InternationalDevelopmentSFS 3000 01

Image Retrieved from www.elevationnetworks.org

Image retrived from www.usaid.gov

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...............................................................................................32. Unmet Need...............................................................................................43. Making the Markets Work for the Poor.................................................54. Opportunities and Project’s Goal...........................................................65. Best Practices............................................................................................7 Communication..............................................................................7 Public-Privated Partnerships.........................................................8 Microfinance....................................................................................96. Appendix...................................................................................................107. Works Cited..............................................................................................14

International Development agents work together to tackle social, economical, and envi-ronmental issues across the world. They not only observe and act upon these issues, but they also look for the best practices and solutions for these problems. They constantly evaluate data and reports from several international organizations in order to find the best theories of change as well as development activities. In a nutshell, development agents seek to tackle issues by evaluat-ing good alternatives toward a specific cause through reports and their indicators. In the spring semester of 2014, Green Mountain College scholars had the opportunity to evaluate, research, and identify international development projects as well as their respective goals, impacts, outcomes, outputs, and indicators through the International Development course, which was taught by Professor Robin Currey. Professor Currey has extensive expertise in the international development realm as former Kyrgyzstan Mercy Corps Country Director. Currey mentored GMC scholars throughout the spring semester to draft a development project and report related to a specific development issue. The group is comprised of GMC scholars Allan Michel Jales Coutinho 16’, Kristen Friedel 14’, and Salima Mahamoudou 16’. They decided to focus their studies on agriculture and struc-tural constraints. These scholars researched and drafted several papers as well as presented their findings to other GMC scholars. This report is the collection of their final project and work. First, it explains the unmet need and why this topic is considered a pivotal issue for de-velopment agencies and governments. Second, the report gives details about the M4P approach (Making the Markets Work for the Poor) and explain how international agencies have used this to solve structural constraints in rural settings. Third, the report highlights best practices. In oth-er words, it emphasizes the effects and activities developed by international development agencies to solve the unmet need. Finally, this report showcases a logistic framework with its goal, effects, activities, outputs, outcomes, and indicators. This mock experience was of paramount importance to this group as they began to fur-ther their knowledge on opportunities to solve today’s most pressing issues. We hope this report serves anyone who is interested in learning about farming, international issues, and development projects.

Introduction

GMC Scholars

Image retrieved from http://www.afranko.org/2014/01/global-map/?nomobile

Allan J. CoutinhoLeader

Kristen FriedelResearcher

Salima MahamoudouCommunication

Unmet NeedRural Poverty and Structural ConstraintsBIG PICTURE Smallholder farmers face diverse challenges in raising their crops and provide for their families, espe-cially in the developing world. The most pressing issues faced by agricultural populations are environmental haz-ards, technology gaps, and, finally, structural challeng-es (Karlan and Appel 168). First, physical and biologi-cal interactions within soils are modified due to severe changes in weather. Also, environmental hazards such as droughts and floods destroy crops and the ability of the soil to regenerate itself and its nutrients. Second, smallholder farmers usually do not have access to equitable technologies. As a result, they are usually left behind in processing, grow-ing and selling food as they compete against plantation owners and other well-off farmers who have already access to agricultural resources and technol-ogies such as irrigation and financial services. Third, economic and soci-etal structures may prevent these smallholder farmers from accessing local markets. Lack of information among between farmers and proces-sors and inadequate laws, as well as deficient infrastructure, form pivot-al structural restraints for populations in rural settings. These challenges and issues can clearly pre-vent farmers from thriving and participating in their economies. As a result of these constraints, rural pop-ulations usually become marginalized and trapped in a poverty cycle. In 2008, it was estimated that rural communities represented three quarters of the world’s poor (W. Dugger 1). Due to the astonishing outcomes of rural poverty, international organizations and de-velopment agencies have acknowledged that global poverty remains a predominantly rural phenomenon.

“Caught in a trap between marginal incomes and little chance toobtain funds for improvements, [farmers have] little opportunity for advancement”

United Nations Cyberschool Bus: Poverty

IMPORTANT FACTS• Over 2.8 billions people live under on less than

the equivalent of 2$/day (United Nations);• Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest proportion of

people who are poor, with poverty affecting 46.3 per cent or close to half of the regions’ population (United Nations);

• Sub-Saharan Africa’s population remains predom-inantly rural (70%), and poverty is widespread (World Bank).

