外文翻譯---農業(yè)和經濟增長、糧食安全并消除貧困之農村金融的角色

1、<p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯原文</p><p>　　外文題目Theme: Rural Finance Institutions and System </p><p>　　——Models of Rural Financial Institutions <

2、/p><p>　　出 處：Institute of Rural Development </p><p>　　作 者：Manfred Zeller </p><p><b>　　原 文：<

3、;/b></p><p>　　The Role of Rural Finance for Agricultural and Economic Growth, Food Security and Poverty Reduction</p><p>　　Second, while agriculture is, relatively speaking, a declining secto

4、r 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 agri

5、cultural and rural growth. Financial services assist households in maintaining food security and smoothing consumption, thereby safeguarding or enhancing labor productivity , the most important production factor </p&g

6、t;<p>　　Any student of an introductory course in micro-economics or development economics learns that access to savings, credit and insurance services can have beneficial effects on households and their enterprise

7、s 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 only if and when that access generates a broadly d

8、efined net economic surplus after having deducted the private and social co</p><p>　　Simple common sense tells us that savers who continue to deposit money for different motives, borrowers who continue to re

9、pay their loans, and clients paying regular premiums for health and life insurance over long periods actually derive an economic benefit.</p><p>　　CHANGING WISDOMS AND POLICY OBJECTIVES IN RURAL FINANCE</

10、p><p>　　Since the mid 1980s, there has been a paradigm shift in financial policy (including rural finance) from subsidized credit to financial systems development.</p><p>　　The old paradigm of sect

11、or directed, supply led and subsidized credit has been based on faulty assumptions about the willingness and ability of poor farmers and other entrepreneurs to pay for financial services, which led to faulty policy desig

12、n and implementation.</p><p>　　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 ot

13、her entrepreneurs. Instead 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 hig

14、h transaction costs and risks that partly result from information asymmetries and moral hazard problems </p><p>　　new paradigm recognizes the possibility of market as well as government failure (i.e. institu

15、tional 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 function optimally”. The new paradigm in contrast sees

16、 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 tech</p><p>　　This holds

17、 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 instituti

18、onal expansion 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 t

19、ransfer of best practices. Given the long gestatio</p><p>　　The triangle of microfinance: financial sustainability, outreach, and welfare impact</p><p>　　Internationally agreed principal objecti

20、ves of development cooperation are the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These set targets to reduce poverty and make improvements in the various dimensions of poverty (or welfare) such as education, h

21、ealth, nutrition and women’s empowerment</p><p>　　Following the concept of a logical framework, (financial) sector policy objectives need therefore to be consistent with these principal objectives Microfinan

22、ce as well as rural financial policy has to be evaluated against three objectives: financial sustainability, breadth and depth of outreach, and the welfare impact.</p><p>　　Financial sector policy can suppor

23、t the Millenium Development Goals (and thus poverty reduction) in two ways: Indirectly, through supporting a sustainable financial system as a precondition for economic and social development. This indirect pathway inclu

24、des 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 crea

25、te additional demand for g</p><p>　　Directly, by increasing the access of poor people to financial services. Governments and donors may differ in their perceptions about the relative effectiveness and effici

26、ency of the two pathways. Indeed, which one may 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

27、objectives in micro- and rural finance, i.e. financial sustainability, depth of outreach, and welfare impact.</p><p>　　Initially, the focus was on improving the outreach of MFIs to the poor, that is, serve m

28、ore of the poor (breadth of outreach) and more of the poorest of the poor (depth of outreach).</p><p>　　Eventually, the objective of sustainability of financial institutions took on great importance. </p&

29、gt;<p>　　Following the work of Ohio State University and other institutions in the 1980s, the view emerged that the building of lasting, permanent financial institutions requires that they become financially susta

30、inable, 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 compatible objectives in the

31、sense that increasing the scale of operations will also increase the absolut</p><p>　　Several other authors present analysis that supports the notion of a trade-off between improving depth of outreach, i.e.

