3 REDUCING POVERTY AND INEQUALITY
Progress towards the Millennium
Development Goals
40. Bangladesh has made good progress towards the
achievement of a number of Millennium Development Goal targets.
According to the World Bank, Bangladesh should meet the MDG 1
target of halving the number of poor people from the 1990 level
by 2015, if economic growth rates are maintained or bettered.
Economic growth has averaged about 5% since 1990 and was approximately
5.9% in 2009.[51] Bangladesh
will also need to sustain its progress in reducing the rate of
population growth and increasing consumption to meet this target.[52]
41. Professor Hulme, from the University of Manchester,
pointed out that it was important to be realistic about what could
be achieved in Bangladesh:
Bangladesh came from a very low base; it had
incredibly high levels of poverty—much of that was extreme
poverty—and there were extraordinary levels of vulnerability
and under-nutrition […] It is a success, but it started from
a low base, and 5% [growth] over 15 years is not enough to eradicate
poverty; you need 30 or 40 years at this rate or you need a faster
rate of growth, but the achievements have been considerable.[53]
A report by the World Bank highlighted regional inequality
within Bangladesh: the eastern parts of the country "have
far outpaced the areas to the West and Southwest."[54]
Whilst Dhaka, Chitttagong and Sylhet have seen a significant reduction
in poverty rates, areas such as Barisal and Khulna have experienced
"no poverty reduction." The World Bank attributes the
lack of progress in these areas to them being geographically isolated,
largely by rivers, from the centres of growth to the east of the
country. Coastal areas, particularly in the Southwest, also have
high levels of poverty due to their vulnerability to the effects
of rising sea levels and regular flooding.[55]
In Sylhet and Chittagong the rapid growth of international remittances
has also been an important factor contributing to poverty reduction.[56]
42. On the education MDGs, Bangladesh has achieved
a 91% enrolment rate and gender parity in primary education.[57]
Secondary enrolment has more than doubled since independence.[58]
However we were told that primary school completion rates were
only 55% as many children from the poorest families dropped out
of school early because of the need for them to earn money. DFID
points out that 67 million people are illiterate—42 million
of whom are women.[59]
43. On the health MDGs, child mortality was halved
in the 1990s and life expectancy has increased from 45 in 1972
to 64 years in 2005. However Bangladesh still has high rates of
neonatal mortality and is off-track for achieving the target to
reduce maternal mortality. The reasons for this will be discussed
in the next chapter. There has been some progress in reducing
the incidence of HIV/AIDS and malaria, which is no longer endemic.
Progress on the environment MDG is mixed, in part because Bangladesh
is one of the most natural disaster-prone countries in the world
with much of its land mass lying below or at sea level. Climate
change presents a huge challenge for Bangladesh and is discussed
in chapter 5.
44. DFID's work in Bangladesh focuses specifically
on MDG 1 (poverty and hunger); MDG 2 (primary education); and
MDG 5 (maternal health).[60]
Within the donor community DFID has been given lead responsibility
for building livelihoods among the extreme poor. It has four main
strands of work for reducing poverty. These are: providing direct
support to the extreme poor; improving the provision of basic
education, health, water and sanitation and key skills; providing
technical and policy advice to the government; and supporting
private sector development. It tackles inequality by providing
access to livelihoods, assets and basic services for the poorest
and excluded groups.[61]
This chapter focuses on the first two of these strands of work—targeting
the extreme poor and the provision of basic services, in particular
education.
Education
45. Although progress towards the MDG 2 target on
universal primary enrolment is on track there has been little
progress in this area since 2000.[62]
In addition, high drop out rates mean that the overall MDG goal
of universal completion of primary school will not be achieved.
In Bangladesh, as in other developing countries, education remains
correlated with socio-economic status and gender, with the poorest
households performing worst.[63]
Over three-quarters of all drop-outs are from poorer households.
The World Bank reports that access to secondary education in particular
is heavily skewed in favour of wealthier families. [64]
46. Education is provided by both the state and the
NGO sectors. The new government has openly stated that it needs
NGO support and assistance in education.[65]
DFID provides funding for education through both the government
and NGOs. It has committed £150 million over an eight year
period (2004-2011) towards basic education. This includes support
to the government's Primary Education Development Programme (PEDP
II).[66] Low quality
teaching is seen as a barrier to progress and so, in addition
to helping provide basic education and the building of classrooms,
the programme aims to improve the quality of education by strengthening
teacher training and teaching methodology. We visited a government-funded
primary school and a BRAC-funded pre-school in Sirajganj. At the
government primary school we were told that class sizes of 95
were not uncommon. At the pre-school classes were much smaller.
