iTAP Survey Reveals Surprising Insights

2026-02-03 - 23:36

M.J. Awan Pakistan’s governance debate is often shaped by international corruption rankings, which focus on perceptions rather than citizens’ actual experiences. The index of Transparency and Accountability in Pakistan (iTAP) survey of 6,015 people across the country offers a more nuanced view, revealing a gap between perceptions and experiences of corruption. The survey, conducted through face-to-face interviews, covers urban, rural, and diverse demographics, providing a comprehensive perspective on governance in Pakistan. Its key finding is the significant disparity between what people think about corruption and what they’ve actually faced. In the survey 68 % of respondents believed bribery is common in public institutions, only 27% reported having personally experienced a situation where a bribe was demanded. Similarly, 56% perceive nepotism and favouritism as widespread, but just 24% said they had faced such practices themselves. Sharpest contrast appears in perceptions of illicit enrichment: 59 % believe it is prevalent among public officials, yet only 5% reported having personally witnessed such enrichment. When these responses are aggregated into index scores, the divergence becomes even clearer. Perception-based index score stands at approximately 67 out of 100, while lived-experience index score is around 16. This disparity suggests that Pakistan’s governance problem is driven as much by mistrust and reputation as by actual day-to-day malpractice. The survey also identifies which institutions shape public opinion most strongly. Police remain the most top-of-mind public institution, cited by 35% of respondents when asked to name a government body. Yet interaction with police services during the past year was reported by only 12% , indicating that perceptions may be formed more by image and media exposure than by personal experience. In contrast, government hospitals recorded the highest level of public interaction, with 53% of respondents reporting contact in the past year. Public education institutions (34%) and NADRA (32%) followed. These institutions also performed relatively well in lived-experience scores, suggesting that frequent interaction does not necessarily translate into higher reported corruption. In terms of satisfaction, NADRA emerged as the highest-rated institution, followed by public education and healthcare services. This pattern is significant given the relatively advanced level of digitalisation and automation in these sectors, which has reduced discretionary human contact and by extension, opportunities for rent-seeking. The survey further shows that 67% of respondents reported never experiencing any form of malpractice while dealing with public institutions. 73% said they had never paid a bribe to access a public service and 95% stated they had never personally witnessed illicit enrichment by a government official. These figures complicate the widespread assumption that corruption is a routine feature of everyday state-citizen interaction. Demographic variations however, persist. Urban respondents and men consistently reported higher perceptions of corruption than rural respondents and women. The survey also highlights gaps in the accountability ecosystem. Only 8% of respondents reported ever contacting an anti-corruption institution. Awareness of accountability mechanisms remains limited: 11%were familiar with right-to-information laws, 34% knew about corruption reporting channels and 15% were aware of whistleblower protection laws. These findings help explain why perceptions remain stubbornly negative even as certain governance indicators improve. International indices which rely heavily on expert opinion and secondary sources, tend to amplify perceptions rather than lived realities. At same time, low awareness and limited engagement with accountability institutions reinforce distrust. The iTAP survey does not deny the existence of corruption, nor does it suggest that reforms are complete. Instead, it provides empirical evidence that governance outcomes vary significantly across institutions and regions, and that reforms, particularly those involving digitalisation and automation, are beginning to yield measurable improvements in citizen experience. The survey uses citizen data to assess corruption, providing a basis for future evaluations. Its effectiveness hinges on consistent reforms and unbiased monitoring.