Transcript of IMPACT OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ON LIVELIHOOD IN A ...
e7
IMPACT OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION ON LIVELIHOOD IN A SELECTED AREA OF
BANGLADESH
Mohammad Ataur Rahman* | Tulisree Sarker** | Ashley Comma Roy***
*Professor, Department of Agricultural Finance and Banking,
Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh.
**MS in Agricultural Economics (Finance), Department of
Agricultural Finance and Banking, Bangladesh Agricultural
University,
Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh. ***Department of Agricultural Finance
and Banking, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202,
Bangladesh.
DOI: http://doi.org/10.47211/tg.2021.v08i03.002
ABSTRACT Rural electrification is the lifeblood of rural
development in Bangladesh. The study was conducted to examine the
socioeconomic conditions of sample households, investigate the
impact of rural electrification on user’s livelihoods, and identify
the problems and constraints faced by the households. A total of 70
households were randomly selected from Chargobodia and Charkalibari
villages of sadar upazila under the Mymensingh district. All of the
respondents were clients of the Mymensingh Palli Bidyut Samity-1.
Primary data were collected through field survey using an interview
schedule. Simple statistical techniques were employed to analyse
the data. The DFID livelihood approach was carried used to
determine the impact of the rural electrification on livelihood.
The findings revealed that the highest 74.29% of the selected
respondents belonged to the age group 30 – 64. About 47.14% farmers
ended their primary level education and 44.28% did not receive
institutional education. About 65.71% respondents’s main occupation
was agriculture and 21.43% respondents considered agriculture as
subsidiary for their earnings. The overall average family size in
the study area was 5.15 persons in a family with dependency ratio
3.33. The average farm size was 237.21 decimal. On the basis of
farm category, 5.71% of the respondents belong to landless, 75.72%
respondents belong to small, and 12.86% respondent’s medium and
5.71% respondents were a large farm category. An average income and
expenditure of the respondents were Tk.270485.71 and Tk.236500
respectively. The all five types of assets such as human, natural,
social, physical and financial were positively changed after rural
electrification in the study area. Wrong bill, load shading, the
high price of electricity, low voltage, damage of electric
equipment and difficulty of new meter set up were the main problems
and constraints. So, the government should address these issues in
the development policies and programmes for rural Bangladesh.
Keywords: Rural electrification, livelihood, impact, Bangladesh.
ABOUT AUTHORS:
Author, Mohammad Ataur Rahman is currently working as Professor in
the Department of Agricultural Finance and Banking in Bangladesh
Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh.
Author, Tulisree Sarker is MS in Agricultural Economics (Finance),
Department of Agricultural Finance and Banking, Bangladesh
Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh.
Author, Ashley Comma Roy is Assistant Professor in the Department
of Agricultural Finance and Banking in Bangladesh Agricultural
University, Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh.
C S
P ag
e8
1. INTRODUCTION The lack of access to electricity has been
considered a major impediment to the growth and development of
rural economies in Bangladesh. Thus, the provision of electricity
and other forms of modern energy have been a priority for many
development organizations, including the World Bank (Khandker et
al., 2012). Rural electrification is the route of bringing
electrical power to rural and remote areas. Electric power energy
is the primary force for the development of all socioeconomic
activities. Adequate supply of electricity in the rural area is one
of the major weaknesses of growth and development of the rural
economies in developing countries lie Bangladesh (Bosu et al.,
2017). That is why provide sufficient electric power in the rural
area of Bangladesh has been one of the priority themes of the
government of Bangladesh. Development plans of Bangladesh have
identified rural electrification as one of the major components of
the overall infrastructure, implementation of which, it is held,
can accelerate the pace of economic growth, employment generation,
and alleviation of poverty and improve living standard. A well
planned and organized rural electrification program was, however,
not existed till 1970s. The electrification program as carried out
by the Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB) was mainly limited
to urban centres and at best to their peripheries. At that time,
the Government of Bangladesh engaged two consulting firms of USA to
carry out a comprehensive feasibility study on rural
electrification in Bangladesh (MoP, 2020). Rural Electrification
Board (REB) was established on 29 October, 1977 and started
functioning on 1 January, 1978 with several objectives such as;
Ensure consumer participation in policy-making; provide reliable,
sustainable and inexpensive electricity to rural people; support
advance the socioeconomic situation of rural people by ensuring
electric power for agriculture and small and medium enterprise
(SME); aid to progress the living condition of rural people and
