Strategies to reduce poverty will be more effective if we understand how and why people fall into, stay in and move out of poverty. In rural Bangladesh, one way to do this is to listen to the people themselves: what their own perceptions of poverty are, and what has best helped them escape from poverty.

Research from the Chronic Poverty Research Centre, in the UK, examines poverty dynamics in Bangladesh over the last ten years. The author presents findings from 116 focus group discussions that took place in eleven districts in rural Bangladesh in mid-2006. The groups explored participants’ perceptions of the reasons for decline or improvement in people’s wellbeing, and why some people stay poor. The groups also discussed the positive and negative impacts of governmental and non-governmental interventions to reduce poverty.

The focus groups revealed that certain factors are associated with impoverishment, including dowry payments, illness, dependency ratios (too many people to feed), flooding, debt and the lack of work. Routes out of poverty included business activities and agricultural improvements (often enabled by micro-credit), salaried work, migration for work, day labour, livestock rearing and fish farming.

The groups also looked at the extent to which various interventions had contributed to improvements in people’s wellbeing. Interventions considered were the government food-for-education and cash-for-education programmes, microfinance programmes and vegetable and fish farming inputs (training, credit and improved vegetable seed varieties).

Specific research findings include:

• Half the groups considered dowry and illness amongst the most important causes of impoverishment.
• The groups felt adverse dependency ratios, a lack of land, low income and a lack of employment kept people in poverty.
• Fifty-eight percent of groups saw business as an important way to escape poverty; 41 percent cited improved forms of agriculture (such as high yield crops and improved irrigation).
• Most groups linked the interventions discussed with overall reductions in poverty, though some participants complained of negative effects.
• Improvements tend to be related to hard work, investment and enterprise, but were also commonly accompanied by high risk of impoverishment (such as floodwaters destroying fish ponds).
• Improvements are generally gradual, whereas declines can be gradual or caused by sudden events.

The focus groups shed light on the changing profile of risk facing poor people in rural Bangladesh, as well as the opportunities open to them to improve their lives. They also demonstrated that the poorest people are most vulnerable to the risks associated with impoverishment, as well as to the risks involved in pursuing routes out of poverty.

Key implications of the research include:

• Policy efforts should focus on reducing the risks associated with efforts to move out of poverty (such as insurance for business, agriculture and migration).
• Forms of insurance could also be introduced to help people cope better with downward pressures, such as illness, dowry, and medical and other costs in old age.
• More research is needed to better understand patterns of risk and opportunity, and the implications for public policy.

Source(s):
‘Discussions Among the Poor: Exploring Poverty Dynamics with Focus Groups in Bangladesh’, CPRC Working Paper 84, IDPM/CPRC: Manchester, by Peter Davis, 2007 (PDF) Full document.

Funded by: World Bank

id21 Research Highlight: 27 April 2008

Further Information:
Peter Davis
Department of Economics and International Development
University of Bath
Bath BA2 7AY
UK

Tel: +44 1225 384524
Fax: +44 1225 383423
Contact the contributor: p.r.davis@bath.ac.uk

Centre for Development Studies at the University of Bath, UK

Other related links:
'Pulling rickshaws: a way out of poverty?'

'Do child rights travel well? Evidence from Bangladesh'

'Money matters – can microfinance reduce poverty?'