RURAL BANGLADESH - PreventionWeb

Socio-Economic Profiles of WFP Operational Areas and Beneficiaries
agricultural lands, state-controlled natural resources, or the personal property of elites (Bode
& Howes, 2004).
The Private Sector: The expansion by infrastructure development and structural adjustment
policies has supported the private sector. However, until recently, the private sector has been
reticent to invest in rural enterprise. The private sector has only modestly contributed to
agricultural growth and employment; rural poverty has remained intractable. Rather, the
private sector has concentrated on the creation of self-employment through skill training,
credit support, and development of non-farm activities (Mandal, 2003). A recent study of
the agribusiness sector found a number of private sector buyers and processors have
commercial linkages with NGO and donor-assisted beneficiaries (Black, 2004).
The State: Hulme (2003) identifies the failure of the state to provide public services and
regulate the private service providers as central to the ‘slide into poverty’. In particular,
Hulme cites the failure to regulate the private health sector, which often drains households of
assets in order pay for inadequate or inappropriate health care. In addition, the State has
failed to enforce laws that ostensibly protect women and the disadvantaged from
discrimination at the local level. Village courts do not protect the extreme poor or women
from the machinations of local elites or the power structure (TANGO, 2004).
Safety Nets and Food Security: Targeted food assistance continues to provide rural poor
households in Bangladesh with relatively long-term safety nets. Although the aggregate
amount allocated is only seven per cent of the total volume of cereals available for
consumption in-country, which is modest in relation to need, a diverse spread of activities
generally includes most of the major vulnerable groups and links longer term human
development goals with medium-term food security. The food-for-education (FFE)
programme is one of the most significant of the safety nets programmes operating
throughout rural Bangladesh. Safety net programmes attempt to address the food insecurity
of households during the lean season, although the seasonal distribution of public food
supplies frequently fails to match the occurrence of the two hungry seasons.
Several programmes target the poorest districts. Ration cards are distributed at upazilla level
and then forwarded on to the Union level. The Union Parishad (UP) Committee then decides
which households qualify for a card. Targeting at the UP level is often problematic; illicit
behaviour can ensue when the number of available cards is insufficient to cover everyone
who meets the criteria. The current Finance Minister is on record as saying that the food
distribution system is the biggest source of corruption in the country. He appears to have
been referring only to the GoB system, not to those operated by NGOs and the WFP. Some
programmes now provide cash for work instead of food, and from next year the
government’s food for education program will be monetised. The EC has almost completed
this process. USAID imports food directly, but monetises most of it by effectively selling it
into the government storage facilities and using the proceeds to fund CARE and World
Vision International’s food security programmes through the Food for Peace Title II
Programme. Several programmes continue to provide in-kind assistance, but these
increasingly tend to address dietary quality by providing supplements or fortified foods.
Other programmes supply micro-nutrients to children and to women of reproductive age, and
one initiative aims to control iodine deficiency disorders. Many women occasionally take
iron supplement tablets and most children receive a vitamin A capsule every six months,
which is frequently a case of too little too late. A more long-term approach is taken by NGOs
16