What's new

Pakistan’s misguided obsession with infrastructure

simplestguy

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Mar 13, 2015
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The government is building more airports, roads and railways, even though the existing ones are underused.

NEARLY 20 years after it opened, Pakistan’s first motorway still has a desolate feel. There is scant traffic along the 375km link between Islamabad and Lahore (pictured). Motorists can drive for miles without seeing another vehicle, save perhaps for traffic cops manning speed traps. As the two cities are already connected by the Grand Trunk Road, which is 90km shorter and toll-free, there is simply not much demand for a motorway.

Yet this $1.2bn white elephant is one of the proudest achievements of Nawaz Sharif, who was prime minister when it opened in 1997 and is once again running Pakistan. Mr Sharif, who enjoys comparisons to Sher Shah Suri, a 16th-century ruler who renovated the Grand Trunk Road, never tires of talking about it. He regained power in 2013 with a campaign which both harked back to his famous road and promised more infrastructure to come. He even pledged bullet trains that would enable pious passengers to leave Karachi after dawn prayers and arrive in Peshawar, more than 1,000km to the north, in time for evening worship.
It is an article of faith for Mr Sharif and his party, the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), that investment in infrastructure is a foolproof way of boosting the economy. His government is racing to finish umpteen projects before the next election, due by mid-2018, including a metro line in Lahore and a new airport for Islamabad. The likelihood is that the new airport (which has been plagued with problems, including runways that have been built too close together) will be as underused as most of the country’s other airports, many of which are modern and spacious.


Pakistan’s infrastructure is underused because the economic boom it was meant to trigger has never arrived. Over the past three years the government has successfully staved off a balance-of-payments crisis, achieving some measure of macroeconomic stability. It has trimmed the budget deficit, partly by broadening the tax take and partly by cutting energy subsidies. That, along with lower oil prices, has narrowed Pakistan’s trade deficit and allowed it to begin rebuilding its foreign-exchange reserves. The stockmarket has risen by 50% since the end of 2015.

But terrorism and insurgency have put off investors, both
foreign and domestic. The country is also held back by inefficient and often cartelised industries, which have fallen behind rivals in India and Bangladesh. Exports, 60% of which are textiles, have been shrinking for years. Much more needs to be done to create an educated workforce. Almost half of all those aged five to 16 are out of school—25m children. Health, like education, is woefully underfunded, in part because successive governments shy away from taxing the wealthy. Only 0.6% of the population pays income tax. As the World Bank puts it, Pakistan’s long-term development depends on “better nutrition, health and education”.

Cement to be

But Mr Sharif’s government is pinning its hopes on yet more infrastructure to fix the country’s economic problems, in the form of a $46bn investment scheme known as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Much of it is being financed on commercial terms, including several power plants. Pakistan undoubtedly needs to relieve a chronic shortage of electricity. But critics fear the country will struggle to pay back the debt, especially if foreign-exchange earnings from exports continue to dwindle. At the very least, the government will need to continue chasing deadbeat customers to pay their bills and cutting expensive subsidies—steps that are deeply unpopular.

In addition to boosting Pakistan’s power supply, CPEC is supposed to link China by land to Gwadar, a deep-water port on the Arabian Sea, in the hope of creating a lucrative new trade route. New or upgraded roads will stretch the length of the country. The Karakoram Highway between the two countries, which was built in the 1960s at vast expense over a high and crumbly mountain range, is being upgraded as part of the trade corridor. But it forever needs patching up and is little used. Sceptics say Xinjiang, China’s westernmost region, is still too poor for better transport links to make much difference to Pakistan’s economy. Securing isolated stretches of road from separatist rebels in Balochistan is also gobbling up large amounts of cash.

Lijian Zhao, a Chinese diplomat, says China is all too aware that Pakistan needs more than just big-ticket infrastructure if it is to flourish. Disarmingly, he praises the efforts of Britain and other countries to improve Pakistan’s “software”, such as education and the rule of law. “But China’s expertise is hardware,” says Mr Zhao.

It may not concern Mr Sharif unduly if the next generation of roads is as deserted as the last. Civilian governments have often struggled to get much done in between military coups, but voters are impressed by gleaming new projects, even if they never use them. It’s an approach that has worked for Mr Sharif’s brother, Shehbaz, the popular chief minister of Punjab province. He has lavished resources on endless sequences of over- and underpasses to create “signal-free” traffic corridors in Lahore, the provincial capital, that are of most benefit to the rich minority who can afford cars.

