跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.229.117.123) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/12 17:15
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:黃天行
研究生(外文):Huang Tien-shin
論文名稱:中華民國技術團於開發中國家辦理小農貸款之研究--以宏都拉斯為例
論文名稱(外文):Study on a Small Farmer Lending Program in Developing Countries Sponsored by ROC Technical Mission in Honduras- The Honduras'' case
指導教授:黃文琪黃文琪引用關係
指導教授(外文):Huang Wen-chi
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立屏東科技大學
系所名稱:熱帶農業研究所
學門:農業科學學門
學類:一般農業學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2001
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:140
中文關鍵詞:技術團開發中國家小農貸款
外文關鍵詞:ROC Technical MissionDeveloping CountriesSmall Farmer Lending
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:387
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:60
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究所規劃施行之三計畫依序為吳郭魚箱網養殖計畫轉移之「小漁農貸」,水稻稻種三級制生產技術轉移之「稻種農貸」與養豬計畫產銷班組成之「畜產農貸」。研究中除了有探討適合技術團施行之微額農貸方案外,並具有技術轉移、計畫轉移與推動產銷一元化之經濟效益。
資金來源之貸款機構方面,初期均以技術團自行貸放為原則,可藉由掌握資金之優勢來主導整個技術轉移與農貸管理之過程,待成效穩定後始轉移農民組織自行放貸。貸款對象則多數為「有工作熱誠」之殷實、貧困小農,以使微額農貸計畫能發揮其「幫助貧農」、「扶植農業」之最終目的。在徵信方面本貸款方案並無要求抵押,主要是考慮到農、漁民之經濟困境,如強制要求將使計畫窒礙難行;在倒帳風險上,主要依賴的是技術團所提供的技術輔導,使得以保證產量提高後之「償還能力」的增加。
貸款程序與撥款速度,由於是由技術團主導,因此在時效與農時上佔有極大優勢。放款方式以實物依作物生長階段所需分期貸放較容易控管資金,並達到效果。貸款期限則以作物生產期為依據;還款方式為收穫後以現金一次還清本息效果最好,對照組中之代售後扣繳本息方式,由於代售與扣繳之過程中易引其借貸雙方糾紛,效果不如預期。低利貸款無法達到協助農民、發展農業之目的;利息於18-25%之間均屬合理,而且利息高低並不是影響農民借款與還款之主要因素;主要借款手續需簡便、快速,而生產作物要有經濟效益。逾期處理方式以獎勵還款較懲罰逾期來得有效、實際。
開發中國家「農民之保守觀念」與「生產技術落後」是辦理農貸的兩大致命傷,因此技術團計畫執行人的「語言能力」與「專業知識」即是方案能否執行成功之二大法寶;只有經過密集之講習、溝通與親自參與始得克竟全功,別無捷徑,此與「已開發國家」之純農業金融應有所不同。
技術團將來應以貸款方式取代以往每年編列預算購買生產資材補助農民以協助其發展農業、改善生活的辦法;並透過農、漁民組織以合作生產、集體採購、共同運銷之現代化分配管理方法,配合推廣教育不斷加以輔導,如此始可節省我國援外經費,並扶植駐在國農、漁民自立自主,達到永續經營之目的。
This study covered three projects, including technology transfer of the cage culture of tilapia under the “Agricultural Loan for Small Fisheries,” technology transfer of the three-step system for producing rice seeds under the “Agricultural Loan for Rice Seeds,” and organization of the production and marketing teams for hog production project under the “Agricultural Loan for Animal Products.” This study not only investigated the micro-credits for agricultural loan program, which is adaptable by other agricultural technical mission teams, but also provided economic benefits for technology transfer, project transfer and ultimately enhanced unification of the production and marketing systems.
The source of the small farmer lending program was initially provided by the agricultural technical mission, enabling it to lead the process of technical transfers and agricultural loan management through its control of the financial resources. After the small farmer lending program was stabilized, management of the program was transferred to local farmers’ organizations. The farmers targeted by this program were those small, poor farmers with “passion to work.” This was to achieve the program objectives of “assisting poor farmers” and “supporting agriculture.” In processing the loan under this program, no collateral was required due to the concern over the financial difficulties encountered by farmers and fishermen. If the program insisted on the requirements of collateral, its implementation would be difficult, if not impossible. Under this program, farmers relied primarily on the technical assistance provided by the technical mission team to ensure high productivity to enhance the “repayment ability” of farmers.
