RURAL households in Bangladesh are undergoing major socio-demographic changes that many of us are not possibly aware of. But this could be revealed from a recent survey of households in 62 villages funded by the Research and Evaluation Division (RED) of the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (Brac). Since it is a repeated sample survey, a comparison over time could shed some light on the changes of the parameters at stake. I shall attempt to highlight a few of those with the caveat that the analysis or forecast is a preliminary observation of mine alone, and has nothing to do with the institution involved in generating the data.

From the field level information, the average size of a rural household is estimated to be 4.93 in 2008. This contrasts with 5.32 in 2004, 5.67 in 2000 and 6.15 in 1988. The monotonic and steep decline in household size could partly be adduced to migration and partly to a fall in the ratio of children in the total population of sample households. That migration has increased is evident from increased flow of remittances. The share of remittance to household income almost quadrupled from a bare 5 percent in late 1980s, depicting a trend growth rate of about 11 percent per annum.

It may be mentioned here that even for functionally landless households, the share of remittance income to total household income surged to about 13 percent from about 3 per- cent in the late 1980s. Enpassant, Dr Mahabub Hossain and I have presented a threadbare discussion on these structural changes in income in a recently published book: Gramer Manush Grameen Arthonity -- Jibon Jibiker Porjalochona (2007).

The second reason adducible to the smaller size of a household is a fall in the ratio of young people over the years. Particular mention may be made of the proportion of infants (under 4, that fell from 14 percent to 10 percent during the last decades. This is good news for poor families who could, possibly, devote resources to other productive pockets rather than on rearing infants. Likewise, the fall in the share of children means that demand for primary teaching would go down, thus enabling a diversion of resources from primary educational infrastructure. Of course, the government will have to target improvement in quality of education.

Another observed demographic change in the households is declining overall population and its determinants. The child-women ratio (a proxy for general fertility rate) in sample/households is estimated to be 38.80 in 2008 compared to 40.76 in 2004, 44.89 in 2000 and 67.23 in 1988. It is quite evident that since 1988, the fertility level and the rate had been declining, posting positive news for us. That is, population growth rate has been falling over time.

But a close look at the statistics shows that the decline has almost tapered off between 2008 and 2004 compared to the earlier two periods. That means that the population is not declining any more, or is declining at much below the rate we are accustomed to assuming. The academic advice in this case would be to use cautiously any projection based on a declining population growth rate. Otherwise, that might underestimate total population or overestimate the fall in fertility rate, with serious implications for policy purposes.

However, the proportion of people aged 65+ had been on a rise -- implying longer life expectancy -- and peaked at 5 percent, compared to 2 percent two decades back. Improvement in health and other social facilities could have contributed to that increased life expectancy. On the other hand, the proportion of working age group (15-60) also seems to be increasing, calling for more job creation for the rural working population. Thus, while a reduction in the proportion of people at lower end of the pyramid gives us good sleep, the rise in the upper (60+) and middle portion (working population) could keep policy makers sleepless because of the thin labour market and welfare dole.

After a decade of increasing enrolment in schools, the most recent data seem to show that the trend has lost its earlier speed. There may be two reasons to explain the phenomena: first, performance based scholarships might have pulled back poor students and second, recent economic hardships might have stalled the entry of children to schools, especially from poor families.

In a 2004 survey, 32 percent of rural males (15 years+) reported cultivation as their primary occupation and about 8 percent reported agricultural labour as their primary occupation. In 2008, the figures stood at about 37 and 11 percent, respectively. The changes are opposite to what have been observed in the earlier two periods when the respective shares have been falling. In other words, it seems, a portion of the rural population who left agriculture -- as farmer or labourer -- has gone back to the "sweet home" of agriculture.

Is it the food crisis, high prices of agricultural commodities or lack of employment opportunities elsewhere that brought back them to agriculture? A cursory look at data also tends to show that proportions of tenants has gone down, implying that profitability in agricultural operations might have caused a reverse swing in the tenancy market. Anyway, this could have serious implications in terms of poverty reduction as the tenants mostly belong to the poor segment of the rural setting. However, elaborate insights on these vital issues could be presented in next installments.

By and large, as time rolls on, realities in rural life get changed. Occasional surveys on households, preferably repeated ones, could feed policy makers with new dimensions of information. The need for revisit is always there since we do not operate in a static regime.

Professor Abdul Bayes is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University (abdulbayes@yahoo.com).