- Home
- Social Science
- General
- Undermining Rural Development With Cheap Credit
Undermining Rural Development With Cheap Credit
- Availability: Confirm prior to ordering
- Branding: minimum 50 pieces (add’l costs below)
- Check Freight Rates (branded products only)
Branding Options (v), Availability & Lead Times
- 1-Color Imprint: $2.00 ea.
- Promo-Page Insert: $2.50 ea. (full-color printed, single-sided page)
- Belly-Band Wrap: $2.50 ea. (full-color printed)
- Set-Up Charge: $45 per decoration
- Availability: Product availability changes daily, so please confirm your quantity is available prior to placing an order.
- Branded Products: allow 10 business days from proof approval for production. Branding options may be limited or unavailable based on product design or cover artwork.
- Unbranded Products: allow 3-5 business days for shipping. All Unbranded items receive FREE ground shipping in the US. Inquire for international shipping.
- RETURNS/CANCELLATIONS: All orders, branded or unbranded, are NON-CANCELLABLE and NON-RETURNABLE once a purchase order has been received.
Product Details
Overview
Originally published in 1985, twenty-three chapters are brought together in 4 parts dealing with, respectively, problems in rural finance, interest rate policies, politics and finance, and new directions for rural financial markets. In an introduction it is argued that cheap and abundant credit is often regarded as essential for rural development but that actions taken on the basis of this assumption have given disappointing results. Low-interest policies and the improper use of financial markets are seen as the principal reasons for this. It is recommended that higher and more flexible interest rates are allowed and that little or no attention is given to target loans. Informal lenders are thought to offer valuable services therefore they should not be discouraged. More emphasis should be put on voluntary savings mobilization and access to formal loans by non-farm rural firms. It is concluded that many traditional agricultural credit programmes are counterproductive and that attractive product and input prices together with higher yields would be more powerful in stimulating agricultural development.








