Bureaucracy and The Myth of Community Development – Bangladesh Point of View

Now development as a dynamic concept is not progressing in a desired direction. The gap between aspiration and achievement is yawning. Popular expectation has turned into mass frustration. The situation surmises precondition for governance at the community level with capable and dynamic bureaucracy.

No body perhaps dispute the fact that bureaucracy that nourishes traditional orientations with rigid frame of mind as the legacies of the colonial past has little chance to play dynamic role in fulfilling the expectation of the modern community. Community development introduced in the country pretty long back has become a hoax with institutional stereotypes contra-indicated in fast changing societies. Bureaucratic model of public management in service delivery and sectoral governance is quite unable to rise to the occasion.

Our insights about the problems of bureaucracy have references in the concepts and theories of bureaucracy and development administration. Many authors have outlined the problems of government in modern state of course admitting that bureaucratic expertise is central to the management of development.

Community development is no exception. Nevertheless the myth of community development as the accumulation of cumbrous bureaucratic rituals projects the negative side of conventional practice all to the disillusionment of the mass. Bureaucratic contingent of the administration of community development as such runs counter to the concept of community participation in decision-making. Community affairs need to be addressed through community stakeholders with proactive role of civil society.

Mostly members of mid-level bureaucracy belonging to administrative cadre take policy lead in field administration with little concerns about participatory development at the community level. So it is hard to qualify local bureaucracy with unequivocal commitment to human capital development and capacity building. Reported shortfalls in bureaucratic leadership are obvious. Lack of linkage with beneficiaries is a critical factor impeding local participation and community organization.

Given the nature of the state civil servants dominate policy field. This is due largely to their strong and developed organizational network and strength. The phenomenon of bureaucratization based on legal framework leads to efficiency in community services in general. Nevertheless hypothetical efficiency turns into cherish bureaucracy as an idealized sector, Merton, Gouldneer, Selzrick and many other endeavored to elicit an understanding of what might be labeled as the dysfunction of bureaucracy. Peter Blau eluted to the pervasiveness bureaucratic influence in modern state.

Centralization is a synonym for bureaucratization. Dysfunction of local bureaucracy in community development is obviously one of the consequences of centralization of public administration. Community participation is largely impeded by the very orientation of local officials to central command extending far to local government and field administration. The whole process of development at the community level is, as such, reduced to non-participation, as local government is appendam to centralized bureaucracy.