The Government of Bangladesh and the Managing for Results and Mutual Accountability Principles: Policymaking, Implementation, and Impact

This chapter examines the extent to which the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) has institutionalized the managing for results and mutual accountability principles within its policy and institutional frameworks and implementation practices. In this regard, it reveals that Bangladesh has introduced some essential reforms—like the establishment of the Development Results Framework (DRF) and Aid Information Management System (AIMS), and passed the Right to Information and Anti-Corruption Act. However, the materialization of these reforms has often fallen short of their expected outcome. The chapter highlights that the managing for results principle is poorly implemented mainly due to fragmented project monitoring, limited authority of the key monitoring institutions like Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED), non-binding monitoring reports, capacity constraints of the government, and its lack of familiarity with DRF preference of development partners (DPs) to their own frameworks. On the other hand, mutual accountability is undermined by weak institutional capacity, poor aid information management, non-functioning systems like the AIMS, limited disclosure of information by DPs, and absence of legally binding frameworks. It underscores, although DPs express commitment, they often bypass country systems and maintain separate monitoring processes. Additionally, government’s efforts to enhance transparency, engage civil society organizations (CSOs), and integrate aid data remain fragmented and under-resourced. Moreover, the top-down implementation by the Economic Relations Division (ERD) lacks required support to ensure full realization of the agenda. It concludes, despite Bangladesh’s foundational steps, persisting barriers like weak capacity, inadequate resources, lack of donor coordination continue to undermine the effectiveness of country’s reform initiatives, particularly in the institutionalization of managing for results and mutual accountability principles.