Tue 7 Aug 2007
Pulling Bangladesh out of Poverty?
Posted by Sowula under Bangladesh , Economy , Progress , Social Entrepreneurship , Society , Urban PovertyPlease download the Rickshaw Development Proposal
The challenge was to propose an idea which would have the greatest impact on poverty alleviation in
Bangladesh. After nine months of living and working in the country as volunteers, my colleague Thomas Wipperman and I realised that the answer was all around us. There are many marginalised groups in
Bangladesh; indigenous people, farmers afflicted by the Monga famines, HIV sufferers – but they compromise a tiny minority in a country of over 145 million. When the purpose of intervention is to reach as many people as possible at the lowest end of the social scale, the stand-out constituency is the rickshaw pullers. Rickshaw pullers are the essential cogs in
Bangladesh’s machine. And they deserve better.
Therefore, through the nationalisation and rationalisation of non motorised urban transport, we propose to incorporate the two million rickshaw pullers in
Bangladesh into the formal economy as public workers within a sustainable, pollution-free, low cost urban transport network. If the rickshaw industry were nationalised, passengers would not simply be paying someone to cycle them around, they would be contributing to
Bangladesh’s biggest public service, a bigger transportation economy than Biman and the Railways combined. By formalising this enormous economy – 6% of Bangladesh’s GDP – we believe it would be possible to bring economic and social uplift to rickshaw pullers, bring better public transport to Bangladesh’s cities, and reach nearly 15% of the total population. Our proposal is sweeping in its scope but efficient in its implementation. It is a feasible and equitable way of bringing positive change to some of
Bangladesh’s most marginalised communities
If an intervention wishes to make as large a social impact as possible then taking account the combination of the community size, and its economic and social contribution and position, targeting the conditions of rickshaw pullers has to be a priority. As bideshis, it seems to us that considering their importance to
Bangladesh’s economic, social and cultural life and how hard they toil towards this, the scarcity of reward enjoyed by rickshaw pullers, their lack of rights and lowly status is astonishing. Our proposal would aim to raise their social status, increase their income and ensuring that this is secure, and rationalise the transport of Bangladesh so that it can be more efficient and effective, which is essential for any country’s wider development.
Crucially, the behaviour of users will have to change very little, and the economic cost to them of the change will be zero. Service users would simply find that what was once a private service is now a public one, and they would need to purchase tokens from local retailers, a viable and already tested system for other services. At the same time, every single person who uses a rickshaw in
Bangladesh – almost the entire population will become a stakeholder; will directly contribute to the alleviation of poverty, disadvantage and inequity amongst the people of
Bangladesh.
The beauty of our proposal lies in its simplicity, and economic sustainability. After living and working here it is obvious that
Bangladesh, despite the challenges it faces, has some of the hardest working, most patriotic and determined people in the world. It also has wealth, a fluid cash economy – but like most countries, too much cash ends up concentrated in tiny minority. We have tried, therefore, to devise a scheme that can harness that passion, commitment, and surplus capital with the minimum disruption to the cultural fabric of the nation. Nationwide approximately $4.1 million flows in to the rickshaw economy every day. $2.9m remains the property of the rickshaw pullers. The excess $1.2m is therefore money that, were the rickshaw sector nationalised, could flow back every day in to the Bangladeshi state - $529m per year. Given that the Bangladeshi national budget for 2007-2008 totalled $12.63 billion, with $3.83b allocated under the Annual Development Plan (ADP), our project would effectively introduce an increase of 14% to the ADP. And the cost of implementing our proposal? We estimate this to be around $160m, which set against guaranteed annual revenue of over $500m, is certainly justifiable.
This proposal’s five main objectives are designed to have as wide an impact as is possible without causing disruption to this vital transport network. It will bring economic security to the rickshaw puller with the creation of a regular income stream; it will facilitate the raising of rickshaw pullers’ social status by making them formal public workers with rights and responsibilities; it will generate substantial, sustainable capital for investment into upgrading rickshaw garage infrastructure, bringing health and other social benefits to rickshaw pullers; it will incorporate rickshaw pullers into society by making their garages centres of development activity and education; and it will improve the standard of public transport in Bangladesh’s urban centres.
Whilst an intervention of this scale would require careful management and meticulous organisation, we believe that it is far from utopian, or unrealistic given the challenges faced by the government of
Bangladesh. On the contrary, an intervention on this scale could only be managed by an authority with the scope and power of the State, and the political incentives to the government for pursuing an eminently realisable goal are obvious. The legitimacy of any government, especially in a democratic system rests on how it manages the welfare of the people under its charge. We believe that our proposal clearly would make a huge positive contribution to the welfare of nearly 15% of Bangladeshis, specifically those who need it most, and the benefits of adopting our proposal outweigh any potential difficulties.
Our proposal aims to not just improve the educational standard and the physical well-being of the rickshaw puller and their families and dependents, but also socially and psychologically empower the rickshaw puller. They would be freed from their dependency on their mechanical master, the rickshaw, currently their only source of survival and also what entrenches their social immobility. Instead they would be lifted to the level of full Bangladeshi citizens, enjoying rights and benefits, providing a service and carrying responsibilities, paying taxes, and aiding the collection of a vast previously untapped revenue for their nation and its people. By empowering the rickshaw puller and also providing them with material and educational assistance, you are providing them with the opportunity to not only take pride in their work and their status, but also to change it.
By Timothy Sowula and Thomas Wipperman
Please download the Rickshaw Development Proposal
August 7th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I agree that the plight of rickshaw pullers in Bangladesh is terrible– and they certainly deserve better. Nationalization, however, is not the answer in this or any other case.
You propose to nationalize an entire indsutry. This adds a layer of government bureaucrats to the administration of rickshaw puller affairs. I see no mention in your plan of the additional cost of this bureaucracy.
Furthermore, you say that the money generated by the rickshaw operators will be given to the state. What guarantee is there that these funds will flow back to the rickshaw pullers and not be consumed by rent seeking behavior from state organs? The state has proven time and time again that it cannot ethically handle large projects; I don’t think we should be gambling the livelihoods of 15% of our citizens on the off chance that the government will change it’s spots.
Your plan also appears to be short on details of how the rickshaw pullers are to compensated for handing over their revenue to the government. This could be because it’s an executive summary. If, on the off chance, you propose that all rickshaw pullers are to become salaried government workers, have you considered what happens when these new workers start agitating for old age pensions like all other government workers? Can the state bear this additional fiscal responsibility?
Nice try, but no biscuit. Societies the world over have tried socialism, and they have all failed without exception. I’ll kill myself before I forget history and let that scourge enter my country. Best bet for the rickshaw pullers? NGOs.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Edit: I missed the download link for the article. I read it through, and I see that you do propose that rickshaw pullers become salaried government workers.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:28 am
Innovative concept! But considering that majority if not all rickshaw pullers do not own their vehicles, exactly where does the actual rickshaw owners, the “Mahajans” fit into the proposed concept?
An explanation to this affect from the authors will be appreciated.
Cheers
August 8th, 2007 at 7:39 am
To lazarus89 - this is not socialism: the State in Bangladesh already is responsible for many things - the police, army, education - and in Europe the State is responsible for health, education, transport and a great deal else, in places that have the highest living standards in the world. If you read the proposal, we make great pains to point out that major cities like London, Paris and New York have publicly owned public transport that is certianly more efficient that many other private systesm. Toyko has private systems of urban rail, and this has resulted in 5 different train lines when one would do. Edinburgh has massive congestion due to private, competiting bus companies. As we make clear, the State can license operating to a private company, it does not need to do it itself (as London buses are run). This is about rationalisation of an irrational system, and hence some form decentralised authority is needed.
sufibaba_1967: We propose that the Mahajans are compensated for rickshaw losses, and land if they are built legally. Illegal garages would simply be repossed, especially as this mostly on Government owned land. We would encourage the Mahajans to become garage managers in teh new system, paying them a wage, but alternatively, they would simply loose out in the new system. As much of the problems rickshaw pullers face is due to this group, we do not feel that this price is too great. There is further information in the full proposal on this topic.
