#1D 2ND SANEM ANNUAL ECONOMISTS' CONFERENCE "MANAGING GROWTH FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION" Inclusive Growth in Bangladesh: A Critical Assessment Towfiqul Islam Khan Research Fellow, CPD <[email protected]> Dhaka: 18 February 2017 CENTRE FOR POLICY DIALOGUE#2● Introduction The presented paper, Inclusive Growth in Bangladesh: A Critical Assessment, is part of the study programme titled Operationalizing Inclusive Growth in Bangladesh through Full and Decent Employment This study is being conducted under the purview of Centre for Policy Dialogue's (CPD) flagship programme Independent Review of Bangladesh's Independent Review of Development RBD Bangladesh's Development The results and interpretation may be further developed The research team for this particular paper includes: - Towfiqul Islam Khan, Research Fellow, CPD - Mostafa Amir Sabbih, Research Associate, CPD - Muntaseer Kamal, Research Associate, CPD 2#3Rostow (1956,1959) SAP and Basic Needs Approach (1970s-early 1990s) WDR: Attacking poverty (2000-01) Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers x Introduction Inclusive growth - the concept came into being after a long and tortuous journey ✓ The evolution in the literature of growth, inequality and poverty must be taken into cognisance X X X X X X x X Gender Inequality Access to Infrastructure Social Protection X Participation X Targeted Policies Basic social Services Good governance X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Kakwani &Pernia (2000) White & Anderson (2001) X x x Ravallion & Chen (2003) X Kakwani, Khandker & Son (2004) X X X Kraay (2004) X X X WDR: Equity & Development (2006) X X X X X X X X X Ali & Son (2007) x x X Bhalla (2007) X X x Grosse, Harttgen & Klasen (2008) X X X Son & Kakwani (2008) X X x lanchovichina & Lundstrom (2009) X X X X Habito (2009) X Klasen (2010) X X Rauniyar & Kanbur (2010) X X X X X X X McKinley (2011) X X X X X X X X X X Ranieri & Ramos (2013) X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 Opportunity Barriers for Investment Benefits of Growth#4Rationale This paper interprets inclusive growth as a process which embraces pro-poor strategies, along with the growth outcomes, it concentrates on the distributional features of the 'benefit sharing', the comprehensive process of market participation, and how growth outcomes are generated (Bhalla, 2007; Ianchovichina and Lundstrom, 2009; Klasen, 2010, Kakwani and Pernia, 2000, Ramos, Ranieri and Lammens, 2013) The present paper seeks to present an analytical assessment of inclusive growth in Bangladesh based on a set of selected quantitative and qualitative indicators ✓ To comprehend and underscore the adjoining sources/foundations of inclusive growth ✓ To recognise the binding constraints to future economic growth ✓ To suggest how far the attained economic growth has been inclusive in Bangladesh ✓ To provide a cross-country comparison with a select set of developing countries ✓ To provide a benchmark assessment of Bangladesh's journey towards development during the ongoing decade 4#5Methodology Design of the inclusive growth index Pros and cons of several other composite indices (i.e. HDI, MPI) were taken into cognisance This paper's approach was profoundly influenced by 'The Inclusive Growth and Development Report 2015' from World Economic Forum and 'Inclusive Growth Criteria and Indicators: An Inclusive Growth Index for Diagnosis of Country Progress' from ADB The assessment for Bangladesh was built on 7 pillars and 42 indicators, having equal number of indicators (6) for each dimension The pillars, and indicators under each pillar were selected based on the theoretical framework keeping the developing country context under purview. The recent list of sustainable development goals (SDG) indicators also influenced selection of the indicators Seven countries including Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Cambodia were selected for cross country comparison on the chosen indicators Three discrete time periods (2000, 2005 and 2010) were chosen for the comparison based on data availability 5#6Pillars 1. Poverty and Inequality 2. Growth and Structural Transformation 3. Employment 4. Access to Infrastructure and Public Services Inclusive growth index: Pillars and indicators Indicators Methodology The proportion of the population living below nationally determined poverty lines The proportion of the population living below the $1.90 per day per person international poverty line in 2005 prices Global hunger index Gini coefficient Palma ratio The income share of the poorest 60% of the population Real rate of growth of gross domestic product per capita Share of manufacturing in total value added Value of agricultural production per hectare Private investment as a share of GDP Export concentration index Value added per worker Labour force participation rate Unemployment rate Youth (aged 15-24 years) unemployment rate Share of the employed in industry Share of the employed in manufacturing Share of own account and contributing family workers Proportion of the population with access to electricity Number of mobile phone subscribers per 100 people Number of internet users per 100 people Proportion of the population with access to safe water Proportion of the population with access to adequate sanitation |Per cent of paved roads over total roads 6#7P Inclusive growth index: Pillars and indicators Pillars 5. Health and Education