Microcredit and Agriculture: How to Make it Work1
 M. A. Hakim2
1.
Introduction
Although agriculture’s contribution to national economy has declined in many Asia-Pacific
region countries (Table-1) it still remains a very important sector. Agriculture, including
crops, fisheries, livestock and forestry still account for substantial employment, (Table-2) and
a significant portion of export revenues in many of the Asia-Pacific region countries. Further
majority of the total population of these countries live in rural areas and are dependent on
agriculture for their livelihood (Table-3). Even in those countries where the share of
agriculture in GDP is very small, the sector is still an important area of concern for policy
makers, especially given the increasing global concerns in recent years for food security,
trade liberalization and sustainable development.
2.
Agriculture and Small and Marginal Farmers
In most Asian Countries, small and marginal farms/holdings predominate the agriculture
sector (Table-4). In Bangladesh in 1996, they constituted 79.28% of total holdings; in the
Republic of Korea the figure was 57.6% in 1995; and Indonesia in 1993, it was 70.8%.
Generally, small and marginal farmers have the following features:
a)
They are the disadvantaged and low income farming population who are
concerned with agricultural, livestock, agro-forestry, and aquatic products.
b)
They are mostly tenants (e.g. share-croppers) and small owner-operators.
c)
They lack effective share of economic and political power in their villages.
d)
Problems of under-employment are severe among them.
e)
Their under-employment has a seasonal character being at the lowest level in the
slack season.
f)
Because they do not have adequate employment in agriculture, they are
compelled to engage in low productivity employment, e.g. Food for Work (FFW)
programme.
3.
Role of Small farmers in Economic Growth and Development
a)
Small farmers are early adopters of new technology:
The intensity of adoption of modern varieties of rice is higher among small
farmers than among medium and large farmers (Asaduzzaman, 1979; BBS,
1986; Herdt and Garcia, 1982; and Hossain, 1989).
b)
1
2
Small farmers use more fertilizer:
Note presented at the Asia Pacific Region Microcredit Summit Meeting of Councils (APRMS) 2004 held in
Dhaka on February 16-19, 2004
General Manager, Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation (PKSF). Views expressed in this note do not necessarily
reflect the views of PKSF.
D:\Inetpub\wwwroot\pksf\Copy of speeches & Papers\Dr.M.A.Hakim\Microcredit and Agriculture.doc
Modern varieties of crops demand greater use of chemical fertilizers. The rate of use of
chemical fertilizers per acre of land has been found to be higher among small farmer
groups, although they pay higher prices for fertilizer (Herdt and Garcia, 1982 and
Hossain, 1989).
c)
Small farmers are more productive:
A large volume of studies have been conducted on the relationship between farm size and
land productivity and it has been found that productivity on small farms is higher than on
large farms (Hossain, 1977 and 1989; and Mandal, 1980). This size-productivity
relationship of Bangladeshi farms is shown in Figure-1.
d)
Small farmers are more efficient:
Research studies have shown that small farmers are more economically efficient than
large farmers (Lau and Yotopoulous, 1971 and 1972). The relative economic efficiency
of small farmers was due to their technical efficiency (more output for the same amount
of input) – both types of farmers are price efficient (equating added cost to added
benefits).
e)
Small farmers invest more in agriculture:
Some studies show that small farmers invest a greater proportion of their surplus in
agriculture than do medium and large farmers, indicating that small farmers are more
interested in agricultural capital formation than other farmers (Hossain, 1989; and
Rahman, 1980).
f)
There will be a strong growth linkage effect from small farmer development:
An initial increase in development investment for small farmers will enhance their
income, because they are productive. Increased income will increase their demand for
investment and consumption goods in both the agricultural and the non-agricultural
sectors. Hossain (1987) has estimated that the expenditure elasticity of the urban
industrial goods of small farmers is about 2.0. Increased small farmer income would
therefore contribute to overall economic growth.
4.
Small Farmers Access to Credit
In Bangladesh, existing credit institutions can provide less than one-third of total rural credit
(Table-5). All banks, including the Grameen Bank, provided 19.76% of total loans in rural
areas in the survey year 1987. The share of cooperatives in total loan distribution was only
5.33%. All institutional sources together disbursed slightly over 28% of loans. This implies
that non-institutional sources provided about 72% of loans. Informal sources still dominate
the rural financial market where interest rates are often notoriously high.
