Microfinance and the Politics of Empowerment: A Critical Cultural Perspective

Introduction: microfinance, gender and development

Microfinance is commonly considered as the best development strategy not only to reduce poverty, but also to empower the most marginalized members of society, especially women (Fernando, 2006; Mayoux, 2002; Rankin, 2001). Microfinance institutions in the global South provide their services predominantly to poor women and most quantitative evaluations of microfinance projects indicate that access to credit leads to the economic, social and political empowerment of women (Dowla, 2006; Ito, 2003; Mayoux, 2001; Padia, 2005; Rajivan, 2005). The reason for targeting women is often connected to addressing gender inequality (Fernando, 2006; Kabeer, 2001).

However, some studies have indicated that the industry of microfinance relies on women’s cultural propensity to invest wisely and payback their debts and this has made the industry relatively risk free. Microfinance programmes and other similar emergent development strategies, such as Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT), ¹ depend on women’s efficiency in managing household budgets and their willingness to provide free unpaid labour. These strategies exploit women’s selflessness and their assumed ‘traditional’ role as mothers (Mayoux, 2001; Molyneux, 2006, 2007). A number of studies have indicated that these initiatives and programmes have resulted in additional burden on women, demanding their labour, time and expenditure. In other words, microfinance, which is rooted in and rationalized by the ‘feminization of anti-poverty’ policies and strategies, contributes to the further feminization of responsibility and obligation. Rather than challenging and transforming exploitative economic, political and social structures, these development strategies result in expanding inequality, social division and the subordination of women (Bradshaw, 2008; Chant, 2008, 2010; Mayoux, 2001; Molyneux, 2006, 2007; Roy, 2002; Tabbush, 2010).

Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological perspectives, this article designs an analytical framework for the concept of empowerment and employs it to critically analyse the links between the provision of microfinance services and the empowerment of poor women. Through the analysis of microfinance processes and a critical examination of the developmental conceptions and assumptions found within, it seeks to demonstrate the potential of microfinance to transform gender disparities, women’s subordinated position and discrimination. We highlight the role of cultural capital, in particular in its embodied state, in shaping and dictating the process of the empowerment of women through microfinance.

Empowerment: conceptual analysis

In development studies, empowerment has often been defined as the gaining of power by poor, destitute and homeless people (Kabeer, 1994, 1999; Mayoux, 1998). Many scholars associate empowerment with participation. For example, Wallerstein (1992) explicates empowerment as a social action process that promotes the participation of people, organizations and communities towards improved quality of community life and social justice. Others explain empowerment based on Michel Foucault’s (1971) theorization of power and subjectivities as constituted through discourses (McHoul and Grace, 1995). Women’s empowerment has also been associated with control over decision making (Holvoet, 2005). There has been no agreement on the meaning of the term (Kabeer, 1994: 224) and ‘the empowerment of women has become a phrase which means many things to many people’ (Sweetman, 2005: 5). However, among the proponents of the empowerment approach to gender, Joanna Rowlands’ account seems most adequate. Writing from a critical perspective, Rowlands explains empowerment as an intricate process, which is the outcome of control of four forms of power that manifest from above, within, with and to (Rowlands, 1997: 13).

According to Rowlands (1997), ‘power with’ is the capability to achieve with others what one could not achieve alone. It relates to a form of solidarity to bring about structural transformation at household, community and macro-levels. ‘Power to’ implies gaining access to a full range of human abilities and potential: it reflects self-assurance of the capability to do something. On the other hand, ‘power within’ is a self-created will for change. It is a power from within that emerges from the realization that one is not the cause of all one’s own problems and reflects a process of realization and questioning of the broader structures that partly create one’s problems. Finally, in Rowlands’ analysis, ‘power over’ is what we traditionally conceive when we think of power: power possessed by individuals or groups upon which other individuals and groups have no control. Those individuals and groups who are subjects of such powers perform tasks assigned by the owners of the power, often against their will. ‘Power over’ can manifest in the form of economic, social, legal, cultural political and ideological control and dominance (Rowlands, 1997). Endorsing Rowlands’ account of empowerment, we can evaluate the empowerment potential of microfinance: if credit has an empowerment potential, it would enable women to control all the four forms of power.

