The bureaucracy in Bangladesh is often accused of inef ciency, corruption, nepotism, lack of accountability, and an assortment of other ailments. It is sometimes portrayed as standing in the way of development rather than stimulating it. The claim is often made that the bureaucratic ills are related to attitudes and mentalities among the bureaucrats. It is, however, dif cult to come across concrete data on which to base objective judgements. Further, commentators are rarely open to the possibility that some of the ills of which the bureaucracy is accused might simply be caused by overload and underpayment. In overall terms the country’s bureaucrats are few in comparison to other countries and their salaries are abysmally low (Khan and Zafarullah, 1991, p. 653). It is therefore still an open question as to what extent explanations of the workings of Bangladeshi bureaucracy should be sought in its special cultural features, in (inadequate) training and quali cation, or in the material conditions of work. Answers to questions such as these are vital if the right remedies for administrative development are to be chosen. This article focuses mainly on describing the administrative norms (culture) that characterize Bangladeshi bureaucracy. The article’s main argument is that Bangladeshi bureaucracy has a long history and has been subjected to in uences from highly disparate sources, indigenous as well as foreign. The country’s checkered history may have left imprints on the bureaucracy in the form of con icting norms and cultural tensions that may be dif cult for administrative leaders to handle. The article therefore rst seeks to map the spread of various types of cultural norms in the public bureaucracy and to relate these to various traditions and in uences. The main question that is asked in this analysis is what is the dominant type of culture like, and what are the consequences that might follow with regard to ‘good government’. Second, an attempt is made to identify if it is possible to identify bearers of administrative subcultures derived from some of the traditions identi ed. International Review of Sociology—Revue Internationale de Sociologie, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2002
[1]
C. Lancaster.
GOVERNANCE AND DEVELOPMENT: THE VIEWS FROM WASHINGTON
,
1993
.
[2]
M. Tayeb,et al.
Organizations and National Culture: A Comparative Analysis
,
1988
.
[3]
G. Hofstede,et al.
Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values
,
1980
.
[4]
C. Hardy.
Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems
,
1983
.
[5]
T. Young,et al.
Governance, the World Bank and Liberal Theory
,
1994
.
[6]
J. Ruiz Moreno.
[Organizational learning].
,
2001,
Revista de enfermeria.
[7]
Shivaji Ganguly.
Patron-Client Politics and Business in Bangladesh
,
1994
.
[8]
Christopher Pollitt,et al.
Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience
,
1990
.
[9]
R. Putnam,et al.
Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
,
1994
.
[10]
B. Sharma,et al.
Sustainable agricultural development.
,
1998
.
[11]
R. Putnam,et al.
Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
,
1994
.
[12]
M. Shubik,et al.
A Behavioral Theory of the Firm.
,
1964
.
[13]
Johan P. Olsen.
Organized Democracy: Political Institutions in a Welfare State-- the Case of Norway
,
1983
.
[14]
Henry Mintzberg,et al.
The structuring of organizations : a synthesis of the research
,
1980
.