In recent years, whenever an issue erupts, the first step Mongolia’s state authorities take has been to establish a “working group”. Since it is one of the most effective ways to evade political accountability, our officials have become quite “skilled” at forming such groups. Each time a major problem or scandal arises in society, a working group is set up. Yet the question remains: Do these working groups actually develop solutions and concrete outcomes, or do they merely stall and “freeze” the issue?
In any case, it is true that within the timeframe “assigned” from above, the issue is temporarily subdued, dispersed, and eventually forgotten. Working groups with impressive titles are formed to reduce air pollution and traffic congestion, overcome the energy crisis, combat coal theft, address the hardships of the pandemic and zud, improve budget discipline and governance of state-owned enterprises, fight corruption, implement tax reform, and radically overhaul the social insurance system. Whenever such a group is announced, the public tends to feel reassured, believing that “the Mongolian government is paying attention to this issue”. In reality, however, nothing gets resolved.
Establishing a working group benefits politicians in many ways. It calms public anger, shifts responsibility away from themselves and onto an indistinct entity called a working group, postpones decision-making, and buys time—during which anything can happen. In essence, the working group has become a political tactic used in place of actual government decisions.
For example, energy sector reform has been discussed for many years, and numerous working groups have “studied” the matter. Yet real change and reform have been continuously delayed. Meanwhile, citizens continue to suffer from shortages of electricity and heating and rising prices. Even now, the head of the government has not been able to hold the Minister of Energy accountable, instead issuing a 30-day directive to fulfill certain tasks.
IRRESPONSIBILITY BEHIND COLLECTIVE NAME
The State Great Khural, the Government, ministries, agencies, the capital city administration, and its affiliated bodies are remarkably swift when it comes to establishing working groups. Yet these groups often operate without clearly defined deadlines, measurable performance indicators, transparent public reporting, or clearly identified individuals accountable for results. This has become an almost ritualistic pattern.
In reality, the working groups in Mongolia are not decision-making institutions. They merely draft recommendations, while it remains unclear who is responsible for implementing them. This is what is known as an “accountability gap”.
For example, imagine a 15-member working group formed to develop proposals and recommendations to reduce traffic congestion in Ulaanbaatar City. It is unclear who will implement their recommendations, how, or when. Then, one day, if ministers or officials suddenly summon them, they simply respond, “We submitted our recommendations”. Meanwhile, the relevant ministry may say, “We are reviewing and studying the matter further”, distancing itself from responsibility. The capital city administration, like the proverbial owner of a bull stuck in the mud, may deflect by saying, “The funding has not yet been resolved”. The government, in turn, may shift to a sympathetic tone, “The country’s economic situation is already difficult; priorities must be set and please understand”. Parliament then steps back, claiming, “The executive branch has failed to implement its policies”.
As a result, significant expenses and bureaucratic burdens accumulate, multiple overlapping structures operate simultaneously, yet no real progress is made. When mistakes occur, they are absorbed into the institutions themselves, allowing politicians to evade responsibility. In systems theory, this phenomenon is known as “diffused responsibility”. It seems our members of parliament, ministers, and senior officials understand this concept all too well.
INCREASED VEHICLE TAX GROUP ‘ASLEEP’
After more than 33,000 citizens supported a petition through the D-Parliament online system opposing the Capital City Citizens’ Representative Khural’s resolution to increase road usage fees fivefold and vehicle taxes threefold, parliament established yet another working group last year. The group included several MPs, among them N.Altankhuyag and J.Bayasgalan, as well as representatives from relevant ministries, agencies, and the capital city administration.
However, the group meets perhaps once every six months and otherwise disappears like a stone thrown into water, which is an all-too-familiar example of how state affairs are conducted in Mongolia.
Given that the issue directly affects the daily lives and wallets of Ulaanbaatar City residents, citizens had hoped this working group would reexamine and possibly halt what many saw as an aggressive decision pushed through based on the online votes of only two individuals. As such, these officials should have been among the most vocal and visible figures in public discourse.
