how the default rate on loans in the US compare to other locations. I'm betting the default rate will be high. My view...KIVA has made a mistake.
Offer both--people can choose which country to direct funds to. If you do not start granting aid to people in our own country I plan to withdraw--we have plenty of deserving people here--let's find them and help them.
As long as Kiva continues to offer the same level of opportunity abroad, I see no reason not to include Americans in these programs. There is a high level of need here. Why not give our neighbors a hand up as well?
I recall 40 years ago in high school when I was donating my time to help mentally challenged students to swim an elder relative telling me that I need to help around the house first as charity begins at home. Had I followed his advice, I never would have seen these kids learn how to swim and enjoy their new experience. Well the same applies here. the argument that charity starts at home is a red herring argument. There are those who truly need our help and those who don't. For now, developed countries should not be supported.
I disagree with this direction. we inthis country have many avenues to get assistance and many of these are already tax supported as well as be individual or corporate donations. I will continue to ONLY support those individuals abroad who truly need our help.
I, too, am disappointed to see all the bickering about the addition of the US loans here on Kiva! Personally, I have hoped for quite a while that Kiva WOULD add loans in the USA. However, I will say- the way it was done, is certainly NOT the way I was envisioning it being done! People in the Bay Area would not be my first choice as a test group!!! Nonetheless, I did make one loan to one person, because I am excited to finally have the USA as an option, and her attempt at a family run business appealed to me, especially in these hard times. In the FUTURE, however... I would like to see Kiva expand it's US efforts to our poorest areas: the Appalachia, our Native Americans on reservations (in particular, the Four Corners region, and South Dakota and surrounding areas), those working with the homeless and battered women/moms who are trying to get back on their feet!!! Giving loans to THOSE types of Americans would make me feel a LOT better about loaning to Americans! and would be what I had in mind all along! I will say tho... this post: " Lyn
2009-06-20 08:45:12 ET
I resent having to click on the breast cancer site to provide mammograms to those who cannot afford it in the USA but I still do it as we, in Australia are so lucky to have free mammograms after we reach 50 years of age. I am new to Kiva and feel very confused by all the arguments by regular contributors." hit the nail on the head!!! c'mon, people!
I am very upset that there are now borrowers on Kiva from the US (and perhaps in the future other first world countries).
First - I do not counter the need of these individuals, nor the value of micro-lending (proven a superior financial instrument than loans from the existing US Banks!). There should be a framework for these loans - perhaps through KIVA, but segregated from the rest (KIVAUSA.ORG or a separate loan button?).
HOWEVER
What most bothers me is that lending to those in the first world goes against one of the goals of KIVA and one of the major reasons I, and I am sure many others, make micro-loans (I just reached the 100 loan mark).
Through KIVA we help spread capitalism. freedom and democracy, primarily via the worthy route of female entitlement. By people freely creating value, employment and an entrepreneurial culture, not by receiving an unearned handout but by taking the obligation of a business loan, they are also introducing and showing the value of human rights and democracy to their lands. Lending to those needy in the United States is a very efficient and praiseworthy act of assistance, but it does not fulfill these other goals.
I therefore highly suggest that KIVA not dilute their brand, and revisit this decision implementing their micro-lending service to US recipients in a different manner or through a separate route.
Being probably poorer than some of the USA candidate (even if I live in Switzerland), I was happy to be able to help with a little money, giving the person in real need the opportunity to help themselves and their family. The fact that the money was coming back to me was great: I could help more with less.
Now I am profoundly shocked to see people richer than me asking for big amounts of money on Kiva. Really, it has changed the whole thing for me. I know I don't have to give them my loans, but this is not the only question. They compete with persons with more urgent needs. The high of their loans distract the money from many smaller loans. I think the best solution would have been to create a sister-site - but then they would have to build a whole new market and I it would not be as easy.
I would not like to see swiss persons asking for a Kiva loan. (at least not for now, not in this way)
I don't want to see Kiva change in that direction.
Please give me my old Kiva back.
(and please forgive my bad english)
There are lots of homeless and starving families in the U.S. that could be saved with just a little investment, and lots of communities that could benefit from an entrepreneur sparking economic activity. Maybe Kiva has made some poor choices in who it chooses for loans, but I strongly suspect that borrower abuse is not higher than in other countries. I very much support allowing members to lend in the United States.
There is nothing objectionable about facilitating financing to the poor anywhere. But "poor" is a very relative term, subject to definition in a specific socio-economic context. "Poor" in the US is not "poor" in Uganda, especially when considering the formal and informal social infrastructures in place to save the needy -- from death (by starvation, disease etc.).
