In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, interest has grown in what kinds of assistance protect household food security during shocks. We study rural and urban Bangladesh from 2018-19 to late 2021, assessing how pre-pandemic access to social safety net programs and private remittances relate to household food insecurity during the pandemic. Using longitudinal data and estimating differences-in-differences models with household fixed effects, we find that pre-pandemic access to social protection is associated with significant reductions in food insecurity in all rounds collected during the pandemic, particularly in our urban sample. However, pre-pandemic access to remittances shows no similar protective effect.

Evidence shows that cash and in-kind transfer programs increase food security while interventions are ongoing, including during or immediately after shocks. But less is known about whether receipt of these programs can have protective effects for household food security against shocks that occur several years after interventions end. We study the effects of a transfer program implemented as a cluster-randomized control trial in rural Bangladesh from 2012-2014 – the Transfer Modality Research Initiative (TMRI) – on food security in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. We assess TMRI’s impacts at three post-program time points: before the shock (2018), amidst the shock (2021), and after the immediate effects of the shock (2022). We find that TMRI showed protective effects on household food security during and after the pandemic, but program design features “mattered”; positive impacts were only seen in the treatment arm that combined cash transfers with nutrition behavior change communication (Cash+BCC). Other treatment arms – cash only, and food only – showed no significant sustained effects on our household food security measures after the intervention ended, nor did they show protective effects during the pandemic. A plausible mechanism is that investments made by Cash+BCC households in productive assets – specifically livestock – increased their pre-shock resilience capacity.

There are few studies that rigorously assess how agricultural and nutrition related interventions enhance resilience and even fewer that incorporate a gendered dimension in their analysis. Mindful of this, we address three knowledge gaps: (1) Whether agricultural interventions aimed at diversifying income sources and improving nutrition have sustainable impacts (on asset bases, consumption, gender-specific outcomes and women’s empowerment, and on diets) that persist after the intervention ends; (2) whether such interventions are protective when shocks occur? and (3) whether these interventions promote gender-sensitive resilience. We answer these questions using unique data, a four-year post-endline follow up survey of households from a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a nutrition-and-gender-sensitive agricultural intervention in Bangladesh. We find that treatment arms that included both agriculture and nutrition training had sustainable effects on real per capita consumption, women’s empowerment (as measured by the pro-WEAI), and asset holdings measured four years after the original intervention ended. Treatment arms that included both agriculture and nutrition training (with or without gender sensitization) reduced the likelihood that households undertook more severe forms of coping strategies and reduced the likelihood that household per capita consumption fell, in real terms, by more than five percent between in the four years following the end of the intervention. The treatment arm that only provided training in agriculture had positive impacts at endline but these had largely faded away four years later. Our results suggest that bundling nutrition and agriculture training may contribute to resilience as well as to sustained impacts on consumption, women’s empowerment, and asset holdings in the medium term. These have implications for the design of future gender- and nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs.

Public food transfer program provide a lifeline for the poor in both high- and low-income countries, and many countries stepped these up in response to COVID-19. But little is known about how effective these programs have been in reaching the poor during the crisis. This brief reviews the findings of an evaluation of Bangladesh’s Food Friendly Program, pointing to the difficulties encountered during the pandemic and lessons to help these program perform better in future crises.

The COVID-19 pandemic has decimated the lives and livelihoods of people around the world. The impact of COVID-19 has been especially devastating for low-income families in rural areas of India. Food insecurity became pervasive in rural areas soon after the nationwide lockdown was announced, as many families relied on daily wage work to fund basic necessities. By providing cash transfers and the additional foodgrains, Indian policymakers acted swiftly to reduce the financial impact on family income and consumption. This paper investigates the factors affecting the participation of rural families in the cash transfer program and the effect of government cash transfers on food insecurity. Results indicate that the government cash transfer program in India decreased moderate food insecurity by 2.4% and severe food insecurity by about 0.92%.

Interest has grown in leveraging cash transfer programs with nutrition interventions to improve child nutrition at scale. However, little is known about how doing so affects household economic well-being. We study a program providing cash or food transfers, with or without nutrition behavior change communication (BCC), to poor women in rural Bangladesh. We find that adding BCC to cash or food transfers leads to larger impacts on both consumption and assets - an apparent puzzle, given the transfer value is unchanged. Evidence suggests this occurs through the BCC inducing increases in income generation - plausibly by improving households’ social capital and empowerment.