Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs in Rural Bangladesh

Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty? Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs in Rural Bangladesh

K M Kabirul Islam

A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Social Policy Research Centre Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences University of New South Wales July 2016 THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet

Surname or Family name: Islam First name: K M Kabirul Other name/s: Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD School: Social Policy Research Centre Faculty: Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Title: Is the glass half full or half empty? Food security and social safety net programs in rural Bangladesh

Despite achieving self-sufficiency in food production in the late 1990s, food security is still a major policy issue in Bangladesh due to lack of access to safe and sufficient food for the poor. Consecutive governments have developed a range of social safety net programs (SSNPs) to address the issue. A number of studies have been conducted to assess these programs' impact on ensuring food security; however, the poorest people were not widely engaged in previous studies, nor in the design or implementation of the programs.

This research explored the perceptions, insights and experiences of people in one of the poorest rural areas of Bangladesh. Two groups of people were interviewed: the beneficiaries of five selected SSNPs and non-beneficiaries who would have qualified for a program. This research focuses on exploring how people perceive their food security issues and how these issues could be solved to improve their lives. This research adopted a qualitative method to collect and analyse data: twenty interviews were conducted to explore the perceptions of both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. In addition, two interviews and two focus groups were conducted to examine the responses of middle and senior officials to the perceptions of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. This study draws on a range of empirical and theoretical approaches to deepen our understanding of the perspectives of people involved in SSNPs in one of the poorest regions of Bangladesh.

The findings suggest that the programs partially acted to improve the beneficiaries’ food security, women’s empowerment, income, earning dignity, and medical care. However, the meagreness of the amount delivered and the short length of some programs meant the impacts were limited. In addition, the efficiency of the programs was further reduced due to corrupt practices such as bribes, leakages, nepotism, and political interference by the selectors and program managers. Some participants perceived the government support as charity and said they preferred to work rather than to accept charity for themselves and their children. The majority of participants argued to increase the amount of benefits for the people who need it most. In order to create work opportunities for the poor who are physically able to work, participants advocated for establishing local industries to provide sustainable livelihoods.

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation

I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.

I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only).

…………………………………………………….. ……………………………………..………… ……….……………………...…….… Signature Witness Date

The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award:

Originality Statement

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception, or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

Signed …………………………… Date ………………………………

‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International. I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.’

……………………………..

iii

Authenticity Statement

‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’

……………………………..

Abstract Despite achieving self-sufficiency in food production in the late 1990s, food security is still a major policy issue in Bangladesh due to lack of access to safe and sufficient food for the poor. Consecutive governments have developed a range of social safety net programs (SSNPs) to address the issue. A number of studies have been conducted to assess these programs' impact on ensuring food security; however, the poorest people were not widely engaged in previous studies, nor in the design or implementation of the programs.

This research explored the perceptions, insights and experiences of people in one of the poorest rural areas of Bangladesh. Two groups of people were interviewed: the beneficiaries of five selected SSNPs and non-beneficiaries who would have qualified for a program. This research focuses on exploring how people perceive their food security issues and how these issues could be solved to improve their lives. This research adopted a qualitative method to collect and analyse data: twenty interviews were conducted to explore the perceptions of both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. In addition, two interviews and two focus groups were conducted to examine the responses of middle and senior officials to the perceptions of the beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries. This study draws on a range of empirical and theoretical approaches to deepen our understanding of the perspectives of people involved in SSNPs in one of the poorest regions of Bangladesh.

The findings suggest that the programs partially acted to improve the beneficiaries’ food security, women’s empowerment, income, earning dignity, and medical care. However, the meagreness of the amount delivered and the short length of some programs meant the impacts were limited. In addition, the efficiency of the programs was further reduced due to corrupt practices such as bribes, leakages, nepotism, and political interference by the selectors and program managers. Some participants perceived the government v support as charity and said they preferred to work rather than to accept charity for themselves and their children. The majority of participants argued to increase the amount of benefits for the people who need it most. In order to create work opportunities for the poor who are physically able to work, participants advocated for establishing local industries to provide sustainable livelihoods.

Acknowledgements I would like to take the privilege to convey my thanks, gratitude and appreciation to all the people who have extended their support in accomplishing my PhD. I start with the participants in my research. First, the twenty rural people who offered me a unique opportunity to understand their experiences by sharing insights and discernments on their food security issues and social safety net programs. Appreciations are also due to the mid- level government, bank and NGO officials and local government representatives from Dimla Upazila for their insights in the focus group discussion. I extend my sincere gratitude to two senior officials from two implementing agencies and the senior officials from the Ministry of Social Welfare for sharing their time and views despite their tight schedules.

I am deeply indebted to my supervisors, Professor Peter Whiteford, Professor Kelley Johnson and Dr Jennifer Skattebol, for offering their vast wisdom, invaluable insights and thoughtful advice during the preparation of my proposal, data analysis and thesis writing. Without their untiring support and care this thesis would not have been possible.

I would like to thank Professor Steven M Shardlow and Professor Agnete Wiborg for their encouragement to learn and implement qualitative research methods. I am also grateful to Professor Ahmadullah Mia and Professor A S M Atiqur Rahman for their inspiration and advice.

During my fieldwork in Bangladesh I was hugely fortunate to meet many people from the government, international organisations and research institutions including the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the United Nations Development Program, the World Food Program, the International Food Policy Research Institute, and the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies. I would like to thank the people who shared their insightful comments and suggestions with me.

vii

I am grateful to many of my colleagues in Bangladesh who had inspired me to take the challenge and provided their support. I would like to single out a number of people: Dr Mohammad Tareque, Fazle Kabir, Ranjit Kumar Chakrabarty, Md Mahiuddin Khan, Md Shariful Alam, Arfin Ara Begum, Ramendra Nath Biswas, Md Habibur Rahman, Kazi Enamul Hasan, Md Mofidur Rahman, Dr Mohammad Mizanur Rahman, Redwan Ahmed, Abu Rafa Mohammad Arif and Rabiul Karim.

I deeply remember and would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my parents who would have been immensely proud to see me continue to acquire knowledge. They built my psyche and taught me discipline and hard work. I am also grateful to my wife who continues to inspire me, despite enduring a lot of physical and mental difficulties during the last four years. On this occasion, I would like to also thank our extended family members for their inspiration and support. I must be thankful to my son Abrar who himself has been going through a tough time in a different environment. He is always a prodigious source of inspiration for me to reach my goals.

I sincerely acknowledge the contribution of the Australian Government for offering me the Endeavour Postgraduate Scholarship without which this study would not have materialised. I would like to convey my gratitude to the Graduate Research School, UNSW and the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) for providing me with financial assistance.

Last but not the least, I have been extremely fortunate to have some truly wonderful friends here at the SPRC. From the very first day Yuvisthi and Bridget extended their amity to be accustomed with the Australian academic and daily affairs, which has continued until the end. I will never forget them. I am grateful to Yuvisthi’s parents and Nirmal for their sincere support during my difficult times in Sydney. My thanks extend to Kenia for her invaluable assistance with many day to day editing and formatting issues. I am also greatly thankful to Dom, Leanne, Jamie, Jan, Ciara, Alec, Zimin, kylie, Trish,

viii

Bruce, Gerry, Tim, Kamrul, Shahed and Shona for their cooperation and support.

Table of Contents

Thesis/Dissertation Sheet ...... i Originality Statement ...... ii Copyright Statement ...... iii Authenticity Statement ...... iv Abstract ...... v Acknowledgements ...... vii Table of Contents ...... x List of Tables ...... xvi List of Figures ...... xvii List of Boxes ...... xviii List of Maps ...... xix List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... xx Glossary of Bangla Terms ...... xxiii Monetary Exchange Rates ...... xxvi Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.0 Background ...... 1 1.1 Statement of the problem ...... 7 1.1.1 The importance of food security ...... 7 1.1.2 Poverty trends in Bangladesh ...... 12 1.1.3 Social safety nets as a tool of combating poverty ...... 18 1.1.4 Ranking of Bangladesh in terms of social protection, hunger and food security ...... 22 1.1.5 Why this research ...... 25 1.2 Research aims and questions ...... 26 1.2.1 The aims of the research ...... 26 1.2.2 Research questions ...... 27 1.3 Research methods ...... 28 1.4 Structure of the thesis ...... 29 Chapter 2: Food Security and Social Safety Nets: A Literature Review ...... 33 2.0 Introduction ...... 33 2.1 What is poverty? ...... 34

2.1.1 Concepts and measurement techniques of poverty...... 34 2.1.2 Poverty measurement in Bangladesh ...... 38 2.2 What is food security? ...... 41 2.2.1 Overview of changing definition of food security since the 1970s ...... 42 2.2.2 Changing definitions and policy impact ...... 46 2.3 Evolving food policy and programs in Bangladesh...... 48 2.4 Contribution of Amartya Sen to understanding food security issues ...... 49 2.5 Measurement of food security ...... 51 2.6 Subjective or experiential measurement of food security around the world .... 53 2.7 Food security in Bangladesh ...... 57 2.8 Policy and policy implementation ...... 59 2.9. Women’s empowerment ...... 62 2.9.1 Dimensions and indicators of women’s empowerment ...... 63 2.10 Governance of the programs ...... 65 2.10.1 Defining governance and governance in Bangladesh ...... 65 2.10.2 Program implementation ...... 68 2.10.3 Corruption ...... 70 2.10.4 Exclusion of the most vulnerable groups ...... 71 2.11 Conclusion ...... 72 Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework ...... 75 3.0 Introduction ...... 75 3.1 Theoretical approaches in poverty and food insecurity analysis ...... 75 3.2 Capabilities approach and participatory approach: Theoretical frameworks... 89 3.2.1 Capabilities approach ...... 89 3.2.2 Participatory approach ...... 98 Chapter 4: Social Safety Nets in Bangladesh: An Overview ...... 106 4.0 Introduction ...... 106 4.1 Social safety nets: A conceptual framework ...... 106 4.2 International experiences on cash or in-kind support ...... 115 4.3 Social safety net programs in Bangladesh ...... 127 4.4 Impacts of the programs ...... 131 4.4.1 Impacts on food security ...... 132 4.4.2 Impacts on other aspects of life ...... 134

4.5 Description of the five social safety net programs ...... 139 4.5.1 The Old Age Allowance ...... 141 4.5.2 The Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women 145 4.5.3 The Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) ...... 150 4.5.4 The Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) ...... 153 4.5.5 The Strengthening Household Ability to Respond to Development Opportunities-II (SHOUHARDO-II) ...... 156 4.6 Conclusion ...... 161 Chapter 5: Research Methodology ...... 163 5.0 Introduction ...... 163 5.1 Methodology ...... 163 5.1.1 What is qualitative research? ...... 164 5.1.2 The choice of qualitative methodology for this research ...... 165 5.2 Methods ...... 166 5.2.1 In-depth interviewing ...... 169 5.2.2 Focus group discussion ...... 171 5.2.3 Study area ...... 173 5.2.4 Participants in the research ...... 179 5.2.5 Recruitment ...... 183 5.2.6 Conducting interviews ...... 185 5.2.7 Conducting focus group discussions ...... 186 5.3 Ethical considerations ...... 187 5.4 Data analysis ...... 190 Chapter 6: Food and Nutrition Status of the Households ...... 194 6.0 Introduction ...... 194 6.1 Number of meals per day ...... 195 6.2 Composition of daily meals ...... 204 6.3 Dietary diversity ...... 209 6.3.1 Standard requirement of cereals and the balanced diet ...... 210 6.4 Conclusion ...... 217 Chapter 7: Impacts of Social Safety Net Programs: Voices from the Field ...... 220 7.0 Introduction ...... 220 7.1 Impacts on food security ...... 223

xii

7.1.1 Perceptions of the beneficiaries ...... 223 7.1.2 Perceptions of the non-beneficiaries ...... 228 7.1.3 Views of the managers ...... 229 7.1.4 Results of previous studies ...... 231 7.2 Impacts on women’s empowerment ...... 237 7.3 Overall impacts of social safety net programs ...... 251 7.3.1 Increase in income and poverty reduction ...... 252 7.3.2 Earning dignity ...... 257 7.3.3 Medical support ...... 259 7.4 Adequacy of allowances ...... 261 7.4.1 The Old Age Allowance ...... 262 7.4.2 The Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women 264 7.4.3 The Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) ...... 264 7.4.4 The Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) ...... 265 7.4.5 The Strengthening Household Ability to Respond to Development Opportunities-II (SHOUHARDO-II) ...... 266 7.5 Conclusion ...... 270 7.5.1 Food security ...... 271 7.5.2 Women’s empowerment ...... 272 7.5.3 Overall impacts ...... 272 Chapter 8: Governance and Management: Key Issues in Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs ...... 275 8.0 Introduction ...... 275 8.1 Corruption and irregularities ...... 277 8.1.1 Corruption: Bangladesh perspective ...... 279 8.1.2 Corruption in social safety net programs ...... 281 8.1.3 Bribes ...... 284 8.1.4 Leakages ...... 291 8.1.5 Nepotism and political interference ...... 295 8.2 Implementation issues faced by the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries ..... 298 8.2.1 Problems during selection process ...... 298 8.2.2 Problems during disbursement of allowances ...... 300 8.2.3 Coordination issues ...... 307 8.2.4 Database issues ...... 308 xiii

8.2.5 Waiting lists...... 308 8.3 Other issues ...... 309 8.3.1 Limited coverage in the study area ...... 309 8.3.2 Eating the money and the seeds given for backyard gardening ...... 313 8.3.3 NGO support ...... 313 8.3.4 Sustainability of the program outcomes ...... 314 8.3.5 Lack of an integrated social safety net policy ...... 318 8.3.6 Participation of poor people ...... 318 8.4 Conclusion ...... 320 Chapter 9: Making Life Better: Participants’ Perspectives ...... 324 9.0 Introduction ...... 324 9.1 Increase the number of beneficiaries and the amount of benefits ...... 325 9.1.1 Number of beneficiaries ...... 326 9.1.2 Amount of money/food grain suggested ...... 329 9.2 Better organisation of the programs ...... 338 9.2.1 Permanent bank accounts ...... 338 9.2.2 Ward-based distribution ...... 340 9.2.3 Waiting lists...... 341 9.2.4 Involvement of government officials ...... 342 9.2.5 Developing a database ...... 344 9.3 Yes to work, no to charity ...... 347 9.3.1 Work: The most effective approach to combat poverty ...... 350 9.3.2 Job creation: The obligation of the Government ...... 355 9.3.3 Cut benefits for people who are able to work ...... 361 9.4 Integrated safety net policy ...... 365 9.5 Conclusion ...... 368 Chapter 10: Conclusion ...... 370 10.0 Introduction ...... 370 10.1 Summary of major findings ...... 372 10.1.1 What are the perceptions of participants about the impact of the SSNPs on food security? ...... 372 10.1.2 How do the participants perceive the SSNPs’ impact on aspects of their lives, in addition to food security? ...... 376

xiv

10.1.3 What similarities and differences in perceptions of SSNPs are there between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries? ...... 377 10.1.4 What are the implications of the perceptions of the participants for policy and practice? ...... 379 10.1.5 Is the glass half full or half empty? ...... 382 10.2 Limitations of the study ...... 383 10.3 Contribution and directions for further research ...... 386 10.4 Implications for policy and practice ...... 389 10.5 Concluding remarks ...... 393 Appendices ...... 394 Appendix 1: Social safety net programs in Bangladesh (coverage & budget) .... 394 Appendix 2: Interview guidelines ...... 411 Appendix 3: FGD checklist ...... 417 Appendix 4: Districts poverty map 2005 ...... 418 Appendix 5: Upazila poverty map 2005 ...... 420 Appendix 6: Letter of invitation to participate in the research ...... 429 Appendix 7: The orders of interviews ...... 430 Appendix 8: Permission of study ...... 431 Appendix 9: Information statement and consent form ...... 432 Appendix 10: Withdrawal of consent form ...... 440 Appendix 11: Districts poverty map 2010 ...... 442 Appendix 12: Upazila poverty map 2010 ...... 444 References ...... 461

List of Tables Table 1.1: Trends of poverty in Bangladesh ...... 13 Table 1.2: Poverty rate of Northern districts of Bangladesh ...... 15 Table 1.3: Main features of five selected SSNPs in Bangladesh ...... 21 Table 1.4: Global Hunger Index (GHI) ...... 23 Table 1.5: Global Food Security Index 2014 ...... 24 Table 4.1: Public expenditure on SSNPs in Bangladesh in recent years ...... 131 Table 4.2: Development of the Old Age Allowance over time (number of beneficiaries, allowance per month, total budget) ...... 144 Table 4.3: Development of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women over time (number of beneficiaries, allowance per month, total budget) ...... 149 Table 4.4: Development of the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) program over time (number of beneficiaries, total budget) ...... 153 Table 4.5: Development of the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) program over time (number of beneficiaries, total budget) ...... 156 Table 5.1: Socio-economic profiles of key informants ...... 182 Table 6.1: Frequency of daily meals of the beneficiaries ...... 197 Table 6.2: Frequency of daily meals of the non-beneficiaries ...... 197 Table 6.3: Menus for daily meals of SSNP beneficiaries ...... 206 Table 6.4: Menus for daily meals of the non-beneficiaries ...... 207 Table 6.5: National actual and recommended food intake for balanced nutrition ...... 211 Table 8.1: The number of beneficiaries of all SSNPs in the research area ..... 310 Table 8.2: Poverty rates of Dimla, Nilphamari, Kurigram and Bangladesh in 2005 and 2010 ...... 311 Table 9.1: Suggested increases to the benefits received under the five programs ...... 337

xvi

List of Figures Figure 1.1: Number of poor in the world (in million in 2005) ...... 4 Figure 4.1: Estimates of the cost of a ‘basic social protection package’ ...... 123

xvii

List of Boxes Box 3.1: Central capabilities ...... 93 Box 4.1: Eligibility criteria for the Old Age Allowance (2013) ...... 142 Box 4.2: Eligibility criteria for the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women (2013) ...... 146 Box 4.3: Eligibility criteria for the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) (2011) ...... 151 Box 4.4: Eligibility criteria for the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) (2004) ... 154 Box 4.5: Program area and beneficiary selection criteria for the SHOUHARDO- II ...... 159 Box 6.1: Food items consumed by Bangladeshi people ...... 205

xviii

List of Maps Map 5.1: Bangladesh Districts map ...... 175 Map 5.2: Nilphamari District map...... 177 Map 5.3: Dimla Upazila map ...... 178

xix

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank BARD Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development BDT Bangladeshi Taka BGMEA Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association BIDS Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies BKMEA Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association BMR Basal Metabolic Rate BNP Bangladesh Nationalist Party BRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CBN Cost of Basic Needs CCT Conditional Cash Transfer CLEEP Comprehensive Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program CPI Corruption Perception Index DAE Department of Agriculture Extension DCI Direct Calorie Intake DFID Department for International Development (UK) DWA Department of Women Affairs EGPP Employment Generation Program for the Poorest FAD Food Availability Decline FANTA Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FCS Food Consumption Score FFP Food for Peace FFW Food for Work FGD Focus Group Discussion GDP Gross Domestic Product

GFSI Global Food Security Index GHI Global Hunger Index GoB Government of Bangladesh GR Gratuitous Relief HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score HFIAS Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale HIES Household Income and Expenditure Survey ID Identity IDS Institute of Development Studies IEG Independent Evaluation Group (of the World Bank) IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IGS Institute of Governance Studies IGVGD Income Generation for Vulnerable Group Development ILO International Labour Organization IMF International Monetary Fund IRRI International Rice Research Institute JSKS Jhanjira Samaj Kallyan Sangstha LGD Local Government Division LSMS Living Standards Measurement Study LSRO Life Sciences Research Office MDG Millennium Development Goals MoFDM Ministry of Food and Disaster Management MoSW Ministry of Social Welfare MoWCA Ministry of Women and Children Affairs MP Member of Parliament MYAP Multi-Year Assistance Program NGO Non-governmental Organisation OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OMS Open Market Sale PAL Physical Activity Level PEP Poor and Extreme Poor

xxi

PFDS Public Food Distribution System PM2A Preventing Malnutrition in Under 2s Approach PNGOs Partner Non-Governmental Organisations PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal RDA Rural Development Academy RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal SHOUHARDO Strengthening Household Ability to Respond to Development Opportunities SPI Social Protection Index SPRC Social Policy Research Centre SSNP Social Safety Net Program TA Thematic Analysis TR Test Relief UKAID United Kingdom Agency for International Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNO Upazila Nirbahi (executive) Officer UNSW University of New South Wales UP Union Parishad (Council) USAID United States Agency for International Development VGD Vulnerable Group Development VGF Vulnerable Group Feeding WFP World Food Programme

xxii

Glossary of Bangla Terms

Aloo bhaji: Potato fry

Aman: A variety of rice grown in the winter season

Atta: Flour

Beel: Open water body

Char, Charland: A tract of land permanently or seasonally surrounded by river water

Chaul bhaja: Rice fried in a traditional way, very negligible food item

Dal: Pulses/lentils

Eid: The two biggest Muslim festivals

Fitrah: A religious levy binding every solvent Muslim family to pay to any poor person before Eid-ul-Fitr. Rate of Fitrah per person is fixed according to the prevailing price of 1.75kg of wheat, by the religious leaders before Eid-ul- Fitr

Gur: Molasses (juice of sugarcane, date-palm, etc. in the crystallised form)

Haor: Large bowl-shaped depression that receives runoff surface river water, such that it becomes a very extensive water body during a monsoon. Haor basins dry up post- monsoon while beel basins do not. Haor basins are found primarily in North-east and North-central Bangladesh

Kartik: A month of Bangla Calendar (October-November)

Kaun: Millet, an inferior and imperfect cheap substitute for rice or wheat flour

xxiii

Kheshari: Bangla name of a variety of pulse

Lungi: Men’s traditional dress

Madrasah: Muslim educational institution specialising in the teaching of Islamic studies and Arabic; some madrasah teach the national curriculum in addition to Islamic studies

Masoor: Bangla name of a variety of pulse

Monga: A seasonal hunger in ecologically vulnerable and economically weak parts of North-western Bangladesh, during mainly in Kartik (October-November)

Nirbahi: Executive

Nobir shikhya korona vikhya, mehonot koro shobe:

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) advised not to beg but to work

Parishad: Council

Qurbani: Muslim Eid, a festival to sacrifice an animal, especially a cow or goat

Ruti: Bread/loaf

Sadaqah: An Islamic term that means voluntary charity, such as a charitable act, charitable giving, or money given in charity with the intention of seeking the pleasure of Allah

Shak: Leafy vegetables

Shari: Women’s traditional dress

Shutki: Dried small fish, a traditional way of eating fish

Tista: A River originating from the Pauhunri Mountain in the Eastern Himalayas which flows through Sikkim and West Bengal of India, and then enters into Bangladesh in between Nilphamari and Lalmonirhat districts. xxiv

Upazila: A unit of local government (rural sub-district)

Ushr: A religious levy on every solvent Muslim family who produces more than 950kg of agricultural product a year

Waqf: Waqf is the locking up of the title of an owned asset from disposition and allotment of its benefits for a specific purpose or purposes. It’s a voluntary charity practised by the Muslims

Zakat: A religious levy binding on every solvent Muslim family who has more than 85 grams of gold, cash, other financial assets or merchandise, or 595 grams of silver for a year.

xxv

Monetary Exchange Rates

1 USD = BDT 79.93 (weighted average exchange rate in 2012-13) (GoB, 2015) 1 USD = BDT 50.31 (weighted average exchange rate in 1999-00) (GoB, 2006) 1 USD = BDT 48.06 (weighted average exchange rate in 1998-99) (GoB, 2006) 1 USD = BDT 45.46 (weighted average exchange rate in 1997-98) (GoB, 2006)

xxvi

Chapter 1: Introduction

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organisation and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. (Article 22 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights) (United Nations, 1948)

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (Article 25 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights) (United Nations, 1948)

1.0 Background As the preceding quotes suggest, access to adequate food is seen as an important component in ensuring the wellbeing and an adequate standard of living of people. Since its declaration as an independent nation in 1971, Bangladesh has been fighting for food security as one step in combating the broader problems of poverty. Soon after its birth, the nation endured a famine that accounted for a loss of 1.5 million lives (Dowlah, 2006, p. 351; Van Schendel, 2009, p. 181). Despite efforts from the government, non- government and international agencies, a huge number of people are still food insecure.

Ensuring food security for all is one of the major challenges that Bangladesh faces today. Despite significant achievements in food grain production and food availability, food security at national, household and individual levels remains a matter of major concern for the Government. (MoFDM, 2008, p. 1)

Hence, the issue of food security arguably occupies the major policy agenda in Bangladesh.

As cited above, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has established the right to a standard of living for every human being, which includes food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other circumstances beyond his/her control. The theme emerging from Article 25, such as food security is the central concern of this research.

Article 22 bestows the responsibility on states to realise these rights through national efforts and international co-operation by ensuring the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for the individual's dignity and the free development of his/her personality. The focus of Article 22 is that the government is responsible for formulating and implementing policy in accordance with the guidelines of this article. This article also underlines the importance of the capabilities of every human being, particularly for economic and social dignity, which is also a central concern of this research.

In accordance with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Constitution of Bangladesh established as a state responsibility for its citizens to have the provision of the basic necessities of life, including

food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care. Article 15(a) of the Constitution states:

It shall be a fundamental responsibility of the State to attain, through planned economic growth, a constant increase of productive forces and a steady improvement in the material and cultural standard of living of the people, with a view to securing to its citizens the provision of the basic necessities of life, including food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care. (GoB, 1999)

To realise the constitutional obligation to ensure the right to a standard of living, governments of Bangladesh have successively initiated different types of social safety net programs (SSNPs) over the last four decades. However, despite the constitutional obligation, and the policy and programs formulated and implemented by the governments to provide the basic necessities of life including food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care, the number of poor people in Bangladesh in 2010 stood at 51.8 million or 31.5% of the total population (BBS, 2011) and was larger than most other countries. In numerical terms, in 2005 Bangladesh had the fourth largest poor population of any country after India, China and Nigeria (see Figure 1.1) (Chandy & Gertz, 2011).

Figure 1.1: Number of poor in the world (in million in 2005)

Source: Chandy & Gertz, 2011

While the level of poverty was enormous, the food and nutritional insecurity were even more alarming. Mishra and Hossain (2005) noted:

Nearly half of Bangladesh’s children are underweight, making it one of

the most severe cases of malnutrition in the world. While Bangladesh now has been able to produce more food than it had done in the past thirty years, almost half of the Bangladeshi people are still far from being food secure. (Mishra & Hossain, 2005, p. 1)

According to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), 17.6% of the population lacks the resources to acquire adequate food (BBS, 2011). The total number of people undernourished in 2009-11 in Bangladesh was 26 million (FAO, IFAD, & WFP, 2014). Moreover, intra-household food distribution is often unequal in Bangladesh. In particular, women and children often suffer from inequalities in intra-household food distribution (Amin & Farid, 2005). The above discussion reflects the concerns by the International Labour Organization (ILO) that reported that 80% of world population still did not have access to any SSNPs and millions of children under five die every year because they have no access to adequate healthcare and food:

But almost 60 years [68 years] after its [The Universal Declaration of Human Rights] adoption, these rights remain a dream for 80% of the global population, who are still without access to social security or an adequate standard of living. We know that to many, even a basic set of benefits could make the difference between a liveable and a miserable life, often between life and premature death. Millions of children under five die every year because they have no access to adequate healthcare and there is no income to secure their food. (ILO, 2008, p. 1)

In this context, the role of the SSNPs to ensure food security of poor people and to enhance empowerment of beneficiaries, particularly women, is considered as an overarching policy concern in Bangladesh. 5

Although ‘poverty’ and ‘food insecurity’ theoretically are not interchangeable, some writers (Shahabuddin, 2010; WFP, 2002) in Bangladesh have conceptualised ‘poverty’ synonymously with ‘hunger’ and ‘malnutrition’. Citing BBS (2001), the World Food Programme argued:

Poverty problems are massive in Bangladesh. Approximately 44 percent of population fall below the absolute poverty line of 2,122 kilo calorie per day. Twenty percent (about 25 million people) consume less than 1,805 kilo calorie per day. Hence, poverty in Bangladesh is very much synonymous with hunger and malnutrition. (WFP, 2002, p. 3)

‘Poverty’ does not have a single meaning; similarly there are many ways to define ‘food (in)security’. The conceptual issues of ‘poverty’ and ‘food (in)security’ are discussed in Chapter 2. However, the definition of ‘food security’ given by the World Food Summit 1996 will be used in this research: “Food security exists when all people at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 2010, p. 8).

There is, however, no easy way of measuring food security; it is a complex concept determined by the interaction of a broad range of agro-ecological, environmental, socio-economic, political and biological factors (Kryger, Thomsen, Whyte, & Dissing, 2010). To clarify the concept of food security, four important dimensions are identified by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): (i) availability of adequate food; (ii) economic and physical access to food; (iii) food utilisation (nutritional security); and (iv) stability over time (FAO, IFAD, & WFP, 2013, p. 50). This thesis discusses 6

the availability and nutritional dimensions of food security. However, the predominant focus of this thesis is on the second of these dimensions – access to food, with a particular focus on rural Bangladesh.

1.1 Statement of the problem There are many policies and programs in place to address food security in Bangladesh. However, drawing on personal diverse work experience at both the field and policy levels, as well as a literature review, the researcher concluded that people who are experiencing food insecurity, 17.6% of Bangladesh’s population (BBS, 2011), have no heard voice in the policy process and the programs devised to support them. They are excluded from the policy formulation and program management. This exclusion raised questions for the researcher about how people themselves saw food security and the possible strategies to address it. These questions inspired him to hear the poor people's voices and to understand the issues relating to food security from their point of view. Therefore, this research has investigated the perceived impacts of selected SSNPs on food security and other aspects (such as women’s empowerment, increase in income and poverty reduction, and medical care) of the lives of people who experience food insecurity.

1.1.1 The importance of food security The availability of an adequate food supply is one of the four dimensions of food security, and is the precondition to ensure food security for the citizens of a nation. It can be achieved either by increasing domestic food production or by importing food from other countries. If a country produces its required amount of food, it is considered to be a food self-sufficient country. Clay, Jones, Rahman, and Shahabuddin (1989, p. 2) explained that the notion of food self-sufficiency is defined in a number of ways. One conception of self- sufficiency is the situation of autarky, in which all imports and exports are 7

ruled out and the market-determined demand is met from domestic production. The other conception of self-sufficiency implies a level of production which meets not only the market-related effective demand, but also the nutritional requirements of the population. Again, while some definitions of food self-sufficiency imply self-sufficiency of food grains, others relate to self-sufficiency of all or a broad range of food items. Yet another definition can be related to “food self-reliance”, in which food imports such as wheat can be paid for by producing and exporting other high-value agricultural commodities. Clay, Jones, Rahman, and Shahabuddin (1989) argued that in Bangladesh, food self-sufficiency has usually been understood as autarky in food grains (effectively rice and, to a lesser extent, wheat), and the main aim of government policy has been to increase food grain production as quickly as possible.

Bangladesh only attained self-sufficiency in food production in 1999-2000, with a gross production of rice and wheat of 24.9 million metric tons which marginally met the country’s requirement of 21.4 million metric tons for the population of 129 million, based on a 453.6 gram per capita per day cereal requirement (Rahman, Hoque, & Talukder, 2005). Prior to this, overall production and the availability of food in Bangladesh were insufficient to meet the population’s needs. In 1971-72, the food production of the country (both rice and wheat) was 10.5 million metric tons (Rahman, Hoque, & Talukder, 2005). In the 1970s, 70% of the population were under the food consumption poverty line1 (Mishra & Hossain, 2005). Per capita availability of cereals (rice and wheat) increased from 374 gram/day in 1994-95 to 464 gram/day in 2004-05. The availability of potato, fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs

1 The Food consumption poverty line is defined as a state where a person's daily calorie intake is lower than 2122 kilo calorie (discussed more in Chapter 2). 8

has also increased, while availability of pulses and oilseeds has remained stagnant or declined during this period (Rahman & Khan, 2005).

Thus it took Bangladesh almost 35 years, post-independence, to attain the standard per capita cereal requirement. Recent statistics show that Bangladesh has remained a food self-sufficient country. In 2005-06 the country’s total food crop demand was 23 million metric tons and total food crop production (net) was 24.6 million metric tons (BBS, 2007b). In the same year, the total (government and private) food grain imports were 2.6 million metric tons.2 In 2009-10, the total food grain production (major three crops of rice, wheat and maize) was 34.1 million metric tons and total food grain imports were 3.5 million metric tons (GoB, 2011a). In 2012-13 the total food crop (major three crops of rice, wheat and maize) production was 36.6 million metric tons.3 These statistics show that, in terms of availability of food at the national level, Bangladesh is now a self-sufficient country.

However, food availability at the national level does not necessarily guarantee food security at the household or individual level. Thus, overall production or availability of food grain may be a poor indicator of what vulnerable groups in the population can actually acquire. Despite the growth in food production and its availability, food insecurity is still a major problem in Bangladesh mainly because of the lack of purchasing power and thus access

2 Source: Official Website of the Food Division, Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh http://www.fd.gov.bd/English/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=60:import

3 Source: Official website of the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh http://moa.portal.gov.bd/site/page/4fb627c0-d806-4a7e-a1cd- b67d4bc85159/Bangladesh-Agriculture-at-a-Glance

to food, especially for the extremely poor community (Amin & Farid, 2005). A major portion of the rural population is landless, and as labourers they often depend on casual earnings for their livelihood (Amin & Farid, 2005). Crisis in access to food, in the sense that people lack sufficient purchasing power to buy food, is the main obstacle to achieving food security (WFP, 2002; World Bank, 1986). Many poor and vulnerable households do not have food security because they are unable to afford a minimum basket of food items through their own food production, cash income, market purchases, or other resources necessary to acquire safe and nutritious food (MoFDM, 2008). Thus, ‘poverty’ and ‘food insecurity’ are closely linked.

The main problems of access to food relate to lack of access to agricultural land or non-agricultural employment, lack of purchasing power, seasonality of the labour market, spatial dimensions, and market access and market functionality including the gender dimension (WFP, 2002). Due to the seasonal variation in agricultural employment and limited employment opportunities in the non-farm sector, millions of people suffer from chronic and transitory food insecurity (MoFDM, 2008). These concepts related to food security will be discussed further in Chapter 2.

As discussed above, although the availability of food on the market is no longer a major problem, access to food continues to be a factor in poverty- stricken rural Bangladesh. Hence, poverty in Bangladesh is very much synonymous with hunger and malnutrition (Shahabuddin, 2010). In this situation, access to food by people who lack the necessary purchasing power needs to be ensured by the government (Chowdhury & Del Ninno, 1998). Lack of access to agricultural land and non-agricultural employment, as well as levels of education and gender, are the main determinants of poverty in

rural areas. Moreover, poor governance, such as lack of transparency, coordination, monitoring and supervision (Mozumder, Islam, Alam, & Rahman, 2009), and corruption (BARD, 2012; Mannan, 2010; Rahman & Choudhury, 2012) in management of SSNPs, also limits the access to food for the most vulnerable sections of the poor.

Adequate food availability at the household level does not necessarily mean that all members of the household enjoy access to sufficient food. Considerable intra-household disparity and discrimination persists in food consumption. Chowdhury (1995) reported that access to food within households varies substantially according to individual characteristics, such as age and gender. Mothers and young children are particularly vulnerable. Chowdhury (1995) further argued that more insights into the intra-household distribution of food in Bangladesh and the role of different family members in accessing food are needed. Rao (2007) argued that despite remarkable improvements in food security over the last few decades, nutritional outcomes have failed to keep pace particularly for women and children. The findings of Mishra and Hossain (2005) also confirmed that girls and women in Bangladesh are overwhelmingly more malnourished than boys and men. They noted that in the 1–4 year age group, female mortality was about one- third higher than male mortality.

From the above discussion it is noted that, although Bangladesh had attained overall food self-sufficiency in 1999-2000, a large number of poor people still do not have access to sufficient amounts of food. The literature shows that the lack of purchasing power and intra-household discrimination are the two major reasons for not having sufficient food for all members of a poor household. Poverty is the main cause of this lack of purchasing power.

1.1.2 Poverty trends in Bangladesh As discussed in the previous section, the measurement of poverty is a significant policy issue in Bangladesh. Two approaches are generally used for measuring the incidence of poverty: the direct calorie intake (DCI) method and the cost of basic needs (CBN) method (the two methods are explained in more detail in Chapter 2). The BBS has estimated the extent of poverty using the DCI method through its successive Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (HIES) up to 2000. From 1995-96, the BBS used the CBN method as the standard method for estimating the incidence of poverty. In 2005 the BBS used both the DCI and the CBN method, whilst in 2010 the BBS went back to using only the CBN method to estimate the incidence of poverty. The BBS (2007a, p. 55) argued that the CBN method is the standard method for estimating the incidence of poverty and is recommended by the World Bank. They reported that this methodology is used by the planners, policy makers as well as international agencies.

Available statistics show that Bangladesh has significantly reduced its incidence of poverty during the last four decades. Table 1.1 shows the gradual development of poverty reduction from 1988-89 to 2010 (according to both the DCI method and the CBN method).

Table 1.1: Trends of poverty in Bangladesh

DCI Method CBN Method Year n (million) % n (million) % 1988-89 49.7 47.7 No data No data 1991-92 51.6 47.5 63.1 56.6 1995-96 55.3 47.5 61.4 50.1 2000 55.8 44.3 61.7 48.9 2005 56.0 40.4 55.5 40.0 2010 No data No data 51.8 31.5 Sources: Author’s calculation from: 1. Bangladesh Economic Review 2010, Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh ; 2. Report on Household Income & Expenditure Survey 2010, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh ; and 3. Report of the Household Income & Expenditure Survey 2005, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

Table 1.1 demonstrates that over the last two decades the poverty rate has declined from 47.7% in 1988-89 to 40.4% in 2005 according to the DCI method. However, the total number of poor people increased until 2005 due to population growth. In 1988-89 the total poor population was 49.7 million, which then stood at 51.6, 55.3, 55.8 and 56.0 million in 1991-92, 1995-96, 2000 and 2005 respectively. On the other hand, according to the CBN method, the total number of poor people decreased from 63.1 million in 1991- 92 to 51.8 million in 2010 (BBS, 2007a, 2011; GoB, 2011a).

Along with poverty alleviation, Bangladesh has achieved significant progress in areas of development such as family planning, women’s empowerment, education, and human resource development (Tovey, 2005; United Nations, 1996). Numerous government and non-government development organisations have played an important role in these achievements.

Nowadays, hundreds of development organisations are working to improve the standard of living of the poor. With the activity of all the different government and non-government organisations (NGOs), it is expected that the majority of the poor and marginally poor people in Bangladesh would be receiving assistance to raise their standard of living.

However, there is evidence that these development opportunities have failed to reach the poorest of the poor. Mannan (2010) argued:

It may, however, be mentioned that the benefits of development and growth do not always accrue to those who are below the poverty line. In many instances, there will continue to be large pockets of the very poor that cannot benefit from various development activities initiated by the government. (Mannan, 2010, p. 1)

This is especially true for the North-west districts of Bangladesh. The districts of Nilphamari, Kurigram, Rangpur, Panchagarh, Lalmonirhat and Gaibandha are particularly vulnerable. The poverty maps (see Appendices 4, 5, 11 and 12), based on the Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (HIES) 2005 and 2010, jointly prepared by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, the World Bank, and the United Nations World Food Programme, show the poverty rates which are given in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2: Poverty rate of Northern districts of Bangladesh

HIES 2005 (1) HIES 2010 (2) Name of districts Upper Line Lower Line Upper Line Lower Line % % % % Nilphamari 70.2 55.0 34.8 18.8 Kurigram 68.2 52.0 63.7 44.3 Rangpur 61.9 45.7 46.2 30.1 Panchagarh 55.9 38.9 26.7 12.3 Lalmonirhat 53.2 33.6 34.5 16.8 Gaibandha 52.5 35.6 48.0 30.3 National Average 40.0 25.1 31.5 17.6 Sources: 1. Report of the Household Income & Expenditure Survey 2005, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh; 2. Report on Household Income & Expenditure Survey 2010, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

Table 1.2 indicates that in 2005, the poverty rates of all the Northern districts were far more than the national average, with Nilphamari and Kurigram being close to twice the national average. On the other hand, by 2010 the poverty rates of Nilphamari, Panchagarh and Lalmonirhat districts had fallen dramatically which has not happened to the same extent in the other districts. This issue will be further discussed in Chapter 8. The poverty situation is intensified further in these districts during the months of October and November. Every year in those months the monga4 situation captures the headlines of the national and international media. Even the recent micro-

4 Monga is a seasonal food insecurity in ecologically vulnerable and economically weak parts of North-western, Bangladesh, primarily caused by an employment and income deficit before aman (a variety of rice grown in the winter season) is harvested. It mainly affects those rural poor, who have an undiversified income that is directly based on agriculture (Zug, 2006, p. 2). 15

credit programs have failed to benefit the poorest (Develtere & Huybrechts, 2005; Hulme & Mosley, 1996; Karim, 1999; Mahmud, 2009). All these findings clearly indicate that despite massive development efforts over decades, the poorest of the poor class in Bangladesh society remains as vulnerable as they were in the past (Islam, 2009). Thus it is important to ask why this has happened.

The notion of an equilibrium of poverty has been suggested as a concept which captures the tendency of poverty initiatives to fail to change the circumstances of the poorest citizens. Galbraith (2000), in his analysis of ‘mass poverty’ in South Asia, namely Pakistan and India, argued that there exists an 'equilibrium of poverty' in developing societies and the poor are incorporated into this equilibrium. Some of them are incorporated because they lack the motivation needed for escaping from it, and others are included because they tried to escape but failed due to unfavourable conditions in the society and became frustrated. Even if they could have gained some improvements in their income, opposing forces active in society pushed them into the previous or a new level of equilibrium again. After decades of development operation, research findings (Ahmed, 2004; Develtere & Huybrechts, 2005; Galasso, 2000; Mahmud, 2009; Mannan, 2010; Masud‐All‐Kamal & Saha, 2014; Sen & Hulme, 2006) confirmed that the majority of the poorest people are excluded from the poverty alleviation programs including social safety nets. In particular the extremely poor are bypassed.

In contrast, Mannan (2010) argued that in all the SSNPs5 he studied, some ineligible candidates have been chosen, while some of the most eligible candidates have been excluded. His study revealed that some of the most deserving households were not covered by the programs, due to nepotism and political pressure. He argued that this is a major weakness of the safety net programs, and this deserves more detailed attention by policy makers and program managers. In another study, Ahmed (2004, p. 31) found that almost 46.9% of beneficiaries of the Primary Education Stipend Project (PESP) are non-poor and incorrectly included in the program. The World Bank (2006, p. 22) noted that “[t]here is evidence that programs are captured by elite members in the community who select beneficiaries and can crowd out voiceless members of the community, limiting the pro-poor capability of these interventions”. Sen and Hulme (2006, p. 147) corroborated the earlier findings, revealing that “the general finding from several studies is that the extreme poor on average participate much less than their share in the population”.

There are instances where some people are victims of two-fold vulnerabilities: one as a poor person and another as a woman, widow or child. Wignaraja (1990) argued that the poor women in South Asia suffer from “a double burden” in being women and poor at the same time. “It is now well established that poor women have the least access to basic needs, such as food, health and education, both within the family and without” (Wignaraja, 1990, p. 19). Galasso (2000) found that benefits are less likely to reach those who come from female headed, widowed or landless families.

5 He studied the Primary Education Stipend Project (PESP), the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ deserted Destitute Women, the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) and the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF). 17

1.1.3 Social safety nets as a tool of combating poverty This research aims at exploring the perceived impacts of the selected social safety net programs (SSNPs) on food security and other aspects of rural poor people’s lives. In order to address poverty, particularly the food security of the poorest populations, consecutive governments of Bangladesh have initiated poverty reduction interventions in the form of SSNPs to protect those missed by the poverty reduction initiatives.

Mannan (2010) defines social safety nets as:

Safety nets are formal and informal ways of protecting people from destitution. Formal safety nets include various transfer programs designed to play both a redistributive and risk reduction role. The traditional role of safety nets is to redistribute income and resources to the needy in society, so that the impact of poverty is reduced. A more recently identified role of safety nets is to help protect individuals, households and communities against income and consumption risks. (Mannan, 2010, p. 1)

The different conceptual aspects of social safety nets will be discussed further in Chapter 4.

Bangladesh has a large number of SSNPs with modest spending, which addresses various forms of risk and vulnerability, and attempts to reduce poverty through direct transfer of resources to the poor. The exact number of SSNP fluctuates, as new programs are added and old programs dropped or suspended at regular intervals (Morshed, 2009). Almost all ministries or agencies are pursuing some work directly or indirectly which contribute to poverty alleviation or add to the wellbeing and empowerment of the poor –

these can be categorised broadly as social safety net initiatives. The Ministry of Social Welfare (MoSW), the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs (MoWCA), the Ministry of Food and Disaster Management (MoFDM), and the Local Government Division (LGD) are the four key agencies that are involved in most of these initiatives. Programs rely on cash transfers or food aid. Some of them are conditional while most of these programs are unconditional.6

During the last three decades, the governments have been pursuing a number of safety net programs. The major interventions offered by the governments are (GoB, 2009):

• Social Safety Net Programs (SSNP) • Open Market Sales (OMS) • Food For Work (FFW) programs • Test Relief (TR) • Gratuitous Relief (GR) • Food Aid to Chittagong Hill Tracts area people • Food Subsidies, and • Employment in Char7 Areas.

However, the combined coverage of the SSNPs is not large. Ahmed (2007) noted that among the bottom 10% of the population the coverage was only 23%, whilst for targeted programs it was approximately 16%. Also, coverage in urban areas was very poor, with 5% SSNP membership compared to 15%

6 Conditional SSNPs are either in exchange of some labour (the Food for Work (FFW), and the Test Relief (TR) or a nominal or subsidised price (the Open Market Sales (OMS), but unconditional SSNPs are free of cost (the Old Age Allowance, the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF). 7 Char is a tract of land permanently or seasonally surrounded by river water. 19

of rural households. He estimated that the overall level of coverage stood at only four to five million, equivalent to 10% of the poor. He argued that in fact only around 6–7% of the poor are actually covered after accounting for ‘leakage’, i.e. the fraction of program benefits which flow to those who actually do not need assistance (Sumarto & Suryahadi, 2001, p. 12), and targeting errors, i.e. some of the program recipients are not poor.

The total number of SSNPs currently in operation in the country is unclear. As discussed in detail in Chapter 2 (Section 2.8), different sources cite different numbers of SSNPs. A list of the 145 SSNPs funded by the Finance Division of the Ministry of Finance and their coverage and budget allocation for 2014- 15 financial year are shown in Appendix 1; a description of the SSNPs in Bangladesh, their historical background and evolution are discussed in Chapter 4.

The following five SSNPs have been selected in this research:

1. The Old Age Allowance 2. The Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women 3. The Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) 4. The Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) 5. The Strengthening Household Ability to Respond to Development Opportunities-II (SHOUHARDO-II)

These five programs have been selected because of the relevance of their objectives to food security and the goal of empowering the economic and social status of the beneficiaries, as well as their importance and scale (the rationale for selection of these five programs is further discussed in Chapter 4). The salient features of the selected five programs are given in Table 1.3. 20

Table 1.3: Main features of five selected SSNPs in Bangladesh

Name of Start Main objectives What it delivers program Year 1. Old Age 1997 Remove insecurity of food Cash benefit of BDT 300 Allowance and health of poor elders (USD 3.75) per month paid every through financial support quarter for life long 2. Allowances for 1998 Improve the economic and Cash benefit of BDT 300 Widow and social conditions of the poor (USD 3.75) per month paid every Husbands’ widowed and husband- quarter until death or remarriage Deserted deserted destitute women Destitute Women 3.Vulnerable 1975 Increase the self-reliance of Rice/wheat ration of 30 kg per Group the most disadvantaged month for 24 months tenure in a life Development women time (worth approximately BDT (VGD) 21,600 [USD 270.24]) 4. Vulnerable 1975 Support the extreme poor 10 kg of wheat or rice per Group Feeding mitigating the household per month for 3 months (VGF) consequences of disasters during or after a natural disaster like floods, cyclones, and [worth approximately BDT 900 other calamities (USD 11.26)] 5.Strengthening 2010 Transform the lives of Poor Component 1:Build capacity by Household Ability and Extreme Poor (PEP) providing various livelihood-based to Respond to households in 11 of the training and BDT 3000 Development poorest and most (USD 37.53) one off grant Opportunities-II marginalised districts in Component 2: A monthly food (SHOUHARDO- Bangladesh by reducing rationing of 10 kg of wheat, 1 kg of II) their vulnerabilities to food vegetable oil and ½ kg of lentils insecurity [worth approximately BDT 450 (USD 5.63)] for pregnant and lactating women with children under 2 years Source: (Mannan, 2010) and interview with a senior official of the SHOUHARDO-II Program

According to Table 1.3, the VGD and the VGF programs deliver food grain to the beneficiaries and the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women deliver a small amount of cash 21

benefit. The SHOUHARDO-II program delivers different benefits for each component, but it provides both cash and in-kind benefits. The Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women deliver BDT 300 (USD 3.75) per month. This meagre amount of benefit, given to the beneficiaries who are the poorest people in the country, gives rise to the question of whether or not these SSNPs alone are capable of ensuring food security for those in extreme poverty, which is for most of the SSNPs’ their prime objective. In part, the current research is concerned with how beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries view the impact of SSNPs on their lives.

1.1.4 Ranking of Bangladesh in terms of social protection, hunger and food security The overall impacts of the SSNPs will be discussed in Chapter 4. In this section, the status of SSNPs in Bangladesh as well as the hunger and food security index of some Asian countries will be discussed. In order to help governments monitor their progress on social protection, as well as to evaluate success in expanding coverage to intended beneficiaries and providing them with adequate benefits, the Asian Development Bank (ADB, 2013) assessed 35 Asian and Pacific countries' social protection status and in 2013 published a social protection index8 (SPI). Among the South Asian countries Bangladesh stood only above Bhutan in the SPI, ranking 28th in the list with an SPI of 0.043. This compares to: China, SPI 0.139 (12th); Sri Lanka, 0.121 (15th); Nepal, 0.068 (20th); India, 0.051 (23rd); and Pakistan, 0.047 (24th). This index shows that Bangladesh performs poorly in terms of providing social assistance to its poor citizens.

8 The SPI is a relatively simple indicator that divides total expenditure on social protection by the total number of intended beneficiaries of all social protection programs. The higher this index number, the better a country’s performance. 22

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Concern Worldwide, and Welthungerhilfe9 jointly publish the Global Hunger Index (GHI)10 each year. IFPRI, Concern Worldwide, and Welthungerhilfe (2014) reported that according to the 2014 GHI, out of 76 countries Bangladesh's position was 57 along with Pakistan. The GHI development of some Asian countries from 1990 to 2014 is shown in Table 1.4.

Table 1.4: Global Hunger Index (GHI)

Country 1990 GHI 1995 GHI 2000 GHI 2005 GHI 2014 GHI Rank 2014 China 13.6 10.7 8.5 6.8 5.4 5 Sri Lanka 22.2 20.2 17.6 16.8 15.1 39 Nepal 28.4 26.8 25.2 22.2 16.4 44 India 31.2 26.9 25.5 24.2 17.8 55 Bangladesh 36.6 34.4 24.0 19.8 19.1 57 Pakistan 26.7 23.3 22.1 21.0 19.1 57 Source: 2014 Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hidden Hunger (IFPRI, Concern Worldwide, & Welthungerhilfe, 2014)

Table 1.4 indicates a notable development in reducing hunger in Bangladesh over the last 25 years. However, Bangladesh is still ranked 57 out of 76 countries, indicating that there is still a significant amount of work to be done around the policy issue of food security in Bangladesh.

9 Welthungerhilfe is a German non-denominational and politically independent, non-profit- making and non-governmental aid agency working in the field of development cooperation and emergency relief aid. 10 The Global Hunger Index is a tool designed to comprehensively measure and track hunger globally and by region and country. It highlights successes and failures in hunger reduction and provides insights into the drivers of hunger and nutrition insecurity. 23

The Economist Intelligence Unit (2014) showed that according to the Global Food Security Index (GFSI)11 2014, Bangladesh ranked 88 out of 109 countries. The GFSI of some Asian countries is given in Table 1.5.

Table 1.5: Global Food Security Index 2014

Country Score/100 Rank China 62.2 42 Sri Lanka 51.7 60 India 48.3 69 Pakistan 43.6 77 Nepal 37.7 85 Bangladesh 36.3 88 Source: The Global Food Security Index 2014 (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2014).

A rank of 88 out of 109 countries in the GFSI also demonstrates the underperformance in ensuring food security of the poor citizens of Bangladesh.

Table 1.4 and Table 1.5 suggest that countries like Nepal, India and Sri Lanka performed better than Bangladesh. Despite the efforts by government and non-government organisations (NGOs) to provide cash or in-kind support to the poor particularly aimed at ensuring food security, food insecurity and hunger still remains at an alarming rate in Bangladesh. In particular, the very poorest segment of the population, including old aged, widows, children, and people from Northern districts of Bangladesh, are still vulnerable.

11 The Global Food Security Index (GFSI) is a comprehensive assessment of the drivers of food security designed by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The index analyses the issue across three internationally designated dimensions: affordability, availability and utilisation – the last of which the Economist Intelligence Unit calls “quality and safety”. 24

1.1.5 Why this research While the information provided above reveals that there are significant numbers of very poor people not having food security in Bangladesh, there were few studies undertaken where the voices and perceptions of this group were central to the research (further discussed in Chapter 2). As a result, an empirical study in which very poor people are central is required. This is one of the gaps in the current literature that this thesis will address. As the middle managers and policy level officials play important roles in the formulation of policy, as well as the implementation and monitoring of programs designed for the poor their views are also important in this regard. So, in this study their views are treated as complementary to poor people’s perceptions.

A thorough study on the perceived impacts of social safety net interventions on food security of the rural poor in one of the poverty-stricken districts of Bangladesh may uncover policy and practice issues that may help make SSNPs operate in a more effective and comprehensive way. Alternatively, if poor people receiving current benefits find that their needs are adequately addressed, this research may provide guidance in the development of future interventions.

According to the FAO (2004), both social safety nets and food safety nets seek to ensure a minimum level of wellbeing, a minimum level of nutrition, or help households manage risk. Both of these programs must form an integral part of a larger policy of sustainable economic development which can provide jobs and economic opportunity. However, most of the studies (discussed in Section 4.4) in Bangladesh to assess the impacts or efficacy of the SSNPs on food security have been done on food safety nets, not social safety nets. In this research the researcher studied both programs, so that an

understanding between the two sets of SSNPs can reveal some policy issues for the government.

Although Bangladesh has been using SSNPs for over four decades, so far only relatively few micro-level studies have been undertaken to examine the perceived impact of the programs on food security and analyse the perceptions of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries regarding the intervention. The experiences of the most vulnerable groups of people, who are generally excluded from any of the programs’ policy formulation or implementation process, have not been explored widely. Thus, a study aiming to understand the lived experience of poor people (both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) at the grass-roots level of the interventions merits special attention.

Most of the studies, conducted in relation to food security and SSNPs, have used a quantitative approach; all of them have investigated mainly the program design, coverage, targeting of beneficiaries, leakages, and program management. The previous qualitative studies have mainly focused on program managers and local government officials. The significance and originality of the present research is that it captures the perceived impacts of five important SSNPs using qualitative methods by comparing the experiences of two groups of people. One group consists of people who are beneficiaries of the selected SSNPs, whilst the other consists of those who are poor but not included in any SSNP.

1.2 Research aims and questions

1.2.1 The aims of the research In relation to the above discussion, the present study focuses on the following five important SSNPs: (i) the Old Age Allowance, (ii) the Allowances for 26

Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, (iii) the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD), (iv) the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF), and (v) the Strengthening Household Ability to Respond to Development Opportunities-II (SHOUHARDO-II). The research investigates the perceived impacts of the SSNPs on ensuring food security (with particular attention on access to food), and some other aspects of the lives of the rural poor living in one of the poorest districts (Nilphamari) of Bangladesh.

The specific objectives of the research are to:

(a) Better understand the lived experiences of a group of people in poverty who either receive or do not receive any social safety net (b) Assess the perceived impacts of the selected SSNPs on ensuring food security and some other aspects of their lives, such as women’s empowerment, increases in income and poverty reduction, improving dignity, and medical care of the beneficiaries (c) Explore the perceived strengths and weaknesses of SSNPs as a means to ensure food security of the beneficiaries (d) Explore the implications of current perceptions of SSNPs by participants for policy and practice.

1.2.2 Research questions To attain these research-aims the research questions were:

1. What are the perceptions of participants about the impact of the selected SSNPs on their food security? 2. How do the participants perceive the SSNPs impact on aspects of their lives, in addition to food security? 3. What similarities and differences in perceptions of SSNPs are there between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries? 27

4. What are the implications of the perceptions of the participants for policy and practice in relation to SSNPs?

1.3 Research methods As mentioned above, this research has a particular emphasis on the perceptions and views of the rural poor. The research uses a qualitative approach to collect and analyse data. The researcher has collected the primary data using two specific methods, namely in-depth interviews and focus group discussions (FGD). The ethical considerations, such as anonymity, privacy, dignity and welfare of the respondents have been ensured during data collection, analysis and presentation.

In this research, 22 in-depth interviews were conducted, and 2 focus group discussions (FGD) were arranged. Out of 22 interviewees, 20 were rural poor of whom 10 were beneficiaries of the selected five programs and 10 were non-beneficiaries. The remaining 2 were senior officials of implementing departments of two different programs. Out of 2 focus groups, one was at the local level (13 participants) and another was at the ministry level (5 participants).

The participants in this research (interviewees and focus group members) can be grouped into three major categories. The first category is the key respondents – the rural poor. They comprise two sub-groups: beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. The second category, consisting of the mid-level government officials, representatives from local government agencies, NGOs and bank officials, are also an important part of the research, because the members of these groups select the beneficiaries and implement the programs at the local level. The third category of participants comprises senior officials from the implementing departments and ministries. From their

past and present experiences, the research participants expressed their views and perceptions on the impacts of the selected programs and how the lives of rural poor people could be made better. The first stage of data collection involved gathering the views of the two groups of rural poor people, beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. The second stage involved a focus group discussion to collect the views of the field-level government, local government, NGO and bank officials, who are responsible for selection of beneficiaries, disbursement of benefits and monitoring and overseeing the whole process. Subsequently, the views of two of the senior officials from two different implementing agencies were collected and an FGD was arranged to understand the opinion of policy level officials.

1.4 Structure of the thesis This research examines the perceptions of rural poor people on the impacts of the selected five SSNPs on ensuring food security, women’s empowerment, and some other aspects of their lives. It also investigates their views on how their lives could be improved. In accordance with these aims this thesis is organised into ten chapters, of which Chapters 6 to 9 explore the findings of the research.

Chapter 2 discusses the literature and previous research related to food security and social safety nets. The review covers both national and international perspectives. It also explores the key themes on food security revealed by previous research. The review found that the most vulnerable group of the rural poor community is excluded from each and every stage of policy formulation and program implementation. This also revealed that a limited number of studies explore how far the programs could fulfil the food requirements of the beneficiaries. In other words, whether the glass is full or empty? In the conclusion of this chapter it is argued that discussions about 29

efficacy of food programs would benefit from the perceptions of rural poor people regarding the impacts of SSNPs on their food security and how far the SSNPs are able to address their concerns. This is a gap in the existing literature.

Chapter 3 discusses some of the most important theoretical approaches relevant to the study and explains the two approaches which are used as a framework to understand the poverty and food security issues.

Chapter 4 provides an overview of social safety nets in Bangladesh in general, and the selected five programs in particular, to provide the context of the research. In addition, this chapter provides an overview of international experience on cash or in-kind support. This chapter discusses the historical background and evolution of SSNPs in Bangladesh, the different types of SSNPs, their coverage, their budget allocations and the impacts of the programs on food security and other aspects of life. This chapter describes in detail the selected five programs: the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD), the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) and the Strengthening Household Ability to Respond to Development Opportunities-II (SHOUHARDO-II). The objectives, the selection criteria, the mode of transfer, the amount of benefits, the total coverage, and the total budget of these five programs are discussed in this chapter.

Chapter 5 presents the methodological approaches utilised in the course of undertaking fieldwork and analysing data. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted to collect primary data. This chapter elaborates on the ethical process, the design and procedures, the context of the research area, socio-economic profiles of the respondents, and the data 30

analysis method. Participants were selected using purposive processes according to the requirement of the research objectives. The interviews and FGD data was analysed using thematic analysis.

Chapter 6 examines the food and nutritional status of the households of the beneficiary and non-beneficiary respondents of this research, and discusses themes arising from the analysis in relation to this issue.

Chapter 7 explores the perceptions of the participants of this research regarding the impacts of the five selected programs on ensuring food security and other aspects of rural poor people’s lives. This chapter analyses the insights of the participants on socio-economic impacts of the selected five SSNPs.

Chapter 8 discusses the governance issues related to food security and SSNPs. It also includes the implementation issues faced by the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, and some other issues such as limited coverage, lack of NGO support, sustainability of the programs, integrated safety net policy and participation of the poor in the program management.

Chapter 9 explores the views of the respondents on how their lives can be made better. This chapter discusses the views of the participants in the research about if and how the existing SSNPs might be improved with the aim of ensuring food security for the rural poor.

Chapter 10 sums up the findings and conclusions of this research. This chapter first revisits the research aims and questions, integrating the literature and the major findings and identifying the contribution of this research. It also discusses some limitations of this research. This chapter

offers some directions for further research in the area of food security and SSNPs, and provides some policy guidelines to improve the present systems of SSNPs to improve the lives of the rural poor.

Chapter 2: Food Security and Social Safety Nets: A Literature Review

2.0 Introduction The research described in this thesis is concerned with the experiences of poor people in Bangladesh regarding the perceived impacts of social safety net programs with a particular focus on food security. As discussed in Chapter 1, poverty and food insecurity are linked. In order to identify how they are linked, this chapter reviews the literature on poverty, food security and social safety nets with special reference to Bangladesh. This review aims to (1) clarify some key concepts used in this research; and (2) identify the research gaps from existing literature in the field of food security and social safety nets in Bangladesh.

Section 2.1 discusses the conceptual meanings of ‘poverty’ from different perspectives as well as the tools in use in Bangladesh to measure the incidence of poverty. Section 2.2 provides an overview of the changing definitions of food security and the impacts of these changes on policy related to food security. Section 2.3 explores the evolving process of policy and programs in relation to food issues in Bangladesh. The next section (2.4) investigates the conceptual contribution of Amartya Sen in analysing poverty in general, and hunger and food insecurity in particular. Section 2.5 examines different methodologies for measuring food (in)security commonly used worldwide. The following section (2.6) identifies the subjective or experiential measurement of food security as the most appropriate method to analyse the experiences of the rural poor regarding their food security. Section 2.7 discusses the food security status of Bangladesh. Section 2.8 looks at the food policy of Bangladesh and the implementation status of the policy.

Section 2.9 investigates the conceptual issues (definition, dimensions and indicators) of women’s empowerment. Section 2.10 discusses the conceptual issues of governance as well as the governance and implementation issues related to SSNPs and finally Section 2.11 summarises the literature review and outlines the gaps in the literature which this research intends to address.

2.1 What is poverty? There are controversies both in the definition and measurement of poverty. Laderchi, Saith, and Stewart (2003, p. 243) argued that, “while there is worldwide agreement on poverty reduction as an overriding goal of development policy; there is little agreement on the definition of poverty”. This section will discuss the different concepts of poverty and techniques of measuring poverty from both global and Bangladesh perspectives.

2.1.1 Concepts and measurement techniques of poverty Generally, poverty is understood as a material deprivation or lack of income. However, the concept of poverty has evolved over time and includes multi- dimensional issues. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the concept of poverty was viewed narrowly based on income, subsistence or the maintenance of physical efficiency and consumption. It therefore included concepts such as absolute poverty, basic needs, and relative poverty12, all of which measure human needs in mainly material terms (Serr, 2006). The neo-classical theorists (Solow, 1956; Swan, 1956) also conceptualised poverty in monetary terms, with numerical data measuring consumption, expenditure and income poverty lines.

12 The concepts of ‘absolute poverty’ and ‘relative poverty’ are defined in later part of this section. 34

Townsend (1979), in contrast, argued that poverty was not the lack of income necessary to purchase a basket of goods but rather the lack of resources to participate fully in society that resulted from a variety of resource allocation systems operating in society. Townsend (1993) viewed poverty as involving deprivation. According to him “[p]eople can be said to be deprived if they …fall below standards of living which are attained by a majority of the national population or which are socially accepted or institutionalised (Townsend, 1993, pp. 79-81). Although the definition and measurement of poverty based on consumption, income and expenditure was largely adopted by international organisations in the 1980s, the ‘basic needs approach’ emerged which include the maintenance of physical necessities such as food, shelter and clothing, plus minimal provisions such as basic health care and other social services, sanitary standards, and minimum education (Townsend, 1984). Serr (2006) argued that quantitative poverty lines based on income-based poverty measures omit many of the qualitative factors of poverty, and how poverty is experienced by the poor. Consequently, alternative concepts of poverty such as relative deprivation, the concepts of capability and social exclusion, and self-identification approaches have emerged in poverty debates. Serr (2006) argued that poor people themselves have an enriching and appropriate role to play in the poverty debate which can result in more coherent and relevant definitions of poverty. Against this backdrop, the statement by Novak (1996) is pertinent. He stated:

Heated debate about the conceptual problems of poverty and its measurement among such scientists as Townsend, Piachaud, and Sen (Townsend, 1993) shows that this social science field is far from being without conflict. It was Piachaud (1987) who particularly stressed the question of whether the poor have an “opportunity to choose” at all,

but the problem of which concept is more productive in explaining the incidence of poverty and its rate left this question merely “untouched”. Apart from a lack of material resources, the poor also suffer a lack of opportunity to choose their lifestyle. They have no opportunity to choose whether to eat meat or vegetables, being forced to consume them in insufficient quantity and quality. (Novak, 1996, p. 47)

Novak (1996) further argued that the poor are forced to live a life which lacks various resources. He observed that poverty investigation should focus on the way of life of the poor in terms of social characteristics such as gender, age, education, race, and secondarily the lifestyle and feeling of deprivation. Novak (1996) found that social scientists from non-Western regions productively apply poverty concepts “produced in the West” to specific local conditions but they employ a unique conceptual framework as well. They frequently abandon observation of the incidence of poverty that is strictly limited to the individual level. It is not the individual incapacity to be able to adapt to changes at the macro level alone that should be considered as poverty’s “prime cause”, but these processes themselves. Novak (1996) considered that the poverty study “boom” in western countries was initiated by employing social indicators in measuring poverty as both an economic and a social phenomenon. Novak (1996), further citing Doyal and Gough (1991) and Drewnowski and Scott (1966), argued that this venture was conceptually framed by the basic human needs idea, but this was soon “replaced” by the micro level perspective, reducing poverty simply to the individual experience and situation. Novak (1996, pp. 48-49) also stated that “In contrast to this broadening of the poverty concept perspective, an opposite direction can also be revealed. The “(mal)nutrition” or lack of food approach to poverty is applied particularly in Asia and Africa”.

From the understanding of Novak (1996) on poverty analysis, it can be summarised that poverty issues should be considered from a much broader perspective which includes individual, social and global influences and the issues can only be solved through a holistic approach. It can also be seen that, particularly in Asia and Africa, poverty is understood as lack of food or nutrition which rationalises the importance of discussing food security along with broader issues of poverty in Bangladesh.

Since the 1990s poverty has been conceptualised as a complex and multi- dimensional phenomenon. Placing personal consumption and household income at the top of the pyramid, Tomlinson, Walker, and Williams (2008) included property rights, state-provided commodities, assets, dignity and autonomy at the bottom of the poverty pyramid. They suggested multi- dimensional indicators such as financial strain, material deprivation, social isolation, civic participation, psychological strain and environment as needing to be considered in poverty analysis.

Researchers have used a range of different definitions and measurement techniques of poverty according to their objectives. For example, Amartya Sen thought of poverty in terms of a failure to meet certain basic needs, or a failure to possess certain basic capabilities (discussed in Chapter 3) which he treated as “basic capability failure” (Sen, 1993). He argued that “poverty is an absolute notion in the space of capabilities but very often it will take a relative form in the space of commodities or characteristics” (Sen, 1984, p. 335). Although he recognised that low income is clearly one of the major causes of poverty Sen (1999, p. 87) argued that “poverty must be seen as the deprivation of basic capabilities rather than merely as lowness of income”. He further argued that lack of income can be a principal reason for a person’s

capability deprivation. Qizilbash (1998b, pp. 1-2) suggested that poverty should be thought of in terms of low well-being - meaning poverty involves human lives lacking certain basic prudential values (the sorts of things which make a human life better) which are closely related to basic needs.

Sen (1983) and Kohl (1996) categorised poverty into two broad categories: absolute poverty and relative poverty. Spicker (2007) discussed twelve definitions of poverty in four broad categories: poverty as a material concept, poverty as economic circumstances, poverty as social circumstances, and poverty as a moral judgement. Laderchi, Saith, and Stewart (2003) reviewed four approaches to the definition and measurement of poverty: the monetary, capability, social exclusion, and participatory approaches.

From the above discussion, it is seen that there is the concept of poverty (e.g. absolute or relative), and once decided upon there is then issue of how to measure it, which is where the poverty line comes in. Absolute poverty and relative poverty are defined by Kohl (1996, p. 259) in the following ways: “an absolute poverty line characterised by the amount of resources deemed necessary and sufficient for survival in a given society” and “a relative poverty line defined in relation to some average resources available in that society”. In South Asia, researchers also conceptualise poverty in different ways. Although the main distinction is between absolute and relative poverty, most poverty research and interventions in South Asia use a notion of absolute poverty (Silva & Athukorala, 1996).

2.1.2 Poverty measurement in Bangladesh Like the definition, the techniques of poverty measurement also differ in various literatures and countries. Ravallion and Sen (1996, p. 761) noted that, "debates about the methods of poverty measurement are common; views

differ on how individual welfare should be measured, how poverty lines should be set, and what poverty measures should be used". Ravallion and Sen (1996) argued that Bangladesh provides a good case study in the methodological issues of poverty measurement. As poverty is so high, the measurement of poverty is a significant policy issue for Bangladesh. The key instruments that have been used since poverty measurement was started in 1980 are the food consumption poverty line and the Household Expenditure Survey (HES) conducted by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). However, researchers (Abdullah, 1990; Khan, 1990; Osmani, 1990; Ravallion, 1990) have raised concerns over the accuracy and appropriateness of the surveys. In particular, Ravallion and Sen (1996) raised questions about the comparability of those surveys, the methodologies used in analysing data, and their consistency with other relevant data such as real wages for unskilled labour.

The BBS is the government authority that is given the responsibility to measure the incidence of poverty in Bangladesh. The tools used for measuring poverty have also been changed over time. Two approaches are generally used for measuring the incidence of poverty in Bangladesh: the direct calorie intake (DCI) method and the cost of basic needs (CBN) method. The traditional practice of measuring the prevalence of poverty is the DCI method. In this method, three poverty lines are estimated: (i) Absolute poverty with the threshold of ≤2122 kilo calorie per capita per day; (ii) Hard- core poverty with the threshold of ≤1805 kilo calorie per capita per day; and (iii) Ultra poverty with the threshold of ≤1600 kilo calorie per capita per day (BBS, 2007a, p. 162).

With the CBN method, poverty lines represent the level of per capita expenditure at which the members of a household can be expected to meet their basic needs (comprised of food and non-food consumption). In this method, two poverty lines are estimated: (i) Lower poverty line, and (ii) Upper poverty line. Both poverty lines consider a food poverty line and a non-food poverty line. To calculate the food poverty line a basic food basket (eleven food items cited in Table 6.5) is selected, the quantities in the basket are scaled according to the nutritional requirement of 2,122 kilo calorie per person per day, and the cost of acquiring the basket is calculated. This estimated cost is taken as the food poverty line.

A non-food poverty line is calculated by estimating the cost of consuming non-food items by the households close to the food poverty line. According to the food and non-food poverty lines, the lower poverty line and upper poverty line are calculated. The lower poverty line indicates the extreme poor and the upper poverty line indicates the moderate poor. The extreme poor households are those households whose total expenditures on food and non- food combined are equal to or less than the food poverty line. The upper poverty line is estimated by adding the food and non-food poverty lines. The moderate poor households are those whose total expenditures are equal to or less than the upper poverty line (BBS, 2011, pp. 59-60, 181). According to these methods, people under the lower poverty line can be treated as absolutely food insecure as their total expenditures on food and non-food items combined are equal or less than the food poverty line. However, it can be argued that people under the upper poverty line are not fully food secure because they need to compromise food consumption in a significant level to meet their non-food requirements.

It is seen that, around the world, the concept of poverty and methods of measuring poverty have evolved over time. While in the nineteenth and major part of the twentieth century poverty was considered in material terms (lack of subsistence or income or some basic needs), in the last two decades of the twentieth century and thus far poverty is seen as lack of basic capabilities or empowerment. The tools used in measuring poverty have also been changed over time. Instead of a traditional income and expenditure model, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) has been using multidimensional poverty index which includes health (nutrition and child mortality), education (years of schooling and children enrolled), and standard of living (cooking fuel, toilet, water, floor and assets). In Bangladesh the tools have been used for measurement of incidence of poverty do not include capabilities or empowerment. Rather both the approaches (DCI and CBN) use food intake. Although the CBN approach uses non-food consumptions with food intake it cannot be treated as a multi-dimensional poverty measurement approach. This also shows that in Bangladesh poverty and food insecurity are related with each other.

In this study, the researcher broadly has conceptualised poverty consistent with Sen’s absolute poverty concept in terms of capabilities. However, as the poverty data provided by the BBS is the only source of measuring poverty incidence in Bangladesh and the UNDP also uses the BBS data, this researcher has also used the BBS data to understand the context of poverty in Bangladesh.

2.2 What is food security? Although food security is a pressing issue in Bangladesh, not much is known about how it is experienced by the poorest segment of the population, and what their perspectives might contribute to improve current approaches. A 41

literature search undertaken by the researcher revealed only a limited number of studies (Coates, Wilde, Webb, Rogers, & Houser, 2006; Frongillo, Chowdhury, Ekström, & Naved, 2003; McIntyre, Rondeau, Kirkpatrick, Hatfield, Islam, & Huda, 2011) which examined the experiences of the rural poor regarding food security. However, this literature did not include the impacts of SSNPs on ensuring food security and poor people’s insights about how to make their own lives better.

Like many conceptual issues in global policy, food security is a changing and developing concept. It is often assumed that food security is merely a physical or material issue, but more recent definitions of food security highlight that people are not just physical entities. Rather, human beings are collectively oriented, and create meanings together about their experiences, and these meanings are related to other issues such as gender and culture; food and what it means to people in terms of food security requires a more holistic definition.

2.2.1 Overview of changing definition of food security since the 1970s Though the concept of food security is found in the literature as early as the 1970s, there is no single definition (Smith, Pointing, & Maxwell, 1992, p. 136). For instance, Maxwell and Smith (1992) and Maxwell (1996) cited 32 definitions of food security and insecurity from 1975 to 1991. Smith, Pointing, and Maxwell (1992) further cited as many as 194 definitions of food security from different sources in an annotated bibliography. The literature on food security has spiralled since the 1970s and since then the concept has evolved from concern with national food stocks (availability) in the 1970s to a preoccupation with individual entitlements (access) in the 1980s. By the 1990s, emphasis had shifted towards nutritional value and food preferences.

Maxwell and Smith (1992) argued that in the 1970s, food security studies were mostly concerned with national and global food supplies. In the 1980s, the focus shifted to questions of access to food at household and individual levels. They also argued that this interest had continued in 80% of the literature from the period between 1986 and 1991. Until the World Food Summit 1996, the World Bank’s definition of food security as “access by all people at all times to sufficient food for an active, healthy life” (Devereux, Baulch, Hussein, Shoham, Sida, & Wilcock, 2004 p. 3; World Bank, 1986, p. 1) continued to dominate the literature. The definition of food security determined by the World Food Summit 1996 (see also Chapter 1) entails much more than simple calorific intake and includes important components of quality and reliability, and subjective measurements of cultural preferences. This definition incorporates the fact that institutional structures have an important influence on people’s ability to maintain food security during periods of shock (Cromwell & Slater, 2004). Acknowledging the earlier components of food security – i.e. the availability or food supply and access to nutritious food – the literature of the 2000s was more concerned with food security as a human right, and intra-household food distribution particularly for women and children (FAO, 2006b; Mechlem, 2004; Pinstrup-Andersen, 2009).

Maxwell and Smith (1992, p. 4) discussed four core concepts of food security: (a) sufficiency of food, defined mainly as the calories needed for an active, healthy life; (b) access to food, defined by entitlement to produce, purchase or exchange food or receive it as a gift; (c) security, defined by the balance between vulnerability, risk and insurance; and (d) time, where food insecurity can be chronic, transitory or cyclical. Barrett (2010, p. 825) cited three pillars of food security as availability, access and utilisation, while the FAO (2006a,

p. 1) identified four dimensions of food security as food availability, food access, utilisation and stability. According to the Life Sciences Research Office (LSRO) of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, cited in Bickel, Nord, Price, Hamilton, and Cook (2000, p. 6), food security includes at a minimum: (1) the ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe food, and (2) an assured ability to acquire acceptable food in socially acceptable ways (for example, without resorting to emergency food supplies, scavenging, stealing, or other coping strategies).

Food security can be achieved through four essential components: availability, access, utilisation (effective preparation and consumption of food and the biological capacity of individuals to absorb and utilise nutrients in the food that they eat), and stability (FAO, 2006a; FFSSA, 2004; SARPN, ODI, & FANRPAN, 2005). The interrelations among the components are very important. Stability is as important as access and nutrition levels: dramatic fluctuations in components (for example, availability or prices) can have significant impacts on overall food security status.

However, from the above discussion, it is evident that the concept of food security is complex and there is no clear-cut way of measuring food security of households or individuals. The number of components or dimensions of food security vary from two to four in different studies. After examining the available literature (Bickel, Nord, Price, Hamilton, & Cook, 2000; FAO, 2006a; Maxwell, 1996; Maxwell & Smith, 1992; Smith, Pointing, & Maxwell, 1992) the researcher has identified four core components of food security, namely: (i) availability of adequate food; (ii) access to food; (iii) nutritional security; and (iv) stability in food supplies, i.e. food security at all times. These four components are inherently interrelated; without ensuring all four components,

food security cannot be achieved. As discussed earlier, in the 1970s food security entailed largely a supply side of the food equation. But this definition had some deficiencies, because, accepting that adequate availability is necessary, it can be argued that availability on its own does not ensure universal access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food.

Access is determined by individual or household wellbeing such as poverty, purchasing power, and cultural practice. It depends on food choices open to the person(s), their income, prevailing prices, and formal or informal safety net arrangements through which they can access food. Through the access lens, food security’s close relationship to poverty and to social, economic, and political disenfranchisement comes into clearer focus (Barrett, 2010, p. 825). Again a household or individual’s ability to access adequate food does not necessarily mean food security has been achieved. The distribution of the available food is critical. This can be conceptualised in many ways, such as: distribution from the global to national level, distribution from the national to household level, distribution at the intra-household level, and distribution of various nutrients of a balanced diet for an individual.

Food security also has a temporal dimension: food insecurity is chronic when a population has a long-term inability to acquire sufficient food. Transitory food insecurity can be due to seasonal factors or unexpected external events such as natural disasters. Amin and Farid (2005) stated:

Transitory food insecurity occurs when households face a temporary decline in access to enough food. Transitory food insecurity can be further divided into temporary food insecurity and cyclical or seasonal food insecurity. Temporary food insecurity occurs when sudden and unpredictable shocks, such as drought or flood, affect a household’s 45

entitlements. Famine is the worst form of transitory food insecurity, which can result from one or more causes like flood, drought, crop failure, market failure, and loss of real purchasing power by group of households. … Transitory food insecurity can lead to chronic food insecurity, however, depending on how severe it is and how frequently it occurs. If a household suffers two drought years in a row, and is forced to sell some of its assets to survive, then it may move from a situation of transitory food insecurity to one of chronic food insecurity. (Amin & Farid, 2005, p. 18)

Seasonal food insecurity occurs when there is a regular pattern of inadequate access to food during a particular time. It is argued that, as a result of fluctuations in food prices and wage income, which in turn are determined by the production cycle, food consumption varies according to season (WFP, 2002).

2.2.2 Changing definitions and policy impact As discussed above, the term food security originated in the mid-1970s, when the World Food Conference 1974 defined food security in terms of food supply – that is, assuring the availability and price stability of basic foodstuffs at the international and national level. Since then, the concept of food security has evolved to reflect changes in official policy making. In the 1970s, as priority was given to availability of food items the policy concerns were on production, imports, food grants and supply of foodstuffs at the macro level. In the 1980s, in addition to availability, the dimensions of access to and distribution of food were emphasised. The policy issues were then shifted to the demand and supply sides of the food security equation, which include the individual and household level distribution, in addition to the regional and

national level, temporal dynamics of food insecurity, and transitory food insecurity.

At this stage Sen’s Theory of Famine (1981) (discussed below in Section 2.4) was treated as an important contribution to analysis because it emphasised the effect of personal entitlements to food access, i.e. production, labour, trade and transfer based resources. In the 1990s, earlier definitions of food security were identified as inadequate, because availability at the national level and access at the household level do not ensure sufficient, safe and nutritious food to each individual of a household. As a result, in this era, policy was shifted to focus on the quality and balanced nutritional value of food, cultural eating preferences, and stability of food supply. The definition of food security given by the World Food Summit 1996 includes all these essential components such as food access, availability, food use (nutritional security) and stability. More recently, in the 2000s, the moral and human rights dimension of food security has come into focus. The right to adequate and quality food has now been added to the policy discourse.

In this research, food security issues have been discussed through the lens of the definition of the World Food Summit 1996 (discussed in Chapter 1). This definition was the result of a long evolving process which considered the shortcomings of the previous definitions. The definition incorporated all the fundamental components of food security which ensured: (1) availability; (2) access to all people according to their preferences; (3) nutritional security; and (4) stability. In accordance with the aims of this research ‘availability’ and ‘nutrition’ components are discussed in this dissertation, but to analyse the food security issues of the rural poor of Bangladesh the predominant focus will be on access of food to all people.

2.3 Evolving food policy and programs in Bangladesh When Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the most pressing policy priority of the government was food security for 75 million people (Dowlah, 2006, p. 346). At this time the production of food was not at all sufficient. Moreover, the effect of the war of liberation was then worsened by natural calamities and the government management was weakened (Dowlah, 2006, p. 348).

Food policy was dependent on internal production, international grants and imports. In the 1970s, just after the liberation war, the government and some NGOs started food assistance programs in the form of food rations and post disaster relief, but they were not universal and permanent in nature.

As a result of the Bangladesh Famine in 1974 food (in)security issues attracted the attention of the world community. After the famine and two major floods in 1987 and 1988, the focus was given to Food-for-Work (FFW) programs which aimed to develop sustainable infrastructure and encourage women’s employment. In the 1980s importance was placed particularly on increasing food production through expansion of irrigation, introduction of modern varieties of crops and the increased uptake of them. A policy shift occurred in the 1990s when Conditional Cash Transfers (CCTs) and the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) programs were introduced. The first policy had a developmental goal and the second policy aimed at addressing short- term needs. Other programs (the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD), the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women) were also established which had both development and contingency goals. In the 2000s the paradigm shifted to multi-dimensional goals, including sustainable development, geographical targeting, and

addressing temporal and seasonal fluctuations and the generation of employment.

Since the 1980s, consecutive governments have concentrated on increasing food production to ensure the availability of food. As a result, Bangladesh has made steady progress in domestic food production. Total food grain production increased from less than 10.0 million tons in the 1970s to more than 27.0 million tons in 2005-06 (Talukder, 2005, p. 37). By 2013, according to the Department of Agriculture Extension (DAE), Bangladesh produced (35.1 million tons) more cereals (rice and wheat) than its demand (34.7 million tons) (according to a 453.6 grams per capita per day requirement) (DAE, 2014).

Yet, despite the sufficiency in food availability in Bangladesh, food insecurity is still a major policy issue. This is mainly because of the lack of purchasing power of the poor and thus lack of access to food, as well as faulty distribution mechanisms and food preferences determined by cultural behaviour. In this context Amartya Sen’s theories of entitlement approach and capability approach have offered significant analytic insights for understanding the food problem in Bangladesh.

2.4 Contribution of Amartya Sen to understanding food security issues Being a son of the soil of then Bengal, currently Bangladesh, Amartya Sen (born 1933) had witnessed the devastating Great Bengal Famine of 1943. This famine accounted for a loss of approximately 2 million to 4 million lives (Sen, 1981b, p. 83). He also had keenly observed the Bangladesh Famine of 1974, which resulted in the death of nearly 1.5 million people (Dowlah, 2006, p. 351; Van Schendel, 2009, p. 181). It can be argued that the shocking

consequences of the famines inspired him to study the causes of the famines and as a result he developed the analysis of poverty and famines.

Sen (1981b) revealed that neither of the famines occurred due to food availability decline (FAD), rather on both occasions the food supply was more than the preceding non-famine years. In 1943 the total supply of rice and wheat was 11% higher and per capita food availability was about 9% higher than in 1941 (Sen, 1981b, pp. 59-60). Similar to 1943, in 1974 both the total supply of food grains and the per capita availability were at a peak level from 1971 to 1975 (Sen, 1981b, pp. 138-140). Sen concluded that whatever the Bangladesh Famine of 1974 might have been, it was not due to the decline in food availability. Sen pointed to a number of social and economic factors, such as declining wages, unemployment, rising food prices, and poor food- distribution, which led to starvation. He argued that a person’s ability to command food – indeed, to command any commodity he wishes to acquire or retain – depends on the entitlement relations that govern possession and use in that society. It depends on what he owns, what exchange possibilities are offered to him, what is given to him free, and what is taken away from him. Entitlements have been defined by Sen (1984, p. 497) as “the set of alternative commodity bundles that a person can command in a society using the totality of rights and opportunities that he or she faces”. Sen (1981b, p. 2) categorised four sets of ‘entitlements’. These are trade-based entitlements (buying food), production-based entitlements (growing food), own-labour entitlements (working for food), and inheritance and transfer entitlements (being given food by others). A person may fall into food insecurity if he or she does not have entitlement to any of the four sets of entitlements. Thus Sen analysed poverty as a whole, and hunger in particular, as social, political and legal issues instead of merely an economic phenomenon.

