The wrong way to define economic security
Pakistan's latest National Security Policy has declared the economy an integral pillar of national security. The state has committed to sustainable growth, inclusive development and financial solvency. The government has identified traditional tools such as trade, connectivity and investment to achieve rapid growth. It is also placing equal weight on technology and innovation. Moreover, the country will cultivate talent by improving human capital development and tackle economic disparities among citizens and regions.
This is a good move given the context of globalisation, technological development and economic connectivity. These factors have made the world highly competitive, and every country must compete for market share. In a globalised and technology-driven world, the economy is considered the primary indicator of a country's global status. Countries with stronger economies play a leading role in shaping the global agenda. However, the success or failure of economic security depends on how a country defines and implements it. The definition and implementation plan will determine whether Pakistan is on track for economic development. Before defining economic security, Pakistan should analyse three prominent models: the United States, the Soviet Union and China. These models have been selected because they are major powers and have defined economic security from different perspectives.
First, the US defined economic security through the lens of military security and industrial benefits, keeping people in the second tier. This led to the creation of the military-industrial complex. President Eisenhower warned about this in the 1960s, but no one heeded his wise warning. The military-industrial complex strengthened its position over time. It continued to modify its policies to capture resources and maximise profits. As competition for resources intensified, the military-industrial complex created and exploited chaos around the world to undermine states and seize resources. The weapons industry flourished. Moreover, the military-industrial complex promoted privatisation not only in the US but also globally by exploiting the drive toward globalisation and leveraging the US's economic and financial position.
No doubt the complex maximises its influence and profits, but at the cost of the US and its people. It has given rise to inequality and poverty. Statistics show that 37.9 million people, almost 11.6% of the national population, were living below the poverty line in 2023. The number is expected to have increased. Inequality is higher in the US than in any other developed country. Higher poverty and inequality are breeding insecurity among US citizens.
The USSR introduced the second model. It conceived economic security differently, and the military made it a military domain. The process began when the military began to dominate decision-making, including in the economic sphere. Every decision was analysed through the lens of military security. The military used its dominance to use the economy for military adventurism. The situation was exacerbated when the USSR became preoccupied with military expeditions rather than focusing on people. The invasion of Afghanistan was the last major war. People's development was put on the back burner. It was unfortunate because the USSR was built on the slogan of people first. As a result, poverty rose.
China defined economic security fundamentally differently. China placed people at the centre of economic security. Since 1978, China has prioritised economic growth and sustainable development to meet people's expectations. In 1985, China established a special leading group under the leadership of the Communist Party of China to address poverty and the people's development needs.
China believes that without developing its people, it will not be secure. To achieve people-centric growth, China assigned a major role to state-owned enterprises. At the same time, China confined military and security agencies to their assigned tasks and did not allow the military to expand its influence in decision-making or business ventures. In conclusion, the models discussed above offer lessons that can help Pakistan define its economic security model.
THE WRITER IS A POLITICAL ECONOMIST AND A VISITING RESEARCH FELLOW AT HEBEI UNIVERSITY, CHINA