IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The importance of public investment for reducing rural poverty in middle-income countries


  • Fan, Shenggen
  • Jitsuchon, Somchai
  • Methakunnavut, Nuntaporn


This study estimates the impacts of different types of government expenditure on agricultural growth and rural poverty in Thailand. The results show that, despite Thailand's middle-income status, public investments in agricultural R&D, irrigation, rural education, and infrastructure (including roads and electricity), still have positive marginal impacts on agricultural productivity growth and rural poverty reduction. Additional government spending on agricultural research and development improves agricultural productivity the most and has the second largest impact on rural poverty reduction. Investments in rural electrification reduce poverty the most and have the second largest growth impact. These two investments dominate all others and are win-win for growth and poverty reduction. Road expenditure has the third largest impact on rural poverty reduction, but only a modest and statistically insignificant impact on agricultural productivity. Government spending on rural education has only the fourth largest impact on poverty, but a significant economic impact through improved agricultural productivity. Irrigation investment has the smallest impact on both rural poverty reduction and productivity growth in agriculture. Additional investments in the Northeast region contribute more to reducing poverty than investments in other regions. This is because most of the poor are now concentrated in the Northeast and it has suffered from under investment in the past. The poverty reducing impacts of infrastructure investments, such as electricity and roads, are particularly high in this region. The growth impacts of many investments are also greatest in the Northeast than in other regions, hence there is no evident tradeoff between investments for growth and investments for poverty reduction. Thailand is a middle-income country and it is insightful to compare these results with similar studies undertaken in low-income countries like India, China, and Uganda. Some of the results are similar, for example, the high returns to public investments in agricultural research and some kinds of rural infrastructure arise in most countries because of the inherent market failures associated with these types of public goods. But others results are different. For example, the returns to public investment in education in Thailand are quite low, partly because of increasing private investment but also the inappropriate composition of much public spending on education. Within infrastructure, results from low-income countries often show higher returns to road investments than telecommunications and electricity. But in the case of Thailand, it is investment in electricity that shows the highest return. Thailand has invested heavily in rural roads and a dense road network has already been built, suggesting that additional investment may yield diminishing returns. Also, there has been significant investment by the private sector in rural telecommunication, leading to a much-reduced role for the public sector. This situation differs from many low-income countries, especially in Africa, where the private sector is still embryonic and the public sector must play a dominant investment role for the foreseeable future.

Suggested Citation

  • Fan, Shenggen & Jitsuchon, Somchai & Methakunnavut, Nuntaporn, 2004. "The importance of public investment for reducing rural poverty in middle-income countries," DSGD discussion papers 7, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:dsgddp:7

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Escobal, Javier, 2001. "The Determinants of Nonfarm Income Diversification in Rural Peru," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 497-508, March.
    2. Datt, Gaurav & Ravallion, Martin, 1997. "Why have some Indian states performed better than others at reducing rural poverty?," FCND discussion papers 26, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Shenggen Fan & Peter Hazell & Sukhadeo Thorat, 2000. "Government Spending, Growth and Poverty in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 1038-1051.
    4. Shenggen Fan & Xiaobo Zhang, 2008. "Public Expenditure, Growth and Poverty Reduction in Rural Uganda," African Development Review, African Development Bank, vol. 20(3), pages 466-496.
    5. Hazell, Peter B. & Haggblade, Steven, 1990. "Rural - urban growth linkages in India," Policy Research Working Paper Series 430, The World Bank.
    6. Mundlak, Yair, 1981. "On the concept of non-significant functions and its implications for regression analysis," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 139-149, May.
    7. Dominique van de Walle, 2003. "Are Returns to Investment Lower for the Poor? Human and Physical Capital Interactions in Rural Vietnam," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(4), pages 636-653, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Niraj Prasad Koirala & Dhiroj Prasad Koirala, 2016. "Poverty and Inequality across the Nations: How Can Governments be Effective in Coping?," Economy, Asian Online Journal Publishing Group, vol. 3(1), pages 24-30.
    2. Bordignon, Jacopo & Breisinger, Clemens, 2015. "Policy changes in times of crisis: Evidence from the Arab Spatial Policy Analyzer:," IFPRI discussion papers 1471, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Iimi, Atsushi & Smith, James Wilson, 2007. "what is missing between agricultural growth and infrastructure development ? cases of coffee and dairy in Africa," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4411, The World Bank.
    4. Iimi, Atsushi, 2007. "Infrastructure and trade preferences for the livestock sector : empirical evidence from the beef industry in Africa," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4201, The World Bank.
    5. Haggblade, Steven, 2007. "Returns to Investment in Agriculture," Food Security Collaborative Policy Briefs 54625, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:fpr:dsgddp:7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.