INTRODUCTION
The United Nations has set the eradication of poverty and providing food security through the sustainable increase of agricultural output as one of its major Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. They comprise the vision for the world’s sustainable development over the next ten years since they are methodically connected to one another and the other fifteen SDGs (Moinuddin,2017). Unfortunately, regardless of the effort the global community has put into eradicating poverty and dealing with food insecurity, the number of malnourished individuals has started to rise again following a steady drop throughout the 1990s and 2000s. (Erokhin, & Gao,2020). Statistics estimate that in 2015 736 million survived on less than 2 U.S. dollars a day (World Bank,2020). This information prompted the World Bank to aim to reduce the poverty rate by 3% by 2030. Nevertheless, the rate of global poverty reduction has been slowing down even before the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), about 820 million hungry people globally and nearly two billion people are moderately or severely food insecure (World Health Organization,2019). The World Food Program (WFP) of the United Nations claims that the economic effects of the epidemic might cause the number of those experiencing extreme hunger to double by the year 2020. Because food insecurity has increased throughout Latin America, Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, economic hardship and malnutrition have worsened in the world’s poorest regions.
The WFP foresees a situation where the least developed and developing countries, the leading importers of agricultural products, will have an increase in the number of poor people suffering from acute hunger. To prevent a global disaster, there is a significant need to find a practical and acceptable solution to poverty and food insecurity under these new circumstances. The principal means of reducing poverty, especially in the developing world, is widely recognized to be agricultural development (Erokhin, 20170). According to Theodore Schultz, a higher percentage of people in developing countries derive their source of livelihood from agriculture (Schultz, in his Nobel Prize address four decades ago, and nothing has changed since then. In many developing nations, the agricultural industry is a significant employer. Agriculture is a big contributor to rural economies and a significant source of food for the impoverished.
What is more, agriculture accounts for up to a quarter of the income of the urban population. Ameh et al. argues that raising agricultural productivity in developing countries is the only option to alleviate poverty and provide food for the estimated 9.7 billion people alive in 2050. Although agriculture is crucial to emerging countries’ economies, most farmers still rely on time-honoured methods that require physical effort.
Low agricultural yields are a byproduct of these practices, which also increase production costs. This led many people, like Santangelo. Ssozi et al. and Arvinand Barillas, argue that monetary and technological assistance from abroad was essential to boosting agricultural output and the standard of living for rural communities. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) acknowledged the need for a significant increase in the amount of money invested in agricultural production expansion in order to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include eradicating extreme poverty and hunger in the world’s poorest countries. Investment in developing-world sanitation, water usage and irrigation, and agricultural production infrastructure is $2.5 trillion short. Agriculture received 25% of all donors’ sector-allocable aid in the mid-twentieth century, but that ratio has decreased to less than 5% by 2018.
Similarly, agricultural government spending declined from 0.42 per cent of GDP in 2001 to 0.28 per cent in 2018. To address the shortfall in agricultural funding, the U.N. has called for increased remittances, FDI, foreign borrowing, and government development aid. Many analyses have examined the correlation between specific inflows of foreign money and changes in poverty rates or crop yields. Both the World Bank and the Institute of International Finance consider FDI, external borrowing, international trade, remittances, and foreign aid significant sources of capital inflows. Nonetheless, they all have two consequences on poverty and agriculture, both of which might be helpful or negative.
Foreign capital inflows are seen as proper channels by Petrikova, Slimane et al., and Magombeyi and Odhiambo to alleviate poverty and guarantee agricultural growth. It is difficult to foresee which sectors would thrive as a result of influxes of foreign investment and which will suffer. De Brauw, for example, showed the significant financial and non-financial benefits that remittances provided to their home nations, rural communities, and individual families, modifying the agricultural industry’s structure, and improving rural living conditions. Nevertheless, Taylor and his coworkers found that sending money home reduced agricultural production. They hypothesized that the impact of remittances on rural districts’ production may vary according to factors including the districts’ degree of development and the number of people who leave the area. The effects of diverse capital inflows on poverty and agricultural development have also been studied from numerous vantage points, with varying levels of success depending on the perspective and the type of capital inflow. Foreign aid programs, as cited by Senadza et al., have perfected a tried-and-true method of channeling funds from wealthy countries and international organizations to those with fewer resources. This is a major reason why poverty is decreasing in so many third-world countries.
