Good Governance in Restraining Corruption:

Bangladesh Perspective

Submitted to:
Dr. Nurul Huda Sakib
Associate Professor
Department of Government and Politics
Jahangirnagar University

Submitted by:
TOWHEEDUL ALAM
ID: 2112091028
7th Batch
Master of Development Studies (MDS)
Department of Development Studies
Faculty of Arts and Social Science (FASS)

Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP)

September 20, 2021

Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP)

1
Introduction
Corruption has its existence since the origin of mankind and never been reduced entirely (Pope,
2000). Continuing its practice will lead to its institutionalization and people’s moral authority
will be lost and control on subordinates dispels (Pope, 2000). Sustainable and good governance
require control of corruption. Combating against corruption has turned into one of the most
important issues to nongovernment organizations, government, donors and civil society in both
developing and developed countries (Andersson & Heywood, 2009). A general recognized idea
is that corruption is fundamentally a governance problem (Hellman et al., 2000). As it has been
observed that corruption is basically fundamental failure of governance ((Huther & Shah, 2000);
good governance is called for fighting against corruption. If the quality of good governance is
not improved, a sustained declination of corruption will not succeed specially for Bangladesh
and other underdeveloped countries where good governance ranking is poor. Because of this, a
key approach of combating corruption is promoting good governance at all levels.

Rationale of Choosing This Topic

Corruption and good governance are interrelated. If the quality of good governance goes down,
corruption increase. Opposite function occurs when quality of good governance increases. This
topic has been chosen to investigate whether good governance initiative is really helping to
reduce corruption practice in Bangladesh.

Main Concept and Theories

Corruption
Generally, corruption is defined as “the misuse of public office for personal gain” (Hellman et
al., 2000). Nevertheless, corruption also occurs in private sectors (World Bank, 1997). Mainly in
the developing countries, corruption in the public sector is more of a problem which stimulates
corruption in the private sector also (World Bank, 1997). According to Transparency
International (TI), corruption misuse of assigned power for personal benefit (Pope, 2000). There
are many forms of corruption except bribery. Such as, nepotism, speed money, extortion, fraud
etc. (Klitgaard, 1998). Shah and Schacter (2004) asserted three forms of corruption which are
grand corruption, bureaucratic / petty corruption and influence / capture peddling. Petty

2
corruption means isolated corrupt transactions by individual public officials who abuse their
office; grand corruption occurs when vast amounts of public resources are devoured or abused by
state officials usually members of the political or administrative elite and state capture/influence
peddling takes place when actors of private sector operate in collusion with public officials or
politicians for their mutual and private gain (Shah & Schacter, 2004). High level of corruption
can draw back investment from productive activities and make public policies ineffective (Sen,
2000).

An equation was developed by Robert Klitgaard regarding corruption is “C = M + D – A.

Corruption equals monopoly plus discretion minus accountability” (Klitgaard, 1998).

Governance

The World Bank denotes governance as “use of power in the management of a country’s
economic and social resources for development” (World Bank, 1992). United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) defined governance in same perception but a little bit in a
different way: “the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a
country’s affairs at all levels” (UNDP, 1997). Hye (2000) has proposed the following
conceptualization of governance: The undertaking of activities, management of resources,
organization of men and women by groups of people, communities, local government bodies,
business organizations and the branches of the state (Legislature, Judiciary and Government)
through social, political, administrative and economic arrangements that meet the daily needs of
people and ensure sustainable development (Hye,2000).

Good Governance

According to World Bank (1997) point of view good governance is predictable open, and
enlightened policy making, a bureaucracy imbued with a professional ethos acting in furtherance
of public good, the rule of law, transparent processes, and a strong civil society participating in
public affairs (cited in Mehta, 2000). Rothstein and Teorell (2008) identified key principles of
good governance which are participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus
orientation, equitable and inclusive, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability (Rothstein and
Teorell, 2008; UN, 2009).

