Microcredit and Metaphors in Subsistence Markets

Marketplace Literacy of MSEs in Subsistence Markets

Marketplace literacy refers to consumers’ and entrepreneurs’ awareness, confidence and skills in the conduct of business (Viswanathan, Gajendiran, and Venkatesan 2008). Marketplace literacy operates on three levels: the concrete level of vocational skills or trade, the more abstract level of business know-how, and the deeper level of understanding (or “know-why”) of the marketplace. In terms of marketplace literacy of MSEs, certain cognitive and behavioral considerations are relevant (Viswanathan, Gajendiran, and Venkatesan 2008). This will be seen to be especially salient in the context of microcredit, which is vital to the growth and development of subsistence MSEs.

Low-literacy consumers tend to think concretely, that is, they see things in very literal ways (Viswanathan, et al. 2009). This cognitive tendency towards concrete thinking influences how subsistence MSEs construe business practices and transactions. The conventional wisdom is that high marketplace and financially literate consumers are better customers as they lower institutional risk. Cohen and Nelson (2011) distinguish between financial literacy and financial capability, defining financial literacy as consumers’ knowledge about products and contracts, and defining financial capability as influencing the financial services sector to offer the right products. In general, financial literacy and capability of MSEs with respect to financial services firms has been limited. This is surprising because microcredit provides the very capital to finance MSE activities that would lead to business growth (Yunus 1999). Because of their low literacy and low-income levels, and therefore capability, most MSEs are disadvantaged in their interactions with financial services firms. Although subject to the same biases as the affluent, MSEs in subsistence markets live in conditions that allow much narrower margins of error (Bertrand, Mullainathan, and Shafir 2006).

Behavioral considerations in the context of microcredit are those that make MSEs confident enough to be equal partners in the microcredit market. Such considerations related to low-literate consumers include issues of self-esteem and self-capability. Viswanathan, Gajendiran, and Venkatesan (2008) identify several behaviors relevant to self-capability of SMEs: bargaining, saving, understanding interest rates, switching stores and questioning sellers, being aware of rights, understanding discounts, checking prices and totals, and planning purchases. Behaviors also include ways of gathering information, such as by talking to people, observing the competition, conducting an analysis of costs, and obtaining feedback on ideas (Viswanathan, Gajendiran, and Venkatesan 2008). In terms of product-services access and usage, subsistence consumers tend to have limited experience in important areas of social interaction, leading to their exclusion from marketing activities (Hamilton and Catterall 2005), which reduces self-capability and, in turn, self-esteem.

MSEs are bombarded daily with myriads of idiosyncratic problems (DeBerry-Spence and Elliot, 2012) that affect their behaviors. Additionally, as poor consumers, they worry about a large number of issues, which include financial pressures, uncertainty about the future, and threat of losses from bad purchases (Blocker and Sridharan, 2011). This confluence of negative contextual factors makes the MSE-MFI relationship difficult and tense. Differing motivations of financial services firms, such as poverty alleviation or revenue enhancement however, can lead to substantially different marketing strategies towards MSEs (Elaydi and Harrison 2010).

This literature on cognitive and behavioral predilections of MSEs provides a clearer background for their deficiencies in financial literacy, especially in the context of microcredit. This paves the way for appreciating the role of metaphors as a communication tool in the context of microcredit.

Metaphors in Marketing

The literature on low-literate consumers explains how low-literacy MSEs have difficulty with abstractions and highlights the relevance of metaphors to enhance understanding. Metaphors facilitate sense making; they provide a sense of coherence to the patterns businesspeople employ in perception and for expression (Koiranen 1995). Metaphors facilitate this sense making by connecting known concepts with not yet connected knowledge domains (Gentner et al. 2001). According to Lissack (1997), the process of making sense of complex, concrete data at an abstract conceptual level is fundamental to human nature. Metaphors are central to facilitating this higher level of perception.

Metaphors enable this sublimation in a variety of ways. First, they can do this by being conceptual/declarative—that is, they allow a person to share information with his or her partner by establishing a common mental image and equivalence to something unknown to one of them (Nonaka 1994). Second, metaphors can be figurative—that is, they evoke a network of assumptions and inferences (Cohen 1978). Third, they can be used innovatively to shed new light on a specific problem (Morgan 1997). Fourth, they can provide a new reading of someone else’s point of view (Bessant 2002). Fifth, and unfortunately, they can be also used to directly deceive a discourse partner (Hunt and Menon 1995). Sixth, and finally, they can be performative—that is, they can be central to discourses centred on policy making (Cornelissen 2002).

