What's new

Economy skyrocketed during Musharraf era

That question can't be answered because the very premise of it is invalid.

Of course it is a valid question. Gen Musharraf benefited from the sudden influx of billions upon billions of dollars from USA after he caved into their demands. That kept the exchange rate at nearly 60 to the dollar as part of a behind-the-scenes arrangement. This allowed him to hide what was really going on, including the criminal neglect of the power sector during his reign.
 
1st Pak people abuse dictator ship
then in democracy they didn't like it and love sitting in dictator's lap………
Just like first tgey use to abuse Zardari and now for this purpose Nawaz os used……:enjoy::omghaha:
 
I think a demonstration should be given on how to debate and answer such questions instead of reactionary posts.
Lets use academic sources(although I dont think all will be able to access them since they need subscription).

This was pre-Musharraf.. just after the tests.

By Wall Street Journal staff reporters Jonathan Karp in New Delhi, Carla Anne Robbins in Washington and Hugh Pope in Istanbul, Turkey. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition [New York, N.Y] 29 May 1998: A11.

President Clinton swiftly announced that the U.S. will impose trade sanctions on Pakistan, after Islamabad said it conducted five underground nuclear tests yesterday near the border with Afghanistan. Far more important, $2 billion worth of lending to Islamabad by the International Monetary Fund,

The BJP says the economic impact of sanctions will be minimal for India. For Pakistan, sanctions are bound to be crippling. The U.S. measures will most likely halt nonhumanitarian U.S. aid and bank credits and obligate Washington to oppose lending by international agencies. Pakistan is deeply dependent on aid from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The IMF could postpone disbursement of the remaining $1.1 billion balance of $1.52 billion in loans it began extending Islamabad last year. Japan, Pakistan's largest aid donor and trading partner, said Friday it also will impose economic sanctions against Pakistan. A foreign ministry spokesman said Japan will cut off all grant aid for new projects, except for humanitarian aid and grassroots projects, and will freeze new yen loans.

Starved of fresh multilateral and bilateral funding, analysts say, Pakistan will have to default on repayments of its $30 billion foreign debt due within six months. Pakistan's foreign-currency reserves are just $1.2 billion. Its currency is already weakening, the stock market index has dropped 35% since India's nuclear tests and the government must now hope that its new foreign-currency controls will prevent about $12 billion in private bank deposits from fleeing the country.

But investors in Karachi, Pakistan's financial hub, said they expect share prices to plummet as the sanctions are detailed, for the measures will batter Pakistan's economy more than India's. Foreign aid and concessionary loans make up half the revenue in Pakistan's annual budget. The country has only enough hard-currency reserves to pay for about six weeks of imports, the IMF estimates. (India has enough for about a year's worth of imports.) Moreover, Pakistan's currency is fully convertible, making it vulnerable to runs by investors, while India has controls on capital movement.

U.S. officials must now decide precisely how much economic pain to impose on Pakistan-particularly whether to simply cast the legally required "no" vote at the IMF and World Bank, or to aggressively press the agencies to curtail loans. For Pakistan, the money at stake is considerable. The IMF was slated to vote on $292 million dollars in loans expected at the end of June as part of its existing program. The World Bank was expected to approve about $750 million in Pakistan projects in the year starting June 30, with a vote on a $350 million energy project expected in September. The Asian Development Bank was expected to lend about $1.8 billion to Pakistan from 1998 to 2000.

In a nutshell, the economy was strangled from whatever efforts were there along with corruption.. by the nuclear tests. It was in pretty bad shape until Musharraf takes over.

Lets look at certain view points on what happened in the Musharraf era(good or bad).
This is pre sep-11 and before US-Aid.
from Bokhari, Farhan. Financial Times [London (UK)] 28 Aug 2001: 04.
When an International Monetary Fund delegation leaves Pakistan this week it will leave officials in the finance ministry confident that the country is close to its first successful conclusion of a fund programme.
Shaukat Aziz, finance minister, hopes for, as the next step, an agreement on a three-year IMF loan under the fund's poverty reduction and growth facility (PRGF). That would be the cornerstone for the international debt rescheduling Pakistan needs to avoid defaulting.

