Why did Pakistan decide on devolution? This study by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the UK Government Department for International Development (DFID) and the World Bank sets out the detailed history of the initiative, as well as the political, fiscal and administrative changes that have been made. It assesses the impact of these changes on the key actors. It concludes that there is no clear evidence that decentralisation has led to better governance and improved service delivery.
On taking power in 1999, the Musharraf government announced a far-reaching reform agenda for “reconstructing the institutions of the state” through the establishment of a democratically elected system of local government. The government emphasised that the new system was designed to ensure citizen involvement in planning services and to provide mechanisms for citizen oversight of implementation. Underpinning the overall political strategy were other, technical, objectives, the most prominent being the promise to improve service delivery, social services in particular. The objectives of changing the system of governance was to restructure the bureaucratic set up and decentralise the administrative authority to the district level and below. It aimed to:
- Refocus administrative systems to allow public participation in decisionmaking.
- Facilitate monitoring of government functionaries by the monitoring committees of the local councils. Rationalise administrative structures for improving efficiency.
- Introduce performance incentive systems to reward efficient officials. Ensure functioning of the related offices in an integrated manner to achieve synergistic effect and improve service delivery.
- Eliminate delays in decision-making and disposal of business through enhanced administrative and financial authority of district and town level officers.
- Redress grievances of people against maladministration through the office of the district ombudsman. The government functionaries will also be eligible to lodge complaints against the unlawful and motivated orders of the elected officials.
- Enable the proactive elements of society to participate in community work and development related activities.
Whether the incentives really will in turn lead to better services in health, education, infrastructure and access to justice across local governments remains an empirical question. The question is how to improve the services from the provider to citizens.
- Nazimeen must be influenced by citizen power, in the form of “voice,” so that they have an incentive to direct those providers to achieve service delivery improvements.
- There are the incentives on those who provide the services so that they also want to see improvements. This motivation can be provided through managerial power, ensuring that the nazimeen and senior staff have authority over the front line workers.
- It can also be provided through citizen power providing potential service recipients with some direct means to have an impact on the conduct of service providers.
- It is important that local governments have autonomy to manage expenditures so as to increase incentives for efficient and effective use of funds.
- In addition to problems of overspending, intergovernmental transfers can also lead to inefficiencies in the quality of local government expenditures.
- Since costs are borne by distant taxpayers, local citizens have fewer incentives to monitor public expenditures and the services produced by the local government.
