The term public policy is defined as a set of principles, objectives, and measures adopted by governments to address social, economic, and political problems within society. Harold Lasswell, one of the pioneers and founding fathers of the field of public policy, defines it as a systematic course of action, including policies designed by governments to achieve specific goals. Similarly, Lisa Anderson, a distinguished scholar in the field, emphasizes that public policy is fundamentally concerned with the common good or welfare of the community as a whole. Public policy experts suggest that the policymaking process consists of several distinct stages: problem identification, policy formulation, policy adoption, policy implementation, and policy evaluation. Together, these stages provide a structured framework for understanding the development and execution of public policies.

As established, public policy is a decision-making process aimed at addressing public issues. This process can manifest in various forms, including legislative votes on bills or executive orders at various levels of governance—federal, provincial, institutional, or organizational. Policies are designed and implemented across various sectors such as education, health, national security, international relations, development, industry, and agriculture, and others.

In Pakistan, the constitution designates the executive branch as the principal body responsible for policymaking. This authority is further distributed across federal, provincial, and local levels of governance. However, the 18th Amendment devolved significant powers from the central government to the provincial governments, enabling the provinces to further delegate authority, powers, and resources under their control to local governments. Like in any democratic setup, the government in Pakistan formulates policies, but these policies often fail to achieve the stated objectives.

This failure is symptomatic of the broader socio-political and economic culture in Pakistan, which is characterized by political instability, weak governance structures, increasing hybridity, a lack of political will and commitment, massive corruption, and inadequate mechanisms for policy implementation. More importantly, the country’s political leadership has consistently subordinated public welfare to personal and partisan interests, using policy as an instrument of repression to perpetuate power. This has resulted in the establishment of extractive, rather than inclusive, institutional structures that continue to influence policymaking along self-serving lines.

Ishrat Husain (2013), former governor of the State Bank of Pakistan, critically analyzes the systemic flaws that undermine the effectiveness of Pakistan’s policymaking process. He contends that policymaking in Pakistan often deviates from the ideal practices, primarily due to several structural and procedural shortcomings. He identifies several key factors contributing to this deviation, notably the superficial nature of stakeholder consultations, where dissenting views are disregarded, and inter-ministerial coordination is more confrontational than collaborative. Moreover, he argues that the absence of specialized knowledge and the lack of evidence-based, data-driven decision-making within policymaking bodies further obstruct the formulation of informed and sound policies. Additionally, Husain emphasizes the failure to establish effective implementation mechanisms, which exacerbates the challenges in translating policies into action. These systemic flaws have significant implications for policy outcomes, particularly in sectors such as healthcare and education, where even well-intentioned and well-formulated policies often fail at the execution stage, as policy-making is sometimes disconnected from actual implementation.

For example, the consistent failure of educational policies in Pakistan, from 1958 to the present, can be attributed to shortcomings in implementation, despite the well-meaning objectives behind their formulation. Several factors contributed to these failures, including inadequate resource mobilization, the setting of unrealistic goals, and ongoing political instability. Furthermore, there has been a notable lack of trust and collaboration among key stakeholders, compounded by insufficient funding and a failure to adapt policies to the evolving needs of society. The inefficient bureaucratic structure, failure of decentralization, lack of political will, leadership vacuum, and deeply entrenched corruption have also played significant roles in stymieing the implementation of educational policies. Military takeovers and the absence of consistency in policymaking process further undermined efforts. Had these institutional and structural flaws been recognized and addressed in a timely and coordinated manner, policies could have been implemented more effectively.

In addressing Pakistan's long-standing and consistent policy failures, a potential solution can be drawn from Harold Lasswell's problem-oriented approach, which emphasizes the necessity of adapting policies to the unique contextual realities of a society. This means that policies must be designed not in isolation or based solely on abstract principlesbut must be grounded in a deep understanding of the specific circumstances and challenges a society faces. Inspiration can be taken from Singapore and South Korea, as both nations have successfully implemented contextually relevant policies that addressed their unique challenges, leading to rapid economic growth and social development. Achieving this in Pakistan, however, requires strong and visionary leadership—something Pakistan has long lacked. Therefore, addressing the country's policy failures must also involve strengtheningeffective leadership that is capable of guiding policies in a way that responds to the nation's needs, ensuring that they are not only relevant but also sustainable in the long run.