• Nizam Ahmed


This chapter explores the need for inclusive governance in South Asia, a region that, as a whole, is more democratic now than at any time in the past, but has the distinction of being misgoverned. Two important reasons that account for misgovernance are lack of accountability on the part of those responsible for governance and lack of any ‘real’ stakeholder involvement in the process of governance. It argues that although the issue of accountability has long been recognized, the issue of stakeholder inclusion in the governing process is of recent origin. Inclusion has two major dimensions: internal and external. Emphasis has so far been given to the external dimension; that is, the need for and difficulties with including outsiders in the governing process. This chapter explores the importance and implications of including those ‘insiders’ who have traditionally been neglected and relegated to secondary importance in the legislature (opposition members and government backbenchers) and the civil service (specialists). The two dimensions are not mutually exclusive; one can reinforce the other. The inclusion of insiders is needed in order to produce better outputs, while making outsiders (stakeholders) part of the governing process is likely to generate better outcomes. The chapter also explores the importance of social accountability as a means of supplementing the traditional methods of accountability.


  1. Ahmed, N. (Ed.). (2018). Women in Governing Institutions in South Asia: Parliament, Civil Service and Local Government. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan (Forthcoming).Google Scholar
  2. Bangladesh Parliament. (2007). Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh (as corrected up to 2007). Dhaka: Parliament Secretariat.Google Scholar
  3. Finer, H. (1966). Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government. In P. Woll (Ed.), Public Administration and Policy: Selected Essays. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  4. Friedrich, C. J. (1966). Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility. In P. Woll (Ed.), Public Administration and Policy: Selected Essays. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  5. Gilman, H. R. (n.d.). More Inclusive Governance in the Digital Age. Ash Center: Harvard Kennedy School.
  6. GoI (Government of India). (n.d.). Social Accountability Mechanism: A Generic Framework. Mussoorie: National Academy of Administration.
  7. Hague, R., & Harrop, M. (1982). Comparative Government. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Joshi, A., & Houtzager, P. P. (2012). Widgets or Watchdogs? Public Management Review, 14(2), 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kearney, R., & Sinha, C. (1988). Professionalism and Bureaucratic Responsiveness: Conflict or Compatibility. Public Administration Review, 48(1), 571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Richards, S. G. (1978). Introduction to British Government. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shakya, R. (2009). Why Civil Service Reforms Fail? – A Case of Nepal. Administration and Management Review, 21(2), 40–63.Google Scholar
  12. Sobhan, R. (2007). The Political Economy of Malgovernance in Bangladesh. Dhaka: CPD.Google Scholar
  13. UNDP. (2007). Towards Inclusive Governance: Promoting the Participation of Disadvantaged Groups in Asia-Pacific. Bangkok: UNDP Regional Center.Google Scholar
  14. Wheare, K. C. (1968). Legislatures. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. World Bank. (2003). World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington, DC: World Bank. License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nizam Ahmed
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ChittagongChittagongBangladesh

Personalised recommendations