Abstract
Objectives
An economic development (ED) program, designed based on an ultra-poor graduation approach, was implemented to alleviate poverty and improve food security in rural Bangladesh through asset transfer. This study aims to compare income generation, consumption, and seasonal trends in asset management among ultra-poor households receiving different small assets.
Methods
A total of 2960 poor or ultra-poor households received (1) 9–26 ducks (n = 2125), (2) 11 chickens (n = 872), and/or (3) vegetable seeds with garden training (n = 2407), depending on living environment. Indicators related to production of assets, income generation, and consumption of assets were collected quarterly over the course of Jan-Dec 2019. Changes in the amount of assets, income generated from assets and asset byproducts, and consumption of assets and asset byproducts were compared across time and asset group type.
Results
Significant seasonal trends in the amount of production and income were found among all three asset groups over one year (all p < 0.001). The vegetable and duck groups reported their highest mean incomes at the Jan-Mar follow-up, and the chicken group reported its highest mean income at the July-Sept follow-up. A higher proportion of chicken households maintained their baseline asset provisions at one-year than duck households (29.2% vs. 18.2%, p < 0.001). The duck group reported higher average monthly income than the chicken group (811 TK vs. 480 TK; p < 0.001). The duck group consumed a greater number of eggs per month than the chicken group (55 eggs vs. 27 eggs; p < 0.001), while the chicken group consumed a greater number of poultry per month than the duck group (1.65 chickens vs. 0.95 ducks; p < 0.001).
Conclusions
Duck assets are better short-term income sources for the poor and ultra-poor than chicken assets in rural Bangladesh. Our findings in asset management, income generation, and consumption provide evidence of the impact of the graduation approach on ultra-poor household economies and should be considered in future scale-up of the ED program.
Funding Sources
World Vision Bangladesh, World Vision Korea, KOICA.