IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ecr/col070/10745.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Options for rural poverty reduction in Latin America and the Caribbean

Author

Listed:
  • Echeverría, Rubén G.

Abstract

Although most of the total population and the majority of the people living in poverty in Latin America and the Caribbean are in urban centres, poverty is, in relative terms, still a rural phenomenon in the region. The incidence of poverty and of extreme poverty is much larger in rural areas than in urban settings. As recently as 1997, more than half of all rural households were living in poverty, and close to a third of them were in extreme poverty conditions. Moreover, the fragile economic situation of most countries in the region during the past two years may well have worsened those figures. The rural poor in the region face at least three basic challenges: (i); inadequate nutrition and poor health and educational services; (ii); few opportunities for productive employment in agricultural and/or non-farm activities; and (iii); lack of sufficient levels of organization to lobby effectively for rural interests. The number and diversity of circumstances that cause rural poverty, as well as the heterogeneity of rural poverty conditions across and within countries and regions, constitutes a challenge to develop cost-effective solutions to improve the well-being of rural inhabitants. The objective of this article is to highlight several options for the reduction of rural poverty in the region. It therefore focuses on three important and complementary options for generating and raising income levels among the rural poor: those based on growth in the agricultural sector, those targeting the sustainable use and conservation of natural resources; and those based on the growing significance of rural off-farm economic activities. There are at least two other options for reducing rural poverty: the traditional migration to urban areas, and targeted assistance to those who need income transfers to either rise above the poverty line and/or have minimum access to safety nets.

Suggested Citation

  • Echeverría, Rubén G., 2000. "Options for rural poverty reduction in Latin America and the Caribbean," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), April.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecr:col070:10745
    Note: Includes bibliography
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/10745
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dirven, Martine, 1997. "El empleo agrícola en América Latina y el Caribe: pasado reciente y perspectivas," Desarrollo Productivo 4685, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    2. Hans P. Binswanger & Klaus Deininger, 1997. "Explaining Agricultural and Agrarian Policies in Developing Countries," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(4), pages 1958-2005, December.
    3. Ramón López & Alberto Valdés (ed.), 2000. "Rural Poverty in Latin America," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-333-97779-8, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Erik Jonasson & Steven M Helfand, 2008. "Locational Determinants of Rural Non-agricultural Employment: Evidence From Brazil," Working Papers 200802, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2008.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juliano Junqueira Assunção, 2005. "Non-agricultural land use and land reform: theory and evidence from Brazil," Textos para discussão 496, Department of Economics PUC-Rio (Brazil).
    2. -, 1999. "CEPAL Review no.68," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), August.
    3. Dirven, Martine, 1999. "The role of agents in agricultural policies: intentions and reality," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), August.
    4. Juliano Assunção, 2006. "Land Reform and Landholdings in Brazil," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2006-137, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    5. Michael Carter & Peter Little & Tewodaj Mogues & Workneh Negatu, 2005. "Shocks, Sensitivity and Resilience: Tracking the Economic Impacts of Environmental Disaster on Assets in Ethiopia and Honduras," Development and Comp Systems 0511029, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Kassa, Habtemariam & Gibbon, David & Hult, Erik A. & Sodarak, Houmchitsavath & Salih, Mohamed & Ramasoota, Jutarart, 2002. "The Evolution of Rural Livelihood Systems, Including Options on Organic Farming: A Case Study from the Messara Plain of Crete," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 1-21, January.
    7. M. Shahe Emran & Forhad Shilpi, 2012. "The extent of the market and stages of agricultural specialization," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 45(3), pages 1125-1153, August.
    8. Pagiola, Stefano & Rios, Ana R. & Arcenas, Agustin, 2008. "Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 299-325, June.
    9. V. S. Vyas, 2022. "The changing role of government in Indian agriculture," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 24(1), pages 209-227, December.
    10. Rey de Marulanda, Nohra & Guzmán, Julio, 2003. "Inequidad, desarrollo humano y política social: Importancia de las "Condiciones Iniciales"," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 1211, Inter-American Development Bank.
    11. Holden , Stein & Bezu, Sosina, 2014. "Land Valuation and Perceptions of Land Sales Prohibition in Ethiopia," CLTS Working Papers 12/14, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 10 Oct 2019.
    12. Oded Galor & Omer Moav & Dietrich Vollrath, 2009. "Inequality in Landownership, the Emergence of Human-Capital Promoting Institutions, and the Great Divergence," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 143-179.
    13. C.S.C. Sekhar, 2021. "Price or income support to farmers? Policy options and implications," IEG Working Papers 420, Institute of Economic Growth.
    14. Mozumdar, Lavlu, 2012. "Agricultural productivity and food security in the developing world," Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, vol. 35(1-2).
    15. Ngarava, Saul, 2020. "Impact of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) on agricultural production: A tobacco success story in Zimbabwe?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. World Bank, 2004. "Colombia : Land Policy in Transition," World Bank Publications - Reports 14351, The World Bank Group.
    17. De Janvry, Alain & Sadoulet, Elisabeth & Murgai, Rinku, 2002. "Rural development and rural policy," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 31, pages 1593-1658, Elsevier.
    18. Lio, Monchi & Liu, Meng-Chun, 2008. "Governance and agricultural productivity: A cross-national analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 504-512, December.
    19. Rodolfo Cermeño & Sirenia Vázquez, 2009. "Technological Backwardness in Agriculture: Is it Due to Lack of R&D, Human Capital, and Openness to International Trade?," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(4), pages 673-686, November.
    20. Binswanger, Hans P., 2006. "Leonard K. Elmhirst Lecture: Empowering Rural People for Their Own Development," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25713, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecr:col070:10745. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Biblioteca CEPAL (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eclaccl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.