1. • The Food For Work Programme (FFWP) arose in the
aftermath of the 1974 famine in Bangladesh.
• An added dimension of FFWPs is that it seems easier to
ensure political support for this program than for other
poverty programs.

2. Objectives
 Construction and maintenance of agriculture-supporting
infrastructure during the slack agricultural season.
 Enhancing disaster preparedness for local communities,
including building cyclone shelters.
 Payment to the laborers on an in-kind basis with food.
 Provide income to the rural poor during the slack period
when the unemployment rate in rural areas increases.

3. Timothy Besley-Stephen Coate
For a better policy than welfare, following seven
conditions are met:
Less reduction of incentives for the poor to acquire
human capital and other assets.
Greater net benefits of the work output of the
program.
Harder to screen the poor without the workfare
requirement.

4. Lower opportunity cost of time for poor workers.
Higher opportunity cost of time for non-poor workers
The share of the poor is smaller.
Less social stigma attached to participating in a
workfare program
Timothy Besley

5. Incentives or benefits
 Benefits rural development.
 Incentives for the poor to invest in their future.
 The FFWP generally reaches the poor rather than
subsidizing everyone.
 Easier to ensure political support.

6. Information
 A finding shows that in villages endowed with
infrastructure, participation in the women labor force
have traditionally had a very low rate of labor force
participation in Bangladesh.
 The FFWP helps in raising women’s effective income
and status, while lowering birth rates, and leading to
better nutrition for children.
 Stabilizes food grain prices in the market to improve
food consumption and nutrition of the participating
households.

7. IFPRI & BIDS
 Surveys were conducted by the International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in Washington in
conjunction with the Bangladesh Institute of
Development Studies (BIDS) in Dhaka.
 Samples taken over 30 locations throughout the
country.
 Division of sites among "more developed" and "less
developed" villages.

8. Other Organizations
 Private voluntary organizations such as CARE and
MCC :
• play an important monitoring role
• makes sure projects meet development goals & sound
engineering standards
• observing pay rates actually paid to laborers.

9. World Bank - Martin Ravallion :
• confirms the overwhelming concentration of
participants in the program among the poorest of
Bangladeshis .
• estimates that 60% of the participants in the FFWP
came from the poorest quartile of rural households.

10. Food For Education Programme
 Provides food to poor
families when they send
their children to school
rather than to work.
 Helps the country achieve
its triple objectives
 increasing educational
levels,
 decreasing child labor,
 providing food aid to poor
families.

11. Disadvantage
 Government-financed labor-intensive construction is
probably not a permanent solution to poverty.
 Needed infrastructure work may not be in the vicinity
of the poor.
 Corruption has not been entirely prevented.
 Lack of integration with other important local rural
development schemes.

12. Conclusion
Inspite of the various problems faced by the FFWP in
Bangladesh and the inherent disadvantages of the
program, it has been quite phenomenal in helping
people where it is most necessary. A great advantage of
this program is that it helps the poorer sections of the
community more than the well off people in rural areas.
And added to this is the political support that can be
easily garnered for this program. So, it is implemented
quite efficiently in the rural areas.

13. References
 http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/books/vonbraun95/vonbraun95ch03.
pdf
 http://www.jstor.org/stable/40794381
 Ahmed, Raisuddin, and Mahabub Hossain. Developmental Impact of Rural
Infrastructure in Bangladesh. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute with Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, 1990.
 Bangladesh Development Studies, Special Issue, Food for Work Program 11 (1983): 1-235.
 Besley, Timothy J., and Stephen Coate, (1992), "Workfare versus Welfare: Incentive
Arguments for Work Requirements in Poverty Alleviation Programs", American
Economic Review, 82, 249-261
 International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Food for Education Can Fight
Hunger and Poverty, Washington: IFPRI, 2001
 Ravallion, Martin. Reaching the Poor through Rural Public Employment. World Bank
Discussion Paper 94, 1990.
 Singh, Inderjit. The Great Ascent: The Rural Poor in South Asia. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins (for the World Bank), 1990.
 Stewart, Frances. Basic Needs in Developing Countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1985.