Adams, G.B., White, J.D. (1994), Dissertation research in public administration and cognate fields: An assessment of methods and quality, Public Administration Review, Vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 565 – 76CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aivazian, V.A., Ge, Ying., Qie, Jiaping (2005), Can corporatization improve the performance of state-owned enterprises even without privatization?, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 11, pp. 791 – 808CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alamgir, F., Cairns, G. (2014), Development or dispossession? An interpretation of global integration of public sector jute mills in Bangladesh, Critical Perspectives on International Business, Vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 207 – 223CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ariyo, A., Jerome, A. (1999), Privatization in Africa: An appraisal, World Development, Vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 201 – 213CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bilsen, V., Konings, J. (1998), Job creation, job destruction, and growth of newly established, privatized, and state-owned enterprises in transition economics: Survey evidence from Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania, Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 26, pp. 429 – 445CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booth, J. (2008), The Multimillionaire gas workers of Bangladesh, The Times, available online at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/article2608262.eceGoogle Scholar
Castro, J., Uhlenbruck, K. (1997), Characteristics of privatization: Evidence from developed , less developed and former communist countries, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28, pp. 123 – 143CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chowdhury, Dhiman (2001): Performance related pay in the public sector: Management’s opportunistic behavior and need for corrections, Bangladesh Development Studies, University of Dhaka, BangladeshGoogle Scholar
Chowdhury, Dhiman (2004): Incentives, Control and Development: Governance in private and public sector with special reference to Bangladesh, University of Dhaka, BangladeshGoogle Scholar
Costa, M.C., Jaime, V. I., (2008), Organizational status and efficiency: The case of the Spanish SOE “Paradores”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 494 – 508Google Scholar
Dewenter, K.L., Malatesta, P.H. (2001), State-owned and privately owned firms: An empirical analysis of profitability, leverage, and labor intensity, The American Economic Review, Vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 320 – 334CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 532 – 550Google Scholar
Gian, S. Sahota (1991), An assessment of the impact of industrial policy in Bangladesh, The Bangladesh Development Studies, Vol. 19, no. 1/2, pp. 157 – 199Google Scholar
Gruening, G. (2001), Origin and theoretical basis of new public management, International Public Management Journal, Vol. 4, no, 1, pp. 1 – 25CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gouret, Fabian (2007), Privatization and output behavior during the transition: Methods matter!, Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 35, pp. 3 – 34CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, K., Parker, D. (1991), Privatization: a conceptual framework: A comparative analysis of developed and developing countries, In A. Ott& K. Hartley (Eds.), Privatization and economic efficiency (pp. 11-25). Brookfield, VT: Edward dgarGoogle Scholar
Hay, D., Morris, D., Liu, G., Yao, S. (1994), Economic Reform and State-Owned Enterprises in China 1979-87, OUP Catalogue.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (1995), The ‘new public management’ in the 1980s: variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 20, No. 2/3, pp. 93 – 109CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C. (1998), A public management for all seasons?, Public Administration, Vol. 69, pp. 3 – 19Google Scholar
Jefferson, G.H., Su, J. (2006), Privatization and restructuring in China: Evidence from shareholding ownership, 1995-2001, Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 146 – 166Google Scholar
Jensen, J.L., Rodgers, R. (2001), Cumulating and intellectual gold of case study research, Public Administration Review. Vol. 61, no. 2, p. 235 – 246CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, C., Yao, S., Feng, G. (2013), Bank ownership, privatization, and performance: Evidence from a transition country, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 3364-3372.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Kay, J.A., Thompson, D.J. (1986), Privatization: A policy in search of a rationale, The Economic Journal, Vol. 96, no. 381, pp. 18 – 32CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kohinoor Chemical Co. Bangladesh Ltd. (KCCL) (2013), available online at http://www.oriongroup.net/cosmetic.phpGoogle Scholar
Kornai, Janos (2000), Ten years after the road to a free economy: The author’s self evaluation, In. Pleskovic, Boris, Stern, Nicholas (Eds.), Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economic, World Bank, Washington, pp. 49 – 66Google Scholar
Kole, S.R., Mulherin, J.H. (1997), The Government as a shareholder: A case from the United States, Journal of Economics and Law, Vol. 40, 1 – 12Google Scholar
Lopez-Calva, Luis F., Sheshinski, Eytan, (2003), Privatization and its benefits: Theory and evidence, CESifo Economic Studies, Vol. 49, pp. 429 – 459CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maesschalck, J. (2004), The impact of the new public management reform on public servant’s ethic: towards a theory, Public Administration, Vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 465 – 481CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maskin, E.S. (2000), Auctions, development, and privatization: Efficient auctions with liquidity-constrained buyers, European Economic Review, Vol. 44, no. 4-6, pp. 667 – 681CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muhammad, Anu (2002), Closure of Adamjee Jute Mills: Ominous Sign, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, no. 38, pp. 3895 – 3897Google Scholar
