This explains my exact same feeling; when you take a survey of the US you start seeing that we don’t have real capitalism only a mild tame version that favors too much to the right of central planning.
Microcredit is just one example of how a business approach can help alleviate poverty when we move beyond the idea that business by definition has to mean making financial profit for the owner.We need social businesses to couple the human heart to the capitalist system. This is a sure way of meeting needs that either remain unmet or are met extremely inadequately through the efforts of philanthropy, charity, or welfare. Traditional philanthropy and nonprofits generate a social gain, but they do not design their programs as self-sustaining business models. A charitable dollar can be used only once. A dollar invested in a self-sustaining social business is recycled endlessly.
This next quote for me describes how greed capitalism can be restrained and thus create what I would consider True Development!
Yet when Yunus explains how he wants to get from here to there, he rejects conventional capitalism. His book is primarily devoted to promoting something he calls “social business,” in which investors seek no monetary profit, but rather get only their initial financial capital returned. They would thus “profit” more by getting the satisfaction of helping others.
It’s a noble vision, but I’m pretty sure that the reason all those cell phones are getting into the hands of the poor worldwide is because for-profit companies are working hard to put them there. And I’m a disciple of C.K. Prahalad. His book “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid” argues persuasively that companies can make healthy profits and also help the world’s poor.
Yunus rejects Prahalad’s argument outright. “No, the poor are not a tool to make money,” he snaps. “They are a market you need to help. Rich people should not make money out of the poor people.”
How it all went down:
In 1973 YUNUS had started a Rural Economics Program at the university which focused equally on teaching and applied research, with students going out into the villages to do their research. This was the first time in a Bangladesh university that such a program had been tried. To YUNUS Jobra offered an ideal case-study because all government information on tubewells had indicated that once a tubewell was sunk, productivity would increase enormously. Why had this not happened?
YUNUS suggested a public meeting in the village to discuss the situation. He and his students quickly learned that the reason the tubewell was not being utilized was bickering within the village. Each person using the tubewell was supposed to pay his share for the diesel fuel to operate the pump, but some used it without paying, and some claimed they had paid but received no water. Those few who planted and harvested rice had suffered so much from the bitterness and infighting that after two years they refused to use the well again. They suggested the government remove it.
Since he had gone to a great deal of trouble to obtain the tubewell, and the government had spent some Tk.200,000 installing it (the villagers paid nothing), YUNUS proposed an alternative the Tebhaga Khamar (three-share farm) plan. Each farmer would be given as much water, seed and fertilizer as he needed. At harvest time the farmer would divide his harvest into three: one-third to go to the landlord, one-third to the farmer himself, and one-third to the committee which would have borrowed money to provide the necessary inputs. The committee, chosen by the villagers, would sell its share of the rice, pay back the money borrowed, and finance the next crop. If there was a surplus the committee could share it among the villagers who had participated in the plan.
Many questions were asked and more doubt expressed than enthusiasm. The villagers were interested in the possibility of profit, but wanted no part of a loss. YUNUS therefore offered to take personal responsibility for a loss, but emphasized he was doing so only because he was sure the plan would work. He asked the people to consider the idea and meet again in a week’s time.
He was living on the campus by then, and during the following week there was a steady stream to his house of the poorest people in Jobra. They had not been at the original meeting, but had heard about the plan and were willing to try it; they had nothing to lose.
The second village meeting was very well attended and the landlords agreed to accept one-third of the crop, instead of the usual one-half; YUNUS insisted on having a written agreement so there could be no reneging at harvest time. After more questions and explanations, the villagers agreed to try the plan.
YUNUS went to the university branch of Janata, a commercial bank, and arranged for a personal loan to cover the operation costs; he borrowed Tk.40,000, which he later increased to Tk.65,000, as more and more people joined the program when they saw others getting free agricultural inputs. YUNUS had planned to irrigate only 40 acres the first year, even though the tubewell was supposed to be able to supply 80 acres, because the soil was very porous and he wanted to be certain his plan would succeed. Thus when the number of acres under cultivation snowballed to 85, he warned the committee there might not be enough water. The committee members were not worried; for only Tk.1,000 more, they said, they could put a crossdam in a local stream which would flood the fields and provide the extra water needed, an option that had always been available to them but never tried. The dam was built, the crop was harvested and the yield tripled from 11 maunds (1 maund equals 40 kilograms) per acre to 33; the national average was 17. Everybody was very pleased with the results except YUNUS. When he went to the committee to get the money to repay the bank loan, he discovered that the committee had not collected enough rice to cover the debt; it was Tk.13,000 short. The landlords got their share, presumably because they were present every day at harvest time; the farmers took their own share and could not resist taking extra from the committee’s third since YUNUS was not on hand to protect his interests. The committee suggested that YUNUS had not organized the collection properly and had trusted the people too much.
