Development Through Result Culture

Result culture refers to an administrative, political, and organisational ecology where performance is judged by outcomes and impact rather than mere activities, procedures or expenditures. It emphasises accountability, efficiency, effectiveness and citizen-centric service delivery. In Nepal, the concept of result culture has gained increasing importance, especially after the adoption of democratic governance, planned development, and federalism. However, despite strong policy commitments, the actual situation of result culture remains weak, uneven and largely transitional. This has undermined national development efforts. 

Nepal’s development planning and public administration system historically evolved under a process-oriented and rule-bound bureaucracy, inherited from the centralised unitary state. Compliance with rules, files, approvals, and procedural correctness dominated administrative behaviour. In such a system, success was measured by how much budget was spent or how many activities were completed, rather than by what outcomes were achieved or how citizens benefited. Nepal’s initial periodic development plans did not mention outcome and impact level indicators and targets. As global public management practices shifted toward Results-Based Management (RBM), Nepal also began formally adopting result-oriented approaches. 

Bureaucracy

Yet, public administration scholars note that Nepali bureaucracy today is under pressure to transform into an outcome-focused institution, but it still struggles with structural and behavioural inertia. At the policy and institutional level, Nepal demonstrates a strong rhetorical and formal commitment to result culture. Several instruments reflect this shift. First, the periodic plans (including the Fifteenth and ongoing Sixteenth Plan) are framed with vision, goals, impacts, outcomes, outputs and indicators. Such indicators started to be utilised after the 8th five year plan. 

Second, Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) links plans, programmes, and budgets with expected results. Third, performance-based budgeting has been introduced. The annual budget statement includes some indicators and targets in areas of national development. Fourth, the recent practice of annual performance contracts for senior civil servants aim to align individual responsibility with institutional results. Moreover, both the federal and provincial Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) guidelines require outcome and impact reporting. The Monitoring and Evaluation Law, 2081, has made it mandatory, further instituting result culture in our public sector. These reforms indicate that Nepal has accepted the philosophy of result culture, though there are clear implementation gaps.

In most public institutions, performance is still judged primarily on procedural compliance and budget absorption. Ministries and agencies often rush to spend capital budgets toward the end of the fiscal year, not to maximize impact, but to avoid budget cuts in the next cycle. The allocated capital budget was spent on average at only 65 per cent in the last 10 years. This reflects a deep-rooted expenditure culture rather than result culture. Monitoring systems focus more on periodic physical and financial progress reviews than on service quality, sustainability or citizen satisfaction. 

Evaluations are occasional, and evaluation findings are rarely used for policy correction, learning, and strengthening accountability. Consequently, the result culture has not been institutionalised in everyday administrative behaviour. This has constrained our national development. The introduction of federalism in 2015 created new opportunities for result-oriented governance. Provincial and local governments are closer to citizens and theoretically better positioned to deliver measurable results. 

Some local governments have shown positive examples, such as improved service delivery timelines, digital services and community-level physical infrastructure. Public hearing of development results have helped improve social accountability. However, many provincial and local governments lack skilled human resources, robust data systems and clear performance indicators. Overlapping responsibilities among federal, provincial, and local levels dilute accountability, making it difficult to attribute results to specific institutions. 

One of the most significant obstacles to result culture in Nepal is political interference in administration. Frequent transfers of civil servants disrupt continuity and undermine long-term accountability for results. When officials know that tenure is uncertain and performance has little influence on career progression, incentives for result-oriented work naturally weaken. Poor performers are rarely sanctioned, while high performers receive limited recognition. This weakens the motivation to innovate, take responsibility or focus on outcomes. Public projects fail, but project managers get a promotion.

A strong result culture depends on credible oversight, monitoring, evaluation, and accountability mechanisms. These systems are institutionally present but functionally weak. M&E units in the ministries often lack independence, technical capacity, and authority. Data quality is inconsistent, and impact evaluations are rare. Parliamentary oversight, audit institutions, and anti-corruption agencies focus more on procedural irregularities than on performance failure. While procedural accountability is important, excessive focus on compliance discourages innovation and risk-taking, which are essential for achieving results.

Reforms

Inadequate result culture has led to several negative consequences. There are chronic delays in infrastructure projects' completion, cost overruns, and poor-quality construction. Seemingly, there is low development impact despite high public spending across all levels, service delivery is poor and ineffective, and public trust in government institutions is declining. These outcomes demonstrate that development failure is not only a resource problem, but also a result culture problem.

Despite these challenges, there are gradual positive signs. Digital governance initiatives, citizen charters, social accountability tools, and donor-supported performance frameworks are slowly pushing institutions towards result orientation. Younger civil servants and local governments show greater openness to performance measurement and innovation. External pressure, such as the recent Gen Z protest, has also demanded concrete results.

To strengthen result culture, several reforms are essential. We must link promotion, incentives, and career progression with performance. There is also a need to strengthen independent and professional M&E systems. Reducing political interference and ensuring administrative stability are also required. Budget release and continuation must be linked with achieved results. Building capacity at the provincial and local levels is also necessary. All public offices should also promote citizen feedback and transparency. Let us live by the result culture for faster national progress.

(Dr. Bhusal is a development expert.)