Thursday, February 17, 2011

Answering the critics: New Growth Strategy

Much of the response received by the Growth document of planning commission has so far remained very much encouraging. It will be alright for me to reveal that significant number of comments received from the civil society, youth, educationists, donor agencies etc. have been incorporated in the revised draft which will be shared in few weeks time. However, there still are some comments which can only be answered through increased interaction between the growth team lead by Dr. Nadeem Ul Haque and interested community.

Following are some of the criticisms which have been observed on different forums:

Whats so ‘New’ about it?

The word ‘new’ is often received with lots of skepticism. A clear distinction needs to be observed between growth theory and strategy. While the growth theory remains the same, overall strategy is significantly new when looked at in context of Pakistan. In economics, growth (output) is treated as a function of productivity, labour and capital. Throughout Pakistan’s history, productivity has been observed as an exogenous variable – something that will happen on its own. The ‘New Growth Strategy’ endogenizes productivity by looking at the microeconomic underpinnings of this macroeconomic problem. The result will be improved growth levels through enhanced productivity even if labour and capital do not change.

Expecting people’s welfare from Private Sector?

The strategy does not talk about complete withdrawal of government from market management. Instead it is to confine its role to market regulation: away from its current approach of acting as an active market player.

Formulating and implementing regulations is a sufficient tool to deal with cartels/monopolies. One needs not be a market player but require a strong regulatory framework in the form of regulatory bodies such as competition commission, PTA etc. 

Why do we still have cartels despite having numerous regulatory bodies? We often tend to hear this question in response to the idea of government withdrawing itself as a market player. Answer to this question lies in the strengthening of regulatory bodies and not in government re-entering the market. Our existing institutions not only lack the required strength but in some cases their own organizational structure is also contrary to promoting competition and fighting cartels. It is well established that privatization without regulation often leads to consumer exploitation. This is exactly what the role of government should be – ensuring that overall consumer welfare is not marginalized.  

Why talk about cities alone?

In almost all the conferences organized by the Planning Commission as a part of consultative process, one standard question was always raised. What about the rural areas? This takes us to another interesting question. What are cities? Out of many things, cities must also be seen as markets for rural areas. It is in the cities where much of the rural products are bought and sold. Therefore cities are the only place where major chunk of rural income is generated.

However, the Growth document is still not silent on rural development. Under the ‘Markets’ pillar, the document talks about agricultural markets in great detail. Similarly, constraints to infrastructure development at municipal level are also highlighted under ‘Connectivity’ theme.

‘Implementation’

Here comes the tricky bit! Ask this question and many policy makers would prefer to shy away. In my personal view, it’s not up to any policy maker to implement his/her policy unless the public wants it. This is especially true when you are a democratic country. Why is it that the judiciary gets restored despite significant pressure from the opposing group? The answer is simple. Our general public wanted it to happen.

What we here at Planning Commission intend to do is to get people to own this strategy. It is exactly this reason why this wide consultative process is being carried out. It is exactly this reason why we are doing our best to incorporate majority of the received comments. And it is exactly this reason why we are having this much more direct and interactive blog to reach people. Once people – like the respected reader – start owning the Growth document and wish for the proposed changes to take place, implementation will soon follow its own course. 

5 comments:

  1. :)

    Difference between Public and Private Sector: Public sector can achieve the break-even or bear losses to give relief to the people while private sector will never do that until they get some bucks out. Btw considering our security situation, who will think of investing here.
    It all comes down to governance and regulation of government whether CCP, HEC or PTA etc. HEC doing a good job but still there are universities who have a very sub-standard level but are recognized. I just don't get the fact that why are we so reluctant to take the reins in our own hands? If the reason is bad governance then i am afraid, same people are sitting in the regulatory authorities.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. firstly, we need to look at what exactly does 'relief' mean. is cheaper service alone a relief? in my view, if the offered service is of poor quality and take significant time then the total number of labor hours lost will result in greater cost than saving few rupees on lets say ticket price.

    secondly, lets assume that government enterprise keeps running on losses to facilitate people. Where will all these losses be funded from? Obviously Tax money. so ultimately the person buying a cheaper ticket ends up paying higher taxes. what happens to his savings which he intends to make?

    thirdly, anything which grows big gets difficult to handle. and after a certain optimal point, it will start disintegrating. similar is the case with governance. Once the government gets too big by involving itself in every business, corruption/bad governance becomes a natural outcome. optimal outcome for any government in such a scenario is to withdraw itself from running businesses (which the private sector can do better) and concentrate more on the neglected class which the private sector will not cater due to them being of little economic value.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We don't need to let the public sector corporations keep working under heavy losses. What we have to do is to improve our governance.

    Sorry to say but we haven't learnt from our previous regime. Private sector came in with huge budgets and when they left with their money, we were doomed. This comes as a part and parcel of privatization. My emphasis is on the fact that if i pay the tax to govt then it is the govt that has to provide me with the relief. Private sector always focuses on profits. We are in age of globalization, where everything is connected and this is the tool these colonialists use to exploit our resources. First they help us by deepening their roots in our system and then hijack our system.

    And above all my brother, Islam prohibits us from privatizing our resources. Prophet PBUH once said that we cannot sell our land, forests and fire to anyone.... So the talk of privatization should end here, shouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. you have a valid point that government should provide you with relief against your taxes.

    but the question again comes back to 'relief'. In some cases, private sector can provide relief in a much better way than public sector. eg: telecom

    about companies coming and going, well they will obviously sell their assets to someone before leaving. How is that a disadvantage?

    about your third paragraph, Prophet (PBUH) never said that state should provide horses to those who want to travel etc...

    ReplyDelete

We welcome your views on the New Development Approach.