11:11 am, Friday, 10 October 2025
BREAKING NEWS
Reviving the Rural Economy: $100 Million ADB–Bangladesh Agreement The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes. SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE OCTOBER PRIME DAY 2025: THE TECH DEALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR MONEY PRIME DAY, AGAIN: WIRED’S BIG LIST SHOWS HOW TO SHOP SMART AND SKIP THE DUDS TIMOTHÉE CHALAMET TEASES ‘MARTY SUPREME’ AFTER NYFF PREMIERE, KEEPING PLOT UNDER WRAPS
Home / Bangladesh, Top News

July Movement to the LDC Debate: What Message Will Bangladesh Send to the World?

Sarakhon English

Bangladesh stands at a historic crossroads. After nearly five decades under the Least Developed Country (LDC) category, the nation faces two distinct paths: to graduate on schedule into the ranks of developing countries by 2026, or to convince the international community that more time is needed.

For the government, graduation is not just a technical milestone—it is a matter of national prestige and a powerful economic signal to the world. Yet for businesses and experts, the looming transition raises pressing questions about preparedness, competitiveness, and survival.

Rising Concerns from Key Sectors

The ready-made garment industry, which contributes 84 percent of Bangladesh’s export earnings, is at the center of the debate. For decades, the sector has thrived on duty-free access to major markets, including the United States, the European Union, and Canada. Losing these privileges could erode Bangladesh’s competitiveness in the global apparel trade.

The pharmaceutical sector also faces turbulence. Currently shielded under the WTO’s TRIPS agreement, Bangladesh can produce and export generic versions of multinational drugs without paying for intellectual property rights. Post-graduation, these exemptions will vanish, driving up production costs, shrinking markets, and threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The information technology sector shares similar worries. Stricter enforcement of copyright and intellectual property laws could hinder smaller entrepreneurs, potentially stalling the growth of Bangladesh’s digital economy.

The Government’s Diplomatic Gamble

Commerce Secretary Mahbubur Rahman has revealed that Bangladesh is seeking a three-year extension through diplomatic channels. The rationale includes the possible loss of tariff advantages, political uncertainty, energy shortages, and election-related instability.

But persuading the international community is no simple task. Japan and Turkey have consistently raised objections to such requests. Any resolution at the United Nations General Assembly would require the backing of major powers, an outcome that remains far from certain.

Expert Opinions: Time to Embrace Challenges?

Former Bangladesh Bank governor Dr. Salehuddin Ahmed insists that the country must cultivate a mindset of resilience: “If businesses keep saying ‘we are not ready,’ then we will never be ready.”

Research institute RAPID has warned that retaliatory tariffs from the U.S. could shrink Bangladesh’s exports by 14 percent in a single year. Competitor nations would also feel the pinch, with projected export declines of 58 percent for China, 48 percent for India, 28 percent for Vietnam, and 27 percent for Indonesia.

Lessons from Other Nations

Globally, several countries have delayed graduation in the face of crises. The Maldives was granted time after the 2004 tsunami; Nepal after the 2015 earthquake; Myanmar following a military coup; Angola due to falling oil prices; and the Solomon Islands because of civil war.

But in each case, the delays were justified by large-scale disasters or extraordinary circumstances. For Bangladesh, simply citing a lack of preparedness will not be enough.

Global Lenders’ Perspectives

World Bank: Former Chief Economist Dr. Zahid Hossain argues Bangladesh already meets all three graduation indicators. A delay would require international audits proving that at least two indicators had fallen below thresholds, or that graduation would seriously weaken the economy.

IMF: Warns that unless fiscal deficits are controlled, tax revenues rise, and the financial sector undergoes reform, the economy will be at risk post-graduation.

ADB: Stresses that without export diversification, higher labor productivity, and investment in technology, Bangladesh will struggle to maintain competitiveness.

Geopolitics and Regional Competition

The request for delay is also entangled in geopolitics. Japan and Turkey oppose extensions, while economists note that India stands to benefit if Bangladesh loses duty-free access, as Indian apparel could gain a competitive edge. Vietnam, Cambodia, and Indonesia would also seek to expand their market share.

At the same time, global powers—India, China, the U.S., and Japan—are locked in a struggle for influence in South Asia. Each is likely to adopt different positions, making consensus more challenging to achieve.

Political Stakes at Home

Graduation is not just an economic milestone—it is a political one. For the government, moving into the category of developing countries would symbolize success. For businesses, however, it would mean pressure and vulnerability.