expand electrification to entire rural Bangladesh (Khandker et al.,
2012). Later in Rural Electrification Board Act, 2013 has been
established instead of the Rural Electrification Board Ordinance,
1977 (Ordinance No. LI of 1977) and the name of the Board is the
Bangladesh Rural Electrification Board, which was responsible for
electrifying rural Bangladesh (Bangladesh Ministry of Power, Energy
and Mineral Resources, 2020). The utility electricity sector in
Bangladesh has one national grid with an installed capacity of
21,419 MW as of September 2019. The total installed capacity is
20,000 MW (combining solar power). Bangladesh's energy sector is
booming. Recently Bangladesh started construction of the
2.4-gigawatt (GW) Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant expected to go into
operation in 2023. According to the Bangladesh Power Development
Board in July 2018, 90 percent of the population had access to
electricity (Bangladesh Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral
Resources, 2021). However per capita energy consumption in
Bangladesh is considered low. Electricity is the major source of
power for most of the country's economic activities. Bangladesh's
total installed electricity generation capacity (including captive
power) was 15,351 megawatts (MW) as of January 2017 and 20,000
megawatts in 2018 (Bangladesh Business News, 2018). The largest
energy consumers in Bangladesh are industries and the residential
sector, followed by the commercial and agricultural sectors. As of
2015, 92% of the urban population and 67% of the rural population
had access to electricity. An average of 77.9% of the population
had access to electricity in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh will need an estimated 34,000 MW of power by 2030 to
sustain its economic growth of over 7 percent (Bangladesh Ministry
of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources, 2021). Renewable energy
sources can be considered possible solutions to fulfil the future
energy demand of the country and to offer electricity, particularly
in rural areas (Mollik et al., 2016). Generally, we can say that
electrification enhances quality of life at household level and
stimulates economy at a broader level in the rural area (Khandker
et al., 2012). The immediate benefit of electrification comes
through improved lighting, which promotes extended hours of study
and in turn contributes to better educational achievements.
Providing electric power can also benefit other household
activities, such as needlework by women and men, community
engagement after sunset, and so on. Electric gadgets such as radios
and television improve the access to information by rural
households and can provide entertainment to family members. Rural
livelihoods are impacted from electricity. Crop productivity can be
increased by the application of electric irrigation pumps,
businesses can be operated longer hours in the evening, electric
tools and machinery can impart efficiency and productivity to
industrial enterprises, and so on (Khandker et al., 2012). Herran
and Nakata (2012) stated that the decentralized electrification
using homegrown resources can reduce regional inequality in rural
and distant areas in terms of supply reliability and cost, as well
as stimulate income generation. Cook (2011) noted that the
correlation between infrastructure and growth intuitively rural
electrification is a vital part of a country's infrastructure,
although it is not always the case that it has been given
importance in a developing country's economic plan for
infrastructure. Chaurey and Kandpal (2010) described that the
challenges of supplying electricity to rural households are
diverse. Narayan and Singh (2007) reported that the association
between energy consumption and economic growth is crucial for
growth and
C S
P ag
e9
development. Bhattacharyya (2006) argues that in India, rural
electrification alone is questionable to resolve the energy access
problem because of low dispersion of electricity in the energy mix
of the poor. Providing electricity at the household level is
crucial to ensure a better standard of living as the effective use
of time shapes up the lifestyle of each individual concerned. Allow
activities to occur after daylight hours, including education. In
impoverished and undeveloped areas, small amounts of electricity
can save large amounts of human time and labour. In the poorest
areas, people carry water and fuel by hand, their food storage may
be limited, and their activity is limited to daylight hours. Reduce
isolation through telecoms, improve safety with the implementation
of street lighting, lit road signs, improve health care by
electrifying remote rural clinics, reduces the need for candles and
kerosene lamps with their inherent fire safety risks and improves
indoor air quality and improve productivity, through the use of
electricity for irrigation, crop processing, and other activities.
The findings from this project will be a tall order for policy
maker, rural development activist and academic scientist. On the
basis of the above discussion, the research questions of this study
were: What are the socioeconomic conditions of sample households?
What are the impacts of rural electrification on users’
livelihoods? And what are the problems and constraints faced by the
households. The main purpose of the study was to know the
contribution of electrification in the rural area of Bangladesh.
