Housing Affordability of Ready-made Garment Workers in the Dhaka Metropolitan Area

Abstract

Generally, it is assumed that the poor in cities cannot afford to own a house. Thus, real estate developers hardly consider them as potential buyers. Despite the fact that the government has framed favourable policies towards housing the poor, the poor cannot own houses due to the inadequacy of institutional supports. This study examines the affordability of owned or rental accommodation for the poor, taking ready-made garment (RMG) workers in Dhaka as a case in point. Data from across 138 households have been gathered for this study. The study shows that if the rent increases further than the minimum standard for a dwelling unit, then about half of the RMG households become unable to afford their rental houses. An analysis of home ownership shows that only 28 per cent of families can buy a house of 300 sq. ft. on the basis of existing loan structures, and only if the loan covers the total property value, particularly at the periphery of the city area. If the loan structure for housing finance is changed by lowering the interest rate and increasing the loan repayment period, then more workers would be able to afford to own a small house of moderate standard.

Keywords

Housing affordability ready-made garment loan structure Dhaka

Introduction

Rapid population growth in urban areas, limited land and infrastructure resources, widening gap between need and supply of housing, widespread poverty, poor planning and management constrain the provision of affordable housing for the poor (Begum, 2015; UN-Habitat, 2012). Moreover, rapid urbanization due to a continuous influx of population creates demand for developable land and thus generates pressure on limited land resources in the cities (Chen, 2007; Lin & Ho, 2003). Such increased pressures induce the growth of land value as well as housing costs (Habitat for Humanity, 2007). Thus, a significant proportion of city dwellers fail to keep up with the increased cost of housing in the city (RAJUK, 2016; World Bank, 2005).

Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, contains more than 15 million people who are seriously suffering from the housing crisis (BIGD, 2017). The city had a housing backlog of 0.46 million in 2015 (RAJUK, 2016). The annual migration of more than 400,000 people to Dhaka generates a need for more than 120,000 new dwelling units each year (IGS, 2012; UN-Habitat, 2008). However, due to the lower production capacity of the housing market, lack of proper housing policies and poor governance, the gap between the need and supply of housing has widened (Seraj & Afrin, 2003). Thus, low-income people in the city can neither afford better-quality rental housing, nor own a house, and therefore, often settle in low-cost, poor-quality slum housing (ADB-BBS, 2012; World Bank, 2005). A study shows that more than one-third of the dwellers of Dhaka City were living in slum settlements in 2004 (CUS, 2005). The dwellers of such settlements were largely rural migrants (Islam & Shafi, 2008) who are mostly involved in informal activities and labour-intensive industries (World Bank, 2007). Considering the importance of the low-income people in the urban economy and its growth process, in the past, several attempts have been made to improve their living conditions (RAJUK, 2016). The Slum Improvement Project (SIP) and the Urban Poverty Reduction Project (UPRP), for example, have sought to provide basic services like water and electricity by Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority (DWASA) and City Corporation in some slum areas. Recently, Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipakkha (RAJUK) has allocated some land for the poor, though this is an insufficient amount. This includes Purbachal, Uttara (third phase) and Jhilmil where, through projects targeting the poor, only 4.3 per cent, 7.5 per cent and 1.2 per cent of the land has been allocated, respectively. This is despite the fact that the Bangladesh National Housing Policy sets goals for improving housing condition, reducing the costs of housing construction and establishing a feasible mortgage loan for the poor. The Fifth-Five Year Plan (1998–2002) also made suggestions for the provision of credit facilities at a reasonable interest rate for the poor.

These initiatives are ineffective and limited in reach when considering the size of the urban poor segment and the scale of the problem. The housing demands of the poor are mainly fulfilled by the private sector through a slum housing subsystem. More than 80 per cent of the poor’s housing stock is in the private sector. In light of these issues, it is important to assess what proportion of the poor can afford a minimum standard liveable housing unit in the city. This article thus attempts to examine the housing affordability of the poor by illustrating the findings of an empirical investigation in the Dhaka Metropolitan Area. The ready-made garment (RMG) workers were taken as a case to study the housing affordability. The key objectives of this study were to assess: (a) what proportion of RMG workers can afford housing (in terms of owning and renting) at the current condition they live in, and (b) what institutional or policy changes in the housing finance system can help RMG workers to own decent housing with their current level of income.