Access to institutional sources of credit is limited for small and marginal farmers. About
36% of small farmers borrowed money during the survey year 1987, but only slightly
over 11% obtained credit from banks, the major institutional sources of credit (BBS,
1989).
Figure-2 shows the credit received per acre of land by different categories of
households. The small farm households received only Tk. 13.0 per acre from
institutional sources while medium and large farm households obtained respectively
Tlk. 91.0 and Tk. 84.0.
D:\Inetpub\wwwroot\pksf\Copy of speeches & Papers\Dr.M.A.Hakim\Microcredit and Agriculture.doc
Figure-3 shows that small farmers receive the smallest percentage of loans despite the
fact that they represent the largest percentage of rural households (Ahmed and Hossain,
1987). In Nepal also, access of small and marginal farmers to formal sources of credit is
limited (Table-6).
Figure-4 shows the loan repayment behaviour of different categories of farmers. The
figure shows a negative relationship between farm size and loan repayment behaviour.
The repayment performance of small farmers is much better than that of medium and
large farmers.
From the above discussions we see that, firstly, informal sources dominate the rural capital
market. Secondly, small farmers generally have no access to institutional sources of credit.
Thirdly, small farmers receive small amounts as well as a low percentage of loans compared
with medium and large farmers on a per acre basis. Finally, the repayment performance of
small farmers is better than that of large farmers.
5.
Agriculture and Microcredit
In Agriculture, all categories of farmers need credit – small and marginal farmers need most.
Historically with some lone exceptions, microcredit programmes have not addressed the
credit needs of small and marginal farmers – the tomorrow’s poor, apparently for the
following reasons:
a)
Tomorrow’s poor as they are, small and marginal farmers have not been in the
priority list of microcredit providers. Providers, for obvious reasons, have been
more concerned with the today’s poor. From the point of expanding programme
coverage, there is, ironically a great advantage of not covering the tomorrow’s
poor – as the number of current poor are covered under the programme, there is
an assured flow of the poor from the pool of tomorrow’s poor. Thus, there is a
continuously expanding pool (market) of the poor to bring under microcredit
coverage.
Some of the poor microcredit borrowers, however, spend their credit for some
agricultural activities. Ahmed (2004) shows that 12.23% of the total microcredit is
used for agricultural activities.
b)
It appears that microcredit providers consider investment in agriculture risky.
Traditionally, agriculture was dependent on the whims of nature – it was
vulnerable to floods, draughts and pest attacks. So microcredit providers do not
want to risk their investment in agriculture.
c)
Seasonality of agricultural production appears to be another factor dissuading
microcredit providers to advance credit to agriculture sector. It is perceived that
since return on the investment in agriculture has seasonal lags from 3 months to
12 months, agricultural borrowers will not be able to repay loans in weekly
instalments, and will not be able to make weekly savings, two prominent norms of
microcredit lending. The likely consequences of this could be: (a) loan default; (b)
reduction in loan revolving rate – reducing interest income; and non or no
mobilization of savings which are used indirectly as collateral and as revolving
loan funds.
d)
Low repayment of agricultural loan appears to be another factor influencing the
decisions of microcredit providers against lending in agriculture sector.
D:\Inetpub\wwwroot\pksf\Copy of speeches & Papers\Dr.M.A.Hakim\Microcredit and Agriculture.doc
Historically in many countries in the region, the picture of record of repayment of
agricultural loan is very dismal indeed. In Bangladesh, for example, repayment
rate of agriculture between 1990-91 through 1998-1999 raged from 12.31% to
27.35% (Table-7).
e)
6.
Microcredit providers also seem to consider agriculture as a technical occupation
funding for which would need technically qualified credit officers and workers.
Since they do not generally have technically qualified credit staff, they have
refrained from funding to agriculture sector.
Making Microcredit Work in Agriculture
The tomorrow’s poor – the marginal and small farmers in agriculture of Asia Pacific region
need microcredit – credit without collateral. Microcredit providers in the region need, on the
one hand to review and extend their priority area for funding to include the poor
agriculturaists – the tomorrow’s poor. They should appreciate the fact that like any other
poor, the agriculture poor have also a right to credit. On the other hand, they should also
appreciate that the agriculture poor are also bankable – the perceived problems of providing
credit to the agriculture poor are not real. Let us discuss.
