Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges Vol. 14, iss. 1, December 2023 doi: 10.2478/jlst-2023-0006 Article History: Received March 2023; Revised May 2023; Accepted June 2023 ©2023 The Authors. Published by Sciendo on behalf of University of Maribor, Faculty of Logistics, Slovenia. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license 1 Examine the Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF) in Karnataka *Sathisha 1 , Medhavini S Katti 2 1 Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Ballari, Karnataka, India 2 Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Ballari, Karnataka, India [Corresponding Author indicated by an asterisk *] Abstract-- This study examined the relationship between the Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF) and agriculture development in Karnataka from 1995 to 2021. While presenting the budget speech for 1995–1996, the honorable union finance minister introduced the RIDF program. The RBI monitors the funding for the RIDF program through NABARD, which has a corpus of Rs. 2,000 crores from commercial and regional banks, among other sources. The program funds the social sector, small to medium irrigation, rural connectivity, and agricultural and related activities. The study evaluated the performance of the RIDF in the State critically. It also observed that several projects remained incomplete even after taking loans from the RIDF. Many states might be unable to take on this financial load due to most governments' dire financial circumstances. Despite this, there have been some physical advancements in rural irrigation, roads, and bridges. The nation's states and regions, however, do not all share the same achievement levels, therefore suggesting necessary steps to ensure proper fund utilization and decrease rural poverty and intra-regional disparity in Karnataka. Index Term— Agriculture Development, Finance, Infrastructure, Karnataka, Rural Area I. INTRODUCTION High-quality infrastructure is necessary for sustainable growth, especially in rural areas. Agriculture and rural sectors require considerable financial support to meet their needs, and other sectors also require similar spending and stimulation. About 61.3% of the total population lives in rural Karnataka (according to the 2011 census report), and 41% depends on agriculture and the rural economy; the inattention of rural areas is continuously increasing. Karnataka state has a good stage in the social infrastructure category, i.e., 8 th rank in India (Karnataka Economics Survey 2021). However, the regional disparity is widely spread compared to southern Karnataka. Again, the Kalyana Karnataka region performed poorly in HDI. Rural infrastructure through public investment is necessary to stimulate private capital formation through commercializing rural non-farm sectors like agriculture and animal husbandry, fisheries, health, and education, as well as building basic infrastructure like irrigation facilities. This study focused on the role of RIDF in agriculture development in Karnataka. Among southern states, Karnataka has major beneficiaries under RIDF (Table 2). Several rural infrastructure projects have been sanctioned, and many were started but are lying incomplete due to insufficient resources, wrong planning, and some technical problems. These incomplete projects lead to a significant loss of potential income and employment in the rural population (Table 6). While presenting the budget for 1995-96, the honorable union finance minister announced the scheme for setting up the Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF) with NABARD with an initial corpus of Rs.2,000 crores. The purpose is to provide low-cost assistance to help the state government and private enterprises complete ongoing projects related to medium and micro irrigation, soil conservation, construction watershed management, and other rural infrastructure reforms. The Karnataka state government received loans under the RIDF tranche-I at a rate of Interest of 13%; subsequently lowered to 12% for RIDF tranches II to III, and 7% for VII trenches, but later RIDF VIII and IX rate of Interest were tied to bank rate, the current rate of Interest is 4% for the year 2020–2021, under the Watershed Development Fund Scheme. Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges doi: 10.2478/jlst-2023-0006 2 II. CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNING AND LITERATURE REVIEW Infrastructure is an engine of rural and agricultural development in India, and transport infrastructure significantly helps farmers transport their farm products to the market. It reduces transportation and production costs in rural areas. Irrigation and electricity infrastructure influence the farmer to involve in cultivation activities. (Medhavini S Katti, 2021). Infrastructure's connection to economic growth, the reduction of poverty, and human development, with a focus on rural infrastructure, is essential for attaining sustainable growth. (Rajeev, 2008). To gradually eliminate the disparity in living standards between urban and rural areas, the State shall adopt effective measures to bring about a radical transformation in the rural areas through the promotion of an agricultural revolution, the provision of rural electrification, the development of cottage and other industries, and the improvement of education, communications, and public health, in those areas. (Toufique, 2017). Better hospitals and recreational facilities will be made available to rural people due to road and transportation infrastructure, which might prevent them from leaving their villages in search of better health and other amenities in metropolitan regions. (Mishra, 2001). Agricultural development should increase the value of agricultural output per hectare of net area grown. An inter-category differential method for concurrent enforcement is recommended, given differences in agricultural development levels from one category of districts to another. (Tiwari, 2008). Multiple government schemes are in place to uplift the rural lifestyle, but the plans to measure their impact are missing, and a gap is seen in the planning and implementation. (Sharma & Kumar, 2023). There are several government initiatives in place to improve rural living. Still, there is a gap between the planning and the execution of these initiatives, making it impossible to determine their true impact. (Rahman, 2014). In India, infrastructure development contributes much more positively to growth than private and governmental investments. Indian policymakers know that investing much more in infrastructure and providing high- quality infrastructure amenities are necessary for any real attempt to achieve sustained economic growth in India. (Kumar, &Ranjana.2004). The significance of various infrastructures recommends that the government provide energy, roads, irrigation, housing, and telecommunications higher priority investments to improve general well-being. (M. Ghosh, 2017). Education, electric service, health care, transportation, and telecommunications all impact people's standard of living, and infrastructure plays a role in "quality of life. (Bogle, 1977). The impact of public investment and physical infrastructure on private investment behavior and regional economic development is highly significant. (B. Ghosh & De, 1998). Infrastructure is made up of all the activities and facilities that support the expansion of production and revenue creation across the economy as an entire rather than just inside the infrastructure firms themselves. (Bhatia, 1999). Figure 1: Conceptual Representation of the linkages between NABARD, RIDF, and Agriculture development Purpose of Fund Sanction and Utilization for Agriculture and allied activities Rural Bridges & Roads Minor and Medium Irrigation Social sector RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND (RIDF) Agriculture Development Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges doi: 10.2478/jlst-2023-0006 3 This diagram shows Karnataka's agriculture sector mechanization deals with NABARD bank and other RIDF performance. These two mechanizations contribute to rural infrastructure development, improve financial performance, and encourage endogenous growth and a rise in agricultural production. By facilitating financial assistance for rural infrastructure through four sectors—wise Agriculture and allied activities, Rural bridge and