These were designed to give children a head-start on entering
primary school and had proven success rates.
47. The UK also supports the country's largest non-formal
education programme, which provides basic education to around
one million girls and boys each year who would otherwise be out
of school due to poverty, child labour, special needs, geographical
remoteness or difficulty with the language of instruction. Much
non-formal education is provided through NGOs which target the
education programme to the specific needs of the student, for
example to fit around their need to also work to help support
their families. We visited an impressive vocational training school
for slum children outside Dhaka. Many of the pupils had never
been to school before. The school provided the equivalent of eight
years of formal education over a four year period followed by
six to eighteen months of vocational training, for example in
electronics, sewing or car maintenance. Classes were offered either
in the morning or afternoon to allow the children to work in the
other half of the day. We were told that 95% of its graduates
found jobs afterwards. The school was funded jointly by DFID and
other donors. It received no government or private sector funding.
48. Bangladesh has made progress on gender parity
in primary school enrolment which is unusual in South Asia. However
one factor which contributes towards this is that boys in poorer
households are often sent out to work at a younger age.[67]
Ms Kabir, from BRAC UK discussed the progress which had been made
in terms of educating girls:
More and more girls are going into primary school
and completing primary school, but it is still not as good as
we would like it to be. It is improving. It is the style of education
also. Africa has a similar problem. For instance, do the schools
have toilets that the girls can use? If you do not have toilets
girls are not going to go to school, things like that. It is changing,
and we have to continue to keep our eye on the ball with regard
to girls' education, not just primary but also higher education,
and that could involve vocational training, not necessarily only
sitting in the classroom but vocational training which would then
lead to employment.[68]
Gender equity is discussed in more detail in the
next chapter.
49. A well-educated population is essential for
Bangladesh to make further progress in poverty reduction and for
it to achieve its goal of becoming a middle-income country by
2021. Bangladesh is on track to meet the MDG target for enrolment
in primary school. It now needs to be more ambitious and seek
to meet the target for primary school completion along with improved
quality. Further progress on enrolment and completion of secondary
education, especially for the poorest, is also a priority.
Targeting extreme poverty
50. While Bangladesh has made some progress in reducing
overall levels of poverty it still has many poor people. According
to the World Bank: "Bangladesh represents a success story
among developing countries [...] The average annual rate of poverty
reduction during 2000-2005 was the second highest among South
Asian countries for a comparable period.[69]
In contrast a briefing paper from the ODI makes the following
assessment:
Recent economic growth in Bangladesh has not
led to a major fall in poverty, least of all in rural areas. Around
40% of people live in poverty, with 25% of those classified by
the government as extreme poor and rarely able to take advantage
of the productive opportunities emerging from economic growth.[70]
These two seemingly contradictory analyses are both
correct. Much will need to be done for Bangladesh to meet the
MDG target of halving the number of people living in poverty,[71]
(see paragraph 40) even though the poverty rate has been falling
by about 1% a year since 1990.[72]
According to Professor Hulme, nearly 30 million people are still
categorised as extremely poor and unable to benefit from economic
growth or employment opportunities and as requiring specific interventions.[73]
They are referred to variously as the extreme poor, the hard-core
poor, ultra poor or most marginalised.[74]
A report from DFID's Economic Empowerment of the Poorest challenge
fund explains the concept:
[…] the rationale behind defining and identifying
the extreme poor is that they are the people who have either failed
to benefit from past development assistance or have been disadvantaged
by it. The extreme poor are not merely poorer than poor people:
they face a fundamentally different set of situations. In other
words, different approaches are required to reduce extreme poverty.[75]
51. In 2002 BRAC was one of the first organisations
to set up a programme specifically targeting the extreme poor.
This followed a realisation that, while its microfinance programmes
had been successful in helping many poor people, there was still
a significant group of people who were too poor to qualify for
microfinance and some who, despite receiving help, for example
through the provision of long-term food aid, were still not in
a position to take advantage of microfinance programmes.[76]
52. BRAC set up its Challenging the Frontiers of
Poverty Reduction (CFPR) programme to assist this group of people.