Mr Aziz says the economy has improved since the military took charge in a 1999 bloodless coup, adding that the country is poised to see a long-awaited recovery. "We forget what the state of the economy was when we took over and where it is today," he says, listing some of the biggest problems at that time, including a deadlock on reforms, falling investments and economic growth and a breakdown in relations with the IMF.

Economic growth fell to below 3 per cent, keeping just in line with population growth. But Mr Aziz says that if the drought-hit agricultural sector were excluded from the overall figures, the manufacturing sector grew by an impressive 8 per cent in a sign of growing industrial activity.

Besides, foreign investment last year fell to $323m, down from $472m in the year before,

In one example of a reform plan ahead of next year's transition, the military government has decided to lay off half of the workforce and close half the branches of three of the largest public sector banks. The step is to prevent a repeat of previous political governments using banks to recruit large numbers of political supporters and ordering managements to give loans to well-connected borrowers.

But many analysts remain unimpressed. "The government has done well on some reforms but their pace has been slow on key institutional reforms," says Sakib Sherani, chief economist at ABN-Amro, the Dutch bank.

The government's reforms include a plan to raise up to $3bn by October next year from the privatisation of large public sector companies.

However, the government hopes for an improvement in economic growth after recent rainfall has boosted the outlook for this year's crop production. The agriculture sector accounts for almost a quarter of Pakistan's annual GDP and the sector's fate sets the pace for the economy.

Next, the economy is on the move...its 2005 and things are really looking good, Shaukat Aziz is PM. This is from the economists intelligence unit.
Pakistan economy: Overheating
EIU ViewsWire. (Sep 7, 2005).

Pakistan's economy will continue to grow strongly in 2005/06 (July-June) and 2006/07, but inflation will remain a problem. In 2004/05 growth was exceptionally strong at a record high of 8.4% (at factor cost). In 2005/06 GDP growth will moderate to 6.6% as efforts by the State Bank of Pakistan (the central bank) to rein in an overheating economy begin to bear fruit. In 2006/07 growth will also remain robust at 6%. Despite high international oil prices, Pakistan is in a cyclical upturn, with all sectors of the economy performing strongly.

The annual average rate of inflation was 7.4% in 2004. It is forecast to rise to 8.6% in 2005. High international oil prices, food price inflation and a consumer-credit boom are all driving inflation up. Of particular concern is the fact that real interest rates remain negative, fuelling speculative borrowing and risky investments.

The outlook for Pakistan's other macroeconomic indicators is largely positive, although the fiscal deficit remains a concern. Revenue receipts have not risen in line with very strong GDP growth. Rising expenditure is also a concern--higher interest rates have increased interest payments on government debt. We forecast a fiscal deficit of 3.1% of GDP in 2004/05 and about the same level in 2005/06.
. In 2005/06 textile exports are expected to post strong growth, owing to the abolition of textile and garment quotas for World Trade Organisation member countries at end-2004. Nevertheless, imports will rise faster than exports.

Economic reform has proceeded at a robust pace since General Pervez Musharraf took power in 1999, and we expect reform efforts to continue in 2005/06. Privatisation has proceeded well. In June the Pakistani government sold a 26% stake in Pakistan Telecommunications Corp (PTCL) to a UAE firm, Etisalat, for over US$2bn. Pakistan's policymakers in the last few years have created an environment in which the private sector has begun to thrive. The government will continue to improve Pakistan's competitiveness by reducing red tape, improving infrastructure and permitting greater flexibility in labour markets.

High consumer price inflation remains a serious concern. This has led to negative real interest rates, reckless borrowing and speculative investments. Rising asset prices and an inflated stockmarket are also a worry.

Utilities and infrastructure. Utilities remain mismanaged and a drain on the exchequer. Unreliable electricity is a drag on manufacturing and export growth. Despite efforts to privatise Pakistan's main state-owned utilities, there has been little investor interest. Pakistan's port and road infrastructure also remains poor.


