农村金融机构和系统文献翻译.doc

《农村金融机构和系统文献翻译.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《农村金融机构和系统文献翻译.doc（13页珍藏版）》请在沃文网上搜索。

1、本科毕业论文外文翻译原文外文题目Theme: Rural Finance Institutions and System Models of Rural Financial Institutions 出 处：Institute of Rural Development 作 者：Manfred Zeller 原 文：The Role of Rural Finance for Agricultural and Economic Growth, Food Security and Poverty ReductionSecond, while agriculture is, relatively sp

2、eaking, a declining sector in the course ofdevelopment, in many developing countries it is still a leading economic sector, the main exporter, and the major employer, especially for the poor and women. Improved financial markets accelerate agricultural and rural growth. Financial services assist hou

3、seholds in maintaining food security and smoothing consumption, thereby safeguarding or enhancing labor productivity , the most important production factor of the poor. Because of agricultures strong forward and backward multiplier effects for the overall economy, economic growth in agriculture espe

4、cially in subsectors that directly or indirectly benefit smallholders, tenants, and wage laborers is a key precondition for overall economic growth and poverty reduction. At present, most of the poor still live in rural areas. Any student of an introductory course in micro-economics or development e

5、conomics learns that access to savings, credit and insurance services can have beneficial effects on households and their enterprises and therefore on economic growth, and that microfinance in particular may also contribute to more equitable growth. Access to credit, however, has an economic benefit

6、 only if and when that access generates a broadly defined net economic surplus after having deducted the private and social costs of loan provision (including the opportunity costs of scarce public funds in alternative poverty reduction policies). While the evidence on the impact of credit on househ

7、old welfare, agricultural technology adoption, and on agricultural sector growth is mixed4 , many practical constraints (i.e. time and money) and methodological difficulties in estimating the impact of a policy or project with a reasonable probability of error exist Simple common sense tells us that

8、 savers who continue to deposit money for different motives, borrowers who continue to repay their loans, and clients paying regular premiums for health and life insurance over long periods actually derive an economic benefit.CHANGING WISDOMS AND POLICY OBJECTIVES IN RURAL FINANCESince the mid 1980s

9、, there has been a paradigm shift in financial policy (including rural finance) from subsidized credit to financial systems development.The old paradigm of sector directed, supply led and subsidized credit has been based on faulty assumptions about the willingness and ability of poor farmers and oth

10、er entrepreneurs to pay for financial services, which led to faulty policy design and implementation.The new paradigm departs not from the need, but from the demand (i.e. willingness and ability to pay market prices) for savings, credit and insurance services by farmers and other entrepreneurs. Inst

11、ead it focuses on building sustainable financial institutions and systems, and introduced the operational policy objective of financial sustainability of MFIs. The new paradigm recognizes that high transaction costs and risks that partly result from information asymmetries and moral hazard problems

12、for both financial intermediaries and clients are some of the root causes of the gap between demand and supply. Therefore, the new paradigm places emphasis on searching for technological and institutional innovations (including suitable governance and incentive structures) to reduce the costs and ri

13、sks of financial intermediation. Thenew paradigm recognizes the possibility of market as well as government failure (i.e. institutional failure in general), and negates the thesis put forward by proponents of market liberalization that a “financial system which is not repressed would by itself funct

14、ion optimally”. The new paradigm in contrast sees financial market liberalization (e.g. with respect to interest rate formation) as a necessary but not sufficient condition for deepening financial systems. Moreover, as the required technological and institutional innovations needed to deepen the fin

15、ancial system and to serve poorer segments of the population can be readily copied by for-profit financial institutions, the resulting free-rider problem prevents the private sector from sufficiently investing (compared to socially optimal levels) in such innovations. In conclusion, public investmen

16、t in pro-poor (and pro rural) financial innovation is required.This holds true not only for microfinance, but for rural finance as well. Thus, public investment in rural finance can be justified, for example, to fund (action)-research and promising institutional start-ups as well as institutional ex

17、pansion until reaching financial sustainability within reasonable time periods, and to support pilot experiments with promising new products, technology or technical assistance, such as for training of staff and transfer of best practices. Given the long gestation periods required in building sustai

18、nable institutions, public investment in institution-building requires long-term planning horizons with operational flexibility in instruments and timing. The required public investment in rural finance is more labor and knowledge-intensive, and far less capital-intensive than past investments follo

19、wing the old paradigm. The triangle of microfinance: financial sustainability, outreach, and welfare impactInternationally agreed principal objectives of development cooperation are the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These set targets to reduce poverty and make improvements in t

20、he various dimensions of poverty (or welfare) such as education, health, nutrition and womens empowermentFollowing the concept of a logical framework, (financial) sector policy objectives need therefore to be consistent with these principal objectives Microfinance as well as rural financial policy h

21、as to be evaluated against three objectives: financial sustainability, breadth and depth of outreach, and the welfare impact.Financial sector policy can support the Millenium Development Goals (and thus poverty reduction) in two ways: Indirectly, through supporting a sustainable financial system as

22、a precondition for economic and social development. This indirect pathway includes causal chains that can be summarized under the thesis of poverty reduction through economic growth. An example of one of these causal chains is that owners of wealthier enterprises who use the financial services creat

23、e additional demand for goods and services of the poor thus increasing their income.Directly, by increasing the access of poor people to financial services. Governments and donors may differ in their perceptions about the relative effectiveness and efficiency of the two pathways. Indeed, which one m

24、ay receive more emphasis has to necessarily vary with country- specific conditions. It follows that governments and donors also differ in their relative emphasis on the three objectives in micro- and rural finance, i.e. financial sustainability, depth of outreach, and welfare impact. This, of course