STRUCTURAL CHALLENGESAmong the three challenges faced by

farmers in the impoverished com-munities, the structural chal-

lenges seems to be the most critical issue of all. The lib-eration theology alredy emphasizes that social and economic structural constraints may prevent people from achieving a dignified quality of life. Not surprisingly, many international development

projects and schorlarly es-says regarding rural pover-

ty emphasize the role played by structural challenges. The

United Nations explains that “land reforms, public investment in rural

infrastructure, technology, and marketing services along with increased credit and price stabil-ity are necessary to remove the multiple constraints restricting the possibilities of the rural poor” (United Nations 3). Fortunately, poor smallholder farmers are inclined to take chances when they foresee financial benefits as well as positive outcomes in their invest-ments (Tripp 74-76). This commonly happens where agricultural markets perform adequately and this is where the opportunities arise with the “Making the Markets Work For the Poor” approach.

The Making the Markets Work for the Poor Approach (M4P) was recently adopted in the Interna-tional Development realm (Tschumi and Haglan Fore-word). This approach acknowledges that the poor rely on market systems to create income for their households (Foreword). The M4P tries to identify constraints within market systems as well as understand the roots of these problems (SDC 1). The organizations that use the M4P approach do not become market actors, but rather fa-cilitators. In other words, M4P facilitates communica-tion and catalyses market actors, including the public and private sectors, to act upon market constraints, thus leading the market toward a systemic change. As a re-sult, when the M4P organizations stop facilitating dia-logue and catalysing these market players, they will have the means and the knowledge to continue developing the market systems. This represents the sustainability piece of the Making the Markets Work for the Poor Ap-proach (Tschumi and Haglan 25). Lastly, by facilitating markets systems to work more effectively for the poor, M4P reduces poverty as well as improves their liveli-hood (Tschumi and Haglan Foreword).

Making the Markets Work for the PoorA brief about this International Development Approach

Because farmers face structural challenges within market systems, including lack of investment, infrastructure, and information, agencies have start-ed to use the M4P approach to facilitate conversations and interactions among market players. Internation-al development agents look into market systems and identify its structural constraints and catalysing market players’ true potential. For example, one can research a specific local market and realize that rural communities are not reaching out to the market because of inacces-sible roads. Hence, in order to facilitate the access to this market, one may need to collect data and technical information. With this information in hand, one can convince governmental institutions that farmers must have access to roads in order to sell their products and make a profit. As a result of this process, M4P approach facilitates the creation of healthier, poor-friendly mar-ket structures. The diagram below shows how markets are structured. Any negative disruption in the market might affect the flow of information and rules, thus re-sulting in constraints for farmers and other key players.

Image retrieved from www.blog4dev.ch

Figure 1: Making the Markets Work for the Poor

In order to relieve marginalized communities from their isolation and consequential exclusion from contempo-rary agriculture markets, international development agencies must realize the opportunities across the M4P approach. Ag-riculture is perceived to be the most important livelihood ac-tivity and is nearly three times more effective in reducing pov-erty than growth in other sectors (“Perspectives on the M4P Approach”). Thus, markets need to be rewired to accomodate pro-poor growth in agricultural sectors in order to provide ru-ral, marginalized farmers with the prospect of a prosperous live-lihood. The most promising opportunities in realigning agricul-ture markets to promote pro-poor growth are those that directly address structural barriers in contemporary markets. Structural barriers in agriculture markets impede poor smallholder farmers from realizing their potential to achieve a sustainable livelihood. Through the lens of the M4P approach, removing these struc-tural obstacles to improve market access for poor smallholder farmers will subsequently reorient the market to systematically include these populations while also increasing their socio-eco-nomic capacity. More specifically, increasing the communica-tion between supply and demand, facilitating public-private partnerships, and improving access to microfinance services will ameliorate market access for rural smallholder farmers.

Opportunities

Project Goal Market communication, public-private partnerships, and microfinance all serve to meet one goal: to facilitate working mar-kets for marginalized rural communities in developing countries so as to foster sustainable livelihoods. The most promising route to achieving this goal is removing the structural barriers that restrain smallholder farmers from participating in agricultural markets. If these barriers are removed, the market will consequently rearrange itself to allow for ample market access among poor rural farmers. If market access for this rural population is improved, then oppor-tunities will be realized through significant increases in household income, thus improving the ability of smallholder farmers to main-tain sustainable livelihoods. To meet this goal, three specific objec-tives should be adopted: (1) increasing market access by improving communication between supply and demand; (2) strengthening private investment by facilitating public-private partnerships; and (3) improving access to financial services through microfinance.

