RURAL BANGLADESH - PreventionWeb

Socioeconomic Profiles of WFP Operational Areas and Beneficiaries
♦ Invisible poor and vulnerable households also cite loss of employment – 37 and 39
percent respectively – as a key reason for declining incomes.
♦ One-third of the two middle-income classes of households also cited loss of assets as a
significant reason for declining incomes. Asset losses may be related to exposure to
shocks, which also figure prominently for middle-income households, as reported by 31
percent of on-the-edge and 28 percent of vulnerable households. The invisible poor
already lack an asset base.
♦ The few non-vulnerable households to experience a decline in their incomes cited market
failure as the predominant reason – more than three-quarters of the non-vulnerable
households mentioned market failure. In contrast to the poorest households, nonvulnerable
household livelihoods are much more dependent on market forces than on
employment disruptions or illness in the family.
Table 45: Reasons for Declining Incomes by Socioeconomic Class
Loss of employment
Loss of crop/animal
Prolonged illness
Reasons for Decrease in Income Over the Three Years (multiple answers)
Death of income earner
Decrease in income from remittances
Loss of asset
Exposure to shocks
Market failure
Other
Percentages and totals are based on respondents.
80
HH socio economic status
Non
vulnerable 2 3
Most
vulnerable
24.7% 19.7% 38.5% 36.9%
14.8% 11.8% 14.1% 5.4%
31.3% 37.9% 50.2% 68.4%
4.7% 3.6% 15.2% 27.1%
.0% 4.1% .8% .8%
27.2% 32.8% 33.4% 25.1%
16.1% 31.4% 27.8% 15.6%
75.7% 44.1% 44.8% 27.8%
32.9% 44.2% 18.4% 29.0%
Household variation explaining improved incomes is even more pronounced (See Table 46):
♦ Non-vulnerable household livelihood improvements are strongly related to agricultural
improvements. Forty-four percent of non-vulnerable households have seen their incomes
increase largely as a result of the use of better crop varieties; another one-third (32
percent) increased their area cultivated. Not a single invisible poor household could
point to these two variables to explain improved income status (which has been a rare
occurrence anyway for the invisible poor). As discussed earlier, the relatively well-to-do
households benefit disproportionately from agricultural production improvements in
Bangladesh.
♦ The most vulnerable households, particularly the invisible poor, are heavily dependent
on labour opportunities for their income earning opportunities. Almost six out of 10
invisible poor households – 58 and 57 percent respectively – cited an increase in income
earners and an increase in the number of income sources as the explanations for
increased incomes. These two variables are important for all socioeconomic categories
of households, but particularly for the invisible poor and vulnerable households, of
whom 48 percent cited increased numbers of income sources and 39 percent mentioned