August 9th, 2007 at 5:32 am
Nice, broad, far-reaching idea. Few quick questions [I’m speaking only about Dhaka here]:
1) Will people want to buy tokens for rickshaw rides they haven’t taken yet?
What about CNG drivers? They face similar problems. This looks like discrimination.
2) You said customers “would need to purchase tokens from local retailers” — what about newcomers and tourists who don’t know about the system? You need a cash option, just like everywhere else in the world where pre-paid transport is available.
3) Shops close at 20:00 — what if I need a ride after then, but I don’t have a token?
4) What if the shops run out of tokens?
5) Won’t these shops be seen as middlemen in what should be a straightforward transaction? Bangladeshis hates middlemen.
6) What if I leave my friend’s house at 3 in the morning and realize “I forgot my tokens”?
7) How can a rickshaw puller increase his income unless I pay him more? In my privileged position, I can say “I don’t want to.” Most other people of Dhaka will say “I can’t.”
9) Won’t every garment worker, policemen, nightguard, driver and vendor think “I have a skill that benefits society. Why is the government helping non-skilled workers who perform a function that doesn’t really need to exist anyway?”
Dhaka has three times more rickshaws than it needs [you said 2 million operate in a country of 140 million people… just imagine 1 in 70 Londoners driving cabs] and society should be discouraging their use, not offering incentives to become / remain a rickshaw puller. They are definitely not pollution-free vehicles if pulled by people with no knowledge of traffic laws who don’t mind halting a packed bus and loaded goods truck while they attempt a maneuver worthy of Ripley’s Believe or Not — they do hinder traffic, they are incredibly power inefficient and need a huge turning circle and more braking distance than a car. They represent poverty and backwardness, and Dhaka should be moving toward their gradual elimination.
People don’t need rickshaws in Dhaka, just like people in well-functioning cities don’t need them. They can take tempos or buses [far cheaper and faster] — and on a network of roads that struggles to accommodate several kinds of vehicles, all with different capabilities, mass transport vehicles are the only possible respite.
As a quick fix to help rickshaw pullers, protect them from drug dealers who play on their ignorance, policemen who beat them and damage their rickshaws so they can return to the garage and get another beating from the rickshaw owners, and the middle/upper class car owners who think rickshaw pullers aren’t worthy of a ride to the hospital after they’ve been knocked over. Better yet, help them increase their worthy to society — for the most part, they are loiterers [not by choice, I know] performing an unnecessary function that doesn’t exist in most other cities — by rehabilitating them as street cleaners, bus drivers, guards, traffic wardens, anything other than an able-bodied man who hangs out on street corners for most of the day.
What you’re proposing is a truly humanitarian effort to help 2 million across the country. An alternative, one that will help all 14 million people in Dhaka, is to get vehicles off the roads, get rickshaw pullers off their rickshaws, increase the duty on 4×4s, double the amount of buses, implement a sky train, and of course, popularize the idea that you don’t need a 2-3 taka rickshaw ride to save you a 4-minute walk. In London, I can’t afford a car, so I walk and take the train. Nothing wrong with that. Legs, people, legs!
I wish you guys the best of luck. See you at the Club one of these days.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Nationalization by AL was not enough, please lets not get the govt. involved, it will only make more mess in trying to help.
Where the govt. can help is in R&D. We need a better design for the rickshaw. I personally did some research one time and found that there are advanced designs in India, USA and a few other countries. These could be imported and improved upon to fit our local needs. Some of the concepts are:
- to put some kind of floater suspension to absorb shock on the rider and the rickshaw itself from the pot-holes that very often damages the rickshaw or its wheels
- a battery run motor could help accelerate from a standing position, similarly a charger could utilize braking power to reconvert the kinetic energy and store it back as chemical energy (latent electrical energy) in the battery. The rechargeable battery technology is getting cheaper with new electric scooters and hybrid cars in the market
- it could also be made more aerodynamic and rain-proof using some bamboo frame and cloth covers
I was getting ready to import some newer design rickshaws into Bangladesh and redesign it for local use, but I never got a chance, as my stay in Bangladesh was cut short. Every time I used a rickshaw, I saw the hardship that the puller had to face, how much energy was needed to go from standing position and how much energy was wasted when he had to brake. Thats why the puller never wants to brake, instead he would gladly come to the center of the road and take the risk of being hit by a car or truck, many pullers and passengers die because of this simple reason.
The govt. could give subsidized loans for importing machines to manufacture better quality and durable rickshaws of existing or newer advanced designs.
The govt. could improve road and traffic system to better accommodate the rickshaw traffic.
Also, the govt. could setup training centers to provide mandatory driving and safety training before issuing rickshaw driving license.
Rickshaw is a wonderful human powered vehicle, the pride of Bangladesh, that produce no green house gas, but carries a significant load of the human and non-human traffic within Bangladesh. We should let the govt. help this industry as a facilitator where private resources are not sufficient, but the govt. should not get involved in managing or running it by inexperienced bureaucrats.
The business case of rickshaw is that it exists and provide service and employment. Why do we need to listen to someones bright idea that we do not need them? I am with our 2 million rickshaw-wala bhai’s, I even drove one for a day, have you?
August 9th, 2007 at 6:47 am
I forgot to mention, a sturdy gear system could alleviate much of the hardship of the puller to start from standing position.
Many of these features such as the gear, battery, electric motor, brake-charger are already there in the Indian design.
August 9th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Dear Sajid,
Thanks for your comments. In response to some of your questions -
Questions 1 - 3. I think people will adjust to teh new system fairly quickly, but obviously there would be some initial teething problems, as with any new system.
Question 4 - It is in a shop’s interest to have tokens, just as the same as it would need to have any other produce that is in constant demand in the market.
Question 5 - the shops are ‘middlemen’, just the same as buying mobile phone credit involves a middleman. But it’s a necessary process to make the system work (with our Rickshaw system), and I think people would realise that the positives outweigh any minor inconveniences.
Question 6 - That’s your fault. What if you leave your keys/phone/wallet?
Question 7 - The rickshaw puller can increase his income by working more and accruing bonuses for that work, just like any other system.
Question 8 - There are lots of groups in Bangladesh who have problems, CNG drivers among them. But as we have stated, the rickshaw-puller population and their dependents represent by far the biggest ‘discriminated’ category of people, and therefore to address thier needs, with our proposed system, could have the biggest impact on Bangladesh as a whole, which was one of our main aims for the intervention.
Question 9 - see above.
Regarding your other point, yes Rickshaws are not a perfect means of transport, but they are far less polluting than any other means of transport in Dhaka, and I also think that rickshaw pullers are not the only drivers in Dhaka who apparently have no knowledge or respect of traffic laws.
People could walk short-distances, of course, but the vast majority of Bangladeshis prefer not too. That’s partly why the rickshaws exist, to meet that demand. Dhaka, and urban Bangladesh needs rickshaws because they have evolved as an effective response to the lack of any other efficient or adequate public transport system for over-crowded towns/cities.
Notably, the report on the Dhaka Urban Transport Project (as we pointed out in the proposal) found that where rickshaws were removed from an area, it made transportation worse and the people protested against it.
I would argue that they don’t represent poverty and backwardness; but the way they are exploited creates their poverty and represents social injustice, that our proposal would aim to alleviate.
I assume that your ’sky-train’ comment is a joke. It made me laugh anyway!
Most of all, if you eliminate two million rickshaws from the streets of Dhaka, then what will those pullers do, the maintenance industry that supports them, and their families that rely on their income?
I’d happily discuss this further with you Sajid if we meet up, or of course please feel free to reply here.
August 10th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Sowula,
A very worthy endeavour. My heartiest congratulations and gratitude for taking such a keen interest in my country! A lot of what you said would no doubt be beneficial for the pullers.
Having said that I voice a few of Sajid and Lazarus’s concerns. First, Lazarus is right: nationalizing nothing works in Bangladesh. You will simply be taking the pullers out of the frying pan and dumping them into a big gaamla of biriyani (kachchi since it’s the government).
Like Sajid, I too feel that rickshaws represent poverty and inequality. They exist not only because people do not want to walk the short distance. People also do not walk the short distance because they exist. It’s a sad dynamic and nationalizing them isn’t going to break that. It’s going to accustom the consumer into expecting that service from the government and increase the incentives of unskilled workers of getting into this area.
