See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/372046048

The Grameen Bank Microfinance Model in the Global North: Processes,

Transfer Intermediaries and Adoption The Grameen Bank Microfinance Model
in the Global North: Processes, Transfe...

Article in Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice · July 2023
DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2023.2223542

CITATIONS READS

0 278

3 authors, including:

Ushree Barua
Bangladesh University of Professionals
3 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ushree Barua on 03 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and
Practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fcpa20

The Grameen Bank Microfinance Model in the

Global North: Processes, Transfer Intermediaries
and Adoption

Ushree Barua & Abu Faisal Md. Khaled

To cite this article: Ushree Barua & Abu Faisal Md. Khaled (2023): The Grameen
Bank Microfinance Model in the Global North: Processes, Transfer Intermediaries
and Adoption, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, DOI:
10.1080/13876988.2023.2223542

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2023.2223542

Published online: 03 Jul 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fcpa20
Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 2023
Vol. 00, No. 00, 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2023.2223542

The Grameen Bank Microfinance Model in

the Global North: Processes, Transfer
Intermediaries and Adoption
USHREE BARUA , & ABU FAISAL MD. KHALED
Department of International Relations, Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP), Dhaka, Bangladesh

(Received 2 May 2022; accepted 6 June 2023)

ABSTRACT The spread of the Grameen Bank microfinance model has received global attention.
The article discusses when and how the model traveled “North”. It finds that both specialized
actors, such as policy ambassadors, and permissive local contexts were crucial in these adoptions.
The US seemed more permissive, partly due to network ties and because of a neoliberal approach
to social policy together with a strong focus on gender norms. In Europe, however, reception
differed. The adoption of the Grameen model thus offers interesting insights into the South–North
policy transfer of social innovations.
Keywords: South–North policy transfer; comparative policy analysis; Grameen Bank microfi­
nance; policy ambassador; policy acclimatization

1. Introduction
The worldwide spread of microfinance as a viable policy instrument for alleviating
poverty and bringing financial inclusion has spawned much interest in the policy sciences
(Cordeiro 2020). However, within this literature, the focus is usually on studying the
transfer and diffusion of microfinance within the Global South. This makes sense if one
thinks that the proliferation of microfinance creates increasingly common policy chal­
lenges in the Global South so that policymakers can learn from other countries. The
South–South proliferation is also due to the fact that international organizations such as
the World Bank have played a crucial role in disseminating information and supporting
Ushree Barua teaches at the Department of International Relations, Bangladesh University of Professionals
(BUP). Her research primarily revolves around irregular migration, gender, globalization and development, and
policy transfer.
Abu Faisal Md. Khaled serves as a faculty member at the Department of International Relations, Bangladesh
University of Professionals (BUP). His scholarly endeavors primarily focus on investigating the complex
dynamics of forced migration, diaspora formation, and social cohesion, particularly within the context of the
Rohingya humanitarian situation and the associated policies and practices of humanitarian aid. In his ongoing
scholarly pursuits, he examines social protection policies, analyzing their relevance to female garment workers
and returnee migrants in Bangladesh. Additionally, he demonstrates a strong interest in researching policy
transfer process.
Correspondence Address: Abu Faisal Md. Khaled, Department of International Relations, Bangladesh University
of Professionals (BUP), Dhaka 1216, Bangladesh. Email: faisal.khaled@bup.edu.bd

© 2023 The Editor, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice
2 U. Barua and A. F. M. Khaled

microfinance projects. However, innovation in the Global South that also led to South–
North policy transfer has received much less attention.1 As stated in the introduction to
the special issue, South–North policy transfer needs to pass additional hurdles, including
differing context conditions and Northern policymakers who might be skeptical about the
possibilities of learning from the Global South. We shed light on the South–North policy
transfer process by examining the well-known microfinance model of the Grameen
Bank.2 We show that policy ambassadors played a crucial role in disseminating informa­
tion about the Grameen model but that the model’s success depends on the local context.
For instance, the Grameen model lost some of its appeal in countries such as Germany,
which already had a plethora of established social and financial public or quasi-
governmental institutions. This differs for the US and other European countries, where
the model fills important niches in the financial and social policy landscape. However,
even in these regions, it took a great deal of time and required varying levels of
experimentation, which we refer to as “policy acclimatization”.
While Grameen Bank microfinance spurred fast replication in many Southern coun­
tries, the establishment of Grameen America almost two decades after the inception of
Grameen Bank motivated us to investigate some of the additional hurdles for South–
North transfer. We argue that it is necessary for policy innovation originating in the
South to undergo a period of policy acclimatization before the South–North policy
transfer can be completed. We define policy acclimatization as the process of introducing
imported policies into a new policy environment through long-term policy pilot testing,
tweaking, and customization, involving a diverse range of domestic and transnational
transfer intermediaries to assess the adaptability and sustainability of imported policies
into the new environment.
Overall, the South–North spread of the Grameen model has interesting lessons for the
policy literature. While the policy transfer literature may have originated in comparative
policy analysis in the United States and other Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) countries, the changing nature of policy transfer has motivated
academics to investigate the nature of policy mobility across international boundaries
(Stone 2004). Looking at the success of the Grameen Bank helps correct an overly
Northern- or Western-centric bias in the literature on policy transfer. It also helps us under­
stand how such models travel, who propels them, and why it takes time for adoption. The
following section discusses the variables that led to the global rise of microfinance in general
and the Grameen Bank model in particular. We then discuss the spread of the Grameen model
in the Global North, illustrating how adoption differs in Europe compared with the US.
Lastly, we discuss key issues contributing to South–North policy transfer before drawing
conclusions on the lessons it has to offer for the policy literature.

