Urban women's informal savings and credit systems in Zambia

This article is based on findings from semi-structured interviews and discussions among "chilimba" groups in Zambia. Chilimba groups are primarily women's groups that engage in credit and savings programs. Group membership ranges from 4 to 20 members. The women agree on a fixed, regular cash contribution that is given in turn to each member in a specified order. Market groups tend to be larger and contributions of about a dollar are made daily. Smaller groups tend to make larger, but less frequent contributions. Default is rare, as the commitment is taken very seriously. New members are added at the end of the rotation. Loans can be used for domestic or business use. Chilimba groups are evidence that very poor people desire savings. Chilimba brings together people with similar financial needs and resources. Chilimba does not require formal, written procedures or formal institutional frameworks. Chilimba is not a remedy for reducing overall poverty. It is appropriate only for people with some regular source of income. It does not serve as a safety net in emergencies. Long-term loans are not possible. A limitation is its openness and lack of structure that permit potential abuse. It is a livelihood strategy for women, but benefits could be gained from including men. It is urged that groups consider whether the position of the poor is being enhanced or undermined. Different models need to be tested. Members themselves must decide on the type and phasing of activities.     

When Manu met Mahāsammata

Conclusions When Manu met MS is a story told to explain the origins of the dhammathats. This is where the text came from implies the corollary ... and that is why we must obey the contents of the text. The special feature of this story, which rendered it unsuitable for inclusion in our Postcanonical Adventures survey, is that MS shares equal billing with Manu. The legitimation of law is such a heavy task that it requires the combined efforts of two culture heroes. Forchhammer and Lingat recognised the strangeness of this shared responsibility and interpreted it in terms of sources. Putting their shared position in colloquial language: