Much of the dialogue around microfinance suggests that the poor are universally credit constrained and that cash shortages drive a monolithic demand for credit. As such, microfinance is often treated as a technical, rational and linear process that is characterized by an “if-you-build-it-they-will-come” mindset. Too often overlooked are the contextually specific and nuanced processes that influence consumers’ demand for microcredit in a variety of social, moral, cultural, and political contexts.

One of the many important questions in the transition to mobile and/or electronic money is who will bear the costs associated with using the system. This question is particularly salient since the Kenyan government announced it was planning to begin taxing mobile money transfers, adding to the cost of the system.

Why are piggy banks in the shape of a pig? I had been certain that piggy banks were simply a decorative representation of the fact that keeping a pig (or any livestock) is an informal way to save—“deposits” paid into the pig by feeding and housing it can be “withdrawn” once the pig is sold. A bit of research informed me, however, that the etymologists have the economists beat on this one.

A lot of progress has been made in understanding the savings behavior of poor households over the last few years. A raft of new studies are beginning to appear that  promise to advance our understanding further.