The east-west divide and poverty
Wednesday, 26 November 2008
Shamsul Huq Zahid
A recent World Bank (WB) report has offered some food-for-thought for the country's policymakers and development planners.
The report unveiled early this week by the Bank's country office in Dhaka speaks of east-west divide, in terms of poverty rate. At the first instance, the findings may appear innocuous but, in fact, those point out serious weaknesses of the development policies.
The report, titled, 'Poverty Assessment for Bangladesh: Creating Opportunities and Bridging the East-West Divide', said the two mighty rivers-the Padma and the Jamuna, have created natural boundaries that have resulted in two economically unequal geographical regions in the country.
Explaining, the report said, in 2005, the poverty rate was 32 per cent in Dhaka division and 34 per cent each in Sylhet and Chittagong divisions but the same in case of three administrative divisions-Barisal, Khulna and Rajshahi, was more than 45 per cent.
The report acknowledged the role of substantial amount of remittances sent by the expatriate Bangladeshis every year in reducing poverty but it, at the same time, blamed the same for reinforcing 'regional inequality' pattern.
According to the WB estimate, 24 per cent of households in Chittagong and 16 per cent in Sylhet receive remittance money. But less than 5.0 per cent of the households in Barisal, Khulna and Rajshahi divisions receive the same.
But is the poor flow of remittance inflow alone responsible for the higher poverty level in the western part of the country? It is highly unlikely.
WB country director in Bangladesh, Xian Zhu, who spoke at the report presentation function, was also clueless about the prevalence of high incidences of poverty in the western part of the country.
There is no denying that remittance inflow has a salutary effect on income level of the population of any part of the country. This fact is very much visible if one pays visit to even in the remote areas of any district of the eastern part of the country, greater Comilla, Sylhet and Chittagong and Noakhali in particular. However, many tend to believe that the remittance money has also played a role in the rising inequalities in income in these relatively affluent districts. Besides, the land prices in these districts have sky-rocketed in recent years and families having no remittance income can hardly afford acquisition of a piece of land.
Finding the reasons for the people from eastern districts taking up jobs abroad in large numbers and not many people in the western districts are doing the same, could be an interesting project for the researchers. Has the better road and rail network or the existence of a large number of manpower recruiters from the eastern part of the country contributed to the greater number of people from the region taking up jobs abroad?
However, it is hard to believe that the poor inflow of remittance money kept more than 45 per cent of the population below the poverty line in the western districts, particularly when the national average of poverty reduction was 1.0 per cent per year between 1991 and 2000 and 1.8 per cent between 2001 and 2005. Some factors of serious nature must have played a role behind the high prevalence of poverty in this region. Unfortunately, this fact has escaped the notice of everyone, including the government.
It is a fact that the successive governments have failed to ensure a balanced 'development' of all the regions of the country. Some southern and western districts do still lack necessary infrastructures, including better transport network. Besides, resource allocations in the annual development budgets have been always far less than their requirements.
The WB report also mentioned about lopsided resource allocation. It said Sylhet division, despite having low poverty rate, had the highest social safety net coverage. The reasons for such coverage could be that the immediate past finance minister was from greater Sylhet district.
It is not that the western region receives less attention from the government alone. Even the large non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are found to be less interested in expanding their network in the region. A survey of their countrywide activities would prove that fact.
The WB report has highlighted the need for early construction of a bridge over the mighty Padma, which, it said, would help narrow the economic distance between the eastern and the western parts of the country through improved connectivity, market access and migration. None would deny the importance of such a bridge since the bridge over the Jamuna has brought about an important change in economic life of some northern districts.
But the government will have to do something more than the construction of a bridge over the Padma if it is really sincere to narrow the regional disparity. Politicians who are more interested in building up their own fortunes have not bothered to know whether any such disparity exists or not. But if any of them does in future and makes it a political issue, the government might soon find itself in deep trouble.
A recent World Bank (WB) report has offered some food-for-thought for the country's policymakers and development planners.
The report unveiled early this week by the Bank's country office in Dhaka speaks of east-west divide, in terms of poverty rate. At the first instance, the findings may appear innocuous but, in fact, those point out serious weaknesses of the development policies.
The report, titled, 'Poverty Assessment for Bangladesh: Creating Opportunities and Bridging the East-West Divide', said the two mighty rivers-the Padma and the Jamuna, have created natural boundaries that have resulted in two economically unequal geographical regions in the country.
Explaining, the report said, in 2005, the poverty rate was 32 per cent in Dhaka division and 34 per cent each in Sylhet and Chittagong divisions but the same in case of three administrative divisions-Barisal, Khulna and Rajshahi, was more than 45 per cent.
The report acknowledged the role of substantial amount of remittances sent by the expatriate Bangladeshis every year in reducing poverty but it, at the same time, blamed the same for reinforcing 'regional inequality' pattern.
According to the WB estimate, 24 per cent of households in Chittagong and 16 per cent in Sylhet receive remittance money. But less than 5.0 per cent of the households in Barisal, Khulna and Rajshahi divisions receive the same.
But is the poor flow of remittance inflow alone responsible for the higher poverty level in the western part of the country? It is highly unlikely.
WB country director in Bangladesh, Xian Zhu, who spoke at the report presentation function, was also clueless about the prevalence of high incidences of poverty in the western part of the country.
There is no denying that remittance inflow has a salutary effect on income level of the population of any part of the country. This fact is very much visible if one pays visit to even in the remote areas of any district of the eastern part of the country, greater Comilla, Sylhet and Chittagong and Noakhali in particular. However, many tend to believe that the remittance money has also played a role in the rising inequalities in income in these relatively affluent districts. Besides, the land prices in these districts have sky-rocketed in recent years and families having no remittance income can hardly afford acquisition of a piece of land.
Finding the reasons for the people from eastern districts taking up jobs abroad in large numbers and not many people in the western districts are doing the same, could be an interesting project for the researchers. Has the better road and rail network or the existence of a large number of manpower recruiters from the eastern part of the country contributed to the greater number of people from the region taking up jobs abroad?
However, it is hard to believe that the poor inflow of remittance money kept more than 45 per cent of the population below the poverty line in the western districts, particularly when the national average of poverty reduction was 1.0 per cent per year between 1991 and 2000 and 1.8 per cent between 2001 and 2005. Some factors of serious nature must have played a role behind the high prevalence of poverty in this region. Unfortunately, this fact has escaped the notice of everyone, including the government.
It is a fact that the successive governments have failed to ensure a balanced 'development' of all the regions of the country. Some southern and western districts do still lack necessary infrastructures, including better transport network. Besides, resource allocations in the annual development budgets have been always far less than their requirements.
The WB report also mentioned about lopsided resource allocation. It said Sylhet division, despite having low poverty rate, had the highest social safety net coverage. The reasons for such coverage could be that the immediate past finance minister was from greater Sylhet district.
It is not that the western region receives less attention from the government alone. Even the large non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are found to be less interested in expanding their network in the region. A survey of their countrywide activities would prove that fact.
The WB report has highlighted the need for early construction of a bridge over the mighty Padma, which, it said, would help narrow the economic distance between the eastern and the western parts of the country through improved connectivity, market access and migration. None would deny the importance of such a bridge since the bridge over the Jamuna has brought about an important change in economic life of some northern districts.
But the government will have to do something more than the construction of a bridge over the Padma if it is really sincere to narrow the regional disparity. Politicians who are more interested in building up their own fortunes have not bothered to know whether any such disparity exists or not. But if any of them does in future and makes it a political issue, the government might soon find itself in deep trouble.