Economic planning: Government needs to take a back seat

When it comes to devising economic strategy, politicians need to stay out.


Jaffer Qamar April 17, 2011



In the first two parts of this article, we had reached the conclusion that the government is not good at choosing winners. What it is good at is in setting enabling conditions and environment out of which winners can emerge. And we also looked at the conditions that need to be put on the ground, so that these winners can emerge.


In the concluding part, we take a look at what the government needs to do, so that it can play the role demanded of it.

Such is the philosophy behind the pronouncements you hear which call for government to provide a secure, credible, non-obstructing, and non-confiscatory business environment to attract investment, more trade, and transfer of knowledge and best practices from developed nations. This is why, in the New Development Approach, proposed by Pakistan’s Planning Commission, the role of the state is to facilitate the market system by protecting liberties, enforcing property and contract rights, policing, providing infrastructure, a monetary system, etc. and perhaps providing a subtle coordination role.

Can our government play a positive role as a coordinator, facilitator and a fair umpire to make such an economic “computer program” run? It is my conviction that when a government starts talking seriously about protecting property rights it is a truly important turning point and defining moment in the fortunes of the nation. This is what happened in Chile in the early 1970’s. Chile is in a way almost a mirror for our own. Chile has alternated between military and civil rule. The objective of the military and later of elected politicians was first and foremost to secure property rights. For what is a society without secure property but an assemblage of people at conflict and war with each other? Here is what the English philosopher Hobbes had to say on the matter of absence of property rights “In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Under the New Development Approach (NDA), the current planning system has to be gradually dismantled and replaced with a market based society. This is a revolution in the way we think of organising our society. It means taking power out of government hands and allowing Pakistani citizens (who are more knowledgeable about their own interests, environments and conditions than the bureaucrats, politicians and policy-makers) and to make their own decisions about their future.

Sustained growth is a process of continual transformation. Economic progress that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution would not have been possible if people and nations had not undergone wrenching changes. Economies that do not transform themselves fall off the golden path of economic growth, which generates prosperity and alleviates poverty. Our challenge is to wean ourselves away from the central planning mentality that has affected us since the 1940’s when Stalinist five year plans seemed the best way to go for developing economies. There are no plans government can make. The only thing government can do is set the conditions, hopefully set them right. The rest is up to us, the citizens, acting individually and collectively through communities. And for us, the citizens, to accept that after all that has been exchanged in public debate over the last 50 years, it all starts with a revolution in thought and then with thousands of independent experimentations.

The author, holds a PhD from the University of Chicago and is the Chief Economist of the Planning Commission

Published in The Express Tribune, April 18th,  2011.

COMMENTS (3)

M Ashfaq Swati | 13 years ago | Reply Sir, No doubt, new development approach is an effective strategy that is basically emphasizing on the improvement of our cities and bringing the market reforms in the country. This approach is industrial oriented approach but our country is an agricultural economy. Our industrial sector is depending on agriculture sectors for raw material. Comparatively less investment in agriculture sector will produce fewer raw materials and country will be entangled in a un intending vicious circle of poverty. Indusrtial sector could not grow at envisaged rate on the other hand agriculture sector suffered a lot which resulted into severe food shortage.
Dr. Shimail Daud | 13 years ago | Reply In theory you are correct we need market economy for the development of the country. But we are at the same time suffering from a deadly disease where the typical market economy would not take off completely on its own. Let me explain! In a market economy the public sector / govt is to provide level playing field, set boundaries and let the things take off. In such case the enterprise is to maximize profit but at all times is aware of its ethical and community responsibilities other than its fiduciary duties thus it maximizes profits but also delivers goods or services without deliberately destroying the community or harming its people and in doing so it is trying to invest for future and long term growth of the enterprise. Now we know about the disease that is infesting both the private and public sectors / corruption. This holds hostage the full potential that can be unfolded. How this can be explored is a very strong willed government that is hellbent on implementing the laws, that is forthcoming in sharing the truth with its people, that is ready to make sacrifices and ready to tell the people that be it the top echelons or be it the bottom we have to be just. This would mean foregoing profits for paying full taxes but with intent that this will be utilized for the betterment of communities and judicious utility of the funds by public sectors when they get these funds by way of taxes. Priorities that would mean investing for the knowledge and growth and not for future wars only.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