Firstly: investment in agriculture need not necessarily be risky. In all Asian and Pacific region
countries, the dependence of agriculture on nature has decreased significantly and at the
same time productivity in agriculture has increased remarkably. The introduction of irrigation
has relieved agriculture substantially of draught; flood-control and drainage programmes
have significantly reduced the damage of agriculture from floods.
Secondly: The introduction of irrigation-seed fertilizer technology has increased cropping
intensity and changed cropping pattern including short-duration crops and high value crops.
Growing urbanization has led to the increase in the demand for high value crops. Seasons in
agriculture crop production cycle have become shorter in duration and seasons now overlap
with one another. In many areas, one can observe year round production – characterized by
cropping patterns incorporating cereal crops with vegetables production and so-called cash
crops. There is also intercropping. Credit support will definitely further intensify multi-crop
and inter-crop cropping patterns. Further the small and marginal farm households, which
need microcredit support, are multi-occupational (Hossain 2001, Chambers, Saxena and Shah
1989). For them the concept of livelihood is more appropriate than employment. Livelihood
describes an adequate and secure stock and flow of cash and food for the household and its
members through out the year, and the means to meet contingencies. The small and marginal
farm households are like the foxes in the Greek proverb, the fox knows many things. They
seek livelihoods by adopting different income generating activities. Some multi-occupational
small and marginal farm households, like other poor households, will also be able to make
weekly savings and repay loans in weekly installments, some can make it partially, some
others would need some adjustments in the repayment schedule.
Thirdly: Microcredit providers need not to stay away from funding small and marginal farmers
seeing the poor recovery of loan in agriculture sector because the poor recovery in
agriculture is not inherent in the system – it is because of (a) lack of adequate and proper
supervision; (b) corruption in the system; (c) political lending; (d) bad culture of exemption of
credit again motivated by political reasons; and (e) untimely distribution of loan and
inadequate size of loan (Hakim 1988). Microcredit program as we all know, is free from
these vices. Further to note is that among the agricultural borrowers, small and marginal
farmers are good repayers of loans.
D:\Inetpub\wwwroot\pksf\Copy of speeches & Papers\Dr.M.A.Hakim\Microcredit and Agriculture.doc
Fourthly: agriculture certainly is a special type of production system, but it is not so technical
as would not be understood by microcredit staff appraising loan applications. One may
appreciate the fact that the poor and illiterate farmers of Asia and Pacific have adopted
modern agricultural technology very successfully. At the same time, we also know that for
providing very specialized kinds of services, the Asia Pacific region countries now produce a
large number of agricultural graduates every year. The microcredit providers can hire them.
7.
Experiences
The first government sponsored experimental project on microcredit in Bangladesh targeted
small and marginal farmers and landless agricultural labourers. The project results show that
small and marginal farmer also use microcredit efficiently and repay loans regularly. They
also make regular savings.
PKSF recently, has started funding in agricultural activities of the poor. The PKSF
experience is also very encouraging. Some PKSF partners also are providing microcredit to
small and marginal farmers. Their experiences also suggest that microcredit can be provided
to small and marginal farmers.
8.
Conclusion
Small and marginal farmers constitute the majority of farming population. They are multioccupational, productive and efficient. They are good re-payers of loan. They generally have
inadequate access to productive assets and very insignificant access to formal sources of
credit. As a result, they pass through a process of losing their scanty resources, and join the
pool of poor – they are the tomorrow’s poor.
Access of small and marginal farmers to microcredit can significantly help them to avoid
sliding down the poverty ladder. Providers of microcredit have not generally addressed the
credit need of small and marginal farmers because of their priority of funding to the poor and
because of some perceived problems which include, among others, (a) risk of invest in
agriculture; (b) seasonality of agricultural production; (c) poor loan repayment performance
of agricultural lending; and (d) technical nature of agriculture production system.
This small note shows that the perceived problems of lending in agriculture sector targeting
small and marginal farmers are not real and argues that microcredit providers should extend
their priority area of lending to cover small and marginal farmers – the tomorrow’s poor –
who like the poor, have a right to credit. The norms and disciplines of microcredit which,
among others, include weekly meetings and weekly savings need not be compromised for
such lending. Only the repayment schedule will require some adjustments, and that again not
in all cases. The supply of microcredit to small and marginal farmers needs to be supported
by the provision of extension services and marketing and storage facilities. These services
can be provided by microcredit institutions themselves and also by the relevant government
departments. As suggested by Yunus (2004), we can put to agriculture microcredit a label,
say ‘small farmers microcredit’ and formulate right policies and design appropriate
methodologies for ‘small farmers microcredit’.
