Beyond Weber: The Bangladesh bureaucracy and the limits of theoretical models

Abstract

This article investigates the complex contours of Bangladesh's bureaucracy, assessing its deviations from theoretical models of public administration and the issues it encounters in governing. Drawing on vast theoretical literature and scholarly studies on the Bangladesh bureaucracy, it investigates how historical legacies, cultural settings, and political dynamics have formed a bureaucratic structure that frequently favors self-interest over public benefit. The article emphasizes several major themes, including the ingrained politicization of administrative functions, the dominance of generalists in key posts, and ongoing power conflicts. It contends that, despite a 15-year period (2009–2024) of uninterrupted rule, effective reform has remained elusive due to entrenched interests and institutional inertia. It also discusses the contradictory relationship between bureaucratic stability and developmental stagnation, as well as how restrictions on media and civil society have eroded critical accountability systems. The article demonstrates the limitations of adopting Western bureaucratic models in Bangladesh's unique situation. Effective governance in Bangladesh involves more than structural replication; it necessitates a fundamental realignment of incentives, cultural transformations, and long-term political will. This study contributes to the broader discussion of public administration in developing countries and provides insights for politicians and researchers facing similar issues in bureaucratic reform and governance.

Keywords

Bangladesh bureaucracy bureaucratic politics Max Weber public administration

Introduction

The relationship between public administration and bureaucracy in modern governance is a complex and often contentious issue, characterized by the tension between the need for structure and the demand for flexibility. While bureaucratic systems, with their hierarchical structures and standardized procedures, have long been the backbone of governmental operations, they face increasing scrutiny in an era of rapid technological change and evolving societal expectations.

Max Weber originated the concept of bureaucracy to enhance government efficiency, predictability, and fairness. However, critics argue that these features can lead to rigidity, slow response times, and a disconnect from citizens’ needs (Olsen, 2006). This critique has gained traction due to increased technological and social change, challenging traditional bureaucratic structures to adapt. Yet, it would be premature to dismiss bureaucracy entirely. Bureaucratic structures can facilitate coordinated action and the implementation of complex projects. Striking a balance between structure and innovation is the challenge.

Bureaucracies face both opportunities and challenges with the rise of digital technologies and data-driven decision-making tools. According to McDonald et al. (2022), the use of these technologies in government services has the potential to improve efficiency. However, it also brings up concerns regarding privacy, accountability, and the importance of human decision making in governance. During this era of transformation, changes in public administration vary across contexts. Mature economies, transitioning regimes, and developing nations all encounter distinct challenges when it comes to adjusting their governance structures. The context of public administration reform is crucial, and it is important to exercise caution when applying changes. Although change is essential, it is important to recognize the significance of institutional memory and the stabilizing function of bureaucratic structures in preserving continuity and safeguarding democratic norms.

A variety of factors, including political ideology, economic forces, and social trends, may influence changes in administrative policy. When it comes to public administration, Herbert Simon was not a fan of basing choices entirely on logic. To counter this idea, he proposed the term ‘bounded rationality’ (Simon, 1997). Reforms are not always orderly or rational, contrary to popular belief.

Because of the divergence of bureaucratic realities from established theories in developing countries, Western models of public administration may not be applicable to these nations due to historical, cultural, and socioeconomic differences. Western bureaucratic methods are more effective in emerging nations with rule-based government, formal logic, and meritocracy. These methods are easier to implement in countries with strong central governments and well-established protocols. Effective bureaucracy prioritizes efficiency and impersonal connections, and successful reforms often drive institutional change in areas like transparency, accountability, and merit-based appointments (Evans and Rauch, 1999). However, bureaucratic reforms require strengthening administrative capacity, a robust legal system, explicit mandates, and administrative autonomy. Western techniques for ensuring uniform rule execution also depend on these factors.

Building robust bureaucracies in developing countries is challenging due to weak institutions and political instability (Hartwell and Devinney, 2021). Informal networks, patronage, and clientelism often clash with Western bureaucratic models, undermining formal government institutions. These models are often overly complicated or demanding, leading to ineffective reform implementation, and can pose a threat to power structures and vested interests, resulting in resistance from entrenched elites, a challenge that must be overcome (Hyden et al., 2004).

Thus, there is a need for bureaucratic structures that are not just robust but also adaptive and responsive to local needs and contexts. These nations need to explore hybrid forms of governance that combine formal bureaucratic structures with informal, locally rooted practices. Simply attempting to imitate Western ideas will backfire.

The study of public bureaucracies requires a deeper appreciation of the relationship between theoretical frameworks and the practical realities of governance. This is particularly crucial when examining bureaucracies in developing nations, where the alignment with or divergence from established theoretical models can provide valuable insights into the functioning and effectiveness of administrative systems. Theoretical models of bureaucracy have long served as benchmarks for understanding and evaluating administrative structures. However, applying these models in diverse contexts, especially in developing nations, often reveals gaps between theory and practice. Discrepancies in bureaucracies may offer valuable insights into the challenges and adaptations in different socio-political environments (Peters, 2018). By analyzing how bureaucracies in developing nations address challenges, we can refine and expand public administration theory to account for diverse contexts and emerging realities. This supports the need for more context-specific theorizing in public administration and to move beyond one-size-fits-all prescriptions (Andrews, 2013; O’Toole and Meier, 2015).

We should be aware of the technological change reshaping public administration and how the use of digital technologies in bureaucratic processes is changing state-citizen relations beyond just improving efficiency (Dunleavy et al., 2006). Climate change, global pandemics, and increasing inequality require bureaucracies to be more adaptive and responsive. New Public Governance emphasizes collaborative and networked approaches to complex societal problems (Osborne, 2006). While the increasing interconnectedness of nations requires bureaucracies to operate effectively in a global context, ideals and values vary greatly across different cultures and contexts; therefore, local needs must be prioritized (Haque, 1997; Riggs, 1964). Therefore, one must avoid certain pitfalls when analyzing bureaucracies, such as overgeneralizing, inclining toward certain norms, ignoring power dynamics, or overly relying on technological determinism.

Studying bureaucracies in developing nations is important for enhancing our understanding of public administration. It is crucial to develop administrative systems that are efficient, fair, and responsive to community needs rather than adhering to a singular idealized model of bureaucracy. This approach emphasizes the importance of considering contextual factors in public administration, as well as the need for adaptable, problem-focused approaches to governance reform (Andrews, 2013; O’Toole and Meier, 2015).

