IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An integrated economic and social analysis to assess the impact of vegetable and fishpond technologies on poverty in rural Bangladesh:


  • Hallman, Kelly
  • Lewis, David
  • Begum, Suraiya


"This study examines the poverty reduction implications of the introduction of three different agricultural technologies by government and NGOs in three rural sites across Bangladesh. The first is new vegetable seeds developed by AVRDC introduced in Saturia to women owning small amounts of land by a local NGO, based on a training and credit dissemination approach. The second is polyculture fish technology developed by WorldFish Center and introduced by a government extension program based on private fishponds operated mostly by men in Mymensingh. The third is the same polyculture fish technology, but introduced through a local NGO in Jessore based on the arrangement of leased fishponds operated by groups of low income women, supported by training and credit provision. The study found a number of significant poverty impacts. Among the strongest was in the case of the vegetable technology, which is targeted towards women in households with relatively small amounts of land and is a ‘non-lumpy' technology requiring a very low level of investment, but with proportionately significant returns and positive impacts on female empowerment and child nutritional status. The private fishpond technology was less successful in terms of poverty impact, since only better-off households tend to own ponds. This technology, however, had positive effects on the pond and crop profits of these households. The operation of the group fishpond technology, though a potentially beneficial agricultural program for poor households, was significantly undermined by collective action problems. Relative to women who did not have access to this group-based program, female group members appeared to have more mobility, greater likelihood of working for pay, higher off-farm incomes, and better nutritional status. The group fishpond technology was found also to increase vulnerability in a number of ways, such as through the theft of fish from ponds, or through gendered intra-household inequalities in (a) technology-related time burdens and (b) access to markets for and hence income from the agricultural outputs produced. The study overall showed a higher level of trust for NGO as opposed to government services, but also highlighted the variable performance of NGOs. Political dimensions to NGO activity also emerged as important, and are perceived by some sections of the community to affect the dissemination of technologies and extension support services for the technologies. Quantitative and qualitative data were found to complement each other well in the research across a range of issues. For example, the survey addressed female empowerment adopters by measuring the frequency of women's attendance of meetings etc, while the focus groups revealed the importance non-monetary exchange of vegetables between households to maintain social networks and reduce vulnerability. There were also gains through the overall use of the sustainable livelihoods framework as a way of sharpening understanding of the different entry points at which technology can impact on household well-being and vulnerability. Authors' Abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Hallman, Kelly & Lewis, David & Begum, Suraiya, 2003. "An integrated economic and social analysis to assess the impact of vegetable and fishpond technologies on poverty in rural Bangladesh:," EPTD discussion papers 112, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:eptddp:112

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Maluccio, John A., 2000. "Intrahousehold allocation and gender relations," FCND discussion papers 84, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Quisumbing, Agnes R. & de la Briere, Benedicte, 2000. "Women's assets and intrahousehold allocation in rural Bangladesh," FCND briefs 86, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    3. Kaplowitz, Michael D. & Hoehn, John P., 2001. "Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 237-247, February.
    4. Haddad, Lawrence James & Peña, Christine & Nishida, Chizuru & Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Slack, Alison T., 1996. "Food security and nutrition implications of intrahousehold bias," FCND discussion papers 19, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Filmer, Deon & King, Elizabeth M. & Pritchett, Lant, 1998. "Gender disparity in South Asia : comparisons between and within countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1867, The World Bank.
    6. Pitt, Mark M & Rosenzweig, Mark R & Hassan, Md Nazmul, 1990. "Productivity, Health, and Inequality in the Intrahousehold Distribution of Food in Low-Income Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1139-1156, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Peter Davis, 2007. "Discussions Among the Poor: Exploring Poverty Dynamics With Focus Groups in Bangladesh," Working Papers id:1106, eSocialSciences.
    2. Pandey, Vijay Laxmi & Mahendra Dev, S. & Jayachandran, Usha, 2016. "Impact of agricultural interventions on the nutritional status in South Asia: A review," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 28-40.
    3. Toufique, Kazi Ali & Belton, Ben, 2014. "Is Aquaculture Pro-Poor? Empirical Evidence of Impacts on Fish Consumption in Bangladesh," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 609-620.

    More about this item


    Women in agriculture; Agricultural research; Sustainable livelihoods; Gender; Agricultural growth; Agricultural technology;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fpr:eptddp:112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.