DH Choudhury

Bankers today are often viewed through a narrow lens as profiteering professionals. With each bank failure or financial crisis, the finger is pointed at them. Much of this misunderstanding is caused by limited public awareness of how banks and bankers actually function in a complex modern economy. The purpose here is not to prove a case but to place matters in perspective.

Bangladesh Bank has recently taken an unprecedented step in restructuring some banks. This move will only bring real benefits if individual banks carry out their own internal reforms.

The prospect of five Islamic banks in Bangladesh being merged into one “New Bank” has raised a general concern over whether such a move is the most effective solution to their problems. Merger memories exist in our banking history. My central argument is that restructuring each bank individually offers a more sustainable path forward.

The banking sector in Bangladesh is at a crossroads. Non-performing loans, the near absence of corporate governance, weak risk management practices and a lack of accountability have all prompted urgent calls for reform. International models are often considered key solutions, and consultants from abroad are brought in as preferred advisers. Yet, the real strength of sustainable reform lies in the knowledge, experience and contextual understanding of local professionals.

Readers may agree with my supposition that the current financial misfortune of Bangladesh is largely caused by white-collar crimes. Edwin Sutherland, a US sociologist who coined this terminology, defined white-collar crime as “a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation”.

Recently I was listening to a YouTube preacher calling all bankers as sinners. A section of people in our society have similar perceptions about bankers. This encouraged me to explore further on this claim. The result I got is something that I like to share.

There is no single and straight answer to this question. The causes of failure are multiple and complex. We shall try to analyse some of them and see if we can arrive at a rational outcome.

Corporate executives usually control their business operations through a standard operating procedure. However, on some occasions, executives act differently under the influence of an unseen force referred to as institutional imperative.