The programme has two strands, one of which is called Targeting
the Ultra Poor (TUP). This is a grant-based programme which uses
a set of carefully sequenced interventions to transfer assets
directly to the poor—mainly women—with the aim of
income generation, and provide two years of hands-on training
for participants, including in life-skills and social and human
rights. The programme also includes a community social development
element, which aims to mobilise village elites to form committees
which take the decisions on which families should be eligible
for BRAC assistance.
53. We met some beneficiaries of the TUP programmes
in Sirajganj and heard their stories. One female beneficiary's
husband had died from TB six years ago leaving her with three
children. She initially received 5 goats and 10 chickens to help
her generate income; training in animal husbandry; construction
of a latrine for her family; and visits from a health worker.
The income from selling her livestock enabled her to raise her
house on a plinth to prevent flooding and put a proper roof on
her house. Before the BRAC assistance, she said there were many
occasions when she could not feed her children but now she was
able to give them two or three meals a day, including eggs and
milk from the animals. She had graduated from the ultra-poor programme
and had since been eligible for microfinance loans.
54. Professor Hulme explained how successful the
programme had been in terms of both providing a model for other
programmes and its impact of people's lives:
In a way, it has challenged things conceptually
because it has put together social protection with enterprise
promotion and with this idea of an asset transfer. People need
to have social protection to stabilise their lives; you have to
give them a resource because they are asset-less to such a high
degree, and then they need, in a way, support to develop a micro-enterprise.
So conceptually it has done that and then, practically, it has
managed to do that.[77]
The BRAC programme is funded by the UK, Australia
and Canada. By 2011 it will have helped 800,000 people directly,
largely in the north of the country. With an average household
size of five, BRAC estimates it will have helped four million
people.[78] While the
programme is complex to deliver, and requires a high level of
analytical and management input, it has been proven to work in
terms of enabling some of the poorest people to improve their
lives and opportunities. Such programmes cannot however reach
older people or the chronically ill because they rely on income
generation activities and should not be seen as an alternative
to conventional forms of social protection.[79]
55. We were impressed by the way in which BRAC's
Targeting the Ultra Poor programme is able to provide the most
needy families with multi-pronged assistance to help them raise
themselves out of poverty. It provides direct and practical help
in the form of assets such as livestock and also empowers beneficiaries
to make informed decisions about their lives, including integrating
health and family legal advice. We fully support DFID's contribution
to this pioneering programme and look forward to seeing it extended
to more people.
CHARS LIVELIHOODS PROGRAMME
56. One of DFID's flagship programmes in Bangladesh
targets extreme poverty on remote islands or Chars on the Jumuna
River. These are subject to regular flooding which destroys houses
and livelihoods. Those who live on them do not receive many government
services or significant donor assistance because of their remoteness
and difficulty of access. Regular periods of hunger, or monga,
occur during flood periods and in the periods between rice planting
and harvesting when agricultural work is scarce. We were told
that DFID was quite innovative in working on the Chars since few
other donors did so.[80]
57. The Chars Livelihoods Programme (CLP) is loosely
based on BRAC's successful Targeting the Ultra Poor programme.
Eligible beneficiaries are those with no land, assets or employment,
typically living on about 20 pence per day. The programme transfers
assets, such as cows or vegetable seeds, and cash stipends directly
to these families. Assistance is provided for 18 months at which
point assets have generally doubled in value and household income
has increased. The programme also has a social development element
which we saw in practice. We attended a women's beneficiary group
meeting which was discussing social issues such as forced marriage,
dowry and domestic violence. The CLP also provides assistance
to families to raise their houses on sand plinths to protect them
during the floods. It thus has an important disaster risk reduction
element. DFID described its programme to us:
The extreme poor cannot work their way out of
poverty without an initial investment. We provide assets such
as a cow, goat, chickens or seeds, with which they can begin to
build their livelihood. Such assets are shown often to double
in value within a year. We also facilitate access to basic services
and engagement in community dialogue on key development issues.