There are limits, however. Khawaja Saad Rafique, the railways minister, recently admitted to parliament that the country would not be getting a bullet train after all. “When we asked the Chinese about it, they laughed at us,” he said.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...ds-and-railways-even-though-existing-ones-are
 
The key to a vibrant economy is production, not infrastructure. Producing goods of increasing value and sophistication is what moves an economy.

The emphasis on infrastructure has been a mistake.
 
Who's the ignorant author of this garbage ?

The key to a vibrant economy is production, not infrastructure. Producing goods of increasing value and sophistication is what moves an economy.
How can this be achieved?

The emphasis on infrastructure has been a mistake.
Zardari also believed in this ideology.... did it help by any means?
 
Quite an unrealistic post.

If we look at all developed nations of world they have few characteristics

a) Roads & Railways
b) Interconnectivity between cities
c) Airports / Sea ports
d) POWER in abundance for residential & commercial projects
e) Industrial Hub , which needs power [Power shortage was the #1 issue since 2010]
f) Financial Banks & Lenders who support Local domestic projects
g) Water projects (Dams)


So based on these few items that I listed , now I am not sure what the "economist" suggests that infrastructure does not aids in progress of a national interest.

Let us take a step back and assume between 90's and 2010 , we had not invested a penny in roads and highways can you imagine the backwardness we would have faced , as no investor would have shown interst with the added burden

At least when we look at the map at present we see 50% -75% if the country was connected before CPEC started meaning the new investors or Partners , they had a solid foundation to build upon

May be the economist feels money grows on trees, and with out solid foundation of infrastructure , people can just teleport from one city to another , or goods can travel on back of pegions from city of Lahore to Karachi.

Also having a duel investment in Trains and Roads , we were lucky that when our Railways fell behind , we could rely on roads to pick up the ground transportation load. Can the Economist suggest what would be alternative for us had we not constructed roads in past?

Furthermore, one of the critical points the Economist or the author of the article is missing is who is driving the project forward, it is a nation who constructed the Mega Dam project in China and presently a grand helpful nation who are furthering cause of humanity and cooperation world wide.

May be the economist author can plug a wire into his hind and power a lamp surely we don't need any infrastructure
 
Last edited:
The Economist by tradition does not name who writes its articles.

The assertions therein are nonsensical; but consistent with the magazines world view. They tend to be against infrastructure development, they believe in financialization and debt and deficit reduction. All of which don't happen if you spend money on newer projects,

As for the claims, the current money spent on infrastructure are bad because existing ones are underused is
1) Factually inaccurate; the M2 is pretty heavily used, and just underwent a 20 month upgrade.
2) The current infrastructure is under utilised since it is poor and inefficient and does not attracts what it could.
3) The Far East especially was built on new infrastructure. The Economist opposed that as well.
 
BS

that's how many people uses Lahore islamabad motorway yeah it's not Imran Khan Jalsa
11184648_434769413364469_204496276_n.jpg
 
Quite an unrealistic post.

If we look at all developed nations of world they have few characteristics

a) Roads & Railways
b) Interconnectivity between cities
c) Airports / Sea ports
d) POWER in abundance for residential & commercial projects
e) Industrial Hub , which needs power [Power shortage was the #1 issue since 2010]
f) Financial Banks & Lenders who support Local domestic projects
g) Water projects (Dams)


So based on these few items that I listed , now I am not sure what the "economist" suggests that infrastructure does not aids in progress of a national interest.

Let us take a step back and assume between 90's and 2010 , we had not invested a penny in roads and highways can you imagine the backwardness we would have faced , as no investor would have shown interst with the added burden

At least when we look at the map at present we see 50% -75% if the country was connected before CPEC started meaning the new investors or Partners , they had a solid foundation to build upon

May be the economist feels money grows on trees, and with out solid foundation of infrastructure , people can just teleport from one city to another , or goods can travel on back of pegions from city of Lahore to Karachi.

Also having a duel investment in Trains and Roads , we were lucky that when our Railways fell behind , we could rely on roads to pick up the ground transportation load. Can the Economist suggest what would be alternative for us had we not constructed roads in past?

