Growth Trend of Poverty in Bangladesh

Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty Trends in Bangladesh: Implications for Development Strategy 1
Uttam Deb, Zobdul Hoque, Nafisa Khaled and Subir Kanti Bairagi2
I. INTRODUCTION Regional inequality is a growing concern in Bangladesh. Bangladesh during the preindependence period experienced serious regional inequality. Policy actions to address regional inequality require information about the nature, extent and trends in regional inequality. An attempt is made in this paper to analyze regional inequality in Bangladesh. Regional inequality may be analyzed on issues related to growth, income inequality and poverty. Therefore, the present study has analyzed regional inequalities for 64 districts of Bangladesh and focused on the following issues: (a) Analyze the nature, extent and trends in growth, poverty and income inequality in Bangladesh during 1995/96-2005/06; (b) Document and examine relationship between economic growth, income inequality and poverty in Bangladesh; (c) Provide some policy suggestions to foster growth, reduce income inequality and poverty in Bangladesh.
The paper is divided into five sections. Following introduction, Section II discusses growth performance at the national and districts level and determinants of growth. Section III describes trends in income distribution and income inequality in Bangladesh. It also focuses on the factors responsible for variation in per capita income among districts and income inequality. Regional level poverty situation (income and human poverty) is discussed in Section IV. Determinants of poverty are also discussed here. Section V puts forward some issues for discussion.
Paper presented at the Dialogue on Addressing Regional Inequalities: Policy Options and Strategies held on 28 February 2008 at the CIRDAP Auditorium; organized by the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD). 2 Authors are respectively, Head, Research Division, Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD); former Deputy Director General, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS); and Research Associates, CPD. Authors are grateful to Molla Mursaleen Shiraj for research assistance. 1
CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty
II. GROWTH PERFORMANCE: SECTORAL AND DISTRICT LEVEL II.1 Trends in GDP Volume of GDP has increased from 17.585 billion in 1981/82 to 39.068 in 1995/96 and increased further to 59.748 billion in 2005/06. On the other hand, between 1981/82 and 2005/06, volume of agriculture GDP has increased from 5.482 billion to 11.718 billion; industry GDP increased from 3.707 billion to 16.674 and service GDP from 8.396 to 31.356 billion. In other words, between 1981/82 and 2005/06, GDP increased by 2.4 times, agricultural GDP increased by 1.1 times, industry GDP increased by 3.5 times and service GDP increased by 2.7 times. During this period different sub-sectors of agriculture also registered high increased. Crop GDP increased by 55%, livestock GDP increased by 2.7 times and fisheries GDP increased by about 6 times. During the last years (between 1995/96 and 2005/06), GDP increased by 53%, agriculture GDP by 17%, industry GDP by 72% and service GDP by 62% while increase in crop sub-sector was 17%, livestock (10%), fisheries (16%) and forestry (27%).
Table 1: Trends in GDP at Current Price (Million US$) in Bangladesh, by sector: 1981/82 to 2005/06
Sector 1981/82 1991/92 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1981/82 114 55 267 595 220 350 273 240 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 17 17 10 16 27 72 62 53
Agriculture Crop Livestock Fisheries Forestry Industry Service Total GDP
5,482 4439 394 350 299 3,707 8,396 17,585
8,896 5985 1119 1155 638 6,805 14,574 30,275
10,030 5,871 1,312 2,093 755 9,717 19,321 39,068
11,597 6,639 1,363 2,717 878 11,492 22,358 45,396
11,718 6,881 1,445 2,434 958 16,674 31,356 59,748
Source: Own estimate, based on BBS data.
An analysis of trends in GDP by sectors at the district level was carried out. In 2005/06, compared to 1995/96, the districts experienced five types of changes in their respective GDP, agricultural GDP, industrial GDP, and service sector GDP. These are: (i) High Increase (More than 50%), (ii) Medium Increase (20% to 50%), (iii) Low Increase (0%to 20%), (iv) Decrease (<0%), and (v) High Decrease (<-20%). Different sub-sectors of agriculture (crop and horticulture, livestock, fisheries, and forestry) also had these types of changes.
Trends and changes in total GDP: Trends and changes in total GDP at the district level are reported in Table 2. In 2005/06, compared to 1995/96, high increase in GDP was observed in 33 districts (Kurigram, Magura, Nilphamari, Brahamanbaria, Sherpur, Noakhali, Rangpur, Nawabganj, Jhenaidaha, Jessore, Tangail, Khagrachhari, Khulna, Jamalpur, Sunamganj, Panchagarh, Dinajpur, Narsingdi, Natore, Sylhet, Bogra, Rajshahi, Satkhira, Bagerhat, Chittagong, Narayanganj, Naogaon, Pabna, Gazipur, Dhaka, Joypurhat, Sirajganj, Kishoreganj), medium increase in GDP was observed in 28 districts (Lakshmipur, Mymensingh, Thakurgaon, Gopalganj, Narail, Barguna, Patuakhali, Bhola, Pirojpur, Chandpur, Chuadanga, Kushtia, Madaripur, Maulvibazar, Rajbari, Jhalokati, Shariatpur, Comilla, Munshiganj, Faridpur, Meherpur, Cox's Bazar, Manikganj, Gaibandha, Lalmonirhat, Feni, Barisal, Haiganj), two districts (Bandarban, Netrakona) had low increase and one district (Rangamati) had high decrease in GDP.
Trends and changes in agricultural GDP: Trends and changes in agricultural GDP at the district level are reported in Table 3. In 2005/06, compared to 1995/96, high increase in
agricultural GDP was observed in two districts (Joypurhat, Kishoreganj), medium increase in agricultural GDP was observed in 25 districts (Kurigram, Habiganj, Nilphamari, Jamalpur, Magura, Jhenaidaha, Thakurgaon, Narayanganj, Natore, Khagrachhari, Brahamanbaria, Nawabganj, Gazipur, Panchagarh, Rajshahi, Dhaka, Bogra, Dinajpur, Pabna, Sirajganj, Sunamganj, Satkhira, Bagerhat, Naogaon, Khulna), low increase in 25 districts (Chandpur, Faridpur, Madaripur, Pirojpur, Shariatpur, Jhalokati, Narail, Bhola, Barguna, Cox's Bazar, Patuakhali, Sylhet, Gaibandha, Comilla, Manikganj, Narsingdi, Feni, Lalmonirhat, Rangpur, Barisal, Chittagong, Tangail, Sherpur, Jessore, Noakhali). Agricultural GDP decreased in seven districts (Lakshmipur, Munshiganj, Rajbari, Meherpur, Chuadanga, Gopalganj, Maulvibazar) and five districts (Bandarban, Rangamati, Netrakona, Mymensingh, Kushtia) had high decrease in agriculture GDP.
Trends and changes in industrial GDP: Trends and changes in industrial GDP at the district level are reported in Table 4. In 2005/06, compared to 1995/96, high increase in industrial GDP was observed in all districts except two districts (Comilla and Rangamati). Comilla district had medium increase while Rangamati experienced high decrease in industrial GDP.
Trends and changes in service sector GDP: Trends and changes in service sector GDP at the district level are reported in Table 5. In 2005/06, compared to 1995/96, high increase in service sector GDP was observed in all districts except six districts (Thakurgaon, Rangamati, Bandarban, Gopalganj, Lakshmipur, Netrakona) which had medium increase in service sector GDP.
Trends and changes in GDP of the crop and horticulture sub-sector: Trends and changes in GDP of the crop and horticulture sub-sector at the district level are reported in Table 6. In 2005/06, compared to 1995/96, High Increase in crop GDP was observed in four districts (Khulna, Bagerhat, Satkhira, Kishoreganj), medium increase in crop GDP was observed in 22 districts (Lalmonirhat, Magura, Gaibandha, Khagrachhari, Jhenaidaha, Nilphamari, Jamalpur, Sylhet, Sherpur, Thakurgaon, Habiganj, Dinajpur, Sunamganj, Panchagarh, Nawabganj, Natore, Pabna, Sirajganj, Rajshahi, Bogra, Naogaon, Joypurhat), 14 districts (Manikganj, Patuakhali, Madaripur, Barisal, Pirojpur, Feni, Bhola, Chandpur, Brahamanbaria, Comilla, Kurigram, Tangail, Jessore, Rangpur) had low increase in crop GDP. Crop GDP decreased in 17 districts (Narayanganj, Gazipur, Maulvibazar, Gopalganj, Rajbari, Narsingdi, Jhalokati, Shariatpur, Lakshmipur, Barguna, Munshiganj, Cox's Bazar, Faridpur, Noakhali, Dhaka, Narail, Chittagong) and seven districts (Rangamati, Bandarban, Kushtia, Netrakona, Meherpur, Chuadanga, Mymensingh) registered high decrease in crop GDP.
Trends and changes in GDP of the livestock sub-sector: Trends and changes in GDP of the livestock sub-sector at the district level are reported in Table 7. In 2005/06, compared to 1995/96, high increase in livestock GDP was observed in five districts (Rajshahi, Bhola, Joypurhat, Gazipur, Dhaka), medium increase in livestock GDP was observed in 11 districts (Nawabganj, Naogaon, Comilla, Jamalpur, Noakhali, Natore, Chittagong, Narsingdi, Chuadanga, Khagrachhari, Meherpur) and 26 districts (Mymensingh, Tangail, Rajbari, Kurigram, Pabna, Dinajpur, Kishoreganj, Bagerhat, Manikganj, Narayanganj, Bogra, Cox's Bazar, Sirajganj, Rangamati, Barisal, Shariatpur, Kushtia, Patuakhali, Barguna, Jhenaidaha, Chandpur, Feni, Pirojpur, Jhalokati, Lakshmipur, Khulna) had low increase in livestock GDP. Livestock GDP decreased in 18 districts (Sylhet, Lalmonirhat, Nilphamari, Netrakona, Panchagarh, Satkhira,
Brahamanbaria, Maulvibazar, Thakurgaon, Madaripur, Magura, Bandarban, Gaibandha, Narail, Rangpur, Sherpur, Jessore, Gopalganj) and four districts (Faridpur, Sunamganj, Munshiganj, Habiganj) had high decrease in GDP.
Trends and changes in GDP of the fisheries sub-sector: Trends and changes in GDP of the fisheries sub-sector at the district level are reported in Table 8. In 2005/06, compared to 1995/96, high increase in fisheries GDP was observed in 22 districts (Pabna, Sirajganj, Noakhali, Narail, Dinajpur, Jhenaidaha, Naogaon, Kurigram, Tangail, Thakurgaon, Panchagarh, Magura, Narsingdi, Gazipur, Joypurhat, Brahamanbaria, Sunamganj, Narayanganj, Manikganj,
Nilphamari, Chuadanga, Meherpur), medium increase in fisheries GDP was observed in 15 districts (Bagerhat, Habiganj, Barguna, Shariatpur, Maulvibazar, Khulna, Lalmonirhat, Feni, Rangpur, Chittagong, Kushtia, Dhaka, Barisal, Jessore, Faridpur), 10 districts (Madaripur, Natore, Rajshahi, Comilla, Bogra, Satkhira, Jhalokati, Cox's Bazar, Patuakhali, Nawabganj) had low increase in fisheries GDP. Fisheries GDP decreased in 10 districts (Chandpur, Sylhet, Sherpur, Rajbari, Rangamati, Munshiganj, Pirojpur, Gopalganj, Bhola, Jamalpur) and six districts (Mymensingh, Lakshmipur, Netrakona, Bandarban, Kishoreganj, Gaibandha) had high decrease in fisheries GDP.
Trends and changes in GDP of the forestry sub-sector: Trends and changes in GDP of the forestry sub-sector at the district level are reported in Table 9. All of the 64 districts of Bangladesh experienced medium increase in forestry GDP in 2005/06, compared to that of 1995/96.
Table 2: Trends in GDP at Current Market Price (in Million US$) in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06
Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 59.4 13.2 38.9 49.6 39.4 59.1 51.4 40.4 59.4 40.7 42.9 45.3 66.2 56.8 44.2 49.3 48.3 63.4 35.7 49.8 55.4 54.2 41.8 54.1 67.5 55.0 55.1 84.4 50.4 40.9 21.8 48.5 Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 41.2 50.9 47.0 41.2 44.5 43.3 23.3 60.5 36.3 59.6 57.4 58.0 53.8 16.9 51.3 52.4 60.7 56.1 39.0 40.2 41.5 59.1 -28.9 53.2 59.3 42.0 51.9 72.7 55.4 58.6 54.4 35.2 52.9
Bagerhat Bandarban Barguna Barisal Bhola Bogra Brahamanbaria Chandpur Chittagong Chuadanga Comilla Cox's Bazar Dhaka Dinajpur Faridpur Feni Gaibandha Gazipur Gopalganj Habiganj Jamalpur Jessore Jhalokati Jhenaidaha Joypurhat Khagrachhari Khulna Kishoreganj Kurigram Kushtia Lakshmipur Lalmonirhat
466 93 263 628 477 769 674 515 3055 268 1144 564 5714 720 415 287 490 1132 284 484 509 782 180 444 241 105 964 642 417 495 424 248
557 104 304 732 552 918 750 609 3543 314 1265 660 6742 847 484 328 572 1309 325 540 603 908 198 513 287 124 1124 737 516 573 478 302
742 105 366 939 665 1223 1020 722 4871 377 1635 820 9497 1129 598 429 726 1850 385 724 792 1206 255 684 405 163 1495 1183 627 697 516 368
Madaripur Magura Manikganj Maulvibazar Meherpur Munshiganj Mymensingh Naogaon Narail Narayanganj Narsingdi Natore Nawabganj Netrakona Nilphamari Noakhali Pabna Panchagarh Patuakhali Pirojpur Rajbari Rajshahi Rangamati Rangpur Satkhira Shariatpur Sherpur Sirajganj Sunamganj Sylhet Tangail Thakurgaon BANGLADESH
260 226 342 400 163 325 1216 639 205 1097 596 448 315 538 359 613 684 202 462 291 232 661 263 651 497 239 304 667 463 679 792 348 39068
308 265 401 465 192 372 1406 755 236 1246 692 527 373 615 420 728 802 239 524 331 274 798 196 763 588 282 364 769 537 826 926 410 45447
368 342 503 565 236 465 1499 1025 280 1751 938 708 484 629 543 934 1100 315 642 409 328 1052 187 997 792 339 462 1152 719 1077 1223 471 59748
Table 3: Trends in Agricultural GDP in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06

Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 40.8 -48.2 8.1 17.9 7.3 32.2 30.5 0.3 18.1 -3.3 13.5 9.0 32 32.2 0.7 15.9 12.1 30.7 -2.3 22.2 23.9 20.0 4.8 26.5 51.6 29.6 44.6 97.6 20.1 -21.5 -19.5 15.9 Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 3.1 24.4 13.7 -2.2 -3.9 -5.8 -26.8 41.8 5.5 28.7 15.3 29.0 30.5 -28.6 22.6 20.0 34.3 31.2 9.7 4.6 -4.2 31.9 -45.2 17.0 38.7 4.7 19.4 34.9 37.4 9.9 19.3 26.6 17.7
184 36 125 181 210 267 164 179 357 88 362 214 62 269 132 85 180 103 96 152 162 249 61 174 96 30 199 240 152 146 187 93
224 37 140 213 239 313 187 215 405 102 399 260 79 310 155 99 206 123 111 174 190 284 61 194 113 33 246 271 194 163 201 116
259 19 135 213 225 353 214 179 421 85 410 233 82 356 133 99 202 135 94 186 201 298 64 220 146 38 288 474 182 115 150 107
82 100 107 146 59 74 491 276 94 48 107 162 111 244 129 217 150 85 216 103 81 160 71 199 189 87 110 152 171 198 246 129 9,355
101 114 130 167 67 87 551 319 105 58 127 182 128 270 148 261 181 98 236 114 97 186 77 225 225 104 134 175 203 232 287 148 10,855
85 125 122 142 56 70 360 392 99 62 123 209 144 174 159 261 202 111 237 108 78 211 39 233 263 91 131 205 235 218 294 163 11,014
Table 4: Trends in Industrial GDP in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06

Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 76.3 72.5 75.1 74.1 75.2 75.5 50.9 77.0 76.1 73.9 41.6 74.4 74.7 75.3 76.0 56.2 74.5 70.9 76.8 61.6 74.1 75.0 73.4 74.9 74.5 72.8 73.1 75.3 74.1 72.8 75.5 75.2 Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 74.6 75.1 72.7 74.4 78.9 72.2 74.9 75.4 73.2 68.6 70.0 76.5 74.1 73.9 74.3 77.4 71.7 74.5 73.9 74.7 74.6 74.8 -70.6 75.4 75.3 75.3 75.4 75.0 73.3 123.3 71.5 76.0 71.6
64 12 31 107 59 125 220 82 1,061 48 239 117 2,348 114 68 61 76 537 43 141 93 176 26 75 39 16 203 99 60 120 48 35
78 14 38 130 72 155 232 101 1,274 58 246 127 2,803 141 84 65 95 626 53 151 115 214 31 92 48 20 240 123 75 143 60 43
113 20 54 186 103 219 332 145 1,869 84 338 203 4,103 199 120 95 133 918 77 228 162 309 44 132 68 28 351 174 105 208 85 61
44 32 70 73 34 78 167 83 24 503 215 84 44 65 49 98 201 27 51 42 42 110 108 109 87 39 51 221 76 143 161 44 9,717
54 39 85 90 42 93 208 104 30 576 252 104 54 80 61 120 237 34 62 51 51 135 23 136 105 49 63 254 93 211 194 55 11,492
76 56 121 128 61 134 293 146 42 848 365 148 76 113 85 175 345 48 88 73 73 193 32 192 153 69 89 386 132 320 275 77 16,674
Table 5: Trends in GDP of the Service Sector in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06
Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 70.2 46.7 64.1 58.8 61.7 72.7 63.7 56.8 57.6 58.1 63.0 64.1 60.8 70.1 61.0 66.5 67.6 62.0 48.7 63.0 68.8 67.8 57.4 70.6 79.4 62.8 52.3 77.0 65.9 64.1 49.2 66.0 Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 53.8 71.0 57.7 62.6 68.3 51.4 51.9 74.5 59.1 54.1 63.9 73.5 64.4 49.3 65.8 67.8 65.9 73.9 62.4 55.5 62.6 65.9 39.6 67.2 70.8 59.2 68.5 90.6 63.3 59.6 69.8 31.4 62.3
217 45 108 340 208 377 289 254 1,637 132 544 234 3,304 338 214 141 234 491 144 190 254 356 93 195 106 59 562 302 205 228 188 121
255 53 126 389 242 450 330 293 1,864 154 620 273 3,860 396 245 164 271 560 161 216 299 410 106 227 126 70 638 343 247 267 216 143
370 66 177 540 336 651 474 398 2,581 208 887 383 5,311 575 345 235 391 796 215 310 429 598 147 333 191 97 856 535 341 375 281 200
134 95 165 181 70 173 557 279 88 546 274 202 160 229 181 297 333 90 195 147 110 391 83 342 221 112 143 294 216 338 385 176 19,321
153 112 186 207 83 192 647 331 101 612 313 241 191 265 211 346 384 107 226 166 127 477 96 402 257 129 167 340 242 383 444 207 22,358
207 162 260 294 119 262 846 488 139 841 449 351 264 342 299 499 553 156 317 228 178 648 116 572 377 179 241 561 353 539 653 231 31,356
Table 6: Trends in Crop GDP in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06

Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 68.8 -68.2 -4.2 3.6 6.0 41.3 11 10.5 -0.3 -24.4 11.7 -3.5 -1.9 31.9 -3.1 4.0 21.6 -8.9 -6.4 29.7 26.5 18.5 -4.9 24.1 43.2 24.0 65.9 180.7 16.6 -38.0 -4.3 20.5 Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 1.9 20.7 0.9 -8.9 -25.6 -4.1 -20.4 41.5 -0.4 -9.4 -5.9 36.6 35.3 -34 24.2 -2.9 37.5 34.7 1.1 3.8 -6.2 41.2 -70.8 19.1 72.8 -4.8 28.6 38.7 33.6 28.1 18.1 28.9 17.2
78 26 64 95 93 176 99 81 196 66 212 78 34 165 79 45 113 60 59 101 108 163 32 124 67 17 78 134 102 108 72 61
91 27 61 95 93 204 102 84 209 76 224 84 40 185 92 50 134 69 66 115 130 182 32 138 79 20 90 147 123 118 78 73
133 8 61 99 98 249 110 90 195 50 237 75 33 218 77 46 137 55 55 130 137 194 31 154 96 22 130 375 119 67 69 74
49 74 79 98 45 46 218 175 72 28 70 100 71 135 94 122 89 55 113 51 46 83 47 140 93 55 74 92 110 103 171 86 5,871
57 81 92 113 51 54 262 206 79 33 81 119 85 150 110 137 105 63 111 52 58 101 50 159 103 65 92 112 128 123 201 98 6,639
50 90 79 89 33 44 174 247 72 26 66 136 96 89 117 118 123 74 114 53 44 118 14 167 160 52 95 128 147 131 202 110 6,881
10
Table 7: Trends in Livestock GDP in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06
Districts
1995/96
1999/00
2005/06
16 5 15 26 19 39 23 19 38 12 47 16 9 44 25 12 29 18 11 19 24 36 9 23 15 7 18 26 24 18 14 15
16 5 16 27 21 41 25 21 39 13 50 17 9 47 26 13 30 19 11 20 25 39 9 23 16 7 18 27 25 19 15 16
18 4 17 29 29 43 19 22 54 18 58 18 22 46 18 14 27 35 11 15 31 36 10 26 25 10 21 28 25 21 16 13
% change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 7.5 -8.7 13.4 11.9 54.0 11.4 -16.1 14.0 41.6 46.0 24.1 11.5 137.8 6.2 -29.0 14.0 -4.3 89.6 -1.0 -20.2 27.9 -1.4 17.0 13.9 65.0 46.1 19.3 7.4 3.7 12.4 17.4 -18.8
Districts
1995/96
1999/00
2005/06
12 11 14 17 8 10 55 42 9 8 20 18 14 25 20 24 23 13 24 15 10 20 7 34 25 11 14 26 24 25 40 21 1,312
13 11 15 18 8 10 56 43 9 8 20 18 15 26 21 26 24 13 26 16 11 21 7 35 26 12 15 26 25 26 41 22 1,363
11 10 15 15 11 8 55 52 8 9 29 23 17 21 17 31 24 11 27 17 11 30 8 33 21 13 14 29 17 20 41 18 1,445
% change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 -8.9 -8.9 7.6 -15.1 49.4 -24.1 0.3 23.3 -4.2 9.7 45.8 29.5 20.6 -16.7 -17.3 28.6 4.9 -16.3 12.6 15.1 3.0 52.0 11.8 -2.5 -16.3 12.1 -2.3 11.7 -26.3 -19.4 1.6 -13.4 10.1
11
Table 8: Trends in Fisheries GDP in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06

Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 21.6 -31.2 22.6 48.2 -3.6 10.7 136.2 -19.2 41.9 247.4 8.7 16.1 46.5 67.8 49.2 37.7 -20.7 115.8 -6.8 22 -1.5 48.9 11.1 69.9 124.9 n.a. 33.6 -21.3 77.3 44.4 -41.0 35.8 Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 3.2 102.2 183.4 25.9 261.7 -12.3 -51.6 72.2 63.3 181.5 111.3 5.9 19.9 -37.8 225.1 62.8 55.3 93.2 19.8 -7.5 -15.2 7.2 -12.7 38.9 10.7 24.3 -16.5 55.5 150.4 -16.7 79.3 92.4 16.5
77 1 37 45 88 32 29 69 107 2 81 113 14 37 14 23 25 16 16 19 16 31 15 13 7 0 92 64 12 10 93 8
103 1 53 74 113 45 45 100 140 4 99 152 23 51 21 30 25 24 22 23 19 42 15 17 10 0 125 78 31 14 99 18
94 1 45 67 85 36 68 56 152 8 88 132 21 62 21 31 20 34 15 23 16 46 17 22 16 0 124 50 21 14 55 11
12 8 6 21 2 13 186 38 6 8 8 32 15 65 3 58 24 8 65 27 17 45 11 9 58 13 12 18 19 54 13 10 1920
21 13 14 26 2 16 195 45 10 13 16 31 17 73 4 82 36 11 83 35 21 51 13 12 80 17 17 18 28 65 19 14 2482
13 16 16 27 6 11 90 65 11 23 18 34 18 40 10 94 37 15 78 25 15 49 10 13 64 16 10 28 47 45 23 19 2237
12
Table 9: Trends in Forestry GDP in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06

Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0
12 4 9 14 10 20 13 9 16 8 22 6 5 23 13 6 14 9 10 13 14 18 5 13 7 5 11 17 13 10 8 8
14 5 10 17 12 23 15 11 18 9 25 8 6 27 16 7 16 11 12 16 16 21 6 16 8 6 13 20 15 12 9 10
16 5 11 18 13 25 16 12 20 10 28 8 6 29 17 7 18 12 13 17 17 23 6 17 9 7 14 21 16 13 10 10
9 7 9 10 5 6 32 22 6 4 9 12 10 18 12 13 14 9 14 10 7 12 6 16 14 8 9 16 19 17 23 13 755
10 8 10 11 6 6 37 26 7 4 10 14 12 21 13 16 17 11 16 11 8 14 7 19 17 9 11 18 22 19 26 15 878
11 9 11 12 6 7 41 28 8 5 11 15 13 23 15 17 18 11 18 12 9 15 8 21 18 10 11 20 24 21 29 16 958
13
II.2 GDP Growth Performance Annual compound rates of growth in total GDP and different sectors of the economy (agriculture, industry and service) were estimated at the national and district level. Annual compound rates of growth in different sub-sectors of agriculture (crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry) were also calculated. Growth estimates were done for three periods: late 1990s (1995/96-1999/00), early 2000s (2001/02-2005/06) and overall period (1995/96-2005/06). Depending upon the rate of growth, study districts may be classified into four categories: high growth (>5% annual compounded rate of growth), moderate growth (2-5% annual compound rate of growth), slow growth (up to 2% annual compound rate of growth) and negative growth.
Performance of the Bangladesh economy in late 1990s and early 2000s are reported in Table 10. GDP growth in the 1990s (3.85% per annum) was less than the long term (1981/82-2005/06) growth (5.12%) and medium term (1995/96-2005/06) growth (4.15%). In early 1990s, agriculture sector performed better that that of long-term (3.10%), medium term (1.06%). On the other hand, agriculture in the early 2000s performed better than medium term but poorer than long-term growth. Growth performance of the industrial sector in late 1990s was poorer than long-term and medium term growth performance but in early 2000s growth in industrial sector was higher than the long-term and medium term growth. Performance of the service sector was similar to that of industrial sector. Table 10: Growth performance of the economy of Bangladesh in late 1990s and early 2000s, compared to medium and long term trends (% per annum)
Sector 1980s (1981/821989/90) 5.36 1.83 2.09 2.30 2.36 5.71 5.92 5.70 1990s (1990/911999/00) 3.70 1.46 2.50 7.77 3.57 6.86 5.33 5.24 Late 1990s (1995/961999/00) 3.88 3.48 0.82 6.62 3.97 4.19 3.66 3.85 Early 2000s (2001/022005/06) 2.09 2.58 3.02 0.12 2.60 7.51 7.18 6.17 Long-term growth (1981/822005/06) 3.10 1.89 6.43 10.19 3.56 6.39 5.59 5.12 Medium term (1995/962005/06) 1.06 1.00 0.53 1.02 2.45 5.16 5.02 4.15
Agriculture Crop Livestock Fisheries Forestry Industry Service Total GDP
14
Growth in GDP: Bangladesh experienced moderate growth (3.85% per annum) in GDP in the late 1990s, high growth (6.17% per annum) in the early 2000s and moderate growth (4.15% per annum) in the overall period (Table 11). During the late 1990s, two districts (Lalmonirhat, Kurigram) had high growth, four districts (Jhalokati, Comilla, Brahamanbaria, Habiganj) experienced slow growth, one district (Rangamati) had negative growth while all other districts (57 districts) had moderate growth. In the early 2000s, 15 districts (Barguna, Patuakhali, Mymensingh, Bhola, Kishoreganj, Netrakona, Noakhali, Chandpur, Lakshmipur, Pirojpur, Manikganj, Panchagarh, Cox's Bazar, Jhalokati, Thakurgaon) experienced moderate growth in GDP and all other districts had high growth (Comilla, Barisal, Gaibandha, Habiganj, Gopalganj, Dinajpur, Feni, Maulvibazar, Lalmonirhat, Nilphamari, Shariatpur, Sylhet, Sunamganj, Joypurhat, Faridpur, Kurigram, Madaripur, Munshiganj, Sherpur, Bandarban, Brahamanbaria, Meherpur, Bogra, Tangail, Narail, Magura, Rangpur, Jamalpur, Rangamati, Rajbari, Chuadanga, Nawabganj, Naogaon, Kushtia, Bagerhat, Natore, Jhenaidaha, Pabna, Narsingdi, Sirajganj, Jessore, Rajshahi, Satkhira, Khulna, Chittagong, Gazipur, Narayanganj, Dhaka, Khagrachhari) in GDP. During the overall period (1995/96-2005/06), four districts (Joypurhat, Sirajganj, Kishoreganj, Khagrachhari) had high growth, seven districts (Bandarban, Netrakona, Lakshmipur, Mymensingh, Narail, Thakurgaon, Gopalganj) experienced slow growth, one district (Rangamati) had negative growth while all other districts (52 districts) had moderate growth.
Growth in Agricultural GDP: Bangladesh experienced moderate growth (3.88% per annum) in GDP in the late 1990s, slow growth (2.09% per annum) in the early 2000s and slow growth (1.06% per annum) in the overall period in its agricultural GDP (Table 12). During the late 1990s, nine districts (Pabna, Narayanganj, Bagerhat, Khulna, Sherpur, Chandpur, Lalmonirhat, Dhaka, Kurigram) had high growth, 47 districts (Khagrachhari, Natore, Jhenaidaha, Kushtia, Netrakona, Narail, Rangpur, Barguna, Gaibandha, Chittagong, Maulvibazar, Kishoreganj, Jessore, Brahamanbaria, Habiganj, Meherpur, Magura, Mymensingh, Nilphamari, Dinajpur, Madaripur, Chuadanga, Thakurgaon, Naogaon, Barisal, Sirajganj, Gopalganj, Tangail, Feni, Panchagarh, Sylhet, Nawabganj, Jamalpur, Bogra, Joypurhat, Satkhira, Faridpur, Sunamganj, Rajshahi, Narsingdi, Manikganj, Gazipur, Shariatpur, Cox's Bazar, Noakhali, Munshiganj, Rajbari) had moderate growth, seven districts (Bandarban, Lakshmipur, Rangamati, Patuakhali,
15
Comilla, Bhola, Pirojpur) experienced slow growth, and one district (Jhalokati) had negative growth.
In the early 2000s, two districts (Satkhira and Khagrachhari) had high growth, 13 districts (Bogra, Sherpur, Jamalpur, Rajshahi, Nawabganj, Magura, Narail, Natore, Jessore, Jhenaidaha, Khulna, Naogaon, Bagerhat) experienced moderate growth in GDP, 40 districts had slow growth (Dhaka, Munshiganj , Bhola, Manikganj, Jhalokati, Lakshmipur, Feni, Barisal, Cox's Bazar, Pirojpur, Chittagong, Comilla, Maulvibazar, Habiganj, Kishoreganj, Narsingdi, Kushtia, Faridpur, Panchagarh, Gazipur, Thakurgaon, Gaibandha, Dinajpur, Rangamati, Chuadanga, Meherpur, Brahamanbaria, Lalmonirhat, Gopalganj, Shariatpur, Nilphamari, Kurigram, Rangpur, Pabna, Tangail, Sirajganj, Madaripur, Sunamganj, Joypurhat, Rajbari) and nine districts (Mymensingh, Barguna, Bandarban, Narayanganj, Patuakhali, Sylhet, Noakhali, Chandpur, Netrakona) had negative growth in agricultural GDP.
During the overall period (1995/96-2005/06), two districts (Kishoreganj, Khagrachhari) had high growth, three districts (Sirajganj, Naogaon, Joypurhat) experienced moderate growth, 39
districts (Lalmonirhat, Cox's Bazar, Sylhet, Kurigram, Patuakhali, Gaibandha, Sherpur, Barisal, Jhalokati, Jessore, Manikganj, Feni, Narsingdi, Rangpur, Satkhira, Comilla, Magura, Tangail, Habiganj, Jamalpur, Nilphamari, Noakhali, Bagerhat, Chittagong, Jhenaidaha, Thakurgaon, Khulna, Nawabganj, Narayanganj, Dhaka, Natore, Pabna, Gazipur, Panchagarh, Sunamganj, Rajshahi, Brahamanbaria, Dinajpur, Bogra) experienced slow growth, 15 districts (Lakshmipur, Rajbari, Maulvibazar, Chuadanga, Meherpur, Gopalganj, Madaripur, Munshiganj, Chandpur, Faridpur, Narail, Shariatpur, Pirojpur, Barguna, Bhola) had negative growth and five districts (Rangamati, Bandarban, Netrakona, Kushtia, Mymensingh) had extremely negative growth in agricultural GDP. Growth in Service Sector GDP: Bangladesh experienced moderate growth (3.66% per annum) in service GDP in the late 1990s, high growth (7.18% per annum) in the early 2000s and high growth (5.02% per annum) in the overall period in its service sector GDP (Table 15). During the late 1990s, six districts (Gopalganj, Munshiganj, Sunamganj, Manikganj, Madaripur, and Narayanganj) had slow growth and all other districts (58 districts) had moderate growth in its service sector GDP. In the early 2000s, all of the 64 districts experienced high growth in service CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty
16
sector GDP. During the overall period (1995/96-2005/06), 43 districts (Shariatpur, Faridpur, Sylhet, Cox's Bazar, Kushtia, Rajbari, Bhola, Rajshahi, Narsingdi, Patuakhali, Maulvibazar, Kurigram, Nawabganj, Comilla, Brahamanbaria, Pabna, Barguna, Habiganj, Lalmonirhat, Feni, Jessore, Sunamganj, Rangpur, Nilphamari, Satkhira, Jamalpur, Bagerhat, Sherpur, Meherpur, Jhenaidaha, Gaibandha, Magura, Noakhali, Tangail, Dinajpur, Bogra, Natore, Panchagarh, Naogaon, Kishoreganj, Khagrachhari, Joypurhat, Sirajganj) had high growth, 20 districts (Rangamati, Bandarban, Khulna, Narayanganj, Lakshmipur, Gopalganj, Netrakona, Dhaka, Madaripur, Munshiganj, Chittagong, Mymensingh, Chuadanga, Gazipur, Narail, Pirojpur, Chandpur, Barisal, Jhalokati, Manikganj) experienced moderate growth, and one district (Thakurgaon) experienced slow growth.
Growth in Industrial GDP: Bangladesh experienced moderate growth (4.19% per annum) in industrial GDP in the late 1990s, high growth (7.51% per annum) in the early 2000s and high growth (5.16% per annum) in the overall period in its industrial GDP (Table 16). During the late 1990s, 25 districts (Kishoreganj, Meherpur, Shariatpur, Joypurhat, Chandpur, Sherpur, Jamalpur, Netrakona, Madaripur, Dinajpur, Natore, Nawabganj, Panchagarh, Mymensingh, Bogra, Khagrachhari, Nilphamari, Kurigram, Rangpur, Thakurgaon, Gaibandha, Lakshmipur, Lalmonirhat, Naogaon, Sylhet) had high growth, 29 districts (Narayanganj, Sirajganj, Narsingdi, Gazipur, Pabna, Khulna, Kushtia, Dhaka, Munshiganj, Bandarban, Manikganj, Tangail, Bagerhat, Satkhira, Patuakhali, Barguna, Chittagong, Jhenaidaha, Bhola, Rajbari, Barisal, Jessore, Sunamganj, Chuadanga, Jhalokati, Pirojpur, Rajshahi, Magura, Narail, Noakhali, Maulvibazar, Gopalganj, Faridpur) experienced moderate growth, and five districts (Comilla, Brahamanbaria, Habiganj, Feni, Cox's Bazar) experienced slow growth and one district (Rangamati) experienced extremely negative growth in industrial GDP. In the early 2000s, all of the 64 districts experienced high growth in industrial GDP. During the overall period (1995/962005/06), 7 districts (Brahamanbaria, Comilla, Dhaka, Feni, Gazipur, Narayanganj, Narsingdi) experienced moderate growth, and one district (Rangamati) experienced negative growth and all other districts experienced high growth. Growth in Crop GDP: Bangladesh experienced moderate growth (3.48% per annum) in crop GDP in the late 1990s, slow growth (2.58% per annum) in the early 2000s and slow growth (1.00% per annum) in the overall period in its crop GDP (Table 17). During the late 1990s, seven CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty
17
districts (Nawabganj, Jamalpur, Kurigram, Sirajganj, Rajshahi, Rajbari and Sherpur) had high growth, 47 districts (Jessore, Netrakona, Jhenaidaha, Feni, Gopalganj, Dinajpur, Habiganj, Noakhali, Khagrachhari, Maulvibazar, Meherpur, Rangpur, Chuadanga, Madaripur, Narsingdi, Thakurgaon, Bogra, Gazipur, Khulna, Narayanganj, Sunamganj, Panchagarh, Bagerhat, Faridpur, Nilphamari, Manikganj, Tangail, Pabna, Joypurhat, Munshiganj, Lalmonirhat, Naogaon, Sylhet, Shariatpur, Gaibandha, Natore, Dhaka, Mymensingh) had moderate growth, 15 districts (Barisal, Bhola, Pirojpur, Brahamanbaria, Chandpur, Bandarban, Rangamati, Comilla, Chittagong, Cox's Bazar, Lakshmipur, Kushtia, Kishoreganj, Magura, Narail, Satkhira) experienced slow growth, and three districts (Barguna, Jhalokati, Patuakhali) had negative growth.
In the early 2000s, eight districts (Bagerhat, Jessore, Jhenaidaha, Khagrachhari, Khulna, Magura, Narail, Satkhira) had high growth, 17 districts (Bogra, Faridpur, Gopalganj, Jamalpur,
Joypurhat, Madaripur, Naogaon, Natore, Nawabganj, Pabna, Rajbari, Rajshahi, Rangamati, Shariatpur, Sherpur, Sirajganj, Tangail) had moderate growth, seven districts (Barguna, Feni, Lakshmipur, Mymensingh, Netrakona, Noakhali, Patuakhali) had negative growth and one district (Bandarban) showed extremely negative growth. On the other hand 31 districts (Barisal, Bhola, Brahamanbaria, Chandpur, Chittagong, Chuadanga, Comilla, Cox's Bazar, Dhaka, Dinajpur, Gaibandha, Gazipur, Habiganj, Jhalokati, Kishoreganj, Kurigram, Kushtia, Lalmonirhat, Manikganj, Maulvibazar, Meherpur, Munshiganj, Narayanganj, Narsingdi, Nilphamari, Panchagarh, Pirojpur, Rangpur, Sunamganj, Sylhet, Thakurgaon) experienced slow growth in crop GDP.
During the overall period (1995/96-2005/06), two districts (Kishoreganj, Khagrachhari) had high growth, two districts (Bogra, Joypurhat) experienced moderate growth, 32 districts (Bagerhat, Brahamanbaria, Chandpur, Chittagong, Comilla, Dinajpur, Feni, Gaibandha, Habiganj, Jamalpur, Jessore, Jhenaidaha, Khulna, Kurigram, Lalmonirhat, Magura, Naogaon, Natore, Nawabganj, Nilphamari, Pabna, Panchagarh, Rajshahi, Rangpur, Satkhira, Sherpur, Sirajganj, Sunamganj, Sylhet, Tangail, Thakurgaon) experienced slow growth, 21 districts (Barguna, Barisal, Bhola, Cox's Bazar, Dhaka, Faridpur, Gazipur, Gopalganj, Jhalokati, Lakshmipur, Madaripur, Manikganj, Munshiganj, Mymensingh, Narail, Narayanganj, Narsingdi, Noakhali, Patuakhali,
18
Pirojpur, Rajbari, Shariatpur) had negative growth and seven districts (Bandarban, Chuadanga, Kushtia, Maulvibazar, Meherpur, Netrakona, Rangamati) had extremely negative growth in crop GDP.
Growth in Livestock GDP:
Bangladesh experienced slow growth (0.82% per annum) in
livestock GDP in the late 1990s, moderate growth (3.02% per annum) in the early 2000s and slow growth (0.53% per annum) in the overall period in its livestock GDP (Table 18). During the late 1990s, 62 districts had show slow growth and two districts (Bagerhat, Nawabganj) had negative growth in livestock GDP. In the early 2000s, all districts had moderate growth in livestock GDP.
During the overall period (1995/96-2005/06), two districts (Gazipur, Joypurhat) had high growth, seven districts (Bhola, Chittagong, Chuadanga, Khagrachhari, Meherpur, Narsingdi, Rajshahi) experienced moderate growth, 26 districts (Chandpur, Comilla, Cox's Bazar, Feni, Jamalpur, Jhalokati, Jhenaidaha, Khulna, Kishoreganj, Kushtia, Lakshmipur, Manikganj, Naogaon, Narayanganj, Natore, Nawabganj, Noakhali, Patuakhali, Pirojpur, Rangamati, Shariatpur,
Sirajganj) experienced slow growth, 16 districts (Bandarban, Dinajpur, Gaibandha, Gopalganj, Jessore, Kurigram, Madaripur, Magura, Mymensingh, Narail, Pabna, Rajbari, Rangpur,
Sherpur, Tangail, Thakurgaon) had negative growth and 12 districts (Brahamanbaria, Faridpur, Habiganj, Lalmonirhat, Maulvibazar, Munshiganj, Netrakona, Nilphamari, Panchagarh, Satkhira, Sunamganj, Sylhet) had extremely negative growth in livestock GDP.
Growth in Fishery GDP: Bangladesh experienced high growth (6.62% per annum) in fisheries GDP in the late 1990s, slow growth (0.12% per annum) in the early 2000s and slow growth (1.02% per annum) in the overall period in its fishery GDP (Table 19). During the late 1990s, 48 districts (Bagerhat, Barguna, Barisal, Bhola, Bogra, Brahamanbaria, Chandpur, Chittagong, Chuadanga, Cox's Bazar, Dhaka, Dinajpur, Faridpur, Feni, Gazipur, Gopalganj, Habiganj, Jessore, Jhenaidaha, Joypurhat, Khulna, Kishoreganj, Kurigram, Kushtia, Lalmonirhat, Madaripur, Magura, Manikganj, Meherpur, Munshiganj, Narail, Narayanganj, Narsingdi, Nilphamari, Noakhali, Pabna, Panchagarh, Patuakhali, Pirojpur, Rajbari, Rangpur, Satkhira, Shariatpur, Sherpur, Sunamganj, Tangail, Thakurgaon) had high growth, 10 districts (Comilla,
19
Jamalpur, Maulvibazar, Mymensingh, Naogaon, Nawabganj, Netrakona, Rajshahi, Rangamati, Sylhet) had moderate growth, two districts (Lakshmipur, Sirajganj) had slow growth, three districts (Gaibandha, Jhalokati, Natore) had negative growth and one (Bandarban) had extremely negative growth in fishery GDP. In the early 2000s, four districts (Brahamanbaria, Naogaon, Natore, Sunamganj) had high growth, two districts (Feni, Netrakona) had moderate growth, 23 districts (Chittagong, Chuadanga, Comilla, Cox's Bazar, Dinajpur, Gazipur, Jamalpur, Jessore, Jhenaidaha, Khulna, Kurigram, Lakshmipur, Madaripur, Meherpur, Narsingdi, Nawabganj, Noakhali, Pabna,
Panchagarh, Rajbari, Rajshahi, Sherpur, Sirajganj, Thakurgaon) had slow growth and 28 district (Bagerhat, Barguna, Barisal, Bhola, Bogra, Chandpur, Dhaka, Gopalganj, Habiganj, Jhalokati, Joypurhat, Kishoreganj, Kushtia, Lalmonirhat, Magura, Manikganj, Maulvibazar, Munshiganj, Narail, Narayanganj, Nilphamari, Patuakhali, Pirojpur, Rangamati, Rangpur, Satkhira, Shariatpur, Tangail) had negative growth and 5 districts (Bandarban, Faridpur, Gaibandha, Mymensingh, Sylhet) had extremely negative growth in fishery GDP. During the overall period (1995/96-2005/06), 18 districts (Bandarban, Brahamanbaria, Chuadanga, Dinajpur, Gazipur, Jhenaidaha, Joypurhat, Magura, Manikganj, Meherpur, Naogaon, Narayanganj, Narsingdi, Nilphamari, Panchagarh, Sirajganj, Sunamganj, Thakurgaon) had high growth, 12 districts (Chittagong, Faridpur, Jessore, Jhalokati, Kushtia, Maulvibazar, Narail, Natore, Noakhali, Pabna, Rangpur, Tangail) experienced moderate growth, 13 districts (Bagerhat, Barguna, Barisal, Comilla, Cox's Bazar, Dhaka, Feni, Habiganj, Khulna, Nawabganj, Patuakhali, Rajshahi, Shariatpur) experienced slow growth, 13 districts (Bhola, Bogra,
Gaibandha, Gopalganj, Jamalpur, Kurigram, Lalmonirhat, Munshiganj, Pirojpur, Rajbari, Rangamati, Satkhira, Sylhet) had negative growth and seven districts (Chandpur, Kishoreganj, Lakshmipur, Madaripur, Mymensingh, Netrakona, Sherpur) had extremely negative growth in fishery GDP. Growth in Forestry GDP: Bangladesh experienced moderate growth (3.97% per annum) in forestry GDP in the late 1990s, slow growth (2.60% per annum) in the early 2000s and slow growth (2.5% per annum) in the overall period in its forestry GDP (Table 20). All districts experienced slow growth in the late 1990s, moderate growth in the early 2000s and slow growth in the overall period.
20
Table 11: District Level Growth in GDP, by source: 1995/96- 2005/06.

