Pakistan's Economy - News and Updates

[WAJsal]

@Nilgiri ,@Shotgunner51 ,@ahojunk ,@Chinese-Dragon ...

 

[Shotgunner51]

@Nilgiri ,@Shotgunner51 ,@ahojunk ,@Chinese-Dragon ...

Bro that's an excellent Natgeo video! Wish OBOR brings all the best to Pakistani prosperity.

 

[Bad Guy]

Hey friends, can anyone help me to get what the heck is this, I found?

 

[fatman17]

Pakistan’s debt profile

November 23, 2016

Dr Kamal Monnoo


So what exactly is Pakistan’s present debt profile? As per the figures released by the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) in November 2016, the total Central Government debt as on 30.09.2016, stood at Rs19.9 trillion, ‘excluding liabilities’, and of which the domestic debt constitutes Rs14.4 trillion while external debt makes up Rs5.5 trillion. Meaning, this is excluding government’s contingent liabilities, which in their own right have swelled to nearly Rs1 trillion. What this latest debt number also means is that over the first quarter (July-September) of this fiscal year, the government added to the debt by some Rs858 billion, taking the debt to GDP ratio to nearly 69.50%, which in June 2016 stood at around 66.50%. The trend is rather alarming because despite government’s claim of being at the peak of debt’s bell curve, which theoretically meant that the national debt should have started to come down, it instead is going in the reverse direction! This, not withstanding, that when finishing the last fiscal year, the government to hide its inefficiencies had made a clever move to avert criticism over mounting debt by amending the ‘Fiscal Responsibility and Debt Limitation Act of 2005’, through a Finance Act that literally changed the debt goalposts. The Finance Ministry not only diluted the law but also got relaxed the statutory limit of restricting the public debt at 60% of GDP. Both the previous PPP government and the present PML-N governments have been in violation of this condition, but with the above master stroke the PML-N government has set a new statutory deadline of June 2018 to bring the debt back to 60% GDP level, as against the earlier deadline of June 2013.

The trouble is that Pakistan’s debt sustainability indicators have significantly worsened in the past years and especially in the last three years due to a high increase in foreign exchange and refinancing risks, which appears to be the result of reckless high cost borrowings. The average time to maturity of public debt fell in fiscal year 2015-16, which in-turn has increased the refinancing risks and similarly, the short term foreign currency debt as a percentage of official liquid reserves and net international reserves increased in fiscal year 2015-16, which in-turn increases the foreign currency risk. The government of course argues that its debt management strategy clearly sets target ranges for currency, refinancing and interest rate risks, and though quite a few indicators are currently in red, they still fall within the limits prescribed in its Medium Term Debt Management Strategy 2016-19.

It further takes heart from the some global statistics by citing that amidst a high prevalent global debt phenomenon, Pakistan’s current debt at around $73 billion (over a population base of 200 million) is still quite manageable in comparison with say for example, Greece $367 billion, Ireland $865 billion, Spain $1 trillion and Italy $1 trillion. Fine, but the underlying flaws in such an argument being that not only are all these failed economies, but also that they represent a single monetary block that gets balanced through a complex system of intra-regional monetary balancing mechanism overlooked by a rather dubiously accountable European Central bank. And then, Pakistan on the other hand is neither a European economy nor does it have the luxury of printing (at will) the second leading reserve currency of the world.

Pakistan’s debt profile presents an even bleaker picture when one starts to dissect the nature of its historical debt and the one that has been piled up in recent years. The historical debt profile has little to show for itself: national infrastructure fails to match that of any developed economy; public support systems of health, housing, utilities, education and social benefits remain unsatisfactory; stubborn poverty level stuck at about 30% or more; extremely narrow and small industrial base; and a top heavy public administration system that despite being inefficient has become further entrenched over time. To make matters worse, during the past three years, government has been on a borrowing binge, acquiring expensive foreign and domestic debt at commercial rates. Though it has repeatedly claimed that it is increasing its credit only to the extent of budget deficit requirements, the reality is quite different. For example, the increase in federal government’s debt from July-September 2016, adds up to Rs858 billion, whereas, the budget deficit in the same period was only Rs450 billion - only about half.

Now where is all this money going? It is the answer to this question that forms the real troubling part. Borrowing in itself is not essentially a bad thing as long as it can be spent in a productive manner. So, really if all these borrowing would have been put to productive use in self-sustaining projects or outlays, it would have been wonderful, because essentially the government could have claimed success in raising necessary investments and then putting them to use in a manner that not only generates growth, but also leaves the country richer in due course. Sadly, this has not been the case.

