Since its independence, Bangladesh has made remarkable, at times revolutionary, progress in formulating national budgets. Yet in terms of social development, protection, and inclusion, the journey has been far from consistent or transformative. From the very first budget in 1972, the state’s central focus remained on rebuilding a war-ravaged economy and restoring food supplies, electricity, and infrastructure. In those early budgets, little thought was given to developing the social sector.
However, now, every year, as Bangladesh prepares its national budget, we witness a familiar theatre of policy pronouncements. Reports are drafted, economists dissect the numbers, seminars flourish and promises are made—again. Yet, as this cycle repeats, a sobering question looms ever larger: Is this budget truly for the people? The historical evolution of our national budget since 1972 has mirrored the nation’s arduous journey—from post-war reconstruction to fast-paced development. We have progressed from Tajuddin Ahmad’s modest 7.86 billion taka reconstruction budget to today’s trillion-taka declarations. We have built bridges, tunnels, power plants, and digital dreams. And yet, in all our economic choreography, the music of justice, inclusion, and empathy too often plays faintly in the background.
This is not a rejection of infrastructure or growth. Rather, it is a call to reimagine national progress. A country is not only the sum of its megaprojects; it is also the health of its mothers, the learning of its children, the dignity of its elderly, and the inclusion of its persons with disabilities. Our budgets, however, continue to treat social protection as a side note rather than a symphony. Bangladesh’s budget documents frequently proclaim inclusivity. Yet, allocations tell a different story.
Despite commendable expansion of social safety net programs since the 1990s, actual spending on social development remains paltry, less than 3 percent of GDP, much of which is absorbed by pensions and administrative overheads. Programs targeting women, persons with disabilities, and marginalized communities are fragmented, underfunded, and plagued by targeting errors. Take disability, for instance: fewer than 20 percent of those who need support actually receive it. The allowances are not only insufficient but also fail to address broader needs such as mobility, employment, healthcare, and education.
Gender budgeting was introduced in 2009, but in practice, it remains a ceremonial exercise, lacking analytical depth and transformative impact. In education and health, our budgetary performance is equally underwhelming. Education receives less than 10 percent of the total budget, despite decades of rhetoric about “Digital Bangladesh.” Health hovers at 5 to 6 percent—a fact made tragically evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rural women and persons with disabilities consistently fall behind both in access and outcomes.
What remains is a budget functioning more as a political bargaining sheet than a coherent national vision. As I argued in a previous article, we observe an annual ritual where policymakers pretend to listen, and citizens feign hope. Beneath layers of language and spreadsheets lies persistent elitism. The poor are mentioned but not prioritized. The middle class pays VAT on everyday necessities, while the wealthy navigate tax loopholes. The budget remains structurally indifferent to the lived realities of the majority.
It is time to accept an uncomfortable truth: a budget is not merely a collection of numbers; it reflects our moral compass. If the numbers neglect the hungry, the disabled, the elderly, and the unemployed youth, then no matter how polished the GDP growth appears, the nation has failed its people.
Around the world, budgets have served as blueprints for justice. Scandinavia has taught us that investing in social protection is not only moral—it is economically sound. Sweden, Norway, and Finland allocate over 15 to 20 percent of their GDP to social inclusion. Canada’s Gender Budgeting Act mandates equity analysis for every line item. The European Union spends billions through its Social Fund to reduce poverty and empower marginalized communities. These are not utopian ideals; they are policy choices rooted in values.
Bangladesh must learn from these lessons—not merely to emulate but to adapt. We have made progress in garments, power, and connectivity, but our human infrastructure remains fragile. Without a budget centred on dignity, protection, and rights, we risk building highways that lead nowhere. What, then, must be done?
First, the budgeting process must be participatory; it cannot remain an elite monologue. Women’s groups, disability rights advocates, Indigenous communities, and informal sector workers must have a seat at the table. Ministries should be required to conduct gender and inclusion analyses before proposing allocations. Second, allocations for education and health must be significantly increased, not merely for optics, but for measurable outcomes. This includes making schools accessible to children with special needs, ensuring maternal healthcare in rural clinics, and fostering trust in public hospitals.
Third, social protection must be universalized, rights-based, and transparently implemented. Allowances for the elderly, widows, and persons with disabilities should be increased, delivered digitally, and monitored independently. Beneficiary databases must be updated, and the politicization of delivery mechanisms eliminated. Fourth, the tax structure must be reformed to ensure progressivity. The current system disproportionately burdens the middle and lower classes. Expanding the tax net, closing loopholes, and effectively taxing wealth and luxury goods can generate the revenue needed for social investment.
Finally, development projects must be evaluated not only by financial returns but also by their social dividends. A budget that constructs a metro rail while neglecting a mother who walks miles to obtain medicine is not a success. We need a balance between steel and soul. As the FY 2025–26 budget approaches, we must ask ourselves: What kind of country do we want to be? A nation defined solely by bridges, or one that also uplifts its most vulnerable? A country that celebrates exports while overlooking exclusion? A society that builds roads but not rights?
For Bangladesh and other middle-income countries, the greatest challenge is to take the real needs and inclusion of marginalized communities seriously in the budget-making process. Unless social development, protection, and inclusion become central pillars of budget policy, the familiar story of infrastructure and GDP growth will never reflect true national progress.
To ensure genuine inclusion in upcoming budgets, participatory budgeting processes must reflect the voices of women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and other marginalized groups. Each ministry must conduct gender and inclusion analyses before submitting budget proposals. Responsibility cannot rest solely with the Ministry of Women and Children Affairs. In addition to expanding social security programs, efficient management is essential to reach the right beneficiaries.
From my experience, bold government decisions without electoral pressure often backfire without public support. The fundamental question remains: does the budget truly reflect ordinary people’s expectations? After each budget announcement, benefits accrue to the wealthy, while the poor see no meaningful change. The tax structure disproportionately pressures the middle and lower classes. The rich exploit loopholes, while ordinary people pay VAT on mobile top-ups, internet bills, and everyday purchases.
A budget is not merely a list of figures; it reflects what society refuses to ignore. Until Bangladesh creates its national budget with this principle in mind, it will continue to betray its people while pretending to serve them. The era of symbolic inclusion is over. What we need now is an honest, human-centred budget—one that prioritizes people over projects and rights over rhetoric.
The time has arrived for a moral reckoning. For far too long, our budgets have conveyed half-truths. Let this year mark the beginning of a different story—a human-centred, justice-driven, inclusive narrative of national progress.
Let us dare to care!
The writer is a public health expert and development economist based in Canada. He can be reached at: kindlejitu@gmail.com