Rethinking Federalism: Why Better Administrative Design Can Strengthen National Governance

Pakistan does not need more division. It needs better administrative division.

That distinction is crucial.

Pakistan’s provincial structure was designed for a country far smaller than the one that exists today. According to the 2023 Population and Housing Census, Pakistan’s population has reached approximately 241.5 million. Punjab alone has around 127.7 million people, Sindh 55.7 million, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 40.9 million and Balochistan 14.9 million. Punjab therefore contains more people than many sovereign states, yet it continues to operate as a single provincial administrative unit. (Pakistan Bureau of Statistics⁠)

The case for creating additional provinces should therefore not be reduced to ethnicity or regional politics. It should be understood as a question of state capacity: can governments of this scale remain sufficiently responsive to citizens with dramatically different economic, geographic and social needs?

Pakistan’s demographic trajectory makes the question increasingly urgent. Between the 2017 and 2023 censuses, the national population increased by more than 33 million people, or approximately 16.3 percent. Balochistan grew by 20.75 percent during the same period. (Pakistan Bureau of Statistics⁠) More citizens mean greater pressure on schools, hospitals, transport systems, policing, water supplies, housing and provincial administrations.

At the same time, Pakistan is not administratively uniform. The 2023 census shows that 53.7 percent of Sindh’s population is urban, compared with only 15 percent in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Punjab is approximately 40.7 percent urban, while Balochistan is about 31 percent urban. (Pakistan Bureau of Statistics⁠) A highly urbanised provincial economy requires policies for public transport, housing, metropolitan governance, sanitation and industrial infrastructure. A predominantly rural province faces different priorities: agricultural productivity, irrigation, rural roads, basic healthcare and access to education.

Geography creates another imbalance. Balochistan occupies more than 40 percent of Pakistan’s land area, yet contains a relatively small and widely dispersed population. UNDP has highlighted how this geography complicates development and service provision. (UNDP⁠) Governing a densely populated industrial corridor and governing remote settlements spread over vast distances are fundamentally different administrative tasks.

The development gap makes reform even more compelling.

UNDP’s multidimensional poverty analysis has historically revealed enormous regional disparities. Using 2014–15 data, multidimensional poverty ranged from 31.4 percent in Punjab to 71.2 percent in Balochistan. The urban-rural divide was similarly striking: 9.4 percent in urban Pakistan against 54.6 percent in rural areas. (UNDP⁠) Later UNDP analysis using PSLM 2019–20 data continued to show severe provincial inequalities, with education, living standards and health among the principal sources of deprivation. (UNDP⁠)

These figures do not prove that smaller provinces automatically produce better development. They prove something more important: Pakistan’s regions face substantially different problems, and uniform provincial policymaking cannot always respond to them equally well.

More provinces could create governments with narrower administrative responsibilities and clearer development priorities. An agriculture-intensive region could concentrate resources on irrigation, agricultural research, storage and farm-to-market infrastructure. A mountainous region could prioritise tourism, environmental protection, connectivity and disaster response. Industrial regions could focus on logistics, technical education, exports and investment facilitation.

It could also distribute political and administrative power beyond existing provincial capitals. New provincial capitals would create additional centres of public administration, universities, specialised hospitals, infrastructure investment and private-sector activity.

There is, however, an important condition: Pakistan should not create provinces merely to create more politicians and bureaucracies. New provinces should be accompanied by stronger local governments, digital public services, fiscal transparency, measurable development targets and institutional accountability.

Nor should provincial boundaries be drawn solely along ethnic lines. Population, geography, economic connectivity, administrative accessibility, natural resources and fiscal viability should all form part of an independent, evidence-based assessment.

Crucially, such reform can occur entirely within Pakistan’s constitutional framework. Article 239 requires constitutional amendments to secure a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament; where provincial boundaries are altered, the affected Provincial Assembly must also approve the change by a two-thirds majority. (Senate of Pakistan⁠)

That constitutional threshold is a strength. It ensures that provincial restructuring must emerge through broad political consensus rather than unilateral action.

Pakistan should therefore stop asking whether creating more provinces would “divide” the country.

The more useful question is whether 241 million people can be governed more efficiently through a more responsive federal structure.

More provinces should not mean more Pakistans. Properly designed, they could mean more capable governments, more accountable leadership, more centres of growth, and ultimately, a stronger Pakistan.