This argument is based on the idea that foreign help increases home resources and domestic saving, which benefits everyone, even the poor. The effects of aid on poverty were found to vary widely in studies by Chong et al. In some high-income countries, aid had a direct and significant impact, while in others, it had little to no effect. Simultaneously, when analyzing the connection between development assistance and poverty alleviation in low-, middle-, and high-income nations. Considering this, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that, unless it is permitted to interact with other variables for which a more substantial influence is evident, foreign aid does not directly affect the reduction of poverty on its own. In terms of alleviating rural poverty, this may be the case when international aid is directed at expanding the agricultural sector. In addition to the broad variation of conditions in many developing nations, there is a dearth of information on how aid affects agricultural productivity. Philip and Ijaiya and Ijaiya presented a more pessimistic viewpoint, suggesting that total assistance may not be beneficial for p. Mary et al. demonstrated the positive effects of agricultural assistance inflows on agricultural policy and services, education and research, and water management. Not all foreign aid is effectively converted into transfers of resources to the poor as a sort of government-to-government subsidy due to reasons including the lack of economic diversification and the inadequacies of public administration in many developing nations. Research on foreign direct investment (FDI) by Ku-mar and Gopalsamy, Ikenze et al., and Fofana et al. all came to the same conclusion: FDI inflows resulted in improved management practices, systems, and technology in developing countries. Remarkably, a lot of studies have been unable to uncover any proof that FDI lessens poverty. It has been demonstrated by several researchers that FDI has no impact on reducing poverty. Notable researchers include Huang et al. in Taiwan and Gohou and Soumaré in West Africa. It is unclear how different forms of foreign capital inflows may best be utilized to end poverty and set up long-term agricultural sustainability. Few studies have looked at the combined impacts of international aid, agricultural trade, external borrowing, foreign investment, and remittances on poverty reduction and economic growth despite the widespread interest in learning how foreign investment might help alleviate poverty. Additionally, there are very few global studies that document and compare the experiences of several developing countries globally rather than concentrating on a single area. This research assessed the short- and long-term effects of six different forms of foreign investment inflows on poverty reduction and agricultural development metrics in fourteen developing nations throughout South America, Asia, and Eastern Europe. The research hopes to yield findings that might help with these problems.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Achieving the Sustainable Development Goal of eradicating world hunger and poverty by 2030 would require promoting sustainable development in agricultural output. They serve as the guide for global sustainable development over the course of the following ten years, together with the other fifteen SDGs. The number of undernourished individuals has lately started to rise once more in spite of efforts made on a worldwide scale to reduce poverty and feed the hungry. In 2015, 736 million people worldwide were estimated to be living on less than $2 a day. The World Bank intends to have lowered the rate of severe poverty by 3% by 2030. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was evidence of a slowing in the rate at which poverty was being eliminated. More than 2 billion people are presently living in food insecurity ranging from moderate to severe, and more than 820 million are starving. According to the United Nations Global Food Program, the economic impact of the pandemic is expected to raise the number of people who are severely malnourished by a factor of three by the end of 2020. Poverty and malnutrition have grown dramatically in emerging countries as a result of growing levels of food insecurity, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and Asia. According to World Food Program forecasts, developing and least developed countries that are net importers of food and agricultural goods would witness the greatest increase in the number of people who are seriously undernourished. To avert a worldwide tragedy, it is vital to create a realistic solution to the challenges of poverty and food insecurity that is appropriate for the current circumstances.
