ROLE OF 18TH AMENDMENT TO STRENGTHEN THE

PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN PAKISTAN

RESEARCH PROJECT
Name: Anees
Roll No: BL-0170
Semester: BA-LLB 10th Semester (B)
Subject: Research Project:

Supervisor
Dr. Ahmed Saeed
 Chapter 4
Data Analysis

In the previous chapters problem was introduced, literature review was described,
and research Methodology was presented. The present chapter will focus on data
analysis. The chapter is divided into following sections.

Section I Composition of the Sample

Table 4.1.1 Composition of Sample by Gender
Frequenc
Variable y Percentage
Male
Officers 30 50
Female
Officers 30 50
Total 60 100%
It is clear from the table 4.1.1 that 50 percent respondent were male officers and 50
percent respondents were female officers.

Composition of Sample by Gender

1 2
Table 4.1.2 Composition of Sample by Experience
Frequenc
Variable y Percentage
Less
Experienc
e 25 41
More
Experienc
e 35 58
Total 60 100%

It is clear from the table 4.1.2 that 41 percent respondents were less experienced
and 58 percent respondents were mor experience.

Composition of Sample by Experience

1 2
Table 4.1.3 Composition of Sample by Age
Frequenc
Variable y Percentage
Younger
Officials 20 33
Older
Officials 40 66
Total 60 100%

It is clear from the table 4.1.3 that 33 percent respondents were younger officials
and 66 percent officials were older officials.

Composition of Sample by Age

1 2
Table 4.1.4 Composition of Sample by Qualification
Frequenc
Variable y Percentage
Less
Qualified 25 41
More
Qualified 35 58
Total 60 100%

It is clear from table 4.1.4 that 41 percent respondents were less qualified and 58
percent respondents were more qualified.

Composition of Sample by Qualification

1 2
Section II Testing of Hypothesis 

Hypothesis 01: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of male and
female Government Officials with regard to their understanding of 18th
Amendment and Provincial Autonomy.

Column1

Mean 37.8
Standard 1.2806
Error 25
Median 38
Mode 42
Standard 7.0142
Deviation 71
Sample
Variance 49.2
-
1.1366
Kurtosis 5
Skewness -0.2128
Range 23
Minimum 25
Maximum 48
Sum 1134
Count 30

Column 2
Mean 36.8
Standard
Error 1.2284
Median 36
Mode 34
Standard 6.7282
Deviation 22
Sample 45.268
Variance 97
-
1.1149
Kurtosis 7
0.0373
Skewness 51
Range 23
Minimum 25
Maximum 48
Sum 1104
Count 30

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for

Means

Variab Variab
  le 1 le 2
Mean 36.8 37.8
45.268
Variance 97 49.2
Observations 30 30
Pearson 0.2811
Correlation 6
Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0
Df 29
-
0.6645
t Stat 5
0.2557
P(T<=t) one-tail 95
 1.6991
t Critical one-tail 27
0.5115
P(T<=t) two-tail 9
2.0452
t Critical two-tail 3  

Computed Value = Tabulated Value =

1.699127 -0.66455

Decision Rule: If tabulated value of t is equal or

greater than
computed value of t then the null hypothesis is
rejected.
Tabulated Value is less than computed value = Null hypothesis is accepted
or upheld
Conclusion
Referring to Tabulated Value of t= 0.66455 is
less than
the computed value of t
= 1.699127
Therefore, null hypothesis is
accepted
It is concluded that there is no significant
difference in the
mean scores of male and female
Government Officials.

Hypothesis 02: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of less

experience and more experience Government Officials with regard to their
understanding of NFC Award relating to 18th Amendment.
 Column1

Mean 30.52
Standard 1.4732
Error 28
Median 32
Mode 32
Standard 7.3661
Deviation 39
Sample
Variance 54.26
-
0.5882
Kurtosis 1
0.4133
Skewness 66
Range 25
Minimum 20
Maximum 45
Sum 763
Count 25

Column 2

35.771
Mean 43
Standard 1.5180
Error 07
Median 36
Mode 29
Standard 8.9806
Deviation 51
Sample 80.652
Variance 1
Kurtosis -
0.9289
 6
-
0.1860
Skewness 2
Range 32
Minimum 18
Maximum 50
Sum 1252
Count 35

