The three main monotheistic religions and gm food technology: an overview of perspectives

Abstract Background Public acceptance of genetically modified crops is partly rooted in religious views. However, the views of different religions and their potential influence on consumers' decisions have not been systematically examined and summarized in a brief overview. We review the positions of the Judaism, Islam and Christianity – the three major monotheistic religions to which more than 55% of humanity adheres to – on the controversies aroused by GM technology. Discussion The article establishes that there is no overarching consensus within the three religions. Overall, however, it appears that mainstream theology in all three religions increasingly tends towards acceptance of GM technology per se, on performing GM research, and on consumption of GM foods. These more liberal approaches, however, are predicated on there being rigorous scientific, ethical and regulatory scrutiny of research and development of such products, and that these products are properly labeled. Summary We conclude that there are several other interests competing with the influence exerted on consumers by religion. These include the media, environmental activists, scientists and the food industry, all of which function as sources of information and shapers of perception for consumers

Does Social Lending incorporate Social Technologies? The use of Web 2.0 Technologies in online P2P lending

Microcredit interest costs remain higher than those of commercial banks in spite of significant donor funds, largely owing to transaction costs relative to small loan sizes. With the rise of Web 2.0 and online social interactivity, can these transaction costs be reduced through peer to peer lending? Peer to Peer lending and Web 2.0 have two things in common. The first common denominator is that both of them are rather newcomers in their respective fields and growing fast. The second is that they are both based on mutual and social exchanges between people instead of centrally controlled communications and relationships. The main objective of this paper was to investigate whether they are integrated to support a higher level of social interactions and associations for less (transaction) costs. We find that peer to peer lending consists of diverse websites of microcredit (Kiva, Wokai), social investing (MicroPlace) as well as small loans at market rates (Prosper, Zopa, Lending Club), and even lending between friends and family members (Virgin Money). The paper studies the use of web 2.0 technologies (blogs, interactivity between lenders and buyers, peers' reviews and comments, peers communities and chats) in six such peer-to-peer lending sites. It finds that most of the peer-to-peer lenders are in fact intermediaries between the peers (lender and borrowers) and there is little direct contact between the peers. One website used none of the web 2.0 tools. None of the websites used all the web 2.0 tools. The impact on transaction costs is therefore very little. A discussion of difficulties in establishing platforms in this field and directions for future research are provided.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Mission Drift in Microfinance institutions: the Moroccan case

International audienc

An Analysis of European Online micro-lending Websites

Purpose of the paper: With the development of web 2.0, a new kind on lending is taking place on the internet, termed peer to peer lending or social lending. In Europe, this includes commercial lending websites such as Zopa, smava, boober, Kokos, Monetto. At the same time, following the lead of Kiva in the US, European microcredit web platforms are coming up including MyC4 and Babyloan in Europe. The paper examines how the legal design of the online websites differs from the microcredit websites in Europe and how this impacts social performance issues of the different models. Design/Methodology/Approach: Since the population size of these websites is rather small, we use a comparative case study approach. The case study approach is the most adapted to studying small samples in more detail. The case studies are based on exploring of websites and review of academic literature and press reports. Key results: We find that although web2.0 permits platform models, most sites (commercial or micro-lending) have retained intermediary roles and have not permitted direct peer to peer contact. The paper will outline the advantages to both borrowers and lenders in the different models and their motivations. Challenges for expansion, such as trust-building as well as a marketing analysis will also be presented. Impact: The findings would lead microfinance institutions to lobby for specific laws, and invest in online lending solutions to radically reduce operating costs as well as to increase outreach. Value: This research would add value to those who are operating in or launching new online microcredit platforms to understand this young and fast changing marketplace.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Analyse comparative des discours gagnants et perdants du microcrédit : le cas des campagnes de crowdlending

National audienceAnalyse comparative des discours gagnants et perdants du microcrédit : le cas des campagnes de crowdlending. « We will always need banking, but we don't need Banks anymore » Bill Gates Le crowdlending, traduit littéralement par « le prêt par la foule » est un système de prêts rémunérés qui vient diversifier les sources de financement pour les TPE/PME, mais également pour les plus grosses entreprises, telles que les groupes. Le crowdlending donne aux entreprises l'opportunité d'obtenir jusqu'à un million d'euros auprès d'une foule de particuliers (ou institutionnels) par le biais de plateformes sur internet, notamment pour certains besoins qui ne sont que très rarement couverts par les banques. Jusqu'en octobre 2014, contrairement aux grandes entreprises, les TPE et PME en France n'avaient que peu de solutions pour se financer. Un décret est alors venu mettre fin au monopole bancaire en France et a révolutionné le prêt rémunéré en permettant à chaque individu d'endosser un rôle initialement réservé aux banquiers. Le taux pour les emprunteurs est plus élevé (7,3% en moyenne pour 2017) mais la durée pour obtenir les fonds est extrêmement écourtée (une dizaine de jours en moyenne). Sa croissance, en France fut exponentielle entre 2013 et 2016. En 2016, il a permis de financer 651 projets (contre 395 en 2015) pour un montant de 83 M€, soit 2,6 fois plus qu'en 2015. Pour l'année 2017, les collectes viennent d'atteindre 100M€. Le crowdlending apporte soit un complément aux financements classiques (love money, banque, etc.), soit une réelle alternative. Cependant, malgré des débuts très prometteurs, son expansion tend à se modérer. En août 2017, le nombre de dossiers financés a connu sa plus faible progression depuis un an et demi. L'objectif est ici de comprendre pourquoi certaines campagnes de financement aboutissent, et pourquoi d'autres échouent. Comment les informations disponibles en ligne influencent-elles l'aboutissement d'une campagne de crowdlending ? Notre méthodologie est exploratoire et qualitative. Nous proposons d'analyser le discours des porteurs de projet afin de comprendre si certains messages se révèlent plus attractifs et convaincants pour le prêteur. Nous avons choisi de nous focaliser sur le cas de la plateforme Lendopolis pour cette recherche, car actuellement c'est la seule plateforme à communiquer de manière transparente sur l'ensemble des projets. De plus, elle ne permet pas l'autolend 1 , ce qui permet d'analyser le comportement réel des prêteurs. Nous commencerons cette communication par une synthèse de la littérature qui encadre le crowdlending puis nous exposons notre méthodologie de recherche. Nous apportons ensuite nos résultats exploratoires et concluons sur la question de recherche. 1 L'autolend est une « gestion automatisée des offres de prêts » en fonction des critères pré-remplis par les membres des plateformes (Unilend, Prêtup

La microfinance :de la charité aux affaires: Introduction au numéro spécial

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Should online micro-lending be for profit or for philanthropy? DhanaX and Rang De

microfinance, online lending, ethics, governance