The bridge was almost ready, only a new piling design was required to be passed. The river was a little off course and engineers suggested that a change and postponement would increase the expenses. The file was sent to Mr Rahman, a project director (PD). The technical case was sound. Yet he hesitated. Years later he had witnessed decisions being questioned. One of the colleagues went through long investigations following a normal approval. One had been questioned following a change of government with the past decisions revisited under a new government. Rahman hesitated and put in: Submitted to a higher consideration. The file moved. The decision did not. The outcomes of the project can be easily comprehended.

Decisions as the Power of Governance

Decisions make things happen in any good system of governance. The investments, reforms and roads require timely judgment. However, decision-making is nowadays regarded as a weakness in Bangladesh. This change is not anecdotal anymore, it is influencing administrative behaviour and delivery. The Annual Development Programme (ADP) is rolling out more than 1,200 projects in Bangladesh, and the expenditure is more than Tk 2.5 lakh crore. But productivity is still disproportionate. Time overruns of about 30-40 percent occur with about 20-30 percent cost increases and above. At the same time, it has been noted that there has been hesitation to take up roles like PD that can be attributed to greater systemic aversion.

A Push from the Top

The need to improve performance has been realised by the government. The work plan of the Prime Minister to the ministers over 180 days is an indication of the change to quantifiable delivery. This is indicative of the desire to shift the policy to outcomes. Nevertheless, operating level confidence must meet the expectations on the top. In the absence of that, the orders will become slow to implement. Greater accountability systems have enhanced transparency. However, greater post hoc examination which at times occurs many years following decision making has brought confusion. Authorities are afraid that the decisions, which are made with good intentions, can be later challenged out of context. Consequently, caution is becoming more of a substitute to the initiative.

The Dimension of Political Risk

Other than administrative scrutiny, there is political uncertainty. Decisions made in one government are occasionally reviewed in another in Bangladesh. Decisions can be questioned by an audit, investigation or institutional pressure of authorities long after the fact. This gives rise to a more serious issue: the choices should be justified not just nowadays, but in unpredictable future conditions. It is an individual and a professional risk. As a reaction, most officials do downplay discretion and depend on procedural safety. The system, practically, generates functionaries but not decision-makers.

Non-doing and the Rationality

The hesitation of Rahman is a trend. There is diffusion in responsibility. This is not because officers are incompetent, but because the system does not allow taking risks. The impacts can be quantified. Every year of delay will increase the project cost by 10- 15 percent. Cost inflation of 30-50 percent is not unusual in Bangladesh where projects tend to be at least two to five years behind schedule. Even smaller projects create a lot of fiscal pressure. Other countries with similar problems have also implemented specific reforms. One example is India, where digital monitoring has saved 20 or 25 percent of the approval timelines and streamlined the processes, whilst ensuring that officials who operate in good faith are not prosecuted. In Bangladesh, on the contrary, there is a paradox of power and the trust to use it is diminishing.

A Directive to Deliverable Governance

Deliverable governance is changing to time-bound performance structures, like the 180-day plan. However, delivery is dependent on thousands of operations-level decisions. Even frameworks that have been well designed might fail without the confidence of the people who are in charge. It is not the issue of supervision, but trust in its justice. Risk aversion behaviour is rational when post-facto questioning takes hold and the norms of performing procedures over-rule the results.

Reform Alternatives: Fear to Functional Decision-Making

The confidence needs to be regained. First, add a Good Faith Decision Clause, which shields authorities to be penalised retrospectively, even in terms of political changes, unless the misconduct is established. Second, adopt Decision logs in order to record important decisions and justification. Third, create single point of responsibility of major projects. Fourth, implement time limited approvals that have an escalation or clearance deeming. Fifth, transition to real time audit support during implementation. Sixth, establish explicit limits of cost variations approvals. Seventh, share responsibility through high-risk decisions by use of committees. Eighth, synchronise performance assessment with outcomes of delivery. Ninth, develop a central decision hold up mechanism. Tenth, the leadership should always demonstrate a support of the decisions made in good faith.

Making Intent and Execution Congruent

The intentions of Bangladesh are obvious and the drive to the performances can be seen. The issue is that it is hard to match the intent with the implementation. Checks and balances should not hamper decision making. When personal safety is prioritised by the individuals and institutional outcomes become secondary, the problem turns out to be structural. It has to be dealt with not only by rules, but confidence and consistency.

Major General (Retd) Md Nazrul Islam is a former executive chairman of BEPZA, a retired Major General of the Bangladesh Army, and a PhD researcher on technology, workforce transformation, and industrial competitiveness.