Same slides, new fiscal year
Listen to article
It is that time of the year again. No, not mango season — though that might offer more sweetness than what is coming. It is pre-budget seminar season in Pakistan, our annual economic charade where universities, think tanks, chambers of commerce, and just about every office with a whiteboard and Wi-Fi hold solemn gatherings to discuss 'The Way Forward'. PowerPoint clickers are charged, macroeconomic jargon is dusted off, and economists reappear like migratory birds, repeating the same truths that have now become ritual chants.
One wonders: is there a secret mandate from the Ministry of Finance compelling every economics department to host at least one budget seminar before June? Or is it just national cosplay everyone pretending their budget recommendations will somehow find their way into the corridors of power, where the actual budget is being stitched together in Excel sheets, under IMF supervision and political desperation?
The truth is that these seminars have become Pakistan's economic folklore. They appear in May, make a bit of noise, generate a few tweets, and vanish without a trace much like the budgets they try to influence.
Let us take a moment to salute our brave economic commentators. Year after year, they appear on stage like clockwork, armed with the same prescriptions: broaden the tax base, rationalise subsidies, increase exports, fix the energy sector, reduce the fiscal deficit, and invest in human capital. They are not wrong. But it is hard not to notice that they have been saying the same things since 2020. Or was it 2010?
Actually, some of these slides are so old you can almost smell the Windows XP on them. One prominent economist even used the exact same line this year as last: "We must delink politics from economic policy." If only he could also delink himself from this loop of budget déjà vu. And then there are the PowerPoint slides, gloriously adorned with World Bank graphs and IMF warnings, showcasing declining tax-to-GDP ratios (currently hovering around 9.2 per cent, the lowest in South Asia), rising debt-to-GDP (77.8 per cent in FY24), and current account deficits as if they were horoscope signs. Everyone nods solemnly. We have seen this show before.
Now let us ask the forbidden question: do these recommendations ever reach the Ministry of Finance? If they do, is there a designated intern who bins them with a polite auto-reply? Or do they simply fade into the budget void like an old PC's startup sound? One can only imagine the Finance Division receiving a report titled 'Budget Reform Proposal from Institute of Economic Rethinking' and responding with a group chuckle before going back to their IMF spreadsheets.
There is no evidence — none that these seminars have ever substantively influenced a federal budget. Not even a footnote. Even more absurd is that the actual budget-makers — bureaucrats, special assistants and IMF whisperers - rarely attend these events. It is like holding wedding rehearsals without the bride and groom. The audience is often a mix of students, donors, NGO representatives and retired civil servants enjoying the air conditioning.
What we are witnessing is not policy input. It is policy theater. There are photo opportunities, panel selfies, hashtags and post-event pressers. Some speakers use it to test-drive op-ed ideas. Others hope to impress the donors in the room. And a few institutions hold these seminars so that they can say in their annual report: "XYZ Think Tank contributed to budget discourse through a high-level policy roundtable." And why not? The show must go on.
After all, what else are we to do when the economic reality is bleak and largely pre-decided? Pakistan's FY25 budget will be written with one eye on the IMF (which has already demanded a tax revenue target of Rs12.97 trillion), and another on urgent financing needs from bilateral partners and financial markets.
Within this harsh matrix, how practical is it to propose, say, "cutting non-development expenditures" when 52 per cent of the budget is already going to interest payments and another 11 per cent to defence? What is the point of "rationalising tax exemptions" when those with the power to tax are often the ones enjoying those exemptions? And why talk about "reforming state-owned enterprises" when PIA and Pakistan Steel are now punchlines, not policy goals?
If this sounds cynical, it is but it is also empirically accurate. Our pre-budget seminars are economic rituals, not reform tools. Like a high-budget drama serial that resets every season, they offer emotional highs, some tears for the middle class, and the illusion of progress. In 2023, over two dozen budget seminars were held in Islamabad alone.
Yet Pakistan still missed its fiscal targets, borrowed five billion dollars more than expected, and delayed reforms on pension and energy subsidies again. Even as inflation briefly catches its breath at 0.3 per cent, the rupee continues its downward yoga, and foreign reserves dance around the eight billion dollar line with the enthusiasm of a tired ballerina. So why do we continue this spectacle? Because, much like sending good wishes to the Pakistan cricket team, it makes us feel better even when we know the outcome.
To be clear, debate is not the problem. Dialogue is necessary. But repetition without impact is a form of national gaslighting. If the same economists are saying the same things at the same places with the same results, maybe just maybe the problem is not the budget. It is the echo chamber. Let us save the seminar snacks, reduce paper waste, and redirect some of that pre-budget energy toward pushing for parliamentary hearings, public budget scorecards or citizen audit tools.
