금융포용과 마이크로파이낸스: ODA 지원사례 및 빈곤감소 효과분석을 중심으로 (Microfinance and Financial Inclusion: Focusing on the Analysis of ODA Support Cases and Poverty Reduction Effects)

Korean Abstract: 고소득국 성인의 약 89%가 공식 금융기관에 금융계좌를 보유하고 있는 반면에 저소득국에서는 성인의 25%만이 금융계좌를 보유하고 있다고 세계은행의 2011년 세계금융포용자료(Global Financial Inclusion Database)는 보고했다. 특히 고소득국의 성인은 소득분위에 관계없이 고르게 80% 이상의 높은 금융계좌 보유비율을 나타내고 있었지만, 개발도상국에서는 소득분위에 따라 금융계좌 보유 비율에 차이가 존재했다. 즉 개발도상국의 최빈층은 25%만이 금융계좌를 보유했지만, 최고소득층은 62%가 금융계좌를 보유한 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 고소득국의 빈곤층보다는 개발도상국의 빈곤층이 금융접근에 더 큰 어려움을 겪고 있음을 추론할 수 있다. 금융인프라가 부족하기 때문에 개도국에서 소득 분위별로 금융 접근성에 차이가 나타난 것일 수 있다. 2012년 IMF의 금융접근성조사(Financial Access Survey) 자료에 따르면 고소득국에서는 성인 10만 명당 상업은행 지점 수가 31개이지만, 저소득국이 상대적으로 많이 분포하는 남아시아나 사하라이남아프리카 지역에서는 단지 각각 8개와 3개뿐이었다(Ardic et al. 2013). 이같은 금융인프라 부족이 금융접근성 개선을 어렵게 하지만 사실 개발도상국 빈곤층이 금융서비스에 접근하지 못하는 가장 큰 원인은 담보로 제공할 자산을 보유하고 있지 못하다는 점이다. 개발도상국에서 자산을 보유한 사람은 금융서비스에 접근할 수 있지만 자산을 보유하지 못한 최빈층은 금융서비스를 이용할 수 없다. 이런 차별이 존재하는 개발도상국에서 단순한 인프라 확충만으로는 금융접근성 개선에 어려움이 있을 수밖에 없다. 따라서 새로운 금융접근성 개선방안이 필요하다. 예를 들어 개발도상국의 금융은 접근성 면에서 효율성과 공평성을 갖추어 포용성 성장(inclusive growth)을 지향하고 빈곤감소에 기여해야 할 것이다. 그리고 이 방향으로 금융체계도 설계할 필요가 있다. English Abstract: The activities of Microfinance Institutes (MFIs) have important meanings in developing countries because MFIs not only serve as suppliers of financial service, such as savings, loans, remittance, and insurance, mainly to the poor and small and medium enterprises(SMEs) that cannot obtain credits from formal financial institutions because of lack of collaterals, but also make effort to increase financial demand through the provision of non-financial services, such as various capability building programs: letter education, fund management, and income earning. Therefore, ESCAP (2006) emphasizes that MFIs are a major tool for financial inclusion and a core element to the development of finance in an inclusive way. This study analyzes “ODA for microfinance” cases supported by Germany and Australia, and finds empirical evidence that the access to microfinance reduces poverty. Finally, the results from the study provide some policy implications when provision of ODA for microfinance sectors is considered. We can summarize the results as follows. First, the aim of German's ODA support for microfinance sector is to promote developing countries' balanced economic growth by comprehensively fostering the financial sector. Most activities are performed in a macro perspective. On the other hands, Australia's supports are based on a micro perspective, since the supports are given after establishing the systematic aid strategies, such as introducing performance management systems considering financial/social aspects. Second, according to the results of the estimation, when the average MFI loan amount per person increased by 10%, the poverty rate defined as a headcount significantly decreased by 0.463%. This result is consistent with that of Imai et al. (2012). When the sizes of total MFI loan amounts compared to GDP which indicate the sizes of microfinance markets by country increased by 1%, the poverty rate defined as a head count significantly decreased by approximately 3.4%. Therefore, it can be concluded that increases in the number of MFI users contribute to poverty reduction. The results from this study provide evidence that microfinace deserves to be supported by ODA. However, Korea has no experience of support for the area. Hence, Korea should evolve ODA policies considering the following risk factors. First, since most ODA recipient countries do not have the capability to promote financial development, “master plans for financial development” should be prepared for them based on Korea's experience. The experience in operating cooperative unions, such as agricultural cooperatives and the National Credit Union Federation of Korea, will give many implications to developing countries. Second, to enable MFIs to support more various non-financial services than before, not only simple ODA provision, but also technology provisions and even measures to link private businesses' participation in CSR should be considered. Through the foregoing, Korean financial institutions' advancement into developing countries may also be considered. Finally, although this study highlighted relatively more positive aspects of microfinance, poverty problems are not solved just by improvement of financial access. Since not only the improvement of financial access is a necessary condition-not a sufficient condition-for poverty reduction, but also negative effects of MFIs are reported as some MFIs have been commercialized, ODA support for microfinance should be appropriately determined considering these conditions. In particular, to avoid negative effects, the subject countries of the support should be carefully reviewed and assessed in advance.