While there is an extensive body of literature on bureaucratic structures and their impact on governance, much of it comes from Western perspectives. The theories emerging from them can be useful reference points, but they often miss the social and political complexities and historical backgrounds of bureaucracies in developing countries. Applying Western bureaucratic models to developing countries often fails to reveal significant flaws, as these models tend to ignore the prevalent political instability, informal networks, and neopatrimonial systems in these environments. This article addresses these gaps by looking closely at Bangladesh, a developing country with a unique political history and administrative path. Bangladesh's bureaucracy shows a mix of influences from its colonial past, political factors, and a combination of legal and traditional elements. An integrated analysis that links these problems to more general theoretical discussions on the suitability of bureaucratic systems in non-Western contexts is still lacking.

The unique political history of Bangladesh and its post-independence growth process have shaped its bureaucracy, providing a complex example of bureaucratic transformation. The main characteristics include politicization, elitism, cultural influences, inefficiency, and hierarchical breakdown (Huque and Zafarullah, 2023; Jamil, 2002; Khan, 2015). Different political regimes’ interactions with the bureaucracy have resulted in a politicized system susceptible to corruption (Huque and Rahman, 2003; Zafarullah and Huque, 2021).

This article engages with theoretical perspectives to explore the features and workings of the Bangladesh bureaucracy. It does this by using different theoretical perspectives, such as Weber's idea of legal-rational bureaucracy (Cahnman, 1965; Weber, 1947), theories of political control and bureaucratic politics (Barzelay, 1992; Wood and Waterman, 1994), and digital transformation theory (Dunleavy et al., 2006). These theories can help us understand the complexities of a bureaucracy shaped by its history and culture, emphasizing the need to adjust theoretical models to suit the specific realities of the country's administrative environment. Sticking to established theories may not fully reflect the everyday complexities and mixed nature of bureaucratic processes in Bangladesh (Rahman et al., 2024).

This article specifically hypothesizes that a combination of historical political factors and modern governance efforts significantly shape the transformation of Bangladesh's bureaucracy. Together, these elements create a hybrid administrative system that combines both legal-rational and traditional features. The goal of this article is to explore how traditional bureaucratic theories apply to the specific situation in Bangladesh, considering its unique political history and the effects of digitalization on governance practices.

It should be noted that the ideas and arguments presented here are solely based on scholarly interpretations of conceptual elements related to bureaucracy and their relevance to the bureaucracy in Bangladesh, rather than any empirical investigation. The article interprets existing work, whether theoretical or conceptual, and draws generalizations from empirical studies with a Bangladesh focus. Additionally, the study adopts an idiographic approach and refrains from drawing comparisons with other developing countries. Furthermore, the purpose of the article is not to propose any alternative model of Bangladesh's bureaucracy but to serve as a premise for future attempts by scholars at constructing a bureaucratic model that would be adaptive or context-sensitive, appreciating bureaucratic dynamics in country-specific settings, challenging the universality of western prescriptions.

The article is structured as follows: the second section provides the study’s rationale, while the third section discusses the theoretical foundations of bureaucracy. The fourth section highlights the characteristics of the Bangladesh bureaucracy, while the fifth section looks at the ground realities by applying the theories. The sixth section provides some recommendations, and the seventh section concludes the discussion.

The rationale for studying theoretical models

Theoretical models are an effective tool for comprehending complex real-world scenarios in public administration, as they simplify and organize governance realities (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2015). However, it is critical to note that no single model can encompass all aspects of public administration; the difficulty is to pick and integrate appropriate models to handle specific settings and difficulties. These models help researchers develop testable propositions and design studies, but a balance between theory-driven and data-driven techniques is essential (Meier and O’Toole, 2007).

The various models also help shape the evidence-based evolution of public administration practices, although putting research findings into practice remains a major difficulty. Their usefulness as a bridge between theory and practice varies; ‘practice-grounded’ theory creation, which involves a more participatory link between academics and practitioners, may result in more relevant and usable models. However, there is a risk that models will become self-reinforcing paradigms that are resistant to critique; therefore, it is vital to retain a critical attitude toward the models and continually reassess their relevance and validity considering changing settings (Pollitt, 2013).

Innovation in public administration frequently derives from both practice and theory, and incorporating real advances into theoretical models is a continuous challenge and opportunity. Although theoretical models can enhance public administration decision-making, real-world decision-making often diverges from rational models, and the effectiveness of these models hinges on their ability to accommodate contextual circumstances (Lindblom, 1959). Some public administration theories are unduly prescriptive, failing to account for the complexities and ambiguities of real-world government. Recognizing these limitations can lead to the productive application of theoretical models.

Recognizing the compatibility of Bangladesh's bureaucracy with its distinctive cultural and practical qualities is crucial, as it implies the influence of the larger cultural framework on bureaucracies. However, it is critical to investigate how this cultural alignment intersects with global administrative norms and practices, particularly as Bangladesh becomes increasingly involved in international governance systems.

Weber's (1947) legal-rational bureaucracy concept is still relevant, but its applicability to Bangladesh's context needs close examination. The bureaucracy operates in a hybrid space between legal-rational and patrimonial systems (Jamil, 2002) and understanding how these logics interact is essential. Theories of political control and bureaucratic politics offer valuable insights, but their application to Bangladesh's context requires careful consideration. Recent research on political settlements in Bangladesh provides a useful framework for understanding these dynamics (Khan, 2013; Sarker and Zafarullah, 2019). The theory of ‘Digital Era Governance’ (Dunleavy et al., 2006) provides useful insights into how technology may affect bureaucratic structures and processes. However, its application in Bangladesh must consider the country's distinct technology infrastructure, digital literacy levels, and socioeconomic gaps. Bangladesh's innovative approaches to digital governance, such as the ‘Digital Bangladesh’ initiative, offer fertile ground for developing and refining these theories.

Theoretical constructs of bureaucracy

The politics-administration dichotomy

The politics-administration dichotomy provides an appropriate basis for understanding one of the most important controversies in public administration philosophy. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 is critical to understanding this dichotomy's historical context. This reform addressed the spoils system, which had resulted in corruption and inefficiency. Separating politics from administration elevates the civil service and enhances government (Rosenbloom, 2008). The politics-administration dichotomy, along with broader disputes about the function of government and the perils of unrestrained administrative authority, links James Madison's ideas on limited government. Parliamentary systems have introduced this concept by blurring the distinction between politics and administration.

