Indeed, financial management seems more a topic of Wall Street financiers than of Bill Drayton’s ‘Changemakers’. However, MFIs, like all businesses, must manage cash flows, interest rate risk, working capital, etc. Thus, unless the internal financials of MFIs are sound, these institutions will be unable to effectively and sustainably scale up to serve more clients, more products, and more geographies.

This research paper seeks to examine the various financial components of the internal system of Caja Rural Los Andes, a rural Peruvian microfinance institution (hereafter ‘CLA’), and how that system impacts its ability to provide value to its microcredit clients.

This paper will begin with an overview of microfinance and securitization – a financial process that has been applied to microfinance in recent years, and the original focus of this research project – and continue with a brief account of Peruvian microfinance.

In the second half, this research paper will dive deeper into CLA’s financial accounts, and discuss the considerations and potential opportunities for each. The paper will then discuss the framework Treasury model that was built for CLA and methods for improving cash management at the bank. The paper will conclude with a few suggestions and final thoughts.

The overall distribution of risk class was primarily intermediate risk aversion, followed by severe and moderate risk aversion. While the effect of gender was significant, its relationship with risk aversion was nonlinear. Similarly, the paradoxical behavior of the landless laborer was highlighted and discussed.

The concept of integrating social aims with profit-making has been an emerging trend in the world today, especially in the wake of the 2007-2009 financial crisis which shone the spotlight on the problems of pure profit-maximization. Social Enterprise is at the very core of this new movement to integrate social aims with profits, taking root in an increasing number of circles today, ranging from the field of international development, to impact investing, and even public policy.

The Dominican Republic is located south of Florida and east of Cuba, on the Eastern side Hispaniola; on the western side is Haiti. The Republic operates as representative democracy, with a bicameral national congress comprised of a Senate with 32 members and a Chamber of Deputies that operates similarly to the United States House of Representatives. Elections are held every 4 years for the presidency, and government is formed through a coalition of the three major parties, the Dominican Liberal Party (PLD), the Dominican Reformist Party (PRD), and the Social Christian Reformist Party. The judiciary is based on the US model as of 1994, and the Supreme Court is comprised of 16 judges. Many of the country’s governmental institutions and organs are relatively nascent—most being incepted in the early 1990s—and as such it is critical to pay attention to these institutional shifts.

Purpose

This study aims to answer the question, “Are people willing to forgo a portion of financial return for social good?” In other words, this study sought to report whether investors would be willing to accept less return, if the invested money could achieve a desired socially‐driven outcome.

Methods

An experiment was conducted at the Wharton Behavioral Lab, asking participants to make a tradeoff decision between lower paying and socially responsible option and higher paying and socially irresponsible option. Participants received payment based on their decisions.

Results

Fifty‐two people participated in the experiment over the course of three separate rounds. Findings can be organized into three points: 1.) Higher percentage of return results in the greater number of invested tokens; 2.) Women are more likely to allocate more tokens into the socially responsible option than men; and 3.) People behave differently according to the order of options presented.

Conclusions

Investors interested in socially responsible investing do not necessarily expect to sacrifice a portion of their gains. Thus, to encourage socially responsible investing, its returns should be comparable to returns for conventional investing.

• What does progress mean?
• How do we develop indicators that measure progress?
• How de we use indicators to shape policies and institutions?

All societies seek to create wellbeing for individuals. The question is not whether societies desire welfare or not. The fundamental questions are: what does wellbeing mean? How do we measure it? And how do we use indicators to organize society and its institutions so as to maximize wellbeing?

Answering these complex questions is a challenging endeavor, especially given the diversity of values and worldviews around the globe. However, at the center of the essential questions of development and progress lie the indicators we use as a society to measure wellbeing and develop policies. As Hazel Henderson said, “Statistical indicators are the structural DNA codes of nations. They reflect a society’s values and goals and become the key drivers of economic and technological choices.”