Over the past decade, Pakistan has spent Rs20,000,000,000,000 (Rs20 trillion) on its Public Sector Development Program — roughly Rs500,000 per Pakistani household.
Yet, one is hard-pressed to point to Rs20 trillion worth of development on the ground.
Even after spending Rs20 trillion, a throw-forward of over Rs8 trillion reflects the weight of ongoing project commitments. What does that really mean? It means the government has launched far more projects than it can afford to fund in any given year. It means that despite a decade of spending, we still need another Rs8 trillion just to complete what’s already in the pipeline. Yes, this backlog locks up future development budgets, leaving little room for new initiatives. Yes, it points to three things: poor planning, chronic delays, and inefficient execution.
With over PKR 20 trillion allocated to the PSDP from 2015–16 to 2024–25, how many post-project impact studies have been conducted to assess their effectiveness? A post-project impact study evaluates the real-world difference a completed project has made for Pakistanis. Three key questions: Did the project achieve its intended objectives? Has it measurably improved people’s lives? Was the investment cost-effective?
For instance, if the government allocates Rs6 billion to construct a 600-bed Mother and Child Hospital, a post-project impact study would rigorously assess outcomes such as patient intake before and after completion, changes in maternal and child health indicators in the surrounding region, and adherence to budgetary and timeline targets. It provides a structured, evidence-based evaluation of whether the project achieved its intended objectives and delivered value for money.
In the absence of post-project impact studies there’s no systematic way to assess whether Rs20 trillion delivered value for money. In the absence of post-project impact studies the Planning Commission cannot identify lessons learned, such as why delays occur. In the absence of post-project impact studies the Planning Commission cannot document successes or failures; future PSDP projects risk repeating mistakes, such as inadequate feasibility studies or unrealistic timelines, perpetuating inefficiencies.
In the absence of post-project impact studies there’s no way of determining if Rs20 trillion spent has improved Pakistanis’ lives or not. In the absence of post-project impact studies there’s no way of determining if there’s been actual economic benefits. In the absence of post-project impact studies there’s no way of determining if Rs20 trillion worth of projects addressed their intended problems. In the absence of post-project impact studies policymakers remain unaware of gaps in outcomes versus objectives.
Yes, with over PKR 20 trillion allocated the Planning Commission does conduct some post-program evaluations through its Project Monitoring and Evaluation System (PMES). However, there is little to no integration of these findings into future planning, undermining their value. Without systematically addressing critical questions—Did the project achieve its intended objectives? Has it measurably improved Pakistanis’ lives? Was the investment cost-effective?—the Commission risks repeating inefficiencies.
To be certain, the throw-forward – the future funding requirement of already-approved projects – has ballooned into trillions of rupees. This phenomenon leads to three things: chronic underfunding of ongoing projects, causing time and cost overruns. A dilution of strategic focus, where new politically-driven projects are approved even before older ones are completed. And a perpetual cash flow crisis in the PSDP, where allocations are spread thin and execution suffers.
South Korea, Malaysia, and Chile have adopted strict sequencing rules where new projects cannot be approved unless ongoing ones are either completed or independently assessed for continuation.
The Planning Commission must legislate a formal ceiling on the cumulative throw-forward as a percentage of the expected PSDP allocation (e.g., no more than 150% of annual PSDP). New PC-1 approvals must demonstrate either: full funding for completion within five years, or that they fill a high-priority national gap and will not impair current project execution.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank, and UK’s National Audit Office (NAO) mandate Post-Completion Reviews (PCRs) for all projects above a certain cost threshold, often conducted by independent third parties to avoid institutional bias. The Planning Commission must mandate that all PSDP projects above Rs1 billion must undergo a PCR within 12 months of completion. The Planning Commission must institutionalize Post-Completion Reviews (PCRs) with Third-Party Audits.
Pakistan’s Rs20 trillion PSDP expenditure over the past decade, equivalent to Rs500,000 per household, has yielded insufficient tangible development due to poor planning, chronic delays, and a lack of rigorous evaluation. A throw-forward exceeding Rs8 trillion further strains future budgets, locking resources into incomplete projects. By mandating Post-Completion Reviews (PCRs) with third-party audits, capping throw-forward at 150 percent of annual PSDP, and enforcing strict project sequencing, the Planning Commission can enhance accountability, optimize resource use, and ensure future investments deliver measurable benefits for Pakistanis.
