Such speakers will say in one breath, build the Bhasha, Kalabagh and several other dams and several coal-based plants and then import LNG, educate all, export more, expand industry and agriculture, especially horticulture, develop more infrastructure. But to make these happen, we must think of processes to make them happen.
There is another group of economic pontificators who only think fiscal deficit and stabilisation. For them, every speech/column is lamenting the fiscal situation and presenting a single item remedy — increase taxes. They seem to have confused economics with accounting. Expenditure minus taxes is the fiscal deficit. Since the deficit has gone up and they feel that expenditure should not be cut down, let us collect more taxes. Simple arithmetic.
Economics is not mere accounting or arithmetic. Nor is it wishes. Nor is it static, stuck in the ’60s. Nor is it all known. Anyone who followed the global financial crisis will be stuck with the complexity of the problem.
What people need to understand is that economics is most importantly concerned with understanding human behaviour at the individual and group level. People individually or in some collective, develop responses to their environment to maximise their own, their family’s or their group’s welfare. The environment is largely the man-made frameworks of laws, regulations, systems of governance and market organisations that humans operate every day. The varieties of these responses make up what we know as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the economy.
If GDP grows, it lifts not only welfare in general it also gives the government more operating room allowing space for more debt and deficits, while also inducing more tax revenue. Most economies think of ways to increase growth for good things to happen. But our accountant/economists are focused merely on stabilisation, accounting and arithmetic.
Those who want growth cannot have growth through wishing for all good things. If only we could trade regionally from China to Kazakhstan to Sri Lanka. If only we could build a solar station on mars and give all manner of subsidy to industry and exporters. Growth does not happen ‘just like that’.
No one can claim to know what is it that needs to be done. We can now all start researching and learning and see how we can create the winning institutional/incentive system. It will have to be a slow learning process and one that we will have to continually research and tweak for this system is high maintenance and needs constant attention.
This is why I have been writing for over two decades on why and where our economic system needs change. Which is why serious economists argue, the government should stop chasing money, wish lists, false targets and yesterday’s models. Instead, it should focus on economic reform to make a system of incentives and property rights that is conducive to economic growth. But this cannot be done while thinking that we know all and that we can be mere monkeys mimicking some distant country.
Instead, this will mean serious research, serious debate, serious humility at every level — bureaucracy, politicians and thinkers — an acceptance of our ignorance.
Serious economists in their speeches and columns should discard the outmoded method and start developing ideas on understanding our economic system and educate the rest of society on how to think afresh on the economy.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 5th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (9)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
assalamalikum to all...i m tahseen. i have done master in economics.. and doing preparation to appear in a cmmpetitive test...can u people help or guide me in case of facing subjective brolems?
To develop economy of the country, there is no need of economist but a true and sincere leader with a vision, like Mahatir Muhammad of Malaysia and park of South Korea. Rest is academic discussion which goes on like philosophical debate.
@just_someone, I agree with you. Pakistan doesn't need any high "funda" research. Just focus on the basics. Education and a system built on fairness where everyone has an equal opportunity are essential for growth.
Economy is driven not by the leaders, but by the common man, and the job of a leader should be to create that environment.
Pakistan is lucky in the sense that it can follow it's identical sibling India's model. Bangladesh is another example, but unfortunately, the isalmists are gaining there and looks like it'll start following the Pakistani model.
@just_someone: Such a good economist that you fail to even give your name. You gave away too much about your economic background with your last paragraph. 'Nothing was done' is never correct in economic analysis. And if you know something about the planning commission and how it works you wouldn't be plainly blaming the author for being part of the 'problem'. You sir are nowhere near an economist your words are more than sufficient for me to predict that. Disagree but please don't pretend to be something your clearly aren't. P.S: 'we don't need research', that's the last thing any real economist would say. I would also like to know which institution grants PhD degrees to economists who don't think time should be wasted on research.
In his column Nadeemul Haque neither educates readers what economics is nor offers counter proposal to deal with economic problems. He seems more preoccupied with economist vs accountant running the affairs of central planning.
I am not a trained economist, but I would like to see more arguments such as centralized vs de-centralized planning, welfare/subsidized state vs capitalist state, small government vs big government and rant economy vs free economy. This will allow us readers to learn pro and con of these different systems.
The article is a joke as ex-deputy chairman planning commission is not even coming up with a concrete idea himself. Furthermore, the execution of those projects which were passed at the high profile CDWP meetings when the author was at the helm; needs to be answered. The author over the tenure was the bad cop used by the ex-finance minister. Furthermore there appears to be an indirect target on the current finance minister by referring the accountant terminology. When the chief economists' post was lying vacant for a considerable amount of time during Mr. Haq's tenure. If he had to change the system the basic PC-1-4 system should have been changed or the land acqusition for dams discussed openly at CDWP meetings.
Sir, I am a trained economist (PhD from a top 10 institution) and macroeconomics is my area of specialization. As a serious economist, let me make a simple point to you rather than going on and on about why your whole article is completely misguided. We dont need research, debate or humility. We dont even need a fresh thinking towards our economy. All we need are doers. Because the main economic problems Pakistan faces can be recognized by an armchair economist correctly, let alone a professional one. Which brings me to you: You were part of the planning commission for 3 years. What did you do? In the 5 years of PPP government, NOTHING was done. You do not have a right to criticize anyone when you were a big part of the problem!
Dipak@Nadir: But after 67 years results are hard to come by.
Sadly, as is the case everywhere, economic reform takes time, and we have become addicted to populist rhetoric where results must be seen in 9 or 90 days.