Standard feasibility study for development projects

The emphasis the Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED) under the Ministry of Planning laid on standard feasibility studies and analysis of expert opinions before taking up development projects may sound like a cliché. But in the context of reality in Bangladesh, such an imperative never loses its importance. There have been unsound projects galore under the Annual Development Programme (ADP) due to undesirable pressures and entreaties by members of parliament (MPs) and influential quarters during successive governments. Partisan politics was responsible for inclusion at the last moment of a large number of projects which even were notorious for faulty designs and development project proformas (DPPs). Reports came from different corners of the country on such ludicrous projects as bridges or culverts in paddy fields with no road connection on either side. Then there were bridges unusable for not properly connecting both ends of a road or roads beginning and ending in the middle of crop fields.

The problem lies with the system that is geared more to serving personal interests of a privileged class on partisan considerations than needs of common people. Public money is wasted left and right in the absence of accountability and transparency. This tradition is yet to come to an end even under the interim government's rule. One glaring example is the excavation of some busy city roads barely after a year they were dug out to lay huge sewerage pipes. Many complain of a lack of coordination among the various utility bodies. But that may not be the case at all. The impression is that those organisations do so with an ulterior motive in the name of development on the assumption that they can take the public for a ride. No, common people are not so foolish. They seethe in anger within over such developments but do not make a display of it in public fearing backlash from political henchmen.

The expectation was that the foot-dragging bureaucratic culture of project execution and waste of money through repetition of public works by way of starting a project after another has finished the job would come to an end with the overthrow of a corrupt administration. It appears the culture is ingrained within the bureaucracy and down the rank of government service. Those responsible for overseeing the projects and those engaged at the field level for implementation are unable to shun their old habit. At a time when there is a severe crisis for fund, the rate of project implementation remains pitiably low. The money allocated by donors and aid agencies is unspent and has to be returned.

This is intriguing but for people with inside knowledge it is not so. Those responsible for project implementation under the ADP or revised annual development programme (RADP), are reluctant to execute projects funded by multilateral organisations and aid agencies because of the extra vigilance on spending of their funds. All this should have changed to fall in step with the renewed expectation of accountable and transparent spending of funds for development. Unless the bureaucratic behemoth changes itself to rise up to the challenges, the hope for taking up sound development projects and their proper execution will remain unattainable.