GOAL

Facilitate working markets for marginalized rural communities in developing countries so as to foster sustainable livelihoods.

THEORY OF CHANGE

If we remove structural con-straints for smallholder farmers, then the market will reorient itself to systematically incor-portate these populations while increasing their social-economic capacity.

Sustainable livelihoods

Market reorientation

Increased socio-economic capacity

Remove structural constraints

THEORY OF CHANGE

Th eories of Change: Because they matter!

Objective OneIncrease Market Access by Improving Communication Be-tween Supply and Demand.

The rural poor struggle to break the poverty cycle, which prevents people from having access to economic resources. This poverty cycle continues to harm the poor especially when national and local markets do not work fa-vorably for these populations. One of the pivotal problems encountered within market systems is the lack of com-munication between supply and demand. Many countries in continents such as Africa and Asia witness how this deficiency prevents peoples from accessing economic and social resources in their own communities. One of the best alternatives to assist the rural poor to overcome this barrier is to improve communication between supply and demand, as well as spread information within market systems. Many inter-national development projects have used the M4P approach to bridge the supply chain (e.g. farmers) to demand. This can be accomplished through different channels. For instance, one can use media such as TV and radio to reach out to small-holder farmers and spread import-ant information about agriculture as well as entrepreneurial opportuni-ties. Equally important, international development agencies can facilitate as well as promote community dialogues and panels to sustain on-going conversations among these market players. With open conversations and equitable access to information, it is likely that farmers and buyers will reach out to one another and estrengthen ties of respect and trust, thus opening new opportunities that did not previously exist. This change in the market function (See picture one, page 5) can outlast future constraints. Clearly, this approach to development deserves to be considered as a great opportunity for rural communities across the globe.

RADIOS AND MEDIA

international organizations have identified that farmers usually prefer radios rather than other types of media channels in Africa (See Appendix 1). This population is usually illiterate and have little money (Myers 19). With radios, they can listen to the programs and develop other

CommunicationTrust & InformationFarmers and Buyers

Interesting Facts• According to the international organization,

“Radio for Development,” “radio remains the most important electronic medium in develop-ing nations;”

• In Nigeria, the project ENABLE stimulated the demand for information using medium chan-nels and community panels (“ENABLE” 4);

• Bearing in mind that approximately 76% of poor farmers have access to radio in their com-munities, the non-profit agency “Farm Radio

International” used radio broad-casters to improve food security and agriculture methods in rural communities in Africa (Farm Radio).

ties, thus giving radios a competitive advantage

compared to other chan-nels (Picture 1). Checking the

graphics in image two, one can easily identify the opportunity that

development agencies have to reach out to farmers. Radios can be used as informational

channel catalysts, followed by TV and mobiles. International development agencies have taken advantage of this opportunity to educate people in developing countries. USAID has report-ed several projects that utilized radios as an infor-mational catalyst tool. For example, Sudan Radio Service supported radio stations and distributed 200,000 solar and crank-powered radios to civil-ians in the Sudan’s countryside (USAID). Undoubtedly, radios are one of the best avenues to connect with farmers in certain regions of the developing world and ensure that they have the right information to enter local markets and connect with buyers.

