According to Global Competitiveness Index 2016-17 of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Pakistan ranks 122 among 138 nations in quality of business environment. Furthermore, The World Bank’s ‘Doing Business’ report for 2017 ranks Pakistan 170 in ease of access to energy and 169 in property registration among 190 countries. Behind these numbers is hidden life’s reality for the people of Pakistan whose fate is decided by street-level bureaucratic structure.
Citizens’ experiences with street-level bureaucrats, frontline government officials who work at grass root level, define their perception of quality of governance and level of trust. Street-level bureaucrats include public sector officials from various departments such as police, energy, education and health. They are the ones who implement government policies.
Policy implementation often digresses from the intended policy in such a situation. This means that the government’s reputation highly depends on the lowest rung of the administrative ladder. But practically, the tier of street-level bureaucracy remains out of policy focus.
In Pakistan, public perception about these bureaucrats is generally far from satisfactory for several reasons. The vague and complex set of rules and procedures give them substantial discretionary powers. Resource limitations and improper workload along with monopolistic powers limit the public’s access to quality services.
The individual biases of such officials also play an important role. Based on their own social background, past experiences and stereotypical views, they divide citizens by income group and influence. The nature and style of interaction provides enough grounds for concluding that the less privileged individuals are treated like dirt.
Only the relatively affluent can afford some of the services like health and education which are also available in the private sector. State services are a major source of corruption. They are Hobson’s choice — seeking police help, visiting a registrar office for land-related paper work or running after the electricity supplier for connection or troubleshooting.
Vague rules, procedures and standards serve the corrupt among state officials. Use of archaic language, terminology and procedures assist them to monopolise knowledge which makes exploitation of clients easier.
The land revenue system in Pakistan is a classic example. Exploitation of land allotment with preference given to the rich in terms of soil fertility and irrigation techniques reflect show bureaucratic corruption intensifies poverty, inequality and injustice.
Unbearable delays in provision of services force citizens to pay bribe as ‘speed money’. Hence, due to uncertain and costly access to public services, the cost of doing business increases. Extraordinary delays deter potential entrepreneurs and investors.
In 2014, an overloaded South Korean ferry capsized which resulted in 304 casualties. Investigations revealed that the owner of the ferry had carried out unauthorised alterations while government inspectors ‘wined and dined’. This caused public ire at the government. When bribery, ill-intended delays and depreciated quality become a reality, the ultimate casualty is the public’s trust. Often known as ‘petty corruption’, the aggregate quantum of bribes equals a parallel economy. In 2016, Pakistan stood at 116 among 176 nations in Corruption Perception Index of Transparency International. Such perception indices are mainly based on citizens’ impressions of street-level bureaucracy.
In 2012, The New York Times article titled ‘Rooting out police corruption’ quoted a whistle blower: ‘Ten percent of the cops in New York city are absolutely corrupt, 10 percent are absolutely honest and the other 80 percent — they wish they were honest’. If not same then quite similar proportions hold true almost everywhere. However, the institutional arrangements and accountability standards do make a difference. Anti-corruption and governance reforms should contain temptations for the majority which sits on the fence of opportunities. Punitive strategies should focus on the intrinsically corrupt minority.
In Pakistan, during recent years, the government has taken some initiatives in the right direction. Digitalisation of land record, passport, vehicle registration and arms licence are some examples. However, further steps are still required. Comprehensive governance reforms that include simplification of complex and confusing rules, rational reconsideration of discretion available to bureaucracy, reassessment of resources and e-governance are some of the possible measures. Wherever possible, monopoly of service provision should be put to an end. If some citizens prefer to pay ‘speed money’ for urgent provision of services then the departments can explore the option of institutionalising differential fee for out-of-queue services on the pattern of urgent passport, urgent identity cards or urgent mail services. Rational fixation of service provision’s time limit and quality standards are important for accountability in case of delayed services. Restoration of public’s trust in state is important for the society to flourish in the long-run.
The writer is public sector social and development policy analyst