• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Food for work programme

Food for work programme






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Food for work programme Food for work programme Presentation Transcript

    • • The Food For Work Programme (FFWP) arose in the aftermath of the 1974 famine in Bangladesh.• An added dimension of FFWPs is that it seems easier to ensure political support for this program than for other poverty programs.
    • Objectives Construction and maintenance of agriculture-supporting infrastructure during the slack agricultural season. Enhancing disaster preparedness for local communities, including building cyclone shelters. Payment to the laborers on an in-kind basis with food. Provide income to the rural poor during the slack period when the unemployment rate in rural areas increases.
    • Timothy Besley-Stephen Coate For a better policy than welfare, following sevenconditions are met: Less reduction of incentives for the poor to acquire human capital and other assets. Greater net benefits of the work output of the program. Harder to screen the poor without the workfare requirement.
    • Lower opportunity cost of time for poor workers.Higher opportunity cost of time for non-poor workersThe share of the poor is smaller.Less social stigma attached to participating in aworkfare program Timothy Besley
    • Incentives or benefits  Benefits rural development.  Incentives for the poor to invest in their future.  The FFWP generally reaches the poor rather than subsidizing everyone.  Easier to ensure political support.
    • Information A finding shows that in villages endowed with infrastructure, participation in the women labor force have traditionally had a very low rate of labor force participation in Bangladesh. The FFWP helps in raising women’s effective income and status, while lowering birth rates, and leading to better nutrition for children. Stabilizes food grain prices in the market to improve food consumption and nutrition of the participating households.
    • IFPRI & BIDS Surveys were conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in Washington in conjunction with the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS) in Dhaka. Samples taken over 30 locations throughout the country. Division of sites among "more developed" and "less developed" villages.
    • Other Organizations Private voluntary organizations such as CARE and MCC :• play an important monitoring role• makes sure projects meet development goals & sound engineering standards• observing pay rates actually paid to laborers.
    • World Bank - Martin Ravallion :• confirms the overwhelming concentration of participants in the program among the poorest of Bangladeshis .• estimates that 60% of the participants in the FFWP came from the poorest quartile of rural households.
    • Food For Education Programme Provides food to poor families when they send their children to school rather than to work. Helps the country achieve its triple objectives increasing educational levels, decreasing child labor, providing food aid to poor families.
    • Disadvantage Government-financed labor-intensive construction is probably not a permanent solution to poverty. Needed infrastructure work may not be in the vicinity of the poor. Corruption has not been entirely prevented. Lack of integration with other important local rural development schemes.
    • ConclusionInspite of the various problems faced by the FFWP inBangladesh and the inherent disadvantages of theprogram, it has been quite phenomenal in helpingpeople where it is most necessary. A great advantage ofthis program is that it helps the poorer sections of thecommunity more than the well off people in rural areas.And added to this is the political support that can beeasily garnered for this program. So, it is implementedquite efficiently in the rural areas.
    • References http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/books/vonbraun95/vonbraun95ch03. pdf http://www.jstor.org/stable/40794381 Ahmed, Raisuddin, and Mahabub Hossain. Developmental Impact of Rural Infrastructure in Bangladesh. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute with Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, 1990. Bangladesh Development Studies, Special Issue, Food for Work Program 11 (1983): 1-235. Besley, Timothy J., and Stephen Coate, (1992), "Workfare versus Welfare: Incentive Arguments for Work Requirements in Poverty Alleviation Programs", American Economic Review, 82, 249-261 International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Food for Education Can Fight Hunger and Poverty, Washington: IFPRI, 2001 Ravallion, Martin. Reaching the Poor through Rural Public Employment. World Bank Discussion Paper 94, 1990. Singh, Inderjit. The Great Ascent: The Rural Poor in South Asia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins (for the World Bank), 1990. Stewart, Frances. Basic Needs in Developing Countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.