What is at stake here is a matter of focus: by focusing on the needy anywhere, Kiva has no focus at all. It is simplistic and superficial to assume that people will "democratically", by choosing to finance their favorite projects", decide who is is need of microfinancing or not. This (i.e. screening) is precisely the function of a micro-financing community or organization, and Kiva is sloughing off its responsibility by pointing at the supporters' community.
(Yes, we should then discuss who is needy in Mexico, Australia or anywhere else).
I am a state medical director of substance abuse services but am speaking for myself and not my state. My agency serve thousands of persons who are on the road to recovery. They are sober, they are not breaking laws, but they are on the brink of homelessness and many are unemployed. They have lived in a cycle of poverty and drugs and alcohol and want a way out. Many have talents, remarkable talents. Some also have co-existing mental disorder and developmental disorders, so that their challenges restrict their ability to work more than half-time. They do not have enough money for extras that are necessary other than pay their rent and buy food.
To make it in this country if you are poor, you may be dependent on public transportation that takes twice the time of driving your car. In one day, you may have to report to social services and other agencies, attend treatment, pick up a child in child care, work, shop, and then go home. You have licenses to purchase to have some sort of identity if you want to apply for public assistance. Your food and other shopping costs are higher because the national merchants won't take the risk of offering their services in poor neighborhoods, bodegas, reservations, and rural areas. And you have more medical problems but can't afford insurance or a doctor. And then you are blamed for your conditions but not given help regarding the highest form a charity, helping a person to become self-subsistent by learning a skill and having a job.
When I speak to persons who are the advocates of Housing First for those who are mentally and developmentally challenged they bring up the problems of subsistance and all those extras I mentioned above.
And like it or not, there are significant pockets of poverty in this country, where the above mental, substance abuse, and developmental problems
Therefore, I advocate that these microloans in the US are prioritized to the persons who 1) live in areas of poverty, 2) who are unemployed, but have a skill and want to work, 3) have mental disorders, substance abuse disorders, developmental disorders and co-occurring disorders, who want to work, develop businesses and cooperatives, but have limitations of access and poverty. They must be actively in treatment, their conditions must be stabilized and they may have case managers.
I would also suggest that we prevent a great shift of loans to the USA, as there are serious needs around the world. Pick a fair percentage overall, or restrict the loans from any person to one at a time for US citizens.
Helping people is helping people is helping people is helping people.
I support Kiva providing micro-finance loans to qualifying people in the USA! Consider providing loans for our Maritime neighbors in Canada as well!
While it is up to every Kiva lender to decide which loans to fund, I do not agree that US recipients are the best value for Kiva lending. I have travelled in many countries where there are NO banking institutions present (esp. in rural areas) and where lending practices effectively marginalize most small farmers, vendors and rural residents. For example, in the Dem. Congo, with a pop. of 53 million, there are under 450,000 bank accounts in the entire country! It is these places where our money and efforts are best put to use simply because there ARE NO ALTERNATIVES for most citizens.
I don't have problems with Kiva loans to the US not for everybody. Only for the ones who really needs it. Too me it's terribly offensive to see a graphic designer or photographer asking for 10.000 $ to improve his bussiness on this site.
Maybe i should apply for a loan too?
javascript:submitComment();
I think you will come to regret your decision to branch out to US and perhaps more "first world" countries. It has already caused a rift in the Kiva community. And I think it is going to get worse. After reading the comments left prior to mine, I think I am leaning towards those that have suggested you split off the US and other "first world" countries in to a separate organization and leave the emerging nations as the original Kiva.
I have no problems with applying the micro lender/borrower concept to industrial countries for those that want to loan there, but I still think the emerging nations need help a whole heck of a lot more. Just my opinion.
The reason I, and probably many others, joined Kiva is to help people become more financially self-sustainable. Kiva is an enabling environment that aggregates small amounts to enable larger loans. But more than that it is an environment that connects people that want to help to people who need help. As long as the loan requests posting is unbiased and the loans actually get to the people I intended, I really do not expect anything else. The criteria, considerations and the ultimate decision of whom to help is entirely in the hands of the lenders.
I suggest approaching this debate in a positive and constructive way. Instead of considering discriminating people from developed countries who need these loans and do not have anyone else to turn to, lets think how to increase the number of lenders so there is enough to cover all the already posted needs and help Kiva expand its reach and increase its impact even further.
I hope this helps :-)
The average amount request by US lenders are substantially higher than other countries. For example, with $7000, I can fulfill like 3 loan requests from other countries, but only one in US. So adding US in will definitely slow if not stop people in other countries getting their loan funded. In addition, US has good social security system while other countries don't. I can't understand why you decide to add US lenders in.