Public Policy, Modern Social Science and the Conundrum of Policy Making in Pakistan

“I know that government cannot make men happy or bring them spiritual fulfillment. But it can attempt to remedy the public failures which are the root cause of so many human ills.” Ohio University, Athens, Ohio

Introduction

Public policy is the principal instrument through which states seek to shape social, economic, and political outcomes. Through policy, governments establish priorities, allocate resources, regulate social relations, and define the relationship between citizens and the state. Yet policy making remains one of the least understood aspects of governance in Pakistan. Fundamental questions continue to persist. Is there a coherent policy-making process in Pakistan? Who actually makes policy; individuals, institutions, political leaders, bureaucracies, military establishments, or increasingly non-state actors? Are policies grounded in evidence, theory, and social realities, or are they shaped by intuition, ideology, institutional interests, and political expediency?

These questions acquire greater significance when examined through the lens of modern social science. Public policy does not emerge in an intellectual vacuum. Every policy choice exemplifies assumptions about society, human behavior, institutions, incentives, power, and justice. Whether acknowledged or not, policy making is fundamentally linked to the social sciences because both seek to understand and influence human behavior and collective outcomes.

I intend to addresses three related questions. First, what is the relationship between modern social science, public policy, and the state? Second, how has policy making evolved in Pakistan, particularly after the constitutional and political transformations associated with the post-1973 period? Third, what institutional reforms are necessary if Pakistan is to move toward a more evidence-based and citizen-centered policy regime?

My central argument here is that the quality and content of public policy depend upon the potency of the relationship between the state, social science, and public institutions. In Pakistan this relationship has historically remained weak. Policy making has evolved through bureaucratic dominance, ideological contestation, military intervention, and donor-driven reform rather than through institutionalized social inquiry and evidence-based analysis. As a consequence, policy has often been reactive rather than strategic, personalized rather than institutionalized, and ideological rather than empirical.

Social Science, Public Policy and the State

Modern social sciences emerged from attempts to understand the profound transformations unleashed by industrialization, capitalism, nationalism, urbanization, and democratization. Sociology, economics, political science, anthropology, psychology, history, and linguistics developed as different pathways to explain a common subject: human behavior and social organization. As George Homans observed, despite disciplinary divisions, they employ many of the same principles in seeking to explain how societies function (The Nature of Social Science,1967).

The relationship between social science and public policy has, however, always been characterized by tension. Social science seeks explanation, while public policy seeks action/solution. Social scientists often aspire to objectivity and value neutrality; policy makers operate in environments shaped by power, competing interests, and normative judgments. This tension was particularly pronounced in the American intellectual tradition where, as Lisa Anderson has argued, the pursuit of scientific objectivity encouraged social scientists to separate the search for truth from the exercise of power. The result was an intellectual culture in which social science increasingly claimed neutrality while policy making became the domain of practitioners and political actors (Lisa Anderson, Pursuing Truth, Exercising Power: Social Science and Public Policy in the Twenty-First Century, 2005).

Yet this separation is ultimately artificial. Public policy is not possible without assumptions about how society works. Every educational reform reflects assumptions about learning and social mobility. Every tax policy rests upon assumptions about incentives. Every population policy embodies assumptions about culture, family, and behavior. In this sense, public policy is inevitably rooted in social-scientific reasoning.

The foundational thinkers of modern social science continue to illuminate this relationship. Max Weber emphasized legal-rational authority, bureaucracy, and institutional legitimacy. His work highlighted the importance of rules, procedures, and rational administration in modern governance. Karl Marx drew attention to power, class conflict, and the unequal distribution of resources, reminding us that policy outcomes often reflect struggles among competing social groups. Sigmund Freud emphasized motives, beliefs, and psychological drivers, suggesting that policy choices are influenced not merely by rational calculation but also by identities, fears, and aspirations. Together, these traditions suggest that policy making cannot be understood solely through formal institutions. It requires attention to power, culture, ideas, incentives, and social behavior. To that end, the search for solutions to societal problems lies at the heart of policy analysis. This orientation is perhaps best captured by Harold Lasswell, a practitioner, who embraced social sciences and introduced the conception of the policy sciences, which rests on five core principles.

First, problem orientation emphasizes the identification of social problems and the search for solutions. Policy analysis begins with problematization, explores alternative courses of action, and seeks to design desirable outcomes.

Second, multidisciplinarity recognizes that policy formulation cuts across disciplinary boundaries. Because social problems are complex, their analysis cannot be confined to a single discipline; rather, it requires insights drawn from multiple fields of knowledge.

