ICCI President Muzzamil Hussain Sabri said that enhanced PSDP spending was vital to achieve sustainable economic development and improve living standards.
“However, the ad hoc approach of our successive governments to make PSDP the first casualty whenever a revenue shortfall occurs has held the country back from realising its development potential.”
He said the government has released only 41% funds (Rs216.2 billion) for PSDP during the first seven months (July to January) of the current fiscal year while under its disbursement policy, it should have released at least 50% funds during this period.
He said that the country’s PSDP for 2014-15 has already been slashed from the original allocation of Rs525 billion to Rs477 billion. The reduction of Rs48 billion comes in order to meet the IMF criteria to restrict the budget deficit, said Sabri.
“However, this is not a wise approach as it would affect the pace of development work and increase poverty in the country.”
According to Sabri, there is a dire need of increasing spending on infrastructure development to facilitate the growth of business activities. But there were reports that the government might make a further cut of 22% in the PSDP. This would cause added problems to the economy as lower development spending would negatively impact the growth of trade and industry.
Sabri said that on the one hand the government is favouring a cut in PSDP and on the other hand it was raising general sales tax on petroleum products.
Both decisions would increase difficulties for the common man who is expecting a relief in the wake of a massive reduction in international oil prices.
He was of the view that the economic development could be improved if the government adopted a more prudent approach to reform the entire taxation system.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 8th, 2015.
Like Business on Facebook, follow @TribuneBiz on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