D:\Inetpub\wwwroot\pksf\Copy of speeches & Papers\Dr.M.A.Hakim\Microcredit and Agriculture.doc
Table-1: Percentage Share of Agriculture in GDP at Current Market Price
Country
1975
Bangladesh
59.1
Cambodia
China
India a)
40.5
Indonesia
31.7
Korea, Rep. of
24.5
Lao, PDR a)
Malaysia
Myanmar
47.1
Nepal a)
71.8
Pakistan a)
32.4
Philippines
30.3
Sri Lanka
28.0
Thailand
26.9
Vietnam
Note: a) At current factor cost.
Source: Pyakuryal (1999).
1985
41.8
28.4
33.0
23.2
12.5
53.9
48.2
51.7
28.5
24.6
24.4
15.8
47.2
1993
30.0
19.0
31.0
19.0
7.0
51.0
63.0
43.0
25.0
22.0
25.0
10.0
29.0
1995
19.7
17.2
6.6
55.9
62.1
42.4
26.0
21.7
10.9
27.5
2001
23
37
15
24
16
4
53
8
60
38
25
15
19
10
24
Table-2: Employment in Agricultural Sector
Country
1960
Bangladesh
86
Cambodia
83
China
83
India
74
Indonesia
75
Korea, Rep. of
61
Lao, PDR
82
Malaysia
63
Myanmar
81
Nepal
95
Pakistan
61
Philippines
64
Sri Lanka
57
Thailand
84
Vietnam
82
Source: Pyakuryal, Kiran (1999).
1980
72
74
70
58
37
80
41
76
94
60
52
52
71
73
D:\Inetpub\wwwroot\pksf\Copy of speeches & Papers\Dr.M.A.Hakim\Microcredit and Agriculture.doc
1990
65
74
72
64
55
18
78
27
73
94
52
46
48
64
71
Table-3: Percent of Rural Population in Asia Compared with Other Regions
Country/Region
Africa
Asia
Australia/New Zealand
Europe
Latin America and
Caribbean
North America
the
2000
65.1
62.5
14.9
25.1
24.5
2030
51.6
45.5
11.2
17.0
16.7
22.7
15.8
Source: Hossain (2001)
Table-4: Structure of Distribution of Landholdings:
Selected Asian Countries
Rep. of Korea
1968
1995
0 – 1 ha
1 – 2 ha
2 – 3 ha
> 3.0 ha
Average size (ha)
65.1
26.0
5.2
1.5
0.9
57.6
27.8
8.2
4.7
1.4
Indonesia
1963
1993
0 – 1 ha
1 – 2 ha
2 – 3 ha
3 – 5 ha
5 – 10 ha
> 10 ha
Average size (ha)
70.1
18.2
5.7
3.5
1.8
0.7
1.1
70.8
16.8
7.4
3.7
1.2
0.2
0.7
Thailand
1963
1993
0.0 – 0.9 ha
0.9 – 2.4 ha
2.4 – 4.8 ha
4.9 – 9.6 ha
> 9.6 ha
Average size (ha)
Source: Hossain, Mahabub (2001).
Bangladesh
1960
18.5
29.4
27.5
19.2
5.4
3.5
19.7
30.1
28.1
17.2
4.8
3.4
1977
1983-84
1996
0.02 – 1.01 ha
51.62
49.73
69.96
79.28
1.01 – 3.03 ha
44.89
40.84
24.90
18.28
3.04 – above
3.49
9.43
5.14
2.44
Average size (ha)
1.43
1.42
0.92
0.69
Source: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics: Analytical Report, Census of Agriculture – 1996 (Volume3).
