Fighting Poverty in Pakistan

Romair 35

``Ending feudalism is the biggest step to ending poverty. Invariably, the most backwards and poorest areas in Pakistan are the ones still run by tribals and feudals (rural Sind, Baluchistan, Southern Punjab, NWFP`s tribal areas........)``

Romair is an educated pakistani and see his logic. poor are in rural areas, rural areas are dominated by feudals, hence feudals are the proble.

All over the world rural people are relatively poor, even in kerala where there is no feudalism, rural income is lower than urban income, simply because of the nature of the job.

The importance of romair is that he is an srchetypal pakistani, educated from the military and all that he has is a mind set dominated by TNT. For every thing, the ere is an ``other`` to be blamed and possibly killed.

Each of the educated posters of pakistan are an affirmation and a re-statement of the hopelessness of pakistan.

HisExcellency #39

`` If your ``military-hold-civilian-govt-hostage`` theory was right, then a quasi-democratic regime would have an enormous incentive to please the rural poor in NWFP and Punjab. It is a known fact that rural voters have a higher turnout in Pakistan than urban voters. A quasi-democratic govt with a two-thirds majority would cut down the military to size and be immune to palace intrigues, etc.

If the governments in Pakistan in 1990s were quasi-democratic, it was only because the politicians in those govt were undemocratic and fascist in nature. Military did not hold these govts hostage by any measure. These irresponsible politicians are now blaming their failures on the military. ``

Since when does the NWFP count in Pakistani politics ?

What makes you think the poor rural voter in Punjab and Sind is going to vote against the wishes of the powerful rural interests ?

Other than the authority to use force the fundamental ability of any government is the ability to spend money as they please. You would not be suggesting that Nawaz Sharif or Benazir Bhutto could slash military expenditures.

If Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif governments were democratic why were they not allowed to complete their five year terms in office. It happened four times within a decade.
If you have a Westminister system of parlimentary democracy you allow the government to complete their five year term unless they loose a majority.

Nawaz Sharif was a creation of the military establishment in the 1980s. Benazir Bhutto owes her following to her father who was Ayub Khan`s protege in the 1960s. It is not like they came out of the blue.

re: bbabu

``What are the incentives for a quasi-democratic regime to please the rural poor ? Especially when they are held hostage by the military``

If your ``military-hold-civilian-govt-hostage`` theory was right, then a quasi-democratic regime would have an enormous incentive to please the rural poor in NWFP and Punjab. It is a known fact that rural voters have a higher turnout in Pakistan than urban voters. A quasi-democratic govt with a two-thirds majority would cut down the military to size and be immune to palace intrigues, etc.

If the governments in Pakistan in 1990s were quasi-democratic, it was only because the politicians in those govt were undemocratic and fascist in nature. Military did not hold these govts hostage by any measure. These irresponsible politicians are now blaming their failures on the military.

#37 by bbabu on April 16, 2005 6:42pm PT

school fees in bombay are Rs 5/month for the 5th standard students, Rs 6/month for the 6th standard students etc etc...and these aren`t municipal schools...it`s every school that gets the government subsidy...convents and all....

So Indian students don`t pay more than 120Rs/year....at least the ones in bombay...

HisExcellency#30


`` 1. The % of people living below the poverty line increased from 26% in 1991 to 35% in 1999. ``

The aid to Pakistan due to Afghan jihad had stopped. The population kept growing.


`` 2. The starkest increase in povert was in rural areas where % of people below poverty line increased from 24% to 40%!

3. Rural poverty is highest (44%) in NWFP. ``

What are the incentives for a quasi-democratic regime to please the rural poor ? Especially when they are held hostage by the military.


`` 5. Although overall poverty level is 35%, the overall poverty level for females is 52%.``

With a exception of few thousand prostitutes every female is a part of the family. This tells me that families with more female members fare worse than the average.

`` 6. The average fee of a government school in Pakistan is Rs 1,675 per year. The average fee of a private school is Rs 4,477 per year. ``

2800 Pakistani rupees does not seem a high amount. If 50 dollars will command a semi-decent private school in India a lot of the poor would be elated.

`` 7. 65% of children in Balochistan and Sindh do not get basic immunization from diseases such as TB, tetnus, measles and polio each year ``

failure of basic government coupled with not enough NGO activity and stupid supersitions on the part of people

Indian news channels(my favorite NDTV///www.ndtv.com), were showing Musharaf arriving at the Ajmer dargah and his motorcade leaving Palam Air Force base in New Delhi(all VIP flights arrive here), they were also showing Zardari being arrested on arrival in Lahore.BBC was also showing the arrest.And, the New Delhi Municipal Corp. has given Musharaf and his siblings` original birth certificates to Manmohan Singh to hand over to Musharaf.What the??...is Mush gonna apply for indian citizenship??.The Immigration dept. denied Adnan Sami indian citizenship.Will they do the same to Musharaf?.Anyways, the PM is hosting a dinner for Musharaf tonight and the who`s who of india have been invited, from Sonia Gandhi, Advani, business tycoons, actors, intellectuals and politicians.I hope Musharaf enjoys his trip.

