Research reports and studiesDecember 2020Annalisa Prizzon, Yunnan Chen, Maria Ana Jalles d'Orey, Hetty Kovach and Javier PereiraMachine operators at the Bhattarai Masala factory in Surkhet in Western Nepal. Photo: Sanjit Das/Panos for IFADMany governments in low- and middle-income countries see improving rural development as a way to achieve critical national development objectives: economic transformation, eradication of poverty and greater equality.A lack of finance, however, constrains the full implementation of national public policies for rural development. Access to external finance also evolves as countries move up the economic ladder, shifting away from grants towards more expensive loans. A looming debt crisis for many economies will curtail borrowing options. All of these challenges have been exacerbated by the crisis prompted by the Covid-19 pandemic.This synthesis report examines whether and to what extent governments will continue to demand external development assistance to support inclusive and sustainable rural development and, if so, its terms and conditions. We analyse 20 countries in depth.In a nutshell, across the income per capita spectrum, our interviewees expect public finance to remain critical but they will continue to seek external assistance for agriculture and rural development, prioritising grants and highly concessional loans.Read the research External finance for rural development: a synthesis of country perspectivesDocumentpdf Country case study: BangladeshDocumentpdf Country case study: BrazilDocumentpdf Country case study: ComorosDocumentpdf Country case study: Democratic Republic of CongoDocumentpdf Country case study: EgyptDocumentpdf Country case study: GhanaDocumentpdf Country case study: IndonesiaDocumentpdf Country case study: KenyaDocumentpdf Country case study: LiberiaDocumentpdf Country case study: MexicoDocumentpdf Country case study: MoroccoDocumentpdf Country case study: MozambiqueDocumentpdf Country case study: NepalDocumentpdf Country case study: NigerDocumentpdf Country case study: PeruDocumentpdf Country case study: SenegalDocumentpdf Country case study: Soloman IslandsDocumentpdf Country case study: UgandaDocumentpdf Country case study: UzbekistanDocumentpdf Country case study: Viet NamDocumentpdfCorrections and clarificationsCountry case study: Kenya. Published online: 23 December 2020. Corrected online: 6 January 2021. In the key messages, the sentence ‘Limited non-concessional finance to date for the sector is used to fund high-visibility infrastructure projects’ was changed to ‘There has been limited non-concessional finance for the sector to date.’Country case study: Comoros. Published online: 23 December 2020. Corrected online: 22 January 2021. In the list of interviewees, Ali Mohamed Nobataine’s institution was changed from ‘IFAD’ to ‘PREFER Project, Ministère de l’Agriculture, de la Pêche et de l’Environnement’.Related Mobilising private development finance: implications for overall aid allocationsA report into the effects on decision-making in light of an increase in aid being allocated to mobilise private investment.Research reports and studies27 February 2020An ‘age of choice’ for infrastructure financing in sub-Saharan Africa? Evidence from Ethiopia and KenyaThis summary report explores how the Ethiopian and Kenyan governments manage a broader set of financing sources in the infrastructure sector.Research reports and studies20 April 2017 An age of choice for development finance: evidence from country case studiesThere are now more development finance providers than ever before. This report explores the perspectives of country governments on this new age of choice.Research reports and studies19 April 2016See more:public financedevelopment financeruralGlobal
