Too important to trust locally?

EDITORIAL: Pakistan’s long-term development challenge is no mystery. Child malnutrition, stunting, poor educational outcomes, weak healthcare access and inadequate service delivery have been documented repeatedly by governments, international institutions and development experts. So the latest discussion between the World Bank and the federal government merely reaffirmed what has been known for years: sustained economic progress ultimately depends on investing in people and ensuring that basic services actually reach those who need them most.

The diagnosis is familiar. The proposed remedies are familiar too. Better nutrition, stronger healthcare systems, improved educational outcomes and targeted investments in human capital all deserve support. Yet one crucial element was conspicuously absent from the conversation. Pakistan continues to discuss service delivery while largely ignoring the tier of government best positioned to deliver those services.

This omission has become one of the most persistent contradictions in the country’s governance structure. Policymakers routinely speak of improving schools, clinics, sanitation, local infrastructure and community-level development. At the same time, successive governments have systematically weakened local government institutions or treated them as administrative afterthoughts rather than essential components of governance.

The irony is difficult to miss. Service delivery is inherently local. A school exists in a community. A health centre serves a neighbourhood. Water supply, sanitation, waste management and basic municipal services all operate at the local level. The farther decision-making moves from citizens, the harder it becomes to respond effectively to local needs and monitor outcomes.

The principle itself is straightforward. Effective governance requires authority to flow logically through the system, from the federation to the provinces and from the provinces to local governments. Each tier exists because it performs functions that cannot be managed efficiently from above. Concentrating authority at higher levels may satisfy political interests, but it rarely improves service delivery.

Pakistan’s experience provides ample evidence of this reality. Local governments have repeatedly been suspended, weakened, delayed or deprived of meaningful authority and financial resources. Political parties across the spectrum have often viewed empowered local bodies with suspicion, largely because devolution disperses influence, control and access to public resources. The result is a system in which only provincial governments can perform functions that naturally belong to local institutions.

The costs are visible across the country. Citizens struggle to access basic services while elected representatives at provincial and national levels become occupied with issues that should never require their intervention. Governance becomes centralised, bureaucracy expands and accountability weakens because responsibility is diffused across multiple layers of administration.

This problem becomes even more serious when viewed through the lens of human development. The World Bank delegation correctly highlighted child nutrition, maternal health, foundational learning and healthcare access as critical priorities. Yet improvements in these areas depend heavily on implementation capacity at the community level. Policies drafted in Islamabad or provincial capitals ultimately succeed or fail in villages, towns and urban neighbourhoods.

That reality raises an uncomfortable question. How can Pakistan expect meaningful progress on human development indicators while continuing to marginalise the institutions most directly connected to citizens?

The experience of many successful developing countries suggests that strong local governance is often a prerequisite for improvements in health, education and social outcomes. Local officials possess greater familiarity with community needs, local infrastructure constraints and service gaps. They are also more visible and accessible to the people affected by their decisions.

None of this implies that local governments are a cure-all. They require oversight, transparency and adequate capacity. But reducing them to symbolic bodies with limited authority serves no one except those reluctant to share power.

The World Bank and the government were therefore correct to emphasise the importance of measurable outcomes and stronger service delivery. The challenge is that such outcomes will remain elusive if Pakistan continues approaching development through excessively centralised structures.

For decades, the country has discussed the need to improve health, education and social welfare indicators. Those goals remain as important as ever. Achieving them, however, requires recognising an uncomfortable truth: meaningful service delivery cannot be managed indefinitely from distant capitals. The people closest to the problem are often closest to the solution as well.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026