Districts Annual Compound growth rate (%) Agric ulture 1.8 -8.0 -0.1 0.6 -0.1 2.9 2.8 -0.9 1.8 -1.3 1.3 0.2 2.5 2.8 -0.9 1.0 0.5 2.6 -1.2 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.8 1.8 4.7 8.6 2.3 7.7 0.3 -3.8 -2.7 0.1 Indust ry 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.5 4.0 5.6 5.3 5.4 3.5 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.5 4.8 5.5 5.0 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.5 5.6 Servi ce 5.5 3.8 5.3 4.9 5.1 5.8 5.3 4.8 4.6 4.7 5.3 5.1 4.5 5.7 5.0 5.4 5.6 4.8 4.3 5.3 5.5 5.4 4.9 5.6 6.5 6.4 4.2 6.3 5.2 5.1 4.3 5.3 Total GDP 4.2 0.7 3.1 3.8 3.1 4.8 4.3 3.2 4.6 3.2 3.8 3.4 4.7 4.6 3.5 4.1 3.9 4.7 2.9 4.2 4.3 4.1 3.8 4.2 5.6 7.5 4.0 6.7 3.6 3.1 1.9 3.5 Districts Annual Compound rate of growth (%)
Agriculture Madaripur Magura Manikganj Maulvibazar Meherpur Munshiganj Mymensingh Naogaon Narail Narayanganj Narsingdi Natore Nawabganj Netrakona Nilphamari Noakhali Pabna Panchagarh Patuakhali Pirojpur Rajbari Rajshahi Rangamati Rangpur Satkhira Shariatpur Sherpur Sirajganj Sunamganj Sylhet Tangail Thakurgaon BANGLAD ESH -1.2 1.3 0.9 -1.5 -1.3 -1.2 -3.4 3.3 -0.9 2.4 1.1 2.5 2.3 -4.0 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.6 0.4 -0.3 -1.7 2.7 -8.3 1.1 1.2 -0.6 0.5 3.0 2.6 0.2 1.3 2.1 1.1
Industry 5.4 5.5 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.2 5.5 5.5 5.4 4.9 4.9 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.1 5.5 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.4 -2.7 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.3 8.3 5.2 5.5 5.2
Service 4.5 5.6 4.9 5.2 5.5 4.6 4.6 6.0 4.8 4.3 5.2 5.9 5.2 4.4 5.4 5.6 5.3 6.0 5.2 4.8 5.1 5.1 3.2 5.4 5.5 5.0 5.5 7.3 5.4 5.0 5.7 2.2 5.0
Bagerhat Bandarban Barguna Barisal Bhola Bogra Brahamanbari a Chandpur Chittagong Chuadanga Comilla Cox's Bazar Dhaka Dinajpur Faridpur Feni Gaibandha Gazipur Gopalganj Habiganj Jamalpur Jessore Jhalokati Jhenaidaha Joypurhat Khagrachhari Khulna Kishoreganj Kurigram Kushtia Lakshmipur Lalmonirhat
Total GDP 3.1 3.8 3.8 3.1 3.5 3.6 2.1 4.9 2.6 4.5 4.4 4.7 4.3 1.4 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.6 3.2 3.3 3.2 4.6 -1.9 4.2 4.0 3.3 3.9 5.8 4.4 4.6 4.4 2.6 4.2
Source: Authors calculation, based on data collected from Directorate of Fisheries.
21
Table 12: District Level Growth in Different Sub-Sectors of Agricultural GDP: 1995/962005/06.
Districts Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Crop Live Fish Fore Agri stock eries stry culture 2.3 0.4 1.4 2.5 1.8 -13.6 -2.0 7.8 2.5 -8.0 -1.5 0.9 0.9 2.5 -0.1 -0.5 0.7 1.8 2.5 0.6 -0.3 4.9 -1.6 2.5 -0.1 3.9 0.6 -0.3 2.5 2.9 1.4 -3.3 8.6 2.5 2.8 1.4 0.8 -4.8 2.5 -0.9 0.0 4 3.6 2.5 1.8 -4.4 4.4 12.6 2.5 -1.3 1.3 2 0.6 2.5 1.3 -0.7 0.7 0.6 2.5 0.2 -0.5 11.1 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.8 -0.2 5.3 2.5 2.8 -1.6 -5.5 3.8 2.5 -0.9 0.0 0.9 2.2 2.5 1.0 1.1 -1.5 -1.4 2.5 0.5 -1.5 8.1 7.2 2.5 2.6 -1.8 -0.9 -2.0 2.5 -1.2 1.9 -3.9 2.0 2.5 1.4 1.3 2.6 -0.1 2.5 1.4 0.5 -1.2 3.7 2.5 0.9 -1.5 1.3 4.5 2.5 0.8 1.2 1.1 5.8 2.5 1.8 3.9 6.1 9.5 2.5 4.7 9.3 4.5 0.0 2.5 8.6 2.1 1.6 2.4 2.5 2.3 12.2 0.2 -3.4 2.5 7.7 0.4 -0.2 -0.4 2.5 0.3 -6.8 0.9 3.2 2.5 -3.8 -0.9 1.3 -6.0 2.5 -2.7 0.9 -3.5 -2.0 2.5 0.1 Districts Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Crop Live Fish For Agri stock eries estry culture -0.8 -2.0 -3.0 2.5 3.1 0.8 -2.1 6.0 2.5 3.8 -0.1 0.3 7.0 2.5 3.8 -3 -3.0 3.0 2.5 3.1 -4.6 4.7 14.6 2.5 3.5 -0.8 -4.5 -1.8 2.5 3.6 -2.5 -0.6 -8.0 2.5 2.1 2.9 2.2 6.5 2.5 4.9 -1.9 -1.3 4.0 2.5 2.6 -1.6 0.6 10.7 2.5 4.5 -1 4.4 5.1 2.5 4.4 2.3 2.8 3.2 2.5 4.7 2.2 1.9 2.9 2.5 4.3 -4.4 -3.2 -6.2 2.5 1.4 1.4 -3.3 15.6 2.5 4.1 -0.9 2.5 4.8 2.5 4.3 2.8 -0.1 3.2 2.5 4.6 2.9 -3.1 6.8 2.5 4.6 -0.9 0.7 1.6 2.5 3.2 -0.6 1.1 -1.5 2.5 3.3 -2.5 -0.4 -2.4 2.5 3.2 2.7 4.9 1.7 2.5 4.6 -16.5 0.8 -1.8 2.5 -1.9 1.2 -1.2 3.3 2.5 4.2 2.8 -3.1 -0.5 2.5 4.0 -2.1 0.7 1.8 2.5 3.3 1.2 -1.1 -4.5 2.5 3.9 2.7 0.8 7.9 2.5 5.8 2.2 -5.1 9.2 2.5 4.4 1.5 -3.7 -2.1 2.5 4.6 1.2 -0.5 5.0 2.5 4.4 2.3 -2.7 6.7 2.5 2.6 1 0.5 1 2.5 4.2
Source: Authors calculation, based on data collected from BBS.
22
Table 13: District Level Growth in GDP (At Current Price): late 1990s (1995/96-1999/00), early 2000s (2000/01 2005/06) and Overall (1995/96-2005/06).
Districts Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01(1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 4.56 6.18 4.2 3.07 5.71 0.7 3.84 3.20 3.1 3.71 5.06 3.8 3.43 4.06 3.1 4.56 5.82 4.8 2.67 5.77 4.3 4.69 4.54 3.2 3.82 7.06 4.6 4.04 6.05 3.2 2.46 5.06 3.8 3.93 4.75 3.4 4.11 8.06 4.7 4.08 5.16 4.6 3.93 5.40 3.5 3.43 5.20 4.1 3.88 5.07 3.9 3.78 7.59 4.7 3.44 5.13 2.9 2.74 5.11 4.2 4.32 5.99 4.3 3.84 6.67 4.1 2.41 4.79 3.8 3.72 6.51 4.2 4.41 5.36 5.6 4.06 15.43 7.5 3.81 6.86 4.0 3.58 4.23 6.7 5.46 5.44 3.6 3.78 6.17 3.1 3.01 4.60 1.9 5.08 5.23 3.5 Districts Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01- (1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 3.55 5.48 3.1 4.07 5.97 3.8 3.75 4.74 3.8 3.72 5.20 3.1 4.19 5.77 3.5 3.58 5.50 3.6 3.98 3.99 2.1 4.25 6.14 4.9 3.58 5.91 2.6 3.25 7.74 4.5 3.67 6.55 4.4 4.05 6.48 4.7 4.40 6.10 4.3 3.59 4.31 1.4 4.03 5.27 4.1 4.40 4.41 4.3 4.08 6.54 4.6 4.43 4.74 4.6 3.26 3.47 3.2 3.31 4.70 3.3 4.32 6.01 3.2 4.84 6.74 4.6 -5.10 6.01 -1.9 4.10 5.97 4.2 4.18 6.80 4.0 4.16 5.27 3.3 4.66 5.69 3.9 3.69 6.56 5.8 3.71 5.34 4.4 4.80 5.29 4.6 3.88 5.90 4.4 4.22 4.84 2.6 3.85 6.17 4.2
23
Table 14: District Level Growth in Agricultural GDP (current price): late 1990s (1995/961999/00), early 2000s (2000/01 2005/06) and Overall (1995/96-2005/06).
Districts Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01(1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 5.08 4.93 1.8 1.15 -0.49 -8.0 3.38 -0.75 1.1 3.84 0.68 -0.1 2.88 0.40 0.6 4.33 3.08 -0.1 3.57 2.00 2.9 5.80 -0.08 2.8 3.43 0.87 -0.9 3.75 1.97 1.8 2.62 1.06 -1.3 4.81 0.73 1.3 5.90 0.29 0.2 3.70 1.85 2.5 4.36 1.45 2.8 4.06 0.57 -0.9 3.40 1.80 1.0 4.64 1.75 0.5 3.93 2.21 2.6 3.58 1.18 -1.2 4.21 3.26 1.4 3.55 4.44 1.4 -0.05 0.49 0.9 3.05 4.64 0.8 4.33 2.95 1.8 3.00 22.75 4.7 5.22 4.64 8.6 3.51 1.22 2.3 6.48 2.39 7.7 3.09 1.42 0.3 1.86 0.52 -3.8 5.85 2.11 -2.7 Districts Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01- (1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 3.70 2.78 -1.2 3.63 4.21 1.3 4.61 0.46 0.9 3.50 1.17 -1.5 3.60 1.99 -1.3 4.86 0.32 -1.2 3.65 -1.70 -3.4 3.83 4.73 3.3 3.29 4.24 -0.9 5.06 -0.37 2.4 4.54 1.26 1.1 3.01 4.29 2.5 4.11 3.67 2.3 3.10 -0.01 -4.0 3.68 2.26 1.5 4.85 -0.18 1.5 5.03 2.70 2.5 4.06 1.74 2.6 2.43 -0.35 0.4 2.91 0.74 -0.3 4.92 2.99 -1.7 4.41 3.28 2.7 2.36 1.97 -8.3 3.37 2.48 1.1 4.35 6.14 1.2 4.65 2.25 -0.6 5.37 3.09 0.5 3.92 2.75 3.0 4.37 2.81 2.6 4.08 -0.25 0.2 3.97 2.71 1.3 3.82 1.76 2.1 3.88 2.09 -1.2
24
Table 15: District Level Growth in Service Sector GDP: late 1990s (1995/96-1999/00), early 2000s (2000/01 2005/06) and Overall (1995/96-2005/06).
Districts Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01(1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.3 3.6 4.5 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.9 3.1 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.4 2.6 3.2 4.1 3.5 3.2 3.9 4.2 4.2 3.1 3.1 4.7 3.9 3.5 4.3 6.7 7.4 5.5 6.3 5.9 7.0 6.7 6.0 7.8 7.5 6.4 6.3 8.5 6.8 6.5 6.5 6.3 8.5 5.7 6.1 6.9 7.4 6.3 7.4 6.8 11.7 7.3 6.2 6.8 7.1 6.3 6.6 5.5 3.8 5.3 4.9 5.1 5.8 5.3 4.8 4.6 4.7 5.3 5.1 4.5 5.7 5.0 5.4 5.6 4.8 4.3 5.3 5.5 5.4 4.9 5.6 6.5 6.4 4.2 6.3 5.2 5.1 4.3 5.3 Districts Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01(1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 2.9 4.3 2.8 3.4 4.2 2.6 3.9 4.2 3.5 2.9 3.3 4.3 4.4 3.6 3.9 3.9 3.6 4.5 3.8 3.1 3.7 5.0 3.6 4.1 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.7 2.7 3.2 3.5 4.2 3.7 6.1 6.9 5.9 6.5 6.9 6.2 6.0 7.1 6.8 8.4 7.4 7.5 7.3 6.0 6.6 6.2 7.4 6.4 5.7 6.0 6.9 7.8 7.3 7.2 7.1 6.2 6.7 7.0 6.4 6.6 6.9 6.6 7.2 4.5 5.6 4.9 5.2 5.5 4.6 4.6 6.0 4.8 4.3 5.2 5.9 5.2 4.4 5.4 5.6 5.3 6.0 5.2 4.8 5.1 5.1 3.2 5.4 5.5 5.0 5.5 7.3 5.4 5.0 5.7 2.2 5.0
25
Table 16: District Level Growth in Industrial GDP: late 1990s (1995/96-1999/00), early 2000s (2000/01 2005/06) and Overall (1995/96-2005/06).
Districts Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01(1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 4.69 7.16 5.44 4.60 7.33 5.35 4.71 7.05 5.42 4.77 7.20 5.31 4.74 7.05 5.40 5.35 7.15 5.47 1.11 7.12 4.03 5.16 7.34 5.60 4.72 7.65 5.33 4.86 7.34 5.36 0.65 6.92 3.53 2.19 7.20 5.06 4.39 7.74 5.00 5.26 7.21 5.45 5.00 7.33 5.49 1.72 7.60 4.80 5.44 7.00 5.45 3.98 7.78 4.96 4.94 7.42 5.56 1.17 7.39 5.43 5.19 7.15 5.37 4.78 7.50 5.32 4.86 7.02 5.32 4.73 7.42 5.39 5.14 7.19 5.43 5.40 6.89 5.38 4.24 7.56 5.16 5.05 7.25 5.48 5.42 6.98 5.45 4.34 7.56 5.23 5.44 7.05 5.51 5.45 7.05 5.57 Districts Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01- (1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 5.20 7.12 5.41 4.90 7.35 5.47 4.62 7.35 5.25 4.92 7.28 5.35 5.08 7.52 5.59 4.42 7.46 5.17 5.34 7.08 5.45 5.59 6.98 5.51 4.91 7.17 5.39 3.46 7.83 4.88 3.71 7.63 4.88 5.26 7.32 5.44 5.28 7.04 5.45 5.19 7.06 5.46 5.41 6.99 5.50 4.91 7.28 5.52 4.16 7.64 5.12 5.30 7.06 5.48 4.70 6.93 5.32 4.88 7.10 5.42 4.76 7.40 5.40 4.89 7.40 5.40 -30.33 7.05 -2.74 5.43 7.12 5.45 4.69 7.21 5.37 5.09 7.20 5.44 5.16 7.23 5.52 3.49 8.23 5.56 4.83 7.26 5.32 9.09 7.59 8.31 4.63 7.24 5.23 5.43 7.11 5.54 4.19 7.51 5.16
26
Table 17: District Level Growth in Crop GDP: late 1990s (1995/96-1999/00), early 2000s (2000/01 2005/06) and Overall (1995/96-2005/06).
Districts
Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01(1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 4.2 1.4 -1.0 0.4 0.6 3.9 1.2 1.3 2.2 3.8 1.8 2.2 4.9 3.4 4.2 3.3 4.8 3.9 3.3 3.4 5.1 3.1 -0.5 3.2 4.5 3.7 4.0 2.8 5.2 2.7 2.2 4.6 10.8 -3.2 -2.0 1.3 1.3 3.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 1.7 3.4 -1.7 2.6 0.3 3.4 1.3 3.6 5.6 1.3 5.6 3.8 31.6 10.8 1.2 2.6 1.6 -1.7 2.6 2.3 -13.6 -1.5 -0.5 -0.3 3.9 1.4 1.4 0.0 -4.4 1.3 -0.7 -0.5 2.8 -1.6 0.0 1.1 -1.5 -1.8 1.9 1.3 0.5 -1.5 1.2 3.9 9.3 2.1 12.2 0.4 -6.8 -0.9 0.9
Districts
Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early Overall (1995/962000s (1995/961999/00) (2000/012005/06) 2005/06) 3.8 3.4 -0.8 2.8 5.6 0.8 4.3 0.3 -0.1 3.7 1.3 -3.0 3.7 1.6 -4.6 4.5 0.3 -0.8 4.9 -2.6 -2.5 4.6 4.4 2.9 2.8 5.6 -1.9 4.0 0.3 -1.6 3.8 0.3 -1.0 4.8 4.4 2.3 5.0 4.4 2.2 3.1 -2.6 -4.4 4.2 2.6 1.4 3.4 -1.7 -0.9 4.4 3.3 2.8 4.1 1.7 2.9 -0.1 -2.0 -0.9 1.0 1.3 -0.6 5.7 3.4 -2.5 5.3 4.4 2.7 1.7 3.3 -16.5 3.7 2.6 1.2 2.9 10.8 2.8 4.7 3.4 -2.1 5.7 3.6 1.2 5.2 3.3 2.7 4.0 1.3 2.2 4.6 1.3 1.5 4.3 3.0 1.2 3.8 1.7 2.3 3.5 2.6 1.0
27
Table 18: District Level Growth in Livestock GDP: late 1990s (1995/96-1999/00), early 2000s (2000/01 2005/06) and Overall (1995/96-2005/06).
Districts
Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01(1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) -0.5 3.0 0.4 0.7 3.0 -2.0 1.4 3.0 0.9 0.9 3.0 0.7 2.1 3.0 4.9 1.1 3.0 0.6 1.5 3.0 -3.3 1.8 3.0 0.8 0.4 3.0 4.0 0.9 3.0 4.4 1.7 3.0 2.0 0.9 3.0 0.7 0.1 3.0 11.1 1.4 3.0 -0.2 0.5 3.0 -5.5 1.2 3.0 0.9 0.7 3.0 -1.5 0.4 3.0 8.1 0.9 3.0 -0.9 1.0 3.0 -3.9 0.5 3.0 2.6 1.4 3.0 -1.2 1.5 3.0 1.3 0.2 3.0 1.1 0.9 3.0 6.1 0.2 3.0 4.5 1.0 3.0 1.6 1.1 3.0 0.2 0.2 3.0 -0.2 0.6 3.0 0.9 1.6 3.0 1.3 0.4 3.0 -3.5
Districts
Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01(1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 0.6 3.0 -2.0 0.7 3.0 -2.1 0.6 3.0 0.3 0.5 3.0 -3.0 0.8 3.0 4.7 0.8 3.0 -4.5 0.6 3.0 -0.6 0.2 3.0 2.2 0.1 3.0 -1.3 0.8 3.0 0.6 0.7 3.0 4.4 0.3 3.0 2.8 -0.1 3.0 1.9 0.5 3.0 -3.2 0.6 3.0 -3.3 2.1 3.0 2.5 0.7 3.0 -0.1 0.3 3.0 -3.1 1.8 3.0 0.7 1.0 3.0 1.1 0.7 3.0 -0.4 1.0 3.0 4.9 0.8 3.0 0.8 0.5 3.0 -1.2 0.4 3.0 -3.1 1.4 3.0 0.7 0.8 3.0 -1.1 0.4 3.0 0.8 1.1 3.0 -5.1 0.6 3.0 -3.7 0.3 3.0 -0.5 0.6 3.0 -2.7 0.8 3.0 0.5
28
Table 19: District Level Growth in Fisheries GDP: late 1990s (1995/96-1999/00), early 2000s (2000/01 2005/06) and Overall (1995/96-2005/06).
Districts
Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01(1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 7.1 -0.2 1.4 -15.4 -3.4 7.8 10.0 -1.4 0.9 10.7 -1.5 1.8 5.1 -1.6 -1.6 9.9 -0.9 -0.3 11.3 5.1 8.6 11.5 -1.9 -4.8 6.3 0.5 3.6 12.7 1.4 12.6 4.7 1.9 0.6 6.9 0.5 0.6 11.3 -2.6 2.0 7.3 1.4 5.3 11.1 -5.5 3.8 6.8 3.5 2.2 -0.8 -4.5 -1.4 11.5 2.8 7.2 7.7 -2.2 -2.0 7.1 -0.9 2.0 3.3 1.9 -0.1 7.6 2.0 3.7 -1.6 -2.6 4.5 5.6 2.0 5.8 8.9 -1.1 9.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. 7.0 5.8 22.9 9.5 1.4 20.2 0.5 -0.4 0.6 -2.2 2.4 -1.9 2.4 -3.4 -0.4 3.2 -6.0 -2.0
Districts
Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01(1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 7.4 0.3 -3.0 12.7 -0.8 6.0 16.0 -2.1 7.0 4.7 -0.8 3.0 11.0 1.7 14.6 10.1 -2.4 -1.8 3.1 -4.0 -8.0 4.0 9.7 6.5 10.6 -1.3 4.0 11.7 -2.6 10.7 15.9 1.5 5.1 -2.2 6.2 3.2 3.5 1.7 2.9 3.9 4.0 -6.2 6.2 -2.7 15.6 8.8 0.2 4.8 10.9 0.7 3.2 9.6 0.5 6.8 6.1 0.0 1.6 6.8 -2.4 -1.5 5.6 2.0 -2.4 4.4 1.3 1.7 4.9 -1.0 -1.8 6.6 -0.2 3.3 8.0 -0.2 -0.5 7.3 -1.7 1.8 8.7 0.5 -4.5 2.2 0.3 7.9 10.2 8.6 9.2 4.6 -5.7 -2.1 9.2 -0.1 5.0 9.8 0.4 6.7 6.6 0.1 1.0
29
Table 20: District Level Growth in Forestry GDP: late 1990s (1995/96-1999/00), early 2000s (2000/01 2005/06) and Overall (1995/96-2005/06).
Districts
Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01(1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5
Districts
Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s Early 2000s Overall (1995/96(2000/01(1995/961999/00) 2005/06) 2005/06) 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5 4.0 2.6 2.5
30
Determinants of Growth In the above analysis, we have shown that there is variation among districts in terms of growth in agriculture and total GDP. What factors explain varied level of growth among districts? To know this, multiple regression analysis was carried out. Results indicate that level of agricultural growth and share of non-farm household in the district have significant contribution to the overall growth of the district (Table 21). This reconfirms the myth that overall growth of the economy of Bangladesh depends to a large extent on the performance of its agriculture sector. An implication of this finding is that agricultural growth is the necessary pre-condition for overall growth. On the other hand, agricultural growth depends on the growth rates of its subsectors. Growth rates in service sector of the district also have positive and significant effect on the level of agricultural growth. We wanted to know the impact of human capital on the level of agricultural growth. In this case, available data was on Human Poverty Index (HPI) in the base year (1995). We found that HPI has significant negative impact on agricultural growth indicating that districts with high human poverty (in other words low human capital) achieved lower level of agricultural growth.
31
Table 21: Determinants of district level GDP growth and Agricultural Growth during 1995/962005/06. Variables/Statistics 1
Constant HPI 1995 Per Capita GDP (199596) Share of Farm Holding As % of Total Holding (1996) Share of Non-Farm Holding as % of Total Holding (1996) Holding With No Land as % of Total Holdings Agriculture Growth Rate Crop GDP Animal GDP Fishing GDP Industry GDP Service GDP Road Density Road (Dummy) 0.664 (0.024) 0.545 (0.804) 0.390 (0.798) -0.676 (0.453) -0.173 (0.383) 2.641 (0.566) 0.008 (0.014)
Equation GDP growth 2

