Poverty: Income or Lived Reality?

A pressing question confronts policymakers today: how should poverty be defined in Bangladesh? Should it be measured purely by income, or by the broader reality of people’s lives?

Traditionally, the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) determines poverty based on food consumption, caloric requirements, and income-expenditure patterns. Internationally, the World Bank identifies individuals living below a specific daily income threshold as poor. Yet, do these conventional metrics capture the true complexity of human life?

Two contrasting realities illustrate this challenge. On one hand, consider a working-class family:

Despite modest incomes, low rent, partial food subsidies, and controlled spending, the family manages to save approximately 10,000 BDT per month. Over several years, they have even acquired land in their ancestral village.

In stark contrast, a highly educated young adult, holding a Master’s degree from the University of Dhaka, earns 28,500 BDT per month after a career setback. With high urban living costs—rent, utilities, health care, and daily necessities—he must rely on loans before the month ends and has already been forced to consider selling family assets.

Which of these two is truly poorer? The family with modest income but the ability to save, or the educated individual struggling to meet basic expenses?

A new social phenomenon is emerging in Bangladesh’s urban centres: the “working poor.” These individuals earn a steady income, yet the high cost of living—particularly housing, health care, education, and commodities—leaves them financially vulnerable. Many belong to the lower-middle class, invisible in official poverty statistics, yet barely surviving in reality.

The government has commendably extended subsidised food and cash support to nearly one million families through TCB cards and the new Family Card scheme. Yet, questions remain: are the truly needy benefiting, or only those who appear poor on paper?

Current poverty metrics, focused primarily on income, fail to account for household expenditure, dependent members, housing costs, health risks, and social obligations. Identical incomes can represent vastly different realities depending on context.

To better capture the lived experience of poverty, policy adjustments are essential:

1. Analyse income alongside expenditure for a holistic view.
2. Establish separate poverty thresholds for urban and rural areas.
3. Develop an integrated digital database to identify genuine beneficiaries.
4. Extend social protection programmes to vulnerable lower-middle-class groups.

A modern, technology-driven rationing system could provide a safety net for both low- and lower-middle-income households. Poverty is not a one-dimensional concept; it encompasses life quality, security, and future prospects. When a day labourer saves while a highly educated urban professional struggles under debt, it is clear that current definitions are misaligned with reality.

It is time to rethink our approach: is poverty merely about income, or does it reflect the lived reality of people’s lives? Policymakers must look beyond statistics and consider the human experience, creating a more inclusive and equitable society.

Writer: Editor and Publisher – Khaborwala and -GLive 24