| 2. The actors: Who is involved ? |
 |
 |
| |
2.1 Government and parliament
The Bengalese PRS-Process is under the overall control of the Ministry of Finance.
The responsibility for the preparation of the PRSP, however, rests with the National Steering Committee (NSC), which is chaired by the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and which draws on all important ministries. Furthermore, this committee is responsible for reviewing the progress of PRS-implementation and of attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) (GoB 2005, pp. xii, 26, 34, 201).
A so-called National Poverty Focal Point(NPFP) was established within the General Economics Division(GED) of the Planning Commission to act as the secretariat for the strategy formulation process. These institutions are responsible for the preparation of documents on PRS-implementation and MDG-achievement (ibid. pp. xii, 201). The NPFP carried out the consultations in the course of the PRSP-preparation (ibid., p. 6)
The NSC constituted twelve thematic groups, which are under the leadership of Ministries and Divisions and are supposed to include representatives of the private sector and of civil society (CPD n.s., p. 54) - yet the participation of civil society representatives is not apparent from the listing in the PRSP (GoB 2005, p. 205 et seqq.). These thematic groups cover the areas of macroeconomic stability and pro-poor growth, financial sector reforms, infrastructural development and reforms, domestic resources mobilization, reforms in governance, health, education, women's and children's rights and advancement, rural development, agriculture, private sector development, information and communication technology (ibid., pp. 34, 205 et seqq.).
The parliament is not significantly involved. The government claims that it subsequently involved parliamentarians into the preparation of the PRSP and that there have been discussions in parliamentary commissions and in three all-party meetings (GoB 2005, p. xii). However, the government gives no information on the specific content of the discussions or the parliamentary contribution to the strategy. Kamruzzaman (2006, p. 3) criticises that no parliamentary debate has taken place. Consequently it is not possible to speak of a systematic inclusion of parliament.
2.2 Civil society
The number of civil society organisations has considerably grown during the last years. By now about 1800 registered non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and a multitude of unregistered community based organisations (CBOs) have been identified in the country (EC 2001, p. 15).
As far as social and development issues are concerned, the Bengalese NGO scene is undoubtedly an indispensable supplement to the weak governmental institutions. In the provision of social services and security networks these organisations take an elemental role - not least because they are also active in those regions in which the social services on the part of the government are inadequate (Government of Japan 2006, p. 10 et. seq.; Auswärtiges Amt 2006). Dietzel (2006, p. 7) points out that from the 1990s these organisations, in addition to directly combating poverty, have been increasingly campaigning for socio-political change: They promote the rights of landless women, initiate demonstrations for clean drinking water, run primary schools, organise health programmes and with their micro credits contribute to the improvement of the living conditions of the Bengalese population. NGOs in Bangladesh estimate they reach around 26,5 million people with their work. In this context the Bengalese economist Mohammad Yunus should be mentioned. The 66-year old and the Grameen Bank he founded have been awarded with the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2006. Yunus and his bank have rendered outstanding services to economic and social development "from the bottom". The Grameen Bank issues micro credits to small-scale entrepreneurs. To date, the bank declares to have granted credits to 6,6 million people, 97 percent of them women .
Civil society representatives appear to have been included into the PRS-process from the beginning - albeit in this context one should note the criticism cited earlier, regarding the selection of included actors on the part of the government.
In 2002 the NGOs Action Aid Bangladesh and People's Empowerment Trust (PET) actively campaigned for the extension of the time limit for the PRSP. They called a national NGO convention where a declaration was passed which asked, of the World Bank in particular, that the tight timeframe limit (initially until the end of September 2002) be extended (Akash 2002, p. 8; Declaration of National Convention). With success - the World Bank yielded to the pressure from civil society and extended the time limit into the year 2003.
2.3 Other Bengalese actors
According to the government, union and private sector representatives have also been involved in the consultative processes for the preparation of the PRSP (GoB 2005, p. 25 et seq.). In addition, 25 leading private sector representatives have formed the so-called Private Sector Consultative Group (PSCG), which aims at making a contribution to the reform process (Wilson 2006, p. 1).
2.4 External actors / donors
All in all, about 30 bi- and multilateral donors cooperate with Bangladesh. With the aim of coordinating their work the Local Consultation Group (LCG) was established in 1988 (for further information see: http://www.lcgbangladesh.org).
In addition to the EU members who are Bangladesh's major donors, and the European Commission as a multilateral donor, Japan, the US, the World Bank and the Asian Development Fund, among others, are part of the country's donor community.