2. From Innovation to South–South Diffusion: The Spread of Grameen Bank

Microfinance
Grameen Bank is one of the pioneers in using microfinance as a means of poverty reduction. Its
global popularity raises the question of why a policy innovation from the Global South has
received massive international attention and success. In this section, we revisit arguments about
the global spread of the Grameen model. We focus on two issues in particular. The first is the
importance of policy ambassadors, as highlighted in the policy literature (Cordeiro 2020;
 Grameen Bank Microfinance Model in the Global North 3

Oliveira 2020). As we will show below, it was not only the founder himself who propagated the
model but also influential politicians such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, among others. Secondly,
we will look at the importance of the international context, which made policy adoptions in
microfinance more likely. The model was ready at a time when traditional forms of social
policy and anti-poverty programs had been made difficult by the macroeconomic imbalances
of the 1980s. According to critics, Grameen-type interventions created resonance in a world
increasingly characterized by neoliberalism and the financialization of poverty (Mader 2015).
However, a second contextual factor also plays a role: the campaign for feminizing finance.
Grameen Bank was one of the pioneers in highlighting the importance of women in micro­
credit programs, and this fell on the fertile ground of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
and social campaigns for women’s empowerment (Bernasek 2003).
While the Grameen Bank model emerged from a local experiment in a small village
called Jobra in Chittagong, Bangladesh, in the early 1970s, it took only a few years for its
diffusion to cross not just local but even international boundaries. The model received
recognition for popularizing and formalizing microcredit because of its potential in the
global finance industry. The transition from microcredit to microfinance3 and the finan­
cialization of microfinance has resulted in numerous non-profit microfinance institutions
(MFIs) converting into profitable businesses (Mader 2015; Mia 2022). On the other hand,
the collapse of several prominent microfinance systems in the wake of the 2008 Global
Financial Crisis has also called into question the model’s viability in other contexts
(Bateman et al. 2018). Some critics, such as Mader (2015), argue that microfinance
ushers in a new, more financialized form of poverty.
Since the inception of microfinance in Bangladesh, Grameen has received technical and
financial support from various philanthropic and multilateral financial institutions from the
Global North. Yunus received a Ford Foundation grant in 1979 for an experimental credit
scheme, followed by a US$800,000 recoverable loan to the Grameen Bank two years later
(Bryant 2017). The World Bank actively entered the microfinance industry in the early
1990s, notably through its offshoot, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), when
a “neoliberalized” for-profit microfinance model had overtaken the initial subsidized
Grameen Bank model as “best practice” (Roy 2010). The World Bank directly supported
and integrated the new wave of microfinance into its operations, making it a major factor in
promoting the model (Muhammad 2015), which has been referred to as the “first Third
World technology transfer” (Bornstein 1995). In 1995, the World Bank housed
a development institution named the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor, or CGAP
(Roy 2010). Yunus was a member of the CGAP Advisory Board in its early years, and his
participation pushed microfinance significantly in CGAP’s general agenda of poverty reduc­
tion. Despite their initial skepticism of the Grameen model, Northern donors, and multilateral
organizations embraced it, making it an integral part of their development support programs.
In 1997, the Microcredit Summit organized in Washington DC vigorously promoted
the Grameen model (Hulme 2008). The summit’s primary goal was to raise awareness
among decision-makers in donor countries, which it accomplished admirably due to all
the media attention it received and the convening organization’s strong lobbying ties to
the US Congress (Roy 2010). Hillary Clinton’s participation at the summit gave it
additional exposure and focus. Similarly, many legislators in the US backed the
Microcredit Summit Campaign by putting pressure on important development agencies
such as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the World Bank to
4 U. Barua and A. F. M. Khaled

include the Bangladesh microfinance model in their development agenda. The United
Nations designated 2005 as the International Year of Microcredit; not surprisingly,
microfinance, and more specifically microcredit, was the icon of millennial development.
The Grameen Foundation was established at the heart of Washington, DC, the
same year as the Global Summit took place. Its main task was replicating the Grameen
model across the US and creating “Northern solidarity in support of Southern leadership”
(Roy 2010, p. 122). Politicians, including US Congress member Tom Campbell, also
lauded Grameen Bank-style microfinance as an example of a simple, non-charity devel­
opment initiative (e.g. in a special committee meeting of the US Congress on micro­
finance on July 23, 1997).
There were already significant differences between the Northern transfer intermedi­
aries and the Grameen at this stage. The idea of minimalist microfinance4 propagated by
the CGAP and Washington Consensus was inconsistent with the original Bangladesh
Grameen model. Indeed, Yunus himself argued that while Grameen was often blamed for
not following an “industry standard”, the initial idea was to create a “banking counter-
culture of its own” (Roy 2010, p. 112). Similarly, the Grameen model also has not been
stable over time. For instance, partly as a reaction to criticism and pressure from the
Northern donors and institutions, Grameen came up with a new idea in 2001–2002 – the
Grameen Generalized System, also known as Grameen II (Hulme and Moore 2007). It
offers borrowers substantial repayment flexibility, with loan rescheduling, customized
loans, and even a “Flexi-Loan Detour”, which is a way of “exiting the loan highway” and
returning many months later in the event of repayment issues (Roy 2010, p. 110). This
shows that although the model originated in the Global South, there was a great deal of
policy circulation and policy translation involving Southern and Northern actors that is
consistent with recent contributions in the policy literature.
First and foremost, the model has been reproduced in different parts of the world,
particularly in other Global South countries. Some estimates put the current number of
microfinance institutions at more than 10,000, with some 200 million active clients
(Microfinance Barometer 2018; Lieberman 2020). While none of them have replicated
the original Grameen Bank model, it is clear that Grameen was one of the most important
sources of inspiration for this South–South policy transfer. The prevalence of similar
socio-economic conditions in many Asian and African countries meant that it was
relatively straightforward to construct Grameen-type credit programs in those countries.
Many micro-credit providers in Central and Latin America, such as Accion, BrancoSol,
FINCA, and Catalysis, have also used Grameen’s core elements to establish their models.
International financial institutions embraced microfinance as a tool for financial inclu­
sion in the wake of the macroeconomic fallout of the debt crisis in the 1980s and the
fierce criticisms against their structural adjustment policy (Muhammad 2009).
Microfinance was consistent with a capitalist economic system and the causes of liberal
economic policies. Indeed, the mutually reinforcing role of neoliberalism and micro­
finance has made microfinance an attractive, innovative idea that is replicable, transfer­
able, and customizable in the Global North. While it is evident that the creative policy
concepts behind microfinance have played an essential role in altering financial service-
related public policy-making processes worldwide, one of the factors facilitating the
transfer process to the Global North was the new liberal alignment of the idea underlying
microfinance (Muhammad 2009).
 Grameen Bank Microfinance Model in the Global North 5

Another notable development is the feminization of development programs, and micro­

finance significantly contributed to the feminization process within the neoliberal develop­
ment agenda. According to Yunus, “women were more determined than men to pull their
families out of poverty and, as such, Grameen Bank lending would be more effective in
alleviating poverty if it focused on increasing women’s income-earning opportunities”
(Bernasek 2003, p. 373). The idea is indeed novel because it popularized the notion that
“credit is a basic human right” (Yunus 1999, p. 200) while putting market efficiency ahead
of state-led initiatives. Adding a human rights component to this business model undoubt­
edly contributed to policy innovation and had significant cross-border policy implications.
As a result, microfinance has appealed to state and non-state actors engaging in financial
inclusion and poverty alleviation and business leaders who saw microfinance as a business
opportunity within the capitalist model (Lieberman 2020).