Rowlands’ analysis of empowerment intersects and overlaps with Bourdieu’s (1986, 1999) analysis of the factors that determine individuals’ social class position. As is elucidated below, Rowlands’ ‘power with’ is commensurate with Bourdieu’s notion of social capital. Her analysis of ‘power to’ and ‘power within’ is similar to Bourdieu’s analysis of cultural capital, in particular in embodied states, and her ‘power over’ is synonymous with his analysis of symbolic capital. In addition, however, Bourdieu’s concepts provide us with an analytical framework to demonstrate why certain groups of individuals find it more difficult than others to possess ‘power to’, ‘power within’, ‘power with’ and, more importantly, what Rowlands describes as ‘power over’. In other words, it helps us to examine the factors that determine individuals’ social position and power, and those responsible for the creation of social division, stratification and inequality.

Bourdieu’s (1986) key concept, capital, provides considerable explanatory scope for the analysis of the empowerment potential of microfinance because the implied (although not explicitly stated) empowerment ideal of microfinance is on the basis of the ownership of capital and the transfer of one form of capital into others. In microfinance discourse, it is often assumed that providing credit to poor women and assisting them to engage in productive enterprise socially and politically empowers them (Dowla, 2006; Kabeer, 2001; Mayoux, 2001). More importantly, Bourdieu’s analysis helps us to understand the hidden, unconscious and internalized dispositions that hinder women from control of power over, with, within and power to. These dispositions in Bourdieu’s sociology relate to ownership of what he calls embodied cultural capital. These culturally specific hidden dispositions affect both the objective and subjective judgements of individuals. They are often internalized through childhood socialization and are eventually reproduced by those individuals through their day-to-day actions (Bourdieu, 1989).

Bourdieu’s capitals

Within the last two decades there has been a growing interest in the work of Bourdieu among feminists. In particular, his broader analysis of capital has been considered crucial for explicating the intricate nature of contemporary class structure (Fowler, 2003; Lovell, 2000; McCall, 1992; Silva, 2005; Skeggs, 1997). It is argued that his work provides a powerful conceptual framework for understanding the role of gender in the social relations (McCall, 1992: 837). Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital, in particular, is identified as encompassing and being broader than the traditional notions of class, which focus on classifying individuals and groups on the basis of their ownership of economic values (Lovell, 2000; Skeggs, 1997).

Bourdieu’s notion of capital comprises four types: economic, cultural, social and symbolic. Economic capital refers to the accumulated wealth of agents and the value of goods they own (Bourdieu, 1986, 1999). Social capital refers to social connections or ties, social networks, group membership and respectability, another important element determining class position (Bourdieu, 1986). Cultural capital, which is symbolized by the culture of those who dominate, is the most recognized and thus is the marker of life chances and opportunities (Bourdieu, 1999: 22). Bourdieu (1986: 47) subdivides cultural capital into three forms: objectified, institutionalized and embodied capitals. Cultural capital in objectified form refers to cultural things and goods such as works of art. Institutionalized capital refers to academic credentials and qualifications: possession of this form of capital allows owners to convert their recognized skills and knowledge into money (economic capital). On the other hand, cultural capital is least objectified in its embodied form and this is acquired from childhood through a continuous process of ‘socialization’. Gained from families in the form of tradition, practice, bequests and so on, it describes a way of thinking, speaking and doing things.

Symbolic capital emerges with the ownership of the other three capitals (economic, social and cultural). It refers to the degree of recognition, status, honour or prestige of an individual in the social setting of which the person is a member. Control of symbolic capital makes a person authoritative, respected, honoured and prestigious in the social setting where the person is located: symbolic capital legitimizes all other forms of capital. Although symbolic capital is less visible and rational, it is directly related to power: Bourdieu explains power on the basis of symbolic capital that comes with the control of prestige and authority (Bourdieu, 1986).