Following were the specific objectives set for the proposed
research project to: examine the socioeconomic conditions of sample
households, investigate the impact of rural electrification on
user’s livelihoods, and identify the problems and constraints faced
by the households. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS This research was
carried out at sadar upazila of Mymensingh district. A total of 70
households were randomly selected from Chargobodia and Charkalibari
villages of sadar upazila under the Mymensingh district. The
respondents were under rural electrification since 2015. All of the
respondents were clients of the Mymensingh Palli Bidyut Samity-1.
Primary data were collected personally from respondents through a
sample survey with the help of a structured and pre-tested
interview schedule. Focus group discussion and observation
techniques also used for getting relevant information. Simple
statistical techniques such as percentage and arithmetic mean or
average were employed to analyse the data. The DFID livelihood
approach (DFID, 2000) was carried used to determine the impact of
the rural electrification on livelihood.
Figure 1: The DFID approaches of livelihood
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Socioeconomic characteristics The
socioeconomic characteristic of an area represents the extent of
development and also helps to take suitable policies for further
expansion. The socioeconomic environment also significantly
determines the nature and extent of participation of people in the
development programs. A group of people must not be same from one
another in many aspects. Social status and economic condition are
dissimilar from one to another. Consumption pattern, employment
patterns, combination of crop cultivation, taking credit, decision
making and livelihood status, etc. are greatly affected by the
socioeconomic characteristics of farm households. For this reason
the socioeconomic background of the respondents is important. The
major socioeconomic characteristics are family size and
composition, education, occupation, land possession pattern, income
and consumption. 3.1.1 Age of the respondents The study illustrates
the age distribution of the respondents during the period of study.
In this study, the age groups of the selected sample farmers are
classified into three categories according to the working age
C S
P ag
e1 0
classification of Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS, 2015).
These categories are: age between 15 to 29 years of old, age
between 30- 64 years old and age of 65 years old and above. Table 1
shows age classifications of the respondents. It reveals that the
highest number of selected farmers 74.29% belonged to the age group
30 – 64. About 7.14 % farmers were in the age group 15 - 29 and
18.57 % farmers were in the age group of 65 and above. Table 1: Age
distribution of the respondents
Age group of respondents (Years) No. of farmers Percentage (%) of
respondents
15 – 29 5 7.14
30 – 64 52 74.29
Total 70 100
Source: Field Survey, 2021 3.1.2 Educational level of respondents
Education helps a person to effectively understand the production
requirements and implement the knowledge correctly. Education of
the respondents also helps them to manage their earnings
efficiently on their family consumption, children‘s education,
housing and other expenditures. On the basis of Bangladesh Bureau
of Statistics, educational status of the respondents was classified
into three levels (BBS, 2015). These levels are: primary (from
grade 1 to 8), secondary (from grade 9 to 10) and higher secondary
(above grade 11). Table 2 shows the educational status of the
respondents in the study area. The result shows that the
respondents who did not receive institutional education was the
second highest which 44.28%. Among the rest, 47.14% respondents
ended their primary level education. Almost 7.15% respondents’
educational status was up to secondary level. 1.43% had an
educational level up to higher secondary and above. Table 2:
Educational status of the respondents
Education level No. of farmers Percentage (%) of farmers
Illiterate 31 44.28
Primary 33 47.14
Secondary 5 7.15
Total 70 100
Source: Field Survey, 2021 3.1.3 Occupational status of the
respondents Occupation is one of the most important attributes of
socioeconomic characteristics. The distribution of occupation
varies greatly depending on how much respondents involved and what
level of income they earned from their present occupation. It was
observed that respondents involved in various kinds of occupation,
such as farming, servicing, business, day laboring, etc. In this
study, the farmer’s occupation is categorized in two ways: main
occupation and subsidiary occupation. Each category again grouped
into four categories such as agriculture, business, service and
day-laborer. Table 3 represents the occupational status of the farm
households. The table show that about 65.71% farmer’s main
occupation was agriculture and 21.43% respondents considered
agriculture as subsidiary for their earnings. Business was the main
occupation for 18.57% respondents and subsidiary occupation for
17.14% respondents. Service was main occupation for 4.29% and
subsidiary occupation for 1.43% respondents. Day- laborer was the
main occupation for 11.43%. About 60% of the respondents were no
subsidiary occupation. The discussion indicates that agriculture is
the main way to earn livelihoods. Table 3: Occupational status of
the selected respondents
Occupation (Main)
Day-laborer 8 11.43 No subsidiary 42 60.00
Total 70 100 Total 70 100
Source: Field Survey, 2021
C S
P ag
e1 1
3.1.4 Family size and dependency ratio A family size has consisted
of the people of all sex living together or taking meals from the
same kitchen that is managed and headed by a single person. A
family may include wife, husband, sons, daughters who are
unmarried, father, mother, brother, sister and other relatives who
live permanently. Any family member who employed outside, but
received meal from the same kitchen and shares a portion or full
income and expenditure with family head while present at home also
included in the same family. Persons employed in the family as
servants, caretaker, etc. must be excluded from the family. In this
study the family size of respondents categorized into three groups:
small family (consists of up to 4 members), medium family (consists
of 5 to 9 members) and large family (consists of above 10 members).