3. The Grameen Model in OECD Countries: Europe vs. US

The adoption of the Grameen model in the Global North took more time. The necessity
of microfinance in developed nations and its intended recipients were central to the
debate. Yunus argued that “[w]henever I am asked if Grameen can work in other
countries, I respond emphatically that it can work wherever there is poverty, including
wealthy countries” (Yunus 1999, p. 175). However, it almost took three decades to see
the first actual adoption in the Global North. The Grameen Bank Replication Program
was founded in 1999 by the Grameen Foundation US to assist institutions and social
entrepreneurs worldwide in replicating the Grameen Bank model or scaling up current
initiatives to provide financial services to the unbanked population (Hulme and Moore
2007). Yunus (1998) pointed to the importance of local differences: “Grameen replication
simply means reproducing the essential features of our approach in different national
contexts” (p. 181). For instance, the mission of Grameen America resembles the missions
of its mother organization, the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, which are poverty elim­
ination and women empowerment through microfinance. Grameen America provides
loans to low-income female entrepreneurs. This is similar to Grameen Bangladesh,
where 97 per cent of Grameen Bank borrowers are women (Hussain et al. 2001).
Compared to the US, most European adoptions came even later, but there were notable
exceptions, such as Adie or Association au Droit à l’Initiative Economique in France.
There is also, unsurprisingly, more variation across European countries. While Grameen
seems to have inspired several microfinance schemes in France, Belgium, and Italy, there
are no clear examples of adoption in German-speaking countries. This reflects when and
how the model was adopted and, to some degree, changed the focus or content.
We collected important examples of “modern”5 microfinance institutions in
selected European countries and the US. We looked at their business models,
compare them with Grameen, and determine whether these organizations explicitly
credit the Grameen Bank in their documentation. Table 1 shows the results for the
ten microfinance institutions in Europe and the US that we analyzed more closely.
In most cases, we found explicit links with Grameen Bank, while some did not
indicate any direct connections, even though they all provide microfinance-related
services. All the organizations give low-income groups loans (and training), but not
all have such a strict focus on women.
 6

Table 1. Ten microfinance institutions in Europe and the US that were more closely analyzed

Founding year
Serial Microfinance and Borrower’s Link with
No. institutions headquarter Portfolio demography Major activities Grameen Sources

1. Adie 1989, France Disbursed €168.5m 46% women, Provides Inspired by the Available at https://
(US$165.3m) in 38% social microfinance to successful www.european-
loans and financed welfare help financially implementation microfinance.org/orga
19,375 micro- recipients disadvantaged of the Grameen nisation/adie-
enterprises in 2019 groups model in West association-pour-le-
Africa droit-linitiative-
U. Barua and A. F. M. Khaled

economique
https://www.adie.org/
notre-histoire/
(accessed October 5,
2022)
2. The 1992, Norway Disbursed Supported 200 Provides women One of the early Available at https://
Norwegian NOK8m (US women with replications of www.grameen-info.
Women $0.75m) in loans entrepreneurs microfinance the Grameen org/norway/
Network and loans range access, model in Europe (accessed October 5,
Bank from 5,000 to mentoring, and 2022)
50,000 NOK (US support networks
$467–4,677)
3. Kiva 2005, USA Disbursed US 67% women, Peer-to-peer Drew inspiration Available at: https://
$1.79bn in loans 64% people of lending for small from the www.kiva.org/about
until 2022 color enterprises, Grameen model (accessed October 5,
including 2022)
education and
health services

(continued )
Table 1. (Continued)

Founding year
Serial Microfinance and Borrower’s Link with
No. institutions headquarter Portfolio demography Major activities Grameen Sources

4. Créa-Sol 2005, France Maximum loan 51% women Marginalized No direct link Available at https://
amount is €12,000 group’s financial found www.european-
(US$11,772) inclusion and microfinance.org/orga
employment nisation/crea-sol
generation https://www.crea-sol.
fr/ (accessed
October 5, 2022)
5. Babyloan 2008, France Disbursed over Both male and Promotes solidarity Drew inspiration Available at https://
€30m (US$28m) female lending and from the www.babyloan.org/en
in loans to support entrepreneurs encourages the Grameen model (accessed October 5,
positive impact get the loan growth of new 2022)
projects enterprises
6. Grameen 2008, USA Disbursed US$2bn in Borrowers are Offers microcredit Replication of the Available at: https://
America loans until 2021 mostly women and other Grameen model www.grameenamer
Inc. of color financial ica.org/ (accessed
services, low- October 5, 2022)
cost housing and
financial
education
7. The Grameen 2008, Disbursed €81m (US 73% women, Finances and Drew inspiration Available at https://
Crédit Luxembourg $87m) in loans mostly from supports MFIs, from the www.gca-foundation.
Agricole and supported 65 rural areas social enterprises Grameen model org/en/funding/
Foundation MFIs and rural (accessed October 05,
(GCA) economy 2022)
worldwide

(continued )
Grameen Bank Microfinance Model in the Global North
7
 8

Table 1. (Continued)

Founding year
Serial Microfinance and Borrower’s Link with
No. institutions headquarter Portfolio demography Major activities Grameen Sources

8. Grameen Italia 2010, Italy Maximum loan Mostly from Committed to A partnership with Available at https://
amount is €25,000 immigrant researching and Grameen Trust. www.grameenitalia.
(US$24,525) backgrounds replicating the Grameen Trust, it/ (accessed
Grameen Bank based in Dhaka, October 5, 2022)
microfinance Bangladesh,
model promotes
U. Barua and A. F. M. Khaled

microfinance and
social
entrepreneurship
worldwide.
9. microStart 2011, Belgium 6,200 professional 59.17% on Supports and grants An initiative of Available at https://
loans were made unemployment loans to Adie microstart.be/en/
as of 2021, and benefits entrepreneurs about-us
€50m (US$49m) who do not have https://microstart.be/
injected into the access to storage/publications/
economy traditional ra-2019-en.pdf
banking sector (accessed October 5,
2022)
10. Accion 2020, USA Generated US$1bn 90% women, Provides small The activities of Available at https://
Opportunity in economic mostly people business owners Accion started aofund.org/about/
Fund activities, loans of color loans, before the (accessed October 5,
range from 5,000 educational inception of 2022)
to 100,000 US$ resources, and Grameen Bank
mentoring

Note: Authors’ compilation based on websites and reports.