YUNUS used his own money to repay the bank and chalked it up to experience, but when the villagers asked him to head the committee the next season, he refused. He advised them on how to obtain a loan, introduced them to the bankers and insisted they handle further financing themselves. The committee thereupon devised a fool-proof system for collecting its third of the next harvest. The farmers would bring all the grain to the committee yard and give the committee its share before personal shares could be taken home.
The Tebhaga Khamar project was so successful that a year later the committee was able to buy an electric motor to replace the diesel engine for the tubewell, greatly reducing its operating cost because the village was already electrified. The crossdam was maintained, saving enough water to irrigate twice the expected area. The committee went on to purchase its own land, build godowns for storage and husking, and each year the profits have increased.
What YUNUS learned from the Jobra experiment became the basis of his approach to rural development:
1. Government solutions do not work on their own.
2. When the government gives outright, the recipient is not involved deeply enough to give full support or work to capacity.
3. Local problems should be solved by the community; many times the solutions are already known but not acted upon, e.g., damming the stream.
4. Local organizations (like the committee to carry out Tebhaga Khamar) can be very successful, but are most effective when they develop their own structure and rules. Attention must always be given to class structure, however, so that the wealthier and more powerful do not control the enterprise to the detriment of the poor.
5. The people who are most receptive to new ideas are those who have least to lose the landless poor, i.e., those who sell manual labor to survive. And since they are not tied to the land, they are mobile, enterprising and open to new ideas. He also learned that landlessness had risen in the “recent past” from 18 to 40 or 50 percent. When the local villagers who were landless were questioned, 252 families had become landless in their own lifetimes, compared to 89 in their fathers’ end 18 in their grandfathers’.When YUNUS published and discussed the results of Tebhaga Khamar in Jobra at conferences, officialdom expressed interest. Eventually the national government borrowed the idea, renamed it the Package Input Program (PIP) and ordered banks all over the country to provide loans for similar enterprises. Tebhaga Khamar in Jobra received the President’s Award in 1978 for introducing innovative organization in agriculture. Unfortunately none of the PIPs developed a sustained, successful operation comparable to the Jobra experiment, probably because there was no arrangement for village participation in the decision making. The program had been decreed from above with a poor understanding of the concept.
YUNUS was active in the Bangladesh Economics Association and was one of the founders of the Chittagong Economics Association. Both organizations held annual conferences and published papers. In 1974 YUNUS tried to convince his fellow economists and the government that local problems should be handled at a local level where they were best understood, and that massive government structure imposed from the top down does not work. YUNUS advocated a village government to be responsible for village-related affairs such as food supply, employment, health and literacy. He suggested that this government, or gram sarkar, be comprised of two landless poor, two women, two well-to-do persons, two youths and two others from the professions, ten in all. The head of the government should be elected directly by all the villagers, and thus be responsible to all, and not to one interest group. The village should also produce a village book (gram boi) each year which would be a socioeconomic report and a development plan containing all the village statistics, and would be used in the village school.
He urged the need for new strategies and institutions, and used the example of food shortages. No results, he maintained, are gained from the Food Minister appearing on television, stating that there is a two-and-a-half million ton food shortage, and appealing for help from the citizens of Bangladesh. A villager who cannot count has no conception of two-and-a-half million tons, and therefore dismisses the problem, being sure that it is far beyond his ability to cope with. However, when the problem is approached on a much smaller scale, on the village level, it becomes manageable. A villager is aware that 30 or 40 of his neighbors survive from day to day, and he can imagine how much extra rice needs to be grown to provide for these people. YUNUS added that almost no effect is achieved by donations of food from abroad. The US$1.5 billion per year in foreign aid, he said, trickles down “about half an inch,” when what it needs to do is “trickle down a mile to reach those for whom it is intended and who really need it.” Moreover, far too many people spend time chasing the government and asking for things, when in fact local initiative can usually provide what is needed, and local initiative fosters pride and self-reliance instead of dependence. He urged, therefore, the introduction of local planning through village governments (gram sarkar) rather than central planning.