3.316 (0.697) -0.002 (0.014)
3
4.230 (0.899) -0.017 (0.017) -0.001 (0.001)
1
7.253 (2.407) -0.108 (0.045)
Agriculture Growth 2 3
4.686 (2.044) -0.080** (0.399) 6.487 (2.467) -0.077* (0.041)
4
3.776 (4.496) -0.183** (0.072)
-0.036 (0.026) 0.020* (0.008) -0.015 (0.013) 0.407*** (0.799) 0.011 (0.009) -0.011 (0.013) 0.427*** (0.025) 0.016* (0.009) -0.007 (0.013) 0.435*** (0.025) 0.008 (0.040)
-0.023 (0.21)
-0.049* (0.027)
-0.083** (0.040)
0.016 (0.033)
0.015 (0.037)
0.006 (0.068)
0.547 (0.048)
0.568*** (0.040) 0.111** (0.049) 0.147*** (0.031)
0.559*** (0.043)
0.168*** (0.034) 0.363 (0.282) 1.488*** (0.399)
-0.381 -0.962 (0.402) (0.718) 0.184 0.110 -0.359 Low Flood Prone (0.333) (0.331) (0.834) 0.095 -0.059 -0.468 Flood Prone (0.298) (0.310) (0.670) -0.276 -0.463 -0.195 Drought Prone (0.303) (0.321) (0.725) -0.176 -0.339 0.645 Tidal Surge (0.301) (0.314) (0.745) -0.088 -0.200 0.021 Mixed (0.369) (0.370) (1.033) Adjusted R2 0.851 0.855 0.732 0.819 0.807 0.333 F-Value 35.22*** 33.19*** 35.32*** 41.67*** 24.96*** 6.236*** Note: Three stars (***), two stars (**) and one star (*) indicate significant at 1, 5 and 10 percent respectively
32
III. INCOME DISTRIBUTION AND INCOME INEQUALITY: TRENDS AND DETERMINANTS III.1 Per Capita Income Share of income from agriculture to the total income has declined over time but share of business and commerce and professional wages and salary has increased (Table 22). In rural areas also share of income from agriculture declined and share of non-farm income sources has increased over time.
Table 22: Percentage share of income of households by sources of income