The work of the European Commission in Bangladesh is based on a bilateral Cooperation Agreement from 2001 and a Country Strategy Paper (CSP). Over a period of three years (2002-04) the Commission disbursed around 135 million US-Dollars to Bangladesh. It is also interesting that the Commission significantly raised the funding of NGOs in the 1990s, which consultants later criticised with the argument of "heavy dependence". As a result, the Commission decided to reduce the direct funding of NGOs (from around 40% to approximately 33%) within the scope of the new Country Strategy Paper. The stated goal was to "enhance sustainability" and avoid parallel structures (NGOs / Government) (EC 2001, p. 23). Due to continuing or even expanding governance problems (see paragraph 4.4), however, this plan was abandoned (EC 2005, p. 5).
The EU has repeatedly been criticised for incoherent, at times even competing, priorities and strategies (e.g. see Action Aid 2003). In the meantime, however, the development of a Joint Multi-annual Programming Framework (JPF) is being planned, which is a first step towards a comprehensive joint donor strategy (EC 2006, p. 5). Furthermore, it should be mentioned that, according to independent actors' perceptions, the IMF is trying to press many of its traditional reform programmes into the PRSP (CPD 2002, p. 75).
| 3. The processes: When and how does participation happen? |
|
|
| |
3.1 Participation in analysis and strategy development
During the process for the preparation of the I-PRSP the civil society consultations, according to the government, were organised and carried out by the NGO Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC). Allegedly it initially organised workshops on individual sectors with poor sections of the population and NGOs at local (upazila-) level. In a second consultation phase field workers, NGOs, women's groups, local and religious leaders, representatives of local governments and an unspecified cross section of civil society were consulted. Afterwards three consultation workshops, in which government officials, representatives of professional associations, civil society and donors participated, took place on national level (GoB 2003, p. 1 et seq.).
Academics and NGOs criticise the top-down approach in this phase. Because of the pressure from the IMF and World Bank, that Bangladesh would not receive concessionary credits without a PRSP, the Government hastily appointed an internal commission for its preparation. The I-PRSP was written by two experts only (Akash 2002, p. 7). According to Rahman, it cannot be said that a consultation process has taken place, because only a few professional elites were invited to meetings with civil society organisations. Neither poor population groups nor the media were included (Rahman 2002, p. 5).
In the PRSP the Government describes consultations at national level, regional levels and direct consultation meetings between poor people and development partners. It declares to have involved parliamentarians. The consultation process took place in March / April 2004. To be able to make the participation broad-based, the National Poverty Focal Point (NPFP) prepared a comprehensive list of potential stakeholders at the outset (GoB 2005, p. 24 et seq.).
The participative consultation workshop at the national level allegedly included members of civil society, ethnic minorities, physically disabled people, experts (e.g. on IT, infrastructure, water resources, environment, governance, health, education and agriculture). In addition, participants included representatives of think-tanks, the media, prominent research institutions, specialised hospitals, educational institutions, apex organisations in the fields of micro-finance and legal aid, slum-dwellers associations, professional women's law societies, government divisions, NGOs as well as private sector representatives, economists and elderly people (ibid.).
According to the Government, the consultations held at regional levels covered all six Divisions of the country. The consultations were jointly organised by the NPFP and the Divisional Commissioner of the respective Division. Allegedly, members of civil society, specialists, academics, municipal chairmen, children and youths, ethnic minorities, physically disabled people, journalists and other media representatives participated in the regional consultations. Furthermore, the participation of representatives of various institutions (from the fields of education, health, agriculture) and organisations of the poor, women's groups, business people's forums, unions, human-rights groups, research institutes, associations of farmers, fishermen, weavers and NGOs is mentioned. Government estimates assume that the number of participants in each of the regional meetings amounted to approximately 200 people (GoB 2005, p. 26).
According to the Government, the regional consultation meetings were structured as follows: The participating actors were divided into twelve groups according to as many fixed subject areas. The debate within the groups was structured into three parts: (1.) a general discussion on the subject of poverty (2.) detailed discussions on predefined subjects and (3.) a free debate on any aspects the individual participants wished to get involved in. To be able to make discussions as outcome-oriented as possible, the NPFP allegedly developed guidelines for the general debate as well as for the discussions concerned with specific subjects and submitted them to the National Steering Committee (NSC) for approval. In addition, a preparatory meeting between the chairman of the NSC, the NPFP and the six Divisional Commissioners was held prior to the regional discussion meetings. According to the Government, special care was given to select the "right kind of participants" for the twelve discussion groups to include actors from different regional areas and to insure an adequate representation of women. Working papers and the aforementioned guidelines were allegedly sent to the Divisional Commissioners in good time for the regional consultations. These documents then found their way to the participants via the offices of the Divisional Commissioners. This, too, occurred in a timeframe adequate to the preparation for the meetings (ibid.).
