Guest Author: Nadeem Ul Haque

Egoism has led to a certain form of transparency in Pakistani government and it is disturbing. Most government offices now have nice wooden boards posted on the walls. These wooden boards have the names of officials who served in those offices as well as the dates of their tenure.

In recent visits to many of these offices, I did a quick calculation and found that the tenure of officials in a posting has been extremely short. Most officials are lucky if they remain in a position for more than a year. Secretaries are rotated out almost on a yearly basis, customs officials are lucky if they last a few months and the director cooperatives board is moved so rapidly that the poor director probably remains in a daze.

Why do we have such quick transfers? The explanation is a combination of the following 4 factors.

1. Each of these offices confers certain power and privilege and in some cases even the possibility of pecuniary advantages. Quick transfers may be an egalitarian method of sharing these advantages.
2. Longer tenures could make the officer more entrenched, increasing corruption and power gains and possibly even making them difficult to remove . Quick transfers would prevent any one from being too powerful.
3. Longer tenure could also create a sense of pride in the job leading the officers to improve the situation to the detriment of those that follow. Quick transfers would therefore, keep the rentseeking equilibrium stable.
4. There is a stable group around any leadership that is strengthened by these quick transfers. Key secretaries, such as the principal secretary and the finance secretary are relatively more stable. Their role is obviously strengthened by these quick transfers.

Do these quick transfers affect efficiency of the department? In every job there is a learning content. Management specialists say that a person takes few months to a year to learn the job. Every job also has a creative content in that the incumbent can, once having learnt the job, develop better methods of doing that job. Learning by doing in a job and innovation through such learning, often results in productivity improvements and reforms. If this also applies to Pakistan then certainly these quick transfers are detrimental to efficiency.

I also argue that transfers are a colonial legacy. Nowhere in the advanced countries do you have the concept of transfers. Most civil services do not have common cadre. Each department employs, trains and manages its own staff. No transfers are forced on any official to arbitrarily move either location or department. As a result employees are happier and specialize in their respective areas.

Related articles:

1. Pakistan: Kerry-Lugar bill – Debating a non-issue
2. Pakistan’s continuing security, economic and political challenges
3. The question of Chinese over-investment and over-capacity – Weekly editorial
4. Pakistan risks ethnic strife

1. An important international climate change funding proposal from China
2. India: Are we isolated on climate change?
3. Can China lift Japan out of recession?

This entry was posted on Saturday, June 27th, 2009 at 12:28 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.