The allegation that the non-governmental organisations (NGOs), including the microfinance institutions (MFIs), do deliberately avoid the hard-to-reach areas as far as their operations are concerned appears to be true. The governmental organisations too are found reluctant to work in these areas.
The NGOs are generally visible in rural areas that are well-connected to regional or national highways and their operations are located near urban centres. In sum, the organisers of the NGOs are unwilling to go to remote and inaccessible areas where the rate of poverty is far higher than national average.
The recent mapping of the microfinance access points in the country, done by the microcredit regulatory authority (MRA), showed that half of the microfinance institutions (MFIs) are running their operations in and around 18 districts with comparative less poverty rate.
The poverty mapping, calculated using the income-consumption data of the Household Expenditure Survey (HIES) 2010 and population data of 2011 Census, shows that half of the country's districts have poverty rate higher than the national average of 31.4 per cent.
According to the mapping, the rate of poverty in Kurigram was 63.7 per cent, the highest in the country, followed by Barisal 54.8 per cent, Shariatpur 52.6 per cent, Jalamapur 51.1 per cent, Chandpur 51 per cent, Mymensingh 50.5 per cent, Sherpur 48.4 per cent, Gaibandha 48 per cent, Satkhira 46.3 per cent, Rangpur 46.2 per cent, Magura 45.4 per cent, Pirorpur 44.1 per cent, Bagerhat 42.8 per cent, Gopalganj 42.7 per cent and Rajbari 41.9 per cent.
The difference in poverty rates does highlight the presence of high degree of disparity among districts in terms of poverty reduction measures.
The MRA, reportedly, in 2011 took an initiative to expand microcredit operations through 37 poorer districts since large NGOs or MFIs are found unwilling to leave the 'comfort' zones, meaning the districts that are easily accessible and wealthier than others.
As part of the process the MRA in 2013 had made a primary selection of more than 700 NGOs for micro-lending operations in poorer districts of the country. But only 24 out of them could procure permanent licences from the MRA for their lending operations though the conditions for securing licences were relatively easy.
So, a pious move by the MRA to help people of poorer districts is yet to be fruitful for lack of initiative on the part of the NGOs and MFIs.
It is not just NGOs, the government, too, has not been fair in the allocation of resources for both development and non-development activities in some regions of the country. Some districts got more and some others far less. A section of influential people in the administration somehow manage more resources for their districts, depriving others of their due notwithstanding the government's avowed policy of 'equitable economic growth of all regions'.
It is also noted that many districts despite having their influential people in the government could not manage the right amount of resources for their development activities for lack of initiatives.
Reports prepared by the multilateral agencies have also highlighted disparity in development of different regions of the country. Some districts have always got more than what they deserve while others received far less than their requirement.
However, the flow of remittance money has certain bearing on the per capita income in various districts. The districts with higher remittance earning have lower rate of poverty. The situation is opposite in the case of districts which have dispatched fewer migrant workers. The remote districts in Rangpur, Khulna and Barisal divisions that lack improved surface communication network usually do not earn sizeable remittance money.
Moreover, the outcome of the government's lopsided allocation of developmental resources and relevant other initiatives is evident in many areas, including access to higher education, health, power and energy, and modern telecom facilities. The inhabitants of a few districts in the northern and southern parts of the country are lagging behind in those areas.
However, these districts do enjoy one particular privilege; they get most allocations under the government's safety net programmes meant for hardcore poor and other distressed people. Despite the fact a part of the resources made available under these programmes is misdirected, the poor people do receive some support for their survival.
Notably, the safety net programmes are not any permanent solution to problems that the poor and distressed people usually encounter daily. The help that comes under safety nets is temporary in nature and in the event of its discontinuation the poor people are forced to go back to the previous state.
It has, thus, become imperative for the policymakers to make a comparative study of the state of all essential social, economic and health facilities in 64 districts and allocate resources accordingly in the annual development programme and beyond to strike a balance. The fruits of development must be shared equally by all districts irrespective of their location and size.
Zahidmar10@gmail.com