The question that arises is not how to treat the symptoms of financial indicators but the underlying malaise in the real economy. The central task of policymakers is to identify the determinants of placing the economy on the path of sustained economic growth. If GDP growth can be sustained at the required level of about seven per cent, the resultant acceleration in both revenues and exports will bring the budget and balance of payments deficits down to a healthy level. The financial sphere and the real economy are organically interrelated, with growth in the real economy being the determinant of financial indicators in the last instance.
The corpus of research associated with the New Institutional Economics (NIE) shows that the fundamental determinant of sustained economic growth is the institutional structure of an economy. This is the set of rules, both formal rules and informal norms, which embodies incentives and disincentives and hence shapes the behaviour of individuals and economic organisations. The central policy challenge, therefore, is institutional change, which would eliminate rents (unearned income) through wider competition, create incentives for hard work, hiring based on merit, efficiency, productivity increase, innovation and thereby sustained GDP growth. That is why the New Growth Policy announced by the present government is a step in the right direction. For it to be meaningful, however, it needs to move from the abstract to the concrete. What is the necessary and sufficient set of institutional reforms in the specific economic, cultural and historical context of Pakistan that will place it on the path of sustained economic growth? Equally important, through which institutional changes and the growth process can be restructured so as to make it equitable and hence capable of giving a life of dignity to all rather than a few citizens? Finally, who will change the rules? The NIE shows that the fundamental determinant of economic performance is the polity, for it is in the realm of politics that the rules are made.
By contrast, the IMF and the World Bank view is that policy should focus on reducing the twin budget and balance of payments deficits through a ‘stabilisation’ programme of economic contraction, (high interest rates and reduced public expenditure). This is fundamentally flawed for two reasons: a) the proposition implicit in their proposed ‘stabilisation programmes’ that once the twin deficits have been reduced, GDP growth will accelerate, has a dubious empirical basis. At a conceptual level it is an oxymoron: how can GDP growth accelerate after a programme of explicit economic contraction? b) the idea that reducing government expenditure together with financial deregulation will lead to efficiently functioning markets has lost its sheen as the second great recession in a century grips the world economy. As Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz put it recently, the global economic crisis has done to neoclassical economics (on which the IMF policy is based), what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism. It is time to revisit ideology. Thus, each one of the developed countries has used massive increases in public expenditure as a device for staving off depression. At the same time, there is now a global consensus that it was precisely the failure to regulate financial markets that led to the present crisis.
Change requires taking up the challenge of thinking anew. Economic policy formulation must be based on new research on the specific institutional structure, politics, culture and history of Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 10th, 2012.
COMMENTS (12)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@gp65: Thanks. I am humbled.
The major reason for collapse of economy in a civilian rule is the political expedience. The political interests of politicians are always incompatible with national economic interests. The country is run on the principle of appeasement in order to secure a constituency for the next elections. Cronyism is the root cause of every ill in a democratic set-up where the principles of governance are sacrificed for personal reasons. This is a sure recipe for economic disaster where the ultimate sufferers are the people. Untargeted subsidies, packing of state corporations with undeserving cronies and their voters, bleeding of economies to keep afloat the loss making corporations mis-managed by friends and allies are the corrupt practices which can only flourish during a civilian rule. To top it all, trading in government favors and paying for thefts out of the government exchequer are the hall mark of this democracy which itself is based on personal considerations and promotion of family interests at the cost of the poor.
Dr. Akmal may well be remembering a discussion in which panelists were explaining the implications of fiscal federalism. Dr. Ashfaque Hassan was saying that economics should be divorced from politics. He meant that repression through economics have justifications. NFC award (which i still feel is a discriminatory) was thorn in their flesh.
The economic change is a distant dream. You have layers of what is called a pseudo-realism. It starts from unequal distribution of resources to spatial under-development. Feed Punjab as against all other provinces. Feed Army as against all other institutions. Feed anarchist mullahs against liberal thinkers. Development is what freedom explains. In Pakistan, Development is what 'we' (economist) explain. Abiding tragedy naaaaaa.
Pakistan sans sanity.
Hurrah! We are in Pakistan.
@Ali Salman: Wuite strange logic--why did the corporate world--supposedly the embodiment of wisdom according to neoliberalism--have to follow the government--the embodiment of failures according to neoliberism? the roots of this current crisis go back to the 1980s , with the adoption of the Reaganomics which essentially stagnated middle class incomes and pushed them towards a debt-based life-style which eventually had to come down. there are also studies which show that the role of the corporate sector was much bigger and preceded the role of the govt mortgage agencies.
This is a sensible article. goes beyond the market fundamentalism and purely macro-economic concerns that so many other writers stick to.
thank you dr sb. good read
I think Dr. Akmal has got it wrong at a number of places in this article, though his appreciation of New Growth framework is a welcome change. His stance of "the central task of policymakers is to identify the determinants of placing the economy on the path of sustained economic growth" is hopelessly Keynesian (http://tribune.com.pk/story/391671/goodbye-keynes/), as if the economy is like a mechanic engine that can be switched on and switched off by drivers! Economy comprises an unlimited number of complex transactions and cannot be neatly predicted, forget planning. I think history has closed debate over this. Akmal's reliance on Stiglitz for attribution of global financial crisis to a failure of neoliberal economics is as faulty as his source. As Falcon in his comments correctly wrote, this has mostly due to the nexus of politicians, FED, and state owned housing companies which distorted the entire incentive system and brought havoc the global economy in the name of right of home ownership. Once the incentive structure got distorted, its only natural for the corporate sector to join the bandwagon.
eye opener
@Falcon: Your description of the root causes of the 2008 meltdown is the best I have seen. Clear, succint,cogent.
Informative article. Just wanted to add that the root cause of last financial crisis was not just financial market regulation. In fact, it was confluence of multiple factors such as inappropriate pricing of financial risk, incentive structure supporting aggressive risk taking, under-regulation of shadow financial system, over regulation of formal financial system, and availability of low cost capital from high savings markets.
Well argued. Just a couple minor observations. 1. Target of seven percent for GDP growth seems little too high. 2. Agree with institutional shift both in formal and informal settings, but removal of "rent income" may be harder than what we think. It is well ingrained in Pakistani socioeconomic settings and is the main cause of income inequality. You and I can hope but doubt that the power elite will let this happen.
Increase budget for the development and education by reducing bloated military budget and provide free secular education without twisted and hateful history to the new generation to develop tolerant society and gain real skills to compete in the global world.