Plus, the benefits for the 90% that did get employed may be an acceptable trade-off, especially considering the alternative at that income level is often high-interest payday loans, and I can’t believe that has a better success rate.

I’ve been reading the occasional microcredit articles in the Economist, which is always bullish on the subject. It’s personally appealing, and does appear to have measurable benefits.

The only part that caused me to wonder whether the microcredit was worthwhile was the data about training and that the fact that more than 10% of the folks remained unemployed after completion of their training for which they are now in debt. Understanding that the previous year, everyone was employed, this still is troublesome.

Sometimes money alone can’t address all the issues. This is why a character-based program such as microcredit can help identify when there are family stresses, psychological issues, poor social skills, or other factors that would cause an individual to fail, in spite of a loan.

Thanks for pointing out the article.