Metaphors prompt an understanding of the thought processes and motivations of business partners, as well as their philosophies and values, to guide social and business relationships. Research has also claimed that metaphors are crucial for the cognitive processes of entrepreneurs (Morgan 1997). They enable empathy among business partners because they provide the deepest form of understanding (Sellers-Young 2008). In the specific case of entrepreneurs, the use of six types of metaphors have been identified (Koiranen 1995, p. 5): (1) creativity/activeness, (2) special characteristics and features, (3) machinery or physical objects, (4) nature, (5) sports and games, and (6) adventurer or warrior. Pitt (1998) also applied analytical techniques to investigate metaphors used in the narratives of two entrepreneurs to make sense of the different roles they adopted over several years. For example, one entrepreneur’s self-image included, at different times, a commando, a poacher, a pioneer, and a prospector. Metaphors in the area of entrepreneurship have demonstrated their potential to “create realities, guide future action, and reinforce experiential coherence” (Klagge 1997, p. 76). These studies demonstrate that metaphors compress the uncertain and complex nature of business relationships into familiar scenes that prime and rationalize the need for action.

Despite the extensive study on low-literate, low-income MSEs, microcredit and metaphors in marketing, researchers have paid limited attention to how metaphors can be used as a communication system, specifically to provide microcredit. In contrast, our research contribution is in positioning metaphors as a communication basis in the areas of macro-marketing in general and microcredit in particular.

Research Context

Ghana served as the research context. Ghana has substantially liberalized the private sector, opening up several opportunities for dynamic relationships between MFIs and MSEs. Thus, Ghana is a prime location to investigate the role of metaphors in the microcredit relationship between MFIs and MSE. Ghana has a fast-growing financial intermediation sector, but MSEs are often refused access to microcredit because of their inability to fulfill some basic conditions. Although this situation occurs due to institutional and traditional limitations, the MSEs misunderstanding of business requirements aggravate it. The MSE participants selected for this study were mostly low-literate with low monthly incomes—less than $2,000. These MSEs are living at the subsistence level and are looking to expand their business through microcredit.

Dyadic Conversations of MFIs and MSEs

We used a micro-ethnographic method to cull metaphors from dyadic conversations of MSEs and MFIs. We selected five MFIs and five MSEs that were in a microcredit relationship. The MSEs varied in terms of their experience with accessing microcredit. Two of the MSEs were new customers trying to gain access to microcredit but without success; two others had recently gained access to microcredit, and the last MSE had received microcredit for several business cycles. The MFIs held graduate and advanced degrees, while the MSEs were less formally educated, with some having a high school education or professional certification. We performed in-situ observations and recorded conversations of the MFIs and MSEs engaging in negotiations for access to microcredit.

The basic data for the study were the observations and recording of dyadic conversations between MFIs and MSEs. To elicit metaphors, participants were encouraged to feel at ease so that they would give free expression to their thoughts and feelings, without reservations. The initializing prompt was that the researcher sought to understand their thoughts and feelings about the microcredit relationship from their dialogues. What inspired participants to express their thoughts and feelings without restraint was the fact that there was an important outcome at stake: getting credit or losing their businesses. Conversations were therefore focused on salient aspects of the microcredit relationship. There was no need for the use of photo or art therapy to elicit metaphors as is done in the Kelly Grid and Laddering process, nor was there any need for additional probing. The salience of the context and the sheer significance of the likely outcome provided sufficient emotional pressure to drive long conversations, with little prompting. Further, the metaphoric content of the conversation was not entirely surprising based on the pictographic thinking tendencies of low-literate consumers. Metaphors flowed spontaneously in their conversations. It was observed that in this manner of communication, there was more clarity in how MSEs understood their MFI. Table 1 lists the details of all participants; pseudonyms are used for all participants.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant Demographics.

A: MFI Participants
Participant	Age	Gender	Education
MFI1	36	Male	MBA
MFI2	44	Male	MBA
MFI3	41	Female	MBA
MFI4	42	Female	MBA
MFI5	49	Male	B.Sc.
B: MSE participants
Participant	Age	Gender	Education	Business Type
MSE1	33	Male	Certificate	Concrete products manufacturer
MSE2	31	Male	High school	Interior decorating
MSE3	48	Female	Elementary	Beauty products retailer
MSE4	42	Female	Elementary	Clothing retailer
MSE5	38	Female	Elementary	Confectionery and cosmetics retailer

Data Analysis

After recording the conversations, we extracted metaphors from the narratives. The analysis of metaphors examined surface themes to identify the underlying issues or conflicts in gaining access to microcredit. After coding and categorizing the recorded metaphors, we collectively discussed each individual as a separate case and drew on common observations using fragments from the verbal annotations to support emerging conclusions.