Ready-made Garment Workers’ Housing Condition in Dhaka City in Contemporary Literature

The ready-made garment industry is one of the booming industrial sectors of the Bangladeshi economy (ACD, 2015; CPD, 2002) and provides the largest amount of manufacturing employment in the country (about 48.8%) (BBS, 2011). In 2010, it provided around 0.6 million jobs in 2,283 macro-sized (has employment 10 and above) garment factories in Dhaka City (BBS, 2011). This labour was mainly sourced from rural and other urban areas (Sikdar et al., 2014; World Bank, 2007). Despite the industry’s significant contributions to the national economy (Islam & Zahid, 2012; Rahman & Siddiqui, 2015), worker’s wages remain very low in the sector (CPD & Berenschot, 2013). As a result, Wiest et al. (2002) found that about four-fifths of workers live in slums and squatter settlements. Bhuiyan (2012) found that most of them live in less than 120 sq. ft. floor space with shared cooking burners, bathrooms and toilets. Even for such poor-quality accommodation, workers spend approximately 40 per cent of their income (Kundu, 2004; PPRC, 2011). This housing situation exists due to the excessive demand for housing against its relatively low supply in the city (Habitat for Humanity, 2007). While institutional supports for housing the poor through policies and planning exist, in reality, making housing accessible to the poor seems difficult. This study therefore attempts to explore the housing affordability of the RMG workers, as a representation for the situation of the low-income earners at large.

Study Methodology

The Data

Housing affordability is a culmination of economic, social and institutional factors. However, the present study employs income–expenditure pattern, household demography and housing characteristics of a household as the key factors for determining housing affordability. A questionnaire survey was conducted with the families of 138 RMG workers to collect data towards this purpose. These RMG workers were randomly selected from three RMG factories from within three major RMG agglomerations (Mirpur, Rampura and Mohammadpur) in Dhaka. Moreover, expert-level interviews were conducted to share the collected household-level data and to gage the possibilities for developing affordable housing for RMG workers.

Methods of Analysing Housing Affordability

Housing is generally deemed affordable when a household spends 30 per cent or less of their income on housing-related expenses, such as mortgage repayments (for owner-occupiers), rent payments (for tenants) and other operational expenses (Freeman et al., 1997; UN-Habitat, 2006). The study has set standards for the affordability of different types of housing arrangements based on existing literature and expert interviews presented in Table 1. It is to be noted that income alone does not explain affordability; rather, it is also influenced by favourable social circumstances such as the assistance of parents, in-laws, relatives and friends.

Table 1.

Types of Affordability, Indicators and Benchmarks for Affordability Measurement (currency measurement, US$1 = 80 BDT)

Rental Affordability	Type of Housing Affordability	Indicators Used (household level)	Affordability Benchmarks (household level)
	Rental affordability based on existing living condition	Monthly income Monthly housing expenditure	30% or less of total HH income spent on housing means affordable.
	Rental affordability to standard housing condition based on non-housing expenditure	Monthly income Monthly non-housing expenditure Monthly income available for occupancy expense Estimated monthly occupancy expense for standard housing	Able to pay rent of minimum standard of housing (acquired from field survey) based on family size, sex and number of couples. 1 room—US$38.75 2 room—US$68.75 3 room—US$100
Affordability to Own House	Affordability to own house	Monthly income Monthly expenditure Monthly savings Amount of loan, interest rates Loan tenure and monthly instalment	Floor space—300 sq. ft. Price—US$37.5 per sq. ft. at periphery Loan covers 100% of the property value Minimum interest rate with up to 30 years repayment time

Source: Field survey, 2012 and the study assumptions.

Rental Affordability

Rental affordability was assessed under two situations: affordability based on current living arrangements and affordability based on a dwelling of a minimum standard. In the first case, the study used 30 per cent of household income as a benchmark defined by UN-Habitat (2006). For the second case, the study used the estimated cost of standard dwelling units of different sizes and the available income for housing after deducting all non-housing expenditures. The size of the required unit (in number of rooms) by a household was estimated based on family size and composition. The rent was then determined against the existing rent of the respective sized unit with sufficient services in Dhaka (shown in Table 1). If the estimated cost is higher than the available amount for housing, it will not be affordable and vice-versa.