Interesting article on the lack of enthusiasm, within PPP, for its leader(s):
``More conspicuous in their absence were party workers.

The Punjab government had undoubtedly done its bit to disrupt the welcome, blocking buses coming in from Sindh and the rest of Punjab....Police arrested some protesters who did show for the return...Police even snatched cameras from newsmen.

But that only partly explains why Mr Zardari`s return was such a non-event for normal Lahoris....The answer, say some analysts, may lie in the shift that has taken place in the city`s political culture over the years....From a sleepy backwater in the mid-1990s, it has turned into one of the most vibrant urban economies in the country.

The two terms of former premier Nawaz Sharif - the only Lahori to have made it to the country`s top executive post not once but twice - have transformed the city....Its network of roads is by far the best in the country and public transport is far more efficient than in any other city.....Lahore has also turned into the hub of the country`s IT and media industry.

Thousands of idle young men who would sit up late at night discussing the merits of democracy until only a few years ago now return dog-tired from a hectic day at work....They would much rather tune in to cable TV than risk a confrontation with the police.....Especially when they are not clear what it is they are fighting for.

For most of them, such activity is now best left to those who support the ``mentors of Mullah Omar``.
If he needs a grand reception, Mr Zardari perhaps needs to explain what he has to offer that the Lahoris do not already have. `` (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4451823.stm)

Urban Pakistan, unlike rural/feudal Pakistan (which is still 2/3rd of Pakistan) is relatively dynamic politically. There was a time when PPP owned Punjab. Punjab was actually the only province where Bhutto won an all-out majority, in the early 70s election. He did not win an all-out majority even in Sind. And in East Pakistan, he won nothing.

However, now PML owns Punjab. Even in its broken form of six different parties, it won an all-out majority in Punjab. When it was united in the previous election, it won almost every seat.

Karachi used to be the center of Jamaat-i-Islami politics. However, MQM completely defeated it. And has been winning since then. There was a point where it could literally nominate a donkey and beat any maulvi of the Jamaat.

Urban NWFP used to be owned by Awami National Party. They were completely wiped out by the MMA maulvis in the last election, due to the ANP`s lack of opposition to the US bombing in Afghanistan. And the lack of economic progress under ANP.

Feudal politics, however, has remained the same. Which is why PPP and to some extent PML will always remain the top parties. 62% or so of the elected assembly has traditionally been feudal. And they are always the exact same people, or their kids - generation after generation. In many cases, the candidates of the two opposing parties are even related........

It would, however, be interesting to see what would happen if Lahore was taken away from the PML (and PPP) by some truly new middle class urban party. Currently, Karachi is the only city, whose voters have been able to achieve middle-class leadership (good or bad is a different story). Lahoris are still caught up in a feudal mindset..........

Ending feudalism is the biggest step to ending poverty. Invariably, the most backwards and poorest areas in Pakistan are the ones still run by tribals and feudals (rural Sind, Baluchistan, Southern Punjab, NWFP`s tribal areas........)

Re#23 by Ghazalmir11

``The Pakistani leadership is in a position to take some bold steps right now, it has done so on many levels already so why not now abolish a meance like feudalism?``

And who`s gonna give fraudulent legitimacy to military regimes if feudalism is abolished? Who`s gonna fill the ballot boxes with jaali votes and give 97 % results in favor of our warrior generals if that happens? Do you think Shaukat Aziz could have been chosen Pakistan`s PM if the assemblies were not full of feudals & lotas?

In earlier days, these feudals worked as pawns of the British colonialists. They would subjugate local population to reap rewards & benefits from the British. Brits needed these feudals as they were the Crown`s link with the local populace and helped keep ``peace & calm`` in the lands of the Raj. In turn the feudals were gifted with land.

Now the roles have changed slightly. Instead of British colonialists, it is the Fauji colonialists who have taken over. Everything else is almost the same. Feudals do the army`s bidding, and keep their perks, Pajeros & their MNA seats. Army in return, can claim a facade of legitimacy. Why would an Army want to do away with such a sure fire way of claiming legitimacy? It is a perfect formula for success and the generals are not gonna shoot themselves in the foot by abolishing feudalism.

#32 by satyamvada on April 15, 2005 9:08pm PT

In Pakiland, the Army is the land developer.

