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.