RURAL BANGLADESH - PreventionWeb

Socioeconomic Profile Findings
♦ Borrowing food or relying on others (59 percent);
♦ Relying on cheaper or less preferred foods (58 percent);
♦ Purchasing food on credit (55 percent);
♦ Borrowing from friends or neighbours (49 percent); and
♦ Reducing adult consumption to provide for children (38 percent).
Table 54: Coping Strategies Employed by Socioeconomic Class
Household Socioeconomic Category
Coping strategies Non 2 3 Most
vulnerable
vulnerable
Limit portion size at mealtimes 42.04% 67.05% 79.44% 84.14%
Reduce number of meals 36.53% 67.38% 63.21% 82.57%
Borrow food or rely on others 50.14% 58.92% 58.17% 62.01%
Rely on cheap or less preferred foods 23.16% 57.68% 53.40% 73.49%
Purchase food on credit 36.22% 47.36% 52.74% 69.92%
Gather wild food 0.16% 3.33% 7.67%
Send hh members to eat elsewhere 6.50% 17.53% 13.89% 23.86%
Reduce adult consumption 16.64% 40.00% 39.11% 41.83%
Rely on casual labour for food 10.13% 18.89% 19.35% 26.52%
Abnormal migration for work 4.62% 19.71% 30.56% 30.05%
Skip entire day without eating 9.85% 12.40% 16.92% 55.75%
Consume seed stalk 22.85% 17.76% 4.73% 3.69%
The coping strategies cited above and commonly employed by rural Bangladesh households
are adaptive strategies that do not tend to affect future livelihood security, with the possible
exception of purchasing food on credit that may be difficult to repay. Adaptive strategies do
not entail asset divestment, which erodes livelihood security. Not surprisingly, the poorest
households tend to employ adaptive coping strategies far more frequently than do nonvulnerable
households. Unlike all of the other types of households, less than half of the nonvulnerable
households are ever compelled to limit meal portions, reduce the number of
meals, rely on less preferred foods, or borrow food from others. The most severe coping
strategies appear to only be utilized with any frequency by the invisible poor. For example,
over half (56 percent) of the invisible poor skipped entire days without eating last year; only
17 percent or fewer of all other types of households have felt compelled to skip a day of
eating during the last year.
Community focus group participants ranked the severity of coping strategies, which range
from common adaptive strategies to highly uncommon disruptive and even destructive
strategies. The ranked list of coping strategies is presented in Table 55, which averages the
focus group severity scores for each coping strategy. Very severe coping strategies received
a score of ‘4’; coping strategies not considered severe received a score of ‘1’.
Table 55: Coping Strategy Severity as Ranked by Community Focus Groups
Coping Strategy Severity Score
Rely on casual labour for food 1.8
Restrict adult consumption so children can eat 1.9
Limit portion sizes at mealtimes 2.0
Migration in search of work 2.2
Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods 2.5
Borrow food or rely on help from friends or relatives 2.6
91