The idea stems from an interesting piece written by Nadeem Chauhan of Navitus Consultancy, who argues that managers need to use better vocabulary to excite, energize and bring out the best from their team members. For instance, while drawing a list of monthly assignments and projects for a team, a manager may use the phrase ‘a must do’ on each project, in his preach to advance the monthly objectives to be attained. However, in practice only some of the projects are really categorized as ‘a must do’ and others as ‘probable’s’. Therefore, if the manager is unable to effectively communicate this distinction, his team may not be able to differentiate between a specific ‘must’ based assignment relative to the ‘probable’, hence will not be able to effectively allot it’s energy, time, resources, mental and physical wealth to each project relative to priority, leading to sub-optimal results.

Let me consider the case of governance to illustrate the point further. The concept of accountability is excessively used in governance practice. However, the definition is overtly vague. What is a leader accountable for? A set of scientific or quantifiable objectives and goals which can be measured such as growth rates etc? or a set of moral objectives such as no cheating, allocative efficiency, equal opportunities etc? which although measurably, are an under-rated subset of the broader definition. Although most will argue for both, it is important to note, that one can be achieved at the expense of the other, hazing the true stance of accountability- its interpretation and subsequent policy action. For instance, productive efficiency (production of a quantity at the lowest cost possible- given the current structure of activity) which may be vital for growth can be achieved at the expense of allocative efficiency (producing with respect to the needs of the people). On the other hand, allocative efficiency may enhance accountability from a moral portfolio, but may undermine growth rates, that is, for example, if the need is health care for the elderly, hence may not have a positive impact on economic growth. However, the pursuit of one instead of the other will fulfil one objective (growth vs allocative efficiency or even both) at the expense of the other, therefore on the whole, how is one doing in the overall level of accountability to responsibility. Confused?

Assume that the year-end objective of a minister is to attain growth (where sustainable growth is a secondary objective- due to various political reasons), based on grounds of economic efficiency, which may subsequently have a positive impact on reducing poverty- hence equity aswell, as shown by some empirical literature in the field (between economic growth and poverty).

In such a case, a regime although low on scores of accountability to responsibility (measured through the moral definition) can still have a positive accountability evaluation based on quantifiable objectives. For instance, Vietnam lacks the existence of an appropriate judicial system, however, it continues to bag unprecedented rates of economic growth (Dani Rodrik, 2008). Similarly, as shown by evidence from India, Cambodia, China and Pakistan, governments have attained high level of economic growth under severe periods of low morally defined accountability-corruption (Anjum Altaf, 2005). Therefore, although our hindsight focuses on moral factors associated with accountability, policy in practice addresses (increasingly) accountability against a set of scientifically quantified and set objectives.

For instance, it is argued that devolved tiers of governments will be captured by the local elites; hence may lack accountability, and resources would be unevenly distributed, subsequently leading to lower levels of economic efficiency and growth (Pudhomme, 1995). However, this may not neccessarily be the case, as local governments, even if allocatively inefficient, can be productively efficient (based on existing structure and fragmentation of resources), hence greater economic growth. This is because, even if resources may be un-equally distributed among the population and may not serve the interest of the larger population, in other words be captured by the few elite, positive growth rates can be attained. For instance, assume that the elite is an industrialist ‘lot’, interested in doubling and tripling it’s income, as argued by Max Weber, who drew the link between the protestant church and industrialisation driven by their core belief of accumulating greater wealth to secure a place in heaven, hence such underlying incentives will lead to a lack of allocative efficiency but greater productive efficiency hence subsequent economic growth. Therefore, although a government may have low levels of accountability from the allocative and moral definition of term, it can still lead to economic growth measured through scientific data, fulfilling the other half of the terminology. Hence, what is the true basis of accountability- a broadly defined term, with competing objectives?

Until and unless moral factors are given quantification through scientific measures, or a distinguishing term in economic analysis, rather than taped under the broad breed of accountability and ‘justice’ driven policy (as generally used on the floor- exceptions apart in some academic debates), the policy apparatus will not precisely hit the ‘nail on the head’. This is due to the vagueness in measurement and globalising nature of our surroundings, leading to the rising importance of growth rates in the international arena rather than effective domestic distributional arrangements and optimising the target population welfare especially in the lagging and striding countries where such disparity is optimised.