D:\Inetpub\wwwroot\pksf\Copy of speeches & Papers\Dr.M.A.Hakim\Microcredit and Agriculture.doc
Table-5: Distribution of Rural Loans by Credit Agencies (in %): 1987
Credit Agencies
% of loans disbursed
Formal Sources
Bank
BKB
Commercial Banks
Grameen Banks
Sub-Total (Banks)
11.08
6.22
2.46
19.76
Cooperatives & Other Agencies
Cooperative Societies
Govt. and Semi-Govt. Agencies
Non Govt. Organizations (NGOs)
Sub-Total (Cooperatives and
agencies)
Sub-Total (formal sources)
other
5.33
1.94
1.36
8.63
formal
28.39
Informal Sources
Professional Money Lenders
Friends and Relatives
Other
Sub-Total (informal sources)
29.21
38.81
3.59
71.61
Grand Total
100.00
Source:The Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). Rural Credit Survey in
Bangladesh 1987. Dhaka: Government of Bangladesh, 1989
Table-6: Borrowing from Institutional and Non-Institutional Sources in Terai Districts
FY 1991/92
Details and Source of Borrowing
Proportion of Households
(%) Borrowing from
Average Amount Borrowed
(NRs)
Average Amount Borrowed
(%) from each source)
F
N
F
N
F
N
Household (Farm) Size Category
Medium
All
Small
Marginal
Large
Household (>4 ha) (2-4 ha)
(0.5-2
(0.05-0.5
sa
ha)
ha)
9
16
15
10
6
35
28
36
36
39
819
2657
1780
808
373
2156
28
72
8874
23
77
3260
35
65
1864
30
70
1400
21
79
F = Formal; ha = Hectare; N = Nonformal
a = Includes landless households not listed separately here
Source: Asian Development Bank (1997): Project Performance Audit Report on the Fifth
Agricultural Credit Project
D:\Inetpub\wwwroot\pksf\Copy of speeches & Papers\Dr.M.A.Hakim\Microcredit and Agriculture.doc
Table-7: Disbursement and Recovery of Agriculture Credit
Financial
Year
Loan
Disbursement
Loan Recovered
Loan due for
recovery
Loan Received
(%)
1990/91
595.60
625.32
5078.13
12.31
1991/92
794.59
662.11
4707.45
14.07
1992/93
841.85
869.23
4823.61
18.02
1993/94
1100.79
979.12
5242.88
18.66
1994/95
1605.00
1124.11
5613.25
20.03
1995/96
1636.00
1340.00
6193.50
21.64
1996/97
1672.00
1646.00
6907.00
23.83
1997/98
1815.00
1779.00
7187.75
24.75
1998/99
3005.00
1916.00
7005.79
27.35
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Bangladesh (1999): PCP Project for Setting
up Agriculture Credit Foundation.
Figure-1: Farm-Size and Land Productivity by Technology: 1982
1.60
Metric tons/acre
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
MD
MU
LD
LU
MD: Modern Variety Technologically Developed
Villages
MU:
Modern
Variety
Technologically
Medium Farmer : 2.5 – 5.0
Underdeveloped Villages
acres
LD: Local Variety Technologically Developed
Large Farmer :
Above
5.0
Villages
acres
LU: Local Variety Technologically Underdeveloped
Villages
Source: Hossain, Mahabub (1989), Green Revolution in Bangladesh, University Press
Limited.
Small Farmer : Less than 2.5
acres
D:\Inetpub\wwwroot\pksf\Copy of speeches & Papers\Dr.M.A.Hakim\Microcredit and Agriculture.doc
Figure-2: Institutional Credit Received/Acre of Land by Farm Size: 1985
Credit/acre in Taka
Tk. 91
Tk. 100
Tk. 90
Tk. 80
Tk. 70
Tk. 60
Tk. 50
Tk. 40
Tk. 30
Tk. 20
Tk. 10
Tk. 0
Tk. 84
Tk. 13
Small Farmer (0.50- Medium Farmer (2.51- Large Farmer (7.51+)
2.50)
7.50)
Farm Size (acres)
Source: Hossain, Mahbub: “Institutional Credit for Rural Development: An Overview of Bangladesh Case”.
Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol-VIII. Bureau of Socio-Economic Research and
Training, BAU, Mymensingh, 1985.
Figure-3: Institutional Loan by Farm Size Bangladesh: 1982
38.4%
40.0%
% of loan amount disbursed
35.0%
34.4%
29.2%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Small Farmer (0.00- Medium Farmer (2.00- Large Farmer (5.00+)
1.99)
4.99)
Farm Size (acres)
Source: Ahmed, Raisuddin and Hossain, Mahbub: “Infrastructure and Development
of a Rural Economy”. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
1987.