The tension between limiting bureaucratic discretion and allowing for greater freedom is a notable issue. In practice, bureaucratic knowledge is critical for successful policy implementation in complex sectors (Lipsky, 2010). The alternative viewpoint is consistent with the principal-agent theory, emphasizing knowledge gaps and the difficulty of directing bureaucracies. When bureaucrats have more information and experience, the political-administrative split (Gailmard and Patty, 2012) makes political control difficult. Debates and critiques of the political-administrative split have changed over time, from Wilson's initial formulation to more current viewpoints (Overeem, 2012).

While the discussion of the politics-administration dichotomy focuses primarily on the United States, it is critical to examine its implementation in various political and administrative systems around the world, and to explore how this concept applies in countries with diverse government institutions and cultural circumstances. The dichotomy influences our sense of political and bureaucratic accountability, and it remains relevant and applicable in the face of contemporary issues such as policy complexity, globalization, and network governance.

Given the focus of this article on Bangladesh's bureaucracy, it would be useful to explore how this theoretical debate manifests in the Bangladeshi context. We need to explore the relationship between politics and administration in Bangladesh and how it aligns with or diverges from the theoretical perspectives.

Political interweaving of bureaucracy

Theories on the political interwovenness of bureaucracy challenge the politics-administration dichotomy and offer a more focused perspective. The New Deal and the growth of the administrative state in the 20th century influenced this shift in thinking, reflecting a greater understanding of the complexities of governance.

Allison and Zelikow's (1999) bureaucratic politics model of government decision-making is useful in comprehending the intricate interaction of bureaucratic interests. This paradigm calls into question the notion of government decision-making as a unitary, logical process (Allison and Halperin, 1972). It makes an important contribution by investigating power dynamics within bureaucracies. Furthermore, Lipsky's (2010) concept of ‘street-level bureaucracy’ sheds light on how individual bureaucrats wield influence and make regular policy decisions on the ground.

Bureaucratic networks that reach beyond regular government institutions are a significant feature of modern governance. The concepts of network governance and the ‘hollow state’ (Milward and Provan, 2000) relate to this, presenting issues of accountability and democratic control. Transparency and citizen participation are critical because they link to broader discussions about democratic accountability in modern governance. Theories like deliberative democracy or participatory governance attempt to resolve these difficulties.

The concept of representative bureaucracy adds another dimension to this topic. This theory contends that bureaucracies can improve democratic representation by reflecting the demographic diversity of the people they serve (Kingsley, 1944).

Bureaucratic rationality and potential traps

Weber's concept of employing ‘ideal types’ is critical when evaluating bureaucracies in developing countries. Swedberg (2018) intended these ideal types not as prescriptive models but as analytical tools for understanding complex social phenomena. Discussions about Weberian bureaucracy often overlook this detail. Placing bureaucracy within the context of legal-rational authority is critical. It may be worthwhile to investigate how this term relates to broader concepts of governmental legitimacy and the rule of law, particularly in the context of developing countries such as Bangladesh.

Weberian bureaucracy comprises specialized expertise, hierarchical structures, detailed laws, and career-based appointments. These traits are relevant to understanding bureaucratic conduct and accountability. Weber also recognized the potential disadvantages of bureaucracy, such as overreach and the necessity for democratic control. Although Olsen (2006) emphasizes the importance of Weber's concerns in contemporary debates regarding administrative responsibility, simplistic explanations frequently neglect this feature of his idea.

Weber's contrast between legal-rational, traditional, and charismatic forms of authority is useful for assessing various administrative systems. It is important to investigate how these many kinds of power coexist or compete in modern governance systems, particularly in nations with complicated historical and cultural settings such as Bangladesh. We need to consider cultural aspects when developing and operating bureaucratic systems in various countries (Haque, 1997).

Modern ideas and practices seek to balance the contrasting objectives of bureaucratic efficiency and democratic control. While Weber's work is crucial, it is worth noting how bureaucratic thought has changed in reaction to sociological and technological advances. New Public Management and Digital Era Governance are concepts that both build on and challenge Weberian principles (Dunleavy et al., 2006).

Digital transformation of bureaucracy

The digital transformation of public undertakings is indicative of a substantial shift in governance paradigms. The transition from e-government to digital government, and then to smart governance, represents a significant change in the incorporation of technology into administrative processes. The shift from a government-centric to a citizen-centric approach signifies the way bureaucracies understand their role and connection with citizens. This movement aligns with broader patterns in the concept of public administration, such as the ‘New Public Service’ that puts citizens first and the bureaucracy helping them meet their needs (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2015).

In this transformation, the significance of big data, artificial intelligence (AI), and analytics in policymaking is substantial, but there are obstacles to executing data-driven decision-making in bureaucratic environments. The obstacles include concerns about data accuracy, interpretation biases, and finding a balance between making decisions based on data and making decisions based on values (Höchtl et al., 2016). To implement AI governance and execute digital transformation without exacerbating pre-existing disparities, an assessment of the ‘digital gap’ is necessary to understand its impact on democratic engagement and the equity of public services (van Dijk, 2020). To safeguard individual rights and privacy, it is imperative to confront the ethical dilemmas associated with data privacy and algorithmic bias (Cohen, 2001).

Implementing digital transformation necessitates organizational and cultural modifications within bureaucracies, which includes the dissemination of change and innovation in the public sector. It is essential to integrate various digital systems and provide interoperability among government departments to facilitate coordination and collaboration inside the bureaucracy. When examining digital transformation in Bangladesh, it is crucial to analyze the unique problems and opportunities that arise in developing countries. This analysis should factor in limited resources, infrastructure constraints, and varying patterns of governance.

Bureaucracy in Bangladesh: The legacy of colonialism and post-colonial challenges

Civil and military elitism, inherited from its colonial origins, distinguishes the Bangladeshi bureaucracy. The presence of an elitist culture, along with growing politics, has negatively impacted the effectiveness and efficiency of governance (Zafarullah, 2007). Inadequate accountability procedures and widespread corruption worsen the problem, weakening public trust and impeding bureaucratic effectiveness. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the bureaucracy continues to be a vital element of administration in Bangladesh, emphasizing its complex and frequently conflicting function (Huque and Rahman, 2003).