Pakistan economy: Changing its stripes
EIU ViewsWire. (Jul 7, 2006).


SHORTLY after his coup in 1999, General Musharraf unveiled a "seven-point agenda" to save the nation. He vowed to do all the right things: revive a sick economy, reduce corruption, rebuild national confidence and so on. But a year later he had made so little progress that The Economist labelled him a "useless dictator".

Six years on General Musharraf is still in charge, and the economy has been transformed.

In retrospect this newspaper's verdict of six years ago looks too harsh, but mainly for a reason that no one could have predicted. The Pakistani most responsible for the economy's brilliant turnaround, it might be argued, was not General Musharraf or his technocratic prime minister, Shaukat Aziz. It was an ethnic Pakistani currently in American custody, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the attacks on September 11th 2001.

Before that day, Mr Aziz, then the finance minister, had been struggling bravely, launching a few liberal reforms, slashing import tariffs and energy subsidies, introducing a sales tax and stepping up privatisations. On the eve of the terrorist attacks on America, Pakistan had just about met the terms of an IMF programme, but investment remained low and debt high. In 2001 the economy grew by 2%, barely more than the population, and one-third of the budget went on debt-servicing. Then Mr Mohammed's plan came off, and Pakistan's world changed.

America wanted Pakistan as an ally and was prepared to pay. It gave $600m straight up, promised to forgive $2 billion of debt and persuaded other creditors to go easy. Some of Pakistan's debt was already due to be rescheduled; America ensured that the terms were generous. In December 2001 the IMF agreed on a $1.3 billion facility. Meanwhile remittances rocketed, especially from Pakistanis in America, reflecting fears that Christian countries might freeze Muslim assets. Remittance flows also became more visible as America cracked down on the informal hawala money-transfer system, which it thought was being used by terrorists.

This fiscal reprieve, combined with sensible reforms in the banking sector and plenty of spare capacity, provided the basis for Pakistan's burst of growth.

This is a hopeful time for Pakistan. But the country has been here before. In both the 1960s and the 1980s, the economy sustained annual growth of over 6%. Those periods, too, saw military rule--which brought relative stability--and lashings of aid dollars. The first general in charge, Ayub Khan, managed the economy well; the second, Zia ul-Haq, did not, but was also blessed with a rush of remittances, from the Middle East. Both periods were followed by a decade of civilian misrule during which donors and investors withdrew, growth dropped to 4%, and millions of people were pitched into poverty. Will General Musharraf leave behind a more solid basis for growth?

This is not a bad record, especially when compared with that of General Musharraf's predecessors. But if he is to fulfil a pledge to cut poverty significantly, he must maintain the current level of growth. The government has set its latest target at 7%, but that looks impossible. Investment, at around 20% of GDP, is still lower than it should be. Although foreign direct investment last year was an encouraging $3.5 billion, or about 2.7% of GDP (see chart 2), this was boosted by privatisations. A lot of foreign money also went into telecoms, where profits come through quickly. Savings account for a modest 15% of GDP. The consumer boom--along with high-cost oil, of which Pakistan has little--has caused imports to double in the past four years. Exports, dominated by low-value textiles, cannot keep up. Last year, the trade deficit widened to $11.5 billion. To finance it, the government will have to eat into its foreign-exchange reserves, and eventually may have to devalue the rupee. But this will exacerbate another ugly effect of consumer-led growth: inflation.
Straightening out Pakistan's police and judiciary were also on General Musharraf's priority list. Both featured in a complex package of local-government reforms introduced in 2000, but neither emerged much the better for it.

On paper, these reforms looked fine, but they soon ran into a sludge of vested interests. General Musharraf's political supporters have rigged local elections to ensure the election of nazims loyal to the government. And local and provincial politicians now have direct control over the police, which is helpful for winning elections but not for building an independent police force.