The sky train proposal has been floating around for a while, so it’s not as laughable as it seems. But of course, you don’t expect the government to do it! What could be done would be to ban intercity trains from coming into Komlapur (build another station or two on the outskirts) and use those tracks for intra-Dhaka trains all the while extending them. Sounds good to anyone?:)
August 10th, 2007 at 1:56 am
It seems the whole project is focused on redistribution of income from the “mohajons” to the rickshaw puller and extra govt. revenues which accounts for the difference.
In addition the proposal only seems to convey the idea that if we pay the rickshaw puller 5 times the fare we are paying now they will get out of poverty.
I don’t see any increase in productivity or efficiency that might generate economic growth to alleviate people out of poverty.
August 10th, 2007 at 3:49 am
Dear AsifY,
Thank you for your support!
In response to your points, I agree that this proposal would ask a lot of any government, but as Tom pointed out in post 4, other countries run public transport services, and I don’t see why with advice and support Bangladesh can’t. One of the best aspects to our proposal, we feel is that the service infrastructure and the culture of using the service is already there, all the State needs to do is take over the administration. Yes, easier said than done, but by no-means impossible, and certainly no more challenging than organising a country’s defence, for example.
I believe that if we could reform the rickshaw industry to make it a centre for community development and learning, to make it a state-run service rather than the ‘last-chance saloon’ for the poor, then attracting unskilled-labourers in to the industry is no bad thing. Whatever rickshaws represent, it’s largely not positive, that is why are proposing to change the industry so they DO represent something positive; a rational public transport service and focus points for community development that Bangladesh can be proud of.
Tanim, we are in no way proposing that income in simply redistributed in a greater proportion to the rickshaw pullers. Simply giving people a one-off payment of more money does lead to sustainable or long-term poverty alleviation. Rather, we propose to guarantee the rickshaw puller’s income at 100t a day, with the option to earn more if they choose to work more. A stable guaranteed income has been shown to be far more beneficial than just making large one-off payments. Benefits to the puller and their families, training, health-care, education etc will be provided through the garages as well as services to the wider community, depending on local need.
There does not need to be a substantial increase in productivity, the rickshaw industry already represents 6% of Bangladesh GDP. What we are proposing to do is to manage that money better so it makes a better contribution to Bangladesh’s overall development; on our calculations the surplus revenues generated would increase the ADP by 14%.
Thanks.
August 10th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Skytrain, underground metro, maglev, etc were pipe dreams of corrupt govts, whose only interest was to make a big percentage out of the white elephant. So, none of those Jetsons ideas are appropriate for BD, where basic regular roads are a chaos, how will skytrain fly?
I say to the govt - fix the road laws and discipline first, and many transport problems will disappear.
As Sajid said earlier, basically how will BD govt run a new nationalized industry when they cant run existing ones? - eg Jute, Biman, power, fertilizer. Even if they pass it onto a private firm - they will dilly-dally - like Chittagong Intl airport!
Finally, I strongly believe that in order to modernize Dhaka to international metropole, and to cope with the population, we need MODERN transport, not rickshaws. Rickshaws were OK in the 70’s when Dhaka population was reasonable.
But now with 2 million rickshaws, (4 million in few years?):
1. it is time to renew a master-plan to PHASE OUT rickshaws gradually, from Dhaka.
2. Gradually ban rickshaws with no license, make more zones rickshaw-free, stop giving new licenses, restrict quality and tests for road-worthiness (safety), checks drivers for drug, disease and health. Eventually, make rickshaws phased out of big cities, no more in Dhaka, Chtg, Sylhet city etc.
3. Using the budget you mentioned, $265 million, introduce a modern CNG bus, electric train, waterways, mega transport system
4. Re-deploy the young and healthy drivers to the new transport system. Retire and pay off the older drivers and re-deploy them to municipal, environmental projetcs etc.
Gondolas are good for Venice, but rickshaws have reached their retirement age in Dhaka, and I believe we must now phase them out. Dhaka doesnt need to remain a city of the past - time to modernize.
Sowula - Thanks for your creative report, please consider alternate plan reports for phase-out of rickshaws before they become a burden for BD.
August 10th, 2007 at 6:06 am
KGazi,
Of course I do not think that the rickshaw is necessarily the best mode of public transportation, and suitable for another 100 years.
But I think that in the right scenario, rickshaws work perfectly well and in Bangladesh they are an effective solution, as well as sustaining the lives of 15 million people.
It would be wonderful if Dhaka could have smooth roads, users who understand, respect and obey traffic laws/common sense, and there were modern, clean buses, a sky-train, metro system etc etc. But if you doubt that the Bangladesh government can nationalise and administer a rickshaw network, then I seriously doubt that it can radically deliver those transportation advances in Dhaka and other cities over the next 20 years. In London, for example a proposal to deliver trams, and a ‘cross-rail’ link has been stalling for over a decade, and that’s a far easier job.
If you read the report on the Dhaka Urban Transport Project (there’s a link in the bibliography of our proposal), which attempted to deliver some of the changes you were recommending, then you can see all the obstacles that stopped it from being successfully implemented (including political interference) and why it has been officially rated ‘unsatisfactory’ which is report-speak for ‘a failure’.
Tom and I wanted to think of something that could realistically have a positive impact on the situation now, based on the situation now. Whether it’s realistic or not is up for debate, but we didn’t try to propose something that might be possible 15 years down the line in a utopian Bangladesh.
Thanks
August 10th, 2007 at 6:11 am
Sowula and/or anyone else in the know,
What’s the feasibility of rickshaw-pullers’ co-ops centred around the garages?
KGazi,
Complaining about Dhaka’s lack of roads and wanting less rickshas without providing any other form of mass transportation? Where’s the logic in that?
Re: “Modernisation”, that should not be cosmetic, but go deeper than that. In this Sowula does us a favour by focussing on the benefits/losses to the pullers rather than on “making Dhaka a metropole” worthy of the likes of New York and London. Focus on people first, the aesthetics and the appreciation of “foreign” investors can wait.
August 10th, 2007 at 7:40 am
KGazi, rickshaw is a thing of the past and Dhaka needs to modernise, eh? I guess New York and London are not modern cities then:
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9040375
Tim and Tom, interesting proposal. I’m personally very sceptic of governments’ ability do much anywhere in the world, so can’t say very enthused with the thrust of the proposal. But it is definitely an innovative proposal which can be explored further.
I’d also like to see Khilji’s idea of better designed rickshaws taken up further. We don’t necessarily need government involvement here. Any entreprneuer out there with some spare money to invest in this?
August 10th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I’m sure entrepreneurs are there. But without IP protection for the new design, what incentive is there?
August 10th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
an english engineer was at buet for some years (early 90s i think). his book is in your references i think. he did a comprehensive socio-technical study eand explained how advancement in the riksha tech was suffocated by the lack of light industry in bd. has that fact changed much in the last 15 years?
Ricksha’s are very inappropriate technology for all sorts of reasons. It is also a very demeaning job in a society where rank is determined by distance from physical work. However they are very cool to ride, especially in the evening when the streets can breathe.
Once upon a time, the USAID designed a new rickshaw. This story is funny http://www.the-south-asian.com/June2002/Cycle-Rickshaw_1.htm
August 11th, 2007 at 4:42 am
ASifY #14 - In my #12 item-3 above, I mentioned alternate transport like CNG buses etc.
I am very much concerned about rickshaw-pullers, which is why I suggest phasing them out - to relieve them of the primitive physical drugery. I also suggested alternate ways to re-deploy them. Keeping ricksaws active in Dhaka is a popular comment in BD, more as a sympathy for the rickshawallas employment than the transport.
But if Dhaka’s rickshaw population SWELLS then not only will the transport problem get worse, but the rickshawallas life will get MORE miserable, due to less income, worse traffic, and worse Mahajans.
This will also hamper the flow of more load-bearing traffic like trucks and buses.
Anthony #15 - a few rickshaws in London Paris NY, used as collector’s items, is hardly the same as 15 million Rickshas in BD, used as a national transport system.
