31
Why is poverty so pervasive and increasing in some districts in Bangladesh? Zulfiqar Ali KAS Murshid BIDS Research Almanac 01 December 2019
Why is poverty so pervasive and increasing
in some districts in Bangladesh?
Zulfiqar Ali
KAS Murshid
BIDS Research Almanac
01 December 2019
Outline of the Presentation
• The Context
• Objectives of the study
• Methodological approach
• Overall poverty scenario
• Reality check: Is poverty really high and increasing in some pockets?
• Probable reasons
• Summary points
The Context
• Bangladesh has made remarkable progress in reducing poverty over the past decades;
• However, according to HIES 2016, there are districts where poverty is still pervasive;
• Poverty has also increased in some districts over the past several years;
• It is, therefore, important to identify and discuss critical issues around increased poverty in some pockets in the country.
Objectives of the Study
Main objectives of the study include:
• To explore whether poverty is really so pervasive and increasing in some districts in the country;
• To identify probable reasons for high and increased poverty in some pockets if they exist;
Methodological Approach
• Based on HIES 2016 data, we identified two districts purposively for the present study;
• We also identified two more districts from same agro-ecological zones for comparison;
• From each of the selected districts, we chose 300 households using a multi-stage and systematic random sampling technique;
• Hence, a total of 1200 households were interviewed using a structured questionnaire for the study.
Trends in Poverty: 2000-2016
48.9
40
31.5
24.3
34.3
25.1
17.6
12.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2000 2005 2010 2016
Moderate Poverty
Extreme Poverty
Top 10 Poorest and Richest Districts, 2016
2.6
3.1
3.7
6.9
7.7
8.1
10
10.3
10.5
11
42
43.8
46.7
52.5
52.7
53.5
56.7
63.2
64.3
70.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Narayanganj
Munshiganj
Madaripur
Gazipur
Faridpur
Feni
Dhaka
Brahmanbaria
Narshindi
Moulvibazar
Lalmonirhat
Rangpur
Gaibandha
Jamalpur
Khagrachhari
Kishoreganj
Magura
Bandarban
Dinajpur
Kurigram
Districts with Increased Poverty during 2010-2016
Khagrachhari 27.20 Bogra 10.60
Dinajpur 26.40 Rangamati 8.20
Kishoreganj 23.20 Lalmonirhat 7.50
Bandarban 23.10 Kurigram 7.10
Meherpur 16.30 Barguna 6.70
Naogaon 15.30 Chuadanga 4.20
Nawabganj 14.30 Chittagong 2.20
Kushtia 13.90 Jhenaidah 1.80
Noakhali 13.70 Pabna 1.50
Manikganj 12.20 Jamalpur 1.40
Patuakhali 11.40 Lakshmipur 1.30
Magura 11.30
Districts with High and Increased Poverty, 2016
Kurigram 70.8
Dinajpur 64.3
Lalmonirhat 42.0
Bandarban 63.2
Khagrachhari 52.7
Kishoreganj 53.5
Jamalpur 52.5
Magura 56.7
Reality Check
Poverty Head-count in Selected Districts
Poverty category
Districts
National
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
Extreme Poor 66.3 37.0 26.3 19.7 12.9
Total Poor 77.3 53.0 42.0 36.7 24.3
Vulnerable Non-poor
18.3 33.7 44.3 48.0 -
Total Non-Poor 22.7 47.0 58.0 63.3 75.7
Changes in Income during Last 10 years
12
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
Districts
Income has not increased
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
Districts
Current income is not sufficient to meet basic requirements
Changes in Income during Last 10 Years by Poverty Category
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
% of Households Whose Income Has Nott Increased
Extreme poor
Moderate poor
Decile Distribution of Income
Decile Group
Districts
National
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
Bottom 10 % 2.0 2.3 3.2 2.9 1.1
Bottom 40 % 18.5 18.1 21.3 21.9 13.9
Middle 50% 54.9 51.7 53.5 54.6 51,26
Top 10 % 26.6 30.2 25.2 23.5 34.8
Palma Ratio 1.4 1.7 1.2 1.1 2.5
Poverty Status: Qualitative Assessment
Poverty StatusDistricts
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
Now:
Always in deficit 9.0 1.3 1.7 0.0
Sometimes in deficit 45.7 10.3 21.0 15.7
No Deficit no surplus 36.0 56.3 41.0 40.3
Surplus 9.3 52.0 36.3 44.0
10 Years Ago:
Always in deficit 27.7 6.3 17.0 15.7
Sometimes in deficit 39.3 34.7 42.3 32.7
No Deficit no surplus 18.0 48.3 21.0 37.3
Surplus 15.0 10.7 19.7 14.3
Food Security Situation: Qualitative Assessment
16
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
Districts
Can’t have 3 full meals a day at present
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
Districts
Couldn't have 3 full meals a day 10 years Ago
Non-monetary Dimensions of WellbeingIndicators District
