Social Protection Experiences of and Attitudes Towards New Urban Poor After Covid-19 in Bangladesh

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic led to a large increase in poverty in Bangladesh, especially in urban areas. Rising food prices and high inflation rates further compounded already high levels of socioeconomic uncertainty. Social protection is vital to help mitigate the effects of crisis and make households more resilient to uncertainty. This paper provides insights into urban residents’ experiences of poverty and the support they received since the Covid-19 pandemic, and derives implications for social protection programming in urban Bangladesh. Using secondary longitudinal data collected since the start of the pandemic with new quantitative surveys and qualitative data collected in Kallyanpur, Dhaka and Shantinagar, Chittagong in March 2023, the study points to high levels of precarity; poverty’s toll on mental health; widespread stigmatisation and discrimination of residents of low-income neighbourhoods, and inadequate social protection support. It argues for the need to expand social protection in urban areas; counter area-based discrimination; ensure dignified delivery of assistance, and provide an integrated policy response.

Innovations and Challenges in Crisis Contexts: Bangladesh’s Social Protection Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic

“…One of the new programmes was the prime minister's cash support scheme which provided one-off assistance of BDT 2,500 (£22) to five million informal workers who lost their jobs on account of the crisis and were not receiving any other form of social protection. While this scheme undoubtedly helped to relieve some of the pressure, its limited nature -including the relatively low transfer level -meant that it provided only 5 per cent of the amount needed to restore pre-shock consumption level (Hebbar, Muhit and Marzi 2021;Roelen et al 2024).…”

“…Thirteen per cent of urban households reported help from the government, while this figure was only 3 per cent for rural households (PPRC and BIGD 2020b). Although the preexisting social protection schemes were largely rural focused, several of the studies found that government support was reported at higher levels in urban low-income areas compared to rural areas (Roelen et al 2024).…”

“…Several CLEAR studies found that having connections with individuals in positions of power facilitated access to various forms of support provided by community leaders and the government, leading to both inclusion and exclusion errors. NGOs, such as BRAC, were generally seen as operating in a more transparent manner, but there was a suggestion that personal connections remained important for inclusion in programme lists and support provision (Nazneen et al 2024;Roelen et al 2024).…”

“…This paper draws on research from all the CLEAR projects, with a particular focus on the scoping paper on social protection (Siddiquee, Faruk and Matin 2022), the papers on accountability, responsiveness and the feedback state (Ahmed et al 2023;Chowdhury and Hossain 2022), as well as the two recent working papers on becoming poor (Roelen et al 2024) and coping with being 'new poor' (Nazneen et al 2024). The three key themes that emerged from the synthesis are as follows:…”

“…3. The ways in which psychosocial stress, stigma, and social norms affect both access to coping strategies and their implications in a context where people living in poverty are often devalued (Roelen et al 2023;Roelen et al 2024). These factors can relate not only to the experience of poverty but also to the strategies that aim to alleviate poverty, and require further innovation as they are not easily solved.…”