Impact of the Local Government (Union Parishad) Act, 2009 on the Local Governance in Bangladesh: A Focus on People’s Participation and Accountability

1. Impact of the Local Government (Union Parishad) Act,
2009 on the Local Governance in Bangladesh: A Focus on
People’s Participation and Accountability
Pre-submission seminar on
Room No.373, Rabindra Bhaban
27 April 2014, 12:00AM
Supervisor
Dr. Pranab Kumar Panday
Professor
Department of Public Administration
University of Rajshahi
Presenter
Mst. Shuvra Chowdhury
PhD Fellow (Session 2011-12)
Department of Public Administration
University of Rajshahi

2. Input Process Output
Peoples' Participation
& UP Functionaries'
Accountability
•Participatory Planning
•Participatory Budgeting
•Dissemination of CC
•Seek RTI
Ward Shava
Open Budget
Meeting
Citizen Charter
Right To Info
Feedback
Systemic View of Participatory Planning and Budgeting

3. UNO for
approval
WC
PC
UP
OBM
UDCC
Cycle of planning and Budgeting Process of UP
SC

4. Research
Method
Case Study
Types of Data Qualitative Quantitative
Study Area
6 UP from three
different district
 METHODOLOGY...

5. District Upazilla Union
Parishad
No of Wards Sample frame
for WS
Sirajgonj
Raigonj Ghurka 9 3 (1,4, and 7
No)
Ullapara Hatikumrul 9 3
Rajshahi
Paba Hariyan 9 3
Godagari Gogram 9 3
Lalmonirhat
Aditmari Vadai 9 3
Kaligonj Kakina 9 3
 METHODOLOGY
Study Area of the Research

6. Sources of Data Primary Secondary
Focused Group
Discussion
Documentation
Review
Questionnaire
Survey
Direct
Observation

7. Documentation review

8. UP
Functionaries
General
people
participated at
WS and OBM
Key
Informants
Total
Interviewed 47 71 32 150
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Conducted Interview Sessions with UP Functionaries , Key informants
and general people

9. Participat
ed
%
Did not
participat
e
%
Service
recipients
% Total %
Hariyan 3 7.69 8 23.53 4 50.00 15 18.99
Gogram 6 15.38 6 17.65 4 50.00 16 20.25
Hatikumrul 6 15.38 6 17.65 0 0.00 12 15.19
Ghurka 8 20.51 4 11.76 0 0.00 12 15.19
Kakina 12 30.77 0 0.00 0 0.00 12 15.19
Vadai 4 10.26 8 23.53 0 0.00 12 15.19
Total 39 100.00 32 94.12 8 100.00 79 100.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120

10. % of real participants at WS
Participated
Did not
participate
Received
services
without
participation
Total
No of respondents 39 32 8 79
% 49.37 40.51 10.13 100.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120

11. Direct observation on OBM of various UPs

12. Conducted total 36 FGDs in the study area

13. People’s Participation
Dependent Variable
Participatory Mechanisms at WS and OBM
Access to Participation Mechanisms
Access To Information
Ability to participate in WS and OBM
Setting of meeting agenda
Understanding Information
Independent Variable
Data Analysis

14. This chapter delineated the real scenario of people’s
participation in the UPs through analysis of both
primary and secondary data. It explored the process of
WS and OBS of UP and illustrated the outcome of
participation.
Chapter-5
State of People’s Participation at the Local Level: Role of Ward
Shava and Open Budget:

15. Stage –I Formation of WC
WC formed for getting LGSP-II fund
Existing power structure deterred general people’s
participation in WC

16. Stage-2 Social Mapping
The UP members made plan ignoring the Planning process of
WS
Social mapping and WS

17. Ward -1,
5.09%
Ward-2, 3.08%
Ward-3,
3.64%
Ward-4, 3.13%
Ward-5, 8.30%
Ward-6,
3.80%
Ward-7, 3.23%
Ward-8, 3.30%
Ward-9,
5.41%
Ward -1,
5.07%
Ward-2,
4.72%
Ward-3, 5.20%
Ward-4, 6.86%
Ward-5,
4.15%
Ward-6,
4.25%
Ward-7, 4.00%
Ward-8,
4.46%
Ward-9,
5.55%
% of total voters participated at WS in Hariyan and Gogram UP
Stage-3: WS