We then developed four categories based on the cognitive functions of the use of metaphors in speech: (1) the comprehension of complex abstract processes or activities in a single event or act, (2) the attribution or suggestion of direction or causality, (3) the attribution of individual agency, and (4) the naturalization of a process or activity in terms of well-understood and taken-for-granted domains (Douglas 1986). Once the metaphor categories were generated, we examined the overall picture of the key concepts provided by the metaphors that related to the reality of microcredit in subsistence markets.

The extraction of metaphors began with several detailed readings of the transcripts of the interviews. A common procedure in the analysis of metaphors is to parse the metaphor into a vehicle and object (e.g., vehicle: seduction; object: business attractiveness). Next, we created broader themes such that they embodied several of the vehicles and objects. For example, for the vehicle of seduction, the broader classifying theme might be love; and for the vehicle of traffic light, the broad theme could be rules. Important themes emerged from the metaphorical analysis and provided greater understanding of the challenges of obtaining microcredit by MSEs. The groupings of vehicles under the themes emerged naturally and were not imposed. However, Lakoff (1987) speculates that the cultural preconceptions of the researcher can influence the creation of themes. One of the authors of this study is of Ghanaian descent and thus shares a cultural heritage with the MSEs and MFIs, which helps minimize cross-cultural misunderstanding or wrongful interpretation of themes.

We provide a brief overview of the findings, presenting extracts from the ethnographic study of each individual case. Building on this overview, we develop more general theoretical interpretations of the role of metaphors in microcredit using Hill and Levenhagen’s (1995) framework on the sense-giving and sense-making capabilities of metaphors.

Love and War

The use of love and war metaphors mirrors both the emotional and the rational disposition of the MFI and MSE participants. These metaphors reflect the conscious, as well as unconscious, perspectives of MSEs of the microcredit relationship. The use of love and war metaphors aids the MFIs and MSEs in discerning what the other party is saying about his or her satisfaction with the relationship. Both MFIs and MSEs adopt positions that are driven by their underlying interests and, in the process of dialogue, attempt to unravel the challenges of microfinance through the underlying metaphors. The metaphors of love and war provide sense-making about how microcredit can either be supportive or exploitative. Indeed, the cognitive predilection to perceive an entity in very basic categories seems to be in play here: a positive consensual relationship is construed as “love” and a negative one is construed as “war.” It is this very predilection to view that which is novel—i.e., the nascent business relationship—in stark, contrasting terms—i.e., love and war—that is the crux of metaphoric thinking.

We detail some of the conversations that reflect these conflicting emotional perspectives. MFI1 uses the metaphor of enticement in a love relationship to flesh out an understanding of how MSEs can gain access to microcredit by adhering to certain procedures:

You realize that you are a new customer, and I am fighting for you and all depends on you. If you want to marry (a man), you have to make yourself attractive to the potential husband or wife. The same applies to the relationship with the bank. We have thousands of customers, but how many of them have been able to access a loan? it depends on their attractiveness to the bank. When you run a new account two weeks before you apply [for] a loan, [the bank] wonders what the customer was doing earlier. For example when you want to go to bed with the opposite sex, he may wonder whether it is the lovemaking that makes you want him or her and not because it is true love. [A1]

This narrative by MFI1 is intended to enlighten an MSE about microcredit decisions and outcomes. The metaphor of attractiveness in a love relationship underscores the elements MFIs normally consider when deciding to provide loans to MSEs. These elements include general personal details and outlook of the business and its owners, previous dealings with the bank, previous dealings with other banks, business prospects, and the number of years the business has been in existence. The metaphor used suggests that an MSE becomes attractive to the MFI when there is the representation of efficiency, right conduct and profitability. This observation makes the case that the “tailoring of information” by the MFI1 intentionally took the form of a simple metaphor, intended to unpack the complex construct of “credit-worthiness” in simple and stark terms; the metaphor was even able to sneak in an image about short- and long-term relationships. This approach is in line with the assertion by Blocker and Sridharan (2011) that the tailoring of information to the cognitive and emotional capabilities and prevailing conditions of poor consumers would make them less prone to decision-making biases.

The next stage in love, after initial contact, is the sustenance. MFI4 uses metaphors of love in a relationship to further reflect on what is expected of MSEs as well as MFIs for a successful microcredit relationship:

The MSE banking is like an affair between a cat and a dog. This sub-distributer for Mobile Telephone Networks, we gave him just ten thousand cedis and that man he didn’t even come for his repayment letter and he vanished. Right now, we can’t find him. His phones don’t work. You would be discouraged. When you are in a relationship, it is not fair to treat your partner that way. Maybe in our relationship there is not enough understanding. You know, we just do the appraisal and give them the money. If they pay, [that is] fine. If they don’t pay, that is when we get closer and by the time we go closer, you won’t find them again [A2].

