Local Government Reform in Bangladesh

1. A Presentation on
Local Government Reform in Bangladesh
Local Government Course
Professor Jun Matsunami
Presented By
Md Nazmul Islam
ID- 223i417i
GSICS, Kobe University
Table of Contents
 Explanation of Upazila Parishad
(UZP) as Governance related Reform
at Local Government Level of
Bangladesh
 Why was the Reform Needed?
 Does It Really Improve Public
Service?
 Does It Make Our People Happier?
 Does It Make Our Government More
Accountable to The People?
 Concluding Remarks & References
1

2. Explanation of UZP as Governance related Reform at Local Government Level
of Bangladesh
 Upazila Parishad (UZP), a local government tier at the sub district level
was first introduced in Bangladesh in 1982. The system was abandoned
after being practiced nine years in the year of 1991. The same was
reactivated in the year of 2009 after a long interval.
 Although the 1982 Administrative Reform and Reorganization Committee
dealt with field administration, it had wider implications for the entire
public administration system in Bangladesh. As per the recommendations of
the committee, thanas were renamed upazilas. An elected local government
was installed at the upazila level. A large number of developmental
functions were transferred to this elected local body. A large number of
government officials were deputized and placed under the elected chairman
of the local body. For the first time, democratic governance, though limited
in scope, was introduced at the upazila level (Rahman 1994; Sarker 1992).
2

3. Explanation of UZP as Governance related Reform at Local
Government Level of Bangladesh
 The Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) has been replaced as chairman of the parishad by a directly
elected public representative who has been empowered to exercise control over a number of
central government bureaucrats, especially those assigned to the parishad e.g. upazila nirbahi officer,
health and family planning officer, education officer, agriculture officer, engineer and so on.
 The upazila parishad has been accorded the status of an executive agency and made
responsible for performing a number of functions that previously were the exclusive
prerogative of the center. Under a re- distribution formula, the central government now carries
out basically regulatory functions, while the responsibility for all development functions has
devolved to the upazila parishad, including agriculture and irrigation, industry, forestry,
fisheries and livestock, health and family planning, pri- mary education, and social welfare.
The parishad also has been empowered to collect revenue from a number of sources.
 The circle officer has been replaced as the bureaucratic head of upazila administration called
the upazila nirbahi officer (UNO). He functions as the chief staff officer to the elected
chairman. He holds rank and status superior to those of other (departmental/specialist) officials
and exercises general supervision over them. More importantly, he can largely control their
behavior, mainly through initiating their annual confidential reports (Ahmed, N.,1988).
3

4. Why was the Reform Needed?
 By early the 1980s, the Bangladesh public administration system had reached an
unprecedented level of inefficiency. This worried not only national planners but
also international donor agencies, which were financing different projects under
structural adjustment plans. The pressures from them were mounting. The Public
Administration Sector Study, World Bank study and Public Administration Reform
Commission report have been categorical about the necessity of NPM-style
reforms (Sarker, A. E. ,2004).
 The central government could not govern a country with a huge population and at
the same time, it had to provide public services to each person. Besides, NPM
became popular in many parts of the world and it literally redefined the way of
governance. In fact, the reform was made with purely benevolent intention
focusing on inclusive development and providing public services in the best
possible manner and engaging people living in the grassroot level.
4

5. Does It Really Improve Public Service?
 The main problem of Upazila Parishad is that it lacks financial constraints to carry out
the assigned responsibilities. The upazila parishad has been granted a few sources from
which it can raise revenue, but these do not appear to match the responsibility assigned to
it. Ahmad and Sato estimate that local mobilization of resources accounts for only 2% of
projected revenue receipts and less than 1% of the total projected receipts under both
revenue and development headings.
 Parishad is linked to the 10 ministries for its internal functions and central government
decides what amount of fund it will give to the Upazila Parishad. Some also argue that it
has failed to foster participation, especially of those belonging to the disadvantaged
groups in the society. Azizur Rahman (1986) identifies four factors as accounting for a
lack of participation: bureaucrats' disregard of democracy, ignorance and an
uncooperative attitude on the part of administrators toward peoples' causes, slow decision
making by officials and lack of public access to government officials.
 Upazila Parishad is not the implementers; rather, they seem to be the supervisors of the
activities of the whole sub-district. Consequently, it has miserably failed to meet the
demands of the people. On the other hand, central government is not also willing to give
so much financial freedom to the Upazila Parishad in the fear that it may lose its
controlling power. Thus, the very reason of decentralization of administration and
devolution of power has remained unfulfilled to a large extent.
5

6. Does It Make Our People Happier?
 Actually, the reform has made people happier to some extent because they have
got the representatives of both central government i.e., Upazila Nirbahi Officer
and local government i.e. Upazila Chairman. They can submit their written
complaints to these authorities and get back some remedies as well.
 UNO, as a representative of both local administration and central government,
can elevate the critical development issues of a certain locality to the officials of
the central government. UNO has the opportunity to perform his/her duties
without thinking of any financial profit or loss and political bias. Hence, UNO can
independently work as the chief executive officer of Upazila Parishad and to some
extent, realize the local needs of the people.
 Even though the reform has not transformed the fate of the poor people, it has
given people a resort to speak out their complaints and receive feedback in return.
 However, this superficial happiness does not last long when UNO is beset with
bureaucratic complexity and Upazila Chairman lacks political commitment due to
financial incapacity and tendency towards corruption.
6

7. Does It Make Our Government More Accountable to The People?
 Firstly, since Upazila Parishad is controlled by the central government directly or
indirectly, it does not have to be liable to the citizens or voters.
 The second problem relates to identifying a proper working relationship between
bureaucrats and politicians at the upazila level. However, although these officials
have been placed under the administrative control of the upazila parishad, the
center still retains the final authority to regulate their conditions of service such as
appointment, transfer, promotion, and incentives. The parishad lacks authority to
reward or reprimand, according to job performance and cooperation with political
control (Ahmed N., 1988).
Thus, Upazila Parishad has not yet become citizen friendly; rather, it is positioned
far away from the daily sufferings of the people.
 Unfortunately, this reform has not made our government more accountable to the
common people.
7

8. Concluding Remarks and References
Finally, it can be said that Upazila Parishad in Bangladesh has not yet fulfilled the real motives of
decentralization and devolution of powers from central government. Its structures have been designed
as such to only follow the instructions of the central government and it has not been financially
strengthened to provide the public services and meet the demands of the common people. Thus, the
very concept of inclusive development has remained unfulfilled and incomplete. That’s why, it is
appropriate to say that NPM loses its essence in the structures and decentralization process of the
local government of Bangladesh.
References
• Ahmed, N. (1988). Experiments in local government reform in Bangladesh. Asian Survey, 28(8), 813-829.
• Ahmad, Q. K., & Sato, H. (1985). Aid and Development Administration in Bangladesh. Institute of Developing Economies, Tokyo.7.
• ESCAP. (n.d.). What is good governance. Retrieved December 30, 2022, from http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/good-governance.pdf
• Khan, A. A. (1983). Local Government Finance in Bangladesh: A Survey. Journal of Local Government, 12(1), 87-114.
• Khan, M.M. 1980. Bureaucratic Self-Preservation: Failure of Major Administrative Reform Efforts in the Civil Service of Pakistan. Dhaka: University of Dhaka.
• Rahman, A. (1986). The Upazila System and Peoples' Participation. The Young Economist, 3, 79.
• Rahman, M.H. 1994. “Participation in the Local Government in Rural Bangladesh: Whose Access?” Journal of Asiatic Society, Bangladesh 39(2):77-92.
• Sarker, A.E. 1992. “Who Benefits? An Empirical Investigation of Upazila Decentralization in Bangladesh.” The Journal of Social Studies 55:1-19.
• UNDP. (1997). Governance for sustainable human development. New york: UNDP. Retrieved December 30, 2022, from
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03068290910996981/full/html
•
8 United Nations. 1983. Enhancing Capabilities for Administrative Reform in Developing Countries. New York: United Nations.
8