Third, methodological sophistication advocates the use of both qualitative and quantitative techniques to measure, evaluate, and understand attitudes, preferences, and choices. It therefore encourages mixed-method approaches, drawing upon psychology, sociology, economics, and even the humanities to generate a fuller understanding of policy problems.

Fourth, theoretical rigor seeks to explain how decision making occurs within institutions and among individuals. It examines motives, goals, interests, and purposes, relying on theory to identify patterns and develop explanatory frameworks for policy outcomes.

Finally, value orientation underscores that policy sciences are concerned not merely with the advancement of knowledge as an academic field but with the promotion of the public good. Policy inquiry is inherently value-laden and guided by such ideals as human dignity, freedom, justice, peaceful co-existence and equality.

The relationship among social science, policy, and the state has undergone significant transformation during the twenty-first century. Until the end of the twentieth century, public policy was widely regarded as the exclusive domain of the state. Today that monopoly has weakened considerably. Globalization, technological change, international financial institutions, civil society organizations, consulting firms, transnational advocacy networks, and digital media have all emerged as important participants in the policy process. The state remains the central actor, but it no longer enjoys exclusive control over the production of policy formulation/ knowledge.

Paradoxically, however, the post-COVID era has also demonstrated the continuing relevance of the state. Public health emergencies, economic disruptions, and security challenges have reaffirmed the indispensable role of governments in managing collective risks. To that effect Pakistan was successful in creating an effective, National Command and Operation Center (NCOC). Consequently, contemporary policy making is increasingly shaped by complex interactions among state institutions, markets, civil society, and knowledge-producing organizations.

Evolution and Development of Policy Making in Pakistan

The crucial question for Pakistan is whether social science institutions possess the capacity and credibility to participate meaningfully in this evolving policy landscape.

Pakistan inherited a colonial state apparatus designed primarily for administrative control rather than democratic governance. The colonial Indian Civil Service (ICS) occupied a unique position as both policy maker and implementer. It enjoyed considerable autonomy and was not conceived as subordinate to representative political institutions. While post-independence India gradually established clearer distinctions between political leadership and bureaucratic administration, Pakistan followed a different trajectory.

In Pakistan the separation between policy formulation and implementation remained fuzzy. Bureaucratic institutions emerged not merely as executors of policy but as principal participants in defining national priorities. Consequently, policy making became concentrated within a narrow bureaucratic and political elite. Universities, social scientists, and research institutions remained largely peripheral to this process.

The formative decades of Pakistan were therefore characterized by what may be described as the bureaucratic state (in the eyes of many it still persists). Policy making relied heavily upon bureaucratic judgment or discretion, economic planning, and centralized decision making. Social science received limited state patronage and universities developed largely outside the policy process. The state viewed academic institutions not as partners in governance but as adversarial and occasionally hostile spaces.

This separation carried significant consequences. During the 1950s and 1960s Pakistan achieved notable rates of economic growth, while military governed and bureaucracy managed political order. Yet beneath these achievements social and political discontent accumulated. The doctrine of “functional inequality,” associated with the development strategies of the Ayub era, prioritized growth over distribution. Economic indicators suggested success, but social discontent increasingly challenged official narratives.

The years between the 1965 and 1971 wars exposed the widening gap between state policy and social reality. Political mobilization, student protests, labor unrest, and regional grievances revealed social transformations that policy makers had failed to anticipate. The breakup of Pakistan in 1971 represented not merely a military or political crisis but also a profound failure of policy understanding. The state lacked the intellectual and institutional mechanisms necessary to comprehend emerging social realities.

The post-1971 period generated renewed interest in questions of citizenship, welfare, and social justice. Under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, public policy acquired a more explicitly pro-people reformist orientation. Nationalization, constitutional reform, and pro-poor rhetoric reflected attempts to redefine the relationship between state and society.

Yet policy ambitions exceeded institutional capacity. While policy goals changed dramatically, the institutions responsible for policy design and implementation remained largely unchanged. Nor was academia sufficiently trained, equipped or engaged to comprehend the emerging policy changes. The result was a mismatch between aspiration and execution. Symbolic policy transformation occurred, but sustainable institutional reform remained elusive.

The military intervention of 1977 marked another decisive turning point. The Zia-ul-Haq era coincided with major regional and international developments, including the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. These developments profoundly altered Pakistan’s political, social and intellectual environment and its lingering effects continue to simmer.

During this period “Islamic ideology” increasingly displaced empirical inquiry as a basis for policy formulation. Religious identity became central to public discourse and policy debates. Questions that required systematic social research were frequently interpreted through ideological frameworks. Education, population policy, culture, and aspects of foreign policy increasingly reflected ideological commitments rather than empirical analysis.