2.5 Measurement of food security As noted above, there are many different indicators used worldwide to measure food security or insecurity. Headey and Ecker (2013, p. 339) categorised food security indicators into four groups: (1) calorie availability indicators; (2) poverty indicators; (3) dietary diversity indicators; and (4) subjective/experiential indicators. The first indicator focuses on the required calorie intake of an individual. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Undernourishment Indicator and Household Calorie Consumption Indicators, and the World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS), are treated as calorie availability indicators. The second indicator examines the income and expenditure on food items of a household; the Monetary Poverty Indicator is a poverty indicator. The third indicator emphasises scoring dietary diversity of an individual; the Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) developed by the Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA) Project of the United States Agency of International Development (USAID) is a dietary diversity indicator. The fourth indicator draws on the lived experiences and insights about food issues and wellbeing of people; the Household Food Insecurity and Access Scale (HFIAS) developed by the USAID FANTA Project consists of subjective/experiential indicators.

The first three categories are mostly survey-based and widely used in both developed and developing countries. Headey and Ecker (2013) argued that while most survey-based food security indicators involve self-reporting, subjective indicators ask for more reflective thought processes, such as hunger, anxiety or general wellbeing. Recognising the potential bias of these emotive subjects, the authors acknowledged the importance of the subjective indicators. They argued that in raising these issues, subjective questions

automatically generate an important trade-off: such feelings are obviously important from a welfare point of view.

In this research, the concept of food security has been used comprehensively at the household level as a measure of wellbeing, and efforts have been made to make the concept operationally useful in the design, implementation, and evaluation of policies and programs as Pinstrup-Andersen (2009) suggests. Household food security must be treated as a challenge with multiple objectives, where the identification and weighting of objectives can only be decided by the food insecure people and policy should be directed to enlarging the scope of choice by food insecure individuals (Maxwell & Smith, 1992). Pinstrup-Andersen (2009) argued that a household is considered food secure if it has the ability to acquire the food needed by its members. He therefore argued that there are two reasons why household food security may not assure food security for all its members. He argued that firstly, the ability to acquire enough food may not be converted into actual food acquisition. Household preferences may not prioritise food acquisition over the acquisition of other goods and services such as school fees and housing. Secondly, the intra-household allocation of the food may not be based on the needs of each individual member. Furthermore, the extent to which individual food security results in good nutrition depends on a set of non-food factors such as sanitary conditions, water quality, infectious diseases, and access to primary healthcare. Thus, food security does not guarantee nutritional security.

As the current research did not measure the food security of the beneficiary households using any statistical tool, it utilises the subjective or experiential method to understand the experiences of the respondents in relation to food security and SSNPs, because this method concentrates on lived experiences

and perceived wellbeing. In addition, as this research uses qualitative methods to analyse data, and the capabilities approach (will be discussed in Chapter 3) to understand the food security issues, an experiential method is the most suitable technique to collect and analyse data. The capabilities approach emphasises building people’s capabilities and ensuring wellbeing. Therefore, it can be argued that without the lived experience and insights of rural poor people, which this research explores, their capabilities cannot be enhanced and wellbeing cannot be achieved.

Although the ‘dietary diversity indicators’ is a statistical tool that has been mostly used particularly in health and nutrition surveys (Headey & Ecker, 2013), the components of this indicator are pertinent to discuss here. This indicator consists of answers by consumers to recall questions about the consumption of a particular food item or groups of items over a recent period. This indicator does not directly measure the diversity of food items consumed by a person, rather it relies on the answers of the consumer. The WFP’s food consumption score (FCS) is one of the tools of dietary diversity indicators. The FCS attaches greater importance to foods deemed most important for nutritional outcomes (WFP, 2008). In this indicator, the highest weights are given to meat, fish and milk, followed by pulses, cereals, vegetables and fruits, and sugar and oil (Headey & Ecker, 2013).

2.6 Subjective or experiential measurement of food security around the world As discussed earlier, the concept of food security has evolved over time and the measurement of food insecurity is complex. This is another reason why subjective or experiential methods were used to understand the food security status of rural poor people in the present research. Traditionally the other three indicators of food security (calorie availability indicators, poverty 53

indicators and dietary diversity indicators) have been used to measure food status from a quantitative point of view. But statistics cannot always show the real scenario of a person's or household's food status. Further the experience and insights of an individual can help to identify the real problem and the sustainable solutions for food issues. In this section the studies that used the subjective or experiential method will be discussed.

A number of previous studies have used subjective/experiential indicators to examine the food security of different countries. Using the subjective/experiential indicators Studdert, Frongillo, and Valois (2001), Frongillo and Nanama (2002), Webb, Coates, and Houser (2002), and Hamelin, Beaudry, and Habicht (2002), conducted studies in Java (Indonesia), Burkina Faso, Bangladesh and Québec (Canada) respectively (cited in (Frongillo, Chowdhury, Ekström, & Naved, 2003). Although these studies were qualitative in nature, their focus was on developing tools to measure household food insecurity according to the experiences of the respondents. They did not examine the impacts of SSNPs on food security of their participants. The current research is different from these previous studies, because it was not intended as the development of a tool for measurement of food security. Rather, this research explores the experiences of rural poor people of the perceived impacts of selected SSNPs on their lives including food security, women’s empowerment, increase in income and poverty reduction, and medical support, and their insights to make their lives better from their point of view.

Frongillo, Chowdhury, Ekström, and Naved (2003) carried out a qualitative study which aimed to gain in-depth understanding regarding the experience of household food insecurity in rural Bangladesh. But again, this study aimed

to develop a direct measurement tool of food insecurity in Bangladesh and they compared Bangladesh’s experience with some other countries (Indonesia, Burkina Faso, Canada and the US). Coates, Wilde, Webb, Rogers, and Houser (2006) conducted a study in Bangladesh which, once again, was dedicated to developing a food insecurity scale using the US experience. They compared a qualitative and a quantitative method for selecting appropriate items for a measure of household food insecurity in Bangladesh. Given the diversity of experience and intimate knowledge of local conditions of the researchers in their study, they argued that the qualitative method produced a reasonably accurate picture which would have different “meanings” across the population if the researchers did not have local knowledge. On the other hand, despite the fact that the quantitative method of their study was based on a random representative sample from across Bangladesh, there were very persuasive reasons to question the results of quantitative data where they diverged from the qualitative results. Although they advocated applying both qualitative and quantitative methods, Coates, Wilde, Webb, Rogers, and Houser (2006, p. 1429S) argued that a rigorous application of multiple sources of qualitative data in different geographic regions produced intuitively plausible results where the quantitative method did not.

McIntyre, Rondeau, Kirkpatrick, Hatfield, Islam, and Huda (2011) also conducted a qualitative study to explore the food provisioning experiences of extreme poor female heads of households living in Bangladesh. Their study is significantly different from the present research, because their only target group was female and their areas of study were in the capital city Dhaka and a rural area near Dhaka. Acknowledging the usefulness of quantitative indicators of nutritional and food security status in documenting the extent of

the problem of food access, distribution, and mapping progress, they argued that understanding the experience of women living in extreme poverty by attending to their individual narratives assists in determining what steps are needed to move toward the achievement of Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 1.13 Coates, Webb, and Houser (2003) (cited in McIntyre, Rondeau, Kirkpatrick, Hatfield, Islam, and Huda (2011)) argued that other types of data, that provide insight into factors influencing food access and dietary patterns at the level of households and individuals, are needed to inform effective strategies to combat food insecurity and malnutrition among the extreme poor. McGregor (2004) argued that whilst universal models can identify conditions and outcomes associated with extreme poverty and food insecurity at the household level, there is nonetheless a need for local understanding of poverty, i.e. the experiences and relationships lived on a daily basis:

If we are to be effective in intervening to reduce or eradicate poverty then it is necessary to conceive of poverty in these (local) terms to change the processes in which these people are involved and which repeatedly produce outcomes of poverty for them. (McGregor, 2004, p. 343)

McIntyre, Rondeau, Kirkpatrick, Hatfield, Islam, and Huda (2011) also argued that qualitative insights from a household food provisioning interview may assist in the formulation of strategies to improve food security among particularly vulnerable groups, as well as to identify aspects of existing programs and policies that may be limited in their reach and/or impact.

13 United Nations Millennium Development Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger 56

The previous studies that have used the subjective/experiential indicators to explore the food security status, mostly aimed at developing a measurement tool which is different from the current research. However, the findings and arguments of Coates, Wilde, Webb, Rogers, and Houser (2006), McIntyre, Rondeau, Kirkpatrick, Hatfield, Islam, and Huda (2011), Coates, Webb, and Houser (2003), and McGregor (2004), support the use of qualitative methods on which the current study builds and which aims to better understand food issues of the rural poor from their point of view.

2.7 Food security in Bangladesh Bangladesh has made commendable progress in respect to the eradication of poverty and hunger in last two decades. The incidence of poverty, defined as ‘the minimum level of household income able to purchase a bundle of goods and services to satisfy the basic needs of the household’, has been reduced from 56.6% in 1991-92 to 31.5% in 2010. As discussed in Chapter 1, the Constitution of Bangladesh obliges the state to ensure the provision of the basic necessities of life for its citizens, including food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care. Consecutive governments have developed different policies and programs to ensure the food security of its citizens. The first food policy was formulated in 1988, though it focused only on the availability of food grain. Later, food policy was modified and the government adopted the National Food Policy in 2006. The goal of the food policy was to ensure a dependable food security system for all people of the country at all times, with specific objectives: (1) to ensure an adequate and stable supply of safe and nutritious food; (2) to enhance purchasing power of the people for increased food accessibility; and (3) to ensure adequate nutrition for all (especially women and children). To operationalise the National Food Policy 2006 the government prepared the National Food Policy Plan of Action

(2008-2015) in 2008. A number of programs for ensuring food security of poor citizens were introduced in the country before and after adopting the food policy (the overview of the programs will be discussed further in Chapter 4).

Bangladesh attained self-sufficiency in food production in 1999-2000 and has maintained it since then. In 2010-11 the gross production of rice and wheat of 35.3 million metric tons met the country’s requirement of 23.64 million metric tons for the population of 148.69 million (according to a 453.6 grams per capita per day cereal requirement) (Kashem & Faroque, 2011, p. 41). While the governments of Bangladesh and non-governmental organisations are committed to reducing poverty and food insecurity through a number of prominent SSNPs, still fully 17.6% of the population lacks the resources to acquire enough food (BBS, 2011). More alarmingly, the World Food Programme estimated that approximately 9.3 million food insecure people in Bangladesh are not being reached by any program (Rahman, Matsui, & Ikemoto, 2009; WFP, 2010).

The next sections focus on what earlier research has discovered regarding these issues, what is missing from their studies, and the extent to which they are similar to or different from this current research. In later chapters this research explores what rural poor people perceive about their experiences of their food status and the impacts of the programs. Is there any similarity or difference between the perceptions of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries? Are the views of the mid-level managers/policy-level officials the same or different from rural poor people and how can the lives of rural poor people be improved?

2.8 Policy and policy implementation Although until 1988 there was no formalised national food policy as such, there is a long history of government intervention in food supply and distribution in Bangladesh. Ahmed, Chowdhury, and Haggblade (2000) sketched an evolving food policy scenario from 1942 to 2000. Their outline shows six significant policy shifts during this period. The first policy (1942-47) emphasised a response to wartime and the Great Bengal Famine emergency. The second (1947-55) concentrated on post-war controls and the introduction of a rationing system. The third (1955-56) focused on abolition and reinstitution of a rationing system. The fourth (1956-76) emphasised the build-up and expansion of the rationing system. The fifth (1976- 92) focused on reorienting a large-scale public food distribution system (PFDS) and the final policy (1993-2000) emphasised downsizing PFDS and targeted food distribution. In 1988, the government formulated a national food policy, which aimed to ensure the food security of all people by increasing food production and attaining self-sufficiency. This policy was criticised for not addressing many important aspects of food security such as access, equitable distribution, nutrition security, food preferences, and food stability, and its focus on the availability of food grain alone.

Islam (2012, p. 112) argued that while a comprehensive food policy is essential for ensuring an uninterrupted supply of food to all people at all times, the Bangladesh State did not even acknowledge the importance of this policy. He also argued that, before 1999, without the recommendation of donors, the state elite of Bangladesh did not realise the need to adopt a comprehensive food security policy. According to (MoFDM, 2008):

Following the 1999 Development Forum held in Paris which emphasised the need to adopt a comprehensive food security policy, 59

the Government of Bangladesh established a Joint Taskforce that produced a Comprehensive Food Security Report which outlined a set of key recommendations for building a dependable food security system. (MoFDM, 2008, p. 21)

Following the directives from the Development Forum to address all the dimensions of food security mentioned in the definition, as adopted in the World Food Summit 1996, the Government of Bangladesh developed the National Food Policy in 2006. The new food policy covers all the components of food security outlined by the World Food Summit 1996. The policy concluded:

Availability of food, though indispensable for food security, is not enough to significantly improve food security at the household level. For improved household food security, all-out efforts are needed to ensure nutrition of the poor through improving their accessibility to food and ensuring full biological utilisation of the food. The overall food security can be well attained when increased accessibility to food is ensured through enhanced skill in domestic agriculture and increased availability of cereals and non-cereals, through attaining food accessibility by sustained increase in income of the poor and through education and health services leading to effective utilisation of food of the malnourished people. It is expected that the people of the country will be able to enjoy their desired food security through effective implementation of the food policy now formulated. (MoFDM, 2006, p. 14)

To attain the objectives of the National Food Policy 2006, discussed in Section 2.7 above, a National Food Policy Plan of Action was adopted by the 60

government in 2008. This plan outlined the action agenda, implementation mechanisms, main actors, coordination, budgeting and financing, monitoring strategy, core institutional framework, and key assumptions. No literature has been found that evaluates the National Food Policy 2006, but considering the totality of the policy, which has covered all aspects of food security, and the plan of action, it can be argued that the policy is comprehensive in its design, however, it does not necessarily mean it has been fully resourced and properly implemented.

Whilst the government has recently adopted a national food policy, there is still no integrated social safety net policy in Bangladesh. As there is no safety net policy in place, it can be argued that there is only a limited coordination between the programs and implementing agencies. The total number of SSNPs in the country is not clear. Maniruzzaman (2009, p. vii) cited 27 programs, Morshed (2009, p. 1) noted 30 programs, Rahman, Choudhury, and Ali (2011, pp. 73-90) listed 65 programs, Begum and Wesumperuma (2012, p. 189) mentioned 70 programs, and Hulme, Maitrot, Rango, and Rahman (2014, p. 12) indicated 52 programs. On the other hand, the list of SSNPs published by the Ministry of Finance shows that in the 2014-2015 financial year as many as 145 SSNPs (Appendix 1) were funded by the Ministry alone. These differing figures of the total number of SSNPs indicate the undisciplined state of the situation and justify the necessity for an integrated policy. Moreover, a significant number of studies (Hulme, Maitrot, Rango, & Rahman, 2014, pp. 17-18; Mannan, 2010, p. 59; Rahman, Hulme, Maitrot, & Rango, 2014, p. 352; World Bank, 2006, p. 36) argued the necessity for an integrated social safety net policy for the country.

It can be argued that a comprehensive policy alone cannot ensure food security for all people. To achieve the objectives of policy, comprehensive programs should be formulated and the programs implemented properly. The following discussions (Section 2.10) on literature on the governance and implementation of the programs provide a basis to examine whether the National Food Policy 2006 is being implemented properly.

2.9. Women’s empowerment As one of the objectives of this research is to explore the perceived impacts of the rural poor of the selected SSNPs on women’s empowerment (discussed in Chapter 1), it is important to discuss the conceptual issues of women’s empowerment. In this section the definition and dimensions and indicators of women’s empowerment used in previous research in Bangladesh has been discussed.

According to Muni (2006, p. 25) “women’s empowerment is the process by which women negotiate a more equitable distribution of power, a greater space in the initial decision making process in the home, in the community and in economic and political life” . He explained the concept of “women’s empowerment” as follows:

The term empowerment … is clearly connected to the word “power”. …empowerment is derived from the word ‘empower’ meaning to give or to acquire power or to increase power. Thus the word empowerment also implies a change in the equation or level of power. It can therefore be viewed as both a process as well as a result of social change.

The term “power” in turn connotes control. In the context of human

society, it means control over resources. These resources include natural resources, financial resources, human resources, and intellectual resources. Power is a relational dynamic between individuals or between groups, unequally distributed. (Muni, 2006, p. 25)

Srilatha Batliwala, a women’s activist, has defined women’s empowerment as the “process by which women gain greater control over material and intellectual resources and the gender based discrimination against women in all institutions and structures of society.” [cited by Muni (2006, p. 25)].

While Muni and Batliwala conceptualise ‘women’s empowerment’ as control over resources and power of decision making in the family and greater society, Kabeer (2001) understands ‘women’s empowerment’ as availability of choices. She defines women’s empowerment as “an expansion in the range of potential choices available to women so that actual outcomes reflect the particular set of choices which the women value”. Drawing upon the above definition, Mahmud, Shah, and Becker (2012, p. 611) stated that “empowerment broadly means having increased life options and choices, gaining greater control over one’s life, and generally attaining the capability to live the life one wishes to live”. In this context, this definition is coherent with the capabilities approach (see Chapter 3).

2.9.1 Dimensions and indicators of women’s empowerment Muni (2006, pp. 25-27) discussed some dimensions and indicators of women's empowerment. He identified the following four dimensions of women's empowerment:

i. Economic empowerment – a better quality of material life through sustainable livelihood owned and managed by women ii. Social empowerment – a more equitable social status for women in society iii. Legal empowerment – the provision of an effective legal structure which is supportive of women’s empowerment, and iv. Political empowerment – through struggle and movement based work, as important preconditions for economic empowerment.

In his opinion the following four factors are indicative of women's empowerment:

i. Change in women’s self-perception from negative to positive ii. Increase in self-esteem and self-confidence iii. Clear increase in level of women’s capacity to take decisions independently, and iv. The development of their ability to speak out and to defend themselves against any violations of their human rights.

Kabeer (1999, pp. 445-446) [citing Hashemi, Schuler, and Riley (1996) and Cleland, Phillips, Amin, and Kamal (1994)] referred to some examples of decisions which were considered appropriate for measuring women’s empowerment in Bangladesh context. They are:

i. The ability to make small and large consumer purchases; undertaking house repairs; taking in livestock for raising; leasing of land; purchase of major assets (Hashemi, Schuler, & Riley, 1996).

ii. Children’s education; visits to friends and relatives; household purchases; healthcare matters (Cleland, Phillips, Amin, & Kamal, 1994).

Mahmud, Shah, and Becker (2012, pp. 613-614) have used four indicators to measure women’s empowerment in Bangladesh. They are having: self- esteem; a role in decision-making; the freedom of mobility; and the ability to control of resources. They considered self-esteem as an indicator of women’s empowerment which was used universally, while a role in decision-making, a freedom of mobility, and control of resources were useful specifically to the socio-economic context of rural Bangladesh. The literature related to women’s empowerment in Bangladesh will be discussed further in Chapter 7 (Section 7.2) along with the findings of the current research.

2.10 Governance of the programs As the current research intends to explore the perceived impacts of selected SSNPs on rural poor people’s lives, governance and implementation processes of the SSNPs are important to understand the issue. In this section the definition of governance and the state of governance in Bangladesh, as well as the context of the programs’ implementation, such as deviation during beneficiary selection and benefit disbursement of the selected SSNPs will be discussed.

2.10.1 Defining governance and governance in Bangladesh The UNDP (1997, p. 1) defines governance as “the exercise of economic, political, and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels comprising the mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which that authority is directed”. Grindle (2004) defines governance more comprehensively as consisting:

… of the distribution of power among institutions of government; the legitimacy and authority of state institutions; the rules and norms that determine who holds power and how decisions are made about the exercise of authority; relationships of accountability among state officials/agencies and between these officials/agencies and citizens; the ability of government to make policy, manage the administrative and fiscal affairs of the state, and deliver goods and services; and the impact of institutions and policies on public welfare. (Grindle, 2004, p. 545)

Grindle (2004) also mentions five key pillars of good governance: reforms of judicial systems; reform of public administration; commitments to fight corruption; decentralization; and management of public expenditure.

Zafarullah and Huque (2012) define governance as:

[T]he process of governing in an appropriate manner to realize certain purposes of the state for societal wellbeing and progress. It is about the quality of governmental functioning and the positive responsiveness of state institutions for effective delivery of public services with utmost integrity, least discrimination, and respect for human rights. (Zafarullah & Huque, 2012, pp. 157-158)

As the current research examines the state of governance of five selected SSNPs, this researcher uses the definition of governance by Zafarullah and Huque (2012). This definition emphasises quality and positive responsiveness of state institutions for effective service delivery with utmost integrity, least discrimination, and respect of human rights.

Governance can be good governance or bad/poor governance. As shown below, a country like Bangladesh – one of the poorest countries in the world – can be cited as an example of poor governance (Ahmed, 2006; Ahsan, 2006). As Khan (2003) argued:

The state of governance in Bangladesh is in dismal shape. Social, political and economic governance suffer from stagnation and show little sign of progress. Successive governments and regimes have totally failed to provide the country with vision, mission, or to serve the nation with commitment and dedication. ... Strengthening the executive has become the ascendant norm. ... The judiciary is in a precarious state. ... Bangladesh is an extremely corrupt country. All the organs of government have been tainted by corruption. Corruption of all kinds, from petty to grand theft, can be observed in this country. ... Civil society, dominated by NGOs and some professional organisations, remains weak, divided and ineffective. Instead of fighting for the rights of the poor, disadvantaged and oppressed to overcome deprivation and injustice, many leaders of civil society continue to seek favour from the government and the donor agencies in terms of power, position and wealth. ... Donor agencies, though highly critical of the state of governance, continue to support the government, with occasional public lectures and criticism of some public policies and actions. (Khan, 2003, pp. 402-403)

Zafarullah and Rahman (2008) also affirmed:

State institutions in Bangladesh have remained fragile and continue to underperform – a product of the dynamics of a cumbersome political process, the slapdash mind-set of lawmakers and enforcers and the 67

aberrations of a phlegmatic bureaucracy. ... Wayward politics, poor governance and the vulnerability of the economy have produced a state that is feeble and fragmented. Bureaucratic politics has been instrumental in creating divisions and impairing efficiency in public management. Corruption, nepotism, and clientelism have eroded integrity and produced flaws and shortcomings that pervade society, polity and economy. (Zafarullah & Rahman, 2008, pp. 748-749)

The above two quotes show that all the state functionaries, civil society, and professional organisations have given the country a reputation as having poor governance resulting from the lack of integrity and spread of corruption, nepotism and inefficiency. As a result, poor people are suffering and deprived from proper delivery of public services.

As discussed in Chapter 1, Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world. Previous studies (Khan, 2003; Zafarullah & Rahman, 2008; Zafarullah & Siddiquee, 2001) found that the state of governance of Bangladesh is very fragile and is well known as being extremely corrupt. Corruption reaches through all levels of the management which impairs the efficiency of public programs. As a result, the management of SSNPs is also affected by poor governance.

2.10.2 Program implementation As discussed earlier, a comprehensive food policy alone cannot ensure food security. Consequently, effective programs and their proper implementation have become more important. Moreover, after analysing 149 impact evaluations of 56 programs from 32 developing and transition countries IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) (2011) argued that although the implementation process is an important determinant of impacts of the

programs, few evaluations have documented the effects of the implementation process on outcomes of the programs. This forms the rationale for examining the implementation system of the selected SSNPs in this research. Chapter 4 (Section 4.4) will examine the literature on how the programs are implemented, and the apparent incongruity in selection of beneficiaries or distribution of allowances.

In the implementation manuals of different programs, the procedure to select the beneficiaries is described (discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4) including a consultation with the potential candidates in open meetings. However, previous research findings revealed deviations from this rule, as well as other discrepancies. Begum and Wesumperuma (2012), in their study on the Old Age Allowance program in Bangladesh, highlighted a number of anomalies. For example, the beneficiary selection was often done without any announcement and there was an extra cost for program participants (sometimes a substantial amount) for transport and food, and sometimes for an accompanied person and nominee. The research also found that lack of food outlets and toilet facilities, insufficient places to sit, and poor behaviours by the bank staff, were issues which were problematic for some participants.

A significant number of recent research studies on food-based SSNPs (BARD, 2012; BIDS, 2012; Islam, 2012; RDA, 2012) revealed that the food distributed in the VGD, the VGF and other food programs, was less than the amount beneficiaries were entitled to. Rahman, Choudhury, and Ali (2011) found that the large number of intermediaries involved in the delivery system of the programs reduced efficiency and increased opportunity for leakages. Rahman and Choudhury (2012) also confirmed these findings. The RDA revealed a range of problems in the administration of programs which

included: beneficiaries had to wait for a long time during collection of food; money was taken to cover transportation cost for the food grains; some beneficiaries had to travel a long distance; the date of distribution was not fixed; and behaviours of the distributors were not satisfactory (RDA, 2012). The BARD (2012) also affirmed these findings. A study on the Old Age Allowance program (Hasan, Mahbubuzzaman, & Chowdhury, 2012) revealed many problems faced by the beneficiaries during disbursement of benefits (this will be discussed in Chapter 8).

The above discussion indicates that during beneficiary selection and benefit distribution there are many irregularities. These irregularities include: no announcement before selection; the physical, mental and financial burden involved in collecting the benefits; receiving smaller amounts than the entitlements; and misbehaviour by the distributors of benefits. Therefore, it can be argued that the program implementation was not fit for purpose, and was threatening the efficiency of the programs. Moreover, along with these variations, the most critical issue, which hindered the programs’ effectiveness, was corrupt practices during the whole process of the programs. The current study is concerned to explore whether the findings of previous studies are reflected in the current perceptions of respondents in the research.

2.10.3 Corruption A number of researchers have examined the state of corruption in Bangladesh. Zafarullah and Siddiquee (2001) argued that Bangladesh was a fertile ground for corruption and ineffective institutions were unable to address the issue. Transparency International Bangladesh (2013) also revealed that 63.7% of the households they surveyed were the victim of some kind of corruption. 70

Corruption is widespread throughout all government structures in Bangladesh, and SSNPs are also affected by corrupt practices. Rahman and Choudhury (2012) found a high level of corruption in the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) management. Some other studies (BARD, 2012; BIDS, 2012; RDA, 2012) also corroborated the earlier findings. Mannan (2010) and Islam (2012) found that inefficiency, corruption and political interference adversely affected the effectiveness of SSNPs.

2.10.4 Exclusion of the most vulnerable groups While a number of researchers (Conning & Kevane, 2002; Subbarao, Bonnerjee, Braithwaite, Carvalho, Ezemenari, Graham, & Thompson, 1997; World Bank, 2006) advocated for the inclusion of the most vulnerable people in the program management system, in many cases in Bangladesh, they are excluded from the process. Conning and Kevane (2002, p. 375) argued that the growing awareness of the importance of social safety nets in developing countries has not been translated into effective action because of the failure of traditional social welfare ministries to effectively engage the poor. Therefore, they argued for new bottom-up service delivery options and poverty alleviation mechanisms that would more actively involve the poor and their communities in program design, implementation and monitoring. Subbarao, Bonnerjee, Braithwaite, Carvalho, Ezemenari, Graham, and Thompson (1997, p. 87) also argued that programs that involve communities, local groups, and NGOs can achieve better targeting outcomes.

A diverse work experience at both the field and policy levels and a survey of relevant literature by the researcher revealed that people who were extremely poor were mostly excluded from the development and implementation of SSNPs in Bangladesh. They were excluded in two ways: first, a huge number of extremely poor people were still out of reach of any programs; and second, 71

those who were included in any program were not involved in any stage of the program design or management. Although some studies (Matin & Hulme, 2003; Rahman, Matsui, & Ikemoto, 2009) argued that many extremely poor and vulnerable households are not being reached yet, only a few studies discussed the issue of participation of the main stakeholders (rural poor people) in ongoing programs. They were not involved in the selection of beneficiaries, in advocating for the amount they need, or any phase of program implementation or monitoring. Therefore, this research explores experiences and insights of rural poor people who were included in the selected five programs or who were not included but would have qualified for a program. So the question arises: how do rural poor people perceive their food problems and how can their lives be made better, and what are the implications of the selected programs’ policy and practice?

2.11 Conclusion This chapter has examined the conceptual framework of poverty and food security showing their historical evolution. The definition of food security introduced at the World Food Summit 1996 is comprehensive as it covers all the essential components of food security. Therefore, this research approaches food security issues according to this definition. While the concepts of food security have evolved over time, the measurement of food (in)security remains complex. The widely used measurement methods are the statistical tools. The subjective or experiential method, nonetheless, is used particularly for studies focused on the experiences, insights and wellbeing of people. So in this research the subjective or experiential method is used to understand how rural poor people perceive the food problems from their point of view. Although the researcher has not used any statistical tool to collect data about the incidence of poverty, particularly the lower poverty line

which is calculated using the food poverty line, estimates by the BBS have been used to identify the people who are food insecure.

From the literature surveyed in this chapter, it is evident that most of the research conducted in relation to food security and SSNPs is quantitative in nature. A few studies have used a qualitative approach, but they are different from the present research. Their focus was on different issues than this research, or they mainly explored the insights of the concerned government or/and bank officials and local government representatives. The most vulnerable group of people, the poorest, are almost always excluded from their studies. It is also evident that most of the poorest people are excluded from any programs and those who are included in any program are not participating in any stage of beneficiary selection or program management.

From the discussion in this chapter two overarching questions emerge given that Bangladesh is self-sufficient in terms of food: (a) why is 17.6% of the population still food insecure; and (b) why are 9.3 million food insecure people still not accessing any program? Other important questions are:

1. What are the impacts of the programs on food security and women’s empowerment? 2. What is the quality of governance of the programs? 3. What are the impacts of implementing policies and programs on the lives of poor people?

Therefore, this literature review has raised a number of pertinent, but as yet unanswered, research questions. What do the rural poor perceive about the experience of their food status and the impacts of the programs on food security and other aspects of their lives? Is there any similarity or difference

between the perceptions of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries? How can the lives of the rural poor be improved according to their own point of view?

Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework

3.0 Introduction This research is about food security of poor people of Bangladesh. As discussed in Chapter 2, there is a strong relationship between poverty and food insecurity, particularly in Asia and Africa. Therefore, it is important to discuss how analysts and theorists understand poverty and food insecurity issues, and what kind of theories have developed over the last few decades. This chapter discusses theoretical approaches as a framework for understanding poverty and food insecurity issues and provides a rationale for identifying the most appropriate theory that can be used to understand the issues related to poverty and food security in this research. Section 3.1 discusses some theoretical approaches in poverty and food insecurity analysis, and finally Section 3.2 examines the capabilities approach and the participatory approach as theories to support understanding and analysis of food security issues.

3.1 Theoretical approaches in poverty and food insecurity analysis Some theoretical approaches that have been used in analysing poverty issues as well as food insecurity issues are discussed here. These theories have been chosen because of their relevance in analysing poverty and food insecurity issues in Asia and Africa. In poverty analysis researchers from South Asia (Bhalla & Glewwe, 1986; De Silva, 1982; Mukhopadhyay, 1985; Rahman, 1986; Rahman, Mahmud, & Haque, 1988; Sen, 1981a, 1981b, 1993; Silva & Athukorala, 1996) have used these theories to conceptualise poverty and food security issues.

Silva and Athukorala (1996) found four broad theoretical perspectives from which the issue of poverty has been addressed in South Asia: 75

1. The neoclassical theory of market-led development (Craig & Porter, 2006; Miller & Upton, 1986; Solow, 1956; Swan, 1956); 2. The political economy of poverty (De Silva, 1982; Desai, 2007; Lal & Myint, 1998; Moges, 2013); 3. The culture of poverty (Carter, 2005; Lareau, 2003; Lewis, 1963, 1966; Small, 2004); and 4. A participatory approach to poverty alleviation (Alkire, 2002b; Duraiappah, Roddy, & Parry, 2005; McGee & Norton, 2000; Parfitt, 2004).

This section describes each of the approaches.

The neoclassical approach argues that market-led development is the only certain way to reduce poverty and improve living standards in the long-term. It is not against “safety nets for the poor” as long as protective measures do not prevent the operation of market forces. The neoclassical theorists (Solow, 1956; Swan, 1956) see development as the outcome not of strategic state action but of the action of market forces. This approach favours minimal government intervention or small government. Proponents of the neoclassical approach hold that too much government intervention distorts the operation of free markets, thus inhibiting the efficient allocation of resources. Therefore, they recommend freeing the market from state control and regulation, so that capital, goods and services can have total freedom of movement and there can be greater openness to international trade ("development theory," 2016). Inspired by the ‘neoclassical model of economic growth’ formulated by the American economist Robert Solow (1956) and the Australian economist Trevor Swan (1956), the neoclassical approach emphasises the three factors that influence the growth of an economy: capital, availability of labour and

technology. According to this approach a temporary equilibrium can be achieved when capital size, labour and technology is appropriately adjusted, however long-term equilibrium does not involve any of the three factors (Miller & Upton, 1986). This approach emphasises the active role of markets i.e. on prices, outputs, and income distributions in markets determined through supply and demand, and consequently prefers market mechanisms rather than centralist or redistributive mechanisms in addressing poverty (Craig & Porter, 2006).

The neoclassical approach has been criticised by theorists and researchers from different angles. Silva and Athukorala (1996, p. 68) argued that “Under the influence of the structural adjustment policies advocated by the World Bank, this approach has increasingly acquired a hegemonic position in development thinking worldwide”. Some researchers (Bhalla & Glewwe, 1986; Easter, 1980; SAARC, 1992) found positive impacts of the neoclassical policies in reducing poverty and increasing production and incomes in South Asian countries particularly in Sri Lanka, Pakistan and parts of India. However, other researchers (Lakshman, 1994; Mundle, 1984) have argued that market-led policies have had adverse repercussions on the poor, because they have a positive income effect on cultivators who sell their products, but may have a negative income effect on agricultural labourers who may have to buy at least a part of the family’s grain requirements from the market. Mukhopadhyay (1985) found a disproportionately high benefit of market-led programs go to the rural rich rather than to the rural poor. d'Abbs (1991, p. 129), Dominelli (1988, p. 161), and Gibelman and Demone (2002, p. 396) have criticised the neoclassical approach for its reluctance to support government interventions for the poor. They advocate an increasing role for the state for the welfare of their citizens, particularly for disadvantaged groups

of people. Although the neoclassical approach advocates for minimal government interventions and free market operation, the necessity of state intervention can be seen in the last global recession in 2009, especially in developed countries like the United States, the European Union and Australia. This recession and the continuing fiscal and monetary interventionism by which governments and central banks around the world responded demonstrate limitations inherent in the neoclassical approach. In the recent past we have seen the backlash in different parts of the world against inequality and deprivation caused by the market-led economic policy.

The political economy approach (De Silva, 1982; Desai, 2007; Lal & Myint, 1998; Moges, 2013) asserts that poverty is a product of certain economic and social processes that are inherent in given social systems. It argues that there is a conflict of interest between the rich and poor in society, and that the poor remain poor not because of any individual or personal qualities, but because society denies them the legitimate share of benefits that should accrue to them. In this approach, rural poverty is typically seen as a product of extreme inequalities in land ownership and control (Silva & Athukorala, 1996). De Silva (1982) found twin principles, the super-exploitation of labour and the transfer of surplus from the periphery to the centre, around which plantation economies were developed throughout the underdeveloped world. Desai (2007) argued that there are political factors in the society that limit the expansion and survivability of antipoverty programs. Antipoverty programs can be effectively upgraded if attention is paid to addressing these political and institutional challenges. Moges (2013) stated that there are structures and institutions that limit the capacity of the economy to achieve sustained and shared economic growth and engage the poor in more productive endeavours. These forces limit the accumulation and efficient allocation of

physical and human capital, the expansion of the productive base of the economy, and the innovation and adaptation of new technologies in production.

The notion of class is central to the political economy approach to poverty analysis. While the neoclassical approach opposes the central role of different state institutions on poverty alleviation, the political economy approach emphasises economic and social systems where the state is the key player. Satya (1990) and Harris (1992) have argued that neoclassical policies further aggravate the existing class differentiation. Rahman (1986) and Rahman, Mahmud, and Haque (1988) argued that due to the failure in formulating and implementing a fair land policy by the political elites, unequal distribution of land is one of the prime causes of rural poverty in Bangladesh. They suggested a more egalitarian land distribution to ensure a better living for the most disadvantaged people. The political economy approach has been criticised for its narrowness to explain the causes of poverty. Although poverty has been conceptualised by scholars since the 1990s as a multi- dimensional phenomenon, the political economy approach considers poverty only as a product of social and economic disparity. Silva and Athukorala (1996, p. 71) argued that “One of the weaknesses of the political economy approach, however, is that it leaves us with only a limited range of options for alleviating poverty”. As the political economy approach claims that only the social and political system is liable for creating the disparity prevailing in a society, this approach leaves only one option for addressing poverty. However, poverty is considered as a multi-dimensional phenomenon and so in combating poverty there should involve multi-dimensional programs.

The culture of poverty approach (Carter, 2005; Lareau, 2003; Lewis, 1963, 1966; Small, 2004) embraces the view that poverty is not merely a lack of adequate income, but rather a cultural heritage. Lewis (1966, p. xliii) understood poverty and its associated traits as “a culture or, more accurately, a subculture with its own structure and rationale as a way of life which is passed down from generation to generation along family lines”. He argued that the culture of poverty in modern nations is not only a matter of economic deprivation, or disorganisation or the absence of something, but also something positive and provides some rewards without which the poor could hardly carry on. It is a culture in the traditional anthropological sense in that it provides human beings with a design for living, with a ready-made set of solutions for human problems, and so serves a significant adaptive function. According to Lewis (1966, p. xliii), the culture of poverty tends to grow and flourish in societies with the following set of conditions: (a) a cash economy, wage labour and production for profit; (b) a persistently high rate of unemployment and underemployment for unskilled labour; (c) low wages; (d) the failure to provide social, political and economic organisation, either on a voluntary basis or by government imposition, for the low-income population; (e) the existence of a bilateral kinship system rather than a unilateral one; and finally, (f) the existence of a set of values in the dominant class which stresses the accumulation of wealth and property, the possibility of upward mobility and thrift, and explains low economic status as the result of personal inadequacy or inferiority. Lewis (1966) also argued that sustained poverty generated a set of cultural attitudes, beliefs, values, and practices, and that this culture of poverty would tend to perpetuate itself over time, even if the structural conditions that originally gave rise to it were to change. Carter (2005) argued that whether poor children will work hard at school depends in part on their cultural beliefs about the differences between minorities and the 80

majority. Small (2004) argued that poor people may be reluctant to participate in beneficial community activities in part because of how they culturally perceive their neighbourhoods. Lareau (2003) found that poor children may do worse over their lifetimes in part because their parents are more committed to “natural growth” than “concerted cultivation” as their cultural model for child-rearing meaning culturally their parents belief in a system where children are grown by themselves, there is no need to nurture.

In contrast to the theory of political economy, which looks for the root cause of poverty in the larger structures of society, the culture of poverty attributes poverty to the subjective views of the urban poor themselves due to the cultural heritage to which they belong over time (Silva & Athukorala, 1996). In the 1950s, the culture of poverty approach became important particularly in the study of urban poverty in North America, the USA and Mexico in particular (Lewis, 1966). Silva and Athukorala (1991) questioned the validity of the culture of poverty approach as a universal explanation of the behaviour and attitudes of the urban poor. Silva and Athukorala (1996) argued:

One of the main criticisms against this theory is that it justifies the status quo and blames the victims themselves (namely the poor) for their condition. Because cultures are hard to change through intervention, it is of limited practical use. (Silva & Athukorala, 1996, p. 72)

Ryan (1976) also criticised the culture of poverty approach because of its ‘blaming the victims’ policy. While Lewis (1966) thought that even if the structural conditions are changed the culture of poverty tends to perpetuate itself over time, Ryan (1976) argued that people might change their culture and consequently change their poverty. Steinberg (1981) rejected the view 81

that cultural values and ethnic traits are the primary determinants of the economic destiny of racial and ethnic groups in America. He argued that locality, class conflict, selective migration, and other historical and economic factors play a far larger role not only in producing inequalities but in maintaining them as well. It can be argued that culture is not the only cause behind poverty, there may be multiple factors that can be taken into consideration.

The participatory approach (Alkire, 2002b; Cohen & Uphoff, 1977; Duraiappah, Roddy, & Parry, 2005; McGee & Norton, 2000; Parfitt, 2004; Paul, 1987; Pearse & Stiefel, 1979) (further discussed in detail in Section 3.2) claims that the only way the poor can overcome their difficulties is by directly participating in the formulation of social policy, the development of programs, their implementation at ground level, and by sharing the benefits of such programs. The participatory approach has the dual goal of promoting growth and equity while also ensuring the development of democratic processes at the grass roots level (Silva & Athukorala, 1996, p. 72). It began in the 1970s as a research method, and in the 1980s the participatory approach became a dominant model for poverty analysis by the government and non-government organisations in developing countries and international institutions (Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Duraiappah, Roddy, & Parry, 2005; Michener, 1998). Henkel and Stirrat (2001, p. 168) argued that by the early 1990s every major bilateral development agency emphasised participatory policies. This approach includes the voice of the poor in the development process, which the other approaches such as the neoclassical approach, the political economy approach and the culture of poverty approach do not. Silva and Athukorala (1996, p. 73) argued that “[i]n contrast to the political economy model, the participatory approach advocates a gradual and a bottom-up process of

social change where the poor and the underprivileged gradually become full participants in development and decision-making processes”. The participation by the main stakeholders in the decision making process empowers the disadvantaged segment of the population socially, politically and economically. By participating in the process the poor can know what resources are available for them and who and how can get them. In this consideration, the participatory approach is treated as a useful theory for analysing poverty and food insecurity issues in this research.

As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, ‘poverty’ and ‘food security’ are the two central concepts of this research and are strongly linked. The four theories discussed above (the neoclassical theory of market-led development, the political economy of poverty, the culture of poverty and the participatory approach to poverty alleviation) emphasise poverty issues but do not specifically engage with food security. Three theories that consider food security as well as poverty will be discussed below: the basic needs approach; the entitlement approach; and the capabilities approach.

The basic needs approach (ILO, 1977; Streeten, 1984) is concerned with providing all human beings, but particularly the poor and deprived, with the opportunities for a full life (Streeten, 1981, p. 21). Basic needs include two elements. First, they include certain minimum requirements of a family for private consumption: adequate food, shelter and clothing, as well as certain household equipment and furniture. Second, they include essential services provided by and for the community at large, such as safe drinking water, sanitation, public transport and health, educational and cultural facilities (ILO, 1977). However, this approach is considered as inadequate to capture the comprehensiveness of human life, because it covers only the same material

needs as the neoclassical approach (Sen, 1984; Streeten, 1984). The basic needs approach is also criticised for not giving adequate emphasis to industrialisation in the least developed countries. It discourages industrial development and prioritises increased investment in the traditional agricultural and informal urban sectors (Singh, 1979). Streeten (1984) raised some pertinent questions about the basic needs approach such as who is to determine basic needs - the experts or the poor; whether this approach refers to the conditions for a full, long and healthy life or to a specific bundle of goods and services that are deemed to provide an opportunity for these conditions; whether meeting basic needs is an end or a means; and does the approach prioritise poverty eradication or reducing inequalities? He argued that, like the neoclassical approach, the basic needs approach advocates for the satisfaction of consumers who are better judges of their basic needs than experts (Streeten, 1984, p. 974). This neglects the role of the public sector and policy interventions.

Sen (1984, pp. 513-515) criticised the basic needs approach in five ways. First, the basic needs are defined in terms of commodities and the focus remains on commodities although the contingent nature of commodity requirements is fully acknowledged. Second, the commodity requirements for specific capabilities (these will be discussed in detail in Section 3.2) may not be independently decidable for each person, due to social interdependence. For example, the capabilities to appear in public without shame, or take part in the life of the community are dependent on the perceptions of others. This has not merely the consequence that absolute deprivation in capabilities may take the form of relative deprivation in terms of commodities and incomes, but also that the needs for commodities may not be absolutely specifiable at all. Third, basic needs are interpreted in terms of minimum specified quantities of

particular commodities, and the implicit framework is that of reaching a minimum level of capabilities which restricts the basic needs approach to application in poor countries. Fourth, need is a passive concept which is concerned only with the fulfilment of needs, that is what can be done for the person. It does not include the positive freedom of the person, i.e. what can the person do. Thus, the basic needs approach may be more suitable for the dependents such as children, but not for responsible adults. Finally, the use of the basic needs approach has tended to be concerned with strategic issues concerned with immediate outcomes and may lead to a lenient view on inequality rather than with foundational ones that are based ultimately on the future. For example, the basic needs approach concentrates on meeting basic needs of a person rather than building a solid material basis of economic prosperity.

The basic needs approach, although it includes food security along with other basic needs such as shelter, clothing, safe drinking water, sanitation, transport, health, education and cultural facilities as a means of combating poverty, only emphasised the material needs of human being. This approach does not include empowerment of each individual in society. It also neglects the role of the public sector and policy interventions by government to address poverty and food insecurity issues.

The entitlement approach (Sen, 1981b) concentrates on the ability of people to command food through the legal means available in the society, including the use of production possibilities, trade opportunities, entitlements regarding the state, and other methods of acquiring food. A person starves either because he/she does not have the ability to command enough food, or because he/she does not use this ability to avoid starvation (Sen, 1981b, p.

45). Sen (1981b) argued that by ignoring the possibility of using the ability to avoid starvation, the entitlement approach concentrates on the ability to command enough food. It focuses, as well, on those means of commanding food that are legitimised by the legal system in operation in that society. The entitlement approach to famine analysis revealed the reality that a famine may occur even if food is available in the market. Devereux (2001) argued:

[T]he most valuable contribution of the entitlement approach to famine theorizing is that it shifts the analytical focus away from a fixation on food supplies – the Malthusian logic of “too many people, too little food” – and on to the inability of groups of people to acquire food. Food insecurity affects people who cannot access adequate food (e.g. because of poverty) irrespective of food availability- a famine can occur even food supplies are adequate and markets are functioning well. (Devereux, 2001, p. 246)

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.4) Amartya Sen first introduced the entitlement approach to famine analysis and listed four sets of entitlements: (a) trade-based entitlements (buying food), (b) production-based entitlements (growing food), (c) own-labour entitlements (working for food), and (d) inheritance and transfer entitlements (being given food by others). However, Sen (1981b, p. 45) himself criticised the approach because “[while] it is an approach of some generality, it makes no attempt to include all possible influences that can in principle cause starvation, for example illegal transfers (e.g. looting, theft) and choice failures (e.g. owing to inflexible food habits)”. Edkins (1996, p. 559) argued that entitlement “does not reflect in any sense a concept of the right to food”. It can be argued that although Amartya Sen first introduced the entitlement approach to analyse famine and poverty, he

himself criticised the approach as inadequate to understand the issue. As a result, he further developed the capability approach to understand the poverty and food insecurity issues in a comprehensive way.

Over the last three decades Amartya Sen’s capability approach (Nussbaum, 1988; Sen, 1985) (further discussed in detail in Section 3.2) has emerged as the leading alternative to standard economic frameworks for thinking about poverty, inequality, hunger and nutrition, and human development generally. Sen has developed, refined and defended a framework that is directly concerned with human capability and freedom (Clark, 2008). The capability approach reflects a person’s ability to achieve a given functioning (‘doing’ or ‘being’). For example, a person may have the ability to avoid hunger, but may choose to fast or go on hunger strike instead [Saith (2001, p. 8) cited in Clark (2006)]. Sen (1993) uses the term ‘capability’ in a broader sense to refer to ‘the alternative combination of functionings the person can achieve, from which he or she can choose one collection’. Clark (2008, p. 110) argued that instead of describing specific abilities (such as being able to avoid hunger), the notion of ‘capability’ is effectively used as a synonym for the capability set such as being able to ‘live long, escape avoidable morbidity, be well nourished, be able to read, write and communicate, take part in literary and scientific pursuits, and so forth. The capability approach has also been adjusted to focus on inequality, social justice, living standards, and rights and duties. However, he stated:

Sen recognises that the capability approach is not sufficient for all evaluative purposes. By itself the capability approach does not provide a complete theory of justice or development. We need to take note of other principles such as personal liberty, economic growth and

efficiency. (Clark, 2008, p. 111)

Although Sen (1984, p. 513) acknowledged that some components of the basic needs approach such as nutrition, health, shelter, water and sanitation, and education are shared by the capabilities approach, other researchers (Alkire, 2002b; Stewart & Deneulin, 2002; Streeten, 1984) recognised that the capabilities approach also manages to bring together many of the concerns of the basic needs approach. Alkire (2002b, p. 170) observes that ‘the single most important function of the capabilities approach is to make explicit some implicit assumptions in the basic needs approach about the value of choice and participation (and the disvalue of coercion)’.

From the theories discussed above, it is seen that neoclassical economic policies benefit the rich more than the poor in Bangladesh (Murgai & Zaidi, 2006). Murgai and Zaidi (2006) found that, during the 1990s, the top 20% of the population experienced considerably higher increases in income compared to the rest of the population. They argued that had growth benefitted all groups equally, poverty would have declined by almost twice the observed rate over the 1990s when the market-led economic policy was in place. The political economy of poverty approach only concentrates on social and political systems and consequently restricts different options for combating poverty. In contrast, the current research intends to explore multi- dimensional ways in which the social and economic inequalities might be reduced in relation to food security. The culture of poverty approach is more concerned about the study of urban poor, particularly in the USA and Mexico, while this research focuses only on rural poverty. This approach also blames the victims (the poor) for their conditions which is inconsistent with the current research that prioritises the poor. The basic needs approach emphasises

materialistic development and discourages industrialisation. As Sen’s entitlement approach is considered as the foundation of the capability approach, the entitlement approach is not discussed separately to understand the poverty and food security issues. The present research uses two approaches, namely the capabilities approach and the participatory approach in considering what data should be collected and how far they help to understand the analysis. The capabilities approach emphasises people’s health, safe and sufficient food entitlement, right to employment and participation in the political process along with other components as discussed in the next section. The participatory approach also argues for people’s participation in the formulation of policy, development of programs and implementation at the local level which are identified in the previous two chapters as the key issues regarding poverty and food security.

3.2 Capabilities approach and participatory approach: Theoretical frameworks The theoretical frameworks selected in this thesis to understand poverty and food security issues are discussed here.

3.2.1 Capabilities approach In the early 1980s Amartya Sen developed the “capability approach” which has been used to evaluate an individual’s well-being. Sen (1985) defined well-being as an index of the person’s functionings (discussed later in this section). Sen (1981b, p. 154) argued that hunger or famine persists not only due to food availability decline, but also as a result of lack of entitlement (of a person to acquire or retain food or any commodity he/she wishes) due to his/her social position. Sen’s capability approach focuses on two things: people and their capabilities. For Sen, development means the expansion of people’s capabilities. To him, people are both the means and the end of

development. The capability approach also recognises that people’s capabilities are influenced by external factors such as other people, social conditions, access to infrastructure and public services, and freedom to speak and participate. Evans (2002, p. 55) argued that “the expansion of people’s capabilities depends both on the elimination of oppression and on the provision of facilities like basic education, health care, and social safety nets. Basic education, health care, and women’s rights are themselves constitutive of development”.

The way Sen’s capability approach can be used is explained well by Robeyns (2005):

The capability approach is a broad normative framework for the evaluation and assessment of individual wellbeing and social arrangements, the design of policies, and proposals about social change in society. It is used in a wide range of fields, most prominently in development studies, welfare economics, social policy and political philosophy. It can be used to evaluate several aspects of people’s wellbeing, such as inequality, poverty, the wellbeing of an individual or the average wellbeing of the members of a group. It can also be used as an alternative evaluative tool for social cost-benefit analysis, or as a framework within which to design and evaluate policies, ranging from welfare state design in affluent societies, to development policies by governments and non-governmental organisations in developing countries. (Robeyns, 2005, p. 94)

This statement reveals that the capability approach includes a broad range of social, economic and ethical issues. The central theme is the wellbeing of people, where Sen explained wellbeing as the opportunities of choice; 90

whether people have the ability to choose what they want to do or be. In this research food security is the central issue. As such, it is important to consider whether people are capable of choosing adequate food instead of hunger or economic solvency instead of poverty. This opportunity depends on various policies, institutions and persons. The capability approach thus can provide a theoretical basis for understanding issues including poverty, inequality, food security and policy analyses, so it is an appropriate basis of analysis in this research.

As discussed in Chapter 2, Sen (1999) treated poverty as the deprivation of basic capabilities rather than merely as low incomes. Sen argued that people’s well-being depends upon what they are able to be and do. He also argued that evaluations and policies should focus on what people are able to do and be, on the quality of their lives, and on removing obstacles in their lives so that they have more freedom to live the kind of life that, upon reflection, they have reason to value. Sen called these doings and beings “functionings”. Thus, functionings are what people actually “do and are” – they are achievements of people. Examples of functionings include being able to work, rest; having shelter; being literate; having safe and sufficient food; being adequately nourished and healthy; living long; being happy; having self-respect; being part of a community, and participating in social and political activities. Achieving a functioning (for example, being adequately nourished) with a given bundle of commodities (say, bread or rice) depends on a range of personal and social factors (e.g. age, gender, activity level, income, health, access to medical services, nutritional knowledge and education, climate conditions, and so on).

On the other hand, “capability’ means the combination of valuable functionings from which a person can choose. When a person is capable of deciding what kind of a life he/she would lead from a range of options of potential opportunities is treated as having capabilities. In other words, capabilities refer to genuine freedoms a person enjoys to lead the kind of life he/she has reason to value.

Thus, while functionings refer to what people really do and are (real achievements), capabilities denote what people really can do and can be (options of potential opportunities). The achieved functionings are the realised achievements and the capabilities are potential possibilities. Functionings are, in a sense, more directly related to living conditions, since they are different aspects of living conditions. Capabilities, in contrast, are notions of freedom, in the positive sense: what real opportunities people have regarding the life they may lead. The essence of Sen’s capability approach is that people should have the freedoms or valuable opportunities (capabilities) to lead the kind of lives they want to lead, to do what they want to do, and be the person they want to be (Robeyns, 2005). Alkire (2002a) has drawn a link between ‘resources’, ‘capability’ and ‘functionings’ where she included ‘food’ as a resource, ‘able to be nourished’ as a capability and ‘nourished’ as a functioning.

To complement Sen’s approach, the philosopher Martha Nussbaum significantly developed the capability approach. Instead of the singular “capability approach” she preferred the term “capabilities approach” as a plural phenomenon. She worked to operationalise Sen’s capability approach which was more philosophical than operational and which then can be used to analyse and assess people’s everyday capability contexts. She listed ten

central capabilities which she treated as fundamental entitlements. Box 3.1 below sets out these capabilities.

Box 3.1: Central capabilities

1. Life: Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length, not dying prematurely, or before one’s life is so reduced as to be not worth living. 2. Bodily health: Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter. 3. Bodily integrity: Being able to move freely from place to place; to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction. 4. Senses, imagination and thought: Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think and reason – and to do these things in a “truly human” way, a way informed and cultivated by an education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathematics and scientific training; being able to use imagination and thought in connection with experiencing and producing works and events of one’s own choices, religious, literary, musical, and so forth; being able to use one’s mind in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression with respect to both political and artistic speech, and freedom of religious exercise; being able to have pleasurable experiences and to avoid non-beneficial pain. 5. Emotions: Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to love those who love and care for us, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude and justified anger. Not having one’s emotional development blighted by fear and anxiety. (Supporting this capability means supporting forms of human association that can be shown to be crucial in their development.) 6. Practical reason: Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one’s life. (This entails protection for the liberty of conscience and religious observance).

7. Affiliation: (a) Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another. (Protecting this capability means protecting institutions that constitute and nourish such forms of affiliation, and also protecting the freedom of assembly and political speech). (b) Having the social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation; being able to be treated as a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of others. This entails provisions of nondiscrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, caste, religion and national origin. 8. Other species: Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature. 9. Play: Being able to laugh, to play and to enjoy recreational activities. 10. Control over one’s environment: (a) Political: Being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern one’s life; having the right of political participation, protections of free speech and association. (b) Material: Being able to hold property (both land and movable goods), and having property rights on an equal basis with others; having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with others; having the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure; in work, being able to work as a human being, exercising practical reasons and entering into meaningful relationships of mutual recognition with other workers (Nussbaum, 2003, pp. 41-42).

Nussbaum (2011) argued that improving people’s quality of life requires wise policy choices and dedicated action on the part of many individuals. She thought theories frame the way issues are seen, shape perceptions of salience, and thus focus debate toward certain policies rather than others. She argued that dominant theories that have historically guided policy choice are deeply mistaken, as a result they have steered development policy towards the wrong directions. So she felt a need for a paradigm shift and she

claimed that the capabilities approach is the theory that can meet urgent human problems and unjustifiable human inequalities. According to Nussbaum (2011, pp. 18-19) the essential elements of the capabilities approach are: (a) it takes each person as an end, which means it focuses on the opportunities available to each person; (b) it is focused on choice or freedom, which means respect for people’s powers of self-definition; (c) it is pluralist about value, which means it holds that the capability achievements that are central for people are different in quality, not just in quantity; (d) it is concerned with entrenched social injustice and inequality, which means capability failures that are the result of discrimination or marginalisation; and (e) it ascribes the tasks to government and public policy to improve the quality of life for all people, as defined by their capabilities.

Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum are the two originators of the capabilities approach. While there are some differences (which will be discussed in the later part of this section) between the two philosophers, the central agreement between them is that they have treated the individual as the centre of the approach. Other writers also explained the capabilities approach from their point of view. For example, Robeyns (2005, pp. 95-96) provided a framework to understand the capabilities approach in a comprehensive way. According to Robeyns, the capabilities approach evaluates policies according to their impact on people’s capabilities. She explained the approach in a way that asks whether the conditions for the capabilities of ensuring people’s health, safe and sufficient food supplies and food entitlements, high-quality educational system, real political participation, community activities that support them to cope with struggles in daily life and that foster real friendships, are present. She further argued that for some of these capabilities, the main input will be financial resources and economic

production, but for others it can also be political practices and institutions, such as the effective guaranteeing and protection of freedom of thought, political participation, social or cultural practices, social structures, social institutions, public goods, social norms, traditions and habits.

The capability approach has been criticised from several different angles. The most well-known set of criticisms relate to the issue of ‘how far Sen’s framework is operational’ (Sugden, 1993, p. 1953). Alkire (2002b, p. 11) raised concerns whether the capability approach provide adequate direction regarding (i) how to identify valuable capabilities; (ii) how to make strategic economic decisions that weigh and prioritise capabilities; (iii) what to do when value judgements conflict; and (iv) how capability sets may be measured, such that one can evaluate changes brought about by economic initiatives? Several commentators have criticised Sen for failing to supplement his framework with a coherent list of important capabilities (e.g. Williams (1987, p. 96); (Nussbaum, 1988, p. 176); Qizilbash (1998a, p. 54) . As discussed earlier, philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum made a list of ten specific central capabilities. However, Sen (2004) himself was against the fixing of a permanent list of capabilities, which is absolutely complete (nothing could be added to it) and totally fixed (it could not respond to public reasoning and to the formation of social values). Although in his earlier discussions (1979 Lectures “Equality of What?”, Sen (1982)) Sen outlined various lists of capabilities such as freedom to be well nourished, to live disease free lives, to be able to move around, to be educated, and to participate in public life, he believed that to have such a fixed list, emanating entirely from pure theory, is to deny the possibility of fruitful public participation on what should be included and why. He argued that pure theory cannot freeze a list of capabilities for all societies for all time to come, irrespective of what the

citizens come to understand and value. He further argued that a fixed forever list of capabilities would deny the possibility of progress in social understanding and also go against the productive role of public discussion, social agitation, and open debates (Sen, 2004).

In response to the criticisms against the fixed list of capabilities Nussbaum (2011, p. 29 ) stated that “the capabilities approach should not be read as suggesting that the approach uses only a single concept and tries to squeeze everything out of it”. She also admitted that the list she has developed is a proposal, it may be contested by arguing that one or more of the items is not so central and thus should be left to the political process rather than being given special protection (Nussbaum, 2011, p. 36). There is room for nations to elaborate capabilities differently to some extent, given their different traditions and histories (Nussbaum, 2011, p. 40). Researchers (Chopra & Duraiappah, 2008; Lelli, 2008) have also shown that the capabilities approach can be operationalised.

Despite all these concerns and criticisms, after a long process of development, the capabilities approach has become one of the leading theories in development studies. It has been highly influential in the context of international development. It led to a paradigm shift in the understanding of development away from the narrow confines of economic growth to a focus on poverty as a denial of choices and opportunities for living a decent life. The most well-known contribution of the approach is that the human development index (of the United Nations Development Programme) was developed, by the noted Pakistani economist Dr Mahbub ul Haq along with Amartya Sen and first published in 1990, based on the capabilities approach.

In recent years, among other things, the capabilities approach has been used to investigate poverty, inequality, well-being, social justice, gender, social exclusion, health, nutrition, disability, child poverty and identity, human needs, human rights and human security (Clark, 2008). Clark (2008) listed a number of research works carried out applying the capabilities approach in three broad categories: (i) measurement of poverty and well-being (Balestrino, 1996; Clark & Qizilbash, 2002; Klasen, 1997, 2000; Majumdar & Subramanian, 2001; Martinetti, 1994, 1996, 2000; Qizilbash & Clark, 2005; Sen, 1992, 1999); (ii) links between income (or expenditure) and various capabilities (Balestrino, 1996; Holzmann & Jorgensen, 1999; Klasen, 2000; Laderchi, 1997; Sen, 1985, 1999); and (iii) group disparities by pointing to gross inequalities in terms of life expectancy, nutrition and literacy, etc., along the lines of gender, race, class, caste and age (Majumdar & Subramanian, 2001; Sen, 1985). Using capabilities approach a few studies (Ahmed & Ting, 2014; Arends-Kuenning & Amin, 2001; DeJaeghere & Lee, 2011) have been carried out in Bangladesh that examined women’s empowerment, particularly related to education.

3.2.2 Participatory approach The participatory approach is a product of long lasting interaction between researchers, development workers, government agents and local populations. According to Chatty, Baas, and Fleig (2003) the history of the participatory approach in development cooperation began in the late 1970s with the introduction of a new research approach called “rapid rural appraisal (RRA)”, which immediately became popular with decision-makers in development agencies. During the 1980s the RRA came up with further fine- tuned approaches called Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). While RRAs aim at gaining information, often in a single event, PRAs were designed to

follow more the people’s own concerns and interests. This is consistent with Nussbaum’s Capability 10 which involves control of one’s environment. To understand the concept of participatory approach some of the definitions are given below:

Nabatchi (2012) defines citizen participation as:

[T]he processes by which public concerns, needs, and values are incorporated into decision-making. Citizen participation happens in many places (e.g. civil society, electoral, legislative, and administrative arenas) and can take many forms (e.g. methods may range from information exchanges to democratic decision-making). (Nabatchi, 2012, p. 6)

Oakley (1991, p. 6) provided the following 4 definitions of participation:

(a) Participation is considered a voluntary contribution by the people in one or another of the public programs supposed to contribute to national development, but the people are not expected to take part in shaping the programs or criticizing its contents (Economic Commission for Latin America, 1973). (b) With regard to rural development … participation includes people’s involvement in decision-making processes, in implementing programs, their sharing in the benefits of development programs and their involvement in efforts to evaluate such programs (Cohen & Uphoff, 1977). (c) Participation is concerned with …the organised efforts to increase control over resources and regulative institutions in given social

situations on the part of groups and movements of those hitherto excluded from such control (Pearse & Stiefel, 1979). (d) Community participation [is] an active process by which beneficiary or client groups influence the direction and execution of a development project with a view to enhancing their well-being in terms of income, personal growth, self-reliance or other values they cherish (Paul, 1987).

The common feature of all these definitions is that the participatory approach inherently inspires active involvement of poor people in development programs or projects designed for them. However, the definition given by the Economic Commission for Latin America (1973) differs significantly from the other definitions on the rationale for participation which indicates that the approach still has differences in its objectives and procedures. While the Economic Commission views participation as a voluntary effort by the community and people should not be involved in framing policy and programs nor have any substantive voice in determining what it will do and how it will do it, the other writers (Cohen & Uphoff, 1977; Paul, 1987; Pearse & Stiefel, 1979) argued for people’s active participation in policy and program formulation, implementation, evaluation and sharing benefits.

Guijt and Shah (1998, p. 1) stated that “the broad aim of participatory development is to increase the involvement of socially and economically marginalized peoples in decision-making over their own lives”. Similarly, the World Bank (1994) saw participation as a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives, decisions and resources that affect their lives. Cooke and Kothari (2001) argued:

100

This recognition and support for greater involvement of ‘local’ people’s perspectives, knowledge, priorities and skills presented an alternative to donor-driven and outsider-led development and was rapidly and widely adopted by individuals and organizations. Participatory approaches to development, then, are justified in terms of sustainability, relevance and empowerment. (Cooke & Kothari, 2001, p. 5)

Pretty, Guijt, Thompson, and Scoones (1995, p. 60) argued that ‘long-term economic and environmental success comes about when people’s ideas and knowledge are valued and power is given to them to make decisions independently’. The United Nations Development Programme, UNDP (2012, p. 7), argued that participation is a pre-requisite for democracy and it supports the value of self-determination. They also argued that the meaning of “participation” often reflects the values of whoever is defining it. It has been broadly conceived to embrace the idea that all “stakeholders” should take part in decision making and it has been more narrowly described as the extraction of local knowledge to design programs off site.

Michener (1998, pp. 2105-2106) also noted that the participatory approach has gained popularity since the 1970s, when it grew out of the concern for meeting basic needs and reaching the poorest of the poor. She argued that participation is crucial to the success of projects; it can transform development and empowers poor people. She also argued that participation facilitates local people’s acceptance of new policies and technologies promoted by outsiders. Through beneficiary participation, indigenous knowledge can be exploited and local labour, financial, and in-kind contributions can lower the implementation costs.

101

Silva and Athukorala (1996, pp. 72-73) noted that during the 1980s, the participatory approach became a dominant model for analysis of poverty issues and intervention in anti-poverty programs in South Asia; both governments and NGOs have increasingly turned to this approach in their interventions. They argued that the lack of influence over decision-making has been identified as an important barrier against poverty reduction in South Asia. They further argued that the participatory approach promotes a gradual and bottom-up process of social change, where the poor and the underprivileged gradually become full participants in the development and decision-making process.

However, despite the strengths of the participatory approach, it is not beyond criticisms. Michener (1998) pointed out a few weaknesses of the approach, such as confusion about whether participation is a means or an end; misuses of participation leading to power remaining with the influential members of the group; paradoxes of genuine participation means planner-centred participation, where the planners play the key roles, or people-centred participation where the beneficiaries play the key roles; conflicting use of participation by different stakeholders taking part in the same project; and implementation difficulties. Parfitt (2004) categorised criticisms of participatory approach by analysts such as Cooke (2001), Kapoor (2002), Kothari (2001) and Mohan (2001) at two levels, that of its theoretical coherence and that of its practice. The criticisms by Michener (1998) also fall into above two broad categories. The ambiguity of the concept of participation is related to theoretical coherence and the other four criticisms are concerned with its practice. Cooke (2001) refers to four types of group dysfunction that he suggests may adversely affect the participatory process: risky shift, the Abilene paradox, groupthink and coercive persuasion. The risky shift means

102

that groups tend to take more risky decisions than they would as individuals. The Abilene paradox suggests that group actions often contradict what the group members really want to do, thus undermining their aims. The groupthink indicates that groups can reach a false consensus when they reach a form of esprit de corps (a feeling of pride and mutual loyalty shared by the members of a group) that displays certain characteristics. These include over-confidence about the power and capabilities of the group. The coercive persuasion can be summarised a brainwashing of the members of a group by another influential member.

To address the theoretical coherence issues of the participatory approach Parfitt (2004, p. 554) suggests that “we abandon the Enlightenment propensity to try to define every concept in a fully consistent way and accept that important concepts entail an element of contradiction”. He also argued that such contradiction is integral and is essential to their meaning and utility and participation is only meaningful and useful if conceived as both means and an end. Regarding the practice issues Leurs (1996) saw training as central in creating the conditions for good participation and advocating an approach which focuses on the role of the facilitator and his or her relationships with different community members. IDS Workshop, Gaventa, and Blackburn (1998) suggested a number of measures to address the implementation issues of the participatory approach. They advocated the need for a new type of development organisation, the learning organisation. The workshop gave consideration to the changes in procedures, systems and structures that would be necessary to turn top-down development bureaucracies into learning organisations. They also recommended incentive schemes to reward participatory behaviour by personnel as well as the introduction of feedback mechanisms so that information is shared and a

103

willingness to have its development activities evaluated by stakeholders. The importance of accountability to the recipients at the grass roots was also emphasised.

The focus of the current research is in part on how the rural poor perceive about their participation into the policy formulation, program management and sharing of benefits, whether they see it as important and why. This thesis will examine the perceptions of the respondents regarding whether the five selected SSNPs were implemented through a participatory approach. In particular, whether there was any participation of the beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries in the policy making process or during selection of beneficiaries and/or management of the programs. This thesis will also examine whether, through participation in the selected programs, beneficiaries were able to achieve any of the ten capabilities.

This chapter has examined Amartya Sen's capabilities approach as a tool for understanding the poverty and food security issues of rural poor people of Bangladesh. The capabilities approach includes the conditions for the capabilities of ensuring people’s safe and sufficient food supplies and food entitlements, emotional attachments, self-respect and integrity, and having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with others. The literature review also suggests that, so far, no research has been conducted which analyses the food security and SSNPs in Bangladesh using the lens of the capabilities approach which is a research gap that the current research addresses.

From the above discussion, it is found that the capabilities approach and the participatory approach are interrelated. Capability 10 clearly emphasises effective participation of all human beings in political processes that hugely 104

impact every citizen’s life. Duraiappah, Roddy, and Parry (2005) argued that within the capabilities approach, participation is put at the centre of development. They stated that the capabilities approach views people as participants and agents of development. The effective involvement of people in their own development requires a clear understanding of the requirements for effective participation and the potential limitations of this process. In this context the participatory approach is an important tool to understand the poverty and food security issues in this study.

105

Chapter 4: Social Safety Nets in Bangladesh: An Overview

4.0 Introduction This chapter discusses different concepts of social safety nets, international experiences on the impacts and effects of cash and in-kind transfers, and provides an overview of social safety net programs (SSNPs) in Bangladesh. In Section 4.1, different definitions and concepts of social safety nets will be described. In addition, to understand the impacts of these programs as experienced by rural poor people, the definitions of social safety net used in this research will be explored. Section 4.2 discusses the literature on effects of cash or in-kind transfers in different parts of the world. This section also captures the debate among the international agencies and scholars on the issue. In Section 4.3, the historical development and current scenario of SSNPs in Bangladesh will be discussed. Section 4.4 will discuss the impacts of SSNPs on food security and other aspects of lives in Bangladesh. The last section (Section 4.5) focuses on the five programs which have been selected in this research and provides a justification for why these programs have been chosen.

4.1 Social safety nets: A conceptual framework Social safety nets have been an important policy focus in developing countries in recent times. This has partly stemmed from the risks and vulnerabilities associated with the debt crisis in Latin America in the 1980s and has emerged as a key policy response to rising poverty and vulnerability in the aftermath of the East Asian financial crisis in the 1990s, and continued economic stagnation in Africa (Barrientos & Hulme, 2005; Rahman, Choudhury, & Ali, 2011). The adverse impact of the global financial crises in 2009 also justified the necessity for social safety nets to mitigate the risks faced by the poor and middle classes in developed countries. These crises 106

resulted in worse and more widespread inequality and poverty (Sepulveda & Nyst, 2012). The World Bank estimates that, as a result of the crises, an additional 50 million people fell into income poverty during 2009 and an estimated 64 million more were living in income poverty by the end of 2010. Furthermore, it is estimated that around 71 million additional people will remain in extreme poverty until 2020 (IEG (Independent Evaluation Group), 2010). Sepulveda and Nyst (2012) argued that entrenched discrimination and structural disadvantage restrict the access of vulnerable groups to services and social safety nets. Consequently they have endured, and continue to endure, the gravest effects of the crises.

Barrientos and Hulme (2009) stated:

Social protection is now better grounded in development theory, and especially in an understanding of the factors preventing access to economic opportunity and sustaining persistent poverty and vulnerability. The initially dominant conceptualisation of social protection as social risk management has been extended by approaches grounded in basic needs and capabilities. … While many differences remain between the definitions and meanings that different agencies adopt for social protection, we believe that over the last ten years the overarching debate has moved on from contrasting social risk management and basic human needs perspective to a more ambitious focus on capabilities. (Barrientos & Hulme, 2009, pp. 439- 442)

Although Barrientos and Hulme (2009) have used the term ‘social protection’ not ‘social safety net’, the above statement and discussion in the later part of this section will explain that the concept of the social safety net has since 107

evolved and differs between developed and developing countries as well as different international agencies and scholars. While in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries “the term safety net is often used to describe the social assistance schemes that provide a guarantee of minimum resources to citizens or residents who lack sufficient income from other sources” (Whiteford & Fӧrster, 2002, p. 401), in the low income countries “social safety nets are non-contributory measures designed to provide regular and predictable support to poor and vulnerable people” (World Bank, 2015, p. 7). Some of the terminologies that have been used in different literature to conceptualise the ‘social safety net’ are: ‘social security, ‘social protection’, ‘social assistance’, ‘social pension’, ‘social welfare’ and ‘social insurance’. However, the evolution of the concept of social safety net can be categorised into three broad phases: (a) the traditional concept of social safety net that focuses on ensuring basic needs during physical and mental disability, chronic illness and old age; (b) risk mitigation concept of social safety nets that emphasises lifting the constraints to human and economic development posed by social risk ; and (c) rights-based concept of social safety net that grounded in implementing a right-based approach to development (Barrientos & Hulme, 2009).

The definition given by Subbarao, Bonnerjee, Braithwaite, Carvalho, Ezemenari, Graham, and Thompson (1997) exemplifies the first category:

Safety nets are programs that protect a person or household against two adverse outcomes: chronic incapacity to work and earn (chronic poverty) and a decline in this capacity from a marginal situation that provides minimal means for survival with few reserves (transient poverty). (Subbarao, Bonnerjee, Braithwaite, Carvalho, Ezemenari,

108

Graham, & Thompson, 1997, pp. 2-3)

Subbarao, Bonnerjee, Braithwaite, Carvalho, Ezemenari, Graham, and Thompson (1997) further clarified that a chronic incapacity to work or earn will usually result from physical or mental disability, long-term illness, or old age. A decline in the capacity to work is usually caused by (a) imperfectly predictable life-cycle events such as the birth of twins or a sudden death of a bread-winner; (b) a sharp fall in aggregate demand or expenditure shocks through economic recession or transition, during unavoidable cutbacks in public spending as a result of a decline in production in sectors in which workers are immobile; (c) poor harvest due to drought, flood, or pests, especially when they affect prices and production over a wide area, which causes the rural poor to lose access to usual sources of protection offered by informal transfers.14

The IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) (2011, p. 1) of the World Bank’s definition fits into the second category defining social safety nets as “non- contributory programs that target the poor and vulnerable and are designed to reduce poverty and inequality, enable better human capital investments, improve social risk management, and offer social protection”. The IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) (2011, p. 5) also summarised different connotations of the term social safety net used by agencies and countries to refer to a wide variety of programs. According to them, in developed

14 Informal transfers include private or community-based arrangements such as community- level saving societies’ contribution to pooling and spreading of income risks for some African countries (World Bank, 1993a, 1993b); Islamic-based Zakat and Ushr in South Asia and some African countries (Subbarao, Bonnerjee, Braithwaite, Carvalho, Ezemenari, Graham, & Thompson, 1997); inter-household transfers, community support arrangements, private religious contributions, private contributions to non-governmental organisations, and other forms of charity (Grosh, del Ninno, Tesliuc, & Ouerghi, 2008). 109

countries, especially in Europe and the US, social safety nets are often synonymous with welfare programs targeted specifically at the poor. In the developing world, the term safety nets can be used loosely as a substitute for all social policies. Some agencies use “social safety net”, “social insurance”, and “social assistance” interchangeably, whereas others, such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO) distinguish between these categories. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Department of International Development (DFID) define social safety nets as non-contributory transfers to those deemed poor or vulnerable, but they do not emphasise risk mitigation. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) defines safety nets as instruments aimed at mitigating adverse effects on the poor that may result from reforms. The World Bank (2015, p. 7) further notes that “(s)ocial safety nets are non- contributory measures designed to provide regular and predictable support to poor and vulnerable people. These are also referred to as safety nets, social assistance, or social transfers, and are a component of larger social protection systems”.

The ILO conceptualises social safety nets as arising from human rights. In 2001, the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) referred for the first time to the original vision of the ILO Constitution:

Extension of social security measures to provide a basic income to all in need of such protection and comprehensive medical care. It simultaneously affirmed social security as a “basic human right” and noted the importance of improving and extending social security coverage to all. (Sepulveda & Nyst, 2012, p. 9)

The ILO defines social safety nets as the “entitlement to benefits that society provides to individuals and households – through public and collective 110

measures – to protect against low or declining living standards arising out of a number of basic risks and needs” (van Ginneken, 2003, p. 279). The human rights approach to social security emphasises ensuring that participation of the beneficiaries occurs in all stages of the programs. Sepulveda and Nyst (2012) argued that unless a human rights framework is applied to the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of social safety net programs, their impact and outcomes will not be equitable or sustainable, and the poorest and most vulnerable will be left behind. The report submitted by Sepulveda and Nyst (2012) to the UN Human Rights Council made 30 recommendations of which recommendations 27 and 28 spell out the responsibilities of the governments to ensure participation of the main stakeholders in all stages of programs:

27. States must put in place adequate mechanisms for beneficiaries to participate in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of social protection programmes.

28. Participatory mechanisms must ensure that participation is authentic, takes into account the existing asymmetries of power within the community, and is tailored to ensure the broadest participation possible by vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. (Sepulveda & Nyst, 2012, p. 16)

As discussed in Chapter 3, the current research focuses in part on perceptions by poor people about their inclusion into the policy formulation, program implementation, monitoring and sharing of benefits. Consequently the right-based approach to social safety net can be treated as an important concept to discuss. This approach also covers un(der)employment, sickness, injury, disability and death, old age, family cohesion, neediness, basic human 111

needs and capabilities, food, health care, housing and education as its basic components (van Ginneken, 2003).

The FAO (2004) defines social safety nets and food safety nets differently, although it considers that both have the common goal of assuring a minimum level of wellbeing and nutrition, or help households managing risk. According to the FAO (2004, p. 1), “social safety nets refer to cash or in-kind transfer programs which seek to reduce poverty through redistributing wealth and/or protect households against income shocks”. On the other hand, “food safety nets are a subset of social safety nets, and aim to assure a minimum amount of food consumption and/or protect households against shocks to food consumption”.

According to the goals of the programs the following writers again categorised social safety nets as protection and promotional. The traditional types of social safety net programs aimed to prevent the poor from falling into utter destitution, or lift those who fall to such a level up to a minimum acceptable standard of living, and in specific contexts to compensate those groups in the society who have lost out from structural adjustment (Rahman, Choudhury, & Ali, 2011). Consequently they are protection programs. On the other hand, programs that have sustainable developmental potential beyond transitory poverty alleviation should be recognised as effective tools which can help policy makers in their current pre-occupation with the reduction of chronic poverty (Rahman, Choudhury, & Ali, 2011). Programs which redistribute income to the poorest and most vulnerable, with an immediate impact on poverty and inequality, enable households to make better investments in their future, help households manage risk, and allow

112

governments to make choices that support efficiency and growth (Grosh, del Ninno, Tesliuc, & Ouerghi, 2008), are promotional.

In recent years, literature and international organisations such as the World Bank emphasise another goal of social safety nets – social risk management. Lipton and Ravallion (1993) argued that traditional anti-poverty policy is only concerned with bringing individuals up to the poverty line or at least reducing the depth of poverty. On the other hand, Holzmann and Jorgensen (1999) argued that the goal of the programs should be to help poor people better manage their risks. They suggested interventions of direct transfers (in-kind or cash, by the state or community members) or an asset reallocation to lift the households far enough above the ‘survival line’ to allow them to take more risk and engage in higher return activities.

The literature on social safety nets (IEG (Independent Evaluation Group), 2011; Rahman, Choudhury, & Ali, 2011) has classified three major clusters of social safety nets. They are: (1) unconditional transfers15 such as cash or in- kind transfer, family/child allowance, non-contributory pension/disability benefit, and housing and utility subsidies; (2) income generating programs such as wage/employment subsidies and workfare programs; and (3) human capital investment such as conditional cash transfer16, waivers for education and health, and school feeding programs.

15 Unconditional transfers are transfers without any requirements attached (Arnold, Conway, & Greenslade, 2011, p. 49). 16 Conditional transfers are transfers in cash or in-kind to poor households subject to compliance with specific conditions in relation to education and/or health (Grosh, del Ninno, Tesliuc, & Ouerghi, 2008, p. 255); conditional transfers require certain actions from recipients (e.g. ensuring children’s school attendance or antenatal care) (Arnold, Conway, & Greenslade, 2011, p. 49). 113

The IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) (2011) cited four main objectives of the social safety nets. They are to (1) alleviate poverty; (2) enable households to manage risks more efficiently; (3) help households make more and better investments; and (4) facilitate beneficial reforms in the social sector and other areas. According to the IEG, social safety nets are intended to assist four main vulnerable populations: (i) the chronic poor – individuals who experience significant and continued deprivation and who lack the assets and human capital needed to support themselves; (ii) the transitory poor – those who move in and out of poverty; (iii) other vulnerable groups – including elderly people, people with disabilities, orphans, girls, refugees, and people affected by natural disasters; and (iv) victims of reforms – for example, people who lose their jobs due to economic or other reforms.

The definition given by Subbarao, Bonnerjee, Braithwaite, Carvalho, Ezemenari, Graham, and Thompson (1997) can be viewed as a traditional concept of a social safety net. It only focuses on conventional approaches to poverty analysis such as poverty due to incapacity to work resulting from physical or mental disability, long-term illness, old age or a sudden death of a bread-winner, or a decline in production due to drought or flood. This definition does not include inequality mainly created by the society or state, or a faulty system of distribution of public resources. On the other hand, the IEG considers social safety nets as a policy tool to mitigate all adverse situations caused by physical or mental health, natural disasters or economic shocks. They also argue that, during the last decade, social safety nets took on a more inclusive development role. In addition to managing risks, social safety nets are now expected to address issues of inequality and poverty, hence catering to the “chronic” as well as “transitional” vulnerable groups in the population. The ILO’s rights-based approach to social safety net establishes

114

the entitlements of SSNPs as a human right that is spelled out in the Article 22 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It also emphasises meaningful participation of the beneficiaries in every stages of the programs.

In this context, this researcher has adopted the concept of social safety nets given by the IEG and the ILO. The IEG incorporates poverty and inequality, human capital investments, social risk management, and social protection. This definition also considers non-contributory transfers as social safety nets, which are the characteristics of the five programs chosen for this research. This definition also can be applied according to the capabilities approach, because it includes inequality and human capital investments, which in turn enhance people’s capabilities to have good health and to be adequately nourished. The ILO definition also includes food as well as human capabilities that are some of the key issues in this research.

4.2 International experiences on cash or in-kind support Like the concept of the social safety nets, the resulting policies and programs have also evolved and differ over time out of specific national and historical contexts. At the same time, there are debates among different scholars and international agencies regarding the impact and efficacy of programs as well as whether conditional or unconditional or cash or in-kind supports are the most suitable programs for addressing poverty and food insecurity. In this section, the literature on international experiences of the issues related to the impact of social safety nets programs (conditional or unconditional, cash or in-kind) will be discussed.

Barrientos and Hulme (2009) have analysed the key features of social safety net programs in four regions namely, Latin America, South Asia, South-East and East Asia, and Sub-Sharan Africa. 115

Latin America: Historically, the social safety net programs in Latin America focussed on workers in formal employment. As discussed in Section 4.1, the acute economic crisis in the 1980s in this region prompted the expansion of public interventions to mitigate the risks and vulnerabilities associated with this crisis. The major programs in this region that attracted global interest are: the Bolsa Familia (Brazil), the Progresa/Oportunidades (Mexico), and the Chile Solidario (Chile) (Barrientos & Hulme, 2009). The Bolsa Familia is a conditional cash transfer program and adopted an innovative approach to multi-dimensional and persistent poverty. The Progresa is also a conditional cash transfer program that reflected both systematic learning from the earlier politicised and ineffective anti-poverty programs and the need to address the human development deficits that underpin intergenerational poverty in rural communities. The Chile Solidario represents a new generation of integrated anti-poverty programs inspired by the capabilities approach. These new human development programs aimed to meet both the short-term needs of the poorest households, especially improved consumption and nutrition, and longer-term goals, such as improved education and health (Barrientos & Hulme, 2009).

South Asia: In South Asia, traditionally social safety nets were designed for addressing short-term needs, particularly during or after natural calamities such as famine, draught, flood and cyclone for the victims of these natural calamities (Heltberg, 2007). In the later stages, government and national and international NGOs provide different types of SSNPs in different countries of South Asia. Sri Lanka has been more successful in social safety net policies than Bangladesh and Pakistan. In India, the southern regions have been much more effective at implementing national social safety net policies than the north and north-eastern part. In Nepal social safety nets have relied

116

mainly on aid donor and NGO projects (Barrientos & Hulme, 2009). The important programs of South Asia are: the Janasavia Trust Fund and the Samurdhi Program (Sri Lanka), the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) (India), the Pension and Allowance for Widowed, Disabled and Endangered Indigenous People and the Reaching the Most Disadvantaged Groups in Rural Development (Nepal). (Bangladesh programs will be discussed in Section 4.3). The Janasavia Trust Fund is a cash transfer program for poverty alleviation. The Samurdhi Program includes cash transfer, social security fund and a nutrition program. The NREGS in India aims at “right to work” for all households in rural India (Dutta, Murgai, Ravallion, & Van de Walle, 2012). The Pension and Allowance for Widowed, Disabled and Endangered Indigenous People in Nepal is an unconditional cash transfer program to support family-based systems and the Reaching the Most Disadvantaged Groups in Rural Development is a conditional cash transfer program to help meet the urgent needs of the ultra-poor (Khanal, 2013).

South-East and East Asia: In these regions there has been a common historical reliance on family-based social safety nets, but with different policy pathways reflecting different responses to rapid social transformation. In economically advanced countries such as Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore social insurance is the core of social safety net policies. By contrast, in lower income countries such as the Philippines and Indonesia social assistance is the mainstream social safety net especially after the economic downturn in the 1990s. Transitional countries such as China and Vietnam have developed programs that are primarily directed to addressing problems associated with rapid economic transformation (Barrientos & Hulme, 2009).