Government support is not yet reaching many of the poorest, so
a key element of our approach is advocacy for greater service
provision, and the provision at scale of social safety net programmes
based on our successful models.[81]
58. The Programme seeks to improve the lives of a
million ultra poor people over the period to 2016. So far it has
helped about 700,000. The cost of the programme is £50 million
for the period 2006-2010 and an estimated £70 million for
the second phase from 2010-2016. We had been told that the Chars
programme was an expensive one as it employs an international
consultancy company, Maxwell Stamp, to manage it. However we were
also told that, in Bangladesh where corruption levels are high,
this arrangement provides important guarantees for the UK taxpayer.[82]
59. An issue which concerned us was the apparent
lack of services on the island we visited. Christian Aid raised
this with us:
We are concerned that only limited attention
appears to have been given to advocacy vis-à-vis the local
government to address important questions such as land rights,
employment and public services on the Chars. The causes of poverty
on the Chars must be addressed more directly: for much
of the year, there is no work available on the Chars; there are
very few health clinics; most of the children living there do
not go to school (education services are either non-existent or
of a low quality); and very few households own land. Approximately
60% of the island Chars are stable, so it is feasible to
make these investments.[83]
We observed this for ourselves when we visited a
Chars village where there was no school. There were approximately
200 children who would have to walk five kilometres to the next
village if they wanted to attend school. As a result many did
not go at all, or did not attend regularly. The local government
spokesperson told us there were currently no plans to build a
school. The CLP had however recently supported a satellite clinic
for the village and the government did provide some health care
services including an immunisation programme.
60. We were told that DFID's work on the Chars had
created some new business opportunities and networks. For example
there was now an operation set up to purchase milk from those
families which had cows and sell it on their behalf. Newspaper
coverage of the Chars had also created more interest and potentially
more economic opportunities.[84]
61. The Chars Livelihoods Programme provides an
excellent example of innovative poverty reduction programming
by DFID in an area of Bangladesh which receives little or no
assistance and where some of the poorest and most vulnerable households
are located. We commend DFID for its efforts to assist these hard-to-reach
groups in the remote Chars. We saw for ourselves the difference
this assistance was making in the lives of some of the recipients.
However we are concerned about the lack of services on these islands.
We appreciate that there is a legitimate question around how much
to invest on temporary islands which are regularly flooded. But
given the investment which DFID is making in this programme we
consider it short-sighted not to ensure that the Chars dwellers
can have access to the same basic services which other people
have. DFID should actively encourage local government to invest
in the Chars islands communities by providing more schools and
better health care facilities and to tackle issues such as land
rights. Without these basic services the populations there are
likely to remain recipients of aid programmes. Both
the Chars programme and the BRAC TUP programme have climate change
resilience elements which we discuss further in chapter 5.
TARGETING THE URBAN POOR
62. While 80% of the population live in rural areas,
rapid urbanisation, coupled with an increasing population will
make Dhaka into a mega-city of 30 million (about 20% of the current
national population) by 2015.[85]
Urbanisation has already led to overcrowded slums, placing even
greater pressure on "already over burdened local services."[86]
DFID pointed out that climate change was likely to increase migration
towards cities such as Dhaka presenting an even greater challenge.[87]
63. DFID currently spends the majority of its funds
for extreme poverty in Bangladesh on rural rather than urban poverty
reduction. It has allocated £29.5 million to rural poverty
reduction in 2009-10 increasing to £38 million in 2010-11.
It will spend £4 million on urban poverty reduction in 2009-10
increasing to £7 million in 2010-11. After this, funding
for urban poverty reduction will double to nearly £15 million
per year as part of a £60 million urban poverty reduction
programme implemented by UNDP over seven years.[88]
DFID hopes that the programme will improve the lives of 3 million
people living in urban areas. We have already discussed the impressive
vocational training school for children from slums in Dhaka which
DFID funds. DFID's work on urban issues in Bangladesh also includes
supporting Community Development Committees to engage with municipal
authorities, as well as grants to help keep children in schools.
64. Rapid urbanisation presents Bangladesh with challenges
and opportunities. For example, while urbanisation can lead to
increased numbers of slum dwellers, crowded communities offer
opportunities for economies in the delivery of services. For urbanisation
to be beneficial to development it needs to be properly planned
and resourced. Our recent report on Urbanisation and Poverty
found that, even though the pace of urbanisation had increased,
DFID staff capacity to work on urban issues had decreased. It
suggested that DFID re-establish a specific focus on urban poverty
and make a modest but highly targeted increase of financial resources
for it. The report also noted that the presence of urban expertise
within country programmes, rather than in London, would better
enable DFID to support community-led solutions to urban development
challenges.[89] In DFID
Bangladesh there is no specific urban expertise and the largest
urban programme is implemented by UNDP. The Government's response
to our report said it had no immediate plans to re-establish a
dedicated urban team since it did not view rural and urban development
as separate agendas.[90]
65. We were pleased to learn that DFID's programme
in Bangladesh will have an increased focus on urban poverty. Dhaka
is predicted to become one of the world's largest cities in the
near future. This presents both challenges and opportunities.
We reiterate the recommendation in our report on urbanisation,
that DFID should re-establish a specific focus on urban poverty,
with appropriate expertise in its country office in Bangladesh.
Service delivery: the role of
NGOs
66. Bangladesh has one of the largest, most innovative
and best known NGO communities in the world. This includes the
Grameen Bank, whose founder Mohamed Yunus won the Nobel Peace
Prize in 2006 for his contribution to helping the poor through
the provision of microfinance. Bangladesh is also home to BRAC
which is now the largest NGO in the world with operations in nine
developing countries.[91]
While BRAC currently dominates many areas of development assistance
in Bangladesh there are also other large and significant NGOs
such as PROSHIKA, which have also played an important role in
providing services.[92]
67. As we have noted, NGOs have programmes which
both target the extreme poor and deliver basic services. In part
this is because the government has not historically displayed
the capacity to meet these needs. It is also worth noting that
the government can and does sub-contract NGOs to deliver its services.[93]
NGOs have also grown out of community-led poverty reduction
initiatives which have responded to demands for better health,
education, agriculture or access to capital—often amongst
difficult to reach communities—as well as raising awareness
of rights among the villagers.[94]
NGOs have also developed commercial ventures in order to link
poor producers with markets for their products as well as to generate
revenue for the organisation.[95]
68. These NGO-led programmes usually involve significant
participation by local communities in the design and delivery
of services and have a greater level of accountability than state-delivered
ones.[96] This high-level
community participation is thus credited with not only improving
the delivery of services but also with strengthening accountability
for service delivery and enhancing transparency. There is also
evidence to suggest that community-based service provision can
be more responsive to the needs and priorities of the beneficiaries
and is comparatively cost-effective.[97]
69. The rapid growth in the NGO sector and its increased
role in the provision of basic services led us to question the
extent to which NGOs were displacing the state by carrying out
those activities normally associated with the state, or interrupting
the traditional relationship between state and citizen and thus
contributing to further deterioration in democratic accountability.
Professor Wood discussed the potential conflict of interests which
donors might face in trying to build up state capacity while also
supporting NGOs in the delivery of services:
[…] what you have is NGOs effectively taking
on the functions of the state but in a non-statutory framework
in which they have no statutory obligation to their clients; […]
ultimately there is a danger in over-privileging NGOs as a target
of aid and strategic partnerships for DFID […] because it
seems to me that then you have a self-fulfilling prophecy in that
you are undermining the capacity of the state and you are getting
in between the relationship between citizen and state.[98]
In contrast Professor Hulme said:
I used to worry about them [NGOs] displacing
the Bangladeshi state but I do not really do that now because
there is so much need. They are an incredible resource; they do
create new organisational technologies and new products, like
microfinance, like low cost education. The government is not taking
that on now but it could take it on in the future.[99]
70. NGOs provide distinct services in specific sectors.
For example, along with the private sector, they are the largest
providers of microfinance to the poor. NGOs also frequently deliver
services in a different way to the state. In health care, for
example, NGOs typically use village-based community health workers
to provide door-to-door services, mainly in preventative and primary
health care. They have been extremely successful in the promotion
of behavioural change in sanitation and hygiene and have had a
significant impact in communities on malnutrition and neonatal
mortality rates.[100]
In education NGOs mainly provide non-formal services. As Dr Hossain
commented:
NGOs appear to me to be supplying services in
areas where government is not supplying services, and supplying
services that government is not supplying; chiefly non-formal
education in areas that government cannot or will not reach—the
groups that government cannot or will not reach—and certain
sorts of health services that government cannot. [101]
In this context it appears to make sense for donors
such as DFID to allocate a portion of their funding to NGOs where
these can contribute to the achievement of DFID's poverty reduction
objectives. As Dr Greeley from the Institute of Development Studies
noted, "it is not reasonable that we should put achievement
of the MDGs and the removal of extreme poverty on hold until the
political process in Dhaka has sorted itself out, which may take
a very long time."[102]
71. In both education and health DFID supports services
provided both by government and NGOs and seeks to build links
between government and NGO systems.[103]
In the health sector DFID has provided £12 million to government
health systems and £1.5 million to NGO direct provision of
health services in 2009-10. It has contributed £3 million
to government education systems and £15 million to NGO support
for basic education in 2009-10. It also provided £14 million
for skills development through the NGO and voluntary sector in
this period.[104]
72. In Bangladesh there are many small and regional
NGOs operating alongside larger and national NGOs. In the previous
chapter we suggested that DFID should ensure that a portion of
its funding goes towards smaller NGOs which operate at the local
or district level and are in direct contact with local communities.