The loan procedures and the promptness of fund releases were more advantageous and efficient in terms of timing with agricultural activities because of the leading position taken by the technical mission in this program. Funds allocated in phases on the basis of the need for the growth of a crop facilitated the control of capitals to achieve the program goals. The duration of a loan was synchronized with the growth period of a crop. Repayment of a loan and its associated interests made in a single payment after the harvest of a crop had a better result as compared to the check group, which was designed to deduct the loan amount and its interests after the technical mission team sold the harvested crop for the farmer. Often disputes between the borrower and the lending institution occurred in the process of selling the crop for a farmer and the deduction of payments. The result of this type of payment arrangement was not as effective as it was originally anticipated. Low interest loans did not achieve the goal of assisting farmers and developing agriculture. Therefore, it was reasonable for setting the interest at 18-15%. In fact, interest rates were not the major factor influencing farmers in making loans or payments as long as the lending procedures were simple and not time consuming and the yield could generate economic benefits. Based on the experience, it was more effective and realistic if incentives, rather than penalties, were provided to encourage those with delinquent payments to pay their debts.
The “conservative attitudes of farmers” and the “backward production techniques” commonly found in the developing countries were the major stumbling blocks of the agricultural loan program. Therefore, to ease the problems, project leaders should be well equipped with excellent “language ability” and “professional knowledge.” Only through intensive training, communication and personal participation of project leaders would the loan program be successful. There were no other short cuts. This program was quite different from the agricultural loan program experienced in the “developed countries.”
The technical mission should adopt the loan program in place of allocating funds from its annual budget to purchase production materials to support farmers in developing agriculture and improving their lives. In addition, through the organizations of farmers or fishermen, cooperation programs were initiated to produce crops, purchase materials in balks, develop markets collaboratively and adopt the modern shared management techniques. This should be accomplished in concert with the extension systems to continue educating and training farmers and fishermen. In so doing, can we economize our national resources allocated for foreign aids and effectively assist farmers and fishermen in the countries where the technical mission teams stationed to become self supported and self sufficient. Only through this approach can the goal of sustainable management be achieved.