18. % of total voters participated at WS in Hatikumrul and Ghurka UP
Ward -1,
5.09
Ward-2,
5.02
Ward-3, 8.90
Ward-4,
4.57Ward-
5,
4.30
Ward-6,
4.92
Ward-7, 4.55
Ward-8, 5.79
Ward-9, 6.72
Ward -1,
5.08
Ward-2, 6.88
Ward-3, 6.77
Ward-4,
4.92Ward-5,
5.13
Ward-6,
6.56
Ward-7, 5.70
Ward-8, 4.39
Ward-9,
5.11

19. % of total voters participated at WS in Vadai and Kakina UP
Ward -1, 7.28
Ward-2, 2.16
Ward-3,
3.59
Ward-4,
1.46
Ward-5, 5.14
Ward-6, 10.18
Ward-7, 9.04
Ward-8, 6.91
Ward-9, 8.80
Ward
-1,
3.24
Ward-2, 5.11
Ward-3, 3.46
Ward-4, 4.68
Ward-5, 5.96
Ward-6,
4.27
Ward-7, 4.19
Ward-8, 5.13
Ward-9,
4.51

20. Name of UP Social Mapping and
meeting
WS as Cultural
Program
Fake WS through Tea
party with neighbors
and relatives
Hariyan W1, W4, W7
Gogram W7, WI W4
Hatikumrul W1 W4 , W7
Ghurka W4 W1, W7
Kakina W4,W1 W7
Vadai WI, W4, and W7
Data revealed three types of WS

21. Name of UP PC SC UDCC
Hariyan No Yes No
Gogram No Yes Yes
Hatikumrul No Yes No
Ghurka No Yes No
Kakina No Yes No
Vadai No Yes No
Did various committees form for the planning and budgeting process of UP?
Stage-4 Union Development Plan

22. Except Vadai UP all UPs organized OBM
Stage-5 Disclosure of annual and five year plan
(OBM)

23. UNO for
approval
WCUP
OBM
Process followed by UPs

24. Impact analysis based on
39 Respondents who really
participated at WS
Made their decisions
through Social
mapping in WS

25. Who did participate at WS?
General people
Family
member/neigh
bour
Political
Influential
People
Total
No 25 11 3 39
% 64.10 28.21 7.69 100.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120

26. Access to Information regarding WS

27. Do the CCs contain information regarding WS and OBM?

28. How were people informed about WS ?
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
By the invitation of ward member
By the request of NGO official
Others (announcement, mobile call,etc)
Total
By the invitation of ward
member
By the request of NGO
official
Others (announcement,
mobile call,etc)
Total
% 79.49 7.69 12.82 100.00
respondents 31 3 5 39

29. How were citizens provided information by the UP
members?
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Informed Verbally
Written Invitation
Others
Total
Informed Verbally Written Invitation Others Total
Respondents 23 2 9 34
% 67.65 5.88 26.47 100.00

30. Whether Information provided for WS was adequate for participation of all
people? (Peoples Perception)
Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
No of Respondents 6 21 5 7 0 39
% 15.38 53.85 12.82 17.95 0.00 100.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120

31. Information provided by UP functionaries (UP functionaries
perception)
Invitation Letter Announcement (Miking) Personal Contact
Others (through mobile,
choukidar, dofadar etc.)
Respondents 10 16 30 10
% 23.81 38.1 71.43 23.81
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80

32. Satisfaction level of invitation process at WS (UP Functionaries' Perception)
Strongly
Agree
Agree Not Sure Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% 12.77 42.55 0.00 34.04 0.00 89.36
No of Respondents 6 20 0 16 0 42
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140

33. 26 UP members out
of 35 Agreed that
they are satisfied
with the invitation
process
Cause
They provided
sufficient
information
regarding WS

34. Ability to participate in WS and OBM
Understanding Information
Setting of meeting agenda

35. How did people know they can place demands in WS?
UP
Member/R
epresentati
ves
Discussion
through WS
NGO
Others
(Neighbour
s)
Do not
know
Total
No of Respondent 15 10 3 1 10 39
% 38.46 25.64 7.69 2.56 25.64 100.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120

