What's new

Let us have a homegrown agenda instead of an IMF programme

Neo

RETIRED

New Recruit

Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

EDITORIAL (September 11 2008): Asif Ali Zardari, in his maiden press conference after he took oath as the President of the country, categorically stated that Pakistan will not seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This, of course, does not imply that Pakistan has no need of assistance or that it would not hectically seek large injections of money from all its friends abroad.

It implies that the present government regards an IMF package with a deep concern for a reason that is well acknowledged by all: an IMF structural adjustment programme would be accompanied by a host of macroeconomic conditions, which are not only difficult to implement, but would almost certainly damage the country's political leadership in power in the eyes of the domestic public.

A 2008 study undertaken on structural conditionalities in IMF-supported programmes by the IMF's Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) noted that conditions attached to loans have become more focused, but found that there were still too many of them and that some conditions may not have been tied to the main goals of the programme.

These findings must be viewed with concern and could well be a deterrent for any country suffering from weak macroeconomic fundamentals, like Pakistan at present, to willingly opt for the IMF programme. And, needless to say these findings post-date the IMF staff revised guidelines issued in 2006 which recommended that, "adoption of new guidelines for conditionality has been motivated by an increasing recognition of the importance of several interrelated principles for successful design and implementation of Fund-supported programmes.

Chief among these are national ownership of reform programmes, parsimony in the application of programme-related conditions, tailoring of programmes to the member's circumstances, effective co-ordination with other multilateral institutions, and clarity in the specification of conditions."

Within this context it is relevant to note that the last IMF mission to Pakistan insisted that the budget deficit be brought down from 7.2 percent to 4.2 to 4.3 percent - a decline that would reduce the budgetary allocation on development while increasing the need to levy mini-budgets throughout the year either in the form of a raise in energy prices and oil prices in the country that would not reflect a decline in the international price of this commodity and cutting down subsidies on wheat and other essential kitchen items.

It reflects favourably on the negotiating skills of the present government that the IMF accepted its deficit target of 4.7 percent. However what is not to the credit of the present set of economic managers is the fact that the revenue side of the budget lacked clarity and international donors specially the World Bank are reluctant to extend support without stabilisation programme of the Fund.

However, the Bank could be persuaded to lend more than twice the funds sought if Pakistan's economic managers could draw a homegrown framework on similar lines as the Fund aims at boosting exports, curbing demand, thereby lowering the external account deficit and also lowering the budget deficit to below four percent.

This is indeed doable and will also be saleable to the people. Generally, Pakistanis make sacrifices when a popular leadership makes such demands, but they are annoyed at having a programme from abroad suddenly thrust on them. A local drawn-up programme expects sacrifice from top to bottom and not just from the masses.

Be that as it may President Zardari's statement with reference to not going on the Fund programme must not be viewed in the context of there being no need for foreign injections. Estimates place the figure at as high as 8 to 10 billion dollars. As of 2007-08 (July-March) total foreign debt was around 37.2 billion dollars. This represents a figure accumulated over the years.

In 2001-02 total debt incurred from all sources, bilateral as well as multilateral, for the year after Musharraf wholeheartedly supported Bush's war on terror, was 3.79 billion dollars. This figure was not exceeded during the next five years. Thus to generate 8 to 10 billion dollars in one year by tapping friendly countries like China, Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries would remain a considerable challenge.

One would hope that the government can access this large amount and that some of it is in the form of grant but based on past foreign injections this amount appears to be too optimistic. If he fails to generate the amount then President Zardari would have to revisit the promise he made during his first press conference as president of the country.

And, even if some of these inflows do materialise - these would be just one-off nature. Should President Zardari want to translate his words that we are making history into Zardari legacy, all he needs to do is to maintain a sharp focus on ways and means to boost exports and a forward thrust to obtain a double digit growth in agriculture output.

