Archive for the ‘Financing’ Category
Beyond Budgeting: The Rural Need For Practical Solutions
Last week the WSJ India portal published an article ” Budget 2010: Will Rural India Get a Fair Deal?” authored by K. Seeta Prabhu, Senior Assistant Country Director, United Nations Development Programme, New Delhi. Villgro Fellow 2010, Jeanne Chen responds to the article on her blog, Crossworlds. The original post is republished, with permission, below.
This article was originally published by the Wall Street Journal on February 24, 2010, “Budget 2010: Will Rural India Get a Fair Deal”. Within the article, Ms. K. Seeta Prabhu of the UNDP in New Delhi raises a number of extremely relevant concerns about the rural poor of India:
- 42% of rural farmers live under the poverty line
- Small acreage farmers compose 84% of total farmers
- Low agricultural productivity
- Lack of permanent shelter
- Lack of electricity and highly inefficient energy usage
- Lack of employment opportunities outside of agriculture
The situation described demands attention. In response, Ms. Prabhu recommends that the government should take action by injecting massive amounts of stimulus money into large public work projects to build crop warehouses and public toilets, to usher in another “Green Revolution”, to incentivize the installation of bio-plant stoves, etc. The litany of public projects that Ms. Prabhu wants the local governments to undertake is daunting. I find no fault with the problems identified and the end objectives cited, but I do doubt the realistic feasibility of the list of public projects. These proposed solutions are in fact not new; they have been discussed by the development community for some time. The problem doesn’t lie in the solution ideas themselves, but in the implementation – what has been coined as the “last mile challenge”. It’s agreed that these solutions need to happen, but how?
In my opinion, the government is not the agent of choice for solving this implementation problem and promoting large public works projects is certainly not going to address the rural poor’s needs. Ms. Prabhu herself points out that past governmental initiatives to create employment have failed:
“The implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Program has offered some succor but due to various constraints, the promised 100 days of employment have been provided only in the state of Rajasthan. In fact, the performance of the program is quite low in the states of Bihar, Orissa and Jharkhand, which have large numbers of the rural poor.”
The NREG program is a perfect example of how the government failed to reach the last mile. A Villgro associate recently visited with farmers in the impoverished state of Assam and asked them why they were not in the NREG program, which could have more than doubled their current annual income (~Rs8,400 or $170USD). The Assamese farmers said that they weren’t aware that such a program existed. The local governments in charge of the NREG hadn’t publicized the program and so, those funds disappear off into a vacuum and failed to reach the rural poor. How then, will more public programs and government projects help the rural poor climb out of poverty?
Instead of encouraging more public works programs, Ms. Prabhu would do better to promote additional funding for the existing social entreprises who have made immense progress in helping the rural poor increase their income. In Out of Poverty, Paul Polak specifically discusses how rural innovations such as the treadle pump have helped increase the crop yield and income of small acreage farmers far more more than the first “Green Revolution”. Millions of rural farmers have used drip irrigation systems, treadle pumps, and other agricultural innovations developed by social enterprises to grow off-season crops which generate more income or to grow crops during the dry seasons.
There are also other entreprises that are addressing the other problems faced by the rural poor. In fact, Villgro has incubated a number of enterprises that address each of the problems cited by Ms. Prabhu. Innovations such as the Venus Burner help to make energy more efficient; the Pin Pulverizer is a small grinder that allows farmers to mill their grains before they spoil; Desicrew and other rural BPOs are creating lasting employment for women and youth. The list of rural innovations that are practical solutions addressing the needs of the poor continues to grow and their impact has been dramatic. Although the implementation is still difficult, social enterprises have devised ingenious methods for distributing and marketing to that last mile. But most importantly, because the profitability and survival of these social enterprises is dependent on the adoption of the product or service, there is a guarantee that these solutions will actually reach the rural poor.
As the rural poor begin to increase their income through growing multiple crops per year (aided by drip irrigation), cost savings on more efficient energy and other activities, they can begin to invest their additional income to build the infrastructures that they value. Education, health, and permanent shelters are the next logical investments that the poor make, but they have to increase their income first in order to get there. If addressing the needs of the rural poor is the aim, Ms. Prabhu would be better served to support budget allocation of funds to existing social enterprises and the development of rural innovations rather than additional government stimulus and public works programs that fail to actually reach that last mile. The rural poor need practical solutions that place chapattis on their plates and rupees in their pockets, not grand social infrastructure schemes and empty government programs. After all, it’s only a fair deal if the rural poor actually benefits from it.