Building on Bourdieu’s analysis, if we examine microfinance’s role in empowering women, we need to assume that it helps women to gain control of capital because in Bourdieu’s analysis, capital is synonymous with power (Bourdieu, 1986: 243). Given that social position and power are primarily determined by the ownership of capital, if microfinance is to change the pattern of these structures it needs to help women achieve economic, social, cultural and, hence, symbolic capital. In the next sections we will evaluate microfinance’s potential to enable women to achieve economic, social and cultural capital through an examination of empirical research undertaken in various parts of the majority world, including India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Senegal, Cameroon and Nepal.

Microfinance and women’s empowerment

Fundamentally, microfinance is about the provision of loans and savings services to women ‘entrepreneurs’ who are willing and capable of engaging in self-employment (Klobuchar and Wilkes, 2003; Wright, 2000). However, although loans are means that help women engage in productive ‘enterprise’, they cannot be regarded as fluid assets (cash) because they are a liability and hence they cannot be considered economic capital. Because loans are a means to achieve economic capital, to see their ultimate role in ‘empowering women’, we need to examine the complex processes women undergo from creating enterprises to generating income. In this context, then, we need to look at how gendered embodied cultural capital affects women in transforming credit to economic capital. Also, we need to investigate how women resolve the cultural dilemmas that they face in the process of their endeavours to succeed as micro-entrepreneurs.

Despite the increase in the amount of micro-credit provided to women, conventional finance, including small business finance in the majority world, has remained predominantly controlled by men (Guerin, 2006). This means that although microfinance helps women to get access to small loans, it has not helped them to benefit from conventional financial services: microfinance does not challenge or intend to transform women’s exclusion from conventional financial services. Nevertheless, most microfinance institutions commonly provide small loans to women, who are organized in small groups, and are willing to take the risk of each others’ loans. It is often assumed that the loans help them create small ‘enterprises’ and generate income (economic capital).

However, although microfinance institutions do not require collateral to provide loans for groups, the chance of becoming a member of a group depends on ownership of economic capital, that is, it is hierarchical. A number of empirical studies in different parts of the developing world indicate that, although ‘rhetorically’ microfinance targets the provision of credit to poor women, the poorest women often find it difficult to become members of a micro-group (Coleman, 2006; Hemingway, 2004; Hulme and Mosely, 1996; Karim, 2011). Unless the poor women own property that has a monetary value or have a husband with income, they are excluded from credit access (Coleman, 2006; Karim, 2011; Rankin, 2002). In addition, the provision of credit for consumption, which the poorest women often demand, ² is often framed as a waste of money. Lack of ownership of economic capital curtails poor women from accessing loans, running a profitable enterprise and empowering themselves. Hence, rather than contributing to the empowerment of women, the system of group-based microfinance expands social differentiations and inequality among the poor women.

Women’s empowerment and the structure of property ownership

Bourdieu’s notion of economic capital, an aspect of empowerment in our analysis, incorporates all forms of property that can be expressed in monetary terms. Hence, in order to incorporate material (physical) aspects of the economy, we need to examine how the appropriation of physical properties affects women’s success as micro-‘entrepreneurs’. Despite the fact that the poorest women throughout the world do not own property such as land, they are increasingly faced with cash requirements to meet basic needs (Guerin, 2006; Pearson, 2001). Likewise, in spite of the increasing trend whereby women take on the role of head of household, they face difficulty in finding paid employment (Guerin, 2006). In this context, the most promising opportunity could be self-employment. The primary objective of microfinance is to help women engage in self-employment (Klobuchar and Wilkes, 2003; Ledgerwood, 1999; Rankin, 2001). However, micro-credit is small in nature and cannot help women buy all the physical assets needed to succeed as entrepreneurs. Indeed, a wide range of empirical research indicates that microfinance has not transformed the nature of unequal access and control over the means of production such as land. According to this literature, women’s restriction from owning property has limited their success as business ‘entrepreneurs’ (Fernando, 2006; Kabeer, 1998; Karim, 2011; Mayoux, 2001; Rankin, 2002).