 Grameen Bank Microfinance Model in the Global North 9

3.1 Microfinance in Europe

Historically, European microfinance emerged in an informal structure due to massive
rises in poverty since the sixteenth century. Since its inception, microfinance has been
fueled by financial intermediation between micro-savings and microcredit. Legal recog­
nition, regulation, and competent supervision emerged with time, allowing it to be
mainstreamed as part of the formal economy in Europe (Seibel 2010). Although most
European countries have a well-functioning banking sector, many small and micro-
businesses encounter substantial difficulties obtaining loans to finance their investments
(KfW Bankengruppe 2007). In the EU, for instance, microfinance is defined as lending
for start-up entrepreneurs and small to medium-sized businesses (SMEs) with a volume
of less than €25,000 (Cozarenco and Szafarz 2019). There is no single, one-size-fits-all
microfinance model for best practices among European countries. The Netherlands
created a centralized organization, Rabobank; Germany has its community banking
system called Sparkassen; France has its centralized Crédit Agricole, Switzerland has
its Microcrédit Solidaire Suisse (MSS), and Sweden has amalgamated its savings and
cooperative banks into a single national banking entity (Seibel 2010). Thus, European
policymakers have used different structures and strategic approaches to design micro­
finance programs to effectively address the economic and social challenges of
a particular target population, mostly financially and socially marginalized groups.
The modern microfinance sector in Europe is a relatively new, diverse, and intriguing
illustration of policy adaptations in practice. There are four different types of micro­
finance models in Europe: NGOs with a microfinance-driven approach, NGOs with
a target group-driven approach, support programs initiated in existing institutions and
development banks, and specialized units of banks (KfW Bankengruppe 2007).
Cozarenco and Szafarz (2019) summarized the stated objectives of European MFIs as
follows: financial inclusion (72 per cent), job creation (70 per cent), micro-enterprise
promotion (60 per cent), and social inclusion and poverty reduction (59 per cent).
Interestingly, most MFIs in Europe follow a gender-neutral loan-granting policy.
Women are still underrepresented among microloan clients compared to their representa­
tion in both the population and microlending programs operating in North America and
the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America (KfW Bankengruppe 2007).
A robust welfare system, strict regulations on the financial activities of NGOs, and an
efficient banking system in most of the European Union (EU) member states are among
the reasons discouraging the expansion of Grameen-style microfinance in the EU. As
a result, in contrast to developing countries, microloans, rather than saving schemes,
micro-insurance, and other financial services, are the main form of services provided to
low-income groups in Europe (KfW Bankengruppe 2007). In recent years, more and
more European countries have used organizations similar to Grameen to stimulate self-
employment, develop micro-enterprises, and strengthen social inclusion.
The Grameen model is also officially credited in some European countries, such as the
Luxembourg Grameen Credite Agricole Foundation or Grameen Italia. One of the ear­
liest adoptions in Europe was Adie. It was founded in 1989 as a test case under the
supervision of the French Development Agency’s (AFD) then-director Maria Nowak,
who had previously successfully transferred the Grameen model to West Africa (Adie
2008; KfW Bankengruppe 2007). Adie is hence a textbook example of policy circulation.
Although Adie could not fully replicate the Grameen model in France, Grameen’s spirit
10 U. Barua and A. F. M. Khaled

carried over into its activities. Adie’s main goal was to combat social exclusion and help
unemployed people in France who wanted to start small businesses but could not get
a traditional bank loan. Initially, the plan was rejected by some French NGOs, which
believed the idea was inappropriate for a developed welfare state like France; nowadays,
however, Adie is regarded as the most successful microfinance pioneer in Europe.
Eighty-three percent of Adie’s clients receive welfare or unemployment benefits,
a third of Adie’s clientele are foreign-born or immigrant children, and 36 per cent of
Adie’s clients are female (Lämmermann 2010).
In contrast to those in France, Italian microfinance projects appear to be small in size
and scope. Both public and private entities extensively subsidize the sector’s expansion.
Public entities generally view microfinance as a welfare strategy, while the private sector
associates it more with philanthropy or socially conscious marketing. Prominent actors
within the microfinance sector in Italy include Microcredito di solidarietà SpA, MAG2
Finance Coop, Microcredito sociale della, Compagnia di San Paolo, and Micro.Bo Onlus
(Castri 2010). They all disburse individual loans except Micro.Bo Onlus, which also has
a provision for group lending, and the borrowers are mainly male. Beneficiaries primarily
consist of immigrants, unemployed youths, and students.
Unlike France and Italy, Germany’s regulatory system does not address microfinance
activities, and non-bank lenders are either barred from engaging in the market or are
severely limited (Cozarenco 2015). The banking monopoly results from the provisions of
banking law prohibiting non-bank lenders from entering or operating in the market. Non-
bank lenders can only offer loans under tight rules relating to the size of the portfolio, the
number of loans, and the interest rate (Ruesta and Benaglio 2020). There are also other
reasons why the microfinance sector in Germany is still nascent, and the demand for
a Grameen-like model of microfinance has not developed as fast as in other countries.
These include the availability of various government-funded local programs for financial
assistance and forms of social assistance that further inhibit the uptake of Grameen-style
microfinance (Kritikos and Kneiding 2010).