A lot of people think that improving agriculture, especially in developing nations, is the greatest method to fight poverty. Theodore Schultz noted in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize that “the majority of the population in developing nations earns their living from the agricultural sector,” and nothing has changed since then. In many low-income nations, employment possibilities in the agricultural industry are crucial. The majority of the poor in rural regions receive their daily food needs from farming, which also makes a considerable economic contribution to the area as a whole. Moreover, up to 25% of the income of the metropolitan population comes from agriculture. Ameh et al. contend that agricultural output has to rise in developing nations in order to reduce poverty and meet the food needs of the predicted 9.7 billion people who will inhabit the planet by 2050.
Impact of Foreign Direct Investments
The great majority of agricultural producers still use conventional farming methods and depend on human labor, despite the sector’s importance to the economy of developing countries. These methods raise production costs and reduce agricultural productivity. Researchers such as Santangelo, Ssozi et al., Arvin and Barillas, among others, thought that the introduction of money, cutting-edge technology, machinery, and farming experience from outside may boost agricultural output and the income of rural communities, The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim to end poverty and hunger in the world’s poorest countries by 2030, and to do so would require a significant increase in investment for boosting agricultural production. This was recognized during the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. An estimated $2.5 trillion in infrastructure expenditures are needed in emerging nations for sanitary facilities, irrigation systems, and agricultural productivity. Government investment on agriculture decreased to 0.28 percent in 2018 from 0.42 percent in 2001, while sector-allocable assistance for agriculture in developing countries decreased from 25% in the middle of the 1980s to less than 5 percent at the moment. To help ease the protracted finance crisis facing agriculture, U.N. efforts support a variety of foreign financing methods, including as remittances, FDI, offshore borrowing, and government development aid.
Despite the importance of agriculture and the clear increase in global capital flows into and out of many sectors of the world economy, there is currently a dearth of research on the effects of FDI on the agriculture sector or food security. Our research is based on three, albeit constrained, streams of this literature, all of which are founded on dependence theory and the modernization thesis, two ideas that are closely related to the globalization debate. According to the modernization idea, foreign investment stimulates economies across the board. Foreign capital inflows, according to Mihalache-O’Keef and Li’s “Dependence Theory,” cause economic disparity and impair food security. They also imply that this is true. This theory is based on research from three key fields of foreign direct investment (FDI) studies: FDI and food production, FDI and food security, and FDI and poverty and other development indices. According to the conclusions of the study on foreign direct investment and poverty, eliminating hunger will not be achieved until agricultural investments are prioritized. Dhahri and Omri highlight the interconnectedness of several Sustainable Development Goals and recommend using FDI and other forms of foreign aid to achieve SDGs related to poverty reduction and food security. According to certain studies, foreign direct investment (FDI) can boost agricultural output, hence reducing poverty and food insecurity. Their three-step technique, however, does not provide evidence for a causal relationship between FDI and agriculture.
FDI and Food Security
Whether overall FDI flows or flows from particular industries are taken into account, there are still limited and erratic conclusions about the relationship between FDI and food security. This is true regardless of the FDI flows that are taken into account. Others believe that the opposite is true, despite the fact that certain experts hold the opinion that FDI (foreign direct investment) has a negative impact on food security. Professors Firebaugh, Beck, Jenkins, and Scanlan are among them. Results from research that has particularly examined foreign direct investment (FDI) in a few areas have been equally unequal. The first researchers to analyze the impact of FDI on food security were Mihalache-O’Keef and Li. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in services, FDI in manufactured goods, and FDI in raw materials are the three main categories that are now getting a lot of attention. They arrived to the conclusion that foreign direct investment (FDI) in the manufacturing sector promotes food security after expanding their findings to include data for 56 developing and transitional countries. Nevertheless, they discover that FDI in the service sector has unclear to contradictory effects, but FDI in the agriculture sector lowers food security. Nonetheless, these were predicted given that the great bulk of FDI in this region is typically allocated to extractive sectors rather than agricultural investment and development. Their study on the impacts of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the primary sector produced some surprising results. As a direct result, our research emphasizes value addition more than food security, contrary to the conclusions of other studies. We have made luring foreign direct investment (FDI) for the agricultural, forestry, and fisheries industries our main goal. Between 1995 and 2009, researchers under the direction of Ben Slimane et al. examined foreign direct investment in agriculture’s secondary and tertiary sectors in 55 different nations and came to the same conclusions. They arrive to the conclusion that whereas FDI in the secondary and tertiary sectors decreases food safety, FDI in the farm sector increases it. Our analysis covers the broader subject of agriculture, which includes forestry and fisheries, whereas Ben Slimane et al. focus on agricultural foreign direct investment and food security. We use value creation in the economy as our outcome variable rather than focusing on ensuring there is enough food for everyone. With a focus on the most contentious aspects of current foreign capital flows from affluent to poor but resource-rich countries, Huang et al. (2010) evaluate the effect that FDI has on food security. They concentrate more on pursuing the most valuable land in these nations. The research shows that foreign direct investment (FDI) in land from industrialized economies increases food security, but FDI in land from emerging countries has the reverse impact.