In the matter of judicial reform, the vested interests are General Musharraf's.
Such political legerdemain is an indictment not only of General Musharraf but of Pakistani politics as a whole. Unlike his civilian predecessors, the general has at least made a serious attempt to improve the country's rotten institutions.

Now lets look at a view from a perspective since then
Pakistan: Failing Economy, Failed State?
Maha Khan Phillips. Institutional Investor (Oct 2011): n/a.

The current situation is a far cry from the halcyon days in the middle of the past decade, when a technocratic government led by Shaukat Aziz succeeded in reviving the economy -- and hopes for a better future. Aziz, a former Citibank executive, was drafted as finance minister by General Pervez Musharraf after a military coup in 1999. Both men promised to root out corruption and provide the fiscal discipline and stability for economic growth. Musharraf's decision to stand with the U.S. in its war on terror after the attacks of September 11, 2001, also paid rich dividends. Western governments agreed to write off $1.7 billion of the country's debt and reschedule a further $12.5 billion, easing Pakistan's debt service burden, while Washington stepped up economic and military aid.

The results were impressive. Pakistan's economy grew at an average rate of just over 7.25 percent a year between 2004 and 2007, according to the IMF. Exports nearly doubled, as did foreign exchange reserves. The government embarked on a privatization campaign, helping the country attract $8.4 billion in badly needed foreign direct investment. The ultimate seal of approval, seemingly, came in 2005 when Goldman Sachs Group named Pakistan as one of its "next 11" emerging markets, a group that the bank asserted would follow the BRIC nations to become among the leading economic powers of the 21st century.

Instead of capitalizing on the good times, however, Pakistan reverted to its old ways. Aziz, who served as prime minister from 2004 to 2007, did little to develop the country's infrastructure or reduce costly subsidies..

Now, I will put a bigger picture on Pakistan's economic system from an article.
The Political Economy of Industrial Development in Pakistan: A Long-Term Perspective
Ali, Imran; Malik, AdeelView Profile. The Lahore Journal of Economics, suppl. Special Edition14 (Sep 2009): 29-50.


Compared to the slack in democratic years, economic growth picked up during Musharraf's rule aided by the resumption of aid flows in 2001. The rapid rise in liquidity had a visible impact on Pakistan's economy. There was a sharp reduction of interest rates, which led to an increase in consumption and a second-order effect on investment to meet the growing demand for goods and services. Musharraf's period was marked by growing presence of military corporate interests and a boom in real estate and stock markets. The asset boom allegedly diverted industrialists towards raising bank credit for quick returns on property speculation. The main agents of accumulation during this period were the top echelons of military bureaucracy, real estate developers, stock brokers and financial services industry.

To the end the overview and restate what I insist on Musharraf's tenure not really adding any sustainable growth and not really being a marvel of economics as some claim here. I post from a reliable source from the financial world and that too from 2008 when Musharraf had transferred power some 5 months ago so clearly the PPP's corruption and mess had not begun yet.

World News: Troubled Pakistan Economy Compounds Leaders' Woes; Security Tensions Impede Growth, Drive Away Investors
Wonacott, Peter. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition [New York, N.Y] 19 Sep 2008: A.17.


Over the last half-decade, Pakistan has been riding a wave of foreign investment and consumer-driven growth. Until the last fiscal year -- when growth slowed to 5.8% - Pakistan's economy had grown an average of 7% annually for the last five years. In the current year, Pakistan's economy is expected to slow to about 4.6%, according to BMA. If the U.S. economy continues to stumble, even that forecast could prove optimistic.

At the end of the day, all articles point to non-sustainable and consumer based growth spurred by US Aid and not so much by well thought out financial policies. Those helped, but they were no miracle.
 
What source are you guys using? A Blog?
Where are the hundreds of industries he put? Did they just shut off overnight after 2008?
You sound more like someone whose tail somebody had stepped on instead of arguing the points one by one.


