Region 
 

Islamabad

Beyond Anti-Corruption

If anti-corruption is the principal route to better government, why has the proliferation of anti- corruption institutions not produced correspondingly better governance?

By M. Abbas Raza | November 2026

During the last couple of months, a cabinet minister has been heard expressing concerns about a possible “system collapse”, while a Chief Minister of a province has begun placing renewed emphasis on improving governance. At the federal level, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has also required all ministries and divisions to submit comprehensive performance reports. These developments suggest a growing recognition that the problem confronting the country extends beyond individual instances of corruption to the broader effectiveness of the system of governance.

This raises an important question about the relationship between anti-corruption and governance. Pakistan has never been short of institutions intended to combat corruption. At both federal and provincial levels, the country has developed anti-corruption agencies, accountability institutions, audit mechanisms, investigative bodies and an extensive legal framework dealing with financial misconduct, public procurement, taxation, economic offences and abuse of authority. Yet, despite this elaborate institutional architecture, Pakistan continues to face persistent weaknesses in service delivery, price control of essential commodities, POL and energy tariffs, revenue mobilization, economic management, law enforcement, investment confidence and public trust. This raises a fundamental question: if anti-corruption is the principal route to better government, why has the proliferation of anti- corruption institutions not produced correspondingly better governance?

The answer lies, at least partly, in a conceptual confusion between anti-corruption and governance. The two are closely interconnected, but they are not synonymous. Anti-corruption is an essential component of good governance, but it cannot, by itself, substitute for effective governance.

Governance is much broader. It encompasses the entire process through which the state exercises authority, formulates and implements policies, manages public resources, regulates markets, enforces laws, delivers public services and responds to the needs and concerns of citizens. In other words, while anti-corruption seeks to prevent and address the misuse of public authority, governance determines how effectively, fairly and responsibly that authority is exercised.

Pakistan therefore needs to move beyond an essentially case-driven approach to corruption and develop a broader framework of governance in which institutional competence, policy implementation, fiscal discipline, economic regulation, rule of law and public confidence receive equal attention.

Pakistan’s anti-corruption approach has, for the most part, remained reactive rather than preventive, focusing primarily on investigation, prosecution and recovery after corrupt practices have occurred. The extent to which NAB, pursuant to Section 33-C of the National Accountability Ordinance concerning “Measures for the Prevention of Corruption and Corrupt Practices,” has contributed to preventing corruption through proactive measures, institutional reforms, awareness, risk identification and preventive interventions remains largely undocumented and is yet to be demonstrated to the nation. Investigations and prosecutions generally begin after an alleged offence has occurred. Such action is necessary, but punishment of individuals does not necessarily correct the institutional weaknesses that allowed the misconduct to occur.

There is also a danger in making accountability predominantly person-centered. When the public debate focuses almost exclusively on identifying individuals to blame, insufficient attention may be given to defective procedures, poor incentives, weak controls, fragmented responsibilities and institutional incapacity.

An effective governance strategy must therefore ask not only who committed an offence and what was lost, but also why the system permitted the failure, why controls did not work, why the policy was ineffective, why enforcement was weak and what institutional reform is necessary to prevent recurrence. Anti-corruption should consequently be treated as a cross-cutting safeguard within a much larger governance architecture, not as the architecture itself.


Pakistan does not suffer from a shortage of policies, plans and strategies. The more serious weakness is often the gap between formulation and implementation. Policies are sometimes announced without adequately determining who will implement them, what capacity is available, what resources are required, how progress will be measured and monitored, and who will be responsible for failure.

The quality of governance should therefore be judged not by the number or sophistication of policy documents but by their implementation and measurable outcomes. Policy continuity and intergovernmental coordination are equally important. Frequent changes of direction weaken institutions, discourage investment and prevent long-term programmes from producing results.

The current emphasis on obtaining comprehensive performance reports from ministries and divisions provides an opportunity to move beyond reporting achievements towards a more systematic assessment of institutional performance, implementation and outcomes.

The government should consider establishment of an independent National Governance Audit and Reform Commission

Pakistan already has a range of institutions mandated to examine different dimensions of government performance and accountability. The Auditor-General conducts financial, compliance and performance audits, while the Public Accounts Committees examine audit findings and hold departments and public bodies accountable for the use of public resources. The Prime Minister’s Inspection Commission (PMIC), on the other hand, examines the functioning and performance of government ministries, departments and organizations, including the implementation of government policies, decisions and programmes.