An additional form of participative consultations described in the PRSP is the direct combined consultation of small groups of poor and vulnerable people with policy and development planners. Through discussion rounds and interviews the poor, according to the PRSP, were directly included into the PRS-consultations and the preparatory process. All in all, ten groups (comprising workers from different sectors, housemaids, potters, fishermen, cobblers and people from ethnic minorities) were involved. According to the Government's statement the participants showed great interest in the consultations, described their problems very candidly, gave insights into the way past and present policies influenced their lives and were able to present various recommendations (ibid., p. 28).
All in all, the Government describes the participative consultations as very fruitful and constructive (ibid.). The results of the consultations have allegedly been used as general guidelines for preparing the reports of the thematic groups and the PRSP (GoB 2005, p. 28; see also CPD n.d., p. 60 et seq.).
In their Joint Staff Advisory Note on the PRSP the IMF and the World Bank state that the strategy has benefited from consultations with members of parliament, development partners, academics and NGOs. They recommend that the processes for incorporating feedback be improved until the next review cycle (IMF / IDA 2005, p. 2).
Independent sources observe that it is the Government that must take the initiative to involve all stakeholders effectively in the process (Karim 2005, p.12). According to Karim, however, so far no serious efforts have been made to include civil society and the poor themselves into the preparation of the important political document. Moreover, the author criticises that the donors, too, are not very interested in pursuing the participation issue. Beyond official consultations, however, civil society reflections on the I-PRSP as well as the PRSP have allegedly been remarkable. For instance, discussions were held in the course of seminars, workshops and meetings with the International Financial Institutions (IFIs). Moreover, media campaigns from various organisations, including NGOs, women's groups, professional groups, unions, political activists and researchers, inspired discussions. According to the author, considerable amounts of information and data have been generated and used in their campaigns to increase critical public awareness of the PRSP (regarding both its opportunities and its risks). Unfortunately, civil society activities to influence the PRS-process in Bangladesh have not been coordinated. For this reason, the efforts made so far showed no significant influence on the process (Karim 2005, p. 12 et seq.).
3.2 Participation in PRS implementation
The budget constitutes the most important instrument for PRS-implementation. In general, it has to be said that the scope for civil participation in Bangladesh is very limited in terms of the local budgeting system. Nevertheless, there are some first examples of "experimentation" in this field. For example, the Government, in cooperation with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and United Nations Capital Development Fund(UNCDF), initiated the so-called Sirajganj Project, which advances the participation of poor and vulnerable groups in the allocation of public resources (Rahman 2005, p. 19 et seq., 12).
Regarding participation in concrete projects, the Government states in the PRSP that NGOs are for instance included in the implementation of the Expanded Programme for Immunization (EPI). Within this programme, which the Government says is prioritised, children and infants are being vaccinated (GoB 2005, S. 139). Furthermore, various national and international NGOs are said to have worked on community based Early Childhood Development Pre School (ECDP) educational activities (ibid., p. 129). In the PRSP the Government, in addition to concrete programmes, in which civil society actors are already involved, identifies areas, in which NGO-cooperation might be possible in the future. The implementation of a programme for out-of school children in rural areas (GoB 2005, p. 130) and NGOs providing information and services to improve juveniles' health (ibid., p. 141) are two examples.
3.3 Participation in monitoring and evaluation
In their Joint Staff Advisory Note on the PRSP the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs) criticise the Government for its not very participatory approach to monitoring and evaluation: To rely exclusively on concerned ministries for data on input and output could be misleading and inadequate. A third-party validation is considered necessary, especially concerning the monitoring of outputs (IMF / IDA 2005, p. 11). This criticism is shared by civil society sources: In a joint statement several NGOs (Save the Children UK, Save the Children Sweden-Denmark, CARE, Concern and NFOWD, amongst others) call for organisations outside of government to be fully included into the main monitoring mechanisms - the option of hearing independent voices is not enough (Save the Children UK 2005, p. 15).
| 4. The framework: What are key factors determining the impact of participation? |
|
|
| |
4.1 Structures
The available information does not clearly show whether civil society actors are involved in the thematic working groups. This, however, would be a positive innovation (see 2.1).
