1. Intergenerational Reproduction of Extreme Poverty and Child Sensitive Policy Zulfiqar Ali, EEP/Shiree Joe Devine, University of Bath Presentation prepared for the conference on Towards Sustained Eradication of Extreme Poverty in Bangladesh NEC Conference Room, Planning Commission 8-9 April 2015

4. Demographic Composition Shifts Large population and high population density 40% of population below 18 years of age Fertility levels lowered, evident also among the extreme poor ‘Demographic dividend’ arriving but will not last long Clash of generational demands: ageing and children Impacting socio-economic development, growth and of course welfare supply and demand

5. Household Composition Shifts Demographic shift reflected in households Link between old age security and high fertility rates, now radically changed Household dynamics still key to decisions around individual wellbeing Dynamics that are hierarchical, reciprocal and gendered

6. Household Composition Shifts (contd.) Smaller household sizes Move from joint to nuclear households? Move from nuclear/joint to households fragmented in different ways Fragmentation which may be more evident in extreme poor households

7. Intergenerational Transfer Shifts? Demographic changes + household changes = new fault lines in intergenerational transfers With the elderly and children ‘exposed’ Danger of children losing out, yet 1.40% of population below 18 years 2.Impact of poverty on children’s life course (including in utero) is felt immediately and over a much longer time frame

8. Pillars of Child Wellbeing FIVE Pillars, developed by Unicef, based on which ‘material child wellbeing’ can be assessed:  Health: Mortality, immunization  Nutrition: underweight  Education: schooling  Child Protection: child marriage  Social Protection: how sensitive to the needs of the children it is?

9. Health

10. Childhood Mortality by Mother’s Education

11. Childhood Mortality by Wealth Quintile

12. Child Vaccinations by Mother’s Education

13. Child Vaccinations by Wealth Quintile

14. Nutrition

15. Children Severely Underweight by Mother’s Education Mother’s education Percentage below-3 SD 200420072011 No education1715.614.5 Primary incomplete12.513.314.2 Primary complete14.312.912.4 Secondary incomplete97.77.5 Secondary complete or higher 87.93.5

16. Children Severely Underweight by Wealth Quintile Wealth quintile Percentage below 3SD 200420072011 Lowest18.215.116.6 Second14.715.811.3 Middle12.111.211.5 Fourth10.28.96.3 Highest5.96.53.9

17. Education

18. Schooling Performance of the Children by Poverty Status Poverty Status School Attendance at Age 5 NAR at Primary OOSC in Primary NAR at Secondary OOSC at Secondary Extreme poor2471225737 Moderate poor 27 76176829 Non-poor4480117917

19. Net School Attendance by Wealth Quintile

20. Out of School Children by HH Poverty Status TotalExtreme poorNon-poor Out of school children152211 Drop-out children251 Never been to school6104 Late school entrants776

21. Child Protection

22. Child Marriage by Educational Level

23. Child Marriage by Wealth Quintile

24. Child Sensitive SSNPs

25. Child-Focused Allocations in SSNPs Allocations2008-20092010-20112012-2013 Child focused SSNP as % of total SSNP 94,140130,011189,326 Total SSNP as % of Total Budget14.7116.0712.20 Total Child SSNP as % of Total Budget1.221.551.27

26. Access to SSNPs by Poverty Status Poverty status% of the households having access to SSNPs Extreme Poor37.7 Medium Poor29.7 Non Poor20.0 Total24.3

27. Returns to Child-Oriented Social Transfers Evidence that child‐oriented social transfer programmes increase nutritional, health and educational status of children; And longer‐term and wider developmental benefits Seen in conditional STPs (Brazil, Mexico) as well as unconditional STPs (South Africa) In South Africa, benefits estimated to outstrip investments by 160%‐ 230% (Aguero et al., 2007 in Cain, 2009

28. Returns to Child-Oriented Social Transfers (contd.) In Bangladesh: initial confirmatory evidence in the Shombhob programme (Ferre & Sharif 2014) Evidence also from EEP/Shiree: – More food secure – Better nutrition – Higher schooling – More secure income – Improved health, etc.

29. Final Points Household improvements are important but not sufficient Intergenerational transfers places social relationships and not just economic poverty at heart of the problem Meaning social policy needs to take the lead

30. Thanks