Reform or redundancy?

In 2024–25, Pakistan’s federal and provincial governments announced yet more agencies – under the pretense of reform – ranging from cybersecurity and health to housing and trade. But instead of fixing or streamlining what already exists, the state is duplicating functions, bloating bureaucracy and worsening governance.

Pakistan’s state already dominates over two-thirds of the economy through public enterprises and a sprawling and redundant administrative system. The unchecked growth in government entities fuels turf wars, clogs decision-making, and diverts resources from actual reform to symbolic structures.

The federal government introduced or expanded at least 16 entities in 2024–25, including: NIFTAC and PIFTACs (intelligence); NFCA and NCCIA (cybercrime); NAFSA (food safety), CCRA (cannabis regulation); Digital governance: PSARB, DPA, NDC; FBR expansions: Trade-Based Money Laundering Directorate, NTC; Economic reform: PRMI, E-Procurement, Privatization Commission; and Committee to Protect Employee Interests (bureaucratic mergers).

These additions were branded as modernization, but most simply add to overlaps. Intelligence is now handled by NACTA, ISI, IB, NIFTAC and PIFTACs, creating confusion. Cybercrime enforcement is splintered between NFCA, NCCIA and FIA. Similarly, digital policy is now contested between DPA, NDC and the IT ministry.

Instead of enhancing regulations, agencies like NAFSA and CCRA have added red tape. E-procurement tools are being introduced atop dysfunctional systems, digitising inefficiency rather than resolving it. Without coordination, this agency explosion amounts to governance theatre, not transformation.

Punjab introduced 16 new or expanded bodies: Finance & digital governance: Public Financial Management Reforms, Green Financing Unit, Digital Transformation Units; Housing: Punjab Affordable Housing Program (PAHP); Governance: SMART Punjab, PRIDE, AI Monitoring Unit; Health: MTIs, cancer institutes, trauma centres; Education: School Reorganization Program; and Services: Family Planning Unit, Property Valuation Units, Punjab Life Insurance Company.

While positioned as reform, these reflect quantity over quality. Digital initiatives lack the backbone of civil service reform. AI dashboards without accountability are lipstick on the pig of public sector dysfunction.

Housing and health expansions pile onto unreformed bureaucracies, risking the creation of politicised, underperforming units. Fiscal stress, like unaddressed pensions, remains untouched. Punjab’s trajectory shows institutional duplication masked as progress.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s budget created or grew 15 bodies, covering: Emergency & health: 44 Rescue 1122 stations, expanded MTIs; Trade: Daraban Economic Zone Authority, Torkham Trade Corridor Hub; Employment: TEVTA vocational centers, Rozgar programmes; Governance: KP IT Board DSUs, Solar Scheme Unit, Asset Management (Auqaf); and Financial oversight: Debt Management Fund, Takaful Insurance, M&E Cells.

The intentions – better healthcare, trade facilitation, youth jobs – are good. But these new institutions lack clear delivery models or adequate funding. Vocational centres are misaligned with job markets. Economic zones risk repeating SEZ failures.

KP’s challenge is classic: too many new promises, too little institutional reform. Without improved financial management and real consolidation, the province’s governance will remain stretched and shallow.

Balochistan added 7 new or expanded bodies, including: PPP Authority & Viability Gap Fund (infrastructure); Insurance & Pension Funds for public servants; and Endowment Fund (education), M&E Cell, Drinking Water Project Unit.

These initiatives reflect a reformist image but lack operational capacity. PPP efforts are hollow without enforceable laws or investor trust. Welfare schemes further burden a fragile payroll system without addressing civil service reform.

Endowments and water delivery risk repeating old failures: underperformance, misuse, and no public oversight. Balochistan seems to be copying other provinces without adapting to its needs – creating expensive facades rather than lasting systems.

Sindh launched six initiatives, mostly under Planning & Development: Inclusive Enclave, Korangi: Rs5 billion for integrated services to marginalised groups; Shared Services Unit, PMIU for Rural Growth; IT Data Center Strengthening, M&E Unit (PHED); and Disaster & E-Governance Cell (Malir DC).

Though seemingly inclusive and tech-driven, these are often donor-facing project units. Without systemic reform or budget integration, they create parallel bureaucracies. IT investments remain siloed, while monitoring units become checkbox exercises.

The risk in Sindh is the same: layering ‘modern’ functions atop politicised, inefficient structures. Unless governance is depoliticised and merged with real reform, these units will add visibility, not value.

Gilgit-Baltistan introduced six new or restructured bodies: IT Department and IT Board; Technical Education Department; Tourism and Culture Department; Directorate of Minerals (expanded); Project Management Unit for Renewable Energy; and Community Investment Fund Management Unit.

These efforts – digital, educational, environmental – appear future-oriented. But limited institutional capacity, low connectivity and lack of staff training severely constrain delivery. Tourism investments may falter without basic infrastructure and regulation. Mining oversight lacks legal teeth and community protections.

Most importantly, local ownership is weak. Projects like micro-hydel can’t succeed without community involvement and maintenance – still missing from most implementation models.

Pakistan keeps building new institutions without fixing old ones. Many duplicate mandates or add more complexity to already overloaded systems. Most are announced as reform but serve as bureaucratic optics or donor checklists rather than governance solutions.

Instead of endless expansion, the country needs fewer, better institutions – clear in purpose, professionally run, and accountable. Real reform doesn’t mean creating more; it means simplifying governance, empowering delivery and ensuring outcomes. Until then, more government will continue to mean less effective governance.

The writer is an honorary fellow at Socio Economic Insights and Analytics, a think tank consultant outfit