Table 4 represents the family size and the dependency ratio of
respondents. It shows that average family size and the dependency
ratio in the small group was 3.59 persons and 2.90. In the medium
group the average family size was 6.10 persons with dependency
ratio 3.40. The average family size and dependency ratio in the
study area under the large family group was about 11.17 persons in
a family and 5.15. The overall average family size in the study
area was 5.15 persons in a family with dependency ratio 3.33. Table
4: Family size and dependency ratio of the Respondents
Family Size No. of households
Total members
Total 70 368 5.26 94 3.91
Source: Field Survey, 2021 3.1.5 Farm size of the respondents
Analysis of the farm size of the farmers can’t be underestimated as
it is a significant factor of production and the income of farmers
greatly depends on their farm size. According to the Bangladesh
Bureau of Statistics, the farm categories were; landless (no land),
small (5-249 decimal) medium (250-749 decimal) and large (750
decimal and up). The land holding of the sample selected farmers
was defined as the sum total of all kinds of land they possessed
and having legal rights to it. In the present research study the
land distribution of farmers is calculated on an average basis.
Table 5 shows the farm category of the selected respondents. The
table represents that the average farm size was 237.21 decimal. On
the basis of farm category, 5.71% of the respondents belong to
landless, 75.72% respondents belong to small, and 12.86%
respondent’s medium and 5.71% respondents were a large farm
category. Table 5: Farm size of the respondents
Farm category No. of household
Total land (decimal)
Large (750 decimal and up 4 6980 1745 5.71
Total 70 16605 237.21 100
Source: Field Survey, 2021 3.1.6 Income and expenditure
distribution of the respondents Expenditure of farmers depends on
their income. On the basis of their income they adjusted their
expenses. In the study area, the farmers spent their income for
food, clothes, children’s education, medicine, purchasing,
production inputs, leasing or mortgaging lands, and electricity by
solar panel or fuel energy etc. Their income sources were mainly
from rice cultivation, poultry farming, fish cultivation, shrimp
production, tree, vegetable production, remittance, services,
business and lease out of lands etc. From the Table 6 we can see
that an average income and expenditure of the respondents were
Tk.270485.71 and Tk.236500 respectively. For small family group the
average annual income was Tk.217774.19 and expenditure was Tk.
197580.65. At the same time the average annual income and
expenditure was Tk.313228.57 and Tk. 267028.57 for medium family
and Tk. 305000 and Tk. 271000 large family respectively.
C S
P ag
e1 2
Table 6: Annual income and expenditure of the respondents according
to family size
Family Size No. of households
Average Income (Tk.) Average Expenditure (Tk.)
Small family (up to 4) 31 217774.19 197580.65
Medium family (5 to 9) 35 313228.57 267028.57
Large family (10 and above) 4 305000 271000
Total 70 270485.71 236500
Source: Field Survey, 2021 3.2 Impact of rural electrifications on
user’s livelihood 3.2.1 Livelihood assets Sustainable livelihoods
(SL) thinking gained ground, in the Department for International
Development (DFID) poverty reduction efforts in the 1990s. The
guiding assumption of the DFID approach is that people pursue a
range of livelihood outcomes by which they hope to improve or
increase their livelihood assets and to reduce their vulnerability.
The five types of assets that form the core of livelihood resources
in the DFID SL framework range. The model breaks access into the
five ‘capitals 1. Human capital (e.g. education, health); 2.
Natural capital (e.g. land, trees and forests); 3. Social capital
(e.g. community networks); 4. Physical capital (e.g. agricultural
equipment, household furniture); and 5. Financial capital (e.g.