MFI4 uses a metaphor almost reflexively to shed light on the problem of microcredit default. In this excerpt, MFI4 refers to the incidence of non-performing loans provided to MSEs. He draws a conceptual distinction between love and conflict in a relationship in which two parties start off needing each other. However, because there is a lack of understanding of each other’s ideas and motivations and a lack of nurturing of the relationship, the relationship ends. These metaphors suggest critical gaps in the financial relationship, such as the inability to monitor MSEs, leading high incidences of non-performing MSE loans. MFIs rely on collateral, social influence, pressure, and personal knowledge for repayment of loans. Therefore, MSEs that withhold required information demonstrate a lack of love. Furthermore, MFIs that do not try to understand the MSE’s business and provide continuous nurturing for business growth end up losing the customer and have bad debts.

Another stage in love is when it turns sour. MSE3 uses metaphors associated with (lack of) trust in a love relationship to analyze the perspectives of the MFI on what is expected of a love relationship:

How can you trust a partner who demonstrates such a lack of affection? Now the banks need to work hard because now, we the MSE, we see right through to their hearts. The bank is making a lot more money whilst you the MSE you are suffering. Interest rate is high and even presently inflation is down and base rate is down and even it does not reflect on investments and fixed deposits. And so if you do not take care, you are engaged in a battle with the bank, fighting to survive [A3].

MSE3 relates the microcredit relationship to a love relationship in which there is no demonstration of true affection or trust. As discussed by Blocker and Sridharan (2011), poor consumers worry about financial pressures and uncertainty about the future. Such worries place larger emotional and cognitive loads on these consumers and increase their susceptibility to human frailties such as being wary, fearful or un-trusting. The sour-love or war metaphors show a sense of distrust and exploitation where the MFI and MSE are suspicious of each other’s motives. Such a stance may result in using unethical tactics against each other, which eventually leads to conflicting relationships.

When “love” turns bitter, it becomes “war.” MSE7 uses the metaphors of war to depict her deep emotions and thoughts on the microcredit relationship:

Ah, this warlike game you want to play with me, it [does] not help me. I am allergic to it. I need money, and you have deducted money and put [it] aside, and you say I should not touch it. it would not help. We have been in the system for such a long time. This struggle, it would not help us. I do not like to be cheated. When someone cheats me it really hurts me. I pray a lot but the hurt remains and it takes a long time before I forget. So I will need to fight back [A4].

Viswanathan, Gajendiran, and Venkatesan (2008) show how low marketplace literacy results in an imperfect understanding of the marketplace and therefore tainted perceptions. Consumption in a state of poverty and low literacy is a harsh reality for microenterprises and albeit with tainted understanding, MSE7 seeks to convey these harsh realities and her vulnerable position. MSE7 remonstrates that to her microcredit represents a combative situation. The language used provides clues and insight into negative emotions about the microcredit relationship. To the MSEs, access to microcredit is a “struggle” due to the challenges in accessing the credit, with each such “struggle” like delays in processing having dire consequences on her business.

We apply Hill and Levenhagen’s (1995) framework to analyze the theme of love versus war in positioning metaphors as a communication system. Such metaphors provide entrepreneurial sense making (a flexible framework for understanding and interpreting data) and sense giving (a clear sense of intended direction allowing sufficient flexibility for effective implementation). Embodied in the sense-giving communication is attunement, which means focusing attention on salient cues, and alignment, which organizes and motivates actors toward a unified action. The metaphors of “love and war” provide a picture of two entities engaged in mutual advantage (love) or mutual disadvantage (war). When MFIs used the “love and war” metaphor they are sense giving; when MSEs use it, they are sense making, because there is an asymmetric understanding of business procedures and requirements.

MFIs attune their customers by highlighting and repeating the “love” construal to create an alignment of goals by first aligning both parties understanding of the situation. As a sense-giving communication, the metaphors of “love and war” construct a common understanding of the situation; without this, or similar metaphor, the MFI would have had to educate the MSE about the business relationship. Educating a low-literacy consumer in the fine points of credit, creditworthiness, and business practices without using stark and simple metaphors, would be a daunting task as it would require instruction on many ancillary concepts.