中文摘要I
AbstractII
誌謝IV
目錄V
表目錄ІХ
圖目錄Х
附錄目錄ХІ
壹、緒論1
  一、研究動機1
  二、研究目的3
貳、文獻探討4
  一、開發中國家農村社會的特徵與農業信用的需要4
(一)農業經營之複合性質4
(二)消費物料與周轉資金5
(三)季節性之影響6
(四)勞動力之影響6
(五)信用之擔保問題7
(六)社會之共同設施8
(七)農業推廣與合作生產9
(八)領導能力與政府之功能10
  二、農業貸款的條件10
(一)信用需對於各階層之借款人不分地區,以同等條件普遍供給10
(二)信用成本代價需求低廉11
(三)對借款人與貸款機構均應儘量降低其風險12
(四)為借款人便利著想15
  三、與生產有關之農業貸款種類15
(一)依用途分類15
(二)依償還期限分類17
(三)依償還方式分類18
(四)依擔保分類19
(五)依貸方分類19
  四、美國農業金融制度概述20
(一)商業銀行體系農貸20
(二)農業信用體系農貸20
(三)政府機構農貸系統22
  五、宏都拉斯農業金融制度與近況概述24
(一)金融機構與資金來源24
(二)遭遇困難25
(三)執行成果26
(四)現有資源27
參、研究方法與資料來源29
  一、研究方法29
  二、研究步驟29
(一)文獻資料蒐集29
(二)現況資料收集與調查30
(三)現場訪談30
(四)個案分析30
  三、研究流程與進行步驟32
肆、資料分析33
  一、吳郭魚箱網養殖計畫轉移之「小漁貸款」33
(一)方案分析33
(二)方案設計41
  二、優良稻種生產之「小農貸款」43
(一)方案分析43
(二)方案設計46
  三、養豬產銷班之「畜產貸款」48
(一)方案分析48
(二)方案設計50
  四、宏國合作社小農貸款範例51
(一)TAULABE合作社小農貸款51
(二)EACTSO稻農協會改造與服務公司貸款53
伍、結果與討論56
  一、貸款架構及內容之優劣性比較57
(一)貸款對象與徵信調查57
(二)執行機構與資金來源及利息之訂定65
(三)管理流程優異性比較分析74
  二、「農業技術輔導」對農貸之重要性93
(一)以「小漁貸款」方案為例94
(二)以「稻種貸款」方案為例103
(三)以「畜產貸款」方案為例106
  三、「合作生產」對農貸之重要性107
(一)合作生產之意義107
(二)合作生產之益處110
陸、結論與建議112
  一、結論112
(一)輔導性農貸113
(二)貸款對象113
(三)貸款機構114
(四)管理辦法114
(五)農業技術輔導114
(六)合作組織115
(七)技術團有利之條件115
  二、建議116
(一)農貸初期應由技術團自行辦理116
(二)貸款對象先由技術團有長期合作經驗之農民做起,規模一次不能太大116
(三)貸款前需先做好生產作物之經濟效益評估與成本分析117
(四)放貸管理流程要能打破舊有傳統之作法且不可完全套用先進國家之模式117
(五)貸款需與金融、運銷、供給結合118
(六)貸款與推廣教育需密切配合118
(七)技術團應持續進行小規模之研發工作119
(八)技術團應加強農貸推廣人員之培訓工作119
(九)對推動農貸工作具有成效之團員,國合會可制訂獎勵辦法,鼓勵參與120
參考文獻121
附錄124
作者簡介140
表4-1 美國吳郭魚產品售價比較表37
表4-2 宏都拉斯吳郭魚收購價格表38
表4-3 美國吳郭魚進口額及進口原產地金額分析表39
表5-1 稻種生產戶農家特性調查表59
表5-2 Monte Verde漁民組織成員調查表62
表5-3 Taulabe合作社貸款情形63
表5-4 執行機構與資金來源單位表68
表5-5 貸款利息高低對還款情形影響對照表71
表5-6 不同貸款管理流程表76
表5-7 農漁民綜合意見調查統計表77
表5-8 還款及逾期處理方式比照表86
表5-9 還款原因意見調查表87
表5-10養豬戶收支表91
表5-11箱網吳郭魚每日投餵量參照表97
表5-12漁民箱網紅色吳郭魚養殖結果分析表98
表5-13漁民組織紅色吳郭魚箱網養殖成本效益分析表99
表5-14漁民組織紅色吳郭魚箱網養殖成本效益分析表100
表5-15技術團紅色吳郭魚箱網養殖成本效益分析表101
表5-16稻種與稻米生產效益比108
表5-17豬隻生產性能比較表109
圖3-1研究流程圖31
圖5-1各貸款計畫之準時還款率與償還率比較圖72
圖5-2農漁民對經營事業是否有信心賺錢之比例圖68
圖5-3農民無法償還貸款原因之比例圖81
圖5-4逾期還款處理因說法不同會產生不同之還款情形92
圖5-5吳郭魚箱網養殖成本效益比較圖102
附錄一、Monte Verde漁民組織管理章程124
附錄二、Monde Verde 及Agua Azul漁民組織財務簡介128
附錄三、Monde Verde 及Agua Azul二漁民組織飼料費付款情形130
附錄四、吳郭魚箱網養殖經濟效益分析表131
附錄五之一、吳郭魚箱網養殖敏感度分析表132
附錄五之二、吳郭魚箱網養殖敏感度分析表133
附錄五之三、吳郭魚箱網養殖敏感度分析表134
附錄六、畜產貸款計畫借款人Boudilio活動資金利息試算表135
附錄七、畜產貸款計畫借款人Marcial活動資金利息試算表136
附錄八、農漁民是否有能力提供抵押品問卷調查表137
附錄九、農漁民還款原因問卷調查表138
附錄十、機關名稱對照及單位換算表139
1.吳恪元譯、包倫度著,1962,「農業金融與合作」。
2.吳墉祥譯、H. Belshaw著,1973,「開發中國家的農業信用」,合作金融叢書。
3.林維義,1998,「農業融資之風險管理-中華民國之績效」,農業經濟半年刊:63,26-39頁。
4.產業經濟,1998,「當前辦理農業貸款所面臨困境與因應措施之研究」,產業經濟:208,1-40頁。
5.張逵,1965,「信用合作理論與經營」,中興大學合作系:台北。
6.張德粹,1978,「農業合作的原理與實務」,台灣商務印書館:台北。
7.張德粹,1982,「農業經濟學」,正中書局:台北。
8.黃天行、楊國仟,2000,「宏都拉斯技術團吳郭魚箱網養殖小漁農貸」,海外通訊,國際合作發展基金會:台北。
9.黃天行、魏正雄、顧松柏,2000,「宏都拉斯技術團稻種繁殖農貸計畫草案」,國際合作發展基金會:台北。
10.黃天行、潘伯光、李春芳,2001,「另類貸款」,海外通訊,國際合作發展基金會:台北。
