Why does Bangladesh keep starting from scratch in policymaking?

Over the past five and a half decades, Bangladesh has made remarkable progress. Its economy has grown, infrastructure has expanded, and it has achieved significant gains in education, health, and other social indicators. Yet, one critical aspect of governance remains underdeveloped: our capacity to formulate, implement, evaluate and improve public policies through strong institutions and consistent leadership.

In policymaking, we seem to have spent 55 years struggling to move beyond Class 1. This is not to dismiss the country’s achievements or the capabilities of its people. Rather, it reflects a persistent weakness in how we manage knowledge, develop institutional expertise and ensure continuity in public administration.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Bangladesh has no shortage of talented officials, professionals or researchers. The problem is that relevant expertise is not always given sufficient weight when people are appointed to key policymaking positions. Nor do officials always have enough time to understand their sectors and translate that knowledge into meaningful reforms. When someone assumes a senior position without adequate experience in the relevant field, valuable time must be spent learning the sector’s institutions, challenges, policies, and past initiatives. The result is that the time available for reform and implementation is often consumed by the need to learn the basics.

Consider the health sector. A senior official must understand not only the administrative structure of the health ministry but also health financing, medicine supply chains, human resources, hospital management, primary healthcare, health insurance, and public procurement. Equally important is understanding why previous policies were adopted, what they achieved and where they failed. Similar complexities exist in education, agriculture, finance and social protection.

The problem deepens when an official finally develops the necessary understanding and experience but is transferred, reassigned or retired before meaningful reforms can take root. A successor arrives and begins the learning process anew. By the time that person becomes familiar with the sector, another change may occur. Individuals repeatedly learn, but institutions fail to accumulate knowledge.

Consider a long-term health financing reform. Establishing a new financing system requires decisions on revenue sources, fund management, benefit packages, provider payments, hospital readiness, information systems and accountability. The model must then be tested, evaluated and adjusted before being scaled up. Frequent leadership changes can disrupt this process, encourage shifting priorities, and leave reforms unfinished. New initiatives may be launched before earlier ones have been properly evaluated.

The same risk applies to infrastructure, education, agriculture, urban management and digital transformation. A digital public service, for example, requires more than software. It needs instructional development, reliable data, coordination across agencies, adequate funding, skilled personnel, information security and long-term maintenance. If every change in leadership introduces a new platform or approach, public resources may be wasted on overlapping systems and repeated investments.

Good policymaking is not a one-time decision; it is a continuous cycle of learning and improvement. Problems must be identified, evidence collected and analysed, stakeholders consulted, alternatives assessed, and financial and administrative feasibility examined. Policies must then be implemented, evaluated and revised in light of the results. The cycle is straightforward: learn, analyse, decide, implement, evaluate and improve.

When this cycle breaks down, policies may be poorly designed, implementation may begin without adequate preparation, and promising initiatives may lose momentum after leadership changes. We repeatedly form committees, commission reports, prepare action plans and organise workshops, yet the desired results often remain elusive. The weakness is not necessarily our ability to identify problems; it is our failure to consistently translate findings into action, measure outcomes and learn from experience.

Institutional memory is therefore a critical public asset. When an official or expert leaves, the knowledge accumulated during their tenure should remain within the institution. This requires systematic documentation of policy decisions, accessible records of research and consultations, regular performance reviews and effective handover arrangements. It also requires recognising specialised knowledge and professional experience when assigning responsibilities.

The challenge, however, is broader than frequent transfers. Continuity alone cannot guarantee good policymaking if decisions are driven by personal preferences rather than evidence, or if institutions lack accountability. What matters is a system that combines appropriate expertise, reasonable continuity, transparent decision-making and institutional learning.

Several reforms could help Bangladesh move to the next grade. First, appointments to key policymaking positions should place greater weight on relevant sectoral knowledge, professional competence, and experience. Unnecessary transfers should be reduced, and reasonable minimum tenures ensured, while accountability for performance is retained.

Second, every major policy should have a documented institutional record covering its rationale, supporting evidence, stakeholder consultations, implementation progress, challenges, and future priorities. Such records would allow successors to build on previous work rather than start from scratch. Third, major policy decisions should be preceded by systematic assessments of costs, benefits, alternatives, and risks. Implementation should be followed by regular evaluation against measurable outcomes, with revisions made when evidence warrants them.

Fourth, coordination among ministries and agencies must improve. Universities, research institutions, professional bodies and independent experts should contribute more meaningfully to policy development and evaluation. Reliable data systems and mechanisms for sharing evidence must support this collaboration.

Ultimately, the question is not simply who occupies a particular position. It is whether our institutions can learn, preserve knowledge and apply lessons to future decisions. National development depends not only on roads, bridges, buildings and technology but also on the quality of the institutions that plan, manage and sustain them.

Bangladesh’s achievements over the past 55 years deserve recognition. The next phase of development must also strengthen the institutions responsible for shaping the country’s future. We must stop repeatedly returning to the lessons of Class 1 and move to the next grade, where institutions, not individuals, preserve knowledge, continuity strengthens policy, and evidence guides decisions.

Otherwise, another 55 years from now, we may still be asking: have we finally moved from Class 1 to Class 2 in policymaking?

Dr Syed Abdul Hamid is professor at the Institute of Health Economics of the University of Dhaka, and convener of Alliance for Health Reforms Bangladesh.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.