In 1975 President Zia Ur Rahman, who was looking for some way to reach the villages, talked with YUNUS. Zia became convinced that gram sarkar was a viable idea and began to try to convince his cabinet and new politicial party of its validity. Unfortunately he chose to create the village governments nationwide, by government decree, rather than by encouraging villages to develop their own organizations, with the national government giving help and support as needed. Although some were successful, most gram sarkars survived in name only. When Zia was assassinated in 1981 they were all abolished by the new regime.
At the Bangladesh Economics Association’s meeting in 1976, “Self-Reliance” was proposed as the topic for the next convention. The subject interested YUNUS but he doubted that any proposals from government economists or academicians would be effective. He pointed out two problems: the definition of the term “poor,” and the fact that no one at the convention, including himself, had any real knowledge of the poor and how they lived.
The international definition of “poor” has usually been “a small or marginal farmer,” but in the context of Bangladesh, a small farmer is comparatively well-off. YUNUS felt that the automatic connection between the words “poor” and “farmer” was also incorrect. Not only were most of the truly poor landless, but 50 percent of them were women who were thus totally ignored.
He was bothered, too, by the notions that the contribution of the poor to society should be put as zero, that the poor were takers rather than producers, and that they lacked skills. Statistics on caloric intake and per capita income indicate that the poor should have disappeared long ago, but instead, the poor were exhibiting tremendous survival skills, and in fact were multiplying. These skills should be supported and encouraged, he argued, and even if the input of a poor person was individually very small, in view of their great numbers their effect could be enormous.
–http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Biography/BiographyYunusMuh.htm
=====
http://www.bigthink.com/user/muhammad-yunus
http://www.savingcapitalism.com/capintro.pdf
=====
In my mind, it is possible to envision a world without extreme poverty, where imaginations of poverty will be of the distant past. But in order to reach this goal–to reduce and ultimately eliminate poverty–we must go back to the drawing board. It is unthinkable that the concepts, institutions, and analytical frameworks that have created and perpetuated poverty will be able to end it. Instead, we must intelligently reconstruct the economic framework and redesign these institutions along principles that better serve the poor. In doing so, we can affirm their basic human right to dignity and work with them to serve their needs in a sustainable way.
I became involved in the effort against poverty not as a policymaker or as a researcher, but as an individual concerned by the destitution around me. Grameen Bank, a personal project I started over 30 years ago, serves as a testament to the power of alternatives to the conventional banking techniques espoused by our current economic system. By setting a precedent for the efficacy of microcredit and the reliability of the poor, Grameen Bank has inspired many similar banks around the world engaged in eliminating poverty. Most important is that these banks are designed with the poor in mind. While conventional banks exclude the poor with impossible loan conditions, inaccessibility, and bureaucracy, Grameen and others have eliminated many of these difficulties. Sending bank officials to villages gives the poor convenient access to credit, while collateral-free loans make it possible for the poor to lift themselves out of poverty. Paperwork and forms have been simplified to accommodate the illiteracy of bank beneficiaries. Similarly, a new solution calls for removing the pressures of legal reprisal that plague borrowers by abolishing the legally-binding quality of loans, thereby removing potential doubts and fears about obtaining credit.
In order to design systems that are more accessible to the poor, the institutions fighting poverty must understand the limitations faced by the poor and seek to work around them. We must create a new system that expands the horizons of our economic understanding to best serve these communities by redefining traditional notions of credit, reaffirming self-employment, and creating social businesses.
The Shortcut of Self-Employment
The most important step to ending poverty is the creation of employment and income opportunities for the poor. While insufficient infrastructure and often inefficient markets in the lesser-developed world make it difficult for populations to find jobs, the unemployed can still create their own work and a sustainable living wage for themselves. Orthodox economics recognizes wage-employment, but it has been deficient in commenting on self-employment. This omission is a grave mistake. Promoting self-employment is the quickest and easiest way to create jobs for the jobless and to help the poor break a recurring cycle of debt and deeper poverty.