117

Sub-Saharan Africa: Like South Asia, the social security institutions in this region historically are deeply embedded in informal systems of social assistance programs particularly focused on humanitarian support, emergency food aid and famine relief. Recent changes focus on more permanent social protection programs namely cash transfers schemes and are targeted on the poorest and most vulnerable people, and usually include human development components. The wealthier countries in Africa (South Africa, Namibia, and Botswana) in contrast have stronger social assistance programs that rely on grants for vulnerable groups, especially elderly people and children. Very recently, social pensions have been introduced in Swaziland and Lesotho (Barrientos & Hulme, 2009).

The literature which assessed the conditional and/or unconditional cash and/or in-kind support programs presents varied and debatable results. While some researchers (Dutta, Murgai, Ravallion, & Van de Walle, 2012; Jha, Bhattacharyya, & Gaiha, 2011; Moreno-Valle & Colin, 2014; Rawlings & Rubio, 2005; Samson, 2012) argue for positive impacts of the programs, some (Alderman & Mustafa, 2014; Manley, Gitter, & Slavchevska, 2012; Parsons, 2015) found less impact. For example, in the case of the Bolsa Familia, Sepulveda and Nyst (2012) found it a successful program in terms of participation of various stakeholders in program design, implementation and monitoring. However, Parsons (2015) argued that the design of the Bolsa Familia program is inappropriate for rural remote areas. There are barriers to the implementation of the program in these areas such as limited infrastructure, and lack of quality manpower and equipment that reduce the effectiveness of the program.

118

There have been debates amongst researchers on whether conditional or unconditional supports, or whether cash or in-kind transfers are the most suitable strategy for combating poverty and food insecurity. Schubert and Slater (2006) argued that the conditional cash transfers are successful in the Latin American countries. But, due to contextual differences between Africa and Latin America, in quality and quantity of service provision, capacity to implement conditionality and the benefit – cost ratio of conditionality, they are inappropriate in Africa. However, based on the experience of six countries in Latin America, Bastagli (2009) argued that the CCT programs may have positive impact for short-term goals but due to conditionality they may exclude poorer households in the long run because of non-compliance. Rawlings and Rubio (2005) found positive evidence of success of CCT programs launched in Colombia, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua and Turkey on increasing school enrolment rates, improving health care and raising household consumption. In contrast, based on the experience of 18 CCT programs from 11 countries, Manley, Gitter, and Slavchevska (2012) found that CCT programs have had inconsistent effects on child nutrition status. Alderman and Mustafa (2014) also argued that SSNPs are a powerful poverty reduction instrument, but their potential to benefit maternal and child nutrition is yet to be fully realised.

Regarding cash or in-kind debates, most researchers have found positive impacts of in-kind supports, particularly food programs on consumption and nutritional outcomes of households. Banerjee, Duflo, Goldberg, Karlan, Osei, Parienté, Shapiro, Thuysbaert, and Udry (2015) found significant improvement in consumption and food security in the in-kind programs in six countries including Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Pakistan and Peru. However, del Ninno, Dorosh, and Subbarao (2007) found a positive impact of

119

food programs in Bangladesh and India, but less encouraging impacts in Ethiopia and Zambia. They found differences in prioritisation of public policy and investment in food programs between the two regions. Heltberg (2007) suggested in-kind support for short-term intervention and cash support for long-term goals.

Most conditional cash transfer programs around the world target women as the recipient of transfers as a means of empowering them (Fiszbein & Schady, 2009; HLPE, 2012). As women’s empowerment is one of the issues in the current research it is important to see how SSNPs targeted to women impact on food security/consumption within the family. While Mallick and Rafi (2010) found no significant differences in food security between the male and female-headed households, especially among the indigenous ethnic groups in Bangladesh, Razzaque and Toufique (2007) contradict their findings and suggest that there is evidence of female status influencing intra-households food distribution in Bangladesh in positive ways for women and children. HLPE (2012) argued that social assistance programs that target women with social transfers or public works employment are likely to achieve greater impact on household food security than when men are targeted, because of women’s dominant roles as food producers and carers within families. Handa (1994) found a positive relation between child welfare payments and female- headed households in Jamaica. Kennedy and Peters (1992) suggest that food security and pre-schooler nutritional status are influenced by the income and gender of the head of household in Kenya and Malawi. The proportion of income controlled by women also has a positive and significant influence on household caloric intake.

120

Arnold, Conway, and Greenslade (2011) prepared an evaluation report on DFID supported 24 social transfer programs (including both cash and in-kind transfers) in 16 different countries (including Brazil, Zambia, Namibia, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh). Arnold, Conway, and Greenslade (2011, p. 2) define cash transfers as "direct, regular and predictable non- contributory payments that raise and smooth incomes with the objective of reducing poverty and vulnerability". They stated that the field of cash transfers encompasses a diversity of transfer types (e.g. conditional and unconditional cash transfers); development objectives; design and implementation choices; and financing options.

Although the result of the impact evaluation by DFID suggested that the impact of these programs is generally positive, they have cited some negative or at least mixed experiences. They found convincing evidence from a number of middle income countries that cash transfers can reduce inequality and the depth or severity of poverty (for example in Brazil). They found some evidence (from Zambia and Namibia) that the introduction of cash transfers into poor, remote areas can stimulate demand and local market development. They also stated that evidence from Bangladesh and Ethiopia suggests that transfers are unlikely to achieve graduation from poverty without complementary interventions (e.g. skills training or agricultural extension) to promote livelihoods. In Bangladesh and Ethiopia they detected that if the cash transfer programs were implemented in isolation from other complementary interventions to promote livelihoods, graduation was unlikely.

The DFID report argued that one of the strongest and most consistent findings regarding the impact of cash transfer programs was their contribution to reducing hunger and food insecurity. Regardless of the form of the

121

transfer, households receiving transfers averaged significantly higher spending on and consumption of food. They found the positive change particularly in the lowest income countries (e.g. Ethiopia, Malawi, Lesotho, Nicaragua, and Bangladesh). In Bangladesh they found a significant improvement in the physical growth of women and children of beneficiary families of Char Livelihood Program and Cash for Work Program. In their opinion the reason for the improvement was that the households receiving additional income were particularly likely to prioritise spending on improving the quantity and/or quality of food.

This report also discussed the impacts of public works programs, which can be considered a kind of cash transfer, and noted that these programs could improve food security and reduce poverty through two channels: first, by providing poor households with transfer income in return for work, and second through the construction of infrastructure that supported economic activity. They found positive impacts of public works programs in several countries like, India, Nepal and Ethiopia, while they noted some failure of these programs in low-income sub-Saharan countries.

The report identified countries where these cash transfer programs were institutionalised and incorporated into a national social protection strategy and domestic law, including constitutional legislation (e. g. Mozambique, Angola, South Africa, and India). They also discussed a very important issue of affordability of basic social protection by the governments of 12 African and Asian countries including Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Tanzania and Kenya. Using the ILO costing model, this report discussed the percentage of GDP needed to cover the basic social protection of the poor people of a country. Figure 4.1 presents the basic social protection costs for 12 countries.

122

Figure 4.1: Estimates of the cost of a ‘basic social protection package’

Source: (ILO, 2008)

From Figure 4.1 it is estimated that in Bangladesh, to cover basic social protection (excluding the basic health) costs of all eligible people, 4.5% of GDP is needed. The report noted that Bangladesh, along with Burkina Faso and Cameroon, on its current expenditure would still be meeting less than 50% of the package cost.

The IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) (2011) report stated that impact evaluations showed that many safety net interventions, including conditional and unconditional cash transfers, as well as workfare programs, had 123

achieved their primary objectives of raising households' immediate consumption and income, and reducing poverty. The main findings of the report stated that in the short-term, safety nets were found to improve immediate consumption, current activities, households' investments in human capital, and abilities to mitigate the negative effects of shocks. The limited available evidence suggested that the income and consumption gains were maintained. This was seen to be probably due to positive effects on educational attainment and productive investments. Impact evaluations also investigated indirect effects of safety nets and found more positive than negative results.

Smith and Subbarao (2003) considered the question of what role safety net transfers should play in very low income countries where a large proportion of the population lives in absolute poverty and the state has very limited resources to fund transfers. They explored three fundamental constraints, all of which were accentuated in these countries, namely: the availability of accurate information to identify beneficiaries, the administrative capacity to target them and the fiscal affordability of transfers, and the lack of assessment of the implications for program choice and design. They concluded first that at expected growth rates the number of people living below minimum acceptable consumption levels would remain so high that some form of safety net intervention was justified, but that to minimise the fiscal trade off, safety net expenditures should be used to simultaneously finance other investments that contributed to long-term poverty reduction. Second, for pure transfers, governments should be selective of very specific groups – such as orphans – to limit costs and engender political support. Third, to improve the impact per dollar spent on transfers, programs should be selected that have a multiplier effect on incomes, or leveraged by using

124

the small amounts of cash to help households reduce risk or diversify economic activity. Fourth, to overcome the information constraint, programs should be developed that are self-targeting, such as public works at low wage rates or subsidised inferior food goods. Fifth, the judicious timing of transfers is important, for example, during the lean season when the opportunity cost of labour is lowest, or just before planting time. And finally, programs should be kept as simple as possible to fit with limited administrative capacity, thus avoiding multiple, overlapping donor programs in favour of one or two simple nationwide programs that are easy to implement, cost-effective, and fiscally sustainable.

The findings of Arnold, Conway, and Greenslade (2011), the IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) (2011), and Smith and Subbarao (2003) are relevant here. The former two reports discussed a number of evaluation studies on cash or in-kind transfers across the world, particularly in the sub- Saharan Africa, Latin America and South Asia. Their findings confirmed that most of the programs’ impact on reducing inequality, the depth or severity of poverty, hunger and food insecurity was positive.

The other important issues discussed in these reports are the needs for a national social protection strategy, and the affordability of the programs for the governments of low-income countries. Some of the African countries institutionalised and incorporated the transfer programs into a national social protection strategy and legislation, but in Bangladesh there is still no such national strategy or policy. The question of affordability to Government is very important, which is pertinently raised by Arnold, Conway, and Greenslade (2011) as well as Smith and Subbarao (2003). The list of SSNPs (see Appendix 1) published by the Ministry of Finance shows that in 2014-2015

125

financial year the total budget for SSNPs was BDT 307,510 million (USD 3,847.24 million) which was 2.3% of GDP of Bangladesh. Arnold, Conway, and Greenslade (2011) calculated that Bangladesh needed 4.5% of her GDP to cover basic social protection (excluding the basic health) of all deserving people, but currently they are providing less than 50% of what is required. If the ILO recommended basic social protection to be implemented in Bangladesh, the current budget would need to be doubled (further discussed in Section 4.3).

Smith and Subbarao (2003) provide a useful starting point for a discussion of what is needed to follow the suggestions of the participants of the current research. Their measures include:

a. Some form of safety net intervention is justified for people living below minimum acceptable consumption levels, but to minimise the fiscal trade off, safety net expenditures should be used to simultaneously finance other investments that contribute to long-term poverty reduction b. Governments should be selective or very specific on targeting beneficiary groups – such as people with physical or mental/cognitive disability, or people on very low incomes c. Programs should be selected that have a multiplier effect on income, or investments that diversify economic activities d. Some programs should address the vulnerability caused by seasonality, such as lean season, time of natural disasters, and/or festivals, and e. Programs should be chosen that are easily implementable, cost- effective, and fiscally sustainable.

126

While the international experience on the impacts of social safety net programs presents a mixed scenario, it is important to discuss how Bangladesh fits into it. The most important question here is that how do people experiencing poverty view the impacts of the programs on their lives. In this context the next two sections will discuss the past and present scenario of SSNPs and their impacts on food security and other aspects of the poor in Bangladesh.

4.3 Social safety net programs in Bangladesh Despite significant achievements in reducing poverty during the last four decades, it is evident that poverty remains an immense development challenge for Bangladesh (see chapter 1). Although the total number of poor people decreased between 2000 and 2010, in 2010 there were still 51.78 million people living in poverty in Bangladesh (BBS, 2011). In this context Rahman, Choudhury, and Ali (2011) have argued that the presence of such a large number of poor people is a cause for genuine concern. They also argued that a transfer of public resources to the poor in the country should be a major policy priority to ensure that poor people are able to meet their basic needs, cope with the impact of economic shocks, and invest in human development to be able to benefit from and participate in the growth process. Thus the SSNPs can be treated as an important instrument that Bangladesh may utilise to deliver different types of transfers to poor people.

Over the past 20 years, the portfolio of the SSNPs in Bangladesh has grown and transformed, reflecting a shift in government and policy approaches. Earlier the basis for the social safety net was mainly a charity approach, but this has increasingly become a rights-based development approach (CARE Bangladesh & BRAC Development Institute, 2010). During the last four decades, the governments of Bangladesh have been implementing a number 127

of SSNPs to address the shocks and vulnerabilities experienced by poor people. Currently almost all the ministries are pursuing some programs, directly or indirectly, which are contributing to poverty alleviation or improving the wellbeing and empowerment of poor people. The government initiatives started just after the country’s birth in 1971. However, these programs evolved out of the country’s early food and emergency relief schemes of the 1970s. In the 1980s and the 1990s the programs were institutionalised into an effective disaster management system to reduce the vulnerability of the millions of Bangladeshis regularly displaced by floods (1987,1988,1998 and 2007) and major cyclones (1991, 2007, 2009) (Hulme, Maitrot, Rango, & Rahman, 2014).

Rahman, Choudhury, and Ali (2011) stated that historically, two types of SSNPs have been operating in Bangladesh. Public safety net efforts have clustered around twin themes of food rations and post disaster relief, along with pension schemes for state employees. Another cluster has been informal safety nets at family and community levels to address issues of demographic and social shocks. These writers also argued that over time safety nets have transcended these historical meanings and have become a mainstream social and development concern.

Rahman, Choudhury, and Ali (2011) categorised SSNPs into five groups: (i) allowances; (ii) food security and disaster assistance; (iii) public works/employment generation; (iv)human development and social empowerment; and (v) urban poverty. On the other hand, Mannan (2010) categorised five types of social safety net programs, including: (a) cash support programs; (b) food aid programs; (c) special programs for poverty

128

reduction; (d) self-employment through micro-credit; and (e) some specific programs for poverty alleviation.

However, regardless of the categories and total numbers of SSNPs in place in Bangladesh, the major goals of SSNPs, determined by GoB (2009), are to: (i) achieve the protection of all types of poor people, prevent chronic poverty as well as transient poverty, and target the extreme poor first; (ii) encourage NGOs, community-based organisations and the private sector to augment their role and contributions to expand the social safety net; and (iii) increase coverage through increased budgetary allocation each year. While these are the common goals of all the SSNPs in operation in Bangladesh, each program has its definite objectives. According to the objectives each program is designed with different structures such as the specific target group, the nature and amount of benefit, and the length of the program. Some programs are conditional, such as stipend programs, but most of the programs are unconditional. Some are cash transfers, some are in-kind, and some are both. The similarity between all these programs is that all are non- contributory.

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.8), there is no consensus on the numbers of SSNPs in the country, and the exact financial resources allocated for SSNPs is also debatable (Hulme, Maitrot, Rango, & Rahman, 2014). The list of SSNPs published by the Ministry of Finance shows that in the 2014- 2015 financial year, it financed as many as 145 SSNPs (see Appendix 1). According to the Ministry of Finance the budget allocation for all the SSNPs for the financial year 2014-15 was 12.3% of the national budget and 2.3% of GDP. As there is disagreement about the total number of SSNPs in Bangladesh therefore, an effort to prepare an inventory is considered

129

worthwhile. Rahman, Choudhury, and Ali (2011, pp. 73-90) attempted to prepare an inventory where they listed 30 major programs, 24 minor programs, and 11 related programs focused on poverty reduction and social empowerment (total 65 programs). They also noted the budget allocation for all these programs in three consecutive financial years from 2008 to 2011, but they did not conclude whether the allocation was sufficient to meet the beneficiaries’ requirements.

Available literature suggests that Bangladesh’s spending on SSNPs is still far behind what is required. According to the ILO (2008), Bangladesh is required to spend 4.5% of its GDP to cover all the deserving candidates. However, the ILO (2010) reported that the public social security expenditure of Bangladesh was 1.1% of GDP in 2004. The ADB (2013) showed that social protection expenditure in 2009 was 1.4% of GDP. Recently the World Bank (2015) reported that the spending on SSNPs in Bangladesh in 2014 was 1.1% of GDP. However, data published by the Ministry of Finance (see Appendix 1) shows that the expenditure for SSNPs was 2.4% of GDP in 2009, 2.6% in 2010 and 2.3% in 2014 (See Table 4.1), which appears to contradict the ADB, the ILO and the World Bank. It may be that the differences of terms and definitions used by different sources lead to the contradictions between the agencies. The ILO used the term “public social security”, the ADB used “social protection”, and the World Bank and the Ministry of Finance used the term “social safety net programs”.

130

Table 4.1: Public expenditure on SSNPs in Bangladesh in recent years

Fiscal Year Percentage of GDP Percentage of annual budget 2007-08 2.3% 14.2% 2008-09 2.8% 17.3% 2009-10 2.4% 15.1% 2010-11 2.6% 16.1% 2011-12 2.5% 13.8% 2012-13 2.2% 12.2% 2013-14 2.3% 12.3% 2014-15 2.3% 12.3% Note: Official data only available from 2007-08. Source: GoB (2009) and the official website of the Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh (http://www.mof.gov.bd/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=217&Itemid=1). The public expenditure on SSNPs, shown in Table 4.1, demonstrates that the allocations fluctuate year to year. Despite the contradiction between the Government of Bangladesh and three international agencies on how much is allocated to SSNPs, it can be noted that the allocation is far behind the ILO standard, even when the Government figure is considered.

4.4 Impacts of the programs As noted above, there is a modest range of SSNPs in Bangladesh in terms of spending. The five programs selected for this research are: (1) the Old Age Allowance; (2) the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women; (3) the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD); (4) the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF); and (5) the Strengthening Household Ability to Respond to Development Opportunities- II (SHOUHARDO-II). The detailed descriptions of these five programs and the justification for selection for this

131

research will be provided in Section 4.5. Although the nature of the five programs is not the same, they share a common objective: to ensure the food security of beneficiaries.

A number of studies have evaluated the SSNPs’ performance and impact and it is evident that these programs have multiple impacts on the lives of the beneficiaries. Some studies are program specific (IGS, 2010; Islam, 2009; Khan, 2012; Mannan, 2010; Mannan & Ahmed, 2012; Rahman & Choudhury, 2012) and some assess multiple programs (Rahman, Begum, & Bhuyan, 2012; World Bank, 2006). The relevant literature will be discussed in the following sub-sections.

4.4.1 Impacts on food security Whilst people living in poverty struggle to manage their daily food requirements, it is evident that any sort of assistance, either financial or in- kind, to them would help to reduce their vulnerabilities. But there are always questions about whether the benefits provided by the programs are adequate to meet the needs of the beneficiaries. Few studies have been conducted to reveal the impact of the programs on ensuring food security as perceived by the beneficiaries.

Islam (2009), Mannan (2010), and Rahman, Begum, and Bhuyan (2012) in their respective studies reported the meagreness of the benefits offered. Islam (2009) examined only the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women. Mannan (2010), evaluated five programs (the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, the VGD, the VGF and the Primary Education Stipend Project), and used both quantitative and qualitative approaches. However, he only interviewed service providers, field level government and bank officials,

132

and local government representatives. He did not interview rural poor people who are the main stakeholders of these programs. Rahman, Begum, and Bhuyan (2012) used secondary data from the Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) on spending on the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, the VGD, the VGF, the Gratuitous Relief, and the Test Relief. They also conducted survey, focus group discussions, and case studies. Their focus, however, was on gender dimensions, health issues and intra-household matters.

Some other studies have examined the impacts of the programs, but they did not mention the inadequacy of the benefits. For example, the World Bank (2006) evaluated the coverage, targeting, leakages, overlapping and some other administrative issues of SSNPs, but they did not make any comment regarding the adequacy of the benefits. Rahman and Choudhury (2012), with other programs, assessed the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, the VGD, and the SHOUHARDO. They noted that the size of the benefits of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women is small, but they did find a significant impact on empowering the beneficiaries. They did not report any inadequacies related to the other programs. Mannan and Ahmed (2012) evaluated the impacts of the VGD program. They did not note any inadequacy of the allowance. The Institute of Governance Studies IGS (2010) has also appraised the VGD program and discussed the targeting, leakages and political economy of the program, but did not mention the adequacy of the benefit. Khan (2012) also assessed the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women program, but she did not have any findings relating to the amount of the allowance. Morshed (2009) examined the impacts of SSNPs, and used data from other studies, with a

133

focus on coverage, targeting, leakages and program design and management. Begum and Wesumperuma (2012) evaluated the Old Age Allowance and argued that the benefit is highly insufficient. They used mainly secondary information from the BBS and other researchers. They also collected primary data using FGD with older people, and interviewed people implementing or administering the program.

From the above discussion it is evident that only a limited number of studies have focused on the adequacy of the benefits; of these, most were based on quantitative analysis. Those which used qualitative methods did not examine the insights of rural poor people; rather, they focused on the local elites including the concerned government officials, bank officials, and local government representatives. Against this backdrop, the current research explores the insights of the most vulnerable group of people and examines the programs’ perceived impact on comprehensive food security in terms of the programs’ ability to build the capability of rural poor people. Therefore, the question addressed in this study is: how do the rural poor perceive the impacts of the SSNPs on ensuring food security of the beneficiaries?

4.4.2 Impacts on other aspects of life Although the benefits provided by the programs are used by the beneficiaries mostly to manage their daily food requirements, they have had other impacts on their lives. In this section, the literature on the impacts of the programs on other aspects of lives in addition to food security will be discussed. The other impacts of the programs identified are in terms of empowering women, increasing income and reducing poverty, and providing medical support.

134

Empowering women As one of the aims of the selected five programs is to increase women’s empowerment and dignity in the family and community, it is pertinent to discuss the impact of SSNPs on women’s empowerment. Razzaque and Toufique (2007) found evidence of women’s status influencing food security of the individual members of a household in Bangladesh. In this section, the literature on women’s empowerment in Bangladesh will be examined.

A number of previous studies, both quantitative and qualitative, have examined women’s empowerment in Bangladesh. The findings of previous research on women’s empowerment in Bangladesh will be further discussed in Chapter 7 (Section 7.2). Mahmud, Shah, and Becker (2012, p. 616) studied the overall situation of women’s empowerment in Bangladesh and found some positive developments such as empowerment in terms of household decision-making and self-esteem. Halder and Mosley (2004) examined the impact of the BRAC’s IGVGD program on women’s empowerment, along with others, and found positive changes in autonomy and social status of women and children’s education. Hossain (2007), the Rural Development Academy (RDA, 2012) and the Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development (BARD, 2012) found positive impact of the VGD program on some dimensions of women’s empowerment such as participation in household decision making and enhancement of status in the family. Islam (2009) and Khan (2012) studied the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women and revealed positive impacts on women’s empowerment. Rahman and Choudhury (2012) in their evaluation report on ten SSNPs, including the VGD, the VGF, the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, and the SHOUHARDO programs, also found positive impacts on women’s empowerment due to program

135

participation. They found enhanced women’s status in the family and increased women’s mobility and economic participation.

Other studies (Mannan, 2010; Paul-Majumder & Begum, 2008; World Bank, 2006) also revealed that the SSNPs have a positive impact on enhancing the beneficiary’s status in the society. Ahmed and Ting (2014) studied women’s empowerment relating to urban working poor using Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. This present research is significantly different from theirs, because, they did not examine the food security or the impacts of SSNPs; rather they examined general empowerment of urban women, rather than rural women, by using Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. Arends-Kuenning and Amin (2001), and DeJaeghere and Lee (2011), using the capabilities approach, examined women's empowerment in Bangladesh; however, their focus was on education, which is again different from the present research.

Increasing income and reducing poverty A number of previous studies found that programs generate other income opportunities for the recipients, and thus reduce poverty and vulnerabilities. Studies show that most households benefiting from cash transfer programs (such as the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women) have increased household income (del Ninno & Dorosh, 2002; Matin & Hulme, 2003). The VGD program also has reported an increased household income (Ahmed, 2007; Halder & Mosley, 2004; Mannan & Ahmed, 2012).

Begum and Paul-Majumder (2001) argued that the Old Age Allowance recipients invested their allowance money in buying a goat, cow, or poultry etc., which has a long-term development impact through livelihood creation. Similarly, beneficiaries from the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’

136

Deserted Destitute Women program acquired cattle and poultry, which have the potential for future income generation. Rahman and Choudhury (2012), from their survey and FGD insights, found income increases due to the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, the VGD, and the SHOUHARDO Programs.

Although most of the previous researchers argued that the SSNPs increased the income and assets of the beneficiaries, some researchers found limited or no impact on generating incomes of the program beneficiaries. Mannan (2010) argued that the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women ensured a regular source of income to old age people and the widows respectively, although to a limited extent. Islam (2009) argued that due to the small amount, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women had failed to generate income opportunities for the beneficiaries. As the beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women are more than 60 years of age, they are often unable to work due to their physical conditions. So for most of the beneficiaries this allowance is their only income. It can be argued that as the older beneficiaries are struggling to manage their regular food requirements they are supposed to utilise the money for their food purposes. It is important, therefore, to investigate the findings of other studies (BARD, 2012; Begum & Paul- Majumder, 2001; Halder & Mosley, 2004) which suggest that the beneficiaries have been using the allowance to purchase household and personal assets such as chairs, tables, dresses, shoes, clothes and mobile phones.

Some qualitative studies (Sattar, Chowdhury, & Hossain, 1999) cited by Hossain (2007); (del Ninno & Dorosh, 2002; Matin & Hulme, 2003) found

137

evidence that program participation helps increase consumption and income levels for beneficiary households compared to non-beneficiary households. Impact evaluations of the VGD (BARD, 2012; RDA, 2012) suggest the program has had a positive impact on reducing the poverty of beneficiaries. Mannan and Ahmed (2012) also reported the positive impact of the VGD program on poverty reduction of the beneficiaries.

However, other research revealed a limited impact of SSNPs on poverty reduction. Datta and Hossain (2003) argued that the VGD has a rather limited impact on poverty alleviation because of the small number of its beneficiaries. Rahman and Choudhury (2012) drew the attention of the researchers to an important issue when they noted that their findings showed that large-scale graduation out of poverty has not occurred within such a program cycle (for the short-term programs like the VGD, the VGF and the SHOUHARDO programs) but the more meaningful issue here has been whether sustainable platforms have been built which can subsequently lead to graduation out of poverty. They suggested that there has been insufficient debate on the optimum length of the program cycle to achieve such transition.

The previous research findings show mixed results regarding the impacts of the programs on increasing income and reducing poverty. It will be argued in Chapter 7 (Section 7.4) that due to the meagreness of the benefits and short length of some programs, the programs have limited impact in this regard. Therefore, the requirements from the beneficiaries' point of view need to be examined and addressed accordingly.

Medical support A limited number of studies (Begum & Wesumperuma, 2012; Islam, 2009; Rahman & Choudhury, 2012) explored the impacts of SSNPs on medical

138

support of the beneficiaries. What they revealed was some positive impacts of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women on medical care services. Some previous studies examined the programs’ impact on other aspects of life in addition to food security, but most of them were quantitative in nature and focused on short- term effects.

The Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) of the World Bank (IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) (2011) found some knowledge gaps in their report on 149 impact evaluations from 32 countries. They assessed ten different intervention types of programs, but most of them were conditional cash transfers, school feeding, and workfare programs. As such, little is known about the impacts of other types of interventions like unconditional cash transfers, food programs, and family and child allowances. Moreover, impact evaluations of SSNPs tend to measure results on short-term or intermediate outcomes. There is little evidence on final outcomes and long- term effects. Finally, there is a shortage of evidence on the effects of program duration and length of participation. In this context this research is significantly different from existing studies, because it examines the unconditional cash and in-kind transfers and explores the perceptions of rural poor people regarding the impacts of the selected programs on food security, promoting empowerment, and increasing income and reducing poverty of beneficiaries.

4.5 Description of the five social safety net programs In this study, five major programs have been chosen to match the aims of this research. They are: (i) The Old Age Allowance; (ii) The Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women; (iii) The Vulnerable Group Development (VGD); (iv) The Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF); and (v) The 139

Strengthening Household Ability to Respond to Development Opportunities-II (SHOUHARDO-II). The rationale for selection of these five programs is discussed below.

The common goals of the programs: The aim of this research is to analyse the perceived impact of the selected SSNPs on ensuring food security and other aspects of people’s lives, such as empowering women, increasing income and reducing poverty, and improving the dignity and medical care of the beneficiaries. The five programs selected are the most appropriate for this research, as all five programs have the common goal of addressing food insecurity of poor people, enhancing women’s empowerment and dignity of the beneficiaries in the family and society, reducing vulnerabilities, and providing medical support (the goals of the programs are discussed below).

The importance and size of the programs: The five programs have been selected in part because of their importance, size and coverage. In 2010-11, when the programs were chosen, the VGF was the single largest safety net program in Bangladesh, with the highest allocation (BDT 15,359 million) and more than 12 million beneficiaries. The 6th, 10th and 12th largest programs (out of 145 programs), in terms of expenditure, were the Old Age Allowance (BDT 8,910 million), the VGD (BDT 6,383 million), and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women (BDT 3,312 million) respectively. The other program (the SHOUHARDO-II) was also one of the largest programs funded by USAID and implemented by CARE Bangladesh in terms of allocation (USD 130 million, equivalent to BDT 10,390.90 million). As discussed in Chapter 1, the first four programs along with another program (the Primary Education Stipend Project) together were reported to cover more than two-thirds of all beneficiary households (Mannan, 2010).

140

Cash and in-kind programs and management: The five programs’ characteristics differ. The Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women are categorised as ‘social safety nets’ that deliver cash support. On the other hand, the VGD and the VGF are treated as ‘food safety nets’ which provide food assistance. The SHOUHARDO-II has a combination of both. In terms of management of the programs, the SHOUHARDO-II is administered by an NGO under the supervision of CARE Bangladesh, while the other four programs are managed by Bank/or and local government officials under the supervision of government officials. By exploring the experiences of the beneficiaries and other stakeholders regarding the management and perceived impacts of the programs some policy issues related to the effectiveness of the programs can be revealed.

The following sub-sections will describe briefly each of the selected five programs.

4.5.1 The Old Age Allowance The Old Age Allowance program is a fully government funded program, started in 1997-98. Until the 2013-14 financial year, the Allowance delivered BDT 300 (USD 3.75) in cash per person per month on a quarterly basis for a person’s life time. The allowance is distributed through a local bank. The bank distributes the money among all the beneficiaries of a Union17 in a single day. In 2014-15, the government increased the amount to BDT 400 (USD 5) per month. This program is being implemented by the Department of

17 A Union is a local government unit consisting of 9 Wards. A Ward again consists of several villages. 141

Social Services under the Ministry of Social Welfare. The main objectives of the program are:

a. Ensuring socio-economic development and social security for the elderly b. Increasing the dignity of the elderly within the family and community c. Strengthening of mental health through the grant to elderly, and d. Providing grants for medical care and increase of nutritional support.

There are certain requirements to be met by the potential candidates to be included in the program. The eligibility and non-eligibility criteria are given in

Box 4.1 below.

Box 4.1: Eligibility criteria for the Old Age Allowance (2013)

a. Age: A person below the age of 65 years for males and 62 years for females should not be considered eligible for the program. But priority should be given to the oldest citizens. b. Yearly average income of the applicant: Not exceeding BDT 10,000/-. c. Physical condition: i. Physically disabled and completely physically incapable older citizen should get utmost priority d. Socio-economic condition: i. In the case of economically distressed families, asset less, migrants and those who are landless will get priority ii. In case of social condition, widow, divorcee, person having no issue and citizens separated from family will get priority e. Ownership of land property: Landless people will get priority. In this context a person is defined landless if the land other than homestead amounts to 0.50 acre or less.

142

f. Non-eligibility: i. Government servants and pension holders

ii. VGD (Vulnerable Group Development program) card holders, destitute women iii. Regular recipients of government grants from other sources iv. Regular recipients of grants from any NGO or social welfare agency

g. Other: Birth registration/National ID number is mandatory to get the allowance. Source: Implementation Manual for the Old Age Allowance programme 2013 (GoB, 2013b)

The beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance program are selected by a committee at the Union level. The selection committee is made up of two representatives of the local Member of Parliament (MP), one representative of the local Upazila Chairman, one representative of the Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO)18, concerned Ward19 member of Union council and Union Social Worker (member secretary), and is chaired by the chairman of the Union Council. There is another committee at the Upazila level headed by the Upazila Chairman which has the responsibility of scrutinising the proposed list sent by the Union Selection Committees and approving the list with the consent of the local Member of Parliament. Other committees are also formed at the district, ministry and inter-ministerial level for supervision and monitoring.

When it began in 1997-98 as a three month pilot program, the Old Age Allowance delivered BDT 100 (USD 2.20) per person per month. At the

18 The UNO is the chief executive of an Upazila (sub-district), who is a junior-level officer of the Bangladesh Civil Service (Administration Cadre). 19 A Ward is the lowest tier of local government. Several villages/suburbs constitute a Ward. 143

beginning, the total number of beneficiaries was 403,110 and the total budget was BDT 12.5 million for three months. Over time the amount of money per month per person and the total number of beneficiaries increased, phase by phase. The total number of beneficiaries for the Old Age Allowance in 2014- 15 was 2.7 million and the total budget was BDT 13,068.0 million.

It can be noted here that the Ministry of Social Welfare fixes the number of beneficiaries for each Ward of Union or Municipality level. Generally, the number is determined according to the population of the Ward; however, it can cover only a fraction of the total qualified candidates. The ministry reserves the authority to enhance the number of beneficiaries for an extremely poor or disadvantaged area (GoB, 2013b). As a result, the number of beneficiaries of a Ward is capped unless the government enhances the number or any of the beneficiaries dies or migrates permanently from the Ward. The development of the number of beneficiaries, allowance per person per month, and total budget is shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: Development of the Old Age Allowance over time (number of beneficiaries, allowance per month, total budget)

Fiscal year Beneficiaries (n) Allowance per Total allocation person per month (BDT in millions) (BDT)

1997-98 403,110 100 125.0* 1998-99 403,110 100 485.0 1999-00 413,190 100 500.0 2000-01 415,170 100 500.0 2001-02 415,170 100 499.2 2002-03 500,390 125 750.6

144

Fiscal year Beneficiaries (n) Allowance per Total allocation person per month (BDT in millions) (BDT)

2003-04 999,998 150 1,800.0 2004-05 1,315,000 165 2,603.7 2005-06 1,500,000 180 3,240.0 2006-07 1,600,000 200 3,840.0 2007-08 1,700,000 220 4,488.0 2008-09 2,000,000 250 6,000.0 2009-10 2,250,000 300 8,100.0 2010-11 2,475,000 300 8,910.0 2011-12 2,475,000 300 8,910.0 2012-13 2,475,000 300 8,910.0 2013-14 2,722,500 300 9,801.0 2014-15 2,722,500 400** 13,068.0 * In the initial year (1997-98) the benefit was provided for just three months in the pilot @ BDT 100, so the budget was for three months. ** Only recently (from the financial year 2014-15) the government has increased the amount from BDT 300 to BDT 400. Source: Collected personally from the Ministry of Social Welfare.

Table 4.2 demonstrates that the number of beneficiaries of the program increased significantly in the last 17 years. The amount of benefit also increased over the period, but until 2013-14 it stood at BDT 300 and only recently in 2014-15 the amount has risen up to BDT 400 (USD 5) for all beneficiaries.

4.5.2 The Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women Like the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women are funded in whole by the Government. The 145

Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women program was started in 1998-99. Until 2013-14 the allowance delivered BDT 300 (USD 3.75) in cash per person per month in every quarter, until death or remarriage of a destitute woman who is either a widow or abandoned by her husband. The money is distributed through a local bank among all the beneficiaries of a Union in a single day. In 2014-15 the government increased the amount to BDT 400 (USD 5) per month for all beneficiaries. This program was implemented and is managed by the Department of Social Services under the Ministry of Social Welfare. The main objectives of the program are:

a. Ensuring socio-economic development and social security for the Widow and Husband’s Deserted Destitute Women b. Increasing the dignity of Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women within their family and community c. Strengthening of mental health through grants to Widows and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women d. Providing grants for medical care and increase of nutritional support.

There are certain requirements to be met by the potential candidates to be included in the program. The eligibility and non-eligibility criteria are given in

Box 4.2 below.

Box 4.2: Eligibility criteria for the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women (2013)

a. Age: The age must be more than 18 years but among the applicants the older people will get preference. b. Physical condition: Physically disabled, completely physically incapable and sick will get utmost priority.

146

c. Marital status: Widow or Husbands’ Deserted women only are eligible. d. Socio-economic condition:

i. In the case of economically distressed families, asset less, migrants and landless will get priority ii. In the case of social conditions, a person having no children, persons separated from family will get priority accordingly iii. Distressed, landless women who have two children below 16 years will get priority e. Ownership of land property: A landless person will get priority. In this context a person is defined landless if the land other than homestead amounts 0.50 acre or less. f. Non Eligibility:

i. Government servants and pension holders ii. VGD (Vulnerable Group Development program) card holders iii. Regular recipients of government grants from other sources iv. Regular recipients of grants from any NGO or social welfare agency

Source: Implementation Manual for the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women 2013 (GoB, 2013a)

Like the Old Age Allowance, the beneficiaries of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women are identified by a selection committee at the Union level. The constitution of the committees is the same as the Old Age Allowance. For the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women there is a committee at the Upazila level as well headed by the Upazila Chairman which scrutinises the proposed list sent by the Union Selection Committees and approves the list with the consent of the local Member of Parliament. For supervision and monitoring, some other

147

committees are also formed at the district, ministry and inter-ministerial levels.

In 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the allowance delivered BDT 100 (USD 2.08 and 1.99 respectively) at a time per person in a year as a pilot program. At the beginning (1998-99) the total number of beneficiaries was 403,110 and the total budget was BDT 40.3 million. The total number of beneficiaries and the budget allocation was the same in the next year. However, the number of beneficiaries decreased in the following year, but in the course of time the amount of money per person per month and the total number of beneficiaries increased year by year. The total number of beneficiaries for the Allowance in 2014-15 was 1.01 million and the total budget was BDT 4,857.6 million. Like the Old Age Allowance, the Ministry of Social Welfare fixes the number of beneficiaries of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women for each Ward of Union or Municipality level. Generally, the number is determined according to the population of the Ward; however, it can cover only a fraction of the total qualified candidates. The ministry reserves the authority to enhance the number of beneficiaries for an extremely poor or disadvantaged area (GoB, 2013a). As a result, the number of beneficiaries of a Ward is capped unless the government enhances the number or any of the beneficiaries dies or migrates permanently from the Ward. The development of the number of beneficiaries, allowance per month per head and the total budget is shown in Table 4.3.

148

Table 4.3: Development of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women over time (number of beneficiaries, allowance per month, total budget)

Fiscal Beneficiaries (n) Allowance per month Total allocation year per head (BDT) (BDT in millions)

1998-99 403,110* 100 40.3* 1999-00 403,110* 100 40.3* 2000-01 207,585 100 249.1 2001-02 207,585 100 249.1 2002-03 265,802 125 398.7 2003-04 500,000 150 900.0 2004-05 600,000 165 1,188.0 2005-06 625,000 180 1,350.0 2006-07 650,000 200 1,560.0 2007-08 750,000 220 1,980.0 2008-09 900,000 250 2,700.0 2009-10 920,000 300 3,312.0 2010-11 920,000 300 3,312.0 2011-12 920,000 300 3,312.0 2012-13 920,000 300 3,312.0 2013-14 1,012,000 300 3,643.2 2014-15 1,012,000 400** 4,857.6 * At the starting two years (1998-99 and 1999-2000) the benefit was provided @ BDT100 per year as a pilot basis. The government selected the same number of beneficiaries (403,110) for both the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women for the initial two years. ** Only recently (from the financial year 2014-15) the government has increased the amount from BDT 300 to BDT 400. Source: Collected personally from the Ministry of Social Welfare.

149

Table 4.3 shows that, like the Old Age Allowance, the number of beneficiaries and the amount of benefit of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women has increased over time. However, in this case the rate of increase of beneficiaries is not as high as the Old Age Allowance. It is likely that the total number of destitute widows and husbands’ deserted women is less than the number of older people. Moreover, the Old Age Allowance covers both men and women, whereas, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women covers only women.

4.5.3 The Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) The Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) is one of the largest safety net programs in Bangladesh, assisted by the World Food Programme (WFP). It is targeted at poor and vulnerable women. The ultimate goal of the program is to bring sustainable improvement to the lives of ultra-poor households. Starting with assisting war, famine and flood victims in the early 1970s, the VGD program has evolved over time to focus on helping poor women graduate out of poverty. The beneficiaries from extreme poor households receive a monthly food ration combined with a package of development services. The development package includes life skills and income generating skills training, as well as a personal savings program and access to micro-credit/NGO membership. The VGD participants are provided with a monthly food ration of 30 kg of wheat/rice or 25 kg of fortified flour (atta). This food ration is distributed among the beneficiaries by the local government officials at the Union council office. The VGD activities are run on a two-year cycle, and participants can only participate for one cycle. The VGD program aims to improve the nutritional status of women, children and adolescents through improved food consumption, education, skills development, livelihood diversification, and risk mitigation.

150

The Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) program initially started in 1975. This program is managed by the Department of Women Affairs under the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs. This program has both long-term and short-term objectives. The short-term objectives are to:

a. Increase food consumption and income generation activities b. Promote healthy behaviour and women’s empowerment.

The long-term objective is to make positive changes in the livelihood of ultra- poor women with the intention to protect them from further deterioration in living conditions.

There are certain requirements to be met by potential candidates to be included in the program. The eligibility and non-eligibility criteria are given in Box 4.3 below.

Box 4.3: Eligibility criteria for the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) (2011)

a. Age: Women aged from 18 to 40 years will be considered for the program as generally in rural culture, destitute women above 40 years of age are reluctant to engage in income generating activities after participating in any training program (GoB, 2011b). b. Eligibility criteria: i. Severely food insecure such as the members of a household who miss one or more meals a day due to lack of food ii. Real landless such as households who have no land or have less than 0.15 acres of land iii. People who have a very low quality housing iv. People who have no regular source of income or who earn a little amount of money working as a daily or irregular labourer, and v. Households headed by women where there is no earning male person in the family or no other source of income c. Non Eligibility: 151

i. Women who are included in any other food or cash transfer program ii. Women who were getting the VGD support in any of the last two cycles iii. Women who are not in the age group of 18 to 40 years iv. An adolescent girl who takes care of a family in the absence of head of the family. d. Others: i. A household is eligible for only one VGD card ii. Selected women are entitled to get a VGD card without any condition or money. In exchange for the VGD card they are not in any way bound to give any service or money iii. It is mandatory to present their National ID card or Birth Registration certificate to ascertain their age. Source: Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) Implementation Instructions 2011 (GoB, 2011b)

The beneficiaries of the VGD program are selected by a selection committee at the Union level. The Chairman of the Union Council is the Chair of the Selection Committee and some other members, including all the twelve members of Union council, one representative of the NGOs, one representative of government primary schools, one representative of Freedom Fighters, three current VGD card holders, and the Union Council Secretary (member secretary) constitute the committee. There is another committee at the Upazila level headed by the UNO which has the responsibility to scrutinise the proposed list sent by the selection committees, and to approve the list. Some other committees are also formed at the district, ministry and inter-ministerial level for supervision and monitoring.

In 2014-15 the total number of beneficiaries for the VGD program was 9.1 million and the total budget was BDT 8,869.2 million. The development of the number of beneficiaries and total budget is shown in Table 4.4 below.

152

Table 4.4: Development of the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) program over time (number of beneficiaries, total budget)

Fiscal year Number of beneficiaries Total allocation (millions man months) (BDT in millions)* 2008-09 8.8 7,308.5 2009-10 8.8 5,951.7 2010-11 8.8 7,299.2 2011-12 8.8 7,810.2 2012-13 9.0 8,588.6 2013-14 9.1 8,367.7 2014-15 9.1 8,869.2 * The allocation varies while the number of beneficiaries is the same due to year to year fluctuation of price of rice/wheat. Note: Official data only available from financial year 2008-09. Source: Official Website of the Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, (http://www.mof.gov.bd/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=217&Itemid=1).

Table 4.4 demonstrates a slow increase in the number of beneficiaries as well as budget allocation during the last seven years. In terms of number of beneficiaries and budget allocation, the VGD is one of the major safety net programs in Bangladesh.

4.5.4 The Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) The Vulnerable Group Feeding is a form of short-term emergency relief. This program is normally launched during a disaster, and after a disaster, until the distressed people are no longer vulnerable to hunger. The WFP started its relief activities as the VGF Program in Bangladesh among the poorest women from 1975. Under the program, a person receives 10 kg of food grain (rice/wheat) per month for three months following the disaster. The VGF 153

ration is distributed among the beneficiaries by local government officials at the Union council office. Currently this program is being implemented by the Department of Disaster Management (previously called the Directorate of Relief and Rehabilitation) under the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief. The main objectives of the program are to:

a. Reduce disaster risk by ensuring food security of the destitute and extremely poor people b. Reduce disaster risk by providing food assistance to poor and destitute people and families who are affected by natural calamities c. Contribute to poverty alleviation and climate adaptation d. Reduce disaster risk of the people engaged in special professions, extremely poor community and extremely poor people.

There are certain requirements to be met by the potential candidates to be included in the program. The eligibility and non-eligibility criteria are given in

Box 4.4 below.

Box 4.4: Eligibility criteria for the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) (2004)

a. Eligibility criteria:

i. Destitute and extremely poor people or households who cannot manage their daily food ii. A person or a household affected by natural calamities who are severely in shortage of food and money iii. Poor people or households during a lean period who fail to manage food due to lack of work opportunities, and iv. Ultra-poor people or communities who are engaged in a special profession (fisherman, blacksmith, cobbler, potter) or for public

154

interest who are restrained from their work for a temporary period. b. Non Eligibility: i. Any person included in any government or non-government food assistance program including the VGD ii. More than one person of a household from which any member is getting the VGF.

Source: Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) Implementation Instructions 2004 (GoB, 2004)

Like the VGD program, the beneficiaries of the VGF program are identified by a selection committee at the Union level. The constitution of the committee is same as the VGD. Again like the VGD there is a committee headed by the Upazila Nirbahi Officer to scrutinise the proposed list sent by the selection committees and approve this list. For supervision and monitoring, some other committees also formed at the district, ministry and inter-ministerial level.

In 2014-15 the total number of beneficiaries for the VGF program was 6.5 million and the total budget was BDT 14,192.2 million. Trends in the number of beneficiaries and the total budget are shown in Table 4.5 below.

155

Table 4.5: Development of the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) program over time (number of beneficiaries, total budget)

Fiscal Year Number of Beneficiaries Total Allocation (millions) (BDT in millions) 2008-09 3.4 14,875.3 2009-10 9.4 10,971.7 2010-11 12.2 14,736.4 2011-12 8.8 13,555.0 2012-13 8.5 12,007.8 2013-14 6.5 13,627.7 2014-15 6.5 14,192.2 Note: Official data only available from financial year 2008-09. Source: Official Website of the Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, (http://www.mof.gov.bd/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=217&Itemid=1).

Table 4.5 shows that the number of beneficiaries and budget allocation has fluctuated from year to year in the last seven years. As the VGF program is designed for short-term assistance for any disaster affecting poorer citizens, the number of beneficiaries is likely to vary depending on the severity and number of disasters. However, the number of beneficiaries and yearly budget of the VGF makes it one of the major social programs in Bangladesh.

4.5.5 The Strengthening Household Ability to Respond to Development Opportunities-II (SHOUHARDO-II) The Strengthening Household Ability to Respond to Development Opportunities-II (SHOUHARDO-II) program was implemented by CARE Bangladesh from June 2010–September 2015. The project is funded by USAID and the Government of Bangladesh at a cost of nearly

156

USD 130 million20, making SHOUHARDO-II one of the largest non- emergency food security programs in the world. The program extended across four regions (North Char, Mid-Char, Haor and Coastal), 11 districts, 30 Upazilas, and 172 Unions, to reach 370,000 households. The five-year Food for Peace (FFP) Title II Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP) advanced the model from the previous SHOUHARDO Program (2005-09) that successfully reduced child malnutrition, and strengthened livelihoods and women’s empowerment (TANGO International, 2009).

The goal of the program is to “Transform the lives of 370,000 poor and extreme poor (PEP) households in 11 of the poorest and most marginalised districts in Bangladesh by reducing their vulnerability to food insecurity” (CARE Bangladesh, 2010, p. 1). This program is implemented with the partner non-governmental organisations (PNGOs) under the direct management of CARE Bangladesh. The overall goal of the program is to reduce chronic and transitory food insecurity through increasing/diversifying income opportunities; strengthening institutional linkages between the government, non-government and financial institutions; and reducing risk which encompasses activities including agriculture, health, nutrition, disaster preparedness and climate change adaptations, governance and empowerment of women.

This program has five strategic objectives and each strategic objective is treated as a component of the program. Each component delivers different benefits and services according to their objectives. The strategic objectives are:

20 Plus 287,420 metric tons worth of commodities for both direct distribution and monetisation. 157

1. Livelihood: "Availability of" and "access to" nutritious foods enhanced and protected for 370,000 PEP households 2. Improved health, hygiene and nutritional status of 281,000 children under 2 years of age 3. Empowerment: Poor and Extreme Poor (PEP) women and adolescent girls empowered in their families, communities and Union council 4. Institutional strengthening: Local elected bodies and government service providers responsiveness and accountability to the PEP increased 5. Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptations: Targeted community members and government institutions are better prepared to mitigate and respond to disasters and to adapt to climate change.

Strategic objectives 1 and 2 are directly related to the aims of this research, as they deal with food and nutrition security. In this research these two components will be discussed. Component 1 provides skill-based training and a one-off cash and/or in-kind support of BDT 3,000 (USD 37.53) to start an income generating activity such as small farming, backyard gardening, or a small business. Component 2 provides monthly supplementary nutrition support of 10 kg of wheat, 1 kg of vegetable oil, and 0.5 kg of lentils up to 2 years age for babies. This allowance is worth approximately BDT 450 (USD 5.63). The cash and/or in-kind support and the supplementary nutrition support are disbursed at the Union council premises by the partner NGO officials under the supervision of CARE representatives.

The selection of households and individual beneficiaries was conducted in a transparent manner using the most recent data available. Undertaken during the first year of implementation, the process of beneficiary selection was a

158

thorough and inclusive process which involved the interaction of key stakeholders including: the Government of Bangladesh (including the BBS), USAID, the World Bank, and the World Food Programme, to identify the right areas and prevent overlap with other similar initiatives (CARE Bangladesh, 2010). The steps for selection of program areas and beneficiaries are shown in Box 4.5.

Box 4.5: Program area and beneficiary selection criteria for the SHOUHARDO-II

1. Identification of potential program areas: In consultation with a host of stakeholders, the Program identified regions that qualified based on set criteria including: high insecurity and malnutrition rates; areas most affected by natural disaster; remoteness; low literacy rates and high poverty rates.

2. Identification of specific program areas: 11 districts were selected. Overlap with the other Multi Year Assistance Programs (MYAPs) implemented by CARE Bangladesh and similar type of programs implemented by other agencies such as the Char Livelihoods Programme (UKAID) was prevented. There was also no, or very little, overlap with the former SHOUHARDO program. Subsequently, 30 Upazila’s and then 171 Unions were selected.

3. Identification of beneficiary communities: In consultation with partner NGOs and based on local data, and additional vulnerability analysis eligibility rankings were developed. This led to the selection of approximately 1500 villages. With assistance from other partners, 61 villages were excluded as they receive support from the DFID and the FAO.

159

4. Identification of individual direct beneficiary households: In the vast majority of cases, once communities were selected to participate in the program, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools were used to identify eligible households. This included social and resource mapping, wellbeing analysis and the final categorization of households in the PEP category that would most benefit from the Program. The one important exception is the communities that were selected for implementation of the Preventing Malnutrition in Under 2s Approach (PM2A) model. In these communities the food ration is provided to all pregnant women and mothers with children under 2 irrespective of socio-economic status.

5. Development of beneficiary profiles and registration: The Program conducted a community census in all selected communities. Once the census was analysed and people’s socio-economic status verified, direct beneficiary households were registered. This enabled the selection process to begin.

The selection process for beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program is significantly different from the other four programs. Using a comprehensive and multi-stage tool they select the most marginalised districts, then Upazila (sub-district), then Union, then village, and finally the beneficiaries. The direct beneficiary households are selected in an open meeting in the area where all the potential candidates, the local government representatives, government officials, CARE representatives, and the concerned NGO officials are supposed to be present. For Dimla Upazila ‘Jhanjira Samaj Kallyan Sangstha (JSKS)’ was selected for implementing the program as the partner NGO.

160

The average annual budget for the program is around USD 21–22 million. In 2010-11 the total budget for the SHOUHARDO-II program was BDT 984.6 million (Rahman, Choudhury, & Ali, 2011, p. 74).

4.6 Conclusion This chapter discussed the different concepts of social safety nets, the international experience on the impacts and effects of cash or in-kind support programs, the historical development, current status and impacts of SSNPs on food security and other aspects of life in Bangladesh, and described the five programs which have been chosen in this research. From this discussion it was found that the concept of social safety net has evolved over time at the global as well as at the Bangladesh level. Earlier social safety nets were treated as charity work, but they have become a rights-based development approach. Social safety nets, in recent times, are treated as an effective tool for mitigating risk and vulnerabilities of poor people, as well as reducing poverty and inequality and enabling better human capital investment. In this context the current research uses the concept of social safety net advanced by the IEG and the ILO. The rationale for adopting these two concepts are: (i) they incorporate poverty and inequality, human capital investment, social risk management, and social protection; (ii) they consider the non-contributory transfers as social safety net, which is a characteristic of the five programs chosen for this research; (iii) these concepts can also be analysed according to the capabilities approach, because they include inequality and human capital investments, which in turn enhance people’s capabilities to have good health and to be adequately nourished.

The discussion on the international debate about whether cash or in-kind support programs and whether the conditional or unconditional transfers are the most suitable for addressing poverty and food insecurity presents varied 161

evidence. The efficiency of a program depends on many characteristics such as geographical location, governance issues, size, nature and length of the programs and socio-political conditions of a country. It is evident that Bangladesh has been pursuing a modest portfolio of SSNPs. Although the total number of the SSNPs and the allocation for them are contested by different literature and sources, it can be asserted that almost all the ministries have some programs which have aimed to address poverty issues. The programs are designed to deal with both short-term and long-term outcomes. But it is also evident that the spending on SSNPs in the country is half that of the ideal level specified by international agencies. The five programs selected for this research are the most important in terms of the aims of this research. The common goals of these programs are to address the food insecurity of the poor people and provide nutritional support; empower women; reduce vulnerabilities and improve the dignity of the beneficiaries in family and society which is also aligned with the aims of this research. These aims are coherent with the capabilities approach which also describes people’s food and nutritional entitlements (Capability 2), empowerment and dignity of people in the society (Capability 7). In addition, out of 145 programs, in terms of budget and number of beneficiaries, these five programs are among the leading programs.

162

Chapter 5: Research Methodology

Qualitative research is a research strategy that usually emphasizes words rather than quantification in the collection and analysis of data. As a research strategy it is inductivist, constructionist, and interpretivist, but qualitative researchers do not always subscribe to all three of these features. (Bryman, 2012, p. 380)

5.0 Introduction This chapter discusses the methodology and design of this research. First, Section 5.1 discusses the research methodology adopted in this research to collect, analyse and interpret data. The next section (Section 5.2) discusses the concepts of in-depth interviewing and focus group discussion (FGD) methods, and justifies their use in this research. It also describes the study area and the participants of this research, the recruitment of respondents, and conducting interviews and FGDs. Section 5.3 explains the ethical issues encountered during the process of selecting respondents, conducting interviews and focus group discussions, and data analysis. Section 5.4 discusses the data analysis methods.

5.1 Methodology As this research intends to capture the dynamics of poverty, hunger and food insecurity in the life of rural poor people from their point of view, the researcher explores the lived experiences of the respondents through qualitative inquiry. As mentioned in Chapter 1, to capture the lived experiences of the respondents this study asks the following research questions:

163

This research has adopted a qualitative approach to collect, analyse and interpret data. The research study design is primarily explorative and descriptive in nature.

5.1.1 What is qualitative research? Silverman (2013, p. 122) defines ‘methodology’ in the context of research as ‘a general approach to studying research topics’. As cited in the beginning of this chapter, Bryman (2012) treats ‘qualitative research methodology’ as a research strategy that usually emphasises words rather than numbers. He noted three features of qualitative methodology: (i) an inductive view of the relationship between theory and research, whereby the former is generated out of the latter; (ii) an interpretivist position, which means that, in contrast to a natural scientific model in quantitative research, the stress is on understanding the social world through an examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants and the researcher; and (iii) a constructionist position which implies that social properties are outcomes of the interactions between individuals, rather than phenomena ‘out there’ and separate from those involved in its construction. Two of Bryman’s (2012) three features (constructionist and interpretivist) of qualitative research methodology are used in this research. In this research food security issues are understood 164

according to the views of the participants and finally, the analysis is generated from the interactions between the researcher and the participants. The researcher was interested in the complexities of lived experiences and captured the in-depth insights of the respondents. Discussion of data includes the researcher's interpretations of the accounts given by participants.

5.1.2 The choice of qualitative methodology for this research “The main strength of qualitative research is the ability to study phenomena which are simply unavailable elsewhere” (Silverman, 2006, p. 43). The in- depth insights of the lived experiences of rural poor people of one of the poorest districts of Bangladesh cannot be obtained from other than actually talking to these people. Therefore, qualitative research is the most appropriate tool to gather these viewpoints. The present research also concentrates on in-depth data, so this researcher preferred a qualitative research strategy rather than a quantitative survey.

Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 2 and 4, most of the previous studies conducted in relation to food security and SSNPs in Bangladesh either have used a quantitative approach or focused on the program managers or aimed to develop a tool for measurement of food security. Only a few studies (Coates, Webb, & Houser, 2003; Coates, Wilde, Webb, Rogers, & Houser, 2006; Coates, Webb, Houser, Rogers, & Wilde, 2010; Frongillo, Chowdhury, Ekström, & Naved, 2003; McIntyre, Rondeau, Kirkpatrick, Hatfield, Islam, & Huda, 2011), have captured the lived experiences of rural poor people, although their aim and focus were different from the current research. Their focus in previous studies was on developing tools to measure household food insecurity according to the experiences of the respondents. They did not examine the perceived impacts of SSNPs on food security of their participants. 165

The current research is different from these previous studies, because it was not intended as the development of a tool for measurement of food security. Rather, this research explores the experiences of rural poor people of the perceived impacts of selected SSNPs on their lives including food security, women’s empowerment and their insights to make their lives better from their point of view. Since this research intends to explore the experiences of rural poor people and the perceived impacts of five SSNPs on their food security and other aspects of their lives, this researcher considers the qualitative approach as the most suitable methodology.

As discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.6), Coates, Wilde, Webb, Rogers, and Houser (2006), McIntyre, Rondeau, Kirkpatrick, Hatfield, Islam, and Huda (2011), Coates, Webb, and Houser (2003), and McGregor (2004) argued that the qualitative research approach is the most effective tool to understand the food security issues from the poorest people’s point of view. In addition, McIntyre, Rondeau, Kirkpatrick, Hatfield, Islam, and Huda (2011) argued that qualitative insights from a household food provisioning interview may assist in the formulation of strategies to improve food security among particularly vulnerable groups, as well as identify aspects of existing programs and policies that may be limited in their reach and/or impact.

From the above discussion it can be argued that the qualitative methodology is the appropriate tool to meet the objectives of this research.

5.2 Methods Silverman (2013, p. 122) argued that the choice of method should reflect an overall research strategy, as the methodology shapes which methods are used and how each method is used. Silverman (2001, p. 32) also argued that “the method used by qualitative researchers exemplify a common belief that 166

they can provide a ‘deeper’ understanding of social phenomena than would be obtained from purely quantitative data”. Bryman (2012) stated four basic data collection methods in qualitative research. They are: (i) ethnography and participant observation; (ii) interviewing; (iii) focus groups; and (iv) document analysis.

To acquire a ‘deeper understanding’ of the food problems of the rural poor, this research used two key methods to collect primary data: in-depth interviewing and focus group discussion. Available secondary quantitative data were also used and included with the primary data when required. These secondary data were used to understand the context of the research area and to examine the similarities and differences of findings of this research with previous studies. Collected data were used to explain the perceived impact of the selected five SNNPs on food security and other aspects of lives of the participants in the research. The data collected from the fieldwork (in-depth interviews and FGDs) were mainly conducted in the Bangla language. So they have been translated into English first, and then transcribed. After transcription, using NVivo 10 software, they were coded and preserved securely on the computer of the researcher at UNSW. They were then analysed using thematic analysis.

To collect qualitative data the researcher interviewed 22 respondents and organised two FGDs during his three month-long (January 2013 - April 2013) fieldwork in Bangladesh. The total fieldwork period can be divided into four phases. The first two weeks were used for preparation for the data collection. At this stage the researcher visited both government and international offices and research organisations including the relevant ministries (the Ministry of Social Welfare, the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs, the Ministry of

167

Disaster Management and Relief, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Food), the World Food Program, the UNDP, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the International Food Policy Research Institute and the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies. The aim of these visits was to collect relevant literature and to gather some insights from the researchers and policy developers in the field of food security and SSNPs. The informal discussions with these people and concerned officials were particularly helpful for preparing a "question bank" as a guide for formal interviews.

In the second phase the researcher spent five weeks in the research setting, the Dimla Upazila in Nilphamari District. During this time 20 interviews of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were conducted and one FGD at the local level was arranged. The third phase was Dhaka based, where the two interviews of senior officials and the FGD at the ministry level were conducted. During this four week period the interview and FGD data were translated and transcribed. Some more relevant literature and pieces of information were collected as well during this time. The final week and the last phase of the fieldwork were dedicated to revisiting the interviewees of Dimla Upazila for further clarification. The researcher went back to the field and gathered more information that was considered relevant and important during transcription.

As mentioned earlier, the main focus of this research was to explore the experiences of rural poor people and the perceived impacts of the selected SSNPS on their food security and other aspects of lives; the 20 interviewees in Dimla Upazila were the key informants for this research. The remaining two interviews and two FGDs were conducted to seek the views of the officials involved in the programs in the context of what was learned from the poor

168

people interviewed. The rural poor spoke in a local dialect of Bangla language, so some words or phrases were unknown and difficult to comprehend for the researcher, who does not come from the same area. So, to capture all the conversation with the key informants the researcher hired an interpreter from the Upazila town, who is familiar with both dialects of the Bangla language. The interpreter was unknown to the interviewees. All the interviews and the FGD sessions were recorded on a digital recorder. Recorded interviews and FGD sessions were translated from Bangla to English first, and then they were transcribed. Because the participants in the study area used a local dialect of Bangla language; the interviews of 20 respondents from Dimla Upazila were translated and transcribed by a professional transcriber in Dhaka, who originally belonged to the same district. The remaining two interviews and both the FGD sessions were translated and transcribed by the researcher. Data transcribed by the professional transcriber were checked by the researcher and amended if required. During interviews a semi-structured interview guide (Appendix 2) was used. During the FGDs a checklist (Appendix 3) of issues constructed iteratively by the researcher was used.

5.2.1 In-depth interviewing Taylor and Bogdan (1998, p. 88) argued that qualitative interviewing has been referred to as non-directive, unstructured, non-standardised, and open- ended interviewing. They also use the phrase ‘in-depth interviewing’ to refer to this qualitative research method by which they mean a face-to-face encounter which promotes a sense of collaboration between the researcher and informants, who thus tends to become a colleague in the work rather than an object of the study. This relationship contributes to the researcher better understanding of the informants’ perspectives on their lives,

169

experiences, or situations as expressed in their own words. Taylor and Bogdan (1998, p. 135) further argued that in studies based on in-depth interviewing, researchers attempt to give readers a feeling of “walking in the informants’ shoes” and seeing things from their points of view. They also pointed out four grounds for adopting in-depth interviewing: (i) the research interests are relatively clear and well defined; (ii) settings or people are not otherwise accessible; (iii) the researcher has time constraints; and (iv) the researcher is interested in understanding a broad range of settings or people. Edwards (2002, p. 80) also argued that the in-depth interview method is appropriate where the primary focus is to ‘understand the significance of human experience as described from the actor’s perspective and interpreted by the researcher’.

Of these four elements, the first three were relevant to this research. This research clearly defined its goal to explore the lived experiences of rural poor people, who are not accessible by any other means, because almost all of them have little education and are not able to use modern technologies. The present researcher also had time constraints considering the duration of the fieldwork was only three months. Due to this time constraints the researcher were not able to understanding a broad range of setting or people in the research area.

To conduct in-depth interviews, the researcher used a semi-structured interview schedule. In the development of the research proposal, draft interview guidelines, one for the beneficiaries and one for the non- beneficiaries, were prepared to help inform the research questions. The draft interview guidelines were submitted with the ethics application. Due to time constraints the interview questions were not pre-tested. However, as

170

discussed earlier, the content was discussed informally with several other researchers and concerned officials related to food security and SSNPs. These discussions were helpful in finalising the interview questions. The first few interviews helped to adapt the interview questions further.

5.2.2 Focus group discussion Focus group discussion is a data collection method in which a researcher collects qualitative data in an interactive way from a group of people sitting together. Bryman (2012) defines the focus group method as follows:

The focus group method is a form of group interview in which: there are several participants (in addition to the moderator/facilitator); there is an emphasis in the questioning on a particular fairly tightly defined topic; and the accent is upon interaction within the group and the joint construction of meaning. (Bryman, 2012, p. 502)

Bryman (2012) considers the focus group method as a combination of two methods: the group interview and the focus interview. He further clarifies the two elements as: the group interview means several people discuss a number of topics, while the focus interview means interviewees are selected because they ‘are known to have been involved in a particular situation’ and are asked about that involvement.

The focus group method is widely used in qualitative research when researchers feel the need to obtain information that is simultaneously relevant to the research and is difficult to obtain using other techniques such as surveys and experiments (Zeller, 1993). Zeller (1993, p. 182) argues that the focus group method “offers the promise of providing definitions of the situation that would not otherwise be available to the researcher and in

171

particular information on sensitive topics about which respondents are usually too reticent to discuss”. Bryman (2012) noted five benefits of using the focus group method. They are: (i) people who were known to have had a certain experience could be interviewed in a relatively unstructured way about that experience; (ii) the technique allows the researcher to develop an understanding about why people feel the way they do; (iii) participants are able to raise issues in relation to a topic that they deem to be important and significant; (iv) individuals will often argue with each other and challenge each other’s views, and from this process the researcher may gain diverse views of the issues and a deeper understanding of them; and (v) the focus group offers the researcher the opportunity to study the ways in which individuals collectively make sense of a phenomena and construct meaning around it.

According to the Chronic Poverty Research Centre (Bird, 2001), the focus group method is useful for attaining some specific objectives including the following five objectives relevant to the present research:

(a) Generating qualitative data (insights into needs, expectations, attitudes, perceptions, beliefs and feelings of participants) (b) Identifying key issues (c) Developing emergent themes (d) Corroborating or triangulating findings generated earlier – by quantitative or qualitative methods (including individual sample questionnaires, structured or semi-structured interviews with key informants, and participative research tools), and (e) Getting reflective feedback for impact assessments or on government policies or interventions.

172

The researcher was interested in interactive insights of the people who have had vast experience on managing the SSNPs from which the governance and management issues can be better understood. Therefore, this research also used a focus group method to understand the experiences of the middle managers of the five programs. It also examined the reflective views of the policy level officials regarding the perceptions of rural poor people, both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, on the impacts and management of the programs. During the discussions the participants argued with each other on some particular issues such as beneficiary selection process, impacts of the programs on food security and women’s empowerment, adequacy of the benefits, leakages, corrupt practices by the selectors and program managers, work opportunities for rural poor, and localized industrialization, and finally came to an agreement from which the researcher gathered a new view on the topics.

A checklist for FGDs was prepared when the researcher finalised the research proposal and the checklist was also submitted with the ethics application. The checklist was developed further in accordance with the discussions with other researchers and concerned officials. As the FGDs were conducted to explore the perceptions and insights gathered from the key respondents with the middle and senior officials, the FGD checklist (see Appendix 3) was finalised after the completion of interviews with 20 key respondents.

5.2.3 Study area Bangladesh is a small country in terms of area with 147,570 square km of land (BBS, 2014, p. 3), with a large population of 156.6 million people (UNDP, 2014, p. 218). It has eight administrative Divisions and 64 districts. Each district has some Sub-districts which are called an Upazila. Each 173

Upazila consists of a number of Union Councils and the lowest tier of administrative unit is a Ward. This study has been conducted in one of the poorest Upazilas (Dimla) of the Northern district of Nilphamari. Dimla is bordered to the north by the Indian state of West Bengal and situated by the river bank of Tista, which flows from India. The river has a huge impact on the lives of the people of Dimla. Tista causes flash floods and erosion every year. A barrage was built in 1993 to control flash floods and to develop the irrigation facilities. This barrage has created three distinct agro-ecological variations in different areas of the Upazila: char areas; riverbank and embankment side areas; and areas protected by the embankment. The majority of the people of the Upazila experience chronic poverty. While people of char areas are the most vulnerable, people on the riverbank and embankment side areas are also vulnerable. They live with the fear of river erosion and the overflow of flash flood water at any time (Datta & Hossain, 2003). The Upazila is characterised as monga prone area in terms of the incidence and magnitude of poverty. Every year the majority of the people of this Upazila undergo a severe food crisis during the months of September through to November (Datta & Hossain, 2003; Zug, 2006). In 1974 it was one of the districts that was greatly impacted by the Bangladesh Famine, which took the lives of several thousand people in the region.

The aim of this research is to capture the perceived impact of five important SSNPs on ensuring food security and other aspects of lives of rural poor people living in one of the poorest districts of Bangladesh. This research purposively selected one of the North-west districts, Nilphamari. The distance of the district from the capital city Dhaka is 362 km (see the Bangladesh Districts Map in Map 5.1 below).

174

Map 5.1: Bangladesh Districts map

175

According to data available during the preparation of the proposal of this research Nilphamari was the poorest district in Bangladesh. According to the Poverty Map 2005 (Appendix 4), based on the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2005, jointly prepared by the BBS, the World Bank and the World Food Programme, in 2005 the population of this district under the upper poverty line (indicates moderate poverty) was 70.2% and under the lower poverty line, in other words food consumption poverty line, (indicates extreme poverty) was 55% (see Appendix 4), whereas the national averages were 40% and 25.1% respectively. The next stages of sampling are discussed below:

Selection of Upazila: There are six Upazilas in the Nilphamari District and Dimla Upazila was selected purposively considering its high poverty rate. Among the six Upazilas, Dimla is one of the most remote and poor Upazilas in Nilphamari District. The distance between the Upazila town and the district headquarters is 45 km (see the Nilphamari District map in Map 5.2 below). In 2005 the population under the upper poverty line was 75.7% and under the lower poverty line was 61.5% (see Appendix 5).

Selection of Union: Considering the geographical location and the poverty rate, Khagakharibari Union from Dimla Upazila was also purposively selected. This Union is situated by the bank of the river Tista, 10–15 km away from the Upazila town (see the Dimla Upazila map in Map 5.3 below). Frequent floods and river erosion cause havoc for the inhabitants of this Union (Datta, 1999).

Selection of Ward: Each Union has 9 Wards and Ward 3 was selected. This Ward is one of the poorest in the Union and was accessible to the researcher 176

by a motor bike. The small area marked in yellow in Map 5.3 is Ward 3, which is the area of this study.

Map 5.2: Nilphamari District map

177

Map 5.3: Dimla Upazila map

178

5.2.4 Participants in the research As discussed in Chapter 1, the participants in this research (interviewees and focus groups) can be grouped into three major categories: (1) the key respondents – the rural poor – comprised two sub-groups: beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries; (2) mid-level government officials, representatives from local government agencies, NGOs and bank officials; (3) senior officials from the implementing departments and ministries.

From their past and present experiences the beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, mid-level and senior officials of some of the implementing agencies and ministries, expressed their views and perceptions on food issues, management of SSNPs, and how the lives of the rural poor could be made better. In this research, first the opinions of the two groups of rural poor people, beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were canvassed. At the second stage, a focus group discussion was organised to collect the views of the field-level government, local government, NGO and bank officials responsible for selection of beneficiaries, disbursement of benefits, and monitoring and overseeing the whole process. Subsequently views of two of the senior officials from two different implementing agencies were explored and a FGD was arranged at the Ministry of Social Welfare to understand the opinions of the policy level officials.

The main focus of this research was to explore the perceptions of rural poor people about the impacts of the selected SSNPs on their food security and other aspects of lives. The 20 interviewees of Dimla Upazila were the key informants of this research. In this section the socio-economic status of the key informants is discussed. The key informants can be divided into two groups: 10 beneficiaries (2 beneficiaries for each program) and 10 non- beneficiaries. 179

It can be noted here that the current research is not a program evaluation study. The aim of this qualitative study is to deepen understanding and knowledge of the experience of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of SSNPs. As discussed in Chapter 4, the five programs were selected both because they had some commonalities and because there were some differences between them. The commonalities between the programs as providing food security of the beneficiaries became the key theme for this research. However, the perceptions of the rural poor on differences in management of the programs and the types of benefits they deliver were also a consideration in the current research. The rationale for selecting different types of programs (cash support, food support, both cash and in-kind and management by different agencies such as local government, bank and NGO) was to understand the perceived impacts and management of diverse programs. The researcher was aware of the limitations of selecting five programs and two beneficiaries from each program. If only one program had been chosen, the number of respondents from one program would be greater and the findings of the research may have been stronger. However, care has been taken in the thesis not to generalise from the small number of respondents for each program.

Beneficiaries As one of the research questions was what do the beneficiaries say about the impact of the SSNPs on their food security, the selection of beneficiaries as key informants in the research was a prerequisite. From the selected five programs, two beneficiaries were selected from each program. One man and one woman beneficiary were selected from the Old Age Allowance program. As the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Distressed Women program and the VGD program are only for the women, all four beneficiaries

180

of these two programs were women. Both the beneficiaries of the VGF program were men. From the two beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program, one was a man and another was a woman.

Non-beneficiaries The non-beneficiary respondents were treated as key informants and included in the research as their perceptions and insights on SSNPs were also considered as important. As discussed in Chapter 2, previous research revealed that a significant number of poor people were not benefitting from any program and a few studies captured the insights of the non-beneficiaries. It can be argued that it was a requirement to know why they were not included and how they perceive the programs. A group of potential beneficiaries who matched the beneficiaries in terms of age and other selection criteria cited in Chapter 3 was selected. One man and one woman were interviewed about the Old Age Allowance, two women were asked about the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, two women were questioned about the VGD program, two men were interviewed about the VGF program, and one man and one woman were asked about the SHOUHARDO-II program.

The details of the twenty key informants including their age, gender, education, children, income and land are shown in Table 5.1.

181

Table 5.1: Socio-economic profiles of key informants

Name* Age Sex Education Children Monthly Land Income** Boy Girl (Acre) BDT Bashir Uddin 65 M III 3 4 1300 0.05 Felani Banu 71 F No 2 2 No 0.03 Lucky 27 F X 1 - 1000 No land Mohammad Alom 60 M No 3 1 4000 0.05 Saleha Begum 35 F No 1 2 2000 0.03 Hafsa 30 F No 1 1 2000 0.04 Dilip 31 M No 2 - 3000 0.05 Mafizur Rahman 36 M III 2 1 4000 0.10 Hafeza Begum 58 F I 2 2 No 0.12 Sahiran Begum 75 F No 2 3 No 0.02 Abdul Jalil 80 M No 2 4 1500 0.30 Aleya Begum 66 F No 2 - 700 No land Masura Begum 28 F V 1 1 3000 0.03 Motaleb Hossain 52 M No 1 2 3500 0.10 Shefali Begum 28 F VIII 4 - 4000 0.08 Monwara Begum 28 F No 1 2 4000 0.05 Prodip 32 M No 1 1 3000 0.02 Abul Kashem 42 M No 1 2 3500 0.02 Rashida Begum 48 F II 2 3 1000 0.04 Hazera Banu 50 F No 1 1 2500 0.05 * Not actual names **Income of the household Shaded rows are non-beneficiaries

From the above list the first ten were beneficiaries and the remaining ten were non-beneficiaries. Table 5.1 shows that the respondents represent 182

varied age groups. Four were in their late twenties, five were in their thirties, two were each in their forties and seventies, three were each in their fifties and sixties, and one was in their eighties. Out of 20 respondents, 12 were women and 8 were men, 18 were Muslims and two were Hindus. The majority of them (13) had no education; only two women went to high school, although they could not finish, the remaining five went to primary school but did not finish. All the respondents have from one to seven children. Some of the respondents, who were older than sixty years, had dependent children or grandchildren. However, none of the older respondents enjoyed regular financial assistance from their children. Three beneficiaries who are older women had no income other than the benefits they received. The monthly income range was BDT 700 to 4000 (USD 8.75 to 50). There was little difference between the incomes (without taking into account the contribution of the programs) of the beneficiary and non-beneficiary households. The majority of the respondents reported that they do not have any agricultural land; only a piece of homestead land they possess. However, one beneficiary and one non-beneficiary reported that they have a small piece of farm land (one has 0.15 acre, another has 0.08 acre), while two respondents (one beneficiary and one non-beneficiary) reported they do not have any land and they built their house in their parents’ homestead land.

5.2.5 Recruitment Recruitment of the 10 beneficiaries and 10 non-beneficiaries for the in-depth interviews was conducted randomly. To recruit the beneficiary respondents, first the lists of the beneficiaries of the selected five programs were collected from the relevant offices of the Upazila level. For recruitment of non- beneficiary respondents the list of Poor and Extreme Poor (PEP) of the Ward 3 of Khagakharibari Union council, prepared by CARE Bangladesh, was

183

collected. From the beneficiary lists 10 beneficiaries for each program (total 50) were selected randomly; an invitation letter for participation in the research was sent by the Upazila Nirbahi Officer. The letter (Appendix 6) clearly stated the mailing address and the cell phone number of the researcher and the UNO, so that the interested persons could contact the researcher or the UNO to participate. The same letter was sent to 50 potential non-beneficiary respondents randomly.

While a letter was sent to the potential non-beneficiary respondents, according to the selection criteria of the programs, the age and gender of the person was considered so that they were similar to the beneficiary respondents. For example, for the Old Age Allowance, persons more than sixty-two years of age for females and sixty-five years for males were considered. For the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women generally old aged widows or husbands’ deserted women were considered. For the VGD only women from the age group of 18-40 and for the VGF and the SHOUHARDO-II both men and women of any age were considered.

Finally, the ten beneficiary and ten non-beneficiary respondents were recruited randomly by the researcher from a list of 45 persons who responded to the letter sent by the UNO to express their willingness to participate in the research. The other two in-depth interview respondents were recruited as per their job responsibility (they were the relevant officials at the top level for the VGD and the SHOUHARDO-II programs). The anonymity of the two interviewees is maintained in this research. Their names or designations are not disclosed in this thesis.

184

The participants for the FGDs, both at the local and ministry levels were also recruited by the researcher according to the requirements of the research aims. The relevant government, bank and NGO officials and the local government representatives, who are responsible for policy formulation, implementation and program management, were selected. For the FGD at Dimla, on request from the researcher, the UNO called all the relevant government, local government, bank and NGO officials to participate. For the FGD at the ministry level the Secretary, Ministry of Social Welfare called all the relevant officials.

5.2.6 Conducting interviews The interviews were conducted in two phases. In the first phase, 20 interviews in the field were conducted. The remaining two interviews of senior officials were conducted in the second phase. During the fieldwork the researcher stayed at Dimla Upazila for five weeks. The researcher conducted one interview each day, travelling to the house of each interviewee by motorbike. An interpreter also accompanied the researcher from Upazila town every time the researcher went to conduct an interview. The interpreter was trained by the researcher beforehand regarding his responsibility and the ethical obligations he should maintain. Before starting each interview the researcher introduced himself to the interviewees and explained the aims of the research. The researcher read out the consent form and after realising that they were not under an obligation to participate in the research the respondents signed the consent form before the interview sessions. The order of interviews conducted is shown in Appendix 7.

The average time for a formal interview was 40 minutes. The longest time was 62 minutes and the shortest time was 24 minutes. The time spent for introduction of the researcher and to make rapport with the interviewees is 185

not included in this calculation. As most of the key informants had little or no education, some of the respondents could not understand the questions; in particular, the standard Bangla language used by the researcher sometimes seemed difficult for the interviewees to comprehend. In this situation intervention of the interpreter was needed and proved useful. The intervention by the interpreter was strictly monitored by the researcher, so that he could not interfere or influence participant responses.

Generally the beneficiary respondents gave more time for each interview and non-beneficiary respondents gave less time. The reason for giving less time by the non-beneficiary respondents might be that they did not know much about the programs and many felt excluded from the programs unfairly, so they were reluctant to talk at length about the issues with the researcher.

5.2.7 Conducting focus group discussions The focus groups were also conducted in two phases. In the first phase the local level FGD at Dimla Upazila was organised and in the ministry level FGD was conducted in the second phase. Before starting each FGD the researcher introduced himself to the participants and explained the aims of the research. The researcher also distributed the Participant Information and Consent Forms and discussed the ethical norms before the participants signed the Consent Forms. The anonymity of the FGD participants is maintained in this dissertation. Both the FGD sessions were recorded using a digital recorder. The length of the FGD session at Dimla was 2 hours and 46 minutes and the length of the FGD at the ministry level was 40 minutes. In both the FGDs the researcher himself acted as the moderator. At the local level FGD (at Dimla), thirteen participants were present of whom six were mid-level government officials, two were bank officials, two were NGO officials, and three were local government representatives. At the ministry 186

level FGD, five officials were present of whom four were from the ministry and one was from the implementing department.

5.3 Ethical considerations Ethical principles are vital to social research. Diener and Crandall (1978) argue that maintaining ethical standards help social researchers achieve their values in research; avoid strategies that might endanger these values, and aid balancing values that are in conflict. Ethical guidelines help ensure that research is directed toward its goals and that the welfare of research participants is protected. Ethics are also important because they help prevent abuses and serve to delineate responsibilities. Diener and Crandall (1978) and Bryman (2012) outline basic principles of ethical considerations, including harm to participants, informed consent, privacy and deception. Israel and Hersh (2006) discuss four major ethical principles including informed consent, confidentiality, harm and benefit, and relationships. From these scholars it can be seen that ethical social researchers should obtain informed consent prior to the start of an interview from research participants and consent should be voluntary. This principle stresses the ethical requirement for no coercion, manipulation or deception. The privacy and confidentiality of the participants must be maintained during data collection, analysis and publication. Researchers should protect the participants from any kind of personal, physical, economic and professional harm; and rather ethical research promotes the well-being of participants.

Before going to fieldwork, ethics approval from the UNSW Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC Ref: # HC 12508) was obtained by the researcher. During fieldwork, data collection, analysis and interpretation required ethical obligations were maintained. Before entering the field, permission was obtained from the UNO, the administrative head of the Upazila (see Appendix 187

8). While doing fieldwork the researcher was always careful and aware of maintaining ethical norms, especially the dignity and confidentiality of the respondents and participants of this research. As the key informants of this research, both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were considered by the researcher to be the least powerful group in the study, it was very important to be careful of possible ethical concerns. Out of 20 interviewees, 12 were women, who belong to a traditional society where women generally are reserved talking to an outsider. So the researcher was especially careful about the comfort and values of the respondents. According to the situation, before starting the interview, the researcher talked to the men in the family to create a congenial environment to bridge the gap between the researcher and the female interviewees. The interpreter was also helpful in making a rapport between the researcher and the respondents as he lives in the same Upazila and they use the same dialect of language.

To follow the standard ethical practices discussed above (although these ethical practices are particularly Australian standards and not necessarily what the participants of the current research would have expected) the researcher ensured the following ethical norms:

Informed consent: the researcher was obliged to inform the respondents and participants of all aspects of the research that might reasonably influence their willingness to participate in the research. Since most of the key informants had little or no education, they could not read the Information Statement and Consent Form (Appendix 9), so at the beginning of each interview, the researcher read out the Information Statement and Consent Form in Bangla language and explained to them various aspects of the research particularly the aims of the research, the probable time for the

188

interview, and the need to record the interview session. Then each interviewee was asked to confirm his/her consent to participate voluntarily in the research, to consent for recording and to sign the consent form. When the respondent signed the consent form it was collected by the researcher and subsequently preserved at UNSW.

Although most of the key respondents (13 out of 20) had little or no education, they could sign their name. They learned how to sign their name, particularly the beneficiary respondents, because they needed to sign their names to receive the benefits. The non-beneficiary respondents also learned how to sign from their children or grandchildren or from the literacy program carried out by the government or NGOs.

Freedom from coercion to participate: before starting an interview session it was also conveyed to each participant that they had the freedom to participate or decline to participate and they had the right to discontinue or withdraw at any stage of the study without any fear. A Withdrawal of Consent Form (Appendix 10) was also provided to each participant in this research, so that any participant could withdraw his/her name form the research at any time.

Privacy and confidentiality: ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of the participants of the research is an important responsibility of the researcher. The researcher confirmed to the participants before the interviews and FGDs that their anonymity would be maintained throughout the study. Their views would be used only for academic purpose and their identity would never be revealed during the course of the research or afterwards. In the FGDs all participants were told that their views were expressed in their individual capacity and that confidentiality of their names would be preserved. 189

Protection from harm: the interview respondents and the participants of the FGDs were assured that participation in the research would not harm them in any way. The researcher was always aware to protect the respondents and participants from any kind of physical, mental, psychological, financial, professional or social harm that might arise from participating in this research. The date and time of the interviews were arranged according to the convenience of the participants. If any participant experienced distress which was uncovered by the in-depth interview they would (with their permission) have access to the local administration and receive financial support from the contingency fund of the local authority. However, it did not happen during the research. For participating in this research, the participants were recompensed a token gift (Shari for women and Lungi for men participants) of value of approximately USD 15, which can be treated as a courtesy present from a guest in one hand and the compensation for spending an hour for the cause of the researcher on the other. The gifts were presented on completion of the interview, so that this would not influence the answers by the respondents.

5.4 Data analysis Silverman (2013) mentioned four tools for qualitative data analysis. They are: (i) grounded theory; (ii) thematic analysis; (iii) narrative analysis; and (iv) secondary analysis of qualitative data. In this research the primary data was analysed using thematic analysis (TA). Comparison between the socio- economic conditions of two groups of respondents, who were recipients (or not) of an SSNP, has been shown according to their experience. Primary data was analysed according to emergent themes. Data collected through interviews and FGD were transcribed to provide analysis. After transcription, they were coded using NVivo 10 software.

