The importance of public investment for reducing rural poverty in middle-income countries
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.
|Date of creation:||2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 2033 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006|
Web page: http://www.ifpri.org/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Fan, Shenggen & Zhang, Xiaobo & Rao, Neetha, 2004.
"Public expenditure, growth, and poverty reduction in rural Uganda,"
DSGD discussion papers
4, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
- 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.
- Escobal, Javier, 2001. "The Determinants of Nonfarm Income Diversification in Rural Peru," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 497-508, March.
- Hazell, Peter B. & Haggblade, Steven, 1990. "Rural - urban growth linkages in India," Policy Research Working Paper Series 430, The World Bank.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- van de Walle, Dominique, 2000.
"Are returns to investment lower for the poor? Human and physical capital interactions in rural Viet Nam,"
Policy Research Working Paper Series
2425, The World Bank.
- 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.
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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.