Affordability to Own a House

There have hardly been any effective efforts in the country to provide house ownership to the poor. This exercise is an attempt to examine the possibility of owning a house by the poor household if favourable policies and institutional supports were to be extended. There are examples that suggest the poor pay a relatively high amount for renting a house when compared with that of middle-income people (Nazem & Sultana, 2019). Thus, the poor can pay off their high rental amount as a loan repayment if the terms and conditions are favourable. Since the assumption is that financial support needs to be directed towards ownership, the assessment of loan amounts and monthly instalments was a prerequisite to determining the affordability of home ownership for the RMG worker. To estimate the amount of loan and monthly instalments, the following criteria were considered:

Minimum floor space requirement: Islam and Shafi (2008) propose a minimum of 100 to 300 sq. ft. floor space for a poor household. This study considers 300 sq. ft. floor space as the minimum requirement for a family.

Location and price: RMG factories are mainly growing in the peripheries of the city (Figure 1). Thus, the demand for workers housing will be located at the peripheries since the poor prefer to live near their workplaces (Duranton & Puga, 2015). In the city peripheries, the average price of floor space is US$37.5 (BDT 3,000) per sq. ft.

Loan amount, repayment time and interest rate: Currently, banks provide up to 80 per cent of the property cost as a loan for up to 20 years with an interest rate that varies from 10 to 12 per cent. The study proposes that banks should provide the full amount for construction costs as a loan for up to 30 years, with an interest rate of 5 to 10 per cent. This study assessed affordability for loan repayment periods of 10 to 30 years and 5 to 10 per cent interest rates.

Figure 1.

Source: Prepared by authors based on BBS (2011).

Based on the criteria above, the cost as well as the loan amount will be US$ 11,250 (BDT 900,000) to own a 300 sq. ft. dwelling unit. Thus, using these parameters, the study calculates the equalized monthly instalments (EMI) shown in Table 2. The EMI amount must be paid monthly by the borrower for the entire loan period. The following equation is used to calculate the EMI.

Table 2.

Equalized Monthly Instalment Matrix for the Principal Amount of Loan of US$11,250

Loan Period (in years)	Interest Rate (%)
Loan Period (in years)	5	6	7	8	9	10
10	119.3	124.9	130.6	136.5	142.5	148.7
15	89.0	95.0	101.1	107.5	114.1	120.9
20	74.3	80.6	87.2	94.1	101.2	108.6
25	65.8	72.5	79.5	86.8	94.4	102.2
30	60.4	67.5	74.9	82.6	90.5	98.7

Source: Calculated based on HBFC Home Loan EMI calculator.

Ε Μ Ι = L . I \frac{{(1 + I)}^{m}}{{(1 + I)}^{m} - 1}

(1)

where, EMI = equalized monthly instalments, L = amount of loan, I = (interest rate per annum/12)/100 and m = loan period in months.

To assess the affordability of owning a housing unit, the study uses this EMI amount as a parameter for monthly housing costs. Thus, if the estimated monthly loan instalment is higher than the available household income for housing, the family will not be able to afford to own a house with their current income level.

Modelling the Housing Affordability

It is certain that lowering the interest rate and extending the length of the loan repayment period reduces the number of monthly instalments which in turn, may raise the affordability of housing. Thus, to explore the interaction between interest rates, loan payment periods and the proportion of households that can afford to own a house with their current income level, a regression analysis has been done. In the regression analysis, the proportion of households that can afford to pay monthly instalments was the dependent variable, and interest rates and loan payment periods were used as the explanatory variables.

Findings and Discussion

Economic Conditions of the Ready-made Garment Workers

The study found that an average of 2.56 persons in a household are involved in income-earning activities. Approximately 42.75 per cent of the households have one RMG worker, while 36.96 per cent, 13.04 per cent and 6.52 per cent have, two, three and four or more RMG workers, respectively. Thus, there are 1.86 RMG workers on an average in each surveyed household. The RMG sector is the lone source of income for about half of the households (49%) and it is the major source of income for about 83 per cent of the households.

The average income of the household is found to be US$205.3 per month, of which 72 per cent is from the RMG sector. According to the level of income, the study found that half of the households’ monthly income is less than US$210, with the lowest 25 per cent of the households earning less than US$162.5 (Table 3). Very few of the households (21 out of 138) have a bank deposit; however, almost every household saves money in the form of cash. Many of them (57 per cent) remit money to their native villages for various purposes. However, the overall living conditions for the RMG workers, in terms of their quality of housing and lifestyles, is far from satisfactory.