Sources are we lived and witness the damn Pres. Musharraf era, you don't know those things happened during his administration? Where you sleeping? That blog is from Express News and the data is accurate, the claims are accurate. Did you even bother to read Line of Fire or many of the economy articles published during the time that reported construction boom, Karachi stock exchange highs, millions of jobs created in the service sector, export increase, manufacturing boom, etc.


I think you're just bitter posting some bs writings that can't be blamed on Musharraf, oh musharraf didn't do anything for sustainable growth, his whole 10 years had remarkable growth in many economic sectors banking, manufacturing, construction, service sector, and more.


http://www.paktribune.com/news/print.php?id=161367

http://apmlus.org/economic-growth-under-pervez-musharraf/

http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com...-Economic-Boom-and-Energy-Demand-for-Pakistan

http://www.riazhaq.com/2008/08/musharrafs-economic-legacy.html?m=1

IT Boom in 2005: http://paktribune.com/news/IT-boom-...ivities-reducing-poverty-Musharraf-90409.html
 
Sources are we lived and witness the damn Pres. Musharraf era, you don't know those things happened during his administration? Where you sleeping? That blog is from Express News and the data is accurate, the claims are accurate. Did you even bother to read Line of Fire or many of the economy articles published during the time that reported construction boom, Karachi stock exchange highs, millions of jobs created in the service sector, export increase, manufacturing boom, etc.


I think you're just bitter posting some bs writings that can't by blamed on Musharraf, oh musharraf didn't do anything for sustainable growth, his whole 10 years had remarkable growth in many economic sectors banking, manufacturing, construction, service sector, and more.

I clearly see you not in Think Tank form and are unable to debate this through logic and credible sources.
I have posted credible sources for my PoV, until you can debate them level headed I suggest you cool off.
 
Of course it is a valid question. Gen Musharraf benefited from the sudden influx of billions upon billions of dollars from USA after he caved into their demands. That kept the exchange rate at nearly 60 to the dollar as part of a behind-the-scenes arrangement. This allowed him to hide what was really going on, including the criminal neglect of the power sector during his reign.


That money didn't do much for the economy itself, you can't explain a $100 billion increases in aggregate GDP with the $10 billion in US aid during Musharraf's era, half of that "aid" was actually reimbursement money given to Pakistan for services Pakistan provided to NATO in transport of military hardware etc.


Again your accusation and premise is ignorant and invalid I won't bother with it.


This allowed him to hide what was really going on, including the criminal neglect of the power sector during his reign.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/econom...ted-during-musharraf-era-3.html#ixzz2aOWm6tFc


You're a clown, enough said. I told you do not drag in politics, this is strictly a thread of Musharraf's administration from an economic standpoint.
 
I clearly see you not in Think Tank form and are unable to debate this through logic and credible sources.
I have posted credible sources for my PoV, until you can debate them level headed I suggest you cool off.

Oscar there is nothing to debate, you're making completely false statements. First you said Musharraf did nothing for the manufacturing sector and ony built up the service sector--that is false, there was a huge manufacturing boom in various industries durning Musharraf's administration. If you bother to read the Economist during his years you would know Pakistan was making record Industrial growth output in that decade. Not only that but Pakistan's manufacturing increased drastically and Pakistan's net export doubled during his rule! Even in the US I had never seen Made in Pakistan products until the Musharraf administration took over, exports had really increased under his administration.

I think you're not suitable for think tank position because you're making completely false baseless claims, its a matter of fact not opinion. I don't even know how you can deny the manufacturing growth during his tenure, if you can't even accept historical fact then I cannot help you.
 
When Zardari's administration took over obviously economic progress was lost, then you have people like Oscar saying oh Musharraf left no sustainable economic growth. For 10 years we have sustainable economic growth, sustainable economic growth can't continue if a new government comes to power and adopts bad economic policies and mismanaged the economy. In the last 3 years of Musharraf's admin Pakistan was adding ~$20 billion to the aggregate GDP each year.
 