road, Minor and medium irrigation, and last but not least, the social sector—agricultural infrastructure can have an endogenous growth effect to the extent that it impacts the rate of growth of the economy, thereby promoting agricultural development. III. MATERIAL AND METHODS One of the agriculturally oriented states in southern India is Karnataka. In this study, we're attempting to determine how well agricultural facilities, including rural roads and bridges, irrigation, and sector- and state- specific performance financially and physically under the RIDF scheme (Meenakshi Rajeev, 2008). Most of the data was collected from secondary sources, such as reports published by the NABARD, reports from the Karnataka state public works department, reports from the Karnataka water resource department, and the Department of Minor Irrigation and Groundwater Development. From 1995 to 2021, reports from the Karnataka Infrastructure Development Port & Inland Water Transport Department, the Karnataka Economics Survey and. This study employed simple growth rates and analytical tools like tabulation, graphing, and quantitative approaches for data analysis. 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡 ℎ 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑉𝑎𝑙 𝑢𝑒 , IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Table 1. Trends of cumulative sanctions and disbursements of RIDF in Karnataka from the year of 1995 to 2021 (Rs in Crore) Year Tranches Amount Sanctioned Amount Disbursed Growth Rate Sanction Growth Rate Disbursed 1995-1996 I 172.6 157.2 1997-1998 II-III 344.3 300.3 0.0 -0.1 1988-1999 IV-V 354.7 151.5 0.0 -0.8 2000-2001 VI-VII 645.5 59.1 0.9 2.2 2002-2003 VIII-IX 536.2 267.7 -0.1 36.3 2004-2005 X-XI 856.2 785.7 0.5 0.5 2006-2007 XII-XIII 1440.9 1308.7 1.1 1.0 2008-2009 XIV-XV 1327.6 1164.1 -0.3 -0.3 2010-2011 XVI-XVII 1598.7 1410.7 0.2 0.2 2012-2013 XVIII-XIX 1523.0 1371.4 0.3 0.3 2014-2015 XX-XXI 2297.8 1996.7 0.2 0.2 2016-2017 XXII-XXIII 1784.7 1585.8 -0.1 -0.1 2018-2019 XXIV-XXV 1643.1 1337.6 0.0 -0.1 2020-2021 XXCI-XXVII 3160.5 1114.1 1.2 -0.1 TOTAL 35198.9 25864.1 Sources by various Annual reports of NABARD Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges doi: 10.2478/jlst-2023-0006 4 Fig. 1, Tranche-wise cumulative sanctions & disbursements of RIDF in Karnataka. A deeper look at the patterns of cumulative loan amounts sanctioned and disbursed under the RIDF scheme from 1995 to 2021. From tranches I to XIII, the sanctioned amount shows a consistent rise (Table 1), but the disbursement amount shows a continual decline up to the VIII tranches. It illustrates that both sanctioned and utilization from the XIV tranches exhibit progressively rising trends in Karnataka but that the fund for rural infrastructure development has not yet been entirely disbursed. From RIDF Trnach XXV, the sanctioned amount for RIDF is significantly more than in the previous period. Still, the utilization of the fund reflects development due to insufficient use of money and certain incomplete RIDF projects in Karnataka. It was observed that the flow of funds in real terms was not uniformly increasing over time. In some years, there was a substantial decline. Table 2. States-wise amount sanctions under RIDF Scheme in Southern Zone, in India from 1996 to 2020 (Rs. in Crore) States 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 Total II to VI VII to XI XII to XVI XVII to XXI XXII to XXVI Karnataka 1002.1 1734.7 3629.5 4558.5 4504.1 15428.9 Andra Pradesh 1844.2 5168.9 5764.7 6078.9 6460.6 25317.2 Kerala 542.1 899.9 1991.7 4620.6 2992.2 11046.5 Tamil Nadu 1132.8 2505.0 4524.0 8080.5 10590.4 26832.7 Pondicherry 0.0 0.0 239.1 296.3 186.3 721.7 Telangana 0 0 0 1873.0 5856.8 7729.7 Lakshadweep 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3519.09 8573.83 12519.4 20949.28 26086.19 87076.69 Sources by various Annual reports of NABARD 0,0 500,0 1000,0 1500,0 2000,0 2500,0 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII Amount Sanctioned Amount Disbursed Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges doi: 10.2478/jlst-2023-0006 5 Fig. 2, States wise amount sanctions under RIDF Scheme in Southern Zones from 1996 to 2020 Table 2.3 displays the financial performance