Comment by Riaz Haq on May 19, 2012 at 6:41pm

Here's an ET piece on history of economic growth under various leaders since 1947: The Express Tribune took the trouble to go through Pakistan’s historical GDP growth rates and compared various governments. We used GDP growth numbers from the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics records, which go all the way back to fiscal year 1952. We then calculated the geometric average (which calculates the compound average growth rate) rather than the simple arithmetic average to calculate the growth rates during the entire tenure of a government and then we ranked them. The results were somewhat surprising.

For instance, former President Ayub Khan – widely regarded as Pakistan’s best ruler when it comes to economic growth – is actually in second place. The number one spot is held by former President Ziaul Haq, who averaged 5.88% growth during his 11 years in office.

For fans of President Ayub who insist that his record before the 1965 war was better, we checked: it is not true. Pakistan’s growth rate during that period averaged 5.73% per year, which is actually lower than President Ayub’s own overall average of 5.82%. Having said that, industrial growth from the 1958 coup to the 1965 war averaged 9.21%, higher than any Pakistani ruler’s record, including Ayub’s own overall average of 8.51%.

Another surprising insight: if one ranks the ten rulers Pakistan has had since 1952 according to the average economic growth rate during their tenure, both the top five and the bottom five include three dictators and two democrats.

Yes, the top three slots are undoubtedly all taken up by the usual suspects: former Presidents Ziaul Haq, Ayub Khan and Pervez Musharraf, in that order. The next two are somewhat surprising: Benazir Bhutto comes in at fourth place and her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto is not far behind. The supposedly pro-markets Nawaz Sharif comes in at seventh place.

Yet another surprise: Benazir Bhutto’s average was 5.08%, not far off from Pervez Musharraf’s 5.14%. She beat her rival Nawaz Sharif by a full percentage point: Pakistan’s economic growth averaged 4.06% during Nawaz Sharif’s both terms as prime minister.

Length of time in office appears to matter far more than whether the ruler was a dictator or a democrat. The top three were all in office for at least nine years, with the top two each in office for eleven years. Yahya Khan, Iskandar Mirza and Ghulam Muhammad – none of whom was democratically elected or subject to a popular mandate – all come in close to the bottom of the rankings. None of them had longer than four years in office.

But the more intriguing question to ask is why both the Bhuttos vastly outperform Nawaz Sharif.

The answer lies in the breakup of the GDP number: while Nawaz beat both Bhuttos on industrial growth, he was abysmal when it comes to agriculture. Benazir Bhutto was the best in Pakistani history for agriculture, which grew at an average of 6.65% during her five years in office.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, meanwhile, had blowout growth in services, averaging 10.63% during his only term in office, the highest of any Pakistani ruler. (Oddly enough, the elder Bhutto had a poor track record on agriculture, despite his family background. Agriculture grew at a paltry 2.12% per year during his tenure, worse even than Nawaz.)

For those who are currently pessimistic about Pakistan’s economic prospects, you may find some comfort in knowing that the numbers back you up: President Asif Ali Zardari ranks dead last in terms of economic growth, averaging a paltry 2.62% during his term in office so far.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/381450/setting-the-record-straight-not-...

Comment by Riaz Haq on March 3, 2014 at 4:55pm

Here's a Dawn report on avg 2.9% gdp growth rate in last 5 years since Musharraf's departure:

