From file to field: Why policy execution fails

Policy failure is not unique to Bangladesh, but its persistence in the country is symptomatic of a deeper, systemic malaise. Despite an abundance of strategic documents, master plans, and reform blueprints, the actual delivery of public goods and services remains patchy.

The failure of policy execution is not merely a function of poor administration; it is an outcome of political economy dynamics, institutional fragility, and design-execution mismatches.

Let us discuss the issues and challenges of the policy implementation landscape.

Public procurement, appointment of project staff, and selection of implementation sites are frequently influenced by political considerations rather than developmental needs. This politicisation not only undermines institutional integrity but also breeds public cynicism and disengagement.

One of the key issues is Political Interference and Patronage Networks. Political dynamics deeply influence policy execution in Bangladesh. Elected representatives often use development programmes for electoral gain, leading to selective implementation.

Patronage networks can distort priorities, where access to resources and projects depends more on political allegiance than need or merit. Public procurement, appointment of project staff, and selection of implementation sites are frequently influenced by political considerations rather than developmental needs. This politicisation not only undermines institutional integrity but also breeds public cynicism and disengagement.

Some critics think that at the heart of implementation failure lies an over-centralised and rigid bureaucracy. Policies are often conceived at the national level with limited input from local actors. 

Once formulated, they pass through multiple layers of administration, where inefficiency and lack of coordination dilute their effectiveness. Ministries often work in silos, leading to overlapping responsibilities or outright neglect.

Moreover, field-level officials frequently lack the authority, training, or motivation to adapt policies to local contexts, resulting in a one-size-fits-all approach that fails in practice. Besides, often, policy documents are dense with technical jargon and ambitious targets but lack grounding in the socio-cultural realities of implementation. 

Alongside, many Bangladeshi policies are designed top-down, often influenced by donor frameworks or international best practices without adequate localisation. This leads to a poor fit with the sociopolitical context. Alongside, the absence of participatory policymaking processes leaves critical stakeholders, especially beneficiaries, out of the loop.

Additionally, Bangladesh's development strategy is often influenced by international donors whose priorities may not align perfectly with national or local needs. Projects driven by donor timelines and targets may show short-term success but fail to create sustainable change. 

This emphasis on quick wins often comes at the cost of long-term capacity building and institution strengthening, essential for sustained policy implementation.

In addition, there exist capacity deficits at the local level. Local governments, crucial for on-the-ground implementation, are chronically under-resourced and understaffed. Even when decentralisation is nominally pursued, meaningful autonomy is rarely granted. Technical expertise, monitoring systems, and logistical support are often lacking, making it nearly impossible to execute complex programmes effectively.

Moreover, policy execution failures in Bangladesh are compounded by the absence of dependable, timely, and disaggregated data. This undermines real-time course correction and fosters opacity.

Alongside, accountability is the cornerstone of successful policy execution. In Bangladesh, oversight mechanisms – both internal and external – are often weak or compromised. The lack of effective and objective performance-based evaluation systems means that failures go unchecked, and there are few consequences for mismanagement or non-performance.

Furthermore, the policy-execution gap is also cultural. A deeply hierarchical administrative culture discourages innovation, feedback, or adaptation at the field level. Frontline workers often execute plans mechanically, without the freedom to deviate based on context.

To understand the phenomenon thoroughly, it is important to analyse the global lessons. Singapore's success in translating policy into outcomes stems from a highly professional civil service with clear mandates, performance benchmarks, and insulation from political interference. 

Besides, South Korea's Government Performance Evaluation Committee systematically reviews policy implementation across ministries using data analytics and citizen feedback. This enables mid-course correction, not just post-facto evaluation. 

Alongside, Rwanda's post-genocide recovery strategy included performance contracts for local government officials tied directly to national development goals. These contracts are publicly disclosed and regularly monitored. The result is a sharp rise in accountability and a reduction in elite capture. 

Additionally, in Brazil, municipalities like Porto Alegre have pioneered participatory budgeting that allows local citizens to directly influence public spending decisions. This has not only improved service delivery but also enhanced trust in governance.

In addition, New Zealand uses co-design methods and policy labs to assess policies in real-world contexts before full-scale implementation. This iterative, bottom-up approach ensures policies are socially and culturally fit. In Bangladesh, such mechanisms are almost absent, leading to implementation that ignores local nuance. 

Furthermore, Ethiopia created the ATA to function as a technical arm supporting long-term agricultural reform across ministries. This hybrid approach – a government-embedded but semi-autonomous agency – helped bridge the policy-execution gap through persistent, adaptive support. 

Bangladesh's heavy reliance on transient projects means that institutional memory is lost and learnings are not institutionalised. Even India's MGNREGA is a striking example of how policy design can integrate ground realities. 

It allows local authorities and communities to decide on projects while ensuring transparency through social audits. The adaptability of the scheme to local needs has been key to its resilience.

Based on the actual landscape and global lessons, several shifts are necessary. The most critical issue is to enhance political commitment to reform. Reducing political interference in administrative processes by strong political will and institutional safeguards is very crucial. 

Besides, participatory policy formulation is especially important. Engaging citizens, especially marginalised communities, in the policy process ensures relevance and builds ownership. Alongside, leveraging digital tools can improve monitoring, reduce corruption, and foster real-time feedback loops. 

Additionally, empowering local governments with resources and decision-making authority, while ensuring robust checks and balances, is key. Moreover, continuous investment in human resources, especially at the grassroots level, can enhance implementation effectiveness.

In Bangladesh, the journey from file to field remains fraught with obstacles, but not without hope. Recognising the systemic nature of policy execution failure is the first step toward reform. Global examples demonstrate that execution excellence is not incidental – rather, it is engineered through institutional design, political will, and continuous learning. 

For Bangladesh, the shift from paper policy to practical progress will require not just reform but a transformation in how governance is conceptualised, structured, and delivered. 

Overall, we need to realise that the success of policy lies not in the rhetoric of plans, but in the reality of impact. Until Bangladesh transforms its institutional architecture and political logic of delivery, the journey from file to field will remain perilously incomplete.

Dr Mohammad Kamrul Hasan is a Public Administration and Public Policy Analyst.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.