Cash in hand); Table 7: Change of different type of assets
Assets Items Degree of change
Increased Unchanged Decreased
Human assets Education 39 (55.71%) 22 (31.43%) 9 (12.86%) Nutrition
42 (60%) 17(24.29%) 11(15.71%) Health status 54 (77.14%) 12
(17.14%) 4 (5.71%)
Capacity to work 47 (67.14%) 15 (21.43%) 8(11.43%)
Skill and knowledge 34 (48.57%) 24 (34.29%) 12 (17.14%) Natural
assets Land (purchased) 10 (14.29%) 59 (84.28%) 1(1.43%) Land
(lease/mortgage) 38(54.29%) 31(44.28%) 1(1.43%)
Trees and forests 10 (14.29%) 55(78.57%) 5(7.14%)
Social assets Network and connection 45(64.29%) 17(24.29%)
8(11.43%)
Mutual support 49(70%) 14(20%) 7(10%)
Common rules 34(48.57%) 14(20%) 22(31.43%)
Women empowerment 48(68.57%) 17(24.29%) 5(7.14%)
Leadership 41(58.57%) 19(27.14%) 10(14.29%)
Harvester 47(67.14% 19(27.14%) 4(5.71%)
Khat 47(67.14%) 22(31.43%) 1(1.43%)
Chair 52(74.29%) 18(25.71%) 0(0%)
Table 55(78.57%) 13(18.57%) 2(2.86%)
Almirah 51(72.86%) 19(27.14%) 0(0%)
Showcase 57(81.43%) 10(14.29%) 3(4.28%)
Financial assets Cash in hand 63(90%) 7(10%) 0(0%) Deposit in bank
43(61.43%) 20(28.57%) 7(10%)
Savings 20 (28.57%) 17(24.29%) 33(47.14%)
Poultry birds 35(50%) 25(35.71%) 10(14.28%) Cow 45(64.29%)
24(34.28%) 1(1.43%) Goat 36(51.43%) 31(44.29%) 3(4.28%)
(Figures in parentheses indicate percentages) Field Survey,
2021
C S
P ag
e1 3
3.2.2 Human assets Human assets are consisted with education,
health, nutrition, capacity to work, skill and knowledge. Table 7
shows that education, health, nutrition, capacity to work, skill
and knowledge increased by 55.71%, 60%, 77.14%, 67.14%, 48.57%,
respectively, and decreased by 12.86%, 15.71%, 5.71%, 11.43%, and
17.14% respectively. Education, health, nutrition, capacity to
work, skill and knowledge 31.43%, 24.29%, 17.14%, 21.43%, 34.29%
were unchanged, respectively. Van de Walle et al. (2013) also found
positive effects of rural electrification on schooling for girls.
3.2.3 Natural assets Natural assets are consisted with land
(purchased, lease/mortgage), trees and forests. Table 7 also shows
that the land (purchased), the land (lease/mortgage), trees and
forests increased by 14.29%, 54.29% and 14.29, respectively and
unchanged by 84.28%, 44.28% and 78.57%, respectively. 3.2.4 Social
assets Social assets consisted with network and connection, mutual
supports, common rules women empowerment, leadership, etc. Table 7
indicates that most of the users respond their social assets were
increased. The table represents that network and connection, mutual
support, common rules, women empowerment and leadership increased
by 64.29%, 70%, 48.57%, 68.57%, 58.57%, respectively, and 24.29%,
20%, 20%, 24.29%, 27.14% remain unchanged, respectively. From this
table it is shown that social assets were increased after using
electricity. So, it is clear that the impact rural electrification
on the livelihood is positive. 3.2.5 Physical assets Physical
assets, construct with agricultural equipment, household amenities,
etc. Table 7 shows the impact of rural electrification of changing
agricultural equipment furniture of the respondents. Using weeder,
harvester and deep tube well increased by 60%, 67.14%, 61.43%,
respectively. Using weeder, harvester and deep tube well remained
unchanged 32.86%, 27.14%, and 37.14%, respectively. The table shows
that the higher percentage of increasing of using agricultural
equipment so, rural electrification plays a drastic impact on the
livelihood of the respondents. Table 7 also represents the impact
of rural electrification on household furniture of the respondents.