Objective TwoStrengthen Private Investments by Facilitating Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). M4P literature emphasizes multi-player market roles. The ideology behind these horizontally structured functions is that public and private actors do not exist in isolation. This is important to acknowledge, as the agendas of private firms can be influenced by the ac-tions or inactions of the public sphere. In one of DFID’s leading documents on the M4P approach, Tschumi and Haglan state that successful improvements in markets and basic services “is based around developing the technical capacities of different players and aligning better their incentives and motivations” (“Synthesis on the M4P Approach” 11). This alignment often comes in the form of public-private partnerships (PPPs), wherein commercial agendas and objectives in the public and private sphere tend to overlap. These partnerships stress the importance of win-win scenarios while co-ordinating with one another to form contracts that entitle each party to an equal slice of the pie (Billing, Forslind, & Metell Cueva 3). PPPs have been extremely successful in pro-moting pro-poor growth in agricultural markets. While designed to add value to private investments from a developmental point of view, they also serve to meet the needs of the rural poor through investments, trade, technology-transfer and problem-solving (Billing, Fors-lind & Metell-Cueva 29). Through forums, stakeholder meetings, and service fairs, private entities engage with the public to create solutions to inadequate market structures. More often than not, these private entities provide the public with a supporting function that is otherwise unmet by the public sector. This includes in-frastructure, market services, and information dissemi-nation. The existence of PPPs in agricultural mar-ket-oriented development projects has been proven to greatly ameliorate the livelihoods of the world’s rural poor. A development program implemented in the Syunik Marz region of Southern Armenia used the PPP approach as a method of opening up formal milk mar-kets in marginalized communities. A private cheese

producing company, Elola, invested a total of $2 million in the supply chain (infrastructure, market-ing, warehousing, and distribution) to link rural dairy farmers to domestic and international cheese markets. These investments provided Elola with an increased dairy supply from 7 more villages, while also creating formal market access to around 2,000 dairy farmers (“Developing Markets” 18). Further, more than 900 dairy households increased their annual income by $314 as a direct result of increased market access (19). Directly linking farmers with private compa-nies is also seen as a champion effort in the Smallhold-er Cash and Export Crops Development Project in

Rwanda. This project aimed to rehabilitate a run-down government tea plantation by developing nearly 1200 hectares of land and increas-ing the capacity of tea-farm-ers to form a cooperative. This project facilitated the creation of the Nshili Kivu Tea Factory, a joint venture company owned by private

investors and the newly formed tea cooperative. By establishing a mutual interest between farmers and the tea company, IFAD facilitated the private invest-ment of $2 million to construct a processing plant and increase demand for harvested tea. Nearly 2,500 smallholder tea farmers who have received a 60% increase in the premium received for their tea crops, thus determining PPP as a success (Bradley et al.). Facilitating public-private partnerships in pro-poor market approaches in agriculture is largely successful to increase the household income of small-holder farmers. By identifying mutual interests, estab-lishing trust, and informing private stakeholders of the advantages to private investment, this best practice is able to significantly reduce the impacts of poverty across predominantly rural regions. By encouraging private entities to act on traditionally public roles, livelihoods can be improved without encountering with the unnecessary delays associated with regulato-ry and governance approaches.

Objective ThreeImprove Access to Financial Services Through Micro-Finance. Microfinance is the action of providing finan-cial services to entrepreneurs and small businesses that lack access to economic resources such as bank-ing and similar services. These services are mostly provided under the form of microcredit loans, sav-ings, or micro-insurance (Microfinance GATEWAY). Microfinance has proven to be a powerful tool against poverty (Women’s WorldWide Web). Indeed, it helps create “a world in which as many poor and near-poor households as possible have permanent access to an appropriate range of high quality financial ser-vices, including not just credit but also savings, in-surance, and fund transfers” (Rutherford, Stuart). International organizations such as Kampon-ion support and help communities to connect with local markets and create long-term op-portunities. The two main mechanisms used to deliver the financial services to poor communi-ties are relationship-based banking and group-based models (Microfinance GATEWAY/ Microfinance Clients). In the first op-tion, individual entrepreneurs and small businesses apply for loans. Conversely, in the second option, several entrepre-neurs form a group and apply for the loan. Many international agencies ad-opted microfinance to eradicate poverty in impoverished communities across the world. Microfinance services have been predominantly ori-ented towards women. That is mainly because the majority of the world’s poor are female individuals (Global Citizens). Lending to impoverished women has been proven to encourage equity in households and leverage decision-making. For example, Kashf Foundation, a Pakistani organization lent loans to women, which enabled them to create small business-es, pay for their family education, and improve their diet (Kristof and Wudunn, 186). Keeping in mind that microfinance institutions are usually for-profit agencies, it is important to highlight and encourage agencies to adopt and incorporate ethical values. Ac-cording to the Do-No-Harm Principle, implemen-tation projects must be aware of the consequences of their actions. As such, they need to make sure that possible negative impacts are not a part of the out-

