Microfinance: accountability from the grassroots

By Rob Dixon, J. Ritchie, Juliana Siwale. 2006

189 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Purpose – The purpose of this research is to use an accountability framework to explain the emerging tensions in accountability and how an intended bottom-up approach became progressively supplanted. This paper is set within an emerging Zambian microfinance organisation moving into crisis. Design/methodology/approach – A series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with key local microfinance specialists, managers and accountants, clients and past and current loan officers. Live observation of the client-loan officer interface and internal meetings provided triangulation on accountability relationships in the midst of crisis. Data were analysed using NVIVO, a qualitative computer software package. Findings – The findings show that tensions between vertical and horizontal accountability in practice can be directly translated into heightened pressure and stresses on both the non-governmental organisation (NGO) and its loan officers, which constrain overall accountabilities to other stakeholders and disguise other potential dysfunctions. Research limitations/implications – This study focussed on accountability at the grassroots in microfinance NGOs with a social mission. It reveals potential for further personal, community and socially constituted accounting research within microfinance in particular. Originality/value – The paper adds to the literature on NGO accountability. It will be of value to researchers and practitioners seeking to gain a better understanding of not-for-profit organisations whose goals are not primarily wealth creation. It also gives details on under-researched areas in accounting, namely NGOs and poverty reduction, and practices in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Finance, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1545ed8eaa48c33429076785170d09924891be87

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. P. Lassou
2. M. Tsamenyi
3. Shahzad Uddin
4. Trevor Hopper
5. T. Soobaroyen

In Finance

1. D. Wickramasinghe
2. Shahzad Uddin
3. Trevor Hopper
4. T. Soobaroyen

In Sociology and Political Science

1. P. Lassou
2. Trevor Hopper
3. T. Soobaroyen

Citations in the corpus

• Interrogating accountability: An illustration of the use of Leximancer software for qualitative data analysis (2010, background): “suggest that “the traditional meaning of accountability is shifting towards an emergent accountability regime”, while Dixon et al. (2006, p. 407)”
• Globalisation, accounting and developing countries (2017, background): “…were not perceived as more accountable (Goddard & Assad, 2006; p. 397); and, when a microfinance NGO in Zambia undergoing crisis and fraud improved its upward accountability, it detracted from the vital reliance upon and trust needed amongst borrowing groups and loan officers (Dixon et al., 2006).”
• Management accounting in less developed countries: what is known and needs knowing (2009, background): “However, MAS research has neglected these areas (Dixon et al., 2006) thereby reproducing past policy biases by concentrating on large industrial and commercial organisations.”