INTER-regional disparities are increasing, with Punjab province at one end and Balochistan and the NWFP on the other. Yet, within Punjab, education achievements and better infrastructure are leading the much better off central and northern districts to attract more investment and grow more rapidly than the southern districts.
These not- so- shocking but still highly disturbing observations have been made in a recent World Bank research paper.
And of course, the relatively depressed regions run the risk of their becoming perpetual basket case areas by failing to attract capital and skilled labour which otherwise find it more profitable to go to faster-growing and richer regions as has been in the case of Balochistan and NWFP.
The higher the inequality, the harder it is for growth to reduce poverty. Inequality reflects deeper distortions in access to markets, in the availability and quality of health, education and infrastructure services, and in rural urban distinctionââ¬âall of which dampen growth and poverty reduction.
Highly unequal access to education means that talented children are denied the opportunity to invest in their human capital, the main determinant of long-run growth.
According the WB paper, rising inequality often implies capture of ethnic groups or castes that perpetuate disparities by providing private benefits to their own group rather than public goods that can help generate broadly-shared economic growth.
And rising inequality means sizeable populations are vulnerable to falling deeper into poverty because they lack assets like land or livestock or the human capital that can be used to cope with shocks. Because a large section of the population tends to be clustered around the poverty line, even a small shock can push many down into poverty.
Rising inequality can thwart reforms. Market- oriented, pro-growth policies that temporarily increase inequality can generate a political backlash, leading to backsliding and policy distortions that slow growth.
Finally, rising inequality breeds conflict. Left unaddressed, disparities create social tension and perception of alienation and neglect, sowing seeds of domestic conflict. The rising insurgency in Balochistan is cited by the WB paper as being the result of lack of development.
Quoting international experience the paper says that the quickest route to slow economic growth is complacency during periods of high growth. Most countries with rapid growth in any one decade show marked deceleration of growth rates in the next. But in the opinion of the research paper, sustaining this growth over extended periods will mean having to buck the trend.
Pakistan has enjoyed a fairly reasonable growth rate since 2002, but one of its 10 children still dies before his fifth birthday and only 57 per cent of children complete primary school.
Indeed, every time this country has recorded an annual average growth rate of over six per cent over an extended period, its failure to arrest the resulting wide socio-economic gaps between regions, among sub-regions and between classes have not only choked growth but the associated tensions have led to massive damage to the national fabric to an extent that at times we have been categorized as failed or failing state. Therefore, the subject of growing inequalities needs to be studied not only in all its depth and width but as frequently as is possible.
It has been seen that during the decades of 1960s and 1980s when higher growth resulted in higher government incomes, temptation got the better of the rulers and they let themselves be dictated by populism and pandered to vested interests. This is happening once again. With an eye on the next election, the government is letting the rich to plunder without any check or hindrance.
These richer classes are amassing wealth by forming cartels and indulging in hoarding while those who are supposed to curb these activities are looking the other way on orders from political leadership at the top because it is these very moneyed classes who are expected to pay the election bill of the ruling party.
On the other hand, the government is launching rather haphazardly a number half baked, hastily planned and impossible-to-monitor projects to provide relief to the poorer sections. Such schemes in the past have only ended up lining the pockets of unscrupulous public providers and benefiting the affluent and in the process pushing up the rate of inflation further up.
This need not continue for the sake of the people and this country. Let us for a change leverage rapid growth to achieve distributive justice. This is, of course, easier said than done because while there are many bookish prescriptions and those that are dispensed by the multilateral aid agencies, so far nothing seems to have actually worked.
In the immediate post-war period and up until the advent of Mrs. Thatcher on the world scene and the rise of the Asian tigers, the World Bank and the IMF used to put a lot of emphasis on planned economy and the public sector. And since, the two institutions along with the Asian Development Bank have been promoting the idea of the ââ¬Ëleast governmentââ¬â¢ with the private sector serving as the engine of growth. But neither of the two prescriptions seems to have worked with any degree of perfection. If there were any successes here and there due to either of the two, those could only be attributed to chance.
Of course, there cannot be a perfect answer to such problems as growing economic inequality in a growing sea of plenty. Still, one can make some visibly sustainable progress by undertaking political and financial decentralisation of all development work, making the providers at the service delivery stage accountable and cleansing the judiciary of the corrupt.
If it is true thatââ¬â¢ it is not the business of the government to be in businessââ¬â¢, then it is doubly true that it is not the business of the private sector to be in public welfare. Let the private sector run schools, hospitals and make roads, produce goods and sell other services for profit. Let the private sector also make the most of the market forces and become ever richer. But let us make it pay its tax dues in full.
When only a little over a million out of 150 million people pay income tax, there is hardly anything one can do to achieve even a modicum of distributive justice. Let the government start fulfilling its national responsibility in the context of distributive justice from this point and not let the tax evading private sector fool the nation claiming that it is doing national duty by running profit earning schools and hospitals.
Let the private sector make money and leave the business of providing succour to the poor and the job of removing economic inequality to the public sector. Of course, the public sector is riddled with corruption, lack of capacity, inefficiency and low productivity. But all this can be taken care of to a large extent by setting up inbuilt systems of accountability and institutionalising oversight by relevant communities with stakes in schools, colleges, hospitals and public works.
All this of course would not make much of a dent in the existing inequalities immediately, but it could be a good starting point to build on progressively. Meanwhile, regulatory mechanisms with statutory powers and free from political interference need to be established to bring and sustain order in the market and keep prices and supplies within the reach of the most of the population.