These smaller organisations typically receive less funding, proportionally,
than national ones and there is some tension in the relationship
between them.[105]
Dr Greeley stressed the need to focus on effective NGOs since
there were so many in Bangladesh, some of which were less scrupulous
than others:
If we talk about some of the bigger NGOs that
have been there since shortly after independence, such as BRAC
and some of the smaller partners which are supported and nurtured
by international NGOs, then we are looking at organisations that
can deliver quality services. I am a strong supporter of DFID
and others providing them with resources to do that.[106]
73. We have not heard any evidence to suggest
that NGOs are displacing the state by providing services which
the government is in a better position to provide. In Bangladesh
NGOs often provide a different type of service, for example non-formal
schooling for disadvantaged children or community-delivered health
care, while core funding for the health and education sectors
remains in the hands of the state. While we accept that it would
be better if the government was more capable of delivering these
services, and we expect DFID to continue to work towards this
end, we believe that the provision of services to the poor should
not be delayed while waiting for a more effective state to emerge.
DFID'S RELATIONSHIP WITH BRAC
74. The question of the relationship between the
state and NGOs in Bangladesh took on renewed importance when we
learned that DFID intended to move towards a special relationship
with one NGO, BRAC, by providing it with core funding over a number
of years. This would be in the region of £75-100 million
over a five year period. DFID currently funds a number of different
BRAC programmes and the proposal would simplify and centralise
the administration of these different funding streams. DFID told
us it would sign a Partnership Programme Arrangement with BRAC
in March 2010.[107]
75. Witnesses commented that the new relationship
had wider implications—it was not simply a question of the
funding arrangement between DFID and BRAC. It should be looked
at in terms of the signals it would send to the Government of
Bangladesh about DFID's views of the relative capacity of government
and of NGOs such as BRAC, as well as how it would affect DFID's
relationship with other NGOs in Bangladesh.[108]
DFID told us that the new relationship would reflect the special
nature of BRAC as an organisation and as a delivery mechanism
and was not intended to replace DFID's relationships with other
NGOs.[109]
76. DFID sees BRAC as the equivalent of a multilateral
organisation.[110]
This is because BRAC now operates not only in Bangladesh but also
in eight other countries—Afghanistan, Liberia, Pakistan,
Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Southern Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda.
BRAC also has offices in the UK and the USA for fundraising and
communications work. It has also been invited by the Dutch Government
to start a microfinance programme for immigrants. BRAC is taking
lessons learned in Bangladesh to other developing countries and
seeking to meet needs, especially in relation to service delivery.
BRAC is now the largest NGO in Afghanistan.[111]
77. We have some sympathy with the concerns expressed
to us about DFID's new Partnership Programme Arrangement (PPA)
with BRAC. It risks having unintended and unforeseen implications
for DFID's relationship with other NGOs in Bangladesh which should
be acknowledged and discussed with them to prevent any risk of
souring of their relationship with DFID. However, the new relationship
may also be seen as a new model for working with southern NGOs.
We are supportive of such innovations. DFID is proposing a five
year programme with BRAC. We recommend that DFID provide us with
an assessment of how the programme is working one year after the
PPA commences.