Credit is essential for the creation of instant self-employment, since it provides the investment that leads to small businesses and income for the impoverished. For example, with access to credit in the form of a microloan, a poor woman who cannot work because of familial reasons can invest in a stock of chicken. She can then sell the eggs and raise chickens for her family’s livelihood. Such entrepreneurship should be promoted, and credit should be considered a human right. Microcredit has far-reaching effects, and its implications are endless: during my experience with Grameen, it became evident that microcredit could act as a gateway to other basic rights such as nutrition, healthcare, and education. The greatest step toward eliminating poverty is the provision of financial services to the poor. However, because our current understanding of economics does not recognize self-employment, there are no supportive institutions and policies to promote these endeavors.
The money-lending business has served as an expensive alternative to official institutions, but it often undermines individual efforts to alleviate situations of poverty. Moneylenders can charge exorbitant interest rates that initiate an endless cycle of poverty and debts. The new system should target the detrimental effects of money-lending by freeing borrowers from high interest rates and any pressures or legal requirements to repay loans. With credit accepted as a human right, those who do not possess anything–the neediest members of society–have the highest priority in obtaining loans. All human beings, including the poorest, are endowed with endless promise, and the poorest are entitled to credit and loans to begin their lives.
Correcting the Problems of Conventional Banking
Conventional banks’ exclusion of the poor results from their overarching motivation of maximizing profit. In order to attain attractive returns for investors, banks grant loans based on the borrower’s collateral in order to ensure loan repayment. In effect, banks’ lending policies are based on the principle that wealth begets more wealth, which only suggests that poverty results in more poverty. The poor, who lack collateral, receive nothing from banks because they have nothing to offer. As a result, more than half of the world’s population is deprived of the financial services of conventional banks.
A new system of banking, such as the methodology espoused by Grameen Bank, is very different from that of conventional banking. It is focused not on profit but on the needs of its borrowers. Such banks are built with a different mission in mind: the objective is to bring financial services to the impoverished, particularly women and the poorest of the poor, to aid them in their fight against poverty and ensure that their business endeavors remain financially sound. It is a composite objective with both social and economic visions.
To ease the credit process for the poor, loans should be collateral-free. There are many bureaucratic policies and practices in conventional banking that discriminate against the poor, including a provision to enforce a contract by external legal intervention. Legal pressures and conventional banks’ tendency to punish so-called “defaulters” deter the poor from borrowing, and in many cases, the desperate agree to conditions that bring them deeper into debt. In the service of lifting the poor from poverty, many unnecessary policies should be streamlined. For example, the bank should work with borrowers who cannot pay on time to reschedule their loans without further consequence; indeed, they have not done anything wrong. Interest rates should be lowered enough to support just the sustainability of the program–in Grameen’s case, the cost of funds plus 10 to 15 percent. Instead of oppressing its borrowers, this system works to assist them in times of difficulty and makes all effort to help them regain their strength and overcome struggles.
Comprehensive services for borrowers support the poor, nurture communities, and ensure the social efficacy of loans. Credit in the hands of women has raised their status within families, empowering forgotten members of the community and facilitating their transformation into local leaders. Research shows that women tend to spend more of their earnings on their families, investing in their children and therefore enhancing the human capital of the community. By monitoring the education of children in client communities, giving scholarships and student loans, and tracking the progress of housing and sanitation, access to potable water, and communities’ capacity for meeting emergency situations, banks can play an integral role in community building. Ensuring that its loans are used efficiently to create sustainable enterprises, a bank can help its client rise above a previous cycle of poverty and debt.
In order to facilitate the distribution of credit to the poor, a new bank would go to the doorstep of its borrowers. The clients do not go to the bank; rather, the bank goes to the people. Grameen provides an apt example: the branches of Grameen Bank are situated in rural areas, unlike the branches of conventional banks, which are generally located in business districts and urban centers. Every week, Grameen Bank’s 12,000 staff members meet 3.2 million borrowers in 45,000 different villages spread around Bangladesh to deliver individualized bank services. While doing business this way creates more work for the bank, it is far more convenient for its borrowers, who otherwise would not have access to credit. The guiding philosophy of microcredit is simple: banks should not choose or dictate the ways in which borrowers use their loans. Members should have the freedom to determine how to maximize the benefits of their loans given their existing or potential skills. For the over 80 percent of the Bangladeshi poor who have access to microcredit, there is sufficient evidence to show that when the poor are given the tools for change, they can build sustainable communities and significantly improve their standards of living.
