A politically sensitive debate has reignited in Pakistan over whether its four-province system can effectively govern a country of around 260 million people. The controversy over creating more provinces has generated confusion and revived settled issues. What is surprising is the rationale behind this move. When the country is already facing a difficult and turbulent economic and political situation, should the government pursue such an irritant and controversial issue amid economic instability and political polarization? One fails to understand why and by whom this debate has been initiated. If governance is the issue, all efforts should be made to improve it. If the government has failed to control law and order, curb corruption and improve citizens’ quality of life, is creating more provinces the answer? Has the present government calculated the additional administrative costs?
Pakistan’s provinces carry major service delivery responsibilities, yet provinces own-source revenue remains limited. In 2024-2025, provincial taxes brought in just PKR 983 billion, equivalent to less than 0.9% of gross domestic product. Meanwhile, agriculture which accounts for 24% of value addition but has historically yielded very little relative to the size of the sector. The International Monetary Fund estimates agriculture’s effective tax rate at just 0.3%, while agricultural income tax revenues have remained below expectations even after rates were increased in 2025.
For decades, provincial tax authorities have struggled with limited administrative capacity, weak enforcement and inadequate information, making it difficult to identify and collect tax on agricultural income. The recent reforms aim to address some of these weaknesses but their success will depend on better data sharing with the Federal Board of Revenue, greater automation and stronger provincial capacity to enforce the rules. Weak local revenue systems also undermine accountability because citizens are less able to connect what they pay with what they receive. Greater fiscal proximity, if designed carefully, could strengthen that link.
Political economy argument also applies. Strong and effective administration, which free of corruption, can widen the pipeline of political and administrative leadership. They can make it easier to plan around local economic strengths, manage climate shocks, respond to urban growth and tailor services to district-level needs. For a country exposed to floods, water stress, rapid urbanization and youth employment pressures, proximity is not a luxury; it is part of resilience.
The caution is that redesign must not become fragmentation for its own sake. Some countries face the opposite risk: too many weak local bodies, without adequate fiscal or institutional capacity, can leave governments fragmented and ineffective. The goal should not be simply to multiply administrative units but to align scale, authority, resources and accountability. In USA, the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada are much bigger than the size of Sindh but have one Governor and State Government to run the whole State and they do it since years with no issues. There is no universal answer and no ideal number of provinces, states or counties. However, the principle is broader than any boundary: when populations grow faster than institutions, governments must be willing to redesign those institutions so decisions, resources and accountability can be brought close enough to the people who live with the consequences and the answer lies in effective Local Government.
Each scenario involves trade-offs. Fewer, larger units may be easier to legislate and finance. More numerous units could bring capitals, budgets and political authority closer to citizens but would raise transition costs and require stronger administrative capacity. Evidence from other countries also cautions against treating boundary reform as a cure-all. New administrative units can improve responsiveness but only when paired with capable institutions, transparent transfers, comparable performance data and incentives for local revenue mobilization. For Pakistan, the debate should not be framed as a contest over one “correct” map because it presents a set of governance scenarios. Many of the issues of Governance can be addressed through De-centralization and effective and corruption free Local Governments. Another approach could build on existing civil divisions, creating more than 10-15 Divisional units with average populations closer to those seen in other large federations.
The 18th Constitutional Amendment and the 7th National Finance Commission Award, for instance, devolved major responsibilities for services such as health and education to the provinces, while giving them a much larger share of federal taxes – from 47.5 to 57.5 %. The education sectors further outline these variations. The Planning Commission’s District Education Performance Index, for instance, found that none of the 134 assessed districts reached the “very high” performance category. Recent household survey reporting also shows that 28% of children aged five to 16 are out of school nationally, with provincial rates ranging from 21% in Punjab to 45% in Balochistan. These gaps reflect distance: between policymakers and districts, budgets and outcomes, authority and accountability and, above all, good governance. Even within the ruling coalition, there is disagreement over how and when such reforms should be pursued. There are also questions about whether creating smaller provinces improves governance or whether devolving power directly to local governments would be more effective. Many countries in the world have addressed and tackled these issues with devolution of powers and de-centralization and strengthening Local Governments. Perhaps therein lies the answer to the real problems, confronting us today.
—The writer is Former Civil Servant and Consultant (ILO) & International Organisation for Migration and author of seven books.
