![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Mutual Solidarity (MUSO) microfinance is a new but rapidly expanding “home-grown” model of solidarity economics in Haiti. Groups are geographically homogeneous, vary significantly in size, and are managed by members elected from among them. The microfinance sector has been criticized for reducing its clients to an asset class (Mader, 2018) and using aggressive disciplinary measures (Drolet, 2011). In line with this trend, the few peer-reviewed publications on Haitian microfinance sector focus on financial performance of microfinance agencies and drown out community voices.
Methods:
Aiming to fill this gap, this mixed-methods study examines MUSO as a poverty alleviation strategy through the experiences of group members. A survey of MUSO members (n=501) was conducted in urban and rural areas of the Ouest Department Haiti along with thirteen Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) conducted with executive committee members. The FGDs were conducted in Kreyol, simultaneously translated, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded in NVivo12 qualitative software by two researchers ensuring adequate intercoder agreement. The survey was conducted in Kreyol by trained local researchers.
The survey sample is predominantly female in the rural group (85.6 % female and 29.2 % male) and almost evenly split in the rural group (52.2 % female and 47.8 % male). The mean years of MUSO membership was 2.99 in rural groups (ranged from 0.5-6.0) and 2.34 in urban groups (0.0-5.0). Descriptive, frequency, and t-test analyses were performed.
Findings: Survey respondents reported (more than 90%) feeling a sense of belonging, dependability on their group members during distress, and a feeling of being active decision-makers in group decisions. The sense of empowerment sub-scale held the highest statistical significance on the self-reported impact scale.
Qualitative data analysis reinforced these findings as several respondents recounted prior experiences with other microfinance agencies. They perceive this solidarity-based model as an antidote to prior experiences of predatory banking, public shaming, intimidation, and verbal violence employed against those unable to pay loan installments on time.
While “local justice” mechanisms for loan non-repayment do exist in MUSO groups, members are treated as equals when making decisions on use of shared capital and with empathy in case of non-payment with the end goal of building trust and accountability. Another notable difference they reported was the family-like spirit, sense of togetherness, and communal support and solidarity in stark contrast to feelings of “someone sitting on [their] neck” in other microfinance agencies. Lastly, focus group participants lamented MUSO not coming into their communities sooner as “the best, the greatest and the nicest movement to help the poorest people from their misery” and to build “generational wealth.”
Conclusion and Implications: This study highlights the need for intervention programs to recognize the agency of participants and to ensure that they empower and not further marginalize participants. Solidarity-based, indigenous models such as MUSO can serve as a foundation to build better financial services and an entry point for implementing sustainable development interventions. Authors hope that the positive perceptions of this community-driven, self-reliant model will inspire more research on MUSO.