The writer works at Orr, Dignam & Co and teaches undergraduate law students pursuing their LLB from the University of London (External Programme)
While the scheme appears to be well intentioned, it is difficult not to be sceptical about its execution. The government’s failure to lay out a transparent mechanism by which successful applicants will be chosen has done little to quell the scepticism. This is compounded by the fact that these loans are only secured by personal guarantees, leading to several issues with regard to enforceability. There has been no indication of what measures will be taken to ensure that guarantors do not leave the country or dispose of their assets. Interestingly enough, since the loans are to be repaid in eight years’ time, the present PML-N government might not even be in power to face the brunt of it all in the wake of potential defaults.
Though much has been said about the lack of a plausible security being a cause for concern for taxpayers, the process of obtaining a personal guarantee is also likely to be an impediment for many candidates. Despite all the criticism of the scheme and a general acknowledgement that if implemented properly, it would benefit the economy, hardly any alternatives have been suggested. While it is true that most government-sponsored lending schemes have not done well in the past, it is important to learn from these failures and model the scheme on a success story, such as the one in the US.
The US Small Business Administration (SBA), in a programme similar to a government-sponsored venture capital, has licensed and regulated a network of private small business investment companies (SBICs) that supply equity capital, long-term loans and management assistance to small businesses. The SBA does not directly provide cash to the SBICs. Instead, the SBA guarantees loans that the SBICs take out in order to inject capital into the small businesses. In order to obtain a licence, the SBICs need to prove their management has the requisite expertise to invest in, manage and guide such businesses.
The noteworthy upside of a similar programme would be the government’s role as an equity owner in the business as opposed to a lender. In the event the business does not do well, in most cases, the investment could be recovered by disposing of the business’s assets, which is significantly easier for the owner compared with a creditor doing the same. Having equity ownership would also make it easier to supervise the affairs of the business and ensure regulatory compliances, particularly the payment of taxes. It would also make it possible for the government to steer investment in specific social businesses. This investment can be made on terms whereby upon achieving predetermined objectives, the original owner can buy back the equity from the government. Whilst the effective implementation of this alternative would be a challenge, it is certainly not impracticable.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 24th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (5)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1732243059-0/mac-miller-(2)1732243059-0-165x106.webp "article")
1672385156-0/Andrew-Tate-(1)1672385156-0-165x106.webp "article")
@Gringott:
The Youth Loans are issued by the National Bank of Pakistan and the First Women Bank based on sovereign guarantee of the Government of Pakistan. The SBA regulated SBICs also draw loans on the basis of a sovereign guatantee issued by the Government of the United States. The only difference is that in Pakistan the loans will go directly to the applicant through a vague process whereas in the US the SBICs - which are qualified to make investments - carefully choose the investments they make in order to minimize risk of default eventually resulting in a loss to the taxpayer. Since these SBICs are licensed regualted by the SBA their decisions are also scrutinized. It is not exactly the same as a youth loan scheme precisely because the youth loan scheme is ill-equipped to achieve its objectives and actually help small businesses.
Denial has entered i the genes of Pakistanis and (dis) credit goes to its Madarasa education system (lacks worldly subjects), focusing on religion and its teachings with rigidity.this imbibes intolerance and the solution is perceived in overpowering . Discipline is perceived better than the mentality of raising questions(aka doubt) . naturally even in modern English medium schools too students do not develop of raising doubts and ideology/ interpretation backed by religion is a subject matter which is untouchable by all. There the upbringing wishes to accept while brain says opposite but mouth remains finally shut .
Why is this frenzy over this program there are billions of fraud schemes perhaps this time beneficiaries are common people. Our PM is aware of this fact, after all its not his personal money so he architect such disagreeable scheme.
Government subsidized loan schemes in the US or Canada require you to have a solid business plan which is definitely not the case for Pakistan's Youth Loan Scheme hence rendering the whole process fundamentally flawed. Your age and social network should not be a deciding factor. This is another populist "scheme" which will not prove any different than other before it.