Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by Hassan on

I enjoyed reading your comment and your attached paper. So on your point that "when choosing between the two distinct phases of social progress, its not hard to see why someone would pick the first story line", well the point is that both the Economist and the Lancet covered the whole 1990-2010 period not just the nineties. As such the 'first story line' which in some ways captures the nineties doesn't really hold for the entire period - especially when you consider that between 2000-10 there was, in percentage change terms, a larger improvement in key health indicators (e.g. for infant and child mortality, maternal mortality) during this period when per capita incomes grew faster. So again let me stress that I fully agree with the view that there are some unique features of the delivery model in Bangladesh which make it stand out and these have been covered by the Economist and Lancet - and without these elements the income gains would have had less of an impact. But the fact remains that Bangladesh's economic growth has been pro-poor,consumption inequality has remained unchanged over 15 years, and that increased prosperity which has almost halved poverty during these twenty years has allowed poor people to seek better quality services (so I would stress this more than the impact of growth on public spending which we know is a much more tenuous link)