Until then, happy seminar season! Pass the microphone and the samosas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
9 hours ago
- Express Tribune
WB, IMF climate snub 'worrying': COP29 presidency
Participating world leaders and delegates pose for a family photo during the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku. Photo: AFP The hosts of the most recent UN climate talks are worried international lenders are retreating from their commitments to help boost funding for developing countries' response to global warming. This anxiety has grown as the Trump administration has slashed foreign aid and discouraged US-based development lenders like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund from focussing on climate finance. Developing nations, excluding China, will need an estimated $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 in financial assistance to transition to renewable energy and climate-proof their economies from increasing weather extremes. But nowhere near this amount has been committed. At last year's UN COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, rich nations agreed to increase climate finance to $300 billion a year by 2035, an amount decried as woefully inadequate. Azerbaijan and Brazil, which is hosting this year's COP30 conference, have launched an initiative to plug the shortfall that includes expectations of "significant" contributions from international lenders. But so far only two — the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank — have responded to a call to engage the initiative with ideas, said COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev. "We call on their shareholders to urgently help us to address these concerns," he told climate negotiators at a high-level summit in the German city of Bonn this week. "We fear that a complex and volatile global environment is distracting" many of those expected to play a big role in bridging the climate finance gap, he added. His team travelled to Washington in April for the IMF and World Bank's spring meetings hoping to find the same enthusiasm for climate lending they had encountered a year earlier. But instead they found institutions "very much reluctant now to talk about climate at all", said Azerbaijan's top climate negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev. This was a "worrisome trend", he said, given expectations these lenders would extend the finance needed in the absence of other sources. "They're very much needed," he said. The United States, the World Bank's biggest shareholder, has sent a different message. On the sidelines of the April spring meetings, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the bank to focus on "dependable technologies" rather than "distortionary climate finance targets." This could mean investing in gas and other fossil fuel-based energy production, he said. Under the Paris Agreement, wealthy developed countries — those most responsible for global warming to date — are obligated to pay climate finance to poorer nations. AFP
Business Recorder
11 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
11 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Steel sector warns of collapse
Listen to article Pakistan's steel sector may become the first casualty of the government's decision to open the economy to foreign competition, as a parliamentary review finds flaws in the assumptions behind cutting protection levels by 52%. Abbas Akber Ali, patron-in-chief of the Pakistan Association of Large Steel Producers (PALSP), warned on Friday that the proposed tariff reduction would push Pakistan toward trading in imported steel instead of manufacturing it locally. If implemented, the new National Tariff Policy would shut down local mills, leading to $1 billion in annual steel imports and risking around 2 million jobs, he said. PALSP Chairman Javed Iqbal Malik stated that the current protection level of 53% for the steel sector would fall to 10% by the policy's fifth yearfar below the 38% minimum needed. Malik said the association met with Haroon Akhtar Khan, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Industries, who acknowledged their concerns but said he was powerless to help. He added that the PM's steering committee on industry concerns also refused to meet the industry. Under the new policy, the average applied tariff rate will fall from 20.2% to 9.7% over five years, a 52% drop, Commerce Secretary Jawad Paul told the National Assembly Standing Committee on Finance this week. In FY26, tariffs will fall to 15.7%, a 22.3% cut in the protection wall. This will include reducing customs duty to 11.2%, additional customs duty to 1.8%, and regulatory duty to 2.7%. The government said reforms are based on the World Bank's Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model. The Standing Committee had asked World Bank and commerce ministry officials to brief Opposition Leader Omar Ayub Khan. Ayub and other members met with the experts on Friday in the Parliament House and later shared their observations with the committee. Ayub told the committee that the GTAP model was static, had limitations, and was based on trading in only a few tariff lines. He also criticised the use of Pakistan Bureau of Statistics data, calling it unreliable, and noted the model ignored several key variables. Committee Chairman Syed Naveed Qamar asked Ayub to submit his observations in writing to the committee. The GTAP model projects exports to grow by 10-14% and imports by 5-6%. Over five years, it anticipates trade liberalisation to reduce the trade deficit by only 7%. Abbas Ali urged the government to delay tariff rationalisation for at least one year or until the industry stabilises. The association said the proposed policy could cripple domestic steel production, trigger a $4 billion foreign exchange outflow, worsen the import bill, and deepen the current account deficit. With steel mill closures, 4,000 megawatts of electricity used by the industry would go idle, and 2 million jobs are at risk, Abbas said. According to the association, the perception that the current tariffs protect the industry is inaccurate - only offsets cost differences caused by state-regulated input prices, especially energy. "We can compete globally if electricity costs Rs20 per unit instead of the current Rs40," Abbas said, adding that high electricity rates raise local steel production costs by Rs50,552 per tonne. Abbas said the industry does not seek protection having invested over Rs100 billion in modern European technologies and is regionally and internationally competitive. Tariff reductions would allow semi- and fully-finished products to flood the market, raising the import bill by at least $1 billion, the association said. Javed Malik stated that tariff cuts should be delayed until power, taxes, and interest rates become regionally competitive. He noted that India, the world's second-largest steel producer, has increased protection for its steel sector. Bangladesh offers 90% protection, while Pakistan's protection level is half of this at just 43-57%. Malik said Bangladesh imposes minimal sales tax per ton, while Pakistan charges Rs38,000, and pointed out that Bangladesh's largest mill has a capacity of 2.4 million tonnes, while Pakistan's largest 1.1 million-tonne mill is shut down. Abbas said the government should have first introduced reforms with incentives for iron ore extraction alongside tariff cuts. This would increase raw material supply, reduce costs, improve quality, and enhance global competitiveness. He added that Pakistan's steel production is just 6 million tonnes, compared to Iran's 35 million, India's 100 million, and China's 900 million tonnes. India, China, Russia, and Iran all have state-owned iron ore mining companies supplying to private sectors, giving local manufacturers access to cheaper materials — about $30 per tonne.