Omran, M. (2004), The performance of State-owned enterprises and newly privatized firms: Does privatization really matter? World Development, Vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1019 – 1041CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parnini, S.N. (2009), Public sector reform and good governance: The impact of foreign aid on Bangladesh, Journal of Asian and African Studies, Vol. 44, no.5, pp. 553 – 575CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Road, S. (1997): Investing in Egypt, Committee for Middle East Trade, LondonGoogle Scholar
Seawright J., Gerring, J. (2008), Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 294 – 308CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Sharma, U., Lawrence, S. (2015), Power, politics and privatization: A tale of a teletcommunications company, Critical Perspective of Accounting, Vol. 28, pp. 13 – 29Google Scholar
Sheaff, R., West, M. (1997), Mercerization, managers and moral strain: chairman, directors and public service ethos in the national health service, Public Administration, Vol. 75, pp. 189 – 206CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shirley, M.M. (1999), Bureaucrats in Business: The roles of privatization versus corporatization in state-owned enterprises reform, World Development, Vol. 27, no.1, pp. 115 – 136CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steward, J. (2012), Multiple-case study methods in governance-related research, Public Management Review, Vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 67 – 82CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
The Privatization Commission of Bangladesh (PCB), Achievement in the privatization, available online at http://www.pc.gov.bd/status11.htmGoogle Scholar
Toninelli, P.A. (2000): The rise and fall of State-Owned enterprises in the Western World, Cambridge University Press, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
Truth Commission for Bangladesh (TCB) (2008), British Broadcasting Corporation, available online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7420410.stmGoogle Scholar
Uddin, Shahzad., Hopper, Trevor (2003), Accounting for privatization in Bangladesh: Testing World Bank claims, Critical Perspective of Accounting, Vol. 14, pp. 739 – 774Google Scholar
Vickers, J., Yarrow, G. (1991), Economic perspective on privatization, Journal of Economic Perspective, Vol. 5, pp. 111 – 132Google Scholar
White, Jay D., Guy B. Adams, John P. Forrester (1996), Knowledge and theory development in public administration: The role of doctoral education and research, Public Administration Review, Vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 441 – 452CrossrefGoogle Scholar
World Bank (1997): The First Four Years (1994 – 1998), Bangladesh: Jute Sector Adjustment Credit, Report and RecommendationGoogle Scholar
Not to be confused with Digital Education Revolution, a similar program to provide secondary schools with digital infrastructure, also funded by the Australian Government.
Building the Education Revolution (BER) is an Australian government program administered by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) designed to provide new and refurbished infrastructure to all eligible Australian schools. The program was part of the Rudd government's economic stimulus package designed as a response to the 2007–2010 global financial crisis.
The program, totalling A$16.2 billion has three elements:
- Primary Schools for the 21st Century ($14.2b): providing new and refurbished halls, libraries and classrooms
- Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools ($821.8m): providing new and refurbished science laboratories and language learning centres
- National School Pride program ($1.28b): providing new and refurbished covered outdoor learning areas, shade structures, sporting facilities and other environmental programs.
The program has attracted attention from critics of the government for alleged "rorting" (misappropriation of public funds) and for not delivering value-for-money outcomes. Instances of inflated quotes or new buildings that were not particularly useful to the school were reported. The Leader of the OppositionTony Abbott called for a judicial inquiry into the BER and the Home Insulation Program, described by the opposition Liberal Party as "failed programs" and a "waste of public money".
In April 2010, the government announced the formation of the BER Implementation Taskforce "to ensure projects are providing value for money". Gillard defended the BER saying that it was "already one of the most heavily scrutinised programs in the nation's history" and that the program was the "centerpiece" of an economic stimulus package that helped to "ensure that a generation of Australians weren't consigned to months or years of joblessness".
After the 2010 election BER moved under the portfolio of Senator Chris Evans.
The Taskforce, headed by Brad Orgill, former chairman and chief executive of UBS Australasia, delivered its report to Senator Evans on 15 December 2010. The report found that most of BER projects had been successfully delivered, with only 3% of the schools involved in the program making complaints. Projects in NSW received the most complaints. The third and final report by Brad Orgill found that BER projects in NSW, QLD and VIC overpaid for buildings by more than 25% on average compared to Catholic schools and more than 55% compared to Independent schools. The ANAO investigation into the project ruled that comparison with those projects were not valid as the standards applied to government school facilities were higher.
Economist Joseph Stiglitz commented in August 2010 that the government's stimulus package, including the BER, was well-designed by world standards and that some waste was inevitable.
On 25 March 2014 three Australian academics published a paper in the International Journal of Public Administration that argued that the BER program represents a "'case study' of how governments should not pursue large-scale public expenditure programs". The paper says that the BER illustrates the pitfalls of large-scale public expenditure programs, and that it did not provide value for money.