The 2005 South-East Rural Livelihoods Survey
Martin Greeley & Mohit Chaturvedi

The findings of these surveys and studies have been documented and disseminated in a series of published reports. The ‘Livelihoods Headlines’ series aims to introduce these reports and the findings they contain to practitioners, policy-makers and the wider development community in Bangladesh, by providing a brief and accessible summary of the data and its implications. The sources box at the end of this document provides links and references for readers who need more detailed information.

A key asset for a poor household is its human capital: the skills, capabilities and hard work of its members. Human capital allocations vary by household size: larger households have more potential sources of income and livelihood. In the 2005 SELS, household size varied significantly with both poverty category and gender of household head. The poorest households reported an average of 5.5 members, whereas the least poor households contained on average 2 more members. Female-headed households were on average smaller than male-headed households.

The productivity of a household also depends on its composition: are its members working adults or dependent children and elderly relatives? In the sample villages, the population is young compared with Bangladesh as a whole. About 47% of the population is less than 15 years old, whilst fewer than 4% are over 60 years old. These young people are concentrated in the poorer households, raising the dependency ratios and the burden on working adults in these households.

The poorest households also report lower ratios of men to women amongst their adult members. Households with few or no adult male members face particular challenges in a conservative cultural context such as South-East Bangladesh, where women’s mobility and access to employment and services are restricted.

Education is recognized as an important form of human capital. Higher levels of education provide access to a wider range of livelihood options and improve household decision-making. Respondents to the SELS, however, had received an average of less than 3 years of total education. Women fared worse than men, whilst members of the poorest households had spent on average less than half as long at school that people from better-off families.

The panel data showed a high level of volatility in educational expenditure over time, probably connected to changes in the demographic structure of households. However, poorer households had tended to increase their investment in the education of their children: an encouraging trend.

Assets: land and livestock

Fig 1: Frequency of primary occupations

Despite the increasing importance of non-farm livelihood activities in rural Bangladesh, agriculture remains important to the economy in the South-East, though less so than in the North-West (sources 2). Farming was the largest single source of employment in the region, with 30% of household heads listing agriculture as their primary occupation, either through their own agricultural production, through sharecropping or through working on the farms of others as agricultural labourers. Generally, agricultural work was less well remunerated then other occupations, and agriculture was directly responsible for only 15% of total income amongst respondents.

Land is the key asset determining access to agricultural livelihood opportunities, and in South-East Bangladesh the distribution of land is highly inequitable. Almost three-quarters of households own no agricultural land beyond their immediate homesteads, and a fifth of households do not even own this homestead land. Ownership of agricultural land is concentrated amongst the least poor. However, there is an active market in land in the South-East, and the panel data set provides some evidence that the structure of ownership of agricultural land is changing over time. Households in the intermediate poverty categories appear to be acquiring land, whilst land is being sold by both the most prosperous households, who may be diversifying into other activities, and the poorest households, who may be forced to sell to meet crisis expenses.

Many households use strategies such as leasing, renting or sharecropping to access land for agricultural production, although these practices are most common in intermediate poverty categories, where more than half of households report them. The poorest households are less likely to access land this way, and lease much smaller areas of land than less poor households.

Fig. 2: Changes in land ownership

Though traditionally less important in the South-East than elsewhere in Bangladesh, livestock keeping can be an important livelihood strategy for poor households, and may complement other agricultural activities, for example through the cultivation of fodder and use of manure. Animal husbandry was widely practiced, with almost 90% of households reporting some level of involvement. However, ownership of large livestock such as cattle is more common amongst better-off households, who can afford the long term investment these animals represent and are more likely to have access to fodder. Better-off households also keep more poultry, although poorer households also keep chickens and ducks, albeit on a smaller scale.

Savings and loans play a critical role both in ‘smoothing’ the irregular income flows of many poor households and facilitating investment to improve future livelihoods.

Debt plays a role in the livelihood strategies of most families in the South-East. 85% of households reported at least one outstanding loan. Households in the intermediate poverty categories were most likely to report loans, but the mean levels of lending were highest amongst the better-off. Wealthier families were more likely to use commercial banks to access credit, whereas the poorest households relied to a much greater extent on NGOs and mohajans or informal moneylenders. As with savings, these poor households are much more likely to use credit they obtain for ‘non-productive’ purposes such as buying food or paying for healthcare, and less likely to invest in productive assets such as agricultural equipment. There was very little evidence of the use of loans for education or for investment in livestock, across all poverty categories.