Sowula #13 - you said “Of course I do not think that the rickshaw is necessarily the best mode of public transportation, and suitable for another 100 years.”
Then why are you proposing to nationalize that industry? If rickshaws are inadequate for the future, then phase them out like HORSE-CARRIAGES were in London-Paris and even from Dhaka in the 60’s. Dont we have enough rickshas already?
Bangladesh as a nation needs to look at the FUTURE of next 20 years to decide what the transport policy TODAY should be. Do we want to keep rickshaws 20 years from now? or do we want a rickshaw-free modern THOROUGHFARE with efficient transport??
No use glorifying the rickshaw industry, if we want to OBSOLETE it in future. Lets begin the phase-out now, before UNIONS, LABOR deployment, ROADS, POPULATION, all get integrated into bigger rickshaw numbers.
What may be MORE necessary now, meanwhile, before phasing them out, is to improve GOVT REGULATORY CONTROLS on rickshaws, Mohajans and drivers to protect their rights etc. without allowing any further growth of the ricksha population.
August 11th, 2007 at 6:29 am
KGazi,
At least in mid-town Manhattan, rickshaws are a thriving mode of transport for both tourists and city folks.
20 years from now, we’ll be in a world of carbon taxes, high energy prices and congested cities. I’m not sure there is no place for rickshaw in that world. And I’m not convinced that phasing rickshaw out of Bangladesh is necessarily a good idea.
The current conditions of the rickshaw industry is less than satisfactory. Sowula and others deserve credit for raising the discussion. Let’s not romanticise rickshaws, but let’s not romanticise freeways and thoroughfares either.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Hi, thanks for comments.
AsifY, I can’t think of any reason why it would be unfeasable for rickshaw garages to be turned in to centres for community development; after some redesign/rebuilding. This obviously couldn’t happen overnight, but the money would be there. We thought that this would provide a useful alternative to Mosques or political parties.
Fugstar, Anthony, others. As far as Tom and I understand, there have been several attempts to redesign rickshaws, as the current design clearly has many flaws.
However, I have never been able to see any clear reason for why the designs have not been accepted other than nostalgic attachment to the status quo, which is now more than 50 years old. If you look at the bibliography in our proposal you can see our sources.
Kgasi, the reason why horse-carriages etc were phased out is because they became unnecessary, whereas it is pretty obvious that rickshaws are still completely necessary in Bangladesh, otherwise the industry wouldn’t compromise 6% of GDP. Rather than phasing them out altogether, we are proposing to phase out the current system which is inefficient and allows gross discrimination, and try to turn rickshaws in to a public asset that is an effective solution to transport problems and current infrastructure, works efficiently, and brings in hundreds of millions of dollars for the country’s development.
If the government/private contractors/anyone can repair the roads and provide alternative mass-transportation, then a publicly managed service can be gradually phased out in response to the changing scenario. That’s another advantage of having a publicly-owned system that operates for the good of the country and not for pure profit. However, to just attempt to muscle in and begin to make two million of the poorest people in the country unemployed, with a knock-on negative effect for 13 million others, I don’t think would be a good idea. Do you?
August 11th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Sowula,
Once you start talking about these garages as alternatives to mosques, it will take about two days (or less) for some nutca.. “learned Muslim” somewhere to issue a fatwa declaring rickshas “haram”, “a western invasion of our culture” and the true reason behind our underdevelopment.
Kgazi bhai,
I think Sowula has answered your statements against rickshas better than I can. There really is a genuine demand for them. Unless a CNG bus can take me from farmgate to dhanmondi for tk. 10 or less, I won’t ride it. Ektu chinta korey dekhen bus guli Dhakar oli golir modhdhey diye ki bhaabey cholbey. Can you imagine a bus in Kola Bagan, Bhuter Goli or inside Ajimpur?
This is why I was saying that modernization should not be cosmetic, ie. only skin-deep. Banning something for which there is a demand is not being sympathetic to the ricksha-wallas plight, but being sensible. If real change occurs in our society, then the demand will drop. That will be real modernization.
I apologise if I came across as harsh the last time, but I have an allergy to the very word “modernization”. Isn’t it simply another way of saying “Westernization”? Instead of putting it in terms of geography (west), we put it in terms of time (modern) is all. Much better to focus on what kind of changes you want to see in our society without trying to emulate the west every time don’t you think?
August 11th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Anthony #19, by “phasing out” rickshaws it doesnt mean ban them altogether overnight. What it means is that in 20 years, instead of having 20 million rickshaws in BD - there will be 200,000.
Short run transport will always be necessary in villages and rural env, so the urban areas cities may basically have major cutdowns to allow better traffic flow.
A constructive and positive reduction policy will be effective in containing the numbers, just like phasing out cigarrette-smoking.
But dont get too unfriendly to the freeway/motorway transport - because that is what is required most in a developing nation - INFRASTRUCTURE. You cannot achieve long-distance transport of goods and people with rickshaws.
We need freeways in BD which will take people one hour to go from Dhaka to Chittagong, instead of 6 hours.
Even Romans knew 3000 years ago that to develop a civilization - the NUMBER ONE need is ROADS and LONG-DISTANCE transport - which is how Europe emerged.
Sowula # 20 - unfortunately the BD govt mechanism is SO grossly inefficient, that they will make a bigger loss in managing a nationalized rickshaw ind, than leaving it alone.
However, the concept of REGULATORY CONTROLS on the rickshaw industry will be more feasible for BD govt, and the rickshaw pullers.
So your proposal could be applied to REGULATORY CONTROLS within the rickshaw industry, by the BD govt, (instead of natalization) to achieve the “phase out the current system which is inefficient and allows gross discrimination, and try to turn rickshaws in to a public asset” which you suggest.
That would help (temporarily at least) combine your proposal into the current govt machines, and local ricksha needs.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:55 am
High cost infrastructure development only benefits the rich: look at Cleveland’s investment in its suburban railway in the 1970s, where a service used by 6% of the population received over 60% of the transport budget. Or alternatively, look at the decision to build an underground in Cairo, which has a 50,000 person capacity and serves only those that can afford the tickets and work in the formal, tertiary businesses it serves.
KGazi, who are you investing for? What will you do with all the rickshaw pullers you throw out of work? How many people in Bangladesh are car owners? It is true that Bangladesh needs quality roads to make export faster and more efficient, and to remain competitive in the garments sector. But who does this benefit? Bangladesh, India and many other countries of the South operate dual economies, that only interact at certain nodes (See Manual Castells’ Network Society as a good introduction to this). The informal economy is worth neraly $2 billion according to some sources in India - these people do not directly benefit from the sort of development work that the World Bank and other investors in the formal economy bring. Few benefit even indirectly, as the division of such benefits is unequal and favours the established business and political elite who get a cut in order to help foreign owned companies make more money (a model I think the British East India Company managed particularly effectively in its relationship with the Mugals and Nawabs, at least for it).
If, on the other hand, you wish to support the poor and the marginalised to have a better quality of life, and one realistic in the context of Bangladeshi society and economy, then you have to work at the level of the poor. It would be fantastic if all rickshaw pullers could be employed as tube, bus and tram drivers, and associated staff in a formal, European style transport system. But that won’t happen in Bangladesh: the resources and political will does not exist, and the effective demand is not really there.
However, effective demand exists for rickshaws - thats why they are worth more to the economy than Biman Bangladesh and the Railways combined (see report for sources). They are far from obsolete. Our proposal is one that works with the poor, not against them. Your suggestions do the opposite.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:33 am
Thanks AsifY, of course I wouldn’t suggest for a second that rickshaw garages should replace mosques as community centres. We just were proposing that garages could be an additional asset for community-based development.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
AsifY #21, no worry about your reaction, dosto, I apologize too if I am coming across as being too hard against rickshawallahs. But we do need to debate this issue - and we WILL have pre-concieved ideas, popular theories, disagreements, personal preferences etc which we need to put on the table, and review them.
On chipagoli-rickshaw access, how many chipagolis do we have in Dhaka, and how many rickshaws? Far too many. There seems to be overcrowding of rickshaws, making the chipa-goli even more chipa! Also, CNG mishuks have the same width as rickshas - so they also can do same job.