In India, the Army leaves the major cantonments in cities and hands over its
properties to the civilians.

---

In india, the armed forces folks do enjoy priveleges.They are subsidized on quite a few levels, from housing to groceries.They even buy booze at army stores at one half the price civilians pay.But that is the end of it.Their purview is the business of army-ing and what they can squeeze out of it for themselves in the form of a few perks here and there.The army does not `hand` over anything to civilians!!.They have nothing to hand over.Technicaly all govt. land is owned by the people and the crooks we elect lord over it all.Private contractors bid for army building contracts and supplies.That is a very lucrative industry.What a difference between pakistan and india!!!.Imagine how the army chief of india would feel when comparing himself to the army chief of pakistan!!.Here in dilli he has to dance to the tune of so many satraps and ministers.Every major expenditure has to be okayed by a parliament or cabinet committee.And the indian army chief commands the third largest standing army in the world!!!.Yet, a phone call from Congress party president sonia gandhi or leader of opposition l k advani will give him the willies , as by law he is answerable to them as they are reps of the people!!!.Such is life.

In Pakiland, the Army is the land developer.

In India, the Army leaves the major cantonments in cities and hands over its
properties to the civilians.

That is the difference between Pakis and the dhoticlad-bania-yindoo

Of course, some indian-punjabi fools go to Pakiland and tell us we are all the same
because we eat similiar food.

The ADB report then goes on the enumerate the causes of poverty in Pakistan:

1. Pakistan agricultural sector grew only 1.75% whereas manufacturing and services sectors grew by 4.5% during the 1990s. Since agricultural sector employs 65% of the workforce, its sluggish growth impacts more households.


2. Government investment in social sector decreased from 9% of GDP to 5.5% during the 1990s. But the private sector did not fill this gap. Private investment stagnated at the 7.5% level throughout 1990s

In July 2002, the Asian Development Bank published a detailed study titled the Poverty in Pakistan: Issues, Causes, and Institutional Responses.

In this paper, the ADB first made the following observations:

1. The % of people living below the poverty line increased from 26% in 1991 to 35% in 1999.


2. The starkest increase in povert was in rural areas where % of people below poverty line increased from 24% to 40%!


3. Rural poverty is highest (44%) in NWFP.


4. Within Punjab, the poorest districts are in Southern Punjab (Dera Ghazi Khan, Bahawalpur, Rahim Yar Khan, Bahawalnagar, Muzaffargarh, Layyah and Rajanpur)


5. Although overall poverty level is 35%, the overall poverty level for females is 52%.


6. The average fee of a government school in Pakistan is Rs 1,675 per year. The average fee of a private school is Rs 4,477 per year.


7. 65% of children in Balochistan and Sindh do not get basic immunization from diseases such as TB, tetnus, measles and polio each year


8. A typical poor Pakistani household is headed by a 40-year old male with 7 or more children who (like their parents) will never go to school, will never get basic immunization and live in a village.

fuzair #27

`` GDP growth is a necessary but not sufficient condition for poverty reduction and if we have learnt anything from the past several decades of Third World (lack of) economic development, it is that institutions and incentives matter. ``

necessary not sufficient is the right pharse. But I will be surprised if sustained economic growth does not lift people out of poverty. This assumes that there are no cultural or govt restrictions.

`` Our TFR was still well above 5 (some say just above 6!!!!) during the 1980s and 1990s while India`s was about 3-3.5 in that time period (Sri Lanka`s was even lower). Maybe Malthus was right (in this context at least). The poor and stupid will breed themselves down to the lowest possible level. ``

Pakistan received a lot of $$$ from the West for supporting anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan and from the Gulf states in terms of remmittances for low skilled workers. The $$$ from the West have flowed in temporarily post 9-11.

As so many posters have iterated over and over again that GDP growth - althought it does contribute to the bottom line - its not the only requisite for poverty alleviation...Strengthening of the social institutions is equally if not more important.

GDP growth requires a freer market economy - free from the shakles of Govt beauracracy - a fact that is not yet accomplished by the GOvt at present...

Secondly it requires strong instituitions of remedial recourse ie a strong judiciary - which the present Govt has actualy weakened

Also civil security ie- the police force needs to be decentralized- and held locally accountable in the metropolitan areas - a task in which the army is an actual impediment
because a weak police ensures a stronger army strangehold. Moreover the paindoo siblings of the army generals are often found in the police forces - thereby creating a patronage system for the army families.....


Sooner or later the GDP growth will also slow down because of the aforementioned reasons...

Social spending ie - infracstructure and most importantly human resource development is an essential component of GDP growth. GDP growth requires access to Capital - which an efficient Banking system and a stable macroeconomic polices can provide , - raw materials - both for agriculture or industrial sector - which requires a well developed infrastructure to reduce transaction costs - and a skilled labor force - which is in short supply - because of an archaic educational infrastructure.... and last of all a multi-faceted intelligensia which is able to to generate ideas on the basis on which both GDP growth and social development can be on par - The last component is completely missing in the Pakistani body politic - There are no well developed institutions that nurture economic or social policy goals in pakistan. Part of it is cultural - and the values the culture espouses - Its is inherently tribal - consequently broad based thinking does not exist - and the value system tends to produce technical coolies ( you need not go to Pakistan to see this - of the 1.5 M Pakistani emigres to North America , many with advanced technical qualifications ( primarily physicians and engineers) - a cohesive broad based vision does not exist - even in specfic disciplines , for a variety of reasons, -this intellectual complacency can easily be contrasted with emigre populations of both the INdians as well as the jewish communities) - consequently leadership in soci-economic policies is primarily based on political loyalties as opposed to intellectual capital. Consequently debates revolve around abdicating responsibility and a messianic belief of a Mehdi - be it MUsharraf or Shaukat Aziz to resolve all issues....

GDP growth is a necessary but not sufficient condition for poverty reduction and if we have learnt anything from the past several decades of Third World (lack of) economic development, it is that institutions and incentives matter.

Is there any ``magic bullets?`` Sure there are. Build adequate infrastructure (roads, power plants, etc), build enough schools, keep the tax rate, inflation rates, and govt budget deficits low, keep investment high, keep the bureaucracy (relatively) honest, and keep increasing both exports and the value-added/high-tech component of exports. You may not be guaranteed to succeed spectacularly, but at least you are guaranteed not to fail spectacularly either.

This is, of course, a very simple policy prescription. As Von Clausewitz said, ``winning a war is a very simple matter; but in war it is the simplest things that are the hardest.`` For better or worse, this is the best government we`ve had in a veeeery long time. Scary isn`t it? Bad as he is, Musharraf still looks good in comparison.

++++++++++++++++

Side note to the hyper progressives and professional critics of the SDPC, have you bothered to work out the correlation (I won`t say causation... yet) between

``In the mean time, the level of poverty deteriorated to 34 per cent of the total population at present as against 30.6 per cent in the 1990s. This tells us that the poor in Pakistan are getting even poorer.``

And the fact that we breed like rabbits?

Lets not hold the people responsible for their own actions. Quick blame the usual suspects! Army! IMF! WB! DC!

Our TFR was still well above 5 (some say just above 6!!!!) during the 1980s and 1990s while India`s was about 3-3.5 in that time period (Sri Lanka`s was even lower). Maybe Malthus was right (in this context at least). The poor and stupid will breed themselves down to the lowest possible level.

Why is our TFR so high? Are we too stupid to realize the connection between population growth and poverty growth? I don`t think so. If you look at Orangi, it has a pretty low TFR and the women there actually want to know about contraception. Is it Islam? Probably not. Other muslim countries have much lower TFRs. So what gives? I vote for the particulary stupid and Saudi-influenced brand of Islam we`ve got. People have other candidates?

ghazalmir11 #23

`` Interesting how we sit up and listen when the IMF or the WB tell us we are doing poorly. The situation as some of the readers mentioned is not as simple as who to lay the blame on. The money that you desperately need for your grandiose (sometimes redundant projects, like the Kalabagh Dam) can only come from these multilaterals. Being a third world country is no fun, you have to listen to the dictates of the hand that feeds, even when you know the cons outweigh the pros. The structural adjustment facilities the social action programs...all of them added to the numbers below the poverty line not just in Pakistan but in several other nations as well. According to one study, 12 out of 15 African nations that were included in WB economic programs did more poorly in poverty statistics than non-participant nations. ``


`` But then that is only part of the story. Each country has the right to take its own actions. If we take the example of India`s fiercely independent inward-looking economic policies of a couple of decades ago we can see one reason why it is dictating the global market right now. I am not saying that is necessarily the way to go for Pakistan, but searching for indigenous solutions to our growing income inequality certainly is. The Pakistani leadership is in a position to take some bold steps right now, it has done so on many levels already so why not now abolish a meance like feudalism? If India did it years ago, so can we. The poorest of the poor is the landless peasant who sells his labor to the landowner for a non-existent fee, his future generations are mortgaged by the landowner, who is also the village moneylender. This is the worst form of economic abuse. ``

Indian economic policies of the past were a disaster. If India had launched its reforms in the mid-1970s instead of 1990 you would be looking at a economy twice or thrice the size.
You are right about every country seeking its own path to success.