Bangladesh’s EV transition stalls: systemic gaps in charging networks, price barriers, and neocolonial energy dependencies

Bangladesh’s rickshaw culture, rooted in South Asian traditions of human-powered transport, offers a low-cost, energy-efficient mobility model that predates fossil fuel dependence. Indigenous pedal-electric hybrids (e.g., ‘e-rickshaws’ with regenerative braking) could reduce battery strain while preserving livelihoods for over 1 million rickshaw pullers. However, state policies favor high-tech imports over grassroots innovation, reflecting a colonial legacy of dismissing local knowledge systems.

The current EV slowdown echoes the 1970s oil crisis, when Global South nations (e.g., Bangladesh in 1974) faced fuel rationing and IMF-imposed austerity, leading to long-term energy insecurity. Post-colonial energy policies prioritized centralized grids and fossil fuel subsidies, creating path dependencies that now hinder decentralized electrification. The failure to learn from 1980s Latin American ‘debt-for-nature’ swaps—where structural adjustment loans tied energy projects to foreign control—is evident in Bangladesh’s lithium battery import reliance.

Vietnam’s VinFast model shows how state-backed industrial policy can accelerate EV adoption by integrating local manufacturing and financing, a contrast to Bangladesh’s reliance on imported Chinese batteries. In India, the ‘e-rickshaw revolution’—driven by informal sector cooperatives—demonstrates how marginalized workers can lead mobility transitions when given access to microloans and training. Meanwhile, Cuba’s post-Soviet ‘Special Period’ adaptations highlight how resource scarcity can spur grassroots innovation in electric transport, a lesson for Bangladesh’s climate-vulnerable regions.

Bangladesh’s grid instability—exacerbated by climate-induced cyclones and upstream dam disruptions (e.g., India’s Farakka Barrage)—makes rapid EV adoption risky without battery storage and smart grid investments. Studies show that pedal-electric hybrids could reduce battery capacity needs by 40% while maintaining rickshaw utility, a solution overlooked by mainstream EV discourse. The scientific consensus on lithium supply chain externalities (e.g., water depletion in Chile’s Atacama, child labor in Congo) is rarely linked to Bangladesh’s import policies.

Rickshaw art in Dhaka—vibrant murals depicting folklore and social messages—embodies a cultural resistance to homogenizing ‘modern’ transport, framing mobility as a canvas for collective identity. The spiritual concept of ‘shohoj’ (simplicity) in Bengali philosophy aligns with pedal-electric hybrids as a low-impact alternative to high-tech EVs. Meanwhile, Sufi traditions of communal resource-sharing (e.g., ‘langar’ kitchen models) could inspire cooperative EV financing schemes, though these are absent from policy debates.

Scenario modeling suggests Bangladesh could achieve 60% EV adoption by 2035 by prioritizing rickshaw cooperatives, solar-powered charging hubs, and battery-swapping networks, but this requires redirecting fossil fuel subsidies (currently $4B/year) toward local manufacturing. A ‘leapfrog’ model—skipping lithium batteries entirely for sodium-ion or zinc-air alternatives—could reduce import dependencies, as demonstrated by India’s emerging battery tech. Without such shifts, Bangladesh risks locking into a ‘colonial energy trap’ where EV growth deepens trade deficits and climate vulnerability.

Rickshaw pullers, predominantly landless rural migrants, face triple burdens: fuel price hikes, police harassment for ‘illegal’ EVs, and exclusion from government EV loans due to lack of collateral. Women rickshaw drivers in Dhaka’s informal sector—often operating at night—are doubly marginalized, with no access to safe charging infrastructure or financial services. The narrative’s focus on ‘consumer choice’ ignores how 70% of Bangladeshis live in energy poverty, making EVs a luxury rather than a solution.