As the next national election nears, the issue could become politically explosive. If the government fails to secure an extension, opposition parties may frame it as a diplomatic defeat. Even if extra time is won, doubts will linger about whether the country was genuinely ready.

Equally significant is the signal that a refusal to graduate would send. Remaining in the LDC category could be read internationally as proof that the July Movement and one year of Yunus-led governance weakened the economy, further eroding investor confidence.

Challenges on the Horizon

Export shocks, particularly in garments and pharmaceuticals

Tariff hikes averaging up to 12 percent

Uncertainty for foreign investment

Rising costs due to intellectual property restrictions

Shrinking access to concessional loans

Institutional gaps in policymaking and diplomacy

 

Comparative Cases of Delay

Country

Reason for Delay

Extension

Outcome

Maldives

2004 tsunami

3 years

Recovery opportunity, long-term tourism pressure

Nepal

2015 earthquake

3 years

Infrastructure was rebuilt, but sluggish investment

Myanmar

Military coup and unrest

2 years

Decline in international confidence

Angola

Oil price collapse

3 years

Diversification achieved, but debt reliance rose

Solomon Islands

Civil war

2 years

Reconstruction through regional cooperation

 

The Road Ahead

The UN’s Committee for Development Policy (CDP) will reassess Bangladesh’s status in October-November. The outcome will decide whether the country receives an additional three years or formally graduates in November 2026.

For nearly 50 years, Bangladesh has leveraged LDC benefits. Now, the decision is stark: move forward despite risks, or buy more time to prepare.

Whatever the choice, it will shape not only the country’s economy but also its politics, diplomacy, and global standing for the next decade. And should Bangladesh ever be forced to re-enter the LDC list, it would be seen as a symbol of economic fragility and a damning verdict that recent political upheavals undermined the country’s sustainable growth.

 

More News:
The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant
Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes.
SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION
Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross
IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES
GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE
04:29:57 pm, Wednesday, 17 September 2025

Reviving the Rural Economy: $100 Million ADB–Bangladesh Agreement

The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant

Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes.

SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION

Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross

IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES

GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE

OCTOBER PRIME DAY 2025: THE TECH DEALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR MONEY

PRIME DAY, AGAIN: WIRED’S BIG LIST SHOWS HOW TO SHOP SMART AND SKIP THE DUDS

TIMOTHÉE CHALAMET TEASES ‘MARTY SUPREME’ AFTER NYFF PREMIERE, KEEPING PLOT UNDER WRAPS

News Title :
Reviving the Rural Economy: $100 Million ADB–Bangladesh Agreement The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes. SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE OCTOBER PRIME DAY 2025: THE TECH DEALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR MONEY PRIME DAY, AGAIN: WIRED’S BIG LIST SHOWS HOW TO SHOP SMART AND SKIP THE DUDS TIMOTHÉE CHALAMET TEASES ‘MARTY SUPREME’ AFTER NYFF PREMIERE, KEEPING PLOT UNDER WRAPS

July Movement to the LDC Debate: What Message Will Bangladesh Send to the World?

04:29:57 pm, Wednesday, 17 September 2025

Bangladesh stands at a historic crossroads. After nearly five decades under the Least Developed Country (LDC) category, the nation faces two distinct paths: to graduate on schedule into the ranks of developing countries by 2026, or to convince the international community that more time is needed.

For the government, graduation is not just a technical milestone—it is a matter of national prestige and a powerful economic signal to the world. Yet for businesses and experts, the looming transition raises pressing questions about preparedness, competitiveness, and survival.

Rising Concerns from Key Sectors

The ready-made garment industry, which contributes 84 percent of Bangladesh’s export earnings, is at the center of the debate. For decades, the sector has thrived on duty-free access to major markets, including the United States, the European Union, and Canada. Losing these privileges could erode Bangladesh’s competitiveness in the global apparel trade.

The pharmaceutical sector also faces turbulence. Currently shielded under the WTO’s TRIPS agreement, Bangladesh can produce and export generic versions of multinational drugs without paying for intellectual property rights. Post-graduation, these exemptions will vanish, driving up production costs, shrinking markets, and threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The information technology sector shares similar worries. Stricter enforcement of copyright and intellectual property laws could hinder smaller entrepreneurs, potentially stalling the growth of Bangladesh’s digital economy.