Although moral and scientific measures of accountability together are vital for sustainable growth, as it needs to be based on set of generative and evolving institutional incentives (for a later date), growth in it-self can be based on the presence of either one. Therefore, given the hype to attain growth and achieve short term dividends in the foreseeable future, morally defined objectives may be noted as a second-best priority in the umbrella of accountability for developing country leaders, especially as we are re-visiting the age of cross border networks, competitive mentality and knowledge driven bonding- therefore the hype to succeed and be counted given the high stakes.

Therefore, until we disaggregate the definition through effective and precise vocabulary, drawing independence and subsequent respect for the objective and term (sounds extremely sensationalized- I know), there will be a wedge between our hindsight and what our policy sets out to achieve. Hence, the real problem will remain unsolved. In other words, language and vocabulary are one of the most under-rated, yet key ingredients to attaining optimal results, drawing clarity in understanding which is vital for subsequent remedy, which in the current age of globalisation are being exposed to their prime where language harmonization yet differentiation is at competing crosswords (given the rising importance of English as a language, yet its underdeveloped form of practice, understanding and interpretation world over), leading to the development of a bridge between ideology and practice.

The discussion drew from a class room debate of what is a government really accountable for? And what if, one branch comes at the expense of the other?

I realize that is the idea, but does it really work?

This article drew my interest given what I feel is the basic policy dilemma which is based on replicating policy from one end of the world and applying it to the other, which has rarely ever worked and is ‘time-and-again’ supported through evidence from different parts of the world. In other words, the policy apparatus needs to focus on the context of application to have any desired consequence, rather than what we may perceive as an imported ‘best practice’.

There are various parts of the article which can be discussed and debated, but I would just like to draw light on a few aspects.

He notes, the importance of monetary and fiscal measures- as rightly so- however, such tools in isolation are an under nourishing application to run a domestic economy plagued with bottlenecks at various junctions (some traditional and some created) with varied tiers of economic and social classification, thoughts and outlook with different views and perception about world reality and the unfolding diagnostics (not to say that any society is homogeneous for that matter- but I hope u can understanding the startling difference- measured through social, economic and political inequality in our region of analysis).

Countries such as India or Pakistan, like any other developing nations (especially who rule from a distance- given the large population base and link to society) have much more to consider, given the bottlenecks (some identified and mostly unidentified) prevalent in their economies as a result of the social and philosophical system we live in (and I don’t mean that in a negative sense- I am emphasizing on the need for appropriate identification, causality, policy and application in context to the four mentioned factors to have any significant bearing).

For instance, the sensitivity (impact) of interest rates will be not even be close (in the developing world) to what impact such a policy may have in the developed world, given the large proportion of the population with little or without access to bank dependent facilities (less than ¼ in the developing world) and they are the ones most hurt by inflation. Further, there exists a culture in many traditional societies to hold saving in physical assets rather than bank deposits etc, hence the impact is further handicapped. In addition, interest rates may not have the associated cost of doing business or buying a new house in these countries at least not outside the urban land (not in terms of depth at least) relative to what it may have in the developed world, as most people in the given strata rely on the informal economy for such forms of funding, given their minimal access. There are further inter-relations to the dynamic- but long story short- the influence, trickle and outcome it is far more complicated than it may seem.

Further, there are societal bottlenecks, created by thinking and stereotype, the law of the land, society hierarchies, which may lead to absorption of profits at the margin etc. Corruption, rent seeking and other realities may further add to budgetary and inflationary problems.

Therefore, Yes- neoclassical economics has a lot to teach us, but more in terms of opening our mind, rather than directing an appropriated policy (in our environment) – at least in the current day reality or otherwise inflation over and above the desired level will not be controllable as obvious today. It is important to note that state policy is generally justified and targeted to curb market failures; however in most developing countries identifying specific market failures may be nearly impossible, given its lack of rarity and mostly a rampant feature of the landscape (Hausmann et al, 2007).

