The COVID-19 pandemic brought the world to an economic stand-still, and the poor and vulnerable populations are bearing the brunt of this crisis. Power and Participation Research Centre (PPRC) and BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD) have been jointly conducting a multi-phase study since April 2020 to capture the changing impact of the COVID-19 health and economic crisis on low-income communities in Bangladesh. The first phase of the survey, conducted in April 2020, delved deep into the pandemic-induced economic shocks faced by the poor and vulnerable people and their coping mechanisms. The second phase, conducted in June 2020, went on to analyze the evolving nature of the COVID-19 impact on the economy and the recovery journey of the same demographic. In March 2021, as the nation began to confront the second wave of the pandemic crisis, PPRC and BIGD carried out the third phase of their Rapid Response Research, focusing on the nature and quality of recovery and comparing it with the early-recovery scenario in June 2020. The fourth phase of the study conducted in August 2021 examines the extended impact of the pandemic on vulnerable populations.
Researchers: Hossain Zillur Rahman; Dr Imran Matin; Atiya Rahman; Dr Narayan C. Das; Umama Zillur; Md. Shakil Ahmed; Dr Syed M. Hashemi; Mohammad Abdul Wazed; Tanvir Ahmed Mozumder; Sabrina Miti Gain; Fatema Mohammad; Tahsina Naz Khan; Montajina Tasnim; Nusrat Jahan; Md. Saiful Islam; Avinno Faruk; Namira Shameem
Partners: Power and Participation Research Centre (PPRC)
Timeline: Phase I (April 2020), Phase II (June 2020), Phase III (March 2021), Phase IV (August 2021)
Status: Ongoing
Contact: Md. Saiful Islam
saiful.rpg@bracu.ac.bd
Publications:
Journal Article: Finding Out Fast About the Impact of COVID-19: The Need for Policy-Relevant Methodological Innovation
Working Paper: Recovery With Distress: Unpacking COVID-19 Impact on Livelihoods and Poverty in Bangladesh
Report: Livelihoods, Coping and Recovery During COVID-19 Crisis: Evidence from Three Rounds of PPRC-BIGD Survey (Phase III)
Report: Livelihoods, Coping and Recovery During COVID-19 Crisis (Phase II)
Report: Livelihoods, Coping and Support During COVID-19 Crisis (Phase I)
Research Brief: Education Life of Children during COVID-19: Trends in Learning Loss, Digital Inclusion, Mental Health, and Child Labour
Research Brief: Evidence to Action: COVID-19 and the Deepening Learning Crisis – How Can We Build Forward Better?
Presentation Slides: Virtual Press Conference: Trends in COVID Impact on Livelihood, Coping, and Recovery Part 2 (Phase IV)
Presentation Slides: Virtual Press Conference: Education Life of Children – Trends in Learning Loss, Digital Inclusion, Mental Health and Child Labour Part 1 (Phase IV)
Presentation Slides: Virtual Press Conference: COVID-19 Impact on Education Life of Children Part 2 (Phase III)
Presentation Slides: Virtual Press Conference: Poverty Dynamics and Household Realities Part 1 (Phase III)
Presentation Slides: Report Launch: Livelihoods, Coping, and Recovery During COVID-19 Crisis (Phase II)
Presentation Slides: Virtual Press Conference: Livelihoods, Coping, Recovery during COVID-19 (Phase II)
Presentation Slides: Report Launch: Livelihoods, Coping, and Support During COVID-19 (Phase I)
Presentation Slides: Virtual Press Conference: Livelihoods, Coping, and Support During COVID-19 Crisis (Phase I)
Context
The COVID-19 pandemic began as a health crisis but has, in time, triggered a grave and unfolding economic crisis with particular concerns for the poor and vulnerable. Low-income people have been the quickest and hardest hit in the COVID-19-induced economic crisis, especially those living in urban centres and working in the informal sector. For effective policy response to the poverty consequences of the pandemic, the importance of realtime evidence cannot be over-emphasized. Power and Participation Research Centre (PPRC) and BRAC Institute for Governance and Development (BIGD) teamed up to launch a rapid response telephonic survey utilizing respondent telephone databases from earlier surveys on urban slums and rural poor.
Objectives
The study aims to look at the immediate impact of COVID-19 on livelihoods and household welfare, by understanding the kind of economic shocks the poor and vulnerable people are facing, what coping mechanisms they are using, and whether there are systematic variations among different demographic and occupational groups. The study eventually evolved in later phases to analyze not only livelihoods and coping during the COVID-19 crisis but included an additional focus on recovery dynamics.
Methodology
Phase 1
In April 2020 when lockdown measures had been put in place, PPRC and BIGD teamed up to launch a rapid response telephonic survey on the immediate impact of COVID-19 on livelihoods and household welfare. The quantitative survey utilized respondent telephone databases from earlier surveys in urban slums and rural poor. The survey was conducted among 5,471 urban and rural households from 4 April to 12 April 2020. The questionnaire was approximately 15-20 minutes long with four main modules on 1) their movement during the crisis, 2) the impact of the crisis on their livelihoods, 3) their coping mechanisms, and 4) support needed.
Phase 2
The second round of the survey was conducted with support from the World Food Program (WFP) in June 2020, after economic activities had partially resumed. In addition to the 5,471 HHs successfully interviewed in Phase I, 6,200 new HHs were drawn from the same datasets, in addition to 200 samples from a third PPRC database on hard to reach areas, Chattogram Hill Tracts (CHT) region in Southeast Bangladesh. Of the 11,671 households in the final sample, 7,638 were successfully interviewed from 20 June to 2 July 2020, of which 4,424 (58%) are panel sample – those surveyed in Phase I. The interviews were longer, clocking in at 30 minutes on average. The quantitative and close-ended questionnaire mainly included segments on the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on their livelihoods, coping mechanisms, food security, non-food expenditures, relief governance, and their level of awareness and perceptions about the crisis.
Phase 3
The households—the urban slums and the rural poor—were revisited for the third time to find out about the long-term impact of the crisis on them. Apart from determining the economic and health scenario of the households in March 2021, the focus of phase III of the study was to find out about the nature and quality of recovery and to compare it with the early-recovery scenario in June 2020. Phase III of the survey was conducted between 11 and 31 March 2021. The 7,638 households that were successfully interviewed during Phase II were resurveyed, of which 6,099 HHs (81%) were successfully interviewed. Out of these 6,099 HHs, 3,549 HHs were surveyed in all three phases, while 2,550 of them were surveyed in phases II and III.
Findings and Recommendations
In the first round of our study, we found that the pandemic was imparting a deep and system-wide poverty impact among the vulnerable populations, particularly among the urban poor. Majority of the vulnerable non-poor, with par capita income above the poverty line but below the median national income before the pandemic, came far below the poverty line. We acknowledged the need to rethink our approaches to poverty in light of the emergence of this “new poor” class. In the second round, we saw that despite the resumption of economic activities, incomes in June-July 2020, on average, remained 42 per cent below the pre-COVID levels. Between February and June, earning dropped for those involved in informal occupations on average by 49 per cent compared to an average of 17 per cent drop for those involved in formal occupations, e.g. factory worker and salaried jobs. Food insecurity remained high even after the lockdown was lifted, e.g., 11 per cent of the urban poor households were not getting three meals a day in June. There was little change in the proportion of the “new poor” population by June, declining by only by 1.1 percentage point from the height of the lockdown in April. By June, more than 10 per cent of the urban poor left the cities for less urban districts. Low income, depletion of savings, debt dependence, and the burden of non-negotiable non-food expenditure like rent, were creating a risk of falling into a long-term poverty trap for many vulnerable households.