4.2 Legal basis
To enable effective participation, basic rights and securities must be guaranteed. Among these are acceptance of the separation of powers, freedom of opinion and freedom of the press.
The comparably young state (Bangladesh has gained independence as recently as 1971) does have a constitutional order, but with limited separation of powers. In practice, the executive exerts considerable influence over the lower levels of the judiciary. The state of individual human rights must be judged unsatisfactory. Arrests and murders of journalists who are critical of the Government and investigate in a criminal / political environment occur. Amnesty International also points out that there have been politically motivated arrests of leading NGO representatives (see 4.4). Thus participation in Bangladesh involves certain risks (Amnesty International 2006, p. 1, 5 et seqq.; Dietzel 2006, p. 7 et seq.).
4.3 Legitimacy
The following aspects reduce the legitimacy of the PRS-process in Bangladesh: The democratically elected representative body, the parliament, has so far not been systematically included into the preparatory process of the PRSP. The poor and vulnerable subgroups are involved into the PRS-process to a limited extend only. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the full version of the PRSP constitutes a significant progress compared to the interim-version. More space was given to the participation of the poor and of marginalised groups. Apparently, a selective pro-government participation practice was pursued in the process leading to the preparation of the I-PRSP. No specific, independent information is available on the question of whether this deficiency was resolved in the preparatory phase of the PRSP.
4.4 Capacity
At times the Government's direct actions restrict civil society actors' capacity to act. On the one hand this is expressed in financial constraints: From the beginning of 2002 the Government has been refusing access to financial assets to several NGOs (in Bangladesh NGOs need an official licence to receive foreign funds) (see Dietzel 2006, p. 7 et seq.; Amnesty International 2006, p. 5 et seqq.). As a result of the blocking of funds these NGOs have no longer been able to carry out their work to an equal extend. About 2,5 million poor people are said to be directly affected (Dietzel 2006, p. 8). On the other hand, Government actions weaken NGOs' personnel capacities: Amnesty International reports that leading NGO members - particularly from organisations that promote women's rights - have in some cases been imprisoned for months. According to the information at hand, the arrests were politically motivated (Dietzel 2006, p. 7 et seq.; Amnesty International 2006, p. 5 et seqq.). Relating to the concrete implementation of the participatory process, access to information is named as a key obstacle. Alongside these external circumstances, however, a number of internal causes for civil society's existing shortcomings in the Bengalese participatory process can be identified. Rahman (2004, p. 10) points out knowledge deficits, a lack of interconnectedness with the grassroot level and personnel constraints. Many civil society organisations lack the necessary capabilities to effectively play a part in political processes (limited political capacity) and don't have a sufficiently developed understanding of public expenditure management. It is obvious that under these circumstances quality-improving useful contributions - that is formulating and propagating realistic pro-poor policy alternatives - can only be made to a limited degree (ibid.; Karim 2005, p. 13).
| 5. Overall assessment |
|
|
| |
Even though the Government's detailed account of the consultations describes an inclusive, broad-based participatory process, this does not match the assessment from civil society actors (c.f. Karim 2005; Kamruzzaman 2006). The Governments low willingness to seriously include civil society representatives into monitoring and evaluation, too, rather conveys the image of a government that offers little space for civil society participation. A look at the descriptions of general government actions of the Bengalese state regarding civil society - such as are available from Amnesty International - supports this assessment.
| 6. Service |
|
|
| |
6.1 Statistics
General indicators
a. Development status
Deficiencies in the field of good governance and the immensely high level of corruption are constraining factors for the country's economic and social development. With a per capita income of 447 USD (2005) Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world.
b. Indebtedness
Bangladesh is no HIPC-country.
