TDS Desk:

The reliability of Bangladesh’s touted “development narrative” of GDP growth and macroeconomic stability over the past decade has been seriously questioned by the International Monetary Fund. In its January 2026 Data Adequacy Assessment, the IMF gave Bangladesh’s national accounts, or GDP statistics, a ‘C’ rating. It also highlighted weaknesses in inflation, government finance, trade data, and fiscal and monetary policy information.

Bangladesh has been regularly submitting data to the Fund since joining an IMF loan programme in January 2023. This includes statistics on GDP, government finances and debt, inflation, balance of payments, revenue, foreign exchange reserves, exchange rates, and fiscal and monetary policy. The IMF bases its assessment of the economy on this data. For the first time, the Fund has formally evaluated the adequacy of these submissions, publishing a report in the final week of January.

The IMF said Bangladesh’s GDP calculations still rely on outdated methods. In particular, the failure to regularly update the “Supply and Use Table” prevents a full picture of production. National income data also suffers from significant limitations, especially delays and relevance in publication. Annual GDP statistics are released eight months late, while quarterly figures lag four months. Quarterly GDP data is provided only on a production basis with no estimates on expenditure. On this basis, the IMF assigned Bangladesh’s GDP statistics a ‘C’ rating, its second-lowest grade.

Bangladesh’s official GDP statistics have long faced scrutiny. Concerns have been raised by domestic and international organisations as well as by various quarters of the government itself. International observers have claimed that the ousted Awami League government inflated the GDP size and growth to craft a narrative of development. Documents and accounts from economists suggest the true GDP is likely between $300–350 billion, despite official claims exceeding $450 billion. The previous government is accused of overstating GDP to exaggerate economic progress and support the country’s graduation from Least Developed Country status. The subsequent interim government that took power after the July Uprising also questioned these figures but continued to calculate GDP using the previous methodology.

GDP underpins a range of critical economic indicators. Globally, key metrics from debt and exports to revenue collection are expressed as ratios to GDP. Inflated GDP data therefore distorts these indicators. Over the past 15 years, economists and observers have repeatedly disputed government claims on GDP growth, alleging the previous administration overstated figures to artificially lower debt ratios. For FY 2024–25, GDP was reported to have grown 3.97 percent to $462 billion, up from 2023–24. This drew scepticism, given the economy spent almost the entire previous fiscal year under significant instability, with weak domestic and foreign investment and a faltering employment market. The implausibility of such growth has now been reinforced by the IMF’s latest assessment. It highlights fundamental weaknesses in Bangladesh’s GDP statistics.

The IMF says Bangladesh’s Consumer Price Index basket is insufficient, potentially distorting inflation calculation. While it gave the country’s inflation statistics an overall ‘B’ rating, it assigned a ‘C’ for scope and coverage.

Inflation figures from the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics are the most contested. Rising food prices typically drive overall inflation, with staples like rice exerting a direct effect. Even the Bangladesh Bank’s inflation heatmap assigns rice a 10.8 percent weight in food inflation. Yet BBS-reported inflation often falls even when rice prices remain high.

Officials say the current CPI basket includes 749 items, including goods that are purchased only once in a lifetime or infrequently such as wardrobes, laptops and chairs. The previous basket had 420 items. Including many non-essential products dilutes the impact of rising prices for daily essentials. Officials note that if inflation were measured solely on essential goods, it would be several times higher.

Commenting on the IMF’s assessment, Aleya Akter, secretary of the Statistics and Informatics Division, told journalists: “After the national election, a workshop will be held to inform economists, experts, the media and all stakeholders about the methodology used to produce the statistics that have been questioned — particularly GDP, inflation, the CPI and the Wage Rate Index. Initiatives will be taken based on everyone’s feedback to improve the quality of these statistics. The BBS is understaffed, which causes delays in publishing GDP data.”

In April last year, the government formed an eight-member task force to review the quality, transparency and accessibility of BBS statistics and strengthen the institution. Chaired by Dr Hossain Zillur Rahman, executive chairman of the Power and Participation Research Centre, the task force published its report on October 20 — the World Statistics Day. It found that an excessive project-dependent culture had led the BBS to stray from its core role of producing regular, impartial statistics. This weakened field surveys, undermined data collection and verification, and shifted focus toward head office-centric work. The report also cited political influence, bureaucratic complexity and donor dependency as factors eroding data quality and credibility.

Dr Hossain Zillur Rahman told Journalists: “The issues raised in the IMF’s assessment are precisely what we considered in our task force report when we called for strengthening the BBS and the national accounting system. The IMF’s assessment is eye-opening—no one can deny that without improving statistical methodology, such evaluations will continue. Institutional governance is at the root of the statistical system’s weakness. There’s a kind of bureaucratic meddling here. In managing the statistical system, bureaucratic control, rather than expertise, has become the primary concern.”

He added: “At the national level, we must decide whether we’ll remain content with the IMF’s current assessment or break away from it. Numerous recommendations have been provided on what steps to take and when. Yet our core challenge is the lack of serious attention to this, particularly from those responsible for making decisions.”

The IMF has assigned Bangladesh a ‘C’ rating for the timeliness and relevance of its official fiscal statistics. The organisation noted that while the country publishes central government budget and debt data annually, monthly fiscal reports are delayed by three months. Quarterly data also requires alignment with international standards. The IMF recommended including information from extra-budgetary units and local governments and providing data on the government’s accumulated assets.

Foreign sector data received an overall ‘B’ rating, but a ‘C’ for consistency. The Fund noted that revisions to export data can affect staff assessments and that there is a significant margin for “error and omission”.

Bangladesh’s monetary and fiscal sector statistics received an overall ‘B’ rating, though quality concerns earned a ‘C’ for timeliness and relevance. The IMF highlighted the exclusion of non-bank financial institution data and delays in submitting financial stability indicators. It also noted that relaxed loan classification rules, debt restructuring and policy forbearance raise questions about the accuracy of data on non-performing loans, capital and provisions.

During the previous government’s tenure, relaxed provisioning requirements masked non-performing loans and inflated profits from banks, undermining the credibility of both fiscal statistics and banking data. Bangladesh still does not fully comply with international accounting standards for classifying bank assets. Analysts say full compliance would reveal higher NPLs and lower profits.

Professor Mustafizur Rahman, distinguished fellow at the Centre for Policy Dialogue, told journalists: “In our white paper we highlighted the need for reforming the BBS and noted that data reliability raises questions. We argued for structural changes to ensure the bureau’s autonomy. The government did form a separate task force for BBS reform. If the recommendations from the white paper committee and the task force were implemented, there’s significant scope for statistical improvement. The regrettable reality is that a lack of decisive action has resulted in this ‘C’ rating.”

He further said, “More important than the IMF’s rating is the principle that without good data, you can’t make good decisions or adopt evidence-based policies —we saw this even during the previous government’s tenure. We must change this and that requires vigorous steps to implement the recommendations. This is necessary for the excellence of macroeconomic management.”