Making your money count: The Case for Community Investing and Social Venture Capital
For several investors today investing responsibly has become a de facto mantra. Further some investors are interested in investing in ways that are socially responsible – i.e, the creation of some social and environmental impact. Investing to reduce poverty in the developing world has also gained considerable traction in recent years. But how do these conscious investors track their investment dollars to ensure that they fulfill their intensions? Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) provides the answer, say authors Jon Daigle, Carrie Hall, Rania Jamal, et al., in their article “Poverty Alleviation through Socially Responsible Investment: Case Studies of Community Investing and Social Venture Capital,” In their article the authors point to four methods of engaging in SRI – screening, shareholder advocacy, community investing and social venture capital. Click to continue…
Barriers to Household Risk Management: Evidence from India
Microinsurance is fast emerging as an important component to comprehensive financial service offerings to the BoP. Recognizing that often the poor fall back into poverty due to financial setbacks caused by illness, accident, death or natural destruction, several organizations are introducing policies that will help mitigate risk better – for example XAC Bank in Mongolia (where the population is nomadic and heavily dependent on the cattle trade), offers farmers livestock insurance.
This paper analyzes the risk mitigation strategies employed among farmers in India. In particular the team at the Institute for Financial Management and Research (IFMR) Center for Microinsurance (CMF), looks at the adoption of rainfall insurance products designed to compensate low-income Indian farmers in case of poor rainfall during the monsoon season. The study compares patterns between Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat, and offers lessons based on their findings.
Read the entire article here.
Agricultural Innovation Diffusion through Microfinance – A Spatio-Temporal Analysis
There have been several criticisms leveled at the microfinance industry over the years. One concern raised by many sceptics is that while microfinance has proved to be a poverty-reducing enabler, it is often indifferent or oblivious to the realities on the ground. The standard model does not always seem to apply its self in every encountered situation.
According to Cameroonian researchers E. N Ndenecho and K. H. Akum, microfinance operations in the Mezam division have not had a significant impact on the largely-agricultural population. Through spatio-temporal analysis of primary and secondary data, the authors analyze the adoption and spread of microfinance in the region. The study concludes that while microfinance has had positive but insufficient impact on agricultural development. To make its reach more successful, the authors recommend microfinance institutions make financial and technical assistance available to the poor by adapting to local realities, and structures while introducing innovations within institutions and processes.
Read the entire article here.
Ten Nonprofit Funding Models
In the non-profit world, the talk of funding is ever present. Since their methods of operation are different from the for-profit world, raising money to fund programs necessitates a dedicated method to bring in money. This often leads to several creative operating and funding models. However often the models developed do not adequately answer questions of long-term stability, or financial viability. What works for one non-profit does not necessarily work for another.
In their article for the Standford Social Innovation Review, “Ten Non-Profit Funding Models,” authors William Landes Foster, Peter Kim and Barbera Christiansen identify 10 non-profit funding models commonly used in the U.S. Through the article they highlight how non-profits can identify different sources of funding, and build partnerships. They also discuss the associated limitations and benefits of each model.
Read the entire article here.
Who Benefits from Promoting Small & Medium Enterprises?
The following is the abstract to the full article by authors Bob Rijkers, Caterina Ruggeri Laderchi, and Francis Teal. The article was first published by the World Bank as part of their Policy Research Working Paper Series.
The Addis Ababa Integrated Housing Development Program aims to tackle the housing shortage and unemployment that prevail in Addis Ababa by deploying and supporting small and medium scale enterprises to construct low-cost housing using technologies novel for Ethiopia. The motivation for such support is predicated on the view that small firms create more jobs per unit of investment by virtue of being more labor intensive and that the jobs so created are concentrated among the low-skilled and hence the poor. To assess whether the program has succeeded in biasing technology adoption in favor of labor and thereby contributed to poverty reduction, the impact of the program on technology usage, labor intensity, and earnings is investigated using a unique matched workers-firms dataset, the Addis Ababa Construction Enterprise Survey. The data are representative of all registered construction firms in Addis and were collected specifically for the purpose of analyzing the impact of the program. The authors find that program firms do not adopt different technologies and are not more labor intensive than non-program firms. There is an earnings premium for program participants, who tend to be relatively well-educated, which is heterogeneous and highest for those at the bottom of the earnings distribution.