The bureaucracy is characterized by a hierarchical and static dual-tier system with centralized policymaking and decentralized administration. Critics have criticized this structure for its inefficiencies, sluggishness, and lack of professionalism. Yet, the bureaucracy plays a crucial role in policymaking through a vigorous and often contentious interaction with political entities. Initially, the relationship between the bureaucracy and political entities was defined by bureaucratic constraints, but it has evolved toward increased bureaucratic influence, particularly in policy formulation. This shift reflects the reliance of politically inexperienced leaders on bureaucratic expertise (Rahman, 2014). The bureaucracy's increased influence has resulted in a decrease in neutrality as it has become more involved in political maneuvering and formed symbiotic relationships with ruling factions to maintain its authority.

The civil service in Bangladesh has a well-established and selective structure with uniform procedures. Nevertheless, it encounters obstacles to maintaining credibility because of intermittent discrepancies with the principles upheld by political leaders and the broader population. The civil service's entrenched principles, goals, and social networks have contributed to its establishment as an institution and have influenced its relationships with other socioeconomic groups (Zafarullah, 2007). The presence of a turbulent historical regime and poor political leadership has caused certain portions of the population to rely on the perceived stability of the bureaucracy, thereby adding complexity to its position in governance.

The bureaucracy's perception of itself as a distinct social group with significant independence shapes its actions and influence. Civil officials utilize their knowledge, skills, and professionalism to obtain a favorable position in governance (Khan, 2015). This attitude of superiority frequently results in contempt for politicians and their rightful responsibilities. Bureaucrats support the idea of having complete freedom in carrying out policies, which shows their control and influence in the process of establishing them.

Bangladesh bureaucracy: The ground reality

Politics-administration dichotomy and politicization

The notion of the politics-administration dichotomy may fail to fully capture Bangladesh's complex historical, cultural, and political realities. There is a dynamic, intertwined relationship between politics and administration, with fluid and often negotiated boundaries. The entrenched politicization in the bureaucracy highlights the challenges of implementing reforms, especially when existing power structures benefit from the current system.

The politicization of administrative positions in government undermines the concept of a neutral and professional bureaucracy (Huque and Rahman, 2003). The practice of granting preferential treatment to party activists in the provision of services and promoting individuals based on their political affiliation poses a threat to the concept of a professional and autonomous civil service. The politicization departs from simple favoritism and compromises the traditional expectations of anonymity and professionalism. It compromises efficiency and effectiveness, erodes public confidence in governmental institutions, and is especially troublesome where sound governance is necessary (Askvik and Jamil, 2013; Knox, 2009).

Political interference challenges the traditional models of bureaucracy and politics, as the loyalty of bureaucrats to political interests can result in decisions that prioritize short-term gains, inefficient allocation of resources, and a rise in corruption. This politicization can lead to a decline in the competence and professionalism of the bureaucracy.

Generalist dominance and policy impact

The prevalence of generalists in senior positions within Bangladesh's bureaucracy poses a major obstacle to achieving effective governance and policy implementation. This situation strays from the ideal bureaucratic model and illustrates the complex relationship between bureaucratic structure, expertise, and policy outcomes. The paradox in Bangladesh's bureaucracy stems from the clash between the idealized function of bureaucracies and their real-life implementation. Political institutions and societal actors rely on bureaucracies as impartial and knowledgeable entities to facilitate well-informed decision-making and policy execution. Unfortunately, the presence of individuals with broad expertise in key roles undermines this ideal.

Generalist predominance has several effects on policy analysis and decision-making. Often lacking domain-specific knowledge, generalists have shallow knowledge of difficult problems and insufficient policy answers. This weakness might also make generalists more vulnerable to political pressure, thereby weakening the objectivity and neutrality of bureaucracies. Furthermore, as Bangladesh's delayed development in e-government deployment shows, the generalist attitude might impede creative problem-solving and the acceptance of innovative alternatives. Lack of specialized knowledge could lead to ineffective program design and execution, wasting resources, and not reaching intended results. Moreover, the ascent of generalists to high positions might lead to an elitism distant from particular policy areas and society's requirements (Zafarullah, 2007).

The situation in Bangladesh underscores the difficulties in applying Lipsky's notion of street-level bureaucrats as policymakers. Generalist senior officials, who may not fully grasp ground-level realities, can overshadow the influence of lower-level bureaucrats, who have more direct contact with citizens. This worsens the principal-agent problem in public administration, making it challenging for political leaders to ensure that bureaucrats are acting in the best interests of the public when they lack specialized knowledge (Lipsky, 2010).

Negotiations between bureaucratic actors affect policy outcomes, according to the “bureaucratic politics model.” This model takes on a unique shape because there are so many generalist bureaucrats (Allison and Halperin, 1972). In Bangladesh, this situation undermines the quality of the bargaining process because the participants (mainly politicians) often lack extensive expertise on the relevant issues. This arrangement also seems to go against the principles of New Public Management, which emphasize specialization and professionalism in public service delivery.

Bangladesh's low ranking in the UN E-Government Development Index (United Nations, 2022) highlights the adverse effects of the prevailing resistance to technological innovation. The resistance poses a challenge to administrative efficiency and acts as a barrier to achieving broader national development goals, including the ‘Smart Bangladesh 2041’ initiative (Kaiser, 2024).

Political changes and bureaucratic instability

The intricate relationship between political leadership and bureaucratic continuity affects policy implementation and the quality of governance in Bangladesh. Political leadership changes have resulted in frequent bureaucratic reshuffling and created a cycle of instability within the administrative system (Huque, 2007). The consequences are far-reaching, leading to a disruption of policy continuity, a loss of institutional memory, decreased policy engagement, and a decline in the quality of public service.

Before 2008, a lack of policy consistency resulted in abandoned or poorly executed activities, wasted resources, and a failure to meet objectives. Reorganization also decreased institutional capacity. Presently, constant official turnover lacks historical context and awareness of current programs, policies, and legislation, resulting in inefficiencies and wayward implementation. Bureaucrats avoid long-term policy design and execution because of the constant possibility of reorganization (Aminuzzaman, 2013). This has favored short-term, politically expedient efforts above long-term solutions. Changes in bureaucratic leadership also disrupt or alter programs, leading to a reduction in the quality of public services.

