K Nahar
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202
S Haque
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202
F Yeasmin
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Bhangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur, Dhaka
K Nahar
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202
N Zaman
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202
Impact; Microcredit; Women empowerment, Livelihood
Ishwarganj upazila of Mymensingh district namely: Ashrabpur and Majhiyakandi
Socio-economic and Policy
Income generation
The study was conducted in two purposively selected villages from of Ishwarganj upazila of Mymensingh district namely: Ashrabpur and Majhiyakandi. The reasons for selecting these areas for the present study are: the availabilities of credit receiving people, well communicated for the researchers which helped in free movement and co-operation from the respondents. The sample survey for this study was conducted during February - March, 2017. Stratified random sampling was applied for sample selection. In this study, two groups were selected from Society for Social Service (SSS) and RSS programmes. SSS is an NGO which started microcredit program in 1991 to establish justice and peace in the society through socio- economic enhancement of rural and urban people. The RSS project was launched as a pilot project in 1974 which is particularly designed for the vast majority of by-passed groups to organize them and to build their capacity to fight against poverty, illiteracy, ill health, unemployment and the population explosion. The vision of RSS is to create a better life for people of Bangladesh through social welfare, protection, empowerment and development for the poor and vulnerable (mainly the children, the youths, the women, the landless families and other disadvantaged groups who do not directly get benefit from other development activities in the rural areas). The questionnaire survey of the total of 60 sample respondents (50 from SSS and 10 from RSS) were conducted by direct face to face interview by using a pre-designed questionnaire. Since the respondents of Bangladesh do not usually keep any written records and account of their farm operations, interview method fits well to achieve the main objectives of the study. Collected data were classified, tabulated and analyzed in terms of the objective set for the study. Descriptive statistics such as percentage and arithmetic mean were taken into account to analyze the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents. Some parts of data have been analyzed by following qualitative technique. For doing this, narrative analysis was used. Empowerment is not directly observable, and it may be valued differently depending on the views of individuals. As briefly shown above, empowerment is a complex concept with many definitions. In this study, empowerment is measured via an empowerment index. The index is built on the empowerment issues perceived by the respondent themselves (based on their narratives) while collecting qualitative information, which in turn are derived from the respondent’s answers on the thirteen empowerment questions in the questionnaire. To be able to measure the respondent’s answers to these questions; a yes is transformed to a 1 and a no is transformed to a 0. The values for each of the respondent’s empowerment indicators are then summed into an aggregate index with one point increments. An individual with a high aggregate empowerment index is considered to be more empowered than an individual with a low aggregate empowerment index score. This study also conceptualized the term ‘Women empowerment’ considering basically five important domains of women empowerment (Alkire et al., 2012). The domains of the women empowerment cover a wide range of attributes. The indicator, input in productive decisions, is constructed from answer regarding participation in production decision-making as: 1) Whether woman had sole or joint input into making decisions about farming like food crop, cash crop, livestock raising, fish culture, growing vegetables etc. and 2) The extent to which the woman feels that she can make her own personal decisions about the aspects of farming like agricultural production, inputs to buy, types of crops to grow, when and who would take crops to market, whether to engage in livestock raising etc. This indicator probes woman’s own understanding of the situation and how she balances different motivation. It also reflects the situation in joint households - a joint decision may be more/less autonomous, depending on circumstances. It includes ownership of land and assets, whether a woman reports having sole or joint ownership of land, livestock, fish-pond, farm equipment, house, transport, etc and whether a woman can make decision regarding the purchase, sale or transfer of land and those assets. It includes permission to earn money from outside of house; and decision about the use of income generated from own earning, food crops, cash crops, livestock production non-farm activities. Through this domain it meant whether a woman belongs to an economic or social group, whether she is comfortable speaking up in public to raise voice against injustice and to protest the misbehavior of authorities; and whether she is able enough to build group solidarity among women within her locality to be evolved as anti-injustice authority. This indicator consists of two points measuring the allocation of time productive and domestic task and satisfaction with the time available for leisure activities. The first indicator, productive and domestic workload is derived from a detailed 24-hours’ time allocation. The other indicator asks whether a woman is subjectively satisfied with her available time for leisure activities such as visiting neighbors, watching TV, listening to the radio, seeing movies or doing sports etc. A woman is adequate on this indicator if she is satisfied with the time available for leisure.
Progressive Agriculture 30 (1): 86-94, 2019
Journal