& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Bangladesh performs
FROM PAGE 1
1.10 in 2008 from minus 1.08 in 2007. As regards political stability and absence of violence and terrorism. Bangladesh improved to minus 1.54 in 2008 from minus 1.40 in 2007 and in case of voice and accountability, its status improved slighdy --minus 0.61 in 2008 from minus 0.59 in 2007.
In the worsening side, regulatory quality stood at minus 0.82 in 2008 compared to minus 0.86 in 2007, the rule of law at minus 0.70 in 2008 against minus 0.77 in 2007, and government effectiveness stood at minus 0.77 in 2008 compared to minis 0.80 in 2007, according to the WG1.
Zaid Bakht said the real picture would emerge from the situation in 2009 as the caretaker government was installed for a short period.
He mentioned that in 2008 the caretaker government focused its attention to the national election. As a result, it could not give much attention to administration. Implementation of the annual development programme (ADP) was also the lowest during the period.
As a result, Bangladesh's performance in government effectiveness showed poorly in the WB indicator.
The BIDS research director said earning confidence of all parties, the caretaker government succeeded in bringing them in the electoral fray.
During its tenure, crime level was low, political and other types of agitation were rare, resulting in better political stability and fall in violence.
Zaid also said due to the anti-corruption drive during the caretaker government's rule, businesses could not function properly for fear arrests on graft charges.
Contacted, WB senior economist at its Dhaka office Zahid Hussain said good governance is a key priority for the bank. "We arc supporting the government's efforts in a number of areas such as public financial management, and power, health and education sectors."
The WGI is prepared as part of a larger effort to study the consequences of governance for development, and its usefulness should be looked at in this broader context, he said.
Resource allocation by the WB group is based on a country's performance arid need, and not on these indicators, Zahid noted.
The indicators reflect information gathered from a variety of sources, the WB senior economist said. "They measure a country's percentile rank with respect to each indicator. Percentile rank indicates the percentage of countries worldwide that rate below the selected country."
Explaining this, he said Bangladesh's rank on voice and accountability in 2008 is
30.8, meaning 30.8 percent of countries rank below Bangladesh on this indicator. Comparisons over time and across countries arc not really meaningful for many of the indicators because of the large margin of error. Long-term comparisons of percentile ranking are more meaningful than looking at short- term changes, he added.
"We hope this report will contribute to a constructive debate on improving governance across the board - voice and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption." Zahid said.
The WGI covers 212 countries and territories, drawing together hundreds of variables from 35 different data sources to capture the views of tens of thousand of survey respondents worldwide, as well as thousands of experts in the private and public sectors, andNGOs.
According to a WB press release, launching the WGI, its co-author and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution Daniel Kaufmann said, "We should not presume that rich and powerful countries have the very best levels of governance and corruption control; the financial crisis reminds us that the quality of governance in G8 countries is not always exemplary."