Abstract
Rural governance in Bangladesh is very much linked with the lived experience of citizens in relation to public institutions and public services in everyday life. This study analyses the perception of citizens on rural governance, looking at the three service areas of health, education and agriculture, and a comparison of perceptions by different socio-economic groups. The study also looks at the perception of governance and trust in institutions, especially disadvantaged citizens' experiences. A convergent mixed-methods design was employed. 250 rural citizens were surveyed to get quantitative information, while 12 in-depth interviews (IDIs) and 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with representatives of local government, service providers, community members, youth, women and marginalised groups to get qualitative information. The five governance dimensions of transparency, accountability, responsiveness, participation and equity were evaluated quantitatively. The qualitative data were analysed thematically and triangulated with survey data to provide an explanation of citizens' experience of governance in practice.The quantitative results confirmed that overall, the perceptions of rural governance were mainly moderate. The five dimensions were assessed, with participation having the highest mean score and equity the lowest mean score, reflecting an unequal experience of access to services and opportunities across communities. There were also differences between industry sectors. The overall rating for education was the highest, followed by health, and the lowest was for agriculture. The results also suggest that citizens' perceptions of institutional performance are positively related to their institutional trust.The qualitative findings broadly corroborate these patterns and shed more light on the reasons for these patterns. The participants noted that there were gains in public service delivery, administrative processes, and services being increasingly digitised. Meanwhile, they noted persistent challenges of unequal access and restricted institutional responsiveness, accountability, participation in decision-making, and social exclusion. Issues such as women's experiences, disability, economically disadvantaged households, and others who are less influential in local decision-making were more apparent in these issues. The results also reveal that there is not necessarily a relationship between formal participation opportunities and governance decision-making power.The results from the two cases indicate that the concept of rural governance cannot be limited to the formal functioning of local institutions. Citizens assess governance based on their personal experiences of services, institutional action, equity and voice. Better governance in the countryside would involve increased accountability and responsiveness, as well as increased attention to equity, more meaningful and participatory involvement of citizens and more inclusiveness for groups less visible in local governance. The study adds to the existing literature on rural governance in Bangladesh by combining the perceptions of citizens across sectors, trust in institutions and marginalised voices in one convenient framework, which is a mixed-methods approach.
References
Andrews, M. (2013). The limits of institutional reform in development: Changing rules for realistic solutions. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139060974
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Asadullah, M. N., & Chaudhury, N. (2015). The dissonance between schooling and learning: Evidence from rural Bangladesh. Comparative Education Review, 59(3), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1086/681929
Asadullah, M. N., & Chaudhury, N. (2016). To madrasahs or not to madrasahs: The question and correlates of enrolment in Islamic schools in Bangladesh. International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.01.005
Bardhan, P., & Mookherjee, D. (2006). Decentralisation and accountability in infrastructure delivery in developing countries. The Economic Journal, 116(508), 101–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01049.
Chowdhury, S., & Panday, P. K. (2018). Strengthening local governance in Bangladesh: Reforms, participation and accountability. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73284-8
Crook, R. C., & Manor, J. (1998). Democracy and decentralisation in South Asia and West Africa: Participation, accountability and performance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511607899
Ferdous, J., Bhuiyan, M. I. H., & Khan, N. A. (2024). Exploring the performance of and the citizens’ trust in local government institutions (LGIs) at the grassroots: Views from Bangladesh. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 70(2), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/00195561231221814
Fox, J. A. (2015). Social accountability: What does the evidence really say? World Development, 72, 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.011
Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? Governance, 26(3), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12035
Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2012). Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. World Development, 40(12), 2399–2410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.014
Grindle, M. S. (2004). Good enough governance: Poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance, 17(4), 525–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0952-1895.2004.00256.
Grindle, M. S. (2007). Good enough governance revisited. Development Policy Review, 25(5), 533–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2007.00385.
Hasan, S., Akter, T., Jahan, M., & Dewan, A. (2023). Proximity to healthcare centres and service use: The case of Community Clinics in Bangladesh. Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, 31(3), 819–849. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecot.12357
Jahan, M. (2023). Understanding social accountability at rural local governance in Bangladesh and the way forward: In the case of Union Parishad. South Asian Journal of Social Studies and Economics, 17(4), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.9734/sajsse/2023/v17i4644
Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 475–507. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.475
Mojumder, M. J. H., & Panday, P. K. (2022). GO–NGO teamwork for strengthening local governance: A review of extant literature in the context of Bangladesh. South Asian Survey, 29(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/09715231211069957
Rahman, M. M. (2016). Problems of participation of the women leaders in the Union Parishad in Bangladesh: Unheard voices and grim realities. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies, 16(1), 93–136. https://doi.org/10.14456/sujsha.2016.3
Rahman, T., Ara, S., & Khan, N. A. (2020). Agro-information service and information-seeking behaviour of small-scale farmers in rural Bangladesh. South Asia Research, 40(3), 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1018529120977259
Sarker, A. E., & Zafarullah, H. (2020). Political settlements and bureaucratic reforms: An exploratory analysis focusing on Bangladesh. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 55(2), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909619871584
Seddiky, M. A. (2020). Decentralized health service delivery system in Bangladesh: Evaluating community clinics in promoting healthcare for the rural poor. European Scientific Journal, 16(12), 253. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2020.v16n12p253
Smoke, P. (2015). Rethinking decentralization: Assessing challenges to a popular public sector reform. Public Administration and Development, 35(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1703
Uddin, M. N., & Basit, A. (2024). How effective are social accountability mechanisms in Bangladesh’s rural local governments? Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, 29, 130–144. https://doi.org/10.5130/cjlg.vi29.8599
Transparency, governance, and water and sanitation: Experimental evidence from schools in rural Bangladesh. (2023). Journal of Development Economics, 163, 103082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2023.103082
United Nations. (2022). The Sustainable Development Goals report 2022. United Nations