PRODUCTIVE USES OF ENERGY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INTRODUCTION
There is almost unanimous agreement that energy plays a pivotal role in national
development. Generally, there is a high degree of correlation between energy use,
economic growth, and level of development. In the context of rural development,
the traditional view of the productive use of energy is that it is associated primarily
with the provision of motive power for agricultural and industrial or commercial
uses. For example, motors are used to grind grain, operate power tools, irrigate
farmland, and facilitate many commercial activities. It was believed that the motive
power made possible by electricity would result in tremendous productivity
gains and economic growth, thus transforming the underdeveloped rural landscape.
In other words, the emphasis has been on the direct income-generating uses of
energy.
The traditional concept of productive uses of energy for rural development needs
to be revised for primarily two reasons. First, there is a growing realization that
although energy is a necessary condition for rural development, it is insufficient by
itself to bring about the desired socioeconomic impact. Second, there is a significant
shift in the understanding of what is meant by rural development, especially in the
context of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) used by the major donors
and international development agencies.
The MDGs emphasize not just poverty reduction in terms of income, but they
also highlight the importance of improved health, universal primary education,
women’s empowerment, and gender equality. The very goals of development are
to raise incomes of the poor and also to ensure that they are educated and healthy,
and treated equally. Thus, an enhanced understanding of what is a productive use
of energy must take into account not only the direct impact of energy on raising
incomes, but also the indirect impacts that energy can have on education, health,
and gender issues.
TRADITIONAL VIEWOF PRODUCTIVE USES OF ENERGY
For rural development, energy was, and in some cases still is, looked at as having
two distinct uses: residential and productive. Residential uses of energy are expected
to positively impact the rural quality of life or improve rural living standards
(1, 2). The productive use of energy in rural areas is expected to result in increased
rural productivity, greater economic growth, and a rise in rural employment, which
would not only raise incomes but also reduce the migration of the rural poor to
urban areas.
With respect to agricultural production, electricity would be used principally
to provide motive power for agriculture-based industries and would power farm
machinery, such as water pumps, fodder choppers, threshers, grinders, and dryers.
Thiswould result in the modernization of agricultural production. Electricitywould
bring an increase in irrigation, which in turn would result in an increase in the
amount of required labor. The generous output of these modernized farms would
provide inputs to large commercial enterprises such as rural cooperative sugar
factories.
Another example includes the use of electricity as a source of driveshaft power
and lighting, which is suitable for rural industries, for example, machine shops. In
the past, a common belief was that once a rural region was provided with electrical
service and access to modern energy, rural industries would expand and the quality
of rural products would improve. Over the long run, the availability of modern
energy services would provide significant indirect social benefits such as greater
equity and improved quality of life. In short, if energy was used for productive
applications, itwould transform an underdeveloped agrarian economy. Not surprisingly,
the process has proved to be more complicated (3–5). One example of this is
India.
India has a long history of supporting rural electrification for productive uses,
in recognition of the potential benefits for the country in terms of poverty alleviation
and food self-sufficiency. A major component of India’s rural electrification
program since the late 1960s has been to promote electricity for irrigation pumping
by heavily subsidizing agricultural electricity rates (6, p. 13). Since then, 13
million pump sets have been put in use for irrigation by Indian farmers. Partly
owing to the high prices of other pumping alternatives such as diesel, and partly
owing to the constrained capacity of the State Electricity Boards, today there
are substantial waiting lists for irrigation pump-set connections in most Indian
states.
Thus, this program in India has been relatively successful in promoting productive
uses—particularly in the form of irrigation. However, electricity use by
households has not kept pace with its use for irrigation pumping, and it is estimated
that only about 44% of rural households actually have electricity in their homes.
Bangladesh, by contrast, has witnessed a more balanced approach toward rural
electrification. The rural electrification program in Bangladesh stressed both residential
as well as productive uses of energy and has met with reasonable success
(7, 8).
Lack of adequate electricity for households has important gender implications
as well. Because agriculture and cultivation are usually male domains (with homes
being female domains), the traditional definition of productive use of energy has
an inherent gender bias (9). This bias is evident in the rural marketplace as well.
Even in rural areas where households have access to electricity, markets stock
leisure items such as televisions and radios but not labor-reducing modern cooking
appliances for women. Because men serve as the decision makers in households,
the market tends to cater to their needs over women’s (10).
In Indonesia, a survey of a relatively wealthy rice-growing region found that
the rate of growth of pump sets was low and that most irrigation continues to be
successfully accomplished through traditional, gravity-fed methods. Furthermore,
the price of kerosene and diesel in Indonesia was heavily subsidized, making it less
attractive for those farmers who used diesel pumps to switch to electricity. Thus,
experience suggests that there are many different ways to promote productive uses
of energy. This has important consequences not only in shaping the program but
also in producing the types of benefits needed for rural areas.
EMERGING VIEWOF PRODUCTIVE USES OF ENERGY