comes of their projects. In addition, companies such as Pro-Client Work-

ing Group and Microfinance Infor-mation Exchange (MIX) provide concrete data on the evolution of rural poor livelihood while ensur-ing appropriate advancement of

their interests. Microfinance is a useful tool in

facilitating economic growth in rural areas (UNAIDS/Intervention with Mi-

crofinance). It allows access to financial services, which gives poor, smallholder farmers the ability to access and play a role in market systems. Microfinance projects have been implemented in many developing countries such as Pakistan, Nigeria, and Uganda. It showed effec-tiveness by facilitating a 50% increase in average in poor community incomes (Rural Microfinance, Microfinance against poverty in Africa, SIDA). Microfinance has been listed as one of the oldest development techniques used by International Agencies to fight poverty. There are now more than 2,000 microf-inance projects implemented across the world and more than 1,000 projects that showed successful results ex-ceeding 50% growth and improvement (MIX database).Clearly, If one allows smallholder farmers to have access to markets with sustainable assets, then they will face a considerable change in their income.

Important FactAsia leads the world in total

current borrowers with nearly 113 million dollars (Adjusted for

2012 inflation rate).

GOAL

Theory of Change

Facilitate  working  mar-kets  for  marginalized  rural com-munities in developing countries so as to foster sustainable  livelihoods.

If we remove structural con-straints for poor small holder farm-ers, then the market will reoriente itself to systematically incorporate these populations while increas-ing their socio-economic capacity.

Appendix (Document 1)

Data Retrieved from http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/ICT4D/Radio_and_Development_in_Africa_concept_paper.pdf - Page 8 to 11.

Appendix (Document 2)A

llan

Mic

hel J

ales

Cou

tinho

, Kris

ten

Frie

del,

and

Sal

ima

Mah

amou

dou

Gre

en M

ount

ain

Col

lege

, Int

erna

tiona

l Dev

elop

men

t - S

FS 3

000

Pre

pare

d fo

r Pro

fess

or R

obin

Cur

rey,

PhD

, Apr

il 25

, 201

4 Lo

gica

l Fra

mew

ork

- Sm

art:

Sim

ple,

Mea

sura

ble,

Ach

ieva

ble,

Rea

listic

, Tim

e-B

ound

M

akin

g M

arke

ts w

ork

for t

he P

oor

G

OA

L: F

acili

tate

wor

king

mar

kets

for m

argi

naliz

ed c

omm

uniti

es in

dev

elop

ing

coun

tries

so

as to

fost

er s

usta

inab

le li

velih

oods

SM

AR

T O

BJE

CTI

VES

KEY

OU

TPU

TS

MA

JOR

AC

TIVI

TIES

IN

DIC

ATO

RS

1. In

crea

se m

arke

t acc

ess

by im

prov

ing

com

mun

icat

ion

betw

een

supp

ly a

nd d

eman

d

1. R

adio

Sta

tions

2.

Impr

ove

know

ledg

e an

d tru

st b

etw

een

supp

ly a

nd

dem

and

3. K

now

ledg

e ab

out

mar

ket s

yste

ms

and

tech

nolo

gy

4. C

omm

unity

sur

vey

1. In

crea

se th

e nu

mbe

r of r

adio

sta

tion

broa

dcas

ters

2.

Cre

ate

partn

ersh

ips

with

radi

os

3. D

istri

bute

radi

os to

farm

ers

4. B

uild

com

mun

ity c

ente

rs

5. F

acili

tate

com

mun

ity c

onve

rsat

ions

1. #

of b

road

cast

ers

and

peop

le li

sten

ing

to p

rogr

ams

rela

ted

to a

gric

ultu

re a

nd

mar

ket o

ppor

tuni

ties

2. #

of p

artn

ersh

ips

form

ed

3. #

of r

adio

s di

strib

uted

4.

# o

f peo

ple

atte

ndin

g co

mm

unity

5.

1 #

of b

uyer

s

5.2

# of

buy

ers

that

pro

duct

s ar

e so

ld to

2. S

treng

then

priv

ate

inve

stm

ent b

y fa

cilit

atin

g pu

blic

-priv

ate

partn

ersh

ips

(PP

Ps)

1. M

arke

t Sur

vey/

In

terv

iew

s 2.

Cap

acity

trai

ning

s 3.

