In surveying the landscape of microfinance regulation, the authors make a threshold distinction between prudential and non-prudential regulations. Prudential regulations have dual objectives, the soundness of the financial sector as a whole and the protection of individual deposits. They are typically complex, burdensome to meet and require the oversight of a central financial authority. The current discussion surrounding microfinance regulation has emphasized prudential regulations. The authors believe that in certain circumstances, however, “the most pressing issues are non-prudential – how to enable MFIs to lend legally.” (pg. 4.). Non-prudential regulations are concerned with “conduct of business” and can often be regulated by existing authorities within their respective spheres of influence. In other words, non-prudential regulations may prove adequate to the task where prudential concerns are not at issue. A non-exhaustive list of issues that can be addressed with non-prudential regulations include: permission to lend; fraud and financial crime prevention; interest rate limits; limitations on ownership, management, and capital structure; tax and accounting treatment of micofinance; and feasible mechanisms of legal transformation. This distinction is more than academic because regulations require the dedication of supervisory resources which are themselves scarce. By carefully calibrating prudential versus non-prudential matters, a government may effectively mobilize scarce resources and promote microfinance development. Continue Reading »
MicroCapital Monitor
External Links
-
-