Furthermore, one of the critical points the Economist or the author of the article is missing is who is driving the project forward, it is a nation who constructed the Mega Dam project in China and presently a grand helpful nation who are furthering cause of humanity and cooperation world wide.

May be the economist author can plug a wire into his hind and power a lamp surely we don't need any infrastructure
You are right but you missed an important point. Did developed countries take loan to build roads and useless flyovers and what is their tax-to-GDP ratio as compared to Pakistan? One should never take loan on those infrastructure projects like roads those dont generate good profits and in short period. The economy is driven by manufacturing and production of value added goods. While in Pakistan's economy, industrial share is far less than services sector.
 
Butthead, an economy is richer than another because it produces item of greater value. It exports cars and planes rather than potatoes and onions.

Establishment of these production facilities, whether by private or state capital, is the key to growth.

So where is my denial?

@WebMaster FYA
 
This article simply presents a straw man argument to deter foreign investment in Pakistan.

As CPEC development heats up, the disinformation campaign and propaganda against Pakistani economic developments will increase to deter foreign investors.

Expect people like Tarek Fatah et al to increase their activities at the behest of their Indian handlers.

The United States Central Command division is already allying with India to counterbalance Chinas increasing presence in the Arabian Sea. This brings in the american dimension in anti-Pakistani rethoric

Sadly, the age of information has become followed by the age of disinformation Most of the news we read is false or a half-truth.
 
The government is building more airports, roads and railways, even though the existing ones are underused.

NEARLY 20 years after it opened, Pakistan’s first motorway still has a desolate feel. There is scant traffic along the 375km link between Islamabad and Lahore (pictured). Motorists can drive for miles without seeing another vehicle, save perhaps for traffic cops manning speed traps. As the two cities are already connected by the Grand Trunk Road, which is 90km shorter and toll-free, there is simply not much demand for a motorway.

Yet this $1.2bn white elephant is one of the proudest achievements of Nawaz Sharif, who was prime minister when it opened in 1997 and is once again running Pakistan. Mr Sharif, who enjoys comparisons to Sher Shah Suri, a 16th-century ruler who renovated the Grand Trunk Road, never tires of talking about it. He regained power in 2013 with a campaign which both harked back to his famous road and promised more infrastructure to come. He even pledged bullet trains that would enable pious passengers to leave Karachi after dawn prayers and arrive in Peshawar, more than 1,000km to the north, in time for evening worship.
It is an article of faith for Mr Sharif and his party, the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), that investment in infrastructure is a foolproof way of boosting the economy. His government is racing to finish umpteen projects before the next election, due by mid-2018, including a metro line in Lahore and a new airport for Islamabad. The likelihood is that the new airport (which has been plagued with problems, including runways that have been built too close together) will be as underused as most of the country’s other airports, many of which are modern and spacious.


Pakistan’s infrastructure is underused because the economic boom it was meant to trigger has never arrived. Over the past three years the government has successfully staved off a balance-of-payments crisis, achieving some measure of macroeconomic stability. It has trimmed the budget deficit, partly by broadening the tax take and partly by cutting energy subsidies. That, along with lower oil prices, has narrowed Pakistan’s trade deficit and allowed it to begin rebuilding its foreign-exchange reserves. The stockmarket has risen by 50% since the end of 2015.

But terrorism and insurgency have put off investors, both
foreign and domestic. The country is also held back by inefficient and often cartelised industries, which have fallen behind rivals in India and Bangladesh. Exports, 60% of which are textiles, have been shrinking for years. Much more needs to be done to create an educated workforce. Almost half of all those aged five to 16 are out of school—25m children. Health, like education, is woefully underfunded, in part because successive governments shy away from taxing the wealthy. Only 0.6% of the population pays income tax. As the World Bank puts it, Pakistan’s long-term development depends on “better nutrition, health and education”.

Cement to be

But Mr Sharif’s government is pinning its hopes on yet more infrastructure to fix the country’s economic problems, in the form of a $46bn investment scheme known as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Much of it is being financed on commercial terms, including several power plants. Pakistan undoubtedly needs to relieve a chronic shortage of electricity. But critics fear the country will struggle to pay back the debt, especially if foreign-exchange earnings from exports continue to dwindle. At the very least, the government will need to continue chasing deadbeat customers to pay their bills and cutting expensive subsidies—steps that are deeply unpopular.