Sample study Characteristics
The characteristics of the sample, study methodology, and poverty indicators utilized may all have an influence on the reliability of empirical evidence on FDI and poverty. Between 1980 and 2014, Magombeyi et al. analyze the connection between foreign direct investment and poverty reduction in Botswana. Nevertheless, it was proven that their findings depend on the method used to measure poverty, with FDI having a positive short-term effect on poverty reduction but a negative long-term impact when life expectancy is used as a benchmark. Using the death rate as a surrogate for the alleviation of poverty shows that FDI does not significantly alleviate poverty in either the short or long run. The negative effect of FDI on poverty reduction is confirmed using a proxy measure of household consumption expenditures, but its long-term significance is shown to be null. These findings corroborate those of Gohou and Soumaré, who did a similar study for African countries between 1990 and 2007 and discovered a substantial positive association between FDI and welfare measures, notably the UNDP’s human development index. Food security is a connected problem, despite the fact that solid evidence on the relationship between foreign aid and food security is still equivocal.
The research that examines how foreign direct investment (FDI) affects farming has the strongest connections to our study. Although the findings of previous research may vary, they usually concur with the notion that FDI is advantageous to agriculture. According to an investigation by Furtan and Holzman, foreign direct investment (FDI) has a favorable impact on the volume of trade in agricultural and food products. Edeh et alresearch .’s on the effects of FDI on Nigeria’s agriculture industry used quarterly data from 1981 to 2017. They discover that foreign direct investment (FDI), particularly in the near term but also over the long term, has a significant and positive impact on agricultural output. Jana et al. found that FDI inflows do not promote the increase of agricultural production in their investigation of how FDI influences the development of various industries in India. As they investigate the connection between agricultural production and investment, they come upon an intriguing instance of reverse causation. According to studies on how FDI affects various industries, Opoku et al. found that FDI has a significant pass-through effect on the service and agricultural sectors. Agribusiness is among the sectors in Latin America where FDI has the most direct productivity impacts, according to Tondl and Fornero’s analysis of the effects of FDI on productivity in a range of industries. Agriculture is impacted by foreign direct investment (FDI) in a number of ways. By examining how foreign investment in the sugar beet processing business has affected the larger agro-food sector in Central European transition countries, Walkenhorst investigates these routes. The empirical results of the study indicate that FDI contributes to management and technical competence, both of which were previously absent in the region, in addition to the much-needed cash. Training programs, pilot demonstration projects, and novel contract designs have proven particularly useful in assisting international subsidiaries in securing adequate supplies of high-quality raw materials and encouraging widespread improvements in agricultural productivity and agribusiness practices.
