EU의 마이크로파이낸스(MF) 운영에 비추어 본 한국의 MF운영개선방안

Abstract

Microfinance, which comprise micro-credit in developing countries, had played a minor role in alleviating poverty until the unprecedented success of the Grameen Bank in the 1970s. Such a paradigm shift has brought forth a renewed attention to the latent potential of MF as an effective policy instrument in alleviating the mass poverty and/or social exclusion of underprivileged class. The implementation of MF has been extended from developing nations to industrialized ones since the Eastern Enlargement in 2004 and global financial crisis in 2008. MF is adopted to deal with improvements in social safety network and competitiveness of Small and Medium-sized enterprises in industrialized nations while it is focused on alleviating mass poverty in developing ones. The merit of MF of the EU system may stem from its working mechanism in the context of stakeholders' society in which economic, social and environment issues are addressed simultaneously. The social safety network or economic system of the United States are akin to shareholders' society. The operation of MF in the EU demonstrates that it attaches utmost importance on the attribute of social safety network for those group of lower income brackets or underprivileged class in terms of social inclusion. The Lisbon Strategy was launched in 2000 with an ambitious aim of closing or reducing digital divide with the United States. But the EU added the ‘European Social Model’ to the initial programme in 2005 by taking into account the importance of reducing unemployment level with social security. Furthermore, the ‘Europe 2020 Strategy’, launched in June 2010, has highlighted its strong commitment to make remarkable progresses in those realms of environment, social cohesion and job creation. MF institutions in the EU exhibit residual attributes which partly supplement the function of the ‘Structural Fund.’The overall performance of Lisbon Strategy is not satisfactory at all, but the EU endeavors to capture a pivotal momentum to induce a series of technological innovations and organizational reforms in the context of intensive pattern of growth. The on-going controversy on the ‘European Economic Government’ can be interpreted as another attempt to steer the reinforcement of ‘Europe 2020Strategy’ on the right track by fortifying the federal fiscal policy measures. What can be learnt from the experience of EU comprises following measures. It is required for the Korean government to formulate a correct hierarchy between industrial adjustment policy and financial policy for promoting MF. It is recommended to adopt the latter as a subordinate policy of the former. Put it another way, the Korean economy may be jeopardized if both the public and private sectors plunge themselves into MF as a hype which has been demonstrated by the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh or the MF institutions of global commercial banks. There are many cases of failures of MF operations which have not been fully covered by academicians or expertise. Some specialists exaggerate the MF as an alternative measure of public aid to developing or emerging economies or an effective means of putting forward the advantages of adopting project financing. But there has emerged an overall consensus that the MF may work as a useful policy instrument as well as a means of alleviating poverty beyond the North-South confrontation. It may be an imminent issue for both entrepreneurs and policy-makers in Korea to reformulate a suitable corporate policy and public policy to maintain the sustainability and outreach of potential customers for the MF institutions. Empirical verifications on the issues of development economics or financial management are beyond this article which focuses on the reformulation of MF of Korea in the EU context of economic widening, Lisbon Strategy and ‘Europe 2020 Strategy.’ The uncovered realms of MF may be carried out in the subsequent researches.