Prothom Alo :
How do you view the current employment situation?
Selim Jahan: Before the interim government took office, over the past two decades, an official narrative was that the country’s growth rate stood at 6 or 7 per cent—indicating high growth.
Generally, we assume that if the growth rate is high, employment opportunities will also expand.
Although Bangladesh experienced significant growth during that period, we did not see a corresponding expansion in employment.
That is why I describe that period as one of ''jobless growth''. Growth occurred from various sources, but it did not translate into increased employment for people.
The second point I want to raise concerns unemployment among the youth. A large proportion of the unemployed are young people who have no jobs.
According to official figures, the unemployment rate among youth is 13 per cent, though we know the actual number is likely much higher.
In addition, nearly eight million young people are not in employment, education, or training—commonly referred to as NEETs. These two aspects of current unemployment are extremely important.
Unemployment has both individual and broader societal consequences. At the individual level, an unemployed person has no income, cannot participate in the production process, and lacks the resources necessary for livelihood.
From a national perspective, when a large number of people are unemployed, a country fails to utilise its human capital—its workforce, creativity, and productive potential.
Officially, it is said that there are three million unemployed people in Bangladesh, though the real figure is likely higher. This means that not only do these individuals face personal livelihood challenges and barriers to participation, but Bangladesh as a whole is deprived of the skills, creativity, and productive capacity of a significant portion of its population.
How realistic is BNP’s pledge to create 10 million jobs in 18 months—and how could it be achieved?
Selim Jahan: First of all, every government sets employment targets. Such targets are typically included in election manifestos. Later, when a government is formed, they are reflected in the national budget and development plans.
Therefore, I believe that setting such targets can support human development and the development of human resources.
The second issue concerns the target itself—whether it is creating jobs for 10 million people or one million people.
The question is: what will be the strategy?
Some may argue that the approach should be to increase economic growth, assuming that employment will follow.
However, from Bangladesh’s experience as well as that of other countries, we have seen that growth often increases without generating sufficient employment.
An alternative strategy could be to focus directly on expanding employment, with the expectation that higher employment will subsequently boost economic growth.
The advantage of this second approach is that it directly addresses job creation, which can then contribute to growth over time.
So the government needs to clarify its strategy: will it pursue growth-led employment, or employment-led growth? That is the first issue.
The second issue is who will actually create these jobs. In any economy, employment is typically generated in three ways: through the public sector, the private sector, and self-employment.
We need to examine all three avenues.
The first question is how much capacity the government truly has to expand public-sector employment. Another related issue is financing. Creating jobs in the public sector requires funding. Where will that funding come from? We already know that public finances are under significant pressure. There are at least two major sources of this strain.
First, before leaving office, the interim government introduced several measures with substantial financial implications—for example, increasing the salaries and allowances of public employees, which requires additional resources.
Second, external debt has reached a level where substantial funds are needed for debt servicing. Moreover, subsidies have reached a point where they are becoming increasingly burdensome for the economy.
Therefore, if the government speaks about expanding employment or creating new jobs, it must first clarify where those jobs will be created—especially when many qualified candidates are already waiting for public-sector appointments—and second, how the necessary financing will be secured at a time when public finances are already under pressure.
Turning to the private sector, the government cannot directly create jobs. What it can do is offer incentives—encouraging and supporting private enterprises through various policies.
If we look at the past 18 months, despite repeated claims and data, private-sector investment has not been forthcoming.
Foreign investment is not coming in, and domestic producers and entrepreneurs are also hesitant to invest. The lack of investment is partly due to policy issues and partly due to external economic factors.
For instance, in terms of policy, Bangladesh Bank has not reduced interest rates over the past 18 months.
Their argument is that lowering rates would increase inflation.
But the consequence is that because interests rates remain high, loans are not accessible to the private sector, and without loans, investment does not happen.
There has been no effective policy to incentivise private-sector investment, and without such investment, employment cannot grow.
The second factor is that even if incentives are provided, will employment actually increase?
One reason investment is lacking is economic and social instability. In society and in the economy, extortion is increasing, there is violence, we are witnessing mob violence, and there are reports of looting in business establishments.
Syndicates are interfering with normal business operations, preventing entrepreneurs from conducting their trade freely.
In other words, beyond policy, social and extrinsic economic conditions—instability and violence—discourage investment. And if investment does not occur, we cannot generate employment.
Finally, within the private sector, there are self-employed entrepreneurs. The same principle applies: they will not invest if the socio-economic environment is not conducive. Also, if loans are required to invest, there must be low-interest credit available, especially for small entrepreneurs. Without such an environment, incentives and policies will not be effective.