On modernization, we need to be progressive and open-minded about it. Like, as we modernized from Lungis to pants, we not only progressed but also created the largest RMG industry in he world. So that was a success-story.
“Modern” doesnt always means “western”, but it may mean ADVANCED. When the whole world is advancing their efficiency by using new systems, why should Bangladesh ALONE remain backward, just to be TRADITIONAL?
Then we might as well develop and nationalize our hurriken and mom-batti (candles) industry, as source of light, instead of electricity. That would be much better for the poor - more poor can build that industry, and more poor people can afford it.
But wouldnt that be going backward, instead of advancing with technology and modern MEANS of mass development?
Tom #23 - above is how I see your comment against “High cost infrastructure development” also - and I will comment more on your #23 soon.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
KGazi bhai,
Found this quote on Nanjing, China which I think is relevant to the debate:
“Zwia Lipkin. Useless to the State: “Social Problems” and Social Engineering in Nationalist Nanjing, 1927–1937. (Harvard East Asian Monographs, number 259.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 2006. Pp. xii, 420.
When the Nationalist government was inaugurated in Nanjing in 1927, it committed to boosting the image of the new capital by removing various “eyesores”—namely refugees, shantytowns, rickshaws, prostitutes, and beggars—from the city. Zwia Lipkin recounts in detail how the authorities tackled these social problems and how little was achieved by 1937. 1
To build Nanjing into a modern city comparable to London, Paris, or New York, many “spiritual” and “material” construction programs were introduced, and by 1937, the capital had been greatly transformed. Such development, however, turned Nanjing into a favorite destination for refugees. Despite its policy of expulsion, the government failed to stop refugees from settling permanently in Nanjing, and it started building public housing for the poor. By 1937, relocations of shanty households to designated places outside the city were enforced. In those shanties in less “conspicuous” areas in Nanjing, the government initiated projects to improve living conditions with some success. 2
In the eyes of Nanjing’s modern elite, the rickshaw was a shameful sign of backwardness. Realizing the impossibility of eliminating the trade, the government was determined to “civilize” it by regulating its operation and the pullers’ appearance and behavior; it also helped “humanize” the system by regulating the rickshaw rents, by fending off bus competition, and, with limited success, by organizing the pullers into cooperatives ”
Agreed about chipa golis and CNGs. If you’ve been in Dhaka since CNGs were introduced, you may have noticed that very rarely do CNGs actually want to go where you want them to go. That number for the police control room at the back does not work! (And one has to ask, why are all the numbers Citicell mobiles instead of being 1-800 numbers or the like!:D). In my experience, rickshawallas are always ready to go wherever they are told.
Think again in terms of cost. How many more people can afford a ricksha more than a CNG! This ties in with what Tom says above. Being pro-ricksha isn’t just being sentimental, it’s also being realistic.
I too have ethical dilemmas over another person literally pulling me forward while I sit back and hawa khai! But let’s not put any deadline on the phasing out just yet, but let it happen naturally. The beauty of the proposal is that it will increase ricksha-wallas’ incomes and maybe even generate savings. With that hopefully will come social mobility for a siezeable chunk and greater spending power. With that might come greater income for all. Lots of “if”s I know, but were this scenario to play out, you might actually see a dwindling of the demand for the ricksha. An optimist’s view.
August 12th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Re: “Modern” doesnt always means “western”, but it may mean ADVANCED. When the whole world is advancing their efficiency by using new systems, why should Bangladesh ALONE remain backward, just to be TRADITIONAL?”
Absolutely in agreement, bhai.
But this is the problem. Mom-batti and hurriken went out of fashion because of the massive state-provision of the alternatives - electric power. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you think the BRTC/ public transport coverage of Dhaka rivals the electricity coverage? No way:)!
Advancement has to come first and might even build on the traditional. You cannot punish people for being traditional without giving them opportunities for advancement.
August 12th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Tom #23,
In #12, I already said BD does not need space-age transport systems like maglev, skytrain etc. but needs to focus more on basic Mass Transit systems. Better road discipline, traffic lights, super-efficient buses and service, and world-class ROADS are needed to increase quality of transport overall.
Most rickshawallas can be re-deployed into this upgraded transport industry. You said the “the resources and political will does not exist, and the effective demand is not really there.”
Well, the will and resources are hardly there to nationailze ANY industry effectively in BD, too.
So my question is, if BD lacks resources and will, then should the govt focus be on a BASIC labor intensive technology with limited use (Rickshaws), or should the NATIONAL focus be on a high-tech mass-scale transport system which benefits larger scale, upgradable, nationwide, value-earning industry-based technology? (Roads, freeways trucks, and buses).
Your question “who are we investing for” - the answer is - for the entire population, to upgrade the whole economy.
By investing in electricity, the entire population had benefitted, not just 15% pop. In turn the electricity provided power for the RMG industry, which created $9Billion. Likewise, hightech transport systems will benefit the nation in multiple ways, which will add to the overall growth of economy - including those of the rickshawallahs.
AsifY #27, “”But this is the problem. Mom-batti and hurriken went out of fashion because of the massive state-provision of the alternatives - electric power. ”
The big question is - what is our NATIONAL PRIORITY? Do we want to invest big way in mom-batti-hurriken, or do we want to invest in NUCLEAR ENERGY for Power? Obviously, BD had correctly decided to invest in electricity - and today we have power for the factories.
Now had we decided to ignore the electricity, because hurriken was our tradition, and there were too many hurriken-wallas, then today we would be in the same problem as BD’s transport system - and the RMG manufacturing industry etc would NOT even be there.
Similarly, had we decided 10/20 years ago that we do not want to multiply our rickshaws, by now our transport system would have looked more like PDB (advanced), than like BRTC (backward),
and there would not be 2 million rickshawallahs sufferring on the roads.
By keeping rickshaws, essentially we are also ignoring the infrastructure needed to ADVANCE our future. Because rickshaws can go into chipagolis, we leave those roads rough and inaccessible for Mishuks, and we dont advance the roads of Dhaka.
So now- we are at a juncture to decide - do we want to focus on advanced transit systems - or do we want to focus on the Rickshaw system - for the future? It should be quite obvious that we should PRIORITIZE on advanced trasport systems (mishuk, cng), and their access and roads, and let rickshaws gradually reuce themselves.
This will allow other sectors to advance too at a faster rate, benefitting the overall economy.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:05 am
KGazi bhai,
Apni ki bhaabey bolen that we didn’t decide to do away with rickshas? Why else are we constantly banning them from Dhaka roads?
No one is looking at rickshas from a traditional perspective, but more because there is a real demand for it. It’s not tradition/ricksha-loving that made BRTC the backwards organization it is, but inefficieny, corruption and mismanagement of public funds. Otherwise, we’d have a working public transport system and no rickshas.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:34 am
AsifY, of course it goes without saying that BRTC is corrupt and mismanaged, but had we made a national master-plan policy earlier that we would not allow rickshaws to over-grow, (not just a ban here and there) then perhaps the rickshawallah situation would not be so bad now. BRTC would be FORCED to take other steps to establish better transport systems.
To prevent things worsening, when will the govt make that master-plan policy?
August 13th, 2007 at 7:09 am
…Like others who have commented on Tim’s post and paper on DP Blog and elsewhere , I think the effort needs to be commended. The thoughts that motivate the piece - that rickshaw pullers deserve better, both from the State and society at large, and that rickshaws can play a larger role in our thinking about an effective transportation strategy for Dhaka - are ones that I agree with wholeheartedly.
There is however little else in the proposal that I do agree with. I think it’s fundamentally wrong-headed.
The rest of my argument at:
http://addafication.com/2007/08/13/on-nationalizing-the-rickshaw-industry/
August 13th, 2007 at 8:34 am
KGazi and others,
It seems like we are conflating three very different transport needs in Bangladesh.
1. Inter-city overland transport. We need a reliable - not necessarily very fast - transport system so that goods can be moved from Dhaka and the industrial belt around it to the deep sea port in Chittagong. Expressways for semi-trailers is one way to achieve this. But a reliable rail network is another one. Which is more efficient depends on, among other things, energy costs. But another option, and in my opinion a far better one, is to industrialise close to Chittagong. Whichever one we go with, this has nothing to do with rickshaws.