of the total amount sanctioned under RIDF in the southern zone from 1996 to 2020, state-wise. We saw the seven states in the southern region (Table 2). Tamil Nadu benefited the most from the sanctioned funds under this program or Rs. 26832.7 crores. With a sanctioned amount of Rs. 25317.2 crores, Andhra Pradesh is the second-largest State to benefit. Regarding the amount sanctioned, Karnataka came in third place with Rs. 15428.9 crores, followed by Telangana in fifth place and Kerala in fourth. Table 3. RIDF and Rural Roads and Bridges development in Karnataka from 1996 to 2019 (Amount in Lakhs) Years Teachers Financial Physical Target Achieveme nt Target of Roads Achievement of Road Target of Bridges Achievement of Bridge 1996-2000 II-VI 75030 198730 12577 12515 333 332 2001-2005 VII-XI 65339 79340 7349 6895 172 165 2016-2010 XII-XVI 110755 124788.7 7926.9 6507.7 129 80 2011-2015 XVII-XXI 145872.65 142928.8 4030 4486.4 301 311 2016-2019 XXII-XXV 85982.54 71128.1 1146 1435 297 340 Total 879975.84 1162703.1 64911.8 62243.2 2167 2116 Note: Roads in Km. Bridges in Number. Sources: PWD, Karnataka PIW &Transport dept annual reports, Karnataka Economics Survey various reports 15428,9 25317,2 11046,5 26832,7 721,7 7729,7 0 0,0 5000,0 10000,0 15000,0 20000,0 25000,0 30000,0 Karnataka Andra Pradesh Kerala Tamil Nadu Pandicherry Telangana Lakshadweep Island Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges doi: 10.2478/jlst-2023-0006 6 Fig. 4, Rural Roads and Bridges development under RIDF in Karnataka from 1995 to 2019 The Role of RIDF in Karnataka rural roads and bridges from 1996 to 2019 is seen in the table above. The financial performance and physical performance components of the state government's overall budgetary goal are Rs. 1162703.1 lakhs, all of which were allotted for rural roads and bridge construction. In rural areas, funds worth Rs. 198730 lakhs were used. Physical preference is the following subsection. The rural road length, 64911.8 kilometers, represents what the government estimates as its aim in this section. However, it succeeded in achieving its goal; in Karnataka, the RIDF project to improve the 62243.2 km length of the new rural road was successful. This improvement demonstrates how the RIDF substantially influenced the growth of rural infrastructure, particularly road connection, which is essential for agricultural production and improves the standard of living for people living in rural areas. Bridging is another crucial link. Table 4. Progress of Micro-Irrigation Under the RIDF Scheme in Karnataka from 2016 to 2021 (Amount in Lakhs/ Area in Hectare) Year Allocation Releases Expenditure Area of Physical Progress 2016 3000 1227.3 1643 1067 2017 7466.4 1225 871.0 4192.9 2018 2619 1309.5 739.4 3204 2019 3218 2413 2386.1 10486 2020 618 309 293 1396 2021 1000 500 64.68 537 Total 17921.44 6983.75 5997.19 20882.87 Sources by Karnataka Economic Survey & various Annual reports of NABARD Karnataka is a rural-based state as well. People must travel great distances to sell and buy goods in some river stations and river crossing areas, so rural bridges are crucial for rural connectivity. As a result, the state 1693 2985 2330 2663 2844 943 315 1489 2330 1818 1707 1182 1464 917 1237,7 1424,4 994 893 781 394 313 614 250 258 123 58 41 34 76 46 12 23 46 38 27 20 27 6 36 68 66 54 87 212 60 39 29 1996 19971998 19992000 20012002 20032004 20052006 20072008 200920102011 20122013 20142015 20162017 20182019 Achive of Road Achive of Bridge Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges doi: 10.2478/jlst-2023-0006 7 government has planned to build 12167 new rural bridges (Table 6) under the RIDF initiative, and they have built many bridges in Karnataka. These figures demonstrate how effectively the Karnataka government has used and performed under the RIDF. However, the state government dropped several initiatives because of projects due to technical issues, the location of a few districts along the sea border and hilly areas, and other reasons (Table 7). Nowadays, a lot of horticultural and agricultural activities use micro irrigation systems. With the help of this technology, less fertilizer is used in farming, and less water and fertility are not wasted. The