With rigorous economic research and practical policy solutions, we focus on the issues and institutions that are critical to global development. Explore our core themes and topics to learn more about our work.
In timely and incisive analysis, our experts parse the latest development news and devise practical solutions to new and emerging challenges. Our events convene the top thinkers and doers in global development.
On Tuesday, Norway's Ministry of Foreign Affairs released the results of a quick investigation of an old dispute between it and the Grameen Bank, which was revealed to the public a week earlier by Tom Heinemann's documentary for the Norwegian television program Brennpunkt.
According to the report, there is no indication that Norwegian funds have been used for unintended purposes, or that Grameen Bank has engaged in corrupt practices or embezzled funds. The matter was concluded when the agreement concerning reimbursement of the funds was entered into in May 1998 under the government in office at the time.
It rebuts a charge in the documentary that Norwegian aid was improperly used to invest in Grameen Phone (which, by the way, was a joint venture with the Norwegian phone giant Telenor).
It explains that the final "compromise" with the Grameen Bank was not that at all from Norway's point of view. Rather, Grameen Kalyan gave all of Norway's money back to Grameen Bank, as originally demanded. This agreement did not cover the money of other donors, which is why through the fog of Google-translated inside baseball it appeared to be a compromise. In the Grameen Bank's statement on the matter, it asserts that "100% of all donor's money" was in fact returned; I have seen neither independent verification nor financial statements to confirm that claim.
To reiterate, while the Grameen Bank undermined its credibility by violating the contract and then seeming to lie about the reasons, the dispute was only ever about the contract violation. It was not about whether funds were embezzled, nor about whether Grameen's plans would have failed to serve the poor.
CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise. CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.