Interesting article, but isn't there an implicit assumption here? That it is better to generate employment than (micro) entrepreneurs? That it is better to wo

Interesting article, but isn't there an implicit assumption here? That it is better to generate employment than (micro) entrepreneurs? That it is better to work for someone else than to work for yourself? I'd challenge that assumption, and challenge it hard. After all, it wasn't a nation of "good corporate employees who don't rock the boat" that built an Empire on which the sun never set... it was a nation of shopkeepers :D Moreover the amount of funds required to give someone full time western style employment are surely much larger than to give some rural individual the funds to lift themselves out of a murderous loan-shark system and above the poverty line. So in terms of ROI (where the return is net benefit to society per $ invested) micro finance has to be the winner hands down. The thing is that it is enormously much easier to throw $1 million at some small company and feel smug that you've done your bit for peace love and mung beans. It is enormously much more difficult to go out into the bush (or wherever) and find a rural village and bootstrap them off loanshark debt by lending a selected few individuals $10 each and then carefully tracking their repayments. $1000 carefully nurtured will bring prosperity to an entire village. A $1 million dollar loan to some small company is going to benefit the sports car and golf course industries more than it will benefit their own country. Even if some of the money went to employment instead of the owner's lifestyle, is it really 1000x more beneficial to the country than the $1000 that saves a village? I think not.