Under-5 mortality rate Indicators Methodology 6. Gender Equality 7. Governance and Institution Percentage of those under age 5 years who are underweight Prevalence of stunting (low height-for-age) in children under 5 years of age. Percentage of births attended by skilled health staff Net secondary enrolment ratio Completion rate (lower secondary) Ratio of young literate females to young literate males (age 15–24 years) Female-male enrolment ratio in primary schools Female-male enrolment ratio in secondary schools Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector Female labour force participation rate Early marriage, i.e. women who were first married by age 18 (% of women ages 20-24) Voice and accountability Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism Government effectiveness Regulatory quality Rule of law Control of corruption 7#8Methodology Construction of the index a) Normalisation of the indicators: The indicators were transformed to a 1-10 scale (worst to best) using a linear min-max transformation. This can be presented as: indicator score = 9 × (indicator value - sample minimum) (sample maximum - sample minimum) For indicators which exhibit worse outcomes with higher values: indicator score = -9 × +1 - sample minimum) +10 (indicator value (sample maximum - sample minimum) b) Aggregation towards pillar score: Simple arithmetic mean, designating equal weight to all the constituent indicators, was used. Formally: pillar score = K Σk-1 indicator scoreк K 8#9Methodology c) Aggregation towards composite index: The composite index is basically a weighted average of the pillar scores. Poverty and inequality; growth and structural transformation and employment received 20 per cent weight Access to infrastructure and public services; health and education; gender equality; and, governance and institution received 10 per cent weight In the aggregate inclusive growth index 1 represents the worst outcome while 10 represents the best d) Treatment of missing values: Data availability has been a key hindrance while constructing this index. Some relevant indicators perhaps could not be incorporated due to poor availability/absence of data for the selected countries. Moreover, consistent time series data was rarely available. In order to solve this issue: ✓ data for the nearest available period was used ✓ to reduce volatility/generate data points, five or ten years moving average was taken 9#10Methodology Merits of the index ✓ This index utilises a more comprehensive set of indicators compared to the existing indices (e.g. Samans et al, 2015; McKinley, 2010) ✓ The index was deigned taking the developing country (e.g. Bangladesh) context into cognisance. ✓ The index could be used to carry out cross country as well as intertemporal comparison which offers further flexibility and applicability ✓ Individual assessment for each pillar can be carried out ✓ Distance from the best/worst outcome can be measured ✓ The index is easy to interpret ✓ The index provides the methodological contribution to develop such indicators 10#11Methodology Limitations of the index ✓ To some extent choice of indicators was dictated by data availability - Critical indicators regarding social protection, environment, technology, productivity and work environment could not be incorporated due to lack of comparable time series data ✓ The selection of indicators was made keeping the developing country context in mind. For a different set of countries - particularly developed ones - the selected indicators could be different ✓ Within a pillar, each indicator has equal weight. While constructing the composite index, the pillars' weights were assigned based on their perceived relative significance on the process of attaining inclusive growth. Although this process involves implicit value judgment - similar method was followed by McKinley (2010) ✓ The results of this index depend on the sample of countries due to the applied linear transformation technique. Any change in country composition will alter the outcome from this index. In this context, it is a suitable tool for the comparison of peer countries rather than countries on diverse stages of development 11#12P Poverty and inequality pillar Results from the inclusive growth index Year Bangladesh Cambodia India Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka | Vietnam | Bangladesh 2000 2005 2010 Ranking 5.31 1.00 8.13 4.72 7.47 6.55 5.85 5 6.65 5.49 5.50 6.09 2.77 7.14 5.45 6.95 7.78 5.83 6.13 2 9.68 7.44 3.56 5 ✓ Bangladesh performed reasonably well but increasing inequality and slow pace of poverty alleviation are concerns ✓ Cambodia: remarkable progress; Pakistan & Sri Lanka: gradual progress; Nepal & Vietnam: mixed trend; India: declining trend Growth and structural transformation pillar Year Bangladesh Cambodia India Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka | Vietnam Bangladesh Ranking 2000 2005 4.30 4.69 4.32 3.98 6.52 6.69 3.17 4.48 8.93 7.40 5 4.18 4.62 7.74 7.23 4 2010 5.08 3.74 7.20 4.56 3.61 7.94 7.81 4 ✓ Bangladesh's performance moderate with a upward trend. Export concentration and labour productivity are key concerns ✓ India, Sri Lanka and Vietnam: consistently well; Nepal: gradually increasing; Cambodia & Pakistan: mixed trend 12 22#13Results from the inclusive growth index Employment pillar Year Bangladesh Cambodia India Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka | Vietnam | Bangladesh Ranking 2000 5.41 