MDGs and poverty reduction

Notwithstanding, if we do not enter into the debate but rather concentrate on the first goal of MDGs (as first things should come first) we may realise why it can be problematic for our national strategy of poverty reduction. The first goal of MDGs is to cut poverty on half by 2015 (from the estimate of 1990). No doubt, this sounds like an attractive and worthwhile goal. But do we know what the actual number of poor in Bangladesh was in 1990?

I am sure someone would refer me to the information of Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. BBS is the key source of information for the government and supposedly used by other national and international organisations. The information available in BBS, however, is only published a minimum of 3 to 5 years later after actual data collection. Being familiar with the survey trend in Bangladesh, I reckon I am not the only person to be sceptical about the validity of this information.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Do we have any idea or accurate forecast for what would be the number of poor in 2015? In the year 1983-1984 the head count ratio of income poverty in Bangladesh was 52.3 per cent and by 2000 it had declined to 39.8 percent. But due to population growth, this actually implies that in 1983-84 there were 38.7 million poor people in the country, but by 2000 the total number of poor has actually become almost 50 million.

If Bangladesh can achieve the projected target of average growth rate of seven percent till 2015 it will be able to reduce absolute income poverty from the current level to half -- one of the MDGs. But if its growth performance would continue to remain the same (i.e. two percent per-capita income growth) then the number of poor people would rather increase to 64 million by 2015. So, should we therefore, identify this as either success or poverty reduction while there will be 64 million poor by 2015, even if we can achieve a nearly impossible rate of poverty reduction, as this is 2005 and we have only ten more years to reach in that level?

My second point is about identifying poverty. Notwithstanding the fact that poverty is multi-faceted in different social dimensions -- do we have any clear understanding of our poverty. Because it is obvious that the way the West identifies poverty or social exclusion does not fit to explain the situation in Bangladesh. Neither is the deadliest form of poverty which exists in few a African countries an appropriate measure in this vein. The faces of poverty in Eastern Europe, Africa, and South Asia are not the same. Even the characteristics of poverty are not homogenous within South Asia. Poverty as a concept can be defined within monetary, capability, social exclusion and participatory framework. Moreover, poverty can be absolute or relative. But we are yet to develop a framework which will portray our reality that could provide a genuine and effective pathway to overcome it. In recent times, as soon as we start talking about MDGs and poverty reduction it automatically inter-links with Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). It is a shame that there is not a slightest intimation in the PRSP that helps us to understand what should be counted as poverty in Bangladesh's context.

As there is no metric to identify local forms of poverty we have taken for granted the idea of $1 a day for measuring poverty. The reason I am proposing the measurement or identification of local poverty is that it is unclear whether the income of an individual of $1 a day (or less) represents the actual poor. What did $1 mean in 1990? Does it carry the same meaning at present and would it remain similar by 2015?

Is it methodologically correct to by-pass the inter-connected relationships of devaluation of Taka, changing perceptions of well-being and living standard, frequent amendments in the price of essential commodities for daily lives and increase/decline of income (of the poor in particular)? These questions lead us into further complexities. That is, if our policy makers, poverty experts and consultants as well as the civil society do not emphasise on identifying local metrics of poverty it would be like an endeavour of healing a disease without proper or correct diagnosis.

It is a very good omen to see comparatively more discussions on poverty in public forums like newspapers which ultimately produce greater awareness and hence creates moral pressure on the government. My final point is that it is not only the government who can reduce poverty in Bangladesh. We should revisit and evaluate the efforts and performance of all relevant stakeholder of this process.

To illustrate, the registered NGOs in Bangladesh have received $17,568,223,344.99 altogether from 1990 to June 2004 through the NGO Affair Bureau while $27,660,400,108.22 was approved for their programmes during this period. It will not be an exaggeration to say that except for a small number of case studies of a few of the luckiest people, these moneys have created very little impact on the national poverty level.

Perhaps the time has come to realise and perceive our own role, not to create artificial success stories, but rather join together in a true effort to fight against poverty that is realistic and not over-ambitious.

The author is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.