D:\Inetpub\wwwroot\pksf\Copy of speeches & Papers\Dr.M.A.Hakim\Microcredit and Agriculture.doc
Figure-4: Institutional Loans Repaid by Farm Size Bangladesh
% of loan amount repaid
45%
42%
40%
32%
35%
30%
22%
25%
21%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Marginal
(0.00-1.00)
Small (1.012.50)
Medium Large (5.01+)
(2.51-5.00)
Farm Size (acres)
Source: Bashar, Abul; K.Q. Elahi and Alam, F: An Investigation into the 100 Crore Special Agricultural Credit
Programme in some Selected Areas of Mymensingh District: Bureau of Economic Research and
Training, BAU, Mymensingh, 1981.
References
Ahmed, Raisuddin and M. Hossain (1987), “Infrastructure and Development of a Rural Economy”.
Internatioa Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.
Ahmed, Salehuddin (2004), “Microcredit and Poverty: New Realities and Strategic Issues”, in
Salehuddin Ahmed and M. A. Hakim (eds) Attacking Poverty With Microcredit, Palli
Karma-Sahayak Foundation and The University Press Limited.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) (1986), The Bangladesh Agricultural Census, 1983-84 Vol. I &
Vol. II, Dhaka.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) (1989), Rural Credit Survey in Bangladesh: 1987. Government
of Bangladesh.
Chambers, Robert, N.C. Saxena and Tushaar Shah (1989), To the Hands of the Poor: Water and
Trees, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Hakim, M. A. (1988), “Recovery Problems of Rural Credit: The Case of Bangladesh”. The Journal of
Local Government. Vol. 17, No. 1.
Herdt, R. W. and L. Garcia (1982), Adoption of Modern Rice Technology: The Inpact of Size and
Tenure in Bagladesh. Manila: International Rice Research Institute, (Mimeographed).
Hossain, M. (1977), “Farm Size, Tenancy and Land Productivity: An Analysis of Farm Level Data in
Bangladesh Agriculture”. The Bangladesh Development Studies Vol. 5, No. 3.
Hossain, M. (1977), Agrarian Structure and Feasibility of Land Reform in Bangladesh. Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Hossain, M. (1987), “Fertilizer Consumption, Pricing and Foodgrain Production in Bangladesh”. In
Fertilizer Pricing Policy in Bangladesh. Edited by Bruce Stone, Washington D.C.:
International Food Policy Research Institute/BIDS.
D:\Inetpub\wwwroot\pksf\Copy of speeches & Papers\Dr.M.A.Hakim\Microcredit and Agriculture.doc
Hossain, M. (1989), Green Revolution in Bangladesh: Impact on the Growth and Distribution of
Income. Dhaka. University Press Ltd.
Hossain, Mahabub (2001), “Rural Economy and Multifunctionality of Agriculture”. In Role of
Multifuncitionality in Agricultural Policy Reforms, Asian Productivity Organization.
Lau, L. J. and P. A. Yotopoulos (1971), A Test of Relative Economic Efficiency and Application to
Indian Agriculture. The American Economic Review. Vol. 61 (1), PP- 94-109.
Lau, L. J. and P. A. Yotopoulos (1972), Profit, Supply and Demand Functions. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics Vol. 54, pp. 11-18.
Mandal, M. A. S. (1980), “Farm Size, Tenancy and Productivity in an Area of Bangladesh” The
Bangladesh Journal of Development Studies. Vol. 3. No. 2.
Pyakuryal, Kiran (1999), “Current Issues in Agricultural Structure in Asian Development
Countries”. In Structural Adjustments in Agriculture in Asia, Asian Productivity
Organization.
Rahman, Atiq. (1980), “Surplus Utilization and Capital Formation in Bangladesh Agriculture”. The
Bangladesh Development Studies. 8 (4): 21-26.
Yunus, Muhammad (2004), “Expanding Microcredit Outreach to Reach the Millennium Development
Goals: Some Issues for Attention”, in Salehuddin Ahmed and M. A. Hakim (eds)
Attacking Poverty With Microcredit, Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation and The
University Press Limited.
D:\Inetpub\wwwroot\pksf\Copy of speeches & Papers\Dr.M.A.Hakim\Microcredit and Agriculture.doc