RIDF program intends to finance micro and small-scale irrigation projects in the agricultural industry. In 2016, Rs. 3,000 lakhs of funds allocated to Karnataka under the RIDF scheme were used, while the State used an additional Rs. 1643 lakhs. This year, progress was achieved in irrigating a 1067-acre area. Karnataka irrigated a 537-hectare area in 2021 at a budget of Rs. 1000 lakhs. When we looked at the budget for Karnataka, which was Rs. 17921.44 lakhs, we noticed that 20882.87 hectares of land had been developed using micro-irrigation. Table 5, Sectors Wise performance of RIDF in Karnataka, From, 1995 to 2021 (Rs.in Crores) Name of the Sector No of Projects Total Financial Outlay Loan Sanctioned Amount Disbursed Share of Loan Sanctioned Agriculture & Allied Sector 4949 1769.4 1608.0 1187.6 33% Rural Road & Bridges 12573 8024.7 6541.6 5953.0 Social Sector Project 21001 5540.6 4510.0 2720.4 40% Minor Irrigation Project 5202 4724.3 3908.9 3080 27% Total 43695 20058.98 16568.4 12940.6 100% Sources by various Annual reports of NABARD & Karnataka Economics Survey various reports Fig. 5, Sectors Wise Impact of RIDF in Karnataka Economy, From 1995 to 2021. As of 2021, 43695 projects under RIDF tranches I st through XXVII have been approved for the State of Karnataka, with a loan from the rural infrastructure development fund of Rs. 16568.40 crores. The Karnataka government has spent Rs. 12940.6 crores against the approved amount. The social sector, which accounts Agriculturre & Allied Sector Rural road & Bridge 33% Social Sector Project 40% Minor Irrigation Project 27% Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges doi: 10.2478/jlst-2023-0006 8 for 40% of the amount sanctioned, is in the first position, followed by agricultural and associated sectors, rural connectivity, which accounts for 33%, and irrigation, which received 27% of the total. Table 6. Number of Incomplete Projects of Roads, Bridges in Karnataka from 2009 to 2018 Particulars 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV Number of Sectioned Projects 277 404 603 203 391 445 108 124 121 153 2829 Number of Completed Projects as on 2020) 269 361 499 190 318 220 102 119 107 22 2207 Number of Incomplete Project 6 33 23 4 45 12 6 5 7 4 145 Note: These projects include only Bridges, footbridges, and Roads Sources: NABARD various annual reports and Karnataka economics survey reports. The status of the projects in Karnataka from RIDF tranches XV to XXIV is shown in the table above. During this time, various projects remained unfinished. The RIDF has sanctioned 3829 projects for Tranches XV to XXIV, of which 2207 have been completed. However, 145 projects remain dropped because of a shortage of funding, the states cannot meet the requirements, certain areas were chosen (Hill Station, Sea Border), or terms and conditions of loans at market interest rates, and other ongoing projects were not considered during this research period. State administrative issues, etc., then introducing such programs loses its purpose. Under the RIDF Scheme, 853 rural market infrastructure projects, 1684 veterinary facilities, and the agricultural and related sectors were completed. Under the financial support of the Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF) scheme, 258 Raita Samparka Kendras, 33 fish jetties, ten cocoon quality test labs, and later three pesticide residual labs were created in the State. 13353 rural educational infrastructure projects (primary schools, polytechnics, ITIs, GTTCs, colleges for agriculture and horticulture, etc.) were constructed in the social sector. Then, 337 health infrastructure projects (PHC, CHC, and MCH) total 337 were completed, opening 6472 Anganwadi facilities. There are now increased rural bridges of 60300 meters and 45336 km of rural roads (Karnataka Economics Survey-2022). V. