All Q and no A

I have a question that has been floating around my head for a while, and it goes something like this:

Should microinsurance (or any other development tool for that matter) be trying to do the best thing it might be able to achieve or should it be focusing on the problem it is best at solving?

Let’s take the two ends of the spectrum. On the one hand most microinsurance programs start off with credit life. Microinsurance is a very good fit for reducing defaults, making microfinance safer for borrowers and expanding the reach of microfinance. But it’s not the most exciting proposition, and these programs are often criticized as they are compulsory and in some cases benefit lending organizations more than borrowers.

At the other end, health insurance is the type of microinsurance most sought after by low income clients. Protecting poor people against the terrible risks related to health is probably the best thing microinsurance might be able to achieve. But it is difficult, often piecemeal and, crucially, there are other methods available.

Is microinsurance the best answer to the question of providing affordable and quality health care to poor people? I don’t know the answer. But sometimes it seems to me that it is easy as a microinsurance practitioner to start with our tool and ask how we can use it to address the most pressing problems.

Would it be a better use of our resources and our tool to apply it where it can make the most difference, to the problem it best fits?