190

Braun and Clarke (2012) define thematic analysis as follows:

TA is a method for systematically identifying, organising, and offering insight into patterns of meaning (themes) across a data set. Through focusing on meaning across a data set, TA allows the researcher to see and make sense of collective or shared meanings and experiences. Identifying unique and idiosyncratic meanings and experiences found only within a single data item is not the focus of TA. This method, then, is a way of identifying what is common to the way a topics talked or written about and of making sense of those commonalities. (Braun & Clarke, 2012, p. 57)

Bryman (2012) argued that this [TA] approach is meant to provide a framework for the thematic analysis of qualitative data, and provides one way of thinking about how to manage themes and data. He further argued that one general strategy of conducting a thematic analysis is provided by a framework to construct an index of central themes and subthemes. He also argued that the themes and subthemes are the product of a thorough reading and rereading of the transcripts or field notes that make up the data.

Braun and Clarke (2012) argued that TA is a useful approach for people new to qualitative research due to its accessibility and flexibility. They argued that TA provides an entry into a way of doing research that otherwise can seem vague, mystifying, conceptually challenging, and overly complex. They added that it offers a way into qualitative research that teaches the mechanics of coding and analysing qualitative data systematically.

Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 87) cited six phases of TA. They are: (i) becoming familiar with the data; (ii) generating initial codes; (iii) searching for themes;

191

(iv) reviewing themes; (v) defining and naming themes; and (vi) producing the report.

New to qualitative research, this researcher adopted the TA approach for analysing the qualitative data collected through in-depth interview and FGDs. During the analysis the six phases mentioned above, as well as the steps cited by Taylor and Bogdan (1998), were followed. The steps were (a) construction of a typology; (b) development of concepts and theoretical propositions; (c) testing the applicability of concepts and themes; (d) rejecting concepts that do not fit the data; and (e) finalising the analysis.

First, the researcher read and reread the transcripts and noted down the initial ideas, then developed an initial coding framework. The initial coding framework includes the following:

- Food - Management - Corruption - Facing problems - Impact on food security - Impact on other aspects of life - Yes to work, no to charity - Suggestions - Other issues

In the next step, according to the research aims and questions, using NVivo 10 software, relevant data were selected from the whole interview and FGD transcripts. Then from the coded data potential themes were collated, and data was then collected relevant to the themes. 192

In the next phase, all the potential themes were reviewed; appropriate themes were then chosen. The relevant subthemes were then identified, the themes and subthemes were named, the analysis was finalised, and the report drafted.

For example, under the theme “food” three subthemes “mealtime”, “menus” and “nutrition” were emerged. All the relevant data on these subthemes are analysed and discussed in Chapter 6. Under the theme “impacts on other aspects of life” the subthemes “impacts on women’s empowerment”, “increase in income and poverty reduction”, “earning dignity”, “medical support” were emerged and are discussed in Chapter 7. Similarly, under the themes “management”, “corruption”, “facing problems”, and “other issues” some subthemes were developed which are discussed in Chapter 8. Under the themes “suggestions” and “yes to work, no to charity” some subthemes were emerged which are discussed in Chapter 9.

193

Chapter 6: Food and Nutrition Status of the Households

6.0 Introduction As discussed in Chapter 1, one of the aims of this research was to assess the perceived impact of the five selected social safety net programs (SSNPs) on ensuring food security of the beneficiaries. In this chapter, the food and nutrition status of the households will be explored. This is an important foundation for the following chapter, because to consider how people perceive the impact of programs it is important to comprehend the bottom-line of the respondent households’ food and nutrition status. In order to analyse the perceived impacts of the selected SSNPs on ensuring food security, it is important to have knowledge of the existing nutritional status of the respondents. This discussion creates a foundation from which the impacts of the selected SSNPs on their food security can be assessed. As noted in the methodology chapter (Chapter 5), during data analysis in accordance with the interviewees’ responses and the experience of the researcher, three main issues emerged regarding the food and nutritional status of the respondents: the frequency of daily meals; the composition (menus) of the meals; and nutritional quality of the food. As discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.5), the dietary diversity indicators emphasise people’s responses on their consumption of diversified food items including meat, fish, milk, pulses, cereals, vegetables, fruits, sugar and oil. To achieve standard nutritional outcomes consumption of these diversified food items is important. This chapter outlines the basic features of nutritional conditions of the participants which is a significant element of the capabilities approach. . The capabilities approach emphasises having “the capability to avoid undernourishment and escape deprivations associated with hunger” (Drèze & Sen, 1989, p. 13). This capability is termed as “nutritional capabilities” by Burchi and De Muro (2012)

194

which is one of the central capabilities (Capability 2) developed by Nussbaum (2003) (discussed in Chapter 3).

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section (Section 6.1) discusses how many times the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries eat every day. The typical preferred mealtime in rural Bangladesh and the real frequency of meals taken by the respondents are discussed in this section. The information regarding the real mealtime of the respondents comes from their interviews.

The second section (Section 6.2) explores what the regular menus of their daily meals were. The responses of the interviewees and the observations of the researcher during fieldwork are used to determine the food menus of the households. The food items prescribed in the “standard food bundle” mentioned in BBS (2001) are also discussed.

The third section (Section 6.3) assesses the nutritional conditions of both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. It also compares the situation between the two groups and examines the food consumed in the households compared to the standard requirement of cereals and the balanced diet for Bangladeshi people. The latter part of the third section compares the national actual daily food intake per capita, in grams, with the desirable dietary composition for balanced nutrition in Bangladesh designed by Harun and Islam (2005).

6.1 Number of meals per day Generally, breakfast, lunch and dinner are the normal mealtimes for people in Bangladesh. This section will look at how many times the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of this study eat every day. Frequency of mealtimes is one

195

of the determinants of food status, which is related to Capability 2 that emphasises people’s food and nutritional entitlements. Traditionally, in the Indian Sub-continent those households that are able to manage three full meals a day for the whole year are treated as food secure. On the other hand, those households demonstrating a lack of managing at least three full meals a day are considered as food insecure households (Rahman, Matsui, & Ikemoto, 2009; Rahman, Matsui, & Ikemoto, 2013; Salagrama, 2006). Burchi and De Muro (2012) also stated that one of the ways to assess food security is the food frequency assessment, which can be realised by simply asking people the number of meals eaten per day or even the frequency of consumption of different food items.

“The typical preferred consumption pattern in rural Bangladesh is three meals in a day each with rice, supplemented by vegetables, curry (with fish or meat) and/or pulses. In recent times, wheat consumption has also increased substantially” (Sharmin, Arahata, & Islam, 2009, p. 235). However, in this research, all the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries expressed a difficult experience in managing food for everyday life. The respondents stated their regular frequency of meals from their experience of the last year. Ten (5 beneficiaries and 5 non-beneficiaries) out of 20 respondents said that they, somehow, manage three meals a day, 6 participants (3 beneficiaries and 3 non-beneficiaries) said they can afford two to three meals a day, 3 (1 beneficiary and 2 non-beneficiaries) said they have one, two or three meals a day depending on their income and the remaining one (beneficiary) said that she can afford two meals a day. The number of daily meals taken last year by the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are shown in Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

196

Table 6.1: Frequency of daily meals of the beneficiaries

Beneficiary name Numbers of daily meals Bashir Uddin 2/3 Felani Banu 3 Lucky 3 Mohammad Alom 1/2/3 Saleha Begum 2 Hafsa 3 Dilip 2/3 Mafizur Rahman 3 Hafeza Begum 2/3 Sahiran Begum 3

Table 6.2: Frequency of daily meals of the non-beneficiaries

Non-beneficiary name Numbers of daily meals

Abdul Jalil 3 Aleya Begum 2/3 Masura Begum 3 Motaleb Hossain 3 Shefali Begum 2/3 Monwara Begum 1/2/3 Prodip 3 Abul Kashem 2/3 Rashida Begum 3 Hazera Banu 1/2/3

197

Tables 6.1 and 6.2 indicate that only 50% of the beneficiaries and 50% of the non-beneficiaries reported having three meals a day throughout the year. All remaining beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries reported less than three meals a day at least for some days. The frequency of daily meals shows little difference between the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.

The respondents, who are having three meals a day, are also not very confident on their ability to sustain three meals for the whole year. One of them (Lucky) said that, they have three meals a day but cannot manage their food adequately (means not full meals). Another one (Motaleb Hossain) expressed, “We eat whatever we get by the grace of Allah. When we earn more we eat more, when we earn less, we eat less. Generally we take three meals a day”.

One beneficiary shared her misery with a sense of deep frustration and said:

Try to eat something [means not full meals] in the morning, noon and night. I have to feed the girl even if I don’t eat. I can endure the sufferings of starvation but she cannot, she is an orphan baby. (Sahiran Begum)

Another beneficiary said:

Sometimes we manage a meal in the whole day, sometimes two meals and sometimes three meals. It depends on the availability of food. Say, for example, today I have not eaten yet [at 12:00pm]. The sons are not present in the house; if they had remained present, they could have managed food [means his son could work and earn money to feed his parents]. (Mohammad Alom)

198

This respondent, a beneficiary of the SHOUHARDO-II program, who is 60 years of age, pointed out an important issue. As he is old, he cannot work due to his physical condition and his sons have migrated to distant places for their own jobs. He, along with his wife and his 80 year old mother who is physically disabled, cannot manage daily meals. This also indicates the dependency of the older people on their sons. The important issues emerging from this statement are: as an old man the respondent is not capable of work; he along with his wife and mother, who are also old and incapable of work, are dependent on his sons’ income; depending on money sent to them they were able to eat one, two or three times in a day. His account illustrates the entitlement failure of the beneficiary. As described by Drèze and Sen (1989, p. 23) entitlement failure can happen because of a fall in his endowment i.e. alienation of land or loss of labour power due to ill health. Despite the availability of food in the market due to his physical condition the beneficiary lacks command over his own food and that of two of his family members. Entitlement failure made the family dependent on his sons and food insecure.

One non-beneficiary (Shefali Begum) said that “It depends on the income. For example today we have not eaten anything. Now [at 11:30 am] we are cooking and we’ll eat it during lunch and dinner”. Another non-beneficiary expressed her disappointment while she said:

It depends, if we manage we eat three meals a day but if we fail to manage food then we eat only once. For example, nothing to eat in the lunch; so we just fry some rice and share among us. Then we drink water to satisfy the stomach. (Hazera Banu)

Both statements of the non-beneficiaries describe a situation where the frequency of their daily meals varies in different months, depending on their 199

income. Some months they can afford three meals when their income is higher due to better work opportunities. As most of the rural poor are agricultural labourers, during the crop season they have more work opportunities and higher income than in the lean periods when they are forced to have less than three meals a day. The concerns raised by the non- beneficiary respondents depict the ‘stability’ issue which is one of the four dimensions of food security (discussed in Chapter 2). Due to lack of work opportunities, during the lean season, the respondents’ households do not have food entitlements. Burchi and De Muro (2012) argued that entitlements depend on many variables such as employment status, type of employment, assets, savings, good health, being educated, being able to take part in household decision making and community life, and food or cash transfers from the state or local institutions. In this instance, the respondents’ employment status and type of employment determine their food entitlements. They are not only food insecure during the lean season, but the consequences of this might be worse. Burchi and De Muro (2012) and Wood (2003) suggest that as a coping strategy during this lean period the vulnerable households mortgage or sell some of their key productive assets or borrow food or money from traders which can make them more insecure in the future.

The interviews showed that almost all the respondents of the study were not satisfied with the frequency of their meals. Importantly, the situation between the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries was more or less the same. In both the categories of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, some are able to manage three meals a day, some have two to three meals a day, and some can afford one or two or three meals in a day. Only half of them can manage three meals a day for the whole year.

200

Only a few studies have examined the frequency of mealtime in Bangladesh households. Sen and Hulme (2006, p. 97), recognising the development in food security in Bangladesh for the last three decades, stated that hunger continues to pose an important problem for a large segment of chronically and extremely poor people. They argued that the life histories of their study support the view that the food security situation was worse in the 1970s and 1980s, and that important improvements took place in the 1990s. However, they argued, some still suffer hunger throughout the year, and many more face hunger sporadically or seasonally, during some months of the year, confirming the findings of the 2000 IRRI-IFPRI survey, which found that about 19% of rural households of Bangladesh are unable to access three full meals each day throughout the year. They further argued that improvements reported in the life histories are much more often expressed in terms of the transition from one to two meals a day, and much less in terms of two to three meals a day. It appears that even within the overlapping categories of chronically and severely poor, there remains a distinct band of hungry poor, especially living in areas of riverbank erosion and the low-productivity charlands21, and among the “floating” population (Sen & Hulme, 2006, p. 97).

Failure of food entitlements due to seasonal unemployment is also corroborated by previous research. Sen and Hulme (2006, p. 104), based on a sample of the whole Bangladesh population, found that 0.3% reported eating only one meal a day during some months and another 1.4% reported living on two meals throughout the year. They argued that there may be severely distressed pockets, but the aggregate statistics show that severe persistent hunger is largely a thing of past. However, in their study, about 8%

21 A tract of land permanently or seasonally surrounded by river water 201

of households reported having only two meals a day during some months of the year, indicating the importance of seasonal distress. Lack of a seasonal security mechanism for this group of the hungry poor is consistent with the persistence of the two-month hungry season in the riverbank erosion and char areas in North-western Bangladesh which is the study area of the present research. Such a seasonal problem does not merely create transitory poverty. Ways of dealing with the problem – borrowing food or money from traders, mortgaging assets, bonding labour – can also lock people into chronic poverty (Wood, 2003). That is, in dealing with immediate necessities, poor people may compromise in such a way that their longer-term resources are undermined.

Sen and Hulme (2006) argued that tackling hunger must be regarded as a priority for social policy. They stated:

However seasonal and sporadic, hunger at the individual, household or community level does not generate the same immediate policy response as “famine”, with its political underpinnings. The problem of seasonal starvation is always underestimated, perhaps partly because it is more acceptable to a liberal conscience than famine. (Sen & Hulme, 2006, p. 97)

When the present situation is compared with the condition of the 1970s or 1980s, patterns of hunger are obviously better now. As discussed in Chapter 1, in the 1970s, 70% of the population were under the food consumption poverty line (Mishra & Hossain, 2005). In the 1980s and 1990s, the proportion of the population under the food consumption poverty line dropped and stood at 47.7% and 44.3% respectively (see Table 1.1). Sen and Hulme (2006) argued that the food security situation was worse in the 1970s and 202

1980s, and that important improvements took place in the 1990s. Their findings, which mainly utilised data from the year 2000, however, reveal that the developments are not encouraging. Their study reported that, complete starvation days were few – something like two or three days in a month when the respondents could not get any food. There were some days when households could not get any rice or atta (flour) for their meals. During these times they boiled wild vegetables. This happens especially during the month of Kartik (October-November), when households can afford only one meal a day. When they could not get rice they got kaun.22 Even then, they could only afford to eat kaun once a day. The respondents of Sen and Hulme (2006) reported some cases of complete starvation for at least two or three days in a month. In contrast, none of the respondents of the present study reported going completely without food. The findings of this research, however, report at least three out of 20 participants had access to only one meal a day for some days when they do not have any income. Nine respondents had two meals a day for some months, while one beneficiary had 2 meals per day throughout the year. Half of the respondents (10) reported they had three meals a day throughout the year. It can be mentioned here that these interviews were conducted in February 2013. As discussed earlier, in North- west Bangladesh, October and November is the lean season, which is called monga, when work opportunities are very limited for agricultural labourers. The interviews were not conducted during the lean season. However, some of the statements by respondents show that they did not have breakfast, and would only have lunch and dinner (two meals a day).

22 Millet, an inferior and imperfect cheap substitute for rice or wheat flour 203

6.2 Composition of daily meals The previous section has discussed the frequency of daily meals taken over one year by the participants of the research. This section explores what the meals regularly consisted of. To discuss the issue, in this section, the responses from the interviewees as well as the observations of the researcher during fieldwork will be referred to.

Rice is the dominant dietary item and remains the staple food in Bangladesh; more than 95% of the population consume rice and it alone provides 76% of the daily calorie requirements (Bhuiyan, Paul, & Jabber, 2002). But along with rice, other food items such as wheat, pulses, meat, fish, vegetables and fruits are also consumed by the Bangladeshi people. A “standard food bundle” for Bangladesh has already been formulated and used in the context of the definition of the poverty line (BBS, 2001). According to the “standard food bundle” a list of required food items in Bangladesh is cited by Rahman, Begum, and Bhuyan (2012). They stated that the norms of food requirements in Bangladesh used for the basis of Household Income and Expenditure Survey poverty lines are as follows: rice, wheat, pulses, meat, potato, milk, oil, banana, sugar, fish and vegetables.

The BBS (2007a) noted the average per capita per day quantity (discussed in Section 6.3) of food intake by food items where they listed more specifically and elaborately the food items consumed by Bangladeshi people. They are shown in Box 6.1.

204

Box 6.1: Food items consumed by Bangladeshi people

Cereals: Rice, Wheat and Others Potato Vegetables: Leafy vegetables and Others Pulses: Masoor23, Kheshari24 and Others Milk/Milk Products Edible Oils: Mustard, Soybean and Others Meat, Poultry, Egg: Mutton, Beef, Chicken/Duck, Eggs and Others Fish Condiments & Spices: Onion, Chillies and Others Fruits Sugar

In this study, from the statements by the interviewees and observation of the researcher, it was found that all 20 participants’ main food was rice and they ate rice with a small amount of potato (smashed or fried) and/or vegetables (curry or fried). The same menu was used for each meal regardless of the frequency of meals. The more significant finding in this study is that there is little difference between the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in terms of menus of their daily meals. The menus of both the beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries are shown in Tables 6.3 and 6.4 below.

23 Bangla name of a variety of pulse 24 Bangla name of a variety of pulse 205

Table 6.3: Menus for daily meals of SSNP beneficiaries

Beneficiary Name Breakfast Lunch Dinner

Bashir Uddin Left over rice with Rice with potato Same as lunch left out potato curry curry and leaf and leaf vegetables vegetables Felani Banu None Rice with potato fry Same as lunch and leaf vegetables Lucky Rice, potato and Rice, potato and Same as lunch leaf vegetables leaf vegetables (sometimes pulse) Mohammad Alom Chaul Bhaja (fry of Rice, potato, Same as lunch rice in a traditional vegetables, way, very eggplant negligible food item) and tea Saleha Begum Ruti (bread) with Rice with potato Same as lunch tea or potato curry curry or leaf vegetables Hafsa Ruti (bread), Rice with potato Left over of lunch sometimes with tea curry or leaf (rice with potato vegetables curry or leaf vegetables) Dilip Rice with potato Rice with potato Rice with potato curry curry (if lucky, then curry sometimes meat or fish) Mafizur Rahman Rice and potato Same as breakfast Same as breakfast Hafeza Begum Rice along with Same as breakfast Same as breakfast potato Sahiran Begum Overnight left over Little bit of rice with Same as lunch things (rice with potato and/or leaf vegetables or vegetables potatoes)

206

Table 6.4: Menus for daily meals of the non-beneficiaries

Non-beneficiary Breakfast Lunch Dinner Name

Abdul Jalil Puffed rice Rice and potato Same as lunch curry Aleya Begum Left out rice with Rice and potato Same as lunch left out potato curry curry Masura Begum Rice with potato Rice with potato Same as lunch (sometimes with cauliflower, beans, etc.) Motaleb Hossain Rice with potato Rice with Same as lunch vegetables and fish or “shutki” (dried small fish, a traditional way of eating dried fish) Shefali Begum Overnight left over Rice and potato Same as lunch rice and sometimes leaf vegetables Monwara Begum Sometimes fried Rice and potato Same as lunch rice (chaul bhaja); curry sometimes left over rice Prodip Rice with potato or Same as breakfast Same as breakfast vegetables (cabbage) Abul Kashem Tea with puffed Rice with Rice with rice vegetables and vegetables and smashed potato mainly potato in different forms Rashida Begum Rice and potato Same as breakfast Same as breakfast Hazera Banu Overnight rice and Rice and smashed Same as lunch smashed potato potato

207

Tables 6.3 and 6.4 show that all 20 respondents' regular menus for breakfast, lunch and dinner is rice, except for the two beneficiaries of the VGD who mentioned having ruti (bread) for breakfast. As they received wheat from the VGD program they could have bread for their breakfast. Generally, all the respondents ate rice with some potato (smashed, fried or curry) or/and leafy vegetables for breakfast, lunch or dinner.

The researcher’s observation during fieldwork is discussed here. The researcher went to interview the respondents mostly between 11 am and 3 pm, which means the time after breakfast to post lunch. In many cases the researcher was permitted to witness the menus, what they cooked or ate during lunch. In fact, as the tables show, the diets were very poor and the researcher found that there are poor people in rural Bangladesh who survive with a small amount of negligible items of food. Almost all the households had the same menu of rice with a small amount of potato curry or smash and/or very minimal leaf vegetables. The vegetables were also mainly collected from the roadside or gifted by the landowners where the respondents work as low-paid daily-labourers. Only one respondent had had shutki, dried small fish, a traditional way of eating dried fish; and another household cooked beef, the participant informed the researcher their son-in- law was invited to their house that time so they needed to cook a better meal. One of the four sets of entitlements, listed by Sen (1981b), inheritance and transfer entitlements means being given food by others can be discussed here. The respondents did not inherit any land from their parents or relatives. They did not have any of the other three sets of entitlements (trade-based, production-based or own-labour during lean season). However, the vegetables gifted by the land-owners are not institutionalised or regular

208

transfers. They are occasional and small gifts. So, they cannot ensure entitlement or capabilities.

Some of the statements by respondents illustrate the actual picture of the menus of their daily meals. One beneficiary said:

Until now I haven’t taken my breakfast. Usually we eat rice left out overnight and with aloo bhaji (potato fry). During lunch we eat also rice, sometimes overnight rice. Same menu of potato and shak [leaf vegetables] is for every meal; sometimes it is smashed potato, sometimes fry (Felani Banu).

One non-beneficiary respondent added:

At the breakfast I take the overnight left out rice (stale rice). During the lunch I take rice. Potato is the only curry. That potato also is managed from potato fields of other people. At dinner I eat the same menu: rice and potato. In fact I cook once a day. (Aleya Begum)

The statements by both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries demonstrate that they usually cook some rice and potato or leafy vegetables once a day mainly for lunch and eat the same menu at dinner, and have breakfast with overnight left over food. Thus, this study found that the common menus for the participants were rice with potato and/or leaf vegetables.

6.3 Dietary diversity This section aims to examine the nutritional conditions of both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. The nutritional status of an individual is the outcome of a complex interaction between a broad range of environmental factors. The environmental factors encompass physical, 209

biological, and especially cultural influences (Harun & Islam, 2005). There are a number of ways to determine the nutritional status of men and women. To determine the nutritional condition of an individual, the basal metabolic rate (BMR) method is widely used. The BMR method requires the height, expected weight, physical activity level (PAL), age and gender of an individual. As this research is not focused on the participant’s daily individual calorie intake, it did not calculate the caloric value of an individual’s daily meals and the PAL data were not collected. Therefore, the BMR method is not discussed in this research. The dietary diversity indicator discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.5) is relevant here. This indicator emphasises people’s responses to questions regarding their diversified food consumptions in recent period. The highest weights are given to meat, fish and milk. The other food items considered in this indicator are pulses, cereals, vegetables and fruits. Like the dietary diversity indicators in this research responses from the participants of the current research on the food items (meat, fish, egg, milk, vegetables, fruits and cereals) consumed in the households compared to the standard requirement of cereals and the balanced nutrition for Bangladeshi people will be discussed.

6.3.1 Standard requirement of cereals and the balanced diet Without a combination of balanced items consumption of food (mainly cereals) does not mean much, except that it satisfies immediate and visible hunger and meets possibly some social and psychogenic needs. Consumption of diversified food items such as protein (meat, fish, egg etc.), milk, vegetables, oil and fruits along with cereals is necessary for required nutritional outcomes. A more objective basis of food consumption is the development and safeguarding of nutritional status which is determined by the type and composition of food intake. Harun and Islam (2005) argued that

210

in developing countries, people derive most of their nutrients from plant sources. They stated:

Cereals, as the staple food, are the highest providers of energy. However, energy is also obtained from other non-cereal carbohydrate rich food (roots and tubers, plantains), oils (vegetable oils), and proteins (mainly plant sources). For efficient utilisation of energy, the internationally recognized norm is that no more than 60–65% of energy should come from carbohydrates (around 55% from cereals), 10–15% from proteins and 25–30% from fat. Otherwise imbalances can occur in the use of energy. (Harun & Islam, 2005, p. 53)

In this context, Harun and Islam (2005) designed a proposed dietary composition for balanced nutrition in Bangladesh. In Table 6.5 the national actual intake and the desirable intake for balanced nutrition are shown.

Table 6.5: National actual and recommended food intake for balanced nutrition

Food item Recommended Actual intake (2005) Actual intake (2010) intake Per person per day Per person per day Per person per day

Gram Gram Gram

Rice 312 439.60 416.01 Wheat 60 12.10 26.09 Pulses 66 14.20 14.30 Animal Product 126 95.30 109.45 Fruits 57 32.50 44.80 Vegetables 180 157.00 166.08

211

Food item Recommended Actual intake (2005) Actual intake (2010) intake Per person per day Per person per day Per person per day

Gram Gram Gram

Potato and 80 No data No data Sweet Potato Added Oil 36 16.50 No data Sugar and Gur 22 8.10 No data Spices (onion, 14 53.40 No data garlic, ginger included) Others - 119.00 66.26 Total 953 947.70 842.99 Source: Author’s calculation from Harun and Islam (2005), BBS (2007a) and BBS (2011).

Table 6.5 shows that the required/desirable food intake per person per day in Bangladesh is 953 grams. It also shows that the average actual intake almost achieved the required amount in 2005, but in 2010 it decreased significantly. It also shows that people over consume rice and spices and under consume other items. This research, however, did not measure the actual food intake in grams, but it compares the perceived food items consumed during the last year as remembered by the respondents with the standard food bundle determined by the BBS.

Though the “standard food bundle” formulated by the BBS (2001) includes meat, fish, eggs, milk, pulse, fruits, and sugar in the daily food items of Bangladeshi people, this study has shown that meat, fish, eggs or milk are not included in the daily meals of any of these respondents. They can afford them occasionally: for some once a month and for some once in two, three or 212

six months; some people can only afford meat once a year during the Qurbani festival.

Regarding meat, fish, eggs and milk, one of the beneficiaries stated:

I cannot manage meat or fish; I don’t have money. If the sons manage then they give. I cannot manage on my own. During Qurbani [Muslim Eid, a festival to sacrifice animals, especially a cow or goat] I get meat from the neighbours and then eat. My sons are poor as well. Still they try to manage meat or fish for their children. They purchase meat less than fish. I cannot manage. If they manage, only then they give me. Where can I get egg from? When we rear, we can eat. But hens are prone to disease and they die. Four eggs cost 40 Taka. How can we satisfy our soul? We just eat all negligible things such as leaf vegetables. Oh my son, how can I drink milk? It’s so expensive. Per kg costs 50 Taka. (Sahiran Begum)

Another beneficiary said:

We can eat fish once a week and meat once a month. We cannot eat milk and eggs [with sigh]. We cannot drink even milk. Sometimes we can manage milk once in six months. We cannot manage egg. The child is not fed also. How could we feed him? It’s costly. Four pieces cost 40 Taka. (Lucky)

The beneficiaries indicated that their daily meals include rice and a small amount of vegetables or potato. They were not capable of having pulses, fruits, or animal products, such as meat, fish, eggs and milk on a regular

213

basis. They can rarely afford these items. The most important food items are beyond their financial abilities.

One non-beneficiary (Aleya Begum) said: “I cannot manage meat or fish due to economic hardship. Sometimes I eat fish, but not meat. During Qurbani I can eat meat since some of my relatives give me meat as part of charity”.

Another non-beneficiary explained his inability to manage those items. He said:

During the Qurbani time we can eat meat; people give us then as charity. My uncles have ponds. I help my uncle to fish and then I take some fish from them. We can eat fish every 10-15 days. How can I manage eggs; it’s very costly. One egg costs 10-12 Taka. Once a month sometimes the children can eat them. How can I get milk while we struggle to manage rice? We can drink only once a year. During Eid we can manage to eat vermicelli [He was describing his poverty]. (Abul Kashem)

One non-beneficiary said:

We cannot eat egg or meat as we cannot afford (it). Sometimes in two months' time we try to manage meat. In every15 or 20 days we try to get fish. Egg has been too expensive. Milk is just unimaginable. You can say once in a year we drink milk. During the festivals my daughters provide some good meals. Earlier my health was very good. Now my health is decreasing; I feel very sick. During Qurbani my sons give me meat. (Abdul Jalil)

214

The statements by both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries confirmed that the food items that are essential for a balanced and nutritious diet, such as meat, fish, milk and eggs are almost out of reach of the respondents. Their participation in the SSNPs also could not make the beneficiaries capable of having these food items. Both the participatory approach and the capabilities approach are relevant here. The capabilities approach views people as participants and agents of development. The participatory approach emphasises people’s effective participation in program formulation and implementation for its success. If the rural poor have the opportunity to participate in program design they might have a voice to increase the amount of benefit so that they may buy the food items they want to have. However, being given a voice in how scarce resources are distributed does not mean they would get more benefits individually, but it brings self-respect and dignity to the beneficiaries. Even, while some capabilities are compromised when people do not have adequate food, they are still able to advocate for themselves which brings dignity.

During fieldwork the researcher was told that one family, consisting of three members, cooked one kilogram of rice and a small amount of vegetables, whilst a household of six members (a couple with four children) cooked 1.5 kg of rice and a small amount of shutki (dried fish) for the whole day. Almost all the participants had had the same meals when the researcher visited their homes over a period of one month.

The previous studies carried out in relation to nutritional status of Bangladesh also suggest that cereals, particularly rice, are the single major source of total nutritional intake by households. Harun and Islam (2005) argued that the existing food intake pattern in Bangladesh is biased towards cereals; the

215

amount of cereals consumed by average households is higher than the nutritionally required food basket. They also noted that carbohydrates contribute nearly 80% of total dietary energy, which makes the diet unacceptably imbalanced. There is also some inconsistency in the level of consumption of pulses and edible oil; both of which are decreasing in terms of per capita intake while they should be increasing according to the suggested bundle. Rahman and Choudhury (2012) also corroborated the earlier findings.

While extremes of hunger have been largely contained, nutritional insecurity has emerged as a larger challenge. It may be noted that Bangladesh, indeed the whole of South Asia, is seriously off-track on realizing the MDG on the elimination of child malnutrition. (Rahman & Choudhury, 2012, p. 100)

Sharmin, Arahata, and Islam (2009) observed that in both rural and urban areas, the average calorie intake has shown a gradual decreasing trend over the years. They suggested that calories and protein are considered as key determinants for food security. Therefore, all possible steps and measures should be taken by the policy makers to assess the adequacy of food and to improve the average calorie and protein intake of masses as well as different classes of people. Other researchers (Ahmed, 1993; Hassan & Ahmad, 1984; Talukder, 2005) also expressed their concerns about the nutritional status of a huge number of Bangladeshi rural poor people. Hassan and Ahmad (1984, p. 157) argued that the findings on the nutritional situation of Bangladesh are matters of great concern, because intakes are deteriorating over the years, and a serious situation could arise unless it is halted.

216

Over the last few decades Bangladesh has gained a noteworthy progress in some areas of nutrition at the household level. However, some major issues, particularly in regard to the consumption of protein, meat, fish, eggs, milk and fruits for the rural population, still need to be addressed. The results of this study suggest that the intervention by SSNPs has little impact on the nutritional status of the beneficiaries.

6.4 Conclusion This chapter examined the frequency of daily meals, composition of the meals and the nutritional status of the food. In doing so, it explored the number of meals per day, regular composition of their daily meals, and the dietary diversity of both the SSNP beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries.. The analysis of Drèze and Sen (1989, p. 38) is important here because it emphasises the connection between nutrition and everyday eating practices.

The findings of this research suggest that, first, the frequency of daily meals has been improving gradually, but still some people do not have access to three meals a day, a standard practice in rural Bangladesh. This study found only small differences in the frequency of daily meals between the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. It can be argued that over the last four decades despite a visible development in terms of meal time, there is still some incidence of “hungry poor” which signifies that hunger remains an important policy issue in Bangladesh.

Second, the “standard food bundle” for Bangladeshi people formulated by BBS (2000) includes a balanced diet comprising starch, protein, vitamin, oil, etc. But this study reveals that meals for rural poor people consist of only rice with potato and/or leaf vegetables.

217

Third, the rural poor cannot afford meat, fish, eggs, milk or fruits in their regular meals. They can afford them occasionally: once in a month or once in two, three or six months. For some people, meat or milk is available only once in a year.

According to the capabilities approach, Nussbaum’s Capability 2 includes the provision of adequate food and nutrition which is a significant factor in the responses of the participants recorded in this chapter. From the discussion above it can be argued that, in terms of the frequency of daily meals, food security situations have been improving gradually, but the composition of daily meals and dietary diversity did not meet the required levels. Moreover, food intake per person per day remains far behind the standard requirements. Based on the findings presented above, it can also be argued that despite a reported positive development in terms of the number of mealtimes (Sen & Hulme, 2006), there is still concern regarding dietary diversity and balanced nutrition. As discussed in Chapter 3, according to the capabilities approach ‘food’ is a resource, ‘to be able to be nourished’ is a capability that people have reason to choose and value and ‘to be nourished’ is a functioning. This chapter shows that the respondents in the current research did not have the capability ‘to be able to be nourished’ and achieve the functionings ‘to be nourished’ at their expected levels. Drèze and Sen (1989, p. 42) referred this condition as ‘failure of basic functionings’.

In this context, the researcher argues that other capabilities are also linked with this failure. As they are under-nourished their health will be compromised, curtaining their ability to live a life of normal length (Capability 1). This may impact on their ability to move freely from place to place due to their physical conditions (Capability 3). The failure of food and nutritional

218

capabilities is linked to potential problems in intellectual development which can lead to failure to have proper and basic education and being able to use their thought to make their own choices (Capability 4). A lack of adequate and required food promotes anxiety about when and from where the next meal will be available, which may affect the emotional development of poor (Capability 5). This anxiety and intellectual limitation may lead to their inability to engage in critical reflection about the planning of their lives (Capability 6). They may not have self-respect and non-humiliation and not be treated as a dignified human being, because the hungry people are not treated as dignified (Capability 7). Due to their anxiety and physical conditions they may not be able to play and enjoy recreational activities (Capability 9). Because they do not have enough money to buy their essential food they may not have extra money or even time to participate in social and political activities (Capability 10). In summary, a failure regarding Capability 2 potentially may have a compounding effect creating a vicious cycle in respondents’ lives comprising their ability to have the freedom to be and do those things they reason to value.

219

Chapter 7: Impacts of Social Safety Net Programs: Voices from the Field

7.0 Introduction As discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2), food security has four dimensions: availability, accessibility, nutrition and stability. To ensure food security, attaining the required quantity of food stuffs at the national level is the first and foremost responsibility of the country’s leadership. However, achieving sufficiency of food at the national level whether by increasing production or by importing from other countries does not necessarily ensure food security at the individual or household level. If poor citizens do not have adequate purchasing power, they do not have access to food; and even if they have access to food, due to lack of knowledge and education, they may not consume a balanced diet for optimal nutritional outcomes. Therefore, the question of both the economic capability and technical knowledge of the poor is critical to ensure food security. In this chapter the primary focus will be on the dimension of access to food, as the access to food directly depends on the socio-economic capability of individuals or households. This capability is outlined in Capability 2 as assessing the connection between the socio- economic conditions of the people and their access to safe and sufficient food supplies and food entitlements. This chapter will examine whether or not the selected SSNPs enhance the capability of the beneficiaries, and if they do enhance their capability, then to what extent.

Empowerment of women is another overarching priority in fighting against poverty. Silva and Athukorala (1996, p. 73) argued that the empowerment of traditionally disadvantaged segments of the population, such as women, scheduled castes and tribes, and ethnic minorities, is an important means of

220 promoting growth and equity. Describing the condition of poor women in South Asia, Wignaraja (1990, p. 19) observed that they suffer from “a double burden” in being women and poor at the same time. “It is now well established that poor women have the least access to basic needs, such as food, health and education, both within the family and without” (Wignaraja, 1990, p. 20). Empowering women is one of the prime objectives of the SSNPs as empowerment is clearly mentioned in the objectives of the selected programs (see Chapter 4). The five SSNPs discussed in this research also aim to increase women’s empowerment by providing them with resources, awareness building, participation in community activities, and encouraging mobility. Against this backdrop, it is pertinent to examine Capability 7 that emphasises people’s self-respect and integrity to evaluate the program’s impact on women’s empowerment and other aspects of life.

Along with other things social safety nets deal with the vulnerabilities which occur as a result of chronic incapacity to work and/or earn an income. In other words, safety nets are meant to support people who are in the key risk categories of food insecurity – the chronic poor and the people who need special care, such as old aged people and people with disabilities. “International evidence on social protection’s social and economic impacts – harnessing lessons from Argentina, to Bangladesh, to Cambodia, all the way to Zambia – demonstrates how social protection yields rich social and economic impacts” (Samson, 2014, p. 23). Samson (2014) argues:

Social protection enables beneficiaries in developing countries to increase household spending on food, improving nutritional outcomes critical to both wellbeing and human capital [health-related services and education] development. In many countries, social protection

221

benefits are distributed largely to women, promoting empowerment and more balanced gender relations. (Samson, 2014, p. 22)

While international experience shows a considerable impact of SSNPs on the lives of the poor, it is important to explore the case of Bangladesh. This chapter analyses the perceptions of the rural poor, both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of SSNPs, on the impacts of the programs on food security and other aspects of their lives such as women’s empowerment, increase in income and poverty reduction, earning dignity in the family and society, and medical support. In doing so this chapter will also examine the perceptions of the officials from the grass roots as well as more senior policy levels who are directly involved with the process of policy formulation, beneficiary selection and disbursement. Finally, it will discuss the outcomes of the research findings in relation to the capabilities approach.

A major theme that emerged from the data analysis was “impact on food security” which is discussed in Section 7.1. This section includes the views of beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries and managers of the programs. In addition, under the theme “impacts on other aspects of life” the subthemes “women’s empowerment”, “increase in income and poverty reduction”, “earning dignity”, and “medical support” were developed. Another important subtheme, namely “meagreness of allowances”, also emerged from the analysis. This chapter will analyse the insights of participants on these socio-economic impacts of the five selected SSNPs in four different sections. The first section (Section 7.1) discusses the perceived impacts of the programs on ensuring the food security of SSNP beneficiaries. The second section (Section 7.2) analyses the perceived impacts of the programs on women’s empowerment. The third section (Section 7.3) investigates the perceived overall impacts on increasing

222

income or creating assets, reducing poverty, earning dignity in the family and society, and getting medical support by the SSNP beneficiaries. The fourth section (Section 7.4) critically analyses the adequacy of benefits offered by the programs.

7.1 Impacts on food security While most of the previous research (Ahmed, 2000; BARD, 2012; Begum & Wesumperuma, 2012; del Ninno & Dorosh, 2002; IGS, 2010; Islam, 2009; Mannan & Ahmed, 2012; Matin & Hulme, 2003; Rahman & Choudhury, 2012; RDA, 2012) suggests that safety nets have a positive impact on food security, this section will critically examine the role of selected SSNPs on ensuring food security of the beneficiaries. The core focus of this section is to explore how the participants perceive the selected SSNPs’ impact on food security, and the similarities and differences in perception of SSNPs between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. The significance of this research is that the mostly unheard experiences and voices of the poor, who experience food insecurity, will be explored.

7.1.1 Perceptions of the beneficiaries Out of the five selected SSNPs, two (the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women) offer cash support, two (the VGD & the VGF) provide food grains, and one (the SHOUHARDO-II) delivers both food rations and cash/in-kind support. As such, the impacts of each program are different.

All four beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women stated that the allowances ensure partial food security. All of them observed that the allowances were not

223

enough to ensure food security for a whole month. One of the beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance said:

I don’t think it is ensuring full food security, but helping partially. The allowance is the same for everyone regardless of age, health condition and level of poverty. 300 Taka is just not enough. Since I am enlisted in this category I am not entitled to other allowances and support services. This allowance is not enough to ensure food security. (Bashir Uddin)

Another beneficiary of the Old Age Allowance (Felani Banu) expressed the same view. She said that the money could provide food for seven days only. She argued that it did not make much difference in her life. The two beneficiaries of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women expressed the same opinion that the allowance was helping to ensure food security a little bit, but it was not enough to ensure complete food security of people living in poverty. The participatory approach is pertinent here. As discussed in Chapter 3, the participatory approach emphasises people’s participation in policy formulation. Most of the beneficiaries (8 out of 10) did not have any voice in policy formulation; therefore, their real needs were not taken into account by policy developers. There was in fact no means of participation for them. This happens when the top-down approaches to development are pursued, as opposed to the participatory approaches. It can also be argued that the meagre amount of benefits might not ensure the beneficiaries’ capabilities both in terms of food and nutritional entitlements (outlined in Capability 2) and participation in the community activities (outlined in Capability 10). Because they do not have enough money they are not capable of having enough food or to join the community

224

activities. As a result people wanted sustainable resources rather than one off payments an issue which will be discussed further in Chapters 8 and 9).

Although the beneficiaries of the VGD program acknowledged the partial contribution of food support, they considered that the benefit was not enough to ensure complete food security. One of the beneficiaries (Hafsa) argued that the benefit was not enough; they needed to work hard to manage other food-related costs [for curry, oil, spices and so on] for the family, since rice, nutritionally, was not enough. Another beneficiary of the program argued that:

No, it’s not enough. We had to work hard to earn to run the family. But earlier food items, particularly rice, were a little bit secure. Now it’s very insecure. After the expiry of the benefit we are facing problems. (Saleha Begum)

The statements given by the two beneficiaries of the VGD program unveiled two different shortcomings of the program. First, the benefits provided by the program can only cover partial requirements of a household. It cannot cover other food items such as protein, vegetables and oil. Second, during the program tenure, although the rice/wheat requirements were ensured partially, after termination from the program beneficiaries faced insecurity of rice/wheat again. As discussed in Chapter 6, the participation in the SSNPs could not ensure food entitlements for the beneficiaries. This instance has illuminated another component of the capabilities approach. The beneficiaries do not have the capability to control their own environment. If they could participate in the policy and management of the programs, they might have suggested a sustainable program that would not terminate after a certain period or even if a program terminated, that there should be alternative ways for the poor to be food secured. 225

The amount of food support offered by the VGF program is the smallest among the five programs – only 8-10 kg of rice or wheat per month for three months. So the impact of this program was considered to be less useful by beneficiaries, bearing in mind that to collect this small amount of food they need to go to the Union Council office and to queue for a long time, taking the whole day of the beneficiary, meaning the person cannot work (paid or unpaid) that day. One of the statements by a beneficiary reflected the small nutritional significance of the program. He said:

Yes, it is not helping. My brother got it in the earlier slot but next time he did not get it and I got it. This has not been beneficial since it spoils my whole day to get the rice. If I work I get more. We just ate it; it was equivalent to three days of rice. No, it’s not at all a support. This does not help. (Dilip)

Another beneficiary’s (Mafizur Rahman) statement also conveyed the same impression. He said, “It’s just going on. We cannot manage food adequately. It covered food needs of 4-5 days. It helps to address the critical food needs. But it can’t ensure food security of a family since the amount is very low”.

Both the beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program admitted that the benefit increased their food security a little bit. One of them (Lucky) stated that their food security increased a little bit due to that program, but this program alone could not ensure food security. The other beneficiary said:

The money helped me manage my livelihood/food. If I had not got it I would have taken a loan to get food. It helped to protect my food security to some extent. My problem will continue if the support is stopped. So it is not enough to ensure food security of the poor people

226

in a sustainable way. (Mohammad Alom)

But the same beneficiary later on argued that the support could not bring much change; neither could it reduce poverty nor ensure food security. He further argued that his situation remained the same; no difference with the support was evident.

In this particular case the researcher found that, as part of the program’s aims, the beneficiary was given training on how to cultivate a paddy field, and then provided with 12kg of paddy seeds, along with BDT 1600 for the costs of cultivation such as fertiliser, pesticides and equipment. But the fact is that he had no land to cultivate. So he sold the paddy seeds, and he spent all the money he got from the seeds and cash for his family's expenditure including food, clothes and other necessary items. The field level supervisors of the SHOUHARDO-II program were supposed to look into the issue. They could have arranged to lease a piece of land for him to cultivate. But in this case, the supervisors did not perform their responsibilities properly. So it was evident that the aim to make the beneficiary self-reliant was not achieved. As a result, the beneficiary did not report any change in his life. For a few days when he had the money he was little bit more food secure, but in the long run he stayed in the same position as before intervention of the program.

This example illustrates Sen’s capabilities approach that emphasises the food entitlement of a person. Entitlements depend on the personal endowments, which are the resources a person legally owns such as house, livestock, land, and non-tangible goods (Osmani, 1995, p. 2) and the set of commodities the person can have access to through trade and production (Sen, 1981a, p. 435). In this case, the beneficiary does not have his own land or any capital for investing in a venture either a business or a production in one hand. He 227

does not have enough food for his family on the other. Therefore, he consumed the paddy seeds as well as the money he got for equipment for farming. If he had land he could have utilised this seeds and money to produce his own food which could have ensured his food entitlements. In the long term he might have achieved self-reliance.

From the statements of the beneficiaries it is evident that their perceptions of the impact of the five programs on ensuring their food security are similar. All five programs had a partial impact on food security. Depending on the amount of benefit received, the programs could meet their food demands, particularly rice or wheat, for three to fifteen days a month, during the program. However, the limited program tenure for the VGD, the VGF and the SHOUHARDO-II limited the sustainability of any impact on food security for the beneficiaries.

7.1.2 Perceptions of the non-beneficiaries The non-beneficiaries also perceived that the allowances help somewhat in managing food, but alone they were not capable of ensuring the total food security of the beneficiaries. One non-beneficiary (Aleya Begum) compared her situation with a beneficiary and argued that the beneficiary’s situation was better than hers – although the money was not enough but yet helps the beneficiary. One of the non-beneficiaries of the VGD said:

No, it’s not enough but still it helps to manage food for half of a month. It can ensure food security partially. But this is not enough to ensure food security for the whole month. But it can help a lot. For example during monsoon we can’t work much. It helps then to a great extent. When you have rice you can eat it even with only chilli or salt. (Shefali Begum) 228

The non-beneficiaries of the VGF thought that the benefit had not had a great impact, but for poor people any help was significant – even if they were given help for only one day. The non-beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program perceived that the program was benefiting the beneficiaries. One of them stated:

Yes, it’s helping a lot. Say for example, many people now have some money; they did not earlier have money. It’s helping people earn food security. I know a beneficiary who was extremely poor. He sold the cow and a calf that he got as a support from the program and took agriculture land on lease. He did it in the knowledge of the officials of the program. The beneficiary assured that he would ensure best use of the money. Now he is having a good life. He took lease of 12 decimals25 of land. (Motaleb Hossain)

The statements by the non-beneficiaries show that they agreed with the beneficiaries about the inadequacy of the benefits, yet, they considered that the programs benefitted the people that had access to them. The non- beneficiaries thought they would benefit if they had access to the program. They perceived that the beneficiaries were better off than the non- beneficiaries in terms of food security.

7.1.3 Views of the managers One of the senior government officials, responsible for implementation of the VGD program, explained the impact of the program on food security:

First, if I consider the food security perspective, the design of the VGD program indicates that this program is for those poor women who don’t

25 One hundred decimals is equal to one Acre 229

have assurance of three times meal in a day; ideally they are supposed to be selected. After selection, during the two years tenure of intervention of the program, we give them a subsistence allowance, from which, in my opinion, they can have at least three times coarse rice and dal (pulse)...... with this subsistence, she can manage at least rice and dal for her family. It can fulfil this extent of food security, but if we think about the nutrition perspective, I think this is not sufficient enough to address that concern. So, in my opinion, except for the nutritional consideration, this program can fulfil the food intake – just in terms of filling up the belly – just for survival, provided that the targeting is proper. Generally, our selection is very faulty, if the targeting is proper, if the deserving people get the benefit, then their food security is addressed to some extent at least for two years. (Iv21_DWA)

On the other hand, the FGDs, at both the field level and policy level, agreed that the programs had a positive impact on food security, though this impact was limited. The consensus of the field level FGD (FGD1_Dimla) was that these programs were not fully ensuring food security; rather, they were symbolic help from the government. It was of course partially helping, if not fully. One of the participants argued that:

In terms of food security, the amount under the [old age] scheme is not at all enough to speak objectively. It may help partially. As far as the VGD is concerned, I can say it may help much. For example, the beneficiaries can consume the food support given under the scheme and they can save the money (their regular income) which could be used for food had they not been given the benefit. (FGD1_Dimla)

230

The senior official for the VGD program advocated for effectiveness of the program to at least ensure coarse rice and dal three times a day for its beneficiaries. However, he acknowledged that it was not sufficient to address all the nutritional requirements of the beneficiaries. He also agreed that the program could only impact on the beneficiary’s food security to some extent for two years, during the program tenure. The two FGDs had almost the same opinion that the programs had a partial role in ensuring food security of the beneficiaries. The statement by the senior official revealed that the program was designed by the experts knowing that it could not ensure the nutritional entitlements of the beneficiaries. As argued by Ahsan (2007), in Bangladesh, policy formulation along with implementation process always remains in the hands of experts. Opportunities for poor people to take part in planning and decision making are not created so that the poor can enjoy their right to participate in the process.

7.1.4 Results of previous studies Previous studies present a mixed picture of the impacts of various programs. While most of them (Ahmed, 2000; BARD, 2012; Begum & Wesumperuma, 2012; del Ninno & Dorosh, 2002; IGS, 2010; Islam, 2009; Mannan & Ahmed, 2012; Matin & Hulme, 2003; Rahman & Choudhury, 2012; RDA, 2012) suggested that the programs had a significant impact on food consumption, others (Uraguchi, 2011; Zohir, Mallik, Zabeen, & Ahsan, 2010) argued that there was limited impact. Although participation in the SSNPs did increase the food consumption of the beneficiary households, like the current research most of the previous studies found little impact on nutritional outcomes of the members of the households.

231

Ahmed (2000) found that the programs had significantly increased food consumption and calorie intake at the household level; although he found that none of the targeted programs had made any noticeable improvement in nutritional status of the preschool children who were nutritionally the most vulnerable. Their findings indicated that a household’s access to food, although necessary, was not sufficient to eradicate malnutrition confronted by vulnerable individuals within the household.

The BARD (2012) study revealed that food intake of the VGD beneficiaries at breakfast, lunch and dinner increased compared to the pre-VGD program period. Consequently the beneficiaries were better off than the non-VGD poor respondents with respect to quantity of food intake per day. Begum and Wesumperuma (2012) [citing Paul-Majumder and Begum (2008) and Mannan (2010)] noted that nearly all the beneficiaries (of the Old Age Allowance) spent their allowance money to meet their daily consumption needs; encouragingly, 85%–95% reportedly managed an improvement in their household food situation with 15%–37% making sufficient improvement in this regard. del Ninno and Dorosh (2002) stated that their data clearly indicated that in-kind transfers targeted to poor women and children in Bangladesh led to greater wheat consumption than would otherwise result from an equivalent increase in cash income.

The IGS (2010) argued that evidently the most important outcome of an SSNP – in their case the VGD – was its efficacy in improving the food security status of the beneficiaries. In their view, this could be achieved through directly improving the nutritional status or through boosting income and/or assets that enhance capacity to purchase food. The VGD seemed to have fared well for both these indicators, but again with little gains for the

232

extreme poor. Islam (2009) argued that the primary impact of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women program was that it helped the beneficiaries at least to ensure partial food requirements. Rahman and Choudhury (2012) evaluated the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, the VGD and the Shouhardo program along with some other programs. They found that about a quarter of the households used to experience seasonal periods of hunger over the year. This proportion halved to 12.6% over the three year period of program participation. Conversely, the proportion of households enjoying three meals a day all through the year doubled from 21.8% to 42.8%.

Rahman and Choudhury (2012) argued that these findings showed an unmistakeable improvement in the food security status of beneficiary households, and that, further, the general trend of improvement in food security was evident for all programs. This was true in both the decline of seasonal hunger and the increase in the proportion of people able to have three meals a day all through the year. However, they stated that the fact that 12.6% still experience periods of hunger during the year underscored the distance which remained to be travelled in order for all people to have food security. The RDA (2012) in their impact evaluation on the VGD program argued that the overall impact of the program was strong, primarily based on food security. Mannan and Ahmed (2012) reported:

The VGD program has been successful in addressing the poverty situation of the beneficiary households. Because of increased earning and employment opportunities, the condition of food security in the family has improved significantly (even though they do not receive any project benefit now). The proportion of households having chronic food

233

deficit has decreased significantly. Most of the families now can eat three meals a day for most of the months in a year, while in the past they did not have access to adequate food and used to remain half-fed most of the time. (Mannan & Ahmed, 2012, p. 37)

On the other hand, Uraguchi (2011) and Zohir, Mallik, Zabeen, and Ahsan (2010) made conservative statements regarding the effectiveness of the programs on ensuring food security. Uraguchi (2011) in his comparative study of food transfer programs in Bangladesh and Ethiopia found that income transfer projects alone were not robust determinants of household food security. Rather the socio-political variables of education and family size, and economic factors of access to land and participation in non-farm income generating activities, were found to be significant in accounting for changes in households’ food security. Zohir, Mallik, Zabeen, and Ahsan (2010) also evaluated some of the programs in Bangladesh including the VGD, the VGF, the Old Age Allowance, and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women. They argued that due to leakage, the food security programs (the VGD and the VGF) were not as effective as expected. There is no empirical evidence that one or two such programs are the best – it always depends on the situation. They further argued that other allowances (Old age, widow, maternity, destitute and disabled allowance, etc.) were definitely supportive during the price hike.26 Otherwise, poor people could have faced greater food insecurity.

From the perceptions of the participants of the field level interviews and both the FGDs, the current research reveals that the selected five SSNPs had a

26 In Bangladesh food prices increased by 72% over a period of only 10 months – from June 2007 to April 2008 (Zohir, Mallik, Zabeen, & Ahsan, 2010). 234

limited impact on food security of the beneficiaries. All five SSNPs were partially fulfilling the food requirements of the beneficiaries, but none of them alone were adequate to ensure complete food security of the beneficiaries. In terms of food security, the VGD program was relatively effective as it provides the highest amount of benefit compared to the other four programs. Yet still, the VGD program could only ensure less than half of a month’s rice or wheat demand of a beneficiary household. Just meeting the hunger rather than the nutritional needs, as it was put by a senior official, cannot be treated as food security. The VGF program was considered the least effective program as it delivered a small amount for a short period. The SHOUHARDO-II program contributed more effectively than some other programs, but the short tenure of the three programs (the VGD for two years, the VGF only for three months, and the SHOUHARDO-II for five years) impeded their efficiency to guarantee food security of the beneficiaries in a sustainable manner. It was found that the beneficiaries, at the end of the program, all of a sudden, fell into uncertainty concerning their food supply. The Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women also had an impact to ensure partial food security of the beneficiaries. But as all of the beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women were more than 60 years of age, they were unable to work due to their physical limitations. It can be mentioned here that the life expectancy in Bangladesh was 69 years in 2011 (male 67.9 and female 70.3) (GoB, 2015) and the retirement age for government officials is 59 years. Thus, these allowances were their sole income sources. The small amount of money received from these programs alone could not ensure their food demands, let alone any other requirements arising due to their age.

235

Citing Paul-Majumder and Begum (2008) and Begum (2010), Begum and Wesumperuma (2012) argued that:

This insufficiency was to be viewed also in a context that these older people, by definition, had no assets, no land, no income, and often have no one to rely on for survival support. More important ... most of these older people (about two-thirds or more) have dependents and in rural areas they support on average more than two family members, with the number being more than three for male beneficiaries. (Begum & Wesumperuma, 2012, p. 202)

The responses from the interviewees and the field experience of the researcher suggest a small difference between the beneficiaries and the non- beneficiaries’ food security status. The beneficiaries felt a bit assured that they had at least some support, but the non-beneficiaries did not have any. So non-beneficiaries believed that the beneficiaries were in a better condition. The previous studies also presented a mixed scenario. Most of the studies found a significant contribution of the programs to the food security of the beneficiaries, while others found limited impacts. However, it is seen from the current research and the previous studies that although the SSNPs enhanced food consumption a little, there was less impact on nutritional outcomes of the beneficiaries. The capabilities approach is pertinent here. Although Sen (1981b) initially emphasised ‘food entitlements’, his focus later shifted towards nutritional capabilities (Drèze & Sen, 1989). Drèze and Sen (1989) argued that due to physical conditions particularly the old and the women (during pregnancy) are not only handicapped in earning an income, they also have difficulty in converting incomes into functionings in the form of disease- free living and enjoying adequate mobility. The current research argues that

236

the selected SSNPs, due to their meagre amount of benefits, failed to ensure complete food and nutritional capabilities of the beneficiaries, especially for the old and for women.

7.2 Impacts on women’s empowerment This section will explore the perceptions of the participants on impacts of the five selected SSNPs on women’s empowerment. As discussed in Chapter 4, empowering women is one of the aims of the selected SSNPs. Therefore, it is important to examine the perceived impacts of the programs on women’s empowerment. As discussed in Chapter 2, women’s empowerment is a broad concept. Women’s empowerment means not only a way of addressing discrimination against women; rather it is of benefit to whole communities. As discussed in Chapter 4, there is positive impact of women’s empowerment on food security of children, it can be argued that if women are empowered better education of children can also be improved and intra-familial violence will be reduced (Arends-Kuenning & Amin, 2001; Halder & Mosley, 2004; Razzaque & Toufique, 2007). The capabilities approach also explains why this focus on women’s empowerment enables greater access to both human rights and self-respect. Nussbaum (2000) argued that women in developing countries suffer pervasively from acute capability failure. Citing the Indian experience, Nussbaum (2000) noted that this failure includes: nutrition, health, freedom from violence, practical reason, control over environment and non-humiliation.

This research has not measured women‘s empowerment using the indicators used by Kabeer (1999) and Mahmud, Shah, and Becker (2012) discussed in Chapter 2. This research was not primarily intended to measure women’s empowerment using any specific indicator; rather it aimed to explore the perceived impacts of selected five SSNPs on food security and some other 237

aspects of rural poor people’s lives. As women’s empowerment is one of the objectives of the SSNPs, the perceptions of the respondents on impacts of the programs on women’s empowerment were considered important in this research. To explore the perceptions of rural poor men and women on women’s empowerment, they were asked how they think about women’s empowerment, and whether or not, in their view, these programs had had any impact on women’s empowerment.

The findings of this research on perceptions of the respondents on women’s empowerment are varied. Out of 20 interviewees (10 beneficiary and 10 non- beneficiary; of which 8 male and 12 female), four (2 beneficiary and 2 non- beneficiary; of which 3 male and 1 female) did not respond to the question on women’s empowerment. Five (2 beneficiary and 3 non-beneficiary; of which 1 male and 4 female) were unclear about the term “women’s empowerment”. The remaining 11 (6 beneficiary and 5 non-beneficiary; of which 4 male and 7 female) responded to the question on women’s empowerment.

The four respondents who did not respond to the question seemed to be unaware about the term women’s empowerment. The researcher tried to make them understand the term by asking relevant questions on whether they have power to take decisions on their own or they enjoy self-respect in the family. Another five respondents who were unclear about the term women’s empowerment answered the question ambiguously. The interviewer felt that through their body language they conveyed that they did not understand the question, but responded to the question somehow. When asked whether the SHOUHARDO-II program elevated the status of women, one of them (Masura Begum) replied that it benefited the family (not relevant to the question on women’s empowerment). Others just answered “yes”

238

seeming to not understand the question because when asked how the programs empowered women, they remained silent in spite of efforts by the researcher to try other way of asking the question.

Out of 11 interviewees who answered the questions on women’s empowerment, one female beneficiary reported no impact of the allowance on her empowerment as the amount is very little. She stated:

My son is working there (in a crop field) as a day labourer and I am joining soon to help him. This little income [allowance] doesn’t help to promote my status in the family. My husband did not leave much for me when he died. (Felani Banu)

Another 10 respondents acknowledged the positive impact of the benefits on supporting women’s empowerment in the family and society. Most of them understood women’s empowerment as the promotion of women’s status in the family. Only one female beneficiary, the most educated among all the 20 interviewees (up to year 10), comprehended the term “women’s empowerment” holistically. She said:

I understand women’s empowerment. It means if you have something then you have the power. It means as I get the support I have the power. When I take something forcibly from my husband, from my in- laws, it means I have power; the power of taking decision. This support has helped promote my status in the family little bit. (Lucky)

This statement indicates that education may have enabled her to become more aware of her rights. The respondent identified two important indicators of women’s empowerment: power of control over resources and power of

239

decision making. This can be connected to the Capability 4 that emphasises the right to education. Education enables capabilities to articulate ideas and also gain better access to do things such as employment that resulted in achieving better food security. The respondent, being an educated person, understands more comprehensively than the other respondents what women’s empowerment is. Although the respondent has better education and ability to comprehend the concept of women’s empowerment, due to other constraints such as lack of income and lack of employment opportunities in this area she may not be able to change her life.

Some other interesting responses, of those participants who perceived positive impacts of the benefits on women’s empowerment are stated below:

It helps to promote the status of the women in case the women get the allowance. Other members of the family then try to support her. They think as the government is supporting her, they also think to support her to manage her life. (Bashir Uddin)

The status of the women who get the allowance has been promoted a little bit. (Abdul Jalil)

Her status has been promoted in society. She sends her daughter to the school. (Aleya Begum)

Yes. I could understand it by the behaviour of my husband. My husband consults me while taking decision. He counts my opinion. (Saleha Begum)

Yes, it was. Because then the family was going well. The mood of my husband was good. He did not quarrel with me. When a husband 240

struggles for money, his mood goes off and is engaged in quarrel with the wife. Same thing happens to the wife as well. Both become frustrated because of poverty and want in the family. My mother-in-law still says why we took another child when we have one already. She said it was because of poverty. My mother-in-law resides in the kitchen. I managed all these with support from other people as my husband stays in the city. (Hafsa)

For example, if you rear a chicken and if you can sell it independently, it means you are empowered. Your husband or mother-in-law may not rebuke you. It means taking decisions independently. When I am economically well off, I can take my decision independently. VGD is helping women to gain economic ability. (Shefali Begum)

From the above statements, it is revealed that most of the interviewees who responded to this question perceive the term “women’s empowerment” as an increase in the status of women within the family. Due to the benefit they received, they thought their status in the family had been increased, so that their husbands, in-laws and other members of the family did not rebuke them or quarrel with them, but listened to them or tried to support them. Some interviewees perceived that they had been able to take decisions independently after joining the programs. From these statements, it appeared that there was little difference between the perceptions of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries on women’s empowerment.

From the responses of some of the interviewees it is also appeared that the following dimensions and indicators of women’s empowerment appeared to be achieved, at least a little bit, for some of them through the program participation of the beneficiaries: 241

i. Self-esteem and self-confidence ii. Capacity to take decision independently and participation in decision making process in the family and community iii. Control over resources, and iv. Children’s education.

The responses from some of the female interviewees suggest that although they are not completely empowered, they know the capabilities they fail to achieve. As Nussbaum (2000) argued, being women they have lacked support for most of the central human functionings although they have the potential to become capable of these functionings if they are given sufficient nutrition, education, and other support. This indicates that their capability failure is created by the society and those current programs and policies have not managed to address this issue.

Two senior officials, responsible for implementation of two programs (the VGD and the SHOUHARDO-II), also argued that program participation empowered the beneficiaries, particularly the women, although not at the optimum level. One of them said:

We are giving 30kg of rice or wheat to the female member of a family. So, if I think in narrow sense of empowerment – her husband may honour her that she brings 30kg of rice or wheat in the last week of every month, so she has a contribution in family income. In this regard, in the narrow sense, she has been empowered. If she said to her husband that I won't give it to you: it's an instrument of her empowerment among her vulnerability. Another issue is knowledge, which is supposed to give them ideally. That's why we arrange skill-

242

based and social awareness training by the NGOs. This knowledge is also an empowerment. So we address a part of empowerment. I don't think that this is optimum. But we have to think that they are the group of people who are derailed from the track. So to bring them onto the track we are giving them benefits. If there were successive interventions then more dimensions of empowerment would be retained in a sustainable manner. (Iv21_DWA)

Another senior official stated:

They (an evaluation report) found some correlation between this women’s empowerment versus the reduction of stunting. Like you know, if we cannot empower the decision making ability at the household level, particularly for the mother, it’s not going to bring out any result, as because, we like the men, you know, most of the time remain outside of their home, it’s the mother who take care of the children under two and under five. So it’s very, very important that we empower decision making abilities of the women. So we have that statistical and graphical figures about the kind of changes we brought in, in terms of women’s decision making, like their mobility has been increased, they have been attached to various decision making platforms of the government. So the rural women, there are huge reduction in child marriage in the program area, there are huge reduction in violence against women, there are some processions, rallies against bitting wives, addiction to alcohol and gambling, and that kind of thing. There are huge reductions of giving dowries, say for example. (Iv22_SHOUHARDO-II)

243

The official from the SHOUHARDO-II program referred to the evaluation report on the earlier phase (2005-2009) of SHOUHARDO program conducted by Smith, Kahn, Frankenberger, and Wadud (2011) which found the program had a large impact on child malnutrition (particularly child stunting), food security and women’s empowerment. This signifies the importance of participation and empowerment on the one hand and positive impacts of women’s empowerment on food security, particularly on children, on the other. If the mother is empowered in the household decision making, it is likely that the food security of children will be improved; child marriage and violence against women will be reduced.

Both the FGDs’ participants also agreed that the benefits of the programs helped to support women’s empowerment. One of the participants at the field level FGD argued:

Education and awareness are the preconditions of women’s empowerment. They need to know what their rights are. It is important to know how much of their opinions are being valued in the decision making process. For example, in a family situation in case of the marriage of a girl, the opinion of the girl or mother is not being considered. These programs are helping little bit in empowering the women. (FGD1_Dimla)

Another participant emphasised economic empowerment of women rather than education:

Education is important but economic empowerment is more important. A woman can take decisions only when she holds money and she has an income. Then her dignity is automatically increased in the family, to

244

her husband, and children. This is a big space. She can play role in the family. She can further go from here to play a role in decision making processes at the institutional level. SHOUHARDO is trying to ensure income of the women; so our programs are women focused. We want the male family members to work outside and at the same time the women at least should do something even based in the household. Then they can earn together and will achieve solvency. Both will be benefitted then. The women can then play a greater role in the decision making process. Our all projects are women focused. (FGD1_Dimla)

Similarly another participant stated the importance of economic stability:

I think a woman should have economic solvency. If a woman can contribute to the family, she will be honoured in the family. Now the situation has developed to a great extent. These programs are impacting at least partially. (FGD1_Dimla)

Another participant, however, focused on awareness of social and economic factors:

The beneficiaries are becoming aware at different stages; during selection, during transactions in banks. Moreover, there are some programs on awareness through which they know many things such as dowry, child marriage, etc. Since they get to know many issues, they become empowered. (FGD1_Dimla)

245

One of the bank officials argued that as bankers they went to the community and saw how these programs were impacting on empowerment. Women were playing a significant role in repaying loans.

One of the participants of the FGD at the ministry level argued:

When a destitute woman, who has nothing, is receiving some money, of about 4000/5000 Taka27 at a time, she has been honoured; she has been given importance in her family. For example, she can contribute to members of the family to buy a medicine for them. By this way this has been increasing her status, her position in the family. (FGD2_MoSW)

The statements of the two senior officials and both the FGDs suggest that the five selected SSNPs have a positive impact on women’s empowerment. These programs increased, to some extent, the status of the beneficiary women in the family.

A number of previous studies, both quantitative and qualitative, reveal positive impacts of the SSNPs on women’s empowerment. Mahmud, Shah, and Becker (2012, p. 616) found that women in rural Bangladesh were most likely to feel empowered with respect to household decision-making and one self-esteem indicator, but relatively less likely to experience empowerment with respect to access to cash, and were least likely to experience empowerment in terms of freedom of mobility. Halder and Mosley (2004, p. 398) found that participation in the VGD program enhanced women’s empowerment, in particular through enabling them to make purchases with

27 This is not correct; they receive 900 Taka every three months. 246

their own money, and to send their girls to school. They also argued that the women had also acquired some assets and goods, and had considerably better awareness of rights and social issues, as well as notably more capacity to participate in NGO programs. These results were particularly strong for married women. Hossain (2007, pp. 4-5) from the impact assessment based on panel data (surveys of 400 VGD participants at the beginning of a cycle, in the middle and three years after – 1994, 1996 and 1999) found some positive changes in beneficiaries’ lives and livelihoods. These included a decline in landlessness and increase in homestead land ownership, a decline in begging, and a rise in dignity and social status within the community. In addition, some savings had been made, there was increased ownership of basic household goods, and a slight rise in income (the highest point was immediately after the program ended in 1996), plus two-thirds of the VGD graduates joined micro-finance programs.

The RDA (2012, pp. 41-45) found positive impacts of the VGD program on decision making capability, mobility, using family planning methods, marriage registration and awareness building of the beneficiaries. They found that there was positive development in making decisions by the beneficiaries themselves on different aspects of women’s empowerment, such as spending their own income, cultivating crops, investment, purchasing goods from the market, sale and purchasing cattle, access to healthcare, and children education. They also observed a remarkable change in mobility of the beneficiaries to different programs and places, a 10.7% increase in use of family planning, and an increase in marriage registration of the sons and daughters of the beneficiaries compared to the beneficiaries themselves. They also reported significant development in awareness building among the beneficiaries in terms of receiving messages during disasters, technology

247

used in communication, and disaster preparedness. They concluded by saying that as a result of VGD enrolment, it was evident that beneficiaries were empowered and honoured by their husband.

The BARD (2012, pp. 48-50) argued that the VGD program aimed at empowering women through raising awareness and providing training on marketable skills for income-generation which could contribute to changing opinion and attitudes of the target beneficiaries. They found positive changes in participation in household decision making, mobility (travelling outside home), and exposure and perception of their own status by the beneficiaries. They revealed that a large majority of the respondents had participation in decision making jointly in most of the household issues after joining the program, whereas before inclusion in the VGD program, women respondents made only a few self-decisions on household issues. They also found higher mobility of the beneficiaries compared to non-beneficiaries, and the beneficiaries were treated better by most of the members of the households and also by others due to improvements of food and a decrease in the household’s vulnerability.

Islam (2009, p. 54) argued that the provision [by the Allowance for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women] of a guaranteed and predictable minimum income provided the beneficiaries with a level of basic security and increased their ability to plan for the future. Their complete dependence, either on charity or community, had been significantly reduced. In some cases, due to the contribution they could make, they earned some respect and dignity both from family and society. Khan (2012) argued:

With the regular communication between government officials, public representatives and other stakeholders through this program, violence, 248

oppression and negligence to women especially in the rural areas are diminishing. Rights of the widow and husbands’ deserted destitute women have been established through this program. (Khan, 2012, p. 49)

Rahman and Choudhury (2012) in their evaluation report on ten SSNPs including the VGD, the VGF, the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, and the SHOUHARDO programs stated:

An important corollary outcome of the safety net programmes has been empowerment of women in various dimensions. Both in terms of beneficiary perceptions and survey data, participation in safety net programs has contributed to enhancing women’s status primarily within the family but also contributing to female mobility and increased economic participation. Seventy-six per cent of all respondents cited a positive impact on women’s status due to programme participation. The reasons cited include contribution to family expenditures, freedom to meet small personalized expenditures, giving gifts to younger family members, contributing to educational expenses, etc. (Rahman & Choudhury, 2012, p. 93)

The World Bank (2006, pp. 16-17) argued that participation in programs is credited with considerable changes in social and household characteristics, the most important being the role and empowerment of women in the household and in society. They also argued that improvement in the social status of women have been particularly true for widows, divorcees, and disabled women.

249

The current research concentrated on the perceptions of the respondents on the term “women’s empowerment” and the impacts of programs on women’s empowerment. The findings of this research revealed that the perceptions of the respondents were varied. Some did not respond to the question on women’s empowerment, some were unclear about the term “women’s empowerment”, and the remaining participants responded to the question with a variety of answers. Those who did not respond to the question seemed to be unaware about the term women’s empowerment, and they answered the question with ambiguity. It can be mentioned here that most of the respondents (13 out of 20) had little or no education and all of them used a local dialect of Bangla language (already discussed in Chapter 5). Therefore it can be argued that there were some communication gaps between the interviewees and the researcher. However, the interpreter accompanying the researcher helped to clarify the questions for the interviewees.

The research revealed that most of the interviewees perceived the term “women’s empowerment” as an increase in the status of women in the family. Due to the benefit they received, they thought their status in the family was increased, so that their husbands, in-laws and other members of the family did not rebuke them or quarrel with them but listened to them or tried to support them. Some interviewees perceived that they were able to undertake decisions independently after joining the programs. It was also evident from the responses of the interviewees from rural poor people and senior officials, and the participants of both the focus group discussions, that some of the beneficiaries appeared to have received at least some support from the programs in the following dimensions of women’s empowerment through participating in the program:

250

i. Self-esteem and self-confidence ii. Capacity to take decision independently and participation in decision making process in the family and community iii. Control of resources, and iv. Children’s education.

Findings of other research also support the outcomes of this research, but still, some dimensions of women’s empowerment such as political empowerment, an effective legal structure which is supportive of women’s empowerment and capacity to defend herself against violations of her human rights, have not yet been examined and discussed in the existing literature. This section concludes that women’s empowerment is closely related to the central capabilities such as, food and nutrition, education, self-esteem and non-humiliation, agency or control over resources and participation in decision making. Some of the beneficiaries after participating in the SSNPs thought they had achieved the capabilities in part.

7.3 Overall impacts of social safety net programs Central to Bangladesh’s recent economic and social achievements has been a surprisingly effective portfolio of social protection programmes addressing different vulnerabilities of both transient and chronic poverty. Historically these began with emergency relief programmes but have evolved to include conditional cash transfers, employment generation schemes, and world leading ultra-poor asset transfer programmes. (Hulme, Maitrot, Rango, & Rahman, 2014, p. 17)

While Hulme, Maitrot, Rango, and Rahman (2014) credited the social protection programs for Bangladesh's recent economic and social achievements, it is important to explore the perceptions of the participants of 251

this research regarding the socio-economic impacts of the selected SSNPs. SSNPs have a broad range of impacts, particularly in a country like Bangladesh in which poor people suffer from economic, social, physical and mental vulnerabilities. In this section the perceptions of the research participants on the impacts of the five selected SSNPs will be explored, in terms of increasing income and reducing poverty, earning dignity in the family and society, and getting medical support. When asked about the programs’ impacts on their lives, other than food security, the key respondents raised these issues which emerged as sub-themes during data analysis. The beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, as well as the FGD participants, agreed that the programs impacted on the lives of the beneficiaries. Some of them perceived the impact as significant, while others argued that the programs have little impact.

7.3.1 Increase in income and poverty reduction The primary goal of all the SSNPs is to address poverty through supporting the beneficiaries in increasing income. Despite the fact that they are contributing to reducing the vulnerabilities of the beneficiaries, the impact of the selected SSNPs on poverty reduction is contested by other researchers. Both the primary data from this research, as well as other literature, depict mixed perceptions about the issue. One of the beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program (Mohammad Alom) argued that his situation remained the same; there was no difference with the support. The support could not bring much change, neither could it reduce poverty, nor could it ensure food security. On the other hand, another beneficiary of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women (Hafeza Begum) recognised the positive impact of the program. She said “Yes, it is

252

helping; it helps in different ways such as it helps to manage food, medicine and other things needed to manage life”.

The beneficiaries reported that the programs helped them increase their income. One of the beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance (Bashir Uddin) stated that before the allowance, he had a very difficult time. He was then also a day labourer. He used to take a loan to look after his family. Currently he does not have a loan because he has received the allowance money and repaid the loan. But he assumed that he will have to take out a loan again to look after the family, since he cannot manage the expenditure of the family with the meagre amount of the allowance.

One of the beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program argued:

Now we find it a little bit convenient to manage the family expenditure as we get the [food] ration but it’s not a big help. As this support will stop next month, we will be back to the old condition [of hardship]. (Lucky)

One of the senior officials with the responsibility of implementing the SHOUHARDO-II program argued that the program has a huge impact on income. He said:

Like income, in that particular area, average income was 1487 Taka and this income has been increased to 3390 Taka. So these are the few figures, you know statistics are not the solutions, but in our final evaluation you will find both the statistical comparison and the qualitative aspects of the program. (Iv22_SHOUHARDO-II)

253

Studies show that most households benefiting from cash transfer programs had increased household income (del Ninno & Dorosh, 2002; Matin & Hulme, 2003). Impact assessment studies of the VGD program by the BRAC researchers in the early 1990s uncovered some modestly positive impacts of the VGD program on income, as well as on nutrition and some social indicators. The most important impact was, however, that incomes had been diversified, suggesting a reduction in vulnerability. The women had also acquired some assets and goods, and considerably better awareness of rights and social issues, as well as noticeably more capacity to participate in NGO programs, particularly married women (Halder & Mosley, 2004). Ahmed (2007) and Mannan and Ahmed (2012) also found that the VGD program had increased household income.

Begum and Paul-Majumder (2001) argued that about 19% of the Old Age Allowance recipients invested their allowance money in buying livestock (goats, cows, poultry, etc.), which has a long-term development impact through livelihood creation. Similarly, they found beneficiaries from the Allowances for Widow and Husbands' Deserted Destitute Women program acquired cattle and poultry, which also had potential for future income generation. The BARD (2012) study also found that the beneficiary (of the VGD program) households’ income increased more than the income of non- beneficiary households demonstrating the increase in income was not necessarily due to economic growth in the area. They further noted some asset increases were made (e.g. cows, goats, poultry, chairs, table, dress, shoes, winter clothes, and mobile phones) among the beneficiary households. Rahman and Choudhury (2012), from their survey and FGD insights, found income increased in recipients of the Old Age Allowance, the

254

Allowances for Widow and Husbands' Deserted Destitute Women, the VGD and the SHOUHARDO programs.

Although most of the previous research argued that the SSNPs increased the income and assets of the beneficiaries, some researchers found the programs to have a smaller or no impact on generating incomes of the beneficiaries. Mannan (2010) argued that the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women ensured a regular source of income to old age people and the widows respectively, although to a limited extent. Islam (2009) suggested that due to the small amount it provided, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands' Deserted Destitute Women failed to generate income opportunities of the beneficiaries. He argued that it meant perpetuity of either poverty itself or dependency on SSNPs.

Some qualitative studies (Sattar, Chowdhury, & Hossain, 1999) found that social indicators had improved, and that there had been some positive impact on the intergenerational transmission of ultra-poverty through a greater tendency to invest in children’s education. del Ninno and Dorosh (2002) and Matin and Hulme (2003) found evidence that program participation helped increase consumption and income levels for beneficiary households compared to non-beneficiary households. Impact evaluations of the VGD (BARD, 2012; RDA, 2012) suggested the program had a positive impact on reducing the poverty of beneficiaries. Mannan and Ahmed (2012) also reported the positive impact of the VGD program on poverty reduction of the beneficiaries.

Some research revealed a limited impact of SSNPs on poverty reduction. Datta and Hossain (2003) argued that the VGD Bangladesh had a rather 255

limited impact on poverty alleviation because of the small size of its program. For example, in the year 2000, the government distributed 85,000 VGD cards, i.e. 1.25 cards in each village (as discussed in Chapter 3, the number of beneficiaries for the VGD has been increased over time and stood at 9.1 million in 2014-15). In addition, it was found that extremely poor people living in environmentally vulnerable areas rarely had access to this card. Rahman and Choudhury (2012) drew the attention of the researchers to an important issue, noting that large-scale graduation out of poverty has not occurred within such a program cycle (for the short-term programs like the VGD, the VGF and the SHOUHARDO programs). However, the more meaningful issue here has been whether sustainable graduation platforms have been built which can subsequently lead to graduation out of poverty. They advocated that there had been insufficient debate on the optimum length of the program cycle from such dynamic considerations.

As the beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands' Deserted Destitute Women were over 60 years of age, most of them were physically feeble and unable to gain paid employment. Thus, for most of the beneficiaries this allowance was their only income. As they were struggling to manage their regular food requirements, the findings of some other studies (BARD, 2012; Halder & Mosley, 2004) that suggested that the beneficiaries had been using the allowance money for buying assets, raise a question whether the beneficiaries compromised their food expenditure to save some money for buying necessary household goods (chairs, table, dress, shoes, and mobile phones) and income generating assets (goats, cows, and poultry). The findings of the current research do not provide any conclusive evidence of buying assets by the beneficiaries, although they

256

suggested that during the program tenure the benefits increased their income and reduced their hardship.

7.3.2 Earning dignity The impact of the selected SSNPs exclusively on women’s empowerment has been discussed in Section 7.2. This section will discuss the perceptions of the participants and some other research on whether the beneficiaries, both men and women, earn some honour and dignity in the family and society, by receiving benefits from the programs.

In this research, out of 20 field level interviewees 12 were women and 8 were men. Almost all of the beneficiaries stated that the allowances helped to enhance their status in the family. The non-beneficiary respondents also agreed. Only one beneficiary stated that the small amount of money could not uplift her status. The two senior officials from the top management of the VGD and the SHOUHARDO-II programs respectively also perceived that the programs were helping earn some dignity and honour for the beneficiaries in the family. The participants of both the FGDs agreed that the programs were increasing the status of the beneficiaries. One of the participants of the FGD at the field level said:

These two programs (the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands' Deserted Destitute Women) are helping. If you consider our social perspective, you will see it has tremendous impact. Once the beneficiaries start getting the [old age] allowance, they see their dignity in the families has heightened. It is seen that sometimes the son(s) do not want to maintain the old father, but the situation changes when the father gets a card under elderly people allowance. This is how it helps. (FGD1_Dimla) 257

Some previous studies also revealed that the program’s participation has a positive impact on enhancing the beneficiary’s status in the family. Rahman and Choudhury (2012), from their survey and FGD insights, suggested that even though the amount is small, the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands' Deserted Destitute Women assured regularity of some income and increased dignity of the beneficiaries within family. They argued that impact came mainly through providing independence to beneficiaries on small personal expenses, e.g. health expenses, habits such as betel-leaf and gifts for grand-children. They also reported increased dignity of the beneficiaries in the family by the VGD and the SHOUHARDO programs. They found improved self-worth due to less dependence on charity or begging. They concluded by saying:

[The] size of the benefits in these two programs (the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands' Deserted Destitute Women) is small yet for the beneficiaries the greater significance lay in the assured regularity of the benefits and the empowering opportunities these small benefits opened for these vulnerable members to be independent in some of their personalized expenditures such as medicine and leisure items – betel-leaf, etc. the opportunity for independent decision making on small expenditures also permitted stronger inter-generational bonding when the grandparent could indulge the grandchildren with small gifts. (Rahman & Choudhury, 2012, p. 77)

Mannan (2010) suggested that the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands' Deserted Destitute Women enable the poor elderly and the poor widowed women respectively to attain some status in the family

258

due to their allowance. Paul-Majumder and Begum (2008) identified some social impacts of the Old Age Allowance: the allowance has made the poor elderly people into more desirable members of the household and their children are now more eager to take care of them and co-reside with them. According to the authors, the allowance has helped to restore and continue the traditional values of looking after the older family members/parents by the younger family members/children. The authors feel that this should be considered a great achievement.

As discussed in Section 7.2, the qualitative findings of this research suggest that the beneficiaries had earned some dignity and honour within their family. This finding confirms what is outlined in Capability 7B as it emphasises the importance of dignity and honour which is a result of better access to food supplies and food entitlements. But the small amount of benefits, which cannot fulfil the basic food requirements of the beneficiaries, raises a question of how far these benefits enhance the status of the beneficiaries in the family and society. The capacity to enable the beneficiaries to buy some leisure items, betel-leaf, or presents for grandchildren is treated as a great achievement by other researchers. However, this researcher argues that while the benefits could increase some degree of dignity of the beneficiaries in the family, it cannot be treated as a great achievement.

7.3.3 Medical support As the benefits delivered by the selected SSNPs were very small; it was very hard to spare or save any money from the benefit to use for medical support. Although some studies (Begum & Wesumperuma, 2012; Islam, 2009; Rahman & Choudhury, 2012) found that the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands' Deserted Destitute Women had some

259

positive impacts on healthcare services of the beneficiaries, in this study only one beneficiary of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women (Hafeza Begum) reported that the allowance helped her in different ways such as managing food, medicine and other things needed to manage daily life. On the other hand, another beneficiary of the same allowance (Sahiran Begum) expressed her frustration about medical support in the complications surrounding being older in age. She said, “I am now old. I feel very weak. I feel giddy. My eye sight is getting low. I don’t know if I can manage my food or do medical treatment”.

The statement by the beneficiary indicates that she was in a dilemma whether she would prefer food or emergency medical care. It also indicates that if she preferred medical needs, she was likely to compromise her food requirements.

Islam (2009) found that some beneficiaries of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands' Deserted Destitute Women could use some of the allowance money for medical care, particularly paying for medicines. Rahman and Choudhury (2012) reported some positive contribution of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands' Deserted Destitute Women programs on affordability of healthcare. Begum and Wesumperuma (2012) also noted positive impacts of the Old Age Allowance on healthcare. They reported that the allowance has greatly enhanced older people’s access to healthcare services. However, it can be argued that because of the small amount of benefits, the programs had a limited impact on beneficiaries’ medical care. When the beneficiaries needed to spend their allowance money for health and medical supports it is likely that they would cut their regular food cost to manage emergency health needs.

260

The findings of this study suggest that the perceptions of the participants on increasing income or creating assets and reducing poverty, earning dignity within the family and society, and getting medical support were mixed. Most of the participants agreed that these programs had a role in increasing their income, reducing their poverty, and enhancing their status in the family to some extent. Some other participants perceived that these programs had less or no impact on reducing poverty and generating income opportunities due to the small amount of support received. Only one participant described the program’s positive impact on medical care. While the primary concern of the poor was to meet their basic food needs, the impacts of these programs on other aspects of their lives were less likely to be recognised by them.

While the preceding sections have discussed the impacts of the programs on food security and other aspects of lives, the following section will discuss the amount of benefits provided by the five selected SSNPs and will examine the adequacy of the benefits in relation to ensuring food security of the beneficiaries.

7.4 Adequacy of allowances This section discusses the adequacy of the allowances provided by the five selected SSNPs. The five SSNPs are (i) the Old Age Allowance, (ii) the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, (iii) the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD), (iv) the Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF), and (v) the Strengthening Household Ability to Respond to Development Opportunities-II program (SHOUHARDO-II). Each program delivers different kinds and amounts of benefits. In this section, the benefits provided by the selected programs were evaluated by the beneficiaries and

261

non-beneficiaries as to whether or not they were adequate to ensure food security.

