Pakistan is at a critical crossroads in governance. With a population nearing 240 million in 2025, concentrated primarily in four provinces – Punjab with 128 million, Sindh with 56 million, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa with 41 million, and Balochistan with 15 million – questions around effective administration, equitable resource distribution, and political representation have never been more pressing. The debate over whether to create new provinces or strengthen the local government system has intensified, fueled by regional disparities, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and political considerations. While proponents of new provinces argue that smaller administrative units can address governance challenges, a detailed investigation, supported by global comparisons and empirical data, suggests that prioritising municipal reforms offers more sustainable, cost-effective, and accountable solutions.
Pakistan’s governance operates on three levels: federal, provincial, and local government. Constitutionally, provinces enjoy significant autonomy under the 18th Amendment of 2010, yet the local government system often remains underpowered. Municipal authorities at the district, tehsil, and union council levels are tasked with public service delivery, infrastructure development, and local policy implementation. In practice, however, local governments face severe challenges. Financially, they are heavily dependent on provincial allocations, with over 80 per cent of their funds coming from provincial sources, limiting autonomy and responsiveness. Politically, frequent delays in local elections, the disbanding of councils, and provincial interference have weakened accountability mechanisms. Administratively, many municipal authorities suffer from understaffing, outdated systems, and limited technical expertise to manage urbanisation, healthcare, sanitation, and education demands effectively. These systemic weaknesses have sparked debate over the efficacy of creating new provinces to improve governance. Advocates argue that smaller administrative units can better manage resources and represent citizens, but this approach comes with high financial, political, and logistical costs, which merit careful examination.
Countries worldwide demonstrate that strong local governance can enhance service delivery, promote transparency, and increase citizen participation, often more efficiently than redrawing administrative boundaries. India’s Panchayati Raj system exemplifies decentralised governance. Established through the 73rd Constitutional Amendment in 1992, it empowers elected representatives at village, block, and district levels to plan and execute development projects. Districts with active Panchayati councils have seen 10-15 per cent higher literacy rates and immunisation coverage compared to centralised regions. Local planning reduced project delays and cost overruns, with communities directly supervising expenditures. Women’s representation in Panchayati councils stands at approximately 33 per cent, improving inclusivity and accountability. In Europe, countries such as Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland provide examples of municipal autonomy. German municipalities control around 45 per cent of local revenue, including taxes, user fees, and grants, which has allowed rapid infrastructure development and better urban management. In Sweden, local governments manage 70 per cent of healthcare services, ensuring swift responses to local needs while maintaining high transparency. Switzerland’s cantonal and municipal autonomy allows tailored public policies reflecting linguistic, cultural, and regional diversity. The United States demonstrates the advantages of decentralised governance through county and city governments. Counties oversee public health, infrastructure, zoning, and education, levying property taxes and maintaining budgets that respond to local priorities. Residents directly interact with local officials, increasing accountability and reducing bureaucratic bottlenecks. These global examples indicate that strengthening local governance, when paired with financial and administrative autonomy, can deliver measurable benefits without the cost and complexity of creating new provinces.
Advocates argue that smaller administrative units can better manage resources and represent citizens, but this approach comes with high financial, political, and logistical costs.
Creating new provinces in Pakistan may appear appealing, especially in politically or economically marginalised regions, but practical challenges are substantial. Establishing a new province involves immense initial investment, including administrative infrastructure such as new secretariats, high courts, police headquarters, and bureaucratic offices; a legislative setup with provincial assemblies, ministries, and support staff; and recurring costs for salaries, maintenance, and provincial development funds. Estimates suggest that creating one new province could cost upwards of PKR 300-350 billion, or approximately USD 1071-1250 million. If Pakistan were to create three to four new provinces, the cumulative cost could exceed PKR 1200-1400 billion, diverting funds from critical sectors like healthcare, education, and poverty alleviation. Politically and socially, redrawing boundaries can ignite disputes, especially in heterogeneous regions like Sindh and Punjab, and incumbent provincial elites may resist losing power, creating prolonged political deadlock. Legally, amending Article 239, which governs altering provincial boundaries, requires a two-thirds majority in both federal and provincial assemblies, a challenging feat given Pakistan’s fragmented political landscape.