2. Commuter services in Dhaka
Whether we industrialise in CHittagong or not, Dhaka needs a commuter service system that allows people to travel from Mirpur to Demra or Nawabpur to Rampura in a reliable manner. Options here are: public transport like bus/train/metro and/or wider roads and/or more cars. Roads will come with a huge cost in terms of lost land for housing and environmental costs (http://www.drishtipat.org/blog/2007/03/20/dhaka-travelogue-4-the-receding-water-bodies/). Add to that carbon taxes and high fuel costs and more cars in wider roads look like a bad idea. So the better solution here appears to be improved public transport, and if necessary, congestion taxes on private cars. Again, rickshaw is not a major issue here.
3. Short distance (500 metres or so) travel
This is where rickshaw has a strong demand in Dhaka and elsewhere in the country. In most western cities, people tend to walk 500 metres. Why do we take rickshaw in Dhaka? There is a demand for it because Dhaka is not a pedestrian friendly city, and given the congestion and poverty, it is not likely to become one any time soon. Secondly, there is a supply of rickshawpullers. If we get rid of rickshaws, we’ll be essentially forcing people to walk. They won’t be taking buses/CNGs or taxis to go 500 metres.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Anthony
Small gripe with a minor bit of your second point above. Carbon taxes will not be applied to bangladesh for many decades at least, if at all then.
They (taxes) might apply in reverse though. Misusing the Clean Development Mechanism, a cunning phalanx of economists, trapped by circumstance, could convince an international institution that doesnt know better that it could manufacture a carbon sink out of wildly projected bangladeshi carbon emmissions in order to fund something entirely less relevant.
Another country solved the ricksha riddle by transferring the pilots to mills. Not very ‘participatory’, nor pleasurable for all parties, but decisive nonetheless. A more bnp friendly idea than al methinks and reliant on a strong government.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Anthony,
I’m all in favour of a public transport system mostly because I don’t think that one car per family (let alone per person) is feasible in Dhaka even if you widened the roads with all their attendant social cost.
Ahh fugstar, my old friend. Please tell us more about this “cunning phalanx” of economists.:) Are they also a “shrewd cabal” of some sort? A “viperish gang”? A “ruthless sect”?
Perhaps they tweak their extended moustaches and go MUHAHAHAH everytime they come up with these “participatory” models.
Frankly I don’t know what’s funnier, that economists are attacked for being “dismal” in the West, or that you think they’re sympathetic sissies in Bangladesh. Nothing personal, I laughed a lot reading that sentence is all.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Timothy Sowula, Thomas Wipperman, other readers and posters in this forum:
Welcome to Bangladesh and hope your stay in our country is a pleasant and interesting one. We appreciate your concern for the economy and well being of Bangladeshi people, I am truly touched with the initiative and effort you are taking to help our people with this formal proposal. I have downloaded and read the whole study. It is a wonderful study and report with a lot of good statistics. I would recommend all readers to read the whole thing.
You have identified correctly that the Rickshaw pulling sector as one of the largest informal sector of our economy and your suggestion is to formalize it by getting the government involved in managing it. The problem with this approach is that since the beginning of Bangladesh in 1971, nationalization has shown to be a dismal performer. I will not even go into the performance of socialism and communism and their state run activities and their eventual failure. With the level of corruption in our society that has now become endemic, it is difficult to find efficient managers that will do proper management of operation of any size. Most often the managers at different level will utilize their position and power to make money and make life miserable for the people they are supposed to manage. The other problem is the dishonesty of workers, in this case the Rickshaw pullers, as soon as they become govt. employees, they will stop working hard and from the get-go, this govt. run Rickshaw pulling organization will become a burden to the state, like so many other nationalized sectors. So, in my opinion this is not the right approach as it will create a monster 2 million govt. employee organization that will be the mother of all nationalized industries and it will be a nightmare to get rid of. Look at the difficulty of getting rid of 15,000 employee jute mills and then think about a country wide 2 million employee white elephant that can truly bring the country to a standstill, even more than AL and BNP. It is true that there are many nationalized sectors in advanced countries, but these sectors were nationalized there, as you pointed out in your report at certain stages of socio-economic evolution in these countries (1933 in UK), Bangladesh has not yet reached those levels of human development.
Here I will talk briefly about why there are so many Rickshaw pullers. Essentially these people are landless peasants who are not being able to eke out a living in the country-side, so they flock to the city to find some source of income and survival. Rickshaw pulling is the most easily available employment as the investment for a Rickshaw is small (Tk. 4000-6000 for a brand new Rickshaw and Tk. 2000-3000 for a used one) and many Mohajons (owners) rent them out daily to trusted drivers. As many in this thread pointed out that people could walk instead of using the Rickshaw, although some people are lazy, sometimes there are practical reasons, such as time utilization (Rickshaw trip is quicker than walking), carrying load such as grocery from bazaar, etc. So it is not surprising that a sector such as Rickshaw pulling is thriving in all parts of the world where human labor is too cheap and also Rickshaws can be made extremely cheaply. I doubt if you can find a smaller investment/employment in any other productive sector of economy anywhere in the world. Please note that Rickshaws and Pedicabs used in the West cost $2,000-10,000, depending on power assist and other advanced features, this is because higher incomes by the operators create high level of return on investment and can justify these higher amount of investments.
There are two aspects to look at the viability of the Rickshaw sector. The first is the environmental aspect. Global warming, greenhouse gases, melting glaciers and resulting floods, melting polar ice and rising sea levels are serious issues for us, it is affecting us now as we speak, though most people in Bangladesh are clueless about it and think it is noise made by fashionable environmental nut cases. It is an irony that our unlucky country and people have contributed the least or not at all in this green house gas phenomenon but are already seriously affected by it and the future is scary. Some say that the rising sea level will displace 20-30 million people in the low lying areas, as the land will become unfit for agriculture or habitation. The deforestation in Tibet and Himalayan foot hills and the melting glaciers in Himalayan and Tibetan plateau will continue to create flood like the ones we have just seen. So, despite some peoples reservations about the practicality of such an approach, we can make a responsible choice and move in the right direction and be environmentally responsible. Instead of choosing status conscious cars, we can choose to utilize more efficient and less polluting human powered vehicles as labor in Bangladesh as one of the poorest country is cheaply available. For large scale and long distance movements of goods and people, railway, buses, trucks, cars and their appropriate infrastructures such as roads, railways and bridges as we have now in all countries will continue to play a role. But in the future, these vehicles can be made more efficient and less polluting with more advanced technology such as fuel cells, pluggable electric vehicles etc. Communities can be redesigned so people can either commute short distance and live close to their work-place to reduce commute related pollutions. Also, urban sprawls could be controlled and more efficient use of land could be made by encouraging widely spaced high rise buildings like they are doing in Seoul, Tokyo and Hong Kong for both office and residential use. Just like todays densely populated Dhaka, in these densely packed future cities there will be need for cycles, Rickshaws, auto-rickshaws perhaps with varying levels of battery power assist to address the need for short distance travel. This is the second aspect of the viability of Rickshaw pulling in Bangladesh - its a practical pollution free long term solution for short distance travel, not just in Bangladesh, but in all densely populated cities of the future.
So, I am really sold on the idea of Rickshaw and its uses in Bangladesh and else where in appropriate circumstances but not on the idea of creating a monster nationalized sector to manage this sector. Also I support the ban of Rickshaw use in the main arterial roads of Dhaka, as these slow moving Rickshaws were clogging up these roads and creating unnecessary traffic jams. With less than a year in the country, you have probably not seen what it was like before the Rickshaws were banned from these main roads. Consider this similar to the ban of slow-moving bicycles from the freeways where all vehicles are maintaining certain minimum speed. World Bank’s recommendations that you quote frequently, are not respected by many, not just in Bangladesh but in other places of the world.
