The existing career planning wing of the Ministry of Public Administration performs an important administrative role, but it should not be expected to substitute for a dedicated research-oriented mechanism with a broader mandate for evidence-based human-resource policy.
The HRRC could also study patterns of posting, transfer, promotion, disciplinary action, training opportunities, and leadership selection to identify systemic weaknesses and develop objective policy recommendations.
Such a mechanism could help ensure that individual professional experiences are transformed into institutional learning rather than remaining isolated personal stories.
From administrative control to results-based governance
Public-sector management should ultimately be measured by outcomes.
Citizens do not experience government through organizational charts or administrative procedures. They experience government through the services they receive, the fairness of public institutions, the accessibility of government programmes, and the responsiveness of officials.
Therefore, public-sector reform should increasingly emphasise:
Inputs → Processes → Outputs → Outcomes → Public Value
This requires stronger performance management, better coordination, effective use of data, digital transformation, institutional accountability, and continuous evaluation.
The objective should be to move from a culture of procedural compliance alone towards a culture of results, responsiveness, and public value.
My experience in managing development projects also demonstrated that safeguarding public resources is an essential component of results-based governance.
While serving as additional secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, I also served, in addition to my regular responsibilities, as project director of the CECCR project, now associated with the development of the National Institute of Environment and Climate Change (NIECC).
During my tenure, an endowment fund accumulated under the project attracted attention from senior quarters. I took the position that the funds could not be utilized except in accordance with applicable rules and for their intended institutional purpose.
Subsequently, I was withdrawn from the project before its completion and another officer was assigned responsibility. From my professional perspective, this was an unusual development because project directors would ordinarily continue until project completion, the end of their tenure, or a legitimate public-interest requirement for reassignment.
Nevertheless, I continued to regard the protection of the public interest as the overriding consideration.
An important outcome of that period was the mobilization of approximately Tk10 crore from the Bangladesh Climate Change Trust (BCCT) in accordance with the applicable procedures and the preservation of the funds through fixed deposits with Agrani Bank at the relevant time.
The subsequent institutional evolution of CECCR (currently NIECC), provides an important example of why public resources must be protected even when such decisions may be inconvenient to powerful interests.
Results-based governance is not simply about completing projects. It is also about ensuring that public resources remain protected, traceable, and available for their intended institutional purpose.
Good governance ultimately depends upon the relationship between the state and its citizens.
Citizens need institutions that are accessible, predictable, transparent, fair, and responsive.
Citizen-centred governance therefore requires public agencies to understand citizens’ needs and evaluate service delivery from the perspective of users rather than solely from the perspective of administrative procedures.
This includes reducing unnecessary administrative burdens, strengthening grievance-redress mechanisms, improving digital services, ensuring equitable access, and making public institutions more responsive to vulnerable and marginalised communities.
Effective field administration requires not merely issuing administrative orders but understanding local realities, responding to grievances, coordinating government agencies, and ensuring that public programs reach intended beneficiaries.
Such reforms can strengthen citizens’ trust in government and reinforce the legitimacy of public institutions.
Public financial management and institutional accountability
Strong public-sector management also requires responsible management of public resources.
Public financial management should be closely connected with governance objectives through:
During my tenure as MD of Jiban Bima Corporation, I sought to strengthen governance in the areas of financial management, administration, business development, and streamlined service delivery.
At one stage, however, serious concerns arose regarding an actuarial valuation undertaken in connection with the Bangladesh Insurance Sector Development Project (BISDP). An external firm was engaged in the process, and the valuation reportedly generated a liability figure of approximately Tk11,00 crore for Jiban Bima Corporation.
In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Insurance Act, 2010, the JBC liabilities, determined through another agency’s valuation, were not accepted during my tenure. Consequently, I incurred the personal wrath of the FID Secretary and Chairman IDRA. These individuals and certain quarters were to establish an exorbitant liability against the Jiban Bima Corporation through an unlawfully executed actuarial valuation, thereby gradually destroying the state-owned corporation and causing private insurance to flourish.
I therefore considered it essential that any such process involving a state-owned insurance corporation should be conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable legal and regulatory framework, with appropriate institutional authorization and accountability.
There is a broader institutional question here: Can a public-sector manager be expected to protect public resources and uphold regulatory standards if doing so exposes the officer to professional retaliation?
This question deserves serious consideration in any discussion of public-sector governance reform.
The lesson is not that individual officers should confront institutional authority. The lesson is that public institutions should create systems in which legitimate disagreement, professional advice, audit concerns, and regulatory objections can be raised without fear of arbitrary retaliation.