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur ThakurgaonDiversity in Food Intake:- Egg 56.33 92.00 86.00 85.67- Fish 83.33 90.33 89.00 94.67- Meat 63.67 78.67 90.00 84.00- Milk 38.67 60.67 68.33 44.67Literacy 50.40 55.00 64.80 57.20Suffered from any illness during last 30 days
66.00 64.00 54.33 54.00
Asset ownership:- Cow/Buffalo 46.33 57.33 79.67 78.67- Goat/Sheep 20.33 33.00 54.67 61.00- Colour TV 18.33 30.67 58.33 46.00- Mobile phone 91.33 92.67 91.67 92Places to sleep:- Wooden bed with Toshok 65.00 91.67 93.33 83.00- Wooden bed without Toshok 34.00 8.00 4.67 16.33- Use only Kathas during winter 28.67 6.33 1.67 10.33Housing: wall materials -break/cement
7.67 23.31 46.00 37.33
% of households with access to tube well for drinking water
78.33 88.00 96.67 97.00
% of households with access to sanitary/pucca toilet
36.00 56.00 81.00 45.00
Probable Reasons
Poor Asset Endowment: Land Ownership
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon National
< 5 decimals
5- 50 decimals
Rented-in Cultivated Land by the Households
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
District
< 5 decimals
5- 50 decimals
Occupational Categories: Poor Occupations
Occupational Category
District
NationalKurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
Agri labour 27.8 19.0 21.0 19.7 9.7
Non-agri labour 16.4 10.3 7.0 5.0 8.4
Self-employed in agri
20.4 34.0 39.7 48.3 43.2
Self-employed in non-agri
28.7 30.0 24.0 19.7 23.7
Salaried job 6.7 6.7 8.3 7.3 15.1
Non-monetary FactorsVariables District
NationalKurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
Household size 4.07 4.32 4.27 4.42 4.11
Dependency ratio 0.55 0.51 0.43 0.47 -
Female-headed households
16.70 15.00 12.00 12.70 12.50
Suffered from major illness during last 1 year
57.00 38.33 22.67 48.33 -
Average size of owned cultivable land (decimal)
23.32 46.98 71.87 88.16 -
Average completed years of schooling (age 15+)
4.32 4.70 5.98 5.30 -
Net attendance at Secondary
0.56 0.62 0.75 0.72 85.40
% households with electricity
51.33 57.35 65.67 62.33 68.85
Access to SSN Programmes of the Government
Access to SSN Programmes
Districts
Kuri-gram
Gai-bandha
Dinaj-pur
Thakur-gaon
% of households have access to various SSN programmes
15.49 16.64 17.42 16.95
VGD 0.74 0.08 3.44 0.53
VGF 0.90 1.77 1.80 2.41
Old age/Widow allowance
1.96 1.54 2.43 3.23
Primary Scholarship (FFE)
6.55 0.62 3.28 7.07
23
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
% of households have access to various SSN programmes
Loss of Land during Last 10 Years
Loss of LandDistrict
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
% of households lost land during last 10 years
20.0 15.7 14.7 14.0
How:
- Sell 46.2 77.1 95.5 98.0
- Forcefully dispossessed 15.4 4.2 2.3 2.0
- Riverbank erosion 33.8 14.6 - -
Reasons for Selling Land:
- Medical treatment 26.09 21.21 7.89 8.70
- Dowry payment 26.10 18.18 15.79 16.96
- Loan repayment 18.70 15.15 7.89 8.18
- Repairing houses 14.35 9.23 3.68 4.35
Poor Access to Credit
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
District
NGOs
Money lender
Relatives
Uses of Loan
District
Main reason for taking loan
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
To repair houses 12.11 9.15 15.71 8.55
For agriculture 8.01 12.88 26.92 35.9
For business 5.75 13.56 7.05 12.39
For medical treatment 17.04 9.83 5.77 4.27
For repayment of loan 18.48 7.12 7.37 2.99
Faced with Shocks
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
District
% of households faced shocks during last 5 years
Changes in Incidences of Natural Hazards
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
Kurigram Gaibandha Dinajpur Thakurgaon
District
Increased
Remained sameas before
Summary Points
• There do exist some pockets where poverty is really so high and ‘probably’ increasing as well;
• Kurigram is certainly one such case, where both income and non-income dimensions of wellbeing are worse;
• However, it needs further investigation in order to identify poverty pockets in the country, as all high poverty districts identified by HIESs may not necessarily be such cases;
• As evident from present study, Dinajpur do not belong to such category;
Summary Points (contd)
Probable reasons for high and increased poverty include:
• Poor asset base and relatively more dependence on day labour;
• Relatively high dependency ratio and poor human capital base;
• Poor access to infrastructure and SSN programmes and other services of the government;
• Poor access to credit (including microcredit); and
• High exposure to various shocks and also the increased incidences of natural hazards.
Thanks