51 Ev 73, 97; Qs 26, 111 Back
52
World Bank, Bangladesh: Poverty Assessment for Bangladesh, Creating
opportunities and Bridging the East West Divide, 21 October 2008. Back
53
Qs 25-26 Back
54
World Bank, Poverty Assessment for Bangladesh , p 15 Back
55
World Bank, Poverty Assessment for Bangladesh, p xv Back
56
World Bank, Poverty Assessment for Bangladesh, p 13 Back
57
DFID, Bangladesh: Key facts, www.dfid.gov.uk Back
58
N Alam, Whose Public Action? Analysing Inter-sectoral Collaboration
for Service Delivery. Bangladesh country review: History of State-NSP
relations, February 2007. Back
59
Ev 67 Back
60
Ev 67 Back
61
Ev 68 Back
62
World Bank, Poverty Assessment for Bangladesh, p 80 Back
63
World Bank, Poverty Assessment for Bangladesh, p 80 Back
64
World Bank, Poverty Assessment for Bangladesh , p 81 Back
65
Ev 77 Back
66
Ev 70 Back
67
World Bank, Poverty Assessment for Bangladesh , p 81 Back
68
Q 63 Back
69
World Bank, Poverty assessment for Bangladesh, p vi Back
70
R Holmes et al, "Extreme poverty in Bangladesh: protecting
and promoting rural livelihoods", Project Briefing,
no 15, September 2008 Back
71
UNDP, A Situation Analysis Report on Poverty and Hunger (MDG1)
in Bangladesh, 2009, www.undp.org.bd Back
72
N. Alam, Whose public action? Analysing inter-sectoral collaboration
for service delivery, Bangladesh country review: History of State-NSP
relations, University of Birmingham, February 2007. Back
73
Hulme and Moore, "Assisting the poorest in Bangladesh: learning
from BRAC's Targeting the Ultra Poor programme" in Hulme
and Barrientos (eds) Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest,
2008. Back
74
Shiree, Extreme Poverty Policies of donors in Bangladesh: an overview,
Bangladesh, June 2009 Back
75
Shiree, Extreme Poverty Policies of donors in Bangladesh: an overview,
Bangladesh, June 2009 Back
76
Hulme et al, "Reaching the people who microfinance cannot
reach: learning from BRAC's targeting the ultra poor programme",
(unpublished draft) 2008 Back
77
Q 39 Back
78
BRAC, BRAC Ultra Poor Programme, Bangladesh Back
79
Q 101 Back
80
Q 32 Back
81
Ev 68 Back
82
Qs 104, 106 Back
83
Ev 64 Back
84
Q 34 Back
85
Ev 69 Back
86
Ev 69 Back
87
Q 152 Back
88
Q 152 Back
89
International Development Committee, Seventh Report of Session
2008-09, Urbanisation and Poverty, Summary Back
90
International Development Committee, First Special Report of Session
2009-10, Urbanisation and Poverty: Government Response to the
Committee's Seventh Report of Session 2008-09, page 2 Back
91
I Smillie, Freedom from Want, Bangladesh, 2009 Back
92
Q 100 Back
93
World Bank, "Economics and Governance of NGOs in Bangladesh",
Bangladesh Development Series paper 11, The World Bank
Office, Dhaka, April 2006, p iv Back
94
N Alam, Whose Public Action? Analysing Inter-sectoral Collaboration
for Service Delivery. Bangladesh country review: History of State-NSP
relations, February 2007 Back
95
World Bank, "Economics and Governance of NGOs in Bangladesh",
Bangladesh Development Series paper 11, The World Bank
Office, Dhaka, April 2006 Back
96
S Ahmed, Transforming Bangladesh into a Middle Income Economy,
2005 Back
97
S. Commins, Community Participation in Service Delivery and Accountability,
January 2007 Back
98
Q 85 Back
99
Q 16 Back
100
World Bank, "Economics and Governance of NGOs in Bangladesh",
Bangladesh Development Series paper 11, The World Bank
Office, Dhaka, April 2006, p iv Back
101
Q 15 Back
102
Q 90 Back
103
Ev 69-70; Q 190 Back
104
Ev 69-70 Back
105
N Alam, Whose Public Action? Analysing inter-sectoral collaboration
for service delivery, Bangladesh country review: history of State-NSP
relations, University of Birmingham, 2007 Back
106
Q 90 Back
107
Q 191 Back
108
Q 98 Back
109
Q 192 Back
110
Q 151 Back
111
N Hossian & A.Sengupta, Thinking Big, going global: the challenge
of BRAC's global expansion, IDS Working Paper 339, December 2009.
The history of BRAC is also recounted in I Smillie, Freedom from
Want, 2009 Back
| 