3
 Source: Rothstein and Teorell, 2008; UN, 2009

Nexus between Corruption and Good Governance

Corruption is linked with governance (Shah & Schacter, 2004). As corruption is a symptom of
fundamental institutional weakness, it should be observed within broader governance framework
(Hellman et al., 2000). Lack of accountability, transparency and people’s participation in
decision-making process, absence of the rule of law, disrespect for human rights, misallocation
of resources and controls over the press are the most important features of deeply flawed
governance environment which create conditions where corruption can thrive easily. In a country
where corruption is widespread, programs intended to tackle corruption should focus on
eradicating underlying weaknesses of governance environment which cause corruption.
Countries with high corruption have a low quality of governance (Shah & Schacter, 2004).
Nature of anti-corruption initiatives depends on a country's existing quality of governance.

4
Bangladesh Case
In case of Bangladesh, corruption has been one of the main obstacle of development since the
liberation in 1971 until now. Bangladesh had once occupied the top spot for corruption in
Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) for five consecutive years,
from 2001 to 2005, but it managed to come down to the 17th position in 2017 (Dhaka Tribune,
2019). A graphical illustration of CPI from 2010 to 2020 for Bangladesh is given below:

CPI Index of Bangladesh from 2012 to 2020

Ranking CPI Score

2020 146
26
2019 146
26
2018 149
26
2017 143
28
2016 145
26
2015 139
25
2014 145
25
2013 136
27
2012 144
26

Source: Transparency International (TI) CPI Index

The above graph illustrates that, in 2012 Bangladesh ranked 144 and scored 26 among 176
countries which shows one of the most corrupt countries in that year. But in 2017, the situation
improved a little bit by ranked up to 143 and score increased to 28. Even so, the situation again
went down to worse in 2020 where ranking demoted to 146 and score decreased to 26 from 28 in
three years. So, corruption is still severe in Bangladesh. If we consider last three years, it can be
said that, corruption situation of Bangladesh in currently stable as CPI score is being 26 for last
three consecutive years.

Most citizens of Bangladesh believe that corruption takes place at almost all levels of
government (World Bank,1996). All institutions of public life have become tainted by corruption

5
(Khan, 2009). Findings of surveys undertaken by various organizations provide evidence in
support of the pervasiveness of corruption due to lack of quality governance in Bangladesh.

Percentage (%) of surveyed household falling victim of

corruption in different service sectors of Bangladesh in
2010 and 2017
2010 2017

88
79.7
72.5 71.2
60.5

44.9 42.9 42.5

33.2

15.3

Law Enforecment Agency Judiciary Land Administration Education Health

Source: Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) Annual Report 2010, 2018-19

The above charts illustrate a comparison of surveyed household falling victim of corruption in
different service sectors of Bangladesh in 2010 and 2017. The survey has shown that, in 2010,
79.7% household experienced corruption from law enforcement agencies, 88% from judiciary
and 71.2% from land administration. But, in 2017, it decreased to 72.5%, 60.5% and 44.9%
respectively. However, in 2010, only 15.3% of household had fallen victim to corruption in
education sector and 33.2% in health sector. But 2010, it increased to 42.9% and 42.5%
respectively. So, from above data, it can be concluded that, there has been a mixed change in
different sectors of corruption practice in these seven years.

6
 Bangladesh in World Governance Index (WGI) in 2010 and 2020

Source: World Bank Website

The above graph illustrates the World Governance Index which shows the ranking of Bangladesh
comparing to the other countries in six indicators of good governance in the year 2010 and 2020.
By comparing each indicator for each year, we can see that, in voice and accountability in 2010
Bangladesh ranked 36.97 among all the countries of the world. However, in 2020, its rank
demoted to 26.57. On the other hand, in political stability and absence of violence, Bangladesh
ranked 9.95 in 2010 and promoted 16.04 in 2020. In government effectiveness, Bangladesh
ranked 26.32 in 2010 and 20.19 in 2020. From regularity quality Bangladesh ranked 22.01 in
2010 and 16.35 in 2020. In rule of law Bangladesh ranked 25.59 in 2010 and 30.77 in 2020 and
finally in control of corruption Bangladesh ranked 14.76 in 2010 and 16.83 in 2020. So, in this
ten years Bangladesh has able to improve on only three of these indicators which are control of
corruption, rule of law along with political stability and absence of violence.

