Socioeconomic Effects of Some Agricultural and Rural Micro-Enterprises Funded by the Local Development Fund | ||||
| Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research | ||||
| Article 6, Volume 99, Issue 4, December 2021, Page 435-451 PDF (1010.96 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/ejar.2021.105157.1168 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Doaa Mamdouh Soliman   1; Yehia Abd El-Rhaman Yehia 2
| ||||
| 1Department of Finance and Agricultural Cooperation Research, Agricultural Economics Research Institute(AERI), Agricultural Research Center (ARC) | ||||
| 2Agricultural Economics Research Institute | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Microfinance should be considered and planned as a major means of economic development at the national level and as a means of reducing poverty, bringing about real development, and raising the standard of living of the rural population, which is the main hypothesis that pointed to the need to monitor what is happening in the microfinance sector, in particular the role of the Local Development Fund, since it is mainly located within the countryside through local units in the provinces. This leads us to a question: What is the real impact of the microfinance services provided by the Local Development Fund in alleviating poverty and economic opportunities for clients? This paper aims to identify the role of micro- enterprises in alleviating rural poverty and to study the economic and social impacts of micro-enterprises on borrowers. The results show that the total volume of microfinance lending is 29.5 million L.E for 8,471 projects in 2009/10, but real prices show that there is a significant decline in the value of financing directed against current prices. The real funding volume was 9.7 million L.E in 2020/21. It turns out that there are moral differences between the sample members of the borrowers who own. It was found that there were significant differences between the sample members of micro- enterprises and non-borrower sample members of economic variables, with the calculated value of (T) estimated at 10.9, 8, 4.6, 5.8, and 1.8 per monthly income, savings, asset ownership, increased employment opportunities, and development of productive behavior respectively. This compares with the T-rated values where the T values calculated were greater than their scheduling counterparts, and those differences are in favor of borrowers from local development fund clients. About 69% of the sample of micro-entrepreneurs explained that there has been an improvement in their standard of living, as evidenced by the improved level of the food they receive and their interest in educating children and following up on the state's health care initiatives to maintain their health. The research recommends reviewing the distribution of funding to the provinces to target the poorest provinces, in addition to not repeating the same projects in the same places and diversifying activities, focusing on agricultural, rural, and environmental productive activities and moving away from consumer, and service activities that are not fully sustainable and do not increase real employment opportunities. Increasing the value of the loan where it is contrary to the value of microfinance described by the definition of the micro-project with the micro-financing strategy prepared by the state, and the financing rules announced by the Financial Supervisory Authority and funding provided by other official bodies in the country such as the SME Development Authority and micro, which contributes to the movement of customers from projects that meet their basic need to the level of effective micro-projects, and thus the final impact of microfinance becomes useful, which It allows borrowers to break out of poverty and contribute significantly to sustainable economic and social development. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Local Development Fund; Micro-Projects; Poverty; Independent Samples T-Test | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 273 PDF Download: 1,309 |
||||