Access to institutions and services is critical if households are to utilize their assets effectively. The 2005 SELS focused on participation in local institutions such as local government, community organisations and village courts, as well as access to key services such as agricultural extension and health care. Overall, participation in local institutions was low. 42% of men and 87% of women reported no participation at all, a gender gap that reflects cultural constraints on women’s activities beyond the household. The panel data suggest this gap is widening, with a net increase in male membership of community institutions over the period between the surveys accompanied by a net decrease in female membership amongst panel respondents.

Of those who did participate, men were involved in a fairly broad range of institutions, whilst the participation of women was largely limited to local clubs and school committees. There was a clear distinction between better-off and poorer households, with the former reporting significantly higher levels of participation, particularly in more ‘exclusive’ institutions or those that represent traditional authority, such as the village court. Female-headed households reported much lower levels of participation than male-headed households.

The most widely accessed services were private health care and private agricultural services, with almost all households using the former and more than half using the latter. Services provided by the government were less popular, and were in general exploited more by better-off households.

Some of this difference can be explained by differing needs: services such as land registration are only of use to households who own land. Greater access by the wealthy to government healthcare, however, may suggest some form of rationing of public services, either through social expectations or through ‘hidden’ charges.

Women made more use of social services such as health care, immunization and family planning, and less use of agricultural or financial services. Interestingly, women from poorer households enjoyed greater access to a wider range of services than women from wealthier households. This may reflect the fact that poorer households have fewer men, or the greater cultural restrictions faced by women in wealthier families.

As in the North-West, households in the South-East were vulnerable to unexpected ‘shocks’ or crisis events, and as in the North-West, such shocks were much less likely to be natural disasters such as cyclones, and much more likely to be domestic incidents such as illness in the family.

Fig. 3: Frequency of crisis events by cause

Poor health had led to a crisis for more than two-fifths of households, whilst more than a third had experienced a crisis in food provision. These two crisis events and the strategies households develop to cope with them will be examined in this section.

Poorer households were much more likely to report illness as crisis than better-off households. Female-headed households proved an exception to this general trend: although poorer on average they were less likely to report crises of ill health than male-headed households. The incidence of illness was higher in the coastal zone than in the plains or the hills. Coastal areas also report poor conditions of housing, water and sanitation: all factors likely to be prejudicial to health.

The relationship between food insecurity and poverty was even clearer. Lack of food was almost unknown amongst the wealthiest families but reported by nearly half of the poorest households. Food shortage was more common amongst female-headed households, and affected more than half of households in the coastal zone, compared with about one quarter of households in the plains or in the hills.

If low incomes increase vulnerability to crisis, even modest levels of education appear to offer some protection. Only a fifth of the heads of households suffering multiple crises had any formal education: amongst crisis-free households this figure rose to over 60%.

Faced with a crisis, households turn most often to family and friends. Emergency loans from these sources are the most frequent coping strategy, underscoring the importance of networks of social support to the vulnerable poor. However, evidence from the panel data suggests that this strategy is becoming less common, as traditional institutions decline and new patterns of dependence emerge. Poorer households often respond to crisis by cutting back on the size and frequency of meals, a strategy which is especially widely used in coastal areas. Loans from other sources are an important secondary coping strategy. Project participant households were more likely to borrow from NGOs, whilst non-participant families were more likely to turn to the mohajans or informal moneylenders for crisis credit.

The 2005 SELS paid particular attention to this area, and the findings were not encouraging. As we have seen, women are largely excluded from public institutions. Further, they have a generally weak voice in domestic decision-making and lack freedom to participate in economic and social transactions. The exceptions to this rule are women from poorer households, who are more likely to take decisions on issues such as the use of loans, the sale of assets and the education of children. Poorer women also enjoy greater mobility both within and beyond the community.

As elsewhere in Bangladesh, dowry payments are increasing in frequency and size in the South-East. Only half of female respondents said their parents paid dowry to their husbands, whereas more than 90% of respondents who had married a daughter recently reported paying dowry: a dramatic change in a single generation. In general, there was low awareness amongst women of their rights, although awareness amongst project participants was significantly higher: an early indicator of success for CARE’s rights-based approach.

Go to feature home page