To conclude, setting employment targets—whether for 18 months or two years—is commendable and well-intentioned. But the real question is whether the public sector has the financial capacity to meet these targets, and secondly, whether policies exist to incentivise private-sector investment.
Simply stating a target without specifying the means, policies, or resources to achieve it will not succeed.
How do you view the unemployment of educated people?
Selim Jahan: Every year, universities graduate roughly 700,000 students with advanced degrees. About 300,000 of them are absorbed into jobs, but many remain unemployed.
The deeper problem is twofold: first, graduates leave university with degrees, but it is unclear whether they possess the nationally relevant skills required.
Second, even if they have such skills, the labour market may not have demand for them.
Entrepreneurs and business owners often say, “I have jobs available, but I cannot find workers with the required skills, education, or training.”
This indicates a persistent mismatch between labour demand and supply, which needs to be addressed.
The issue is that those graduating with higher education degrees often lack the skills demanded in the labour market.
Therefore, if we want to develop a skilled workforce and maintain a balance between labour demand and supply, we must revisit the education system and consider what kinds of skills and knowledge we are imparting to our youth so they can be employable.
For example, a recent report indicated that among university graduates, those with proficiency in English have the lowest unemployment rates. This is because employers increasingly require employees who can read, write, and communicate in English—even to write a simple letter. This shows that skill development in specific areas directly affects employability.
Thirdly, we need to identify where the demand exists and develop a human resource plan accordingly. For instance, in industrial sectors, what kind of skilled personnel is needed? Do we need people with general English proficiency? Or do we need individuals with managerial knowledge, accounting skills, or other specialised abilities?
Once we identify the demand, we can plan how to supply it effectively. Without such planning, universities will continue to produce graduates in the traditional way, while entrepreneurs and industrialists will keep complaining that they cannot find workers with the required skills.
Furthermore, we must assess both domestic and international labour demand. Based on this, we can guide highly educated individuals toward opportunities where their skills are needed.
A related point: over the past 30–40 years, Bangladesh has mainly sent unskilled labour to the Middle East. These workers often face challenges, particularly language barriers. Many are unable to communicate their health issues to physicians, for instance. Therefore, if we can provide basic language and skill training before sending unskilled workers abroad, we could send more capable labourers. By assessing demand for teachers, physicians, caregivers, and other professions, we can also plan to send educated professionals where they are needed.
Finally, planning should not only consider current demand and supply. The global economy and labour market are changing rapidly. The nature of work is evolving: some jobs are disappearing, while new opportunities are emerging, particularly in information technology.
Artificial intelligence will eliminate some jobs but also create others. Therefore, when planning for the labour market and education, we must take the future into account. Our youth will not only compete within Bangladesh but also in a global labour market. To compete internationally, we must prepare them accordingly.
For example, a large number of IT professionals from India are employed in the United States. How much have we been able to penetrate that market? To succeed globally, our engineering universities and technical institutions must train students in the skills required for a technology-and AI-driven future. Our education system must integrate these emerging skills now to ensure our youth can compete and thrive in the global workforce.
Do you see that the government is actually moving forward with a long-term plan based on what you just mentioned?
Selim Jahan: No, I don’t see that. I look at this from two perspectives. First, if you examine the demand in industrial sectors, there hasn’t been a comprehensive assessment of what skills are actually required. We simply don’t know. Second, if you look at higher education, the subjects being taught haven’t undergone significant changes to match labour market needs. Some updates have been made in certain areas, but we don’t see this reflected in an overall educational planning framework. So, in terms of a comprehensive long-term plan, I don’t see one.
Secondly—and I want to emphasise this again—our focus is very much on the present. We are concerned with current labour market issues, employment, and skill imbalances, and we aim to address those. But I believe we also need to look at the future—the changing nature of work, the processes of work. For example, many jobs no longer require a traditional office; people can work from anywhere. The speed at which work processes are changing is very rapid, and we need to be prepared for that.
Many assume that artificial intelligence (AI) is only relevant for developed countries and won’t affect us, but that’s not true. Take the garment industry, for instance. Many tasks there are routine, like sewing sleeves or attaching buttons. In the future, if robots take over these tasks, a large portion of the garment workforce could become unemployed. And it’s important to note that this unemployment would disproportionately affect women, as they make up the majority of the workforce in the garment sector.
I do not see a strategic vision that looks beyond the present toward the future. I also do not see a vision that reassesses demand and reorganises supply to meet it effectively.