Freedom and Servitude

The metaphors of freedom and servitude that participants used in their conversations reveal that MSEs often characterize the microcredit relationship as debt bondage. The metaphors depict that this relationship is complex and leads to domination and alienation. MSEs identify microcredit as a situation of servitude that leads to a vicious cycle of being cash strapped. MSE2 uses the metaphor of servitude figuratively to portray an exploitative microcredit situation:

They say they have their hand on my money. They say I do not have the right to touch that amount. What sort of punitive law is this? it is my own money [and] I need it for my business. This loan is also a short-term loan not a long-term [one], which would make me relaxed. One year is so stiff and the interest rate is so high. This does not make me sleep at night. It also affects the credit I provide to my customers because if I give them more credit it would worry them because they too have the time within which they can make payments. My customers and I are suffocating with the tight rope [B1].

The metaphors MSE2 uses here relate to the burden of needing to put funds on hold as collateral, accruing minimal interest, while paying high interest charges on microcredit. MSE2 explains how she is vulnerable to even relatively small market shocks because of the high interest rates from the bank. Not receiving flexible and sufficient loans from the banks means that she must deal with payment problems from her own customers because she cannot extend much credit to them. For most MSEs, the absence of a financial cushion needed to expand their own business is burdensome and constraining. Such financial problems tend to ripple through the whole supply chain, forming a vicious cycle of economic hardship. MFI2, however, reassures MSE2 that their relationship is not one of servitude and mastery but of financial freedom when the right actions are taken. He applies several metaphors to shed light on the problem:

Our hand is not on [your funds]. When there is a law that nobody can pass through a certain pathway, this law may not affect the president. The president, if he is not in his car, when he reaches the red light he stops, but when he is in his motorcade, he can pass through. You see, put yourself in the position of that of a salaried worker. He has a fixed salary but has to make deductions to pay his electricity bill, his rent, and his children’s school fees. These are his responsibilities and when he fulfills them, he is free to enjoy himself. It is the same with the relationship with the bank. We give you money to use to grow your business, but you must fulfill your obligations to us by paying monthly interest and so forth. Then you are free to use the money how you want [B2].

According to Viswanathan, Gajendiran, and Venkatesan (2008), marketing communications needs to be built from the ground up rather than from a pre-conceived perspective. Here, MFI2 uses the context of the MSE’s mundane life as well as an observed prestigious life of a role model to detail best practices that provide some flexibility for the MSE when microcredit is provided. According to MFI2, these practices include regular monthly savings that can be used for interest repayments. He uses the metaphor of a president passing through traffic lights to illustrate the level of control afforded to the MSE when he/she becomes a valued customer. By referencing certain laws that do not apply to the president, MFI2 seems to be referring to some freedom and flexibility within the laws for MSE customers. These laws include the need to keep adequate records of business activities and proper financial records, with all inflows channeled through bank accounts so that credit worthiness can be assessed. In addition, MFI2 uses the metaphor of a salaried worker to demonstrate the discipline required when operating within a limited budget.

MFI6 tries to further explain the bank’s position on microcredit by comparing an adverse microcredit situation to a situation of servitude by the MFI to the MSE and a loss of freedom by the MSE. He uses these metaphors exegetically to help clarify this situation:

[The MSEs] are not organized. The time they put in the application, that is the time they need the physical cash and the bank too would take its time to try to deal with the issues and they would be in a tight corner. They would go to the susu companies which charges them exorbitant rates and they would still pursue the banks for loans and since they want their freedom the pay the susu companies off with this loan. Then they would start playing with the bank so that the bank is now their [underpaid servant]. They buy a plot of land and start building. So then the susu company is chasing them and the bank is chasing them and you see where the problem is? By the time they take the money and pay the susu company off they don’t even have money to use and they would just close their shops [B3].

MFI6 speaks about how MSEs apply for microcredit late and then try to circumvent the bank’s procedures by borrowing from an informal microfinance (susu) company initially so that when the bank approves the loan, they can pay off the susu company. MFI6 likens this to a situation of servitude where the bank is treated like an “underpaid servant.” He indicates that the MSE is also placed in an untenable situation, between the susu company and the bank; if the bank money that was to be used to pay the microfinance company has been mismanaged, the cash flow then becomes a problem and they have to “close their shops.”

The sense making here by the MFI is in seeing how they can lose their freedom and become an exploited servant of the MSE in an adverse microcredit situation. This is contrary to the common-sense understanding that the MSE is the exploited one! The sense giving communication, by the MFI to the MSE uses the metaphor of “freedom and servitude” to clarify the consequences of following the rules of the debtor-creditor relationship: follow the rules to gain the freedom to grow the business and “use the money as you want;” flout the rules will make them “close their shops.” The alignment that the metaphor of “freedom and servitude” provides is that both parties, MFI and MSE, see their consequences as servitude when the other misbehaves, and this, in turn, provides the attunement of understanding and behavior. “Freedom and servitude” is also a simplistic metaphor, well suited to the cognitive predilections of the low-literate MSE. The negative side (servitude) applies equally to both parties—MSE and MFI—although negative consequences are typically thought to apply only to the lower-power member of a dyad.