7
 Index of Public Integrity (IPI) of Bangladesh in 2015, 2017
and 2019
Judicial Indepandence Administrative Burden Trade Openess
Budget Transparency E-citizenship Freedom of Press

2019 4.26 7.44 6.48 8.71 2.35 4.07

2017 3.86 7.44 4.77 8.71 2.31 4.15

2015 3.02 7.73 4.78 8.5 2.37 4.86

Source: Index of Public Integrity (IPI) Website

The index of public integrity (IPI) above illustrates that, Bangladesh scored 3.02 out of 10 in
Judicial independence in 2015 but in 2017 and 2019 it scored 3.86 and 4.26 respectively.
Administrative burden indicator shows that in 2015 Bangladesh scored 7.73 and 7.44 in 2017,
2019 repeatedly. In trade openness, Bangladesh scored 4.78 in 2015 and 4.77 and 6.48 in 2017
and 2019 respectively. In budget transparency, the score was 8.5 in 2015 and 8.71 in 2017 and
2019 consecutively. In e-citizenship indicator, the score was 2.37 in 2015 and 2.31 and 2.35 in
2017 and 2019 respectively. In freedom of press, the score was 4.86 in 2015 and 4.15 and 4.07 in
2017 and 2019 respectively.

It seems that, Bangladesh is lacking behind in e-public services too much and freedom of press is
deteriorating over the year. Administrative burden and budget transparency remains stable and in
good score. Trade opens has gradually improved. Judicial independence scored higher than the
previous years but score is still low.

8
Conclusion and Discussion
The above statistical analysis illustrates that, in WGI, for Bangladesh control of corruption
indicator ranked only 16.83 out of 100 which is very poor because it only jumped up only 2
ranks in ten years. Almost same case in CPI, in 2020 it scored only 26 out of 100 and the score
even exceeded 30 from the start. Good governance indicators in WGI shows Bangladesh has
improved on only in control of corruption, rule of law along with political stability and absence
of violence but any of it exceeded rank 40. Moreover, voice and accountability, government
effectiveness, regulatory quality rank has dropped in ten years. IPI illustrates that, freedom of
press is being more restricted in recent years. However, administrative burden and budget
transparency is performing well. But judicial independence is still lagging behind. Overall, good
governance elements are not functioning properly in the recent years which is why corruption
practice is still high and is not being able to reduce as it should be.

References
Andersson. S, Heywood. P. (2009), “The Politics of Perception: Use and Abuse of Transparency
International’s Approach to Measuring Corruption.” Political Studies 57.4,746–767.
Dhaka Tribune (2019), Bangladesh’s 18 years on the Corruption Perceptions Index, Retrieve
from: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/corruption/2019/01/29/bangladesh-s-18-years-
in-the-corruption-perception-index

Hellman, Joel. S., et al. (2000), “Measuring Governance, Corruption, and State Capture: How
Firms and Bureaucrats Shape the Business Environment in Transition Economies”, Policy
Research Working Paper 2312.

Huther, Shah. A. (2000), Anti-Corruption Policies and Programs: A Framework for Evaluation,
Policy Research Working Paper 2501

Hye (2000), Governance: South Asian Perspectives, Dhaka: The University Press Limited

Klitgaard. R. (1998), International Cooperation Against corruption.” Finance & Development,

35,

3-6.

9
Pope. J. (2000), Confronting Corruption: The Elements of a National Integrity System, Berlin
and London: Transparency International, 2000.

Sen. A. (2000), Development as Freedom, New Delhi: Oxford University Press

Shah. A., Schacter. M. (2004), Look Before You Leap: Notes for Corruption Fighters, Policy
Brief No.11.Ottawa: Institute On Governance

UNDP (1997), Governance for Sustainable Human Development: A UNDP Policy Document,
UNDP

World Bank (1997), Bangladesh: Government that Works: Reforming the Public Sector, Dhaka:
The University Press Limited

10