Notwithstanding its limitations, a comparable corpus of research investigates how help from outside affects agricultural productivity. Using simulations of a general equilibrium model, McArthur and Sachs show that official development assistance in agriculture has the potential to bolster the primary export industry and boost long-term productivity. Using information for 50 developing nations from 1995 to 2015, Dhahri and Omri investigate the impact of FDI and various types of help on agricultural productivity. They discover that, when compared to foreign assistance, FDI has a positive and statistically significant influence on agricultural production. They also discover that all four types of overseas assistance significantly increase agricultural productivity (social and infrastructural aid; investment aid; non-investment aid; and agriculture, forestry, and fisheries aid). Only the supports that go toward enhancing social infrastructure and the agricultural, forestry, and fisheries sectors continue to have any discernible impact on agricultural production when all kinds of assistance and FDI are taken into account. Kherallah et al. examined the relationship between development aid and agricultural expansion using a simultaneous equation model with data from 56 developing countries between 1974 and 1990. It was shown that an increase in foreign aid of 1% was associated with an increase in agricultural growth of 0.75%, indicating a favorable and statistically significant relationship between the two variables. Norton et al. examined data from 98 developing nations between 1970 and 1985 to investigate the effect of aid on agricultural productivity. Findings vary depending on the countries, regions, and areas of the world. In Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, assistance increases agricultural output while having the reverse effect in South America and the Middle East. Also, they discover that help tends to be less beneficial in nations with substantial external debt and budget deficits. Nevertheless, in contrast to Norton et al. and Kherallah et al., who only use general foreign aid, Barkat and Alsamara employ data for 29 African states between 1975 and 2013 to analyze the impacts of foreign agricultural assistance and foreign aid on agricultural productivity. According to their findings, when it comes to agricultural production, developing nations with lower and intermediate incomes gain somewhat more from foreign agricultural help and overall foreign aid. They go even deeper into the data and find evidence for a causal link between aid and agricultural production. Using information collected from 87 developing countries between 1985 and 2004, Dewbre et al. analyze the connection between agricultural aid flows and agricultural growth. Contrary to earlier findings, they discovered that agricultural aid flows actually slowed down agricultural progress. Our study focuses on FDI and value addition in a larger agricultural sector that encompasses forestry and fisheries rather than analyzing assistance flows and agricultural expansion.
PROBLEM STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES
Governments and universities throughout the world are prioritizing increased agricultural output and offering rural residents new work and income options in an effort to reduce poverty. Due to a lack of funding, some government initiatives to combat poverty in developing countries have been unsuccessful. Too little is known about how external influences, such as money inflows, influence poverty and agricultural development. This research will examine the effects of six distinct forms of foreign capital inflows on the alleviation of poverty and the development of agriculture. The test of the pool means groups and the panel unit root in fourteen developing nations in South America, Asia, and Eastern Europe, Imation approaches were utilized to examine the short-term and long-term correlations between dependent and explanatory variables. It has been demonstrated that an increase in agricultural exports, investment, foreign aid, and migrant workers’ remittances may all contribute to a decrease in poverty rates. Agriculture may improve if more developing nations participated in global food supply chains as producers or consumers of food and agricultural goods.
RESEARCH METHOD
There are both quantitative and qualitative procedures. Based on variable selection We first look at the effects of these inflows on the dependent variables along six dimensions in order to assess the efficacy of capital inflows in increasing agricultural output and lowering poverty. The World Bank, the Institute of International Finance, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and the United Nations all highlighted key capital-related aspects in alleviating poverty and bolstering agriculture, so we focused on them.