Guerin (2006) demonstrates that although women run a third of Senegal’s informal economy, they are excluded from property ownership. As a result, they cannot obtain sufficient money to engage in lucrative types of business: these are dominated by men. Guerin asserts that despite the recent transformation of laws relating to women’s rights to own property and inheritance, exploitative normative frameworks and patriarchal rules and practices still operate, excluding many women from access to property. Absence of property and restriction of mobility result in the concentration of women in low-intensity, low-demand and low-return activities located close to home (Guerin, 2006: 564–568).

It is also often the case that women are also influenced by norms and practices to register productive assets they acquire as micro-entrepreneurs in their husbands’ names. Kabeer (1998) found this in rural Bangladesh. This practice, according to Kabeer, relates to inheritance law that restricts women from inheriting assets owned by fathers: if assets are registered in a husband’s name, their sons are entitled to inherit it, whereas if they are registered in a woman’s name daughters receive the entitlement. Ethnographic research among the Newar ethnic group in Nepal reveals a similar situation (Rankin, 2002). Here cultural barriers hinder women from utilizing exceptional situations giving them legal entitlement to control property. Although unmarried women have a legal entitlement to inherit their fathers’ land, for example, claiming such a right is at the cost of losing their traditional entitlement to social protection from male relatives.

Although access to credit is often regarded as a means of strengthening women’s independence from men, evidence from Cameroon again indicates a different situation. There, women’s ability to use savings and credit to increase incomes under their control is seriously limited by hierarchical relations within households and kin groups. In all of the eight ethnic groups studied by Mayoux (2001), women are governed by customary law as dependents of men and are under their authority. This situation is reinforced at a societal level by chiefs and local leaders. Women’s rights are seriously limited in both patrilineal and matrilineal groups. This pattern of dependence on men is further reinforced by the absence of traditional women’s rights to either children or household property upon divorce or widowhood (Mayoux, 2001: 437). If microfinance projects are to challenge the prevalent living conditions of women, they need to go further than credit delivery and help women to overcome the embodied cultural barriers that make them vulnerable to and dependent on men’s protection.

Women and their decision-making power

It is important also to ask whether women who have received credit have control over it. Do those women who get access to credit and run their own enterprises have control over the income they earn and the assets that they build? We must assume here that those women who receive credit also have the opportunity to engage in profitable enterprises and that the women who access credit are ‘credit worthy’, that is, they have the required potential, interest and capability of running a profitable enterprise. Can they easily transfer credit to help them acquire economic capital?

In Bourdieu’s analysis, embodied capital is acquired in the form of tradition and practice through a continuous process of family- and community-based socialization. As an index of tradition and practice, in the context of a gendered social setting, embodied capital plays a defining role in gendered norms and acceptable behaviours. Because microfinance is a form of credit-based intervention, one crucial means of examining its success in empowering women is to examine cultural practices and norms that relate to the administration of household finances. This requires an examination of the pattern of household financial decision-making processes for loan use, business management and income utilization.

A significant amount of empirical research reveals that despite the increase in the opportunity for women to obtain loans, household financial management is still dominated by men (Coleman, 2006; Goetz and Gupta, 1996; Karim, 2011; Mayoux, 2002; Pearson, 2001; Rankin, 2001). In their study of four different Bangladeshi microfinance institutions, for example, Goetz and Gupta (1996) found that only 37 per cent of loans were fully controlled by women. Holvoet (2005), based on a household survey in South India, showed that while women play a more important decision-making role in issues directly related to loan use, they are not able to transfer this power to other more substantial issues of household decision making, such as ‘family and kinship matters, agricultural business and cottage industry’ (Holvoet, 2005: 91). However, most microfinance institutions tend to associate women’s high repayment rate with the productivity of their economic activities, which in turn is seen to be related to their control of loan management (Hemingway, 2004; Hunt and Kasynathan, 2001; Johansson, 2000; Kabeer, 1998). For example, Kabeer’s (1998) study found that between 80 and 92 per cent of female micro-entrepreneurs who are clients of the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee have control over their loans. On the other hand, given the variation in research outcomes, Hunt and Kasynathan (2001) remark that there is no immediate relationship between women’s getting access to credit and their control over its use. In the same manner, Mayoux (2001, 2002) asserts that the link between access to credit and control over it is not automatic, and in most cases is generally weak.

