26 research outputs found
Can climate finance in Bangladesh be helpful in making transformational change in ecosystem management?
Climate-influenced migration in Bangladesh: the need for a policy realignment
Recent research into migration in Bangladesh has highlighted that people migrate for better livelihoods, not necessarily in response to climatic stresses and shocks. If facilitated appropriately, internal and international migration can help build adaptive capacity to future environmental and climatic hazards. In this framing, migration happens in the context of a growing city-centred economy that promotes remittances to villages. However, a textual analysis of current and recent policies concerning climate change, development and poverty alleviation, and disaster management shows that the economic and adaptive roles of internal migration are often not included in policy framing. We argue that if migration works as a positive step towards adaptation, then the key challenge is to align the policies with this new understanding
Qualitative exploration of factors affecting progress in antipoverty interventions : experiences from a poverty-reduction program in Bangladesh
Understanding and addressing the factors that affect progress in antipoverty interventions is central to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. In Bangladesh this topic has been largely explored through quantitative approaches, and we believe in-depth qualitative analyses of household dynamics in the context of antipoverty interventions is lacking. This article addresses this lacuna. Based on 49 focus group discussions and 15 case studies, we analyse livelihood dynamics of beneficiary households within a national extreme poverty alleviation program. We identify five determining factors to the effectiveness of antipoverty interventions: 1) health shocks, natural hazards, and vulnerabilities; 2) household demography; 3) inappropriate IGA planning, implementation, and monitoring; 4) dependence/inaction; and 5) political and social instability. We argue that livelihood-based antipoverty initiatives often fail because they do not address these five factors, and call for a comprehensive approach that prioritises them in program design