This extra food and other farm surplus will not only help the country attain food security, these will also immensely contribute towards generating exports and with value addition through agri-based industry the country can also meet the future economic challenges on a better footing.
 
if Pakistan's economic managers could draw a homegrown framework on similar lines as the Fund aims at boosting exports, curbing demand
,

If the framework is along similar lines proposed by the fund, why not negotiate with the fund - if the himegrown and the fund's proposal are along similar lines, it is the political and not economic impact that the editorial advocate is imperative - sad.:crazy:
 

EDITORIAL (September 11 2008): Asif Ali Zardari, in his maiden press conference after he took oath as the President of the country, categorically stated that Pakistan will not seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This, of course, does not imply that Pakistan has no need of assistance or that it would not hectically seek large injections of money from all its friends abroad.

It implies that the present government regards an IMF package with a deep concern for a reason that is well acknowledged by all: an IMF structural adjustment programme would be accompanied by a host of macroeconomic conditions, which are not only difficult to implement, but would almost certainly damage the country's political leadership in power in the eyes of the domestic public.

A 2008 study undertaken on structural conditionalities in IMF-supported programmes by the IMF's Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) noted that conditions attached to loans have become more focused, but found that there were still too many of them and that some conditions may not have been tied to the main goals of the programme.

These findings must be viewed with concern and could well be a deterrent for any country suffering from weak macroeconomic fundamentals, like Pakistan at present, to willingly opt for the IMF programme. And, needless to say these findings post-date the IMF staff revised guidelines issued in 2006 which recommended that, "adoption of new guidelines for conditionality has been motivated by an increasing recognition of the importance of several interrelated principles for successful design and implementation of Fund-supported programmes.

Chief among these are national ownership of reform programmes, parsimony in the application of programme-related conditions, tailoring of programmes to the member's circumstances, effective co-ordination with other multilateral institutions, and clarity in the specification of conditions."

Within this context it is relevant to note that the last IMF mission to Pakistan insisted that the budget deficit be brought down from 7.2 percent to 4.2 to 4.3 percent - a decline that would reduce the budgetary allocation on development while increasing the need to levy mini-budgets throughout the year either in the form of a raise in energy prices and oil prices in the country that would not reflect a decline in the international price of this commodity and cutting down subsidies on wheat and other essential kitchen items.

It reflects favourably on the negotiating skills of the present government that the IMF accepted its deficit target of 4.7 percent. However what is not to the credit of the present set of economic managers is the fact that the revenue side of the budget lacked clarity and international donors specially the World Bank are reluctant to extend support without stabilisation programme of the Fund.

However, the Bank could be persuaded to lend more than twice the funds sought if Pakistan's economic managers could draw a homegrown framework on similar lines as the Fund aims at boosting exports, curbing demand, thereby lowering the external account deficit and also lowering the budget deficit to below four percent.

This is indeed doable and will also be saleable to the people. Generally, Pakistanis make sacrifices when a popular leadership makes such demands, but they are annoyed at having a programme from abroad suddenly thrust on them. A local drawn-up programme expects sacrifice from top to bottom and not just from the masses.

Be that as it may President Zardari's statement with reference to not going on the Fund programme must not be viewed in the context of there being no need for foreign injections. Estimates place the figure at as high as 8 to 10 billion dollars. As of 2007-08 (July-March) total foreign debt was around 37.2 billion dollars. This represents a figure accumulated over the years.

In 2001-02 total debt incurred from all sources, bilateral as well as multilateral, for the year after Musharraf wholeheartedly supported Bush's war on terror, was 3.79 billion dollars. This figure was not exceeded during the next five years. Thus to generate 8 to 10 billion dollars in one year by tapping friendly countries like China, Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries would remain a considerable challenge.

One would hope that the government can access this large amount and that some of it is in the form of grant but based on past foreign injections this amount appears to be too optimistic. If he fails to generate the amount then President Zardari would have to revisit the promise he made during his first press conference as president of the country.

And, even if some of these inflows do materialise - these would be just one-off nature. Should President Zardari want to translate his words that we are making history into Zardari legacy, all he needs to do is to maintain a sharp focus on ways and means to boost exports and a forward thrust to obtain a double digit growth in agriculture output.