Taking this argument even further, Hunt and Kasynathan (2001: 43), based on a study of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) providing credit to poor women in Bangladesh and India, argue that microfinance, more than a tool of empowerment of women, serves as a source of income for men. This is because some women give their loans to their husbands or other men in their households. From this it is evident that although microfinance institutions provide loans to women, women do not necessarily use the loans for the running of their own micro-enterprises. In many cases they merely serve as transmitters of finance to men, rather than engaging in business enterprises and hence expanding their economic capital. Some microfinance institution field workers regard this as inevitable: women lack knowledge of how to utilize money and thus pass it on to men (Hunt and Kasynathan, 2001: 43). This clearly shows that microfinance does not necessarily transform the discriminatory trend whereby men dominate decision making about credit and income utilization. In a scenario whereby the embodied cultural capital makes men the ‘bread winners’, women are likely to remain subordinated to men’s demands and needs.

Empirical evidence shows that even in relatively liberal communities in which women exercise some degree of control over business activities, men play the dominant role in decision making. For example, in a merchant community of the Newar ethnic group in Nepal, women have control over dowry. In this regard this ethnic group is different from the rest of Hindu societies in South East Asia. The women of this community use the dowry to run their own small enterprises, participating in the commercial enterprises of their households such as livestock raising (Rankin, 2001: 30–31). However, control of dowry does not extend to controlling primary decision making over earnings and the ownership of fixed capital inputs, such as land, which is culturally dominated by men. In this society, women are subordinated by ‘patrilineal inheritance, patrilocal residence and patriarchal household organisation’ (Rankin, 2001: 31). They have limited mobility and ownership of property, which means that they have limited entrepreneurial opportunity. Hence, even though the women control dowry, which can be regarded as similar to micro-credit, it has not helped them to control primary decision making in their households.

The enterprise of economically active women

Moreover, even if we assume that women control the money they receive as microfinance loans, if they are engaged in activities that produce low returns, then the ultimate impact of the microfinance industry on expanding their economic capital is limited. Limited economic capital means limited impact on the normative exploitative structures that are rooted in households and in communities. Often women have control over credit when they are engaged in ‘traditional’ female activities, such as weaving, poultry production and petty trade. In addition, women’s control over credit is enhanced when they are living without a husband. For example, when husbands have emigrated for a long period of time or when they are dead, women possess control over credit and property (Hunt and Kasynathan, 2001; Mayoux, 2002; Rankin, 2001).

However, despite the restrictions upon women’s control of credit to engage in large-scale enterprises, research indicates that the welfare of a household generally improves when credit is controlled by women. With respect to this, Kabeer (1998) argues that when credit is controlled by women, it is more likely that the entire family benefits. Women clients of microfinance institutions are more likely to spend the income they generate as micro-entrepreneurs on household consumption and other household necessities. On the other hand, men borrowers use profits that they generate from their enterprises to further expand their activities and also for their own personal needs (see Hashemi, 2005; Littlefield et al., 2003; Padia, 2005). However, despite the potential of women micro-entrepreneurs changing the living conditions of their households for the better, their commitments to household demands (spending their income for household consumption) mean the restriction of the expansion of their productive activities (Kabeer, 1998; Mayoux, 2002).

Household division of labour and women’s empowerment

Despite the common rhetorical association of microfinance with empowerment, microfinance has not relieved women’s burden of household responsibilities and obligations. In most parts of the majority of the world women spend much of their time undertaking a heavy domestic workload. Consequently, even if women have control over credit, they do not have enough time to be as productive as men in the small enterprises that they run. Despite helping women earn small income through self-employment, microfinance systems do not stop women’s usual obligations, such as housework and childcare (Johansson, 2000; Mayoux, 2002; Roy, 2002). Hence, the gender division of labour that is dictated by normative and exploitative frameworks restrains the expansion of women’s economic capital.