Administrative complexity is another major issue. Smaller provinces require the recruitment of thousands of civil servants, police personnel, and administrative staff. Establishing separate bureaucratic hierarchies and legal frameworks, along with duplication of health, education, and infrastructure agencies, can initially slow service delivery instead of improving it. Limited improvement in service delivery is another risk. Empirical studies indicate that simply creating new administrative units does not automatically translate into better governance. For example, Nigeria created 36 states from 12 in 1967, intending to improve resource distribution, but inequalities persisted, and administrative overheads increased substantially. India’s Telangana state, created in 2014, demonstrates initial enthusiasm, but infrastructure setup, political restructuring, and intergovernmental coordination took nearly a decade to stabilise. Thus, new provinces alone cannot guarantee efficient governance without strong local institutions and accountability frameworks.
Focusing on strengthening local government addresses governance challenges directly, is cost-effective, and avoids political risks associated with provincial bifurcation. Reforming municipal systems is far cheaper than creating new provinces, with investments going into capacity building, IT systems, training, and local infrastructure. Digitising district councils and empowering union councils costs a fraction of the PKR 300
billion required for a new provincial setup, while impacting millions of citizens directly. Local governments ensure that citizens can directly elect representatives responsible for local services, and transparency increases as budget allocation and project execution are monitored locally, reducing opportunities for corruption. Local authorities understand unique regional challenges, whether water scarcity in Sindh, urban flooding in Karachi, or healthcare shortages in rural Balochistan, and can respond quickly to emergencies without waiting for provincial or federal directives.
International data support municipal reforms. In India, strengthening Panchayati Raj led to a 15 per cent increase in public service delivery efficiency in healthcare and sanitation. In Germany, decentralised municipal authorities contribute to GDP growth by optimising local industrial planning, demonstrating that empowered local governance can have direct economic benefits. In Sweden, municipalities’ control over healthcare resulted in 20 per cent faster service delivery and higher patient satisfaction compared to centralised models. Comparative analysis clearly favours municipal strengthening over new provinces in terms of cost, time to impact, political risk, accountability, service delivery, resource allocation, and global precedents. Municipal reforms are low-cost, have immediate to short-term effects, carry minimal political risks, increase citizen accountability, improve service delivery at the grassroots level, allow localised and flexible resource allocation, and are supported by strong international examples. Creating new provinces, by contrast, is high-cost, requires medium to long-term implementation, carries high political risks, offers medium accountability, provides slower service delivery, requires resource reallocation, and has mixed global precedents.
A strategic, phased approach could combine municipal strengthening with selective provincial restructuring if necessary. The first phase should empower local governments by granting financial autonomy to collect and manage local taxes, user fees, and grants, and administrative authority over local education, healthcare, sanitation, water management, and infrastructure projects. Transparency tools, such as digitised budgeting, public audits, and participatory planning committees, would further enhance effectiveness. If certain regions remain underserved, targeted provincial restructuring could be considered based on population, geography, economic viability, and public demand. Finally, integrating municipal and provincial reforms ensures that provincial oversight supports local governments, while union councils are included in provincial planning to align local needs with provincial strategies. This hybrid approach ensures fiscal prudence, political stability, and effective service delivery without the risks and costs of wholesale provincial creation.
Pakistan faces an undeniable need to improve governance, equity, and public service delivery. While creating new provinces might appear as a structural solution, empirical evidence and global comparisons suggest it is financially burdensome, politically risky, and administratively complex. In contrast, strengthening the municipal system delivers immediate improvements in service delivery, enhances citizen participation and accountability, minimises financial and political risks, and draws on successful global models that prioritise local autonomy. Investing in local governance reforms is cost-effective, scalable, and sustainable, addressing the root causes of administrative inefficiency rather than superficially redrawing maps. Pakistan’s path to effective, inclusive, and responsive governance lies not in creating more provinces but in empowering its municipalities to serve the people at the grassroots level. If executed with fiscal prudence, administrative autonomy, and citizen participation, a robust municipal system could transform Pakistan’s governance landscape within a decade, far faster and more efficiently than the decades it would take to establish and stabilise new provinces.
The writer has been teaching at various universities for the past 12 years. He is also the Head of Research and Investigation at 365 News, works as Web Editor at Daily Times, and can be reached at Dr.Muhammad [email protected].