This extra food and other farm surplus will not only help the country attain food security, these will also immensely contribute towards generating exports and with value addition through agri-based industry the country can also meet the future economic challenges on a better footing.

i see no light at the end of the tunnel. the present govt. dosnt know from where to start. this govt. is based on rhetoric and not substance. as far as generating funds from friendly countries (on deferred payments) why would they do it - i am sure friendship has its limits!. saudi arabia is now thinking twice about agreeing to the US$ 6 billion oil facility. they have countered with a one-off US$ 500 mill credit. china is a true friend indeed but whatever defence or energy agreements we sign with them, we have to pay for it. they play hard at the bargaining game. UAE is only interested in investing in real estate and we r happy to sell our lands to them.
at the end of the day we will have to go the IMF's way and their strict structural reforms agenda which includes reducing the defence budget.
 
i see no light at the end of the tunnel. the present govt. dosnt know from where to start. this govt. is based on rhetoric and not substance. as far as generating funds from friendly countries (on deferred payments) why would they do it - i am sure friendship has its limits!. saudi arabia is now thinking twice about agreeing to the US$ 6 billion oil facility. they have countered with a one-off US$ 500 mill credit. china is a true friend indeed but whatever defence or energy agreements we sign with them, we have to pay for it. they play hard at the bargaining game. UAE is only interested in investing in real estate and we r happy to sell our lands to them.
at the end of the day we will have to go the IMF's way and their strict structural reforms agenda which includes reducing the defence budget.

:tup: well said sir IMF is already pressurizing Pakistan to go for loans.


IMF attaches conditions to grant of letter of comfort




Wednesday, August 20, 2008
By Mehtab Haider

ISLAMABAD: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has linked its Letter of Comfort (LoC) for Islamabad with cutting down fiscal deficit to around 4 per cent of GDP, avoiding borrowing from the central bank and adoption of a flexible exchange rate, aimed at stabilising the economy. The government would have to abolish subsidy on petroleum products by December-end in order to curtail its ballooning expenditures, the IMF told Pakistan.

The country is currently asking the IMF for granting its LoC which will pave the way for obtaining $1 billion, $500 million each from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, to cope with dwindling foreign currency reserves, which have gone below $10 billion.

“The business as usual approach will not work because the requirement of seeking LoC from the IMF clearly indicates that Pakistan’s vulnerabilities have increased manifold,” an official source in the Finance Ministry said while talking to The News here on Tuesday.

Sources said the ministry consultant Ihtasham held talks with IMF authorities on Monday in Washington. IMF authorities, the sources said, have asked Pakistan to further tighten its monetary policy in order to contain the rising inflation, which is eroding the purchasing power of common citizen of the country. “The IMF has also asked the authorities to take measures for reducing the fiscal deficit to below 4 per cent of the GDP, which should be calculated from the financing side,” the source said.

The financing side, the IMF asked Islamabad to be estimated keeping in view the ground realities, the sources said and added that the approach of total revenues and expenditures would not work in case of Pakistan because there was possibility of slippages in achieving the desired FBR’s tax collection target of Rs1,250 billion during the current fiscal year.

The IMF recommended Islamabad to stop borrowing from the central bank and come up with clear-cut strategy to reduce its fiscal deficit and fill this gap through borrowing from commercial banks or through planned external resources. The fund is also asking Islamabad to further allow flexible exchange rate as rupee depreciated by over 22 per cent in last few weeks and touched Rs75 against dollar. “There should be maximum focus upon building up depleting foreign currency reserves and Pakistan will have to keep its house in order for achieving the desired results,” said the IMF.

The maximum efforts, the sources said, IMF suggested to obtaining Saudi Oil Facility (SOF) worth $5 billion on deferred payments, which will give breathing space to beleaguered economy.

“We are discussing with the IMF to get the LoC which they have not yet given to us” a high-level official in the government said on Tuesday and added that the fund would grant the LoC on the country’s economy.

IMF attaches conditions to grant of letter of comfort



With foreign reserves already disappread at handsome scale the current governent is unable to tell the nation where these reserve were gone.
 