The Old Age Allowance delivers cash support of BDT 300/- (USD 3.75) per person, per month. This support is life-long and is disbursed every three months. The Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women provide the same benefit as the Old Age Allowance. The VGD delivers 30kg of rice or wheat per month for a period of two years in a life- time. The market value of 30kg rice/wheat was about BDT 900 (USD 11.26). The VGF offers 10kg of rice or wheat per month for a maximum period of three months following any disaster or during a lean period. The market value of 10kg rice/wheat was about BDT 300 (USD 3.75). The SHOUHARDO-II provides different amounts for its various components. Beneficiaries of Component-1 (income generation) get BDT 3000/- (USD 37.53) as a one-off payment and Component-2 (nutrition for children under 2 years of age and lactating mothers) receive monthly food rations of 10kg of wheat, 1kg vegetable oil, and 0.5kg lentils worth approximately BDT 450 (USD 5.63) up to the second birthday of the baby.

7.4.1 The Old Age Allowance The field data of this research shows that the amount offered by the Old Age Allowance is meagre. Both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of the program, and the participants of the FGD at the grass-roots level, agreed that this allowance helps to cover partial food support, but this was not at all enough for the beneficiaries. As this allowance is for people over 65 and 62 years of ages (for men and women respectively), most of the beneficiaries were not capable of work due to their physical condition and therefore did not have any other source of income. One of the two beneficiaries said:

262

I can manage 15kg of rice (the lowest quality of rice available in the market) with this 300 Taka. But I don’t use it only for rice since I have to manage other things necessary for life. I can manage rice for 7 days only. I don’t know how to feed the family throughout the month. Then I am forced to take loan; 300 Taka is just not enough. (Bashir Uddin)

Another beneficiary (Felani Banu) corroborated this statement. She said, “The money is being used for food; it can provide food for seven days only. It does not make much difference in my life. The amount is very little. It just helps little bit to manage food”.

Both the non-beneficiaries testified that the amount was not enough for the beneficiaries. One (Abdul Jalil) said that, “It helps them to manage their livelihood for a few days but the amount is very little. Price of every essential item has gone up”. Another non-beneficiary (Aleya Begum) argued that this money is not enough but yet helps the beneficiary.

The FGD at the Upazila level also agreed that the amount of support was very meagre. While the FGD at Upazila level recommended increasing the amount from 300 Taka to 1000 Taka per month, the FGD at the policy level (Ministry of Social Welfare), while accepting the meagreness of the amount, suspected the ability of the government to increase the amount so high.

From the above statements of the beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries and FGDs, it appears that this program was not fully stopping hunger or food insecurity of older poor people; rather it can be treated as a coping strategy with hunger.

263

7.4.2 The Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women The benefit delivered by the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women is the same as the Old Age Allowance. The amount for the allowance was assessed by the beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries and both FGDs, in the same manner. One of the beneficiaries (Sahiran Begum) stated that, “It helps manage food for 5/6 days. It’s not adequate to address our poverty. It helps to manage food for a few days”. Another beneficiary and two non-beneficiaries also argued that the allowance was not adequate. Both the FGDs agreed that the amount of money (300 Taka) was not enough.

7.4.3 The Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) The VGD offers 30kg of rice or wheat for two years and a beneficiary is eligible for the VGD card only once in their life-time, between 18 to 40 years of age. According to the empirical data the amount was considered better than the other programs, although the beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, one senior official and Upazila level FGD suggested that the amount was not adequate. One of the beneficiaries (Saleha Begum) expressed her opinion, saying, “It helped us providing food but we had to work outside. It was not enough”. Another beneficiary stated:

No, it is not enough. We need to work hard to manage other food costs of the family since just rice is not enough. It was not enough; 25kg was not enough to manage the needs of the family. But still it helped us. I think we need 60kg of rice per month to manage our family needs. (Hafsa)

In his interview, one of the senior officials responsible for implementation of the VGD program agreed that the program was not adequate, particularly in

264

terms of sustainability. He questioned the sustainability of outcomes after people finish the two-year cycle. He said:

So in this regard I don’t think that, this is permanent panacea. Within these two years while they have food support or subsistence allowance, if they are given some training and means of another livelihood, they will be able to maintain their current level of living after two years – this is our holy desire. How far we will be successful – it does not depend on me alone. It also depends on his [beneficiary] commitment, provide need-based livelihood training, and to connect and develop linkage with a livelihood. So we cannot claim confidently that this is adequate. (Iv21_DWA)

7.4.4 The Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) Participants’ perceptions suggest that the amount of benefit the VGF delivers was very small; 10kg of rice or wheat per month could only meet a few days food demand of the beneficiaries. However, as this program is for emergency purposes after a natural calamity or a lean period, when poor people cannot find work opportunities, this small support was treated as critical by the beneficiaries. One of the beneficiaries stated:

It’s just going on. We cannot manage food adequately. It covered food needs of 4-5 days. It helps to address the critical food needs. But it cannot ensure food security of a family since the amount is very low (Mafizur Rahman).

Another beneficiary (Dilip), considering the amount was very small, recommended increasing the amount up to 30kg per month. The non- beneficiaries and the FGD at Upazila level also admitted that the amount was

265

very meagre, but one non-beneficiary (Prodip) said that, “We are poor people. Any help is important for us. Even if we are given help for a day that is also a great help for us”. While the respondent perceived the government support, even for one day’s subsistence, as a great help, he, along with other respondents, suggested and preferred employment generation programs rather than relief activities.

7.4.5 The Strengthening Household Ability to Respond to Development Opportunities-II (SHOUHARDO-II) The amount of benefit delivered by Component-1 and Component-2 of the SHOUHARDO-II program was not similar, because the aims of the two components were different. Component-1 aimed at increasing food availability for communities through improved and diversified agricultural development, linkages with private sector and government services, and increasing household income among poor and extreme poor. On the other hand, Component-2 aimed at improving the health, hygiene and nutritional status of children under 2 years of age. For Component-1 the program first assessed the suitable trade for the beneficiaries, provided them appropriate livelihood training, and then disbursed cash or equipment worth 3000/- Taka, in order for them to commence an income generating activity. However, Component-2 supplemented the monthly food ration by 10kg of wheat, 1kg vegetable oil, and 0.5kg lentil for a child up to 2 years of age, worth approximately BDT 450 (USD 5.63).

Both the beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program admitted that the benefit helped them to some extent, but also that it was ultimately not enough. The non-beneficiaries also supported their statements. One of the beneficiaries (Component-2) perceived that this temporary provision was like

266

a short reprieve and makes very little difference overall to food security (Lucky).

Another beneficiary (Component-1) stated:

The money has helped me manage my livelihood/food. If I had not got it I would have taken a loan to manage my food. It helped to protect my food security to some extent. My problem will continue if the support is stopped. So it is not enough to ensure food security of the poor people in a sustainable way. (Mohammad Alom)

However, here a loan was not required for the beneficiary, so there is some short-term benefit, which may lead to less debt in the long-term.

The non-beneficiaries also agreed that the support provided by SHOUHARDO-II program was not enough and they recommended increasing the amount. However, a senior official, responsible for implementation of this program, claimed the program was successful:

This approach is found to be very effective and working, but again I'm saying, in a developing country when you talk about need, when you talk about that this is the only solution, I would say, no, this is not the only solution, because, you need probably work from many fronts, not one front, when you are fighting against poverty. (Iv22_Shouhardo-II)

The manager of the SHOUHARDO-II program took a pragmatic approach. He realises that it is not enough, but at the same time, he argued that the program plays an important role in social policy. Here the capabilities approach is relevant as Capability 10 points out the importance of social

267

policy, because it is the level where decisions about controls of one’s environment are enabled or disabled.

A number of studies have evaluated the performance and impact of the aforementioned SSNPs. Some studies are program specific (IGS, 2010; Islam, 2009; Khan, 2012; Mannan, 2010; Mannan & Ahmed, 2012; Rahman & Choudhury, 2012) and some are more general (Rahman, Begum, & Bhuyan, 2012; World Bank, 2006). The World Bank (2006) has evaluated the coverage, targeting, leakages, overlapping and some other administrative issues of SSNPs, but they do not make any comment on whether the benefits are sufficient. Rahman, Begum, and Bhuyan (2012) reported that a total of 11% of households received some benefit from one of the following sources: the VGD, the VGF, the Gratuitous Relief, the Test Relief, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, or the Old Age Allowance and these sources provide direct support for access to food. They argued that the average amount received over a one-year period by all food-insecure households was insufficient.

Rahman and Choudhury (2012) have assessed the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, the VGD and the SHOUHARDO, as well as other programs. They have only mentioned that the size of the benefits of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women was small, but they have found a significant impact on empowering the beneficiaries. They did not comment on the meagreness of the other programs. Mannan and Ahmed (2012) also evaluated the impacts of the VGD program, but did not note any meagreness of the allowance. IGS (2010) also appraised the VGD program and they discussed targeting, leakages and the political

268

economy of the program, but did not mention the adequacy of the level of payments. Khan (2012) also assessed the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women program, but she did not have any findings on the amount of the allowance. Islam (2009), on the other hand, in his research on Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women found that the money delivered by the program was very small. Mannan (2010, p. 57) argued that inadequacy of the amount of allowance/food grain provided under the SSNPs is the main weakness of these programs. He reported some discontent among the beneficiaries of the SSNPs, particularly among the beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, regarding the amount of allowance. In his study, almost all the Old Age Allowance beneficiaries noted that the allowance money was meagre in this age of high prices of basic needs. He also found that nine out of ten beneficiaries of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women reported that the amount of allowance was not adequate.

However, the five SSNPs selected for this study deliver different kinds and amounts of benefits. The findings from this study suggest that the amount of benefit provided by the selected SSNPs was small and none of the programs alone was adequate for ensuring food security of the households of the beneficiaries. The benchmark poverty level set by the World Bank is now USD 1.25 a day. So according to the World Bank, a person needs at least USD 37.53 per month to escape poverty. In this regard, the recommendation of the Numbeo28 is worth mentioning. According to them, the daily and

28 Numbeo is a database of user contributed data about cities and countries worldwide. Numbeo provides current information on world living conditions including cost of living, housing indicators, healthcare, traffic, crime and pollution.

269

monthly recommended minimum amount of money for food in Bangladesh (2300 calories or balanced diet) per person is BDT 217.85 (USD 2.73) and BDT 6,753.31 (USD 84.49) respectively (NUMBEO, 2015). In comparison with the World Bank’s USD 37.53 per month and NUMBEO’s USD 84.49 per month benchmark, the beneficiaries of the five selected programs were receiving the following amounts: the Old Age Allowance, USD 3.75 per month; the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, USD 3.75 per month; the VGD, USD 11.26 per month; the VGF, USD 3.75 per month; the SHOUHARDO-II, USD 37.53 once for all (for Component-1) and USD 5.63 per month (for Component-2). So it can be seen that all five programs’ financial benefit was far below the amount indicating the poverty level compared to the standard set by the World Bank and the NUMBEO. Although most of the previous studies on SSNPs’ performance (IGS, 2010; Khan, 2012; Mannan & Ahmed, 2012; Rahman & Choudhury, 2012; World Bank, 2006) overlooked or underestimated the issue of adequacy of the programs, this study, along with other selected studies (Islam, 2009; Mannan, 2010), emphasise the policy implications of addressing this issue. The suggestions given by the participants of this research to increase the programs’ effectiveness to address poverty in general and food insecurity in particular are discussed in Chapter 9.

7.5 Conclusion This chapter has investigated the participants’ perceptions on the impacts of the selected SSNPs’ on food security, other aspects of their lives in addition to food security, and what similarities and differences in perception of SSNPs are there between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. The impact on

270

beneficiaries, other than food security, are women’s empowerment, increasing income and reducing poverty, earning dignity in the family and society, and getting medical support. The findings of this research on the impacts of these five programs are described below.

7.5.1 Food security From the findings of this research it is evident that the respondents perceived that the five selected SSNPs had a limited impact on food security. All the five SSNPs were fulfilling a partial food demand of the beneficiaries, but none of them alone were adequate to ensure complete food security of the beneficiaries. In terms of food security, the VGD program is the most effective as it provides the highest amount of benefit compared to the other four programs. But still, the VGD program could only ensure less than half of a month’s rice or wheat requirement of a beneficiary household. The VGF program was considered as the least effective as it delivered a small amount for a short time. The SHOUHARDO-II program contributed more than some other programs, but the short timeframe for the availability of these three programs’ (the VGD, the VGF and the SHOUHARDO-II) impeded their effectiveness in guaranteeing food security of the beneficiaries in a sustainable manner. The beneficiaries, all of a sudden, fell into uncertainty concerning their food just after finishing the program tenure. The Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women also had a positive impact providing partial food security for the beneficiaries. But as all of the beneficiaries were more than 60 years of age, they were unable to work to supplement this program. Thus these allowances were their only income source. The small amount of money alone could not ensure their food requirement, so they might need to compromise with their food expenditure to meet their other needs. The responses from the

271

interviewees and the field experience of the researcher suggest little difference between the beneficiaries and the non-beneficiaries’ food security status. The beneficiaries felt a bit assured that they had at least some support, but the non-beneficiaries did not have any support and so they believed that the beneficiaries were in a better condition compared to them.

7.5.2 Women’s empowerment Regarding the perceptions of the respondents of the term “women’s empowerment” and the impacts of programs on women’s empowerment, this research reveals that the perceptions of the respondents were varied. Some did not respond to the question on women’s empowerment, some were unclear about the term “women’s empowerment”, and the remaining responded to the question with a variety of answers. It is also revealed that most of the interviewees perceived the term “women’s empowerment” as an increase of status of women in the family rather than in the broader society. One of the beneficiaries comprehended the term “women’s empowerment” holistically and mentioned two important indicators of women’s empowerment: power of decision making and ownership of resources. Some interviewees perceived that they were able to take decisions independently after joining the programs. It was also appeared that the programs provided some marginal support for the dimensions involved in women’s empowerment.

7.5.3 Overall impacts The findings of this study suggest that the perceptions of the participants on increasing income or creation of assets and reducing poverty, earning dignity in the family and society, and getting medical support of the beneficiaries, were mixed. Most of the participants agreed that these programs increased their income and reduced poverty and enhanced their status in the family to 272

some extent. Some other participants perceived that these programs had less or no impact on reducing poverty and generating income opportunities due to the small amount of support. Only one participant described a program’s positive impact on medical care. While the primary concern of the poor people was to meet their basic food needs, the impacts of these programs on increasing income and reducing poverty, earning honour and dignity, or being able to access medical care, were less likely to be considered by them.

The findings of this research revealed limited positive impacts on reducing poverty and improving food security. But the question raised by the participants of this research was that whether these programs could be effective alone. If someone has one dollar and s/he is given another dollar, it is likely that income has increased and vulnerabilities are decreased. But s/he may not come out of poverty. If these programs are to ensure complete food security or to enable poor people to rise above the poverty line, more is needed. As argued by Arnold, Conway, and Greenslade (2011), complementary interventions to promote livelihoods is needed. In this research, the participants recommended skill-based training and self- employment opportunities and the creation of job opportunities in their area to ensure food security and reduce poverty in a sustainable manner.

Finally, it can be argued that the five selected programs partially impacted on food security, women’s empowerment, income, poverty reduction, dignity and medical support, which directly relates to the Capabilities 2 and 7 which emphasise good health and nutrition, and self-respect and integrity. As the five programs offer different amounts of benefits, the impacts of each program were different. The findings of this study suggest that the amount of benefit provided by the selected SSNP were small and none of the programs

273

alone is adequate for ensuring food security of the households of the beneficiaries. Depending on the amount, these benefits could ensure three to fifteen days rice or wheat requirements for the beneficiary. Therefore, it can be argued that due to the meagreness of the benefits, these programs were unable to completely secure the beneficiaries’ access to safe and sufficient food supplies and food entitlements; increase income and reduce poverty; increase beneficiaries empowerment and dignity; and support medical care. However, there are other factors such as bribes, leakages, nepotism and limited coverage to be considered which are discussed in Chapter 8.

274

Chapter 8: Governance and Management: Key Issues in Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs

People now place their hope in God, since the government is no longer involved in such matter. (Narayan-Parker & Patel, 2000, p. 100)

Indeed, it is all too clear that when governments perform poorly, resources are wasted, services go undelivered, and citizens – especially the poor – are denied social, legal, and economic protection. For many in the development community, good governance has become as imperative to poverty reduction as it has become to development more generally. (Grindle, 2004, p. 525)

We cannot manage them (meat) even once in three months. Yesterday my son requested me to bring meat but how can I manage while we struggle to manage rice. What can I say about our miseries? This is our luck; if it does not favour us, how can we manage? We have to run as Allah makes our life. (Abul Kashem- a non-beneficiary respondent)

8.0 Introduction This chapter discusses governance and management issues related to food security and the selected SSNPs. As cited above by Narayan-Parker and Patel (2000) and Grindle (2004), when government does not take care of poor people or performs poorly, the poor are excluded from government programs and therefore they “place their hope in God”. This view is substantiated by the findings in this research. The statement by a non-

275

beneficiary interviewee, who could not fulfil a demand of his son to manage meat and left the matter on Allah, supports the arguments. While people attributed their fate to Allah, SSNPs aim to redress food insecurity. People still want SSNPs to be run fairly and honestly. It indicates that they were not absolutely fatalistic and accepted their plight as Allah’s will. Rather, this belief/stance helps them get through hard times but they still wanted fair systems. This chapter adopts a focus of looking at governance and implementation issues through the eyes of those most affected by food insecurity. Here the analysis of governance takes place at the level of everyday experiences by the respondents.

As discussed in Chapter 4, there are a number of SSNPs in Bangladesh to address the food insecurity of poor people. It is important to examine the governance of the programs and whether they were managed properly to address the issue. This chapter will examine the perceptions of the participants of this research regarding the governance (the conceptual issues of governance is discussed in Chapter 2) and management issues related to food security and the selected SSNPs. This chapter consists of four sections. The first section (Section 8.1) will examine the extent to which corruption affects the efficiency of the programs targeted at disadvantaged groups of the community. In this process, first the concepts of corruption and overall corruption status in Bangladesh will be discussed briefly. Then the perceptions and experiences of the respondents on various corruption issues such as bribes, leakages, nepotism and political interference will be explored. The second section (Section 8.2) discusses the experiences of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries regarding the problems they faced during the implementation process of the programs. Finally, Section 8.3 illustrates

276

some other important issues raised by the participants that are considered pertinent for the effectiveness of the programs.

8.1 Corruption and irregularities This section looks at the perceptions and experiences of the respondents regarding bribes, leakages, nepotism and political interference along with overall corruption in Bangladesh, and corruption in SSNPs in particular. Despite some positive impacts on ensuring the partial food security of the rural poor, the selected SSNPs’ beneficiary selection, disbursement of allowances and the institutional set up, were seen by interviewees as accompanied by some loopholes, which were reducing the effectiveness of these programs in poverty reduction as a whole and food security in particular. Bribes, leakages, nepotism and political interference or influence, were seen as the most important obstacles to overcome to make these programs more effective. However, the magnitude of corrupt practices varies from program to program.

Corruption is generally perceived as the misuse of public office for private benefit or favours in exchange for financial gain. According to Transparency International29, “Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It can be classified as grand, petty and political, depending on the amounts of money lost and the sector where it occurs” (Transparency International, 2015). Almost all international organisations view corruption as detrimental to every aspect of development – economic, social and political – and especially destructive to the interests of the poor (Hossain, 1999, p. 10). Corruption harms the poor through its damaging consequences for economic growth

29 Transparency International (TI) is the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption. 277

(Rose-Ackerman, 2006, p. 291) and public services, as well as its direct costs (Smith, 2007, pp. 176-177). Corruption is therefore injurious to the public interest (Szeftel, 1982, p. 164). The International Monetary Fund (IMF) emphasises the economic and public financial aspects of corruption and its harmful effects on both taxation and public expenditure which lead to greater income inequality [cited in Smith (2007, p. 177)]. Similarly, the OECD perceives corruption as a major hindrance to economic development. The damaging consequences or the harmful effects of corruption can be political, social or economic in nature (Smith, 2007). According to Smith (2007) political corruption erodes the legitimacy of the state and government, evaporates trust and confidence in state institutions, destroys trust in public officials, and rescinds rule of law and transparent decision-making process. Socially, corruption results in misallocation and misappropriation of very scarce resources, loss of government revenues, lower per capita incomes, greater income inequality and higher levels of poverty. Economically, corruption reduces economic efficiency and growth, raises costs and lowers the productivity of public investments (Smith, 2007).

Empirical literature which aimed to quantify the consequences of corruption was pioneered by Mauro (1995), who observed a significant negative relationship between corruption and investment that extended to economic growth. Later, Mauro’s results were confirmed by Mo (2001) who introduced a new perspective on the role of corruption in economic growth, and provided quantitative estimates of the impact of corruption on the growth and the importance of the transmission channels. The most important channel through which corruption affects economic growth is political instability, which is estimated to account for about 53% of the total effect (Mo, 2001). The studies of Wei and Shleifer (2000) and Lambsdorff (2003) also extended to

278

other macroeconomic variables such as foreign direct investment and productivity, respectively.

In this context, the capabilities approach is relevant. Capability 10 considers ‘control over one’s environment’. In particular, an individual’s control over their environment is directly related to the relationship between people and organisations which have the power to allocate resources. Corrupt practices by the people who have the power to allocate resources and to manage programs limit the freedoms as well as capabilities of the people who receive the resources. As discussed in Chapter 7, Sen termed this condition as ‘unfreedoms’. Governance also impacts on how people respond to each other, that is, it normalises forms of communication which entrench a person’s existing attitudes and behaviour.

8.1.1 Corruption: Bangladesh perspective Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world with a huge population. Corruption is prevalent in every sphere of life (Khan, 2003). In their work on 'Dissecting Public Sector Corruption in Bangladesh: Issues and Problems of Control’, Zafarullah and Siddiquee (2001, p. 466) argued that “Bangladesh presents a typical case where corruption has found a remarkably fertile ground, despite the ‘existence’ of several mechanisms, albeit ineffective, for tackling it”.

Based on expert opinion, the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of Transparency International has measured the perceived levels of public sector corruption in countries worldwide each year since 1995. Based on 13 data sources from independent institutions in governance and business climate analysis including the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the African Development Bank and the Economist Intelligence Unit the CPI 279

measures perceptions of corruption in the public sector. According to the annual CPI prepared by Transparency International, Bangladesh ranked as the most corrupt country in the world from 2001 to 2005. After staying at this position for five consecutive years, Bangladesh was ranked the third most corrupt in 2006, together with other 3 countries (Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan). In 2006, on a scale of 0-10, Bangladesh scored 2.0 compared to 1.7 in previous year. In 2013 Bangladesh, along with 3 other countries (Ivory Coast, Guyana and Kenya), ranked 16 in the list of most corrupt countries with a score of 27 out of 10030 (Transparency International, 2013).

While in the past only a few departments allegedly contained corrupt officials and practices, corrupt practices are now reported throughout the governmental structure and no public agency appears spared (Ahsan, 2006, p. 378; Zafarullah & Siddiquee, 2001 p.466). For instance, the 2012 Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) annual report cited the TIB’s biennial National Household Survey on Corruption in Service Delivery Sectors, revealing that 63.7% of households were victims of corruption in selected public and private service delivery institutions. The labour migration sector was found to be the worst affected, with 77% of the service seekers subjected to corruption, followed by law enforcement (75.8%), justice (57.1%), health (40.2%), education (40.1%) and local government (30.9%). The National Household Survey also shows once again that while corruption affects everyone, the poorest section of society suffers from it more; for this cohort bribery accounted for 5.3% of average annual expenditure, whereas

30 Until 2011 the CPI were calculated on a scale of 0-10 points, where zero means highly corrupt and 10 means very clean. After a review process in 2012, from that year some important changes were made and the CPI were calculated on a scale of 0-100 points since then, where zero means highly corrupt and 100 means very clean. 280

for the more affluent the rate was 1.3% (Transparency International Bangladesh, 2013, p. 7).

8.1.2 Corruption in social safety net programs As discussed in previous sections, corruption is wide-spread in almost all the government structures in Bangladesh; SSNPs are also affected by corruption. Both quantitative surveys and qualitative studies conducted in the safety net sector show that a significant number of beneficiaries experienced different forms of corrupt practices by the managers. The TIB’s biennial National Household Survey 2012 on Corruption in Service Delivery Sectors revealed that 35.8% of the beneficiary households of different SSNPs were victims of corruption or irregularities. Out of these, 50.4% had to pay a bribe, 24.1% suffered from leakages, 22.9% were victims of negligence of duties, 15.7% were victims of nepotism, 4.6% were victims of deception, 4% were victims of the influence from political actors, and 2.2% were victims of extortion. Empirical studies on SSNPs suggest that this social sector is hugely affected by different forms of corruption. Rahman and Choudhury (2012, pp. 58-61), in their research work on social safety nets in Bangladesh, stated that explicit mention of bribes to be included in a program was concealed except in the case of the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) for ultra-poor women.

Corruption associated with implementation anomalies such as inclusion of people who are not eligible, and undefined and unauthorised deductions from the benefits, makes conditions even worse. Rahman and Choudhury (2012), in their detailed field inquiry, revealed several implementation failures which created scope for such high level of corruption. They also argued that respondents were generally reluctant to answer questions on corruption issues in the individual questionnaire but were willing to be forthcoming in a

281

FGD setting where source of the answers would enjoy a degree of anonymity. Subsequently they found that the two dominant allegations were: having to pay an 'entry fee' in cases of allowances programs, and leakage through fraudulent muster rolls, e.g. ghost workers.31 Two lesser allegations are about lower value asset transfer in graduation-focused programs and undefined deductions in stipend programs. They further cited that leakage data was very difficult to generate from household surveys as respondents are reluctant to jeopardize their chances of being included in the programs. However, they found that such inhibitions were less prevalent in the relative anonymity of FGDs.

Rahman and Choudhury (2012) summarise the following: first, the 'entry fee' burden is a general one across all the surveyed districts but is much more pronounced in the poorer districts indicating a more intense competition among the poor for the limited allowance cards available. Thus in the poorer districts the proportion of beneficiaries reporting paying an entry fee range between 50-80% while in the less poor districts the range is from 7-20%. 'Entry fees' are paid to a variety of formal and informal intermediaries involved in the beneficiary selection process. The size of the 'entry fee' too is slightly higher in the poorer districts – just above 2000 Taka (USD 27) – in comparison to 1500 Taka (USD 20) in the less poor districts. Second, their FGDs revealed that the magnitude of both of these leakage problems – 'entry fee' and ghost worker – have further deteriorated in 2011, with political party influence over the implementation process being the major driver.

31 More people reported as working on the program than actually were; the extra funds went to the people administering the program. 282

Similarly, Mannan (2010) also found corruption and inefficiency in implementation process of the SSNPs in Bangladesh. Mannan (2010) argued:

The proportion of extreme poor population and precarious conditions of ultra-poor all add up to a compelling case for safety nets to be a critical priority area for public policy. The need for targeted safety net interventions to improve the food security and livelihoods of the extreme poor therefore remains strong. ... However, their effectiveness to alleviate poverty and deprivation is adversely affected because of inefficiency and corruption associated with selection of beneficiaries and disbursement of benefits. The issue of leakage is important in this respect. (Mannan, 2010, p. vi)

The Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development (BARD, 2012) revealed that 7% of beneficiaries agreed that they had to give a bribe of an average 500 Taka (USD 7) to get a VGD card. They argued that the beneficiaries were found to be very unwilling to disclose bribes taken by the selectors. They feared that if they disclosed such information they would be denied further assistance from the Union Council. In some cases, the beneficiaries were forbidden by the officials to provide information related to irregularities in the VGD program. The Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS, 2012) in their draft report on the Impact Evaluation of the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) Program in Bangladesh, also reported that some of the beneficiaries complained that they had to pay on the average 1000 Taka (USD 3.50) to 2000 Taka (USD 27) per head to get a VGD card. However, once they got the card, they did not have to pay any cash or kind to receive the monthly allocation from the distribution outlet at the Union Council. Most

283

of the non-beneficiaries complained that they are equally eligible but as they cannot afford to pay the money demanded as a bribe to the selection committee/local level leaders, they are excluded from being selected.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the previous studies found different types of corrupt practices during the selection of beneficiaries and disbursement of benefits. The major two complaints cited by the previous studies are: bribes and leakages. In the following sub-sections the perceptions of the respondents of this research on corrupt practices during the selection of beneficiaries and disbursement of benefits will be discussed.

8.1.3 Bribes Although different kinds of corruption are associated with SSNPs in Bangladesh, previous studies show that bribery is the most frequent complaint. The field data of this study corroborates these findings. In this study of 10 beneficiaries, all of them spoke about bribes when asked, of which four admitted (two beneficiaries of the VGD and two beneficiaries of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women) that they had to pay a bribe to be enlisted in the program and the remaining six said that they did not pay any bribe. On the other hand, five non-beneficiaries spoke about bribes of which three (Aleya Begum; Shefali Begum; Monwara Begum) stated that they were asked to pay bribes to be enlisted, but they were not able to pay bribes and consequently they were not enlisted. Another two non-beneficiaries (Motaleb Hossain; Hazera Banu) reported that no one demanded any bribes from them. The other three non-beneficiaries cited different reasons relating to their non-enlistment in the programs, independent of the issue of bribery.

284

In this study, both the two beneficiaries of the VGD program shared their experiences relating to the paying of bribes. One (Saleha Begum) was hesitant to disclose this when asked whether she paid anything [bribe] to any government or local government official in exchange for the benefit in the last two years. She initially replied “No. I didn’t pay anything”. After some time, however, she admitted that she had to pay 2300 Taka (USD 31) to be enrolled in the scheme; she said “without money poor people cannot be considered for such benefit. We gave the money to the UP (Union Parishad) Member”. It appeared that because of fear of personal security she did not want to share the bribe experience with the researcher. When assured that none of her statements would be disclosed to anybody except for academic purposes, and her name would not be published, she then revealed her experience. Another beneficiary (Hafsa), without any hesitation, divulged her experience by saying that, “Yes, I paid 2000 Taka (USD 25) as a bribe. If I had not paid money I would not have been given the card. She [who took the bribe] is no more a member now [she had completed her tenure as a Union Council member]. Now there is a new member”.

It can be noted here that a beneficiary of the VGD program is entitled to get 30kg of rice or wheat per month. This is worth approximately BDT 900 (USD 11.26); over the 24 month program, the total value is BDT 21,600 (USD 270.24). It means both the beneficiaries had to pay around 10% of their total benefit as bribes and more importantly, they had to pay the money before they were enlisted. Being a poor woman, it was very difficult to manage to raise BDT 2000–2300 (USD 25.02–28.78). They had to take a loan to manage the money.

285

Similarly, both the beneficiaries of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women stated that they had to pay bribes to receive the benefit. One of them (Hafeza Begum) stated that she paid 1000 Taka (USD 12.51) while the demand was 2000 Taka. She had to take a loan to pay the bribe. The other beneficiary (Sahiran Begum) did not mention any amount, but said that the Member and the Chairman asked for money in exchange for receiving the card. A beneficiary of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women receives BDT 300 per month for her whole life or until remarriage.

The two beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance, two beneficiaries of the VGF program and two beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program reported that they did not pay any bribe to be enlisted into the programs. The statements of beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program are particularly worth mentioning here, because this program is implemented by a selected NGO and monitored by CARE, Bangladesh. The other 4 programs are implemented by local government and autonomous agencies and directly monitored by the government officials. The experience of SHOUHARDO-II program is different from the other programs. One beneficiary of the program, as a lactating mother, said:

A woman from the organisation came and made the list. There was no demand for bribe or extra money for getting enlisted. They first made the list and later on they gave me the card. First they listed the names of the pregnant mothers. (Lucky)

Another beneficiary of SHOUHARDO-II made a significant comment which differentiates the implementation procedures of the programs implemented by GOs and NGOs. He stated: 286

One Sir came and wrote my name. I don’t know the name. He may be a field officer. They got me enlisted. I did not pay anything [as bribe] to them. My name was automatically enlisted. It is difficult to get enlisted in government programs [with frustration]. Blankets, jackets were given by the government [for the poor]. I went to meet the local UP member but I did not get anything. (Mohammad Alom)

However, one of the two beneficiaries of the VGF program said that “I did not pay any money for getting enlisted for VGF. My name was included automatically”.

The above discussion shows that the SHOUHARDO-II program’s selection was seen as fairer than the other programs by participants. Both the beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program reported that the officials did not demand any bribe for getting enlisted. As discussed in Chapter 4, the beneficiary selection of the SHOUHARDO-II program was conducted in a community meeting where the representatives of a selected NGO and CARE Bangladesh, government and local government officials, and the potential candidates were present. During that meeting, a list of the poor and extreme poor (PEP) of the village was produced. From this list the beneficiaries were given cards by the NGO officials. This discussion can be related to the participatory approach which emphasises active and effective participation of beneficiaries in the management process. In this case, it appeared that the beneficiaries had got an opportunity to participate in the selection of beneficiaries (discussed in Chapter 4). In addition, the selection meeting was open where different types of stakeholders were present. It can be argued that due to this participatory and transparent selection process the beneficiaries were able to avoid paying bribes.

287

The other four programs’ beneficiaries were selected by the local government representatives. Two beneficiaries of the VGF program and two beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance did not pay any bribe. It can be argued that, as the benefit of the VGF program is very meagre, it is likely that in exchange for this small amount, beneficiaries are not willing to pay any bribe. It is evident from the statements of the beneficiaries that the beneficiaries of the VGD programs paid the higher amount of money as bribes, which shows that the greater the amount of benefit they receive, the more amount of bribe they need to pay.

While four beneficiaries experienced having to pay bribes to be enrolled in the programs, at the same time three non-beneficiaries expressed their grievances at not being enrolled as they were not able to pay any money to the program selectors.

Out of 10 non-beneficiaries, five spoke about bribes, of whom three assumed that they had not been included in the program as they could not pay a bribe to the selectors. The remaining two were not sure why they had been left out.

One woman (Shefali Begum) said that, “Yes. I went to the female member for card but she declined; I guess she took bribes from other people and she helped them to get the card”. When this researcher asked her why she had not been considered for the card, she replied:

I failed to pay the female member bribe and probably this was the reason. Those who paid her money, they were given the cards. She did not seek it directly but through a representative. I have heard she took 500–1000 Taka (USD 6.26–12.51) for each card. (Shefali Begum)

288

The other non-beneficiary (Monwara Begum) argued that “No, I’m not included. You know without bribe you can’t be included these days. We can’t give bribe, so we were not included”. Another non-beneficiary (Aleya Begum) presumed that if she had paid something extra (bribe), then she would have been on the list.

Both the non-beneficiaries of the VGD program accused the selectors of bribery, which indicates that the greater the amount delivered by any program, the more it is likely to be controlled by corrupt practices. All respondents related to the VGD implied that corruption is a fundamental part of the process of food distribution, rather than an anomaly. Evidence from this research has shown that bribes can be a barrier to poor people’s access to SSNPs. Consequently they produce what Sen (1999) called ‘unfreedom’. He views development as a process of removing various types of ‘unfreedoms’ that are likely to leave people with very few choices of exercising their reasoned agency. The different types of ‘unfreedoms’, in Sen’s (1999) scheme, are exemplified by poverty, deprivation, lack of basic health care, education, employment, economic and social security, and sanctions on freedom of speech and expression of ideas, political liberty and basic civil rights.

On the issues of bribes, in the FGD at the local level, most of the participants, who were mid-level managers of the SSNPs, did not give any opinions. But the Union Council Chairman offered a justification to defend themselves from the bribery complaints. He argued:

We work with commitment. Sometimes, some of the beneficiaries use third persons to influence the system and they pay money there. But our council is not involved. I myself am trying hard to stop this issue. I 289

try to motivate people not to give bribe and child marriage. We are trying but it may take some time to stop this problem. (FGD1_Dimla)

In another FGD, at the ministry level one of the participants stated:

While I visit my village last month, an old destitute woman, who was a beggar, came to me for help. I asked her whether or not she gets old age allowance. She replied that the Union Council member asked 3000 Taka (USD 40) as a bribe for getting her enlisted. She was not capable to pay that bribe, so she was not enlisted. That is the fact. That woman did not tell me a lie. (FGD2_MoSW)

Here, the local government representative acknowledged the corruption, but he saw this as coming from poor people. As they are directly involved with the selection of beneficiaries and disbursement of the benefits, they are reluctant to admit that some of their colleagues take bribes to enrol the applicants for any program. But, the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries’ experience, as well as the policy level officials, suggested that bribes are one of the most prevalent acts of corruption which need to be addressed. This form of corruption then leads to inefficiency in the implementation of the programs. As a result, food security is worsened for a number of people.

It should be noted here that, while Rahman and Choudhury (2012) termed the money given by the beneficiaries to the intermediaries as an 'entry fee', the respondents in this study clearly described them as a 'bribe'. The term 'entry fee', instead of 'bribe', indirectly decriminalises the action of offenders, as there is no legal provision for any 'entry fee' to be enlisted into any SSNP. Thus a bribe or entry fee can also limit people’s participation in SSNPs. This

290

practice is exclusionary. Corrupt practices also mean that the poorest may not be covered by SSNPs because they may be too poor to pay bribes.

As discussed earlier, previous studies revealed bribery complaints during beneficiary selection. The findings of the current research also corroborate these findings; however, it can be mentioned that only two beneficiaries and two non-beneficiaries for each program studied in this research were interviewed. Therefore, it is not enough to make claims about fairness of the programs but does show that this issue warrants further investigation.

8.1.4 Leakages After bribes, leakage is one of the major complaints raised by other researchers. Most of the previous research on food-based SSNPs reveals that the amount of food distributed was less than the entitlement. The Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS, 2012), in their report on the Impact Evaluation of the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) Program in Bangladesh, argued:

Beneficiaries know about the exact quantity/amount they are supposed to receive under the program. However, from our FGD and field observations it has been found that some of the beneficiaries do not receive their actual entitlement, i.e. they receive less than what they are supposed to receive. (BIDS, 2012, p. 35)

The Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development (BARD, 2012, pp. 25-26) noted that “Almost everywhere food was distributed less than the food entitlement. The elected representative also agreed to this allegation. … Four-fifths of the respondents told that they got less quantity of food than their entitlement.” Research on the Impact Evaluation on the Vulnerable Group

291

Development Program (2009-2010 Cycle) by the Rural Development Academy (RDA, 2012) found that a total of 259 beneficiaries (61.7% of the total) mentioned that they had faced some problems in the collection of food. Out of them, 192 beneficiaries (74%) pointed out that every time they received lower amounts of food in weight than their entitlement.

Out of 10 beneficiaries in this study, seven spoke on this issue, of whom three (Saleha Begum; Hafsa; Dilip) reported a shortage in the amount of food received and four (Lucky; Mohammad Alom; Mafizur Rahman; Hafeza Begum) said that they received the exact amount. The non-beneficiaries were not interested in talking about leakage as they do not get any support. The field data shows that the unfair means during disbursement is reported by the beneficiaries of the VGD and the VGF which deliver food grain. Among the beneficiaries dealt with by the local government representatives, leakage was the most common complaint. But the beneficiaries of other three programs (the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women which deliver cash support through a bank account and the Shouhardo-II which delivers both food grain and cash but implemented by a selected NGO and monitored by CARE Bangladesh) did not complain of any shortage in the amount they received. One of the beneficiaries of the VGD program stated:

Sometimes it was 25kg, sometimes 26kg or 27kg. I got rice or wheat. Most of the time, it was rice. I know I should get 30kg but they never gave that. It was written in the card that we get 30kg. (Hafsa)

When she was asked whether she questioned the distributors about the shortage, she replied that, "I asked them about the shortage. They said they have other expenditure so they cannot give proper weight, i.e. 30kg. They 292

said they cover labour costs and other costs with the saved amount of food stuffs".

The other beneficiary of the VGD program (Saleha Begum) argued that every time she was provided with a lesser amount, sometimes 27kg and sometimes 25kg. The beneficiary of the VGF program (Dilip) who complained of leakage said that he got 8 or 9kg while he was supposed to get 10kg.

The beneficiaries of SHOUHARDO-II program, which is implemented by a selected NGO and monitored by CARE- Bangladesh, felt better, as they felt they received the correct amount. One beneficiary (Lucky) testified that, "They don’t cheat us in measurement. I have measured it after coming back to my home. We get the appropriate amount [of the food stuffs]. They are better compared with the government system".

One beneficiary of the VGF (Mafizur Rahman) reported that he got the full amount of rice to which he was entitled (10kg).

Although based only on few responses, from the above discussion it appears that cash transfer programs, the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, are free of complaints about leakages by participants in this research. On the other hand, the beneficiaries of food based programs, the VGD and the VGF, are the victims of leakages. However, the SHOUHARDO-II program, although it delivers both food and cash, is not subject to leakages complaints. It can be argued that the management by the NGO and the banking system are better than the local government, in terms of leakages.

293

Regarding the issue of the leakages of the amount of food, one of the senior officials (Iv21_DWA) commented on this issue during an interview. He said that the department has already received findings like this from various workshops and presented the findings to the government. The department also recommended making 30kg packet for the VGD at the source, so that they could ensure the responsible officials handled the matter. He expressed his frustration by saying that “so far we could not pass through the matter”. This statement indicates that the implementing agency was trying to address the issue of leakages by making sure beneficiaries received the amount they were entitled to. They suggested the government make 30kg sacks of rice or wheat at the source; currently 50kg bags need to be split to deliver 30kg for each beneficiary. According to the official, the government did not implement the department’s recommendation yet. This also refers to the inaction of government mechanisms.

Regarding the leakages complaints, most of the participants of the FGD at Dimla did not make any reports, but the Union Council Chairman defended the local government officials and in formal discussions denied any wrong- doing by them. But after the FGD he personally informed the researcher that the payment they received for carrying the food grains from the government is insufficient. As a result, officials need to cover that cost by reducing the benefit to the beneficiaries. The senior official, responsible for management of the VGD program (Iv21_DWA), also acknowledged the carrying-cost issue and suggested that this issue should be addressed in policy. This shows that it is an open secret that the corrupt practices persist regarding the carrying- cost issue. However, no measure had been taken to solve the issue so the beneficiaries continued to be deprived of having their food and capabilities entitlements.

294

8.1.5 Nepotism and political interference Nepotism and political interference or influences are the other two factors which are seen in the selection of beneficiaries of any of the five SSNPs. The Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS, 2012), in their report on the Impact Evaluation of the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) Program in Bangladesh, stated:

Our field observation shows that selection criteria are not always strictly adhered to. The selection is also influenced by local pressure groups. Beneficiary selection is not done by selection committee alone, the UP chairman, the local level politicians and supporters/followers of MPs and Upazila chairman also exert undue pressure, although they are not authorized to do so. (BIDS, 2012, p. 34)

Islam (2012) argued that most of the Public Food Distribution System (PFDS) and/or SSNPs are politically motivated. He argued that these programs are designed for the personal and/or political gain of the ruling political party and other influential people. He also argued that the practical implementation process of these programs is very different from the original objectives of these programs. Thus his field level data suggest that many food transfer programs are implemented in such a way that serves the interest of political elites rather than promoting food security.

According to the available field data in this study, it is apparent that some of the potential beneficiaries are not included in any SSNP due to the lack of links with local political elites. One respondent stated:

I know I deserve such allowance but I don’t get it. They don’t

295

recommend my name. I have no-one to back me and thus I don’t get it. I went to all including the UP Chair but they did not recommend my name. (Aleya Begum)

Another respondent (Masura Begum) expressed her frustration when she said “But they [those who are responsible for selection] don’t consider me for it. They may think that we should continue with our poverty”. Another non- beneficiary (Prodip) criticised the selection authority by saying that “My name was not considered for another reason. We worked for a candidate during the last election but he was not elected. The opponent won and did not consider us for it.” This was a tactical analysis of the selection process. These statements show that people have a sense of rights, and were aware about the tactics of the selection process.

This manipulation was also admitted by a higher level official during interview. He reflected that the selectors consider their vote bank in lieu of the deserving people. He argued:

It depends on the role of the government. Whether the government considers this program as a focused program to combat poverty or conceives it as merely a political campaign. In my opinion, government is in between (laughing). Government wants to do party politics using this program, present and previous governments, they all have done it. BNP32 has done it; Awami League33 is also doing the same. This is the reality. You cannot ignore these phenomena, but Bangladesh is

32 Bangladesh Nationalist Party – one of the two major parties in Bangladesh who had ruled the country earlier for several terms, currently is not in power. 33 Bangladesh Awami League – one of the two major parties in Bangladesh who had ruled the country earlier for several terms and currently is in power. 296

developing despite all these shortcomings. (Iv21_DWA)

The reflections of the field level FGD also endorsed the analysis. One participant commented that the Ward committee is not working well and the UP Chairmen manipulate the selection process. Another person admitted that the selection process is manipulated sometimes. He argued that this is a continuing problem, though the Ward Committee can ensure transparency. He suggested that the selection should be conducted in the presence of the community people and openly.

This study, like previous research, reveals that corruption is a significant obstacle to achieving the goals of the SSNPs. Corruption thus limit capabilities to participation and act as a barrier to freedom in Bangladesh society. Corruption can be seen as a form of unfreedom that limits peoples’ participation into SSNPs. Corruption starts with beneficiary selection, where a bribe is one of the leading factors, accompanied by political influence and nepotism, to being included into any program, and continues throughout the whole length of the program. The food-based programs also suffer leakages, where beneficiaries receive less food than they were entitled to. It is also evident that although the SHOUHARDO-II program delivers both cash and food grain, it assured a transparent selection process which was democratic/participatory and the decision making process was documented. It also assured that the exact amount of benefit is delivered to the recipients. In this study it can be argued that the programs implemented by NGOs compared to the programs implemented by the local government representatives appeared to be fairer in terms of selection and disbursement. The programs which deliver cash support (the Old Age allowance and the

297

Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women) through banking channels also appeared to be free from complaints of leakage.

8.2 Implementation issues faced by the beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries The previous section (Section 8.1) revealed some major governance issues related to the selected SSNPs. This section will examine the experiences of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries regarding their problems during the implementation process of the programs. As discussed in Chapter 4, the selection process and disbursement system varies from program to program. The beneficiaries for the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, the VGD and the VGF are selected by a committee headed by a local government representative. The beneficiaries for the SHOUHARDO-II are selected by the nominated NGO officials in a series of consultations with the community, the potential beneficiaries and government and local government officials. The Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women are disbursed through the beneficiary’s personal bank account by a local bank, as they ultimately provide cash benefits. The VGD and the VGF deliver food grain, disbursed from the Union Council Office by the local government officials. The SHOUHARDO-II benefits, food ration or cash and/or kinds, meanwhile, are disbursed by the nominated NGO officials.

8.2.1 Problems during selection process The beneficiaries mostly reported paying bribes as a problem during the selection process (discussed in Section 8.1). Out of ten beneficiaries, only one (Hafsa) stated that she needed to visit frequently, at least 15 times, regardless of morning or evening, to be enlisted. She argued that without

298

repeated requests nobody is given any benefit. On the other hand, the non- beneficiaries cited further problems during the selection process. These were in addition to bribes, leakages, nepotism and political interference discussed above. The problems they mentioned were: there was no transparent system of selection, and there was inadequate official publicity about the programs. One non-beneficiary stated:

I should have been included in the program. Just they did not do it; perhaps they did not find me out while the listing was going on. I was then in Dhaka [for livelihood]. They made the list themselves; they enlisted those people whom they got available. (Motaleb Hossain)

Another non-beneficiary said:

I didn’t know if the government has some safety net programs to support the poor people. I cannot move around so I didn’t know. The local government representatives also did not share with us. They don’t come to us and don’t share the government programs with us. I have seen some people who get different allowances. From them I knew the beneficiaries get money from the government. (Aleya Begum)

One of the non-beneficiaries (Rashida Begum) perceived she was not enlisted because she did not go to the chairman and member of the Union Council. Another non-beneficiary said “Just they [the selectors] didn’t give us. They may think we are not eligible.”

Here the comments focus on the decisions made by the government and local government agencies which increase the feelings of powerlessness

299

experienced by the non-beneficiaries. Capability 5 is considered pertinent here, because it emphasises the experience of emotion. Governance at the village level influences significantly the worth of a human, and food insecurity is indicative of these more personal aspects of human life.

8.2.2 Problems during disbursement of allowances Most of the beneficiaries reported some problems during disbursement of the benefits. The main features of their problems were: to spend extra money for transport and food costs; to wait for a long time, even the whole day, to receive the benefit; and misbehaviour by the concerned officials.

The beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women collect their benefits from a branch of a publicly owned bank, namely the Bangladesh Krishi Unnayan Bank. The Bank branch is situated in another Union Council and for some beneficiaries the distance is 10–15 kilometres. So they need to pay extra BDT 10–50 for conveyance according to the distance and BDT 30–50 for lunch while they wait for the whole day for the benefit. One beneficiary explained:

I need to go to Dangar Hat Balapara branch of the nationalised Krishi Bank. It’s about five miles away from this area. I go by Rickshaw Van and it requires 50 Taka to cover the two-way journey. I have to spend the whole day, 50 Taka plus other expenses as I stay there for a long time to get the allowance. (Bashir Uddin)

He also reported misbehaviour of the bank officials:

Bank staffs don’t behave well with us. They can give the money

300

instantly but they give the money in the late afternoon. It would be better if we had gotten it at home. The bank does not charge anything for the delivery of our allowances. Bank is still better as we cannot trust other agents [local government representatives]. They may be worst even. (Bashir Uddin)

Another beneficiary of the Old Age Allowance stated:

I collect the money from Dangar Hat Branch of the Krishi Bank. I go to the Bank by walking and a rickshaw-van. I walk up to Tunirhat and from there I take a van. It costs 10 Taka. I take even this 10 Taka as loan. I cannot eat anything there. We go there in the morning but we stay until the afternoon, even sometimes it becomes night when we get the money. They start giving the money having finished their work. Usually they give in the afternoon. It depends on them. The number of beneficiaries is also high. (Felani Banu)

Here the comments are directed at the discretion shown by the institution’s employees, not just by senior officials. Despite efforts by beneficiaries to follow the rules, these rules are still manipulated in favour of those with power. The powerlessness of beneficiaries in this situation made it difficult for them to participate in the SSNPs.

The two beneficiaries of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women reported that they could not afford the extra money for transport, so they walk a long time to collect the money. They reported mixed behaviour of the bank officials. One of them stated:

I go on foot; it takes much time to reach the branch. It’s far away. It

301

takes several hours to get the money; sometimes even sun sets when we get the money. It needs 20 Taka to hire a van but I cannot manage it, so I go and return on foot. (Hafeza Begum)

Another one said:

I go on foot. It takes two hours. I am old, so I walk slowly. When I return to home it becomes late noon. Their behaviour is mixed; sometimes they behave well but sometimes they lose their temper. They manage a large number of beneficiaries. They first collect all cards and afterwards they give the money. (Sahiran Begum)

The VGD and the VGF programs deliver food grains from the Union Council office. The beneficiaries of the VGD program did not report any problems regarding the distance or behaviour. One of the two beneficiaries of the VGF program did not indicate any difficulties while another one (Dilip) reported that he had to spend the whole day to collect only 8 or 9kg of rice or wheat. He also argued that spending the whole day for a small amount of benefit is not feasible, because if they can work the whole day, they earn more than the benefit.

The benefits of the SHOUHARDO-II program are also disbursed from the Union Council office by the selected NGO officials. The beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program report better treatment by the officials. One of them remarked:

Yes, they did behave well and did not keep me staying. They delivered instantly. They informed me early morning of the delivery date and then I went. They did not demand anything from me. (Mohammad

302

Alom)

The field level FGD participants concurred that the selection process of the SHOUHARDO-II program was transparent and participatory as they arranged a consultation meeting with all stakeholders, but the other four programs’ selection process may not be considered transparent. The FGD also admitted the delay of disbursement. Although the bank officials try to defend the delay, they also acknowledge that there is some scope to improve the whole system. One of the FGD participants (a bank official) stated:

The observation made by the beneficiaries is true. I have seen people wait until afternoon. The problem is that all beneficiaries come at a time and we need to take their signature that takes much time. Earlier thumb impression did work but now it’s discouraged. Many of them cannot sign properly and many of them cannot see even properly. Thus ultimately the process takes much time. However, I must admit that there are also problems with the banks that we should address. (FGD1_Dimla)

Another participant from another Bank defended their position:

On our part we can say we don’t have any negligence. The beneficiaries are very simple people of the rural community. They come at 8 or 9am, very early, whereas we open the bank at 10am. You know we have some system issues. We have to pay through cheques. We usually distribute Union wise and in that case we need to address 400-500 beneficiaries. If we take 2 minutes per cheque, now you can calculate the time. On the other hand, we have manpower shortage in the Bank. One or two staff takes care of the distribution.

303

These together contribute to the sufferings. We can feel them as well. But we cannot help since we have to comply with the banking system. We could save time if we distribute by maintaining a master roll and without using cheques. (FGD1_Dimla)

In summation the most significant problems raised by the respondents are: repeated visits or requests to the selectors for inclusion; no transparent system of selection; no adequate official publicity about the programs; spending extra money for transport and food to collect the benefits from the bank or the Union Council office; staying for long time, even the whole day, to receive the benefit; and misbehaviour by the concerned officials. All of these can exclude people from active participation. Misbehaviour by the officials can be treated as demeaning human dignity and can be insulting to people influencing their self-esteem. These findings are also corroborated by other studies. Rahman, Choudhury, and Ali (2011) found that presence of a large number of intermediaries involved in the delivery system of the programs reduces efficiency and increases opportunity for leakages. Rahman and Choudhury (2012) noted:

Though the assumption is that no extra effort is necessary beyond fulfilling the eligibility criteria, in reality the process of inclusion is more complex with some having to use the support of intermediaries or making repeated attempts. (Rahman & Choudhury, 2012, p. 57)

The Rural Development Academy (RDA) revealed many problems which include: beneficiaries had to wait for a long time during the collection of food; somebody else took money for transportation cost; some beneficiaries had to travel a long distance; the date of distribution was not fixed; and behaviours of the distributors was not satisfactory (RDA, 2012). 304

Similarly, the Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development (BARD)’s study found that 19% of beneficiaries had to spend more than 5 hours waiting, while 59% of beneficiaries had to spend 3-4 hours in each month collecting food. Twenty-one per cent of the beneficiaries who belong to nearby villages of the food distribution centre had to spend on an average two hours collecting food (BARD, 2012).

A study on Old Age Allowance Program (Begum & Wesumperuma, 2012) argued:

More importantly and alarmingly, the beneficiary selection is often done without any announcement; consequently, the community people, including the older people, frequently do not know when such an exercise is done. Our FGD suggested that the members/chairmen kept this a secret for political gain. (Begum & Wesumperuma, 2012, p. 204)

They also reported the extra cost, sometimes a substantial amount, for transport, food (while waiting for the money), and sometimes for an accompanied person and nominee. They found the financial costs sometimes prove unbearable when the recipient has to attend the allowance collection two or three times before being successful. This problem arises from the fact that the number of beneficiaries in a union is quite large (around 400–500), and so many people gather on a fixed date of payment, such that the bank sometimes cannot disburse money to everyone and some of them have to come back the following day. Begum and Wesumperuma (2012) further argued:

Along with financial costs, this increases the physical cost for older

305

people. It requires them to stand in the queue for a long time. Also, a few beneficiaries complained of food problems, lack of toilet facilities, and insufficient places to sit. A few older beneficiaries complained of malpractice by the bank staff. According to them, bank people, for one reason or another, will ask for money or deduct an amount from the entitlement. This happens more when one draws accumulated instalments or a nominee goes to collect the money. (Begum & Wesumperuma, 2012, p. 205)

Despite the aforesaid loopholes of the system, Begum and Wesumperuma (2012) prefer the government bank as an efficient mode of allowance delivery. The findings of the current study did not have any evidence of asking for any bribe or cutting money by a bank official, rather the beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women preferred the banking channel. The main reason of preferring banking channel was that no leakages were reported by the beneficiaries.

Another study on the Old Age Allowance Program (Hasan, Mahbubuzzaman, & Chowdhury, 2012) revealed some of the same problems faced by the beneficiaries during disbursement of benefits. According to their findings, the problems were: distance of allowance withdrawal place (bank) from home; physical and financial ability to come to the withdrawal place; they had to wait in the queue at the bank for a long time, sometimes for the whole day; they were not treated respectfully by the bank officials as they were poor; since they could not go to bank without someone’s help, they had to listen to painful words from the person he/she went with; and the elderly people had to deal with a large and intense crowd.

306

8.2.3 Coordination issues At the field level, four offices are implementing the selected five programs. The Old Age Allowance and the Allowance for Widow and Husband’s Deserted Destitute Women are implemented by the Upazila Social Services Office, the VGD is implemented by the Upazila Women Affairs Office, the VGF is implemented by the Upazila Project Implementation Office and the SHOUHARDO-II is implemented by a designated NGO, namely Jhanjira Samaj Kallyan Sangstha (JSKS), selected by CARE for the Upazila. At the ministry level, the Ministry of Social Welfare is concerned with the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs is concerned with the VGD, the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief is dealing with the VGF and the Local Government Division is overseeing the SHOUHARDO-II program. But the field work in this study revealed that there is no official and practical coordination between the ministries and the local level offices regarding the selection of beneficiaries and disbursement of benefits. So, overlapping was occurring, and it is possible that monitoring and overseeing was less effective. This researcher found an overlap of a beneficiary who has been receiving the Old Age Allowance for a while and he was provided the SHOUHARDO-II benefits. When I raised the issue of overlaps, in a general fashion, (keeping confidentiality with the participants) both the FGDs’ participants admitted that there was no official coordination between the programs and implementing agencies; as a result overlaps could happen. However, the senior officials of the SHOUHARDO-II program defended possible overlaps between programs as he was saying this was two separate issues – one was the Old Age Allowance and another was employment related. So he argued that one should not consider these two programs as same and he did not consider the incident as overlapping or duplication. 307

8.2.4 Database issues There is no central or regional database of all the beneficiaries of SSNPs and the poor people who can be treated as potential candidates for an SSNP. As the rural people living in poverty have little or no education, the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were not aware about data issues and therefore did not mention the issue during interviews. However, one of the senior officials in his interview, as well as both FGDs, raised the issue. Admitting the job would be a difficult task, a senior official (Iv22_Shouhardo) argued that making a database of all the beneficiaries and potential candidates would be very useful. The participants of the FGD at Dimla noted that the poor people near the town area get much government and non-government assistance but people living in remote areas do not get much help. The FGD suggested that an administrative unit such as a Ward or Union or Upazila based profile can help in the fair selection of the beneficiaries and can ensure better coordination. The ministry level FGD also agreed with the necessity of a database of the beneficiaries and potential candidates. The participants of the FGD considered that the database could ensure the proper coordination of the programs among different ministries and departments. It can also help to avoid duplication of participants in more than one program.

8.2.5 Waiting lists According to the implementation manual, the implementing office for the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, the Upazila Social Services Office, should prepare and keep a waiting list of potential candidates. The aim of this waiting list is to ensure transparent replacement of beneficiaries when a vacancy is created due to death, remarriage or any other cause. However, during the fieldwork no such waiting list was found in the office. The concerned officials also

308

admitted that such waiting lists were not prepared. During the FGD at the Ministry of Social Welfare, a senior official stated that preparation of a waiting list is a must. He also noted that some offices might not obey this rule to prepare and keep the waiting list.

While Rahman and Choudhury (2012), Rahman, Begum, and Bhuyan (2012) and Khan (2012) advocated for a database of beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries the existing literature says little about coordination issues of the programs and the necessity of a waiting list of the potential beneficiaries.

8.3 Other issues In this section additional issues raised by the participants will be discussed. While corruption, meagreness of the allowances, and problems faced by the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries during selection and distribution of benefits, are the major issues in the field of food security and SSNPs, some other issues emerged from the perceptions and statements of the participants. These issues were: limited program coverage; cash and/or in- kind support being used to purchase food instead of investment; no support provided by any NGO; the sustainability of the programs; no integrated safety net policy; and no participation of the poor in policy formulation and/or beneficiary selection process.

8.3.1 Limited coverage in the study area The statistical data collected from the Upazila Statistics Office, Dimla Upazila, shows that the total population of the research area (Ward No 3 of Khogakharibari Union) was 2,723. There were a total of 590 beneficiaries of all SSNPs in operation in that area. The total beneficiaries of all the SSNPs are shown in Table 8.1.

309

Table 8.1: The number of beneficiaries of all SSNPs in the research area

Name of SSNP Number of beneficiaries

Male Female Total Old Age Allowance 28 23 51 Allowances for Widow and - 25 25 Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women VGD - 30 30 VGF 64 19 83 SHOUHARDO-II 294 62 356 Employment Generation for the 25 12 37 Poorest (EGPP) Maternity Allowance - 2 2 Allowances for Disabled 3 3 6 Total 414 176 590

According to the Bangladesh Poverty Map 2010 (based on the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2010 jointly prepared and published by the World Bank, Dhaka Office, the WFP, Dhaka Office and the BBS) the percentage of poor people (upper poverty line) in Dimla Upazila was 35.2% and the percentage of extreme poor (lower poverty line) was 17.4% (see Appendix 11 and 12). The comparative poverty scenarios of 2005 and 2010 are shown in Table 8.2.

310

Table 8.2: Poverty rates of Dimla, Nilphamari, Kurigram and Bangladesh in 2005 and 2010 Unit 2005 2010 Changes Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Dimla Upazila 75.7% 61.5% 35.2% 17.4% 40.5% 44.1% Nilphamari District 70.2% 55.0% 34.8% 18.8% 35.4% 36.2% Kurigram District 68.2% 52.0% 63.7% 44.3% 4.5% 7.7% National 40.0% 25.1% 31.5% 17.6% 8.5% 7.5% Sources: Poverty Map 2005 and Poverty Map 2010

Table 8.2 indicates that the national poverty rates have been reduced by 8.5% and 7.5% for the upper poverty line and the lower poverty line respectively between 2005 and 2010. On the other hand, poverty rates of Nilphamari District halved for the upper poverty line and were reduced by more than 36% for the lower poverty line. The rate of poverty reduction of Dimla Upazila between 2005 and 2010 was 40.5% and 44.1% for the upper poverty line and the lower poverty line respectively. It is worth mentioning here that according to the Poverty Map 2005, Dimla was the poorest Upazila among the plain-land Upazilas in Bangladesh. Table 8.2 suggests that there has been a reduction in the poverty rate of Dimla Upazila by more than half for the upper poverty line and more than a third for the lower poverty line in five years. In 2005, Nilphamari was the poorest district in Bangladesh (as discussed in Chapter 5) and one of its neighbouring districts, Kurigram was the second poorest. On the other hand, in 2010 Kurigram became the poorest district in Bangladesh with a decrease of 4.5% and 7.7% for the upper poverty line and the lower poverty line respectively in comparison with 2005. Table 8.2 demonstrates that the changes in poverty rates in Kurigram District are consistent with the national rate, but in contrast, the changes in Nilphamari District are rather surprising. In this context, further research can

311

be suggested to examine the inconsistency between the rate of poverty in the two districts of Nilphamari and Kurigram.

Considering the upper poverty line, if calculated from the 2010 statistics the potential candidates for SSNPs of the area would be 959. The total beneficiaries of all SSNPs were 590, giving a coverage rate from the potential candidates of 61.5%. This indicates that, still 38.5% poor people are out of reach of any SSNPs. Moreover only three programs (the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women and the Allowances for Disabled) are permanent in nature. The other programs are time limited. The VGD is for two years, the VGF and the EGPP are very occasional; the Maternity Allowance is for a certain period of time and the SHOUHARDO-II program will be terminated in September 2015. After the termination of the programs, the beneficiaries feared they would return to the same condition before they were enrolled into the programs and the rate of coverage of SSNPs will decrease further.

This statistical data is corroborated by the views of some of the participants, particularly by the non-beneficiaries, of this study. One non-beneficiary of the Old Age Allowance (Abdul Jalil) and one non-beneficiary of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women (Hazera Banu) strongly argued that the coverage of the SSNPs is very limited. They perceived that due to limited coverage they were not included in a program. The other non- beneficiaries also considered that they were similarly eligible and should be included. In contrast, the beneficiaries were not interested in discussing the limited coverage of the programs; rather they were more interested in arguing for increasing the amount of benefits. The FGD at the local level also agreed

312

that the number of beneficiaries in the Upazila is not as per the requirements considering the magnitude of poverty in the region.

8.3.2 Eating the money and the seeds given for backyard gardening Under the SHOUHARDO-II program, one beneficiary of Component-1 (income generation) was given training on cultivation of a paddy and later was given 12kg of paddy seed and cash support of BDT 1600. He was supposed to cultivate paddy with this seed and use the money for fertilizer, pesticides and other essential ingredients. But he informed the researcher that he did not have any land and the officials did not tell him anything as to how the money should be utilized. He spent all the money and the seed for consumption. He bought a sharee (women’s traditional dress) for his mother and a lungi (men’s traditional dress) for his middle son and the rest of the amount was spent on food and other necessary items. He also sold the seed and used the money for food as well. He argued that his situation remains the same; there has been no difference with the support. When this researcher discussed monitoring issues and ongoing support for beneficiaries with the senior official of the program during interview, the official argued that their monitoring system was very strong noting that the field level officials were responsible for ongoing support for beneficiaries. However, the senior official did agree that problems in monitoring and support do occur sometimes. This instance denotes that despite the appearance of fair selection and no leakages of benefits, due to negligence of the field level officials and lack of supervision, one of the SHOUHARDO-II beneficiaries could not achieve the intended outcomes of the program.

8.3.3 NGO support According to the UNO office in Dimla, as many as 11 NGOs have been working in Dimla Upazila for different socio-economic activities. However, this 313

research revealed that none of the 20 interviewees, either the beneficiaries or the non-beneficiaries, are currently supported by any of them. One beneficiary (Dilip) stated that six years ago one NGO, namely Bangladesh Rural Improvement Foundation (BRIF) gave him a cow for free and since then he did not receive any support from any of the NGOs. All other beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries informed the researcher that they did not get any support from any NGOs. The beneficiaries’ non-involvement in an NGO can be justified, because the eligibility criteria for the programs do not allow them to be enlisted for any other government or non-government programs. But some of the non-beneficiaries, although the number is very small, should be reached by an NGO. While all the respondents demonstrated their willingness to get involved with an NGO, one beneficiary (Bashir Uddin) perceived NGO intervention as a problem. He said that the “NGO loan creates problems as it requires weekly instalments. We don’t prefer the NGO loan”. This statement indicates that, for the respondent, the hard and fast rules of repaying weekly instalments of NGO loans is treated as a burden.

8.3.4 Sustainability of the program outcomes Out of the five selected programs, two are life-long and the other three programs are time limited. Once a beneficiary is selected, the Old Age Allowance delivers benefits until death of the beneficiary. The Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women provides benefits until remarriage or death of the beneficiary. By definition, the VGF is occasional and is normally launched during or after a natural disaster and continued for three months. The VGD delivers benefits for two years. The SHOUHARDO-II started in 2010 and will terminate in September 2015. Therefore, the beneficiaries of the VGD and the SHOUHARDO-II programs felt uncertainty

314

regarding their future life. The two interviewees of this research from the VGD program had just completed their tenure of two years in December 2012 (the interviews were conducted in February 2013). They expressed their frustration about the completion of the program. One of them said:

After the expiry of the benefit, we are facing problems. Earlier food items, rice particularly were little bit secure. Now it’s very insecure. We are facing difficulties. My husband is working as an agricultural labour. But the work opportunity is not guaranteed. There should be another support scheme after completion of this program. (Saleha Begum)

Another beneficiary (Hafsa) of the VGD program also argued that their food insecurity has increased after they were terminated from the program after two years tenure. She also suggested that the government should give other support after the end of their cycle.

Both statements given by the beneficiaries of the VGD program depict that after completion of the program their food security status is likely to go down and their uncertainty of access to food increase.

As the benefits provided by the VGF program were very meagre and the support was only for three months, both the beneficiaries of the VGF program were also pessimistic about the impact of the program. Both beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program also expressed their concerns regarding the uncertainty of their food security after the termination of the benefits. One of the statements of the beneficiary of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women demonstrates the reality of the poor people’s lives. When asked if the allowance is stopped how she would manage her food, she said “Just death will come then. But it is good to mention that until

315

death this allowance does not end”. Her statement signifies the importance of the continuation of the benefits for the beneficiaries.

In this regard, the perceptions of the two senior officials bestowed upon the responsibility of the VGD and the SHOUHARDO-II programs are pertinent. One of them stated:

Now we are thinking of a new dimension. One is social safety net and the new one is social safety ladder. I do believe that if there is no successive intervention, the minimal achievement is gained within the two years of this program cannot be retained. So there should be some subsequent interventions, which can be treated as a ladder. You have confined them in a net, but this is not enough, if there are some successive interventions followed by this program, then this will be successful. (Iv21_DWA)

Another senior official argued that sustainability is a big issue. He further claimed that the SHOUHARDO-II program is trying to address the issue. He stated:

After five years we may be in those areas, or may not be in those areas. If donor says that we don’t have any funds, we will be pulling out. But the people will still be there, so that’s why what we are doing as a means of sustainable graduation from poverty. At the end of the program we link the beneficiaries with existing government and other non-government programs. We link them with local Union Council, because the Union Council has some budget, they have some development activities. So, they are part of the plan. We link them with government and you know, the government has the VGD program,

316

IGA (Income Generating Activities) program, health program, agricultural program. So we link them and facilitate that process with them, because if we come out government will be there, people will be there, services will be there. But if you ask me [whether this will be] at the same scale while they were in the program, I would say ‘no’ as because, while they were in the program we have our vigilance, kind of monitoring, follow-up, facilitations, you know, probably working from both ends, from beneficiary they are creating demand and from service provider we are supplying the services. But, while we are not there, probably the momentum is not up to that mark, tempo is not that high. (Iv22_Shouhardo-II)

Both the senior officials agreed that there should be a subsequent intervention after termination of any program or completion of tenure of a beneficiary. Establishing a link between the beneficiaries and the government, non-government or local government institutions is ideal, but how the establishment of such links works in practice is still in question. None of the beneficiaries of the VGD, the VGF or the SHOUHARDO-II programs felt they had any meaningful link with the government, non-government or local government institutions that can help them after completion of the programs. Moreover, as discussed earlier, some of the local government representatives are politically biased or practise nepotism, and as no NGOs were accessed by the twenty respondents, it is unlikely that they will receive any further assistance after the expiry of the programs. Looking at the findings from the lens of participatory approach, it can be argued that SSNPs do not seem to respond to people’s voices, choices, local needs and priorities. The respondents both the rural poor and the senior officials suggested that when a program is terminated there should be subsequent

317

interventions for the beneficiaries. However, there is no such follow-up programs were initiated for them. It can be argued that if the poor have the opportunity to participate in the policy process they may suggest sustainable programs for them.

8.3.5 Lack of an integrated social safety net policy As discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.8), there is still no integrated social safety net policy in Bangladesh, and, it can be argued, there is only limited coordination between the existing programs and between implementing agencies. The World Bank has argued:

There is no integrated national policy for developing social safety net programs. This may have resulted in programs that are unsustainable being developed, many of them financed with donor assistance directly with individual ministries. Budgetary provisions are ad-hoc and given as block allocations. (World Bank, 2006, p. 27)

In this research only one participant of the ministry level FGD raised the issue that there is no integrated social safety net policy in the country. She recommended that the Ministry of Social Welfare can take the lead to develop a sustainable and integrated safety net policy, including all the programs and all the concerned ministries (further discussed in Chapter 9).

8.3.6 Participation of poor people Except for the SHOUHARDO-II program, there is no opportunity for active participation of the poor in any stage of policy formulation, beneficiary selection, and program implementation. When asked whether any government or local government officials came to them to see their precarious conditions, or to consult about the selection of beneficiaries of any

318

programs, all the beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, and the VGD and one of the beneficiary of the VGF, and all the non-beneficiaries, replied that no one came to them to listen their views. The two beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program reported that the representatives from the partner NGO, who implements the program in the Upazila, visit regularly to inspect their conditions. They also reported that they were selected for the program in a consultation meeting in the area. One of the beneficiaries of the VGF program (Mafizur Rahman), who reported to be a relative of the Union Council member, stated that “The UP member often comes to us to know our situation”. One of the non-beneficiaries (Aleya Begum) argued that “The government officials should visit us to know the actual situation before making the list as the public representatives don’t count us”.

The above two statements indicate the contrasting role of the local government representatives. The former respondent one was luckier, in that the Union Council member looks after him, while the latter one felt that the local government representatives do not count them. The latter respondent also perceived that the government officials are more reliable than the local government representatives.

The study revealed that interviewees appreciated the opportunity to be heard and to have a say in expressing their needs in a program when it was possible. But this is only rarely experienced. Other participants however expressed their anger and discontent at what they saw as misuse of power or a failure to hear their needs. These findings suggest that participation in the programs in some form was perceived as important in terms of fairness and relevance of the program. The importance of being involved in processes that

319

affect one’s life is stressed in Nussbaum’s tenth capability and echoed in the voices in this research. They just shared the benefits designed by the experts that did not meet their actual needs. Therefore, they could not achieve the functionings of ‘to be nourished’ as seen in Chapters 6 and 7.

The existing literature says little about some of the aforementioned issues. However, some literature discusses the issues of coverage, sustainability of the programs, the participation of poor people and an integrated safety net policy. The World Bank (2006), Islam (2009), Maniruzzaman (2009), Mannan (2010), Rahman and Choudhury (2012) and Rahman, Begum, and Bhuyan (2012), argued that the coverage of the SSNPs are limited and that inhibits their role in poverty alleviation. Rahman and Choudhury (2012) expressed their concerns about the sustainability of the SSNPs and suggested a ‘safety ladder’ that helps beneficiaries escape from the poverty cycle. Waheduzzaman and As-Saber (2015) found limited participation of the community, including the intended beneficiaries, in local-level projects in Bangladesh. The World Bank (2006), Mannan (2010) and Hulme, Maitrot, Rango, and Rahman (2014) argued for a national social protection strategy or an integrated safety net policy that leads to a coordinated inter-ministerial approach on SSNPs, minimizing overlaps between programs, and setting uniform targeting criteria for similar programs.

8.4 Conclusion This chapter has examined a range of governance issues related to food security and implementation issues of SSNPs. In this chapter, two major issues were discussed: how corruption influences the effectiveness of the programs, and problems faced by the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries during the selection process and disbursement of benefits, coordination

320

between the programs’ management, database issues and waiting lists for potential beneficiaries. This chapter also examined some other important issues, such as coverage of the programs; NGO support available for the most vulnerable people; the sustainability of the programs; an integrated safety net policy for the country; and lack of opportunity for participation of the poor in policy formulation and program implementation.

This study reveals that in a country like Bangladesh, in which many people are living below the poverty line, a series of governments are trying to ensure food security through some social safety net interventions; yet according to the perceptions of the participants in the current research, corruption is a major obstacle to achieving the goals of these programs. Corruption starts with beneficiary selection, where a bribe is one of the leading factors; accompanied by political influence and nepotism to being included into any program. Corruption continues throughout the whole process of the program. The food-based programs suffer leakages, where beneficiaries receive less food than they are entitled to. Cash support programs appear to be better than food programs in terms of leakage. It is also evident that although the SHOUHARDO-II program delivers both cash and food grains, it appears to be assured a transparent selection process and the exact amount of benefit is delivered to the recipients. This program is managed by a selected NGO and monitored by CARE- Bangladesh. On the other hand the programs, like the VGD and the VGF, implemented by local government officials suffer from both perceived bribe and leakage complaints in the selection and implementation stages respectively. The programs which deliver cash support (the Old Age allowance and the Widowed Allowance) through banking channels are also appears to be free from leakage complaints.

321

The findings of this study suggest that some of the beneficiaries of the selected SSNPs and most of the non-beneficiaries faced problems during the selection process. The problems were: repeated visits or requests to the selectors for inclusion; no transparent system of selection; and no adequate official publicity about the programs. As well, most of the beneficiaries faced problems during disbursement of the benefits. According to the responses from the participants of this study the problems were: financial, spending extra money for transport and food for collecting the benefits from the bank or Union Council office; physical, staying for long time, often the whole day, for receiving the benefit; and emotional, due to misbehaviour by the concerned officials or accompanying family. It can be also argued that although the respondents are very few, the program (the SHOUHARDO-II) managed by a selected NGO appears to perform better than the programs (the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, the VGD and the VGF) managed by the local government officials.

This research revealed that except for the SHOUHARDO II program, the other four programs (the Old Age Allowance, the Allowance for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, the VGD and the VGF) are not implemented through the participatory approach as perceived by interviewees. It also revealed that the issues of lack of coordination, absence of a database and waiting lists, limited coverage, limited NGO intervention, lack of sustainability of the programs, lack of an integrated safety net policy, and lack of poor people’s participation, should be addressed to enhance the efficiency of the SSNPs.

As discussed in Chapter 2, having poor governance resulting from the lack of integrity and spread of corruption, nepotism and inefficiency leads to the poor

322

suffering and being deprived of the proper delivery of public services. Sen’s ideas endorse a similar perspective. He focuses on the connections of governance with the control over one’s environment that is outlined in Capability 10. In conclusion, it can be argued that this chapter shows exclusionary practices such as bribes, poor behaviours, lack of consultation and transparency by the program managers, both government and local government officials, limits opportunities for active and effective participation in social safety net programs for most of the poor. This inhibits the poor from having entitlements that could contribute to the development of their capabilities.

323

Chapter 9: Making Life Better: Participants’ Perspectives

9.0 Introduction This chapter will discuss the views of the participants about how to improve existing SSNPs with the aim of ensuring food security and improving the lives of the rural poor. This chapter addresses the fourth research question on the implications of the perceptions of the participants for policy and practice in relation to SSNPs.

Of particular importance in this chapter are two capabilities. Capability 5 describes emotional attachment as a right where individuals should not be blighted by fear and anxiety. Capability 10A focuses on hearing the voice of the participants; those who are affected the most should have the right to participate effectively in political choices that govern their lives. Capability 10B highlights one’s equal rights to property and employment. The participatory approach discussed earlier in this thesis captures the important insights of participants in the programs. This chapter will examine whether the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were able to exercise the provisions of Capabilities 5 and 10.

In this analysis, the perceptions of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are discussed first. Then the views of the mid-level and senior level officials are explored. The opinions of officials are important to understand the many forces that impact or control the lives of people. The officials offer a specific view on how decisions are made, both in terms of implementation as well as policy making.

This chapter consists of four sections. The first section (Section 9.1) discusses the issues of increasing the number of beneficiaries and the

324

suggestions to increase the amount of money or food provided by the five selected programs. The second section (Section 9.2) deals with suggestions made by the participants regarding better organisation of the SSNPs. The third section (Section 9.3) discusses the views expressed, primarily by the poor, about an important policy issue: whether the government should prioritise cash and food support or creating work opportunities. Finally, the fourth section (Section 9.4) explores the necessity of formulating an integrated social safety net policy for the country. During the interviews and focus group discussions, participants were asked to suggest their perceived solutions for increasing the efficiency of the SSNPs and making the lives of the rural poor better. From the responses to these questions, the themes and subthemes emerged that are discussed in this chapter.

9.1 Increase the number of beneficiaries and the amount of benefits This section will discuss the suggestions given by the participants to increase the number of beneficiaries and the amount of money or food provided by the selected programs. As discussed in Chapter 8, the coverage of SSNPs was limited compared to the number of people who qualified for a program. Some of the respondents, particularly the non-beneficiaries, suggested increasing the number of beneficiaries. Similarly, most of the participants perceived the benefits as meagre (discussed in Chapter 7); therefore almost all the participants including the beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, senior officials and the participants of the two FGDs, suggested increasing the amount of money or food to ensure a minimum level of food security for the rural poor. In this section the suggestions for each of the selected five programs will be discussed separately.

325

9.1.1 Number of beneficiaries Most of the non-beneficiaries who, in terms of selection criteria, would have qualified for an SSNP, recommended increasing the number of beneficiaries the program was available to. When asked about suggesting how to tackle poverty, the beneficiaries were reluctant to propose any enhancement of the coverage of the programs. It can be argued that as they were enrolled in a program they were more concerned to enhance the amount of their benefit and were afraid of losing it if more people were included. In contrast, the non- beneficiaries were more concerned about their inclusion in any program, although they also recommended increasing the amount of benefits. Considering the magnitude of poverty, the FGD at the Upazila level also recommended increasing the number of beneficiaries in the Northern part of Bangladesh.

One of the two non-beneficiaries of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women (Hazera Banu) suggested that the government should extend the card to all destitute widows. Another non-beneficiary (Shefali Begum) said that physical verification of the poor could help. She added that extremely poor should be included into the VGD program. One non-beneficiary suggested that the number of beneficiaries should be increased to ensure food security of the poor:

Government should give allowances to more people. Government has to find the eligible people. Employment opportunities for the physically capable should be created. I know government has already taken seasonal employment programs to combat Monga, but the opportunities are limited. (Abdul Jalil)

326

The FGD at the grass-roots level (FGD1_Dimla) advised that the number of beneficiaries should be determined depending on the magnitude of poverty of a particular area. As the number of poor people in the northern area is higher than the other parts of Bangladesh, they suggested increasing the number of beneficiaries in the area for all programs.

In their study on the Old Age Allowance program, Begum and Wesumperuma (2012, p. 198) advocated upgrading the program to a universal one. This confirms the attitude expressed by the non-beneficiaries above. Begum and Wesumperuma (2012, p. 198) argued that such scaling up of the program is possible provided there is political will; in the case of the elderly (aged 65+), it may require 0.3% of the country’s GDP instead of the 0.1% that is currently allocated. They further argued that this expense has to be viewed in a context that Bangladesh at present spends nearly 3% of GDP on different SSNPs – hence 0.3% should not pose a problem. Islam (2009, p. 56) recommended increasing the number of beneficiaries and expanding the fund of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women to involve all marginalised widowed and husband-deserted women in the community. Maniruzzaman (2009, p. 31) reported that since the physically and socially isolated communities and households tended to be less intensively covered by the SSNPs, the government should focus on geographical targeting and higher prioritization of the most deprived and vulnerable people like the extremely poor, disabled or old aged men and women who do not have support from their family, and orphaned and abandoned children. Rahman and Choudhury (2012, p. 99) noted that while coverage has expanded considerably in terms of temporary food insecurity, it remains very limited regarding the problem of chronic poverty. They also recommended extending coverage to the chronically poor poverty, which has greater design

327

challenges and implies significantly larger resources. The World Bank (2006, p. 31) suggested an increasing focus on special groups like tribal groups and people with disabilities. They also recommended the government undertake some changes to the design of existing programs to increase the coverage and efficiency of the programs. Such changes, they argued, would not require an increase in the overall program budget.

Some of the studies on SSNPs noted that the coverage of different programs is limited compared to the requirements of the community, but they did not necessarily recommend increasing the number of the beneficiaries. Rahman, Begum, and Bhuyan (2012, p. 93) stated that about 55% of the food insecure households reported that they did not receive any support. Mannan (2010, p. 57) noted that, on an average, around 40% of families who are eligible for benefits are covered by different SSNPs. He also stated that although the SSNPs in Bangladesh cover more than 10 million people, they fall drastically short of the needs of the 30 million people who belong to the ‘hardcore poor’ category. He argued that given this scenario of extremely limited coverage, it is doubtful whether the SSNPs will be able to play the leading role in poverty alleviation, since more than half of the target population are currently beyond the reach of the programs.

From the statistical data (discussed in Chapter 8) and other studies it is evident that the coverage of SSNPs in Bangladesh, particularly in the northern part of the country, is very limited. Out of the five selected programs, two (the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women) target poor older men and women, the VGD targets poor women of the age group 18 to 40, and the other two (the VGF and the SHOUHARDO-II) target poor men and women of all ages. As

328

discussed in Chapter 7, the life expectancy in Bangladesh was 69 years in 2011 (male 67.9 and female 70.3) (GoB, 2015) and the retirement age for government officials is 59 years. Generally, people over 60 years of age cannot work due to their physical conditions. Therefore, the non-beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women were more vulnerable as they were likely to have no other source of income. The non-beneficiaries of other programs were also keen to be included in any program, as the job opportunities for them were also limited. As a result, most of the non-beneficiaries suggested increasing the number of beneficiaries of the programs.

Three conclusions can be drawn from the above discussion. First, the beneficiaries of this study were reluctant to suggest increasing the number of beneficiaries. Second, most of the non-beneficiaries, particularly the older men and women, suggested increasing the number of beneficiaries. Third, the FGD at the Upazila level argued for increasing the number of beneficiaries of SSNPs in the most poverty-stricken area of Bangladesh – the northern districts.

9.1.2 Amount of money/food grain suggested

The Old Age Allowance The Old Age Allowance delivers cash support of BDT 300/- (USD 3.75) per person per month. Both the two beneficiaries and two non-beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance argued that the allowance is very small and it could not meet the requirements of their food demand alone. Therefore, with cautious hope, they recommended increasing the amount of money. One of the two beneficiaries suggested BDT 3000 (USD 37.53) per month. He said:

Earlier we came to know that the government was thinking to increase 329

the amount of the allowance. But it was not implemented. The allowance at least should be 3000 Taka per month. (Bashir Uddin)

The other beneficiary proposed BDT 1000 (USD 12.51) per month which he thought could be helpful. However, she doubted the government would grant this amount. She said: “Monthly, 1000 Taka could be helpful but I doubt the government will give it. The amount should be increased. I don’t have much to say” (Felani Banu).

Here, the two beneficiaries proposed two different amounts and the difference is huge. The first beneficiary is 65 years old and he has a wife and seven children including a seven year old daughter. His wife and the youngest daughter were dependent on his income. The second beneficiary was a widow and she has four children, but none of them were dependent on her income. So the difference in their views could perhaps be accounted for by their individual circumstances. As the former beneficiary had at least two dependants, he required more money to manage the family. On the other hand the latter beneficiary only needed to support one person, herself, and thus required less. However, in both cases, the benefit provided by the Old Age Allowance program fell below their needs. It can be mentioned here that the amount of benefit is the same regardless of the number of people in the household. These examples reveal the importance of careful consideration of the context in which people are living. It is only by poor people having an opportunity to be heard and by the diverse circumstances of individuals being taken into account by policy developers that programs can be successful. It is seen that people’s needs may be different considering the surrounding conditions. As a result, the policy response should be different according to

330

the needs of the people. Sen’s ideas about social justice, being heard and political empowerment are important to consider here.

