An Analysis of PKSF’s ENRICH Programme in Bangladesh

Prof. Dr. Muhammad Mahboob Ali :

The Palli Karma-Sahayak Foundation (PKSF) launched the ENRICH (Enhancing Resources and Increasing Capacities of Poor Households towards Elimination of their Poverty) program as a flagship initiative for holistic poverty alleviation in Bangladesh. Representing a significant philosophical shift from barebones microcredit, ENRICH promised a multidimensional, “human-centered” approach.

Since its inception, the program has undergone substantial expansion, evolving from a collection of specific sectoral activities —such as building latrines and distributing solar panels—into a comprehensive rural development strategy operating 202 unions in all 64 districts of the country, through 116 different Partner Organizations currently, with a focus on holistic human development across the life cycle, from adolescents to the elderly.

However, this ambitious expansion masks a foundational disconnect. This paper contends that despite its scale and holistic rhetoric, the ENRICH program’s design is fundamentally flawed and structurally incapable of delivering transformative change. The optimistic vision of its proponents, notably former PKSF Chairman Dr. Qazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmad, who championed Bangladesh as a “development role model,” often glosses over the nation’s persistent macroeconomic pathologies: a volatile Ready-Made Garment (RMG) sector, remittance dependency, severe income inequality, and systemic corruption.

By failing to address these foundational issues, ENRICH risks functioning as a top-down, institutionally self-serving model that manages the symptoms of poverty without curing the disease. This study employs a novel mixed-methods approach to deconstruct this disconnect, arguing that ENRICH, in its current form, acts more as a palliative system that reinforces dependency than as an engine of sustainable economic transformation.

The core critique of ENRICH begins with its conceptual underpinnings. The program’s design, while broad in ambition, is myopic in its understanding of economic change. Dr. Ahmad’s description of ENRICH as a revolutionary, “human-centered multidimensional” program fails to reflect practical realities. The promise of providing extensive, customized services to millions across diverse regions is logistically naïve and financially unsustainable. This top-down, “one-size-fits-all” approach leads to overgeneralization, assuming that a standardized package of interventions can solve deeply contextualized problems of poverty.

Furthermore, the program’s complex partnership model, while designed to encourage local involvement, creates a long chain of implementation through 101 Partner Organizations (POs).

This structure dilutes accountability and increases the risk of resource misappropriation, as oversight becomes fragmented across multiple layers. The program’s focus on union-level interventions, while seemingly targeted, is ultimately a fragmented approach that ignores the broader economic ecosystem. It operates under the assumption that localized, micro-level improvements can aggregate into national transformation, a premise this research directly challenges. This conceptual flaw sets the stage for the empirical disillusionment revealed by our tripartite methodological analysis.

To move beyond theoretical critique, this study employs a novel mixed-methods framework—integrating macroeconomic modeling, institutional analysis, and behavioral microeconomics—to provide a comprehensive and empirical evaluation of ENRICH’s impact.

The first layer of analysis utilizes a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model to assess ENRICH’s impact on the broader Bangladeshi economy. The findings are stark: rather than acting as a catalyst for growth, ENRICH operates within a confined PKSF ecosystem. The program’s emphasis on creating micro-entrepreneurs, without corresponding linkages to larger value chains or market structures, results in a saturation of low-productivity ventures. This creates a “micro-enterprise trap,” where an oversupply of similar, small-scale businesses depresses sectoral profits for all participants.

Furthermore, the model shows how the program fails to break the “low-level equilibrium trap.” Modest gains from a small enterprise or a one-time training are quickly neutralized by systemic constraints—a health shock, a dowry payment, or a natural disaster. The game-theoretic proof also confirms systematic elite capture, where local power structures co-opt program resources, ensuring that the most marginalized “downtrodden” rarely benefit. This creates a moral hazard, fostering a dependency on cyclical aid rather than sustainable empowerment, as the strategic choices available to the poor remain fundamentally unchanged.

The convergence of findings from these three distinct methodologies presents an undeniable case for fundamental reform. Rather than abandoning the ENRICH infrastructure, a rigorous, iterative improvement process is required. The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle, managed by an independent oversight committee, offers a clear pathway.

· Plan (Strategic Redesign): The committee must first conduct a genuine needs assessment, moving beyond assumptions to identify the specific, evolving needs of the extreme poor. Based on this, it should set SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) goals, such as “Reduce adolescent school dropout rates by 25% in two years.”

· Do (Pilot Implementation): New, evidence-based interventions should be piloted in a select number of upazilas, not rolled out indiscriminately. This allows for controlled testing and meticulous documentation of the process.
· Check (Monitoring and Evaluation): The committee must rigorously monitor the pilots against the SMART goals, using both quantitative data and qualitative feedback from beneficiaries to assess real-world impact and relevance.
· Act (Standardization and Scaling): Only successful interventions should be standardized and scaled across the ENRICH network. Failed or mixed pilots must be adjusted and re-tested, embedding a culture of learning and adaptation rather than blind expansion.
This research concludes that the prevailing microfinance-led development model, as exemplified by PKSF’s ENRICH program, is structurally flawed. Its pursuit of holistic change is undermined by a weak governance framework, disconnect from macroeconomic realities, and an inability to alter the strategic constraints of poverty. When assessed through the integrated lenses of ESG and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the model’s failures are stark: it promotes environmental disregard (undermining SDG 13 and 15), exacerbates social inequality (failing SDG 1 and 10), and is rooted in poor governance.
Consequently, the negativity of the current model necessitates a fundamental paradigm shift. Beyond reforming ENRICH via the PDCA cycle, the government should consider pivoting towards a “Societal Banking” model. This would involve channeling development resources through reformed public sector banks like Bangladesh Krishi Bank (BKB) or the Bangladesh NGO Foundation (BNF), bypassing the inefficient and corruption-prone apex-NGO-PO structure.
This alternative model would:
· Integrate Credit with Public Goods: Move beyond micro-loans to offer bundled products like micro-savings, insurance, and climate-resilient agricultural credit, directly linked to extension services and market access.
· Embed ESG and SDG Alignment: Design every financial product with explicit environmental and social risk assessments, aligning directly with national SDG targets.
· Leverage Public Accountability: Utilize the greater formal oversight and parliamentary accountability of public institutions to combat the local elite capture that plagues the current NGO-mediated model.
In conclusion, while the ENRICH program represents a well-intentioned ambition, its current implementation leads to disillusionment. Without a courageous commitment to evidence-based redesign and a willingness to embrace more accountable, macro economically-integrated models like Societal Banking, Bangladesh’s fight against poverty will remain a story of managed deprivation, not transformative liberation.

(The author is Professor of Dept. of Economics Bangladesh University of Business and Technology
Email:[email protected])