Shudev Barua
Freelance Analyst
For years, the Bangladesh Investment Development Authority (BIDA) has played a pivotal role in encouraging, facilitating and retaining investment in Bangladesh. While it deserves credit for initiatives such as its 180-Day Action Plan to unify a long-fragmented investment architecture and the digitalisation of one-stop services, its overall impact remains open to question, particularly in 2025.
During the past year, BIDA attracted 4,200 participants and over 130 speakers through widely discussed initiatives, including the Bangladesh Investment Summit 2025, roadshows, investor roundtables, Startup Connect events, sector consultations and international investor delegations. Yet equity capital, the most important indicator of fresh foreign direct investment (FDI), tells a less encouraging story.
Although Bangladesh’s net FDI rose strongly to $1.77 billion in 2025, the increase was driven primarily by reinvested earnings and intra-company loans, which reflect retained capital rather than new investment. Reinvested earnings and intra-company loans increased by 318% and 25.7% respectively, while equity capital grew by only 1.84%, rising by just $10 million from $544.64 million in 2024 to $554.64 million in 2025. Existing investors undoubtedly became more active, but the weak conversion of promotional activity into fresh equity investment remains difficult to ignore.
The extensive media attention received by the widely praised BIDA chairman, Ashik Chowdhury, also merits scrutiny. Throughout 2025, he appeared in national television interviews, newspaper features, summit speeches, investor forums, podcasts, international media coverage and social media campaigns. This arguably made him one of the most visible economic policymakers in Bangladesh. However, media visibility alone cannot substitute for measurable investment outcomes.
At a time of heightened geopolitical uncertainty, the implications of opening BIDA’s first international office in China also deserve consideration. Establishing a presence in China is not inherently problematic. As the world’s second-largest economy, China remains an important source of investment, while rising labour costs there continue to drive supply-chain relocation abroad.
The question, however, is why China was selected for BIDA’s first overseas office. South Asia is increasingly shaped by strategic competition among China, India and the United States. While Washington and Delhi have experienced disagreements over trade issues, both countries continue to express concerns regarding expanding Chinese influence across the Indo-Pacific region. Given that both the United States and India are deeply integrated with Bangladesh’s economy, an apparent tilt towards Beijing could create unwanted perceptions abroad. A more balanced approach would involve establishing offices across multiple major economies, including China, Japan, India and the United States, signalling diversification rather than concentration.
Addressing these challenges requires drawing lessons from successful investment-promotion agencies abroad, particularly in India, Vietnam, Indonesia and Rwanda. First, Bangladesh could introduce statutory approval deadlines, whereby agencies’ failure to respond within a specified timeframe would result in approvals being automatically granted. India has already experimented with similar mechanisms at the state level. Second, drawing partly on the United Kingdom’s former delivery-unit model, Bangladesh could establish a Cabinet-level Investment Delivery Unit responsible for publicly tracking major projects, bottlenecks and implementation delays.
Third, BIDA could adopt a more decentralised approach by creating permanent country desks for key partners such as the United States, India, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Germany. Each desk could receive annual investment targets, encourage specialisation and improve efficiency. Fourth, Indonesia’s Online Single Submission (OSS) system offers an important lesson. By reducing licensing complexity, the OSS system improved the investment environment considerably. Rather than functioning primarily as a digital forwarding platform, BIDA’s One Stop Service should evolve into a genuine approval authority.
Finally, Vietnam may provide the most important lesson of all. Its success did not stem primarily from marketing campaigns or investment summits. Instead, Vietnam ensured that industrial zones were ready, electricity remained reliable, customs procedures improved and investors received predictable rules. Ultimately, infrastructure and policy certainly matter far more to investors than promotional events.
The central question facing BIDA is no longer whether it can attract attention. The question is whether it can convert attention into factories, jobs, technology transfer and fresh equity capital. Until implementation metrics improve, Bangladesh risks becoming a country known for investment summits rather than investment outcomes.