As I have mentioned in my previous post, I support govt. or NGO help in the following areas:
- the most important step would be to increase ownership of Rickshaws by the pullers. Subsidized no-interest loans could be made available to the pullers so that they can buy their own Rickshaw and pay off their loan in daily installments, instead of paying rent to Mahajons. But we must accept the reality that some significant percentage perhaps the majority will not become owner operators
- the second most important step would be to provide loans to create co-operative garages, where 30-50 owner operators could be keep their Rickshaws at night and also it will house repair-station, community run baby-sitting and school for the children and adults among other community based activities
- setting up of research and development center to introduce more efficient design of rickshaws and auto-rickshaws and help their indigenous manufacturing
- setting up of Training Centers to provide training in driving technique and safety
Rickshaw is not the only sector that needs attention, auto-rickshaw is a similar sector that needs similar help, although their economic situation is slightly better. But if you did not know, many Rickshaw pullers dream is to become auto-rickshaw puller and many do achieve this dream and are able to get out of poverty and educate their children.
Lastly, I detect a certain cynical attempt to stratify and divide our societies into segments and classifications and pit one against the other - while there are classes within our society in Bangladesh like any other country, there is also social mobility, it is not as rigid as some other countries with similar socio-economic situation, and like some countries we did not need the hammer of communism to flatten out our society. It is still functioning as an organic whole and the cohesion is getting better with time.
Mughals and Nawabs are our heritage, some of their descendants are todays Rickshaw pullers, landless peasants and some are industrialists or college professors. The wife of the great grand son of last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah is now selling tea from a tea-stall in howrah, Kolkata, her late husband was sharpening knives for a living:
http://indianmuslims.in/fate-of-bahadur-shah-zafars-descendants/
Their legacy is not the same as British East India company that sucked the sub-continent dry of its vitality, capital, destroyed its indigenous social fabric and internal cohesion. We have not forgotten the cutting of fingers of Muslin weavers of Dhaka by the British. Mughals and Turkic rulers were steppe nomads the last remnants of which you will find in North Xinjiang or in Mongolia, Kazakhs and Mongols still living in Yurta/gers, that were able to escape the Russification in Central Asia. They came to the subcontinent, settled down and made it their own land as rulers, soldiers and preachers and their blood is within many of us. During the height of Mughal Empire, it was one of the richest of all lands, and look at us today - so please do not compare Mughals and Nawabs with British East India company or put them in the same league.
Bangladesh is an unfortunate product of the partition, our leadership is clueless and still in the process of formation. We are trying to make the best of what we inherited, due to bad decisions of our past leaders and what was handed down to us by our history. While we appreciate and welcome your effort to help us with the internal management of the country, we would also appreciate your help in the following areas:
- helping to get duty free access of garments and other products in the US and EU as an LDC and have this provision finalized in WTO
- help to market our agricultural and other products in India and other countries where non-tariff barriers are used against WTO principles
- help to get fair share of water from India and China for all upstream rivers and help in an integrated regional water management effort between SAARC, ASEAN and China that share water from the Himalaya and Tibetan plateau
- help to reduce global warming, which is the single biggest macro threat for our country as this will displace 20-30% of our population and increase flood in the short term and eventually when the glaciers are gone or reduce significantly, the rivers will run dry or become seasonal rain water river. India and China will try to take as much as they can from the Himalaya and Tibetan pateau glacial water in this future environment of water scarcity
- help to stop Indian propaganda to label Bangladesh as a terrorist infested failed state similar to Pakistan, Afghanistan or Somalia
The above will help us improve our economy and create more employment for the people in many other sectors such as organic export oriented agri-business and other industry such as garments, shoes, pharmaceuticals, Information Technology, Back Office outsourcing etc. These may not be your area of interest, but I point these out, because these problems are staring us into our face, if you look at the overall big picture of Bangladesh. The Rickshaw puller is an identifiable large minority, but they are not much different than the vast majority of semi employed, marginally employed or unemployed land less peasant majority of Bangladesh who need a way out of their bleak situation. And the way out is to find and increase market share for our goods, services and man-power in the global market place.
For your information, I have revived my Rickshaw research and it is now in full gear, thanks to your post. I will try to get some sponsor entrepreneur for this non-profit venture. I plan to introduce more efficient designs of Rickshaws in Bangladesh (as was my dream for the last 15 years) and perhaps get involved in creating a model co-operative of owner operators, so that they can run their own affairs and get out from the clutches of Mahajons.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Anthony #32, item 3:
As of Today, Dhaka is not only the ONLY city of Rickshas, and has more than any other city, but also the poorest and most corrupt.
There has to be a massive correlation between corruption, poverty and rickshas.
Since poverty is caused by WRONG govt policies, the corruption has failed to create THOSE policies needed to relieve the people from the drudgery of riding, pulling and living with rickshas, by failing to create STRATEGIC POLICIES to remove poverty.
Walking is a not a negative factor - because if everyone walked short distances, then there would be:
- better sidewalks and roads due to more use
- more space on road available, no rickshas
- rickshas wouldn’t be loitering on the roads
- rickshawallas would be available for other jobs & businesses
- traffic would flow better
- ricksha problem would disppear
- ricksha physical drudgery would disappear
- better public transport would need to be developed
In fact, thats what the rest of the worls are doing - WALKING short distances. Bangladesh is the ONLY nation left today, who use ricksha as the MAJOR public transport.
However, change will take time, but the MOVE needs to begin today. It should have started long ago, but now even EMERGENCY action may need to be taken, because we dont have the luxury of waiting 20 years, to see that change.
Population and global warming are knocking at out door!
August 14th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Fugstar,
Presumably carbon taxes will drive up the price of carbon emitting technology globally. If there are emission trading then that might lead to a different outcome (in theory it shouldn’t - Coase’s theorem, but in practice it might be different).
KGazi, I echo Khilji’s sentiment: its a practical pollution free long term solution for short distance travel, not just in Bangladesh, but in all densely populated cities of the future.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Thanks a lot to Tim & Tom for proposing a great idea! And thanks to khilji for an insightful and humane corrective to this. And all others who have responded to the topic. In fact, all are eye-openers.
To the criticism of nationalizing, I propose a grassroots policy that does not require government’s direct intervention. It is true that our govt is not at all realiable for its proven inefficiency. But the basic strategy of this project can still be implemented by grassroots mobilization. There is the stunning example of small groups of borrowers of micro-credit in Bangladesh. While the profiteering intention of the lending institutions flustered the real developmental potential of this grassroots activism, I believ a pro-poor, bottom-up strategy would be helpful for the poor in fighting poverty effectively and efficiently.
But Ive noticed some people do not really take into consideration the unemployment problem of the poor rikshawpullers. I do admit that rikshaw creates problems in commuting, especially it slows down the pace. But we must also consider that a large number of poor families depend totally on this sector. Therefore, we have to think of rehabilitating them before we call on a ban on this sector.
And the cost of powered engines for transportation grows higher if we consider the monetary cost of fuel along with their environmental cost. We need to spend huge money on the fosil fuel (be it gas, or diesel, or electricity generated from gas of diesel) whereas Rikshaw needs nothing! So, why not to promote it?
And its naive to think that the rikshaw pullers will continue even after they earn a little more to save money. In fact, the pullers also realize the inhumanizing aspects attached to it, and so they do strive to get out of it. Therefore, once we help them have a better income out of rikshaw-pulling, they will eventually end up, sooner or later. So, the govt does not even need to ban it. It will perish naturally with the course of development in their overall living.
Thus, I consider the proposal perfectly suitable for poverty alleviation in Bangladesh for now, and also as a potential move towards overall development of Bangladesh.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Khilji,
I suggest that time and money will be better spent on a MISHUK development project than ricksha development.
Why? Because the ricksha has already been re-designed in Dhaka - its called the Mishuk. A 3-wheel motorized vehicle with gears, non-polluting CNG fuel, fast transport, and without using the physical drudgery of the Ricksha-puller.
So now, it may be time to re-develop the Mishuk, instead of the ricksha. Make MISHUK more aerodynamic, more attractive, more comfortable, more affordable - and maybe diversely equipped as Mishuk BUSES, MISHUK pickup, and maybe even PRIVATE MISHUKS, self-driven by owners, for private home use, to replace the car.
Now, THAT is a project, that will be more progressive and worthwhile than re-inventing the ricksha.
