The updated performance review of the Taka 860 billion Annual Development Programme (ADP), in terms of implementation, for the current fiscal year (FY), 2014-15, provides a picture similar to that of the corresponding period of the last fiscal. The implementation rate of this fiscal's ADP in the first five months up to November, 2014, as disclosed by Planning Minister AHM Mustafa Kamal at his 'press meet' last Sunday, stood at, as low as, 21 per cent of the annual financial outlay. This should not have been the case, particularly in view of the promises that were earlier made repeatedly by the key functionaries of the government to improve the ADP implementation capacity. Such promises came this year, perhaps in a louder way, than before, in response to serious doubts that were expressed by different quarters about the government's capacity to implement such an 'overambitious' budget, particularly in terms of financial resource allocation for 'development' spending. The 'bigwigs' in the government then brushed aside such 'doubts' (or, 'criticisms'), stating that the budget, in its financial size, "is quite realistic" and well within their capacity to implement it.
The first half of the current fiscal is about to be over now. The 'Doubting Thomasses' are yet to be proved wrong by the ground-level realities apropos the implementation of this fiscal's ADP. Furthermore, there has not been much of political turbulence so far this year, unlike the case during the corresponding period of the last one. As such, 'political disturbances' cannot be cited as excuses or reasons -- exogenous ones -- for delays in ADP implementation. The grounds for the same must be found elsewhere. The Planning Minister has already identified a few of such factors that are responsible for slow execution of projects under the ADP for the current fiscal. The factors are not any new revelations; they largely relate to complexities in land acquisition, areas of procurement, appointment of consultants etc. These have been persisting since long in an uninterrupted sequence.
The identification of the problems is not the moot issue here. But the ways as much as the political will to fix them rightly and thus effectively, are. This is more so at a time when new national pay scales, upon the recommendations of the National Pay Commission and following their review, scrutiny and approval by the government, are set to be made effective in the current fiscal. It is critically important at this stage to ponder over the links between additional expenditures, to be increased on account of hikes in compensation and other related benefits of public employees, and their respective level of efficiency.
As far as the ADP is concerned, this link is of primordial importance to deliver outcomes for the benefits of the overall economy. There are lots of issues of consequence that are involved here. All such issues embrace a wide range of matters - competence and skill of various line ministries, a pervasive centralisation syndrome, extent of delegation of power, state of ministerial positions, nature of commitment on the part of senior project-level officials, flip-flop actions by policymakers, perils of procurement, clout of various rent-seeking groups which seek private gains at public expenses, lack of knowledge and expertise or otherwise on the part of relevant public officials, complexities in matters of land acquisition etc. All these problems are interwined. They tend to get fouled up further, within a system where success offers few rewards and failure, no or few penalties. This heightens the need for bringing about effective changes in the system to help expedite the process of ADP implementation and streamline the delivery of essential services up to the satisfaction of the people.