The Impact on the Poor
Independent studies show that microcredit has a host of positive effects on the families that receive it. A World Bank study in 1998 reported that five percent of Grameen Bank members move out of poverty each year. Similarly, a 2003 World Bank study by Shahid Khondkar shows that microcredit programs operating in Bangladesh over an extended period have produced a greater impact on extreme poverty than on moderate poverty. Khondkar concludes, “The results of this study strongly support the view that microcredit not only affects the welfare of participants and non-participants but also the aggregate welfare at village level.” His findings support the notion that long-term poverty reduction efforts at the village level become more sustainable as the general level of local education and healthcare improves. Indeed, impact studies of Grameen replicators in other countries, such as ASHI, Dungganon, and CARD in the Philippines; SHARE and ASA in India; and Nirdhan and SBP in Nepal all show increases in income among their borrowers.
The role of microcredit in disaster situations and post-conflict areas has also been well documented. When financial services are flexible, convenient, and easily accessible, microcredit programs allow families in such areas to rebuild economic activities and livelihoods. Studies have also shown that microcredit programs improve the coping mechanisms of the poor. This phenomenon was very clearly demonstrated during times of disaster, such as the 1998 floods in Bangladesh. More recently, microcredit has helped more than 10,000 families in war-torn Kosovo move out of poverty. A large number of Grameen Bank impact studies have been made from a variety of perspectives, but in every study, research findings show significant impact on Grameen members across a wide range of economic and social indicators. These effects include increased income, improved nutrition, better housing, lower child mortality rate, lower birth rate, better healthcare, better access to childhood education, and many others.
According to Grameen Bank’s own internal survey, 42 percent of its borrower families had crossed the poverty line by 2001. This figure was attained through evaluations based on the bank’s 10 indicators of poverty–the size of the loan, amount of savings, housing condition, furniture in the house, provision of warm clothing, education of the children, access to water, sanitation, nutrition, and adequate health care–set by Grameen Bank to track the impact of its program on the poor families that it serves. To prepare the next generation to stay out of poverty and end the recurring cycle, Grameen Bank encourages the children of Grameen families to enroll in school, stay there, and do well. Grameen Bank offers scholarships to the top students of each branch and gives student loans to all students who are going to universities, medical schools, engineering schools, or other professional schools. Significant investments in human capital are key to preventing recurring cycles of poverty.
Social Business: An Innovative Way Forward
Another way of rethinking our current economic framework is through the concept of social business. This is a new kind of business that has the sole objective of making a difference in the world. Investors in a social business would recoup their investment money but would not make any profit off the company. Instead, all profit would be reinvested into the company to expand its outreach and improve the quality of its products and services. A social business would be a non-loss, non-dividend company. Once social business is recognized by law, Grameen envisions that many existing companies will come forward to create social businesses in addition to their foundation activities. Activists from the non-profit sector will also find this an attractive option. Currently, those who work in the non-profit sector must collect donations to maintain activities, but a social business is self-sustaining and will create surplus for expansion because of its status as a non-loss enterprise. And as social businesses begin to gain recognition, a new type of capital market will arise to serve their capital-raising needs. Almost all of the world’s social and economic problems can and will be addressed through social businesses. The challenge is to create innovative business models and apply them to produce desired social results in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Social businesses could cover an array of services in developing countries. Exciting ideas for such businesses include healthcare, information technology, and education for the poor, as well as renewable energy. The list is endless. I believe that young people around the world, particularly in rich countries, would find the concept of social business very appealing, as it would provide a chance to enact change for the better. Special academies could be set up to train social business entrepreneurs, and customized social-MBA courses could be set up in universities to guide and inform the dreams of the next generation. These educational activities would mainly instruct entrepreneurs of social businesses, while training and recruitment of other employees could be carried out as they are in other traditional businesses.
A second type of social business falls within the profit-maximizing scheme employed by most companies today. A company guided by the principle of profit maximization may be designed as a social business by giving full or majority ownership to the poor. Grameen Bank falls under this category of social business: it is owned by the poor. The poor can obtain shares of these companies as gifts from donors, or they can buy the shares with their own money. In the case of Grameen Bank, the borrowers buy non-transferable shares with their own money, while a committed professional team does the day-to-day running of the bank. Social business of this type may be created quite easily through cooperation with bilateral and multilateral donors. When a donor intends to give a loan or a grant to build a bridge in the recipient country, it could create instead a “bridge company” owned by the local poor. Profits would go to the local poor as dividend and could go toward projects such as the building of more bridges. A wide array of infrastructure projects–the construction of roads, highways, airports, seaports, and utilities–could all be completed in this manner.