^^^exactly my point jana jee - thanks,
 
The most pressing economic issue is the rate of inflation in Pakistan. The government's increase in spending is pushing the economy against its productive capacity. In turn this is leading to the central bank in pursuing contractionary monetary policy. This is a sub-optimal outcome because increasing interest rates deters private investment. It is unlikely that the government's expenditure on the margin exceeds the retarding impact of increasing interest rates on economic growth. In the short-run it is imperative the government cut expenditure on non-capital expenditure sharply easing the pressure on the reserve bank to increase interest rates. In the medium term the reforms in relation to privatization of state assets and increasing competition along with easing restrictions on foreign capital in the nation should continue. Longer term however a substantial reallocation of government expenditure must occurs, especially vis-a-vis the attention paid to education. Pakistan is failing to develop the most important asset it possesses, its people. The compulsory and free education of its citizens in primary and secondary school must be seriously enforced.
 
The most pressing economic issue is the rate of inflation in Pakistan. The government's increase in spending is pushing the economy against its productive capacity. In turn this is leading to the central bank in pursuing contractionary monetary policy. This is a sub-optimal outcome because increasing interest rates deters private investment. It is unlikely that the government's expenditure on the margin exceeds the retarding impact of increasing interest rates on economic growth. In the short-run it is imperative the government cut expenditure on non-capital expenditure sharply easing the pressure on the reserve bank to increase interest rates. In the medium term the reforms in relation to privatization of state assets and increasing competition along with easing restrictions on foreign capital in the nation should continue. Longer term however a substantial reallocation of government expenditure must occurs, especially vis-a-vis the attention paid to education. Pakistan is failing to develop the most important asset it possesses, its people. The compulsory and free education of its citizens in primary and secondary school must be seriously enforced.

:) hey welcome back after a long time sigatoka :)
 
Here is something about IMF this time regarding Russia



The Globalizer Who Came In From the Cold

" + title + "

JOE STIGLITZ: TODAY'S WINNER OF THE NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS

by Greg Palast

The World Bank's former Chief Economist's accusations are eye-popping - including how the IMF and US Treasury fixed the Russian elections

"It has condemned people to death," the former apparatchik told me. This was like a scene out of Le Carre. The brilliant old agent comes in from the cold, crosses to our side, and in hours of debriefing, empties his memory of horrors committed in the name of a political ideology he now realizes has gone rotten.

And here before me was a far bigger catch than some used Cold War spy. Joseph Stiglitz was Chief Economist of the World Bank. To a great extent, the new world economic order was his theory come to life.

I "debriefed" Stigltiz over several days, at Cambridge University, in a London hotel and finally in Washington in April 2001 during the big confab of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But instead of chairing the meetings of ministers and central bankers, Stiglitz was kept exiled safely behind the blue police cordons, the same as the nuns carrying a large wooden cross, the Bolivian union leaders, the parents of AIDS victims and the other 'anti-globalization' protesters. The ultimate insider was now on the outside.

In 1999 the World Bank fired Stiglitz. He was not allowed quiet retirement; US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, I'm told, demanded a public excommunication for Stiglitz' having expressed his first mild dissent from globalization World Bank style.

Here in Washington we completed the last of several hours of exclusive interviews for The Observer and BBC TV's Newsnight about the real, often hidden, workings of the IMF, World Bank, and the bank's 51% owner, the US Treasury.

And here, from sources unnamable (not Stiglitz), we obtained a cache of documents marked, "confidential," "restricted," and "not otherwise (to be) disclosed without World Bank authorization."

Stiglitz helped translate one from bureaucratise, a "Country Assistance Strategy." There's an Assistance Strategy for every poorer nation, designed, says the World Bank, after careful in-country investigation. But according to insider Stiglitz, the Bank's staff 'investigation' consists of close inspection of a nation's 5-star hotels. It concludes with the Bank staff meeting some begging, busted finance minister who is handed a 'restructuring agreement' pre-drafted for his 'voluntary' signature (I have a selection of these).

Each nation's economy is individually analyzed, then, says Stiglitz, the Bank hands every minister the same exact four-step program.