The ruling party's 15-year “stable” rule, which has now ended, was paradoxical. Political factors continued to result in periodic bureaucratic reshuffling, although this has decreased the need for sweeping reforms to the administrative system. Even though the regime was seemingly stable, political whims damaged the bureaucracy's autonomy and professionalism. The continuous reshuffle within it hindered long-term policy planning and exposed a political patronage system that used bureaucratic jobs as rewards or punishments rather than based on merit and ability (Meyer-Sahling et al., 2019).

Greater instability influences ground-level policy interpretation and execution (Lipsky, 2010). The scenario, based on institutional theory, underscores the conflict between formal institutions like the bureaucratic structure and informal practices like political intervention. According to public choice theory, politicians may rearrange bureaucrats to further their personal interests, potentially at the expense of the public's well-being.

Intra-bureaucratic politics

The power struggle inside Bangladesh's bureaucracy exposes the intricate interaction among bureaucratic structures, political institutions, and cultural elements, making efficient government so challenging. We can trace Bangladesh's bureaucracy's historical resistance to political power back to its colonial history and subsequent political upheavals. Often hidden, this conflict between bureaucratic and political power centers has been a persistent problem. This scenario fits the ‘bureaucratic politics model’ (Allison and Halperin, 1972), which stresses policies as outcomes of negotiation games among government players.

Generalist bureaucrats now wield unprecedented influence on political entities because of a confluence of weak political institutions and high-level politicization (Kochanek, 2000; Lorch, 2017). This situation fits ideas of elitist bureaucratic autonomy but compromises democratic procedures. As conceptualized in Hofstede's (2011) “cultural dimensions theory,” bureaucratic dominance expresses itself in line with the country's high-power distance and collectivist character. This cultural setting offers a hierarchical system and power consolidation, aggravating the power struggle within the bureaucracy.

With its overstaffed top echelon and understaffed lower ranks, Bangladesh's bureaucracy runs counter to Weber's ideal bureaucratic model and results in inefficiency, resource misallocation, corruption prospects, and morale problems. This top-heavy system causes decision-making congestion and decreases operational effectiveness that distorts resources from vital front-line services (Khan, 2015). While non-generalists and lower-ranking officials experience more work and have fewer promotion prospects, the imbalance also provides chances for rent-seeking behavior among them, perhaps influencing motivation and performance (Naim and Hasan, 2018).

Several theoretical stances aid in the explanation of these problems: Public Choice Theory (Arrow, 1963; Olson, 1965), New Institutional Economics (North, 1990), and Principal-Agent Theory (James and Van Thiel, 2011). Politicians and bureaucrats frequently indulge in rent-seeking behavior in their own self-interest, prioritizing regulations that enable them to receive bribes or fees from citizens. Such conduct hampers the efficiency of operations and discourages genuine transactions. Politicians frequently endorse policies that favor their constituents or provide favors to bureaucrats, resulting in the inefficient allocation of resources and policies that do not serve the public interest. We can relate this to the Public Choice Theory.

We can infer from New Institutional Economics, which examines the impact of institutions such as rules, regulations, and social norms on economic activity, that many officials in Bangladesh lack a comprehensive understanding of administrative rules and regulations, resulting in inconsistencies and impulsive decisions (Zafarullah, 2015). This reduces certainty for individuals and businesses, thereby decelerating economic growth. Unwritten rules and social norms are more important than formal regulations, which cause favoritism, nepotism, and a lack of openness.

Applying Principal-Agent Theory to the Bangladesh bureaucracy reveals information asymmetry and misaligned incentives. As citizens (principals) remain uninformed about the performance of administrators (agents), the lack of transparency leads to inefficiency and corruption (Haque, 2014). Additionally, administrators prioritize tasks that help themselves (such as obtaining the highest possible approval from their superiors) over those that are beneficial to the public. Bangladesh's bureaucracy's structural inequalities and power struggle have resulted in the predominance of unelected officials over elected ones, compromising democratic values. Higher degrees of power concentration make it challenging to hold officials responsible for their deeds.

Accountability, merit, and competence

The intricate dynamic between ministers and senior bureaucrats in Bangladesh has led to a complex accountability structure (Sarker, 2009). This is due to differences in information and potentially conflicting motivations between ministers and bureaucrats. Ensuring that bureaucrats act in the best interests of their political superiors and the public can be quite challenging. In Bangladesh, the bureaucratic politics model highlights how different government actors can impact policy outcomes by engaging in bargaining games, which can sometimes make it difficult to determine who is accountable for the final decisions. These overarching dynamics directly influence the delivery of services and the implementation of policies (Lipsky, 2010).

People often perceive the quota system in civil service recruitment as a possible hindrance to meritocratic principles, contradicting the New Public Management principles that emphasize merit-based recruitment and performance management (Hood, 1991; Khan, 2015). This system often prioritizes demographics and special representation over skills and qualifications, which may result in less effective development of human resources within the bureaucracy. Despite its apparent inefficiency, the persistence of this system reveals its roots in long-standing institutional norms and historical patterns (North, 1990).

The decline in educational and professional standards among public officials carries significant consequences. This directly affects the Bangladesh bureaucracy's ability to develop and implement successful policies, leading to a decrease in public trust (Kaiser, 2015; Knox, 2009; Sarker, 2009). These actions harm the delivery of public services and weaken their overall value (for more on public value theory, refer to Moore, 1995).

The dependence on generalists contradicts the principles of scientific management and bureaucratic specialization, as propounded by Frederick Taylor and Max Weber. When people without specialized expertise are involved in policy analysis, it can sometimes lead to shallow or misguided conclusions. This, in turn, can result in policies that are ineffective or even harmful. The overwhelming presence of generalist bureaucrats in policymaking in Bangladesh has hindered organizational learning and knowledge management (Sarker and Zafarullah, 2019). The lack of alignment between specialized bureaucratic positions and the competencies of appointees does have a significant impact on administrative performance (Huque and Rahman, 2003).

Divergent historical and cultural settings

The bureaucratic structure deviates considerably from classic theoretical models due to historical, cultural, political, and resource constraints. Context-specific analysis is critical for understanding and improving public administration systems. This colonial legacy emphasizes form over utility, reflecting cultural values such as respect for authority and loyalty to tradition. This circumstance is consistent with the concept of path dependency in institutional theory (Pierson, 2000).