Grameen Bank has created two social businesses of the first type. One is a yogurt factory that produces fortified yogurt for the nutrition of malnourished children, a joint venture with Danone. The company Grameen-Danone will provide nutritious yogurt to poor people for a cost of around Tk.5, which is significantly less than the over Tk. 50 market price of similar products. The joint venture will continue to expand until all malnourished children in Bangladesh have access to fortified yogurt. A second social business initiated by Grameen is a chain of eye-care hospitals. Each hospital will undertake, on average, 10,000 cataract surgeries per year and offer prices that are affordable for the poor.
There is also great potential in the intersection of social business principles and access to technological innovation. I see great opportunity for the poor to change their lives, if only they could harness the power of inexpensive, instantaneous communication and technology to meet their needs. An example of a project that resulted from this vision was a mobile phone company, Grameen Phone. Loans from Grameen Bank allowed poor women to buy mobile phones, which they then used to sell phone service in villages. The synergy of microcredit and information technology created a successful phone business and a coveted enterprise for Grameen borrowers. In Bangladesh, over 300,000 telephone ladies, as they are called, quickly learned and innovated in the business of telephone service, and the mobile phone business has become a quick way to move out of poverty and to earn social respectability. It is my hope to ultimately turn Grameen Phone into a social business, with majority ownership transferred to poor women while continuing to benefit communities by providing useful products and services.
To connect investors with social businesses, we also need to create a social stock market in which only the shares of social businesses will be traded. Investors will come to this stock exchange with the clear intention of finding a social business with a mission they would like to support. To enable such a social stock-exchange to function properly, we will need to establish rating agencies, standardize terminology and definitions, and create impact measurement tools, reporting formats, and new financial publications, perhaps something like The Social Wall Street Journal. Business schools will need to offer courses and social business management degrees. Such instruction will be key in training young managers to administer social business enterprises in the most efficient manner, and, most of all, in inspiring them to become social business entrepreneurs themselves.
Poverty as Distant History
Poverty exists because we built our theoretical framework on assumptions that underestimate human capacity. We designed concepts that are too confined (business, credit-worthiness, entrepreneurship, and employment) and developed institutions that remain half-finished, exclusionary, and inhibitive. Our present financial institutions are a prime example of establishments of our own creation that leave out the greater segment of our world population–the poor. However, I firmly believe that we can create a poverty-free world if we collectively believe and participate in it, rethinking our institutions and policies while building practices that expressly service the needs of the poor.
My experiences have given me unshakeable faith in human beings’ creativity. Humans are not born to suffer the misery of hunger and poverty. We must create an enabling environment in which the poor can unleash their energy and creativity to make poverty a distant memory.
MUHAMMAD YUNUS is the founder of Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. He shared the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize with Grameen Bank and received the 1994 World Food Prize.
RELATED ARTICLE: MAKING MICRO-MAGIC
This graph presents data from a 2004 World Bank study of the effects of micro-finance in reducing poverty. The results are based on surveys of 3,276 households in Bangladesh, and show a marked reduction in both moderate and extreme poverty for both recipients of microloans as well as non-participating members of their community.
Shahidur R. Khandker, The World Bank
<http://find.galegroup.com/ips/start.do?prodId=IPS>.
Gale Document Number:A172835083
Filed under: Capitalism, Contribution 2 Solutions, Critical Analysis, Economics, Education, Enlightened People, Muhammad Yunus, Poverty, Sociology, Struggle, Sustainable Development, Truthdig, World Economy
Hi
This a great set of extracts of practices of Dr Yunus. I am trying to connect together networks of people who are inspired by his book and want to help people practice its organisational models
I welcome contact -let’s discuss how to advance this common interest chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk
dc region tel 301 881 1655
http://www.smbaworld.com/id42.html http://yunusuni.com
[...] that we don??t have real capitalism only a mild tame version that favors too much to the righthttp://marcelinopena.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/get-to-know-muhammad-yunus/San Francisco The San Francisco ExaminerJAKARTA, Indonesia , May 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — [...]