This is in response to an article by Ali Salman and Zartasha Inayat published in this newspaper on Feb 17. The article references Pakistan’s ranking at 110 on the Global Competitiveness Report but fails to acknowledge that the WEF revised its competitiveness framework in 2019. The previous ranking system is no longer relevant, as WEF transitioned to the Global Growth Competitiveness Index, which evaluates an economy’s potential for sustainable and inclusive growth, rather than rigid numerical rankings. Using six-year-old data to criticise a 2025 report is a significant flaw in the argument.
The article emphasises the ease of doing business rankings, which have been discontinued by the World Bank due to technical flaws and manipulation concerns. Assessing Pakistan’s competitiveness based on this defunct system is misleading and fails to recognise that new, more reliable assessment frameworks have replaced the flawed Ease of Doing Business Report.
Structural reforms often involve institutional changes and the creation of new regulatory bodies is designed to improve governance, streamline processes and increase market efficiency. The SIFC, for example, has introduced significant regulatory shifts to fast-track investment approvals and remove bureaucratic bottlenecks. Dismissing such efforts as non-reforms ignores international best practices, where institutional restructuring has been key to driving economic transformation.
The claim that the government has not privatised any SOEs, while acknowledging the failed privatisation of PIA, overlooks ongoing structural shifts. SOEs such as IESCO, FESCO, GEPCO and GENCOs are being reformed and privatised to improve efficiency, with significant regulatory changes in the pipeline. Pension reforms, a major fiscal concern, will yield long-term benefits. Immediate results should not be expected from such reforms, as they are long-term adjustments.
Criticism is welcome, but it should be based on contemporary global frameworks, not on outdated indices or flawed methodologies. It is surprising that a leading economic policy institution, like PRIME, as referenced in the article, lacks a basic understanding of global economic developments and reform definitions. A more constructive approach would be to assess policy shifts based on the latest global competitiveness methodologies, acknowledge the structural reforms necessary for long-term growth and align evaluations with today’s economic realities, rather than relying on past metrics.
Amir Jahangir
CEO, Mishal Pakistan