3.2 Microfinance in the US

While the US also has a long history of credit unions and similar organizations, micro­
finance, in the modern sense, originated in the 1970s. It became increasingly apparent
that the financial system was not sufficiently inclusive of many low-income groups
(Pierce 2013). The ShoreBank Corporation, created in 1973, was one of the first micro­
finance banks in the US and is credited with starting the trend toward greater financial
inclusion. Nonetheless, it took several decades for the federal government to take an
interest.
Consistent with the general politics of cheap credit (Schwartz and Seabrooke 2009,
Schelkle 20), microfinance became a salient topic during the 1992 presidential campaign.
The Democrats were looking for new alternatives to traditional welfare policies and
identified microfinance as an important part of their platform. This resulted in the
approval of a landmark welfare reform bill in 1996 that included significant social
reform (Raheb 2017) and set the stage for microfinance to become an important addition
to existing social programs, particularly in the area of financial inclusion.
 Grameen Bank Microfinance Model in the Global North 11

Two bankers from Chicago, Mary Houghton and Ronald Grzywinski, were behind
Grameen’s journey to North America. They visited Bangladesh with a Ford
Foundation-sponsored program to evaluate the activities of Grameen Bank. The visit
inspired them to replicate the Grameen model in low-income neighborhoods in
Chicago. As a result, the Women’s Self-Employment Program (WSEP) became the
first microcredit institution in the US (Yunus 1998). Many of the early microcredit
programs in the US, including the Good Faith Fund in Arkansas, ACCION New York,
and the Lakota Fund in South Dakota, were directly motivated by and created based on
the Grameen model. Even the “five women group idea” of the original model was
adopted in the US. However, many had predicted that American society’s self-
dependent and individualistic nature meant the Grameen method would not work in
the US.
Grameen America built its first fully fledged branch in Queens, New York, in 2008.
Currently, Grameen America is the country’s largest and fastest-growing microfinance
institution. It now has 24 branches, with four more cities in line to be added to the
collaborative Grameen America Program (Grameen America 2021). Grameen America’s
program is designed to assist loan recipients in increasing their income. Besides,
borrowers do not need a credit score to obtain a loan. The Grameen America staff play
a crucial role in this lending process as a policy network; they arrange mandatory group
training for the borrowers and meet with them weekly to make loan repayments and build
peer support networks. Grameen America is recognized as a successful replication of the
original Grameen model, which has infused Grameen values among female entrepreneurs
in the US. The current CEO of Grameen America, Andrea Jung, alluded to this in an
interview: “We are a replica model of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, founded by
Nobel Laureate, Muhammad Yunus, with many of the same principles and structure
being replicated successfully here in the United States” (Financial Express 2021,
August 25).
While regulators heavily scrutinize European microfinance, MFIs in the US receive
a “lighter touch” (Cozarenco and Szafarz 2019). As a result, many US microfinance
institutions and businesses have emerged in recent years (Raheb 2017). Pierce (2013)
shows that most of the US MFIs fall into three categories: (1) non-profit organizations
that disburse federal funding, (2) non-profit organizations that function independently,
and (3) for-profit corporations. Accion US is perhaps the most important example of
the second category, as the largest microlending network in the US, with operations
across the country and internationally. There are also new forms of microfinance: Kiva
adopted the “person to person” lending model and brought a new alternative to the
microlending structure in the US (Raheb 2017).
Due to the complexity of the financial system in the US, the relatively wider number of
financing choices, and cultural factors, the microfinance industry in the US is still
minimal compared to the great demand among specific populations (Raheb 2017).
Despite this, it is clear that the Grameen model has, all in all, made many inroads into
the US financial system. Partly this is due to the conducive nature of financial and social
policy-making. Those agents who propelled microfinance onto the international level
accepted it as a domestic tool. However, it is remarkable that the second component of
the Grameen model, its connections to human rights and female empowerment, has also
left an imprint on microfinance in the US.
12 U. Barua and A. F. M. Khaled

4 Factors Contributing to South–North Policy Transfer

The growing interdependence between the North and the South has been noted, for
instance, by the UNDP’s Human Development Report: “The South needs the North, and
increasingly the North needs the South . . . The world is getting more connected, not less”
(UNDP 2013). The situation presents an opportunity to understand the South–North
policy transfer route and the roles of different actors, including policy ambassadors,
transfer agents, and intermediaries. The following discussion summarizes the dynamics
that prompted policymakers in the Global North to adopt microfinance.

4.1 Branding Microfinance as a Poverty Reduction Tool: The Role of Policy

Ambassadors
Scholars have often delved into the role of policy ambassadors as agents of policy
transfer, particularly in relation to the functions performed by policy entrepreneurs in
the policy diffusion process. However, concentrating on individual policy ambassadors
helps to illustrate how individual policy elites play the role of policy ambassadors within
the complex networks of policy transfer (Stone 2004). Policy ambassadors are charis­
matic figures with authority in particular public policy domains who are “constantly
engaged on the promotion of policies at the local, national and transnational levels”
(Oliveira 2020, p. 55).
Policy ambassadors often become part of epistemic communities, which are
“a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular
domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or
issue-area” (Haas 1992, p. 3). Haas argued that these communities share normative
principles, beliefs, and validating criteria and that they have “a common policy enter­
prise – that is, a set of common practices associated with a set of problems to which their
professional competence is directed, presumably out of the conviction that human
welfare will be enhanced as a consequence” (Haas 1992, p. 3).
As a policy ambassador, Professor Muhammad Yunus has played a pivotal role in
promoting the Grameen model, which has enabled it to become a widely recognized
approach to financial inclusion (Mia et al. 2017). This is not to deny other determinants
in the rise of microfinance, such as the model’s attractiveness within the neoliberal
framework and the engagement of many actors, such as development partners and
a growing network of transnational actors. Nevertheless, the policy transfer process
was significantly aided by the presence of a charismatic figure like Muhammad Yunus,
who, as the father of microfinance, exemplified the principles and values of the Grameen
model.
The successful implementation of the concept in Bangladesh, followed by the replica­
tion and translation of the model worldwide, made Yunus a global symbol of poverty
alleviation and financial inclusion. However, he was not the only advocate of micro­
finance. Other leaders of microfinance organizations, such as the Bangladesh Rural
Advancement Committee (BRAC) and influential academics, championed the cause of
microcredits. For the South–North policy transfer, Grameen needed the support of the
most influential global policy ambassadors and organizations, such as the Clinton family,
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Bank, the UN, and the EU, to mention
a few.
 Grameen Bank Microfinance Model in the Global North 13

