Mission-oriented economic policy
There seems to be a lot of focus on the working of ministry of finance, which is not to say that its role is in any way less important than other sectors of the economy, yet given a world of polycrisis, including unwarranted belligerence from the country's eastern neighbour – which was met with overpowering but justifiably measured force by Pakistan – the role of economic policy, especially towards improving economic institutional quality – or ministries at the federal, and departments at the provincial level for subjects totally in provincial domain and underlying organizational, and market development, in particular in terms of governance and incentive structures, should serve as a much more strengthened second line of defense.
Hence, economic policy-making on these lines is approached to provide much-needed enhanced support to further augment otherwise sound efforts of armed forces for ensuring national territorial independence. In addition, such economic policy is needed to improve protection against the existential threat of climate change crisis, and the related 'Pandemicene' phenomenon, the attainment of sustainable development goals, sustainably managing the debt distress, building-up ample foreign exchange reserves, managing inflation, reducing poverty and inequality, and strengthening democracy.
Moreover, economic policy needs to be approached in a mission-oriented, purpose-driven way, where the best minds in economics globally, especially those who have a grip on the misgivings of neoliberal economics of the past four decades– for instance, but not limited to names like Mariana Mazzucato, Isabella M. Weber, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Clara Mattei – need to be brought together, and along with local policymakers a certain multi-year economic policy, and supportive budgetary framework needs to be developed. That such plans have required level of inclusivity for greater acumen, indigenous knowledge, international best practices, and ownership, all major political parties, all provinces, and multilateral/bilateral development partners are taken on board in these discussions.
The fast-unfolding nature of climate change crisis, the related presence of high likelihood of the 'Pandemicene' phenomenon, and strengthening economy as a power house in support of national defense – which despite the economic weaknesses is very strong, something that speaks volumes of its excellent potential, and provides great opportunity to develop it further to heights that can propel it as second to none – is important to be done as a second defense to nation's territorial independence, for wellbeing of its citizens, for enhancing the quality of its democracy, and for improving its standing among economies globally.
For one, a project-based approach needs to be nested in an overall programme-based approached with sector-level economic policy is formulated, and budgets – federal, and provincial – are evolved in an aligned way. Second, the civil service is replaced with 'one' public service, which represents all the economic sectors, and where performance-based streams are distinguished along the lines of 'fast-stream' and 'regular streams'. Underlying educational systems improved for better quality of labour-, and entrepreneurial segments, together with merit-, and qualitatively improved screening processes put in place for better graduation of human capital to decision-making hierarchy, and innovation-led economy.
Third, broad economic policy contours thus reached as a consequence of this mission-oriented economic policy should see the interconnectedness of economic policy, with environmental, and epidemiological policy; not to mention a document reached on these lines, with profound consensus behind it will most likely, and at least in terms of its broad framework, have enough strong status as a convention to safeguard against decisions made on whims by changing political regimes over time.
To illustrate some important motivational, and inspirational streaks that perhaps should define the manifestation of the mission-oriented nature of such a policy framework, the purpose-driven, mission-oriented spirit could be understood further from the herculean task of landing man on the moon in just one decade taken upon by former US President John F. Kennedy. Speaking at the Rice University on September 12, 1962, he said in this regard 'We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.'
We saw the success of the 'all of state' approach while fighting against India recently, and it is this approach that should be taken in economic policymaking with high ambitions, and strict timelines – small dents will not make needed headway, when what is needed is a one big push, and within-it number of small pushes from all sides are made, and all that is done in a challenging timeframe. The burden of past sub-optimal decisions with regard to economy, for instance, requires this. We need to challenge ourselves, because the economic problem at hand is a really challenging, made all the worse by lack of course correction – for instance, and very importantly not moving away enough from neoliberal policy mindset, and in many ways sadly, such policy framework continues to get perpetuated because it serves the extractive politico-economic institutional designs of the elites.
That economic policy will need to imbibe the spirit of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 'New Deal Policies' of a more responsible financial system, and a meaningfully caring, welfare-natured government, which will also have a strong grip in terms of its own capacity – and not majorly reliant on 'outsourcing', neither just there to fix market failures, or only exist as only a facilitator of private sector – to deliver safeguard the interests of its demos, through playing a significant role in regulation, and market creation as an equal partner to private sector. After more than four decades of rein of Neoliberalism, there is some shift away from it, and which includes pushing towards bringing protectionism in the US – with consensus on this policy on both sides of the political spectrum, and the only difference is the degree of intensity – for enhancing productivity of the agricultural and industrial sector. Pakistan should learn from this approach, and move away from Neoliberalism.
