Definitions, when it comes to just about anything related to the field of development, are difficult. For one, who does the defining is important to consider. Depending on who they are and what their definition will be used for, the act of defining can be limiting in unintended ways and inadequate for the context on which this definition is being imposed. We can think of the way in which the notion of poverty has been closely correlated to the measurement of living on less than one dollar per day. There are many Western assumptions that go into creating this standard indicator for poverty, and so we need to recognize that it does not accurately speak to realities elsewhere. For instance, a farmer who produces a surplus of food which is sold in the market could be considered very poor if the income generated is less than a dollar per day. However, comparative to other members in the farmer’s community, they may be significantly better off (nutritionally) than those households who earn double or triple their monetary income but who struggle to buy enough food.

Obviously, this is not to say that we should never define things, but that we have to be aware of the consequences of using a definition. We fail to consider just how subjective the very notion of poverty is. In the example above, those defined as poor may never have considered themselves as such. Similarly, those who live in destitution may not be termed poor, and thus be excluded from poverty alleviation initiatives.

In the context of conducting preliminary research, I am realizing how challenging it can be to come up with appropriate definitions. If the one dollar per day measurement is any indication, it may be too idealistic to want clear definitions when talking about something as fuzzy as poverty. Having said this, efforts should be made to improve identifiable weaknesses in a definition where possible. I’ve realized the importance of this in my own research here.

The purpose of the research is to look into the possibility of using micro-credit to increase production of fruits and vegetables as well as livestock, poultry and fisheries at the homestead level. In discussion with the organization’s executive director and my mentor, the terms ‘rural landless and marginal farmers’ were chosen to describe who would be targeted.

‘Landless’ and ‘marginal’ are terms used to describe the two smallest categories of landholding size in Bangladesh. These terms, when used to describe a level of poverty, can be problematic. The difficulty with equating landholding size to measurements of poverty is that people who are not amongst the most destitute can fall into the categories of ‘landless or marginal.’ Ineffective targeting using landholding size has been reported as a significant challenge for many of the government’s social safety net programs. Through interviews with landless and marginal farmers, factors such as a farmer’s ability to rent land or to generate other income also play a large role in a household’s ability to meet their needs. For instance, someone who would be able to afford buying land, but instead rents land, can still be considered landless.

Another problematic term that has arisen is the idea of the ‘household’ when it is used to define landless or marginal. In Bangladesh, houses are often clustered together, with grown children and their families living within the same compound as their parents. Though this definition of household may be useful in some circumstances, it is problematic when poverty is defined by landholding size. Within the household unit of measurement, two households, each owning 0.3 acres of land, can be seen as equally eligible for a government program, even if one household has 9 or 10 member and the other has only 4. Therefore, in some instances, levels of impoverishment could be more accurately determined if household landholding were divided by the number of members.

The use of each of these terms create problems, either including or excluding those who would or would not be considered if more holistic measurements were used. Perhaps equally as problematic is my limited knowledge of life in rural Bangladesh. In this way, though I see the limits of the definitions I am working with, I am hardly in a position to be creating new ones.

Category: Bangladesh, On location // Add Comment »