The impact of livestock asset transfers on the livelihoods of the ultra-poor

ABSTRACT

This paper estimates the impacts of Livestock Asset Transfers on the livelihoods of the ultra-poor in West Bengal, India. The programme provides the female members of ultra-poor households with livestock assets as grants. We find that the intervention increases per capita monthly income by Rs 1061 (122% increase). It also increases the food expenditures of households and enables them to secure enough food to eat at least two meals a day. Furthermore, the programme also increases the number/amount of owned livestock assets, poultry, and cultivable lands amid the treatment households.

KEYWORDS:

• Asset transfer
• ultra-poor
• income
• food security
• West Bengal

Acknowledgment

We thank Mr Bishwajit Das, Secretary and CEO, BJS, and Dr Imran Matin, Executive Director, BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD), BRAC University, for their support in conducting this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 According to Grant et al. (2004), several terms are used to identify those who experience poverty most intensely – ultra-poor, extremely poor, hardcore poor, destitute, poorest of the poor, and declining poor. Hence, the ultra-poor and hardcore poor are similar. Nonetheless, in this paper, we refer to the ultra-poor.

2 https://www.census2011.co.in/census/state/west+bengal.html#:~:text=Of%20the%20total%20population%20of,West%20Bengal%20state%20was%2062%2C183%2C113.

3 Similarly, the proportion of single-membered households at baseline was also higher for our study sample in comparison to Bandiera et al. (2017) (36% vs. 19%) (Das and Seraj 2009).

4 Bandhan, a microfinance institution based in West Bengal, India, also implements a programme known as THP but Bandhan’s THP programme’s targeting criteria are different from those used by BJS’s THP programme. To be eligible as a beneficiary of Bandan’s THP programme, a household must meet three of the following five criteria: the primary source of income has to be informal labour or begging; landholdings must be below 20 decimals (10 katthas, 0.2 acres); the household owns no productive assets other than land; no able-bodied males are in the household; school-aged children work instead of attending school (Banerjee et al. 2011). Further, the household (1) must have an able-bodied female member, and (2) must not be associated with any microfinance institution or receive sufficient support from the government (Banerjee et al. 2011). Unlike Bandhan’s THP programme, BJS’s THP programme uses income as one of the prime selection criteria. As mentioned previously, households selected by BJS’s THP programme are likely to be more vulnerable compared to those selected by Bandhan’s THP programme. This perhaps implies that an anti-poverty programme should use income as a selection criterion.

5 The survey, however, could successfully visit 99 households.

6 For estimating the probability of participation versus nonparticipation in a binary treatment case, Logit and Probit models usually yield similar results (Caliendo and Kopeinig 2008). We, however, choose the Probit model.

7 All outcome variables except for employment and women's empowerment are at the household level.

8 The savings were mostly at the bank/post office (83% and 75% for the treatment and control groups, respectively). The rest were at home and other places.

 

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Narayan Das

Dr. Narayan Das is a development economist and Senior Research Fellow at BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD), BRAC University. He has a PhD in Agricultural and Resource Economics from the University of California at Berkeley. Dr. Das has published extensively including in top economics journals on poverty and labour market issues. His researches focus on poverty analysis, quantitative analysis of development policies, impact assessment of social programs and labour markets.Md. Kamruzzaman is an Anthropologist by training and completed his Under Graduation and Masters degree from Rajshahi University, Bangladesh. He is currently working as a Senior Program Associate at BIGD, BRAC University. He has good command over qualitative research methods and published a journal article in Public Health Action.Md. Shakil Ahmed is a Development Economist by training. He completed his BSS and MSS degree in Economics from Khulna University, Bangladesh. Further, He did his MSc. degree in Development Evaluation and Management from the Institute of Development Policy (IOB), Antwerp University, Belgium. Currently, he is working as a Senior Research Associate at BIGD, BRAC University. He published his papers in different journals, including the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.