![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
In view of the differences in the nature and concept of poverty across rural and urban regions, this article argues that a nationwide standardised poverty reduction strategy package may not be equally effective in these two regions. This article examines the limitations of existing poverty assessment approaches used in Bangladesh and identifies various indicators that are responsible for the achievement of higher level functioning in urban regions in contrast to rural areas. The methodology of the study is based on 917 samples of poor persons with microcredit collected from nine districts of Bangladesh. Significant differences have been observed in the indicators of poverty for rural and urban areas. The results from our participatory study reveal that the urban poor are more inclined towards social functioning achievements such as voting, decision-making at both household and work levels, having a voice at local meetings and co-operatives, whereas the rural poor are still demanding the most basic requirements.
Notes
1. “Functioning” in this context means being and doing; a person’s achievement – what he/she wants to do or be (Sen Citation1984).
2. Sen’s analysis of well-being conceptualises poverty as capability deprivation, which impedes the individual in living a valuable life, and which is not caused solely by low income.
3. However, also note that according to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), rural poverty declined to 35.2% in the year 2010, from 43.8% in 2005 and from 52.3% in 2000 (BBS 2013).
4. A participatory poverty assessment (PPA) approach involves poor people defining poverty from their own perspective. This “enables local people to share, enhance and analyse their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act” (Chambers Citation1994, 57). Participatory approaches potentially embrace social, economic, cultural, and political and security issues, and thus provide a multidimensional view of poverty.
5. Indicators are: skilled attendant at birth; use of improved sanitation facility; net attendance ratio in pre-school; net attendance ratio in primary education; pupils who reached grade-5; drop-out in primary education; net attendance ratio in secondary education; youth literacy; adult literacy; gender parity in secondary education; U5MR; and birth registration. For details refer to UNICEF (Citation2010), http://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/Urban_paper_lowres.pdf (accessed 27 May 2014).
6. Morduch (Citation2000) and Coleman (Citation2005) find that revenue generated from a business run using micro-credit shows increased investment in schooling, family illness, nutrition and housing. Carroll (Citation2012, Citation2015) terms the use of microcredit as “deep marketisation of development” and a “financialisation of the poor” in the Asia Pacific region.
7. Previous studies have found that it takes approximately six years for a micro-credit borrower poor member to get out of poverty and it generally takes eight years before the member is able to function independently from the micro-credit institution (Khandker and Omar Citation1996).
8. “Empowerment” here indicates political empowerment. Political empowerment implies increasing an individual’s civic competencies, which can help him or her to fully utilise their capabilities to take charge of their lives. It is worth noting here that, to adequately explain rural–urban disparity in the sense of social justice, we have also considered violence against women as an important indicator in our model by using a proxy: “feelings of insecurity.” Feelings of insecurity for men are measured by several items such as experience of theft or robbery, religious violence, etc., while for women it is measured through experience of theft or robbery, teasing, domestic violence, etc. As the objective of this study is rural–urban comparison, the gender dimension is kept at a general level only to avoid any digression. For a discussion on gender-related issues see Chowdhury and Mukhopadhaya (Citation2014a).
9. Data (BBS 2012) show that food inflation in rural Bangladesh was 7.96, 9.76 and 9.73 in 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively. For urban areas, the rates were 9.85, 12.03 and 12.20 respectively.