Table 3.

Quartile Distribution of RMG Workers’ Income with Their Housing Expenses and Floor Space

Quartile/Group	Income Range (in US$)	Percentages Spend on Housing	Percentages Available for Housing	Existing Floor Space (sq. ft.)
1st quartile/lower income group	Less than 162.5	19.8	42	90
2nd quartile/lower-middle-income group	162.5–209.3	20.2	39.6	109
3rd quartile/upper-middle-income group	209.3–275	15.4	40.4	120
4th quartile/upper income group	275++	18.1	32.8	160
All	205.3	18.4	38.7	120

Source: Field survey, 2012.

Housing Condition of the Ready-made Garment Workers

The study found that the average living space for a family is 120 sq. ft., where nearly 4 persons live. However, at least 60 per cent of the household live in less than even 100 sq. ft. of floor space. Most of these accommodations (88%) are single room units with a shared kitchen, bath, and toilet. The houses are mostly (74%) katcha (made of raw materials or temporary fixtures) and semi pucca (half-permanent structures), and generally lack sufficient utility services.

The study has found that on average, households spend 18.4 per cent of their income on housing although they have about 40 per cent of their income (after all non-housing expenditures) available to spend on housing. This indicates that the poor can pay more for better housing if institutional facilities and supports are provided in favour of them. Table 3 shows the income spent towards housing purposes and average floor space consumed by income quartiles. The table shows that the consumption of floor space increases with higher levels of income. The households that belong to the lower-income quartile spend comparatively more than the upper-income quartile for less floor space, in terms of the share of their total household income on housing. While this income group has 42 per cent of their income left after meeting all non-housing expenses, they only spend 19.8 per cent of it. On the other hand, the workers who are in the upper quartile pay 18.1 per cent for rent in contrast to 32.8 per cent of their available income. It is in fact true that the poor pay more in rent per square feet of space when compared with middle or even high-income people living in high or middle-income areas of Dhaka City. This has been proven in other studies too (see Nazem & Sultana, 2019).

Housing Affordability of Ready-made Garment Workers

Rental Affordability of Ready-made Garment Workers Based on Existing Living Conditions

The study found that 92.8 per cent of the households spend up to 30 per cent of their total income on housing. They can be considered within the affordability limit. The study also shows that about 80 per cent of RMG workers spend up to 30 per cent of their total expenditure on housing purposes. It thus reveals that the higher the expenditure on housing, the greater is its affordability. In other words, if expenditure on housing is limited, affordability goes down. Figure 2 shows that less than a third (31.9%) of the households who spent 10–15 per cent of their income were able to afford rental accommodation. About 10 per cent of the RMG households who spend less than 10 per cent of their income live in a very poor condition.

Figure 2.

Source: Field Survey, 2012.

Rental Affordability Based on Non-housing Expenditure

In estimating the proportion of households that can afford standard housing based on non-housing expenditure, total non-housing expenditure has been deducted from total income and the available amount has then been considered as housing expenditure. Following this, the available amount of housing expenditure has been compared against housing expenses for a standard unit, in order to estimate whether the households had enough money to afford a standard rental unit. The estimates show that 58.8 per cent of the households (family dwellings) have some surplus to avail as standard dwelling unit after meeting all the non-housing expenses and can thus afford better living standards with their present income.

Affordability of Owning a Dwelling Unit

This study has assessed the affordability of workers to buy a housing unit (low-cost flat) with a mortgage loan system. Affordability is measured based on the household’s current housing expenditure and savings. Figure 3 shows that 22.5 per cent of households can afford a housing unit with 5 per cent interest rate for a loan period of 10 years. If the period extends from 10 to 30 years with the same interest rate, about 60 per cent of the households can afford the specified housing unit.

Figure 3.

Source: Calculated based on field survey, 2012.

However, with a higher interest rate, for example, 10 per cent, affordability reduces from 22.5 per cent to 11.8 per cent for the 10 year-loan period. For a 30 year-period, however, 38 per cent of households can afford to buy a house due to the extended time available for repayment.

An assessment has been made to identify which proportion of the RMG households can afford mortgage instalments with their present housing cost (i.e., present rent) (Figure 4). The study shows that no household can afford to pay instalments even at 5 per cent interest when the loan repayment period is 10 years. However, if the repayment time is extended to 15 years, it becomes affordable for 1 per cent of households, and 11.8 per cent if extended to 30 years. However, at 10 per cent interest rate, only about 1 per cent household can afford to own a house while the loan period is 30 years.