Life and Death

Life and death are used as metaphors in the microcredit conversation to portray the extreme form of misperception and misunderstanding of both MSEs and MFIs. Employing the metaphor of life and death highlights the emotional highs and lows associated with the microcredit product. Especially in tight business situations, the cognitive predilection of the low-literate consumer is to revert to the most basic themes, like in this case of using “life and death.” The theme of life and death arises specifically in situations of loan repayments, which MSEs find burdensome. Such situations can lead to the dying of a business for the MSE customer. For example, MSE4 uses the metaphor of a slow death to explain how she felt about accessing microcredit and the burden of repayment:

I have thought of leaving the bank. Apart from the loan deductions, they are also making other deductions, so what do they want you to work with so you can pay them back? So they are killing people. They are killing us softly. Me, I am dying. I used to have my own money to work, and now you’ve given me a loan you want me to pay back 100 million. Where would I get it from? And I don’t have 100 million [cedis] here. Where am I going to get it? Where am I going to get it? So if they would not help you too, would they kill you as well? [C1]

MSE4 uses metaphors to highlight what she sees as unrealistic and stringent requirements by MFIs before she can access microcredit. She describes her vulnerable situation to enlighten the MFI and change preconceptions. This is in line with Sridharan and Viswanathan’s (2008) assertion that the orientation that suspends preconceptions, and enables learning from living/consuming at the level of mere subsistence, can help marketers better understand and engage consumers in these contexts. In this situation, the perception of “death” indicates the type of failure that occurs when financial services firms fail to provide an adequate array of choices to MSEs to repay their loans. A supposed advantage of the liberalization of these financial markets is the greater array of choices to cater to various consumers. However, it appears that financial services firms do not provide MSEs what they need, but instead try to convince MSEs to want what they have to offer. MSE4 sees the financial market as suppressing choice, and softly “killing” her.

On the other hand, MFI4 perceives microcredit as giving “life” as a result of certain provisions and standards that result in the smooth functioning of the microcredit process and provide several benefits:

Like childbirth or pregnancy, in labor the person is suffering, but after childbirth, she would even forget that she has suffered before. They say that a prince is he whose father is alive. You are a prince whose father is alive but you do not know your father is alive. The money is your own money. I would request for 200 million from the bank on your behalf so you can get money to work. We would not ask you to pay any more deposits so you do not have any more worries. I have solved your problems [C2].

Metaphors used in this narration indicate the suffering to give birth to a child and the empowerment obtained when one’s father is alive to provide the care that is needed. The implication here is that several benefits can be obtained by going through the stringent process required to access microcredit. One requirement for microcredit is to regularly deposit monies into a savings account with the lender. These savings, which are often compulsory and inaccessible during the period of microcredit, also represent sufficient ready cash to make regular repayments during the loan’s tenure. This can be useful for MSEs because the rhythm of savings and borrowing can differ.

Some MFIs also perceive MSEs as exploitative or opportunistic, and their cognitive predilections lead to the use of metaphors of death (murder) to refer to these situations. MFI3 uses metaphors to further analyze the discourse on microcredit as destructive when it is intended to be constructive:

It is just now that we are introducing ourselves to the credit bureau so you go out there and you give the money to somebody who may even been owing two more banks. You don’t know, so [you] give [to] the person, and before you know, your money is locked. The person cannot pay. Then they murder you. If they come to Y bank and they see that they do not have the collateral or do not have the credit worthiness, then they go to Z bank because [at] that place they have the systems to check the people who for some reason would not be able to get credit from Y bank [C3].

The metaphor of murder in this statement depicts the importance of trust in the relationship with the MSE and the monitoring of microcredit. Trust is an essential determinant of “life” as illustrated here, and when trust decreases, the MFI perceives a collapse of the business relationship. Such collapse leads to reduced efficacy of the lending program since the success of microcredit depends on monitoring systems. The metaphor of murder also points to the structure and nature of incentives embedded in lending. These incentives for repayments seem to be inadequate or easily destroyed.