Inflation is a result of bottlenecks (at least the blotted version) and once those factors are addressed can other conventional demand side issues come into any significance, which if anything are aggravated by these bottlenecks (’soft’- social, mental etc- and ‘hard’- agricultural, budgetary, foreign exchange and more).

Further, aggregate supply does not undertake a linear or quadratic shape, it has a polynomial bearing with a jittery face in the specific environment, hence would not have the outward moving consequent and hopeful result with aggregate demand as noted in the article (at least not in the simple sense) as such would only be possible in perfect or close to perfect markets, which don’t exist in the real world- at least not in the developing world. Therefore, context is important when applying and subsequently assessing the impact of policy in the real world.

‘Raghu’s paper is squarely in that “old” political-economy tradition: it asks why countries do not reform and why underdevelopment persists as a result. His answer is a twist on the traditional story: the problem is not so much a narrow set of elites that want to maintain their rents at the expense of development, but the non-elites who want to maintain theirs. The educated non-elites do not want competition so they veto greater access to education by the non-educated. Meanwhile the non-educated do not want market reforms because this would raise the prices of many of the services they consume (so says Raghu). The result is reform paralysis. Even though Raghu does not say so explicitly, he is obviously thinking of India.’ (Dani Rodrik, 2008)

Further, traditional wisdom tells us that the major chunk of the middle class coupled with bits and pieces of the elite (Bourgeoisie) add human and intellectual power to the rage infuriating to change the status quo in a society, at any given time. However, Walden Bello who was recently crowned the public scholar of the year (2008) notes differently:

‘Among both liberals and progressives, it is common to portray the middle class as an ally of the working class and the lower classes generally and that it is by and large a force for democratization. The thesis showed that contrary to this assumption, the middle classes are not necessarily forces for democratization in developing countries. In fact, when the poorer classes are being mobilized with a revolutionary agenda, the middle classes can become a mass base for counterrevolution, as in Germany and Italy in the 1920’s, when the middle class provided the foot soldiers of the Fascist and Nazi movements. But progressives really have a hard time accepting this characterization of the middle class, and part of the subliminal reason for this is that this is oftentimes the class that they come from.’

For instance, ‘Rock music was severely restricted in Communist dictatorships, just as jazz was in Nazi Germany, for all the Platonic reasons: uncontrolled passions were seen as a threat to the perfect order of the state. Precisely because of this, “forbidden” music was politicized. Subversive youths in Hitler’s Germany – the “Swing Jugend” – secretly listened to jazz,’ as posted by Ian Buruma (project syndicate, 2008).

Therefore, to practically address the relationship, one needs to understand the underlying reason for such to exist, primarily based on curbing the passion, hopes and aspirations of individuals which are triggered by music, leading to an eventual upturn or a change is status-quo (revolution), regardless of how indirect and gradual the impact maybe. Therefore, once we consider for the strength of music in shaping our lives, it is probably one of the most under-rated mediums of social change, let alone daily life. A similar case can be drawn in terms of the impact and influence of theatre and film on the human mind.

However, does this relationship stand once we consider the modern era, where a country such as Pakistan under a military leadership expanded its music base to its prime without a reverse in sight. This all took place under a regime viewed from a negative through many spheres. However, probably was the most liberating in terms of music (measured through the increase in music channels, musicians and social image of the profession). Never before has music been given so much liberty to establish its ground in the country.

Further, let’s consider the case of India, considering liberty and music as a snap shot- you can surely draw a positive correlation between the two. However, was it the existing liberty and means of use which gave rise to music, or did music trigger the initial hope- which streamed economic and social dividends through bollywood and in return produced greater social acceptability and so-forth greater liberty, which came first?

Therefore, although music and liberty may have a relationship, causality is unknown. Further, there seems to be mixed evidence with reference to dictatorships and music empowerment. An interesting idea for future research could be based on drawing a relationship between music and dictatorships across a pool of countries put together such as North Korea, South Korea (1960-1980), Pakistan, Singapore,China, Thailand and Zimbabwe.