c. Further statistical sources
Human Development Reports
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/view_reports.cfm?type=1
UNDP office in Bangladesh
http://www.un-bd.org/undp/
World Bank statistics
http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/aag/bgd_aag.pdf
http://devdata.worldbank.org/external/CPProfile.asp?..PTYPE=CP
6.2 Important documents
a. PRS-related documents
IMF / IDA (2005): Bangladesh. Joint Staff Advisory Note on the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Washington D.C.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPRS1/Resources/Bangladesh_JSAN(Dec30-2005).pdf [Accessed 11.10.2006]
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh / General Economics Division Planning Commission (2005): Bangladesh. Unlocking the Potential. National Strategy for Accelerated Poverty Reduction.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPRS1/Resources/Bangladesh_PRSP(Oct-16-2005).pdf [Accessed 11.10.2006]
Joint Staff Assessment of PRSP Preparation Status Report
http://poverty.worldbank.org/files/Bangladesh_PRSP_Prog_Rep_JSA.pdf
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) Preparation Status Report
http://poverty.worldbank.org/files/Bangladesh_PRSP_Prog_Rep.pdf
IMF / IDA (2003): Bangladesh. Joint Staff Assessment of the Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. Washington D.C.
http://povlibrary.worldbank.org/files/Bangladesh_IPRSP_JSA.pdf [Accessed 11.10.2006]
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh / Economic Relations Division / Ministry of Finance (2003): Bangladesh. A National Strategy for Economic Growth, Poverty Reduction and Social Development.
http://povlibrary.worldbank.org/files/14223_Bangladesh_IPRSP.pdf [Accessed 11.10.2006]
b. Major donor documents
EC / Government of Bangladesh (GoB) (2001): Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the People's Republic of Bangladesh on partnership and development. Dhaka / Brussels.
http://www.eur-lex.europa.eu/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_118/l_11820010427en00470047.pdf [Accessed 23.10.2006]
EC (2001): Country Strategy Paper Bangladesh 2002-2006. Brussels.
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/bangladesh/sp/02_06_en.pdf [Accessed 23.10.2006]
EC (2005): National Indicative Programme of European Community Support 2006 Bangladesh. Brussels.
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/bangladesh/sp/nip_06.pdf [Accessed 23.10.2006]
EC (2006): EU Aid: Delivering more, better and faster. (= Communication from the Commission COM 2006 / 87 final, 02.03.2006). Brussels
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/7/36764552.pdf [Accessed 23.10.2006]
Government of Bangladesh (GoB) / Donors (2005): Bangladesh Harmonization Action Plan. Dhaka.
http://www.aidharmonization.org/download/254398/HAP.pdf [Accessed 23.10.2006]
Government of Japan (2006): Japan's Country Assistance Program for Bangladesh.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/oda/region/sw_asia/bangladesh.pdf [Accessed 20.10.2006]
6.3 Literature, reports und analyses
a. PRS-related publications
Action Aid Bangladesh (2001): Process Diagram PRSP Campaign.
Akash, M. M. (2002): Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper: What, Why & for Whom.
Centre for Policy Dialogue Bangladesh (2002): PRSP Exercise in Bangladesh: A CPR Review of the Preparation Process.
http://www.cpd-bangladesh.org/work/irbd_docs/INT02-04.doc [Accessed 23.10.2006]
Centre for Policy Dialogue Bangladesh (n.s.): Finalisation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy For Bangladesh: A CPR Review of the Process and Interim Measures.
Eberlei, Walter (2006): EC aid to Bangladesh - Brief Country Profile (p. 7-13). In: Coopération Internationale pour le Développement et la Solidarité (CIDSE) / Caritas Europa (Eds.) (2006): The EU's footprint in the South. CIDSE-CE EU DEVELOPMENT POLICY ADVOCACY PROJECT. European Community aid profile in 8 countries (not published yet).
Kamruzzaman, Palash (2006): Wieder nur ein hierarchisches Konzept. In: Zeitschrift für Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit (E+Z).
http://www.inwent.org/E+Z/content/archiev-ger/07-2006/schwer_art4.html [Accessed 20.10.2006]
Karim, Mahbubul (2005): Civil Society Organisations and the PRSP Process in Bangladesh: Lessons learned. (p. 9-14) In: FIN (2005): Forum Case Study Papers 2004-2005. Experiences and Viewpoints: Civil Society, Poverty Eradication and the Millennium Development Goals. May 2005.
http://g05.netedit.info/docs/FINALFORUM2004DSMLG05.pdf [Accessed 23.10.2006]
Rahman, Habibur (2002): PRSP in Bangladesh. Presentation, Bonn 21.09.2002.
Rahman, Habibur (2003): Mit Zuckerbrot und Peitsche. Armutsbekämpfung in Bangladesch in Zusammenarbeit mit IWF und Weltbank.
Rahman, Habibur (2003): PRSP and Bangladesh.