32、reaching relatively poorer people, and achieving financial sustainability</p><p>　　The trade-off stems from the fact that transaction costs have a large fixed cost component so that unit costs for smaller sa

33、vings deposits or smaller loans are high 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 poo

34、r and financial sustainability, irrespective of the lending technology used. To cover the higher costs of these loans, interest rates need to either be set </p><p>　　Wenner states that depth of outreach, spe

35、cified as target maximum average loan size, has become a criteria used by the IDB for certain instruments of (rural) microfinance policy.</p><p>　　Financial sustainability of the financial institution and ou

36、treach 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 an

37、d direct support 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 a

38、</p><p>　　Institutional innovation in microfinance following the new paradigm has relied on financial support by donors and governments and by other social investors such as philanthropic foundations. In fac

39、t, 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 fully cover costs</p><p>　　Moreover, most, if not all, of t

40、he 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

41、 going to scale so as to reduce unit 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 fun

42、ds constitute public investm</p><p>　　investments are justified from a public policy perspective if the discounted social benefits of public investment in microfinance are expected to outweigh the social cos

43、ts. These costs include the opportunity costs of foregoing the net social benefits of other public investments, such as in primary education . The subsidy dependence index has become a widely accepted operational measur

44、e to quantify the amount of social costs involved in supporting the operations of a financial institution</p><p>　　Addressing the policy question of whether such public investments are economically –not fina

45、ncially- sustainable requires a comparison of social costs with social benefits. This consideration raises welfare impact as an important third objective of microfinance. </p><p>　　The triangle of microfina

46、nce, which reflects the three objectives of financial sustainability, outreach, and impact, is represented in Figure 1.</p><p>　　MFIs attempt to contribute to these objectives (either indirectly through purs

47、uance 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, government

48、s, and other social investors also differ in their relative emphasis on the three objectives. </p><p>　　Some MFIs may produce large impacts (especially if financial services are coupled with non-financial se

49、rvices addressing other constraints of the poor) but achieve limited outreach. Others may make smaller impacts but are highly financially sustainable with a large breadth of outreach, and investments in such institutions

50、 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 be</p><p>　　argue, the impact of

51、 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 so

52、metimes 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

53、 are not covered by borrowers (which alm</p><p>　　below the poverty line can use loans more effectively for productive purposes, which ultimately raise their income and asset base. Thus, expanding financial

54、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 frontier.<

55、;/p><p>　　These potential trade-offs exist in urban as well as rural finance, and must be addressed when financial institutions develop their business plans and decide between marketing their services to only t

56、he very poor, to a mix of clients clustered around the poverty line, or to owners of small- and medium-size enterprises. This raises the question of what outcome is considered most socially desirable or optimal. And givi

57、ng an answer “is a matter of value judgment” (Morduch, 1999c). For example, is p</p><p>　　These questions on trade-offs arise when donors and policy-makers consider investing in rural finance.There are also

58、potential synergies among the three objectives of microfinance policy. First, financial sustainability is likely to be perceived by potential clients as a critical indicator of MFI permanence, and will influence their de

59、cision about whether it is worthwhile in the long run to become and stay clients. Thus, greater financial sustainability can positively influence outreach. This sy</p><p>　　Clearly, both the institutionalist

60、 and welfarist group among microfinance have good arguments, and can provide empirical evidence supporting their favored synergies or trade-offs. However, only a public-welfare perspective can consistently unite these d

61、ifferent arguments. In addition, a public welfare perspective – using cost-benefit-analysis- can, beyond micro and rural finance, help overcome constraints in other areas (communications, markets, health, and education,

62、etc) which hinder the econ</p><p>　　The outer circle represents the external environment including the macro-economic and sectoral policies that affect directly or indirectly the performance of financial ins

63、titutions. Innovations at the institutional level (the inner circle) and improvements in the policy environment (the outer circle) contribute to improving the overall performance of the financial system and its instituti

64、ons.</p><p>　　While finance is certainly not charity, institution-building and innovation can be significantly fostered by public investment. Such investment has to be appraised with the same evaluation crit

65、eria as for any other public investment. The social benefit-cost ratio of public support for MFIs will be affected by many factors, including the macro policy, socio-economic and agro-ecological environment. Some environ