The growth continues to remain elusive at under 5% - private analysts say closer to 4% - and by all accounts unless the GDP growth rate shores up to 6.50% or beyond, the present level of debt may already be unsustainable. The problem is compounded by the fact that Pakistan’s exports are rapidly declining and foreign remittances have also slowed down considerably – both these trends are likely to continue in the near-term. Owing to slowdown in exports and provided external borrowing are not capped, Pakistan’s external debt to export ratio is projected to be at 442% by 2019-20, which obviously will make it un- serviceable. Exports, which used to finance 80% of imports in the early 2000s, now finance less than 50% of imports. Over the last decade, our exports have grown by merely 4% compared to 12% in Bangladesh and 10% in India. As for remittances, since they are negatively correlated with oil imports (bulk of remittances coming from the Gulf countries), the former are naturally slowing down due to oil prices being low. Finally, what do we have to show for these piled up liabilities? Not much: higher foreign exchange reserves that in effect represents debt; public sector enterprises with a bottom-less subsidy pit; fancy projects that continue to run in red; and a three years spending spree that belies any kind of prioritisation, transparency or accountability. IMF in its last country report opined that for a developing country like Pakistan, 50% debt-to-GDP ratio should be considered prudent level, whereas, we seem to be miles away. No marks for guessing, unless the present debt strategy is quickly re-visited, Pakistan may well be fast slipping into a debt trap!

 

[Nilgiri]

@Nilgiri ,@Shotgunner51 ,@ahojunk ,@Chinese-Dragon ...

Thanks mate, will watch asap.

 

[ahsanhaider]

Government of Punjab E Learn Program Documentary

[youtube]KJTWXo7DPUY[/youtube]

 

[ahsanhaider]

Giga Mall Opening Ceremony Last Month

 

[Zibago]

@django @Moonlight @The Sandman

 

[The Sandman]

@django @Moonlight @The Sandman

that's awesome yr

 

[ahsanhaider]

Documentary by CCTV on the Bangle Makers of Hyderabad Pakistan

 

[ahsanhaider]

Raheel Sharif at DAVOS full Debate

 

[VCheng]

A somber read:

http://www.dawn.com/news/1310066/economic-dilemma

Economic dilemma
IDREES KHAWAJA

THE latest available Pakistan Standard of Living Measurement Survey asked households to compare their economic situation in 2014-15 with the previous year. Thirty-seven per cent of the households reported, their economic situation as ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’, 44pc reported ‘no change’; only 19pc reported ‘better’ or ‘much better’. If even half the perceptions are true, the situation is worrisome.

The people’s economic situation improves with growth of the economy and the wide dispersal of the benefits of this growth. Pakistan’s economy is in dire need of a boost. But without addressing structural issues, ad hoc policy measures such as export packages, cutting interest rates and a public expenditure boom will have limited success.

The World Economic Forum computes the Global Competitiveness Index annually. The GCI for 2014-15 has been computed for 138 countries using 120 indicators. The index accounts for a large number of variables that directly or indirectly influence an economy’s long-term potential. Pakistan’s ranking on various elements of the GCI highlights the structural issues the economy faces.

Structural issues must be sorted out for economic growth.


The policy of cutting the interest rate assumes that lower rates will induce businessmen to borrow more and therefore produce more. However, banks lend only if they can recover their money. What if a borrower enjoying the means to pay back refuses to do so? The banks expect the courts to come to their rescue. With Pakistan ranking 103rd on the ‘efficiency of legal framework’, can we expect that the legal framework will deliver? Disappointed with its performance, banks erected barriers to access to finance. No wonder Pakistan ranks 95th on ease of access to finance.

Much of the credit to private businesses goes to the manufacturing sector, which contributes just 21pc to GDP. The services sector contributing about 60pc to GDP borrows much less. Why? We at PIDE surveyed 300 small retailers in Rawalpindi for a study on entrepreneurship. The survey reveals that 37pc of retailers do not have a bank account and the majority has less than 10 years of schooling. Should we expect those who do not even maintain a bank account to be able to negotiate a bank loan? It is the literacy level of the entrepreneurs that limits their demand for bank loans and hence investment options.