Institutional accountability and the protection of public resources
The experience of public-sector management also demonstrates that accountability must extend beyond the individual officer responsible for a decision.
For example, where government vehicles, fuel, project resources, or other public assets are used outside approved rules, the resulting financial burden ultimately falls upon the public.
During my involvement with project management, I observed concerns regarding the use of project vehicles and associated fuel expenditure. Such matters should be addressed through transparent administrative controls, audit mechanisms, and the oversight of the appropriate steering or governing committees.
The responsibility for ensuring such accountability should not rest solely with an individual project director. The relevant ministry, steering committee, audit authorities, and senior administrative leadership all have roles to play.
Institutional accountability therefore must be systemic rather than selective.
Where rules exist but are inconsistently enforced, institutional credibility is weakened. Where audit objections can be neutralised through informal influence, public financial management becomes vulnerable.
Effective governance therefore requires not only rules, but also credible mechanisms for enforcing those rules.
A comprehensive public-sector management reform agenda could focus on the following priorities:
1. Strengthen the rule of law and regulatory enforcement
Ensure that laws are applied consistently, fairly, and predictably.
2. Institutionalize merit-based human-resource management
Strengthen objective criteria for recruitment, promotion, posting, and professional development.
3. Strengthen civil service training
Move from predominantly procedural training towards competency-based, continuous professional development.
Create an evidence-based institutional mechanism for strategic civil-service human-resource research.
5. Strengthen performance management
Link professional development and institutional accountability to measurable performance and results.
6. Promote ethical and professional leadership
Develop leadership standards that emphasize integrity, competence, accountability, and public service.
7. Protect administrative professionalism
Maintain an appropriate balance between political accountability and professional civil-service neutrality.
8. Establish safeguards against arbitrary personnel actions
Ensure that transfers, postings, promotions, and disciplinary measures are based on transparent institutional criteria rather than informal influence.
9. Strengthen citizen-centred service delivery
Measure public institutions by the quality and accessibility of services delivered to citizens.
10. Promote evidence-based policy-making
Increase the use of administrative data, research, evaluation, and comparative international experience.
11. Strengthen public financial management
Ensure that public resources are protected through effective procurement, internal controls, audit, and transparent financial reporting.
12. Strengthen institutional continuity
Ensure that public-sector institutions remain effective across political and administrative transitions.
Way forward
Bangladesh’s future development will depend not only on economic resources or infrastructure but also on the strength and quality of its public institutions.
The central challenge is therefore to build a public sector that is capable, ethical, meritocratic, accountable, innovative, and citizen-centred.
My own experience over a long career in public administration has convinced me that institutional integrity is tested most severely when lawful professional judgment comes into conflict with powerful interests.
I encountered circumstances in which adherence to rules and public interest was not always consistent with the preferences of influential individuals.
On several occasions, refusing to accommodate what I considered improper requests resulted in pressure, threats, investigations, or transfers.
Yet these experiences reinforced, rather than weakened, my conviction that public officials must remain guided by law, evidence, professional ethics, and the public interest.
Citizens are more likely to respect laws when laws are consistently enforced. Public servants are more likely to perform professionally when institutions reward competence and integrity. Governments are more likely to achieve sustainable development when public institutions possess the capacity to translate policy commitments into measurable outcomes.
A strong state does not depend on powerful individuals. It depends on strong institutions.
Bangladesh therefore needs a public administration capable of combining democratic accountability with professional competence, political responsiveness with administrative integrity, and procedural discipline with results-oriented management.
At the same time, civil servants who act according to law and protect public resources should receive institutional protection. Professional integrity cannot be sustained if officers are expected to act ethically but remain vulnerable to arbitrary retaliation for doing so.
Strengthening public-sector human resources should therefore be at the centre of this transformation. The proposed Human Resources Research Cell could contribute to this agenda by providing the evidence, analysis, and institutional perspective necessary for long-term civil-service reform.
Ultimately, public administration is not simply about managing government offices. It is about managing the institutional capacity through which the state serves its people.
Our ancestors rest in this soil, and one day we too will return to it. The enduring measure of public service should therefore be what institutions we strengthen, what public value we create, what public resources we protect, and what standards of integrity we leave behind.
Building capable, accountable, and trusted public institutions is not merely an administrative objective. It is a foundation for sustainable national development and a lasting obligation to future generations.
Md Mizanul Hoque Chowdhury is Former Additional Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Bangladesh.