Kiva debate concludes
After David Roodman posted his Kiva critique “Kiva is not quite what it seems,” bloggers responded in a flurry of comments defending Kiva, condemning Kiva or just flat out rejecting the accusations. After I posted a document on this blog illustrating Kiva’s actual method of operation, in contrast to the one on their site, the juxtaposition of the two graphics made the nuanced debate much more dichotomous.
Admittedly, I did not realize the power of this document, which I received from Kiva about two and half years ago when I was involved with a microfinance group on my campus, the Social Entrepreneurs of Grinnell. I went to Kiva with questions because I was skeptical of their operations; namely, I didn’t think that the money SEG was giving them was going directly to the entrepreneurs we funded.
I was right. It was going to the MFIs instead. SEG wasn’t too concerned about this, as we were already growing beyond Kiva. We kept the document to ourselves, not really thinking it was that big of a deal.
After I parenthetically released the document, Tim Ogden at Philanthropy Action pointed out some problematic things I hadn’t realized. Issues of transparency came to the center of the debate. While I defended Kiva by saying that they made this information accessible to those who asked, Roodman said that Kiva had the capacity to explain their operations better and chose not to.
Kiva started working on their response soon after Roodman posted his original critique. About a week after the post, Kiva updated their “How Kiva works” site. The debate seems to have calmed now, with most people agreeing Kiva reaffirmed their commitment to transparency. Holden at GiveWell, who had been critical of Kiva, said that they are more transparent than most philanthropic organizations operating at the same level.
I won’t try to sum up what this debate means for Kiva, its donors and the MFIs it serves because Roodman did it best on his latest post:
“[T]he bottom line here is that Kiva has made a quick and long stride toward keeping [CEO] Matt Flannery’s promise of more transparency. I think Flannery’s response to my criticism blended grace, humility, and quiet confidence. The world would be a much better place if all charities, all organizations for that matter, were as open and responsive to criticism as Kiva has been. I trust the Kiva folks will keep refining.”