Among these institutions, PMIC has, particularly during the last five years, undertaken inquiries and inspections that have gone beyond merely identifying administrative shortcomings. Its interventions have, in a number of cases, resulted in policy recommendations and corrective measures aimed at improving the functioning, efficiency and governance of ministries, departments and public organizations. This distinguishes the PMIC’s role as an instrument not merely of oversight and accountability, but also of preventive governance and institutional improvement.

Yet persistent weaknesses in public-service delivery, revenue mobilization, price control, economic management, law enforcement, investment confidence and public trust indicate that these arrangements have not translated into commensurate improvements in the overall quality of governance.

One possible reason is that Pakistan audits many individual aspects of government but does not appear to have an institutionalized, periodic system for auditing governance itself as an integrated whole.

Performance evaluation has become a central feature of modern governance because governments are increasingly expected to demonstrate not merely that public funds have been spent, but that they have produced measurable improvements in economic performance, service delivery and citizens’ welfare.

A Governance Audit should be introduced as a systematic examination of the capacity of a public institution to perform its mandate economically, efficiently, effectively, transparently, accountably and responsively. It should examine not merely whether rules have been followed, but whether the institutional structure, decision-making processes, human resources, financial management, regulatory arrangements, internal controls and service-delivery mechanisms are actually producing the intended public outcomes and meeting policy objectives and targets.

NAB, FIA and Anti-Corruption Establishments focus primarily on whether corruption or other forms of misconduct have been committed, while the Ombudsman examines whether maladministration has caused injustice to a citizen. The Public Accounts Committee considers audit observations and determines what action should be taken, while PIDE and other research institutions examine policy issues and recommend desirable policy or institutional reforms. Internal Audit focuses on whether an organization’s internal controls and risk-management systems are functioning effectively.

A Governance Audit, however, would address a broader and distinct question: Is the institution as a whole structured, managed and functioning in a manner that promotes good governance and produces effective public outcomes? It would therefore bring together the dimensions of institutional capacity, policy implementation, regulatory effectiveness, financial management, accountability, service delivery, coordination and performance to assess the overall quality and effectiveness of governance.

The government should therefore consider the establishment of an independent National Governance Audit and Reform Commission. Such a body should not duplicate the functions of the Auditor-General, NAB, Ombudsmen, Public Accounts Committees, PMIC or other existing institutions.

A systematic Governance Audit, followed by a mandatory and monitored Governance Improvement Action Plan, could provide the missing bridge between accountability and actual improvement in government performance. A comprehensive Governance Audit should examine the institution not merely in terms of compliance, but in terms of its capacity, performance, effectiveness and outcomes. The principal dimensions could, among other things, include (a) institutional capacity and administrative competence, (b) rule of law and enforcement of economic laws, (c) law and order, justice and protection of economic activity, (d) public financial management and fiscal discipline, (e) revenue mobilization and tax collection, (f) sound economic policies and inflation control, (g) market governance, business ethics and consumer protection, (h) formalization of the informal economy, (i) investment climate and investor confidence, (j) public service delivery and citizen-centered governance, (k) accountability, transparency and anti-corruption as components of governance, and (l) developing public confidence -the ultimate test.

Countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore increasingly evaluate public institutions using outcome-based indicators. Independent audit and performance review bodies assess economy, efficiency and effectiveness, often described as “Value for Money”, rather than merely verifying expenditure.

While institutional arrangements differ from country to country, the common principles include independence, measurable outcomes, transparency and comparability. Pakistan can draw upon these principles while developing a governance-audit framework suited to its own institutional and constitutional structure.

The present initiative requiring ministries and divisions to submit comprehensive performance reports can become a landmark governance reform if it evolves from a reporting exercise into a comprehensive performance-management system.

Performance reporting should not become merely another exercise in compiling achievements or activities. It should provide independent validation, statutory compliance assessment, measurable outcomes, ministry-specific KPIs and value-for-money assessments. More importantly, it could establish a direct link between performance assessment, identification of institutional weaknesses, corrective action and measurable improvement.

The hierarchy is clear: sound policies require competent institutions; competent institutions require professional capacity; policies require effective implementation; implementation requires rule of law and enforcement; sustainable governance requires fiscal and economic discipline; markets require regulation and ethical conduct; investment requires predictability and security; and all of these ultimately contribute to public confidence.

The real measure of governance should therefore be visible in outcomes with better public services, more effective revenue mobilization, sustainable public finances, stable prices, disciplined markets, stronger investment, improved law and order, credible economic institutions and greater public trust. That is the transition Pakistan needs, from accountability alone to effective governance.

Read More