Figure 4.

Source: Calculated based on field survey, 2012.

Table 4.

Quartile Group Based on Income of the Households and Average Available Income for Housing

Quartile/Group	Income Range (in US$)	Available Income for Housing (in US$)
1st quartile group	<162.5	40.8
2nd quartile group	162.5–209.3	73
3rd quartile group	209.3–275	98.4
4th quartile group	275++	132.4

Source: Calculated based on field survey, 2012.

The study also explores which group of workers are better fit for which type of instalments. Figure 5 shows the ability of different income groups to pay the instalments with their available income. The red lines show the mark of the higher loan limit. Households of the first quartile are not able to pay any kind of instalment with their present income level. Households of the second quartile are only able to pay the loan if the interest rate is 5 per cent and the repayment period is more than 25 years. Households of the third quartile can pay if the repayment period is 15 years or longer. It is important to mention that no households of the first, second and third quartiles can afford to pay instalments at 10 per cent interest rate in any time frame up to 30 years. Thus, with the current housing finance system, most of the households cannot own a house until the interest rate and loan periods are reformed.

Figure 5.

Source: Calculated based on field survey, 2012.

Housing Affordability Models

The results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 5. The interest rate as the independent variable can explain only 19.4 per cent of variances (Model 1), while the loan repayment period can explain 67.1 per cent of variances (Model 2). Model 3 shows that together, the independent variables can explain 88.4 per cent of the variances significantly. It also shows that the decrease in 1 per cent of the interest rate can increase the number of eligible households by 2.7 per cent and a 1-year increment of the loan repayment period can increase the number of eligible households by 1.3 per cent.

Table 5.

Regression Analysis Results

Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Constant	43.634 (0.000)	–2.035 (0.432)	20.916 (0.000)
Interest rate	–2.700 (0.001)		–2.700 (0.000)
Loan repayment period		1.298 (0.000)	1.298 (0.000)
R	0.460	0.823	0.943
R ²	0.211	0.678	0.889
Adjusted R²	0.194	0.671	0.884
e	12.212	7.801	4.624
Sig.	0.001	0.000	0.000
N	48	48	48

Source: Calculated by authors.

Conclusions

Adequate and affordable housing is the symbol of a standard and happy life, which fosters economic potentiality, social stability and healthy living. However, low and lower-middle-income populations, such as the poor of Dhaka City, suffer severely from the scarcity of affordable housing. The goal of this research has been to scope out how housing can be made affordable for low-income earners, with RMG industry workers chosen as a representational case. The study has tried to assess what proportion of workers are currently living in affordable rental housing, what proportion of them can afford standard rental houses and what financial supports they would need to own a house in Dhaka City. Following an empirical study, it has been found that most of the workers are living in affordable houses, but none of these housing units meet the minimum standard of living: in terms of floor space, utilities or environmental quality. When the minimum standard of the housing unit was considered, it has been found that nearly 60 per cent of workers can afford it, but the problem lies in that they cannot save any money in this condition. Apart from this, the affordability of home ownership reveals that approximately one-third of RMG workers can purchase a 300 sq. ft. flat house in the peripheries of Dhaka City, based on the current housing finance system and only when the given loan covers the total housing cost with a low-interest rates and over a long repayment period.

This article confirms other studies that have similarly pointed to how both renting a standard house and owning a house are beyond the affordability of low-income groups under the existing housing finance system. A revised urban housing policy can change this scenario. It has already been mentioned in the present study that a reformed housing finance system (lowering the interest rate and lengthening loan repayment period) can increase the proportion of housing ownership in Dhaka City. However, the longer-term loan repayment period is more effective than the interest rate in providing an affordable housing loan. Though the housing policy of Bangladesh emphasizes the need for low-income housing, the housing mortgage system for the poor still remains unfriendly. Therefore, future studies ought to perform extensive research on the urban housing governance system and how authorities can offer an affordable housing policy for both low and lower-middle-income people. The coordination of governments, non-government organizations and real estate companies is very important in the housing delivery system. Future research should concentrate on how they can provide cheaper, but better-quality housing for the urban poor communities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

ACD (2015). Garment workers in Bangladesh: Social impact of the garment industry. Asian Center for Development.