To demonstrate how agricultural commerce results in greater agricultural productivity and decreased poverty, we used the variables of agricultural raw material exports and imports. While the other four independent variables were estimated using net values, imports and exports were computed separately and not as indicators of net trade or trade volume. Due to food security policy and agriculture, agricultural imports may have a greater impact on poverty than exports. Hence, this study was conducted to evaluate the effects of imports and exports on poverty. Yet, exports have a much greater impact on farmers’ incomes. Reyer et al. claim that an over reliance on imports poses a danger to the market’s long-term availability and supply of food items. Because a large percentage of their incomes and state budgets are allocated to importing food, both farmers and those living in poverty are disproportionately impacted by fluctuations in food prices. Unfortunately, rising nations may only export a narrow variety of agricultural goods to a limited number of markets due to their low resource availability. Food supply chain disruptions and trade disruptions are major contributors to poverty and famine in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia, according to the United Nations. According to scholars like Deuss, Martin, Anderson, Hendrix, and others, it’s crucial to take into account the special features of food commerce in order to grasp the full effects of agricultural growth and poverty in developing nations. In line with other studies, we employed the AGRX and AGRM variables to examine how the global food trade affects domestic agricultural growth and poverty reduction. Foreign aid is one of the most major funding sources for developing nations. More than only reducing poverty and providing food for the needy, aid from other nations may help boost domestic food production, establish agricultural institutions, and promote the growth of the agricultural sector. Both the World Bank and the OECD recognize the importance of aid in promoting agricultural growth and decreasing poverty in developing nations. We used net official development assistance (NODA) as a proxy for foreign aid to examine its correlation with poverty and agricultural growth indicators. This was done in response to the results of Philip, Ijaiya and Ijaiya, and Chong et al., all of whom came to the conclusion that international aid had little to no impact on eradicating poverty and promoting an increase in domestic agricultural output. Net FDI is frequently used in panel time series estimation as a macroeconomic variable. Studies by Chaudhuri and Banerjee, (2010) Nedumaran and Manida,(2019) Li and Wahl, and others have demonstrated that foreign direct investment (FDI) has a favorable effect on agricultural production, the battle against food insecurity, and the alleviation of poverty across developing nations. Yet, FDI may sometimes have unintended consequences. As a result, greater research into the connections between NFDI, POV, and AGR is needed.
A nation’s net foreign debt levels have a significant impact on how effectively domestic resources are used to achieve its economic objectives. Together with the headcount index and per capita GDP, the amount of net foreign debt is widely employed as a determinant and indicator of poverty. Rising levels of foreign debt pose a danger to emerging economies and might have a negative impact on capital creation, consumption, and liquidity. Both short-term and long-term implications of a heavy debt load on poverty and economic growth are possible. Higher death rates and lower school enrollment rates, two signs of economic disparity, have been related to it. However, there are some direct connections that must be looked at because they show how debt-receiving countries use their funding to fight poverty by supporting initiatives like healthcare and education or to speed up the development of the agricultural sector by increasing production or providing support for local farmers. The NRMT variable was included in the analysis to better understand how remittances affect agricultural development and poverty. On the one hand, agricultural output is lower in rural regions where there are fewer employees owing to emigration. On the other hand, remittances might start structural changes in the agricultural sector by boosting production through equipment purchases or scientific advancements. These changes may have a favorable impact on economic growth and help eradicate poverty because agricultural output is a major source of income for the majority of the least developed countries and many rising economies. Remittances from overseas benefit the families, communities, and nations that receive them in a number of various ways in addition to increasing output. Remittances are used to pay off bank loans, buy food and clothes, and pay for medical and educational costs. Vargas et al., Thieme and Wyss, Wagle and Devkota, and Vargas et al. all praise sending family members for overseas job as a tactic to relieve poverty and diversify income, although there are contradictory effects of labor outflow from rural areas for agricultural growth.
Focusing on Latin America and the Caribbean, South Asia, and the Middle East, this study analyzes how different macroeconomic conditions affect the effect of foreign capital inflows on poverty and agricultural development in emerging economies. The continents of Europe, Central Asia, East Asia/Pacific, and Asia are included in this category. We’ve whittled the field down to 14 nations for further consideration using a number of factors. We started by selecting developing nations for which information was available in the World Bank’s Penn World Table and Global Development Indicators databases during the whole 29-year time span of 1990-2018. We did the math to show how widely varying poverty and wealth are between nations. To complete our study, we looked at the World Bank’s definitions of middle-income and high-income nations. The proportion of consumer expenditure to gross domestic product is taken into account when determining poverty rates. Poverty is thought to be rising if the explanatory variable coefficients are positive; on the other hand, it is thought to be falling if they are negative. Lastly, from 1990 to 2018, we chose nations for each category based on their average agricultural GDP contribution and average rural population share. Progress in agriculture was taken into consideration.
