Beyond the Pay Rise: Can New Pay Scale Strengthen Public Service?

Dr. Mohd Mizanur Rahman

Dr Mohammad Mizanur Rahman

Bangladesh’s approval of the new National Pay Scale 2026 has understandably generated considerable interest among government employees and their families. After years of rising living costs, inflation, housing expenses, education, and healthcare costs, an upward revision of public-sector salaries was widely expected.

The new structure represents a substantial financial adjustment. According to a Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS) report published on August 31, 2026, the basic salary at the lowest, 20th grade, has increased from Tk 8,250 to Tk 20,000, while the highest basic salary has risen from Tk 78,000 to Tk 156,000.

For government employees, this is welcome news. But for citizens, another question naturally follows: Will higher salaries lead to better public services?

More specifically, can a significant increase in government salaries help reduce the culture of unofficial payments and bribery?

The answer is not straightforward.

There is no doubt that fair and adequate remuneration is an important foundation of an efficient public administration. A government employee struggling to meet basic household expenses may experience financial pressure and frustration. Better salaries can improve morale, attract talent, and strengthen the sense of professional dignity.

But salary alone cannot guarantee integrity.

Bangladesh’s experience since the 2015 pay reform provides an important lesson. Government salaries were substantially increased at that time, partly amid expectations that better remuneration could help reduce corruption. Yet allegations of bribery and abuse of official authority did not disappear.

This suggests that corruption is not simply a “low salary problem.” It is also a problem of incentives, opportunity, accountability, and institutional design.

Consider a simple situation. If a government employee receives an additional Tk 30,000 or Tk 40,000 in monthly salary but has discretionary authority over a service that could generate an unofficial payment of Tk 50,000, Tk 100,000 or more, salary alone may not change behaviour. What matters is the balance between the potential benefit of corruption and the probability of being caught and punished.

In other words, the risk of corruption must become greater than the reward.

Recent public discussions in Bangladesh illustrate why this issue deserves attention. The emergence of the online platform ‘Ghush.site’ has created a space where citizens can anonymously report alleged demands for bribes while accessing government services.

A report published by The Business Standard on August 30 highlighted the rapidly growing number of citizen complaints submitted through the platform. A subsequent report by Prothom Alo on August 31 also discussed the large number of complaints and the alleged amounts involved.

These figures should be treated cautiously. They are user-submitted allegations, not verified government statistics. Nevertheless, the phenomenon itself is significant. It shows that citizens increasingly want to document and expose experiences of corruption rather than treat them merely as private frustrations.

The deeper problem, however, may lie not only with individuals but with the way public services are delivered.

When citizens do not know how long a service should take, how much the official fee is, which documents are required, or where their application is currently located, an informal market can emerge around government services.

A citizen may be told: “Your file will take several weeks, but if you want it done today, something can be arranged.”

That is where corruption becomes institutional rather than merely individual.

Therefore, if the government wants the new pay structure to contribute to a cleaner public service, salary reform should be accompanied by service-delivery reform.

The first priority should be a clear and enforceable “one service, one fee, one deadline” principle. Every major government service should clearly state its official cost, required documents and maximum processing time. This information should be displayed in offices and published online.

Second, government services should become increasingly cashless and trackable. Official fees should, wherever possible, be paid through banks or approved digital payment systems. Every application should receive a unique tracking number so that citizens can see where their file is and how long it has remained at each stage.

Third, government agencies should measure service quality through concrete indicators. These could include the percentage of applications completed on time, number of complaints received, complaint-resolution rates, citizen satisfaction and the average number of visits required to obtain a service.

Such indicators could form a Public Service Performance Score for government offices.

Fourth, asset declarations of public officials should become more meaningful. The objective should not be to create unnecessary harassment, but to identify cases where declared income and accumulated assets appear significantly inconsistent. Risk-based verification could be more effective than treating every employee in exactly the same way.

Fifth, complaint mechanisms must protect citizens. A person reporting an alleged demand for a bribe should be able to do so confidentially and without fear of retaliation. At the same time, allegations should be properly investigated to prevent the system from being misused.

Sixth, high-risk offices should receive greater scrutiny. Complaints, unusual service delays, citizen dissatisfaction and other indicators can help identify corruption “hotspots” requiring targeted audits.

There is also a role for citizens.

Bribery survives partly because people sometimes believe that paying unofficially is simply the fastest way to get things done. This culture cannot change through moral lectures alone. The state must create a credible alternative in which following the rules is easier and faster than bypassing them.

This is where the new pay structure presents an opportunity.

Government employees deserve fair compensation. But with better compensation comes a reasonable public expectation of better service. A salary increase should therefore not be viewed merely as an additional financial benefit for employees; it should also be part of a broader social contract between the state and its citizens.

The government could make this connection visible by publishing an annual “Pay versus Service” performance report. It could show how public-sector compensation and expenditure have changed alongside measurable improvements in service delivery, digitalisation, complaint resolution and citizen satisfaction.

Such transparency would change the public conversation.

Instead of asking only, “Was the salary increase justified?”, citizens could ask a more constructive question:

“What improvement in public service should citizens expect in return?”

The ultimate test of the 2026 pay reform will therefore not be the size of the salary increase. It will be what an ordinary citizen experiences when visiting a government office.

If citizens can obtain their legitimate services within a clearly defined time, pay only the officially prescribed fee, track their applications and complain safely when something goes wrong, then the pay reform will have contributed to something much larger than improved employee welfare.

It will have helped strengthen public trust.

But if salaries rise while citizens continue to depend on brokers, personal connections or unofficial payments to move files and obtain routine services, then the deeper problem will remain unresolved.

Bangladesh does not need to choose between better salaries and stronger anti-corruption measures. It needs both.

Fair pay can provide the foundation. Digital transparency can reduce opportunities. Clear procedures can remove uncertainty. Effective monitoring can increase accountability. And credible punishment can change incentives.

The real opportunity presented by the new pay structure is therefore not simply to pay public employees more.

It is to build a public service system in which better-paid officials are also more accountable, services are easier to access, and citizens no longer feel that paying extra is the price of receiving what they are already entitled to.

That would turn a salary reform into something far more meaningful: a step towards rebuilding trust between the citizen and the state.

(Dr Mohammad Mizanur Rahman is an Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences Management and Science University, Malaysia.)