Residence/ survey year National 2005 2000 1995-96 1991-92 Rural 2005 2000 1995-96 1991-92 Urban 2005 2000 1995-96 1991-92 Total Agriculture Business and commerce 23.1 25.9 20.3 14.8 17.3 22.4 14.7 12.4 33.1 32.4 33.4 24.7 Professional wages and salary 31.3 29.4 30.3 24.3 28.1 27.7 27.7 21.1 36.9 32.6 36.6 37.9 Housing services Gift and remittance others
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
20.0 18.0 26.3 33.4 28.7 25.5 35.4 40.1 5.8 3.7 4.8 5.9
6.7 7.8 6.8 9.4 5.1 5.0 6.5 9.1 9.5 13.1 7.4 11.0
9.8 10.9 9.1 10.3 12.0 11.0 9.6 10.6 5.9 10.6 7.9 9.1
8.7 8.0 7.2 7.8 8.7 8.4 6.1 6.7 8.7 7.5 9.9 11.4
Source: Report of the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2005.
Per capita income has increased in all districts except two districts (Bandarban and Rangamati) where per capita income has decreased in 2005/06 against that of 1995/96 (Table 23). High increase (more than 50%) was observed in Kishoregonj and low increase (up to 20%) was observed in six districts (Netrakona, Lakshmipur, Mymensingh, Thakurgaon, Chuadanga, Khagrachhari) and medium increase (20% to 50%) was observed in all other districts.
During 1995/96 to 2005/06, annual compound rate of growth in per capita income was high (>5% annual compound rate of growth) in Kishoreganj (Table 24). Moderate growth (3-5% annual compound rate of growth) was observed in 17 districts (Bagerhat, Brahamanbaria, Bogra, Dinajpur, Feni, Jamalpur, Joypurhat, Khagrachhari, Naogaon, Natore, Pabna, Panchagarh, CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty
33
Rajshahi, Sirajganj, Sunamganj, Sylhet and Tangail). Negative growth was observed in two districts (Bandarban and Rangamati). All other districts experienced slow growth (up to 3% annual compound rate of growth) in per capita income. Per capita growth in agricultural income during 1995/96 to 2005/06 is reported in Table 24. Per capita agricultural income had high growth (>5% annual compound rate of growth) in two districts (Khagrachhari, Kishoreganj), moderate growth (3-5% annual compound rate of growth) in one district (Joypurhat), slow growth (up to 3% annual compound rate of growth) in 27 districts (Magura, Feni, Jhalokati, Nilphamari, Comilla, Chittagong, Jamalpur, Habiganj, Tangail, Noakhali, Jhenaidaha, Narayanganj, Thakurgaon, Nawabganj, Gazipur, Khulna, Bagerhat, Rajshahi, Panchagarh, Sunamganj, Pabna, Dinajpur, Natore, Sirajganj, Bogra, Brahamanbaria, Naogaon). During this period, 30 districts (Mymensingh, Lakshmipur,
Chuadanga, Rajbari, Maulvibazar, Meherpur, Faridpur, Gopalganj, Munshiganj, Madaripur, Chandpur, Shariatpur, Narail, Bhola, Cox's Bazar, Lalmonirhat, Sylhet, Barguna, Pirojpur, Patuakhali, Kurigram, Sherpur, Jessore, Gaibandha, Rangpur, Narsingdi, Manikganj, Barisal, Satkhira, Dhaka) negative growth (>0 to -3% annual compound rate of growth), four districts (Rangamati, Bandarban, Netrakona, Kushtia) experienced extremely negative (>-3% annual compound rate of growth).
Determinants of Income An analysis of determinants of income revealed that per capita income of a district in 2005/06 was significantly and positively dependant on the base year per capita income (in 1995/96), GDP growth rate (Table 26). In other words, higher the level of initial income, higher the level of current per capita income and higher the GDP growth, higher the per capita income in the district. Proportion of landless household had a significant negative effect on per capita income level. This is quite obvious due to the fact that districts with large number of families (with most production income generating asses, land) had lower level of per capita income. One implication of these findings is that to raise the average income level of this negative and particularly for the landless community. Government must take actions so that less endowed people can have greater access to new productive assets such as solar dryer, power tiller, power pump, harvester, thresher, etc.
34
Table 23: Trends in Per Capita Income in Bangladesh, by District: 1995/96- 2005/06.
Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 45.3 -5.7 24.7 36.1 21.7 41.0 36.0 26.4 36.4 18.6 26.6 23.5 27.6 36.6 25.4 34.6 33.5 36.2 21.8 32.2 37.2 33.6 30.5 34.7 49.0 20.0 34.5 63.9 35.1 22.9 8.4 30.0 Districts 1995/96 1999/00 2005/06 % change in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 28.5 32.8 30.7 23.4 24.0 28.7 8.7 43.3 24.2 33.3 37.2 42.3 31.6 2.5 32.5 33.9 42.6 35.5 21.5 29.2 24.0 36.3 -40.8 33.5 39.0 24.7 34.7 49.7 36.0 38.0 38.6 16.1 33.1
302 332 311 263 287 258 283 228 482 283 252 338 754 280 245 237 229 594 246 280 245 327 253 290 284 236 416 253 236 293 287 230
353 339 346 299 314 294 304 262 520 305 266 366 758 311 269 262 259 625 272 299 277 357 275 317 323 239 456 278 282 320 310 265
439 312 388 358 350 363 384 288 657 336 319 417 961 383 307 318 306 808 300 371 336 437 330 390 423 284 559 414 319 360 311 299
227 280 265 255 290 251 277 269 291 533 322 294 231 279 235 243 319 249 323 258 249 301 539 265 277 225 242 258 238 274 242 299 323
262 312 297 280 318 278 305 305 326 553 353 335 255 303 261 274 358 277 347 289 279 339 365 293 309 252 277 279 262 315 274 329 355
291 372 346 314 359 323 301 385 361 711 442 418 305 286 311 325 455 337 393 333 308 411 319 353 384 281 326 386 324 378 336 347 431
35
Table 24: District Level Growth in Per Capita Income, by source: 1995/96- 2005/06.
Districts Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late 1990s (1995/961999/00) 4.0 0.7 3.0 3.1 2.0 3.5 1.8 3.9 2.0 1.9 1.4 2.0 0.1 2.6 2.4 2.7 3.1 1.4 2.6 1.6 3.1 2.3 2.1 2.3 3.4 0.3 2.3 2.5 4.6 2.4 2.0 3.7 Early 2000s (2000/012005/06) 4.9 4.4 1.9 3.7 2.7 4.5 4.4 3.2 5.7 4.7 3.7 3.4 6.7 3.8 4.1 3.9 3.7 6.3 3.8 3.8 4.7 5.3 3.5 5.2 4.0 14.1 5.5 2.9 4.1 4.8 3.3 3.9 Overall (1995/962005/06) 3.2 -1.1 2.0 2.9 1.7 3.6 3.3 2.1 3.0 1.4 2.6 1.8 2.0 3.3 2.1 3.1 2.9 2.9 1.8 3.0 3.1 2.7 3.0 2.9 4.5 5.0 2.6 5.6 2.5 1.7 0.8 2.2 Madaripur Magura Manikganj Maulvibazar Meherpur Munshiganj Mymensingh Naogaon Narail Narayanganj Narsingdi Natore Nawabganj Netrakona Nilphamari Noakhali Pabna Panchagarh Patuakhali Pirojpur Rajbari Rajshahi Rangamati Rangpur Satkhira Shariatpur Sherpur Sirajganj Sunamganj Sylhet Tangail Thakurgaon BANGLADESH Districts Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Late Early Overall 1990s 2000s (1995/96(1995/96- (2000/012005/06) 1999/00) 2005/06) 3.0 4.2 2.1 2.8 4.6 2.5 2.7 3.4 2.7 2.3 3.9 1.8 2.4 4.4 1.9 2.7 4.2 2.5 2.8 2.7 0.9 3.3 4.8 3.7 3.0 4.6 1.7 1.0 6.4 2.7 2.2 5.2 3.0 3.3 5.1 3.6 2.6 4.8 2.7 2.3 3.0 0.1 2.7 3.9 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 5.2 3.5 2.9 3.4 3.2 1.9 2.1 1.9 3.0 3.4 2.5 3.0 4.7 1.9 3.0 5.4 3.1 -7.5 4.7 -3.8 2.6 4.6 2.8 2.8 5.5 2.6 2.9 3.9 2.0 3.6 4.4 2.7 2.1 5.2 4.4 2.3 4.0 3.1 3.3 4.0 3.3 3.0 4.6 3.3 2.5 3.5 1.1 2.4 4.8 2.8
36
Table 25: District Level Growth in Per Capita Agricultural Income: 1995/96- 2005/06.
Districts
Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Crop Live Fish For Agri stock eries estry culture 1.3 -0.5 0.4 1.5 0.9 -15.4 -3.8 6.0 0.6 -9.8 -2.5 -0.1 -0.2 1.4 -1.2 -1.4 -0.2 0.9 1.5 -0.3 -1.6 3.5 -3.0 1.1 -1.5 2.7 -0.6 -1.5 1.2 1.7 0.3 -4.3 7.5 1.4 1.8 0.3 -0.2 -5.8 1.4 -2.0 -1.5 2.5 2.0 0.9 0.2 -6.1 2.7 10.9 0.7 -3.0 0.1 0.8 -0.6 1.3 0.1 -2.3 -0.9 -1.0 0.8 -1.4 -3.2 8.4 -0.6 -0.2 -0.1 1.4 -1.6 3.9 1.1 1.4 -3.0 -6.9 2.4 1.1 -2.3 -1.1 -0.1 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 -2.5 -2.5 1.4 -0.5 -3.3 6.3 5.4 0.6 0.8 -2.8 -2 -3.1 1.4 -2.3 0.7 -5.2 0.8 1.2 0.2 0.0 1.4 -1.4 1.2 0.2 -0.9 -2.6 2.3 1.0 -0.5 -2.3 -0.1 2.8 6.7 0.7 11.0 -0.7 -8.2 -2.1 -0.4 0.4 -0.2 4.9 1.9 0.2 -1.0 -1.2 -0.5 0.1 -4.8 3.7 4.5 8.4 n.a. 1.0 -4.5 -1.4 1.9 -7.2 -3.3 1.6 1.1 1.3 -0.1 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.1 0 0.4 3.6 6 0.9 6.5 -0.8 -5.2 -3.8 -1.3
Districts
Annual Compound rate of growth (%) in Crop Live Fish For Agri stock eries estry culture -1.8 -3.0 -3.9 1.5 -2.2 -0.5 -3.4 4.7 1.2 0.0 -1.2 -0.9 5.8 1.3 -0.3 -4.3 -4.3 1.6 1.1 -2.9 -6.1 3.2 13.0 0.9 -2.8 -1.9 -5.6 -2.8 1.4 -2.2 -3.7 -1.9 -9.2 1.2 -4.7 1.8 1.0 5.4 1.3 2.2 -2.8 -2.2 3.1 1.5 -1.8 -3.4 -1.2 8.9 0.7 0.6 -2.4 3.1 3.7 1.1 -0.3 1.3 1.8 2.1 1.4 1.4 0.7 0.4 1.3 0.9 0.7 -5.7 -4.5 -7.5 1.1 -5.3 0.1 -4.6 14.2 1.1 0.1 -2.2 1.2 3.5 1.2 0.3 1.6 -1.2 2 1.3 1.3 1.5 -4.5 5.4 1.0 1.2 -2.2 -0.6 0.2 1.1 -1.0 -1.5 0.3 -2.3 1.6 -1.1 -3.8 -1.7 -3.7 1.1 -3.0 1.1 3.3 0.2 0.9 1.2 -18.3 -0.2 1.5 -3.3 0.0 1.3 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.8 -0.4 -1.0 -2.6 -4.5 -0.6 -2.3 -0.6 -6.5 -5.1 -1.5 -4.2 -0.9 -3.6 2.0 -1.9 0.5 -5.7 6.4 7.9 -3.5 3.9 5.2 -0.4 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.4 0.9 1.1 -10.1 -0.3 -0.2 -1.9 -0.7 1.6 1.3 -1.2 0.2 0.6 -0.3
37
Table 26: Determinant of Income Equation Variables/Statistics 1

