How\\\'s life with rural people?

There is a wide variation in perceptions as to whether rural people are better-off now than before. The question mark is still there despite the fact that Bangladesh has emerged as a development puzzle in all available discourses. The non-income indicators have not only displayed positive signs, food production has tripled over the last four decades also. With a declining population growth rate, the per capita income has significantly gone up. By and large, from a 'Basket Case' or 'Test Case for Development' of the immediate post-independence forecast by social scientists, the country is now treated as a role model for least developed countries.

But to what extent have the fruits of development trickled down to the rural areas, especially to the poor? Are the rural people better off than before? The question is easy but the answer isn't. In the words of Rabindranath Tagore, easy things can't be said easily (Shohoj kotha koite amay koho je, shohoj kotha jaina bola shohoje). In the oral history that we gleaned in some selected villages, most of the participants - rich or poor, male or female - said that they are better or happier than before, because agricultural production and non-farm income have gone up. Of course, a rise in income may not imply an increase in happiness.

The debate over income-happiness nexus is very old.  The complex relationship between income and happiness/betterment could be a subject of researchers with thick lenses but rural people find a one-to-one relation between the two. In Sukumar Ray's story 'Takar Apod' (Misfortune of Money), the old and poor cobbler, humming songs, is seen to be happier with a sound sleep. But his rich neighbour always remains in tension and passes sleepless nights. The story tells us that income does not always offer happiness. Maybe, the situation in rural Bangladesh is like that. For sure, none said that 'old is gold'. In terms of land ownership, sex, age and education, most of them reported to have witnessed an improvement in standard of living to make them happier. We were not surprised that even with such pitifully low income, they felt happier than before.

Richard Layard in his book 'Happiness: Lessons from a New Science' notes that as the Western societies got richer, their people have not become happier. Amartya Sen argues that the relation between income and happiness is far more complex than income-oriented theorists have tended to presume. And how can one forget that a survey carried out a few years back observed Bangladeshis as the happiest people in the world?

There is a saying: 'A husking pedal husks paddy even if it is placed in heaven.' Economists want to look at some statistics in support of qualitative statements of the participants in oral history. According to the Census of Households in 2013 for 62 villages, 60 per cent of the respondents said, their economic condition has improved during the last decade as opposed to 13 per cent reporting deterioration. This means, roughly half of the rural households have witnessed an improvement in their economic conditions. The reasons for improvement, as reported by the respondents, are better agricultural performance, growing income-earning opportunities and rise in wage rates, flow of remittances, small family size and increased literacy.

In Michael Lipton's words, food, farming and fertility contributed a great deal to the rural transformation for the last four decades. On the other hand, the reasons for deterioration are large family, death/ illness/ absence of earners and medical expenses. It seems that those who could match their endowments with emerging opportunities could perform better than those who couldn't do so.

  The census questionnaire also asked another question: "In comparison to (with) your fellow villagers, what is your economic status - rich, solvent, poor or extreme poor?" Of the respondents (household heads), 40 per cent thought they were poor compared to others; 6 per cent reported to be extreme poor. In 2000, the proportion was higher in both the groups.

There is no denying the fact that the proportion of the extreme poor has declined substantially over time. In a few years' time, the extreme poor class could be very low.

The improvement in rural economic conditions has taken place in a market economy. There is a school of thought that markets would militate against the economic interests of the poor. In this context, Yujiro Hayami and M. Kikuchi in their book 'A Rice Village Saga' have recorded an important observation that needs a closer look. According to the authors, a popular hypothesis has been that the encroachment of the market into the traditional agrarian communities (as in Bangladesh) might breed greater inequality and misery among the rural poor.

The tale of rural transformation over the past few decades doesn't seem to accept such a hypothesis. Instead, the experience of rural Bangladesh since 1970s suggests strongly that the misery of the poor would have been manifold, fuelled by rapid population growth with closed frontiers. Had the villagers continued to rely on traditional agriculture in isolation from urban market activities, perhaps life could have been what Thomas Hobbs described as 'nasty, brute and short'.

But things could have been much better through a successful tapping of the constructive role of the market such as 'fostering initiative, promoting efficiency, and coordinating complex economic operations.' The constructive role of the state has been severely constricted as more often than not, political power game has given rise to non-functioning governance with large areas of 'public goods' getting neglected and quantity addressed instead of quality.

The writer is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University. [email protected]