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated that the Rural Infrastructure Development Fund has played a significant role in the rural area of Karnataka, providing the state government with significant financial support. The state administration aims to implement a combination of resource transfer financial incentives, special programs for the development of backward areas like the Kalyana-Karnataka Region, and extra resources to meet the State's development needs. NABARD is required to facilitate the fund under the RIDF scheme at a low-interest interest rate, incentivizing the states and other organizations to seek greater financial support for infrastructure development. In this study, we observed the loan sanction process. Since it takes the states a long time to accept a proposal, the NABARD intends to make the loan sanction procedure quick and simple. This adjustment improves efficiency in the development activities. The RIDF time must be extended during the loan return policy period because funds are authorized in accordance with the terms and conditions of loans at market interest rates. Many states might be unable to take on this financial load due to most governments' Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges doi: 10.2478/jlst-2023-0006 9 dire financial circumstances. Despite this, there have been some physical advancements in rural irrigation, roads, and bridges. The nation's states and regions, however, do not all share the same levels of achievement. Karnataka state government dropped 145 bridges and road projects from 2009 to 2018 due to a lack of financial resources and other reasons. Still, this issue is a significant challenge to rural development in Karnataka. NABARD should focus on this issue and make a policy regarding the completion of the projects by the respected agencies. REFERENCES Anon. (1984). Agricultural credit - Regional Disparities Persist. Economic and Political Weekly 19, (9), 370–71. Bhatia, M. S. (1999). Rural Infrastructure and Growth in Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly 34, (13), 43–48. Bogle, J. E. (1977). Infrastructure for Rural Development. Athens Center of Ekistics. 43(7), 195–98. Dev, S. M.. (2006). Financial Inclusion: Issues and Challenges. Economic and Political Weekly 41, (41), 4310– 13. Fox, W. F., & Sanela Porca. (2001). Investing in Rural Infrastructure. International Regional Science Review 24, (1), 103–33. doi: 10.1177/016001701761012971. Ghosal, S.. (2013). Soft or Hard: Infrastructure Matters in Rural Economic Empowerment. Journal of Infrastructure Development 5, (2), 137–49. doi: 10.1177/0974930614521318. Ghosh, B. & Prabir De. 1998. Role of Infrastructure in Regional Development: A Study over the Plan Period. Economic and Political Weekly 33, (47/48), 39–48. Ghosh, M.. (2017). Infrastructure and Development in Rural India. Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research 11, (3), 56–89. doi: 10.1177/0973801017703499. Gill, Z. A. & Khalid M. (1999). Rural Development in the 21st Century: Some Issues, The Pakistan Development Review 38, (4), 1177–90. H.M., S. (2014). Regional Backwardness and Public Spending on Development of Rural Physical and Social Infrastructure in Karnataka. Journal of Land and Rural Studies 2, (2), 299–315. doi: 10.1177/2321024914534058. Irwin, E. G. & Andrew M. (2010). A Century of Research on Rural Development and Regional Issues. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 92, (2), 522–53. Kumar, R. (2004). Financing Agricultural Development Role of Nabard. Indian Journal of Public Administration 50. (3), 580–95. doi: 10.1177/0019556120040306. Lall, S. V. (1999). The Role of Public Infrastructure Investments in Regional Development: Experience of Indian States. Economic and Political Weekly 34(12):717–25. Looney, R. E. (1994). The Impact of Infrastructure on Pakistan's Agricultural Sector. The Journal of Developing Areas 28(4):469–86. Ramesh, T P. & Medhavini S. K. (2021). Role Of Rural Infrastructure in The Development of Agriculture in India. Strad Research, 8, (3), 14-21. https://doi.org/10.37896/sr8.3/004. Mishra, S. N., and Sweta Mishra. (2001). Development of Rural Infrastructure with Special Reference to Rural Roads and Transportation. Indian Journal of Public Administration 47, (3). 351–58. doi: 10.1177/0019556120010305. Patel, A. (2016). "Role of Government and Financial Institutions in Minimizing Adverse Impact of Drought in India." FIIB Business Review 5, (2). 13–22. doi: 10.1177/2455265820160202. Puhazhendhi, V. and B. Jayaraman. (1999). Rural Credit Delivery: Performance and Challenges before Banks. Economic and Political Weekly 34, (3/4). 