Muhammad Yunus developed a strong network of influential policymakers who

became vocal supporters and policy ambassadors for the Grameen Bank microfinance
model. They also played a significant role in disseminating and popularizing the model.
During his presidential campaign in 1992, Bill Clinton advocated that Muhammad Yunus
be awarded the Nobel Prize and that he would promote Grameen-style microfinance
services in the US if he were voted into power. Hillary Clinton described the 1997
Microcredit Summit as “one of the most important gatherings that we could have
anywhere in our world” (Yunus 1999, p. 198). Policy ambassadors often invest most
of their time in furthering policies they favor at home and abroad, and they thus play
a central role in the agenda-setting process. Professor Yunus revealed in a Financial
Times interview that in 2013 he spent 60 per cent of his time outside Bangladesh,
traveling around the world to promote his ideas and initiatives on various bilateral and
multilateral platforms such as the UN General Assembly, World Economic Forum, and
the World Bank (Dickson 2013).
This is consistent with the recent policy literature on ambassadors. “Technically, their
action and advocacy are one causal force behind policy ideas pushed onto the agenda,
which can be in different institutions at either local, national or international [level]”
(Oliveira 2020, p. 55). In addition to advocacy across different national and international
forums, Professor Yunus’s role as an accomplished academician and the author of
multiple books can be viewed as what Nelkin (1979) has called “the policy role of the
knowledge elite” (p. 107).

4.2 The Importance of Local Context and Resonance

Given similar policy challenges, it is normal to expect policy transfer or lesson drawing
across countries (Rose 1991; Dolowitz and Marsh 1996). Poverty among specific popu­
lation groups has increased in the Global North over the past decade, whereas many
emerging countries in the South have significant experience in poverty reduction strate­
gies. There is substantial overlap across national borders within the same policy area,
albeit in different proportions, such as poverty, unemployment, financial exclusion, and
gender and racial disparity in financial service delivery. As Lewis (2017) noted, “today in
the world, there are varying shades of grey and fewer bold lines and boundaries, with
complex patterns of poverty and inequality scattered across rich, poor, and middle-
income countries” (p. 327). For example, almost 40 million Americans are impoverished,
and more than half of low-income children live in households headed by women.
According to 2020 US Census data, Native Americans have the highest poverty rate
(25.4 per cent), followed by Blacks (20.8 per cent), and then Hispanics (of any race)
(17.6 per cent) (NCRC 2022).
The replication of the Grameen model in the US demonstrates that the presence of
a common policy challenge, regardless of the North–South binary, provides a platform
for the exchange of innovative ideas, policies, and practices. Collateral-free financial
services to enable beneficiaries to save, borrow, and invest are not always available,
especially for those at the bottom of the wealth pyramid. An analysis of Grameen
America’s mode of operation reveals that while variations are partly due to the vast
socio-economic differences between the US and Bangladesh, the underlying philosophy,
strategy, and structure are similar to the original Grameen Bank in many ways. The
14 U. Barua and A. F. M. Khaled

Grameen America initiative is aimed at women entrepreneurs with earnings below the
federal poverty threshold. According to an early impact evaluation of the Grameen
America program, 80 per cent of Hispanic and Latin Grameen America beneficiaries
migrated to the US just over five years ago, with barely one-fourth claiming to speak
English fluently and only 32 per cent possessing a high school diploma (Becerra et al.
2020). Despite the model’s significant potential in addressing issues like financial exclu­
sion, it is worth noting that it required some time to “acclimatize” the Grameen model
politically and socially.
Compared to the US, European policy adoptions seem more dispersed, depending on
different institutional and perhaps even cultural contexts. The fact that many European
countries have stronger welfare states and more financial regulation made adoption less
likely and more built towards the productivity–finance nexus. In countries such as
Germany, finance is still a very male business, and lessons from Grameen had arguably
less resonance than among progressive circles in US finance. In France, Adie is an
important example that adoption is possible once attuned to the local context. It is
interesting to note that in France as well, MFIs focus on women and the migrant
population. In general, the local context also matters because it implies that adoptions
need more time to acclimatize to the new environment. The dense network of regulation
and policy alternatives, especially in some European countries, also imposes hurdles for
speedy adoptions.

5 South–North Policy Transfer: What Does the Grameen Experience Offer in the
Policy Transfer Literature?
The case of the Grameen model traveling from South to North provides new insights to
advance and complement our conceptual understanding of the dimensions of policy
transfer and diffusion processes. It also adds nuances to the dominant assumptions and
approaches in the study of West-centric policy transfer literature (Cordeiro 2020). Such
examples question whether statements such as those made by Rose (1991) are still valid:
“Third world countries have the choice of looking to other developing nations for
programs or seeking to bridge bigger differences by learning from advanced industrial
nations” (p. 14). At the theoretical level, the transfer of the Grameen Bank Model to the
Global North suggests that, while the conventional tools and theories are still eminently
useful, established conceptual frameworks “need revisiting in the development and
South–South and South–North context, in order to be more sharp and precise to access,
understand and explain contemporary policy transfer/diffusion dynamics” (Stone et al.
2020, p. 4).
Given the power imbalance between the OECD countries and nations in the global
South, policy transfer from the South is a voluntary process. Southern policies take
unique paths in their journey to being adopted in the Global North. Given the differences
in social and economic contexts between the North and the South, it is often necessary to
take a measured approach when evaluating the efficacy and suitability of a policy
originating in the South that is transferred to the North. Transferring a policy of
innovation from its origin inevitably necessitates adapting to new economic, social,
cultural, and institutional conditions, a process that we have defined as policy acclima­
tization. Adapting South-originating policy innovation is particularly complicated owing
 Grameen Bank Microfinance Model in the Global North 15

to the intricate acclimatization process involving various Northern transfer intermediaries