The sensemaking of both MSEs and MFIs is achieved using a life and death metaphor. This sense making highlights the need for a more formal structure that results in profitability, customer satisfaction, and sustainability of the MFI, i.e. “life.” The challenge of formalized systems in microcredit is migrating the relationship with MSEs from a personalized form of treatment to one that provides low costs and low risks for both parties. As a sense-giving communication, the metaphors of “life and death” direct both parties to see that the consequence of poorly managing the relationship is the death of the business. By painting the engagement in such graphic terms, the MFIs seek to create an alignment of the MSE’s goals with their own; that is, the result of mismanaging microcredit for the MSE is (business) death. Given that the MSE also uses the life and death metaphor liberally, and sees the microcredit relationship in such vivid terms, attunement to the message and then to the behaviors should be assured.

Table 2 summarizes the sensemaking communication provided by metaphors in relation to microcredit.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Themes and Supporting Quotations.

Themes	Salient Metaphors	Sense-making	Quotations
Love and War	A1. Attraction in a love relationship/ True Love.	Question of Value vs. Welfare: MSE becomes attractive to the MFI when there is representation of efficiency, right conduct and profitability.	“If you want to marry a man, you have to make yourself attractive to the potential husband or wife. The same applies to the relationship with the bank…For example when you want to go to bed with the opposite sex, he may wonder whether it is the lovemaking that makes you want him or her and not because it is true love.”
	A2. Understanding and closeness in a love relationship.	Question of Relational vs. Transactional: MSEs that withhold required information demonstrate disinterest in the relationship. MFIs that do not try to understand and nurture the MSE’s business for business growth will end up losing the MSE with bad debts.	“Maybe in our relationship there is not enough understanding. You know, we just do the appraisal and give them the money. If they pay, [that is] fine. If they don’t pay, that is when we get closer and by the time we go closer, you won’t find them again.“
	A3. Trust and Transparency in a love relationship.	Question of Information Symmetry vs. Asymmetry: Creating distrust through act of exploitation makes the MFI and MSE suspicious of each other’s motives.	“How can you trust a partner who demonstrates such a lack of affection? Now the banks need to work hard because now, we the MSE, we see right through to their hearts.”
	A4. Emotional distress in a love relationship.	Question of Collaboration vs. Profiteering: Placing the MFI or MSE in vulnerable position in the microcredit relationship leads to negative emotions about the relationship and conflicting situations.	“Ah, this warlike game you want to play with me, it [does] not help me. I am allergic to it. This struggle, it would not help us. When someone cheats me it really hurts me. I pray a lot but the hurt remains and it takes a long time before I forget. So I will need to fight back.”
Freedom and Servitude	B1. Constrained and suffocating from a tight rope.	Question of Freedom vs. Servitude: The absence of a financial cushion when providing microcredit needed by the MSE to expand market share and respond to market changes leads to ripple through the whole supply chain and financial losses.	“One year is so stiff and the interest rate is so high. This does not make me sleep at night. My customers and I are suffocating with the tight rope.”
	B2. President with authority in his position and salaried worker who has to be financially disciplined.	Question of Systems vs. Power: There should be flexibility within the microcredit laws for MSE customers who demonstrate financial discipline.	“The president, if he is not in his car, when he reaches the red light he stops, but when he is in his motorcade, he can pass through. So I have given you permission to transfer money into an account every month, and it is your own money. You see, put yourself in the position of that of a salaried worker.”
	B3. Craving freedom from microfinance companies leads MSEs to treat the banks like a servant.	Question of Equality vs. Oppression: To move away from adverse microcredit situation requires equal responsibility by the MSE so that both parties can move toward profitability and business enhancement and be free from financial constraints.	“The time they put in the application, that is the time they need the physical cash and the bank would take its time to try to deal with the issues and they would be in a tight corner. They would go to the ‘susu’ companies which charges them exorbitant rates and since they want their freedom they pay the ‘susu’ companies off with this loan so that the bank is now their [underpaid servant].”
Life and Death	C1. Killing of the MSE and subsequent death.	Question of Compassion vs. Punishment: The financial market created by MFIs suppress the MSE’s choices, leading to a deterioration of their business which would in turn affect the microcredit relationship.	“So they are killing people. They are killing us softly. Me, I am dying. I used to have my own money to work, and now you’ve given me a loan you want me to pay back 100 million. Where would I get it from? So if they would not help you too, would they kill you as well?”
	C2. Giving life to a baby after a struggle; Being a prince with a living father.	Question of Viability vs. Prosperity: Empowerment of MSE by MFI through provision of sufficient loan amounts during the loan’s tenure.	“Like childbirth or pregnancy, in labor the person is suffering, but after childbirth, she would even forget that she has suffered before. They say that a prince is he whose father is alive. You are a prince whose father is alive but you do not know your father is alive. The money is your own money.”
	C3. Murder occasioned by ignorance of person you are interacting with.	Question of Trust vs. Defect: The success of microcredit depends on efficient monitoring systems.	“It is just now that we are introducing ourselves to the credit bureau so you go out there and you give the money to somebody who may even been owing two more banks. You don’t know, so [you] give [to] the person, and before you know, your money is locked. The person cannot pay. Then they murder you.”