In addition, a number of studies have indicated that the provision of microfinance to women has resulted in the increase of the incident of male violence. For instance, Goetz and Gupta’s (1996) research in Bangladesh suggests an increase in the rate of violence against women who have accessed micro-credit, even though a significant proportion of women’s loans are directly invested in the business of husbands or male relatives. Also, Hunt and Kasynathan (2001) noted that some men violently force their wives to borrow from microfinance institutions against their will in order to obtain money to expand their own businesses. On the other hand, in Cameroon Mayoux (2001: 235–238) found that due to the ‘industry of microfinance’, in addition to being responsible for household activities, women are now forced by their husbands to provide cash for their families. Women’s customary non-market obligations to provide subsistence crops for their husbands and children are extended to obligations to support the financial needs of the household members. Although women have an obligation to provide unpaid labour in the cultivation of men’s cash crops, they receive little assistance from their husbands with their own food crops and they therefore need cash to pay for labour. On the contrary, women do not have the right to know the income of their husbands and men are now less willing to support family needs.

Moreover, traditional and customary practices of market control also limit women’s success as micro-entrepreneurs. With respect to this, a study undertaken on Indian and Bangladeshi micro-clients of microfinance institutions demonstrates that one of the crucial obstacles that hinders women from controlling their credit is their limited access to markets. This is particularly true for those engaged in non-traditional micro-enterprises (Hunt and Kasynathan, 2001; Wright, 2000). Unlike men, women lack access to markets for both purchasing inputs and selling their products if they are engaged in non-traditional businesses. On the other hand, producing traditional products yields low returns (Goetz and Gupta, 1996; Hunt and Kasynathan, 2001; Johansson, 2000).

Microfinance, social capital and women’s empowerment

One of the reasons that microfinance has been regarded as a major development solution and supported by development agencies is the belief that it helps in the creation, development and expansion of social networks, associations and links among poor people, essential to transforming their living conditions and life choices. Social capital has been considered a crucial element of empowerment (Dowla, 2006; Mayoux, 2001; Rankin, 2001), and it is commonly assumed that that group-based microfinance helps women to develop social capital. However, as argued in the previous sections, the creation and expansion of social capital is influenced by the determining role of embodied cultural capital. Hence, in order to explore the potential of microfinance to help women build social capital, we need to critically examine the embodied culture that dictates the nature and process of social relations and organization.

A burgeoning literature shows how group-based microfinance facilitates the formation of social integration, association and networks (Dowla, 2006; Singh, 2004; Woodworth, 2008). There is also some empirical research that outlines the important role of group-based microfinance, which relies on the integrative aspect of the social capital concept, to empower women. For example, Rankin (2001: 31) in her research on the Newar tribe in Nepal concludes:

The greater potential in the micro-credit model for ‘empowering’ women lies in the solidarity group concept: if such forums enable women to identify collectively as women, across polarising social differences, they may be able to generate new forms of critical consciousness that could lead to collective, overt forms of social action necessary for accomplishing ideological change. (p.31)

Similarly, the strengthening of women’s social capital is identified by Sen (1999) as a key means of addressing male violence (see also Padia, 2005). Other research also has identified a number of positive outcomes of group membership for micro-entrepreneurs. In addition to its economic benefit, group membership enhances micro-entrepreneurs’ confidence, knowledge and awareness (Hunt and Kasynathan, 2001; Padia, 2005).

Furthermore, Holvoet (2006), based on a household survey in South India, found that group membership plays a key role in helping women to assume household decision-making roles, both regarding loan use and other types of household decision making. Holvoet’s data showed that when women join a credit group, there appears to be a shift from norm-following and male decision making to negotiated decision making and in some cases female decision making on household issues. This is especially the case when women remain as group members for a long period of time.

However, here it is important to emphasize that despite the prevalence of a large number of studies that highlight the role of microfinance in helping to create social capital and hence empowering women, a significant amount of research criticises microfinance as a system that intensifies gender inequality in resources, rights and power (Fernando, 2006; Ito, 2003; Mayoux, 1998, 2001, 2002; Rankin, 2001, 2002). To begin with, as discussed above, microfinance does not incorporate all of the poor and this means that a number of poor people are excluded from membership in micro-groups. They are either excluded because of the extent of their poverty or they have excluded themselves from group membership for the same reason (Coleman, 2006; Hemingway, 2004; Hulme and Mosely; 1996; Milgram, 2001). The fact that a significant number of poor people do not have the opportunity to join a group means that they do not create new or expand their prevalent social capital, and they remain socially disempowered.