Step One is Privatization - which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, 'Briberization.' Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders - using the World Bank's demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.

And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest 'briberization' of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. "The US Treasury view was this was great as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected. We don't care if it's a corrupt election. We want the money to go to Yeltzin" via kick-backs for his campaign.

Stiglitz is no conspiracy nutter ranting about Black Helicopters. The man was inside the game, a member of Bill Clinton's cabinet as Chairman of the President's council of economic advisors.

Most ill-making for Stiglitz is that the US-backed oligarchs stripped Russia's industrial assets, with the effect that the corruption scheme cut national output nearly in half causing depression and starvation.

After briberization, Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is 'Capital Market Liberalization.' In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "Hot Money" cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation's reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation's own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.

"The result was predictable," said Stiglitz of the Hot Money tidal waves in Asia and Latin America. Higher interest rates demolished property values, savaged industrial production and drained national treasuries.

At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, "The IMF riot."

The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You'd almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan.

And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that, while in the States, BBC and The Observer obtained several documents from inside the World Bank, stamped over with those pesky warnings, "confidential," "restricted," "not to be disclosed." Let's get back to one: the "Interim Country Assistance Strategy" for Ecuador, in it the Bank several times states - with cold accuracy - that they expected their plans to spark, "social unrest," to use their bureaucratic term for a nation in flames.

That's not surprising. The secret report notes that the plan to make the US dollar Ecuador's currency has pushed 51% of the population below the poverty line. The World Bank "Assistance" plan simply calls for facing down civil strife and suffering with, "political resolve" - and still higher prices.

The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and teargas) cause new panicked flights of capital and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has it's bright side - for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets, such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices.

Stiglitz notes that the IMF and World Bank are not heartless adherents to market economics. At the same time the IMF stopped Indonesia 'subsidizing' food purchases, "when the banks need a bail-out, intervention (in the market) is welcome." The IMF scrounged up tens of billions of dollars to save Indonesia's financiers and, by extension, the US and European banks from which they had borrowed.

A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers in this system but one clear winner: the Western banks and US Treasury, making the big bucks off this crazy new international capital churn. Stiglitz told me about his unhappy meeting, early in his World Bank tenure, with Ethopia's new president in the nation's first democratic election. The World Bank and IMF had ordered Ethiopia to divert aid money to its reserve account at the US Treasury, which pays a pitiful 4% return, while the nation borrowed US dollars at 12% to feed its population. The new president begged Stiglitz to let him use the aid money to rebuild the nation. But no, the loot went straight off to the US Treasury's vault in Washington.

Now we arrive at Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their "poverty reduction strategy": Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank, Stiglitz the insider likens free trade WTO-style to the Opium Wars. "That too was about opening markets," he said. As in the 19th century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa, while barricading our own markets against Third World agriculture.

In the Opium Wars, the West used military blockades to force open markets for their unbalanced trade. Today, the World Bank can order a financial blockade just as effective - and sometimes just as deadly.

Stiglitz is particularly emotional over the WTO's intellectual property rights treaty (it goes by the acronym TRIPS, more on that in the next chapters). It is here, says the economist, that the new global order has "condemned people to death" by imposing impossible tariffs and tributes to pay to pharmaceutical companies for branded medicines. "They don't care," said the professor of the corporations and bank loans he worked with, "if people live or die."

By the way, don't be confused by the mix in this discussion of the IMF, World Bank and WTO. They are interchangeable masks of a single governance system. They have locked themselves together by what are unpleasantly called, "triggers." Taking a World Bank loan for a school 'triggers' a requirement to accept every 'conditionality' - they average 111 per nation - laid down by both the World Bank and IMF. In fact, said Stiglitz the IMF requires nations to accept trade policies more punitive than the official WTO rules.

Stiglitz greatest concern is that World Bank plans, devised in secrecy and driven by an absolutist ideology, are never open for discourse or dissent. Despite the West's push for elections throughout the developing world, the so-called Poverty Reduction Programs "undermine democracy."