Have you read the BNP manifesto? How do you view their employment plan there?
Selim Jahan: Yes, I have, roughly. I mentioned this earlier: I think employment needs to be addressed separately in the election manifesto. The current state of employment, the level of joblessness, and the extent of unemployment among ordinary people are such that it must be explicitly included in the manifesto from a political perspective. During the election, presenting such a target is crucial to build trust and attract voters.
But once the election is over and the government takes office, you need to look at the practical realities. The first practical reality is that a target has been set. During the election, highlighting this target was necessary, but now, to plan for it effectively, several things must be considered.
For example, if the target is to create 10 million jobs in 18 months, break it down. Specify how many jobs will be created in three months, six months, one year, and finally 18 months. This makes it understandable to ordinary people—for instance, maybe 20–30 lakh jobs in the first three months. The target must be realistically reflected.
Second, the methodology for creating these jobs must be clear. We all know that public-sector employment alone cannot meet the target. If jobs are to be created in the public sector, where will the funding come from, and in which areas will the jobs be provided?
We also know that the private sector must be incentivised. What kinds of incentives will be offered? For example, will the government tell the private sector that if they employ one million people in the next three or six months, certain benefits will follow? Or will there be policies that make it easier for them to create jobs, such as low-interest loans or subsidies? How incentives and policies are provided must be clarified.
Third, employment is not just an economic issue; it also depends on broader social conditions. Therefore, I would say that if the Planning Ministry claims it will create employment, the Ministry of Home Affairs must also be involved. Social instability, mob violence, and extortion need to be addressed. Reducing these obstacles encourages ordinary entrepreneurs to invest and generate jobs.
Fourth, regarding foreign investment, how will it be attracted? This requires dialogue with investors, assuring them that there is a conducive environment for investment. Since labour costs are lower here, investors can earn good returns. The investment process must also be simplified. Governments need to create a climate of trust to encourage foreign investment.
In terms of employment, economic activity, and social initiatives, the goal should be to assure ordinary people that the government is moving in the right direction. No one expects that all problems will be solved in the next six months or a year. But we at least want to see that the government is on the right track. If we can see that, it will provide reassurance. Investors and outsiders will also be assured that Bangladesh has created an environment conducive to investment, where opportunities exist for profitable returns. That is essential.
My final point is that there needs to be a clear philosophy or approach to employment. The question is whether we continue with the traditional growth-driven approach, where employment is expected to increase automatically as the economy grows. We have seen that this does not happen naturally. Or should we adopt an employment-driven growth approach, where the government prioritises job creation, and growth gradually follows from that?
To implement this, two things are necessary. First, if employment is prioritised, the government must focus on where jobs are created. Special attention should be given to areas with extreme poverty, where marginalised communities live. Over the past 35 years, agriculture has not received sufficient focus. By investing in agriculture and introducing new technologies, employment can be expanded, which will also reduce poverty.
Second, I propose that central banks—including Bangladesh Bank—should adopt a dual objective. Traditionally, central banks focus solely on controlling inflation through monetary policy. I suggest they pursue both inflation control and employment creation. For example, they could target 3 per cent inflation while aiming to increase employment by 3 per cent in the country. Many central banks around the world have successfully adopted such dual objectives. By doing this, monetary policy can actively support job creation, not just economic stability.
In your view, what key gaps or omissions remain in the BNP manifesto?
Selim Jahan: Every single issue can't be addressed in a manifesto. That’s obvious. What matters is that their priorities are included, and in that respect, I think the BNP manifesto has incorporated the issues that are important.
For example, you mentioned employment—they have addressed it. Social protection is included, such as the family card programme. Attention to agriculture is highlighted, with mention of farmer cards. They have also discussed growth and other related issues in various ways.
Looking at the manifesto as a whole, my first observation is that their development vision could have been presented more clearly. By “development vision,” I mean their overall approach to economic and social progress. While they discuss political democracy in various sections, there is little mention of economic democracy. If the manifesto had prioritised economic democracy, it would have provided greater reassurance.
By economic democracy, I do not mean dismantling regulatory institutions or taking control away from the market. Rather, it means ensuring equal rights and opportunities for everyone in access to resources, credit, production inputs, social services, education, healthcare, and safe water. Decision-making should not be solely top-down, by administration or political processes. If ordinary people’s voices can be included and their participation ensured, that is economic democracy. I believe BNP could have made this a clear principle in their manifesto.