5.01 5.09 6.27 4.56 5.75 6.38 4 2005 4.48 2010 5.04 5.41 4.85 6.12 3.99 6.34 4.76 5.61 6.17 7 6.18 4.32 5.58 6.44 5 ✓ Bangladesh's performance was average. Youth unemployment, employment in industry/manufacturing should be areas of focus ✓ Nepal, Sri Lanka & Vietnam: consistently outperformed Bangladesh; Cambodia: gradual improvement; Pakistan: mixed trend; India: gradual decline Access to infrastructure and public services pillar Year Bangladesh Cambodia India Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka Vietnam | Bangladesh Ranking 2000 3.31 1.69 5.57 4.27 5.45 9.54 5.97 6 2005 3.76 1.81 4.90 3.87 6.47 8.22 7.50 6 2010 4.00 1.44 4.62 4.14 6.62 7.72 7.93 6 ✓ Bangladesh's performance is improving though it lacks momentum. Access to electricity, road facilities and internet are key areas of concern ✓ Sri Lanka: stellar performance; Pakistan & Vietnam: gradually improving; Cambodia & Nepal: mixed trend; India: gradually deteriorating 13#14• Results from the inclusive growth index Health and education pillar Year Bangladesh Cambodia India Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka Vietnam | Bangladesh 2000 2005 3.57 2.23 3.94 2.91 3.55 10.00 7.02 Ranking 4 4.01 4.11 4.27 3.73 3.67 10.00 8.81 5 2010 2.95 4.43 3.36 3.38 1.55 9.87 8.49 6 ✓ Bangladesh showed resilient performance. Better performance in education was compensated by sluggish development in health - particularly child nutrition and child birth facilities ✓ Sri Lanka & Vietnam: stellar performance; Cambodia: gradually improving; India, Nepal & Pakistan: mixed trend Gender equality pillar Year Bangladesh Cambodia India Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka Vietnam Bangladesh Ranking 2000 2005 5.64 6.20 7.11 3.84 3.68 2.56 7.78 9.08 4 2010 5.99 6.86 4.45 7.33 4.30 4.53 2.46 7.50 8.84 4 6.30 1.04 6.67 8.62 5 ✓ Bangladesh has been a strong performer. Early marriage and low female engagement in non-agricultural wage occupations are concerns ✓ Cambodia, Sri Lanka & Vietnam: great performance; Nepal: gradual improvement; India: mixed trend; Pakistan: below par and declining 14#15Results from the inclusive growth index Governance and institution pillar Year Bangladesh Cambodia India Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka Vietnam Bangladesh 2000 4.14 2.92 8.02 6.10 3.31 7.31 5.56 Ranking 5 2005 2.60 3.71 8.09 4.22 3.73 8.46 5.84 7 2010 3.19 3.53 8.85 4.14 3.62 8.10 6.02 7 ✓ Bangladesh displayed mixed performance. Regulatory quality, rule of law, and pervasive corruption key areas of concern ✔ India, Sri Lanka and Vietnam: better performers; Cambodia & Pakistan: mixed trend; Nepal: gradually declining 15#16Inclusive growth index Results from the inclusive growth index Year Bangladesh Cambodia India Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka |Vietnam Bangladesh Ranking 2000 4.67 3.39 6.09 4.53 4.79 7.71 6.69 5 2005 4.82 4.70 5.70 4.29 5.07 7.25 7.01 5 2010 4.74 5.07 5.44 5.33 4.81 7.43 6.67 7 ✓ Bangladesh has not performed adequately in the attainment of inclusive growth - Could be deemed on par with Cambodia, Nepal and Pakistan - Still lagging behind India, Sri Lanka and Vietnam Year 2000 2005 2010 Poverty and inequality Growth and structural transformation Employment Access to infrastructure and public services 5.31 6.65 5.49 4.30 4.69 5.08 5.41 4.48 5.04 3.31 3.76 4.00 Health and education 3.57 4.01 2.95 Gender equality 5.64 6.20 5.99 Governance and institution 4.14 2.60 3.19 Inclusive growth index 4.67 4.82 4.74 16#17Results from the inclusive growth index During both 2000 and 2005, Bangladesh was ranked fifth amongst the seven selected countries ✓ The position moved to seventh in 2010 The key reason behind this is the rapid progress achieved by Nepal and Cambodia compared to the somewhat plateaued performance by Bangladesh. In contrast to Bangladesh, both Cambodia and Nepal exhibited impressive progress in poverty and inequality pillar. Similar can be said about health and education, and gender equality Between 2005 and 2010, Bangladesh showed downward performances in poverty and inequality, health and education, and gender equality. The combination of these ultimately lead to the decline in aggregate index ✓ Relatively slow pace in poverty reduction as opposed to the comparators, growing inequality lead to the decline in poverty and inequality pillar ✓ Comparatively poor performance in education indicators coupled with slow progress in health indicators resulted in the decrease of health and education pillar ✓ Deteriorating comparative performance in gender related education indicators alongside lower female employment related indicators lead to the decline in gender equality pillar - - The two top performers – Sri Lanka and Vietnam – hold impressive figures in growth and structural transformation, access to infrastructure and public services, and health and education 17#18. Bangladesh has performed: Concluding remarks ✓ Moderately well in reducing poverty and inequality, and achieving gender equality. ✓ Modestly in employment and improving growth performance. ✓ Unconvincingly in health and education, and governance and institution ✓ Access to infrastructure and public services is exhibiting gradual improvement but on a very low level A number of 'peer' countries outperformed Bangladesh in the context of inclusive growth The indicators to a large extent are interrelated and integrated • The present exercise may inform sectoral public policies 18#19THANK YOU!