-68.674 (38.402) -0.342 (0.857) 1.161*** (0.036) 36.225*** (2.484) -1.867** (0.713) 2.160 (7.732)
Income equation 2
-75.188 Constant (50.173) -0.459 HPI 1995 (0.983) 1.175*** Per Capita GDP (1995-96) (0.042) 35.407*** GDP Growth Rate (2.601) -1.883** Holding With No Land as % of Total Holdings (0.760) 2.994 Road (Dummy) (8.103) 7.732 Low Flood Prone (16.271) 15.240 Flood Prone (14.060) 12.925 Drought Prone (15.717) 2.601 Tidal Surge (16.206) 9.079 Mixed (19.501) Adjusted R2 0.961 0.959 F-Value 309.67*** 150.18*** Note: Three stars (***), two stars (**) and one star (*) indicate significant at 1, 5 and 10 percent respectively
III.2 Income Inequality Income inequality situation deteriorated during 1995 and 2005 (Table 27). Income inequality, measured through Gini coefficient, has increased from 0.432 in 1995/96 to 0.451 in 2000 and then increased further to 0.467 in 2005. In case of income of rural households, income inequality has increased from 0.385 in 1995/96 to 0.393 in 2000 and 0.428 in 2005. On the other hand, income inequality has increased from 0.444 in 1995/96 to 0.497 in 2000 and then stagnated. Share of bottom 20% income group increased from 5.71 percent in 1995/96 to 6.17 percent in 2000 and then declined to 5.26 percent in 2005. Share of bottom 20 percent rural population to total income has increased from 6.49 percent in 1995/96 to 7.11 percent in 2000 and then declined to 5.88 percent in 2005. In case of bottom 20 percent urban population, their share on total income has decreased from 5.12 percent in 1995/96 to 5.09 percent in 2000 and then to 4.82 in 2005.
38
Table 27: Percentage share of income of households by decile group and Gini Co-efficient
Household income group National Lower 5% Decile-1 Decile-2 Decile-3 Decile-4 Decile-5 Decile-6 Decile-7 Decile-8 Decile-9 Decile-10 Top 5% Income Gini Co-efficient Total 100.00 0.88 2.24 3.47 4.46 5.37 6.35 7.53 9.15 11.35 15.40 34.68 23.62 0.432 1995-96 Rural 100.00 1.00 2.56 3.93 4.97 5.97 6.98 8.16 9.75 11.87 15.58 30.23 19.73 0.385 Urban 100.00 0.74 1.92 3.20 4.06 4.98 5.97 7.20 8.98 11.35 16.29 36.05 24.30 0.444 Total 100.00 0.93 2.41 3.76 4.57 5.22 6.10 7.09 8.45 10.39 14.00 38.01 28.34 0.451 2000 Rural 100.00 1.07 2.80 4.31 5.25 5.95 6.48 7.88 9.09 10.97 14.09 32.81 23.52 0.393 Urban 100.00 0.79 2.02 3.07 3.84 4.68 5.60 6.74 8.24 10.46 14.04 41.32 31.32 0.497 Total 100.00 0.77 2.00 3.26 4.10 5.00 5.96 7.17 8.73 11.06 15.07 37.64 29.93 0.467 2005 Rural 100.00 0.88 2.25 3.63 4.54 5.42 6.43 7.63 9.27 11.49 15.43 33.92 23.03 0.428 Urban 100.00 0.67 1.80 3.02 3.87 4.61 5.66 6.78 8.53 10.18 14.48 41.08 30.37 0.497
Source: Report of the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2005.
Measuring income inequality among different regions is important. In this study, inequality in per capita income and their sources were measured through the decomposition of the Gini Index as proposed by Lerman and Yitzhaki (1985) by income sources. It is based on the covariance formula of the Gini Index. Assuming an income distribution and m different income sources (e.g. agricultural income, income from service, income from industry, etc.), Gini Index may be written as equation (1): G=
m 2 2 Cov( y, F ( y )) = Cov( y k , F ( y )) y k =1 y
(1)
Using equation 1, the Gini coefficients were calculated by using the covariance between the income sources (agriculture, industry and service) and the cumulative distribution function of total income. Thus, inequality in per capita income was decomposed by income sources.
39
Inequality in per capita income sources (agriculture, industry, service) across different districts was also measured through the Theil Index, as in equation (2). In particular, for m income sources, the following formula applies:
T = 1 n y ik y i ln y k =1 n i =1 y
m
(2)
Where T is Theil Index, yik is the contribution of the income source k. and y, y is the average level of income. Summing all contributions to inequality by m income sources gives the total Theil Index. Following Goesling (2001), we have also estimated income inequality between- and withindistrict components of income inequality in Bangladesh using the Theil index. For this purpose, equation (3) and (5) was used. In these equations, j is an index of the districts of Bangladesh, pj is the jth districts share of Bangladeshs total population (i.e., p j = population j / Bangladesh total, so ? jpj =1), yj is the jth districts share of Bangladeshs (GDP) income (? yj =1), and ln refers to the natural logarithm. For the Theil index: (3) Theil = j y j ln( y j / p j ) + j y j T j Where T j is the value of the Theil index applied to the within-district income distribution of district j. The first term on the right hand side of the equation is the between-district component. The second term, a weighted average of the income inequality in districts income distributions, is the within-district component.
Equation (3) shows how the decomposition of Bangladeshs total income inequality into additive between- and within-district components is similar to a classic analysis of variance problem, where the total variance in some outcome variable is divided into the sum of weighted betweenand within components. Here it is total inequality (not a variance) divided into between- and within group components, with districts as groups.
40
Values for the Theil index applied to district level income distributions (i.e., the values for T in equation 3) can be computed using estimates of shares of different sources of income such as agriculture, industry, service): (4) T j = q y qj ln(3 y qj )
where q is an index of share of three income sources (agriculture, industry, service) (q = 1,2,3) within each district, j, and y, is the qth sources share of the jth districts total income. Substituting equation (4) into equation (3) estimates the two additive components of Bangladeshs income inequality may directly be measured from the shares of the income sources: (5) Theil = j y j ln( y j / p j ) + j y j q y qj ln(3 y qj ) In equation (5), the first term on the right-hand side is the between-district component, and the second term is the within-district component, a weighted average (weights are income shares) of income inequality within individual districts.
Decomposition of per capita income inequality among districts of Bangladesh in presented in Table 28 and Figure 1. Total inequality among districts was declining between 1995/96 and 1999/00. After that it started to increase. Contribution of per capita agricultural income inequality to the total income inequality should a general decline until 1999/00 and rising since then. Inequality arising from industrial income also registered
41
Table 28: Decomposition of Per Capita Income Inequality among Districts of Bangladesh: 1995/96-2005/06.
Year Gini Index 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Source: Own estimate.
Agriculture 0.010 0.008 0.013 0.008 0.008 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.008 0.018 0.012
Industry 0.062 0.055 0.058 0.053 0.051 0.055 0.058 0.059 0.060 0.059 0.064
Service 0.057 0.056 0.048 0.054 0.054 0.046 0.048 0.051 0.052 0.055 0.056
Total 0.130 0.120 0.119 0.115 0.113 0.115 0.119 0.121 0.120 0.132 0.132
Figure1. Trends in Income inequality among different districts of Bangladesh: 1995/96-2005/06

Agriculture 0.140 Industry Service
0.120
0.100
Gini Ratio
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000 1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01 Year
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
42
Estimates of the between and within district components of income inequality in Bangladesh during 1995/96 and 2005/06 is reported in Table 29. Estimates of the Theil Index revealed that inequality in per capita income among districts was declining until 2001/02 and started to increase again since 2001/02. About one third of the total inequality in per capita income may be attributed to the between district component, but two thirds of the income inequality depends on the within district income inequality. Implication of this finding is that reduction of per capita income inequality across districts will depend to a large extent on the programme undertaken to reduce income inequality with in the district. We all know that northern districts have more unequal distribution of productive assets such as land than in other districts of Bangladesh. Therefore, reduction in per capita income among northern districts and other districts of Bangladesh would require allocation for development projects so that less fortunate can effectively take advantage of those. The issue of access to new productive assets are also important to this end.
Table 29: Estimate of the between and within district components of income inequality in Bangladesh: 1995/96-2005/06.
District BetweenDistrict Inequality 0.071 0.069 0.070 0.063 0.060 0.054 0.058 0.062 0.064 0.070 0.075 Within District Inequality Total inequality % of total inequality attributable to the between district component 34 34 35 32 31 29 30 30 30 31 33
Theil Index 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
0.137 0.134 0.133 0.132 0.132 0.132 0.137 0.145 0.148 0.152 0.154
0.208 0.203 0.203 0.195 0.193 0.187 0.195 0.207 0.212 0.222 0.229
43
0.550
0.500
0.450
0.400
0.350
0.300 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Figure 2. Ratio of between-district to with-in district income inequality: 1995/96-2005/06.
Figure 2 shows that there is a shift in source of inequality in Bangladesh. Prior to 2000/01, between-district component was here important but after that within-district component has received greater importance.
44
IV. POVERTY SITUATION A conventional way to measure poverty is to establish a poverty line, defined as the threshold level of income needed to satisfy basic minimum food and non-food requirements, and determine the number of households (people) below that line as a percent of the total households (population). This Head-count Index (HCI) is a measure of the incidence of poverty. This measure is easily understood by general public and hence is popular with policy makers and development practitioners. The limitation of the measure is that it is insensitive to changes in the level and distribution of income among the poor. The other measures of poverty commonly used to take into account the distribution issue are (a) the Poverty Gap Index and (b) the Squared Poverty Gap Index. The Poverty Gap Index measures the average (of both poor and non-poor households) of the percent of income gap of the poor households from the poverty line, and is used as a measure of intensity of poverty. It measures the percent of total income needed to be transferred from the non-poor to poor households to lift the poor above the poverty line. However, if the society is averse to inequality in the distribution of income among the poor, the poverty measure must be sensitive to income transfers from the moderate to the extreme poor. It means that higher priority must be given to the improvement in the economic conditions of the extreme poor compared to the moderate poor. The Squared Poverty Gap Index satisfies this condition, and is used as a measure of the severity of poverty. For this study we measured and mapped the Head-count Index and the Squared Poverty Gap Index. Poverty situation at the national and regional level is reported in Table 30 to Table 33. Incidence of poverty (as per upper poverty line) has declined from 56.6 percent in 1991-92 to 40.0 percent in 2005. On the other hand poverty incidence (using lower poverty line) has reduced from 41.0 percent in 1991-92 to 25.1 percent in 2005. In 2005, highest incidence of poverty (according to Head Count Ratio) was in the Barisal Division (52.0%) followed by Rajshahi Division (51.2%) and Khulna Division (45.7%). On the other hand, Dhaka Division recorded the lowest level of poverty incidence followed by Sylhet Division (33.8%) and Chittagong Division (34.0%). Poverty Gap (using lower poverty line) in 2005 was 4.6%, which recorded a reduction of 2.9% point over the 2000. Poverty Gap (using upper poverty line) in 2005 was 9.0%, which recorded a reduction of 3.8% point over the 2000. Chittagong division recorded the lowest poverty gap (2.2%) in 2005, compared to 5.7% in 2000.
45
Table 30: Head Count Rate (CBN) of incidence of poverty

