Rethinking KP’s Development Priorities

By Dr. Ikram Ullah

An imaginary conversation has been made with Dr. Mahbubul Haq regarding a fictional memorandum. While the dialogue is fictional, the questions it raises about development planning in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are very real.

Behind the fading of facts and imagination, it was the last night, when I found myself awakened by a reader of my work. His facial appearance was pessimistic and confusing, yet his discussion was fair and clear. His questions were not heavenly; he spoke about policies. His body language made it clear that the mess and confusion on his face was due to the Annual Development Plan (ADP) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) for the year 2025-26. He communicated in the language of numbers, and I, more at home with principles and official documents, chose to respond with policy papers.

He asked me: How do you, being a pioneer of planning tradition in Pakistan, define ‘ongoing’ and ‘new’ projects in this ADP? Based on experience and a recent review of the binding guidelines, such as the Public Finance Management Act (2019), Manual for Development Projects: KP (2022, p. 18), and Guidelines for Project Directors (2022, p. 6), I explained: In the context of the 2025-26 ADP, ongoing projects are those approved before 2024-25 fiscal year, while new projects are those approved during 2024-25 fiscal year and incorporated into the 2025-26 ADP.

He (looking unconvinced) asked: How is it that around 346 projects were approved last year (mostly in April and May 2025) and are now classified as ‘ongoing’ in 2025-26 ADP? And how 814 projects in 2025-26 ADP are labelled “new” but are not yet approved by any competent forum. Is this planning, or is it politics?

So, the simple question evolved into a night of numbers and logic, where the idea of planned development struggled beneath bureaucratic shortcuts and political priorities.

While he was adding words in support of those critical matters, and I was lost in thought over those facts, the visitor said: Last year, the Provincial Development Working Party (PDWP) approved 282 projects. However, in the ADP 2025-26, 628 projects are listed against PDWP. How can the same forum, considering its previous year’s capacity, now evaluate the viability of more than twice as many projects? Or is it possible that some of these projects will be reviewed by a lower-level forum(s)?

I paused for a while before referring him to the Manual for Development Projects (p. 16-18) and the Guidelines for Project Directors (p. 5-6). I explained that there was no forum at a lower level to approve projects within the PDWP’s scope. There is, however, a pre-PDWP committee, sometimes referred to as the concept clearance committee, that reviews and refines project ideas before placing them on the PDWP’s agenda. But bear in mind, it has no authority to approve the projects.

Then the visitor ignored his earlier questions and emerged with a policy document, the latest available ADP Policy (2019-23), waving it like evidence in a courtroom and said: This 13-page document contains at least eight clear instances where the unequal distribution of development funds among constituencies is openly justified. Continuing, he remarked: Was it not you who championed the concept of ‘grow now, distribute later’ (this and this), a policy that led to the unequal distribution of wealth in the country?

I made my face smiley (although it was a little painful) and replied: You must read beyond my earlier work. Look up my speech at the Applied Economic Research Centre in April 1968. More importantly, read my later work, particularly the Human Development Index. I openly admitted that our model allowed a few families to prosper at the expense of millions. I learned, I regretted that, and I changed.

Then I added: Development funds must not be a reward for political allegiance or constituency lines. It should benefit all citizens equally, irrespective of their location or the candidates they voted for. My voice began to waver as I continued: If you have noticed that funds are being allocated disproportionately to a specific constituency or any favoured group, please know that it is not my legacy. My legacy was, and remains, a call for equitable and just distribution of public resources.

The conversation went on late into the night, far longer than this memo can record. However, at the crack of dawn, the visitor stood up and got ready to leave. Yet before leaving, he asked me two questions that I remember. These questions can get the attention of those who still can make a difference:

“If the documents you have referenced are binding, why don’t planning authorities in the province follow them in letter and spirit? And, since your time at the Planning Commission is referred to as the golden era by some, what would you suggest today to bring about real change?”

I said: To me, as far as the first question is concerned, I must say that, regarding a Planning & Development Department notification dated April 19, 2022, it officially made those manuals binding references. The rules exist, I continued, but, unlike in our time, when what was written was meant to be followed, today’s planners have mastered the art of saying one thing, writing another, and doing neither.

Before answering his second, more difficult question, I paused and replied quietly: Go back to basics; restore integrity to the planning process. Let data speak louder than politics; let public interest, not personal interest, guide your decisions. Invest in people, not projects. And most importantly, remember that development is not measured by how much you spend, but by how equally the benefits are shared.

With that, while the dawn became brighter, the visitor left. And I, once more, went back to rest, hopeful that somewhere, someone would pick up the pen, not to draft another speech, but to write a fairer future.

About the author

Dr. Ikram Ullah is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Malakand. He has previously served as Director of Planning and Development and as Project Director, gaining extensive experience in development planning.

Email: [email protected]