DATA
CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATION
The goal of this study was to look at the impact that influxes of foreign money have on agricultural development and poverty reduction in developing countries. The study was conducted in 14 nations including Latin America and the Caribbean, East Asia and the Pacific, South Asia, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe. The major goal of the research was to compare the impact of foreign assistance, foreign investment, external borrowing, agricultural trade, and remittances on agricultural development and poverty reduction in countries with lower-middle incomes and those with higher-middle incomes. According to the results, agricultural exports, foreign direct investment, international development assistance, and remittances contributed to poverty reduction, but external debt and agricultural imports contributed to poverty increase. Developing countries that integrate themselves more deeply into global food supply chains, either as producers or consumers of food and agricultural items, benefit from increased agricultural growth. A increase in the gross value of remittances, on the other hand, may indicate a labor exodus from the domestic agriculture industry and, as a result, a reduction in production capacity. Based on the study’s conclusions, policy adjustments are proposed to lessen dependency on agricultural imports. These improvements include expanding local agricultural output, using innovative production technologies, improving the quality of agricultural exports, and maximizing available foreign resources.
REFERENCES
Chaudhuri, S., & Banerjee, D. (2010). FDI in agricultural land, welfare and unemployment in a developing economy. Research in Economics, 64(4), 229-239.
Erokhin, V. (Ed.). (2017). Establishing food security and alternatives to international trade in emerging economies. IGI Global
Erokhin, V., & Gao, T. (2020). Impacts of COVID-19 on trade and economic aspects of food security: Evidence from 45 developing countries. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(16), 5775..
Huang, C. H., Teng, K. F., & Tsai, P. L. (2010). Inward and outward foreign direct investment and poverty: East Asia vs. Latin America. Review of World Economics, 146, 763-779.
Institute of International Finance. Capital Flows to Emerging Markets Report. Available online: https://www.iif.com/Research/Capital-Flows-and-Debt/Capital-Flows-to-Emerging-Markets-Report (accessed on 22 March 2023).
Moinuddin, M. (Ed.). (2017). Sustainable Development Goals Interlinkages and Network Analysis: A practical tool for SDG integration and policy coherence. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies.Integration and Policy Coherence; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Hayama, Japan, 2017.
Nedumaran, G., & Manida, M. (2019). Impact of FDI in agriculture sector in India: Opportunities and challenges. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng, 8, 380-383.
Schultz, T.; The Economics of Being Poor. The Nobel Prize Lecture. Available online: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1979/schultz/lecture/ (accessed on 19th March,2023).
Sikandar, F., Erokhin, V., Wang, H., Rehman, S., & Ivolga, A. (2021). The impact of foreign capital inflows on agriculture development and poverty reduction: panel data analysis for developing countries. Sustainability, 13(6), 3242. 16.
United Nations. Goal 1: End Poverty in All Its Forms Everywhere. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal1 (accessed on 19th March,2023).
United Nations. Goal 2: End Hunger, Achieve Food Security and Improved Nutrition and Promote Sustainable Agriculture. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal2 (accessed on 19th March,2023)
United Nations. The 17 Goals. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 19th March,2023)
World Bank. (2020). Global economic prospects, June 2020. The World Bank.
World Food Programme. COVID-19 Will Double Number of People Facing Food Crises Unless Swift Action Is Taken. Available online: https://www.wfpusa.org/news-release/covid-19-will-double-number-of-people-facing- food-crises-unless-swift-action-is-taken/ (accessed on 19thMarch 2023).
World Bank. (2020). Poverty and shared prosperity 2020: Reversals of fortune. The World Bank..
World Health Organization. (2019). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2019: safeguarding against economic slowdowns and downturns (Vol. 2019). Food & Agriculture Org..
Wrangberg, P., & Kapoor, S. (2018). The Effect of Foreign Aid on Poverty. Erasmus University Rotterdam: Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Xiao, J. (2015). How can a prospective China–EU BIT contribute to sustainable investment: in light of the UNCTAD Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. The Journal of World Energy Law & Business, 8(6), 521-541.
write