66、ments may be so hostile to financial-sector development that public investments in MFIs</p><p>　　譯 文：主題:農村金融機構和系統(tǒng)——農村金融機構的模型</p><p>　　農業(yè)和經濟增長、糧食安全并消除貧困之農村金融的角色</p><p>　　雖然農業(yè)是呈下降趨勢,相

67、比較而言,在很多發(fā)展中國家,這仍然是一個主要經濟部門,主要出口國,和主要的雇主,尤其是對窮人和婦女。改善金融市場促進農業(yè)和農村發(fā)展。在維持金融服務協(xié)助家庭食品安全,保持消費,從而保護或提高勞動生產率,最重要的生產要素是窮人。因為農業(yè)方面強大的向前和向后乘數效果,整個經濟,經濟增長在農業(yè)特別是在多個界別分組小農利益直接或者間接的租戶,和工資勞動者,是一個關鍵的前提總體經濟的增長并消除貧困。目前絕大多數的窮人仍然生活在農村地區(qū)。</p

68、><p>　　任何學生的微觀經濟學導論課程或發(fā)展經濟學得知進入儲蓄、信貸和保險服務的家庭都有有利作用及其企業(yè),因此對經濟增長特別是,小額信貸也可能導致更合理的增長。信貸渠道,然而,只有經濟效益,當這個訪問生成一個廣義的定義以后經濟凈盈余的私人和社會成本扣除貸款條款(包括機會成本有限的公共資金替代扶貧政策)。而影響的證據信用對家庭福利、農業(yè)技術的采用,農業(yè)部門增長,許多實際的約束mixed4(即時間和金錢)和方法上的困

69、難在估計的政策或影響項目的合理概率誤差的存在。簡單的常識告訴我們,儲戶存錢的動機不同,借款人繼續(xù)償還貸款,和客戶定期支付健康和人壽保險的保險費，實際推導出在長時期內的經濟效益。</p><p>　　智慧和政策目標改變農村金融</p><p>　　自上個世紀八十年代,有了一個范式轉換的金融政策，包括農村金融信貸從補貼金融體系的發(fā)展。舊范例扇形的指導,供應領導和補貼的信用證已經根據有能力的企業(yè)

70、家們和貧苦農民錯誤的假定意愿支付金融服務,導致錯誤的政策的設計和實施。撇開的新范式的需求,不從農民和其他的企業(yè)家的意愿和能力(即按市場價格)、信用和存款保險服務的需求出發(fā)。相反,它集中于建立可持續(xù)的金融機構和系統(tǒng),并介紹了經營政策目標MFIs金融的可持續(xù)性發(fā)展。新范式中承認高昂的交易成本和風險,部分是由于信息不對稱和道德風險問題,對于金融中間人,客戶是供給問題的根源。因此,新范式尋找重點是技術和制度創(chuàng)新(包括適當的管理和激勵結構的),以

71、減少金融中介的成本和風險。認識的新范式的可能是 “政府失敗”的市場(即總的來說是制度的失敗所造成),并否認科學家提出的市場自由化,即“金融系統(tǒng)并不是壓抑自己會功能最佳”。 新范式中與金融市場的自由化(如看到關于利率形成)是一種必要的但不充分條件,能深化金融系統(tǒng)。此外,當技術和制度創(chuàng)新需要深化金融系統(tǒng)時,服務貧困階層的需要可以很容易復制營利性的金融機構,由此產生的問題普遍存在并制約著私營部門的充分投資（比社會最優(yōu)</p>&

72、lt;p>　　這個問題不僅小額貸款存在,而且農村金融也存在。因此,公共投資,農村金融可以證明,例如,基金(行動)研究和初創(chuàng)企業(yè)良好的制度以及制度擴張直到達到在合理的時間金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展,并支持飛行員實驗和希望的新產品、技術或技術支持,比如員工培訓和轉讓的最佳途徑。建立可持續(xù)要求事業(yè)組織、社會投資機構建立了需要長期規(guī)劃和準備靈活操作視野設備以及把握時機。所需的公共投資,農村金融體系更多的是勞動和知識密集型,并遠比以往少一些資本密集型投

