![Sample our Environment & Agriculture journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5934/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Agriculture.jpg"})
Abstract
Two myths or assumptions led to neglect of mobilization of savings in the rural areas. These myths seem to dissipate with time. The first myth is the assumption of pervasive rural undersavings; the second is the assumption that demand for financial savings instruments is low. A large amount of empirical evidence from Asian, Latin American and some African countries suggest that the rigid notion of low or zero savings capacity of poor rural households does not hold true. This paper looks at the old approach of rural finance, arguments for and against rural savings mobilization, bottlenecks and conditions for effective savings mobilization in rural areas.
Twee mites of aannames het gelei tot verwaarlosing van besparingsmobilisering in landelike gebiede. Hierdie mites disintegreer skynbaar met die verloop van tyd. Die eerste mite is die aanvaarding van chroniese onderbesparing en die tweede mite is die aanname van 'n klein vraag na finansiële besparingsinstrumente 'n groot hoevelheid empiriese getuienis van Asiatiese, Latyns-Amerikaanse en sommige Afrikalande dui daarop dat die rigiede denkbeeld van lae of zero besparingskapasiteite van arm landelike huishoudings nie geldig is nie. Hierdie referaat bespreek die ou-benadering tot landelike finansiering argumente vir en teen landelike besparings-mobilisering, knelpunte en voorvereistes vir effektiewe besparingsmobilisering in landelike gebiede.