in the pathway. The diverse nature of microfinance institutions in the Global North
suggests that the microfinance model has been replicated to varying degrees.
Therefore, an acclimatized South-originating policy may only be partially adapted in
the form of soft transfer or lesson drawing. As we have seen in the case of the EU, the
policy’s partial adaptation results from specific causes, most notably social and institu­
tional differences.
While policy transfer between OECD countries is typically linear, policy transfer
between the South and North is long-term and non-linear. The process of policy transfer
involves a network of Northern transfer intermediaries, spanning across time and space
and often embracing various degrees of policy circulation. The endorsement of the model
by the Northern international development and multilateral agencies also made the model
familiar in the Global North and facilitated acceptability and knowledge transfer on
a transnational scale. As Stone (2004) argued, “policy learning may result in a more
coherent transfer of ideas, policies, and practices whereas mere copying may well be ad
hoc and piecemeal” (p. 548). In addition, learning how policies are transferred calls for
a nuanced understanding of the factors that build a policy’s legitimacy and credibility.
Howlett (2000) argued that “understanding the ‘dialectic of legitimacy’ or the manner in
which not only state actors but also societal ones must inspire trust and loyalty if policy-
making processes and outcomes are to remain effective” (p. 425). It is interesting to note,
hence, that in the context of the South–North policy transfer process, institutions such as
the EU, the World Bank, the OECD, and UN agencies, which often use coercive forms of
transfer from North to South, instead play a role as persuasive policy intermediaries that
facilitate South–North policy transfer. It is crucial to note that Southern policy ambassa­
dors generally lack the ability to carry out South–North policy transfer independently.
The supportive involvement of Northern transfer intermediaries and international orga­
nizations is necessary for Southern policy ambassadors to play a role in the policy
transfer process due to asymmetric power dynamics. Professor Yunus, underlining the
power asymmetry that exists between Northern and Southern policy actors, stated:
“So the process works like this: that our indigenous ideas have to be validated by the
West before we can accept them. We don’t know how to sell our own ideas” (Grameen
Trust 2003, cited in Roy 2010, p. 140). The engagement of Northern transfer interme­
diaries is thus a double-edged sword that acts as a substantial structural barrier to the
seamless exchange of policies while also acting as carriers of policies from the Global
South.

Notes
1. We draw on the classic notions of policy transfer and policy learning (Dolowitz and Marsh 1996). Dolowitz
and Marsh critiqued the policy diffusion and lesson-drawing approach for failing to account for the
variation of transfer mechanisms and coined the term policy transfer (Dolowitz and Marsh 1996). Rose
(1991) refers to the overall process of copying policy or institutions in a different time and space as lesson
drawing. While lesson drawing involves policymakers voluntarily studying policies in other systems and
evaluating their potential applicability in their home system, policy transfer is not always a voluntary
process involving one government or supranational institution pushing or even forcing another government
to adopt a particular policy. Therefore, according to Dolowitz and Marsh (1996), policy transfer and lesson
drawing should not be used interchangeably.
16 U. Barua and A. F. M. Khaled

2. Grameen is commonly regarded as the grassroots of microfinance models (Roy 2010). The Grameen model
is a form of group-based, collateral-free lending approach that primarily assists those who are otherwise
unable to obtain conventional financing.
3. Microcredit is considered a “subset of microfinance” (Mia 2022, p. 3). While microcredit is limited to credit
services, microfinance encompasses microcredit, micro-insurance, different saving schemes, consumer
loans, remittances, and other financial products.
4. CGAP aims to separate microfinance from its emphasis on human development in favor of a minimalist
banking model focused solely on providing customers with easy access to credit (Roy 2010). The
minimalist approach to microfinance is based on maximizing measurable efficiency, prioritizing business
performance and financial efficiency over empowerment.
5. We mean two things by “modern”. First, we mean microfinance institutions created from the 1980s
onwards, i.e. after the foundation of Grameen Bank Bangladesh. Secondly, we distinguish these micro­
finance institutions from more traditional forms of subsidized loan programs and other organizations that
provide subsidies as forms of financial and technical assistance, such as the German (agricultural) credit
associations.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Ushree Barua http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7334-0514
Abu Faisal Md. Khaled http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4248-5558

References
Adie, 2008, 20 Years of Microcredit in France: The Knowledge Gained Through Adieʼs Experience (Paris:
European Microfinance Network).
Bateman, M., Blankenburg, S., and Kozul-Wright, R., 2018, The Rise and Fall of Global Microcredit
Development, Debt and Disillusion (New York: Routledge).
Becerra, M., Schaberg, K., Holman, D., and Hendra, R., 2020, Putting microfinance to the test 18-Month:
Impacts of the Grameen America program. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Grameen_
18_Mo_report-Final.pdf (accessed 13 February 2022).
Bernasek, A., 2003, Banking on social change: Grameen Bank lending to women. International Journal of
Politics, Culture, and Society, 16(3), pp. 369–385. doi:10.1023/A:1022304311671
Bornstein, D., 1995, The barefoot bank with cheek. Available at https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/
1995/12/the-barefoot-bank-with-cheek/305324/ (accessed 12 February 2022).
Bryant, E., 2017, Diffusion of Microfinance in Development: The Role of US Philanthropic Foundations
(Boston: Boston University).
Castri, S. D., 2010, The microcredit sector in Italy: Small initiatives in a dynamic scenario, in: B. J. Carboni,
M. L. Calderón, S. R. Garrido, K. Dayson, and J. Kickul (Eds) Handbook of Microcredit in Europe Social
Inclusion through Microenterprise Development (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), pp. 61–100.
Cordeiro, B. O., 2020, Global mobility of microfinance policies. Policy and Society, 39(1), pp. 19–35. doi:10.
1080/14494035.2019.1659472
Cozarenco, A., 2015, Microfinance Institutions and Banks in Europe: The Story to Date (Brussels: European
Microfinance Network).
Cozarenco, A. and Szafarz, A., 2019, Microfinance in the North: Where do we stand? in: M. Hudon, M. Labie,
and A. Szafarz (Eds) A Research Agenda for Financial Inclusion and Microfinance (Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar), pp. 125–137.
Dickson, M., 2013, Lunch with the FT: Muhammad Yunus. Available at https://www.ft.com/content/13420d7c-
3be2-11e3-b85f-00144feab7de (accessed 24 November 2021).
Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D., 1996, Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature.
Political Studies, 44(2), pp. 343–357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00334.x
 Grameen Bank Microfinance Model in the Global North 17