36. Direct Observation on WS in Hariyan and Kakina UP

37. Demand placed in WS by people
Opinion Respondent %
Development programs and infrastructural programs 24 67.57
Finalize beneficiary list of various government programs 9 24.32
Public welfare activities such as street light, safe water,
public health
25 70.27
Social activities such as campaign against dowry, early
marriage, polygamy and drug addiction
7 18.92
Self-employment programs, local people’s interaction in
cultural and sports activities, interaction with school and
guardians
3 8.11
Others (financial support for school going children,
agricultural consultancy, financial support for the poor,
equal treatment for all etc.)
6 16.22
Do not know 7 18.92

38. Satisfied with the process of placing demand in WS (people’s
perception)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Strongly Agree
Agree
Not Sure
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Total
Strongly
Agree
Agree Not Sure Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
% 12.82 66.67 7.69 7.69 5.13 100.00
No of Respondents 5 26 3 3 2 39

39. Strongly
Agree
Agree Not Sure Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
No of Respondents 7 30 2 8 0 47
% 17.07 73.17 4.88 19.51 0.00 114.63
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
UP members satisfied with the process of placing demands at WS

40. 31 general people
out of 39 Agreed that
they are satisfied
with process of
setting agenda for
WS
Cause
There was no scope
for participation at
UP ,now the scope
has been created
through WS
37 UP members out
of 47 Agreed that
they are satisfied
with process of
setting agenda for
WS
People can express
their demands to
the UP members
directly
Cause

41. Prioritized demand lists were disp
watchin
Access to Budget Information

42. OBM as political platform of Local MP
Ability to participate at OBM

43. Open discussion session at OBM (Demand side Perspective)

44. Answer session by the UP functionaries at OBM

45. Whether satisfied with overall budget discussion or not (People’s
Perception)
Strongly
Agree
Agree Not Sure Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
No of Respondent 8 5 0 6 3 22
% 36.36 22.73 0.00 27.27 13.64 100.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120

46. Overall budget discussion was satisfactory (UP
Functionaries perception)
3
32
2 5
0
42
7.14
76.19
4.76
11.90
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Strongly
Agree
Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Total
No of Respondents %

47. 13 general people
out of 22 Agree that
they are satisfied
with overall budget
discussion
Cause
Though they did not
receive any service
but they were
satisfied with UP
functionaries’
reasonable answer
35 UP members out
of 47 Agree that they
are satisfied with
overall budget
discussion
People become
aware about the
capacity of UP.
Cause
Study Findings

48. Understanding of Information that provided through various medium
at OBM

49. Level of understanding of the concept used in WS and OBM those who
attended at least one meeting
Strongly
Agree
Agree Not Sure Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
No of Respondent 2 8 4 4 0 18
% 11.11 44.44 22.22 22.22 0.00 100.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120

50. 16 UP members out
of 42 expressed their
dissatisfaction with
the invitation process
Cause
Lack of publicity due to no
allowance for organizing
WS and OBM
Local Power Structure
Organized WS and OBM for
formality of getting LGSP-II
Fund
Lack of Manpower
Study Findings

51. Challenges
of UP
Planning and
Budgeting
process
UP functionaries'
Opinion
Lack of Resources
Non cooperation of Higher
level Administrative
Authority
Lack of Awareness of
General People
Motive of general People
Study Findings

52. Challenges
of UP
Planning and
Budgeting
process
Key Informant’s Opinion
Delay in disbursement of UP
related funds
involvement of Local MP in
UP related fund utilization
Negligence of duty of UP
functionaries
Lack of knowledge of UP
Functionaries regarding
Finance and Accounts of UP
Lack of Awareness of General
People
Motive of general People
Study Findings

53. Why didn't people participate at WS and OBM?
Political pressure
Lack of information of such meeting
Inconvenient Meeting Time and Place
Religious Code
Patriarchy and Restricted mobility of
Women
Study Findings

54.  The decentralization of the state power is not new in
Bangladesh. But the two new dimensions of the UP act 2009
such as ward shava and open budget system are innovations in
LGIs.
 CONCLUSION
 Constitutional guarantees and legal mechanisms do not ensure
participation of all people as illiteracy and complexity of
procedures have denied their accessibility to the participatory
spaces. The real development will be only achieved when each
and every activity of LGIs will be controlled by the citizen. The
challenges of people’s participation in the working process of UP
must be tackled carefully. Because no other way will be effective
without making the powerless and poor citizen equipped with
their own right for development.

55. Thank you