Khat, chair, table, almirah and showcase increased by 67.14%,
74.29%, 78.57%, 72.86%, 81.43%, respectively. The percentage of
khat, chair, table, almirah and showcase unchanged at 31.43%,
25.71%, 18.57%, 27.14%, 14.29%, respectively. The table shows a
higher percentage of increasing and lower percentage of unchanged
of household furniture so; rural electrification plays a
significant impact on livelihood of the respondents. 3.2.6
Financial assets Financial assets related to respondents cash in
hand, deposit in bank, savings, animal stock of the household. The
changes of financial assets after rural electrification are given
in the Table 7. This table represents that rural electrification
plays a significant impact on increasing financial assets. The
percentage of cash in hand, deposit of bank, savings, poultry
birds, cow, and goat increased by 90%, 61.43%, 28.57%, 50%, 64.29%,
51.43%, respectively. The percentage of cash in hand, deposit of
bank, savings, poultry birds, cow and goat unchanged at 10%,
28.57%, 24.29%, 35.71%, 34.28%, 44.29%, respectively. The
percentage of cash in hand, deposit of bank, savings, poultry
birds, cow and goat decreased in 0%, 10%, 47.14%, 14.28%, 1.43%,
4.28%, respectively. Bosu et al. (2017) also found that the average
annual income of households with electricity is higher than that in
the households of non-electrified villages. So, the rural
electrification makes a drastic impact on the livelihood of the
respondents. Van de Walle et al. (2013) found positive effects of
rural electrification on consumption and earnings. Iqbal and Ahmed
(2021) found that the impact of electrification of working hours of
household earning members was positive and significant. 3.3
Problems and constraints associate with rural electrification The
users of the electricity were facing various problems and
constraints in the study area. The electricity users confronted the
problems and constraints during they use in their daily life were
ranked in the Table 8. The electricity users need to pay their
electricity bill every month, but, sometimes the bill was not
correct. About 30% of the respondents claim the wrong bill was
their one of the problems. The office staff should take the correct
meter reading and bill the correct amount of money.
C S
P ag
e1 4
Table 8: Problems and constraints of using electricity in the study
area (Percentages are in parentheses)
Problem and constraint
First Second Third Fourth Total
(n = 70)
Load shading 10 17 9 24 60 (85.71%)
High price of electricity 19 17 21 2 59 (84.29%)
Low voltage 35 18 2 3 58 (82.86%)
Damage of the electric equipment 2 1 9 17 29 (41.42%)
Difficulty of new meter set up 1 12 19 8 40 (57.14%)
Source: Author’s estimation, 2021 Load shading was another problem
faced by the users. About 85.71% of the respondents complain that
load shading was their main problem. Bosu et al. (2017) also found
that irregularity of power supply and load shedding are acute
problems in the rural electrification programme. Rural
electrification brings multiple benefits, but the size of the
benefits could be significantly reduced when electricity supply is
unreliable (Samad and Zhang, 2017). The high price of electricity
was another problem. About 84.29% of the respondents expressed
their dissatisfaction regarding the electricity unit price. Low
voltage was another constraint for the users. About 82.86% of the
respondents complain regarding the low voltage of the electricity.
The fluctuating voltage of the electricity sometime causes the
damage of the electric equipment like refrigerator and freezer.
About 41.42% of the respondents experienced this constraint. When
the respondents need to set up a new meter, it was very difficult
for them because of complex official procedure. About 57.14%
respondents claim this was another problem for them. CONCLUSION The
scenery of rural Bangladesh is changing. This change has been
happening due to dynamic rural electrification. Rural
electrification is the means of new and modern activities in the
rural area in Bangladesh. The lifestyle of the rural population is
comparable to urban and semi-urban people. Socioeconomic effects of
rural electric energy power on livelihood are multiple aspects. The
multidimensional impacts and benefits are either direct or
indirect. The direct impacts are mostly monetary, and reflected in
enhanced income, and employment, and improved expenditure pattern,
surpluses, savings, and asset building. Most indirect impacts
relate to the social and cultural aspects of life, which include,
among others, such areas as education, health, women's status,
modernization etc. These direct and indirect benefits together
yield synergy in economic growth, poverty alleviation, and human
development. The all five types of assets such as human, natural,
social, physical and financial were positively changed after rural
electrification in the study area. These assets consist with
education, health, nutrition, capacity to work, skill and
knowledge, land and aquatic resources, network and connection,
mutual supports, common rules women empowerment, leadership,
agricultural equipment, household furniture, cash in hand, deposit
in bank, savings, and animal stock of the household. Rural
electrification has contributed to the positive development on
women’s socioeconomic status (Bosu et al., 2017). Even dramatic
changes in the rural area due to rural electrification, the
electricity users are facing some problems and constraints.