THAT will revolutionaize the transport industry in BD, eliminate the punishment on ricksha pullers, re-deploy them, and make a BIG STEP towards phasing-out rickshas altogether, to advance the economy of Bangladesh and remove poverty.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:41 am
Dera Kgazi,
Probably you are not taking the concern of the money involved in mishuk. Both for the owners and the users, mishik required far more money than rickshaw. And it creats environment pollution as it uses fuel.
How do you dream of poverty eradication while your proposed policy to revolutionize transport industry requires cutting the livelihood of a large segment of poor people? Is it feasible to think to “re-deploy” the rickshaw-pullres somewhere else whereas the total employment opportunities in the country are shrinking dramatically?
I think we need to be a bit more considerate about theppor people, and their living first instead of the lofty ideas of so-called development and revolutionization that by-pass the poor.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Dear readers, thanks for reading my long previous post, for your kind words and for taking an interest in this topic.
KGazi, Mishuk is a motorized rickshaw and definitely it will be part of the research. CNG run auto-rickshaws are better than petrol run units, although they are not completely pollution free.
As Hmahmud has pointed out, Mishuk and other motorized rickshaws are in a different league in terms of investment requirement, they have their appropriate niche but they cannot replace the cheap pedal-run Rickshaw. An auto-rickshaw can cost anywhere from Tk. 80,000 - 200,000, whereas a traditional Rickshaw and even the redesigned ones cost Tk. 5,000 - 8,000. The traditional Rickshaw is popular because it puts a vehicle on the road for less than $100 and as a result it can charge less fare to its passengers. There are electric power-assist models with shift-able gears that cost close to Tk. 20,000 and these power assists can reduce the difficulty of rickshaw pulling by an order of magnitude.
Exercise is beneficial for health, but excessive strenuous labor, as in the case of Rickshaw pullers without proper rest and nutrition, can cause serious problems. The redesigned Rickshaws have better design with less wind resistance and also they have 30% less weight than existing Rickshaws, so these should remove some of the physical hardship. A Rickshaw with electric rechargeable power-assist, even if it costs more, might be popular, since it will be so much easier and less tiring to drive.
Ultimately, the market-place will decide which design is useful and popular and which one is not. We will try a number of designs and options to see what works best and earns the trust of operators and passengers.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
This is the most common sentiment in BD, about “poor ricksha-pullers, and how are they going to survive if we take their job away”.
Unfortunately the sentiment only becomes VOCAL whenever somebody comes up with a practical solution to free the poor ricksha-pullers away from their primitive drudgery, and finds a better alternative which not only will give them a better lifestyle, but will also clear the roads from Rickshas.
Our sentiment should really be more loud when we see how we are exploiting 15 million ricksha-pullers in BD in a very ancient form of “cheap slave labor”.
So when I see this disparity in the sentiment, it makes me wonder whether we are really using the employment-sentiment as an EXCUSE to keep ricksha-pullers on the street so that we can GET HIS CHEAP TRANSPORT, or are we willing to do anything else by totally removing rickshaws from the streets, so that he may find better, more humane forms of employment,
On this very grounds of “cheap slave labor” our neighbors in India and Pakistan have totally banned running Rickshas. They have made it punishable by law, to run rickshaws on roads. Their concern was more for the exploitaion of human labor than the congestion on the roads.
It is not that we dont have solutions - we have plenty solutions existing on the roads right now - we can pragmatize Mishuks, run more buses, regulate rickshas strictly, but we dont. Our constant excuse is the employment-sentiment. That excuse is the most counter-productive for the nation, for the rickshawallas and for the economy.
The ricksha-puller has little control over his predicament, he takes the job of ricksha-pulling in search of food, and finds himself stuck in this lifestyle. But we as more fortunate, must prevent the expansion of rickshas and take FAST actions to prevent further worsening of the Ricksha-pullers life, by developing other industries to rehabilitate them, and prevent millions of young people from villages from planning to become HOTOBHAGA rickshawallas.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Kgazi, before you create more “dignified” jobs for these hotobhaga rickshawallas, as of now the fact is that they have no better jobs available to them and as long as it does not clog up the arterial roads as it is banned there, why would you not let them survive, what would you do if you were in their shoes?
The auto-rickshaws will be part of our effort and of course we will try to popularize them, but the market has the ability to absorb only so many.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Khilji,
I am talking about total change is mindset and shift of paradigm, otherwise there will be no change. In order to understand why we need a change, it MUST be agreed by all that:
1. their job is exploitation of cheap labor,
2. we need to get them out of their rickshawalla JOB-TRAP
3. their lifestyle is unhealthy and miserable
4. we dont want any NEW people to get into this TRAP
Since we AGREE that all of the above are true and existing problems, then we MUST create conditions to improve situatiion so that
A) those problems must be eliminated by alternate means.
Newer transport methods will reduce the demand for rickshaws, and create economies that will absorb the pullers, and gradually phase them out. I spoke in detail earlier how economics of infrastructure expands job creation.
B) REGULATIONS must be created to CONTROL rickshaw population.
New laws so that it becomes difficult for ANYBODY to build, manufacture or import any more NEW rickshaws, so that millions more rickshaw pullers are not invited to this (inhuman) job-trap. If all it needs is only $100 to get a ricksha then govt needs to restrict over-population by restriction.
New laws to protect current pullers safety, health and license-control, and maybe a 5/10 year deadline to totally BAN rickshas.
What I would do if I was in their shoes is look for another job - but thats a personal choice. Many pullers may prefer to CHOOSE this profession - but it must be the GOVT’s RESPONSIBILITY to prevent any further expansion by above means, so that the choice does not exist any more.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:46 am
KGazi, I respect, welcome and congratulate your plan to provide the unemployed with a better job prospect and future. If you have read my previous post, you and I are in agreement that we do need to provide better job options for our vast unemployed masses, so they can educate their children and provide them a better future to escape the cycle of poverty and illiteracy. But we should not ignore the current plight of the millions and take one option away from them, for many it may mean going back to the village where back-breaking farm work is even more inhuman. As this farm labor does not happen 10 inches in front of us while we sit and enjoy the breeze, that is why it does not seem so morally repugnant to us.
Rickshaw is a fashionable new mode of transport for many congested cities like Manhattan, Tokyo, Amsterdam and their tourist spots, it is not so inhuman as you and others in the sub-continent think of it as. If the earning was higher so that rickshaw pullers could make a decent living and educate their children, then this would not be a bad job. With electric options getting cheaper by the day, its only a matter of time that they will find their way into the cheapest variety of rickshaws and this would significantly reduce the strain on their body. If they could afford proper nutrition, then potentially they could be healthier and live longer than you and I, due to regular exercise. Indeed sometimes I wish I could go back to my biking days and log 110 miles a day (that was my highest, the usual was 30-40 miles a day), instead of sitting in front of computers whole day. Rickshaw pulling would be infinitely more fun and healthier than the jobs we tend to have these days. If not for a job, it would be a fun way to get around the neighborhood. I definitely plan to buy one someday.
To lighten up here is one rickshawallah that became a film hero:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060611/society.htm#1
August 18th, 2007 at 3:09 am
Dear KGazi,
thanks for your fervid posts in favor of the poor rickshaw-pullers. I totally agree with you regarding the inhumane nature of pulling rickshaw. And I do feel for them, too. And I also second your urge for paradigm change that would lead against slavery (rickshaw-pulling). But how to eradicate this neo-slavery? By law and punishment?
I’ve never said that I’m supporting the idea that rickshaw-pulling should exist for ever, but said that this is the only job option that these poor people have at hand now. So, we need to create alternative, more human jobs for them before banning this ill-practice.
If we can create alternative job opportunities for the rickshaw-pullers, and thus help them earn and save, they will certainly leave this job, because they are also cognizant about it as inhumane and taxing. So, there is absolutely no point in banning rickshaw. Instead, we should think to create alternative, more feasible and human types of jobs for these people, and by the time we can do that, we must allow they live on rickshaw-pulling as this is the only means for their earning.
I think, this time I could make my position clear. In fact, my arguement does not contradict with KGazi only except the sequence of emphasis. I do agree with KGazi that after creating viable job-options for these rickshaw pullers where they would relocate, we can go on banning this ill-practice.
I hope Tim & Tom, Khilji and ppl like them would continue their efforts for the noble cause.