These not- so- shocking but still highly disturbing observations have been made in a recent World Bank research paper.
And of course, the relatively depressed regions run the risk of their becoming perpetual basket case areas by failing to attract capital and skilled labour which otherwise find it more profitable to go to faster-growing and richer regions as has been in the case of Balochistan and NWFP.
The higher the inequality, the harder it is for growth to reduce poverty. Inequality reflects deeper distortions in access to markets, in the availability and quality of health, education and infrastructure services, and in rural urban distinctionââ¬âall of which dampen growth and poverty reduction.
Highly unequal access to education means that talented children are denied the opportunity to invest in their human capital, the main determinant of long-run growth.
According the WB paper, rising inequality often implies capture of ethnic groups or castes that perpetuate disparities by providing private benefits to their own group rather than public goods that can help generate broadly-shared economic growth.
And rising inequality means sizeable populations are vulnerable to falling deeper into poverty because they lack assets like land or livestock or the human capital that can be used to cope with shocks. Because a large section of the population tends to be clustered around the poverty line, even a small shock can push many down into poverty.
Rising inequality can thwart reforms. Market- oriented, pro-growth policies that temporarily increase inequality can generate a political backlash, leading to backsliding and policy distortions that slow growth.
Finally, rising inequality breeds conflict. Left unaddressed, disparities create social tension and perception of alienation and neglect, sowing seeds of domestic conflict. The rising insurgency in Balochistan is cited by the WB paper as being the result of lack of development.
Quoting international experience the paper says that the quickest route to slow economic growth is complacency during periods of high growth. Most countries with rapid growth in any one decade show marked deceleration of growth rates in the next. But in the opinion of the research paper, sustaining this growth over extended periods will mean having to buck the trend.
Pakistan has enjoyed a fairly reasonable growth rate since 2002, but one of its 10 children still dies before his fifth birthday and only 57 per cent of children complete primary school.
Indeed, every time this country has recorded an annual average growth rate of over six per cent over an extended period, its failure to arrest the resulting wide socio-economic gaps between regions, among sub-regions and between classes have not only choked growth but the associated tensions have led to massive damage to the national fabric to an extent that at times we have been categorized as failed or failing state. Therefore, the subject of growing inequalities needs to be studied not only in all its depth and width but as frequently as is possible.
It has been seen that during the decades of 1960s and 1980s when higher growth resulted in higher government incomes, temptation got the better of the rulers and they let themselves be dictated by populism and pandered to vested interests. This is happening once again. With an eye on the next election, the government is letting the rich to plunder without any check or hindrance.
These richer classes are amassing wealth by forming cartels and indulging in hoarding while those who are supposed to curb these activities are looking the other way on orders from political leadership at the top because it is these very moneyed classes who are expected to pay the election bill of the ruling party.
On the other hand, the government is launching rather haphazardly a number half baked, hastily planned and impossible-to-monitor projects to provide relief to the poorer sections. Such schemes in the past have only ended up lining the pockets of unscrupulous public providers and benefiting the affluent and in the process pushing up the rate of inflation further up.
This need not continue for the sake of the people and this country. Let us for a change leverage rapid growth to achieve distributive justice. This is, of course, easier said than done because while there are many bookish prescriptions and those that are dispensed by the multilateral aid agencies, so far nothing seems to have actually worked.
In the immediate post-war period and up until the advent of Mrs. Thatcher on the world scene and the rise of the Asian tigers, the World Bank and the IMF used to put a lot of emphasis on planned economy and the public sector. And since, the two institutions along with the Asian Development Bank have been promoting the idea of the ââ¬Ëleast governmentââ¬â¢ with the private sector serving as the engine of growth. But neither of the two prescriptions seems to have worked with any degree of perfection. If there were any successes here and there due to either of the two, those could only be attributed to chance.
Of course, there cannot be a perfect answer to such problems as growing economic inequality in a growing sea of plenty. Still, one can make some visibly sustainable progress by undertaking political and financial decentralisation of all development work, making the providers at the service delivery stage accountable and cleansing the judiciary of the corrupt.
If it is true thatââ¬â¢ it is not the business of the government to be in businessââ¬â¢, then it is doubly true that it is not the business of the private sector to be in public welfare. Let the private sector run schools, hospitals and make roads, produce goods and sell other services for profit. Let the private sector also make the most of the market forces and become ever richer. But let us make it pay its tax dues in full.
When only a little over a million out of 150 million people pay income tax, there is hardly anything one can do to achieve even a modicum of distributive justice. Let the government start fulfilling its national responsibility in the context of distributive justice from this point and not let the tax evading private sector fool the nation claiming that it is doing national duty by running profit earning schools and hospitals.
Let the private sector make money and leave the business of providing succour to the poor and the job of removing economic inequality to the public sector. Of course, the public sector is riddled with corruption, lack of capacity, inefficiency and low productivity. But all this can be taken care of to a large extent by setting up inbuilt systems of accountability and institutionalising oversight by relevant communities with stakes in schools, colleges, hospitals and public works.
All this of course would not make much of a dent in the existing inequalities immediately, but it could be a good starting point to build on progressively. Meanwhile, regulatory mechanisms with statutory powers and free from political interference need to be established to bring and sustain order in the market and keep prices and supplies within the reach of the most of the population.