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal

Variances

Variab Variab
  le 1 le 2
35.771
Mean 30.52 43
80.652
Variance 54.26 1
Observations 25 35
Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0
df 57
-
2.4825
t Stat 2
0.0080
P(T<=t) one-tail 07
1.6720
t Critical one-tail 29
0.0160
P(T<=t) two-tail 14
2.0024
t Critical two-tail 65  

Computed Value = Tabulated Value =

-2.48252 1.672029
Decision Rule: If tabulated value of t is equal or
greater than
computed value of t then the null hypothesis is
rejected.
Tabulated Value is less than computed value = Null hypothesis is accepted
or upheld
Conclusion
Referring to Tabulated Value of t= 1.672029
is less than
the computed value of t
= -2.48252
Therefore, null hypothesis is
accepted
It is concluded that There is no significant
difference in the mean scores of less experience
and more experience Government Officials with
regard to their understanding of NFC Award
relating to 18th Amendment.
Hypothesis 03: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Younger
and Older Government Officials with regard to their understanding of Right to
Education accordance with 18th Amendment.

Column1

Mean 38.1
Standard 1.8077
Error 32
Median 39.5
Mode 42
Standard 8.0844
Deviation 23
Sample 65.357
Variance 89
-
0.6332
Kurtosis 4
-
0.3630
Skewness 8
Range 28
Minimum 22
Maximum 50
Sum 762
Count 20

Column 2

Mean 31.325
Standard 1.2891
Error 99
Median 32
Mode 32
Standard 8.1536
Deviation 13
Sample 66.481
Variance 41
 -
0.6709
Kurtosis 9
0.3807
Skewness 94
Range 31
Minimum 18
Maximum 49
Sum 1253
Count 40

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal

Variances

Variab Variab
  le 1 le 2
Mean 38.1 31.325
65.357 66.481
Variance 89 41
Observations 20 40
Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0
df 38
3.0513
t Stat 28
0.0020
P(T<=t) one-tail 71
1.6859
t Critical one-tail 54
0.0041
P(T<=t) two-tail 41
2.0243
t Critical two-tail 94  

Computed Value = Tabulated Value =

 3.051328 1.685954

Decision Rule: If tabulated value of t is equal or

greater than
computed value of t then the null hypothesis is
rejected.
Tabulated Value is less than computed value = Null hypothesis is accepted
or upheld
Conclusion
Referring to Tabulated Value of t= 1.685954
is less than
the computed value of t
= -3.051328
it is concluded that
There is no significant
difference in the mean
scores of Younger and
Older Government
Officials with regard to
their understanding of
Right to Education
accordance with 18th
Amendment.

Hypothesis 04: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of Less

Qualified and More Qualified Government Officials with regard to their
understanding of Provincial Autonomy and its Impacts.

Column1

Mean 34.08
Standard 2.0057
Error 58
Median 35
Mode 36
Standard 10.028
Deviation 79
Sample 100.57
Variance 67
-
1.4917
Kurtosis 4
0.1618
Skewness 53
Range 29
Minimum 20
Maximum 49
Sum 852
Count 25

Column 2

35.714
Mean 29
Standard 1.4257
Error 96
Median 34
Mode 32
Standard 8.4351
Deviation 21
Sample 71.151
Variance 26
-
0.9096
Kurtosis 7
0.0081
Skewness 27
Range 29
Minimum 20
Maximum 49
Sum 1250
Count 35

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal

Variances

Variab Variab
  le 1 le 2
35.714
Mean 34.08 29
100.57 71.151
Variance 67 26
Observations 25 35
Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0
df 46
-
t Stat 0.6641
0.2549
P(T<=t) one-tail 69
1.6786
t Critical one-tail 6
0.5099
P(T<=t) two-tail 39
2.0128
t Critical two-tail 96  

Computed Value = Tabulated Value =

-0.6641 1.67866

Decision Rule: If tabulated value of t is equal or

greater than
computed value of t then the null hypothesis is
rejected.
Tabulated Value is less than computed value = Null hypothesis is accepted
or upheld
Conclusion
Referring to Tabulated Value of t= 1.67866
is greater than
the computed value of t
= -0.6641

it is concluded There is
significant difference
in the mean scores of
Less Qualified and
More Qualified
Government Officials
with regard to their
understanding of
Provincial Autonomy
and its Impacts.

