Author
Abstract
Credit for investments that pay back in the medium to long term (three to five years or longer) is in short supply in rural areas. Credit unions and microfinance institutions (MFIs), which generally have better outreach than commercial banks in rural areas, typically provide only short-term credit. Credit available from informal sources (such as moneylenders, family, and friends) is usually both short term and too costly for investment financing. For rural enterprises seeking to acquire equipment—a typical investment need—to modernize production and thereby increase productivity, one solution may be financial leasing. Leasing offers several advantages. For traditional credit, farmers and rural enterprises are particularly constrained by a lack of assets that can be used as collateral. Leasing overcomes this constraint because it requires no collateral or less collateral than typically required by loans. Because leases also often require lower down payments than the equity required for loans, they are more affordable for rural enterprises that have limited funds and little access to borrowed funds. From the lessor’s perspective, not having to obtain collateral is particularly advantageous in a rural context. Although the difficulties involved in creating, perfecting, and enforcing security are applicable in both urban and rural contexts in most developing countries, they are more severe in rural areas where enterprises are less likely to hold titles to their assets, asset registries are less likely to be functional, and judicial processes are likely to be slower. Lessors are also likely to benefit from not being restricted by interest rate ceilings and sector-specific credit allocations—factors that have traditionally constrained rural lenders. Boxes 1 and 2 explain key features of a leasing contract, and Figure 1 shows a typical tripartite financial lease transaction involving an equipment supplier, a lessor, and lessee.
Suggested Citation
Nair, Ajai, 2010.
"Rural leasing,"
2020 vision briefs
18(6), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Handle:
RePEc:fpr:2020br:18(6)
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fpr:2020br:18(6). See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.
Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/2020br/18(6).html