Although they did not get any benefit from any program, both the non- beneficiaries also recommended that the allowance amount should be increased. One of them argued that the cost of all essential items had gone up (Abdul Jalil) and the other one said that if the amount was increased one could take a lease of agricultural land and ensure food security by cultivating the land (Aleya Begum).

Begum and Wesumperuma (2012, p. 209), in their research on the Old Age Allowance, noted that there is a challenge in raising the amount of the benefit. They considered the monthly allowance of BDT 300 (13%–21% of the country’s poverty line income34) to be insufficient. They also argued that although the amount is insufficient to meet older people’s own needs, as the majority of beneficiaries in rural areas support dependents, raising the benefit amount for poor older people is urgently required if it is to have a positive impact on the elderly living in poverty. They also raised an issue, in this context, of the affordability of raising the allowance. They pointed out that some may argue that a poor country like Bangladesh cannot afford such an increase, particularly as the population of older people in Bangladesh is large. However, they finally argued that, even doubling the allowance to BDT 600 (USD 7.51) would only require 0.3% of GDP, which should not pose a problem. Mannan (2010, p. 60) advocated for revision of the monthly allowance for the Old Age and Widows Allowance. He argued that increasing the size of transfers is critical to achieving sustainable improvements in the food security and livelihoods of the elderly poor and distressed women. In

34 13% of the upper poverty line and 21% of the lower poverty line respectively 331

view of high prices of commodities, he recommended that an amount of BDT 500 (USD 6.26) per month should be considered for these two programs.

The Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women The Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women provide the same as the Old Age Allowance [BDT 300/- (USD 3.75) per person per month]. Like the Old Age Allowance, both the beneficiaries and both the non-beneficiaries noted that the amount of money is very meagre, and they suggested increasing the amount. One of the two beneficiaries suggested BDT 2000 (USD 25.02) per month (Hafeza Begum) and another beneficiary proposed BDT 2000–3000 (USD 25.02– 37.53) per month (Sahiran Begum) to buy food. She said:

I heard that the allowance will be increased but so far no progress. You are seeing our poverty; so please increase the allowance. I am very old and poor. We need support from government. Other than this I get nothing from the government. (Sahiran Begum)

Poverty intersects with age and gender here, which influence the capabilities of a person. The quote further suggests that as an old woman her voice was not heard within the policy making process. That is, although she wanted her allowance to be increased, she had not had enough influence to demand and get more than what she currently receives.

One of the non-beneficiaries suggested that the allowance should be increased to at least BDT 1000 (Rashida Begum). The other non-beneficiary did not nominate an amount, but she agreed with the suggestion of enhancing the benefit.

332

Islam (2009, p. 56) revealed that the amount provided through the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women is not at all enough even to provide the minimum food for the beneficiaries. The participants of his research suggested an increase in the allowance so that it could cover basic food requirements in order to provide opportunities to undertake some interventions ‘to be cured from the wrath of poverty’. He argued that it was clear that if the allowance failed to contribute significantly, then it could not be a good option for poverty reduction and may be just a rhetorical attempt. Therefore, he suggested that the government may, in consultation with the beneficiaries, assess the need realistically and accordingly increase the amount. This demonstrates that the current debate has moved beyond a symbolic recognition of the poor by the government.

The VGD The VGD delivers 30kg of rice or wheat monthly for a period of two years; the program can only be accessed once. The market value of 30kg rice or wheat is about BDT 900 (USD 11.26). Among the five selected SSNPs the VGD offers the highest amount of resources; in relation to other programs it can fulfil at best half of a month’s rice or wheat requirements of a beneficiary household. The two beneficiaries and two non-beneficiaries stated that for a healthy diet, rice or wheat is not the only food item they need; they also need other items including vegetables, curry, edible oil and spices. They argued that if the amount of rice/wheat was increased they could spend their other income on other food items. One of the beneficiaries stated: “It should be increased. It’s not enough – 60kg could be good to manage the food demand of the family. It could help us manage other items beyond rice to ensure food security” (Saleha Begum). When discussing food security, it cannot be

333

considered only in terms of weight of grain supplied; food security must consider associated nutritional needs, for example curry, oil and spices.

The other beneficiary also argued that 25kg was not enough to manage the requirements of the family. She suggested 60kg of rice or wheat per month to manage their family needs (Hafsa). Both the non-beneficiaries also suggested increasing the amount of food grain provided by the VGD program. One of them proposed 45–60 kg per month (Monwara Begum) and another one suggested 45kg per month was reasonable (Shefali Begum).

A number of researchers (IGS, 2010; Mannan, 2010; Mannan & Ahmed, 2012; Matin & Hulme, 2003; Rahman & Choudhury, 2012; Rahman, Begum, & Bhuyan, 2012) studied the VGD program, but they did not recommend any enhancement of the amount of benefit. They overlooked the meagreness issue, but they discussed the selection process, leakages and impacts of the program (discussed in Chapter 8).

The VGF The VGF offers 10kg of rice or wheat per month for a maximum period of three months following any disaster or during a lean period. The market value of 10kg of rice or wheat was about BDT 300 (USD 3.75). The amount of benefit of the VGF program was the lowest among the five SSNPs and this was not a regular support for a family. So the participants of this research consider this program as the most insignificant in terms of ensuring food security. Both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries suggested increasing the benefit amount, although their opinions varied from 15 to 30 kg. One of them stated that at least it should support food needed for a few days – at least 30kg (Dilip). The other beneficiary recommended 20kg to help them ensure the food security of the family (Mafizur Rahman). One of the two non-

334

beneficiaries suggested 15kg (Prodip) and the other did not have any suggestions regarding the amount of benefit.

Mannan (2010) and Rahman and Choudhury (2012) evaluated the VGF program but did not suggest any increase of the benefit amount. Mannan (2010) recommended enhancing the benefits of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women. He recommended ensuring the proper weight of the total amount of wheat delivered from local storage depots to the ration distributors, but kept silent on enhancing the amount the VGF beneficiaries receive. Rahman and Choudhury (2012) made recommendations regarding coverage, leakages and some macro level policy issues, but not the enhancement of the amount of benefits for the VGF.

The SHOUHARDO-II The SHOUHARDO-II program provides different amounts for its various components. Beneficiaries of Component-1 (income generation) get BDT 3000/- (USD 37.53) as a one off payment, and beneficiaries of Component-2 (nutrition for children under 2 years of age and lactating mothers) receive monthly food rations of 10kg rice or wheat, 1kg vegetable oil, and 0.5kg lentils, worth approximately BDT 450 (USD 5.63) until the baby is two years of age. In this study, beneficiary-1 received monthly food rations under Component-2 and beneficiary-2 received cash support and seeds worth BDT 3000 once under Component-1. The beneficiary of Component-2 believed that the amount of support should be increased and it should be at least 20 kg a month (Lucky). The other beneficiary did not suggest any amount, but argued that the support could not bring much change: it could not reduce poverty, nor could it ensure food security of his family

335

(Mohammad Alom). Both the non-beneficiaries also suggested increasing the amount of benefit without mentioning any specific amount.

Rahman and Choudhury (2012) assessed the impact of the SHOUHARDO program along with nine other programs, but they did not discuss the benefit amount of this program. They found it difficult to determine the average value of the program benefits, as different components receive different values. Nonetheless, they focused on the impacts of the program.

Suggestions by the managers The FGD at the Upazila level (FGD1_Dimla) discussed the amount of benefit for all five programs. In their personal capacity, all participants of the FGD agreed that the benefits provided by the five programs were inadequate to ensure food security of the beneficiaries and suggested increasing them (see Table 9.1).

The FGD at the ministry level also agreed that the benefits provided under the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women were not adequate, and participants in the focus group thought there should be increase to the amount of money provided. One of the participants of the FGD made general comments on the two programs:

If we recommend that amount, it won’t be implemented straightaway. But we can recommend increasing the amount of money. In my opinion, that we cannot provide that amount isn’t true. If we can stop overlapping, we can do this. A relative of a Union Council Chairman is probably getting 1000 Taka per month, because he may get benefits from three programs. On the other hand, those who are the most

336

vulnerable may not get anything. (FGD2_MoSW)

The statement suggests that social connections help someone to obtain and keep entitlements. It is likely that the poorest have the least social connections. As a result their chance of exclusion from the transfer entitlements (government support), as referred by Sen (1981b), is greater than those who have social connections and influence.

The participant of the FGD perceived that if there were better governance, then the overlapping and leakages would be reduced, and, accordingly, the enhanced amount should not be a problem for the government to afford. The FGD did not discuss the other three programs as they do not deal with them.

Table 9.1 shows changes that were suggested by the participants of this research.

Table 9.1: Suggested increases to the benefits received under the five programs

Name of program Current benefit Suggestions by Suggestions by Interviewees Upazila FGDs Old Age Allowance BDT 300/month BDT 1000– BDT1000/month 3000/month

Allowance for Widow BDT 300/per month BDT 1000– BDT1000/month and Husbands’ 3000/month Deserted Destitute Women

The VGD 30kg of rice or wheat 45–60kg per month 60kg rice/wheat per per month month

The VGF 10kg rice or wheat 15–30kg 30kg

337

Name of program Current benefit Suggestions by Suggestions by Interviewees Upazila FGDs The SHOUHARDO-II: Food ration: 10kg Food ration: At least Food Ration: 20kg rice or wheat, 1kg 20kg a month rice/wheat, 2kg vegetable oil and vegetable oil and 0.5kg lentils. Cash and/or 1kg lentils; Commodity: No Cash and/or suggestion Cash and/or Commodity: Commodity: BDT 3500 (one off) BDT 7000

9.2 Better organisation of the programs Drawing from the views of the participants of this research, this section will provide some other important information related to improving the organisation of the existing SSNPs. During the interviews and group discussions, the participants pointed to these issues as essential to make the SSNPs more effective. They suggested: an individual bank account for each beneficiary for the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women; instead of a Union-based distribution, introducing a Ward-based distribution system; maintaining a waiting list for potential beneficiaries; ensuring involvement of concerned government officials into beneficiary selection and benefit disbursement processes; and developing a database for all the beneficiaries and eligible persons can strengthen the program efficiency combating poverty in general, and food insecurity in particular.

9.2.1 Permanent bank accounts As discussed in Chapter 7 (Section 7.1.4), the beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women were more than 60 years of age; they suffer physical, mental and financial hardship in having to go to the bank and stay the whole day. Against

338

this backdrop, the participants of the ministry level FGD suggested introducing a system in which each beneficiary could open a normal bank account and the government could send the allowance money to these accounts, so that they could withdraw their money at their convenience.

One of the participants of the ministry level FGD suggested:

They (the bank) can disburse the benefit like any other client of the bank who withdraws their money at any time; there is no need to fix a dedicated day for disbursing the benefit. Then the beneficiaries can receive the money when they go to the bank. (FGD2_MoSW)

Mannan (2010, p. 60), realising the difficulties borne by the beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, recommended that the current disbursement procedure of delivering cash from the Upazila/Union branches of public sector banks be reviewed, to make it convenient for persons who reside at long distances from the bank.

However, there are some practical difficulties facing beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries. The bank’s procedure to open an account requires the deposit of a minimum amount of money, which may not be possible for the rural poor to afford. But there are some instances in the country where rural poor farmers were allowed to open a bank account to withdraw their government assistance for fertilizer, pesticides and seeds by depositing only BDT 10. This same exemption could be considered in the case of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women. The implementing authority of the two allowances can amend the distribution system of a single day disbursement and issue a circular to open a bank

339

account by depositing only BDT 10 per person and send the allowance money to each account of the beneficiaries, so that they could withdraw their money at any time.

9.2.2 Ward-based distribution To avoid the log jam of the beneficiaries and the time-consuming distribution system, the participants of the FGD at Upazila level (FGD1_Dimla) suggested an alternative method. As a union consists of 9 wards, if the banks designate a different day for each ward, the number of beneficiaries would be 45 to 55 for the Old Age Allowance and 22 to 35 for the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women. The concerned bank officials present at the FGD also admitted that a ward-based allocation system could help minimise the delay. One of the participants stated that bank officials could improve their behaviour and address the challenges of the delay. Ward- based distribution could help to minimise the delay, he added. Bank officials agreed with this proposal.

Begum and Wesumperuma (2012, p. 209), taking into consideration the time- consuming distribution system of the Old Age Allowance, recommended a similar strategy that instead of the current practice of one union a day, depending on the number of beneficiaries, several dates should be fixed by dividing the union into wards.

To open a low cost bank account for each beneficiary would be the best solution, but it requires some amendments of rules and regulations which are initially time consuming. So, during the interim period the bank authority could respond to the suggestions given by the FGD at Upazila level and fix a separate date for each ward to collect their benefits, instead of a single day for all beneficiaries of a Union.

340

9.2.3 Waiting lists The implementation procedures of the VGD and the VGF programs do not mention any provision of making a waiting list of potential candidates. The Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women require preparation of a waiting list. The SHOUHARDO-II program does not require a waiting list as such, but they apply a long, transparent, participatory and comprehensive process to identify all the poor and extreme poor (PEP) living in a program area as potential direct beneficiaries. They then gradually include them in their program benefits. In the case of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, no waiting lists were observed in the concerned offices. To ensure fairness of selection, some of the participants of this research suggested developing the waiting list. For the VGD and the VGF, this research revealed that a waiting list could be a better option too. One of the beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance (Bashir Uddin) suggested that the government could make a list of potential candidates. Ministry level FGD (FGD2_MoSW) affirmed that maintaining a waiting list was mandatory, but one of the participants admitted that some offices might not do it. One of the participants said that a waiting list must be kept in the office. When he inspected some offices he saw the waiting list. Perhaps some offices did not maintain the waiting list, he added. One of the senior officials from an implementing department also acknowledged the importance of a waiting list.

From the above discussion it can be argued that if there is no waiting list, the selectors may include any of their own people and the chance of missing highly vulnerable people will be higher. A waiting list can make the selection fairer and minimise corruption. The waiting list represents in a very practical way the difficulties of poverty relief, particularly in providing benefits. It is both

341

practical and transparent, but is also discretionary, and shows the importance of the influence of the officials at a local level.

9.2.4 Involvement of government officials Although there are provisions for including union level government officials in the selection committee for the VGD, the VGF, the Old Age Allowance, the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women (but not the SHOUHARDO-II), in the case of these four programs government officials were involved in the approval stage and not at the local level selection. The local level selection was practically and solely done by the local government officials. The disbursement of the VGD and the VGF was done by the local government officials as well; the disbursement of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women was done by the bank. Some of the participants argued that during the selection process and disbursement of the benefits government officials’ involvement could reduce corruption. One of the beneficiaries of the VGF said:

The distribution should be done in the presence of the government officer. If you give the responsibility to the Union Council Member, they’ll just ensure their interest and not give full amount of rice. They’ll give us a sack and tell us to distribute it among us but at the end we get less than the sanctioned amount. Government officials should visit us before enlistment. (Dilip)

One non-beneficiary of the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women said that the government officer could make the beneficiary list and in that case the list may be fairer (Rashida Begum).

342

One of the senior officials of an implementing agency did not fully agree that inclusion of a government official in the selection process could ensure fair selection. In his opinion the local government representatives were appropriate to undertake this duty, but they were not doing it properly. He said:

I don’t think that it would be a big difference. Because the selectors are people’s representatives, elected by the people. If I consider the local government perspective, ideally they are the proper persons to do the job, because they know their area better than the others. But as in our country, democracy is in its early stage; both the candidates and the voters do not understand their domain of responsibilities and rights. So the selectors consider their vote bank in lieu of the deserving people. If I think to get any government employee involved to get rid of this problem, there is a problem for them, which is lack of commitment; they may think that this is our official job, so there is no motivation to give so much effort. So their involvement itself does not make any change. (Iv21_DWA)

Considering these apparently conflicting views, it can be said that there should be checks and balances in place. Although not all government officials are sincere and motivated to perform their job, some of them are quite determined to implement the programs properly. If government officials actively participate and oversee the selection and disbursement process, any favouritism and political bias by local government representatives may be minimised and the leakages of benefits can be reduced.

343

9.2.5 Developing a database There is no comprehensive database of the poor or the beneficiaries of all the SSNPs supported by the government in the country. As discussed in Chapter 4 and 5, applying comprehensive methods the SHOUHARDO II program prepared a PEP list for each program area which they maintain as a database both locally and centrally. This PEP list helps ensure fair selection of the beneficiaries. Therefore, it can be argued that if there had been a comprehensive database of the poor, the selection procedure would have been more efficient and transparent. As a result, the most qualified poor people could be ensured to be included in the SSNPs and duplications of some beneficiaries in more than one program could be avoided. As all the 20 interviewees of the rural area were very poor and not well educated, they were not aware of any database and therefore did not mention the issue. But when asked by the researcher, the participants of both the FGDs and both the senior officials of two implementing agencies interviewed strongly expressed their concerns about the necessity of the database. The FGD at the Upazila level agreed:

Administrative unit based profile of all people should be done. The statistics department can take the lead in this regard. But in this regard financial support is needed. A database can help. Nearby people get a lot of help but people living in remote places don’t get much help. (FGD1_Dimla)

The FGD at the ministry level suggested preparing a database with photographs of people. One of the participants noted:

We have 160 million population of whom government provide benefits to 40 million from different sources. But there is no database with their

344

photographs. The solution is that we have to make a database with photographs of 5 million beneficiaries to whom we provide benefits from our ministry [the Ministry of Social Welfare is not concerned about other 35 million people] and we have to make the database according to the criteria of the deserving people. We have to make the database of all the people who are getting any benefit. There should be a database of eligible persons as well, so that we can calculate how many we have covered and how many are still out of reach. If we can make a database, we will be able to avoid duplication. (FGD2_MoSW)

One of the interviewees from the senior officials of the SHOUHARDO-II program also admitted the necessity of a database:

Well, I think that would be wonderful to have a database that everybody has agreed which could be difficult also, as because, you know, there are different schools of thought. Somebody will say that I’ll treat only extreme poor if their income is below 50 cents, somebody will say, no, it should be hand to mouth, this should be treated as extreme poor. So coming to a kind of consensus is a big challenge, but not impossible. I’m not ruling out that, not impossible, it’s possible. (Iv22_SHOUHARDO-II)

The database can help both the decision making process and the setting of appropriate measures. Another senior official said:

There should be a database from which beneficiaries of different SSNPs should be selected, so that duplication or over-lapping can be avoided. But this is, in my opinion, in a nascent state. So far, it has not been conceived, but I hope it will be, because there is a huge need for

345

it. (Iv21_DWA)

Rahman and Choudhury (2012, pp. 103-104) noted that a crucial plank for a scaled-up social protection strategy is a national database on the extreme poor. They also raised some concerns, in advance, about the preparation of a database, including the definitional issues of poverty, access to the database and the updating of the database. They commented that poverty realities are not static and hence the database would need to be updated according to a well thought-out plan. An additional question they raised was of who gathers the data, maintains it, and for what purpose it can be used. In her study on the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women, Khan (2012, p. 100) suggested that the concerned authority must prepare a database of the beneficiaries of all SSNPs and they must ensure proper coordination between the government departments involved in distribution. This will reduce the chances of multiple benefits being received by the same person, she argued. Rahman, Begum, and Bhuyan (2012, p. 141) pointed out the importance of another type of database – the database of seasonal dimensions of employment and food insecurity which, they argued, would help successful implementation of safety net and employment programs undertaken by government through the choice of the appropriate period of interventions. Such a database, they suggested, should be developed for all regions and this can help administrators choose correct geographical and temporal targeting of the government’s seasonal SSNPs.

This researcher also agrees with the opinion of FGDs and the two senior officials that, in this era of widespread technology use, a database of all potential candidates and the beneficiaries should be prepared. Such a database would have multiple benefits: the selection can be fairer and

346

transparent; overlaps (double dipping) can be avoided; a waiting list can be obtained readily; and monitoring and supervision can be conducted properly. Yet, there are a number of theoretical and practical difficulties, such as ascertaining the benchmark for eligibility, and which ministry and department would prepare the database that must be considered first.

9.3 Yes to work, no to charity This section discusses an important issue raised by some respondents regarding whether charity or work is the most effective approach to combat poverty. As discussed in detail in Chapter 4, the public safety net interventions started in Bangladesh in 1971, just after the birth of the nation as an independent country. This initiative was primarily focused on food rationing and post-disaster relief. Gradually, a number of innovations broadened the safety net interventions which now include food for work, micro-credit, road maintenance, social forestry, and women’s empowerment. Most of the programs now cover both protection and promotion goals (discussed in Chapter 4). Nonetheless, out of 20 interviewees three beneficiaries and three non-beneficiaries perceived SSNPs to be a form of charity or relief program; importantly, they raised whether the SSNPs are effective as a tool for ensuring food security. These six interviewees and the participants of the local level FGD discussed the issue with great concern. In this section the participants’ views on this issue and their suggestions will be explored.

In this context, it is important to discuss the historical and religious role of charity in Bangladesh society. Cambridge Dictionaries Online define ‘charity’ as “a system of giving money, food, or help, free to those who are in need because they are ill, poor, or have no home, or any organisation that has the purpose of providing money or helping in this way” (Cambridge Dictionaries 347

Online, 2015). Sabra (2000, p. 3) used the term ‘charity’ to refer to the practice of the wealthy aiding the poor. ‘Charity’ emerged from religious philosophy; all religions encourage their followers to give charity to the poor. Ninety per cent of the population of Bangladesh are Muslims (BBS, 2013), therefore Islam plays an important role in Bangladesh society. According to Van Schendel (2009), Islam entered into the Bengal Delta in two waves: first, in the eighth century through coastal Bangladesh by seaborne traders; and second, in the early thirteenth century by the land route, this time as a political power.

Traditionally, the Muslim population of Bangladesh is deeply religious in sentiment, having great attachment to Islamic institutions and culture. Historically, Bangladesh had a very rich tradition of establishing charity institutions and this still persists (Khan, 2010). Sadeq (1997) argued that Islam makes maximum efforts to alleviate poverty from the society. Sadeq (2002) argued that Islam provides a comprehensive framework to eradicate poverty. It does not agree to have a section of population who will depend on charity or others’ favours, but if poverty emerges despite such a poverty- averting framework, it suggests ways and means to handle it. He further argued that Islam prescribes a crash program to alleviate entrenched poverty and a systematic approach to alleviate even general poverty. He classified the poverty alleviation strategies in Islam in the following three measures: (i) income-enhancement strategies; (ii) improving non-income aspects such as health and education; and (iii) increasing access to physical facilities, resources and employment. He argued that in this system, the poverty- alleviation strategies and policies are multi-dimensional and one of them is charity. Sadeq (2002) cited three types of charity in Islam:

348

35 36 • Compulsory charity: Zakat and Fitrah 37 • Optional charity: Sadaqah 38 • Perpetual charity: Waqf

He further argued that the compulsory and optional forms of charity within Islam deal with the poverty problem by adopting basically a re-distributive approach, while the perpetual charity can be used to enhance the ‘capabilities’ of the poor to take care of themselves by providing access to education, health, physical facilities and employment.

As discussed above, traditionally wealthy people and the NGOs (see Chapter 4) have been performing charity work in Bangladesh for decades. Consecutive governments have also offered a number of programs for the poor. Chapter 4 shows that government interventions have increased over time. On the other hand, Mahmud (2009) argued that NGOs’ charity role has been shrinking. He noted that NGOs have moved far away from their original goal of providing welfare, towards money-making out of their programs. The role of wealthy people in charity can be an issue for further research, but in this study the respondents from the rural poor experienced little or no contribution from either the wealthy or the NGOs (discussed in Chapter 8).

35 Zakat is a religious levy binding on every solvent Muslim family who has more than 85 grams of gold or equivalent of cash, other financial assets or merchandise, or 595 grams of silver for a year.

36 Fitrah is a religious levy binding on every Muslim family to pay to any poor person before Eid-ul-Fitr. Rate of Fitrah for per person of the family is fixed according to prevailing price of 1.75 kg of wheat, by the religious leaders before Eid. 37 Sadaqah is an Islamic term that means voluntary charity, such as a charitable act, charitable giving, or money given in charity with the intention of seeking the pleasure of Allah. 38 Waqf is the locking up of the title of an owned asset from disposition and allotment of its benefits for a specific purpose or purposes. It’s a voluntary charity practised by the Muslims. 349

The above discussion shows that the Islamic approach to poverty alleviation does not support the dependence of poor people on charity for a long time; rather, it prefers enhancing the capabilities of the poor to take care of themselves. The short-term charity can be used for a temporary period to address transient poverty. In this context one line of a popular Bangla poem can be cited: “Nobir shikhya korona vikhya, mehonot koro shobe [Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) advised not to beg but to work]”. In the following sections it can be seen that the respondents of this research also expressed similar insights into the Islamic approach.

9.3.1 Work: The most effective approach to combat poverty In a country like Bangladesh, where 31.5% of the total 160 million population live below the poverty line, it is doubtful whether or not the government is capable of supporting all the poor. Further, employment opportunities for the rural poor are limited. Against this back-drop, some of the rural poor participants, both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, argued that the government cannot provide food or cash support to all the poor as the number of people living in poverty is too large. They also observed that creating work opportunities for people who are physically able is the most effective approach to combating poverty. The question was not directly asked of any of the interviewees whether the cash or in-kind support by the government or work opportunities are the most sustainable way of escaping poverty; rather, when asked to give their suggestions, some of them raised the issue spontaneously. Most of the interviewees (14 out of 20) did not express their preference between work and charity as none of them were asked to do so, but those who spontaneously expressed their opinion preferred work to charity. Three out of 10 beneficiaries, and three out of 10

350

non-beneficiaries, volunteered their opinion that they preferred work than receive government support.

One of the beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance (Bashir Uddin) argued that, “Relief is not the solution. It creates dependency. We need to create employment opportunities for those who are physically able”. They were concerned about the consequences of relief dependence for the next generation and they wanted self-reliance. One of the beneficiaries argued:

Government can train us; for example, government can provide us tailoring training and give us a sewing machine. With it I can manage my livelihood. We cannot depend on the government. There are many poor people. Government cannot take care of all of us. My son is reading in Madrasah39 now. We have to work on our own to manage our family. (Hafsa)

Another beneficiary clearly affirmed his preference for work rather than charity:

Of course, job opportunities are better. Then we did not need such charity. Here in our area the employment opportunity is very limited since here the rate of poverty is high. We need mills/factories here. We need work opportunities. They pledge to give but do not implement their pledges. We don’t prefer charity. We have very limited farmland. If mills or factories are created we’ll get opportunities for employment. (Mafizur Rahman)

39 Madrasah is Muslim educational institution specialising in the teaching of Islamic studies and Arabic; some Madrasah teach the national curriculum in addition. 351

The statements by these beneficiaries reveal that they perceived the government support as charity. As there are lot of poor people in the country, the government cannot afford to support all of them in the long-term. They were also concerned about future generations who are going to school or other educational institutions – they preferred work opportunities for their children. They clearly showed that they were anxious and fearful about the future of their children. Similarly, they did not have the equal opportunity for employment with other parts of the country, particularly the cities.

One of the most noteworthy innovations of this research is that three of the non-beneficiaries, who were also qualified for a program but not included in any SSNP, held a similar view to beneficiaries in seeing the benefits as a charity. One non-beneficiary (Motaleb Hossain) was very much concerned about the dependence on relief. He said that “We should not depend on relief for generations. Government should establish some industries here to create employment opportunities”. Another non-beneficiary, however, argued for government support for the most vulnerable poor, but wanted the government to focus on employment generation rather than relief activities. He said:

Government can create some employment opportunities. This is good for us. There are many poor people. Poor people should be given adequate support. Only the poor people should be considered for such benefits. Government should focus on employment generation rather than relief activities. (Prodip)

The statements by three of the non-beneficiaries also show that they thought they should not depend on government support for generations. As the non- beneficiaries were not receiving any government support, it was likely that they would advocate only for their inclusion into the programs. But three of 352

them preferred work opportunities as opposed to charity. They argued that only the most vulnerable poor should receive adequate benefits, and the government should emphasise creating work opportunities for those who are physically able to work. This indicates their long-term goal for their children – namely, that they should have sustainable employment. The above discussion reflects the themes of the capabilities approach which emphasises peoples’ agency and self-esteem. Despite being poor 6 out of 20 respondents do not want to depend on charity for a long time. This can be related to the cultural context of Bangladesh where a physically fit person completely relies on other’s support are not always be regarded as a dignified person.

When asked about the views of the mid-level officials regarding the preference of work opportunities and government support, the participants of the FGD at the local level also asserted the necessity of SSNPs for short- term relief and suggested creating employment opportunities in the long-term. One of the participants said:

The paradox is it makes people relief dependent but again the withdrawal of the program after a certain time [for example, two years for the VGD] cannot help poverty reduction or food security. What could be the best way to deal with it? We have to create employment opportunities. Food support is a short-term strategy. (FGD1_Dimla)

Some senior officials also expressed their preference for the creation of employment opportunities over short-term food support. One of the senior officials responsible for implementation of the VGD program, recognising the importance of employment generation programs for sustainable development, emphasised comprehensive approaches while recommending SSNPs operate in poverty pockets: 353

Safety net programs are designed to address a special group of people, not all, who have been derailed. It could be compared with a crane. In my opinion SSNP is a crane in the social sector used to bring people back onto the rails and back to the development stream. (Iv21_DWA)

From the above discussion, in all the three categories of respondents, some thought creating work opportunities was the best option for combating poverty rather than relying on government support. They were also concerned about the people who were very poor and physically unable to work. The respondents seemed to have strong feelings about these issues. They strongly expressed the opinion that government should continue to support this particularly vulnerable group of people.

Some previous studies also corroborated the findings of this research. Hyder (1996) argued:

What the Bangladesh experience demonstrates most clearly is that protracted relief assistance can lead to an accumulation of bad habits, to be avoided at all cost. Relief, therefore, should be limited in time and scope to the direst cases of need. (Hyder, 1996, pp. 30-31)

Cromwell and Slater (2004), referring to the Southern African food crisis in 2002-03 argued:

Safety nets form one part of the broad range of social protection instruments. They can be appropriate in providing short-term support to the transitory food insecure, or to the chronically food insecure who are unable to work. It is important, though, to acknowledge that safety

354

nets can do more harm than good. (Cromwell & Slater, 2004, p. 13)

From the above discussion it is found that six of the key informants perceived that relief/charity is not the permanent solution of food insecurity, rather, it may create dependency on relief. They also argued that poor people should not depend on relief/charity for generations. Food support may be a short- term strategy during a crisis period. To achieve the long-term goal to escaping poverty they need work opportunities. Some of the mid-level and senior officials also agreed with the perceptions of these key informants.

9.3.2 Job creation: The obligation of the Government As discussed earlier, while some participants preferred work, rather than receive relief or charity, the reality is that work opportunities are limited in the region in which they live. This is more evident during the lean season – mainly from September to November and January to March – when work opportunities in the agriculture sector fall (Ahamad, Khondker, Ahmed, & Tanin, 2013; Kabeer, 2002; Zug, 2006). Sen’s capabilities approach can be connected with this situation. Generally, work opportunities in the area are very limited. Moreover, during the lean season the rural poor do not have work opportunities at all which impact on their income and food and nutrition entitlements severely. Capability 10 is relevant here which recognises having the right to seek equal employment opportunities. In this situation the respondents do not have equal employment opportunities with people in other areas particularly the cities. Moreover, they do not have any land and not enough money for investing in any production or business. Therefore, their capabilities are further affected adversely.

As there are no large-scale industries in the area, some people who are physically able to work, both men and women, move to the big cities and

355

distant districts where there are more work opportunities (Ahamad, Khondker, Ahmed, & Tanin, 2013; Zug, 2006). Most of them leave their families with uncertainty and insecurity of livelihood, particularly children and aged men and women, in the village. On the other hand those who migrate to the big cities and distant districts with their families need to then leave their young children unattended in their house when both the parents are working. As the grandparents are far away from the children they cannot look after them. Capability 5 describes the emotional capabilities of human beings, that is, to love those who love and care for them and no one’s emotional development should be blighted by fear and anxiety. In this instance, to find a job during the lean season people leave their families with uncertainty and insecurity. Their young children remain unattended. Grandparents cannot love and care their grandchildren because they are away from them. Both parents’ and children’s emotional development were blighted by anxiety.

In this context, some participants wanted the creation of job opportunities in their own area, so that they did not need to move to distant places for their work and leave all or part of their family. Out of 20 interviewees from the rural poor, 13 (6 beneficiaries and 7 non-beneficiaries) spoke out about the need for job creation. They suggested industrialisation in their locality, so that they do not need to migrate temporarily leaving their families with uncertainty and insecurity. They also advocated for creating opportunities for self- employment. They suggested that the government should provide training on various livelihood-based trades such as cow rearing, goat rearing, tailoring, sewing and rickshaw van pulling, and provide some capital support to start a business so that they can earn by themselves.

356

Localised industrialisation Two beneficiaries and one non-beneficiary expressed their views that the government should establish some industries in their locality. Another beneficiary and three non-beneficiaries did not mention industrialisation but suggested the government should create job opportunities in their own area. The local level FGD also admitted that industrialisation should be decentralised. One of the senior officials also argued that employment generation at the local level was required. He stated that they were negotiating with the organisations within the garment industry to construct small units of garment factories in that area.

One of the beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program suggested establishing industries in that area. He also raised a very important social and psychological issue. He categorically mentioned the difficulties faced by his son, who left his house to look for a job and now lives in a slum of Dhaka city:

Government can establish industries here in this part. My son and his family undergo extreme difficulty in Dhaka. They keep their two children locked while they go for work. We cannot go there to help them. If there were industries here we could help them; we could help the children while the parents go out for work. We don’t know how they manage life in Dhaka [with deep frustration]. Government should establish garments or other industries here. (Mohammad Alom)

The respondent here spoke with a highly emotive tone. His frustration highlights the social impacts of poverty, in particular, the gap between the ideal of poverty and its practice. Capability 5, which ensures one’s emotional development should not be blighted by fear and anxiety, is relevant here. The statement by the respondent clearly indicates that he was very anxious about 357

the physical, mental and emotional wellbeing of his grandchildren. One non- beneficiary of the SHOUHARDO-II program also expressed the same opinion of establishing industries in that area. He stated:

I have seen [in city area] many people, men and women alike; go to the industries [to work]. But here we have no industries. Here we have to depend on agriculture farming. Work opportunities in agriculture are limited. (Motaleb Hossain)

There is an assumption in this statement that policies of industrialisation will increase employment. This assumption connects to Capability 10B which focuses on an individual’s access to employment. Both statements by the beneficiary and non-beneficiary indicate that they did not have the equal employment opportunities with other areas of the country, particularly the big cities.

When asked his view on the issue, one of the senior officials, stating a necessity of localised industrialisation, informed the researcher of some of his hopes for growth in this area. He reported that the government was seriously thinking about the issue. He said:

But in the long run, we should think for development approach. We are thinking already, we are thinking to establish garment industries in the northern districts of Dinajpur and Rangpur. We have been creating training facilities for female workers, so that they can have the training living near their own home. We are negotiating with BGMEA [Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Export Association] and BKMEA [Bangladesh Knit Manufacturers and Export Association] that your number one condition is available workforce which we will supply.

358

So you construct small units of garment factories. You can produce a part of a pant or shirt there. Your product will be cost-effective and competitive. And they also, to some extent, agreed to construct garment units there. (Iv21_DWA)

For the senior official, the concern was policy implementation rather than just demand for work. The official noted the complexity of setting up industries, for example, the need for planning and implementation.

In summation, from the community level to the government level, there was a demand to establish industries locally so that more job opportunities could be created and people do not need to migrate too far from their home communities for work. The potential benefits of this strategy are multiple, and include ensuring job opportunities for people who are physically able to work, reducing dependency on SSNPs, reducing uncertainty and vulnerability of unattended children and old aged men and women, and increasing economic activities in local areas. This research also revealed that this could be a sustainable way of reducing poverty and ensure food security of the poor.

Self-employment opportunities Industrialisation is a lengthy process and is not only dependent on the government; the private sector is also a key player. Building infrastructure including electricity, roads and communication, is the precondition of industrialisation, all of which are long-term in nature. In the meantime, however, some respondents of this research suggested some short-term measures to create job opportunities for the rural poor. Four beneficiaries and four non-beneficiaries suggested the provision of self-employment opportunities for poor people. The local and the ministry level FGD and one of the senior officials also agreed with the importance of self-employment. 359

Beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program preferred self-employment, but they needed training and some capital. One argued:

Government should create some ways for us [to survive]. They can create employment opportunities for us, such as cow rearing. Government can give us training and thereby we can create self- employment opportunities. (Lucky)

Another one expressed his frustration regarding the length of the program and said:

They can give us support to purchase goat or cow for rearing. They gave the seed eight months ago, the money one month ago. Suppose if they stop now giving us the support, the same poverty will continue. Yes, that will happen. Yes, nothing permanent. They could train my son and give him some working capital. This could be better to alleviate poverty. (Mohammad Alom)

These beneficiaries used specific examples of how they can start self- employed ventures.

Like the beneficiaries, the non-beneficiaries also suggested self-employment options. One of the non-beneficiaries said:

When we get rice, we just consume it. But if we get something productive then we can manage our livelihood from it. The government should give us cows, goats, sewing machines, vans, etc. for income. We can get calves from the cows, we can sell milk, we can sell cow- dung and we can drink milk as well. Government should give us some permanent assets to ensure sustainable income. Government should 360

give us productive things instead of rice. Children are growing and we need to give them clothes and bear their education cost. Productive things will increase our income and that would be helpful. (Monwara Begum)

This research revealed that the majority of the rural poor (13 out of 20) preferred employment opportunities. They perceived that they needed some hands-on training in various livelihood trades, supported by some capital. They suggested some trades: cow rearing, goat rearing, tailoring, sewing and rickshaw van pulling. They wanted some permanent assets to ensure a sustainable income. They also thought about the future of their children – their education, clothing and other issues related to their children’s wellbeing. These suggestions reveal the practical grass-roots nature of how they conceived of both the problems and its possible solutions.

9.3.3 Cut benefits for people who are able to work The FGD at Dimla raised an issue on cutting benefits of people who are capable of working. One of the participants of the FGD suggested saving money from stopping relief programs for the people who are physically capable of working, and using this money to establish industries in the local areas. He was very harsh on government relief programs. He suggested:

Trade-based training with capital support could be an option. However, relief should continue only for the physically challenged people and old people. Relief programs should be stopped for the people who are able to work. From the money saved by doing this, the government should establish industries and other employment opportunities for the poor who are capable of work. (FGD1_Dimla)

361

Although most of the respondents in this research preferred work opportunities as the most effective approach to ensure food security and combat poverty, none of them, excepting one of the participants of the local FGD, suggested cutting the benefits currently received by the poor beneficiaries who are physically capable of working. One of the senior officials’ suggestions could be the appropriate solution at the policy level of this debate. He argued:

SNNPs are required for the people who are in abject poverty. But it should be an interim arrangement. At the same time, employment generation at the local level, using a comprehensive approach, is required to supplement the SSNP. Otherwise, after bringing them back to the rail the train will not move forward if there is no comprehensive poverty reduction approach. So, both are needed. If you implement only employment generation, poverty pockets will be remaining there. As a result, integrated development will not be achieved. But in the long run, we should think about the development approach. (Iv21_DWA)

However, the policy solution is only as effective as its implementation which relates directly to Capability 10B that focuses on material outcome. This Capability ensures the right to having property, both land and movable goods, and employment opportunities. However, it is evident that all the 20 respondents are poor; they do not have enough land or work opportunities from where they can earn regular income to have a decent life.

Only a few of the previous studies discussed the issue of employment generation. Matin and Hulme (2003) used the term ‘livelihood promotion approach’, not employment or work opportunities directly. Although it 362

mentioned public works programs as successful and effective programs, the World Bank (2006), emphasised program design and program management of existing SSNPs. Rahman and Choudhury (2012) argued that large-scale graduation out of poverty has not occurred within such a program cycle [of time limited programs such as the VGD] but the more meaningful issue has been whether sustainable graduation platforms have been built which can subsequently lead to graduation out of poverty. They recommended providing a ‘safety ladder’, not employment opportunity, to come out of poverty. Cromwell and Slater (2004) prefer ‘cash for work’ programs for able-bodied target beneficiaries, but they caution that cash for work must be complemented with direct support for people with disabilities. They recommended that policies to address chronic food insecurity must embrace both economic growth (raising incomes) as well as social protection [reducing the variance of incomes (and thus vulnerability), protecting the consumption of the chronically poor, and providing access to basic services]. Khuda (2011) discussed the benefits and some problems of the employment-generation programs of Bangladesh, but, in order to reduce the poverty rate to 15% by 2021, he recommended additional resources for SSNPs, a reduction of leakages, and improvements in overall program efficiency. He also argued that the focus should be more on development-oriented rather than on relief- type programs. The ILO (2010) cited two successful programs as public employment schemes and labelled them as the most common form of response in middle income countries: the Comprehensive Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program (CLEEP) in the Philippines and the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) in India.

The creation of employment opportunities is fundamental to the control over one’s material life. Without recognised work, the other capabilities are based

363

on something quite fragile. Kabeer (2002) argued that work should be treated as a right rather than a provisional welfare measure. She found that the public works programs in India and Bangladesh tend to be more effective than other forms of prevention and protection in reaching the poorest sections of the population. They have been more effective than either the public distribution system or the subsidised provision of credit. Kabeer’s argument appears to confirm what some of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries have stated with some passion. In Bangladesh, an evaluation of the three main food-based SSNPs found that the Food for Work and the Vulnerable Group Development programs appeared to be the most successful at targeting the poor, who made up 74% and 93% of their beneficiaries respectively (Kabeer, 2002, p. 22). However, it can be argued that success at targeting does not always mean a reduction in poverty. It is important to keep it in mind that other factors, which are discussed in Chapter 7, such as the small amount of benefits and the short duration (for the VGD 2 years in one’s life time) of the programs, may hinder the programs achieving their goals.

CARE-Bangladesh, which not only executes the WFP project but also contributes to Food for Work projects in its own right, also reviewed its own Food for Work project and decided to shift to a Food-for-Development project in order “to achieve a yet greater focus on development rather than relief” (Hyder, 1996, p. 30). Kabeer (2002) noted:

The program [the Food-for-Development] continues to play a safety net role by providing work to destitute women in rural areas. Ten women from each local government unit are selected to form a self- managed association contracted to maintain 20 kilometres of rural earthen roads, for four-year periods. Wages are paid into a bank to

364

maintain savings. At the end they are provided with 9 months any livelihood-based training, so that they can use their saving to start-up businesses. (Kabeer, 2002, p. 29)

Here, a further issue is how to ensure that such businesses will be successful. The discussions of the previous literature earlier show that, unlike the current research, none of the studies directly used the term ‘work opportunities’ or ‘employment generation’, rather they used ‘livelihood promotion’, ‘safety ladder’, and ‘development-oriented programs’. The respondents of this study clearly argued for creating work opportunities and income generation activities for them.

9.4 Integrated safety net policy This section discusses the policy issue regarding formulation of an integrated safety net policy for the country. As discussed in Chapter 4, a number of SSNPs are in place in Bangladesh and several ministries and departments are implementing these programs. There is a little or no coordination amongst the program providers and the implementing ministries and departments. Thus, there is no integrated safety net policy. The participants of the FGD at the ministry level wanted to formulate an integrated safety net policy. One of the participants said, “We can develop a sustainable and integrated safety net policy including all the programs and all the ministries” (FGD2_MoSW). Another participant of the same FGD expressed her insights which focus on a holistic family-based approach:

In the economy like ours, we cannot bring them out from poverty only by the Old Age Allowance. But the government should run some other activities for them. Government is disbursing student stipend, microcredit, etc. Poverty is a comprehensive issue. The Old Age 365

Allowance is just for some social upliftment of the person. But if we think poverty alleviation, we have to consider the condition of other members of the family. If we can implement an integrated program for all members of the family, for example, boys and girls are going to school, capable persons are employed, the family can get rid of poverty. If the other members of the family remain poor they cannot support the old age people. If we can make them capable to maintain their family, the old people will not come to receive old age allowance. The solvent son will no more allow his father to go to government support. So, in a nutshell, our answer is that government is not only for providing old age allowance, but it has other responsibilities to uplift the whole family. (FGD2_MoSW)

Mannan (2010, p. 59) noted that the Bangladesh Government has implemented a range of safety net policies but there is no national strategy paper. He recommended that there should be a national policy on social protection. The World Bank (2006, p. 36) also recommended that the focus should be on developing a national policy that leads to a coordinated inter- ministerial approach on social safety nets, minimizing overlaps between programs, and setting uniform targeting criteria for similar programs. Hulme, Maitrot, Rango, and Rahman (2014, pp. 17-18) noted the disjointed nature of the contemporary program portfolio (with 82 programs), a lack of strategic vision, and poor governance, which posed problems for consolidating the social safety nets into a social protection system in a future middle-income Bangladesh. They argued that this is a key moment of Bangladesh’s history as the country is moving from being a rural low income country to an urban middle income country, and the present portfolio of social protection programs need to be reformed to provide the basis of an effective national

366

social protection system. They further argued that if Bangladesh wishes to avoid being like India – becoming a middle income country with mass poverty and disparity between those who are rich and those who are poor – it must pursue economic growth whilst systematically converting its social safety net programs into a national social protection system. Rahman, Hulme, Maitrot, and Rango (2014, p. 352) argued that in an age of economic globalisation, an effective and evolving social protection system is central to the achievement of inclusive development. To attain this, Bangladesh must rapidly formulate and implement a national social protection strategy, they argued. They also cautioned that the reform of social protection systems is only likely to be achieved if national leaders (political, business, civil society and intellectual) can be persuaded to take up the challenge.

The list of SSNPs published by the Ministry of Finance shows that in 2014- 2015 financial year, the ministry funds as many as 145 SSNPs (see Appendix 1). Out of 145, 52 programs are permanent in nature and the remaining 93 programs are time limited. These programs are implemented by several ministries and departments. Some of the ministries and divisions include: the Ministry of Social Welfare, the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs, the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, the Ministry of Liberation War Affairs, the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, and the Local Government Division. There is limited or no coordination among the programs and the concerned ministries and departments. There is no integrated safety net policy as well. As such, there is a huge demand from almost all the stakeholders of the SSNPs to formulate an integrated social safety net policy for the country.

367

9.5 Conclusion This chapter has explored the views, perceptions and suggestions advanced by the participants to improve the existing SSNPs as a tool for ensuring food security of the rural poor of Bangladesh. The two groups of rural poor people (beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries), the field level government officials, local government representatives, bank and NGO officials, and senior officials of implementing departments and ministries, offered their views on how the life of the rural poor can be improved. They suggested some specific recommendations related to food security and SSNPs, but they also offered some insights which may be considered in policy formulation for broader development perspectives and poverty reduction.

The views of participants were not consistent on different issues and not every respondent offered their views on each issue. On some issues, the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries provided contrasting insights while other times both groups expressed the same view. The middle managers and the senior officials also agreed with some suggestions given by the rural poor, but their perceptions were broader than the beneficiaries and the non- beneficiaries. Regarding increasing the number of beneficiaries, the beneficiaries were reluctant to share their views, but the non-beneficiaries suggested increasing the number of beneficiaries. The officials suggested the number of beneficiaries should be determined according to the magnitude of poverty in an area. On the other hand, regarding increasing the amount of money, the beneficiaries, the non-beneficiaries and the officials expressed the same view that the amount should be increased, although the amounts they suggested were different. Similarly, on creating work opportunities and income generation programs, most of the beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries and officials made the same argument: the government support should be

368

continued for the most deserving poor, but in the long-term the government should emphasise the creation of work opportunities at the local level. Some issues, such as bank accounts, ward-based distribution, waiting lists, a database, and an integrated safety net policy were raised by middle and senior officials.

Findings discussed in this chapter suggest that some of the rural poor were deprived of their emotional capabilities in two ways: they could not love and care for their loved ones; and their emotions were affected by anxiety. The importance of being involved in processes that affect their life is echoed by them which are articulated in Capability 10. Their right to equal employment opportunities were not met as the work opportunities in the area are limited, additionally during the lean season they do not have any work opportunities. Therefore, their entitlements of capabilities, particularly food and nutrition capabilities were not ensured. To address the issue in a sustainable manner they offered insights which may be useful to consider in policy development as well as some measures to improve the programs’ efficiency.

Although the respondents of this research provided some invaluable insights to improving the life of the rural poor, it might be argued that all of their suggestions are not feasible for the government to implement immediately. They expressed their opinions from their own point of view; government needs to consider these views in the broader context and consider which are feasible and affordable and amend the policy accordingly. They offered insights which may be useful to consider in policy development for the betterment of the existing SSNPs and combating poverty in a comprehensive way.

369

Chapter 10: Conclusion

10.0 Introduction The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Bangladesh is a signatory, and the Constitution of Bangladesh both include the need for safe and sufficient food for every citizen of the country. This research has shown that food security is fundamental to people in poverty being able to fulfil their capabilities in all spheres of their lives. When the researcher talked to poor people, he found that if they have not got food security obtaining food becomes the primary focus of their lives. Their responses suggest that they cannot do the other things that are important to live a full life. They were unable to get regular employment and they expressed feelings of powerlessness.

The central focus of this research was to explore the perceptions, insights and experiences of the rural poor living in one of the poorest areas of Bangladesh. In particular, in order to deepen our understanding of their food problems and possible solutions from their point of view finding out the perceived impacts of five selected SSNPs on food security and other aspects of their lives. In doing so, this dissertation has critically examined the perceptions of two groups of rural poor: beneficiaries of the five selected programs, and non-beneficiaries of SSNPs who would have qualified for a program. This thesis has explored how they perceived their food security and how they thought their lack of food security could be resolved in order to ensure sustainable improvements to their lives. This research also has explored the responses of a group of middle and senior level government, non-government and bank officials, as well as local government representatives, who are responsible for the formulation of policy, the

370

selection of beneficiaries and the implementation and ongoing management of the programs.

The conclusion to this thesis has four sections. It begins (Section 10.1) with a recapitulation of the research objectives and questions, and a summary of findings on each question. Section 10.2 describes the limitations of this research. Section 10.3 outlines the contribution of this research to knowledge and suggests directions for further research. Finally, Section 10.4 discusses the implications of the research findings on policy and practice.

This research has used the capabilities approach and the participatory approach to understand the food security and poverty issues of the rural poor. The capabilities approach is a comprehensive way of understanding people’s well-being which includes a broad range of human needs such as food and nutrition, education, health, emotional development, freedom of choice and expression, self-respect and non-humiliation, the right to participate in community activities, and the right to equal employment opportunities. This approach emphasises people’s right to choose the way of life they have reason to value (capabilities). In this sense, they should have potential opportunities from which they can choose. It also stresses people’s right to achieve the capabilities which mean they are able to be and do what they want to (functionings). The participatory approach also emphasises people’s participation in the policy and program formulation and management that affect their lives. Although the focus of this research is on food security of the rural poor, the findings of this study reveal that the rural poor, in addition to their food problems, were also concerned about other needs such as self- esteem and dignity, emotional development, health and medical care, employment opportunities and sustainable livelihoods.

371

The other theories discussed in Chapter 3 such as the neoclassical approach, the political economy of poverty, the culture of poverty and the basic needs approach cannot explain all of the issues the rural poor have raised. The neoclassical approach and the basic needs approach would have revealed only people’s right to food, health and education. The political economy of poverty would have explored the existing inequality in the community and the culture of poverty would have discussed the historical background of the rural poor and why they became poor and remain in poverty for long. However, the capabilities approach and the participatory approach have helped the researcher to understand the food security issues along with other problems in a holistic way. The contribution of the capabilities approach and the participatory approach to understand the findings of the current research will be discussed in the next section.

10.1 Summary of major findings As discussed in Chapter 1, this research aimed to better understand the experiences of a group of people in poverty who either receive or do not receive a benefit from an SSNP. This study aimed to explore the perceived strengths and weaknesses of SSNPs as a means to ensure food security of the beneficiaries, and to explore the implications of current perceptions of SSNPs by participants in relation to policy and practice. To attain these research aims this thesis had four research questions (Section 1.2). This section highlights the key findings from this research on how far it has been able to answer these questions.

10.1.1 What are the perceptions of participants about the impact of the SSNPs on food security? This study was a unique opportunity for the researcher to experience how rural poor people live: how often they eat, what they eat, how they perceive

372

their food problems, and how they think these problems could be solved. This researcher found that the interviewees understood the problems of not having food security, although they often felt powerless to change their situation. Further they were aware of the inadequacies of their diet and were aware of the importance of nutritious food items such as meat, fish, milk, eggs or fruits. However, due to economic hardship they could not afford these items regularly. This was a source of concern to everyone interviewed, and particularly those responsible for children.

The beneficiaries acknowledged the SSNPs limited impact on their food security. They knew that if they did not get the benefits they had to face more uncertainty of food security. However, they perceived that the benefits provided by the programs were inadequate. All five programs were fulfilling a partial food requirement of the beneficiaries, but none of them alone were adequate to ensure complete food security. Moreover, the short duration of three of the programs (the VGD, the VGF and the SHOUHARDO-II) impeded the perceived impact on food security in the long-term. After the termination of the program, the beneficiaries returned to having uncertain food security.

In addition, the efficiency and effectiveness of the programs were seen to be further reduced due to what participants perceived as corrupt practices such as bribes, leakages, nepotism and political interference by the selectors and program managers. The beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries highlighted the problems faced during both the selection process and the disbursement of the benefits. These included: repeated visits or requests to the selectors for inclusion; no transparent system of selection for programs managed by the government and local government officials; no adequate official publicity about the programs; spending extra money for transport and food; staying for

373

a considerable time, often the whole day, to receive the benefit; and misbehaviour by the concerned officials. These practices undermine people’s emotional development (Capability 5) and the right to having self-respect and non-humiliation (Capability 7).

In comparison to the programs managed by the government and local government officials, this research found that the two participants involved in the SHOUHARDO-II program, run by an NGO, thought the selection process was fair. This program is managed by a nominated NGO under the supervision of CARE Bangladesh. This research also found more complaints of leakages in food-based programs such as the VGD and the VGF that were disbursed by the local government officials. The four beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women did not complain of any shortage of their benefits because they were cash benefits rather than food. Although the SHOUHARDO-II program delivered food and/or cash benefits, no leakages complaints were reported by its two beneficiaries. This suggests that the disbursement through a banking or NGO channel might be better than the local government channel.

Most of the previous studies found a significant impact of the programs on food consumption while a few researchers claimed a limited impact. Ahmed (2000) and Rahman and Choudhury (2012) argued that the programs could not improve the nutritional status of the beneficiaries. The current research, although it revealed a limited impact of the programs on food security of the beneficiaries, argues that all five programs failed to ensure complete food security of the beneficiaries. Despite an improvement in number of meals per day, it is remarkable that the intervention by SSNPs had limited impact on the

374

nutritional status of the beneficiaries compared to non-beneficiaries. This requires more attention by the policy makers.

Regarding the management of the programs, the findings of the current research corroborate the previous studies. Like other studies (BARD, 2012; BIDS, 2012; Mannan, 2010; Rahman & Choudhury, 2012), this research argues that the efficiency of the programs was reduced due to corrupt practices and misbehaviour by the program managers. In addition, the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries also faced many problems during the selection and disbursement process which also supports the previous research findings (BARD, 2012; Begum & Wesumperuma, 2012; Hasan, Mahbubuzzaman, & Chowdhury, 2012; RDA, 2012). However, the SHOUHARDO-II participants stated that their involvement in the selection process of the program assisted in making it fairer and transparent. The current research thus suggests that the involvement of potential recipients in the program development and process may reduce some of the problems associated with the biased selection of beneficiaries and leakages. The importance of being involved in processes that affect their lives which is articulated in Capability 10 as well as in the participatory approach is echoed by the respondents.

The capabilities approach asks (among other things) whether the conditions that ensure people’s safe and sufficient food supplies and food entitlements are present in a community. The findings of the current research show that these conditions were not present. The participation in the SSNPs could not ensure the beneficiaries’ access to safe and sufficient food supplies and food entitlements in a sustainable way. The limited resources they received from the five programs could not ensure their capability ‘to be able to be

375

nourished’; therefore, they could not achieve the functioning ‘to be nourished’. The responses suggested that the failure to be able to ensure food security limited their capabilities in other parts of their lives.

10.1.2 How do the participants perceive the SSNPs’ impact on aspects of their lives, in addition to food security? As discussed in Chapter 4, the aims of the five selected SSNPs, alongside the main focus of the food security, are to promote women’s empowerment and dignity of the beneficiaries, improve socio-economic status, and medical care. In addition to food security, this research has explored the perceived impacts of these five programs on empowering women, increasing income and reducing poverty, earning dignity in the family and society, and increasing use of medical care. This research found that, out of 20 respondents, nine did not have any idea of what women’s empowerment is. More importantly, five of these nine were women. Although one of the aims of these programs is to promote women’s empowerment, it is surprising that some of the beneficiaries were not aware of this aim and did not understand the meaning of it. Only one woman, a beneficiary who was the most educated (year 10) among the 20 rural poor, comprehended the term holistically. The inability of the others to understand the term may have been due to limited education or language issues. However, it would seem to be important that this program aim should be discussed with participants in an accessible way. Most of the participants who responded to the question, perceived the term ‘women’s empowerment’ to mean an increase in the status of women in the family. Owing to the benefit they received they thought that the status of the women was increased in the family with some participants discussing improved self-esteem and self-confidence; an increased capacity to take decisions independently; increased participation in the decision making process in the family; some control over resources; and having children’s 376

education. It also found that the five selected programs were seen to impact peripherally on increasing income and reducing poverty, earning dignity and improving access to medical care.

Most of the previous studies (Ahmed, 2007; BARD, 2012; Begum & Paul- Majumder, 2001; del Ninno & Dorosh, 2002; Mannan, 2010; Mannan & Ahmed, 2012; Matin & Hulme, 2003; Paul-Majumder & Begum, 2008; Rahman & Choudhury, 2012; RDA, 2012) found that the programs enhanced women’s empowerment, increased family income, improved the dignity of beneficiaries, and improved access to medical care. However, the current research found the improvement of these aspects of the rural poor appeared to be limited. In particular, although this research argues that as food security is the primary concern, if people needed to buy some necessary assets or required emergency medical care, they were likely to compromise their food consumption notably.

The capabilities approach emphasises access to good health (Capability 2), and highlights the right to self-respect and dignity of every person (Capability 7). This research found only a marginal impact of the programs on ensuring access to medical care, increasing women’s empowerment, and increasing the dignity of the beneficiaries.

10.1.3 What similarities and differences in perceptions of SSNPs are there between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries? This study found only small differences in frequency of daily meals and their composition, and the nutritional status between the beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries. In terms of the perception of the impact of the programs on food security, women’s empowerment and other aspects of their lives, both the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries perceived that the programs had a

377

limited impact. The beneficiaries felt a bit reassured that they had at least some support while the non-beneficiaries did not have any support, so they believed that the beneficiaries were in a better condition compared to them. However, this study found a difference between the beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries’ perceptions regarding adequacy of benefits, leakages and coverage of the programs. As the beneficiaries were included in a program they had more understanding of both the adequacy of its allowance and leakages from the programs. They were not interested in discussing the low coverage of the programs and suggesting increasing the coverage. The non- beneficiaries, on the other hand, were more concerned about the low coverage of the programs although they also perceived the programs’ benefits as inadequate. Similarly, when the two groups were suggesting measures which they thought would improve the programs’ efficiency, the beneficiaries were more concerned about enhancing benefits and reducing corrupt practices. On the other hand, the non-beneficiaries were more concerned about their inclusion in a program. However, some of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries perceived the government support as charity or relief; they said that they preferred work to charity for themselves and their children. Most of the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries argued for an enhanced amount of benefit for the people who need it most, but in order to create work opportunities for people who are physically able to work, they advocated establishing industries in their area for ensuring better and more sustainable livelihoods.

The literature review for this dissertation found only a few previous studies (Islam, 2009; Rahman & Choudhury, 2012) that explored the experiences of both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries regarding impacts of the programs on food security and other aspects of their lives. The current research

378

explored the perceptions of both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, and found mostly similarities between them. Both the beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries perceived that the benefits provided by the programs were inadequate and were associated with many corrupt practices and problems. As a result, the impacts of the programs were limited.

10.1.4 What are the implications of the perceptions of the participants for policy and practice? This research gathered a range of suggestions from the perceptions of the participants to improve the efficiency of the programs as well as the livelihoods of the rural poor. The participants perceived that the benefits of the programs should be increased to a great extent (shown in Table 9.1) to ensure complete food security of the beneficiaries. With a view to covering all the qualified candidates, the non-beneficiaries suggested increasing the number of beneficiaries of the programs. To increase the efficiency of the programs, the participants suggested a number of measures such as opening a permanent bank account for each beneficiary of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women; fixing separate dates for distribution of benefits for each Ward to reduce waiting times; preparing a waiting list of potential program beneficiaries; engaging government officials in selection and disbursement processes; and developing a database. At a more strategic level one of the senior officials suggested formulating an integrated social safety net policy. The majority of the participants have suggested creating work opportunities for themselves and their children to ensure sustained livelihoods. Six out of the 20 interviewees considered the SSNPs to be charity or relief, arguing that the poor must not be left to depend on charity for generation after generation; rather they preferred work opportunities to relief. The majority of participants advocated for establishing industries in their area, which could impact their 379

lives in different ways. It would contribute to increased economic activity in local areas while reducing dependency on SSNPs. It would also reduce the rate of migration of family members to the cities, and reduce the uncertainty and vulnerability of unattended children and older men and women of their families.

The previous literature that assessed SSNPs in Bangladesh, including the five programs examined in this research, suggested a range of measures to increase the efficiency of the programs. These measures include: increasing the amount of benefits (only a few studies), increasing the coverage of the programs, improving the distribution system, developing a database, and formulating an integrated safety net policy. The participants in the current research (the rural poor, the middle managers and the senior officials) also support these suggestions and add the following:

- Opening a low cost permanent bank account for beneficiaries of cash payments (the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ deserted Destitute Women) so that beneficiaries can withdraw their allowance money from their bank account when convenient - Distributing benefits on different days for different Wards - Preparing a waiting list for the programs that directed to do so to ensure transparency in selection - Involving government officials during selection and disbursement processes to ensure fair selection and better distribution - Selecting beneficiaries in the presence of all the qualified candidates to ensure transparency.

380

The most noteworthy finding of this research is that, although the non- beneficiaries suggested including them in a program, most (seven out of 10), along with some beneficiaries (six out of 10), advocated for creating work opportunities for themselves and their children. Moreover, three beneficiaries and three non-beneficiaries perceived the government support as charity and preferred working to receiving government support. Some of the rural poor raised the issue of affordability for the government to support all the poor by providing direct cash or food for a long period. This understanding of the macro issues by the rural poor signifies that while they might be poor or less educated, some of them knew their own problems and had some understanding of the difficulties of solving them.

In this context, the capabilities approach, as well as the participatory approach, is pertinent to discuss. Capability 5 endorses the right to be able to love those who love and care for them and one’s emotional development should not be blighted by fear and anxiety. This research revealed that some of the participants were anxious about the future of their children and some of them felt powerless when their children or grandchildren were insecure and when their family was forced to separate for financial reasons (discussed in Section 9.3.2). The participatory approach (discussed in Chapter 3) argues for direct participation of the poor in the formation of policy, the development of programs, the implementation at the local level, and sharing the benefits of programs (Silva & Athukorala, 1996). While Capability 10 highlights control over one’s environment and advocates for the right of participation and equal employment opportunities, the rural poor were mostly deprived of participation in the selection of beneficiaries or program management (discussed in Section 8.3.6), as well as employment opportunities (discussed in Section 9.3.2).

381

10.1.5 Is the glass half full or half empty? While most of the previous studies suggest the SSNPs have a significant impact on food security and other aspects of poor people’s lives, it is important to ask a question as to whether ‘the glass is half full or half empty’. In the case of five selected SSNPs the question arises whether the benefits provided by them are adequate to meet the requirements of the beneficiaries if considered alone. As argued above, evidence from the current research and the previous studies illustrates that the benefits from any of these five programs alone is far below the poverty level set by the World Bank or the Numbeo. If the World Bank standard is considered, the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women cover only 10.7% of the required amount, the VGD covers 37.3% for two years, the VGF covers 12.4% in a short period, and the SHOUHARDO-II covers just over a month’s demand in a one-off payment for Component 1 and 17.7% for a period up to a child’s second birthday for Component 2. If we consider the Numbeo standard the coverage will be even less.

These conclusions are drawn considering that the benefits are the only income for the beneficiaries. If the beneficiaries work in addition to the benefits they receive, life would be a bit better. However, as discussed earlier, the beneficiaries of the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women were more than sixty years of age and could not engage in paid employment due to their physical condition. Moreover, work opportunities were very limited in that area. So the beneficiaries of the other three programs who were physically capable of working needed to migrate temporarily to the cities, which might create other psycho-social problems of uncertainty and insecurity for children and older men and women left behind. This research found that two beneficiaries of the

382

Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women and one beneficiary of the Old Age Allowance had no income other than the benefits. The remaining seven beneficiaries had a monthly income of BDT 1300–4000 (USD 16.26–50) for their households. All the beneficiaries had at least one to four dependents. This indicates that including all their income and benefits, the beneficiaries could at best manage on an average of one person’s required expenses based on the World Bank standard. Therefore, it can be argued that despite a limited positive impact of these programs on ensuring food security of the beneficiaries the glass is not even half full.

10.2 Limitations of the study There are some limitations and caveats to methodological approaches adopted throughout this research that need to be taken into consideration. The first and foremost limitation of this research is that, like all other qualitative studies, this research can be criticised for its small number of respondents. This researcher interviewed only two beneficiaries from each program, which reduces the ability to generalise from these findings. If more respondents from each program had been interviewed, the conclusions would be stronger. However, considering the small number of respondents for each program the researcher has taken care not to generalise the findings of this study. To overcome the limitation in the future research, the researcher suggests including lesser number of programs and higher number of beneficiaries for each program.

One of the disputed methods used in this research could be the selection of non-beneficiary respondents. Using a list of ‘Poor and Extreme Poor (PEP)’ made by the SHOUHARDO-II program, the researcher selected 50 people who were not included in any SSNP and sent them a letter inviting them to participate in the research. The 10 non-beneficiary respondents were finally 383

recruited from 20 people who expressed their willingness to participate in the research. Although the non-beneficiary respondents were selected considering the selection criteria of each program, and the researcher tried to match the two groups, this researcher cannot claim that they were completely corresponding with the beneficiary respondents. As there was no statistical data available in that area for the potential beneficiaries and the poor the researcher had to depend on the PEP list. In future a data base for all the poor and the beneficiaries could be made as suggested in Chapter 9 which can help to select the non-beneficiary respondents in a reasonable way.

This research has used a semi-structured interview with respondents. Interview questions were not pre-tested elsewhere due to time constraints. This limitation affected the researcher because it became clear that some questions, particularly in relation to women’s empowerment, were difficult for some participants to understand. The researcher had to explain these questions. This problem was increased by the different dialect used by participants in the research to that spoken by the researcher. As discussed in Chapter 5, the total period of fieldwork was three months. The researcher spent five weeks in one phase and another week in the last phase in Dimla. If more time could be spent in the field, more insights could be gathered on how people in this region live. To address the limitation the researcher further developed the semi-structured interview guideline after a few initial interviews which proved effective. The quality of the interviews conducted after a few days were better than the earlier interviews. For further research the time for fieldwork should be at least six months and the interview schedule should be pre-tested.

384

Generally, in rural Bangladesh women are reserved to speak to a male stranger. In this research, out of 20 respondents 12 were women. As a man, the researcher faced an initial hurdle to reach them. To establish rapport with the women this researcher used the man of the family to introduce the interviewer to the interviewee. The researcher mainly interviewed the respondents in their yard or any open place where other members of the family sat not too far away. As no questions of a private nature or intra- household affairs were asked, the respondents did not appear to be embarrassed to respond to the questions posed. However, the presence of other members of the family might limit their responses. In future research it would be beneficial to have a female interviewer to interview women.

As discussed in Chapter 5, the rural poor talk in a local dialect of Bangla language, so some words or phrases were unknown and difficult to comprehend for the researcher. As a result the researcher hired an interpreter from the Upazila. Although the interpreter was trained in his job before going to the field, there was a potential risk of interference by the interpreter. However, the role of the interpreter was limited. His intervention was required only when the researcher or the interviewee could not understand particular words or phrases.

Similarly, a professional transcriber in Dhaka, who belongs to the same district, was required to translate and transcribe the interview recordings which were conducted at Dimla as local dialects of Bangla language were used by the respondents that the researcher could not comprehend fully. This intervention by the transcriber may affect the quality of data. Although the researcher could understand most of the words used by the rural respondents, there were some words or phrases that were difficult for him to

385

comprehend. However, this researcher translated and transcribed the two interviews of senior officials and two focus group discussions. The researcher also verified the data transcribed by the hired transcriber and amended when required.

Although it has examined the perceived impacts of selected SSNPs on the food security of the rural poor, this research has used the subjective or experiential approach to explore the respondents’ views and perceptions about their food problems. Perceptions do not always reflect the actual problem; there are possibilities of exaggeration on the one hand or underestimation on the other. However, this researcher felt that, to a significant extent, the perceptions of the rural poor based on their experiences contribute to identifying the problems and solutions from their perspective.

In this context, it is indeed important to note that this researcher adopted a methodological approach which does not claim that the data presents an objective, full, accurate, and complete picture of food security and the impacts of the selected SSNPs. Rather, this research findings depict the perceptions and viewpoints of the respondents from rural poor people and middle and senior officials. However, it did add to our knowledge about how poor people see their food problems and the impacts of the SSNPs.

10.3 Contribution and directions for further research This research has explored rural poor people’s perceptions on their food problems and impacts of the five selected SSNPs on their lives. This research reveals a limited impact of these programs on improving food security, empowering women, increasing income and reducing poverty, increasing dignity, and improving access to medical care of the beneficiaries. 386

The perceived efficiency of four of the programs was reduced due to corrupt practices such as bribes, leakages, nepotism, and political interference by the selectors and managers. The other program (the SHOUHARDO-II) also lacked oversight by the local supervisor. Other research has also revealed corrupt practices in SSNPs; however, most of it did not discuss whether the benefits themselves were adequate. The findings of the current research show that all five programs’ benefits were meagre compared to the requirements of the beneficiaries to at least meet their food needs. Two programs (the Old Age Allowance and the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women) deliver cash support for life, but they could only fulfil a few days’ food needs. The other three programs (the VGD, the VGF and the SHOUHARDO-II) also only fulfilled a few days’ food requirements. Moreover, as these three programs were time-limited, they could not impact in a sustainable manner. Based on these findings this thesis argues that in terms of the impacts of these programs on ensuring food security of rural poor people, the glass is not even half full.

The current research, through its literature review, revealed that only a few previous studies focused on exploring experiences and insights of the rural poor on the impacts of SSNPs on food security and other aspects of people’s lives. None of the prior studies adopted the capabilities approach to understand the issues of food security and social safety nets. This research was primarily focused on rural poor people’s perceptions and views to explore their food security issues and perceived solutions of these issues using the capabilities approach. Moreover, this research included both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries perceptions to compare the views of the two groups. The most important contribution of this research is that some of the respondents, both beneficiary and non-beneficiary, perceived this form of

387

government support as a charity rather than as a legitimate entitlement and they preferred opportunities to work. Although most of the respondents argued for an enhanced amount of benefit for the people who needed it most, in order to ensure livelihoods in a sustainable way they advocated creating work opportunities for themselves and their children by establishing industries in their area.

However, this research only focuses on a partial aspect of food security. The researcher considers that there are many under researched topics in this area. The researcher suggests the following three specific areas that should be addressed in further research: 1) intra-household discrimination, 2) poverty reduction in Nilphamari District, and 3) the role of charity in poverty alleviation in rural Bangladesh.

Intra-household discrimination: as discussed in Chapter 6 and 7, this research only examined the perceptions of the respondents on their food status and impacts of these five programs on food security. It did not inquire into intra-household discrimination between men and women, or between adults and children. This research did not examine whether children were more food secure when women were empowered. Hence, the current study suggests a thorough examination of food consumption by individual members is needed, where it can be examined whether economic and gender factors play a role in terms of food consumption. In addition, it can be revealed whether the members of the poor households are aware about the discrimination and its consequences.

Poverty reduction in Nilphamari District: as discussed in Chapters 5 and 8, while according to the Poverty Map 2005, Nilphamari was one of the poorest districts in Bangladesh, by 2010 the poverty rate drastically dropped 388

in the district. This dramatic change is inconsistent with the national and other poorest districts’ rate of poverty reduction. Therefore, the researcher suggests further research on the issue. Through research it can be examined why this has happened, and if there are some specific reasons behind this improvement that can be identified and be adopted to improve the situation of other poor areas.

Role of charity in poverty alleviation in rural Bangladesh: as a Muslim country, in rural Bangladesh historically charity has played an important role in assisting poor people (discussed in Chapter 9). This research, however, found very limited evidence of charity (other than that perceived by the participants to be government charity) to alleviate poverty of one of the poorest areas in Bangladesh. Therefore, this researcher suggests an investigation on the role of charity in the northern districts of Bangladesh.

10.4 Implications for policy and practice In the examination of poor people’s perceptions regarding impacts of five selected SSNPs on food security and other aspects of their lives, this thesis has found many governance and management issues that hinder the efficiency of the programs. The respondents also suggested some specific solutions, as well as ways to improve their lives in general. This could have impacts on the policy making process, as well as on ways programs are implemented. It has further revealed the following perceptions, which include: (a) the selected five SSNPs had a limited impact on food security of the beneficiaries; (b) there was little difference between the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries regarding the frequency of meals, their composition, and their nutritional status; (c) all five programs’ benefits were meagre and did not lift beneficiaries above the income levels set by the World Bank of a minimum USD 1.25 a day; (d) corrupt practices by the selectors and program 389

managers further reduced the efficiency of the programs; (e) the five selected programs peripherally empowered women, increased income and reduced poverty, provided dignity and improved access to medical support; (f) these programs could not enhance completely the capability of the beneficiaries having safe and sufficient food supplies and food entitlements as well as other aspects of their lives; (g) programs managed by the NGO were seen to be fairer in terms of selection process and leakages than the programs managed by the government and local government officials; (h) participants thought that benefits provided by the programs should be enhanced to a required level to meet basic needs; (i) to ensure their livelihoods in a sustainable way most of the participants suggested creating work opportunities for themselves and their children; and (j) the majority of the participants advocated for establishing industries in their area.

From these arguments the following implications for policy and practice can be summarised:

Evaluating programs: although consecutive governments have undertaken a number of programs to address the food security of poor people, only a few of the programs were evaluated independently to assess the real needs of the beneficiaries and the required amount of inputs, including cash and consumables to the beneficiaries of each program. This raises a question about the underlying aim of the programs. If these programs cannot ensure the basic food requirements of the beneficiaries in a sustainable way, it can be treated only as a coping strategy with poverty, not a food security programs. In this context, it is imperative to undertake an evaluation program for all SSNPs by an independent authority.

390

Participating in program development and beneficiary selection: with the exception of the SHOUHARDO-II program poor people do not have any participation in either beneficiary selection or management of the programs. The existing literature did not focus much on the exclusion of the most disadvantaged group of people from the programs’ management. Despite other management issues, the SHOUHARDO-II program has shown that the participation of the main stakeholders (the rural poor) in the selection process can lead to greater transparency and fairer selection compared to the programs managed by the local government officials. Despite the risk of generalisation, it can be argued that the SHOUHARDO-II program appeared to be free from leakage complaints by participants due to their management by NGOs and supervision by CARE Bangladesh. Therefore, in the views of the beneficiaries of the SHOUHARDO-II program there are two implications: (a) policy should be formulated, making it mandatory to include all potential candidates in the participant selection process by creating a provision for an open community meeting before beneficiary selection; and (b) ensure checks and balances between the local government and government officials during beneficiary selection and disbursement of benefits. Government officials’ presence and active participation should be ensured in the management of the programs.

Enhancing the benefits: in the consultation with the rural poor the actual needs should be determined and the benefits should be enhanced accordingly. Whether the government can afford such program is a pertinent issue here. But previous studies (Begum & Wesumperuma, 2012; Chowdhury & Ali, 2006) suggested that if the tax base of the country can be upgraded to its full potential, and the leakages can be minimised, funding for enhancement of benefits of SSNPs should not pose a problem for

391

Bangladesh. One of the senior officials also perceived that if the corrupt practices can be controlled, funding would not be difficult for the government.

Increasing program efficiency: to increase the efficiency of the programs some steps can be taken such as: taking measures to stop corrupt practices by the selectors and program managers such as bribes, leakages, nepotism and political interference; developing a database of all the beneficiaries and potential candidates; providing low cost permanent banking for beneficiaries of cash transfer programs; distributing benefits of different days (e.g. by Wards) to avoid congestion; preparing a waiting list for required programs to increase transparency; and formulating a social safety net policy to ensure better coordination.

Creating work opportunities: to ensure better lives for people in persistent poverty, safety nets were never a sustainable solution as they only impact temporarily. Creating work opportunities for people who are physically able to work is the most sustainable way to combat poverty and food insecurity if people are able to earn a sufficient salary. Work opportunities in rural areas are mostly dependent on agriculture, but due to rapid change in modern technology these opportunities are shrinking. While economic growth creates more jobs, often the industries driving this are concentrated in and around the big cities. This attracts the rural workforce towards the cities, which creates other psycho-social and economic challenges such as migration, urban slums, increased vulnerability of dependents, young and old, , and weakens family bond. Against this backdrop, there is a need for a policy shift to support locating industries in different regions to provide work opportunities in regional areas. Both the government and the private sector should come forward to promote developing local industries for long-term solutions of

392

poverty and food security. In the short-term, people who are willing to be self- employed should be provided with skill-based training and capital support to start a business.

10.5 Concluding remarks For people in dire poverty, every financial support is important and could be treated as blessings by them. However, the inadequate support given by the five programs and the cost of receiving it cannot ensure their livelihoods in the long-term. These programs could not enhance completely the capability of the beneficiaries to have safe and sufficient food supplies as well as to improve other aspects of their lives. This research has revealed that rural poor people are also aware of the nature of their poverty and that they need more than direct government support. People who do not want to be dependent on government supports for generations deserve the opportunities to make themselves self-reliant; they need work opportunities, skill-based training and capital support. The government should facilitate those opportunities for people capable of utilising them, and should also provide sufficient support for older people, people with disabilities, the long-term unemployed where there are no jobs, and people in transient poverty.

393

Appendices

Appendix 1: Social safety net programs in Bangladesh (coverage & budget)

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

(A.1) Cash Transfer (Allowances) Programs & Other Activities:

(A.1.1) Social Protection

1 Old Age Allowance 27.23 27.23 27.23 980.10 980.10 1306.80

Allowances for the Widow, Deserted

2 10.12 10.12 10.12 364.32 364.32 485.76 and Destitute Women

Allowances for the Financially 3 3.15 3.15 4.00 132.13 132.13 240.00

Insolvent Disabled

Maternity Allowance Program for

4 1.16 1.16 2.20 48.88 48.88 132.00 the Poor Lactating Mothers

Allowances for Urban Low- 5 0.98 0.86 1.00 41.19 41.19 60.00

income Lactating Mothers

6 Honorarium for Freedom Fighters 2.00 2.00 2.00 360.00 720.00 1200.00

Honorarium & Medical Allowances

7 for Injured Freedom Fighters 0.08 0.13 0.15 75.64 121.40 144.97

Assistance for Cancer,

8 Kidney 0.04 0.20 2.00 10.00

and Liver Cirrhosis Patients

Grants for Residents in Government

Orphanages and Other 9 Institutions 0.18 0.18 0.18 30.88 30.88 46.50

10 Capitation Grants for Orphan 0.54 0.54 0.60 71.40 71.40 74.40

394

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

Students in Non-gov. Orphanages

11 General Relief Activities 7.32 5.79 6.51 89.36 89.36 100.41

Block Allocation for Disaster 100.00 12 100.00 100.00

Management

13 Non-Bengali Rehabilitation 1.21 1.21 1.21 19.80 19.80 20.00

Allowances for Distressed Cultural

14 0.01 0.01 0.01 2.50 2.50 3.10 Personalities/ Activists

Pension for Retired Government

15 4.81 4.81 5.00 6,691.51 6,816.05 8,482.03 Employees and their Families

Ration for Shaheed Family and

16 0.25 0.29 0.30 22.50 26.00 26.90 Injured Freedom Fighters

Program for Livelihood

17 Improvement of tea-garden 0.02 0.10 1.00 5.00

labourers

Subtotal: Lac-Man & Taka (A1.1) 59.04 57.54 60.81 9,030.21 9,567.01 12,437.87

(A.1.2) Social Empowerment

1 Stipend for Disabled Students 0.29 0.29 0.50 9.70 9.70 25.56

Grants for the Schools for the 2 Disabled 0.12 0.18 0.19 5.81 8.50 9.00

Subtotal: Lac-Man & Taka (A.1.2) 0.41 0.47 0.69 15.51 18.20 34.56

A.1 Total: (A.1.1+A.1.2) 59.45 58.00 61.50 9,045.72 9,585.21 12,472.43

(A.2) Cash Transfer (Special) Program

(A.2.1) Social Empowerment

1 Housing Support 2.14 2.14 2.45 14.00 14.00 16.00

2 National Legal Aid 0.10 0.11 4.89 6.00

395

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

3 Agriculture Rehabilitation 29.82 29.82 32.22 62.15 62.15 67.15

Subtotal: Lac-Man & Taka (A.2.1) 31.96 32.06 34.77 76.15 81.04 89.15

Total: A (Taka) 91.41 90.06 96.27 9,121.87 9,666.25 12,561.58

(B) Food Security Programs: Social Protection

Open Market Sales (OMS) 209.11 209.11 225.48 1565.00 1565.00 1687.50 1

(Lac Man) (Lac Man) (Lac Man) (7.50) (7.50) (7.50)

Vulnerable Group Development 91.33 91.33 91.33 851.06 836.77 886.92 2

(VGD) (Man Month) (Man Month) (Man Month) (2.75) (2.75) (2.75)

Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) 85.00 64.72 64.72 1,326.91 1,362.77 1,419.22 3

(Lac Man) (Lac Man) (Lac Man) (4.00) (4.00) (4.00)

Test Relief (TR) Food 39.00 18.75 18.75 1,291.94 1,282.35 1,292.37 4

(Man Month) (Man Month) (Man Month) (4.00) (4.00) (4.00)

Gratuitous Relief (GR)- Food 80.00 29.05 40.00 265.38 272.55 283.84 5

(Lac Man) (Lac Man) (Lac Man) (0.80) (0.80) (0.80)

Food Assistance in CTG-Hill Tracts 7.14 7.91 7.44 240.81 266.70 250.88 6

Area

(0.75) (0.75) (0.75) (Man Month) (Man Month) (Man Month)

Food For Work (FFW) 50.00 10.08 18.75 1,456.98 615.19 1,317.74

(Man Month) (Man Month) (Man Month) (4.00) (2.15) (4.00)

Work For Money (WFM) 8.67 428.63

(Man Month) (Man Month) (Man Month) (1.85)

Employment Generation 0.49 7.72 8.27 1,400.00 1,400.00 1,500.00

9 Programme for the Poor

(Man Month) (Man Month) (Man Month) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Total (B Lac-Man) 374.11 302.88 330.20 3,157.29 3,200.32 3,390.56

396

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

Total (B Man-Month) 187.96 144.46 144.54 5,240.79 4,829.64 5,247.91

Total: B (Taka) 8,398.08 8,029.96 8,638.47

(C.1) Micro-Credit Programs: Social Empowerment

Micro-credit for Women Self- 1 0.09 0.09 0.18 1.00 1.00 2.00

employment

Fund for Micro-Credit through 2 21.38 19.24 34.21 50.00 45.00 80.00

PKSF

Social Development 3 Foundation 298.50 300.00 160.00

Subtotal: Lac-Man & Taka (C.1) 21.47 19.33 34.39 349.50 346.00 242.00

(C.2) Miscellaneous Funds: Social Empowerment

Fund for the Welfare of Acid Burnt 1 0.30 0.30 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00

Women and Disabled

Trust for the protection of the

persons with 2 neurodevelopmental 20.00

disabilities.

Welfare Trust for Physical

3 5.00 disabilities.

Oppressed destitute women

and

4 5.00 children welfare fund.

