ISLAMABAD – Pakistan’s expanding network of regulatory authorities, established in the name of protecting consumers, regulating markets and ensuring transparency, increasingly warrants a serious review of its effectiveness, financial burden and actual contribution to public welfare.
The latest example is the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA), which has fixed the price of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) at Rs297 per kilogram.The notification may fulfil a regulatory requirement, but the real measure of regulation lies beyond the issuance of an official price.It lies in ensuring that consumers can actually obtain the commodity at the prescribed rate and that those violating the notified price face effective enforcement.
This distinction highlights a much larger issue within Pakistan’s regulatory system.The country has established a wide range of authorities, including OGRA, NEPRA, PTA, PEMRA, DRAP and the Competition Commission of Pakistan, each entrusted with regulating an important segment of the economy.
These institutions were created with legitimate public-interest objectives.They are expected to protect consumers, regulate markets, discourage monopolistic practices, ensure fair competition, monitor service providers and prevent exploitation.Yet ordinary citizens continue to face high electricity, gas, petroleum, telecommunications and healthcare costs, while complaints about poor services and excessive charges remain widespread.
NEPRA regulates the electricity sector, but consumers continue to struggle with high power bills, surcharges, adjustments and service related problems.OGRA oversees the oil and gas sectors, while the prices of petroleum products, natural gas and LPG remain a significant burden for households. PTA regulates telecommunications, but consumers continue to raise concerns over expensive packages, additional charges and service quality.
DRAP is responsible for regulating medicines, yet the rising cost of pharmaceutical products continues to place healthcare beyond the comfortable reach of many citizens. PEMRA, meanwhile, operates in an increasingly difficult media environment marked by shrinking revenues, financial pressures and employment challenges.
The issue is therefore not simply the existence of these institutions.The central concern is whether their performance remains proportionate to the resources they consume and whether their regulatory decisions are producing measurable benefits for the public.
A regulatory authority cannot be judged solely by the number of notifications it issues, meetings it conducts or rules it frames. Its effectiveness must ultimately be reflected in market discipline, consumer protection, enforcement and tangible relief.
The financial structure of these institutions also deserves greater public scrutiny. Chairpersons, members, senior officials, directors and other employees receive salaries, allowances and official facilities, while substantial public resources are spent on offices, vehicles, fuel, travel and administrative operations.
Legitimate facilities for officials performing important public functions are understandable.However, every institution funded by taxpayers should be able to demonstrate that its expenditures are justified by its responsibilities and measurable performance.
Reports of the Auditor General of Pakistan have, from time to time, highlighted financial and administrative issues across public institutions, including matters relating to procurement, official vehicles, allowances and other expenditures. Such observations should not become routine paperwork destined to disappear into official files. Where irregularities are identified, responsibility should be established and corrective action should follow.
The same principle should apply to all regulatory bodies. Public institutions cannot be allowed to operate indefinitely without a transparent assessment of their performance, expenditure and public value.
Pakistan now needs a comprehensive and independent review of its regulatory architecture.Every major authority should be assessed against clear indicators covering its mandate, budget, staffing, salaries, allowances, vehicles, office expenditure, enforcement record, complaints mechanism and measurable consumer outcomes.
The government should also examine overlapping jurisdictions and unnecessary administrative duplication.Where two institutions perform substantially similar functions, restructuring or consolidation should be considered. Where an institution performs an essential role but suffers from weak enforcement, it should be reformed and strengthened.Where an institution fails to justify its continued expenditure and relevance, its future should be reconsidered.
The debate surrounding OGRA’s LPG price notification offers a useful example.Setting a price is not the end of regulation. Ensuring compliance with that price, protecting consumers from overcharging and taking action against violations are equally important components of effective regulation.
The same standard should apply to NEPRA, PTA, PEMRA, DRAP and every other public regulatory institution.
The state has a responsibility to ensure that regulatory bodies do not become expensive administrative structures whose primary achievement is the maintenance of their own bureaucratic machinery.Their purpose must remain firmly connected to public interest, market discipline and consumer protection.
If billions of rupees are being spent on regulatory institutions every year, the public has a legitimate right to expect measurable results.Taxpayers should not have to finance institutions that cannot clearly demonstrate what they have achieved, how effectively they have enforced the law and what practical relief they have delivered.
Pakistan does not necessarily need more regulatory bodies.It needs leaner, stronger, transparent and performance-driven regulation.
The time has come for the government to conduct a serious institutional audit of the country’s regulatory authorities and decide, on the basis of evidence rather than bureaucratic tradition, which institutions should be retained, which should be restructured, which should be merged and which may no longer serve a compelling public purpose.
Public money must produce public value.Any regulatory authority unable to demonstrate that value should face scrutiny, reform and, where justified by an independent assessment, institutional closure.