Policy issues in EFF programme — I

Pakistan's Extended Fund Facility (EFF) programme with International Monetary Fund (IMF), which as per one of its benchmarks also forms the basis of the upcoming federal budget, suffers serious flaws in terms of prescribed policy, and objectives.
Together with the other recently negotiated Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF) programme, the EFF programme targets putting the country on a sustainable macroeconomic, economic growth, and green economy-based resilience against climate change and 'Pandemicene' phenomenon path.
The problem is that for achieving these three objectives, it prescribes neoliberal and over-board monetary and fiscal austerity policies, which during the last four decades or so, have not only proved to be counter-productive to achieving the goals that have been stated above, but have also increased income inequality, and poverty, and diminished political voice, and overall weakened the quality of democracy.
Moreover, as indicated, the upcoming federal budget, and provincial economic policies and budgets under the overall 'National Fiscal Pact' all need to continue to get aligned with these policy prescriptions under the EFF programme.
While analysing the recently released 'IMF Country Report No. 25/109' there are a number of policy prescriptions that need to be pointed out to highlight the alignment of policies with neoliberal, over-board austerity framework, and how they are counter-productive to achieving the much-needed stated goals, especially in a world strongly punctuated by polycrisis, in particular the fast-unfolding climate change crisis, and the likely, and related 'Pandemicene' phenomenon.
To start with, serious ongoing geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, Ukraine-Russia conflict, and heightened tensions between two nuclear-armed countries Pakistan and India, and the fast-increasing global warming, and likely risks of another pandemic are significant, posing significant downward risks to the EFF programme.
For instance, with regard to global warming, according to the recently released 'WMO [World Meteorological Organization] global annual to decadal climate update 2025-2029' report, 'It is likely (86% chance) that global mean near-surface temperature will exceed 1.5°C above the 1850-1900 average levels for at least one year between 2025 and 2029. It is also likely (70% chance) that the 2025-2029 five-year mean will exceed 1.5°C above the 1850-1900 average.'
Moreover, while global warming at the back of fast-unfolding climate change crisis continues to increase, with it the probability of the related 'Pandemicene' phenomenon likely also continues to rise. It is important to note that not much has improved in terms of preparedness mainly in terms of public health, making resilient aggregate supply chains, and making meaningfully supportive patent law/intellectual property rights (IPRs) under the current World Trade Organization (WTO) regime for better preparing against these existential threats.
A significant cause of all of this continues to be neoliberal, and over-board austerity policies, which is shocking, given the lack of preparedness this policy had caused, as revealed by Covid-19 pandemic, and the global aggregate supply shock that struck in the wake of the pandemic.
An August 15, 2024 'Foreign Affairs' magazine published article 'The world is not ready for the next pandemic' indicated – and the findings of which unfortunately still hold strong after almost a year since its publication, as not much has changed in terms of policy response where, for instance, no significant effort has been made by IMF in terms of its policy prescriptions in its programmes with recipient countries, including Pakistan –as follows: 'Less than five years after the outbreak of COVID-19, the world remains vulnerable to another pandemic.
Over the past five months, a mutated strain of the H5N1 influenza virus detected in dairy cattle poses a potential risk for a pandemic-causing virus. Yet governments and international organizations have done far too little to prepare for such a scenario, despite the lessons they should have learned from the global battle with Covid-19.'
Two more economic trends globally need to be understood to bring proper context to whatever little semblance of most probably short-term natured macroeconomic stability achieved domestically under the EFF programme, and that is, firstly, the negative impact of tariffs, geopolitical tensions, and climate change crisis on one hand, and the over-board monetary-, and fiscal austerity policies coming through their respective transmission pathways, and resulting in lower aggregate demand, reduced aggregate supply correspondingly, and overall low growth globally.
For instance, the June 2025 report titled 'OECD [Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development] Economic Outlook: tackling uncertainty, reviving growth' highlighted the likely negative impact of tariffs imposed by US on global economic growth as 'The global outlook is becoming increasingly challenging. Substantial increases in barriers to trade, tighter financial conditions, weaker business and consumer confidence and heightened policy uncertainty will all have marked adverse effects on growth prospects if they persist.