The consequences for social science were significant. Universities faced intellectual constraints, critical inquiry which was generally weak further deteriorated, and the gap between policy and evidence widened further. While the state expanded its ideological reach, the institutional foundations of social science remained fragile.

The decades following 1990 introduced a different set of challenges. Globalization, market liberalization, technological change, and the growing influence of international financial institutions (IMF, World Bank, Asian Development Bank) transformed policy making across the developing world. Simultaneously, developments within social science itself encouraged renewed attention to institutions and governance.

The work of Noble laureate Douglass North played a particularly influential role in this shift. By emphasizing institutions, incentives, governance, and historical context, North challenged narrow economic explanations and encouraged interdisciplinary approaches to development. His work helped redirect attention toward the quality of institutions as a central determinant of economic and political outcomes (Douglas North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (1990)

Policy Analysis: Stitching State, Universities Linkages and Research Gaps

These intellectual developments coincided with growing international interest in governance reform. Public policy, institutional development, and public-sector reform emerged as major areas of investment for international organizations. In Pakistan the creation of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) in 2002 reflected broader efforts to strengthen higher education and knowledge production. The expansion of universities (today Pakistan has over 245 universities, 145 public sector and 100 private sectors across the country), think tanks, and public policy programs represented important developments. Yet the impact on actual policy making remained limited. Although research capacity expanded, its quality remains uneven and demands monitoring, while institutional mechanisms linking knowledge production to decision making remained weak. Social scientists continued to occupy a peripheral position in state affairs, while consultants and donor-funded projects increasingly filled the policy space. Thus, despite significant growth in higher education, Pakistan has yet to develop a robust ecosystem connecting research, policy analysis, and governance.

The persistence of weak evidence-based policy making in Pakistan cannot be explained by the absence of talent or intellectual capacity. In my view, it reflects deeper structural constraints.

First, the relationship between universities and the state remains underdeveloped, despite claims of growing linkages. Research findings rarely influence policy decisions in systematic ways. Government agencies often operate independently of academic expertise, while universities frequently remain disconnected from practical policy challenges.

Second, the preponderance of the generalist administrative model continues to constrain specialized knowledge. Complex policy issues increasingly require expertise in economics, sociology, public health, technology, climate change, and urban planning. Yet institutional structures continue to privilege bureaucratic knowledge and experience over substantive specialization. In fact, experts and specialists are discouraged, marginalized or given limited access to how the government works.

Third, ideological and political polarization often undermines evidence-based debate. Policy discussions frequently become contests between competing narratives rather than examinations of empirical evidence.

Fourth, donor-driven research has generated both opportunities and distortions. While external funding has supported important research initiatives, it has also encouraged dependence on external agendas and priorities. Resultantly, indigenous ownership for local government, gender, human rights, minorities and vulnerable groups have yet to evolve. In the past two decades the HEC has encouraged the creation of the Office of Research Innovation and Commercialization (ORIC) in the universities across Pakistan but research output and its impact remain marginal.

Finally, Pakistan suffers from chronic weaknesses in data collection and policy evaluation. In fact, governments do collect enormous amounts of data but reliable evidence remains uneven, administrative records are often fragmented, and systematic evaluation of policy outcomes is relatively rare (Recently released Pakistan Economic Survey 25-26 is a good example).

The result is a policy environment where decisions are frequently made without adequate evidence, institutional learning remains limited, and reforms are repeatedly recycled without rigorous assessment.

Concluding Thought: Forging New Partnerships

The relationship among social science, public policy, and the state remains one of the central challenges confronting Pakistan. The country’s experience since independence demonstrates that neither bureaucracy, ideology, markets, nor donor interventions can substitute for strong institutions that connect knowledge with governance.

A more effective policy regime requires rebuilding this relationship. Universities must become active participants in national policy debates. Civil service reform must encourage specialization and interdisciplinary expertise. Provincial and local governments must be strengthened as sites of policy innovation. Reliable data systems and transparent evaluation mechanisms must become integral components of governance. Most importantly, political parties must increasingly compete through policy ideas rather than personalities and patronage networks.

The critical challenge is not simply administrative reform but intellectual transformation. Pakistan requires a policy culture in which evidence matters, institutions learn, and public debate is informed by rigorous social inquiry. Such a transformation will not eliminate political conflict or policy disagreement. It will, however, improve the capacity of the state to understand society and respond to its needs.

The future of governance in Pakistan depends upon forging a stronger partnership among social science, public policy, bureaucracy/military and parliamentary institutions. Without such a partnership, policy making will continue to oscillate between crisis management and political expediency. With it, the state may gradually acquire the capacity to pursue both economic development and social justice in a more coherent and sustainable manner.