25、, influences their view on the relative efficiency of different types of financial institutions, and thereby influences how financial policies are designed in practice and how the institutional landscape evolves. Because of market imperfections, the state has a legitimate role for investing in finan

26、cial systems development. However, given the possibility of government failure(i.e. governments may not be able to correct market failures), and social opportunity costs of public funds, there are of course also limitations of public investment in finance. There has been a shift in paradigm in rural

27、 finance in the late 1980s, and much of this can be traced to the failures of subsidized small farmer credit and the successes of a few MFIs. The objectives of financial policy have changed along with the paradigm shift.Initially, the focus was on improving the outreach of MFIs to the poor, that is,

28、 serve more of the poor (breadth of outreach) and more of the poorest of the poor (depth of outreach).Eventually, the objective of sustainability of financial institutions took on great importance. Following the work of Ohio State University and other institutions in the 1980s, the view emerged that

29、 the building of lasting, permanent financial institutions requires that they become financially sustainable, that is, they cover their costs. Some analysts (for example, Christen et al. 1995; Otero and Rhyne 1994) argued that increasing the depth of outreach and financial sustainability are compati

30、ble objectives in the sense that increasing the scale of operations will also increase the absolute number of poor people among clients: “It is scale, not exclusive focus, that determines whether significant outreach to the poor will occur”. Several other authors present analysis that supports the n

31、otion of a trade-off between improving depth of outreach, i.e. reaching relatively poorer people, and achieving financial sustainabilityThe trade-off stems from the fact that transaction costs have a large fixed cost component so that unit costs for smaller savings deposits or smaller loans are high

32、 compared to larger financial transactions. This law of decreasing unit transaction costs with larger size transactions generates the trade-off between improved outreach to the poor and financial sustainability, irrespective of the lending technology used. To cover the higher costs of these loans, i

33、nterest rates need to either be set higher, or the MFI may follow a strategy of using economies of scale, scope and risk to cross subsidize smaller loans. Breadth of outreach (in terms of number of clientele) and depth of outreach (at present measured through the very imprecise, but widely used indi

34、cator of average loan size (or balance) in relation to per-capita GDP are now regularly reported, e.g. in the Microbanking Bulletin Wenner states that depth of outreach, specified as target maximum average loan size, has become a criteria used by the IDB for certain instruments of (rural) microfinan

35、ce policy.Financial sustainability of the financial institution and outreach to the poor are only two of the policy objectives of microfinance. The third policy objective relates to the impact of financial systems development, particularly on poverty reduction. When policy intervention and direct su

36、pport for institution building requires public investments funded either by domestic or foreign taxes or donations, the question arises about the payoff or impact, for example in terms of economic growth and alleviation of poverty and food insecurity.Institutional innovation in microfinance followin

37、g the new paradigm has relied on financial support by donors and governments and by other social investors such as philanthropic foundations. In fact, many, but not all, MFIs that reach large numbers of female and male clients below the poverty line require continued state or donor transfers to full

38、y cover costs Moreover, most, if not all, of the MFIs featured in the Microbanking Bulletin that already reached financial sustainability have required public investment at some point in their existence, be it to enable technical assistance or to receive capital for going to scale so as to reduce un

39、it costs. Some may consider these funds provided by governments, donors and other social investors as subsidies (with a negative connotation), but from a policy perspective- these funds constitute public investment (be it good or bad investment) in institution and systems building. Such publicinvest

40、ments are justified from a public policy perspective if the discounted social benefits of public investment in microfinance are expected to outweigh the social costs. These costs include the opportunity costs of foregoing the net social benefits of other public investments, such as in primary educat

41、ion . The subsidy dependence index has become a widely accepted operational measure to quantify the amount of social costs involved in supporting the operations of a financial institutionAddressing the policy question of whether such public investments are economically not financially- sustainable r

42、equires a comparison of social costs with social benefits. This consideration raises welfare impact as an important third objective of microfinance. The triangle of microfinance, which reflects the three objectives of financial sustainability, outreach, and impact, is represented in Figure 1.MFIs at

43、tempt to contribute to these objectives (either indirectly through pursuance of financial sustainability leading to scale and serving many clients or directly through targeting poorer segments of the population) but many stress one particular objective over the other two. Donors, governments, and ot

44、her social investors also differ in their relative emphasis on the three objectives. Some MFIs may produce large impacts (especially if financial services are coupled with non-financial services addressing other constraints of the poor) but achieve limited outreach. Others may make smaller impacts b

45、ut are highly financially sustainable with a large breadth of outreach, and investments in such institutions may have a high cost efficiency in reducing poverty. The potential trade-offs between depth of outreach and financial sustainability have been noted, but they may also exist between impact an

46、d financial sustainability. As Sharma and Buchenrieder argue, the impact of finance can be enhanced through complementary non financial services, such as business or marketing services or training of borrowers that raise the profitability of loan financed projects. Complementary services are sometim

47、es offered by MFIs but supplying them increases the complexity of the operation and its costs, thereby foregoing efficiency gains from specialization and jeopardizing financial sustainability if the additional costs are not covered by borrowers (which almost never happens).There may also be trade-of

48、fs between impact and depth of outreach. The impact assessment studies reviewed by Sharma and Buchenrieder suggest that the very poor can benefit from microfinance largely by smoothing their consumption through improved management of their savings and through borrowing. Those just above or justbelow

49、 the poverty line can use loans more effectively for productive purposes, which ultimately raise their income and asset base. Thus, expanding financial services may improve the welfare of the very poor, but not necessarily lift them out of poverty because of their lack of access to markets, technology, knowledge, and other factors that expand the production frontie