Fifteen years of military rule in Bangladesh gave rise to a system of patron–client politics, severely constraining the institutionalization of good governance. After 1990, the national development plans of all the succeeding governments included good governance as a key goal to reduce corruption, improve service delivery, and reform the civil service. Recognizing the development constraints, major political parties pledged governance reforms, including separation of the judiciary from the executive, establishment of an independent Anticorruption Commission (ACC), and upholding the right to information. These pledges virtually established a national consensus on the issues.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved the Good Governance Program in October 2007 in accordance with the ambitious and bold national policies and priorities of the caretaker government that took office in January 2007. With $150 million loan financing, the program is considered the most comprehensive institutional reform initiative of the country. It envisaged implementing critical and comprehensive policy reforms in anticorruption and judiciary, public service, and sector governance. It laid out 47 policy actions for implementation in three tranches.
The program’s envisaged impact was higher economic growth and enhanced public access to effective public services. Its expected outcome was improved governance and lower incidence of corruption in the public sector in Bangladesh. Its planned outputs included specific policy actions in three broad areas: (i) vision, strategy, and procedures; (ii) enforcement and sanction mechanisms; and (iii) prevention mechanisms.
At completion, the program achieved 44 of its 47 planned policy actions and 24 of its 27 output targets. The unmet policy actions, which were waived by the ADB Board of Directors in September 2018, are yet to be achieved. All but two reforms implemented under the program have been sustained. Substantial implementation of the planned policy actions and attainment of output targets have enabled the program to achieve its intended outcome. All the outcome indicators were achieved except for the establishment of the office of ombudsperson, for which the government implemented alternative measures.
As of ADB’s completion review mission, the government has allocated the required budget for the ACC and the judiciary to implement the National Integrity Strategy (NIS) and United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). The Cabinet Division, the apex body of the government of Bangladesh, has established a Coordination and Reform Wing to oversee the continued implementation of the reforms. All departments have adopted the NIS, resulting in better management of grievances and use of resources. The ACC is fully independent for investigation and prosecution of perceived corruption. Its annual reports show higher conviction rate and resolution of an increased number of cases in reduced time.
The Right to Information Act, 2009 and the Information Commission have enhanced overall transparency and accountability. The whistleblower protection law has encouraged a climate of anticorruption. All ministries have been implementing annual action plans for mitigating corruption risks. Key sectoral agencies have conducted vulnerability to corruption assessments to identify specific risks in financial management and procurement and allocated appropriate budgets to implement the risk mitigation plans. Strong corruption prevention and accountability mechanisms have been reinforced by the implementation of a grievance redress system in all government offices, resulting in reduced public grievances and improved service delivery.
Overall, the legal and institutional frameworks created by the program have helped Bangladesh reduce corruption, although corruption still eats up around 3% of the country’s gross domestic product. Significantly reduced corruption has saved public resources, increased public services, and enhanced public access to these services. Post-completion surveys show improvements in service delivery at the lowest tiers of the local government.
The program had two executing agencies: the Supreme Court for interventions related to strengthening the judiciary and the Cabinet Division for all other interventions. It had 15 implementing agencies, spread across the judiciary and executive branches of the government.
