Institutional Logic of Various Development Actors in Microcredit Program (Case study: Group-Based Microcredit Program (KMBK) in Sukorame Village, Binangun District, Blitar Regency, East Java, Indonesia)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.habitat.2020.031.1.5Keywords:
microcredit, institutional logic, sustainable developmentAbstract
The effforts to facilitate community’s participation and encourage their contributions to the decision making process has led to increased development initiatives. Among community development initiatives, the program of Group-Based Microcredit Program (KMBK) has been recognized by development stakeholders as a development approach that offers poor people access to financial services (financial intermediation). In addition, social intermediation in the form of training programs (capacity building) is the key success in eradicating poverty in sustainable development. This study aims to compare the institutional logic of various development actors in the KMBK program in Sukorame Village, Binangun District, Blitar Regency, East Java, Indonesia. This study found that there are differences in institutional logic between development actors in the microcredit program to support sustainable development, namely 'economic logic' and 'development logic'.References
Banerjee, M. (2008). Micro-Enterprise Development: A Response to Poverty. Journal of Community Practice, 5(1–2), 63–83. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J125v05n01_05
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing – Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.893615
Becker, D. R., Harris, C. C., McLaughlin, W. J., & Nielsen, E. A. (2003). A participatory approach to social impact assessment: the interactive community forum. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(3), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255 (02) 00098-7
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple Logics in Organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications.
BKP. (2011). Pelaksanaan Peningkatan Kesejahteraan Petani Kecil (PKPK) - Smallholder Livelihood Development (SOLID). Jakarta, Indonesia. Retrieved from http://bkp.pertanian.go.id/
Bryman, A. (2008). Interviewing in Qualitative Research. In Social Research Methods (3rd ed., pp. 436–470). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://global.oup.com/?cc=gb
Chambers, R. (1997). Editorial: Responsible Well-Being - A Personal Agenda for Development. World Development, 25(11), 1743–1754. https://doi.org/PII:S0305-750X(97)10001-8
Chambers, R. (2004). Ideas for Development: Reflecting Forwards. Brighton. https://doi.org/ISBN 1 85864 848 3
Elahi, K. Q.-I., & Rahman, M. L. (2006). Micro-credit and micro-finance: functional and conceptual differences. Development in Practice, 16(March 2013), 37–41. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614520600792481
Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.009
Ghatak, M., & Guinnane, T. W. (1999). The economics of lending with joint liability: theory and practice. Journal of Development Economics, 60(1), 195–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(99)00041-3
Hoque, M., & Itohara, Y. (2009). Women Empowerment through Participation in Microcredit Programme: A Case Study from Bangladesh. Journal of Social Sciences, 5(3), 244–250. https://doi.org/ISSN 1549-3652
IFAD. (2004). Republic of Indonesia Country Programme Evaluation Report. Rome, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.ifad.org/evaluation/public_html/eksyst/doc/country/pi/indonesia/indonesia.pdf
IFAD. (2008). Republic of Indonesia (Country strategic opportunities programme). Rome, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/eb/95/e/EB-2008-95-R-14.pdf.
Ledgerwood, J. (1999). Sustainable Banking with the Poor: Microfinance Handbook (An Istitutional and Financial Perspective). Washington USA: The World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/12383/18771.pdf?sequence=1
Litosseliti, L. (2003). Using Focus Groups in Research (Continuum Research Methods) (1st ed.). London - New York: Continuum. Retrieved from http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/using-focus-groups-in-research-9780826464729/
Pitt, M. M., & Khandker, S. R. (1998). The Impact of Group-Based Credit Programs on Poor Households in Bangladesh: Does the Gender of Participants Matter? Journal of Political Economy, 106(5), 958–996. https://doi.org/10.1086/250037
Reddy, S., & Heuty, A. (2005). Peer and Partner Review: A Practical Approach to Achieving the Millennium Development Goals*. Journal of Human Development, 6(3), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880500288637
Robinson, M. S. (2001). The Micro-Finance Revolution (Sustainable Finance for the Poor) - Lessons from Indonesia - The Emerging Industry. https://doi.org/ISBN 0–8213–4524–9
Seelos, B. C., & Mair, J. (2012). Innovation Is Not the Holy Grail. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall, 44–49.
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(February), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0522
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th edition) (4rd ed.). California, USA: SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/case-study-research/book237921