Chapter 5
Summary, Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations

In previous chapters problem was introduced, literature review was analyzed,

research methodology was presented, and data was analysis was done. The present
chapter will focus on summary, findings conclusion and recommendations.
5.1 Summary
The overall objective of the study was to analyze the role of 18 th amendment to
strengthen the provincial autonomy. The study specifically focuses on:
To ensure provincial autonomy to the provinces. To provide Fundamental Rights
such as Right to fair trial (Article 10-A) and Right to Education (Article 25-A). To
find out methods to ensure fundamental rights to the citizens of Pakistan. To
determine the distribution of resources between federal government and Provinces.
To evaluate the implementation of Article 25-A (Right to Education). To ensure
distribution of resources to Provinces Article 160 (3A) was inserted NFC Award.
The scope the study was limited to Provincial autonomy and Province Baluchistan.
Literature review was presented with in depth analysis of the prominent work of
the scholars in filed.
Quantitative research design was adopted. The population of the study was
comprised of all government officials associated with Government of Sindh
Departments at Karachi. Population is diverse therefore stratified random sampling
design will be adopted. The overall sample size will be 60 Government officials.
The sample size was 50.

Researcher uses questionnaires to collect the data of the study to find out the
answers of research objectives. The study sample drawn from the population using
convent sampling of random sampling techniques. The research selects only 60
government officials to analyze the population.

Data was analyzed through statistical techniques.

5.2 Findings

It is clear from the table 4.1.1 that 50 percent respondent were male officers and 50
percent respondents were female officers.

It is clear from the table 4.1.2 that 41 percent respondents were less experienced
and 58 percent respondents were mor experience.

It is clear from the table 4.1.3 that 33 percent respondents were younger officials
and 66 percent officials were older officials.
It is clear from table 4.1.4 that 41 percent respondents were less qualified and 58
percent respondents were more qualified.

Hypothesis 1
Computed Value = Tabulated Value =
1.699127 -0.66455

Decision Rule: If tabulated value of t is equal or

greater than
computed value of t then the null hypothesis is
rejected.
Tabulated Value is less than computed value = Null hypothesis is accepted
or upheld
Conclusion
Referring to Tabulated Value of t= 0.66455 is
less than
the computed value of t
= 1.699127
Therefore, null hypothesis is
accepted
It is concluded that there is no significant
difference in the
mean scores of male and female
Government Officials.

Hypothesis 2
Computed Value = Tabulated Value =
-2.48252 1.672029

Decision Rule: If tabulated value of t is equal or greater

than
computed value of t then the null hypothesis is rejected.
Tabulated Value is less than computed value = Null hypothesis is accepted
or upheld
Conclusion
Referring to Tabulated Value of t= 1.672029
is less than
the computed value of t =
-2.48252
Therefore, null hypothesis is accepted
It is concluded that There is no significant difference in
the mean scores of less experience and more experience
Government Officials with regard to their understanding
of NFC Award relating to 18th Amendment.

Hypothesis 3
Computed Value = Tabulated Value =
3.051328 1.685954

Decision Rule: If tabulated value of t is equal or

greater than
computed value of t then the null hypothesis is
rejected.
Tabulated Value is less than computed value = Null hypothesis is accepted
or upheld
Conclusion
Referring to Tabulated Value of t= 1.685954
is less than
the computed value of t
= -3.051328
it is concluded that
There is no significant
difference in the mean
scores of Younger and
Older Government
Officials with regard to
their understanding of
Right to Education
accordance with 18th
Amendment.

Hypothesis 4
 Computed Value = Tabulated Value =
-0.6641 1.67866

Decision Rule: If tabulated value of t is equal or

greater than
computed value of t then the null hypothesis is
rejected.
Tabulated Value is less than computed value = Null hypothesis is accepted
or upheld
Conclusion
Referring to Tabulated Value of t= 1.67866
is greater than
the computed value of t
= -0.6641

it is concluded There is
significant difference in
the mean scores of Less
Qualified and More
Qualified Government
Officials with regard to
their understanding of
Provincial Autonomy
and its Impacts.

5.3 Conclusion

5.4 Recommendations