The question that arises is why has the success rate of ADB projects fallen so dramatically during 2014-16? And who is to blame for this decline? Is the blame to be laid at the doorstep of ADB staff of regional departments (as well as the country office led by a senior ADB official) who, like their counterparts in other multilateral institutions, are focused on overall lending to a country, (especially lending at market as opposed to concessional rates which infrastructure projects typically attract) as that determines the department's success and/or project/programme officer's promotion. Or is the Sharif administration responsible for possibly resisting measures to either improve governance or accountability of project/programme directors appointed to implement them? The incumbent government has been at great pains to inform the public that it is focused on infrastructure development that, due to paucity of funds, requires borrowing from external sources. The overall success of infrastructure projects in Pakistan as determined by IED is only 53 percent compared to 46 percent for non-infrastructure sectors.
The report highlights one loan extended to Punjab titled Punjab Efficiency Improvement Programme with its phase I closed in December 2007 and phase II in 2009 and rates it unsuccessful as it was relevant during approval but not at completion. The rationale provided: a change in government and worsening security situation that prompted the government to ignore high-impact reforms. Be that as it may, high impact reforms defined as improving governance and accountability in any sector or ministry/department - critical for a general improvement in project/programme success rate - have rarely been successful in this country. Examples abound, including the World Bank-sponsored Tax Administration Reform Programme, Access to Justice Programme, etc. There is clearly a resistance to changing the status quo through implementing reforms in this country. One would urge the government to legislate exemplary punishment for those who are accused of resisting or violating the reforms that have been formulated after months, if not years, of study and consultations with all the stakeholders.
Pakistan, the IED report notes, brought the overall performance of projects/programmes down together with Armenia, Papua New Guinea and Timor Leste. Being lumped with countries that have serious issues of resources and governance/accountability well below that of other developing countries has become nothing new for Pakistan unfortunately. One can only hope that the governments, federal and provincial, begin to focus on strengthening institutions by implementing high impact reforms in all sectors, infrastructure and social, rather than keeping them under the control of the Executive - a fact which is having serious implications on their overall performance.
Additionally, Pakistan has a low absorption capacity and with the incumbent government increasingly relying on borrowing for budget support without taking note of how much of the approved money can be absorbed in any given year, the country's indebtedness has been rising.