Higher trade costs, especially in countries raising tariffs, will also push up inflation, although their impact will be offset partially by weaker commodity prices. Global GDP growth is projected to slow from 3.3% in 2024 to 2.9% this year and in 2026…There are substantial risks to these projections, with the scale and duration of the expected downturn remaining highly uncertain.'
Secondly, the windfall gains from a very low price of oil internationally – crude oil falling from the usual highs traditionally of around $100 per barrel to around $60 per barrel – in terms of producing positive impacts for balance of payments, in particular import payments, and imported-, and in turn, cost-push inflation all receiving a dent. A June 5, Bloomberg published article 'Oil stalls as traders weigh Saudi output push, summer demand' pointed out in this regard: 'Oil remained stuck near $65 a barrel as signs Saudi Arabia is seeking another big production increase at next month's OPEC+ meeting offset the outlook for summer demand.'
Hence, macroeconomic stability achieved under the EFF programme has significant attribution from low oil prices, which is at best a transitory influence because it does not suit the interests of oil producers beyond the short-term like reportedly punishing certain members of OPEC+.
A May 31, Bloomberg published article 'OPEC+ agrees on third oil supply surge despite Russia's qualms' pointed out in this regard: 'OPEC+ agreed to surge oil output for the third month in a row despite reservations from key member Russia, doubling down on a historic policy shift that has sent crude prices sinking.…Officials say the supply hikes reflect Saudi Arabia's desire to punish over-producing members like Kazakhstan and Iraq, recoup market share lost to US shale drillers and other rivals, and satisfy President Donald Trump's desire for cheaper oil. …Oil briefly crashed to a four-year low under $60 a barrel in April after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies first announced that they would bolster output by triple the scheduled amount. …While Brent futures have since recovered to trade near $64 a barrel, the International Monetary Fund estimates the Saudis need prices above $90 to cover the lavish spending plans of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The kingdom is contending with a soaring budget deficit, and has been forced to cut investment on flagship projects such as the futuristic city, Neom.'
Sustained macroeconomic stability and economic growth on the contrary require strong non-neoliberal, non-austerity based institutional, organizational, and market reforms. Structural reforms being suggested – in line with the traditional neoliberal, and over-board austerity-based outlook of the IMF – like seeing government as mainly reacting to market failures, and regulating loosely and, in turn, the direction of reforms pushing towards reducing government's footprint, rather than rationalizing its role, which could mean overall increasing its footprint if need be.
While there are arguments on both sides of greater role of private sector in running the economy, that view has continued to sideline, especially in the wake of the misgivings that were exposed by the Global Financial Crisis 2007/08, and then in the wake of the Covid pandemic in the shape of lack of resilience created over decades under the neoliberal assault, along with little institutional provisions being placed under trade rules; for instance, to push for provision of vaccines as a global public good. Quite shockingly, such lessons have not been reflected through EFF programme thinking that continues to be the flagbearer of neoliberal thinking.
Also, it is no hidden fact that the success of the Scandinavian countries or China for instance has been at the back of a strong state sector protecting the rights of its demos from the profit-motive excesses of the private sector by public sector playing a significant role in market creation, through adopting counter-cyclical policy framework, and in pushing towards greater productive and allocative efficiencies.
Yet, without making anywhere near similar effort by the public sector, both in terms of improved institutional capacity, and providing needed levels of investment, there is a strong emphasis under the EFF programme to push for greater privatization, whereby the demos will be left virtually at the whims of private sector, given lack of capacity of the government to regulate private sector, at the back of years of under capacitation through lack of investment in education in general, and by following an ever-increasing practice of outsourcing more technical aspects of service delivery.
Hence, this begs the question as to how can a government that has not properly run a certain affair like railways, or steel mills, has the capacity, and knowledge to regulate the private sector intoboth efficiently running these affairs, and also not jeopardize public welfare aspects by over-emphasizing profit interests?
—To be continued
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Recorder

