農村金融機構和系統(tǒng)[文獻翻譯]

《農村金融機構和系統(tǒng)[文獻翻譯]》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《農村金融機構和系統(tǒng)[文獻翻譯]（13頁珍藏版）》請在裝配圖網(wǎng)上搜索。

1、本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯原文 外文題目Theme: Rural Finance Institutions and System ——Models of Rural Financial Institutions 出 處：Institute of Rural Development 作 者：Manfred Zeller

2、 原 文： The Role of Rural Finance for Agricultural and Economic Growth, Food Security and Poverty Reduction Second, while agriculture is, relatively speaking, a declining sector in the course ofdevelopment, in many developing countries it is still a leading economic sector, the main exporter,

3、 and the major employer, especially for the poor and women. Improved financial markets accelerate agricultural and rural growth. Financial services assist households in maintaining food security and smoothing consumption, thereby safeguarding or enhancing labor productivity , the most important pro

4、duction factor of the poor. Because of agriculture’s strong forward and backward multiplier effects for the overall economy, economic growth in agriculture especially in subsectors that directly or indirectly benefit smallholders, tenants, and wage laborers is a key precondition for overall economic

5、 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 economics learns that access to savings, credit and insurance services can have beneficial effects on households and their enterprises and

6、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 defined net economic surplus after having deducted the private and social costs of loan

7、 provision (including the opportunity costs of scarce public funds in alternative poverty reduction policies). While the evidence on the impact of credit on household welfare, agricultural technology adoption, and on agricultural sector growth is mixed4 , many practical constraints (i.e. time and mo

8、ney) 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 savers who continue to deposit money for different motives, borrowers who continue to repay their loans, and clients paying regular pr

9、emiums for health and life insurance over long periods actually derive an economic benefit. CHANGING WISDOMS AND POLICY OBJECTIVES IN RURAL FINANCE Since the mid 1980s, there has been a paradigm shift in financial policy (including rural finance) from subsidized credit to financial systems develop

10、ment. 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 other entrepreneurs to pay for financial services, which led to faulty policy design and implementation. The new paradigm departs n

11、ot 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. Instead it focuses on building sustainable financial institutions and systems, and introduced the operational policy objective of f

12、inancial sustainability of MFIs. The new paradigm recognizes that high transaction costs and risks that partly result from information asymmetries and moral hazard problems for both financial intermediaries and clients are some of the root causes of the gap between demand and supply. Therefore, the

13、 new paradigm places emphasis on searching for technological and institutional innovations (including suitable governance and incentive structures) to reduce the costs and risks of financial intermediation. The new paradigm recognizes the possibility of market as well as government failure (i.e. in

14、stitutional 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 financial market liberalization (e.g. with respect to interest rate format

15、ion) as a necessary but not sufficient condition for deepening financial systems. Moreover, as the required technological and institutional innovations needed to deepen the financial system and to serve poorer segments of the population can be readily copied by for-profit financial institutions, the

16、 resulting free-rider problem prevents the private sector from sufficiently investing (compared to socially optimal levels) in such innovations. In conclusion, public investment in pro-poor (and pro rural) financial innovation is required. This holds true not only for microfinance, but for rural fi

17、nance 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 expansion until reaching financial sustainability within reasonable time periods, and to support pilot experiments with prom

18、ising 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 sustainable institutions, public investment in institution-building requires long-term planning horizons with operational flexib

19、ility 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 following the old paradigm. The triangle of microfinance: financial sustainability, outreach, and welfare impact Internatio

20、nally agreed principal objectives 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, health, nutrition and women’s empowerment Followin

21、g 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 has to be evaluated against three objectives: financial sustainability, breadth and depth of outreach, and the wel

22、fare 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 a precondition for economic and social development. This indirect pathway includes causal chains that can be su

23、mmarized 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 create additional demand for goods and services of the poor thus increasing their income. Directly, by increasing t

24、he 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 may receive more emphasis has to necessarily vary with country- specific conditions. It follows that governmen

25、ts 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, influences their view on the relative efficiency of different types of financial institutions, and thereby

26、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 financial systems development. However, given the possibility of government failure(i.e. governments may not be ab

27、le 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 finance in the late 1980s, and much of this can be traced to the failures of subsidized small farmer credit

28、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, serve more of the poor (breadth of outreach) and more of the poorest of the poor (depth of outreach). Eve

29、ntually, 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 the building of lasting, permanent financial institutions requires that they become financially sustai

30、nable, 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 sense that increasing the scale of operations will also increase the absolute num

31、ber 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 notion of a trade-off between improving depth of outreach, i.e. reaching relatively poorer people, an

32、d achieving financial sustainability The 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 compared to larger financial transactions. This law of decreasing unit transaction costs with lar

33、ger 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, interest rates need to either be set higher, or the MFI may follow a strategy of using economies o

34、f 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 indicator of average loan size (or balance) in relation to per-capita GDP are now regularly reported,