Yet the last update, last September, merely stated that Parliament’s Standing Committee on Budget had directed the government to review whether the city council’s decision to increase road fees and vehicle taxes was lawful. Since then, there has been complete silence. Some MPs even criticized the working group members, noting that parliament lacks the legal authority to invalidate a resolution of the Capital City Citizens’ Representative Khural and can only provide direction to the government. This suggests that the appointments were less about solving the issue and more about calming public outrage in line with a political firefighting tactic.
WHY DO SO MANY OF THEM FAIL TO DELIVER RESULTS?
No matter how many working groups are formed in Mongolia, why do problems remain unresolved and outcomes unachieved? Establishing a working group is not inherently wrong, nor is it necessarily an unnecessary structure. What renders these groups “toothless lions” is the state itself.
The state has a duty to resolve issues through sound policy, carefully studied from every angle. Yet instead of empowering working groups to develop actionable policies and concrete solutions, they are often used merely as political “protective gear” to buy time. That is where the real problem lies.
For instance, on December 13, 2020, the Government of Mongolia issued Resolution No. 211, deciding that the state would cover electricity and heating payments for households and certain businesses. As a result, a number of consumers were included in this welfare measure, and the government paid 359 billion MNT on their behalf.
On the surface, the policy appeared beneficial to citizens. In reality, however, it had a profoundly negative impact on the financial sustainability of the energy and heating sectors. The consequences became tangible in November 2024, when the government, seemingly awakened to reality, decided to adjust electricity and heating tariffs closer to their actual costs, increasing them by 30 percent.
Both decisions, which are the generous subsidy and the sharp tariff increase, were reportedly based on the research, calculations, and recommendations of working groups. There is a certain irony in that.
OPENNESS AND PROFESSIONALISM ARE ESSENTIAL
Researchers point out that Mongolia’s recurring political and policy instability, shifting every four-year election cycle, stems largely from the lack of stable, professional, and independent institutions capable of developing consistent long-term policies. The weakness of KPI-based implementation monitoring and performance evaluation systems, along with the absence of an established culture of accountability, has made it necessary to legally regulate the criteria for establishing working groups.
At the very least, it is essential to clearly define the timeframe, budget, and measurable performance indicators for any working group’s activities, ensure that their reports are publicly accessible, and strengthen parliamentary oversight mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of their recommendations. There is also a need to institutionalize permanent, professional policy units at the structural level.
In many countries, it is common practice that when a working group is established, the resolution explicitly names the responsible minister, member of parliament, representative, or chairperson; sets a clear implementation deadline and measurable KPIs; and specifies consequences in case of non-performance. Such mechanisms raise political accountability.
A working group should not merely conduct a temporary study and abandon the issue. Instead, it should serve as a bridge—through permanent professional offices and independent policy evaluation agencies—to strengthen parliamentary oversight and support the successful implementation of the government’s medium- and long-term programs, goals, and strategies.
One major distortion in today’s society is that working group reports are rarely made fully public. For example, under the New Cooperative movement, a working group was tasked with reviewing and evaluating the financing and effectiveness of loans provided to herders. In late 2024 and early 2025, its members traveled extensively to rural areas, creating additional costs and bureaucratic burdens for the state. Yet neither at the time nor since has the group’s consolidated findings and recommendations been meaningfully disclosed or discussed. It appears as though someone simply chose not to speak, listen, or look—allowing the matter to fade into obscurity. As transparency increases, so too does the participation and oversight of civil society. In turn, professional criticism can help correct policy mistakes and improve outcomes.
However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous working groups were established across the country, and even three or four years later, some had not been formally dissolved. Ministers and senior officials reportedly forgot they even existed, while certain members continued to receive additional budget-funded compensation for work that had not been carried out.
There are also cases where members of working groups formed during the severe 2023 zud crisis had not formally handed over their assigned duties before facing new flood risks and continuing their work. Regardless of size or scope, once a working group is formalized through an official government resolution, its members cannot simply walk away unless it is formally dissolved. As a result, they may find themselves trapped in a bureaucratic limbo.
