Unholy alliance
If we are so bad at completing projects, why do aid and donor agencies persist in continuing to fund us?
Financial assistance to Pakistan may fluctuate, but it won’t stop in the foreseeable future. PHOTO: FILE
The deputy chairman of the Planning Commission (PC) of Pakistan is not a happy man. This has become more obvious of late, with the cancellations of Central Development Party meetings, which is apparently the PCs way of putting off having to approve politically-motivated development projects.
So it is clear that he has an issue with projects he feels are populist and useless. But now he feels that part of the blame for this also lies with the World Bank for persisting with many projects that are of no use and will not benefit Pakistan’s economy.
He has a point, to a degree. But if funds are continuously being provided for projects that are not sustainable, part of the onus of letting that happen is on us. We are also greatly responsible for not successfully implementing reforms or completing projects on time.
And if we are so bad at completing projects, and so bad at implementing reforms, why do aid and donor agencies persist in continuing to fund us? The answer is obvious. They have a stake in our survival. Partially because they have invested in us for decades and if we go down, any chances of redeeming their investment goes down with it. And partially, this is because they have a strategic interest in Pakistan, and other similar economies.
One thing is pretty clear, financial assistance to Pakistan may fluctuate, but it won’t stop in the foreseeable future. One of the reasons is that the US economy is far too dependent on the Military Industrial Complex, which is far too dependent on exports, a significant market for which is in the developing world. Sales will drop if the developing world is expected to raise its own finances to buy arms. Therefore, assistance levels may drop or wane based on extenuating circumstances, but they will never dry up completely.
And they will continue to be directed at projects that will often make no sense.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 29th, 2013.
So it is clear that he has an issue with projects he feels are populist and useless. But now he feels that part of the blame for this also lies with the World Bank for persisting with many projects that are of no use and will not benefit Pakistan’s economy.
He has a point, to a degree. But if funds are continuously being provided for projects that are not sustainable, part of the onus of letting that happen is on us. We are also greatly responsible for not successfully implementing reforms or completing projects on time.
And if we are so bad at completing projects, and so bad at implementing reforms, why do aid and donor agencies persist in continuing to fund us? The answer is obvious. They have a stake in our survival. Partially because they have invested in us for decades and if we go down, any chances of redeeming their investment goes down with it. And partially, this is because they have a strategic interest in Pakistan, and other similar economies.
One thing is pretty clear, financial assistance to Pakistan may fluctuate, but it won’t stop in the foreseeable future. One of the reasons is that the US economy is far too dependent on the Military Industrial Complex, which is far too dependent on exports, a significant market for which is in the developing world. Sales will drop if the developing world is expected to raise its own finances to buy arms. Therefore, assistance levels may drop or wane based on extenuating circumstances, but they will never dry up completely.
And they will continue to be directed at projects that will often make no sense.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 29th, 2013.