Withdrawals from the fund at 4 per cent can therefore finance 15 per cent of public spending in 10 years’ time. This can continue on a permanent basis without reducing the capital in the fund. The fund will therefore lead to smaller cuts in government welfare spending than would have been the case without the fund as the costs related to the ageing of the population have an impact on government budgets. The actual building up of the fund may span a short generation. A fund with investment abroad enables Norway to separate the revenues generated by oil and gas production from petroleum revenue spending. An alternative could have been to regulate the production rate, keeping our wealth under the sea bed for a longer period, as was attempted in the 1970s when the production ceiling was set at 90 million standard cubic metres per year. Oil companies currently produce 240 million standard cubic metres per year. The fund acts as a buffer between widely fluctuating oil revenues and domestic expenditure. The annual spending decision can be made independently of the size of the revenues. Thus, the fluctuations in government oil revenues do not have an automatic impact on the Norwegian economy. The fund also has a stabilising effect on the krone exchange rate as capital outflows increase when Norway’s petroleum revenues rise. As a savings plan, the fund enables petroleum revenues to be used by not only the current generation but also future generations. The fiscal rule ensures that this is the case.

This is against the backdrop that Asia experienced an average GDP growth rate of 9.6 percent. This suggests that trickle-down economics has failed to deliver equitable growth. We should expect that if significant segments of the population are systematically excluded from the tools that drive success, there will be economic consequences. Financial access and education are arguably two of the most critical tools that enable individuals to achieve success. Yet, around 50% of the global population live on less than USD2.50 per day, most of them without access to formal financial services. That is almost one in two people who, given the opportunities that come with financial access, could be making much greater contributions to society, and consequently, raising economic potential. We also learnt that, stagnating median wages have discouraged the low and middleincome from saving and investing. Against this backdrop, microfinance has captured the global imagination of policymakers, development institutions, private enterprises and donors alike to promote greater financial inclusion. Yet over the last few decades, since Grameen Bank entered the world’s consciousness, microfinance has had a mixed experience. World views on this subject have also become more polarised. Some consider microfinance to be the panacea (which it is not) to end poverty, others have been highly critical of its abuse to exploit the poor. These characterizations are very diverse but it is useful feedback that we should ponder. These contrasting views illustrate the complexities and challenges associated with the subject. Microfinance, like all public policies, faces the challenge of implementation.