Quality of policy formulation by the government is being increasingly questioned as those, many tend to believe, are not based on hard facts, credible data and thus evidence, on most occasions. The men who are in charge of making public policies are aware of this fact. Yet they are, apparently, not truly interested in getting credible data and ensuring effective policymaking. Thus the visible inertia at the level of policymaking has always given rise to suspicion about the quality of the policies that the government has been pursuing in various sectors. The mismatch between policy objectives and actual achievements is, usually, the outcome of the inherent flaws in the process of policymaking, largely on account of faulty data.
The failure, deliberate or otherwise, to include credible data, causing such mismatches, is embedded in the country's decision-making process. The perennial barrier here to right policymaking is the unavailability of quality and credible data, primarily with the national statistical organisation, the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). Why is so? The answer was given to this question by none other than by a key government policy adviser at a function, organised by a private think-tank early this week in Dhaka, on the occasion of the launching of a book. The adviser questioned the quality of manpower available with the BBS. He was equally critical of the quality and competence of the men engaged in policy planning at the country's Planning Commission. The adviser was candid enough to admit the serious dearth of professional expertise in important government bodies that are directly involved with policy planning.
In the recent past there were attempts to revamp the BBS so that it could produce credible and reliable data. But the implementation of the planned actions is yet to see the light of the day. The BBS is still handicapped by shortage of manpower and logistics, besides lacking in the much-needed operational independence as far as collection, compilation and dissemination of data are concerned. Notwithstanding this, the government policymaking is almost entirely dependent on data that are made available by the BBS; international and other national organisations also do not have any other option but to use the same data. Unfortunately, there is no private sector data source at the national level. Even data compiled by different government organisations are often found to be conflicting and insufficient as well as irreverent, in nature. The BBS can hardly overcome such shortcomings on its own under the given circumstances.
The need for support of evidence and credible data for informal decision-making, becomes more pressing when policies, and those too, of the right kind, have to be formulated to benefit the nation. If the policymakers remain more prone to making policies and decisions based on mere populism or meeting their narrow political interests than to ensuring people's maximum well-being, such policies would then cause more harm than good to economy and society. Suspicion is also there that the government policymakers, at times, do tend to manipulate or 'doctor' data to hide truth and highlight fictitious or misleading achievements.
In the absence of alternative source of credible data, the possibilities of such manipulation cannot be ruled out. But it would serve no worthy purpose for any government agency to follow such a course of action. The fact remains largely incontestable that the government has limited analytical capacity. Under the circumstances, it should try to build partnership with the private think tanks and research organisations to ensure availability of credible data for important policy planning. This would, quite realistically, help the policymakers overcome the barriers to authentic policymaking.