Financial Express, 2021, Grameen America: Microfinancing having a macroeconomic impact - An interview with
Andrea Jung. Available at https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/economy/grameen-america-microfinancing-having
-a-macroeconomic-impact-an-interview-with-andrea-jung-1629896100 (accessed 4 December 2021).
Grameen America, 2021, Grameen America opens new branch in New Jersey serving women in Trenton and
Camden. Available at https://www.grameenamerica.org/blog/2021/8/2/grameen-america-opens-new-branch-
in-new-jersey-serving-women-in-trenton-and-camden (accessed 1 January 2022).
Haas, P., 1992, Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International
Organization, 46(1), pp. 1–35. doi:10.1017/S0020818300001442
Howlett, M., 2000, Managing the “hollow state”: Procedural policy instruments and modern governance.
Canadian Public Administration, 43(4), pp. 412–431. doi:10.1111/j.1754-7121.2000.tb01152.x
Hulme, D., 2008, The story of the Grameen Bank: From subsidised microcredit to market-based microfinance.
Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper, 60, pp. 1–11.
Hulme, D. and Moore, K., 2007, Why has microfinance been a policy success in Bangladesh? in: W. McCourt
and A. Bebbington (Eds) Development Success: Statecraft in the South (London: Palgrave Macmillan), pp.
105–139.
Hussain, M. M., Maskooki, K., and Gunasekaran, A., 2001, Implications of Grameen banking system in
Europe: Prospects and prosperity. European Business Review, 13(1), pp. 26–42. doi:10.1108/
09555340110366462
KfW Bankengruppe, 2007, Microfinance in Germany and Europe Market Overview and Best Practice
Examples (Frankfurt: KfW Bankengruppe).
Kritikos, A. and Kneiding, C., 2010, Microcredit: Is there demand for this type loan in Germany? German
Institute for Economic Research, 6(14), pp. 105–110.
Lämmermann, S., 2010, Microcredit in France: Financial support for social inclusion, in: B. J. Carboni,
M. L. Calderón, S. R. Garrido, K. Dayson, and J. Kickul (Eds) Handbook of Microcredit in Europe Social
Inclusion through Microenterprise Development (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), pp. 36–60.
Lewis, D., 2017, Should we pay more attention to South-North learning? Human Service Organizations:
Management, Leadership and Governance, 41(4), pp. 327–331. doi:10.1080/23303131.2017.1366222
Lieberman, I., 2020, The growth and commercial evolution of microfinance, in: I. W. Lieberman, P. DiLeo,
T. A. Watkins, and A. Kanze (Eds) The Future of Microfinance (Washington: Brookings Institution Press),
pp. 9–35.
Mader, P., 2015, The financialization of poverty, in: P. Mader (Ed.) The Political Economy of Microfinance:
Financialising of Poverty (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 78–120.
Mia, M., 2022, Commercialization in microfinance: Concepts, definitions and features, in: M. Mia (Ed.) Social
Purpose, Commercialization, and Innovations in Microfinance A Global Perspective (Singapore: Springer),
pp. 47–68.
Mia, M. A., Lee, H. A., Chandran, V., Rasiah, R., and Rahman, M., 2017, History of microfinance in
Bangladesh: A life cycle theory approach. Business History, 61(4), pp. 703–733. doi:10.1080/00076791.
2017.1413096
Microfinance Barometer 2019, 2018. 10 years already! A look back at the trends in microfinance. Available at
https://www.convergences.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Microfinance-Barometer-2019_web-1.pdf
(accessed 4 April 2022).
Muhammad, A., 2009, Grameen and microcredit: A tale of corporate success. Economic and Political Weekly,
44(35), pp. 35–42.
Muhammad, A., 2015, Bangladesh—A model of neoliberalism: The case of microfinance and NGOs. Monthly
Review, 66(10), pp. 35–46. doi:10.14452/MR-066-10-2015-03_3
NCRC, 2022, Racial wealth snapshot: Native Americans. Available at https://ncrc.org/racial-wealth-snapshot-
native-americans/ (accessed 3 January 2022).
Nelkin, D., 1979, Scientific knowledge, public policy, and democracy: A review essay. Science
Communication, 1(1), pp. 106–122. doi:10.1177/107554707900100106
Oliveira, O. P., 2020, Policy ambassadors: Human agency in the transnationalization of Brazilian social
policies. Policy and Society, 39(1), pp. 53–69. doi:10.1080/14494035.2019.1643646
Pierce, M. A., 2013, Regulation of microfinance in the United States: Following a Peruvian model. North
Carolina Banking Institute, 17(1), pp. 201–219.
Raheb, L., 2017, The future of microfinance in the United States: Regulatory reforms for economic prosperity.
Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development, 30(2), pp. 185–215.
 18 U. Barua and A. F. M. Khaled

Rose, R., 1991, What is lesson-drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11(1), pp. 3–30. doi:10.1017/
S0143814X00004918
Roy, A., 2010, Poverty Capital: Microfinance and the Making of Development (New York: Routledge).
Ruesta, C. and Benaglio, N., 2020, Microcredit Regulation in Europe: An Overview (Brussels: European
Microfinance Network), pp. 1–18.
Schwartz, H. and Seabrooke, L., 2009, Varieties of residential capitalism in the international political economy:
Old welfare states and the new politics of housing, in: H. M. Schwartz and L. Seabrooke (Eds) The Politics
of Housing Booms and Busts (New York: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 1–27.
Seibel, H. D., 2010, Old and new worlds of microfinance in Europe and Asia, in: A. Goenka and D. Henley (Eds)
Southeast Asia’s Credit Revolution: From Moneylenders to Microfinance (London: Routledge), pp. 40–57.
Stone, D., 2004, Transfer agents and global networks in the ‘transnationalization’ of policy. Journal of
European Public Policy, 11(3), pp. 545–566. doi:10.1080/13501760410001694291
Stone, D., Porto de Oliveira, O., and Pal, L. A., 2020, Transnational policy transfer: The circulation of ideas,
power and development models. Policy and Society, 39(1), pp. 1–18. doi:10.1080/14494035.2019.1619325
UNDP, 2013, The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World (New York: UNDP).
Yunus, M., 1998, Banker to the Poor: The Autobiography of Muhammad Yunus, Founder of the Grameen Bank
(Dhaka: University Press).
Yunus, M., 1999, Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle against World Poverty (New York: Public
Affairs).

View publication stats