While in a Bangladeshi village last summer, I had a conversation with a former beggar in which I asked her about her favorite memories. I wanted to hear a story that would feed my idealism, a story that would narrate the triumph of self-actualization over material needs. I was quickly brought to reality when she responded that she tries not to recall any memories, because memories would only make her sad. She was married off as a teenager, her husband left shortly afterwards and she then became sick and unable to work. That was how she became a beggar on the side of the road, outcast by her community, yet dependent on their mercy to survive.

There are currently over one billion people living under the extreme poverty line, which is defined as living on $1.25 a day. That is about 15 percent of the world’s population. This is actually a huge improvement from the proportion 50 years ago, when about 40 percent of the world faced even more dire conditions. Unlike most of the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals, the number one goal of halving extreme poverty between 1990 and 2015 is on track to be met. The improvement is encouraging, and the next goal should simply be “ending poverty.” Our generation should caste poverty into museums, as a vestige of the past that violated people’s access to food, shelter, medicine and education, not to be repeated.

This week, Bill Gates released his “Annual Letter,” detailing development successes along with areas that need support. Not surprisingly, the founder of Microsoft emphasized “innovation” as the solution to ending poverty. He highlighted the need for increased funding for agriculture, global health and education. He is certainly leading the way with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s funding, such as their $2 billion donation toward “helping poor farm families.”

The Gates’ are making a remarkable impact, and my traipsing through villages in Bangladesh could never compare. Still, I found myself disappointed that Mr. Gates’ letter focused on monetary “pledges.” I admire philanthropists who have committed themselves to the livelihoods of people around the world, but eradicating poverty cannot be fully realized through just donations.

Ending poverty requires self-sufficiency, an idea tapped by the microfinance industry. By expanding financial services to poor people through loans and savings, microfinance harnesses self-sufficiency.

However, a few decades after its debut, microfinance has only been successful in certain parts of the world, and has flopped in critical regions like India. Many microfinance institutions in India are purely profit-driven and operate using unforgiving policies. In response, the government has imposed strict regulations that have caused a decline in micro-lending. Public opinion toward the microfinance sector has become understandably abysmal.

Microfinance institutions cannot be purely profit-driven if we are going to end poverty. It is unfair to extend a microloan to a villager, offer no entrepreneurial support and expect high returns within days or weeks. Self-sufficiency should not rest completely on financial services. Taking out a loan, even if it is a microloan, is a daunting process. If someone lent me $100 to start a micro-venture, I would not know how to immediately make a profit, especially since I would be tempted to fill my immediate need for food and clothing. Financial services should continue to be expanded to everyone, but there has to be an option of receiving advice and support and even some leniency with repayment.

Another promising option for poverty eradication is social entrepreneurship. One type of social entrepreneurship is creating jobs for people who are looking to become self-sufficient. The model has been used extensively in the United Kingdom, where many companies hire individuals that have had difficulty finding employment through highly competitive processes. In this way, social entrepreneurship employs people who would otherwise live in poverty and caters to individuals who have a disability and can benefit from a specific working environment. These companies exist to reap both profits and social capital.

A job, whether acquired through micro-credit or social entrepreneurship, has to be the solution. The former beggar in Bangladesh was beginning a job as a snack seller when I met her, and I could sense her quiet excitement at gaining self-sufficiency, even though she still could not afford medication and health care for her illness. A lack of money makes focusing on happiness entirely too difficult, but I hate saying that “money can buy happiness.” That idea is troublesome and materialistic, yet until one billion more people climb out of extreme poverty, it is heart-wrenchingly true.

Rajlakshmi De is a Trinity junior and is studying abroad at the London School of Economics. Her column runs every other Friday.