Broadly, microfinance ( micro-finance ) is defined as a provider of financial services for micro and small enterprises as well as serve as a tool for rural development ( Salam , 2002) . Another sense defining microfinance is financial services in the form of fund raising and the provision of small loans and the provision of related services , particularly aimed at low-income groups ( gatherers , 2005) . In general, Microfinance Institutions ( MFIs ) provide financial services in the form of credit , loans , or other forms of financing . Berkaiatan with that MFIs can then mnghimpun public funds , even in many MFIs , fund raising activities ( saving) be a prerequisite for the existence of financial services ( credit ) .
Type MFIs vary widely , both in terms of the establishment of institutional goals , culture , government policies and other targets . In general , MFIs in Indonesia can be classified into two types , namely formal and informal and formal MFIs consist of banks , namely the Rural Credit Agency ( BKD ) , Prekreditan Bank (BPR ) , and BRI Unit , while the formal non-bank MFIs include Rural Fund and Credit institutions ( LDKPs ) , Cooperatives ( Credit Unions and Village Unit Cooperatives ) and Pawn . The informal MFIs consist of various groups and NGOs ( CBOs and NGOs ) , Baitul Maal wat Tamwil ( BMT ) , the Institute for Community Productive Economy ( LEPM ) , the Village Savings and Loans Unit Economics ( UEDSP ) and various forms of other groups ( Regards , 2002) . Table 1 shows the profile of microfinance in Indonesia .
According Kusmulyono (2005 ) , the power profile and role of MFIs can be seen from the number of MFIs , the volume of financing provided , as well as the mobilization of deposits collected from the community . Data from Bank Indonesia , the role of BRI is still the most dominant , both in terms of financing and mobilization of funds . Position as of the end of July 2004 , BRI Unt able to raise public funds amounting to Rp 32 trillion , while financing ( loans ) reached Rp 17.3 trillion . While BPR which in recent years has been progressing quite rapidly , able to collect public funds of 9.25 billion , while for the financing of Rp 9.43 trillion (as of March 2004 ) . While the mortgage company is able to manifest itself as a formal non-bank institutions in providing the highest Rp 8.8 trillion mencapaui financing , with the highest number of debtors are 14.3 million customers (as of December 2003 ) .
Based on data from Bank Indonesia , in addition to non-formal institutions such as Baitul Maal wat - Tamwil ( BMT ) , a substantial funding for microfinance programs provided by the central government , of which the most prominent is Kukesra of Rp 754 billion (as of June 2002 ) , P2KP Rp 500 billion (as of September 2003 ) , P4K of Rp 394 billion (as of May 2002 ) , the CO of Rp 243 billion ( as of December 2002 ) , and PEMP of Rp 308 billion . These programs have had a fairly large number of debtors . For example , the number of debtors Kukesra 10.3 million , P2KP 3.2 million , 2.3 million PKM . However , the delivery of a range of programs to local community initiatives ( IMS ) as well as regional autonomy , make it difficult to get accurate data on the development of the current program , whether the program is still running , progressing or has stopped . In addition, no national data available on the performance of microfinance is informal , such as social gathering , lending to the neighbors , and loans to moneylenders .
Total loans BPR in 2003 increased by nearly 150 percent from 2000 , although the number of debtors increased only 19.3 percent . The increase in the number of high loan look also at pawnshops , which is more than 100 percent , while BRI increased by about 75 percent . Nearly the same state can also be seen in terms of mobilization of funds . Deposits in rural banks increased by more than 185 percent , much higher than in BK3D which only increased by 68.6 percent , and in 45 percent of BRI . This situation is related to the restructuring program undertaken by MFIs BI specifically to provide guidance to the RB as the only formal bank MFIs recognized by BI . While in the case of funds collected and disbursed , BRI top ranks .
Type MFIs vary widely , both in terms of the establishment of institutional goals , culture , government policies and other targets . In general , MFIs in Indonesia can be classified into two types , namely formal and informal and formal MFIs consist of banks , namely the Rural Credit Agency ( BKD ) , Prekreditan Bank (BPR ) , and BRI Unit , while the formal non-bank MFIs include Rural Fund and Credit institutions ( LDKPs ) , Cooperatives ( Credit Unions and Village Unit Cooperatives ) and Pawn . The informal MFIs consist of various groups and NGOs ( CBOs and NGOs ) , Baitul Maal wat Tamwil ( BMT ) , the Institute for Community Productive Economy ( LEPM ) , the Village Savings and Loans Unit Economics ( UEDSP ) and various forms of other groups ( Regards , 2002) . Table 1 shows the profile of microfinance in Indonesia .
According Kusmulyono (2005 ) , the power profile and role of MFIs can be seen from the number of MFIs , the volume of financing provided , as well as the mobilization of deposits collected from the community . Data from Bank Indonesia , the role of BRI is still the most dominant , both in terms of financing and mobilization of funds . Position as of the end of July 2004 , BRI Unt able to raise public funds amounting to Rp 32 trillion , while financing ( loans ) reached Rp 17.3 trillion . While BPR which in recent years has been progressing quite rapidly , able to collect public funds of 9.25 billion , while for the financing of Rp 9.43 trillion (as of March 2004 ) . While the mortgage company is able to manifest itself as a formal non-bank institutions in providing the highest Rp 8.8 trillion mencapaui financing , with the highest number of debtors are 14.3 million customers (as of December 2003 ) .
Based on data from Bank Indonesia , in addition to non-formal institutions such as Baitul Maal wat - Tamwil ( BMT ) , a substantial funding for microfinance programs provided by the central government , of which the most prominent is Kukesra of Rp 754 billion (as of June 2002 ) , P2KP Rp 500 billion (as of September 2003 ) , P4K of Rp 394 billion (as of May 2002 ) , the CO of Rp 243 billion ( as of December 2002 ) , and PEMP of Rp 308 billion . These programs have had a fairly large number of debtors . For example , the number of debtors Kukesra 10.3 million , P2KP 3.2 million , 2.3 million PKM . However , the delivery of a range of programs to local community initiatives ( IMS ) as well as regional autonomy , make it difficult to get accurate data on the development of the current program , whether the program is still running , progressing or has stopped . In addition, no national data available on the performance of microfinance is informal , such as social gathering , lending to the neighbors , and loans to moneylenders .
Total loans BPR in 2003 increased by nearly 150 percent from 2000 , although the number of debtors increased only 19.3 percent . The increase in the number of high loan look also at pawnshops , which is more than 100 percent , while BRI increased by about 75 percent . Nearly the same state can also be seen in terms of mobilization of funds . Deposits in rural banks increased by more than 185 percent , much higher than in BK3D which only increased by 68.6 percent , and in 45 percent of BRI . This situation is related to the restructuring program undertaken by MFIs BI specifically to provide guidance to the RB as the only formal bank MFIs recognized by BI . While in the case of funds collected and disbursed , BRI top ranks .