That mission-oriented economic policy needs to be established as 'Green New Deal Policies' in view of the fast-unfolding of climate change crisis. In this, it has a lot to learn from China as a leader in renewable energy. Like Nordic countries, it has a meaningfully strong government sector on the lines indicated above.
Among other important things to learn from China in the field of mission-oriented economic policy – given its exceptional path to success in reducing poverty in just a few decades – is its strong emphasis on escaping the price shock therapy, and instead adopting the 'dual-track' pricing framework for achieving sustainable macroeconomic stability, including efficiently-managing inflation, and laying an important basis for bringing fast-paced development of especially heavy industry, and enhancing the productivity of the agricultural sector in overall improving domestic production, and export competitiveness. So, while it is important to carry forward the projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), it is also important to learn from the economic policy approach of China.
Moreover, it needs to be pointed out that while India has excelled in terms of economic growth for a number of years now overall, that growth nonetheless has strong elements of neoliberal policy, which means that it has enhanced the gap between rich and poor, and has also weakened democracy in the process. On the contrary, China has adopted non-neoliberal policies – for instance, not going for outright privatization, and instead in most cases adopted innovative ways to keep government's check through coming up with mixed-ownership model for running state-owned enterprises, and also did not follow price 'shock therapy' policies, and also has meaningful capital controls, and reasonable level of significant protectionist policy – to make unprecedented dent to poverty as not seen before at least in recent human history, which should serve as important learning for Pakistan economic policy framework.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
13-06-2025
- Business Recorder
Policy issues in the EFF programme
In addition, lack of adequate regulatory capacity means that it is very likely, as has been the case in real markets, for example, agriculture, left to market forces without adequate level of governance, instead of multiple sellers competing for greater market share at the back of improved quality goods/services, a collusive behaviour is adopted where at least majority of sellers agree on same, or very similar prices, which works in favour of profit maximization, taking the prices all the more away from optimal, or true price discovery. Unfortunately, both the neoliberal-minded Extended Fund Facility (EFF) programme, and similar policy stance by public policy in general over the years – at the back of most policy makers having similar neoliberal policy stance, given their orientation in tradition of 'Chicago boys'-styled economic thinking – has meant that the misgivings of privatization, especially in the context of poor regulatory capacity of public sector, and weak economic institutional, organizational, and market conditions. Weak public sector capacity to both run itself in the first place, and then to regulate has, in addition to traditionally low investments in education, and better approach to public service, also is due to rampant recourse to outsourcing. This is all the more dangerous for the public sector, because both protecting the demos from profit-maximizing approach of the private sector, and for having the policy and implementation ability – including that of appropriately regulating markets, and privatized affairs – to deal with crisis situations like the fast-unfolding climate change crisis, and the Covid pandemic for instance, requires taking risks, and learning-while-doing approach, and outsourcing has not allowed public sector to walk that learning curve. Policy issues in EFF programme — I Economic experience, both globally and domestically, has indicated that companies that do the outsourced work, and those that provide third-party validation of their performance – since as discussed governments in general in developing countries do not have the capacity to regulate, and lack of transparency in accepting this reality, especially in terms of past below appropriate level performances also lowering trust in government's declared capacity – have shown strong signals of collusive behaviour to support each other in terms of continuing to get such work from governments; an issue which is of global nature, and all the more in developing countries that they have suffered in the wake of the neoliberal assault of the last four decades or so. World renowned economist, Mariana Mazzucato, in her noted 2023 published book 'The big con: how the consulting industry weakens our businesses, infantilizes our governments and warps our economies' that she co-authored with Rosie Collington pointed out misgivings of an over-board outsourcing policy. In doing so the government unjustifiably reins in its footprint in terms of important functions for governance, incentivization, and market creation/regulation for adequate pricing, and by over-engaging the otherwise highly collusive in general, and otherwise much more technically sound consulting industry to allow government to call out their con, which in turn allows perpetuation of their so-called relevance for greater good of the economy; with the internal moral hazard that government's capacity diminishes over time to see through these nefarious designs – an outcome which the extractive institutional design of the politico-economic elites perhaps also desires. The book points out in this regard the following: 'The consulting industry today is not merely a helping hand; its advice and actions are not purely technical and neutral, facilitating a more effective functioning of society and reducing the 'transaction costs' of clients. It enables the actualization of a particular view of the economy that has created dysfunctions in government and business around the world. …What we call the Big Con is not about criminal activity. It describes the confidence trick