Public service delivery in Pakistan has long been inefficient and remains a persistent governance challenge and subject of public debate.
Service delivery is the most direct way in which the state interacts with its citizens. It determines whether people receive education, health care, clean water, reliable infrastructure, electricity, security and justice and social protection etc in a timely and fair manner.
In essence, citizens judge the government’s performance and credibility through service delivery. Service delivery is the core mechanism through which the state’s bond with its citizens is formed. The credible writ of the state is established through its ability to perform and deliver services to citizens, bringing a qualitative change in their lives. However, in our context, persistent weaknesses in service delivery systems continue to undermine public trust and constrain socioeconomic development, despite repeated reform efforts. Our media is always flooded with stories exposing how public institutions are failing to provide services that correspond to citizens’ aspirations for a dignified and prosperous life.
Public sector service delivery refers to the provision of essential goods and services by government institutions, using public resources to meet collective social, economic and administrative needs. Public services financed by public funds are delivered through federal, provincial and local government entities. Effective service delivery is measured not by the number of policies and schemes launched but by their efficient implementation, resulting in the achievement of the outcomes – accessibility, quality, affordability, reliability, transparency and equity. It represents the most visible expression of government performance and is often the primary basis for judging government effectiveness. When public services fail to reach citizens reliably and efficiently, governance deficits become apparent, regardless of public spending.
Pakistan’s public service delivery spectrum is constrained by a combination of institutional, governance and systemic challenges. One of the most significant challenges is weak institutional capacity, as many public-sector organisations face shortages of skilled personnel, inadequate policy frameworks, outdated procedures and limited operational autonomy. Over-centralisation of decision-making often slows responses and reduces service providers’ ability to address local needs in a timely manner. Gaps between governance and accountability further weaken service outcomes.
The weak enforcement of constitutional and statutory oversight institutions, including the Public Accounts Committees, the Auditor General’s Office and the Ombudsmen, together with the inability of investigative agencies to conclusively prove corruption, inefficiencies and public losses, has hollowed out the accountability framework. Consequently, defaulters are seldom held to account, creating an environment of impunity that weakens institutional discipline and perpetuates inefficiency and poor public service delivery.
Our stereotyped, input-based budgeting practices also contribute to a culture that prioritises procedural and regulatory compliance over the outcomes of public spending. Although ministries and departments prepare a three-year Mid-Term Budgetary Framework (MTBF) outlining targets, key performance indicators and indicative resource needs, the annual budget process remains largely incremental and disconnected from these benchmarks.
The absence of a credible link between medium-term objectives and yearly allocations weakens performance orientation and undermines results-based management. Politically driven and poorly prioritised development spending, along with mid-course changes in expenditure patterns, further distort resource allocation and adversely affect the quality and consistency of service delivery in the country.
At times, delays in fund releases and rigid financial control disrupt implementation, particularly at the operational level. As a consequence, resources do not consistently translate into improved services for citizens. Corruption and rent-seeking practices also impede the smooth delivery of services. Instances of leakages in public procurement, informal payments for basic services and misuse of public resources reduce both efficiency and public trust. The poor suffer the most as they lack the means to bypass the weak system. Some of the other factors contributing to poor service delivery include policy discontinuity, political interference and shifting priorities that impede institutional learning, long-term evidence-based decision-making and performance tracking.
Public dissatisfaction with service delivery in Pakistan has moved from episodic to structural. This reflects not only deficiencies in service provision but also weaknesses in the system designed to monitor service delivery performance. Monitoring remains fragmented, rule-bound and largely procedural, with limited attention to actual service outcomes.
Oversight of public sector performance is dispersed across multiple institutions – ministries and departments, the Planning Commission, Auditor General, Public Accounts Committees and anti-corruption agencies. In the absence of credible coordination and information sharing among these bodies, accountability becomes diffuse, institutional responsibility blurs and service-delivery failures persist without correction.
The monitoring of public-sector service delivery should be guided by a simple principle: public money must yield measurable results. Monitoring must be linked to outcomes and ensure that public services are made available to the targeted segments of society.
Poor service delivery seldom results in managerial consequences. The enforcement gap in Pakistan is equally revealing, as action against non-performing personnel is either not initiated at all or delayed by long periods, thereby undermining the purpose of accountability. Experience shows that audit reports often remain unresolved for years and that Public Accounts Committee (PAC) directives are frequently left unimplemented. Corruption cases are routinely weakened during judicial scrutiny due to poor investigation and weak evidence.
At the same time, failures in service delivery seldom trigger accountability at the level of organisational leadership. Together, these weaknesses entrench a culture of impunity across Pakistan’s poor public service delivery system. Pakistan needs to strengthen its overall accountability framework by reforming public institutions for better service delivery.
Recognising these systemic weaknesses, successive governments, including the current one, have launched reform initiatives to improve service delivery. Digital governance has expanded access to services in areas such as taxation, government payments, civil registration and redressing grievances, thereby reducing discretionary authority and enhancing transparency. Public financial management reforms- particularly outcome-based budgeting and medium-term planning- seek to align public spending with measurable results. The government has also pursued administrative reforms and capacity-building programmes to strengthen the civil service’s performance.
The 18th Amendment marked a major shift towards decentralisation by transferring primary responsibility for service delivery to provincial and local governments. In parallel, public-private partnerships have been promoted in sectors such as education, health, infrastructure and energy etc to improve operational efficiency. However, without substantially empowering local bodies and front-line administrations, these reforms will fall short of delivering improvements in service delivery.
Pakistan’s service delivery crisis is not merely a problem of limited resources but of weak institutions, inefficient implementation and ineffective accountability. Persistent gaps between policy intent and actual outcomes reflect fragmented monitoring, weak implementation of government projects and schemes, input-driven budgeting and a culture of impunity that allows failure to go uncorrected, all of which need to be addressed to ensure efficient delivery systems.
While recent reforms in digital governance, financial management and decentralisation signal recognition of the problem, their impact will remain limited unless they are embedded in a coherent performance framework that links spending to results and authority to responsibility. Restoring public trust ultimately depends on transforming service delivery from a procedural exercise into a results-oriented system in which institutions are held accountable for what they deliver to citizens.
The writer is the former auditor general of Pakistan.