35、 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) microfinance policy. Financial sustainability of the financial institution and outreach to the poor are

36、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 support for institution building requires public investments funded either by domestic or fore

37、ign 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 following the new paradigm has relied on financial support by donors and governments and by other

38、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 fully cover costs Moreover, most, if not all, of the MFIs featured in the Microbanking Bulle

39、tin 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 unit costs. Some may consider these funds provided by governments, donors and other socia

40、l 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 public investments are justified from a public policy perspective if the discounted social benef

41、its 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 education . The subsidy dependence index has become a widely accepted operational measur

42、e to quantify the amount of social costs involved in supporting the operations of a financial institution Addressing the policy question of whether such public investments are economically –not financially- sustainable requires a comparison of social costs with social benefits. This consideration

43、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 attempt to contribute to these objectives (either indirectly through pursuan

44、ce 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 other social investors also differ in their relative emphasis on the three o

45、bjectives. 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 but are highly financially sustainable with a large breadth of outreach,

46、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 and financial sustainability. As Sharma and Buchenrieder argue, the impa

47、ct 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 sometimes offered by MFIs but supplying them increases the complexity of the

48、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-offs between impact and depth of outreach. The impact assessment studies

49、 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 just below the poverty line can use loans more effectively for productive pur

50、poses, 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

51、r. 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 the very poor, to a mix of clients clustered around the poverty line, or to owners of small- and

52、medium-size enterprises. This raises the question of what outcome is considered most socially desirable or optimal. And giving an answer “is a matter of value judgment” (Morduch, 1999c). For example, is public support more desired for MFIs that specifically target the poor, such as those in Banglade

53、sh that use specific wealth criteria in an attempt to exclude those living above the poverty line? These questions on trade-offs arise when donors and policy-makers consider investing in rural finance.There are also potential synergies among the three objectives of microfinance policy. First, finan

54、cial sustainability is likely to be perceived by potential clients as a critical indicator of MFI permanence, and will influence their decision about whether it is worthwhile in the long run to become and stay clients. Thus, greater financial sustainability can positively influence outreach. This sy

55、nergy is even more important for savers who must have faith in the permanence of the institution to which they entrust their savings. No one will save with an institution that is considered temporary. Second,striving for financial sustainability forces MFIs to be sensitive to client demand and ind

56、uces them to improve products, operations, and outreach. Better financial products, in turn, generate greater economic benefits for clients, and thus greater impact. Clearly, both the institutionalist and welfarist group among microfinance have good arguments, and can provide empirical evidence sup

57、porting their favored synergies or trade-offs. However, only a public-welfare perspective can consistently unite these different arguments. In addition, a public welfare perspective – using cost-benefit-analysis- can, beyond micro and rural finance, help overcome constraints in other areas (communi

58、cations, markets, health, and education, etc) which hinder the economic,social and human development of the poor and, also of micro and rural finance. The outer circle represents the external environment including the macro-economic and sectoral policies that affect directly or indirectly the perfo

59、rmance of financial institutions. 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 institutions. While finance is certainly not charity, institution

60、-building and innovation can be significantly fostered by public investment. Such investment has to be appraised with the same evaluation criteria 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

61、, socio-economic and agro-ecological environment. Some environments may be so hostile to financial-sector development that public investments in MFIs will certainly generate a negative social return, whereas in others the same investment can be highly profitable. 譯 文：主題:農村金融機構和系統(tǒng)——農村金融機構的

62、模型 農業(yè)和經(jīng)濟增長、糧食安全并消除貧困之農村金融的角色 雖然農業(yè)是呈下降趨勢,相比較而言,在很多發(fā)展中國家,這仍然是一個主要經(jīng)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(shù)效果,整個經(jīng)濟,經(jīng)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(jīng)濟的增長并消除貧困。目前絕大多數(shù)的窮人仍然生活在農村地區(qū)。 任何學生的微觀經(jīng)濟學導論課程或發(fā)展經(jīng)濟學得知進入儲蓄、信貸和保險服務的家庭都有有利

63、作用及其企業(yè),因此對經(jīng)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(jīng)濟效益,當這個訪問生成一個廣義的定義以后經(jīng)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(jù)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(jīng)濟效益。 智慧和政策目標改變農村金融 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

64、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(jīng)根據(jù)有能力的企業(yè)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(jīng)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?shù)墓芾砗图罱Y構的),以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

65、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)水平創(chuàng)新）。總之,公共投資,扶貧(和專業(yè)人士)對農村金融創(chuàng)新是必需的。 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

66、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資證明舊范例。 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 全球協(xié)商一致的發(fā)展主要目的合作是中國在聯(lián)合國千年發(fā)展目標(實現(xiàn))。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： 小額信貸以及農村金融政策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: 間接通過支持可持續(xù)的金融系統(tǒng)的先決條件的經(jīng)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(jīng)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。 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