Second, regarding growth, there has been extensive discussion over the last two decades. But in terms of vision, the manifesto should have clarified whether growth itself is the ultimate goal or whether human development is the ultimate goal. In my view, human development should be the primary objective in any economic process. Growth is just a means to achieve human development. If growth becomes the ultimate goal, it can easily become disconnected from people’s real needs.
Human development means improving human resources, preserving dignity, enhancing capabilities, and creating opportunities for people.
Growth is a tool to achieve that—it is not the end in itself. This point, that human development should be the core goal, should have been more clearly emphasised in the manifesto.
Similarly, the manifesto could have addressed inequality more explicitly. We know that inequality in economic, political, and social life is a major barrier, and due to this inequality, the benefits of economic progress do not reach everyone equally. Therefore, issues of unequal opportunity and unequal outcomes—such as income inequality and wealth disparity—needed to be explicitly highlighted.
The issue of social inequality needed to be addressed. Politically, inequality—such as the representation of marginalised and poor people, and the freedom for their voices to be heard—was something that, I think, should have been emphasised in the manifesto.
Finally, I want to say that the election manifesto was presented, and BNP fought the election based on it. We congratulate them sincerely on their victory. Now, in the post-election phase, there is another issue they need to consider: whether in the next five years they will limit themselves only to the promises in their manifesto. I believe it would be beneficial if they took a broader perspective.
For example, many other political parties’ manifestos may have included good proposals and objectives that perhaps were not included in BNP’s manifesto. If they can adopt such initiatives because they are beneficial for the country—even if they are not in the party manifesto—they should do so. After all, as the government, BNP now represents all citizens, including those who did not vote for them. People who voted for other parties are also represented by them. Therefore, if they incorporate policies or actions that are good for the country, even if not in the party manifesto, it will signal inclusiveness and serve the national interest. And there is no harm in including good policies in economic initiatives.
How should BNP prioritise employment in its first six months?
Selim Jahan: For the 180-day plan, the activities and programmes they have adopted are largely sector-specific. For example, we see ministers describing their respective sectors—like the health minister outlining initiatives in healthcare, the power minister in electricity, and so on.
The Prime Minister has also given instructions, emphasising that these commitments must be fulfilled within the 180 days. If they cannot achieve these goals, it indicates that more capable individuals might be needed in certain areas.
Now, my point is that sector-specific plans alone are not enough. Even after these detailed plans, there still needs to be an overarching target or direction. If these sectoral initiatives are not coordinated, and each ministry focuses only on its own sector, then during the 180 days we may see many programmes being implemented in different areas, but they will not be integrated effectively.
Coordination is essential to make sure that sectoral activities collectively contribute to overall goals, including employment.
Now, regarding employment, I think there are two areas where a very clear plan is needed.
First at the macro level, the overall employment target has been set, as you mentioned. I believe that this target should be broken down. For example, in the 180-day plan, what will be done in the first 60 days, the next 60 days, and the final 60 days? This way, we can have a clear picture of the progress.
Second, for this, we need an overall policy framework, which we call macroeconomic policy. At the macro level, what incentives will be provided? For example, in revenue policy or monetary policy, what incentives will be given to stimulate employment? This needs to be clearly articulated so that the different sectors can follow the plan effectively.
Third, there needs to be a system for evaluation after two months, four months, and six months. How much employment has been generated?
Even if the goal is to create 10 million jobs over 18 months, we need to assess whether the target for each stage is being met. For instance, if we aim for 2 million jobs in the first phase but fail to achieve even that, it will indicate a problem in planning. This gives the macro-level overview.
Now, employment targets cannot be met at the macro level alone—they must be sector-specific. Each sector must determine its contribution while keeping the overall target in mind.
How will you define sector-specific target?
Selim Jahan: For example, the agriculture sector may say it will contribute 300,000 jobs out of the total. The electricity sector might say it will add 200,000. This way, we will know which sector is responsible for which portion of the overall target.
Every sector should specify its contribution. Then there must be a sectoral policy plan. For example, if agriculture is to generate 300,000 jobs, the sector must expand agricultural activities. Expansion will require labour, so how much land, water, seeds, and other inputs are needed? A clear sectoral plan must exist, and farmers must have access to it. Tools like the farmer card can help ensure they receive these opportunities, but there must also be incentives.
From a pricing perspective, if a potato farmer produces crops but cannot sell them, the plan fails. Therefore, macro-level policies must guide each sector with clear rules and incentives. For education, for example, if increasing skilled labour is necessary to boost employment across sectors, targets must be set accordingly. Once sectoral targets are defined, local projects and initiatives can be implemented. This way, we can develop a coordinated roadmap showing what can realistically be achieved in employment