Policy Brief: Why Public Sector Projects Fail to Deliver in Pakistan

Executive Summary Public sector projects in Pakistan frequently experience delays, cost overruns, or fail to deliver intended outcomes. To identify the most critical causes, four Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 35 civil servants involved in project planning and implementation. Using structured participatory tools, including pair-wise ranking matrix techniques, participants identified and prioritized key factors leading to unsuccessful projects. The findings reveal that weaknesses in project identification and preparation, combined with governance and financing challenges, are the most significant contributors to poor project performance. Addressing these issues can substantially improve the effectiveness and value for money of public sector investments. Purpose of the Study The policy brief aims to:

Identify the most critical factors leading to unsuccessful public sector projects in Pakistan
Prioritize these factors based on practitioners’ experience
Provide actionable policy recommendations to improve project performance

Methodology Four FGDs were conducted with civil servants (7–8 participants per group). Each group initially identified factors contributing to project failure. Pair-wise ranking matrices were applied within groups to extract the most critical factors. A consolidated list was developed and refined through a plenary discussion involving all 35 participants. The refined list was subjected to a final pair-wise ranking exercise to establish priorities. Key Findings: Most Critical Factors (Ranked) The final ranking of factors, from highest to lowest significance, is as follows:

Poor or absence of proper need assessment exercises
Political interference in project selection and management
Poor preparation of PC-I documents
Lack of ownership, particularly at the senior management level
Absence of risk analysis and risk management plans
Delays in the release of funds
These findings indicate that failures originate primarily at the project identification and preparation stages, and are reinforced by governance and institutional weaknesses during implementation.

Policy Implications Upstream weaknesses matter most: Inadequate need assessment and weak PC-I preparation undermine project relevance, feasibility, and sustainability. Governance risks are systemic: Political interference distorts project selection, prioritization, and implementation, weakening accountability. Leadership and ownership gaps exist. Limited senior-level ownership reduces decision-making efficiency and accountability. Risk and financing constraints include the absence of structured risk management and delays in fund releases significantly affect implementation timelines and outcomes. Policy Recommendations Here are the policy recommendations:

Institutionalize rigorous need assessment. Mandate evidence-based need assessments aligned with sector strategies before project approval.
Strengthen PC-I preparation and appraisal. Enhance technical scrutiny, cost estimation, and results frameworks during PC-I preparation. Build capacity of planning and line ministry staff in project design.
Limit political interference through clear governance frameworks. Introduce transparent project selection criteria and strengthen the role of independent appraisal bodies.
Enhance senior-level ownership and accountability. Clearly assign project sponsorship responsibilities at the senior management level.
Integrate risk analysis into the project cycle. Require risk assessment and mitigation plans as a mandatory component of PC-I approval.
Ensure timely and predictable fund releases. Improve coordination between planning and finance authorities to align cash flow with project timelines.
Last but not least, technology should be adopted to automate, and integrate real time progress reporting of all projects.

Conclusion This policy brief underscores that improving public sector project performance in Pakistan requires a shift from reactive implementation fixes to stronger upstream planning, governance reforms, and accountability mechanisms. By addressing the highest-ranked failure factors—particularly need assessment, political interference, and PC-I quality—the government can significantly enhance development impact and public trust in state-led investments.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply