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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
6 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Italy's immigration and emigration both soaring
The numbers of Italians leaving their country and of foreigners moving in have soared to the highest in a decade, official data showed on Friday, fuelling national concerns about brain drain, economic decline and immigration. Italy has a right-wing government elected in 2022 on a mandate to curb migrant arrivals, but also has a shrinking population and growing labour shortages, highlighting the need to attract foreign workers. Meanwhile the country's stagnant economy and low wages - salaries are below 1990 levels in inflation-adjusted terms - have been blamed for pushing many Italians to seek better fortunes abroad. Last year 382,071 foreigners moved to Italy, up from 378,372 in 2023 and the highest since 2014, statistics agency Istat said. In the same period, 155,732 Italians emigrated, up from 114,057 in 2023 and also the highest since 2014. The immigration figure beat the previous high for the last decade of 301,000 in 2017, and was well above that period's low of 191,766 from 2020 — the height of the Covid pandemic. The figure of almost 270,000 nationals emigrating in the two-year period from 2023 to 2024 was up around 40% compared to the previous two years. The two-year immigration figure for that period, of around 760,000, was up 31% from 2021-2022. The figures are derived from town registry offices, so are unlikely to reflect undocumented migration. Ukrainians made up the biggest national group among those who arrived in 2023-2024, Istat said, followed by Albanians, Bangladeshis, Moroccans, Romanians, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Argentines and Tunisians. As for the high number of emigrants, "it is more than plausible" that a significant number were "former immigrants" who moved abroad after acquiring Italian citizenship, Istat said. The agency also said Italy's poorer south was continuing to depopulate, noting that almost 1% of residents in Calabria, the region with the lowest per capita income, moved to central or northern areas during 2023-2024. Reuters
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Suu Kyi marks 80th birthday in junta jail
Myanmar's deposed democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi marked her 80th birthday in junta detention on Thursday, serving a raft of sentences set to last the rest of her life. Suu Kyi was the figurehead of Myanmar's decade-long democratic thaw, becoming de facto leader as it opened up from military rule. But as the generals snatched back power in a 2021 coup, she was locked up on charges ranging from corruption to breaching Covid-19 pandemic restrictions and is serving a 27-year sentence. "It will be hard to be celebrating at the moment," said her 47-year-old son Kim Aris from the UK. "We've learned to endure when it's been going on so long." He has run 80 kilometres (50 miles) over the eight days leading up to her birthday, and collected over 80,000 well-wishing video messages for his mother.
Business Recorder
a day ago
- Business Recorder
Budget FY26: balancing social sector priorities amid fiscal constraints
Pakistan's federal budget for FY2025-26 has come at a critical time. The country is going through a fragile phase of economic recovery; provisional GDP for FY stands at a recovering & stable rate of 2.68 percent, remittances are increasing, inflation rates have declined and primary surplus currently constitutes 3 percent of the GDP (March-July 2024-25). Economists and fiscal experts are now debating whether the determined budgetary outlay will help maintain this trajectory or not. However, with persistent structural challenges in the country, i.e., rising gender inequality and regional disparity, growing climate vulnerability and a youth bulge, one also needs to analyze the situation based on considerations for resilient growth and inclusive development, mandates that can only be achieved through equitable social sector investment. Will this fiscal outline help align national goals with SDGs as well as move forward the mandate of URAAN Pakistan with its 5Es framework? To have a quick overview, the budget has assumed a modest economic rebound for the fiscal year 2025-26, characterized by an economic growth rate of 4.2 percent but an inflation rate as high as 7.5 percent. Amidst the challenging environment of two IMF Programmes, the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) and Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF), the budget has somewhat prioritised fiscal consolidation and revenue-based targets; 18 percent taxation on imported solar panels, higher petroleum development levy (collection target of Rs 1.468 trillion) and FED revenue target of Rs 888 billion for FY 2025–26. The tension, however, has slightly been eased up by measures such as strategic relief for the salaried class (mainly lower to middle income tiers) and a 7 percent increase in pensions. The National Economic Council has established a budget of Rs 4224, out of which Rs 1000 billion has been issued for the Federal PSDP (60 percent focusing on large-scale infrastructural projects), and a handsome amount of Rs 2,869 billion for provincial ADPs. With reference to social sector development, this is the most relevant area of concern, particularly after the passage of the 18thamendment, that led to the devolving of areas such as health and education to provinces. Unfortunately, despite the continuous efforts to bring social development into the heart of our development agenda, the budgetary priorities have caused significant cuts in social sector allocations. In the health sector, while non-development expenditures have increased, development expenditures have reduced from Rs. 27 billion to Rs 14.3 billion (almost half). This caters to 21 ongoing and new initiatives for preventive care, treatment and disease control and modern infrastructure, medical education, extension of cancer hospital and critical care facility, and the largest share being attributed to a tertiary care facility completion in Islamabad. In Budget FY 2024-25, one billion was allocated to the Federal Social Health Insurance, Sehat Sahulat Programme, while there is no direct allocation mentioned in this year's budget. The sustainability of this programme has long been a challenge, particularly due to its overambitious expansion of population and treatment coverage. However, this programme still serves as a major relief for the poorest segments of our society and protects them from catastrophic health expenditures that can push families below poverty line. Higher Education Commission (HEC) has experienced a drop from Rs.61.1billion (158 development projects) to Rs 39.5 billion (170 HEC projects). The combined allocation for water sector and hydropower projects has also seen major slashing and mismanagement, despite the ongoing concerns over potential water blockages by India. These financial cuts not only compromise critical areas of human capital development, but also deepen socioeconomic crises such as illiteracy, limited access to education facilities, malnutrition and water scarcity and mismanagement for the most vulnerable groups of our society, i.e., adolescent girls, children and the youth. While stability and reform are integral for the country's economic future, one needs to question as to what price will the common citizens have to pay, in exchange for their compromised socioeconomic well-being, financial security and the basic right to life? Considering the evolving dynamics of the world, there have been some significant strides as well; climate tagging of subsidies for government officials, incorporation of the component of disability-friendly infrastructure in HEC initiatives, and alignment of youth skill development programmes (allocation of Rs 4.3 billion) with the mandate of URAAN Pakistan. Moreover, BISP (Social Protection) has seen financial allocations grow 21% than last year, a generous amount for the expansion of its flagship initiatives. However, despite these positive developments, persistent institutional flaws, fiscal pressure, and political interference continue to hinder progress in the social sector. In short, at a time when inclusive growth and creation of a resilient workforce should be national imperatives, merely focusing on infrastructural revamping and macroeconomic stability is not the right way forward. While the government has announced some remarkable interventions in critical areas of health, education and social protection, they are still unable to fully embrace the principles of inclusive, resilient and well-governed growth. To truly align our national goals with SDGs, the policy and institutional framework needs to be thoroughly analyzed to make sure that the social sector is not overlooked under fiscal constraints but rather seen as a core pillar of human capital development and hence, economic progress. Only by placing the vulnerable groups of society at the heart of our development agenda and policy can Pakistan move towards sustainable prosperity. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
