Does the budget speak for rural women?

Rural women constitute over one-third of the women in Bangladesh but national budgeting systems largely exclude them. Photo: TBS

Each year, the national budget says something about the government's development vision and priorities. It reflects political will and economic focus. Yet, within this broad context, one key question remains insufficiently examined: Does the budget truly represent the needs of rural women?

Rural women constitute over one-third of the women in Bangladesh. They are pillars of food production and care work, including livestock producers, home enterprise producers, and rural anchors of resilience. The national budgeting systems largely exclude them—they are considered marginal recipients, rather than economic producers or rights-holders.

A review of government budget figures over the previous three fiscal years—based on research conducted by the Association for Land Reform and Development (ALRD) in collaboration with HDRC — reveals a dismal lack of consistency in allocations to rural women. Per capita expenditures for the nation overall have increased steadily; however, the allocation to rural women is low and variable, reflecting the absence of a consistent, equity-based policy agenda. For FY2022–23, the allocation to rural women was a paltry Tk5,598 per capita, significantly less than the national average per capita of Tk39,886. The next, FY2023–24, was raised to Tk10,814 for rural women, compared to a national average of Tk46,125. But this was short-lived. In FY2024–25, when the national average increased marginally to Tk47,032, the per capita allocation for rural women dropped to as low as Tk1,486—a decrease of virtually 97% compared to the national average.

This uncertain pattern reflects Bangladesh's precarious standing in gender budgeting. Rural women are no safe investment; what is gained this year may vanish the following year. Although gender-responsive budgeting has been adopted in principle since FY2009–10, a significant gap remains between policy statements and actual budgetary expenditures.

Rural women form a pillar of the agricultural and informal economy, but urban and middle-class interests still dominate national budgeting. Rural women are normally portrayed as an "othered" group and left out of the central budget agenda. Their marginalisation is structural—the consequence of fiscal centralisation that fails to capture grassroots realities.

The proposed FY2025–26 budget allocates Tk5,078 crore to the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs, of which Tk418.55 crore is earmarked for development expenditures. The money is primarily spent on training, outsourcing, awareness campaigns, infrastructure, and research programs that mainly benefit urban and semi-urban women.

One of the significant drivers has been the launch of a Tk30,000 crore refinance scheme to facilitate more women entrepreneurs in obtaining credit. According to Finance Adviser Dr Salehuddin Ahmed, women entrepreneurs can now borrow up to Tk25 lakh without collateral—a step in the right direction towards increasing women's economic engagement.

Amid such opportunities, the budget lacks direct, specific interventions for rural women. There are no special provisions that address the primary needs of rural women, including land rights, livestock, irrigation, nutrition, and maternal health. Their agricultural labour, informal work, and care work continue to be excluded from mainstream development planning.

Rural women are defined as objects of benevolence, rather than economic actors. Their multiple roles in family production, village markets, and rural well-being are far from being the focus of budget-making decisions. They are largely perceived in most national development plans as passive receivers, not as active producers with established rights and entitlements. This perception is a consequence of a political economy where budgets reproduce inequalities of power, rather than inequality.

Consider the case of Rowshan Ara Begum, a farm wife in Sirajganj's riverine char region. She has cows and cultivates vegetables for her family. "We hear of the budget," she says, "but we don't know whether it includes us. If there were some subsidies on our cows or birds, it would be good. We work but get nothing."

For rural women like Rowshan Ara, daily toil—from before sunrise until well into the night—is undervalued economically. Recent contention highlights how the state has long undervalued the scope of rural women's lives and activities in its budget agenda. Invisibility here is more than figures; it records a deeper devaluation of rural women's contribution towards national development.

As Bangladesh works towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, including those related to gender equality, zero hunger, and inclusive development, this gap must be bridged. The budget must recognise and value the contribution of rural livelihoods. Rural women should not be left out; instead, they should be featured in economic planning.

There has to be a structural reorientation of fiscal imagination. This involves adding rural women as a separate line item in the national budget, increasing their proportionate per capita share, and coordinating their agenda within sectoral budgets. Planning at the local level by the government must also provide room for the direct representation of rural women, ensuring that resource utilisation is in proportion to local realities.

The national budget reflects the importance of the people. If rural women remain excluded from budgeting and planning, their intelligence, work, and economic contribution become marginalised. They do not demand charity but assert justice and equitable investment.

Today, the budget speaks about rural women but not to them. This must be altered so that women like Rowshan Ara can someday say, "Yes, this budget finally includes us."

Sketch: TBS

Shanjida Khan Ripa is a Program Manager at the Association for Land Reform and Development (ALRD). 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.