the consulting industry performs in contracts with hollowed-out and timid governments and share-holder value-maximizing firms. These contracts enable the consulting industry to earn incomes that far exceed the actual value it provides – a form of 'economic rents', or 'income earned in excess of the reward corresponding to the contribution of a factor of production to value creation. …While consulting is an old profession, the Big Con grew from the 1980s and 1990s in the wake of reforms by both the 'neoliberal' right and 'Third Way' progressives – on both sides of the political spectrum.' To give an example, reportedly a certain economic advisor in the 'Economic Advisory Council' 'a non-constitutional and independent body formed to give economic advice to the Government of Pakistan, specifically the Prime Ministery', was reportedly previously working in the 'McKinsey and Company' – a company, which has reportedly strong tilt towards neoliberal thinking – has left that job, and instead is advising towards rationalization of the extent of government's footprint. Here, it is likely that government is being led by a consultant that shares the reported neoliberal view of the company he reportedly previously worked in. Under the neoliberal framework, which has come under increasingly strong criticism in the wake of the GFC 2007-08, government is seen as the problem, and needs to be reduced to the minimum, and this framework does not hold a more balanced role of government in a developing country in particular. It would have been much better if such an effort was being led by the government itself, with likely much more better understanding of local conditions, and requirements, and an effort in this regard with likely greater openness to the misgivings of the neoliberal framework. A June 6, 2025 Bloomberg published opinion piece 'Harvard, McKinsey and Davos are paying for Neoliberalism's sins' pointed out in this regard: 'Three institutions stood at the heart of the neoliberal regime that ran the world from the 1980s onward: Harvard University, McKinsey & Co. and the World Economic Forum (WEF). Harvard and McKinsey were the premier training grounds for the emerging global elite. The WEF's annual meeting at Davos was the annual meet-and-greet party for the people who had made it (and their journalistic chroniclers). All three institutions reinforced each other during the glory years of neoliberalism. And all three are currently in crisis. Their travails tell us a great deal about what was wrong with an idea that once delivered a necessary shock to a sclerotic Keynesian regime but was corrupted by its crude celebration of success. They can only recover their former vitality if they reflect seriously on what went wrong during the rah-rah years — and on their own central role in creating our current malaise.' There is sadly little understanding of local media in appropriately reflecting on the issues such as the misgivings of the neoliberal assault, practice of over-board austerity policy, and the role of outsourcing. Capacity issues of local media in this regard – an issue that is similarly present in a number of major media outlets internationally as well, perhaps also because of their collusive behaviour in the overall extractive politico-economic institutional design – are for instance highlighted in a narrow way in which discussion panels of economists are selected for reflecting on economic issues, for instance the recent discussions on recently proposed Federal Budget; where instead the panel should select economists from different schools of economic thought, with the result being that mostly neoliberal-minded economists are in the discussion panels. Moreover, by pushing the government out of governing and market creation to regulating, and reacting to market failures, to the privatizing spree, and outsourcing, the government is getting all the more thrust into a 'dependency model', with diminishing capacities to both call out failures of private sector, and to take centre-stage in terms of increasing knowledge base to deal with an ever-increasing world of 'polycrisis', including existential threats. The EFF programme forwards the 'dependency model'. For too long the neoliberal framework is being thrust, with the willing reception of 'Chicago boys', without any worthwhile retrospection in the light of glaring evidence of its misgivings being ignored. This needs to be de-mystified in a much bigger way than is being done in the country currently, and the role of media and educationists/opinion makers, for instance, is indeed very important in this regard. The developed world, which did open up their economies but did not jump the gun, they rather first built the basis on protectionist, largely state-led role in economic decision-making, avoided short-termism, and targeted goals of reaching productive, and allocative efficiencies of a needed level. Even in those countries with considerable success in this targeting has suffered too quick, and too deeply following the neoliberal model. Sadly, both the leading policymakers in general in the country and those at the IMF continue to ignore these aspects that have come to the fore all the more since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) 2007-08, and later on the Covid pandemic, and continue to push governments for neoliberal reforms. Together with practice of over-board austerity policy – the serious misgivings of which are glaringly clear in both the country's own experience of practice of this policy over the years in terms of short-lived macroeconomic stability, given poor economic institutional, organizational, and market conditions, and after giving lot of economic growth, and in turn employment sacrifice. Unfortunately, the Federal Budget that has been recently announced is totally in line of neoliberal-, and overboard austerity policy. For instance, both in the EFF programme, and the proposed Federal Budget FY 2025-26, there is no indication on providing neither any support price, or any indicative price even when poor market functioning, and highly sub-optimal regulation by government, including the likely practice of collusive behaviour, is not