Dev

elop

ed b

usin

ess

envi

ronm

ent

1. C

ondu

ct s

urve

ys a

nd in

terv

iew

s am

ongs

t fa

rmer

s an

d bu

yers

in th

e re

gion

(p

roce

ssor

s, tr

ader

s, re

taile

rs, e

xpor

ters

) to

iden

tify

mut

ual i

nter

ests

2.

Hol

d fa

rmer

trai

ning

s to

impr

ove

qual

ity

of s

uppl

y 3.

1. In

itiat

e st

akeh

olde

r mee

tings

to in

form

fa

rmer

s an

d bu

yers

of w

in-w

in m

arke

t sc

enar

ios

and

esta

blis

h tru

st

3.2.

Est

ablis

h a

phys

ical

spa

ce to

ser

ve a

s th

e re

gion

’s a

gric

ultu

ral m

arke

t pla

tform

3.

3. I

nfor

m p

rivat

e st

akeh

olde

rs o

n th

e bu

sine

ss a

dvan

tage

s of

mar

ket

deve

lopm

ent t

o pr

omot

e pr

ivat

e in

vest

men

t

1. #

of f

arm

ers

and

buye

rs re

ache

d 2.

% in

crea

se in

gra

de A

agr

icul

ture

pr

oduc

ts

3.1

# of

pub

lic-p

rivat

e pa

rtner

ship

s fo

rmed

3.

2. #

of a

ctor

s th

at re

port

impr

oved

m

arke

t lin

kage

s 3.

3. %

incr

ease

in d

iscl

osed

priv

ate

inve

stm

ent

3. Im

prov

e ac

cess

to

finan

cial

ser

vice

s th

roug

h m

icro

-fina

nce

1. F

oste

r com

mun

ity

inte

rest

in M

icro

finan

ce

2. K

now

ledg

e in

M

icro

finan

ce p

ract

ices

. 3.

Stro

nger

and

hea

lthie

r co

mm

unic

atio

n in

rura

l ar

eas.

1. C

ondu

ct a

mar

ket r

esea

rch

to ta

rget

loca

l m

arke

t opp

ortu

nitie

s 2.

Tra

inin

gs a

nd in

divi

dual

follo

w-u

p on

m

icro

finan

ce p

ract

ices

3.

Cre

atio

n of

foru

ms

to fa

cilit

ate

the

exch

ange

(don

ors

and

borr

ower

s)

1. #

of b

orro

wer

s an

d lo

ans

allo

cate

d 2.

Sho

rt-te

rm v

s. lo

ng-te

rm lo

ans

allo

cate

d 3.

Ann

ual L

oan

loss

rate

4.

% re

turn

on

equi

ty

5. %

retu

rn o

n as

sets

6.

Effe

ctiv

enes

s of

the

loan

s (a

lloca

ted

loan

s / s

ucce

ssfu

l loa

ns)

M4P IN AGRICULTURE:BEST PRACTICES FRAMEWORK

GOAL: Facilitate working markets for marginalized rural communities in developing countries so as to foster sustainable livelihoods

Market and community research

Increased market access

Establishment of public-private partnerships

Increased microloans distributed to smallholder farmers

Identify and target local market opportunities

Creation of forums to facilitate microloan exchange

Provide trainings and consultancy sessions for farmers

Faciliate community dialogue

Increase # of radio broadcasters

Facilitate radio partnerships

Distribute radios to farmers

Establish/build community centers

Improved communication between supply and demand

Increased private investment

Hold farrmer trainings to im-prove quality of crops

Initiate stakeholder meetings

Inform market actors of win-win market scenarios and establish

trust

Establish physical meeting space

Improved access to financial services

Appendix (Document 3)

Works CitedBancro , Jim. Introduction to the challenges for achieving gender equality. Global Citizen. (Joint

Publication of the Global Poverty Project). May 02. Web. 5 May 2014 Billing, Annika, Forslind, Maja, and Karin Metell Cueva. Swedish Development Cooperation and

the Private Sector: e Role of Business in Poverty Alleviation and the Role of Donors in Promoting Private Sector Contributions to Development. Göteborg: University of Gothenburg, 2012.

