Turkey has a centralized state architecture. Ankara centralizes fiscal, education and security func-tions and appoints governors. The result is effective mega-project delivery and a strong defence-industrial buildup.
Vietnam is a unitary state where Hanoi sets fiscal and industrial priorities and provinces compete within national directives. As a result, Vietnam has become a Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) mag-net, experiencing rapid industrialization and emerging as a major manufacturing hub.
Japan is a highly centralized state where Tokyo controls policy, budgets and appointments, while prefectures mainly execute directives. The result has been coordinated industrial policy, rapid post-WWII modernization and the evolution of Japan into the world’s third-largest economy.
Rwanda adopted a centralized state architecture as its post-conflict developmental model. The presidency directs all major programs and districts are tightly monitored. Despite limited resources, Rwanda has become the fastest-growing African economy with strong service delivery.
Bangladesh embraced a unitary model with a centralized bureaucracy. Dhaka controls budgets, ap-pointments and infrastructure planning. The result has been sustained high growth of 6–7% (pre-COVID), a garment export boom and a rising Human Development Index (HDI).
South Korea has a unitary, centralized developmental state model. Seoul directs industrial, defence technology policy. The result has been an export-led industrialization model and a successful transition from a low-income nation to an OECD technology leader.
Saudi Arabia operates under a unitary monarchy where Vision 2030 and the Public Investment Fund (PIF) fall directly under central authority. Provincial governors are appointed to ensure alignment between national priorities and local administration. This centralized command enables fast execution of mega-projects and promotes fiscal coherence, as planning, funding and implementation remain under a single strategic vision.
Ethiopia, under Abiy’s reforms, has moved toward a formally federal but centralized model. Addis Ababa has tightened control over fiscal and security levers, resulting in faster decision-making but also political tensions in peripheral regions.
Singapore’s governance is extremely centralized — all executive, fiscal and planning authority rests with the center, with no sub-federal units to divide responsibility or delay execution. This tight cen-tralization has produced top global rankings in governance, infrastructure and education. Singa-pore’s model stands as a benchmark for administrative efficiency and strategic coherence.
Egypt is strongly centralized, with Cairo controlling governors and budgets and granting limited local autonomy. The result has been centralized infrastructure execution, such as the Suez Canal Zone and the new administrative capital.
Malaysia functions as a highly centralized state where national economic planning bridges political and developmental divides across regions. This centralized governance model has ensured policy coherence — aligning provincial priorities with national objectives — and fostered sustained eco-nomic growth by minimizing duplication and maintaining consistent direction over time.
Empirical evidence from developing countries shows that centralization works — but only under the right conditions. It succeeds when paired with three essentials: technocratic planning capacity, accountable performance management and a coherent national vision. Without these, centralization merely concentrates inefficiency.
Lesson Number 1 for Pakistan: Islamabad needs greater fiscal bandwidth for national projects. It must design conditional transfers instead of blanket NFC shares.
Lesson Number 2 for Pakistan: For mega-projects, Islamabad should create centrally managed “mission units.” Execution has always been slow due to multiple jurisdictions; unified command — as seen in South Korea and Singapore — delivers speed, accountability and results.
Lesson Number 3 for Pakistan: Civil–military coordination remains fragmented. Development and security functions overlap across federal and provincial jurisdictions, creating duplication, delay and confusion. The solution lies in constitutional clarity and central command — for instance, through a reformed Article 243 that clearly defines joint authority, coordination mechanisms and accountabil-ity.
Lesson Number 4 for Pakistan: National performance dashboards and ministerial KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) must be established. Current accountability mechanisms are overlapping, with diffused responsibility. Centralized metrics can ensure focused accountability.
Lesson Number 5 for Pakistan: Centralization should drive swift national reforms, while carefully delegated authority can ensure efficient local delivery — much like Sweden’s municipal services model, where strong central planning is paired with empowered local execution.
—The writer is a journalist and political analyst and currently
executive director of the Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS)..
