TY - CHAP
T1 - Governance, rights and the demand for democracy
T2 - Evidence from Bangladesh
AU - Basu, Ipshita
AU - Brown, Graham K.
AU - Devine, Joe
PY - 2017/9/8
Y1 - 2017/9/8
N2 - Over the last 20 years, interest in good governance has progressively become more intense and focused. In part this reflects a conviction shared by academics, policy makers and practitioners that good governance can positively influence a range of key issues including poverty reduction, economic growth, the efficiency of service provision, the impact and effectiveness of development programmes and the building of more inclusive societies (Kaufmann et al. 1999, 2002; McGillivray et al. 2005). Conversely, poor quality governance is considered a barrier or hindrance to growth and wellbeing, and an incubator for corruption, violation of rights, discrimination, violence and disorder. At least this is how the theory goes. However – and not for the first time in its history – the experience of Bangladesh appears as something of a paradox when looked at from a less normative perspective. Of late therefore it has become almost a truism to note and then question the co-existence of two informed observations about modern Bangladesh. On the one hand, the country has made significant and consistent progress in socio-economic terms. It has thus enjoyed steady and prolonged macro-economic growth rates, fuelled by manufacture and remittance growth; made significant progress in relation to many of the MDG targets; and reduced the proportion of the population in poverty from 40 per cent in 2005 to 31.5 per cent in 2010 (BBS 2011; World Bank 2013). On the other hand, Bangladesh’s performance in governance terms has been poor, epitomised in its classification by Transparency International for five successive years (2001–2005) as the world’s most corrupt country. The co-existence of poor governance with successful growth and poverty reduction raises many questions and puts some core development assumptions to the test. Where some might see paradox in all of this, others may see collision. At a minimum, the post-1990 history of Bangladesh tells us that the two observations are not mutually exclusive.
AB - Over the last 20 years, interest in good governance has progressively become more intense and focused. In part this reflects a conviction shared by academics, policy makers and practitioners that good governance can positively influence a range of key issues including poverty reduction, economic growth, the efficiency of service provision, the impact and effectiveness of development programmes and the building of more inclusive societies (Kaufmann et al. 1999, 2002; McGillivray et al. 2005). Conversely, poor quality governance is considered a barrier or hindrance to growth and wellbeing, and an incubator for corruption, violation of rights, discrimination, violence and disorder. At least this is how the theory goes. However – and not for the first time in its history – the experience of Bangladesh appears as something of a paradox when looked at from a less normative perspective. Of late therefore it has become almost a truism to note and then question the co-existence of two informed observations about modern Bangladesh. On the one hand, the country has made significant and consistent progress in socio-economic terms. It has thus enjoyed steady and prolonged macro-economic growth rates, fuelled by manufacture and remittance growth; made significant progress in relation to many of the MDG targets; and reduced the proportion of the population in poverty from 40 per cent in 2005 to 31.5 per cent in 2010 (BBS 2011; World Bank 2013). On the other hand, Bangladesh’s performance in governance terms has been poor, epitomised in its classification by Transparency International for five successive years (2001–2005) as the world’s most corrupt country. The co-existence of poor governance with successful growth and poverty reduction raises many questions and puts some core development assumptions to the test. Where some might see paradox in all of this, others may see collision. At a minimum, the post-1990 history of Bangladesh tells us that the two observations are not mutually exclusive.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041585174&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4324/9781315201337
DO - 10.4324/9781315201337
M3 - Chapter
AN - SCOPUS:85041585174
SN - 9781138707610
T3 - Routledge Studies in South Asian Politics
SP - 86
EP - 106
BT - Politics and Governance in Bangladesh
A2 - Basu, Ipshita
A2 - Devine, Joe
A2 - Wood, Geof
PB - Routledge
ER -
