Bangladesh is used to hearing about billions and trillions of taka worth of developments. Roads, bridges, hospitals, flyovers, mega-projects are announced with huge fanfare and ambitious promises. Behind the big numbers, there is the less cheerful narrative of crumbling roads, soaring costs, delays, poor workmanship, and allegations of corruption. The question is no longer whether Bangladesh is developing, but whether the money spent is worth it and whether the opportunity is taken by the people who hold public contracts.
The latest controversy over the alleged use of bamboo instead of steel reinforcement is yet another unsavoury reminder. The Tk10.09 crore bridge that was underway in Basail, Tangail had its workers investigated and was subjected to administrative and legal action when workers were reportedly found to have used bamboo in part of a footpath slab. The question is, how did bamboo enter into a government construction project?
A public infrastructure project involves approved designs, technical specs, bidding, contractors, engineers, site supervisors, quality control, measurements and payments. If substandard materials are used, the burden of responsibility cannot be solely on the construction worker and subcontractor. All the way up the chain of supervision, the issue must be examined. The issues in various locations cannot be dismissed as mere misadventures in construction unless there is an investigation that asks why bamboo is being used in a government construction project.
There is nothing funny about the use of bamboo in place of steel in public infrastructure. Behind the construction material is public money, and behind the concrete is public safety. A defective bridge or road is not a laughing matter; it has a direct impact on the public, for example, in terms of loss of life or derailment of movement and trade, not to mention that the public may have to pay for the rework. The whole point is whether Bangladesh’s development culture will change when the governments change.
For years there have been complaints about corruption in the procurement of public goods and the fact that a few bidders dominate government tenders. Transparency International Bangladesh’s 2025 analysis reportedly showed that 17 percent of government tenders over 12 years saw only one bidder and 27 percent saw two or three bidders. These statistics do not prove that corruption takes place in every tender, but they raise the question whether there is something wrong with the system. When it comes to public goods, taxpayers want to know that what they buy is competitive and the best balance of price and quality.
It is not a question whether every contractor with political connections is corrupt. It is a question whether political connections are an unfair advantage in a politically sensitive area. Bangladesh has to avoid the same old song and same old dance with each government that comes in with its own set of influential contractors and suppliers. In other words, new wine in old bottles and old wine in new bottles. The bureaucracy must remain unpolitical.
Civil servants are not the servants of the ruling political party; they are the servants of the state. They have to uphold the law, protect the public interest, and ensure that the government follows the established rules and professional practices. The bureaucracy should be like a colourless liquid. It can move into any vessel, but it should not permanently adopt the political colour of the vessel.
When politics undermines the separation of powers, politically connected contractors and suppliers may seek administrative favours while compromised administrators may seek political protection. Under these conditions, the funds allocated for public development are not money for development but a source of patronage to be doled out to allies and neutralised opponents.
The taxpayer does not prepare his proposals, approve designs, award contracts, check certifications and authorisations. The taxpayer pays income tax, VAT, customs duties, and other taxes. The taxpayer is entitled to expect that his money will not be wasted, misappropriated, or misused. Yet, the taxpayer may find himself paying twice for the same work, once when the road construction turns out to be defective, and the taxpayer has to pay for it to be rebuilt.
A development project where money is not spent because it is not implemented properly or fails to meet objectives is a problem. According to reported IMED data, Bangladesh utilised 67.52 percent of its revised Annual Development Programme allocation in FY2025–26. The allocation was Tk208,935.53 crore, and expenditure stood at approximately Tk141,071.89 crore.
Weak spending does not necessarily mean corruption. There may be procurement hurdles, administrative bottlenecks, project reviews, and other legitimate reasons for withholding funds. But when weak spending coincides with allegations of poor construction and procurement, the government owes a satisfactory explanation to the people. Development is not a matter of budgets; it is not a matter of how many foundation stones have been laid or inaugurated plaques unveiled. It is a measure of the quality and utility of what citizens receive.
A bridge that cannot serve its purpose is not successful development, a road that requires major repair is poor value for money, a hospital building that has no equipment cannot deliver the public service intended, and a project that is always costing more without obvious benefits should not be hailed as an achievement but should be subjected to a review of accountability from the launch to the final payment.
Investigations must be based on evidence that is not politically motivated. Responsibility should be fairly apportioned without jumping to conclusions. Where evidence of wrongdoing has been found, appropriate legal and administrative action must be taken without fear of the accused’s political affiliation or official position.
Bangladesh does not need less development but better development. Simply replacing one contractor with another or changing officials when scandals erupt will not suffice; the system as a whole must change. Public procurement must be genuinely competitive, costs of projects and tender awards must be open to public scrutiny, independent assessments of quality must be verifiable, contractors responsible for defective work must be answerable, and officials who neglect their duties must also be held accountable. Unlawful public funds that have been acquired must be pursued.
Above all, development must be treated as a public responsibility and not a political privilege. Public money does not belong to the government, a political party, a minister, a bureaucrat or a contractor. It belongs to the people of Bangladesh. The people who make decisions on behalf of the country hold the money on behalf of citizens and have to be answerable for how they spend it. If the citizens pay for it, who will they beg for an account of it?
Bangladesh needs a development culture where governments, ministers and contractors may change, but the rules do not change according to political convenience. It needs roads that last and bridges that are built to specification, and competent contractors and accountable bureaucrats to its state rather than to whoever happens to hold political office. Otherwise budgets may grow, lists of projects may get longer, and inauguration ceremonies may get bigger, but the public will continue to pay the price of failure.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is a columnist and political analyst