Societal standards are reflected in the bureaucratic culture, as the hierarchical administrative structure mirrors Bangladeshi society's high-power distance. In-group favoritism breeds nepotism and patronage. Bureaucratic adherence to tradition and formalities represents a cultural preference for stability and well-established procedures. Entrenched neopatrimonialism is characterized by the combination of formal bureaucratic structures with informal, personalistic power dynamics (Kochanek, 2000; Sarker, 2008). The difficulty of integrating the bureaucratic structure with democratic aspirations reflects larger issues in democratic consolidation. Authoritarian control has resulted in a powerful executive and a weakened legislative branch, raising accountability concerns (Jamil, 2002).

Obstacles to and limitations of bureaucratic reform

Bringing meaningful changes to the bureaucracy in Bangladesh is difficult due to historical legacies, institutional inertia, cultural considerations, and political dynamics. Reform attempts are consistent with concerns about the challenges of institutional change. Theories such as institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 2000), path dependency (Pierson, 2000), and punctuated-equilibrium (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993) could potentially explain the superficial implementation of some reforms without leading to substantive change (Zafarullah, 2022).

Three types of institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 2000) help explain Bangladeshi bureaucracy. Coercive isomorphism emphasizes international organization and donor pressures, such as using World Bank and IMF principles to improve budget management and fiscal accountability. Mimetic isomorphism shows the bureaucracy adopting foreign techniques like anti-corruption strategies, e-government, and digital services to deal with ethical issues, uncertainty, and increasing efficiency (Sakib, 2020). Normative isomorphism examines how professionalization and common education shape bureaucratic norms and behaviors. Several training institutes are notable here (Ehsan et al., 2022; Sarker and Zafarullah, 2019). These kinds of isomorphism increasingly align Bangladesh's bureaucracy with global norms, but the methods must factor in local conditions.

We can examine the bureaucracy's performance in Bangladesh using the path dependency model (Pierson, 2000), which describes how prior actions and events impact and restrict future choices. The civil service system's structure and career management, rooted in British colonial administration, bear a striking resemblance to the British system prior to 1947. This approach also explains why bureaucratic opposition has made it difficult to enact major administrative changes. Institutionalized partisanship continues to impact bureaucratic neutrality and efficiency (Askvik et al., 2011). Premature transfers, a lack of supervision, and internal opposition are all hindering Bangladesh's bureaucratic reform efforts. The challenges in aligning the goals of reform implementers and designers result in inefficient monitoring and follow-up. Superiors and peers disagree, implying a resistant organizational culture (Khan, 2015; Sarker and Zafarullah, 2019; Zafarullah, 2022).

The punctuated-equilibrium model illustrates how policies are characterized by extended periods of stability (accompanied by incremental modifications) and brief periods of substantial change (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993). Although Bangladesh's bureaucratic structure has remained largely unchanged since its independence in 1971, the transition from military rule to democracy in 1991 resulted in major shifts in bureaucratic operations, including the politicization of civil service appointments. In 2009, the government implemented the “Digital Bangladesh” vision, which resulted in major modifications to service delivery methods and bureaucratic processes (Siddiquee, 2016).

Bureaucratic politics hinders reform by shielding officials with political connections from accountability. The country's persistent bureaucracy and misuse of power over the press and resources lead to corruption and nepotism, while the indifference of civil society and the media hinders the involvement of diverse perspectives in policymaking.

Media, civil society, and bureaucratic practice

By and large, the media, civil society, and bureaucratic practices influence governance, accountability, and democratic processes in Bangladesh (Haque, 2002). Implementing democratic supervision is difficult in situations where power dynamics and legal frameworks favor elites. The role of non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations in gathering popular support for government initiatives is in line with pluralist conceptions of democracy and interest group politics. However, in Bangladesh, the limited power of a small group of political and bureaucratic elites hinders their effectiveness, contrary to the pluralist ideal of diverse interest groups influencing policy. Civil society's limited ability to influence policy violates normative conceptions about its role in democratic government.

The government's grip over the media and civil society restricts their capacity to critique the bureaucracy. It weakens the media's function as the ‘fourth estate’ (Hasan and Wadud, 2020). This constrains the process of democratic consolidation. The Digital Security Act and its replacement, the Cyber Security Act, now in limbo, represented serious threats to press freedom and democratic scrutiny. The act's influence on free speech and press freedom encouraged self-censorship and restrictive legislation, resulting in democratic backsliding (Human Rights Watch, 2024). These beliefs go against current bureaucratic approaches that seek to combine democracy and efficiency through open government.

Toward change

Bangladesh stands at a pivotal juncture in its political journey, seeking to fabricate a new democratic future. The people are pushing for significant enhancements in many areas of public life, especially in the public administration arena. This is an opportune time for significant and impactful shifts.

A multi-pronged approach is required to address the challenges the Bangladesh bureaucracy faces, including curbing political interference, rationalizing recruitment and promotions, strengthening oversight mechanisms, operationalizing digital governance initiatives, keeping citizens engaged in public affairs, creating performance-based incentives, strengthening meritocracy, institutionalizing continuous training, combating institutionalized corruption, decentralizing administrative powers, promoting collaborative governance, and fortifying media freedom.

To protect civil servants’ job security, policies need to prevent political figures from making random transfers and dismissals. There needs to be an open appointment process that prioritizes merit over political connections. Independent organizations are required to manage bureaucratic appointments and discipline to promote fairness and accountability.

Expanding e-governance platforms and integrating digital innovations can reduce personal discretion in administrative tasks, leading to greater efficiency. Connecting rewards for civil servants to their skills and performance can boost efficiency and prevent complacency. Independent anti-corruption units will have the capability to prosecute and effectively tackle institutionalized corruption. The existing laws and regulations regarding corruption and conflicts of interest need a thorough review and enhancement.

Autonomous local government units require adequate resources and decision-making power, allowing them to depend less on central authority. This can happen if they collaborate with non-governmental organizations and community groups. If laws that restrict citizens’ freedom to express their concerns are removed, they can contribute to local affairs.

An important reform would be clearly delineating the relationship between politicians and bureaucrats. Civil servants need to follow political directives, but they should also have the courage and confidence to question and challenge political decisions that may not serve the nation's best interests.