Bradley, Marian, Marini Alessandro, Reiner, Claus, and Benoit ierry. Public -Private Partnership: A Driving Force for Poverty Reduction. International Fund for Agricultural Development. 2008. Web. Accessed from http://www.ifad.org/newsletter/pf/9.htm

CGAP Micro nance Gateway. “What is micro nance?” Web. Accessed from http://www.micro nancegateway.org/p/site/m/template.rc/1.26.12263/

Coley, Sam. Radio for Development. Birmingham City University, 14 Jul. 2007. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. http://www.radiofordevelopment.org.uk/

Crossley, Peter, Chamen, Tim, and Josef Kienzle. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rural Transport and Traction Enterprises for Improved Livelihoods. Rome: 2009.

Dietz, H. Martin, Naher, Noor Akter, and Zenebe Bashaw Uraguchi. Capitalization of Samriddhi’s Experiences on Private Rural Service Provider System. 2013. (Joint Publication of SDC and Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation).

Dorward, Andrew, et al. Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine. A Policy Agenda for Pro-Poor Agricultural Growth. UK: 2002.

Dugger, Celia W. “World Bank Report Puts Agriculture at Core of Antipoverty E ort.” e New York Times. e New York Times Company, 20 Oct. 2007. Web. 26 Mar. 2013.

Farm Radio. Farm Radio International. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. Gart, Arielle. Micro nance Information eXchange. MIX brings Social Performance to the

Forefront of Micro nance. (Joint Publication of the Press Room Inc,). Feb 23. Web 5 May 2014

International Fund for Agricultural Development. Promoting Market Access for the Rural Poor in Order to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Rome, 2003.

Junge, Nils. “ e Importance of Providing Internet Access to the World’s Poor Should Not Be Overstated.” Financial Times. e Financial Times Limited, 24 May 2006. Web. 26 Mar. 2013.

Karlan, Dean and Jacob Appel. More an Good Intentions: How a New Economics is Helping to Solve Global Poverty. New York: Penguin Group (U.S.A.) Inc. 2011. Print.

Mercy Corps. Market Alliance Against Poverty in the Kvemo Kartli Region of Georgia. 2011. (A joint publication of Mercy Corps and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation).

Myers, Mary. Radio and Development in Africa: A Concept Paper. International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada. 2008.

“Regions.” e World Bank . Web. 5 May 2014. Accessed from http://go.worldbank.org/RF3O70S7F0

Spring eld Center. Developing Markets for Dairy Production rough Service Development and Public-Private Partnerships in Rural Armenia. 2008. (Joint Publication of e Spring eld Center and the CIS Division of SDC).

Spring eld Center. e ENABLE Program in Nigeria: A Market Systems Approach to Public -Private Dialogue and Business Environment Reform. 2011. (A joint publication of the Spring eld Center and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation).

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). East and Southern Africa Division. Africa Brief: Market Access for Smallholder Producers in East and Southern Africa. Bern, 2013.

Tripp, Robert. Self-Su cient Agriculture: Labor and Knowledge in Small-Scale Farming. London: Earthscan, 2006. Print.

Tschumi, Peter, and Harry Haglan. U.K. Department for International Development. A Synthesis of the Making Markets work for the Poor (M4P) Approach. Bern, Switzerland 2008. (A joint publication by DFID and SDC).

Tschumi Peter, and Harry Haglan. Perspectives on the Making Markets Work for the Poor (M4P) Approach. Bern, Switzerland 2008. (A joint publication by DFID and SDC).

United Nations. Brie ng case 17: Roots of Poverty. Web. 27 Mar. 2013. Accessed from http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/brie ng/poverty/poverty.pdf

United Nations, Millenium Development Goals. Where are the Gaps?. (MDG Gap Task Report). e Global Partnership for Development: Making Rhetoric a Reality. 2012

USAID. “Radio for a New Nation.” Frontlines: Democracy, Human Rights & Governance. 2012. Web. Accessed from http://www.usaid.gov/news-information/frontlines/democracy-human-rights-governance/radio-new-nation

Women’s WorldWide Web. Micro nance: How e Smallest Loan Can Make e Biggest D erence. Purdue U, Aug. 2006. Web. 5 May 2014

Worldwatch Institute, Vision for a Sustainable World. Micro nance Surging. Growth in microloans and microsavings. Dec 16. Web. 5 MAy 2014

Zhang, Xiaobo and Shenggen Fan. “How Productive is Infrastructure? A New Approach and Evidence from Rural India.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86.2 (2004): 492-501.