anywhere near leading to true price recovery. Similarly, privatization of important state-owned enterprises (SOEs) like air travel, railways, steel production, among others is being emphasized indicating their loss-making performance, but not realizing the lack of institutional focus by government over the years, and the need for government to run such important strategic affairs to safeguard the interests of the demos, both in terms of welfare aspects, but also to have greater control over investment and pricing of the goods and services, for their high level productive and allocative role in the overall economy, and especially in the situation of polycrisis, and the immense stress it produces for aggregate supply. Loss and trade-off are being primarily wrongly contextualized under both the EFF programme, and the proposed Federal Budget. Rather than internalizing the misgivings of the over-board austerity policy – as evidenced from sticky core inflation, which is more reflective of internal economic situation of the country, and not the CPI inflation that has more influence from external factors like low international commodity prices – and adopting a much more balanced aggregate demand, and supply-side policy approach, to overall see a lower interest payments related expenditure, instead strategically important role of government in seeing markets move towards optimal pricing, for instance in agriculture sector, and in the case of protecting demos, and supporting exports through SOEs, being reined in through pushing towards privatization for reducing losses, and creating greater fiscal space. The government, sadly, has not learnt much from either Scandinavian countries plus China or from the high level of misgivings of neoliberal- and over-board austerity policies. For instance, a major role in lowering poverty, attracting greater investment, and enhancing exports in a drastic way by China has to do with not coming out of the markets in the way of a sudden 'shock-therapy' style – as being pushed through neoliberal policy agenda of IMF programme and the proposed Federal Budget – of strategically important economic sectors – including those provide food security – but rather to adopt 'dual-track' pricing mechanism, and government keeping significant role in running SOEs, and adopt a gradualist approach of liberalization, while improving economic institutions, organizations, and markets, and reaching needed thresholds for proper economic functioning over an appropriate non-neoliberal liberalization curve. There is then also an inherent contradiction in the proposed Federal Budget – which as per the EFF programme conditionalities requires IMF's approval, and then reflects on both the government, and the IMF – in terms of moving towards a resilient, green economy; which is also the main objective of the other recently negotiated programme of IMF in the shape of Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF). On one hand a 'carbon levy' is being introduced on petroleum products to discourage the carbon footprint, while at the same time general sales tax (GST) at the rate of 18 percent is being applied on imported solar panels, which hold the majority share of supply of solar panels. The justification that domestic industry needs to be supported required subsidizing the local industry for supporting them in terms of providing competition for market share, rather than discouraging the move towards solarization, given the nascent nature of domestic production of solar panels falling significantly short of demand, especially in supporting cost burden of high energy costs from national grid for agriculture, and other industry, especially given their role in providing food security, and exports. (To be continued) Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
06-06-2025
- Business Recorder
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
Business Recorder
15-05-2025
- Business Recorder
Mission-oriented economic policy
There seems to be a lot of focus on the working of ministry of finance, which is not to say that its role is in any way less important than other sectors of the economy, yet given a world of polycrisis, including unwarranted belligerence from the country's eastern neighbour – which was met with overpowering but justifiably measured force by Pakistan – the role of economic policy, especially towards improving economic institutional quality – or ministries at the federal, and departments at the provincial level for subjects totally in provincial domain and underlying organizational, and market development, in particular in terms of governance and incentive structures, should serve as a much more strengthened second line of defense. Hence, economic policy-making on these lines is approached to provide much-needed enhanced support to further augment otherwise sound efforts of armed forces for ensuring national territorial independence. In addition, such economic policy is needed to improve protection against the existential threat of climate change crisis, and the related 'Pandemicene' phenomenon, the attainment of sustainable development goals, sustainably managing the debt distress, building-up ample foreign exchange reserves, managing inflation, reducing poverty and inequality, and strengthening democracy. Moreover, economic policy needs to be approached in a mission-oriented, purpose-driven way, where the best minds in economics globally, especially those who have a grip on the misgivings of neoliberal economics of the past four decades– for instance, but not limited to names like Mariana Mazzucato, Isabella M. Weber, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Clara Mattei – need to be brought together, and along with local policymakers a certain multi-year economic policy, and supportive budgetary framework needs to be developed. That such plans have required level of inclusivity for greater acumen, indigenous knowledge, international best practices, and ownership, all major political parties, all provinces, and multilateral/bilateral development partners are taken on board in these discussions. The fast-unfolding nature of climate change crisis, the related presence of high likelihood