ADB-BBS (2012). The informal sector and the informal employment in Bangladesh (Country Report 2010). Asian Development Bank and Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.

BBS (2011). Register of establishment 2010. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.

Begum

(2015). Improving access to housing for low-income communities in Dhaka: From rhetoric to reality in community participation (unpublished PhD thesis). Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Bhuiyan

M. Z. A.

(2012). Present status of garment workers in Bangladesh: An analysis. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 3(5), 38–44.

BIGD (2017). State of cities 2017: Housing in Dhaka. BRAC Institute of Governance and Development.

Chen

(2007). Rapid urbanization in China: A real challenge to soil protection and food security. CATENA, 69(1), 1–15.

CPD (2002). Contribution of the RMG sector to the Bangladesh economy. Centre for Policy Dialogue.

CPD, & Berenschot (2013). Estimating a minimum living wage for the ready made garment sector in Bangladesh. Centre for Policy Dialogue. www.berenschot.com/.../estimating_a_living_minimum_wage_for_the_rmg_sector_i

10.

CUS (2005). Slums of urban Bangladesh: Mapping and census 2005. Centre for Urban Studies.

11.

Duranton

, & Puga

(2015). Urban land use. In Duranton

, Henderson

J. V.

& Strange

W. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 5, pp. 467–560). Elsevier.

12.

Freeman

, Russell

, & Whitehead

C. M. E.

(1997). Rental affordability: A review of international literature (Discussion Paper No. 88). Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge.

13.

Habitat for Humanity (2007). The causes of inadequate housing. In A right to a decent home: Mapping poverty housing in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 29–60). Asia-Paciﬁc Ofﬁce, Habitat for Humanity International.

14.

IGS (2012). State of cities: Urban governance in Dhaka. Institute of Governance Studies.

15.

Islam

M. K.

, & Zahid

(2012). Socio economic deprivation and garment worker movement in Bangladesh: A sociological analysis. American Journal of Sociological Research, 2(4), 82–89.

16.

Islam

, & Shafi

S. A.

(2008). A proposal for a housing development programme in Dhaka city. Centre for Urban Studies.

17.

Kundu

G. K.

(2004). Accommodation problems of garment workers in Dhaka city (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka.

18.

Lin

G. C. S.

, & Ho

S. P. S.

(2003). China’s land resources and land-use change: Insights from the 1996 land survey. Land Use Policy, 20(2), 87–107.

19.

Nazem

N. I.

, & Sultana

(2019). Slums and squatter settlements and affordable housing in the Dhaka metropolitan area, Bangladesh. Proceedings of 15th International Asian Urbanization Conference Urban Futures: Critical Transformations in Asian Cities. Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam.

20.

PPRC (2011). Urban Bangladesh: Challenges of transition. Power and Participation Research Centre.

21.

Rahman

M. H.

, & Siddiqui

S. A.

(2015). RMG: Prospects of contribution in economy of Bangladesh. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(9), 1–8.

22.

RAJUK (2016). Dhaka structure plan 2016–2035 (Draft). RajdhaniUnnayanKartipakkha.

23.

Seraj

T. M.

, & Afrin

(2003). Solving housing problem through private sector real estate development in Dhaka. In Islam

(Ed.), Water and sanitation for cities. Bangladesh Institute of Planners.

24.

Sikdar

M. M. H.

, Sarkar

M. S. K.

, & Sadeka

(2014). Socio-economic conditions of the female garment workers in the capital city of Bangladesh. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(3), 173–179.

25.

UN-Habitat (2006). Enabling shelter strategies: Review of experience from two decades of implementation. UN-Habitat.

26.

UN-Habitat (2008). State of the World’s Cities 2008/2009. London: Earthscan

27.

UN-Habitat (2012). Street as tools for urban transformation in slums: A street-led approach to citywide slum upgrading. UN-Habitat.

28.

Wiest

, Khatun

, & Mohiuddin

(2002). Workplace, residence and relationships among garment workers in the globalizing export economy of Bangladesh. In Rahman

(Ed.), Globalization, environmental crisis and social change in Bangladesh. University Press Limited.

29.

World Bank (2005). Dhaka urban poverty: Land and housing issues. World Bank.

30.

World Bank (2007). Dhaka: Improving living conditions for the urban poor (Bangladesh Development Series Paper, 17). World Bank.