The idea of a “family card” has entered public debate with a fair amount of noise. Supporters describe it as a bold welfare intervention, while critics dismiss it as little more than an election-time gimmick. 

Much of the discussion so far, however, has focused on explaining what the family card is, rather than asking a more important question: What could it actually do if implemented seriously?

To understand whether the family card is symbolic politics or a potential game changer, it needs to be examined beyond party lines. The real issue is not who proposed it, but whether the policy responds to a structural problem in Bangladeshi society and whether it can realistically make a difference.

At the centre of this proposal is a demographic reality that often gets overlooked. Bangladesh is largely made up of lower-middle and middle-income households, many of whom earn somewhere between Tk10,000 and Tk20,000 a month. 

While exact numbers are difficult to pin down, this group is likely the country’s largest segment. It is also the most quietly vulnerable: Not poor enough to qualify for most safety nets, yet not secure enough to absorb economic shocks.

This group forms the broad base of our social pyramid. If they are stable, society holds. If they struggle, the effects are felt everywhere, from household stress to wider economic and political instability.

Seen from this angle, the value of a monthly support of Tk2,500 looks very different. For someone earning Tk10,000 a month, this amount is close to 25% of their income. Over time, and especially when adjusted against inflation, this support begins to resemble the benefit of an additional income stream, without any extra labour.

Inflation is where the problem becomes most visible. Many households have managed to increase their income slightly over the years, only to find that rising prices cancel out any real gains. As a result, people remain stuck in the same financial position despite working harder. This is one reason upward mobility for the poor and lower-middle class has remained so limited.

If a family receives this support consistently, not as a one-off payment but over a defined period, the impact becomes clearer when viewed annually rather than monthly. What looks modest at first adds up over time. A yearly total can help clear overdue bills, reduce dependence on informal credit, or meet urgent family needs without borrowing.

In Bangladesh, households in this income bracket are almost always carrying some form of debt. They owe money to local shopkeepers, have unpaid utility bills, and juggle informal loans that are pushed from one month to the next. This constant adjustment leaves no room for savings. Any disruption, such as illness or an unexpected family expense, can push them further into financial stress.

A predictable cash support could potentially help the families slowly step out of this cycle. Even partial relief could make a difference. It may allow them to pay off small debts, set aside a little savings, or simply avoid panic when expenses arise. For lower-middle-income households, savings are not a luxury. They are essential for dignity and security.

Beyond economics, the family card also carries important social implications, particularly if the support is directed to women. In many lower-middle and middle-class households, women have limited influence over financial decisions because they do not earn a direct income. Despite being the largest occupational group in the country as homemakers, their work remains unpaid and undervalued.

If 15-25% of household income is placed consistently under a woman’s control, it changes everyday dynamics inside the family. More than money, this is about voice. Over time, women become active participants in managing household finances, savings, and priorities.

This kind of inclusion can have broader cultural effects. In a society where women are often excluded from decision-making because they do not earn, such a policy can slowly challenge that norm. It introduces women into the financial life of the household and recognizes their role as economic actors, not just caregivers.

At a broader level, these shifts, reduced household debt, modest savings, and greater financial inclusion for women, can contribute to social stability. This is where the family card begins to look less like a slogan and more like a structural intervention.

What are the challenges?

1. The first is budgetary. Questions remain about fiscal feasibility, even though proponents argue that the program could be funded by adjusting and expanding existing social safety net allocations. This would require careful planning and transparency, not political shortcuts.

2. The second challenge is misuse. Bangladesh has seen many well-designed policies weakened by politicization, corruption, and poor implementation. If beneficiaries are forced to pay bribes to access their entitlements, or if the program becomes a tool for political favour, public trust will erode quickly.

3. There are also risks if support is provided in kind rather than in cash. Poor-quality goods, inflated pricing, and local-level profiteering could reduce the real value of the benefit, even if the official amount remains unchanged.

4. The most sensitive issue is beneficiary selection. Defining who qualifies as poor or ultra-poor has never been straightforward. Without specific criteria, independent audits, and third-party verifications, mistakes and manipulation are highly likely. Past experiences with social allowances show how easily well-intentioned schemes can be distorted.

For this reason, beneficiary lists would need strong oversight, ideally with support from credible development agencies, to ensure accountability and cross-checking.

The answer depends less on intent and more on execution. As an idea, it speaks directly to the economic pressures faced by a large section of the population. If implemented with seriousness, transparency, and care, it could move beyond electoral politics and offer real support to households under strain.

If not, it will simply join the long list of promises that sounded transformative but changed very little.

So, is the family card a gimmick or a political game changer? At this point we can hope that this is something that will come into fruition regardless of which party comes to power. 

Because it truly has the merit to create true transformation in Bangladesh’s society. 

Ashfaq Zaman is the founder of Dhaka Forum and a strategic international affairs expert.