The government may itself invest in the economy in a big way or subsidised different inputs. Will such a fiscal stimulus boost growth? Yes, but only if public money is actually put to the intended use. Pakistan ranks 102nd on ‘wastefulness of government expenditures’ — can we expect the entire sum to be put to the intended use? Our 135th position in ‘efficient use of talent’ and 95th in the ‘relationship between pay and productivity’ categories makes effective utilisation even more suspect. Finally, ranking 117 out of 167 on the corruption perception index computed by Transparency International, it appears that part of the money may end up in the likes of Swiss banks. Clearly, fiscal stimulus is unlikely to be very effective.

No developed economy relies entirely on its own talent. It is their capacity to attract talent from abroad that has made developed economies what they are. We rank 110th on the ‘capacity to attract talent’ — can we hope to attract the talent required to grow economically? Pakistan ranks 126th when it comes to reliability of police services — entrepreneurs have to hire private security services to guard their income and assets. This increases cost and decreases competitiveness.

Countries that grow fast make sufficient use of technology. Pakistan ranks 114th on technological readiness — our use of technology remains well below what characterises high-growth economies.

No entrepreneur can handle unlimited work himself. It is the delegation of tasks that generates greater output. Pakistan ranks 115th on the willingness to delegate — are we delegating enough to make us grow fast?

Slashing interest rates and a public expenditure boom can boost economic activity. To realise this potential, structural issues such as efficiency of the legal framework, the state of law and order, the quantity and quality of schooling, the capacity and efficiency of public employees, leakages of money from government, technological readiness and willingness to delegate, etc must be addressed.

Addressing structural issues calls for a long-term perspective. However, the vision of politicians extends only to the next election, ie a maximum of five years. Reason: a road project begun today will be operational in a few years and therefore yield votes. But a child enrolled in grade one today will only be in the sixth grade five years later. This conflict between political objectives and the economy’s long-term needs is a dilemma we need to resolve. The solution lies in having intuitions that curb myopic policies.

The writer is a researcher at the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.

idreespide1@gmail.com

Twitter: @khawaja_idrees

Published in Dawn, January 23rd, 2017

 

[Aqsa Mateen]

Major economic reforms not likely in 2017: experts
LAHORE: Major reforms in the economic and social sectors are not expected from the government during the year 2017 but some relief measures could be initiated while there is a need to save the public sector institutions, ensure justice and effective accountability.

These views were expressed by the experts in the Jang Economic Session on ‘Economic reforms expectations in 2017’. The panellists were Dr Ikram-ul-Haq, Qalb-e-Abid, Hamid Malhi, Hussain Ahmed Sherazi, Farooq Tariq and Younis Kamran while hosted by Sikandar Lodhi.

Dr Ikram-ul-Haq said that economic prospects were not good as the country needed over two million new jobs for which a huge investment was required. He said value addition, modernisation and quality education were crucial for strong economic system while the Chinese investment was only for its own objectives. He called for resetting the priorities. Qalb-e-Abid said that civil society played a vital role in the growth of any country while Pakistan had been passing through critical junctures despite the label of a failed state. He called for planning commission, economic managers and public should jointly work for the economic prosperity of the country. He stressed the need of good governance.

Hamid Malhi said that new policies were not expected this year but issues could be reduced by implementing existing policies. He called for practical steps to bring the agriculture sector into the tax net while establishment of Punjab Agriculture Forum was a welcoming step as it would resolve long-term issues of the sector. He called for improving every sector’s performance to revive the system.

Hussain Ahmed Sherazi said that economic reforms could not be expected as 2017 would be an election year. He called for improving the performance of regulatory institutions. He said majority of national institutions were on board to make CPEC successful which was a good omen. He called for promoting knowledge-based economy. He believed that indirect taxes increased the burden on poor public.

Farooq Tariq said that concerns of counter reforms in 2017 were emerging while the debt burden had increased on the economy due to CPEC and Chinese were purchasing national assets due to weak economy.

He believed that local investors had surrendered quickly while there was a need of individual and collective measures to cope with the situation. He suggested that the government should try to establish its might against the Chinese invasion, reduce the debt burden and improve the labourers condition.

Younis Kamran said that 2017 would be the election year so it would be hopeful year for the public as the government would focus on availability of utilities. He said the Chinese companies were keenly taking interest to invest in Pakistan due to CPEC while economic activity would increase with special economic zones and the US and Europe would also focus on Pakistan. He called for increasing exports to China as well.

 

[monitor]

766 New companies registered in Pakistan in January 2017. Foreign Investment was seen in 49 new companies: Securities & Exchange Commission

 

[RISING SUN]

Pakistan sends its first vegetable shipment to Dubai via sea
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1333420/pakistan-sends-first-vegetable-shipment-dubai-via-sea/