The economy grew at an average rate of 2.9 percent per annum during the last five years though GDP growth witnessed growth in financial year 2012-13 to stand at 3.6% against the target fixed was 4.3%, the yearly report published by Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) said.
The performance by the important sectors of economy like agriculture, manufacturing and services remained below their capacity. However, the recent EU approval of duty waiver in the form of awarding GSP PLUS status (Generalized System of Preferences Plus) has created much wanted space for the economy.
Duty free access to Pakistan’s exports to the bloc of 27 member countries of European Union has offered much attention for the domestic and Chinese investors. The Chinese investors have started entering into joint ventures with local manufacturers to take advantage of trade concessions. Due to these developments, the ambitious growth of textile and clothing sector has become possible. One may hope that a prudent use of EU duty concessions avoiding any caveat therein will lead towards improvement of business environment and to the desired destination of economic stability.
The economy of Pakistan continued facing various shocks since beginning of FY: 2012-13. The energy crises got complex and worsened. The security hazards vastly affected the economic and social environment. The fight against terrorism got another additional front of sectarian extremism. The extensive financial constraints, economic mismanagement and less than capacity electricity generation despite its acute shortage have been the major weaknesses in the economy. An estimate indicated that around 2% of the GDP has been washed away due to power shortage. Moreover, the challenging scheduled payments due, to the international donor agencies added further difficulties for the economic management.
However, the positive aspects of the economy included comparatively lower trade deficit, strong remittances and above 33% decline in inflation rates i.e., reduced from 11.0% in 2011-12 to 7.4% in FY: 2012-13. Some prudent measures have been taken for improvement of economy (most important step was the settlement of circular debt to the tune of Rs 480 billion which paved the way of 1700 megawatts additional electricity generation). Similarly, easy monetary policy with low interest rate during the FY: 2012-13 increased the cheap credit borrowing by the corporate sector. Resultantly, improved performance by the large scale manufacturing sector became possible and observed.
Despite unfavorable economic conditions, the FBR has been able to collect Rs 1,946 billion at the end of the fiscal year 2012-13. A growth of 3.4 percent over last year’s collection has been recorded. The FBR revenue target for the FY: 2012-13 was fixed at Rs 2,381 billion with an envisaged growth of 26.5% over last year’s collection of Rs 1,883 billion. Keeping in view the broad based challenges faced by the economy, the revenue target was revised downward to Rs 2,007 billion and expected a growth of 6.6%. The important indicators considered for assigning of revenue targets includes expected growth in GDP, the rate of inflation, level of ease in monetary policy, growth in the Large Scale Manufacturing sector, tax buoyancy, budgetary measures and imports.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/business/27-Feb-2014/pakistan-s-gdp-gr...

Comment by Riaz Haq on June 24, 2019 at 10:07am

Some questions about public policymaking in Pakistan
By Shahid Javed Burki

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1998843/6-questions-public-policymakin...

Serious public policy work was put on track by president Ayub Khan soon after he took over the country in October 1958. He developed the Planning Commission into a well-endowed policymaking institution. Told that Pakistan did not have the skills that were needed to staff such an institution, he turned to the United States for help. That came in the form of advisers mostly from the Harvard Development Service who were appointed in the Planning Commission in Karachi and in the Planning and Development Departments in East and West Pakistan.

When Ayub Khan surrendered his office in 1969, the Planning Commission began to wither. A series of blows were delivered to the planning process by the government headed by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who ably led Pakistan to recover from the loss of East Pakistan in December 1971 but destroyed much of what Ayub Khan had done for the country. Bhutto, an arrogant man, had much greater confidence in his ability to develop the country on his own and bring about social change than base his moves on institutional advice. He had no use for the Planning Commission.

-----------------

What follows is a brief discussions relating to some of the questions asked above. Taking all of them in detail would take up a more than one newspaper article.

One, our leaders must recognise that a negative narrative prevails about Pakistan in the foreign press. Whenever a story appears about Pakistan in the western media, its content and tone are negative. This situation can only be remedied if the current leadership comes forward and presents to the world a believable plan of action that would restore people’s confidence in their future as well the future of their country. As economists emphasise all the time, confidence is an important driver of growth, confidence leads to increase in domestic and as well as foreign investment.

Two, there is an urgent need to strength the Federal Board of Revenue. Those who don’t pay taxes or pay only nominal amounts must be made to fear the revenue collector. It is that fear that has made the Internal Revenue Service the most feared part of the United States government. In America, April 15, the day taxes are due, is by far the most important day on the calendar.

Third, we need to focus on three sectors as the future determinants of economic growth and social change: they are high value-added agriculture, small- and medium-scale industries and modern services. Development of the human resource would be an important part of this strategy. CPEC could play an important part in this endeavour.

Fourth, our policymakers need to recognise that Pakistan is no longer a rural place but an urban country. No single urban policy would serve the purpose. We will need separate policies for the metropolitan areas, peripheral areas of large cites, medium-sized cities and small towns.

Fifth, the government must get closer to the people and this requires the formation of a multi-tiered system of local government on the lines of Ayub Khan’s system of ‘basic democracies’.

And sixth, working with Afghanistan, we should use the local system of government to bring economic and social development to these areas. It is only then that we will be able to prevent the tribal youth from being attracted to extremist causes.

Comment