In addition to boosting Pakistan’s power supply, CPEC is supposed to link China by land to Gwadar, a deep-water port on the Arabian Sea, in the hope of creating a lucrative new trade route. New or upgraded roads will stretch the length of the country. The Karakoram Highway between the two countries, which was built in the 1960s at vast expense over a high and crumbly mountain range, is being upgraded as part of the trade corridor. But it forever needs patching up and is little used. Sceptics say Xinjiang, China’s westernmost region, is still too poor for better transport links to make much difference to Pakistan’s economy. Securing isolated stretches of road from separatist rebels in Balochistan is also gobbling up large amounts of cash.

Lijian Zhao, a Chinese diplomat, says China is all too aware that Pakistan needs more than just big-ticket infrastructure if it is to flourish. Disarmingly, he praises the efforts of Britain and other countries to improve Pakistan’s “software”, such as education and the rule of law. “But China’s expertise is hardware,” says Mr Zhao.

It may not concern Mr Sharif unduly if the next generation of roads is as deserted as the last. Civilian governments have often struggled to get much done in between military coups, but voters are impressed by gleaming new projects, even if they never use them. It’s an approach that has worked for Mr Sharif’s brother, Shehbaz, the popular chief minister of Punjab province. He has lavished resources on endless sequences of over- and underpasses to create “signal-free” traffic corridors in Lahore, the provincial capital, that are of most benefit to the rich minority who can afford cars.

There are limits, however. Khawaja Saad Rafique, the railways minister, recently admitted to parliament that the country would not be getting a bullet train after all. “When we asked the Chinese about it, they laughed at us,” he said.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...ds-and-railways-even-though-existing-ones-are
If there is no road, no rail, no electricity, tell me what you do? breath in air?
 
So where is my denial?

@WebMaster FYA

Apology, I thought you were talking to me.

This can be achieved by both state and private capital.

If the private sector has little experience in, say building an aircraft, the state will have to step in. Either using its own finance, or private finance but managing the project.

Brazil, Turkey and I believe China have used state capital. State run companies have been the pioneers in building Turkey's industrial backbone. Both the Japanese and Korean economic miracle was planned by the state. South Korean companies like LG were literally 'built' by the government.

More advanced countries like Gt. Britain and Germany have enough high tech firms, but due to the great risk often need government help or guarantees for some projects.
 
Pakistan’s first motorway still has a desolate feel. There is scant traffic along the 375km link between Islamabad and Lahore (pictured). Motorists can drive for miles without seeing another vehicle

Dumbass writer should have at least taken the M2 before writing this garbage of an article. Millions of people use it every year.
 
Apology, I thought you were talking to me.

This can be achieved by both state and private capital.

If the private sector has little experience in, say building an aircraft, the state will have to step in. Either using its own finance, or private finance but managing the project.

Brazil, Turkey and I believe China have used state capital. State run companies have been the pioneers in building Turkey's industrial backbone. Both the Japanese and Korean economic miracle was planned by the state. South Korean companies like LG were literally 'built' by the government.

More advanced countries like Gt. Britain and Germany have enough high tech firms, but due to the great risk often need government help or guarantees for some projects.
They dont have vision to setup an industrial base in Pakistan. They cant even manage strategic assets like PSM, PIA, OGDCL and others. According to their philosophy government should not do businesses. while every where in the world government build factories and mega industries or atleast provide financial assistance to build one but yahan ulti ganga ha. They have removed subsidies on power and logistics and then put taxes on export. Degrading local investors while asking foreigners to set industries in Pakistan. In most of investments, the investor country asks to give the tenders to its firms while here its opposite.
 
You are right but you missed an important point. Did developed countries take loan to build roads and useless flyovers and what is their tax-to-GDP ratio as compared to Pakistan? One should never take loan on those infrastructure projects like roads those dont generate good profits and in short period. The economy is driven by manufacturing and production of value added goods. While in Pakistan's economy, industrial share is far less than services sector.
So if you don't have infrastructure, how the hell are you going to build factories and promote value-added good?
 

Back
Top Bottom