175–82. Rahman, S. (2014). Impact of Rural Infrastructure on Farm and Non-Farm Enterprise Choice and Income in Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges doi: 10.2478/jlst-2023-0006 10 Bangladesh. The Journal of Developing Areas 48, (1). 275–90. Rajasekhar, D., and G. Suvarchala. (1991). Institutional Credit and Overdoes. Economic and Political Weekly 26, (30). 1819–20. Rajeev, M. (2008). A Critical Analysis of the RIDF. Economic and Political Weekly 43, (7). 27–31. Rao, B. S. (2006). Rural Infrastructure: A Critical Issue for Farm Productivity in Asia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development 16, (1). 61–77. doi: 10.1177/1018529120060102. Redman, B. J. (1980). Rural Development: A Critique. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62, (5). 1031–36. doi: 10.2307/1240308. Rudra, A. (1978). Organisation of Agriculture for Rural Development: The Indian Case. Cambridge Journal of Economics 2, (4). 381–406. Sekhar, C. S. C. (2010). Agricultural Growth and Rural Employment—Some Lessons from China? China Report 46, (1). 29–36. doi: 10.1177/000944551004600103. Sharma, A. P., & Ajay K. (2023). Impact of Infrastructure on Socio-Economic Development in Rural Areas: Evidence from the State of Haryana, India. Indian Journal of Public Administration. doi: 10.1177/00195561221141458. Tiwari, A. K. (2008). Economic Infrastructure and Agricultural Development in Himachal Pradesh: A District Level Analysis. Social Change 38, (2). 245–62. doi: 10.1177/004908570803800205. Toufique, K. A. (2017). Bangladesh Experience in Rural Development: The Success and Failure of the Various Models Used. The Bangladesh Development Studies 40, (2). 97–117. Vyasulu, V. (1995). Management of Poverty Alleviation Programmes in Karnataka: An Overview. Economic and Political Weekly 30, (4). 35–50. Wanmali, S. & Yassir I. (1995). Rural Services, Rural Infrastructure and Regional Development in India. The Geographical Journal 16, (2). 149–66. doi: 10.2307/3059972. Wanmali, S. & Yassir I. (1997). Rural Infrastructure and Agricultural Development in Southern Africa: A Centre- Periphery Perspective. The Geographical Journal 163, (3). 259–69. doi: 10.2307/3059722. AUTHORS A. Sathisha is an Ph.D. Scholar, Department of Studies in Economics, Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Ballari-583105, Karnataka, India (e-mail: sathishakampli@gmail.com). ORCID ID: 0000-0002-2811-0063 B. Medhavini S Katti is an Associate Professor Department of Studies in Economics, Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Ballari-583105, Karnataka, India (medhavini@vskub.ac.in). ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9858-2330 Manuscript received by 28 March 2023. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article. Preučitev Sklada za razvoj infrastrukture na podeželju v Karnataki Povzetek - Ta študija je preučevala povezavo med Skladom za razvoj podeželske infrastrukture (RIDF) in razvojem kmetijstva v Karnataki od leta 1995 do 2021. Med predstavitvijo proračunskega govora za obdobje 1995–1996 jefinančni minister zveze predstavil program RIDF. Banka RBI spremlja financiranje programa RIDF prek NABARD, ki ima korpus v višini 2.000 rupij, med drugim iz komercialnih in regionalnih bank. Program financira socialni sektor, malih in srednje namakalne sisteme,povezljivost podeželja ter kmetijske in sorodne dejavnosti. Študija je kritično ocenila uspešnost RIDF Logistics, Supply Chain, Sustainability and Global Challenges doi: 10.2478/jlst-2023-0006 11 v državi. Ugotovila je tudi, da je več projektov ostalo nedokončanih tudi po najemu posojil iz sklada RIDF. Številne države morda ne bi mogle prevzeti tegafinančnega bremena zaradi težkih finančnih razmer večine vlad. Kljub temu je bil dosežen določen napredek na področju izgradnje namakalnih sistemov na podeželju, prav tako tudi cest in mostov. Vendar pa vse države in regije v državi nimajo enakih ravni dosežkov,zato predlagamo potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev ustrezne uporabe sredstev ter zmanjšanje revščine na podeželju in razlik med regijami v državi Karnataka. Ključne besede - razvoj kmetijstva, finance, infrastruktura, Karnataka, podeželje