Skip to Main Navigation

Designing rules for demand-driven rural investment funds : the Latin American experience (Inglês)

The demand-driven rural investment fund (DRIFs) is a new mechanism for decentralizing decision-making authority and financial resources to local governments and communities to use for investments of their choice. They offer great promise for improving the design, implementation, and sustainability of rural development programs. However, to counteract weak capacity of local governments to choose and implement projects well, central governments have often constrained the choices of communities by limiting the types of projects eligible for financing and requiring specific procedures for procurement and disbursement. They also monitor compliance and often retain veto power over community choices of subprojects. This study explores the extent to which well-designed DRIF rules and incentive structures can substitute for central control. It looks at the different--and often conflicting--motivations of donors, central governments, and communities; and explores how rules can be devised to allow all actors to achieve their objectives. It identifies the many objectives that DRIFs are meant to satisfy, and shows which are being met and which are not. And it offers practical guidance about how to design DRIFs so that they effectively and sustainably promote rural development.

Detalhes

  • Autor

    Wiens, Thomas Guadagni, Maurizio

  • Data do documento

    1998/05/31

  • TIpo de documento

    Publicação

  • No. do relatório

    WTP407

  • Nº do volume

    1

  • Total Volume(s)

    1

  • País

    México,

    Bolívia,

    Colômbia,

    Brasil,

  • Região

    América Latina e Caribe,

  • Data de divulgação

    2010/07/01

  • Nome do documento

    Designing rules for demand-driven rural investment funds : the Latin American experience

  • Palavras-chave

    Economic Rate of Retum;integrated rural development;Internal rate of return;project design and implementation;water supply and sewerage;short period of time;legislative branch of government;poverty measurement and analysis;community support;procurement and disbursement;procedures for procurement;pool of fund;operations and maintenance;competitive bidding process;Access to Education;control over resources;availability of resource;efficiency and quality;Type of Investment;access to fund;indicators of poverty;building local capacity;investment management capacity;allocation of resource;Natural Resource Management;freedom of choice;central government transfer;form of tax;external technical assistance;degrees of participation;international river basin;flow of fund;agricultural trade policy;financial market;error exclusion;annual development program;quality at entry;mechanism of accountability;performance monitoring indicator;local government institution;forms of participation;control of resource;distribution of resource;errors of inclusion;global food supply;civil society group;poor community;incentive structure;community control;municipal government;rural investment;municipal capacity;monitor compliance;project rules;municipal council;central control;public fund;poverty targeting;community involvement;project operation;project goals;eligibility criterion;project types;adequate capacity;rural area;community management;municipal power;investment fund;central authority;essential skill;block grant;community level;project costing;productive infrastructure;fund management;delivery mechanism;veto power;study objectives;political supporters;local elite;project selection;routine monitoring;beneficiary participation;non-governmental organization;public borrowing;statistical theory;physical audits;grant funding;administrative authority;underserved communities;local area;political appointee;gender analysis;elected officials;social pressure;core objectives;administrative framework;empirical analysis;qualitative approach;andean group;natural woodland;municipal institution;rural population;public ownership;financial contribution;effective operations;external financing;uneducated people;political power;government oversight;great power;rural residence;political parties;project execution;political party;local politician;executive branch;cost sharing;eligibility conditions;financial viability;local preference;procedural rule;local condition;financing package;political body;federal government;social need;subproject proposal;community participation;limited capacity;initial investment;construction work;skilled labor;primarily women;labor requirement;project finance;free labor;watershed management;rural woman;legislative power;government staff;field visits;previous one;poverty alleviation;Labor Market;financial resource;efficiency criterion;fiscal legislation;fiscal system;personal relationship;informal system;Natural Resources;small producer;disbursement rate;rural community;annual budget;smaller group;community base;comparative study;road work;Judicial Reform;procurement method;wage structure;copyright notice;noncommercial purposes;agricultural economist;evaluation procedure;political imperative;social structure;enforcement mechanism;social class;political structure;participatory planning;village management;education access;reservoir management;water user;freshwater biodiversity;flood control;local development;water investment;pension system;prior review;

Downloads

COMPLETAR RELATÓRIO

Versão oficial do documento (pode conter assinaturas, etc.)

  • TXT*
  • Total Downloads** :
  • Download Stats
  • *A versão do texto é um OCR incorreto e está incluído unicamente em benefício de usuários com conectividade lenta.