Abstract This paper proposes a household model that relates various development interventions, such as infrastructure, to rural development. The model is then estimated using data from a household survey in which rural development outcomes are measured in terms of a perception scale. Household perceptions are important early lead indicators of rural development outcomes that manifest later. Rural poverty is linked to the exposure of the households to economic vulnerability, through their chronic dependence on agriculture for income generation. A starting point in mitigating this vulnerability would be a comprehensive improvement in accessibility. This would substantially reduce transportation cost and thereby lessen the isolation of rural communities from basic welfare services. An advocacy campaign and/or incentive system would be needed to encourage private firms to establish operations in rural areas. More private establishments in rural areas would not only shield households against exposure to vulnerability, but would also serve as a catalyst for microenterprise development. Sustainable rural development would follow, provided that there was an ample corporate social responsibility programme among these firms to avert a widening of inequality. A natural resource management strategy would also be needed for ecological integrity. Community participation is crucial in identifying development projects; it can help to minimise the wastage of resources on inappropriate projects, and enable resources to be allocated instead it to other productive uses. The provision of rural roads should be bundled properly with support services and capacity-building activities. This can enhance the demand for other infrastructure and services, resulting in a dynamic evolution of essential elements in the pursuit of rural development. Bundles of intervention improve the production efficiency of rural households at the different stages of production, both on and off the farm. Rural development interventions should pay special attention to the more vulnerable segments of the community, especially, the farmers. Interventions should aim gradually to detach them from complete dependence on agriculture, without putting their food security at risk. Public investments in infrastructure and in users’ fees can complement each other, in the continuous provision of new infrastructure and the maintenance of existing infrastructure, to create a sustainable track towards rural development. The socialised users’ fee system is a potential tool for preventing widening income disparity in rural areas. The careful selection of a suitable and acceptable basis for the socialised users’ fee rate is important, however. An incorrect choice of rate could be perceived as a disincentive to access or might stimulate distrust among a segment of the rural society, regarding the government's sincerity in promoting rural development. This might eventually create more social issues, rather than bridging inequality.