A fundamental question challenges policymakers in Bangladesh: how should poverty be defined? Is it determined solely by income, or should it reflect the true circumstances of people’s everyday lives?
Currently, the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) measures poverty based on food consumption, caloric intake, and income-expenditure patterns. Internationally, the World Bank categorises anyone earning below a set daily income as poor. Yet such metrics may fail to capture the nuanced realities of daily existence.
Consider these two illustrative cases:
| Family/Individual | Occupation/Status | Monthly Income (BDT) | Key Observations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Working-class family | Domestic worker, rickshaw puller, garment worker, temp helper | ≈50,000 | Despite modest income, low rent and partial food subsidies allow monthly savings (~10,000 BDT); able to purchase land in village over time |
| Educated young adult | Master’s degree holder, recent job change | 28,500 | Faces high urban living costs; relies on loans and has considered selling family assets; struggles to meet monthly expenses |
The first scenario shows that a family with comparatively modest earnings can still achieve financial stability and accumulate assets. The second scenario demonstrates that higher education and moderate income in an urban setting do not necessarily prevent financial vulnerability. This raises a crucial question: who is truly poorer?
Urban Bangladesh now exhibits a visible “working poor” demographic. These individuals earn a regular wage but remain financially precarious due to rising living costs—housing, healthcare, education, and essential commodities. Many are lower-middle-class, excluded from poverty statistics, yet they struggle to sustain themselves.
Government initiatives such as TCB cards and the Family Card scheme aim to provide subsidised food and cash support to nearly one million families. While commendable, these measures provoke critical questions: are the benefits reaching the households most in need, or only those who appear poor according to traditional metrics?
The current income-focused poverty measure neglects vital aspects: household expenditures, number of dependents, housing costs, health risks, and social responsibilities. Identical incomes can produce vastly different living conditions depending on context.
To address these gaps, a multidimensional approach is essential:
- Combine income and expenditure analysis for a realistic assessment.
- Establish distinct urban and rural poverty thresholds.
- Develop an integrated digital database to identify genuine beneficiaries.
- Include vulnerable lower-middle-class groups in social protection programmes.
A modern, technologically enabled rationing system could safeguard both low-income and lower-middle-income households. Poverty is not merely a numeric measure; it encompasses life quality, security, and future opportunity. When a manual labourer saves while a highly educated professional struggles under debt, it becomes evident that current definitions fail to reflect reality.
Policymakers must move beyond statistics and engage with lived experiences, creating a more inclusive and equitable society. Poverty is as much about life conditions as it is about income.
Writer: Editor and Publisher – Khaborwala and -GLive 24
ABM Zakirul Haque Titon