Residence National Rural Urban 2005 40.0 43.8 28.4 Upper poverty line 2000 1995-96 48.9 50.1 52.3 54.5 35.2 27.8 Lower poverty line 2000 1995-96 34.3 35.1 37.9 39.4 20.0 13.7
1991-92 56.6 58.7 42.7
2005 25.1 28.6 14.6
1991-92 41.0 43.7 23.6
Source: Report of the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2005
Table 31: Incidence of poverty (head count rate) by cost of basic needs method and by division
Poverty line and division 2005 2000 National Rural Urban National Rural 1. Using the Lower Poverty Line National 25.1 28.6 14.6 34.3 37.9 Barisal 35.6 37.2 26.4 34.7 35.9 Chittagong 16.1 18.7 8.1 27.5 30.1 Dhaka 19.9 26.1 9.6 34.5 43.6 Khulna 31.6 32.7 27.8 32.3 34.0 Rajshahi 34.5 35.6 28.4 42.7 43.9 Sylhet 20.8 22.3 11.0 26.7 26.1 2. Using the Upper Poverty Line National 40.0 43.8 28.4 48.9 52.3 Barisal 52.0 54.1 40.4 53.1 55.1 Chittagong 34.0 36.0 27.8 45.7 46.3 Dhaka 32.0 39.0 20.2 46.7 55.9 Khulna 45.7 46.5 43.2 45.1 46.4 Rajshahi 51.2 52.3 45.2 56.7 58.5 Sylhet 33.8 36.1 18.6 42.4 41.9 Source: Report of the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2005 1995-96 Rural 39.8 44.8 35.3 41.5 33.2 44.4
Urban 20.0 21.7 17.1 15.8 23.0 34.5 35.2 35.2 32.0 44.2 28.2 38.5 44.5 49.6
National 35.6 43.9 32.4 33.0 32.2 41.6
Urban 14.3 28.9 12.1 10.8 25.8 19.2
53.1 59.9 44.9 52.0 51.7 62.2
56.7 60.6 47.2 58.9 51.5 65.7
35.0 47.7 29.2 33.6 53.3 33.9
46
Table 32: Poverty gap and squared poverty gap by cost of basic needs method (in percent)
Poverty line and division Poverty gap National Rural 2005 4.6 9.1 2.2 3.6 6.2 6.4 3.4 9.0 15.5 6.3 6.9 10.8 11.9 7.2 2000 1. Using the Lower Poverty Line National Barisal Chittagong Dhaka Khulna Rajshahi Sylhet 2. Using the Upper Poverty Line National Barisal Chittagong Dhaka Khulna Rajshahi Sylhet 7.5 6.9 5.7 8.1 5.6 10.2 4.4 12.8 13.7 11.3 12.9 1.0 16.2 9.2 8.3 7.0 6.3 10.5 5.7 10.5 4.4 13.7 14.2 11.3 12.9 10.0 16.2 9.2 1995-96 4.1 4.9 3.6 3.0 4.5 7.8 4.5 9.1 8.3 11.4 6.6 10.3 13.6 12.5 2.4 1.9 1.7 2.6 1.4 3.5 1.1 4.6 4.7 3.9 4.7 3.0 6.2 2.8 2.6 2.0 1.9 3.5 1.4 3.6 1.1 4.9 4.9 3.9 6.0 2.9 6.3 2.7 1.2 1.6 1.1 0.8 1.3 2.7 1.2 3.3 3.1 4.2 2.2 3.7 5.4 4.1 5.3 9.6 2.7 4.9 6.3 6.5 3.7 9.8 16.3 6.5 8.6 10.4 12.0 7.6 Urban Squared poverty gap National Rural Urban
1. Using the Lower Poverty Line National Barisal Chittagong Dhaka Khulna Rajshahi Sylhet 2. Using the Upper Poverty Line National Barisal Chittagong Dhaka Khulna Rajshahi Sylhet
2.6 6.4 9.0 1.5 5.5 5.5 1.9 6.5 10.7 5.6 4.0 12.3 11.4 4.5
1.3 3.3 0.5 1.0 1.7 1.8 0.8 2.9 6.3 1.7 2.1 3.5 3.8 2.1
1.5 3.4 0.6 1.4 1.7 1.8 0.8 3.1 6.6 1.7 2.7 3.2 3.8 2.2
0.7 2.6 0.2 0.3 1.7 1.6 0.5 2.1 4.3 1.6 1.1 4.6 3.9 1.5
1. Using the Lower Poverty Line National 7.9 8.9 2.7 Barisal 10.2 10.4 7.6 Chittagong 6.1 6.7 1.7 Dhaka 8.0 10.2 2.0 Khulna 6.5 6.5 6.2 Rajshahi 9.8 10.6 3.7 2. Using the Upper Poverty Line National 14.4 15.4 9.2 Barisal 18.0 18.1 16.7 Chittagong 10.5 11.2 5.9 Dhaka 14.9 17.1 8.9 Khulna 12.4 11.7 16.6 Rajshahi 17.9 19.1 8.5 Source: Report of the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2005
2.6 3.4 1.7 2.8 2.0 3.4 5.4 7.1 3.4 5.8 4.3 7.0
2.9 3.4 1.9 3.6 1.9 3.7 5.7 7.1 3.6 6.7 3.9 7.6
0.8 2.6 0.4 0.5 2.2 1.0 3.4 7.7 1.7 3.4 7.0 2.9
47
An analysis of poverty incidence, measured through Head Count Ratio, in different regions (old districts) revealed that poverty has increased in 11 regions (Bogra, Dhaka, Jamalpur, Jessore, Khulna, Noakhali, Pabna, Patuakhali, Rajshahi, Rangamati, Tangail) and decreased in nine regions (Barisal, Chittagong, Comilla, Dinajpur, Faridpur, Kushtia, Mymensingh, Rangpur, Sylhet) between 2005 and 1995/96 (Table 33). Table 33: Poverty incidence (Head Count Ratio) in Different Regions (Old Districts) in Bangladesh: 1995-2005.
Regions (Old districts) 1995 1999 2005 Poverty incidence in 2005, compared to 1995 Decreased Increased Decreased Decreased Increased Decreased Decreased Increased Increased Increased Decreased Decreased Increased Increased Increased Increased Decreased Decreased Increased
Barisal Bogra Chittagong Comilla Dhaka Dinajpur Faridpur Jamalpur Jessore Khulna Kishoreganj Kushtia Mymensingh Noakhali Pabna Patuakhali Rajshahi Rangpur Sylhet Tangail Chittagong H.T. Bandarban Khagrachhari Rangamati
Total 0.648 0.324 0.367 0.546 0.211 0.623 0.601 0.603 0.417 0.409 n.a. 0.399 0.613 0.176 0.474 0.531 0.411 0.708 0.526 0.294 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.314
Urban 0.617 0.164 0.468 0.479 0.152 0.650 0.524 0.789 0.216 0.469 n.a. 0.554 0.547 0.183 0.897 0.185 0.625 0.670 0.484 0.353 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.441
Rural 0.654 0.339 0.293 0.555 0.300 0.620 0.611 0.564 0.450 0.386 n.a. 0.372 0.622 0.175 0.396 0.563 0.359 0.713 0.532 0.285 n.a. 0.090 0.498 0.248
Total 0.500 0.459 0.418 0.431 0.433 0.390 0.526 0.499 0.425 0.421 0.393 0.348 0.549 0.461 0.468 0.406 0.417 0.519 0.400 0.465 0.437 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Urban 0.445 0.443 0.397 0.301 0.433 0.455 0.508 0.503 0.362 0.496 0.396 0.436 0.450 0.361 0.464 0.522 0.439 0.517 0.354 0.576 0.484 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Rural 0.510 0.460 0.434 0.449 0.434 0.382 0.528 0.498 0.435 0.392 0.392 0.333 0.563 0.475 0.469 0.395 0.412 0.519 0.406 0.449 0.415 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Total 0.440 0.432 0.315 0.285 0.214 0.533 0.402 0.626 0.511 0.551 0.300 0.245 0.479 0.351 0.533 0.692 0.446 0.574 0.338 0.372 n.a. 0.607 0.332 0.503
Increased
Note: n.a. Indicates data not available. Source: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.
48
Association between GDP growth, agricultural growth and poverty reduction during 1995/96 and 2005/06 is reported in Table 34 and 35. From this, one can not conclude any strong relationship between growth and poverty reduction.
Table 34: Association between Agricultural GDP Growth and Changes in Poverty Situation (Change in 2005, Compared to 1995)
Agriculture GDP Growth Type Changes in Poverty (Head-Count Ratio) in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 Increase Decrease
High Growth (>5% annual compound rate of growth) Moderate Growth (3-5% annual compound rate of growth) Slow Growth (up to 3% annual compound rate of growth) Negative Growth (>0 to -3% annual compound rate of growth) Extremely Negative (>-3% annual compound rate of growth)
Bogra Noakhali, Patuakhali, Jessore, Tangail, Dhaka, Jamalpur, Khulna, Pabna, Rajshahi Barisal, Chittagong, Comilla, Dinajpur, Rangpur, Sylhet Faridpur, Mymensingh, Kushtia
Rangamati
Table 35: Association between GDP Growth and Changes in Poverty Situation (Change in 2005, Compared to 1995)
GDP Growth Type High Growth (>5% annual compound rate of growth) Moderate Growth (3-5% annual compound rate of growth) Slow Growth (up to 3% annual compound rate of growth) Negative Growth (>0 to -3% annual compound rate of growth) Extremely Negative (>-3% annual compound rate of growth) Changes in Poverty (Head-Count Ratio) in 2005/06, compared to 1995/96 Increase Decrease Pabna Patuakhali, Noakhali, Jessore, Khulna, Jamalpur, Tangail, Dhaka, Rajshahi, Bogra Barisal, Chittagong, Comilla, Dinajpur, Faridpur, Kushtia, Rangpur, Sylhet, Mymensingh
Rangamati
49
It is well recognised that human poverty has long-term and intergenerational impact on inequality. Human Poverty Index (HPI) for all the 64 districts constructed by Sen and Hulme (2006) for 1995 and 2000 is reported in Table 36. Human Poverty in all the districts was reduced between 1995 and 2000. There was variation in terms of decrease human poverty. High level of annual decrease in human poverty (more than 3%) was observed in seven districts (Bandarban, Barguna, Comilla, Thakurgaon, Nilphamari, Pirojpur and Rangamati).
Table 36: Human Poverty Index.

DISTRICTS Bagerhat Bandarban Barguna Barisal Bhola Bogra Brahamanbaria Chandpur Chittagong Chuadanga Comilla Cox's Bazar Dhaka Dinajpur Faridpur Feni Gaibandha Gazipur Gopalganj Habiganj Jamalpur Jessore Jhalokati Jhenaidaha Joypurhat Khagrachhari Khulna Kishoreganj Kurigram Kushtia Lakshmipur Lalmonirhat HPI 1995 32.58 51.60 33.79 31.80 37.48 37.72 39.26 33.28 32.29 34.02 31.88 38.68 26.87 36.24 35.26 30.83 39.95 34.93 32.51 37.23 51.06 30.77 31.54 35.74 37.23 43.86 32.51 39.35 43.14 36.79 34.80 40.67 HPI 2000 29.72 39.77 28.43 29.03 36.32 32.75 37.65 29.76 29.21 32.11 26.72 38.44 26.51 33.31 34.59 28.15 35.08 32.49 29.77 34.45 41.87 28.20 25.40 32.37 35.70 37.58 27.95 35.59 39.42 35.78 32.39 35.63 Annual Change -1.76 -4.59 -3.17 -1.74 -0.62 -2.64 -0.82 -2.11 -1.91 -1.12 -3.24 -0.13 -0.27 -1.62 -0.38 -1.74 -2.44 -1.40 -1.69 -1.49 -3.60 -1.67 -3.89 -1.89 -0.82 -2.87 -2.81 -1.91 -1.73 -0.55 -1.39 -2.48 DISTRICTS Madaripur Magura Manikganj Maulvibazar Meherpur Munshiganj Mymensingh Naogaon Narail Narayanganj Narsingdi Natore Nawabganj Netrakona Nilphamari Noakhali Pabna Panchagarh Patuakhali Pirojpur Rajbari Rajshahi Rangamati Rangpur Satkhira Shariatpur Sherpur Sirajganj Sunamganj Sylhet Tangail Thakurgaon BANGLADESH HPI 1995 38.59 36.34 38.93 37.77 36.91 29.68 40.30 36.91 32.41 31.58 37.93 36.02 41.68 39.04 46.86 36.33 40.36 38.71 35.76 31.16 43.75 35.98 46.24 41.70 35.53 42.28 45.15 42.59 43.01 39.11 39.33 40.32 HPI 2000 34.64 33.04 35.44 32.69 36.01 29.07 34.70 32.32 31.26 28.45 35.25 34.42 39.66 37.06 38.50 33.05 36.11 35.03 30.56 25.82 38.03 33.57 35.74 38.26 31.74 36.76 42.98 38.83 39.44 35.08 32.48 35.87 Annual Change -2.05 -1.81 -1.79 -2.69 -0.49 -0.41 -2.78 -2.48 -0.71 -1.98 -1.42 -0.89 -0.97 -1.01 -3.57 -1.80 -2.11 -1.90 -2.91 -3.42 -2.61 -1.34 -4.54 -1.65 -2.13 -2.61 -0.96 -1.77 -1.66 -2.06 -3.48 -2.21
Source: Sen and Hulme (2006).
50

Growth Trend of Poverty in Bangladesh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Growth Trend of Poverty in Bangladesh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty Trends in Bangladesh: Implications for Development Strategy 1

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Agriculture Crop Livestock Fisheries Forestry Industry Service Total GDP

5,482 4439 394 350 299 3,707 8,396 17,585

8,896 5985 1119 1155 638 6,805 14,574 30,275

10,030 5,871 1,312 2,093 755 9,717 19,321 39,068

11,597 6,639 1,363 2,717 878 11,492 22,358 45,396

11,718 6,881 1,445 2,434 958 16,674 31,356 59,748

Source: Own estimate, based on BBS data.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Source: Own estimate, based on BBS data.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Table 3: Trends in Agricultural GDP in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06

Source: Own estimate, based on BBS data.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Table 4: Trends in Industrial GDP in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06

Source: Own estimate, based on BBS data.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Source: Own estimate, based on BBS data.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Table 6: Trends in Crop GDP in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06

Source: Own estimate, based on BBS data.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Table 7: Trends in Livestock GDP in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06

Source: Own estimate, based on BBS data.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Table 8: Trends in Fisheries GDP in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06

103 1 53 74 113 45 45 100 140 4 99 152 23 51 21 30 25 24 22 23 19 42 15 17 10 0 125 78 31 14 99 18

94 1 45 67 85 36 68 56 152 8 88 132 21 62 21 31 20 34 15 23 16 46 17 22 16 0 124 50 21 14 55 11

Source: Own estimate, based on BBS data.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Table 9: Trends in Forestry GDP in Bangladesh, by district: 1995/96 to 2005/06

Source: Own estimate, based on BBS data.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Agriculture Crop Livestock Fisheries Forestry Industry Service Total GDP

Source: Own estimate, based on BBS data.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Growth in Livestock GDP:

Bangladesh experienced slow growth (0.82% per annum) in

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Table 11: District Level Growth in GDP, by source: 1995/96- 2005/06.

Source: Authors calculation, based on data collected from Directorate of Fisheries.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Source: Authors calculation, based on data collected from BBS.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Source: Authors calculation, based on data collected from BBS.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Source: Authors calculation, based on data collected from BBS.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Source: Authors calculation, based on data collected from BBS.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Source: Authors calculation, based on data collected from BBS.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Source: Authors calculation, based on data collected from BBS.

CPD: Growth, Income Inequality and Poverty

Source: Authors calculation, based on data collected from BBS.

0.568* (0.040) 0.111 (0.049) 0.147*** (0.031)

0.168* (0.034) 0.363 (0.282) 1.488* (0.399)