Dev sector must address its own labour insecurity

Bangladesh’s development sector has long been regarded as something of an exception to the country’s wider labour-market problems.

NGO professionals, project officers, researchers and consultants were generally seen as relatively secure, educated workers employed by well-funded organisations with a strong social purpose.

That perception is increasingly difficult to sustain.

Behind the sector’s mission statements and development programmes lies a growing problem of employment insecurity.

A significant number of development professionals now work on short-term, project-based contracts, often with little certainty about what happens when the funding ends.

A career that once offered relatively stable employment and benefits is increasingly shaped by six-month or one-year contracts, dependent on donor funding.

When a project ends, employment may end with it, regardless of an employee’s performance or the continuing need for the work.

This uncertainty is partly a consequence of how development funding has evolved.

International donors increasingly favour time-bound projects with clearly defined outputs rather than longer-term institutional support.

Organisations dependent on such funding naturally align their staffing with project cycles. But while funding uncertainty may be unavoidable, passing almost all of that risk on to employees is not.

The burden is also uneven. Experienced consultants with strong professional networks may move relatively easily between assignments. Junior employees, field officers and local researchers face a far more difficult reality.

Many receive modest salaries, have limited benefits and no meaningful path to permanent employment, despite working repeatedly for the same organisation.

In some cases, the same individual performs essentially the same job for years, with each contract renewed for another few months.

Such arrangements may satisfy administrative requirements, but they provide little employment security or recognition of long-term service.

The consequences extend beyond individual hardship. Development work depends heavily on relationships, local knowledge and institutional memory.

Constant staff turnover can weaken relationships with communities and local authorities and force organisations to repeatedly rebuild expertise.

The personal costs are equally serious: uncertain incomes make it difficult to plan for housing, education and family responsibilities.

There is also an uncomfortable contradiction. The development sector spends much of its time addressing poverty, vulnerability, insecure livelihoods and social protection. Yet it has not always applied the same principles to its own workforce.

A field officer advising vulnerable households on managing economic shocks may themselves have no secure income, health coverage or protection against the sudden end of a project. That contradiction deserves greater attention.

Not all employment uncertainty can be eliminated. Donor priorities change, funding cycles end and crises inevitably redirect resources. But organisations can choose how much of that uncertainty they pass on to their employees.

There is scope for practical reform. Staff repeatedly employed across successive projects should, where feasible, be offered longer-term or core-funded positions rather than being kept indefinitely on short contracts.

Donors should provide greater support for institutional capacity and staff continuity, recognising that experienced personnel are themselves an important development asset.

Basic employment protections should also become standard across the sector.

Reasonable notice periods, severance arrangements, health coverage and provident-fund provisions should not be limited to employees of the largest organisations.

Labour regulations should be applied consistently, particularly by organisations that present themselves as part of the formal economy.

Greater transparency would help as well. Development organisations routinely measure employment insecurity among the communities they serve. They should be prepared to examine their own employment practices with similar rigour.

Publishing the proportion of staff employed on short-term contracts and the average duration of such employment would make the scale of the problem easier to understand.

None of this diminishes the considerable contribution made by Bangladesh’s development sector or the commitment of its professionals. Many remain in the field because they believe deeply in its mission. But commitment should not be used as a substitute for decent employment conditions.

Bangladesh’s development challenges are becoming more complex, from climate adaptation and urban poverty to social protection and inequality. Meeting those challenges will require experienced professionals who are able and willing to build careers in the sector.

A sector that seeks to reduce insecurity in society should not normalise insecurity within its own workforce. Ensuring greater employment stability is therefore not separate from the development mission; it is increasingly essential to it.

(The writer is a researcher and development professional).