This was just a brief analysis in raw terms, though value of dollar matters, the larger point at hand is under Musharraf's administration the economy grew extremely fast compared to prior administrations in aggregate GDP term.

better use GDP percapita in your analysis. Historically GDP growth has been high in military regimes however, merely the growth itself doesn't define the whole picture. I am yet to see a good research on the political and economic dynamics of Pakistan under dictation ship regimes.
 
Dictators always begged more to US so economy always went up in their regime......

Even if we take your point, at least he begged for his nation and used it for the nation unlike the politicians.
 
Chalo maan liya he was the greatest. Ab aagey kiya kerna hey? General Sahib kaa kiya ab hum achaar dalein gey?

Praising an ex-President from years ago will do what exactly? We have huge economic issues to deal with in the here and now. Let's concentrate on those.

No one in the parliament is capable to do it even in his dreams, and those who are capable will be allowed to do so once the current politicians are all dead irrespective to which party they belong.

I wish all politicians have a meeting in the parliament and an attack happens and the news headlines reads "no survivors". The immediate family members will of course either stay in Pakistan and not take part in politics again or they will flee from Pakistan for their lives. That will be the rebirth of Pakistan as a great nation.
 
Musharraf was no doubt, a blessing for economy. He is the reason how high (and low) Pakistan is today. The research and development institutes were boasted, promoted, economy and GDP was on surge, foreign relations, were better than today atleast. However, a few of his policies ruined his reputation. Like everyone else, he did commit mistakes as president too, which out-weighted his positive approach.

I think the mistakes of his 'Government' were heavily exaggerated by the media & by the allied political front of PPP & PML (N). For example:

1) As has been revealed in the Lal commission report that only 1 woman died in the operation where as the clerics of that illegal construction as well as the media & the unholy anti-Musharraf political alliance were stating how hundreds of girls and children were martyred using phosphorous bombs....allegations that was proven false by the commission.

And, nobody is bothered by the crimes of the lal masjid brigade and their lawlessness.

2) Akbar Bugti, the useless piece of crap, committed suicide because of stupid tribal ego instead of surrendering and in the process murdered many Pakistani Army personnel who had gone to negotiate his surrender. But the media & the unholy anti-Musharraf political alliance alleged that Musharraf had authorized missile strikes at the hiding place. The allegations level of absurdness can be gauged by the fact that the Military will never sacrifice Military personnel.

And still, nobody can give me a single decent constructive action by Bugti while he was in the Government, and he was in the Government almost all his life and controlled a massive amount of Baluchistan's royalties. Yet, no schools, no universities, no hospitals etc. Nawab indeed!
 
A friend of mine went to states for education in 1998, he was forced to buy USD from open market @ rate of 1USD=80PKR.

Musharraf, also did this one miracle that he reversed the equation and 1USD=45PKR.

Eventually, Musharraf was punished for this and world media came hard on him, in the case of Mukhtar Mai, Red Mosque and cheap justice case.

That brought on to us revenge of demoncracy.

Lol.....that reminds me how the whole country was rocked by the hype created by Muktaran Mai case, while the act itself is common practice throughout India & Pakistan. Acts such as honor killings, nude parading of women, gang rapes, child marriages, walking on burning coal to prove innocence etc. are still a large part of the backward society of our country and the stupid jirga system.

Nobody cared about the system, they cared about Mai, for political reasons. How many women face barbaric rituals with no support?

NRO.... WOT....

Yeah, NRO was his second biggest blunder.....first was to hang up his uniform. He should have declared himself the chief executive for the rest of his life and should have had extended his COAS tenure indefinitely.

WOT was no mistake, we had no choice. But he should have ensured that any financial loss is compensated handsomely which he failed to do.
 
Chalo maan liya he was the greatest. Ab aagey kiya kerna hey? General Sahib kaa kiya ab hum achaar dalein gey?

Praising an ex-President from years ago will do what exactly? We have huge economic issues to deal with in the here and now. Let's concentrate on those.

How do you suggest we do that, unless we learn from past mistakes?

The data is from World Bank.

No its not, it's a public document at Google Docs, something that can be saved and shared by anyone, including you or me.
 
Back
Top Bottom