11.楊坤鋒,1995,「農業金融之特質與農業貸款之種類」,逢甲合經系刊:27,67-82頁。
12.蔡宏進,1996,農業推廣與鄉村發展的要義與相關性。
13.蔡秋榮,1981,「簡化農業貸款手續與辦理輔導性農業貸款之研究」,基層金融出版社。
14.蔡秋榮,1981,「中美日三國農業金融制度之比較研究」,基層金融研究訓練中心。
15.謝海燕,2000,「宏都拉斯吳郭魚箱網養殖小漁貸款計畫評估報告」,國際合作發展基金會:台北。
16.謝海燕、駱國章,2000,「宏都拉斯水稻小農貸款計畫評估報告」,國際合作發展基金會:台北。
17.Centroamerica 1993, Perfiles Sectoriales de Politicas y Comercio Agricolas. Programa IV Comercio e Integracion, San Jose, Costa Rica.
18.Gurgand, M., G. Pederson, and J. Yaron, 1992, Outreach and Sustainability of Six Rural Finance Institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Word Bank, Washington D.C.
19.ICDF, Annual Report 2000, ICDF, Taipei.
20.IICA, 1995, Diagnostico del Sector Agropecuario-Honduras.
21.Kaminsky, M. (ed.), 1988, Las Agriculturas de los Paises de America Latina y el Caribe en la Crisis Actual. Condiciones, Desempenos y Funciones. Julio Serie Documentos y Programas.
22.Moll, H. A. J. (ed.), 1996, Banks in Rural Financial Markets D100-217, August.
23.Pomareda, C. (ed.), 1992, La Agricultura en el Desarrollo Economico de Centroamerica en los 90. Instituto de Cooperacion Para la Agricultura, San Jose, Costa Rica.
24.Salazar, M. P. and J. A. T. Zorrilla., 1993, Caracterizacion del Comercio Agricola Interamericano. Serie de Documentos y Programas.
25.The Economist Intelligence (ed.), Country Profile Nicaragua-Honduras, 1995-96, London.
26.Technology Transfer for Small Farmers in Asia, Report of an APO Study Meeting, 1990, New Delhi, India.
27.Technology Transfer for Small Farmers in Asia, Report of an APO Study Meeting, 1992, Asian Productivity Organization Tokyo.
28.1994, Resumen Ejecutivo Sistema Agroalimentario de Arroz en HonduraS (Perfil del Proceso). Tegucigalpa, M.D.C.
29.1994, Sintesis de la Reunion Regional Sobre la Actividad Arrocera en Centroamerica.
30.1995-1998, Plan Agricola Para el Desarrollo del Campo Proagro, Unidad de Planificacion Sectorial UPSA.
31.1998, Case Studies in Microfinance.
32.Fitzsimmon, K., “Marketing of Tilapia in the USA”, Univeristy of Arizona USA,
http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/tilapia/Thailand/paper.htm
33.Molnar, J. J., T. R. Hanson, and L. L. Lovshin, “Doing Development by Growing Fish: A Cross-National Analysis of Tilapia Harvest and Marketing Practices”, Auburn University, USA,
http://pdacrsp.orst.edu/pubs/technical/14tchhtml/2/2a/2.a.7/2.a.7.html
34.Tilapia Imports — 1996,“U.S. Imports of Tilapia by Product from and Country of Origin 1996”,
http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/ista/imports.htm
35.Tilapia Imports — 1997, “U.S. Imports of Tilapia by Product from and Country of Origin 1997”,
http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/ista/imports97.htm
36.Tilapia Imports — 1998, “U.S. Imports of Tilapia by Product from and Country of Origin 1998”,
http://ag.arizona.edu/azaqua/ista/imports98.htm
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top