Even those who succeed in establishing networks of association, links and common values do not necessarily utilize the social capital created to their advantage. This is particularly true when social capital is understood in terms of the horizontal networks and associations. In this case, vertical relations and macro-level structures negatively impact on the opportunities that women might avail of through creating horizontal networks (see Ito, 2003). Regarding this, Mayoux (2001: 432–436) notes that some women included in microfinance programmes in Cameroon generated low levels of income from the products they traded because the markets are dominated by men who had created their own social networks and associations (social capital). Men’s domination of the markets is backed by ‘discriminatory institutional relationships and structures’ (2001: 32), which involves customary law that alienates women from accessing resources except through husbands. Thus when the social capital of women that emanates from forming micro-groups is located in a situation whereby gendered embodied cultural capital is predominant, the possibility of transforming social capital into economic benefits is minimal.

Moreover, other studies have also indicated the ‘downsides’ of social capital and challenged the popular assumption that social capital helps the establishment of microfinance-based income-generation projects and assists development. Despite its utilization for the promotion of loans repayment disciplining, capitalization and the creation of sustainable microfinance institutions, women’s social capital has not always been useful for the improvement and the expansion of their livelihoods (Maclean, 2010). Rather than bringing about social integration and cooperation, microfinance in many cases has resulted in the disintegration of already existing forms of relationships and association among poor women. Rather than the generation of cooperative and supportive relationships among poor women, loans repayment requirement expectations and also the accumulation of debts have resulted in the intensification of ‘competitive individualism’ (Molyneux, 2002; 182).

Conclusion

This article drawing on Bourdieu’s analysis of capital, in particular embodied cultural capital, argued that the widespread endorsement of microfinance as a strategy to empower poor women is made without considering the complexities of power relations and inequality. We have argued that the current emphasis on microfinance’s potential to empower women is based on understating the role of cultural norms and expectations, which are internalized through a contentious process of socialization, in limiting social transformation and the empowerment of women.

The current form of microfinance, which focuses on the provision of loans to a large number of poor women, has played a limited role in transforming the disempowering embodied cultural capital. It rather has resulted in the further expansion of the feminization of responsibility and household burden ³ (see also Mayoux, 2001; Roy, 2002). In circumstances whereby the appropriation of basic economic resources such as land is dictated by exploitative normative frameworks, credit access cannot function to the benefit of women. Despite group-based microfinance’s propensity to help women spend time together, share their ideas and hence empower themselves, its fundamental objective is to produce economic subjectivities that facilitate monitoring, repayment and disciplining and this, rather than cooperation, in many occasions results in male violence and conflict.

However, if microfinance is to truly empower women, we need to rethink the developmental value of its current model. If microfinance institutions are to emerge as solutions to gendered poverty and women’s disempowerment, they should move from just targeting the delivery of their financial services to women to incorporating progressive and substantive changes. They need to design explicit strategies that are capable of transforming the exploitative and disempowering embodied cultural capital, thereby enabling women to achieve economic, social, cultural and ultimately symbolic capital. They need to transform their ‘one size fits all’ type of managerial approach, and design programmes that help the most marginalized, such as landless poor women, to gain access to loans with better arrangements (such as favourable repayment terms and lower interest rates). They need to encourage and support women to design and run their own businesses (women should not be transmitters of loans to their male counterparts).

The sheer presence of poor women in microfinance should not be assumed to be adequate for their empowerment. Microfinance institutions need to design policies and engage in practices that facilitate cooperation between female and male household members. They need to enhance the participation of women in the decision-making process over the use and management of loans. More importantly, they should advocate for the equal allocation of responsibility between female and male household members and equal entitlement to the utilization of incomes. Hence, if microfinance is to truly lessen poverty and contribute to the empowerment of the most marginalized, it needs to adopt more progressive approaches that foster and promote broader social transformations. Otherwise microfinance in its present dominant form will only persist in strengthening the existing and producing new forms of exploitative and discriminatory structures.