Fund for Assistance to the Small 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Farmer and Poultry Farms

6 Swanirvar Training Program 0.12 0.12 0.14 1.50 1.50 1.70

7 Joyeeta Foundation 10.00

8 Shamaj Kallyan Parishad 0.36 0.36 0.40 23.99 23.99 28.40

Subtotal: Lac-Man & Taka (C.2) 1.78 1.78 1.84 126.49 126.49 131.10

397

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

(C.3) Miscellaneous Funds: Social Protection

1 Fund for Climate Change 4.50 4.50 4.50 200.00 200.00 200.00

Block Allocation for Various 2 1.17 1.00 0.64 1,933.71 910.10 1,052.23

Program

3 National Service 0.42 0.42 0.43 235.00 235.00 242.74

Women's Skill Based Training

4 2.50 For Livelihood

5 Child Development Center 0.02 0.02 0.02 3.20 3.20 4.00

Service and Assistance Center for 6 1.04 1.04 1.04 12.50 13.50 13.00

Disabled

Rehabilitation and Creation of

7 Alternative Employment for 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.50

Beggers Profession

Universal Pension Insurance

8 0.02 0.02 0.02 11.50 11.50 12.00 Scheme

Program for Improving the

Livelihood of Harijan, Dalit, 9 Bade 0.13 0.13 0.13 8.00 8.00 9.23

common unity

Program for Improving the

10 Livelihood of Trans Gender 0.02 0.02 0.02 4.26 4.26 4.59

(Hijra)

Subtotal: Man-Month & Taka (C.3) = 7.33 7.16 6.81 2,409.17 1,386.56 1,540.79

Total: C (Taka) = 30.58 28.27 43.03 2,885.16 1,859.05 1,913.89

433.15 360.42 391.01 12,187.50 12,767.33 15,828.43 Total: Protection - Lac-man (A.1.1+B) =

195.29 151.62 151.35 7,649.96 6,216.20 6,788.70

Total: Protection - Man-Month (B+C3)

398

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

Total: Empowerment: Lac-man 55.62 53.64 71.68 567.65 571.73 496.81

(A.1.2+A.2.1+C1+C2) =

Grand Total (A+B+C) = 20,405.11 19,555.26 23,113.94

Total Non-development Budget = 155,163 155,028 168,699

Percentage to Non-development Budget = 13.15% 12.61% 13.70%

(D) Development Sector Programs: Social Empowerment

N. 1 Running Development Projects

1 Lump Provision for 16.00 16.00

Development of Special Areas

(Except Hill Tracts)

2 Ashroyan-2 Project 0.16 0.15 0.13 180.00 165.00 141.43

Primary School Stipend 3 Program 78.17 78.17 78.17 1,000.00 852.50 970.00

4 School Feeding Programs 44.20 42.12 31.12 541.00 515.50 380.94

5 Reaching Out of School 7.00 4.16 6.30 248.99 148.00 224.00

Secondary Education 6 Sector 1.75 2.10 40.00 396.00

Investment Program

7 Secondary Education 14.98 273.00 1.00

Stipend

Stipend and Access 8 Increase 26.28 449.86

for Secondary and Higher

Secondary Students (including

Secondary)

399

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

9 Female Stipend for Degree 1.74 2.10 3.00 3.00 5.00

(pass) and Equivalent Level

10 Higher Secondary Female 4.02 112.00 1.00

Stipend Project-Phase-4

* Revitalization of 11 Community 4.00 863.00 1,140.00 275.00 370.00 200.00

Healthcare Initiative in

Bangladesh

12 * Maternal, Neonatal, Child 1,035.00 523.42 633.00 585.00

and Adolescent Health

13 * Essential Services 1,050.00 1,100.00 54.52 60.00

Delivery

14 * Community Based Health 0.09 863.00 1,140.00 78.50 61.00 345.00

Care

15 1,342.00 1,476.00 75.00 87.00

* National Nutrition Services

16 * Maternal, Child, Reproduc- 0.76 517.00 569.00 125.00 118.50 142.00

tive and Adolescent Health

17 *Clinical Contraception 6.36 13.00 95.45 141.96

Services Delivery

18 * Family Planning Field 162.59 202.95 270.60 235.50

Services Delivery

19 Promotion of Services & 0.37 0.37 16.40 27.20

Opportunity to the Disabled

Person in Bangladesh

400

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

20 Child Sensitive Social 0.02 0.02 25.98 16.08 23.97

Protection in Bangladesh

Establishment of 21 Multipurpose 0.01 0.01 4.24 0.86

Rehabilitation Centre for

Destitute Aged Pupil and

Socially Disabled Adolescent

Girls

Expansion and 22 Development 0.01 12.60

of PROYAS at Dhaka

Cantonment

23 Services for Children at Risk 10.70 29.01

Establishment of Hostel for 24 the 0.01 0.01 15.00 18.54

Visually Impaired Children

(37 Unit)

Basi 25 c Education for Urban 0.87 33.00

Working Children

26 Enabling Environment for 0.23 0.15 60.55 68.49

Child Rights

27 Early Learning for Child 1.22 1.08 28.98 25.72

Development (2nd phase)

28 Sisimpur Outreach Project 1.34 1.34

401

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

29 Urban Based Marginal 0.06 0.07 4.13 4.66

Women

Development

30 Day Care Program for 0.01 0.01 2.53 2.00

Lower and Middle Income

Working Women

31 Food and Livelihood 1.20 1.12 0.06 81.44 76.00 3.76

Security

* Coverage (Revised 2013-14 & Budget 2014-15) denotes number of visits

32 Eradication of Hazardous 0.50 42.00

Child Labour in Bangladesh

(3rd Phase)

Northern Areas Reduction 33 of 0.04 0.04 89.45 32.00

Poverty Initiatives

34 Pro Poor Slum Integration 0.08 0.05 6.73 4.19

Employment Opportunities 35 for 0.12 0.12 1.00 5.44 5.44 49.20

Unemployed Youth in 7

Northern District

36 Establishment of Vocational 0.10 0.10 4.67 4.24

Training and Healthcare

Center for the Vulnerable

Youth

Establishment of Training 37 and 0.12 0.10 6.68 5.95

402

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

Employment generation Center

for the Vulnerable Youth and

Adolescents

38 Urban Primary Healthcare 166.68 100.00 148.91

Services Delivery Project

39 Urban Public Environment 22.40 22.40 226.27 125.99 208.38

Health Center Development

40 Rehabilitation of Aila 0.10 0.10 0.16 35.00 35.00 55.00

Affected

Rural Infrastructure

41 Haor Infrastructure and 0.25 0.45 90.00 161.28

Livelihood Improvement

42 50.00 178.00

Infrastructure Improvement

Project

43 Rural Employment and 0.46 0.46 94.21 235.00

Road

maintenance Program-2

44 Development of Improved 4.44 4.44

Seed for Rice, Wheat and

Maize

45 Bangladesh Agriculture 6.55 34.00

Infrastructure Development

46 Construction of Cleaners 0.08 20.00

403

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

Colony of Dhaka City

Corporation.

47 Poverty Reduction through 5.79 4.28 134.40 104.58

Urban Partnership

48 Fisheries Development 0.60 33.60

49 Poverty Eradication through 0.21 0.04 33.40 6.12

Social Afforestation

50 Employment Creation 0.02 0.02 0.03 1.66 1.64 2.78

through

Sugarcane Cultivation in Char

Areas of Greater Rangpur

51 3.80 7.60 75.00 150.00

Participatory Small Scale

Water Resources Development

52 Emergency 2007 Cyclone 1.87 0.77 300.00 123.98

Recovery and Restoration

53 Expansion of Polli Daridro 30.00

Bimochon Foudation for

Poverty Alleviation and self

Employment

54 Bangladesh Rural Water 6.50 23.75 103.00

Supply and Sanitation

55 Special Rural Water Supply 14.97 21.84 136.50 145.00

56 Water Supply and 55.00 40.00 47.00 29.00

404

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

Sanitation

Project in Cyclone Prone Sidr

Affected Coastal Area

Char Livelihood Program- 57 2nd 0.68 0.53 164.91 130.37

phase

58 One House One Farm 4.67 11.22 11.22 260.00 562.19 585.00

59 Economic Empowerment of 3.10 2.40 131.23 131.23 151.94

the Poorest in Bangladesh

60 Integrated Rural 0.24 0.20 0.32 24.00 20.00 32.00

Employment

Support Project for the Poor

Women

61 Comprehensive Village 2.80 5.31 6.63 18.54 21.54 24.87

Development Program

62 Rural Livelihood (2nd 0.26 0.36 27.36 32.00

Phase)

63 Participatory Rural 3.09 2.04 1.05 19.73 13.00 6.73

Development

64 Pulse and Oil Seed Project 29.74 29.74

65 Mujibnagar Integrated 0.60 0.70 0.77 25.00 29.08 32.03

Agricultural Development

66 Initiative for Development, 0.05 0.06 3.43 4.80

Empowerment, Awareness &

405

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

Livelihood, Kurigram

67 Integrated Support to 0.01 150.00 150.00

Poverty

and Inequality Reduction

through Enterprise

Development

Rural Development of 68 Greater 0.15 0.10 0.10 45.00 55.00 70.00

Comilla

69 Emergency 2007 Cyclone 53.64 75.67 89.19 125.83

Recovery and Restoration

70 Jatka Conservation & 0.05 0.10 0.04 0.41 0.78 0.30

Alternative Employment of

Hilsha Fishermen and

Research (Component-B)

71 Integrated Fisheries & 0.35 0.16 0.28 26.00 11.73 20.75

Livestock Development in

Flood Controlled Areas &

Water Bodies

Regional Duck Breeding 72 and Hatchery 0.10 0.11 0.21 25.00 26.82 51.41

406

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

Coverag e Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

73 Poverty Reduction & 0.06 0.06 0.12 10.00 10.00 20.00

Livelihood Security for the

People of Economically

Backward Area

74 Small Scale Dairy & Poultry 2.08 3.65

Farmers’ Support Project in 22

Selected Districts

Community Based 75 Adaptation 0.07 0.05 0.06 22.90 15.00 18.55

to Climate Change through

Coastal Afforestation.

76 Bangladesh Climate 38.33 80.42

Resilient

Participatory Afforestation and

Reforestation

77 Char Development and 7.65 19.63 15.93 191.97 86.34 124.40

Settlement

78 "Gucchagram" (Climate 0.43 0.26 0.07 59.63 35.86 9.80

Victims Rehabilitation)

enhanced Agricultural

407

Coverage (Persons in lac/man month) Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

Production, Diversified

79 0.05 7.85

sources of Income, Value

Addition and Marketing in

Bangladesh

80 Comprehensive Disaster 3.00 3.00 82.69 82.69 67.51

Management Program (2nd

phase)

81 Operations Support to the 19.59

Employment Generation

Program for the Poorest

Second Chittagong Hill Tracts

82 Rural Development Project 5.10 25.00

(LGED part)

Construction of Residence 83 for 0.29 0.29 0.29 227.97 33.75 75.00

Landless & poor Freedom

Fighters

Subtotal: Lac-Man & Taka (D.1) 185.60 356.60 345.49 4,966.24 7,098.75 7,597.17

*Excluding Coverage (Revised 2013-14 & Budget 2014-15) of number of visits

408

Coverage Budget (Taka in crore)

Sl. Programs Budget Revised Budget Budget Revised Budget

(2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15) (2013-14) (2013-14) (2014-15)

N. 2 New Development Projects

1 Establishment of Autistic 10.00

Academy in Bangladesh

2 Expansion of Existing Prime 0.25

Mother and Child Care

Hospital with Research

Facilities

3 Construction of 2.00

Multipurpose

Sports Complex for Person

with Disability

4 Comprehensive and 0.25

Sustainable Health, Education

and Livelihood Development

Program

5 0.50

Rehabilitation Centre for

Destitute Children, Konabari,

Gazipur

Establishment of Sheikh 6 Rasel 1.00

Training and Rehabilitation

Centre for the Destitute

Children

Construction of Probin 7 Nibas 0.25

in Five Divisional Head

Quarter & One Zila

409

8 Empowerment of 0.50

communities, groups and

individuals

Construction of Hostel for 9 the 25.00

Sarkari Shishu Paribar (8

Units)

10 Construction of Vocational 0.25

Training and Rehabilitation

Centre, CRP-Manikgonj

Subtotal: Lac-Man & Taka (D.2) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00

Total: Lac-Man & Taka (D) 185.60 356.60 345.49 4966.24 7098.75 7637.17

Total: (Social Protection, Taka) 19837.46 18983.53 22617.13

Social Protection (% to Budget) 8.92 8.78 9.03

Social Protection (% to GDP) 1.67 1.61 1.69

Total: (Social Empowerment - 5,533.89 7,670.48 8,133.98

Social Empowerment (% to Budget) 2.49 3.55 3.25

Social Empowerment (% to GDP) 0.47 0.65 0.61

Total: Beneficiary (Lac-man) 681.37 770.65 808.18

Total: (Man-Month) 195.29 151.62 151.35

Total: (Annual Lac-Man) 16.27 12.63 12.61

Total: Taka (Social Protection & Empowerment) 25,371.35 26,654.01 30,751.11

Total Budget 222,491 216,222 250,506

Percentage to Budget 11.40% 12.33% 12.28%

GDP 1,188,800 1,181,000 1,339,500

Percentage to GDP 2.13% 2.26% 2.30%

410

Appendix 2: Interview guidelines

A. Interview Guidelines for Beneficiaries

* Start with greetings and brief description of the researcher and research, i.e. introduction to the researcher, objectives and the ethical considerations of the research. These questions are designed to be open ended.

Personal Information Name: Age: Sex: Male Female Height: Weight: Children: Y / N If yes, how many: Children: Male: Female: Age distribution: Up to 18 18-25 25+ In case of widow/widower, when did your husband/wife die: years ago How did he/she die: Illness Old age Others During illness did he/she receive necessary medical care: Y / N If not, why: Due to lack of economic support Lack of medical facilities Others

Livelihood related information Whether you run the family: Y/ N If yes, what is your major source of income: Agriculture/wage from selling labor as house worker/social safety net allowance/others? How much land do you/your family own: acre Income other than agriculture: Y/N If yes, monthly amount: /month 411

What did you do before enrolling with the SSNP? How did you manage your daily meal before enrolling with the SSNP?

Living standard Do you afford to manage daily meals regularly for all members of your family? How many times you/your family members took meals last year in a day: 1/2/3/4 What do your daily meals normally consist of: Breakfast- Lunch- Dinner-

Food Security and Social Safety Net Program related information How did you come to know about the program? Government channel/ LG officials/ Neighbours/ Other source Did you face any trouble joining the program: Who helped you most in joining: How long have you been getting the benefit: How do you use the money: for subsistence only/ use fully or partly for income generation What impact you think has been crucial by the benefit: Do you think that the program is helping reduce your poverty and vulnerability: Y/N If yes, then how does the program help you reduce your economic vulnerabilities: Do you think that the program is helping ensure your food security: Y/N If yes, how and to what extent: Do you think the program alone is adequate to ensure food security of the extreme poor people:

412

Do you think that the program is helping empower women in the family and society: If yes, how and to what extent: Do you experience any problem in drawing the benefit: How do you rate the behaviour of the respective government officials in distribution of the benefit: Do you feel the need to increase the amount of benefit: Y/N If yes, then what are the reasons: In your opinion what should be the minimum amount : If this program does not continue, how will you manage your meal? What are your suggestions to make the program more effective for ensuring food security of the rural poor people:

Others Are you involved in any other NGO/GO support such as micro credit or safety net program: Did any policy maker consult with you regarding the development of the policy or program? Do you have anything more to say about the issues discussed today:

* Conclude by giving thanks to the respondent for their participation and cooperation in the interview.

413

B. Interview Guidelines for Non-beneficiaries * Start with greetings and brief description of the researcher and research, i.e. introduction to the researcher, objectives and the ethical considerations of the research. These questions are designed to be open ended.

Livelihood related information Whether you run the family: Y/ N If yes, what is your major source of income: Agriculture/wage from selling labour as house worker/others / How much land do you own: acre Income other than agriculture: Y/N If yes, monthly amount: /month

Living standard Do you afford to manage daily meal regularly for all members of your family?

414

How many times you/your family members took meals last year in a day: 1/2/3/4 What do your daily meals normally consist of: Breakfast- Lunch- Dinner-

Food Security and Social Safety Net Program related information Do you know about any Social Safety Net Program: Y/N If yes then how: Government channel/ LG officials/ Neighbours/ Other source Do you know what benefit the program delivers: Do you think that you deserve to have joinedhe program: Y/N If yes, then what are the reasons for not being able to join the program: Do you have any idea about how the recipients use the money: Y/N If yes, then how: for subsistence only/ use fully or partly for income generation What impact you think the program delivers for the beneficiaries: Do you think that the program is helping reduce the recipients’ insecurity of food: Y/N If yes, then how does the program help reduce the recipients’ insecurity of food and to what extent: Do you think the program alone is adequate to ensure food security of the extreme poor people of Bangladesh: Do you think that the program is helping empower women in the family and society: If yes, how and to what extent: Do you feel the need to increase the amount of allowance: Y/N If yes, then what are the reasons: What are your suggestions to make the program effective for ensuring food security of the rural poor people:

415

* Conclude by giving thanks to the respondent for their participation and cooperation in the interview

416

Appendix 3: FGD checklist

Start with greetings and brief description of the researcher and research, i.e. introduction to the researcher, objectives and the ethical considerations of the research.

• Introduction of the participants: name, designation and relevancy with any SSNP • Impacts of the SSNPs on ensuring food security of the rural poor people • Empowerment of the women and the SSNPs • Amount of allowance/ necessity for increase (if any) • Number of the beneficiaries in an Upazila • Procedures of publicity about the scheme • Ensuring fairness in selection and disbursement • Role of the Accounts Office in disbursing the fund: Attitude/behaviour/corruption • Role of the Bank in payment of the allowance: attitude/ behavior/ cooperation • Disbursement from the bank or going to the house of the recipients- which is better • Leakage and misappropriation of power by any person involved with the programs • Once any person is included, is there any provision to exclude him/her • Suggestions to make the programs more effective for ensuring food security of the rural poor people

* Conclude by giving thanks to the participants for their participation and cooperation in the discussion.

417

Appendix 4: Districts poverty map 2005

% Extreme Poor % Poor Zlcode zila_name (Lower poverty line*) (Upper poverty line*) 1 Bagerhat 34.50 46.00 3 Bandarban 42.40 64.70 4 Barguna 41.70 60.90 6 Barisal 44.00 60.10 9 Bhola 31.50 48.90 10 Bogra 30.80 47.30 12 Brahmanbaria 18.50 37.10 13 Chandpur 15.40 28.70 15 Chittagong 8.70 26.70 18 Chuadanga 19.90 33.00 19 Comilla 13.80 30.10 22 Cox's Bazar 28.40 51.70 26 Dhaka 8.10 16.90 27 Dinajpur 33.40 49.80 29 Faridpur 32.60 44.70 30 Feni 4.80 12.50 32 Gaibandha 35.60 52.50 33 Gazipur 25.20 37.40 35 Gopalganj 29.10 42.40 36 Habiganj 28.80 46.90 38 Joypurhat 27.40 43.70 39 Jamalpur 44.60 58.70 41 Jessore 43.70 56.60 42 Jhalokati 28.80 47.10 44 Jhenaidah 22.10 35.80 46 Khagrachhari 17.70 37.30 47 Khulna 34.70 53.00 48 Kishorgonj 14.70 24.80 49 Kurigram 52.00 68.20 50 Kushtia 18.30 27.80 51 Lakshmipur 16.40 34.70

418

% Extreme Poor % Poor Zlcode zila_name (Lower poverty line*) (Upper poverty line*) 52 Lalmonirhat 33.60 53.20 54 Madaripur 26.10 38.70 55 Magura 17.20 28.70 56 Manikganj 24.60 37.40 57 Meherpur 6.30 12.40 58 Maulvibazar 15.70 29.50 59 Munshiganj 17.10 27.20 61 Mymensingh 45.00 58.90 64 Naogaon 32.20 48.70 65 Narail 32.10 44.60 67 Narayanganj 11.40 23.10 68 Narsingdi 21.40 34.70 69 Natore 32.70 49.70 70 Nawabganj 27.40 42.70 72 Netrakona 19.70 31.70 73 Nilphamari 55.00 70.20 75 Noakhali 16.10 34.50 76 Pabna 29.30 49.30 77 Panchagarh 38.90 55.90 78 Patuakhali 50.10 63.00 79 Pirojpur 17.60 27.90 81 Rajshahi 25.80 41.30 82 Rajbari 29.40 43.40 84 Rangamati 20.30 40.20 85 Rangpur 45.70 61.90 86 Shariatpur 20.60 32.90 87 Satkhira 46.30 59.10 88 Sirajganj 35.90 52.70 89 Sherpur 33.20 47.90 90 Sunamganj 27.70 48.80 91 Sylhet 6.00 12.50 93 Tangail 27.10 40.40 94 Thakurgaon 35.70 52.20

419

Appendix 5: Upazila poverty map 2005

Incidence of Poverty 2005

%Poor % Extreme Poor (Upper poverty (Lower poverty div zl uz Uzid Geocode Division District Upazila line*) line*) 4 1 8 108 40108 Khulna Bagerhat Bagerhat Sadar 42.70 31.60 4 1 14 114 40114 Khulna Bagerhat Chitalmar i 6.60 2.40 4 1 34 134 40134 Khulna Bagerhat Fakirhat 65.90 55.00 4 1 38 138 40138 Khulna Bagerhat Kachua 36.10 22.50 4 1 56 156 40156 Khulna Bagerhat Mollahat 4.90 1.90 4 1 58 158 40158 Khulna Bagerhat Mongla 56.40 41.50 4 1 60 160 40160 Khulna Bagerhat Morrelganj 64.00 50.30 4 1 73 173 40173 Khulna Bagerhat Rampal 47.60 33.00 4 1 77 177 40177 Khulna Bagerhat Sarankhola 62.80 48.70 2 3 4 304 20304 Chittagong Bandarban Alikadam 78.40 54.10 2 3 14 314 20314 Chittagong Bandarban Bandarban sadar 47.70 26.00 2 3 51 351 20351 Chittagong Bandarban Lama 59.00 35.90 2 3 73 373 20373 Chittagong Bandarban Naikhongchhari 72.80 49.60 2 3 89 389 20389 Chittagong Bandarban Rowangchhar i 75.40 55.20 2 3 91 391 20391 Chittagong Bandarban Ruma 75.40 55.30 2 3 95 395 20395 Chittagong Bandarban Thanchi 76.70 55.80 1 4 9 409 10409 Barisal Barguna Amtali 67.40 50.40 1 4 19 419 10419 Barisal Barguna Bamna 50.70 37.00 1 4 28 428 10428 Barisal Barguna Barguna Sadar 66.60 44.40 1 4 47 447 10447 Barisal Barguna Betagi 48.00 27.60 1 4 85 485 10485 Barisal Barguna Patharghata 56.30 36.10 1 6 2 602 10602 Barisal Barisa I Agailjhara 33.00 16.60 1 6 3 603 10603 Barisal Barisa I Babuganj 61.00 32.60 1 6 7 607 10607 Barisal Barisa I Bakerganj 71.50 53.30 1 6 10 610 10610 Barisal Barisa I Banari Para 56.50 34.50 1 6 51 651 10651 Barisal Barisal Barisal Sadar (kotwali) 66.10 50.30 1 6 32 632 10632 Barisal Barisal Gaurnadi 59.40 37.70 1 6 36 636 10636 Barisa I Barisal Hizla 60.20 60.70 1 6 62 662 10662 Barisal Barisal Mehendigani 68.40 57.50 1 6 69 669 10669 Barisal Barisal Muladi 56.60 36.80 1 6 94 694 10694 Barisal Barisal Wazirpur 44.40 31.00 1 9 18 918 10918 Barisal Bhola Bhola Sadar 41.40 27.50 1 9 21 921 10921 Barisal Bhola Burhanuddin 45.80 29.10 1 9 25 925 10925 Barisal Bhola Char Fasson 50.40 38.00 1 9 29 929 10929 Barisal Bhola Daulat Khan 56.70 32.50 1 9 54 954 10954 Barisal Bhola Lalmohan 47.50 27.50 1 9 65 965 10965 Barisal Bhola Manpura 48.60 34.50 1 9 91 991 10991 Barisal Bhola Tazumuddin 67.10 33.60 5 10 6 1006 51006 Rajshahi Bogra Adamdighi 45.50 29.00 5 10 20 1020 51020 Rajshahi Bogra Bogra sadar 43.40 28.80 5 10 27 1027 51027 Rajshahi Bogra Dhunat 52.00 34.50 5 10 33 1033 51033 Rajshahi Bogra Dhupchanchia 44.30 27.50 5 10 40 1040 51040 Rajshahi Bogra Gabtali 48.40 31.30 5 10 54 1054 51054 Rajshahi Bogra Kahaloo 44.10 27.60 5 10 67 1067 51067 Rajshahi Bogra Nandigram 46.10 29.30 5 10 81 1081 51081 Rajshahi Bogra Sariakandi 53.50 35.70 5 10 88 1088 51088 Rajshahi Bogra Sherpur 49.40 32.40 5 10 94 1094 51094 Rajshahi Bogra Shibganj 47.60 30.60 420

%Poor % Extreme Poor (Upper poverty (Lower poverty div zl uz Uzid Geocode Division District Upazila line*) line*) 5 10 95 1095 51095 Rajshahi Bogra Sonatola 50.10 32.90 2 12 2 1202 21202 Chittagong Brahamanbaria Akhaura 31.20 14.60 2 12 33 1233 21233 Chittagong Brahamanbaria Ashuganj 28.30 13.50 2 12 4 1204 21204 Chittagong Brahamanbaria Banchharampur 42.10 21.80 2 12 13 1213 21213 Chittagong Brahamanbaria Brahmanbaria Sadar 33.10 15.90 2 12 63 1263 21263 Chittagong Brahamanbaria Kasba 33.30 15.60 2 12 85 1285 21285 Chittagong Brahamanbaria Nabinagar 41.50 21.20 2 12 90 1290 21290 Chittagong Brahamanbaria Nasirnagar 42.90 22.30 2 12 94 1294 21294 Chittagong Brahamanbaria Sa rail 40.00 20.70 2 13 22 1322 21322 Chittagong Chandpur Chandpur Sadar 26.30 13.00 2 13 45 1345 21345 Chittagong Chandpur Faridganj 29.10 13.80 2 13 47 1347 21347 Chittagong Chandpu r Haim Char 30.80 16.60 2 13 49 1349 21349 ChittagonQ Chandpur Hajiganj 29.40 16.10 2 13 58 1358 21358 Chittagong Chandpur Kachua 31.50 18.40 2 13 76 1376 21376 Chittagong Chandpur Matlab 33.90 19.10 2 13 95 1395 21395 Chittagong Chandpur Shahrasti 25.70 14.30 2 13 79 1379 21379 Chittagong Chandpur Uttar Matlab 25.90 14.70 2 15 4 1504 21504 ChittaQonQ Chittagong Anowara 22.90 9.60 2 15 10 1510 21510 Chittagong Chittagong Bakalia 30.80 2.40 2 15 8 1508 21508 Chittagong Chittagong Banshkhali 42.60 22.20 2 15 6 1506 21506 ChittaQong ChittaQong Bayejid Bostam i 29.90 2.30 2 15 12 1512 21512 Chittagong Chittagong Boalkhali 13.80 5.50 2 15 18 1518 21518 ChittaQong ChittaQong Chandanaish 26.10 12.40 2 15 19 1519 21519 Chittagong Chittagong Chandgaon 33.50 3.40 2 15 20 1520 21520 Chittagong Chittagong Chittagong port 28.50 2.00 2 15 28 1528 21528 ChittaQonQ ChittaQonQ Double Mooring 0.10 0.00 2 15 33 1533 21533 Chittagong Chittagong Fatikchhari 36.60 18.70 2 15 35 1535 21535 Chittagong Chittagong Halishahar 28.80 2.10 2 15 37 1537 21537 ChittagonQ Chittagong Hathazari 30.10 2.30 2 15 39 1539 21539 Chittagong Chittagong Karnafuli 6.50 0.20 2 15 43 1543 21543 Chittagong Chittagong Khulshi 29.80 2.20 2 15 41 1541 21541 ChittaQonQ ChittaQong Kotwali 9.90 0.70 2 15 47 1547 21547 Chittagong Chittagong Lohagara 31.30 14.80 2 15 53 1553 21553 Chittagong Chittagong Mirsharai 26.00 11.40 2 15 55 1555 21555 ChittaQong Chittagong Pahartali 31.80 2.80 2 15 57 1557 21557 Chittagong Chittagong Panchlaish 31.20 2.60 2 15 65 1565 21565 Chittagong Chittagong Patenga 9.90 0.40 2 15 61 1561 21561 Chittagong Chittagong Patiya 26.80 9.30 2 15 70 1570 21570 Chittagong Chittagong Rangunia 29.00 13.30 2 15 74 1574 21574 Chittagong Chittagong Raozan 17.70 7.10 2 15 78 1578 21578 Chittagong Chittagong Sandwip 40.80 20.30 2 15 82 1582 21582 Chittagong Chittagong Satkania 30.50 14.60 2 15 86 1586 21586 Chittagong Chittagong Sitakunda 21.50 1.50 4 18 7 1807 41807 Khulna Chuadanga Alamdanga 21.90 11.00 4 18 23 1823 41823 Khulna Chuadanga Chuadanga Sadar 28.20 16.20 4 18 31 1831 41831 Khulna Chuadanga Damurhuda 55.90 38.60 4 18 55 1855 41855 Khulna Chuadanga Jiban Nagar 26.20 13.50 2 19 9 1909 21909 Chittagong Comilia Barura 32.70 15.10 2 19 15 1915 21915 Chittagong Comilia Brahman para 29.50 13.60 2 19 18 1918 21918 Chittagong Comilia Burichang 30.30 14.10 2 19 27 1927 21927 Chittagong Comilia Chandina 36.10 16.60 2 19 31 1931 21931 Chittagong Comilia Chauddagram 31.00 14.60 2 19 67 1967 21967 Chittagong Comilia Camilla Sadar (kotwali) 17.60 7.50 2 19 36 1936 21936 Chittagong Comilia Daudkandi 33.30 15.30 2 19 40 1940 21940 Chittagong Comilia Debidwar 29.00 13.30 2 19 54 1954 21954 Chittagong Comilia Homna 39.10 19.30 2 19 72 1972 21972 Chittagong Comilia Laksam 38.10 18.00 2 19 75 1975 21975 Chittagong Comilia Meghna 33.20 15.50 2 19 81 1981 21981 Chittagong Comilia Muradnagar 25.20 10.90 421

%Poor % Extreme Poor (Upper poverty (Lower poverty div zl uz Uzid Geocode Division District Upazila line*) line*) 2 19 87 1987 21987 Chittagong Comilia Nangalkot 25.80 11.10 2 22 16 2216 22216 Chittagong Cox's Bazar Chakaria 39.50 16.90 2 22 24 2224 22224 Chittagong Cox 's Bazar Cox' s Bazar Sadar 38.50 17.70 2 22 45 2245 22245 Chittagong Cox's Bazar Kutubdia 50.30 24.30 2 22 49 2249 22249 ChittaQong Cox's Bazar Maheshkhali 60.70 34.80 2 22 66 2266 22266 Chittagong Cox's Bazar Ramu 59.70 34.60 2 22 90 2290 22290 Chittagong Cox's Bazar Teknaf 73.10 52.00 2 22 94 2294 22294 Chittagong Cox's Bazar Ukhia 68.70 43.30 3 26 4 2604 32604 Dhaka Dhaka Badda 18.00 6.40 3 26 6 2606 32606 Dhaka Dhaka Biman Bandar Thana 11.30 7.30 3 26 8 2608 32608 Dhaka Dhaka Cantonment 12.10 4.60 3 26 12 2612 32612 Dhaka Dhaka Demra 21.50 8.20 3 26 14 2614 32614 Dhaka Dhaka Dhamrai 35.00 23.20 3 26 16 2616 32616 Dhaka Dhaka Dhanmondi 2.50 1.00 3 26 18 2618 32618 Dhaka Dhaka Dohar 38.50 27.20 3 26 26 2626 32626 Dhaka Dhaka Gulshan 8.60 2.90 3 26 28 2628 32628 Dhaka Dhaka Hazaribagh 17.20 6.60 3 26 30 2630 32630 Dhaka Dhaka Kafrul 13.10 4.70 3 26 34 2634 32634 Dhaka Dhaka Kamrangir Char 51.70 30.80 3 26 38 2638 32638 Dhaka Dhaka Keraniganj 36.70 20.20 3 26 36 2636 32636 Dhaka Dhaka Khilgaon 11.60 4.10 3 26 40 2640 32640 Dhaka Dhaka Kotwali 3.90 1.70 3 26 42 2642 32642 Dhaka Dhaka Lalbagh 10.20 3.70 3 26 48 2648 32648 Dhaka Dhaka Mirpur 8.60 2.80 3 26 50 2650 32650 Dhaka Dhaka Bashir Uddinpur 11.70 3.90 3 26 54 2654 32654 Dhaka Dhaka Motijheel 3.10 1.20 3 26 62 2662 32662 Dhaka Dhaka Nawabganj 42.00 29.30 3 26 64 2664 32664 Dhaka Dhaka Pallabi 12 00 4.20 3 26 66 2666 32666 Dhaka Dhaka Ramna 4.70 1.70 3 26 68 2668 32668 Dhaka Dhaka Sabujbagh 13.80 4.90 3 26 72 2672 32672 Dhaka Dhaka Savar 16.80 6.70 3 26 76 2676 32676 Dhaka Dhaka Shyampur 14.90 5.00 3 26 88 2688 32688 Dhaka Dhaka Sutrapur 4.00 1.60 3 26 90 2690 32690 Dhaka Dhaka Tejgaon 5.70 1.70 3 26 95 2695 32695 Dhaka Dhaka Uttara 13.00 4.80 5 27 17 2717 52717 Rajshahi Dinajpur Biral 49.60 32.80 5 27 10 2710 52710 Rajshahi Dinajpur Birampur 49.90 32.90 5 27 12 2712 52712 Rajshahi Dinajpur Birganj 54.00 37.10 5 27 21 2721 52721 Rajshahi Dinajpur Bochaganj 49.30 32.30 5 27 30 2730 52730 Rajshahi Dinajpur Chirirbandar 50.00 33.50 5 27 64 2764 52764 Rajshahi Dinajpur Dinajpur Sadar 45.60 30.70 5 27 38 2738 52738 Rajshahi Dinajpur Fulbari 47.90 31.40 5 27 43 2743 52743 Rajshahi Dinajpur Ghoraghat 51.60 34.60 5 27 47 2747 52747 Rajshahi Dinajpur Hakimpur 46.30 29.30 5 27 56 2756 52756 Rajshahi Dinajpur Kaharole 50.40 33.50 5 27 60 2760 52760 Rajshahi Dinajpur Khansama 54.70 37.60 5 27 69 2769 52769 Rajshahi Dinajpur Nawabganj 51.50 34.80 5 27 77 2777 52777 Rajshahi Dinajpur Parbatipur 49.50 33.50 3 29 3 2903 32903 Dhaka Faridpur Alfadanga 49.30 37.00 3 29 10 2910 32910 Dhaka Faridpur Bhanga 40.50 28.40 3 29 18 2918 32918 Dhaka Faridpur Boalmari 46.60 34.00 3 29 21 2921 32921 Dhaka Faridpur Char Bhadrasan 45.90 33.60 3 29 47 2947 32947 Dhaka Faridpur Faridpur Sadar 42.20 31.00 3 29 56 2956 32956 Dhaka Faridpur Madhukhali 42.00 30.30 3 29 62 2962 32962 Dhaka Faridpur Nagarkanda 47.70 35.10 3 29 84 2984 32984 Dhaka Faridpur Sadarpur 47.00 34.40 2 30 14 3014 23014 Chittagong Feni Chhagalnaiya 9.80 4.00 2 30 25 3025 23025 Chittagong Feni Daganbhuiyan 12.40 4.70 2 30 29 3029 23029 Chittagong Feni Feni Sadar 11.40 4.30 422

%Poor % Extreme Poor (Upper poverty (Lower poverty div zl uz Uzid Geocode Division District Upazila line*) line*) 2 30 51 3051 23051 Chittagong Feni Parshuram 11.90 4.70 2 30 94 3094 23094 Chittagong Feni Sonagazi 16.80 6.30 5 32 21 3221 53221 Rajshahi Gaibandha Fulchhari 60.00 42.70 5 32 24 3224 53224 Rajshahi Gaibandha Gaibandha Sadar 50.00 33.80 5 32 30 3230 53230 Rajshahi Gaibandha Gobindaganj 51.00 34.20 5 32 67 3267 53267 Rajshahi Gaibandha Palashbari 50.30 33.30 5 32 82 3282 53282 Rajshahi Gaibandha Sadullapur 51.40 34.20 5 32 88 3288 53288 Rajshahi Gaibandha Saghatta 52.50 35.30 5 32 91 3291 53291 Rajshahi Gaibandha Sundarganj 56.10 39.00 3 33 30 3330 33330 Dhaka Gazipur Gazipur Sadar 18.40 7.30 3 33 32 3332 33332 Dhaka Gazipur Kaliakair 48.80 37.30 3 33 34 3334 33334 Dhaka Gazipur Kaliganj 47.60 34.80 3 33 36 3336 33336 Dhaka Gazi ur Kapasia 52.90 39.10 3 33 86 3386 33386 Dhaka Gazipur Sreepur 52.30 38.90 3 35 32 3532 33532 Dhaka Gopalganj Gopalganj Sadar 40.80 28.20 3 35 43 3543 33543 Dhaka Gopalganj Kashiani 46.70 32.70 3 35 51 3551 33551 Dhaka Gopalganj Kotalipara 41.60 28.00 3 35 58 3558 33558 Dhaka Gopalganj Muksudpur 42.80 29.20 3 35 91 3591 33591 Dhaka Gopalganj Tungipara 38.40 25.80 6 36 2 3602 63602 Sylhet Habiganj Ajmiriganj 50.00 31.60 6 36 5 3605 63605 Sylhet Habiganj Bahubal 47.60 29.30 6 36 11 3611 63611 Sylhet Habiganj Baniachong 50.60 31.70 6 36 26 3626 63626 Sylhet Habiganj Chunarughat 46.70 28.60 6 36 44 3644 63644 Sylhet Habiganj Habiganj Sadar 40.00 23.70 6 36 68 3668 63668 Sylhet Habigani Lakhai 50.80 31.70 6 36 71 3671 63671 Sylhet Habiganj Madhabpur 45.40 27.40 6 36 77 3677 63677 Sylhet HabiQanj Nabiganj 48.40 30.30 3 39 7 3907 33907 Dhaka Jamalpur Bakshiganj 63.00 48.50 3 39 15 3915 33915 Dhaka Jamalpur Dewanganj 67.70 54.20 3 39 29 3929 33929 Dhaka Jamalpur Lslampur 65.50 51.70 3 39 36 3936 33936 Dhaka Jamalpu r Jamalpur Sadar 50.30 36.70 3 39 58 3958 33958 Dhaka Jamalpur Madarganj 62.10 47.20 3 39 61 3961 33961 Dhaka Jamalpur Melandaha 62.00 47.20 3 39 85 3985 33985 Dhaka Jamalpur Sarishabari 52.70 38.80 4 41 4 4104 44104 Khulna Jessore AbhaynaQar 60.10 45.90 4 41 9 4109 44109 Khulna Jessore Bagher para 43.10 30.40 4 41 11 4111 44111 Khulna Jessore ChauQachha 59.70 46.00 4 41 47 4147 44147 Khulna Jessore Jessore Sadar (Kotwali) 62.10 51.50 4 41 23 4123 44123 Khulna Jessore Jhikargachha 66.00 51.80 4 41 38 4138 44138 Khulna Jessore Keshabpur 51.40 37.20 4 41 61 4161 44161 Khulna Jessore Manirampur 54.00 39.60 4 41 90 4190 44190 Khulna Jessore Sharsha 49.10 36.80 1 42 40 4240 14240 Barisal Jhalokati Jhalokati Sadar 42.70 24.00 1 42 43 4243 14243 Barisal Jhalokati Kanthalia 40.70 18.50 1 42 73 4273 14273 Barisal Jhalokati Nalchity 50.00 33.10 1 42 84 4284 14284 Barisa I Jhalokati Rajapur 54.50 38.10 4 44 14 4414 44414 Khulna Jhenaidah Harinakunda 31.10 17.60 4 44 19 4419 44419 Khulna Jhenaidah Jhenaidaha Sadar 40.70 26.70 4 44 33 4433 44433 Khulna Jhenaidah KaliQanj 27.60 14.80 4 44 42 4442 44442 Khulna Jhenaidah Kotchandpur 21.60 11.90 4 44 71 4471 44471 Khulna Jhenaidah Mahesh pur 28.80 14.50 4 44 80 4480 44480 Khulna Jhenaidah Shailkupa 51.00 35.40 5 38 13 3813 53813 Rajshahi Joypurhat Akkelpur 42.70 26.40 5 38 47 3847 53847 Rajshahi Joypurhat Joypurhat Sadar 44.00 28.30 5 38 58 3858 53858 Rajshahi Joypurhat Kalai 44.20 27.30 5 38 61 3861 53861 Rajshahi Joypurhat Khetlal 42.70 26.20 5 38 74 3874 53874 Rajshahi Joypurhat Panchbibi 44.20 27.60 2 46 43 4643 24643 Chittagong Khagrachhari Dighinala 33.40 16.00 2 46 49 4649 24649 Chittagong Khagrachhari Khagrachhari Sadar 34.60 14.80 423

%Poor % Extreme Poor (Upper poverty (Lower poverty div zl uz Uzid Geocode Division District Upazila line*) line*) 2 46 61 4661 24661 Chittagong Khagrachhari Lakshmichhari 53.20 27.40 2 46 65 4665 24665 Chittagong Khagrachhari Mahalchhari 36.50 18.00 2 46 67 4667 24667 Chittagong Khagrachhari Manikchhari 41.30 19.90 2 46 70 4670 24670 Chittagong Khagrachhari Matiranga 39.50 18.70 2 46 77 4677 24677 Chittagong Khagrachhari Panchhari 37.70 17.20 2 46 80 4680 24680 Chittagor}g Khagrachhari Ramgarh 34.70 17.30 4 47 12 4712 44712 Khulna Khulna Batiaghata 61.40 48.70 4 47 17 4717 44717 Khulna Khulna Dacope 73.30 60.40 4 47 21 4721 44721 Khulna Khulna Daulatpur 58.90 34.50 4 47 40 4740 44740 Khulna Khulna Dighalia 68.70 41.90 4 47 30 4730 44730 Khulna Khulna Dumuria 32.50 21.00 4 47 45 4745 44745 Khulna Khulna Khalishpur 53.70 30.60 4 47 48 4748 44748 Khulna Khulna Khan Jahan Ali 58.10 33.70 4 47 51 4751 44751 Khulna Khulna Khulna Sadar (Kotowali) 50.70 28.90 4 47 53 4753 44753 Khulna Khulna Koyra 50.00 34.80 4 47 64 4764 44764 Khulna Khulna Paikgachha 49.60 34.40 4 47 69 4769 44769 Khulna Khulna Phultala 45.20 36.70 4 47 75 4775 44775 Khulna Khulna Rupsa 67.50 41.10 4 47 85 4785 44785 Khulna Khulna Sonadanga 52.80 30.20 4 47 94 4794 44794 Khulna Khulna Terokhada 40.70 26.70 3 48 2 4802 34802 Dhaka KishoreQanj AustaQram 31.00 19.40 3 48 6 4806 34806 Dhaka Kishoreganj Bajitpur 22.50 13.10 3 48 11 4811 34811 Dhaka Kishoreganj Bhairab 22.30 13.40 3 48 27 4827 34827 Dhaka Kishoreganj Hossainpur 23.80 13.50 3 48 33 4833 34833 Dhaka Kishoreganj Ltna 34.80 22.10 3 48 42 4842 34842 Dhaka Kishoreganj KarimQanj 23.70 13.70 3 48 45 4845 34845 Dhaka Kishoreganj Katiadi 23.50 13.50 3 48 49 4849 34849 Dhaka Kishoreganj Kishoreganj Sadar 20.70 12.10 3 48 54 4854 34854 Dhaka Kishoreganj Kuliar Char 21.10 12.00 3 48 59 4859 34859 Dhaka Kishoreganj Mithamain 33.80 21.80 3 48 76 4876 34876 Dhaka KishoreQanj Nikli 26.40 15.50 3 48 79 4879 34879 Dhaka Kishoreganj Pakundia 23.00 13.10 3 48 92 4892 34892 Dhaka Kishoreganj Tarail 29.20 17.80 5 49 6 4906 54906 Rajshahi Kurigram Bhurungamari 68.20 52.00 5 49 8 4908 54908 Rajshahi Kurigram Char Rajibpur 73.90 58.80 5 49 9 4909 54909 Rajshahi Kurigram Chilmari 69.00 53.10 5 49 52 4952 54952 Rajshahi Kurigram Kurigram Sadar 66.10 49.90 5 49 61 4961 54961 Rajshahi Kurigram Nageshwari 70.30 55.00 5 49 18 4918 54918 Rajshahi Kurigram Phulbari 65.80 49.10 5 49 77 4977 54977 Rajshahi Kurigram Rajarhat 64.00 47.30 5 49 79 4979 54979 Rajshahi Kurigram Raumari 73.50 58.10 5 49 94 4994 54994 Rajshahi Kurigram Ulipur 66.90 50.00 4 50 15 5015 45015 Khulna Kushtia Bheramara 39.70 30.00 4 50 39 5039 45039 Khulna Kushtia Daulatpur 25.20 13.70 4 50 63 5063 45063 Khulna Kushtia Khoksa 34.40 23.60 4 50 71 5071 45071 Khulna Kushtia Kumarkhali 40.20 31.20 4 50 79 5079 45079 Khulna Kushtia Kushtia Sadar 22.50 14.10 4 50 94 5094 45094 Khulna Kushtia Mirpur 17.40 9.40 2 51 43 5143 25143 Chittagong Lakshmipur Lakshmipur Sadar 26.90 10.80 2 51 65 5165 25165 Chittagong Lakshmipur Ramganj 20.10 7.80 2 51 73 5173 25173 Chittagong Lakshmipur Ramgati 58.10 32.20 2 51 58 5158 25158 Chittagong Lakshmipur Roypur 32.10 14.00 5 52 2 5202 55202 Raishahi Lalmonirhat Aditmari 55.70 35.50 5 52 33 5233 55233 Rajshahi Lalmonirhat Hatibandha 56.50 36.90 5 52 39 5239 55239 Rajshahi Lalmonirhat Kaliganj 52.70 32.80 5 52 55 5255 55255 Rajshahi Lalmonirhat Lalmonirhat Sadar 49.10 30.40 5 52 70 5270 55270 Rajshahi Lalmonirhat Patgram 53.30 33.50 3 54 40 5440 35440 Dhaka Madaripur Kalkini 42.30 29.40 3 54 54 5454 35454 Dhaka Madaripur Madaripur Sadar 33.80 22.30 424

%Poor % Extreme Poor (Upper poverty (Lower poverty div zl uz Uzid Geocode Division District Upazila line*) line*) 3 54 80 5480 35480 Dhaka Madaripur Rajoir 33.30 21.40 3 54 87 5487 35487 Dhaka Madaripur Shib Char 44.50 30.30 4 55 57 5557 45557 Khulna Magura Magura Sadar 26.30 13.90 4 55 66 5566 45566 Khulna Magura Bashir Uddin pur 35.80 22.50 4 55 85 5585 45585 Khulna Magura Shalikha 9.00 3.90 4 55 95 5595 45595 Khulna Magura Sreepur 44.00 30.60 3 56 10 5610 35610 Dhaka Manikganj Daulatpur 46.90 32.30 3 56 22 5622 35622 Dhaka Manikganj Ghior 32.30 20.40 3 56 28 5628 35628 Dhaka Manikganj Harirampur 36.80 24.10 3 56 46 5646 35646 Dhaka Manikganj Manikganj Sadar 36.20 24.00 3 56 70 5670 35670 Dhaka Manikganj Saturia 38.40 25.00 3 56 78 5678 35678 Dhaka Manikganj Shibalaya 34.60 22.30 3 56 82 5682 35682 Dhaka Manikganj Singair 37.30 24.50 6 58 14 5814 65814 Sylhet Maulvibazar Barlekha 32.30 17.90 6 58 56 5856 65856 Sylhet Maulvibazar Kamalganj 28.00 14.80 6 58 65 5865 65865 Sylhet Maulvibazar Kulaura 30.80 16.40 6 58 74 5874 65874 Sylhet Maulvibazar Maulvi Bazar Sadar 26.80 14.10 6 58 80 5880 65880 Sylhet Maulvibazar Rajnagar 31.50 16.70 6 58 83 5883 65883 Sylhet Maulvibazar Sreemangal 28.30 14.60 4 57 47 5747 45747 Khulna Meherpur Gangni 14.50 7.80 4 57 87 5787 45787 Khulna Meherpur Meherpur Sadar 10.30 4.90 4 57 60 5760 45760 Khulna Meherpur Mujib Nagar 11.50 5.90 3 59 24 5924 35924 Dhaka Munshiganj Gazaria 35.30 23.20 3 59 44 5944 35944 Dhaka Munshiganj Lohajang 22.80 13.80 3 59 56 5956 35956 Dhaka Munshiganj Munshiganj Sadar 21.30 12.90 3 59 74 5974 35974 Dhaka Munshiganj Serajdikhan 36.60 24.20 3 59 84 5984 35984 Dhaka Munshiganj Sreenagar 25.80 16.10 3 59 94 5994 35994 Dhaka Munshiganj Tongibari 24.90 15.30 3 61 13 6113 36113 Dhaka Mymensingh Bhaluka 54.00 39.50 3 61 16 6116 36116 Dhaka Mymensingh Dhobaura 68.00 53.70 3 61 20 6120 36120 Dhaka Mymensingh Fulbaria 60.40 46.20 3 61 22 6122 36122 Dhaka Mymensingh Gaffargaon 55.70 41.50 3 61 23 6123 36123 Dhaka Mymensingh Gauripur 61.00 46.90 3 61 24 6124 36124 Dhaka Mymensingh Haluaghat 60.80 46.20 3 61 31 6131 36131 Dhaka Mymensingh lshwarganj 61.50 47.50 3 61 65 6165 36165 Dhaka Mymensingh Muktagachha 58.60 44.80 3 61 52 6152 36152 Dhaka My_mensingh M_y_mensingh Sadar 50.70 38.00 3 61 72 6172 36172 Dhaka Mymensingh Nandail 60.50 46.60 3 61 81 6181 36181 Dhaka Mymensingh Phulpur 66.90 52.90 3 61 94 6194 36194 Dhaka Mymensingh Trishal 57.50 43.30 5 64 3 6403 56403 Rajshahi Naogaon At rai 46.90 29.90 5 64 6 6406 56406 Rajshahi Naogaon Badalgachhi 43.50 27.00 5 64 28 6428 56428 Raishahi Naogaon Dhamoirhat 43.50 27.00 5 64 50 6450 56450 Rajshahi Naogaon Mahadebpur 45.40 28.80 5 64 47 6447 56447 Rajshahi Naogaon Manda 47.20 30.20 5 64 60 6460 56460 Rajshahi Naogaon Naogaon Sadar 49.90 33.90 5 64 69 6469 56469 Rajshahi Naogaon Niamatpur 50.90 33.80 5 64 75 6475 56475 Rajshahi Naogaon Patnitala 48.50 32.40 5 64 79 6479 56479 Rajshahi Naogaon Porsha 63.90 48.60 5 64 85 6485 56485 Rajshahi Naogaon Raninagar 46.40 29.50 5 64 86 6486 56486 Rajshahi Naogaon Sapahar 58.60 42.40 4 65 28 6528 46528 Khulna Narail Kalia 45.50 32.10 4 65 52 6552 46552 Khulna Narail Lohagara 58.20 46.90 4 65 76 6576 46576 Khulna Narail Narail Sadar 32.70 20.20 3 67 2 6702 36702 Dhaka Narayanganj Araihazar 25.50 14.10 3 67 6 6706 36706 Dhaka Narayanganj Bandar 25.70 10.20 3 67 58 6758 36758 Dhaka Narayanganj Narayanganj Sadar 22.90 10.20 3 67 68 6768 36768 Dhaka Narayanganj Rupganj 24.90 14.60 3 67 4 6704 36704 Dhaka Narayanganj Sonargaon 16.40 8.50 425

%Poor % Extreme Poor (Upper poverty (Lower poverty div zl uz Uzid Geocode Division District Upazila line*) line*) 3 68 7 6807 36807 Dhaka Narsingdi Belabo 35.10 20.50 3 68 52 6852 36852 Dhaka Narsingdi Manohardi 35.80 20.90 3 68 60 6860 36860 Dhaka Narsingdi Narsingdi Sadar 34.60 22.50 3 68 63 6863 36863 Dhaka Narsingdi Palash Paurashava 25.60 15.20 3 68 64 6864 36864 Dhaka Narsingdi Roypura 40.70 25.80 3 68 76 6876 36876 Dhaka Narsingdi Shibpur 29.70 17.20 5 69 9 6909 56909 Rajshahi Natore Bagati Para 45.00 28.30 5 69 15 6915 56915 Rajshahi Natore Baraigram 49.20 32.10 5 69 41 6941 56941 Rajshahi Natore Gurudaspur 53.10 35.50 5 69 44 6944 56944 Rajshahi Natore Lalpur 48.60 31.50 5 69 63 6963 56963 Rajshahi Natore Natore Sadar 49.40 32.60 5 69 91 6991 56991 Rajshahi Natore Singra 51.10 34.00 5 70 18 7018 57018 Rajshahi Nawabganj Bholahat 41.60 25.30 5 70 37 7037 57037 Rajshahi Nawabganj Gomastapur 43.10 27.40 5 70 56 7056 57056 Rajshahi Nawabganj Nachole 40.20 24.70 5 70 66 7066 57066 Rajshahi Nawabganj Nawabganj Sadar 43.50 28.80 5 70 88 7088 57088 Rajshahi Nawabganj Shibganj 42.60 27.30 3 72 4 7204 37204 Dhaka Netrakona Atpara 29.90 18.10 3 72 9 7209 37209 Dhaka Netrakona Barhatta 30.60 19.00 3 72 18 7218 37218 Dhaka Netrakona Durgapur 33.10 20.50 3 72 40 7240 37240 Dhaka Netrakona Kalmakanda 34.60 21.80 3 72 47 7247 37247 Dhaka Netrakona Kendua Thana 32.40 20.10 3 72 38 7238 37238 Dhaka Netrakona Khaliajuri 29.40 18.30 3 72 56 7256 37256 Dhaka Netrakona Madan 31.80 19.90 3 72 63 7263 37263 Dhaka Netrakona Mohanganj Thana 33.30 21.00 3 72 74 7274 37274 Dhaka Netrakona Netrokona Sadar 28.70 17.50 3 72 83 7283 37283 Dhaka Netrakona Purbadhala 32.30 20.00 5 73 12 7312 57312 Rajshahi Nilphamari Dimla 75.70 61.50 5 73 15 7315 57315 Rajshahi Nilphamari Domar 71.00 55.80 5 73 36 7336 57336 Rajshahi Nilphamari Jaldhaka 74.00 59.30 5 73 45 7345 57345 Rajshahi Nilphamari Kishoreganj 71.80 56.20 5 73 64 7364 57364 Rajshahi Nilphamari Nilphamari Sadar 69.20 54.00 5 73 85 7385 57385 Rajshahi Nilphamari Saidpur 59.20 43.20 2 75 7 7507 27507 Chittagong Noakhali Begumganj 24.80 10.00 2 75 10 7510 27510 Chittagong Noakhali Chatkhil 17.50 6.60 2 75 21 7521 27521 Chittagong Noakhali Companiganj 41.00 19.40 2 75 36 7536 27536 Chittagong Noakhali Hatiya 48.70 25.50 2 75 87 7587 27587 Chittagong Noakhali Noakhali Sadar (sudharam) 44.30 21.60 2 75 80 7580 27580 Chittagong Noakhali Senbagh 24.40 10.50 5 76 5 7605 57605 Rajshahi Pabna Atgharia 47.00 26.60 5 76 16 7616 57616 Rajshahi Pabna Bera 53.60 32.70 5 76 19 7619 57619 Rajshahi Pabna Bhangura 50.60 30.30 5 76 22 7622 57622 Rajshahi Pabna Chatmohar 51.00 30.40 5 76 33 7633 57633 Rajshahi Pabna Faridpur 47.70 27.90 5 76 39 7639 57639 Rajshahi Pabna Lshwardi 45.90 26.90 5 76 55 7655 57655 Rajshahi Pabna Pabna Sadar 45.20 26.70 5 76 72 7672 57672 Rajshahi Pabna Santhia 53.30 32.50 5 76 83 7683 57683 Rajshahi Pabna Sujanagar 51.40 30.70 5 77 4 7704 57704 Rajshahi Panchagarh Atwari 47.90 31.10 5 77 25 7725 57725 Rajshahi Panchagarh Boda 55.50 38.50 5 77 34 7734 57734 Rajshahi Panchagarh Debiganj 57.70 40.60 5 77 73 7773 57773 Rajshahi Panchagarh Panchagarh Sada r 58.60 42.00 5 77 90 7790 57790 Rajshahi Panchagarh Tentulia 56.10 38.70 1 78 38 7838 17838 Barisal Patuakhali Bauphal 61.60 40.70 1 78 52 7852 17852 Barisal Patuakhali Dashmina 76.60 63.80 1 78 55 7855 17855 Barisal Patuakhali Dumki 36.40 28.60 1 78 57 7857 17857 Barisal Patuakhali Galachipa 76.80 68.00 1 78 66 7866 17866 Barisal Patuakhali Kala Para 74.20 64.50 1 78 76 7876 17876 Barisal Patuakhali Mirzaganj 41.70 24.70 426

%Poor % Extreme Poor (Upper poverty (Lower poverty div zl uz Uzid Geocode Division District Upazila line*) line*) 1 78 95 7895 17895 Barisal Patuakhali Patuakhali Sadar 52.10 41.30 1 79 14 7914 17914 Barisal Pirojpur Bhandaria 44.70 34.20 1 79 47 7947 17947 Barisal Pirojpur Kawkhali 27.90 17.20 1 79 58 7958 17958 Barisal Pirojpur Mathbaria 38.10 17.90 1 79 76 7976 17976 Barisal Pirojpur Nazirpur 13.70 11.50 1 79 87 7987 17987 Barisal Pirojpur Nesarabad (swarupkati) 20.30 11.30 1 79 80 7980 17980 Barisal Pirojpur Pirojpur Sadar 22.70 16.90 3 82 7 8207 38207 Dhaka Rajbari Baliakandi 40.80 27.20 3 82 29 8229 38229 Dhaka Rajbari Goalandaghat 47.10 32.50 3 82 73 8273 38273 Dhaka Rajbari Pangsha 45.50 31.20 3 82 76 8276 38276 Dhaka Rajbari Rajbari Sadar 41.00 27.60 5 81 10 8110 58110 Rajshahi Rajshahi Bagha 47.10 29.70 5 81 12 8112 58112 Rajshahi Rajshahi Baghmara 47.50 30.80 5 81 22 8122 58122 Rajshahi Rajshahi Boalia 19.80 12.10 5 81 25 8125 58125 Rajshahi Rajshahi Charghat 44.10 27.10 5 81 31 8131 58131 Rajshahi Rajshahi Durgapur 45.90 28.50 5 81 34 8134 58134 Rajshahi Raishahi Godagari 52.20 35.50 5 81 40 8140 58140 Rajshahi Rajshahi Matihar 23.40 11.00 5 81 53 8153 58153 Rajshahi Rajshahi Mohanpur 45.70 28.50 5 81 72 8172 58172 Rajshahi Ralshahi Paba 28.60 13.20 5 81 82 8182 58182 Rajshahi Rajshahi Puthia 45.90 29.10 5 81 85 8185 58185 Rajshahi Rajshahi Rajpara 19.30 11.00 5 81 90 8190 58190 Rajshahi Rajshahi Shah Makhdum 17.80 8.20 5 81 94 8194 58194 Rajshahi Rajshahi Tanore 52.00 34.60 2 84 7 8407 28407 Chittagong Rangamati Baghai Chhari 49.90 25.40 2 84 21 8421 28421 Chittagong Rangamati Barka I 42.70 19.60 2 84 29 8429 28429 Chittagong Rangamati Belai Chhari 51.50 31.70 2 84 47 8447 28447 Chittagong Rangamati Jurai Chhari Thana 35.00 18.00 2 84 36 8436 28436 Chittagong Rangamati Kaptai 24.30 11.70 2 84 25 8425 28425 Chittagong Rangamati Kawkhali (betbunia) 44.10 21.20 2 84 58 8458 28458 Chittagong Rangamati Langadu 56.70 30.50 2 84 75 8475 28475 Chittagong Rangamati Maniarchar 32.50 14.30 2 84 78 8478 28478 Chittagong Rangamati Rajasthali 48.10 25.70 2 84 87 8487 28487 Chittagong Rangamati Rangamati Sada r 27.50 13.20 5 85 3 8503 58503 Rajshahi Rangpur Badarganj 66.30 50.10 5 85 27 8527 58527 Rajshahi Rangpur Gangachara 64.70 48.00 5 85 42 8542 58542 Rajshahi Rangpur Kaunia 67.00 50.90 5 85 58 8558 58558 Rajshahi Rangpur Mitha Pukur 62.20 45.50 5 85 73 8573 58573 Rajshahi Rangpur Pirgachha 62.30 45.30 5 85 76 8576 58576 Rajshahi Rangpur Pirganj 62.10 45.60 5 85 49 8549 58549 Rajshahi Rangpur Rangpur Sadar 55.30 40.20 5 85 92 8592 58592 Rajshahi Rangpur Taraganj 66.00 49.70 4 87 4 8704 48704 Khulna Satkhira Assasuni 70.30 57.50 4 87 25 8725 48725 Khulna Satkhira Debhata 56.60 42.80 4 87 43 8743 48743 Khulna Satkhira Kalaroa 49.00 32.90 4 87 47 8747 48747 Khulna Satkhira Kaliganj 74.90 62.50 4 87 82 8782 48782 Khulna Satkhira Satkhira Sadar 46.20 33.40 4 87 86 8786 48786 Khulna Satkhira Shyamnagar 75.70 65.20 4 87 90 8790 48790 Khulna Satkhira Tala 45.60 33.00 3 86 14 8614 38614 Dhaka Shariatpur Bhedarganj 37.80 24.30 3 86 25 8625 38625 Dhaka Shariatpur Damudya 29.60 18.10 3 86 36 8636 38636 Dhaka Shariatpur Gosairhat 38.20 24.60 3 86 65 8665 38665 Dhaka Shariatpur Naria 30.70 19.10 3 86 69 8669 38669 Dhaka Shariatpur Palong 28.70 17.60 3 86 94 8694 38694 Dhaka Shariatpur Zanjira 32.20 19.90 3 89 37 8937 38937 Dhaka Sherpur Jhenaigati 47.20 32.00 3 89 67 8967 38967 Dhaka Sherpur Nakla 46.50 31.60 3 89 70 8970 38970 Dhaka Sherpur Nalitabari 53.00 37.80 3 89 88 8988 38988 Dhaka Sherpur Sherpur Sadar 46.10 32.00 427

%Poor % Extreme Poor (Upper poverty (Lower poverty div zl uz Uzid Geocode Division District Upazila line*) line*) 3 89 90 8990 38990 Dhaka Sherpur Sreebardi 47.50 32.40 5 88 11 8811 58811 Rajshahi Sirajganj Belkuchi 50.60 34.00 5 88 27 8827 58827 Rajshahi Sirajganj Chauhali 54.20 36.90 5 88 44 8844 58844 Rajshahi Sirajganj Kamarkhanda 51.30 34.20 5 88 50 8850 58850 Rajshahi Sirajganj Kazipur 51.00 33.70 5 88 61 8861 58861 Rajshahi Sirajganj Royganj 53.30 36.00 5 88 67 8867 58867 Rajshahi Sirajganj Shahjadpur 56.40 39.80 5 88 78 8878 58878 Rajshahi Sirajganj Sirajganj Sadar 51.20 34.40 5 88 89 8889 58889 Rajshahi Sirajganj Tarash 51.40 34.10 5 88 94 8894 58894 Rajshahi Sirajganj Ullah Para 53.00 36.50 6 90 18 9018 69018 Sylhet Sunamganj Bishwambarpur 52.20 29.70 6 90 23 9023 69023 Sylhet Sunamganj Chhatak 47.50 27.60 6 90 29 9029 69029 Sylhet Sunamganj Derai 47.00 26.40 6 90 32 9032 69032 Sylhet Sunamganj Dharampasha 52.10 28.90 6 90 33 9033 69033 Sylhet Sunamganj Dowarabazar 51.00 28.70 6 90 47 9047 69047 Sylhet Sunamganj Jagannathpur 46.40 27.20 6 90 50 9050 69050 Sylhet Sunamganj Jamalganj 52.10 29.70 6 90 86 9086 69086 Sylhet Sunamganj SuiIa 50.10 27.90 6 90 89 9089 69089 Sylhet Sunamganj Sunamganj Sadar 45.80 25.60 6 90 92 9092 69092 Sylhet Sunamganj Tahirpur 52.10 29.30 6 91 8 9108 69108 Sylhet Sylhet Balaganj 11.40 5.40 6 91 17 9117 69117 Sylhet Sylhet Beani Bazar 11.00 5.40 6 91 20 9120 69120 Sylhet Sylhet Bishwanath 12.80 6.20 6 91 27 9127 69127 Sylhet Sylhet Companiganj 12.90 5.60 6 91 35 9135 69135 Sylhet Sylhet Fenchuganj 11.00 5.10 6 91 38 9138 69138 Sylhet Sylhet Golabganj 11.40 5.50 6 91 41 9141 69141 Sylhet Sylhet Gowainghat 13.30 6.00 6 91 53 9153 69153 Sylhet Sylhet Jaintiapur 11.70 5.30 6 91 59 9159 69159 Sylhet Sylhet Kanaighat 12.40 5.60 6 91 62 9162 69162 Sylhet Sylhet Sylhet 13.70 6.90 6 91 94 9194 69194 Sylhet Sylhet Zakiganj 13.20 6.70 3 93 9 9309 39309 Dhaka Tangail Basail 33.60 21.70 3 93 19 9319 39319 Dhaka Tangail Bhuapur 42.70 28.80 3 93 23 9323 39323 Dhaka Tangail Delduar 36.70 24.40 3 93 28 9328 39328 Dhaka Tangail Ghatail 42.10 28.10 3 93 38 9338 39338 Dhaka Tangail Gopalpur 39.20 25.30 3 93 47 9347 39347 Dhaka Tangail Kalihati 40.70 28.00 3 93 57 9357 39357 Dhaka Tangail Madhupur 41.40 27.20 3 93 66 9366 39366 Dhaka Tangail Mirzapur 36.60 24.50 3 93 76 9376 39376 Dhaka Tangail Nagarpur 48.40 33.80 3 93 85 9385 39385 Dhaka Tangail Sakhipur 44.50 29.60 3 93 95 9395 39395 Dhaka Tangail Tangail Sadar 38.10 26.00 5 94 8 9408 59408 Rajshahi Thakurgaon Baliadangi 51.30 34.00 5 94 51 9451 59451 Rajshahi Thakurgaon Haripur 55.60 38.60 5 94 82 9482 59482 Rajshahi Thakurgaon Pirganj 52.70 35.80 5 94 86 9486 59486 Rajshahi Thakurgaon Ranisankail 54.60 37.50 5 94 94 9494 59494 Rajshahi Thakurgaon Thakurgaon Sadar 50.50 34.80

Note: The World Bank (WB) and Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) in collaboration with World Food Programme (WFP) produced the poverty estimates. Data Source: Poverty head count rates estimated using the Small Area Estimates (SAE) technique. Primary inputs for the analysis included Census 2001, HIES 2005 and the Population Sample Census 2004.

Note: The poverty lines are estimated based on Cost of Basic Needs (CBN) method. Reference: Report of the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2005, BBS

428

Appendix 6: Letter of invitation to participate in the research

429

Appendix 7: The orders of interviews

Nos Name* Beneficiary/Non-beneficiary Program

1 Bashir Uddin Beneficiary Old Age Allowance

2 Felani Banu Beneficiary Old Age Allowance

3 Abdul Jalil Non-beneficiary Old Age Allowance

4 Aleya Begum Non-beneficiary Old Age Allowance

5 Lucky Beneficiary SHOUHARDO-II

6 Mohammad Alom Beneficiary SHOUHARDO-II

7 Masura Begum Non-beneficiary SHOUHARDO-II

8 Motaleb Hossain Non-beneficiary SHOUHARDO-II

9 Saleha Begum Beneficiary VGD

10 Hafsa Beneficiary VGD

11 Shefali Begum Non-beneficiary VGD

12 Monwara Begum Non-beneficiary VGD

13 Dilip Beneficiary VGF

14 Mafizur Rahman Beneficiary VGF

15 Prodip Non-beneficiary VGF

16 Abul Kashem Non-beneficiary VGF

17 Hafeza Begum Beneficiary Widow Allowance

18 Sahiran Begum Beneficiary Widow Allowance

19 Rashida Begum Non-beneficiary Widow Allowance

20 Hazera Banu Non-beneficiary Widow Allowance

• Not real names

430

Appendix 8: Permission of study Office of the Upazila Nirbahi Officer Dimla, Nilphamari, Bangladesh This is to certify that Mr. K M Kabirul Islam (Student No z3313647), PhD Research Scholar, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, has been given permission to access the Study areas of this Upazila, to interview beneficiaries of different Social Safety Net Programs (SSNPs), and poor, non-beneficiaries of any SSNPs, to record the interview sessions and other necessary action s under the below conditions: a. All the interviews will be only for academic purposes; b. All the information given by the interviewees will be confidential; c. No interviewees will be identified in any report or publications; d. Interviewees will be reminded by the researcher that they are under no obligation to participate in the study; and e. Interviewees have the right to withdraw from the study at any time, and that withdrawal will not adversely affect the interviewee in any way. It could be mentioned that the local administration of SSNPs are informed about the study and will support any participants who become distressed during the interview process. Contingency funds are available if it is needed for any participant. Contact details of local administration are included on Information and Consent Form of the study.

Upazila Nirbahi Officer Dimla, Nilphamari

431

Appendix 9: Information statement and consent form A- Information Statement and Consent form for In-Depth Interview

“Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs: A Study of Bangladeshi Rural Poor Households” Project ““““ : : ! "#"#"#”"#”””

Information Statement and Consent Form for In-Depth Interview Participants In-Depth Interview %%%%&'&'&'&' (((( ) ) ) * + * + * +

This research aims to capture the impact of five important SSNPs in ensuring food security (with particular attention to access to food) of the rural poor people living in one of the poorest districts (Nilphamari) of Bangladesh. The project entitled “Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs: A Study of Bangladeshi Rural Poor Households” is being conducted by the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) in the University of New South Wales and is funded by the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, UNSW. The researcher will conduct in-depth interviews (one-on-one) with the two groups of people, one who are beneficiaries of the selected SSNPs and the other who are vulnerable but not included in any SSNP to seek their opinions on impact of these SSNPs in ensuring food security and women’s empowerment.

', %( - . - /, 0 1! 2345 6 7 89: &। “ : ! "#” , ', ;?@ । ', A& BCD' %> - BCD' - F -G /, ? in-depth interview- H? । 0 I ? 8J A& % ,? 1 K 89:।

HC12508 432

“Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs: A Study of Bangladeshi Rural Poor Households” Project ““““ : : ! "#"#"#”"#””” Information and Consent Form for In-depth Interview Participants (continued) In-depth Interview- %%%%&'&'&'&' (((( ) ) ) * + * + * + ((( ) ))) We would like you to participate in an in-depth interview for about an hour to discuss these issues. This will help the researcher to understand the measures that could be taken to ensure food security of the rural poor people. H H 8N ,?2 ? ;? O PQ ! in-depth interview- %& H R S। H /, 0 T>T> %/C ', &? ।

During the interview we would like to take notes and also ask you to let us tape- record the session so that our notes are more accurate. What you tell us will be completely confidential, except as required by the law. You will not be identified in the report or any of the papers we write for publication. Interview H H JU ,? -V 8J -V %C W IX H

5 - ! -V -# -# । H T K -' ? >, HK/' T ;? Z[। ; ( - - V - H ? ; &।

You will be recompensed a token gift of approximately AUD20 from the researcher for participation in this study. If you become distressed during the interview or afterwards you will be provided assistance and support from the UNO, Dimla, Nilphamari. Please contact him on his mobile number which is provided below. H ',? %& ( ;? \] %^? # A_ ! 8 & -? &। Interview ` H T a & # 8 & I -> H &? -? &। b ; 1 - K c -T'T' ।

HC12508

433

If you agree to be part of this project, please sign the consent form that is attached. You are free at any time to refuse to answer particular questions or to stop being part of the study. A withdrawal form is also attached for you to keep. If you have any concerns or complaints at any time about your part in the study, you can contact the Ethics Secretariat at the University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia by writing or ringing (+61) 2 9385 7800, quoting this reference number: HC12508 or if you are not able to communicate in Australia you can contact with your local authority Mr Abu Rafa Md. Arif, UNO, Dimla, Nilphamari on his mobile number +88 0171 206 1943.

H T ;-< % &- & & dJ * + %/&5 eI 3। -T ? -T ;-f 8 ; ;< % & %e@ eC H ?Z। H Z ( ! ; X& + > dJ HZ। ;-< %& ,? -T ? T H - ;f %DT' H , & H D Ethics Secretariat at the University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia- g? -V. (612 9385 7800) HC12508 -.h c U& -T'T' %> H T %^? -T'T' I &, & H ; C # 8 & %. Hi . - : H.- - K c +kk]OlO\]mOnop - -T'T' ।

Please feel free to contact me on +88 01727702884. We thank you for your cooperation with this research.

;-?C H > +kk ]Ol\ll]\kko- c -T'T' qC । ',? H &T' ( H C( K।

K M Kabirul Islam PhD Candidate Social Policy Research Centre The University of New South Wales

HC12508.

434

“Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs: A Study of Bangladeshi Rural Poor Households” Project ““““ : : ! "#"#"#”"#””” Information and Consent Form for In-depth Interview Participants (continued) In-depth Interview- %%%%&'&'&'&' (((( ) ) ) * + * + * + ((( ) ))) You are making a decision whether or not to take part in this study. Your signature indicates that you have read the information on the information sheet and that you have decided to participate.

H rs S -T, H ',? %& । H eI V -T, H ) V 8N ) A& t Z %& rs ?Z।

...... Your signature Signature of witness H eI eI eI

...... Please print your name Witness’s name %/&5 H u eI

...... Date Nature of witness eI ;@ K M Kabirul Islam , , 3 K ...... Signature of researcher Name of researcher ', eI ',

HC12508

435

B- Information Statement and Consent form for Focus Group Discussions Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs: A Study of Bangladeshi Rural Poor Households Project ““““ : : ! "#"#"#”"#””” Information Statement and Consent Form for Focus Group Discussion Participants -. -. -. v v v # # # %%%%&'&'&'&' (((( ) ) ) * + * + * + This research aims to capture the impact of five important SSNPs in ensuring food security (with particular attention to access to food) of the rural poor people living in one of the poorest districts (Nilphamari) of Bangladesh. The project entitled “Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs: A Study of Bangladeshi Rural Poor Households” is being conducted by the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) in the University of New South Wales and is funded by the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, UNSW. The researcher will organize 1 or more Focus Group Discussions with 10 to 12 officials with the responsibility to select the beneficiaries of the selected SSNPs and disburse allowances, from government, local government bodies, and civil society. ', %( - . - /, 0 1! 2345 6 7 89: &। “ : ! "#” , ', ;?@ । ',

A& BCD' %> ?4 , w? D - K! x ? C -. v # H? । We would like you to participate in a Focus Group Discussion for about two hours to discuss these issues. This will help the researcher to understand the measures that could be taken to ensure food security of the rural poor people. H H 8N ,?2 ? ;? \\\ PQ -. v # %& H R S। H /, 0 T>T> %/C ', &? । HC12508.

436

Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs: A Study of Bangladeshi Rural Poor Households Project ““““ : : ! "#"#"#”"#””” Information and Consent Form for Focus Group Discussion participants (continued) -. -. -. v v v # # # %%%%&'&'&'&' (((( ) ) ) * + * + * + ((( ) ))) During the Focus Group Discussion we would like to take notes and also ask you to let us tape-record the session so that our notes are more accurate. What you tell us will be completely confidential, except as required by the law. You will not be identified in the report or any of the papers we write for publication.

-. v # H H ,? -V 8J -V %C W IX H

H -V -# -# । H T K -' ? >, HK/' T ;? Z[। ; ( - - V - H ? ; &।

If you agree to be part of this project, please sign the consent form that is attached. You are free at any time to refuse to answer particular questions or to stop being part of the study. A withdrawal form is also attached for you to keep. If you have any concerns or complaints at any time about your part in the study, you can contact the Ethics Secretariat at the University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia by writing or ringing (612) 9385 7800, quoting this reference number: HC12508 or if you are not able to communicate in Australia you can contact with your local authority Mr Abu Rafa Md. Arif, UNO, Dimla, Nilphamari on his mobile number +8801712061943.

H T ;-< % & & & dJ * + %/&5 eI 3। -T ? -T ;-f 8 ; ;< % & %e@ eC H ?Z। H Z ( ! ; X& + > dJ HZ। ;-< %& ,? -T ? T H - ;f %DT' H , & H D Ethics Secretariat at the University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia- g? -V. (612 9385 7800) HC12508 -.h

437

c U& -T'T' %> H T %^? -T'T' I &, & H ; C # 8 & %. Hi . - : H.- - K c +kk]OlO\]mOnop - -T'T' ।

Please feel free to contact me on +88 01727702884. We thank you for your cooperation with this research.

;-?C H > +kk ]Ol\ll]\kko- c -T'T' qC । ',? H &T' ( H C( K।

K M Kabirul Islam PhD Candidate Social Policy Research Centre The University of New South Wales

HC12508.

438

Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs: A Study of Bangladeshi Rural Poor Households Project ““““ : : ! "#"#"#”"#””” Information and Consent Form for Focus Group Discussion participants (continued) -. -. -. v v v # # # %%%%&'&'&'&' (((( ) ) ) * + * + * + ((( ) ))) You are making a decision whether or not to take part in this study. Your signature indicates that you have read the information on the information sheet and that you have decided to participate. H rs S -T, H ',? %& । H eI V -T, H ) V 8N ) A& t Z %& rs ?Z।

...... Your signature Signature of witness H eI eI eI

...... Please print your name Witness’s name %/&5 H u eI

...... Date Nature of witness eI ;@

K M Kabirul Islam , , 3 K ...... Signature of researcher Name of researcher ', eI ', HC12508

439

Appendix 10: Withdrawal of consent form

“Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs: A Study of Bangladeshi Rural Poor Households” Project ““““ : : ! "# "#”””” Withdrawal of Consent * * * ; X& X& X& X& + + + + I wish to withdraw my consent to take part in the “Food Security and Social Safety Net Programs: A Study of Bangladeshi Rural Poor Households” Project and understand that such withdrawal WILL NOT jeopardise any relationship with the Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales.

H “ : ! "#” , ', ; 8 - I ;D [।

...... Signature Date eI

...... Please PRINT your name %/&5 H u HC12508

440

The section for Revocation of Consent should be forwarded to Mr. K M Kabirul Islam, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia. For this purpose a stamped envelope is enclosed herewith.