Rahman, Atiur (2004): An Overview of PRSP. Origin, Evolution and Critical Dimensions with reference to Bangladesh. October 2004. Dhaka.
http://www.shamunnay.org/download/Sehd2.pdf [Accessed 23.10.2006]
Rahman, Atiur (2005): Effective Participation. Community Engagement in Participatory Budgeting in Bangladesh. August. Dhaka.
http://www.shamunnay.org/download/brisbane01.pdf [Accessed 24.10.2006]
Save the Children UK (2005): Consultative Feedback on the PRSP in Bangladesh: Making the PRSP Child-Sensitive (joint statement of Save the Children UK, Save the Children Sweden-Denmark, CARE, CONCERN, Ain O Salish Kendra, Young Power in Social Action and NFOWD).
http://www.lcgbangladesh.org/prsp/docs/Consultative%20Feedback%20on%20the%20PRSP.pdf [Accessed 20.10.2006]
Yunus, Muhammad (2002): A national strategy for economic growth and poverty reduction.
http://www.bangladeshgateway.org/strategy_yunus.php [Accessed 20.10.2006]
b. Background information
Action Aid (2003): EU policy incoherence reduces aid effectiveness. London.
http://www.eldis.org/cf/research/disp/docdisplay/cfm?doc=DOC13722&ressourc=f1
Amnesty International USA (2006): Bangladesh. Human rights defenders under attac.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/bangladesh/document.do?id=ENGASA130042005 [Accessed 24.10.2006]
Dietzel, Peter (2006): Die Daumenschrauben sind angesetzt. Entwicklungsorganisationen wehren sich gegen zunehmende Bedrohung. In: Netz. Ausgabe 1 / 2006. Bedroht und trotzdem stark. Zivilgesellschaft in Bangladesch.
http://www.netz-bangladesh.de/set.php?id=projekte&uid=karte [Accessed 24.10.2006]
Wilson, Craig (2006): The Bangladesh Private Sector Forum. Case Study 1 - Bangladesh. Paris, February 2006.
http://www.publicprivatedialogue.org/case_studies/Case%20Study%2001%20-%20Bangladesh%20-%20Craig.pdf [Accessed 20.10.2006]
6.4 Links to participating actors
Action Aid Bangladesh
http://www.actionaidbangladesh.org/
Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS) - independent research institute
http://www.bcas.net/
Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) - development NGO
http://www.brac.net/
Centre for Policy Dialogue - civil society think-tank
http://www.cpd-bangladesh.org
LOKOJ
http://www.lokoj.org/
LCG Website
http://www.lcgbangladesh.org/
Parliament
http://www.parliamentofbangladesh.org/
PROSHIKA - development NGO
http://www.proshika.org/
Government
http://www.bangladesh.gov.bd/
SDNP Bangladesh
http://www.sdnbd.org/
6.5 General country information
Auswärtiges Amt
http://www.auswaertiges-mt.de/diplo/de/Laenderinformationen/Bangladesch/Innenpolitik.html [Accessed 21.10.2006]
Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ)
http://www.bmz.de/de/laender/partnerlaender/bangladesh/ [Accessed 21.10.2006]
Bangladesh Newspapers
http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/banglade.htm
Bangladesh Observer
http://www.bangladeshobserveronline.com/new/2004/11/03/index.htm
Fischer Weltalmanach
http://www.weltalmanach.de/staat/staat_detail.php?staat=Bangladesch
Netz - Partnerschaft für Entwicklung und Gerechtigkeit e.V.
http://www.netz-bangladesh.de/
Jahrbuch Spiegel-Online
http://www.spiegel.de/jahrbuch/0,1518,BGD,00.html
Source : www.prsp-watch.de (September 2005)
© German Version: VENRO
© English Version: The World Bank Group & VENRO. The first part
of this country profile (analysis excluding information on ressources)
has been comissioned by the World Bank, Social Development Department,
Participation and Civic Engagement Group and produced by a team of researchers
under the coordination of Prof. Dr. Walter Eberlei, University of Applied
Sciences Düsseldorf. Other team members were Dr. Thomas Siebold (Hamburg),
Bettina Führmann (Düsseldorf/Bochum), Christina-Maria Kreibich
(Duisburg) and Arne Wunder (Bielefeld/Duisburg). VENRO has been granted
the right to post it. The country profile largely draws on information
from a previous German version that was commissioned by VENRO. The views
expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the World Bank
or VENRO. VENRO is the Association of German development non-governmental
organisations (www.venro.org).
top
|
