Rural marketing network

By A Mahasen Dhaka
7 July 2005, 18:00 PM
Economist Abdul Bayes has rightly pointed out the weak structures in the rural-urban marketing networks prevailing at present in Bangladesh (DS June 28). Not that the government planners are unaware of the shortcoming; stray development projects and some good work by some NGO nets are trying to help the farmers and other producers. But the grey areas have to be officially noticed and corrective actions initiated (to attract more voters).

The fertility of the Bangladeshi soil is second to none, helped by availability of plenty of water and human resources --'lucky to be in a deltaic region'. The cottage industry has made noticeable progress in the last few decades; and, lately, the weaknesses in the SME sector have been identified. What appears to be missing is the integrated overall effect visible to the man in the street, and to the small business groups in the villages. The villagers cannot analyse their own solutions, and can only point out their personal problems. More listening posts are required, properly tuned.

The bug is proper marketing mechanism at different 3-D levels. The middlemen are still holding sway in marketing and distribution transactions, and get richer at the expense of the producers.

One reason is that one viable alternative, namely, the well-tested co-operative system has failed, due to current corrupt practices (political origin).

Unless political governance is honest at the different tiers of transactions, there is no hope for the primary producers in the rural areas to get their due share of the economic returns, in spite of the best intentions of the prime minister and her cabinet colleagues.

The planned project documents might look all right, but the hidden weaknesses in the field operations have to be tackled with political consensus. The civil service structure had also been contaminated, hence the systems losses in various types of public services leave a lot to be desired.

The one-eyed parliament has no effective output, and its regulatory role has become minimal. There are too many complaints and criticisms, but these do not enjoy the mechanism of proper outlets for corrective actions, on a routine basis. These is too much ad hocism in our political culture, which cannot produce lasting and endurable results.

With pre-mature election overtures, there is no hope for remedial measures during the year 2005. Since 1991, the lack of continuity in political commitments has wrought havoc with the expected faster rise of prosperity in the country.

The strength of Bangladesh is in vast and rich rural base. Much of the foundation has been laid; now the gaps have to be identified and filled in; but nepotism stands in the way. The leadership has to deliver, but not through the microphones and loudspeakers. Inner cleanliness is being neglected.

What has happened to the technical and professional bases inside the political parties? We are too vocal about the details, and assume the bases are acceptable.