Upgrading of distribution system and staff development should be
ensured by the government (Ali et al., 2012).The electricity users
need to pay their electricity bill every month, but, sometimes the
bill was not correct; load shading was another problem faced by the
users; high unit price of electricity, low voltage were other
constraints for the users. The fluctuating voltage of the
electricity sometime causes the damage of the electric equipment
like refrigerator and freezer. When the respondents need to set up
a new meter, it was very difficult for them because of complex
official procedure. So, government should address these issues in
the development policies and programmes for rural Bangladesh.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare that there is no conflict
of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The first author gratefully acknowledges the
Ministry of Science and Technology of the Government of People's
Republic of Bangladesh for funding this research project.
C S
P ag
e1 5
REFERENCES 1. Ali, T. Arnab, I.Z. and Faruk, M. O. 2012. An
Overview of Rural Electrification in Bangladesh.
International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research.
Volume 3, Issue 2, pp.374-378. 2. Bangladesh Business News, 2018.
Booming Energy Sector of Bangladesh : 90 Percent Have Access
To
The Electricity. Available at:
https://bdnewsnet.com/bangladesh/economy/booming-energy-sector-
of-bangladesh-90-percent-have-access-to-the-elctrecity/. Accessed
on July 01, 2021.
3. BBS 2015. Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Bureau
of Statistics, Statistics Division, Ministry of Planning,
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka.
4. Bangladesh Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources,
2020. Bangladesh Rural Electrification Board (BREB).The People’s
Republic of Bangladesh.
5. Bangladesh Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources,
2021. Nuclear Power in Bangladesh. Available at:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-
f/bangladesh.aspx. Accessed on July 01, 2021.
6. Bhattacharyya, S.C. 2006. Energy Access Problem of the Poor in
India: Is Rural Electrification a Remedy? Energy Policy, 34(18):
3387-3397.
7. Bosu R., Alam, M.M. and Haque, M.F. 2017. Socio-Economic Impact
of Rural Electrification Program (Rep) In Bangladesh and Study on
Determination Of Electricity Distribution Cost Of Pabna Pbs-2"
American Journal of Engineering Research .Volume-6, Issue-8,
pp-230-252.
8. Chaurey, A. and Kandpal,T.C. 2010. Assessment and evaluation of
PV based decentralized rural electrification: An overview
,Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 14, pp.
2266–2278.
9. Cook, P. 2011. Infrastructure, rural electrification and
development, Energy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 15, 2011, pp.
304–313.
10. DFID (2000). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets.
Department for International
Development.http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidanceshessts.html
(accessed on July 15,2021).
11. Herran, D.S. and Nakata,T. 2012. Design of decentralized energy
systems for rural electrification in developing Countries
considering regional disparity, Applied Energy, Vol. 91, pp.
130–145.
12. Iqbal, M.Z. and Ahmed, N. 2021. The Impact of Rural
Electrification on Life-Line Consumers: Empirical Evidence from
Bangladesh. The Journal of Developing Areas. Tennessee State
University College of BusinessVolume 55, Number 4, pp.
355-375
13. Khandker, S.R., Barnes, D.F. and Samad, H.A. 2012. The Welfare
Impacts of Rural Electrification in Bangladesh. The Energy Journal.
Volume-33, No.1, pp.187-206.
14. Ministry of Planning 2020. "Making Vision 2041 a Reality:
PERSPECTIVE PLAN OF BANGLADESH 2021- 2041", General Economics
Division, Bangladesh Planning Commission, The People’s Republic of
Bangladesh.
15. Mollik, S., Rashid, M.M., Hasanuzzaman, M., Karim, M.E. and
Hosenuzzaman, M. 2016. Prospects, progress, policies, and effects
of rural electrification in Bangladesh. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews. Volume 65, pp.553-567.
16. Narayan, P.K. and Singh,B.2007. The electricity consumption and
GDP nexus for the Fiji Islands, Energy Economics, Vol. 29, Issue 6,
pp. 1141–1150.
17. Samad, H. A. and Zhang, F. 2017. Heterogeneous Effects of Rural
Electrification: Evidence from Bangladesh. World Bank Policy
Research Working Paper No. 8102, Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2985529. Accessed on July 01, 2021.