* ; X& zs %! Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Kensington NSW 2052, Australia g? 3 K t &। ( #!V & ! > dJ &।

HC12508

441

Appendix 11: Districts poverty map 2010

% Extreme Poor (Lower poverty % Poor (Upper Division District divn zila zila_name line*) poverty line*) Barisal Barguna 10 4 BARGUNA 9.80 19.00 Barisal Barisal 10 6 BARISAL 39.87 54.78 Barisal Bhola 10 9 BHOLA 20.36 33.17 Barisal Jhalokati 10 42 JHALOKATI 26.66 40.50 Barisal Patuakhali 10 78 PATUAKHALI 14.70 25.76 Barisal Pirojpur 10 79 PIROJPUR 30.86 44.08 Chittagong Bandarban 20 3 BANDARBAN 21.61 40.07 Chittagong Brahamanbaria 20 12 BRAHMANBARIA 15.03 30.04 Chittagong Chandpur 20 13 CHANDPUR 30.31 50.96 Chittagong Chittagong 20 15 CHITTAGONG 4.04 11.51 Chittagong Comilla 20 19 COMILLA 21.12 37.92 Chittagong Cox'S Bazar 20 22 COX'S BAZAR 16.24 32.69 Chittagong Feni 20 30 FENI 14.59 25.86 Chittagong Khagrachhari 20 46 KHAGRACHHARI 10.10 25.47 Chittagong Lakshmipur 20 51 LAKSHMIPUR 18.13 31.20 Chittagong Noakhali 20 75 NOAKHALI 3.40 9.63 Chittagong Rangamati 20 84 RANGAMATI 6.75 20.31 Dhaka Dhaka 30 26 DHAKA 4.86 15.68 Dhaka Faridpur 30 29 FARIDPUR 19.79 36.34 Dhaka Gazipur 30 33 GAZIPUR 8.19 19.42 Dhaka Gopalganj 30 35 GOPALGANJ 26.81 42.69 Dhaka Jamalpur 30 39 JAMALPUR 34.19 51.09 Dhaka Kishoreganj 30 48 KISHORGONJ 16.37 30.30 Dhaka Madaripur 30 54 MADARIPUR 17.44 34.88 Dhaka Manikganj 30 56 MANIKGANJ 8.03 18.46 Dhaka Munshiganj 30 59 MUNSHIGANJ 15.60 28.66 Dhaka Mymensingh 30 61 MYMENSINGH 32.28 50.48 Dhaka Narayanganj 30 67 NARAYANGANJ 10.43 26.13 Dhaka Narsingdi 30 68 NARSINGDI 12.10 23.75 Dhaka Netrakona 30 72 NETRAKONA 19.50 35.29 Dhaka Rajbari 30 82 RAJBARI 25.65 41.89 442

% Extreme Poor (Lower poverty % Poor (Upper Division District divn zila zila_name line*) poverty line*) Dhaka Shariatpur 30 86 SHARIATPUR 34.42 52.58 Dhaka Sherpur 30 89 SHERPUR 29.85 48.43 Dhaka Tangail 30 93 TANGAIL 18.05 29.75 Khulna Bagerhat 40 1 BAGERHAT 24.02 42.80 Khulna Chuadanga 40 18 CHUADANGA 10.80 27.65 Khulna Jessore 40 41 JESSORE 18.44 39.02 Khulna Jhenaidah 40 44 JHENAIDAH 10.03 24.69 Khulna Khulna 40 47 KHULNA 21.23 38.79 Khulna Kushtia 40 50 KUSHTIA 0.84 3.62 Khulna Magura 40 55 MAGURA 25.92 45.36 Khulna Meherpur 40 57 MEHERPUR 5.06 15.22 Khulna Narail 40 65 NARAIL 7.65 19.97 Khulna Satkhira 40 87 SATKHIRA 29.73 46.31 Rajshahi Bogra 50 10 BOGRA 6.72 16.61 Rajshahi Joypurhat 50 38 JOYPURHAT 12.94 26.70 Rajshahi Naogaon 50 64 NAOGAON 6.99 16.85 Rajshahi Natore 50 69 NATORE 21.31 35.05 Rajshahi Nawabganj 50 70 NAWABGANJ 12.13 25.31 Rajshahi Pabna 50 76 PABNA 16.73 31.55 Rajshahi Rajshahi 50 81 RAJSHAHI 16.54 31.41 Rajshahi Sirajganj 50 88 SIRAJGANJ 22.73 38.71 Rangpur Dinajpur 50 27 DINAJPUR 21.31 37.94 Rangpur Gaibandha 50 32 GAIBANDHA 30.34 48.03 Rangpur Kurigram 50 49 KURIGRAM 44.33 63.67 Rangpur Lalmonirhat 50 52 LALMONIRHAT 16.75 34.53 Rangpur Nilphamari 50 73 NILPHAMARI 18.84 34.84 Rangpur Panchagarh 50 77 PANCHAGARH 12.32 26.69 Rangpur Rangpur 50 85 RANGPUR 30.05 46.22 Rangpur Thakurgaon 50 94 THAKURGAON 13.77 27.03 Sylhet Habiganj 60 36 HABIGANJ 20.14 25.27 Sylhet Maulvibazar 60 58 MAULVIBAZAR 21.08 25.71 Sylhet Sunamganj 60 90 SUNAMGANJ 20.55 25.95 Sylhet Sylhet 60 91 SYLHET 19.51 24.07 443

Appendix 12: Upazila poverty map 2010 % Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 40 1 BAGERHAT 8 108 BAGERHAT SADAR 18.65 35.92 40 1 BAGERHAT 14 114 CHITALMARI 30.03 50.01 40 1 BAGERHAT 34 134 FAKIRHAT 19.20 36.39 40 1 BAGERHAT 38 138 KACHUA 23.58 42.48 40 1 BAGERHAT 56 156 MOLLAHAT 26.73 46.11 40 1 BAGERHAT 58 158 MONGLA 22.68 41.91 40 1 BAGERHAT 60 160 MORRELGANJ 27.00 46.52 40 1 BAGERHAT 73 173 RAMPAL 22.46 41.13 40 1 BAGERHAT 77 177 SARANKHOLA 28.24 48.01 20 3 BANDARBAN 4 304 ALIKADAM 23.20 42.88 20 3 BANDARBAN 14 314 BANDARBAN SADAR 15.60 30.81 20 3 BANDARBAN 51 351 LAMA 21.58 40.95 20 3 BANDARBAN 73 373 NAIKHONGCHHARI 26.27 46.05 20 3 BANDARBAN 89 389 ROWANGCHHARI 16.16 32.91 20 3 BANDARBAN 91 391 RUMA 23.38 42.30 20 3 BANDARBAN 95 395 THANCHI 31.70 53.05 10 4 BARGUNA 9 409 AMTALI 11.96 22.77 10 4 BARGUNA 19 419 BAMNA 8.90 17.05 10 4 BARGUNA 28 428 BARGUNA SADAR 9.89 19.24 10 4 BARGUNA 47 447 BETAGI 10.33 19.58 10 4 BARGUNA 85 485 PATHARGHATA 6.12 12.90 10 6 BARISAL 2 602 AGAILJHARA 38.24 51.11 10 6 BARISAL 3 603 BABUGANJ 36.83 48.71 10 6 BARISAL 7 607 BAKERGANJ 42.18 55.38 10 6 BARISAL 10 610 BANARI PARA 38.12 52.25 10 6 BARISAL 51 651 BARISAL SADAR (KOTWALI) 30.95 49.89 10 6 BARISAL 32 632 GAURNADI 39.88 55.45 10 6 BARISAL 36 636 HIZLA 49.55 62.26 10 6 BARISAL 62 662 MHENDIGANJ 49.97 64.37 10 6 BARISAL 69 669 MULADI 44.14 58.21 10 6 BARISAL 94 694 WAZIRPUR 37.78 52.06 10 9 BHOLA 18 918 BHOLA SADAR 35.65 49.16 444

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 10 9 BHOLA 21 921 BURHANUDDIN 16.34 28.32 10 9 BHOLA 25 925 CHAR FASSON 14.92 28.22 10 9 BHOLA 29 929 DAULAT KHAN 17.99 30.32 10 9 BHOLA 54 954 LALMOHAN 15.20 27.78 10 9 BHOLA 65 965 MANPURA 19.38 32.81 10 9 BHOLA 91 991 TAZUMUDDIN 11.27 22.28 50 10 BOGRA 6 1006 ADAMDIGHI 5.14 13.05 50 10 BOGRA 20 1020 BOGRA SADAR 9.08 17.57 50 10 BOGRA 27 1027 DHUNAT 7.28 19.84 50 10 BOGRA 33 1033 DHUPCHANCHIA 5.11 13.18 50 10 BOGRA 40 1040 GABTALI 5.72 15.64 50 10 BOGRA 54 1054 KAHALOO 3.97 11.68 50 10 BOGRA 67 1067 NANDIGRAM 6.27 16.09 50 10 BOGRA 81 1081 SARIAKANDI 8.72 21.60 50 10 BOGRA 85 1085 SHAJAHANPUR 5.02 12.53 50 10 BOGRA 88 1088 SHERPUR 5.62 15.72 50 10 BOGRA 94 1094 SHIBGANJ 6.28 16.91 50 10 BOGRA 95 1095 SONATOLA 10.34 23.73 20 12 BRAHMANBARIA 2 1202 AKHAURA 12.91 26.87 20 12 BRAHMANBARIA 33 1233 ASHUGANJ 9.57 21.81 20 12 BRAHMANBARIA 4 1204 BANCHHARAMPUR 13.18 27.32 20 12 BRAHMANBARIA 7 1207 BIJOYNAGAR 19.13 35.83 20 12 BRAHMANBARIA 13 1213 BRAHMANBARIA SADAR 12.20 26.01 20 12 BRAHMANBARIA 63 1263 KASBA 11.93 25.54 20 12 BRAHMANBARIA 85 1285 NABINAGAR 15.04 30.47 20 12 BRAHMANBARIA 90 1290 NASIRNAGAR 24.98 43.71 20 12 BRAHMANBARIA 94 1294 SARAIL 15.49 31.08 20 13 CHANDPUR 22 1322 CHANDPUR SADAR 25.86 45.51 20 13 CHANDPUR 45 1345 FARIDGANJ 26.81 46.56 20 13 CHANDPUR 47 1347 HAIM CHAR 41.03 61.30 20 13 CHANDPUR 49 1349 HAJIGANJ 32.54 53.74 20 13 CHANDPUR 58 1358 KACHUA 34.99 56.29 20 13 CHANDPUR 76 1376 MATLAB DAKSHIN 32.38 53.65 445

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 20 13 CHANDPUR 79 1379 MATLAB UTTAR 28.58 49.93 20 13 CHANDPUR 95 1395 SHAHRASTI 29.53 50.53 20 15 CHITTAGONG 4 1504 ANOWARA 5.59 15.49 20 15 CHITTAGONG 10 1510 BAKALIA 0.75 4.90 20 15 CHITTAGONG 8 1508 BANSHKHALI 11.28 27.87 20 15 CHITTAGONG 6 1506 BAYEJID BOSTAMI 2.16 9.20 20 15 CHITTAGONG 12 1512 BOALKHALI 3.76 10.48 20 15 CHITTAGONG 18 1518 CHANDANAISH 4.78 13.51 20 15 CHITTAGONG 19 1519 CHANDGAON 4.85 16.95 20 15 CHITTAGONG 20 1520 CHITTAGONG PORT 3.58 12.43 20 15 CHITTAGONG 28 1528 DOUBLE MOORING 0.00 0.01 20 15 CHITTAGONG 33 1533 FATIKCHHARI 7.08 17.61 20 15 CHITTAGONG 35 1535 HALISHAHAR 1.09 5.59 20 15 CHITTAGONG 37 1537 HATHAZARI 0.09 1.11 20 15 CHITTAGONG 43 1543 KHULSHI 0.10 1.10 20 15 CHITTAGONG 41 1541 KOTWALI 0.01 0.27 20 15 CHITTAGONG 47 1547 LOHAGARA 6.93 18.29 20 15 CHITTAGONG 53 1553 MIRSHARAI 4.60 13.41 20 15 CHITTAGONG 55 1555 PAHARTALI 11.68 30.04 20 15 CHITTAGONG 57 1557 PANCHLAISH 0.06 0.76 20 15 CHITTAGONG 65 1565 PATENGA 0.59 3.93 20 15 CHITTAGONG 61 1561 PATIYA 2.39 8.07 20 15 CHITTAGONG 70 1570 RANGUNIA 5.06 13.98 20 15 CHITTAGONG 74 1574 RAOZAN 2.92 8.52 20 15 CHITTAGONG 78 1578 SANDWIP 7.43 19.13 20 15 CHITTAGONG 82 1582 SATKANIA 5.51 15.16 20 15 CHITTAGONG 86 1586 SITAKUNDA 3.64 11.46 40 18 CHUADANGA 7 1807 ALAMDANGA 9.88 26.00 40 18 CHUADANGA 23 1823 CHUADANGA SADAR 11.69 29.21 40 18 CHUADANGA 31 1831 DAMURHUDA 10.53 27.07 40 18 CHUADANGA 55 1855 JIBAN NAGAR 11.48 29.09 20 19 COMILLA 9 1909 BARURA 20.23 37.86 20 19 COMILLA 15 1915 BRAHMAN PARA 21.67 39.93 446

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 20 19 COMILLA 18 1918 BURICHANG 17.31 33.29 20 19 COMILLA 27 1927 CHANDINA 22.59 41.22 20 19 COMILLA 31 1931 CHAUDDAGRAM 19.05 34.39 20 19 COMILLA 67 1967 COMILLA ADARSHA SADAR 12.62 24.43 20 19 COMILLA 33 1933 COMILLA SADAR DAKSHIN 19.31 33.26 20 19 COMILLA 36 1936 DAUDKANDI 21.04 38.52 20 19 COMILLA 40 1940 DEBIDWAR 24.48 41.38 20 19 COMILLA 54 1954 HOMNA 19.84 38.35 20 19 COMILLA 72 1972 LAKSAM 19.98 37.39 20 19 COMILLA 74 1974 MANOHARGANJ 27.98 47.15 20 19 COMILLA 75 1975 MEGHNA 18.96 37.32 20 19 COMILLA 81 1981 MURADNAGAR 26.97 45.02 20 19 COMILLA 87 1987 NANGALKOT 26.15 45.10 20 19 COMILLA 94 1994 TITAS 19.39 37.72 20 22 COX'S BAZAR 16 2216 CHAKARIA 13.21 28.45 20 22 COX'S BAZAR 24 2224 COX'S BAZAR SADAR 12.24 26.18 20 22 COX'S BAZAR 45 2245 KUTUBDIA 13.76 31.09 20 22 COX'S BAZAR 49 2249 MAHESHKHALI 21.36 40.20 20 22 COX'S BAZAR 56 2256 PEKUA 14.34 30.91 20 22 COX'S BAZAR 66 2266 RAMU 17.85 34.32 20 22 COX'S BAZAR 90 2290 TEKNAF 19.74 38.15 20 22 COX'S BAZAR 94 2294 UKHIA 20.15 37.81 30 26 DHAKA 2 2602 ADABOR 1.36 12.54 30 26 DHAKA 4 2604 BADDA 1.25 13.43 30 26 DHAKA 5 2605 BANGSHAL 0.90 9.38 30 26 DHAKA 6 2606 BIMAN BANDAR 0.30 1.31 30 26 DHAKA 8 2608 CANTONMENT 0.04 1.54 30 26 DHAKA 9 2609 CHAK BAZAR 0.96 10.71 30 26 DHAKA 10 2610 DAKSHINKHAN 11.77 24.64 30 26 DHAKA 11 2611 DARUS SALAM 2.06 14.20 30 26 DHAKA 12 2612 DEMRA 2.82 19.94 30 26 DHAKA 14 2614 DHAMRAI 9.07 22.84 30 26 DHAKA 16 2616 DHANMONDI 0.10 1.37 447

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 30 26 DHAKA 18 2618 DOHAR 10.06 23.93 30 26 DHAKA 24 2624 GENDARIA 0.81 9.28 30 26 DHAKA 26 2626 GULSHAN 0.79 3.34 30 26 DHAKA 28 2628 HAZARIBAGH 1.51 12.19 30 26 DHAKA 29 2629 JATRABARI 0.98 11.58 30 26 DHAKA 32 2632 KADAMTALI 1.65 14.99 30 26 DHAKA 30 2630 KAFRUL 0.42 6.98 30 26 DHAKA 33 2633 KALABAGAN 1.44 10.14 30 26 DHAKA 34 2634 KAMRANGIR CHAR 2.60 21.98 30 26 DHAKA 38 2638 KERANIGANJ 10.20 25.86 30 26 DHAKA 36 2636 KHILGAON 1.49 13.66 30 26 DHAKA 37 2637 KHILKHET 1.85 14.69 30 26 DHAKA 40 2640 KOTWALI 1.10 5.88 30 26 DHAKA 42 2642 LALBAGH 1.79 16.03 30 26 DHAKA 48 2648 MIRPUR 0.47 6.66 30 26 DHAKA 50 2650 MOHAMMADPUR 0.30 4.00 30 26 DHAKA 54 2654 MOTIJHEEL 0.13 1.30 30 26 DHAKA 62 2662 NAWABGANJ 8.83 21.15 30 26 DHAKA 63 2663 NEW MARKET 0.67 3.71 30 26 DHAKA 64 2664 PALLABI 1.75 11.95 30 26 DHAKA 65 2665 PALTAN 0.28 2.65 30 26 DHAKA 66 2666 RAMNA 0.20 3.82 30 26 DHAKA 67 2667 RAMPURA 1.02 10.20 30 26 DHAKA 68 2668 SABUJBAGH 1.13 11.64 30 26 DHAKA 72 2672 SAVAR 17.97 34.00 30 26 DHAKA 74 2674 SHAH ALI 2.99 15.72 30 26 DHAKA 75 2675 SHAHBAGH 0.34 1.53 30 26 DHAKA 80 2680 SHER-E-BANGLA NAGAR 0.95 7.69 30 26 DHAKA 76 2676 SHYAMPUR 1.22 12.88 30 26 DHAKA 88 2688 SUTRAPUR 0.31 4.58 30 26 DHAKA 90 2690 TEJGAON 0.33 5.28 30 26 DHAKA 92 2692 TEJGAON IND. AREA 0.84 6.70 30 26 DHAKA 93 2693 TURAG 12.53 25.05 448

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 30 26 DHAKA 96 2696 UTTAR KHAN 4.27 24.92 30 26 DHAKA 95 2695 UTTARA 0.75 3.75 55 27 DINAJPUR 17 2717 BIRAL 20.59 38.84 55 27 DINAJPUR 10 2710 BIRAMPUR 18.97 35.89 55 27 DINAJPUR 12 2712 BIRGANJ 24.81 43.14 55 27 DINAJPUR 21 2721 BOCHAGANJ 20.97 38.36 55 27 DINAJPUR 30 2730 CHIRIRBANDAR 22.64 38.54 55 27 DINAJPUR 64 2764 DINAJPUR SADAR 16.52 28.17 55 27 DINAJPUR 38 2738 FULBARI 17.84 33.77 55 27 DINAJPUR 43 2743 GHORAGHAT 24.31 41.83 55 27 DINAJPUR 47 2747 HAKIMPUR 22.36 38.90 55 27 DINAJPUR 56 2756 KAHAROLE 25.57 44.29 55 27 DINAJPUR 60 2760 KHANSAMA 25.79 46.48 55 27 DINAJPUR 69 2769 NAWABGANJ 20.51 37.28 55 27 DINAJPUR 77 2777 PARBATIPUR 22.08 39.75 30 29 FARIDPUR 3 2903 ALFADANGA 15.47 29.92 30 29 FARIDPUR 10 2910 BHANGA 17.00 33.53 30 29 FARIDPUR 18 2918 BOALMARI 21.54 39.25 30 29 FARIDPUR 21 2921 CHAR BHADRASAN 19.78 35.76 30 29 FARIDPUR 47 2947 FARIDPUR SADAR 21.35 38.35 30 29 FARIDPUR 56 2956 MADHUKHALI 16.08 30.52 30 29 FARIDPUR 62 2962 NAGARKANDA 19.17 35.87 30 29 FARIDPUR 84 2984 SADARPUR 20.54 36.94 30 29 FARIDPUR 90 2990 SALTHA 24.41 42.14 20 30 FENI 14 3014 CHHAGALNAIYA 14.45 25.94 20 30 FENI 25 3025 DAGANBHUIYAN 7.51 16.28 20 30 FENI 29 3029 FENI SADAR 9.38 18.59 20 30 FENI 41 3041 FULGAZI 17.81 31.76 20 30 FENI 51 3051 PARSHURAM 18.61 30.62 20 30 FENI 94 3094 SONAGAZI 28.54 44.51 55 32 GAIBANDHA 21 3221 FULCHHARI 39.76 58.06 55 32 GAIBANDHA 24 3224 GAIBANDHA SADAR 28.30 44.76 55 32 GAIBANDHA 30 3230 GOBINDAGANJ 29.00 45.39 449

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 55 32 GAIBANDHA 67 3267 PALASHBARI 27.07 44.75 55 32 GAIBANDHA 82 3282 SADULLAPUR 31.06 50.99 55 32 GAIBANDHA 88 3288 SAGHATA 34.08 52.75 55 32 GAIBANDHA 91 3291 SUNDARGANJ 29.44 47.55 30 33 GAZIPUR 30 3330 GAZIPUR SADAR 8.15 22.11 30 33 GAZIPUR 32 3332 KALIAKAIR 3.90 10.98 30 33 GAZIPUR 34 3334 KALIGANJ 7.85 15.72 30 33 GAZIPUR 36 3336 KAPASIA 17.82 27.05 30 33 GAZIPUR 86 3386 SREEPUR 5.93 14.40 30 35 GOPALGANJ 32 3532 GOPALGANJ SADAR 25.20 41.11 30 35 GOPALGANJ 43 3543 KASHIANI 24.63 39.06 30 35 GOPALGANJ 51 3551 KOTALIPARA 27.65 43.64 30 35 GOPALGANJ 58 3558 MUKSUDPUR 29.86 46.46 30 35 GOPALGANJ 91 3591 TUNGIPARA 26.08 42.58 60 36 HABIGANJ 2 3602 AJMIRIGANJ 26.38 32.61 60 36 HABIGANJ 5 3605 BAHUBAL 19.27 24.08 60 36 HABIGANJ 11 3611 BANIACHONG 22.25 27.56 60 36 HABIGANJ 26 3626 CHUNARUGHAT 22.51 27.50 60 36 HABIGANJ 44 3644 HABIGANJ SADAR 12.24 16.88 60 36 HABIGANJ 68 3668 LAKHAI 20.00 25.22 60 36 HABIGANJ 71 3671 MADHABPUR 20.66 25.88 60 36 HABIGANJ 77 3677 NABIGANJ 21.48 26.76 30 39 JAMALPUR 7 3907 BAKSHIGANJ 34.35 50.39 30 39 JAMALPUR 15 3915 DEWANGANJ 41.59 58.51 30 39 JAMALPUR 29 3929 ISLAMPUR 38.20 54.99 30 39 JAMALPUR 36 3936 JAMALPUR SADAR 32.66 49.76 30 39 JAMALPUR 58 3958 MADARGANJ 38.16 55.45 30 39 JAMALPUR 61 3961 MELANDAHA 30.58 47.22 30 39 JAMALPUR 85 3985 SARISHABARI UPAZILA 27.62 44.73 40 41 JESSORE 4 4104 ABHAYNAGAR 15.90 36.00 40 41 JESSORE 9 4109 BAGHER PARA 20.92 42.52 40 41 JESSORE 11 4111 CHAUGACHHA 20.67 42.82 40 41 JESSORE 47 4147 JESSORE SADAR 16.40 35.29 450

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 40 41 JESSORE 23 4123 JHIKARGACHHA 17.85 38.86 40 41 JESSORE 38 4138 KESHABPUR 20.44 42.04 40 41 JESSORE 61 4161 MANIRAMPUR 19.45 40.21 40 41 JESSORE 90 4190 SHARSHA 19.37 40.81 10 42 JHALOKATI 40 4240 JHALOKATI SADAR 22.28 37.73 10 42 JHALOKATI 43 4243 KANTHALIA 21.44 34.19 10 42 JHALOKATI 73 4273 NALCHITY 32.54 46.52 10 42 JHALOKATI 84 4284 RAJAPUR 29.77 42.03 40 44 JHENAIDAH 14 4414 HARINAKUNDA 10.60 26.00 40 44 JHENAIDAH 19 4419 JHENAIDAH SADAR 9.66 23.94 40 44 JHENAIDAH 33 4433 KALIGANJ 9.62 24.00 40 44 JHENAIDAH 42 4442 KOTCHANDPUR 7.47 20.24 40 44 JHENAIDAH 71 4471 MAHESHPUR 9.36 23.63 40 44 JHENAIDAH 80 4480 SHAILKUPA 12.11 28.19 50 38 JOYPURHAT 13 3813 AKKELPUR 13.43 26.92 50 38 JOYPURHAT 47 3847 JOYPURHAT SADAR 13.00 26.03 50 38 JOYPURHAT 58 3858 KALAI 12.12 25.60 50 38 JOYPURHAT 61 3861 KHETLAL 11.74 26.06 50 38 JOYPURHAT 74 3874 PANCHBIBI 13.62 28.34 20 46 KHAGRACHHARI 43 4643 DIGHINALA 8.23 22.54 20 46 KHAGRACHHARI 49 4649 KHAGRACHHARI SADAR 7.31 19.52 20 46 KHAGRACHHARI 61 4661 LAKSHMICHHARI 12.62 30.96 20 46 KHAGRACHHARI 65 4665 MAHALCHHARI 7.51 21.35 20 46 KHAGRACHHARI 67 4667 MANIKCHHARI 12.76 30.11 20 46 KHAGRACHHARI 70 4670 MATIRANGA 11.45 28.29 20 46 KHAGRACHHARI 77 4677 PANCHHARI 8.38 23.41 20 46 KHAGRACHHARI 80 4680 RAMGARH 14.83 32.59 40 47 KHULNA 12 4712 BATIAGHATA 22.71 40.54 40 47 KHULNA 17 4717 DACOPE 24.90 44.49 40 47 KHULNA 21 4721 DAULATPUR 17.43 34.51 40 47 KHULNA 40 4740 DIGHALIA 21.87 39.27 40 47 KHULNA 30 4730 DUMURIA 19.57 37.23 40 47 KHULNA 45 4745 KHALISHPUR 23.54 41.05 451

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 40 47 KHULNA 48 4748 KHAN JAHAN ALI 16.76 31.88 40 47 KHULNA 51 4751 KHULNA SADAR 18.84 35.47 40 47 KHULNA 53 4753 KOYRA 29.05 49.14 40 47 KHULNA 64 4764 PAIKGACHHA 23.26 42.40 40 47 KHULNA 69 4769 PHULTALA 16.96 33.66 40 47 KHULNA 75 4775 RUPSA 20.22 36.88 40 47 KHULNA 85 4785 SONADANGA 7.31 19.30 40 47 KHULNA 94 4794 TEROKHADA 30.03 49.60 30 48 KISHORGONJ 2 4802 AUSTAGRAM 20.51 33.70 30 48 KISHORGONJ 6 4806 BAJITPUR 14.78 28.22 30 48 KISHORGONJ 11 4811 BHAIRAB 15.44 33.91 30 48 KISHORGONJ 27 4827 HOSSAINPUR 18.51 32.99 30 48 KISHORGONJ 33 4833 ITNA 21.08 34.86 30 48 KISHORGONJ 42 4842 KARIMGANJ 14.04 27.14 30 48 KISHORGONJ 45 4845 KATIADI 17.07 31.57 30 48 KISHORGONJ 49 4849 KISHOREGANJ SADAR 14.52 27.65 30 48 KISHORGONJ 54 4854 KULIAR CHAR 17.24 32.73 30 48 KISHORGONJ 59 4859 MITHAMAIN 22.96 35.22 30 48 KISHORGONJ 76 4876 NIKLI 17.03 30.04 30 48 KISHORGONJ 79 4879 PAKUNDIA 13.53 26.11 30 48 KISHORGONJ 92 4892 TARAIL 14.73 26.08 55 49 KURIGRAM 6 4906 BHURUNGAMARI 44.70 65.14 55 49 KURIGRAM 8 4908 CHAR RAJIBPUR 48.67 68.82 55 49 KURIGRAM 9 4909 CHILMARI 42.14 61.07 55 49 KURIGRAM 52 4952 KURIGRAM SADAR 40.48 57.99 55 49 KURIGRAM 61 4961 NAGESHWARI 45.45 64.96 55 49 KURIGRAM 18 4918 PHULBARI 48.76 68.48 55 49 KURIGRAM 77 4977 RAJARHAT 48.63 67.69 55 49 KURIGRAM 79 4979 RAUMARI 35.99 57.01 55 49 KURIGRAM 94 4994 ULIPUR 46.23 65.32 40 50 KUSHTIA 15 5015 BHERAMARA 0.79 3.41 40 50 KUSHTIA 39 5039 DAULATPUR 0.99 4.00 40 50 KUSHTIA 63 5063 KHOKSA 1.05 4.66 452

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 40 50 KUSHTIA 71 5071 KUMARKHALI 0.90 3.96 40 50 KUSHTIA 79 5079 KUSHTIA SADAR 0.73 3.04 40 50 KUSHTIA 94 5094 MIRPUR 0.72 3.35 20 51 LAKSHMIPUR 33 5133 KAMALNAGAR 7.65 18.69 20 51 LAKSHMIPUR 43 5143 LAKSHMIPUR SADAR 28.81 45.61 20 51 LAKSHMIPUR 65 5165 RAMGANJ 12.00 21.39 20 51 LAKSHMIPUR 73 5173 RAMGATI 15.96 30.37 20 51 LAKSHMIPUR 58 5158 ROYPUR 8.71 16.72 55 52 LALMONIRHAT 2 5202 ADITMARI 17.31 35.95 55 52 LALMONIRHAT 33 5233 HATIBANDHA 18.42 38.08 55 52 LALMONIRHAT 39 5239 KALIGANJ 16.64 35.26 55 52 LALMONIRHAT 55 5255 LALMONIRHAT SADAR 15.10 31.30 55 52 LALMONIRHAT 70 5270 PATGRAM 16.99 33.29 30 54 MADARIPUR 40 5440 KALKINI 15.84 33.17 30 54 MADARIPUR 54 5454 MADARIPUR SADAR 17.48 35.00 30 54 MADARIPUR 80 5480 RAJOIR 15.44 31.38 30 54 MADARIPUR 87 5487 SHIB CHAR 20.22 38.76 40 55 MAGURA 57 5557 MAGURA SADAR 24.05 43.03 40 55 MAGURA 66 5566 MOHAMMADPUR 30.59 50.77 40 55 MAGURA 85 5585 SHALIKHA 24.67 44.21 40 55 MAGURA 95 5595 SREEPUR 25.52 45.00 30 56 MANIKGANJ 10 5610 DAULATPUR 15.74 29.44 30 56 MANIKGANJ 22 5622 GHIOR 5.74 13.73 30 56 MANIKGANJ 28 5628 HARIRAMPUR 8.27 18.12 30 56 MANIKGANJ 46 5646 MANIKGANJ SADAR 7.25 18.66 30 56 MANIKGANJ 70 5670 SATURIA 6.17 15.01 30 56 MANIKGANJ 78 5678 SHIBALAYA 6.96 15.81 30 56 MANIKGANJ 82 5682 SINGAIR 7.13 18.08 60 58 MAULVIBAZAR 14 5814 BARLEKHA 20.79 25.68 60 58 MAULVIBAZAR 35 5835 JURI 31.27 36.29 60 58 MAULVIBAZAR 56 5856 KAMALGANJ 22.02 26.72 60 58 MAULVIBAZAR 65 5865 KULAURA 23.11 28.11 60 58 MAULVIBAZAR 74 5874 MAULVIBAZAR SADAR 12.69 16.67 453

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 60 58 MAULVIBAZAR 80 5880 RAJNAGAR 18.02 22.32 60 58 MAULVIBAZAR 83 5883 SREEMANGAL 24.67 29.35 40 57 MEHERPUR 47 5747 GANGNI 5.25 15.84 40 57 MEHERPUR 87 5787 MEHERPUR SADAR 5.06 15.13 40 57 MEHERPUR 60 5760 MUJIB NAGAR 4.48 13.56 30 59 MUNSHIGANJ 24 5924 GAZARIA 14.75 26.83 30 59 MUNSHIGANJ 44 5944 LOHAJANG 20.12 33.56 30 59 MUNSHIGANJ 56 5956 MUNSHIGANJ SADAR 15.05 30.77 30 59 MUNSHIGANJ 74 5974 SERAJDIKHAN 16.52 28.84 30 59 MUNSHIGANJ 84 5984 SREENAGAR 14.40 26.27 30 59 MUNSHIGANJ 94 5994 TONGIBARI 14.00 25.06 30 61 MYMENSINGH 13 6113 BHALUKA 14.82 31.08 30 61 MYMENSINGH 16 6116 DHOBAURA 38.44 58.20 30 61 MYMENSINGH 20 6120 FULBARIA 32.79 52.63 30 61 MYMENSINGH 22 6122 GAFFARGAON 25.85 43.92 30 61 MYMENSINGH 23 6123 GAURIPUR 30.53 50.63 30 61 MYMENSINGH 24 6124 HALUAGHAT 30.60 50.33 30 61 MYMENSINGH 31 6131 ISHWARGANJ 35.80 55.97 30 61 MYMENSINGH 65 6165 MUKTAGACHHA 23.95 43.35 30 61 MYMENSINGH 52 6152 MYMENSINGH SADAR 39.33 52.28 30 61 MYMENSINGH 72 6172 NANDAIL 41.75 60.66 30 61 MYMENSINGH 81 6181 PHULPUR 39.19 58.80 30 61 MYMENSINGH 94 6194 TRISHAL 28.82 47.78 50 64 NAOGAON 3 6403 ATRAI 5.02 13.48 50 64 NAOGAON 6 6406 BADALGACHHI 5.70 15.04 50 64 NAOGAON 28 6428 DHAMOIRHAT 7.71 17.85 50 64 NAOGAON 50 6450 MAHADEBPUR 6.12 15.62 50 64 NAOGAON 47 6447 MANDA 5.39 14.70 50 64 NAOGAON 60 6460 NAOGAON SADAR 8.27 17.44 50 64 NAOGAON 69 6469 NIAMATPUR 8.40 19.45 50 64 NAOGAON 75 6475 PATNITALA 8.06 18.56 50 64 NAOGAON 79 6479 PORSHA 9.41 21.74 50 64 NAOGAON 85 6485 RANINAGAR 4.88 13.29 454

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 50 64 NAOGAON 86 6486 SAPAHAR 9.01 21.36 40 65 NARAIL 28 6528 KALIA 9.70 23.28 40 65 NARAIL 52 6552 LOHAGARA 7.57 19.90 40 65 NARAIL 76 6576 NARAIL SADAR 6.07 17.34 30 67 NARAYANGANJ 2 6702 ARAIHAZAR 19.76 34.39 30 67 NARAYANGANJ 6 6706 BANDAR 4.04 20.90 30 67 NARAYANGANJ 58 6758 NARAYANGANJ SADAR 10.07 27.93 30 67 NARAYANGANJ 68 6768 RUPGANJ 8.69 22.52 30 67 NARAYANGANJ 4 6704 SONARGAON 9.95 21.32 30 68 NARSINGDI 7 6807 BELABO 11.65 21.89 30 68 NARSINGDI 52 6852 MANOHARDI 11.82 22.73 30 68 NARSINGDI 60 6860 NARSINGDI SADAR 10.84 22.84 30 68 NARSINGDI 63 6863 PALASH 9.89 22.23 30 68 NARSINGDI 64 6864 ROYPURA 16.18 29.44 30 68 NARSINGDI 76 6876 SHIBPUR 9.85 18.90 50 69 NATORE 9 6909 BAGATIPARA 18.60 31.63 50 69 NATORE 15 6915 BARAIGRAM 22.11 36.11 50 69 NATORE 41 6941 GURUDASPUR 22.81 36.97 50 69 NATORE 44 6944 LALPUR 21.75 35.75 50 69 NATORE 63 6963 NATORE SADAR 18.85 31.79 50 69 NATORE 91 6991 SINGRA 23.43 37.75 50 70 NAWABGANJ 18 7018 BHOLAHAT 8.87 20.82 50 70 NAWABGANJ 66 7066 CHAPAI NABABGANJ SADAR 12.87 25.36 50 70 NAWABGANJ 37 7037 GOMASTAPUR 12.24 26.05 50 70 NAWABGANJ 56 7056 NACHOLE 11.43 24.16 50 70 NAWABGANJ 88 7088 SHIBGANJ 12.17 25.98 30 72 NETRAKONA 4 7204 ATPARA 17.24 31.61 30 72 NETRAKONA 9 7209 BARHATTA 20.13 35.17 30 72 NETRAKONA 18 7218 DURGAPUR 11.95 30.22 30 72 NETRAKONA 40 7240 KALMAKANDA 22.57 37.62 30 72 NETRAKONA 47 7247 KENDUA 24.08 40.91 30 72 NETRAKONA 38 7238 KHALIAJURI 22.27 37.22 30 72 NETRAKONA 56 7256 MADAN 23.55 41.57 455

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 30 72 NETRAKONA 63 7263 MOHANGANJ 18.15 34.30 30 72 NETRAKONA 74 7274 NETROKONA SADAR 16.16 30.77 30 72 NETRAKONA 83 7283 PURBADHALA 20.28 35.36 55 73 NILPHAMARI 12 7312 DIMLA 17.43 35.22 55 73 NILPHAMARI 15 7315 DOMAR 15.51 31.31 55 73 NILPHAMARI 36 7336 JALDHAKA 24.87 43.54 55 73 NILPHAMARI 45 7345 KISHOREGANJ 14.74 30.86 55 73 NILPHAMARI 64 7364 NILPHAMARI SADAR 21.04 36.45 55 73 NILPHAMARI 85 7385 SAIDPUR 16.17 27.72 20 75 NOAKHALI 7 7507 BEGUMGANJ 1.83 5.87 20 75 NOAKHALI 10 7510 CHATKHIL 1.50 4.78 20 75 NOAKHALI 21 7521 COMPANIGANJ 2.51 7.61 20 75 NOAKHALI 36 7536 HATIYA 5.91 16.02 20 75 NOAKHALI 47 7547 KABIRHAT 4.45 12.37 20 75 NOAKHALI 87 7587 NOAKHALI SADAR 3.69 10.21 20 75 NOAKHALI 80 7580 SENBAGH 1.67 5.36 20 75 NOAKHALI 83 7583 SONAIMURI 1.54 5.02 20 75 NOAKHALI 85 7585 SUBARNACHAR 7.26 18.71 50 76 PABNA 5 7605 ATGHARIA 15.98 31.20 50 76 PABNA 16 7616 BERA 22.93 39.44 50 76 PABNA 19 7619 BHANGURA 18.27 33.52 50 76 PABNA 22 7622 CHATMOHAR 16.09 31.41 50 76 PABNA 33 7633 FARIDPUR 16.61 31.51 50 76 PABNA 39 7639 ISHWARDI 13.23 26.25 50 76 PABNA 55 7655 PABNA SADAR 14.29 27.81 50 76 PABNA 72 7672 SANTHIA 17.50 33.06 50 76 PABNA 83 7683 SUJANAGAR 19.44 35.45 55 77 PANCHAGARH 4 7704 ATWARI 11.15 24.05 55 77 PANCHAGARH 25 7725 BODA 12.03 26.59 55 77 PANCHAGARH 34 7734 DEBIGANJ 16.63 34.21 55 77 PANCHAGARH 73 7773 PANCHAGARH SADAR 11.17 24.19 55 77 PANCHAGARH 90 7790 TENTULIA 8.85 21.53 10 78 PATUAKHALI 38 7838 BAUPHAL 13.86 23.95 456

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 10 78 PATUAKHALI 52 7852 DASHMINA 11.35 21.76 10 78 PATUAKHALI 55 7855 DUMKI 13.14 22.03 10 78 PATUAKHALI 57 7857 GALACHIPA 14.39 25.96 10 78 PATUAKHALI 66 7866 KALA PARA 9.71 20.31 10 78 PATUAKHALI 76 7876 MIRZAGANJ 9.58 17.77 10 78 PATUAKHALI 95 7895 PATUAKHALI SADAR 23.32 36.94 10 79 PIROJPUR 14 7914 BHANDARIA 29.94 41.95 10 79 PIROJPUR 47 7947 KAWKHALI 39.55 52.16 10 79 PIROJPUR 58 7958 MATHBARIA 25.62 38.03 10 79 PIROJPUR 76 7976 NAZIRPUR 36.60 51.54 10 79 PIROJPUR 87 7987 NESARABAD (SWARUPKATI) 30.10 43.31 10 79 PIROJPUR 80 7980 PIROJPUR SADAR 28.69 42.66 10 79 PIROJPUR 90 7990 ZIANAGAR 35.77 49.08 30 82 RAJBARI 7 8207 BALIAKANDI 24.00 39.65 30 82 RAJBARI 29 8229 GOALANDA 31.83 50.47 30 82 RAJBARI 47 8247 KALUKHALI 23.97 39.62 30 82 RAJBARI 73 8273 PANGSHA 28.83 45.68 30 82 RAJBARI 76 8276 RAJBARI SADAR 23.05 38.67 50 81 RAJSHAHI 10 8110 BAGHA 18.32 33.64 50 81 RAJSHAHI 12 8112 BAGHMARA 14.92 29.45 50 81 RAJSHAHI 22 8122 BOALIA 10.45 24.06 50 81 RAJSHAHI 25 8125 CHARGHAT 16.77 31.43 50 81 RAJSHAHI 31 8131 DURGAPUR 12.32 25.73 50 81 RAJSHAHI 34 8134 GODAGARI 27.30 44.15 50 81 RAJSHAHI 40 8140 MATIHAR 15.18 33.33 50 81 RAJSHAHI 53 8153 MOHANPUR 11.96 24.87 50 81 RAJSHAHI 72 8172 PABA 17.06 33.40 50 81 RAJSHAHI 82 8182 PUTHIA 13.28 26.79 50 81 RAJSHAHI 85 8185 RAJPARA 10.69 24.39 50 81 RAJSHAHI 90 8190 SHAH MAKHDUM 13.37 30.93 50 81 RAJSHAHI 94 8194 TANORE 20.72 35.67 20 84 RANGAMATI 7 8407 BAGHAICHHARI 8.07 24.80 20 84 RANGAMATI 21 8421 BARKAL 8.53 26.11 457

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 20 84 RANGAMATI 29 8429 BELAI CHHARI 14.60 34.71 20 84 RANGAMATI 47 8447 JURAI CHHARI 6.23 19.30 20 84 RANGAMATI 36 8436 KAPTAI 3.89 12.22 20 84 RANGAMATI 25 8425 KAWKHALI (BETBUNIA) 8.73 23.43 20 84 RANGAMATI 58 8458 LANGADU 9.93 29.29 20 84 RANGAMATI 75 8475 NANIARCHAR 6.17 21.24 20 84 RANGAMATI 78 8478 RAJASTHALI 7.21 20.54 20 84 RANGAMATI 87 8487 RANGAMATI SADAR 1.70 7.35 55 85 RANGPUR 3 8503 BADARGANJ 30.61 48.32 55 85 RANGPUR 27 8527 GANGACHARA 38.96 58.29 55 85 RANGPUR 42 8542 KAUNIA 33.15 44.98 55 85 RANGPUR 58 8558 MITHA PUKUR 28.95 45.45 55 85 RANGPUR 73 8573 PIRGACHHA 30.50 49.73 55 85 RANGPUR 76 8576 PIRGANJ 28.26 46.89 55 85 RANGPUR 49 8549 RANGPUR SADAR 25.78 37.12 55 85 RANGPUR 92 8592 TARAGANJ 32.42 52.44 40 87 SATKHIRA 4 8704 ASSASUNI 32.05 48.41 40 87 SATKHIRA 25 8725 DEBHATA 27.46 43.12 40 87 SATKHIRA 43 8743 KALAROA 28.70 45.95 40 87 SATKHIRA 47 8747 KALIGANJ 31.71 47.96 40 87 SATKHIRA 82 8782 SATKHIRA SADAR 26.00 43.15 40 87 SATKHIRA 86 8786 SHYAMNAGAR 33.82 50.19 40 87 SATKHIRA 90 8790 TALA 28.94 45.25 30 86 SHARIATPUR 14 8614 BHEDARGANJ 38.25 56.31 30 86 SHARIATPUR 25 8625 DAMUDYA 29.38 47.91 30 86 SHARIATPUR 36 8636 GOSAIRHAT 40.70 58.33 30 86 SHARIATPUR 65 8665 NARIA 30.49 48.06 30 86 SHARIATPUR 69 8669 SHARIATPUR SADAR 31.62 49.82 30 86 SHARIATPUR 94 8694 ZANJIRA 34.88 54.03 30 89 SHERPUR 37 8937 JHENAIGATI 21.64 36.91 30 89 SHERPUR 67 8967 NAKLA 28.54 46.76 30 89 SHERPUR 70 8970 NALITABARI 24.13 41.76 30 89 SHERPUR 88 8988 SHERPUR SADAR 35.60 55.82 458

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 30 89 SHERPUR 90 8990 SREEBARDI 30.42 49.08 50 88 SIRAJGANJ 11 8811 BELKUCHI 26.40 42.46 50 88 SIRAJGANJ 27 8827 CHAUHALI 28.06 45.51 50 88 SIRAJGANJ 44 8844 KAMARKHANDA 17.64 32.47 50 88 SIRAJGANJ 50 8850 KAZIPUR 20.19 36.23 50 88 SIRAJGANJ 61 8861 ROYGANJ 22.84 39.43 50 88 SIRAJGANJ 67 8867 SHAHJADPUR 25.12 41.76 50 88 SIRAJGANJ 78 8878 SIRAJGANJ SADAR 21.64 36.72 50 88 SIRAJGANJ 89 8889 TARASH 20.01 35.75 50 88 SIRAJGANJ 94 8894 ULLAH PARA 20.91 36.65 60 90 SUNAMGANJ 18 9018 BISHWAMBARPUR 24.68 30.39 60 90 SUNAMGANJ 23 9023 CHHATAK 18.59 23.62 60 90 SUNAMGANJ 27 9027 DAKSHIN SUNAMGANJ 19.46 24.36 60 90 SUNAMGANJ 29 9029 DERAI 20.66 26.18 60 90 SUNAMGANJ 32 9032 DHARAMPASHA 20.15 25.50 60 90 SUNAMGANJ 33 9033 DOWARABAZAR 24.30 29.91 60 90 SUNAMGANJ 47 9047 JAGANNATHPUR 15.81 21.00 60 90 SUNAMGANJ 50 9050 JAMALGANJ 19.44 24.62 60 90 SUNAMGANJ 86 9086 SULLA 22.87 28.32 60 90 SUNAMGANJ 89 9089 SUNAMGANJ SADAR 19.29 25.10 60 90 SUNAMGANJ 92 9092 TAHIRPUR 25.34 31.20 60 91 SYLHET 8 9108 BALAGANJ 15.75 19.67 60 91 SYLHET 17 9117 BEANI BAZAR 11.77 15.87 60 91 SYLHET 20 9120 BISHWANATH 9.66 12.54 60 91 SYLHET 27 9127 COMPANIGANJ 28.71 34.55 60 91 SYLHET 31 9131 DAKSHIN SURMA 7.83 10.30 60 91 SYLHET 35 9135 FENCHUGANJ 13.42 16.92 60 91 SYLHET 38 9138 GOLAPGANJ 11.07 14.89 60 91 SYLHET 41 9141 GOWAINGHAT 46.53 52.59 60 91 SYLHET 53 9153 JAINTIAPUR 28.91 34.65 60 91 SYLHET 59 9159 KANAIGHAT 39.73 45.77 60 91 SYLHET 62 9162 SYLHET SADAR 9.73 14.28 60 91 SYLHET 94 9194 ZAKIGANJ 32.92 39.01 459

% Extreme Poor % Poor (Lower poverty (Upper divn zila zila_name upza uzid uz_name line*) poverty line*) 30 93 TANGAIL 9 9309 BASAIL 11.06 19.67 30 93 TANGAIL 19 9319 BHUAPUR 21.41 34.38 30 93 TANGAIL 23 9323 DELDUAR 14.47 24.35 30 93 TANGAIL 25 9325 DHANBARI 21.13 36.98 30 93 TANGAIL 28 9328 GHATAIL 17.68 28.71 30 93 TANGAIL 38 9338 GOPALPUR 16.90 29.31 30 93 TANGAIL 47 9347 KALIHATI 12.50 23.46 30 93 TANGAIL 57 9357 MADHUPUR 21.48 36.42 30 93 TANGAIL 66 9366 MIRZAPUR 16.01 26.75 30 93 TANGAIL 76 9376 NAGARPUR 26.38 39.85 30 93 TANGAIL 85 9385 SAKHIPUR 15.51 26.04 30 93 TANGAIL 95 9395 TANGAIL SADAR 20.93 31.70 55 94 THAKURGAON 8 9408 BALIADANGI 11.30 26.46 55 94 THAKURGAON 51 9451 HARIPUR 13.08 29.72 55 94 THAKURGAON 82 9482 PIRGANJ 9.60 23.25 55 94 THAKURGAON 86 9486 RANISANKAIL 11.06 25.80 55 94 THAKURGAON 94 9494 THAKURGAON SADAR 17.66 28.64

460

References

Abdullah, A. (1990). Poverty in Bangladesh: Introduction. The Bangladesh Development Studies, 18(3), iii-vii. ADB. (2013). The social protection index: Assessing results for Asia and the Pacific. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Ahamad, M. G., Khondker, R. K., Ahmed, Z. U., & Tanin, F. (2013). Seasonal food insecurity in Bangladesh: Evidences from northern areas. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18(7), 1077-1088. Ahmed, A. U. (1993). Patterns of food consumption and nutrition in rural Bangladesh. Dhaka: International Food Policy Research Institute. Ahmed, A. U. (2000). Targeted distribution. In R. Ahmed, S. Haggblade & T. Chowdhury (Eds.), Out of the shadow of famine: Evolving food markets and food policy in Bangladesh (pp. 213-231). Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute. Ahmed, A. U. (2004). Assessing the performance of conditional cash transfer programs for girls and boys in primary and secondary schools in Bangladesh. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Ahmed, A. W. N., Chowdhury, L. H., & Haggblade, S. (2000). History of public food interventions in Bangladesh. In R. Ahmed, S. Haggbalde & T. Chowdhury (Eds.), Out of the shadow of famine: Evolving food markets and food policy in Bangladesh (pp. 121-136). Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press for the International Food Policy Research Institute. Ahmed, S. (2006). Development performance and policy reforms since independence. In S. Ahmed (Ed.), Transforming Bangladesh into a middle income economy (pp. 3- 47). New Delhi: Macmillan. Ahmed, S. (2007). Social safety nets in Bangladesh: Background paper for Bangladesh poverty assessment. Washington D.C.: The World Bank Ahmed, S. N., & Ting, Z. (2014). Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities and urban working poor women in Bangladesh. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 19(5), 12-19. Ahsan, R. (2007). Conceptualizing two development approaches and applicability in the context of reality: Action Aid. Ahsan, S. M. (2006). Governance and institutions. In S. Ahmed (Ed.), Transforming Bangladesh into a middle income economy (pp. 373-412). New Delhi: Macmillan Alderman, H., & Mustafa, M. (2014). Preparatory technical meeting for the International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2): Social protection and nutrition. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Nutrition Rome.

461

Alkire, S. (2002a). The capability approach and human development. Paper presented at the Wadham College and Queen Elizabeth House Seminar. Alkire, S. (2002b). Valuing freedoms: Sen's capability approach and poverty reduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Amin, M. R., & Farid, N. (2005). Food security and access to food: Present status and future perspective Food security in Bangladesh: Papers presented in the national workshop (pp. 17-42). Dhaka: Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh & World Food Programme- Bangladesh. Arends-Kuenning, M., & Amin, S. (2001). Women's capabilities and the right to education in Bangladesh. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 15(1), 125-142. Arnold, C., Conway, T., & Greenslade, M. (2011). DFID Cash transfers evidence paper. London: UK Department for International Development. Balestrino, A. (1996). A note on functioning-poverty in affluent societies. Notizie di Politeia, 12(43/44), 97-106. Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Goldberg, N., Karlan, D., Osei, R., Parienté, W., . . . Udry, C. (2015). A multifaceted program causes lasting progress for the very poor: Evidence from six countries. Science, 348(6236), 1-16. BARD. (2012). Impact of vulnerable group development activity in Bangladesh. Comilla: Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development (BARD). Barrett, C. B. (2010). Measuring food insecurity. Science, 327(5967), 825-828. Barrientos, A., & Hulme, D. (2005). Chronic poverty and social protection: Introduction. The European Journal of Development Research, 17(1), 1-7. Barrientos, A., & Hulme, D. (2009). Social protection for the poor and poorest in developing countries: Reflections on a quiet revolution. Oxford Development Studies, 37(4), 439-456. Bastagli, F. (2009). From social safety net to social policy? The role of conditional cash transfers in welfare state development in Latin America. Brasilia: International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth. BBS. (2001). Preliminary report of the Household Income & Expenditure Survey 2000. Dhaka: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Planning Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. BBS. (2007a). Report of the Household Income & Expenditure Survey 2005. Dhaka: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Planning Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. BBS. (2007b). Yearbook of agricultural statistics of Bangladesh, 2005. Dhaka: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Planning Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.

462

BBS. (2011). Report of the Household Income & Expenditure Survey 2010. Dhaka: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. BBS. (2013). 2012 Statistical yearbook of Bangladesh. Dhaka: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics and Informatics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. BBS. (2014). Statistical pocketbook of Bangladesh 2013. Dhaka: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics and Informatics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. Begum, S. (2010). Intergenerational relationship in Bangladesh: Evidence on support to the elderly by the younger generation. Paper presented at the first Asian population conference, New Delhi. Begum, S., & Paul-Majumder, P. (2001). The allowance scheme for widowed and husband deserted women in Bangladesh: Some field level information. Dhaka: The Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies. Begum, S., & Wesumperuma, D. (2012). Overview of the Old Age Allowance programme in Bangladesh. In S. W. Handayani & B. Babajanian (Eds.), Social protection for older persons: Social pensions in Asia (pp. 187-213). Manila: Asian Development Bank. Bhalla, S. S., & Glewwe, P. (1986). Growth and equity in developing countries: A reinterpretation of the Sri Lankan experience. The World Bank Economic Review, 1(1), 35-63. Bhuiyan, N., Paul, D., & Jabber, M. (2002). Feeding the extra millions by 2025: Challenges for rice research and extension in Bangladesh. Paper presented at the national workshop on rice research and extension. Bickel, G., Nord, M., Price, C., Hamilton, W., & Cook, J. (2000). Guide to measuring household food security, Revised 2000. Alexandria V A: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. BIDS. (2012). Impact evaluation of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) program in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS). Bird, K. (2001). Research methods toolbox. Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. M. Cooper & P. M. Camic (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology (pp. 57-71). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burchi, F., & De Muro, P. (2012). A human development and capability approach to food security: Conceptual framework and informational basis: United Nations Development Programme.

463

Cambridge Dictionaries Online. (2015). Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Retrieved 2 July 2015, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/charity CARE Bangladesh. (2010). CARE Bangladesh SHOUHARDO-II program: Program area and beneficiary selection guidelines. Dhaka: CARE Bangladesh. CARE Bangladesh, & BRAC Development Institute. (2010). Strengthening social safety net program for the extreme poor in Bangladesh. Dhaka: CARE Bangladesh & BRAC Development Institute. Carter, P. L. (2005). Keepin'it real: School success beyond black and white. New York: Oxford University Press. Chandy, L., & Gertz, G. (2011). Poverty in numbers: The changing state of global poverty from 2005 to 2015. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Chatty, D., Baas, S., & Fleig, A. (2003). Participatory processes towards co-management of natural resources in pastoral areas of the Middle East: A training of trainers source book based on the principles of participatory methods and approaches Rome and Palmyra: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Chopra, K., & Duraiappah, A. K. (2008). Operationalizing capabilities in a segmented society: The role of institutions. In F. Comim, M. Qizilbash & S. Alkire (Eds.), The capability approach: Concepts, measures and applications (pp. 362-382). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chowdhury, O. H. (1995). Nature and extent of the food security problem in Bangladesh. Dhaka: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Chowdhury, O. H., & Ali, Z. (2006). Affordability to finance poverty reduction programs. Dhaka: Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS) and Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC). Chowdhury, O. H., & Del Ninno, C. (1998). Poverty, household food security, and targeted food programmes. Washington, DC: Food Management and Research Support Project, and International Food Policy Research Institute. Clark, D. A. (2006). Capability approach. In D. A. Clark (Ed.), The Elgar companion to development studies (pp. 32-45). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Clark, D. A. (2008). The capability approach: Its development, critiques and recent advances. In R. Ghosh, K. R. Gupta & P. Maiti (Eds.), Development Studies (Vol. 2, pp. 105- 127). New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors. Clark, D. A., & Qizilbash, M. (2002). Core poverty and extreme vulnerability in South Africa: School of Economic and Social Studies, University of East Anglia. Clay, E., Jones, S., Rahman, A., & Shahabuddin, Q. (1989). Introduction. In E. Hossain, E. Clay, S. Jones & M. Hossain (Eds.), Food stragies in Bangladesh: Medium and long term perspectives (pp. 1-22). Dhaka: University Press Limited.

464

Cleland, J., Phillips, J. F., Amin, S., & Kamal, G. M. (1994). The determinants of reproductive change in Bangladesh: Success in a challenging environment. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Coates, J., Webb, P., & Houser, R. (2003). Measuring food insecurity: Going beyond indicators of income and anthropometry. Washington, D.C.: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project. Coates, J., Wilde, P. E., Webb, P., Rogers, B. L., & Houser, R. F. (2006). Comparison of a qualitative and a quantitative approach to developing a household food insecurity scale for Bangladesh. The Journal of Nutrition, 136(5), 1420S-1430S. Coates, J. C., Webb, P., Houser, R. F., Rogers, B. L., & Wilde, P. (2010). “He said, she said”: Who should speak for households about experiences of food insecurity in Bangladesh? Food Security, 2(1), 81-95. Cohen, J. M., & Uphoff, N. T. (1977). Rural development participation: Concepts and measures for project design, implementation and evaluation: Rural Development Committee, Cornell University. Conning, J., & Kevane, M. (2002). Community-based targeting mechanisms for social safety nets: A critical review. World Development, 30(3), 375-394. Cooke, B. (2001). The social psychological limits of participation? In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 102-121). London: Zed Books. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). The case for participation as tyranny. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 1-15). London: Zed Books. Craig, D., & Porter, D. (2006). Development beyond neoliberalism? Governance, poverty reduction and political economy (1st ed.). London: Routledge. Cromwell, E., & Slater, R. (2004). Food security and social protection. London: The UK Department for International Development (DFID). d'Abbs, P. (1991). Who helps?: Support networks and social policy in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. DAE. (2014). Presentation on Agricultural Production in 2014. Retrieved 16 February, 2015, from http://www.lcgbangladesh.org/Agriculture/presentations%5C2014%5CFood%20Pr oduction%20Situation-DAE.pdf Datta, D. (1999). The glimmering hope: Participatory poverty assessment in Dimla. Dhaka: Concern Worldwide, Bangladesh. Datta, D., & Hossain, I. (2003). Reaching the extreme poor: Learning from Concern's community development programmes in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Concern Worldwide, Bangladesh. De Silva, S. (1982). The political economy of underdevelopment. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

465

DeJaeghere, J., & Lee, S. K. (2011). What matters for marginalized girls and boys in Bangladesh: A capabilities approach for understanding educational well-being and empowerment. Research in Comparative and International Education, 6(1), 27-42. del Ninno, C., & Dorosh, P. A. (2002). In-kind transfers and household food consumption: Implications for targeted food programs in Bangladesh. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. del Ninno, C., Dorosh, P. A., & Subbarao, K. (2007). Food aid, domestic policy and food security: Contrasting experiences from South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 32(4), 413-435. Desai, R. M. (2007). The political economy of poverty reduction: Scaling up antipoverty programs in the developing world. Washington, DC: The Brookings Global Economy and Development. development theory. (2016). Encyclopaedia Britannica Retrieved 3 May 2016, from Encyclopaedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/topic/development-theory Develtere, P., & Huybrechts, A. (2005). The impact of microcredit on the poor in Bangladesh. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 30(2), 165-189. Devereux, S. (2001). Sen's entitlement approach: Critiques and counter-critiques. Oxford Development Studies, 29(3), 245-263. Devereux, S., Baulch, B., Hussein, K., Shoham, J., Sida, H., & Wilcock, D. (2004). Improving the analysis of food insecurity: Food insecurity measurement, livelihoods approaches and policy: Applications in FIVIMS: Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems (FIVIMS) Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Diener, E., & Crandall, R. (1978). Ethics in social and behavioral research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dominelli, L. (1988). Anti-racist social work: A challenge for white practitioners and educators. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education. Dowlah, C. (2006). The politics and economics of food and famine in Bangladesh in the early 1970s–with special reference to Amartya Sen's interpretation of the 1974 famine. International Journal of Social Welfare, 15(4), 344-356. Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human need. Houndmills, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Drewnowski, J., & Scott, W. (1966). The level of living index. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Drèze, J., & Sen, A. (1989). Hunger and Public Action. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Duraiappah, A. K., Roddy, P., & Parry, J.-E. (2005). Have participatory approaches increased capabilities? Manitoba, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Dutta, P., Murgai, R., Ravallion, M., & Van de Walle, D. P. (2012). Does India's employment guarantee scheme guarantee employment?: The World Bank. 466

Easter, C. D. (1980). What can be done about poverty in developing countries. In C. D. Easter (Ed.), Strategies for poverty reduction (pp. 1-15). London: Commonwealth Secretariat. Edkins, J. (1996). Legality with a vengeance: Famines and humanitarian relief in 'complex emergencies'. Journal of International Studies, 25(3), 547-575. Edwards, P. B. (2002). Spiritual themes in social work counselling: Facilitating the search for meaning. Australian Social Work, 55(1), 78-87. Evans, P. (2002). Collective capabilities, culture, and Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(2), 54-60. FAO. (2004). Safety nets and the right to food. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO. (2006a). Food security policy brief. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO. (2006b). The right to food guidelines: Information papers and case studies. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO. (2010). The state of food insecurity in the world 2010: Addressing food insecurity in protracted crises. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO, IFAD, & WFP. (2013). The state of food insecurity in the world 2013: The multiple dimensions of food security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO, IFAD, & WFP. (2014). The state of food insecurity in the world 2014: Strengthening the enabling environment for food insecurity and nutrition. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FFSSA. (2004). Achieving food security in Southern Africa: Policy issues and options, FFSSA synthesis paper: Forum for Food Security in Southern Africa. Fiszbein, A., & Schady, N. R. (2009). Conditional cash transfers: Reducing present and future poverty. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank Frongillo, E., & Nanama, S. (2002). Development and validation of a questionnaire-based tool to measure rural household food insecurity in Burkina Faso. Paper presented at the International scientific symposium on measurement and assessment of food deprivation and undernutrition, Rome. Frongillo, E. A., Chowdhury, N., Ekström, E.-C., & Naved, R. T. (2003). Understanding the experience of household food insecurity in rural Bangladesh leads to a measure different from that used in other countries. The Journal of Nutrition, 133(12), 4158- 4162. Galasso, E. (2000). Distributional outcomes of a decentralized welfare program (Vol. 2316). Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Galbraith, J. K. (2000). The nature of mass poverty: Replica Books.

467

Gibelman, M., & Demone, J., Harold W. (2002). The commercialization of health and human services: Neutral phenomenon or cause for concern? Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 83(4), 387-397. GoB. (1999). Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, as modified up to 31st December 1998. Dhaka: Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. GoB. (2004). Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) implementation instructions 2004 (in Bangla). Dhaka: Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. GoB. (2006). Bangladesh economic review 2005. Dhaka: Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. GoB. (2009). Steps towards change: National strategy for accelerated poverty reduction II, FY 2009-11. Dhaka: General Economics Division, Planning Commission, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. GoB. (2011a). Bangladesh Economic Review 2010. Dhaka: Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. GoB. (2011b). Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) programme implementation instructions 2011 (in Bangla). Dhaka: Ministry of Women and Children Affairs, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. GoB. (2013a). Implementation manual for the Allowances for Widow and Husbands’ Deserted Destitute Women 2013 (in Bangla). Dhaka: Ministry of Social Welfare, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. GoB. (2013b). Implementation manual for the Old Age Allowance programme 2013 (in Bangla). Dhaka: Ministry of Social Welfare, Government of the People's Republic of Bnagladesh. GoB. (2015). Bangladesh economic review 2014. Dhaka: Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. Grindle, M. S. (2004). Good enough governance: Poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance, 17(4), 525-548. Grosh, M., del Ninno, C., Tesliuc, E., & Ouerghi, A. (2008). For protection and promotion: The design and implementation of effective safety nets. Washington D.C.: The World Bank Guijt, I., & Shah, M. K. (1998). Waking up to power, conflict and process. In I. Guijt & M. K. Shah (Eds.), The myth of community: Gender issues in participatory development (pp. 1-23). London: Intermediate Technology Publications Halder, S. R., & Mosley, P. (2004). Working with the ultra-poor: Learning from BRAC experiences. Journal of International Development, 16(3), 387-406. Hamelin, A.-M., Beaudry, M., & Habicht, J.-P. (2002). Characterization of household food insecurity in Quebec: Food and feelings. Social Science & Medicine, 54(1), 119-132.

468

Handa, S. (1994). Gender, headship and intrahousehold resource allocation. World Development, 22(10), 1535-1547. Harris, J. (1992). Rural development, peasant economy and agrarian change. London: Hutchinson University Library. Harun, K. M. Y., & Islam, A. (2005). Setting standard cereal intake for balanced nutrition in Bangladesh Food security in Bangladesh: Papers presented in the national workshop (pp. 51-60). Dhaka: Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, Governmnet of the People's Republic of Bangladesh & World Food Programme- Bangladesh. Hasan, M., Mahbubuzzaman, A., & Chowdhury, S. R. (2012). The service delivery system of the Old Age Allowance programme of the Government of Bangladesh: An assessment. SUST Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4), 68-76. Hashemi, S. M., Schuler, S. R., & Riley, A. P. (1996). Rural credit programs and women's empowerment in Bangladesh. World Development, 24(4), 635-653. Hassan, N., & Ahmad, K. (1984). Studies on food and nutrient intake by rural population of Bangladesh: Comparison between intakes of 1962–64, 1975–76 and 1981–82. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 15(2), 143-158. Headey, D., & Ecker, O. (2013). Rethinking the measurement of food security: From first principles to best practice. Food Security, 5(3), 327-343. Heltberg, R. (2007). Helping South Asia cope better with natural disasters: The role of social protection. Development Policy Review, 25(6), 681-698. Henkel, H., & Stirrat, R. (2001). Participation as spiritual duty: Empowerment as secular subjection. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny (pp. 168- 184). London: Zed Press. HLPE. (2012). Social protection for food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome 2012. Rome: Committee on World Food Security High Level Panel of Experts. Holzmann, R., & Jorgensen, S. (1999). Social protection as social risk management: Conceptual underpinnings for the social protection sector strategy paper. Washington, D.C. : The World Bank. Hossain, N. (1999). How do Bangladesh elites understand poverty? Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies. Hossain, N. (2007). The politics of what works: The case of the Vulnerable Group Development programme in Bangladesh. (CPRC Working Paper 92). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1629297 Hulme, D., Maitrot, M., Rango, P. L., & Rahman, H. Z. (2014). Consolidating nets and promoting ladders in Bangladesh: From social safety net programmes to a national social protection system. In H. Z. Rahman, D. Hulme, M. Maitrot & P. L. Rango (Eds.), Social protection in Bangladesh: Building effective social safety nets and ladders out of poverty (pp. 3-20). Dhaka, Bangladesh: The University Press Limited.

469

Hulme, D., & Mosley, P. (1996). Finance for the poor or poorest?: Financial innovation, poverty and vulnerability: University of Reading, Department of Economics and Department of Agricultural Economics. Hyder, M. (1996). From relief to development: Food for Work in Bangladesh. Disasters, 20(1), 21-33. IDS Workshop, Gaventa, J., & Blackburn, J. (1998). Towards a learning organisation - making development agencies more participatory from the inside. In J. Blackburn, J. Holland & R. Chambers (Eds.), Who changes? Institutionalizing participation in development: Intermediate Technology. IEG (Independent Evaluation Group). (2010). The World Bank Group’s response to the Global Economic Crisis - Phase I. Washington, DC: Independent Evaluation Group, the World Bank Group. IEG (Independent Evaluation Group). (2011). Evidence and lessons learned from impact evaluations on social safety nets. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. IFPRI, Concern Worldwide, & Welthungerhilfe. (2014). Global Hunger Index: The challenge of hidden hunger. Bonn/Washington, D. C./Dublin: International Food Policy Research Institute; Concern Worldwide; Welthungerhilfe. IGS. (2010). The state of governance in Bangladesh 2009: Entitlement responsiveness susutainability. Dhaka: Institute of Governance Studies, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh. ILO. (1977). Meeting basic needs. Geneva: International Labour Organization. ILO. (2008). Can low-income countries afford basic social security? Social security policy briefings, Paper 3 Geneva: International Labour Organization. ILO. (2010). World social security report 2010: Providing coverage in times of crisis and beyond. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Islam, K. M. K. (2009). Safety net programs for the destitute women: The case of Bangladesh. Saarbrϋcken Germany: VDM Publishing. Islam, M. M. (2012). The politics of food security in Bangladesh (Doctoral dissertation). University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid= UNSWORKS&docId=unsworks_11039&fromSitemap=1&afterPDS=true Available from UNSW Australia UNSWorks database. Israel, M., & Hersh, D. (2006). Resarch ethics. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), From postgraduate to social scientist: A guide to key skills (pp. 43-58). London: SAGE Publications. Jha, R., Bhattacharyya, S., & Gaiha, R. (2011). Social safety nets and nutrient deprivation: An analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Program and the Public Distribution System in India. Journal of Asian Economics, 22(2), 189-201. Kabeer, N. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women's empowerment. Development and Change, 30(3), 435-464.

470

Kabeer, N. (2001). Conflicts over credit: Re-evaluating the empowerment potential of loans to women in rural Bangladesh. World development, 29(1), 63-84. Kabeer, N. (2002). Safety nets and opportunity ladders: Addressing vulnerability and enhancing productivity in South Asia. London: Overseas Development Institute. Kapoor, I. (2002). The devil's in the theory: A critical assessment of Robert Chambers' work on participatory development. Third World Quarterly, 23(1), 101-117. Karim, M. R. (1999). A study of rural poverty alleviation in Bangladesh: Prospects and problems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tsukuba, Japan. Kashem, M., & Faroque, M. (2011). A country scenarioes of food security and governance in Bangladesh. Journal of Science Foundation, 9(1-2), 41-50. Kennedy, E., & Peters, P. (1992). Household food security and child nutrition: The interaction of income and gender of household head. World Development, 20(8), 1077-1085. Khan, A. R. (1990). Poverty in Bangladesh: A consequence of and a constraint on growth. The Bangladesh Development Studies, 18(3), 19-34. Khan, F. (2010). Waqf: An Islamic instrument of poverty alleviation-Bangladesh perspective. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference The Tawhidi Epistemology: Zakat and Waqf Economy, Bangi. Khan, M. M. (2003). State of governance in Bangladesh. The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, 92(370), 391-405. Khan, N. J. (2012). An assessment of widow allowance programme in Bangladesh–the supply side perspectives (Master's thesis). North South University, Bangladesh, Dhaka. Retrieved from www.mppg-nsu.org/attachments/396_Nilufar.pdf Available from North South University Khanal, D. R. (2013). Social security/social protection in Nepal: Situation analysis: International Labour Organization. Khuda, B. E. (2011). Social safety net programmes in Bangladesh: A review. Bangladesh Development Studies, Vol. XXXIV(2), 87-108. Klasen, S. (1997). Poverty, inequality and deprivation in South Africa: An analysis of the 1993 Saldru survey. In V. Møller (Ed.), Quality of life in South Africa (pp. 51-94): Springer. Klasen, S. (2000). Measuring poverty and deprivation in South Africa. Review of Income and Wealth, 46(1), 33-58. Kohl, J. (1996). The European community: Diverse images of poverty. In Else Øyen, S. M. Miller & Syed Abdus Samad (Eds.), Poverty: A global review. Handbook on international poverty research (pp. 251-286). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Kothari, U. (2001). Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. In U. Kothari & B. Cooke (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 139-152). London: Zed Books.

471

Kryger, K. N., Thomsen, K., Whyte, M., & Dissing, M. (2010). Smallholder poultry production: Livelihoods, food security and sociocultural significance. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Laderchi, C. R. (1997). Poverty and its many dimensions: The role of income as an indicator. Oxford Development Studies, 25(3), 345-360. Laderchi, C. R., Saith, R., & Stewart, F. (2003). Does it matter that we do not agree on the definition of poverty? A comparison of four approaches. Oxford Development Studies, 31(3), 243-274. Lakshman, W. D. (1994). Market-oriented policies and poverty in Sri Lanka. Paper presented at the National Seminar on Poverty, Colombo. Lal, D., & Myint, H. (1998). The political economy of poverty, equity and growth: A comparative study: Clarendon Press. Lambsdorff, J. G. (2003). How corruption affects productivity. Kyklos, 56(4), 457-474. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Race, class, and family life. Berkeley University of California Press. Lelli, S. (2008). Operationalising Sen's capability approach: The influence of the selected technique. In F. Comim, M. Qizilbash & S. Alkire (Eds.), The capability approach: Concepts, measures and applications (pp. 310-361). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leurs, R. (1996). Current challenges facing participatory rural appraisal. Public Administration and Development, 16(1), 57-72. Lewis, O. (1963). The culture of poverty. Trans-action, 1(1), 17-19. Lewis, O. (1966). La vida: A Puerto Rican family in the culture of poverty-San Juan and New York. New York: Random House Lipton, M., & Ravallion, M. (1993). Poverty and policy (Vol. 1130). Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Mahmud, H. (2009). Unintended consequences of micro-credit in Bangladesh: An evaluation from human security perspective. Asian Social Science, 4(10), 127-131. Mahmud, S., Shah, N. M., & Becker, S. (2012). Measurement of women’s empowerment in rural Bangladesh. World Development, 40(3), 610-619. Majumdar, M., & Subramanian, S. (2001). Capability failure and group disparities: Some evidence from India for the 1980s. Journal of Development Studies, 37(5), 104-140. Mallick, D., & Rafi, M. (2010). Are female-headed households more food insecure? Evidence from Bangladesh. World Development, 38(4), 593-605. Maniruzzaman, M. (2009). Management of selected social safety net programmes in the vulnerable charlands of Bangladesh. Dhaka: Center for Agriresearch and Sustainable Environment & Entrepreneurship Development (CASEED) and Cinishpur Dipsikha Mohila Somiti (CDMS).

472

Manley, J., Gitter, S., & Slavchevska, V. (2012). How effective are cash transfer programmes at improving nutritional status? A rapid evidence assessment of programmes’ effects on anthropometric outcomes. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Research Science Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Mannan, M. A. (2010). Safety net programs in Bangladesh: Assessing the performance of selected programs. Dhaka: The Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS). Mannan, M. A., & Ahmed, B. N. (2012). Impact evaluation of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) program in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS). Martinetti, E. C. (1994). A new approach to evaluation of well-being and poverty by fuzzy set theory. Giornale Degli Economisti e Annali di Economia, 53(7/9), 367-388. Martinetti, E. C. (1996). Standard of living evaluation based on Sen's approach: Some methodological suggestions: Università di Pavia. Martinetti, E. C. (2000). A multidimensional assessment of well-being based on Sen's functioning approach. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 108(2), 207-239. Masud-All-Kamal, M., & Saha, C. K. (2014). Targeting social policy and poverty reduction: The case of social safety nets in Bangladesh. Poverty & Public Policy, 6(2), 195-211. Matin, I., & Hulme, D. (2003). Programs for the poorest: Learning from the IGVGD program in Bangladesh. World Development, 31(3), 647-665. Mauro, P. (1995). Corruption and growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 681- 712. Maxwell, S. (1996). Food security: A post-modern perspective. Food Policy, 21(2), 155-170. Maxwell, S., & Smith, M. (1992). Household food security: A conceptual review. In S. Maxwell & T. R. Frankenberger (Eds.), Household Food Security: Concepts, indicators, measurements: A technical review Rome and New York: IFAD and UNICEF. McGee, R., & Norton, A. (2000). Participation in poverty reduction strategies: A synthesis of experience with participatory approaches to policy design, implementation and monitoring. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. McGregor, J. A. (2004). Researching well-being communicating between the needs of policy makers and the needs of people. Global Social Policy, 4(3), 337-358. McIntyre, L., Rondeau, K., Kirkpatrick, S., Hatfield, J., Islam, K. S., & Huda, S. N. (2011). Food provisioning experiences of ultra poor female heads of household living in Bangladesh. Social Science & Medicine, 72(6), 969-976. Mechlem, K. (2004). Food security and the right to food in the discourse of the United Nations. European Law Journal, 10(5), 631-648. Michener, V. J. (1998). The participatory approach: Contradiction and co-option in Burkina Faso. World Development, 26(12), 2105-2118.

473

Miller, M. H., & Upton, C. W. (1986). Macroeconomics: A neoclassical introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mishra, U., & Hossain, S. A. K. M. (2005). Current food security and challenges: Achieving 2015 MDG hunger milepost Food security in Bangladesh: Papers presented in the national workshop (pp. 01–06). Dhaka: Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh & World Food Programme- Bangladesh. Mo, P. H. (2001). Corruption and economic growth. Journal of Comparative Economics, 29(1), 66-79. MoFDM. (2006). National Food Policy 2006. Dhaka: Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh MoFDM. (2008). National Food Policy Plan of Action (2008-2015). Dhaka: Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU), Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. Moges, A. G. (2013). The political economy of poverty reduction. International Journal of African Development, 1(1), 19-39. Mohan, G. (2001). Beyond participation: Strategies for deeper empowerment. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny (pp. 153-167). London: Zed Books. Moreno-Valle, A. C., & Colin, S. D. (2014). Oportunidades- Mexico's experience. In H. Z. Rahman, D. Hulme, M. Maitrot & L. P. Rango (Eds.), Social protection in Bangladesh: Building effective social safety nets and ladders out of poverty (pp. 139-152). Dhaka: The University Press Limited. Morshed, K. (2009). Social safety net programmes in Bangladesh. Dhaka: United Nations Development Programme- Bangladesh. Mozumder, M. A. K., Islam, M. M., Alam, M. S., & Rahman, M. M. (2009). Transparency and accountability for ensuring food security in Bangladesh: A study on field institutions. Dhaka: National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme. Mukhopadhyay, S. (Ed.). (1985). The poor in Asia: Productivity-raising programmes and strategies. Kuala Lumpur: Asian and Pacific Development Centre. Mundle, S. (1984). Land, labour and the level of living in rural Punjab. In A. R. Khan & E. Lee (Eds.), Poverty in Rural Asia (pp. 81-106). Bangkok: International Labour Organization (ILO), Asian Employment Program (ARTEP). Muni, N. (2006). Women empowerment: Dynamics and dimensions. In R. L. Panigrahy & D. Bhuyan (Eds.), Women empowerment (pp. 24-30). New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House. Murgai, R., & Zaidi, S. (2006). Main income sources and assets of the poor. In S. Ahmed (Ed.), Transforming Bangladesh into a middle income economy (pp. 243-260). New Delhi: Macmillan.

474

Nabatchi, T. (2012). A manager's guide to evaluating citizen participation. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for The Business of Government Narayan-Parker, D., & Patel, R. (2000). Voices of the poor: Can anyone hear us? (Vol. 1). Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Novak, M. (1996). Concepts of poverty. In Else Øyen, S. M. Miller & Syed Abdus Samad (Eds.), Poverty: A global review- Handbook on international poverty research (pp. 47-61). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. NUMBEO. (2015). Food prices in Bangladesh. Retrieved 24 July, 2015, from http://www.numbeo.com/food-prices/country_result.jsp?country=Bangladesh Nussbaum, M. (1988). Nature, function, and capability: Aristotle on political distribution in Oxford studies in ancient philosophy: Supplementary volume (pp. 145-184). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2-3), 33-59. Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press. Oakley, P. (1991). Projects with people: The practice of participation in rural development: International Labour Organization. Osmani, S. R. (1990). Structural change and poverty in Bangladesh: The case of a false turning point. The Bangladesh Development Studies, 18(3), 55-74. Osmani, S. R. (1995). The entitlement approach to famine: An assessment. In K. Basu, P. Pattanaik & K. Suzumura (Eds.), Choice, welfare, and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parfitt, T. (2004). The ambiguity of participation: A qualified defence of participatory development. Third World Quarterly, 25(3), 537-556. Parsons, K. H. S. (2015). Reaching out to the persistently poor in rural areas: An analysis of Brazil's Bosla Familia conditional cash transfer programme (Doctoral dissertation). London School of Economics. Retrieved from http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/3159/1/Parsons_Reaching_out_to_the_persistently_poor _in_rural_areas.pdf Paul-Majumder, P., & Begum, S. (2008). The Old Age Allowance programme for the poor elderly in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies. Paul, S. (1987). Community participation in development projects: The World Bank experience. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank Pearse, A., & Stiefel, M. (1979). Inquiry into Participation—A research approach Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).

475

Piachaud, D. (1987). Problems in the definition and measurement of poverty. Journal of Social Policy, 16(2), 147-164. Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (2009). Food security: Definition and measurement. Food Security, 1(1), 5-7. Pretty, J. N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J., & Scoones, I. (1995). Participatory learning and action: A trainer's guide. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Qizilbash, M. (1998a). The concept of well-being. Economics and Philosophy, 14(01), 51-73. Qizilbash, M. (1998b). Poverty: Concept and measurement. Islamabad: Sustainable Development Policy Institute Islamabad. Qizilbash, M., & Clark, D. A. (2005). The capability approach and fuzzy poverty measures: An application to the South African context. Social Indicators Research, 74(1), 103- 139. Rahman, A. (1986). The socio-economic disadvantages and development perspectives of the poor in Bangladesh agriculture. Dhaka: Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies. Rahman, A., Mahmud, S., & Haque, T. (1988). A critical review of the poverty situation in Bangladesh in the Eighties. Dhaka: Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies. Rahman, H. Z., & Choudhury, L. A. (2012). Social safety nets in Bangladesh: Volume 2: Ground realities and policy challenges. Dhaka: Power and Participation Research Centre (PPRC) and United Nations Development Programme ( UNDP). Rahman, H. Z., Choudhury, L. A., & Ali, K. S. (2011). Social safety nets in Bangladesh: Volume 1: Review of issues and analytical inventory. Dhaka: Power and Participation Research Centre (PPRC) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Rahman, H. Z., Hulme, D., Maitrot, M., & Rango, P. L. (2014). Social protection in Bangladesh: The road ahead. In H. Z. Rahman, D. Hulme, M. Maitrot & P. L. Rango (Eds.), Social protection in Bangladesh: Building effective social safety nets and ladders out of poverty (pp. 339-353). Dhaka: The University Press Limited. Rahman, M. M., & Khan, S. I. (2005). Food security in Bangladesh: Food availability Food security in Bangladesh: Papers presented in the national workshop (pp. 7-16). Dhaka: Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh & World Food Programme-Bangladesh. Rahman, M. P. M., Matsui, N., & Ikemoto, Y. (2009). The chronically poor in rural Bangladesh: Livelihood constraint and capabilities. New York: Routledge. Rahman, P. M. M., Matsui, N., & Ikemoto, Y. (2013). Dynamics of poverty in rural Bangladesh. New York: Springer Rahman, R. I., Begum, A., & Bhuyan, H. R. (2012). Household food insecurity in Bangladesh: Concepts, estimates, and determinants. Dhaka: Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies.

476

Rahman, S. M., Hoque, A., & Talukder, R. A. (2005). Food security in Bangladesh: Utilization, nutrition and food safety Food security in Bangladesh: Papers presented in the national workshop (pp. 43-50). Dhaka: Ministry of Food And Disaster Management, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh & World Food Programme- Bangladesh. Rao, J. M. (2007). Food security: A benchmark survey of the literature relevant to Bangladesh. Dhaka: National Food Policy Capacity Strengthneing Programme, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. Ravallion, M. (1990). The challenging arithmetic of poverty in Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Development Studies, 18(3), 35-53. Ravallion, M., & Sen, B. (1996). When method matters: Monitoring poverty in Bangladesh. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 44(4), 761-792. Rawlings, L. B., & Rubio, G. M. (2005). Evaluating the impact of conditional cash transfer programs. The World Bank Research Observer, 20(1), 29-55. Razzaque, M. A., & Toufique, M. M. K. (2007). Does women's status matter for food security? Evidence from Bangladesh. Helsinki: United Nations University (UNU)- World Institute for Development Economics Research (WIDER). RDA. (2012). Impact evaluation on Vulnerable Group Development programme (2009-2010 Cycle). Bogra: Rural Development Academy (RDA). Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93-117. Rose-Ackerman, S. (2006). Corruption and development. In A. S. Huque & H. Zafarullah (Eds.), International development governance (pp. 289-303): Taylor and Francis. Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage. SAARC. (1992). Meeting the challenge: Report of the Independent South Asian Commission on Poverty Alleviation. Kathmandu: SAARC Secretariat. Sabra, A. (2000). Poverty and charity in medieval Islam: Mamluk Egypt, 1250-1517. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sadeq, A. M. (1997). Poverty alleviation: An Islamic perspective. Humanomics, 13(3), 110- 134. Sadeq, A. M. (2002). Waqf, perpetual charity and poverty alleviation. International Journal of Social Economics, 29(1/2), 135-151. Saith, R. (2001). Capabilities: The concept and its operationalisation. Oxford: Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford. Salagrama, V. (2006). Trends in poverty and livelihoods in coastal fishing communities of Orissa State, India. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Samson, M. (2012). Nepal’s Senior Citizens’ Allowance: A model of universalism in a low- income country context. In S. W. Handayani & B. Babajanian (Eds.), Social

477

protection for older persons: Social pensions in Asia (pp. 214-245): Asian Development Bank. Samson, M. (2014). Social protection's role within a modern development agenda: The socio-economic impacts. In H. Z. Rahman, D. Hulme, M. Maitrot & P. L. Rango (Eds.), Social protection in Bangladesh: Building effective social safety nets and ladders out of poverty (pp. 21-45). Dhaka, Bangladesh: The University Press Limited. SARPN, ODI, & FANRPAN. (2005). Look, listen and learn: Promoting the use of CSOs' evidence in policies for food security: An action research project in southern Africa: Southern African Regional Poverty Network, Overseas Development Institute, Food and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network. Sattar, G., Chowdhury, N., & Hossain, M. (1999). Food aid and sustainable livelihoods: BRAC’s innovations against hunger. Dhaka: Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC). Satya, P. (1990). Green revolution and poverty among farm families in Haryana, 1969/70 and 1982/83. Economic and Political Weekly, 25(39), 105-110. Schubert, B., & Slater, R. (2006). Social cash transfers in low-income African countries: Conditional or unconditional? Development Policy Review, 24(5), 571-578. Sen, A. (1981a). Ingredients of famine analysis: Availability and entitlements. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 96(3), 433-464. Sen, A. (1981b). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (1982). Choice, welfare and measurement. Oxford: Blackwell. Sen, A. (1983). Poor, relatively speaking. Oxford Economic Papers, 35(2), 153-169. Sen, A. (1984). Resources, values and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam; New York: North-Holland. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 270- 293): Clarendon Press. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (2004). Capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77-80. Sen, B., & Hulme, D. (2006). Chronic poverty in Bangladesh: Tales of ascent, descent, marginality and persistence. Dhaka: Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS) and Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC). Sepulveda, M., & Nyst, C. (2012). The human rights approach to social protection: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland.

478

Serr, K. (2006). Concepts of poverty. In K. Serr (Ed.), Thinking about poverty (3rd ed., pp. 49- 65). Leichhardt, NSW, Australia: The Federation Press. Shahabuddin, Q. (2010). The right to food: Bangladesh perspectives. The Bangladesh Development Studies, 33(1 & 2), 91-138. Sharmin, S., Arahata, K., & Islam, M. S. (2009). Persent status and sustainability of food security in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Political Economy, 25(1 & 2), 229- 242. Silva, K. T., & Athukorala, K. (1991). The Watta-Dwellers: A sociological study of selected urban low-income communities in Sri Lanka: University Press of America. Silva, K. T., & Athukorala, K. (1996). South Asia: An overview. In Else Øyen, S. M. Miller & Syed Abdus Samad (Eds.), Poverty: A global review- Handbook on international poverty research (pp. 65-85). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (2nd ed.). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction (3rd ed.). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications Singh, A. (1979). The ‘Basic Needs’ approach to development vs the new international economic order: The significance of third world industrialization. World Development, 7(6), 585-606. Small, M. L. (2004). Villa Victoria: The transformation of social capital in a Boston barrio. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith, B. C. (2007). Good governance and development: Palgrave Macmillan. Smith, L. C., Kahn, F., Frankenberger, T. R., & Wadud, A. (2011). Admissible evidence in the court of development evaluation? The impact of CARE's SHOUHARDO Project on child stunting in Bangladesh. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. Smith, M., Pointing, J., & Maxwell, S. (1992). Household food security: Concepts and definitions- An annotated bibliography. In S. Maxwell & T. R. Frankenberger (Eds.), Household food security: Concepts, indicators, measurements: A technical review. New York: United Nations Children's Fund- International Fund for Agricultural Development Smith, W. J., & Subbarao, K. (2003). What role for safety net transfers in very low income countries? Washington, D.C.: World Bank Institute. Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65-94. Spicker, P. (2007). Definitions of poverty: Twelve clusters of meaning. In P. Spicker, S. A. Leguizamón & D. Gordon (Eds.), Poverty: An international glossary (2nd ed., pp. 229-243). London: Zed Books.

479

Steinberg, S. (1981). The ethnic myth: Race, class, and ethnicity in America. New York: Atheneum. Stewart, F., & Deneulin, S. (2002). Amartya Sen’s contribution to development thinking. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(2), 61-70. Streeten, P. (1984). Basic needs: Some unsettled questions. World Development, 12(9), 973-978. Streeten, P. P. (1981). First things first: Meeting basic human needs in the developing countries. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Studdert, L. J., Frongillo, E. A., & Valois, P. (2001). Household food insecurity was prevalent in Java during Indonesia’s economic crisis. The Journal of Nutrition, 131(10), 2685- 2691. Subbarao, K., Bonnerjee, A., Braithwaite, J., Carvalho, S., Ezemenari, K., Graham, C., & Thompson, A. (1997). Safety net programs and poverty reduction: Lessons from cross-country experience. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Sugden, R. (1993). Welfare, resources, and capabilities: A review of inequality reexamined by Amartya Sen. Journal of Economic Literature, 31(4), 1947-1962. Sumarto, S., & Suryahadi, A. (2001). Principles and approaches to targeting with reference to the Indonesian social safety net programs. Jakarta: The SMERU Research Institute. Swan, T. W. (1956). Economic growth and capital accumulation. Economic Record, 32(2), 334-361. Szeftel, M. (1982). Political graft and the spoils system in Zambia - The state as a resource in itself. Review of African Political Economy, 9(24), 4-21. Talukder, R. (2005). Food security, self-sufficiency and nutrition gap in Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Development Studies, 31(3-4), 35-62. TANGO International. (2009). SHOUHARDO a Title II program of USAID final evaluation report. Dhaka: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: Wiley. The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2014). Global Food Security Index 2014: An annual measure of the state of global food security. London, New York, Honk Kong, Geneva: The Economist Intelligence Unit. Tomlinson, M., Walker, R., & Williams, G. (2008). Measuring poverty in Britain as a multi- dimensional concept, 1991 to 2003. Journal of Social Policy, 37(04), 597-620. Tovey, C. (2005). Bangladesh PRSP forum economic update: Recent developments and future perspectives. Dhaka: World Bank Office. Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: A survey of household resources and standards of living. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

480

Townsend, P. (1984). The development of an anti-poverty strategy. In J. C. Brown (Ed.), Anti-poverty policy in the European community: Papers prepared for a working party. London: Policy Studies Institution, London. Townsend, P. (1993). The international analysis of poverty. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Transparency International. (2013). Corruption Perception Index 2013. Berlin: Transparency International. Transparency International. (2015). How do you define corruption. Retrieved 5 March, 2014, from http://www.transparency.org/what-is-corruption/ Transparency International Bangladesh. (2013). Annual report 2012. Dhaka: Transparency International Bangladesh. UNDP. (1997). UNDP and governance: Experiences and lessons learned. New York: Management Development and Governance Division, United Nations Development Programme. UNDP. (2012). Participatory development training manual. New York: United Nations Development Programme UNDP. (2014). Human Development Report 2014: Sustaining human progress: Reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience. New York: United Nations Development Programme United Nations. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ United Nations. (1996). Bulletin on the eradication of poverty: Division for Social Policy and Development, Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development of the United Nations Secretariat. Uraguchi, Z. B. (2011). Social protection for redistributive justice: Socio-economic and political drivers of vulnerability to food insecurity in Bangladesh and Ethiopia. Brighton: Centre for Social Protection, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. van Ginneken, W. (2003). Extending social security: Policies for developing countries. International Labour Review, 142(3), 277-294. Van Schendel, W. (2009). A history of Bangladesh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Waheduzzaman, W., & As-Saber, S. (2015). Community participation and local governance in Bangladesh. Australian Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 128-147. Webb, P., Coates, J., & Houser, R. (2002). Challenges in defining direct measures of hunger and food insecurity in Bangladesh: Findings from ongoing fieldwork. Paper presented at the International scientific symposium on measurement and assessment of food deprivation and undernutrition, Rome. Wei, S.-J., & Shleifer, A. (2000). Local corruption and global capital flows. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity(2), 303-346.

481

WFP. (2002). Food security assessment in Bangladesh: Issues and implications for vulnerability analysis and mapping. Dhaka: Vulnerability Analysis & Mapping Unit, WFP- Bangladesh. WFP. (2008). Food consumption analysis: Calculation and use of the food consumption score in food security analysis. Rome: World Food Programme. WFP. (2010). Emergency safety net for vulnerable groups affected by high food prices and natural disasters in Bangladesh Retrieved 17/08/2015, from http://one.wfp.org/operations/current_operations/project_docs/107880.pdf Whiteford, P., & Fӧrster, M. (2002). The definition and development of social safety nets: What forms of social protection Towards Asia's sustainable development: The role of social protection (pp. 387-414). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Wignaraja, P. (1990). Women, poverty and resources. New Delhi: Sage. Williams, B. (1987). The standard of living: Interests and capabilities. In G. Hawthorn (Ed.), The standard of living (pp. 94-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wood, G. (2003). Staying secure, staying poor: The “Faustian Bargain”. World Development, 31(3), 455-471. World Bank. (1986). Poverty and hunger: Issues and options for food security in developing countries. A World Bank policy study. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. World Bank. (1993a). Ethiopia: Toward poverty alleviation and a social action program. Washington D. C.: The World Bank. World Bank. (1993b). The Gambia: An assessment of poverty. Washington D. C.: The World Bank. World Bank. (1994). Internal implementation review. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. World Bank. (2006). Social safety nets in Bangladesh: An assessment. Dhaka: South Asia Human Development Unit, The World Bank. World Bank. (2015). The state of social safety nets 2015. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Zafarullah, H., & Huque, A. S. (2012). Managing development in a globalized world: Concepts, processes, institutions. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Zafarullah, H., & Rahman, R. (2008). The impaired state: Assessing state capacity and governance in Bangladesh. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(7), 739-752. Zafarullah, H., & Siddiquee, N. A. (2001). Dissecting public sector corruption in Bangladesh: Issues and problems of control. Public Organization Review, 1(4), 465-486. Zeller, R. A. (1993). Focus group research on sensitive topics: Setting the agenda without setting the agenda. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 167-183): Sage Publications.

482

Zohir, S., Mallik, B. A., Zabeen, S., & Ahsan, G. (2010). Strengthening social safety nets for mitigating adverse impacts of food crisis in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Economic Research Group. Zug, S. (2006). Monga-Seasonal food insecurity in Bangladesh: Bringing the information together. The Journal of Social Studies, 111, 21- 34.

483