The case of Bangladesh's superficial development - Why has the country's economic growth been the catalyst for working class underdevelopment?

Bangladesh is often seen as an example of a developing country well on its way out of poverty through rapid and consistent economic growth. With the country's ready-made garment (RMG) industry playing a major role in transforming Bangladesh into the second largest global garments exporter, this economic growth would normally translate into improved living standards of the working class. In reality, the country has suffered from a paradox of promising growth accompanied by persistent wealth inequality molded by symbolic improvements within the middle class and a rise in precarious labor. Informal employment rose by 10% from 2000 to 2010 with living standards remaining on par with that of a low-developed country. This study will investigate why development has not been extended to the working class which continues to survive under the national living wage with little-to-no opportunities for upward mobility.
It is hypothesized that the line between the capitalist elites and the state may be blurred to the degree that a co-constitutive relationship between the two actively perpetuates working class repression to sustain an economy that relies on cheap labor. A facade of false progressive narratives seems to have been built amidst the promotion of objective development focused on the provision of services and resources, rather than social mobilization. This research will study Bangladesh's formative years as the inception point of its development journey, and re-center the role of the state and capitalist elite to provide a novel account of the nation's struggle. By historicizing labor welfare abuse within the RMG industry, and subsequently examining past and present labor regimes, the study will challenge established narratives of exploitation being a by-product of mismanagement, poor governance and market pressures. The research will then explore the potential for labor-led development as a viable alternative.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Research on Bangladesh has been largely examined within the regional context of South Asia and as a marginal case which draws limited interest in its critique from foreign scholars. Local researchers are often provided with a state-positive "box" to fit their findings in, with research in the country suffering from territorial epistemology and nationalist defensiveness. The literature also lacks a distinction between inequality and poverty with a common goal being to accentuate how economic policies have raised people's income levels above a largely superficial poverty line.
Other analyses from neoliberal and statist approaches have contextualized Bangladesh's development journey but have been unable to fully explain why immiserizing growth continues. The nature in which the country was established is continuously overlooked with the role of the state often ignored/misinterpreted, both in its failure to use power and in its abuse of it. It is necessary to revisit the country's formative years where the root causes lie buried in order to lay the foundation for a novel examination of labor exploitation through critical labor regime and GVC analysis.
With more contemporary studies of Latin America, South Africa and Asia suggesting bottom-up approaches to development as possible alternatives, the potential of labor-led development as a normative political intervention within the RMG industry should also be examined.
To carry out this research, three questions must be asked:
1.What historical social-property and class relations were influential in directing Bangladesh's development journey from 1971, and by whom?
2.How is exploitative labor being sustained and (re)produced in the RMG industry, and what are the real barriers that prevent laborers leaving a fundamentally suppressive labor pool?
3.What would grass-roots labor-led development within the RMG industry look like, and how could it influence state practices and impact GVCs to counter the growing value-capture crisis and labor-share disparity?