The Government’s Diplomatic Gamble

Commerce Secretary Mahbubur Rahman has revealed that Bangladesh is seeking a three-year extension through diplomatic channels. The rationale includes the possible loss of tariff advantages, political uncertainty, energy shortages, and election-related instability.

But persuading the international community is no simple task. Japan and Turkey have consistently raised objections to such requests. Any resolution at the United Nations General Assembly would require the backing of major powers, an outcome that remains far from certain.

Expert Opinions: Time to Embrace Challenges?

Former Bangladesh Bank governor Dr. Salehuddin Ahmed insists that the country must cultivate a mindset of resilience: “If businesses keep saying ‘we are not ready,’ then we will never be ready.”

Research institute RAPID has warned that retaliatory tariffs from the U.S. could shrink Bangladesh’s exports by 14 percent in a single year. Competitor nations would also feel the pinch, with projected export declines of 58 percent for China, 48 percent for India, 28 percent for Vietnam, and 27 percent for Indonesia.

Lessons from Other Nations

Globally, several countries have delayed graduation in the face of crises. The Maldives was granted time after the 2004 tsunami; Nepal after the 2015 earthquake; Myanmar following a military coup; Angola due to falling oil prices; and the Solomon Islands because of civil war.

But in each case, the delays were justified by large-scale disasters or extraordinary circumstances. For Bangladesh, simply citing a lack of preparedness will not be enough.

Global Lenders’ Perspectives

World Bank: Former Chief Economist Dr. Zahid Hossain argues Bangladesh already meets all three graduation indicators. A delay would require international audits proving that at least two indicators had fallen below thresholds, or that graduation would seriously weaken the economy.

IMF: Warns that unless fiscal deficits are controlled, tax revenues rise, and the financial sector undergoes reform, the economy will be at risk post-graduation.

ADB: Stresses that without export diversification, higher labor productivity, and investment in technology, Bangladesh will struggle to maintain competitiveness.

Geopolitics and Regional Competition

The request for delay is also entangled in geopolitics. Japan and Turkey oppose extensions, while economists note that India stands to benefit if Bangladesh loses duty-free access, as Indian apparel could gain a competitive edge. Vietnam, Cambodia, and Indonesia would also seek to expand their market share.

At the same time, global powers—India, China, the U.S., and Japan—are locked in a struggle for influence in South Asia. Each is likely to adopt different positions, making consensus more challenging to achieve.

Political Stakes at Home

Graduation is not just an economic milestone—it is a political one. For the government, moving into the category of developing countries would symbolize success. For businesses, however, it would mean pressure and vulnerability.

As the next national election nears, the issue could become politically explosive. If the government fails to secure an extension, opposition parties may frame it as a diplomatic defeat. Even if extra time is won, doubts will linger about whether the country was genuinely ready.

Equally significant is the signal that a refusal to graduate would send. Remaining in the LDC category could be read internationally as proof that the July Movement and one year of Yunus-led governance weakened the economy, further eroding investor confidence.

Challenges on the Horizon

Export shocks, particularly in garments and pharmaceuticals

Tariff hikes averaging up to 12 percent

Uncertainty for foreign investment

Rising costs due to intellectual property restrictions

Shrinking access to concessional loans

Institutional gaps in policymaking and diplomacy

 

Comparative Cases of Delay

Country

Reason for Delay

Extension

Outcome

Maldives

2004 tsunami

3 years

Recovery opportunity, long-term tourism pressure

Nepal

2015 earthquake

3 years

Infrastructure was rebuilt, but sluggish investment

Myanmar

Military coup and unrest

2 years

Decline in international confidence

Angola

Oil price collapse

3 years

Diversification achieved, but debt reliance rose

Solomon Islands

Civil war

2 years

Reconstruction through regional cooperation

 

The Road Ahead

The UN’s Committee for Development Policy (CDP) will reassess Bangladesh’s status in October-November. The outcome will decide whether the country receives an additional three years or formally graduates in November 2026.

For nearly 50 years, Bangladesh has leveraged LDC benefits. Now, the decision is stark: move forward despite risks, or buy more time to prepare.

Whatever the choice, it will shape not only the country’s economy but also its politics, diplomacy, and global standing for the next decade. And should Bangladesh ever be forced to re-enter the LDC list, it would be seen as a symbol of economic fragility and a damning verdict that recent political upheavals undermined the country’s sustainable growth.

 

Editorial : Swadesh Roy

Editorial Office

First Floor, Capita Lake Front. Block J, House# 66, Banani Rd 18 Extension, Dhaka 1213