These proposed reforms align closely with Weber's ideal of a rational bureaucracy—emphasizing meritocracy, clear recruitment processes, and objective performance metrics. If there were a separate authority for public employees, incentives based on performance, and less political interference, it would directly challenge the patronage-based administrative systems that are different from Weber's rational-legal model. The push for transparent, rule-bound administrative processes reflects Weber's conceptualization of bureaucracy as a systematic, predictable organizational structure.

The power dynamics between political actors and bureaucratic institutions relate to theories of bureaucratic politics. This includes efforts to prevent politically motivated transfers, establish independent oversight, and create ways for civil servants to contest politically driven decisions. In addition to adjusting the power dynamics, these measures would allow bureaucratic autonomy while maintaining political oversight. Focusing on decentralization and collaborative governance shows a modern view of political control that goes beyond traditional top-down structures.

The suggested e-governance initiatives reflect the main ideas of digital transformation theory. The recommendations support digital platforms that limit personal choice and boost administrative efficiency, which fits with Dunleavy's idea of governance in the digital age. Focusing on technology to make administrative processes more transparent, accessible, and accountable shows how digital transformation can really change the way people interact with public organizations. It would be wise to expand digital platforms to reduce corruption and enhance efficiency, demonstrating the effective integration of technology into public administration.

The proposed measures take on a holistic approach by combining ideas from theory with real-world actions, focusing on the structural, technological, and cultural aspects for transforming Bangladesh's public administration into a more responsive, efficient, and accountable system.

Conclusion

The Bangladesh bureaucracy is a complex and hybrid system that combines legal-rational authority with deeply entrenched patrimonial and political influences. Politicization, elite dominance, and cultural factors influence its bureaucratic practices. Attempts to apply Western bureaucratic norms have been ineffective because they fail to account for contextual realities and power dynamics.

The politics-administration dichotomy does not fully capture the complex, intertwined relationship between political actors and public officials, and political interests undermine bureaucratic neutrality and professionalism. Similarly, Weber's ideal type of legal-rational bureaucracy does not neatly align with the Bangladeshi context, which combines legal-rational and traditional, patrimonial elements.

While theories around digital governance provide useful insights, their application must account for the country's distinct technological infrastructure, digital literacy levels, digital divides, and organizational inertia, which can impact the implementation and equity of digital reforms. This highlights the need for more flexible, adaptive, and problem-focused approaches to public administration reform.

We need to continually refine and synthesize theoretical models to account for the unique historical, political, and cultural factors that influence how bureaucracy operates. Policymakers and academics can help resolve problems that are more useful and effective by focusing on specific situations. Bangladesh's bureaucracy shows how dangerous it can be to use organizational ideas that work for all situations. We must find more thoughtful and adaptable ways to improve government operations for the country's greater benefit.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Habib Zafarullah

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Allison

Halperin

(1972) Bureaucratic politics: A paradigm and some policy implications. World Politics 24(S1): 40–79.

Allison

Zelikow

(1999) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. 2nd edn. New York, NY: Longman.

Aminuzzaman

(2013) Dynamics of public policy: Determinants of policymaking and implementation in Bangladesh. Public Organization Review 13: 443–458.

Andrews

(2013) The Limits of Institutional Reform in Development: Changing Rules for Realistic Solutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arrow

(1963) Social Choice and Individual Values. 2nd edn. New York, NY: Wiley.

Askvik

Jamil

(2013) The institutional trust paradox in Bangladesh. Public Organization Review 13: 459–476.

Askvik

Jamil

Dhakal

(2011) Citizens’ trust in public and political institutions in Nepal. International Political Science Review 32(4): 417–437.

Barzelay

(1992) Breaking Through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Managing in Government. Oakland, California:University of California Press.

Baumgartner

Jones

(1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

10.

Cahnman

(1965) Ideal type theory: Max Weber’s concept and some of its derivations. The Sociological Quarterly 6(3): 268–280.

11.

Cohen

(2001) The necessity of privacy. Social Research 68(1): 318–327.

12.

Denhardt

(2015) The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. New York:Routledge.

13.

DiMaggio

Powell

(2000) The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In: Baum

JAC

Dobbin

(eds) Economics Meets Sociology in Strategic Management. Leeds: Emerald, pp. 143–166.

14.

Dunleavy

Margetts

Bastow

, et al. (2006) Digital Era Governance: IT Corporations, the State, and E-Government. Oxford University Press.

15.

Ehsan

SMA

Hossain

Eldridge

, et al. (2022) Advancing public service innovation through empathy: An analysis of Bangladesh’s intrepid approach. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management 9(2): 250–270.

16.

Evans

Rauch

(1999) Bureaucracy and growth: A cross-national analysis of the effects of ‘Weberian’ state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review 64(5): 748–765.

17.

Gailmard

Patty

(2012) Formal models of bureaucracy. Annual Review of Political Science 15: 353–377.

18.

Haque

(1997) Incongruity between bureaucracy and society in developing nations: A critique. Peace & Change 22(4): 432–462.

19.

Haque

(2002) The changing balance of power between the government and NGOS in Bangladesh. International Political Science Review 23(4): 411–435.

20.

Haque

(2014) Accountability for public expenditure in Bangladesh: The principal-agent problem and role of the office of the comptroller and auditor general. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 36: 249–260.

21.

Hartwell

Devinney

(2021) Populism, political risk, and pandemics: The challenges of political leadership for business in a post-COVID world. Journal of World Business 56(4): 101225.

22.

Hasan

Wadud

(2020) Re-conceptualizing safety of journalists in Bangladesh. Media and Communication 8(1): 27–36.

23.

Höchtl

Parycek

Schöllhammer

(2016) Big data in the policy cycle: Policy decision making in the digital era. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 26(1–2): 147–169.

24.

Hofstede

(2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2(1): 8.

25.

Hood

(1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69(1): 3–19.

26.

Human Rights Watch (2024) Bangladesh: Repression, security force abuses discredit elections. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/11/bangladesh-repression-security-force-abuses-discredit-elections (accessed 5 March 2024).

27.

Huque

(2007) Local leadership: Development, problems and potential in Bangladesh. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 29(2): 223–239.

28.