of the 'Pandemicene' phenomenon, and strengthening economy as a power house in support of national defense – which despite the economic weaknesses is very strong, something that speaks volumes of its excellent potential, and provides great opportunity to develop it further to heights that can propel it as second to none – is important to be done as a second defense to nation's territorial independence, for wellbeing of its citizens, for enhancing the quality of its democracy, and for improving its standing among economies globally. For one, a project-based approach needs to be nested in an overall programme-based approached with sector-level economic policy is formulated, and budgets – federal, and provincial – are evolved in an aligned way. Second, the civil service is replaced with 'one' public service, which represents all the economic sectors, and where performance-based streams are distinguished along the lines of 'fast-stream' and 'regular streams'. Underlying educational systems improved for better quality of labour-, and entrepreneurial segments, together with merit-, and qualitatively improved screening processes put in place for better graduation of human capital to decision-making hierarchy, and innovation-led economy. Third, broad economic policy contours thus reached as a consequence of this mission-oriented economic policy should see the interconnectedness of economic policy, with environmental, and epidemiological policy; not to mention a document reached on these lines, with profound consensus behind it will most likely, and at least in terms of its broad framework, have enough strong status as a convention to safeguard against decisions made on whims by changing political regimes over time. To illustrate some important motivational, and inspirational streaks that perhaps should define the manifestation of the mission-oriented nature of such a policy framework, the purpose-driven, mission-oriented spirit could be understood further from the herculean task of landing man on the moon in just one decade taken upon by former US President John F. Kennedy. Speaking at the Rice University on September 12, 1962, he said in this regard 'We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.' We saw the success of the 'all of state' approach while fighting against India recently, and it is this approach that should be taken in economic policymaking with high ambitions, and strict timelines – small dents will not make needed headway, when what is needed is a one big push, and within-it number of small pushes from all sides are made, and all that is done in a challenging timeframe. The burden of past sub-optimal decisions with regard to economy, for instance, requires this. We need to challenge ourselves, because the economic problem at hand is a really challenging, made all the worse by lack of course correction – for instance, and very importantly not moving away enough from neoliberal policy mindset, and in many ways sadly, such policy framework continues to get perpetuated because it serves the extractive politico-economic institutional designs of the elites. That economic policy will need to imbibe the spirit of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 'New Deal Policies' of a more responsible financial system, and a meaningfully caring, welfare-natured government, which will also have a strong grip in terms of its own capacity – and not majorly reliant on 'outsourcing', neither just there to fix market failures, or only exist as only a facilitator of private sector – to deliver safeguard the interests of its demos, through playing a significant role in regulation, and market creation as an equal partner to private sector. After more than four decades of rein of Neoliberalism, there is some shift away from it, and which includes pushing towards bringing protectionism in the US – with consensus on this policy on both sides of the political spectrum, and the only difference is the degree of intensity – for enhancing productivity of the agricultural and industrial sector. Pakistan should learn from this approach, and move away from Neoliberalism. That mission-oriented economic policy needs to be established as 'Green New Deal Policies' in view of the fast-unfolding of climate change crisis. In this, it has a lot to learn from China as a leader in renewable energy. Like Nordic countries, it has a meaningfully strong government sector on the lines indicated above. Among other important things to learn from China in the field of mission-oriented economic policy – given its exceptional path to success in reducing poverty in just a few decades – is its strong emphasis on escaping the price shock therapy, and instead adopting the 'dual-track' pricing framework for achieving sustainable macroeconomic stability, including efficiently-managing inflation, and laying an important basis for bringing fast-paced development of especially heavy industry, and enhancing the productivity of the agricultural sector in overall improving domestic production, and export competitiveness. So, while it is important to carry forward the projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), it is also important to learn from the economic policy approach of China. Moreover, it needs to be pointed out that while India has excelled in terms of economic growth for a number of years now overall, that growth nonetheless has strong elements of neoliberal policy, which means that it has enhanced the gap between rich and poor, and has also weakened democracy in the process. On the contrary, China has adopted non-neoliberal policies – for instance, not going for outright privatization, and instead in most cases adopted innovative ways to keep government's check through coming up with mixed-ownership model for running state-owned enterprises, and also did not follow price 'shock therapy' policies, and also has meaningful capital controls, and reasonable level of significant protectionist policy – to make unprecedented dent to poverty as not seen before at least in recent human history, which should serve as important learning for Pakistan economic policy framework. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