19 hours ago

• Business Recorder

World Bank seeks more transparency in debt practices

WASHINGTON: The World Bank said Thursday it is worried that some countries are less and less transparent about their public debt and use complex borrowing tools, making it harder to measure how much they owe. To remedy this the bank called for a fundamental change in the way debtor and creditor countries report and disclose debt. The worries concern in particular low-income countries that make increasing use of borrowing arrangements the bank considers opaque. These include private placements — a kind of funding round done not publicly but privately, central bank swaps, and collateralized transactions, the bank said in a report on debt transparency. The proportion of low-income countries publishing some debt data has grown from below 60 percent to more than 75 percent since 2020. But only 25 percent disclose loan-level information on new debt, the report states. And countries are now turning to local investors as they take on debt but not publishing numbers on these loans. 'Recent cases of unreported debt have highlighted the vicious cycle that a lack of transparency can set off,' said the World Bank's Senior Managing Director, Axel van Trotsenburg. In Senegal, for instance, an independent administrative court that serves as an auditor said in February the government debt in that African nation had risen to 99.67 percent of GDP — a rate one-quarter higher than what had been announced by the previous government. An IMF team that visited Senegal in March said officials had made false statements regarding budget deficits and public debt for the period 2019-2023.

Express Tribune

21 hours ago

• Express Tribune

Rs1.275tr loans signed to ease circular debt

Pakistan has signed term sheets with 18 commercial banks for a Rs1.275 trillion ($4.50 billion) Islamic finance facility to help pay down mounting debt in its power sector, government officials said on Friday. The government, which owns or controls much of the power infrastructure, is grappling with ballooning "circular debt", unpaid bills and subsidies, that has choked the sector and weighed on the economy. The liquidity crunch has disrupted supply, discouraged investment and added to fiscal pressure, making it a key focus under Pakistan's $7 billion IMF programme. Finding funds to plug the gap has been a persistent challenge, with limited fiscal space and high-cost legacy debt making resolution efforts more difficult. "Eighteen commercial banks will provide the loans through Islamic financing," Khurram Schehzad, adviser to the finance minister, told Reuters. The facility, structured under Islamic principles, is secured at a concessional rate of 3-month KIBOR, the benchmark rate banks use to price loans, minus 0.9%, a formula agreed on by the IMF. "It will be repaid in 24 quarterly instalments over six years," and will not add to public debt, Power Minister Awais Leghari said. Existing liabilities carry higher costs, including late payment surcharges on Independent Power Producers of up to KIBOR plus 4.5%, and older loans ranging slightly above benchmark rates. Meezan Bank, HBL, National Bank of Pakistan and UBL were among the banks participating in the deal. The government expects to allocate Rs323 billion annually to repay the loan, capped at 1.938 trillion rupees over six years. The agreement also aligns with Pakistan's target of eliminating interest-based banking by 2028, with Islamic finance now comprising about a quarter of total banking assets.

Express Tribune

a day ago

• Express Tribune

Uphill task

Listen to article The government is continuing in its latest effort to privatise PIA, months after the previous failed attempt led to an embarrassing situation where a bidder with questionable credentials offered a laughably low bid that did not even meet the minimum bid. Two earlier privatisation attempts have also collapsed in the past two years. But despite the noticeably low interest in the market, privatisation is a critical condition of the IMF's recent bailout, which has made the government a motivated seller. While PIA and the government may claim the airline has gotten its act back in order after it posted a small operating profit in 2024, after 21 consecutive loss-making years, the truth is far more nuanced, as state-administered life support made it possible. About 80% of its debt was offloaded onto public coffers, and several tax exemptions have buoyed its balance sheet and made the airline more attractive to suitors. Unfortunately, the opacity of the bidding process has been a challenge for some otherwise competent potential bidders who are rich in expertise but may lack deep pockets. And despite the government's attempt to make qualification criteria stricter, most of the parties vying for the airline are not active in aviation-related industries. The government should also look into some creative solutions that allow it to receive fair payment — perhaps in guaranteed installments with some deferral period — instead of setting unattainable deadlines for what could be one of the biggest corporate deals in Pakistan's history. It is also worth reanalysing why there has been so little international interest in the airline. Market experts have noted the government's desire for PIA to remain Pakistani creates a conflict between pride and practicality. But the domestic airline industry is competitive enough to pick up the slack even if a prospective buyer wants to streamline PIA's operations. The focus should be on getting taxpayers some value for the billions they have poured down the drain.