Huque

Rahman

(2003) From domination to alliance: Shifting strategies and accumulation of power by the bureaucracy in Bangladesh. Public Organization Review 3: 403–418.

29.

Huque

Zafarullah

(2023) Public administration in twenty-first century Bangladesh: Fossilised, bureaucratised, politicised. In: Haque, Wong

(eds) Handbook of Asian Public Administration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 270–283.

30.

Hyden

Court

Mease

(2004) Making Sense of Governance: Empirical Evidence from 16 Developing Countries. Boulder, Colorado:Lynne Rienner.

31.

James

van Thiel

(2011) Structural devolution and agencification. In: Christensen

Laegreid

(eds) Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, pp. 209–222.

32.

Jamil

(2002) Administrative culture in Bangladesh: Tensions between tradition and modernity. International Review of Sociology 12(1): 93–125.

33.

Kaiser

(2015) Bangladesh civil service (BCS) examination: A critical review. Public Affairs and Governance 3(2): 140–158.

34.

Kaiser

(2024) Smart governance for smart cities and nations. Journal of Economy and Technology 2: 216–234.

35.

Khan

(2013) Political settlements and the design of technology policy. In: Stiglitz

Yifu

Patel

(eds) The Industrial Policy Revolution II. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 243–280.

36.

Khan

(2015) Gresham’s Law Syndrome and Beyond: An Analysis of the Bangladesh Bureaucracy. Dhaka: University Press Limited.

37.

Kingsley

(1944) Representative Bureaucracy: An Interpretation of the British Civil Services. Brentwood, CA: Antioch Press.

38.

Knox

(2009) Building trust amidst corruption in Bangladesh. The Round Table 98(403): 449–459.

39.

Kochanek

(2000) Governance, patronage politics, and democratic transition in Bangladesh. Asian Survey 40(3): 530–550.

40.

Lindblom

(1959) The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review 19(2): 79–88.

41.

Lipsky

(2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

42.

Lorch

(2017) Civil Society and Mirror Images of Weak States: Bangladesh and the Philippines. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

43.

McDonald

Hall

O’Flynn

, et al. (2022) The future of public administration research: An editor’s perspective. Public Administration 100(1): 59–71.

44.

Meier

O’Toole Jr

(2007) Modeling public management: Empirical analysis of the management–performance nexus. Public Management Review 9(4): 503–527.

45.

Meyer-Sahling

Schuster

Mikkelsen

, et al. (2019) Civil service management in Bangladesh. Report, British Academy, UK Department for International Development. Available at: https://ace.globalintegrity.org/resources/phase-1-bangladesh-report/ (accessed 12 March 2023).

46.

Milward

Provan

(2000) Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 359–380.

47.

Moore

(1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

48.

Naim

Hasan

(2018) Concentration of authority and rent seeking behaviour in bureaucracy: An evidence of ineffective governance in Bangladesh. Journal of Social and Development Sciences 9: 19–30.

49.

North

(1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

50.

Olsen

(2006) Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(1): 1–24.

51.

Olson

(1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

52.

Osborne

(2006) The new public governance? Public Management Review 8(3): 377–387.

53.

O’Toole

Jr Meier

(2015) Public management, context, and performance: In quest of a more general theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(1): 237–256.

54.

Overeem

(2012) The Politics-Administration Dichotomy: Toward a Constitutional Perspective. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

55.

Peters

(2018) The Politics of Bureaucracy: An Introduction to Comparative Public Administration. New York, NY: Routledge.

56.

Pierson

(2000) Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review 94(2): 251–267.

57.

Pollitt

(2013) The logics of performance management. Evaluation 19(4): 346–363.

58.

Rahman

(2014) Bureaucratic perceptions to the politics–bureaucracy relations in Bangladesh: A moral dilemma in between political neutrality and responsiveness. Asian Journal of Political Science 22(3): 252–267.

59.

Rahman

Burns

Cox

, et al. (2024) Exercising bureaucratic discretion through selective bridging: A response to institutional complexity in Bangladesh. Public Administration and Development 44(2): 61–74.

60.

Riggs

(1964) Administration in Developing Countries: The Theory of Prismatic Society. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

61.

Rosenbloom

(2008) The politics–administration dichotomy in US historical context. Public Administration Review 68(1): 57–60.

62.

Sakib

(2020) Institutional isomorphism of anti-corruption agency: The case of anti-corruption commission in Bangladesh. Chinese Political Science Review 5: 222–252.

63.

Sarker

(2008) Patron-client politics and its implications for good governance in Bangladesh. International Journal of Public Administration 31(12): 1416–1440.

64.

Sarker

(2009) The new mode of public governance and public accountability in developing countries: An analysis with particular reference to Bangladesh. International Journal of Public Administration 32(13): 1101–1123.

65.

Sarker

Zafarullah

(2019) Political settlements and bureaucratic reforms: An exploratory analysis focusing on Bangladesh. Journal of Asian and African Studies 55(2): 235–253.

66.

Siddiquee

(2016) E-government and transformation of service delivery in developing countries: The Bangladesh experience and lessons. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 10(3): 368–390.

67.

Simon

(1997) Administrative Behavior. 4th edn. New York, NY: Free Press.

68.

Swedberg

(2018) Max Weber and the Idea of Economic Sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

69.

United Nations . (2022) E-government survey 2022: The future of digital government. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available at: https://desapublications.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/2022-09/Web%20version%20E-Government%202022.pdf (accessed 12 February 2023).

70.

van Dijk

(2020) The Digital Divide. Cambridge: Polity Press.

71.

Weber

(1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by AM Henderson and T Parsons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

72.

Wood

Waterman

(1994) Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of Bureaucracy in a Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

73.

Zafarullah

(2007) Bureaucratic elitism in Bangladesh: The predominance of generalist administrators. Asian Journal of Political Science 15: 161–173.

74.

Zafarullah

(2015) The governmental machinery in Bangladesh. In: Ahmed

(ed.) Forty Years of Public Administration and Governance in Bangladesh. University Press Limited, pp. 91–108.

75.

Zafarullah

(2022) Trapped in a cul-de-sac? The orbit of governance reform in Bangladesh. Dhaka University Law Journal 32(1): 112–131

76.

Zafarullah

Huque

(2021) Corruption and its control: The pursuit of probity in Bangladesh. In: Corruption in the Public Sector: An International Perspective. Leeds: Emerald, pp. 57–77.