And they don't work. Black Africa's productivity under the guiding hand of IMF structural "assistance" has gone to hell in a handbag. Did any nation avoid this fate? Yes, said Stiglitz, identifying Botswana. Their trick? "They told the IMF to go packing."

So then I turned on Stiglitz. OK, Mr Smart-Guy Professor, how would you help developing nations? Stiglitz proposed radical land reform, an attack at the heart of "landlordism," on the usurious rents charged by the propertied oligarchies worldwide, typically 50% of a tenant's crops. So I had to ask the professor: as you were top economist at the World Bank, why didn't the Bank follow your advice?

"If you challenge [land ownership], that would be a change in the power of the elites. That's not high on their agenda." Apparently not.

Ultimately, what drove him to put his job on the line was the failure of the banks and US Treasury to change course when confronted with the crises - failures and suffering perpetrated by their four-step monetarist mambo. Every time their free market solutions failed, the IMF simply demanded more free market policies.

"It's a little like the Middle Ages," the insider told me, "When the patient died they would say, "well, he stopped the bloodletting too soon, he still had a little blood in him."

I took away from my talks with the professor that the solution to world poverty and crisis is simple: remove the bloodsuckers.

******

A version of this was first published as "The IMF's Four Steps to Damnation" in The Observer (London) in April and another version in The Big Issue - that's the magazine that the homeless flog on platforms in the London Underground. Big Issue offered equal space to the IMF, whose "deputy chief media officer" wrote:

"... I find it impossible to respond given the depth and breadth of hearsay and misinformation in [Palast's] report."

Of course it was difficult for the Deputy Chief to respond. The information (and documents) came from the unhappy lot inside his agency and the World Bank.

Award-winning reporter Palast writes Inside Corporate America for the London Observer. To read other Palast reports, to contact the author or to subscribe to his column, go to GregPalast.Com

" + title + "
 
Donors await IMF report on Pakistan



Friday, September 19, 2008
By Mehtab Haider

ISLAMABAD: The desperately needed dollar inflows for Pakistan depend upon the outcome of the ongoing visit of the IMF mission, which is currently discussing macro-economic health of the country as well as future course of action, it is learnt.

“When the IMF mission will give positive report about its macroeconomic framework and future line of action after September 23, then the multilateral as well bilateral donors will come up to rescue Islamabad’s ailing economy by pouring dollar inflows in a substantial manner, including the much awaited Saudi Oil Facility worth $5 billion,” official sources in the donors agency told The News here on Wednesday.

The IMF and Pakistan have so far agreed to scale down the GDP growth target to 4 to 4.5 per cent from 5.5pc for the current fiscal year, owing to expected bad performance of agriculture sector especially cotton output as well as water shortages, which would negatively impact the next wheat crop.

Inflation will remain on the higher side and both the IMF and Pakistan are discussing CPI inflation hovering around over 20 per cent in the current fiscal year against envisaged target of 11pc.

The IMF has not allowed slippages in achieving the fiscal deficit target of 4.7 per cent of the GDP for the current fiscal year.

There is also no possibility to reduce the envisaged revenue collection target of Rs1250 billion for the ongoing financial year 2008-09.

The IMF mission is arguing with Islamabad’s authorities to revise the tax collection target upward owing to favorable factors such as higher inflationary pressure and depreciation of rupee, which will help the FBR in increasing its revenue collection manifold.

The government may not revise upward the tax target, but they know that the FBR is in a position to achieve its envisaged target of Rs1250 billion by June 30, 2009, which was considered quite ambitious at the start of the current fiscal year. The FBR’s tax collection is more than Rs11 billion in the first two months of the current fiscal against envisaged target.

The prices of every product surged owing to highest CPI of over 25 per cent in the country’s history and it will push up the tax collection of the FBR. On the other side, there is depreciation of rupee by 24 per cent against the dollar, which would help FBR for increasing custom duty collection in the current fiscal year.

When macroeconomic framework will be endorsed by the IMF by giving positive report about Pakistan’s economy then dollar inflows would come into Pakistan in a substantial manner. The expenditure side will also be reduced including development and non development side.


Donors await IMF report on Pakistan
 

Back
Top Bottom