73、資證明舊范例。</p><p>　　三角小額金融借貸:金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展、擴大服務、福利的影響</p><p>　　全球協(xié)商一致的發(fā)展主要目的合作是中國在聯合國千年發(fā)展目標(實現)。這些目標是減少貧困和改進各種維度的貧窮(或福利,如:教育、健康、營養(yǎng)和婦女的授權。證明的邏輯框架的概念,金融部門政策因此需要符合這些主要的目標：</p><p>　　小額信貸以及農村金融政策

74、已被評估對三大目標——金融可持續(xù)的、廣度和深度外展,和福利的影響。金融部門政策支持千禧年發(fā)展目標,從而減少貧困)兩種方式:</p><p>　　間接通過支持可持續(xù)的金融系統(tǒng)的先決條件的經濟和社會發(fā)展。這種間接路徑包括因果鏈條下,其減少貧困的論文通過經濟增長。例之一,這些原因鏈是業(yè)主企業(yè)進入使用金融服務創(chuàng)造額外對商品和服務的需求的窮人從而增加收入。直接通過提高窮人的進入金融服務。</p><p&

75、gt;　　政府以及捐贈人他們對自己也有所區(qū)別走有效性和效率的兩個通路。事實上,讓你可接受更多的重點不同國家的必要的特殊條件。因此,政府以及捐贈人他們也不同程度地強調自己在三大目標,農村金融,即金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展、深度外延和福利的影響。當然,這影響了他們不同類型的相對效率的金融機構的看法,從而影響財政政策設計在實踐中存在的問題并提出以制度為基礎的景觀。因為了市場的不完善,國家扮演一個合法的角色,投資金融體系的發(fā)展。然而,考慮到政府失敗的可能性

76、(即政府可能無法正確的市場故障)和社會的機會成本公共資金,當然也有限制公共投資的金融專業(yè)。在農村金融在80年代后期有了轉變的范式,許多這樣的失敗可以追溯到補貼小農戶信貸的成功一些MFIs。財政政策的目標隨著價值觀范型的轉換有改變。最初,重點介紹了提高的延伸MFIs窮人,也就是說,服務于更多的窮人(寬度)和外延的窮人中最窮的人(深度外延)。最終的目的是了金融機構可持續(xù)發(fā)展的重要性。</p><p>　　根據俄亥俄州

77、立大學的研究人員的工作和其他機構在80年代的證明,這個觀點的出現論證了建設永久性金融機構要求他們達到經濟可持續(xù)性,也就是說,他們收回成本。一些分析家認為增加超越和深度金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展是一致的目標的意識,提高業(yè)務規(guī)模也將增加窮人的絕對數量的人群的客戶:“這些規(guī)模、非排外的重點決定是否顯著擴展到窮乏人必要條件”。 其他幾個作者（Hulme莫斯利,2000;學雜志,2003;Conning Cuevas和帕克斯頓,2002;Lapenu和Zel

78、ler,2001年和2002年)的現在的分析,,支持一種平衡關系的概念,即提高外延深度達到相對貧困的人,和財政的可持續(xù)發(fā)展。有得有失的根源是交易成本有大量的固定造價組成部分,單位成本,更小的儲蓄存款或小型貸款相比,高大型金融交易。本法降低單位交易成本和尺寸大一點的交易活動之間的平衡產生了窮人和金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展,無論其貸款技術使用。支付這些貸款的成本更高,利率需要或被設定更高的,或MFI可能會跟隨使用的策略范圍和規(guī)模經濟,交叉補貼小型貸款的

79、風險。延伸的寬度(以數量的客戶)的深度及外展(目前采用非常不確切的,但卻廣泛使用的大小(平均貸款的指標)和平</p><p>　　美國溫納州,規(guī)定目標最大平均貸款大小,已經成為對某些IDB使用(農村）的工具小額金融政策的一種標準。金融機構的金融可持續(xù)性和擴展到窮人是其中的兩個小額信貸的政策目標。第三個政策的目標是發(fā)展金融系統(tǒng)的影響,特別是意在消除貧困。當政策的介入,并直接支持資助制度建立要求公共投資或由國內或國外