Macro-level Implications

The role of metaphors in microcredit has several macro-level implications. The first is the use of metaphors to develop a communication system in the context of microcredit. Metaphors produce a particular structure for the representation of microcredit by relating microcredit issues to the well-understood imagery of both MSEs and MFIs. This is in line with Hill and Levenhagan’s (2005) argument that metaphors are valuable in simplifying complex issues such that individuals not sufficiently knowledgeable about specific contextual issues may share in their understanding. In the microcredit context, metaphors could be used to show poor microcredit conditions and provide directions for microcredit in subsistence markets. Directives for microcredit include creating incentives, improving the operating environment, and providing a supportive climate for microcredit. Metaphors that reflect positive messaging could be used to influence social thought and action in the area of microcredit. On the basis of our findings, we recommend leveraging information systems created by metaphors for collaborations between financial marketers and government agencies, regulatory institutions, and other donor agencies to make microcredit a more attractive product.

Hill and Levenhagen (1995, p. 1057) suggest that metaphors “understanding of how things fit together… articulate what is important and unimportant.” The goal of microcredit is ideally to enable MSEs to create wealth and therefore obtain financial freedom; this is enabled when they are provided a broad range of services, such as training, business advice, reasonable interest rates and product-service innovations. Metpahors used by participants in this study identified several inefficient conditions on the part of both MFIs and MSEs. Metaphors selected for use to enhance the microcredit relationship should therefore focus on the goals of microcredit. The deliberate choice of metaphors is especially relevant for financial literacy programs.

Relevant metaphors could be used to disseminate information and create opportunities for MFIs and MSEs to make informed and effective decisions with microcredit. Many appropriate metaphors could be used to emphasize the need for MSEs to keep adequate records of their business activities and financial records so that banks could easily assess their credit worthiness. In addition, metaphors could be applied to alter how MFIs perceive the microcredit relationship with MSEs. Indeed, to extrapolate well beyond the data, metaphors could be the basic currency to educate and interact with low-literate consumers in arenas they are not familiar with, like business and microcredit.

Due to the complex nature of microcredit in subsistence markets, there is no single “correct” representation of the failures; representational processes may have to be sensitive to the needs of all the various cognitive processes in which they might be used. The intention of using metaphors is not to be an end in itself. Rather, like scaffolding when building a house or models when building a strategy, when the goal is reached (i.e., the low-literate consumer understands, say, microcredit), the metaphor can be put away and future conversations continued in literal terms. In summary, the prevalence of metaphors raises new possibilities for both firm-provider and consumer education in subsistence markets, thus contributing to research on macro-marketing.

Research Implications

Low marketplace literacy results in imperfect understanding of the marketplace and therefore leads to tainted perceptions. Through the consideration of metaphoric perspectives, researchers can more easily understand the reality of microcredit for MSEs and also to explore metaphors as a communication system in this context and in subsistence markets in general.

Some critical issues to address include the following: (1) Do low-literate consumers use metaphors that are universal (e.g., life/death) or are they culturally bound (e.g., red/green have different connotations in different cultures)? (2) What degree of understanding is required before the training wheels of metaphors can be dropped and the conversation continued in literal terms? (3) Is sense giving critically dependent on attunement or are their different pathways to encourage sense making? (4) Are there different paths to alignment, aside from sense making? (5) How does popular media sanction the use of metaphors? Assuming that low-literate consumers are not consumers of high culture, and that “pop” culture has metaphors that drift in and out of style, and even meaning, can popular metaphors help create more nuanced understanding?

Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations that further research could address. First, we did not deliberately elicit metaphors by the use of metaphor elicitation techniques so there was no comparison of the number of metaphors that could be elicited through conversation. As such, we focused only on the metaphors that spontaneously occurred in the conversations between MFIs and MSEs. A more experimental follow up might manipulate/measure the degree of sense making/giving and attunement/alignment. Additional research could apply the Kelly Grid and Laddering process or other metaphor elicitation techniques. Despite these limitations, the study has significant implications for further research on metaphors and microcredit. Future studies could investigate metaphors used by other types of MFIs, such as microcredit organizations and non-governmental organizations, in their discussions with MSEs on accessing microcredit.