80、的稅或捐款,出現了關于支付或者影響的問題,例如從經濟增長和減輕貧困及食品安全等問題。在小額信貸證明制度創(chuàng)新的新范式之中依賴的財政支援捐助國和受助政府和其他社會等投資者的慈善基金會。事實上,許多,但不是全部,及MFIs大量的女性和男性的貧困線以下的客戶需要進一步捐贈傳輸到全面覆蓋成本。此外,大多數的,不是全部,MFIs出現在Microbanking已達到論壇,訪問者要求公共投資金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展的某些方面有她們的存在,使得技術協(xié)助或接受資本去

81、規(guī)模以降低單位成本。有些人認為這些資金提供社會捐贈者和其他政府津貼投資者有負面內涵,但是從政策上來看,這些資金構成公共投資(是好或壞,機構、投資)系統(tǒng)的建造。39這樣公開投資公共政策上來看如果折價社會效益相公共投資,小額貸款有望超過了社會成本的一些問題。這些成本包括機會成本</p><p>　　該考慮的福利的影響提出了作為一種重要的第三個目標小額貸款。三角小額貸款,反映了三大目標的金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展、擴大服務、影響,

82、反映在數字。MFIs試圖為這些目標(或間接透過金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展導致追求規(guī)模和為多位客戶或直接通過針對貧困階層的需要),但許多某一特定目的的壓力在另外兩個方面。捐贈者,政府和其他社會投資者也在不時地強調三個目標。一些MFIs可能會產生重大撞擊(特別是金融服務聯系非金融服務解決其他制約的貧窮但不太可能成功。別人較小,但影響經濟持續(xù)有一個很大的高度廣泛的外展,和投資這類機構可能有一個高費用效率的減少貧困的行動。潛在的權衡深度外延和金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展

83、已經提到過,但是他們或許還之間存在著影響和經濟的可持續(xù)發(fā)展。沙瑪和Buchenrieder認為,金融的影響通過增強互補非財務服務,如商業(yè)或營銷服務或訓練,增加借款人的貸款項目的利潤貸款。有時會提供完善服務MFIs但提供給他們的復雜性增加的操作和其成本,因此上述效率從專門化和危害金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展的額外費用若不受借款國(幾乎從來不會發(fā)生)。研究了影響評價了Buchenrieder沙瑪建議非常貧窮的人能得益于小額信貸的消費更加平滑穩(wěn)定,他們主要

84、</p><p>　　這些問題時出現的代價是捐贈者和決策者考慮投資在農村金融。也有潛在的三大目標之間的協(xié)同作用小額信貸的政策。首先,金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展所可能的潛在客戶關鍵指標的永久MFI,將影響他們做出決定是否值得成為,從長遠的觀點,并在客戶。因此,更大的金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展可以影響勝過。更重要的是這種協(xié)同為儲戶必須有信心的制度的永恒所委托他們的積蓄。沒有人會存的機構,被認為是暫時的。第二,爭取金融可持續(xù)發(fā)展MFIs應有的

85、力量;特別是對客戶需求的提高產品、運營和勝過。為客戶提供一個更好的金融產品,會產生更大的經濟效益, ,因此影響大。很明顯,理論和福利主義都有很好的論點集團躋身小額信貸,并可提供實證證據支持其支持的協(xié)同或替換。然而,只有一種具有公益性特征的觀點一致統(tǒng)一這些不同的參數。此外,公益-使用成本收益分析角度,超越微和農村金融、幫助克服約束在其他地區(qū)(通訊、市場、健康、教育、文化等)的經濟、社會和人的發(fā)展的窮人、以及農村金融幅利。</p>

86、;<p>　　外部的外部環(huán)境,包括代表的宏觀經濟政策影響以及部門的性能直接或間接的金融機構。在創(chuàng)新的制度級(內圈)和促進政策環(huán)境(外在圈)有助于提高整體性能的金融體系和它的制度。金融肯定不是慈善機構建立了和創(chuàng)新能明顯促進公共投資。這樣的投資必須評估具有相同的評價標準至于其他公共投資。社會收益成本比公共支持MFIs會受到許多因素,包括宏觀政策、社會經濟因素和農業(yè)生態(tài)環(huán)境。某些環(huán)境可能是如此的敵對金融公共投資發(fā)展，FIs肯定會