The blog draws away from the European Classification of modernity based on factors such as – ‘toleration, personal freedom, democracy, equality- racial and sexual, freedom of expression, sexual emancipation, and the universal right to knowledge’ – and builds a South Asian perspective on modernity described as moving from the old to a new set of values, in other ways tearing away from traditional to differing norms. I, on the other hand would define modernity from a different stream of light- specifically ‘openness to differing views’.

Firstly, modernity from the perspective of values- I am wondering what a set of values has to do with modernity in reference. If values are the gut for modernity as being described, then maybe being a ‘pre-modern’ South Asian is a blessing in disguise- based on divorce rates, feeling of alienation and isolation in some parts of the developed world.

More over, as most social intellects would be aware, modernity has little to do with superficial claims (such as dressing, talk, or walk) and arms of a person and is driven by the mental stance an individual holds, specifically in the form of tolerance – defined in terms of openness to accept varied views, whether they be conservative or liberal.

The term openness and tolerance includes all the other bi-products of equality, freedom of expression and so forth mentioned. However, it has very little to do with democracy and knowledge in practice- as otherwise basing on the European model, I would argue such a demarcation would classify, most of the developed world as non-modern, given the contradiction in theory and practice (However, a discussion for a latter date).

A theoretical possibility?

Given the tolerance (open view) definition of modernity, I shall argue, a middle class moderate South Asian can be classified as more modern relative to his counter-part in the developed world. This is based on a few assumptions such as the ability, means and inclination of the former to see the west and east in its prime and ill form. Therefore, given his exposure, and general openness associated with exposure, he/she should be classified as more modern, if such a relative term exists.

Living in a country such as India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, being a higher tier-middle class moderate (for lack of a better word), well to- do person, you get the opportunity of being exposed to the highest form of deprivation in terms of poverty on the one hand and elite practice on the other (utmost disparity) domestically. Standing on any traffic light on any street in Karachi, you get to witness insurmountable amount of disparity. Coupled with this, if you have sufficient resources, you get to live or experience parts of the developed world through vacations, schooling or work- a factor strengthened by the seeds instilled in our minds by our former rulers. Hence, given such wide ranging exposure, I would argue such a South Asian by definition should be more open. Although, not necessarily.

On the other hand, very few from the developed world get to experience such high levels of disparity in their home land (based on empirical evidence). Further, even fewer would travel beyond borders and live in such surroundings (poverty driven) beyond field or research work for an extended period of time, exceptions apart. Hence, given the definition of modernity- openness to varied views related and driven by exposure, they should have a lower probability of being categorized as modern, exceptions apart.

Further, given the current mayhem, on balance, I wonder who is more open to conservative and liberal views as a whole- a moderate South Asian or a moderate from the developed world? Especially in a world where conservative views regardless of validity, purpose or positivism are viewed through a backward eye, a negative and old fashioned dissent. Similar is the negative vibe attached to the word ‘feminism’, however not necessarily negative in practice. Ever wondered why women although ‘for’ women rights and so-forth, do not like to be classified as feminists?

Therefore, in terms modernity, due to the presence of exceptions all over the world, drawing generalizations without a quantifiable and empirical validation for a diverse community is a risky game.

UPDATE: Keep reading the South Asian Web blog for further updates on related discussion.

A few weeks ago, while discussing the future of Pakistan, I hit some clichés which although vital can be considered redundant in terms of thought and creativity of development in Pakistan, as they are equivalent to banging on the old closed door, ‘for and against’ a rhetoric of education which lacks creative insight.

In this issue I would want to refine my emphasis on education as I quoted earlier ‘the quantity and quality and the deepening of the system in the only way to prosperity’ – For one, lets over look technical education, rural education, the education outside the mainstream, the quality of the local metric, the administrative, managerial, political problems within the masses system.

Let us consider the short coming of the some of the best and lime lighted Institutions in the country, with a specific focus on the Institute of Business Administration (IBA) as a case study, given my first hand exposure and eventual opportunity to progress and move further away.

The Institute had its high days, produced some of the highest achievers in the country and probably even does so today- but more due to its social name which in the first place leads to an influx of quality minds relative to its nurturing capacity and consequent positive effect on the students. Simply said, it takes from, rather than gives back it’s the student, if anything, a social stamp, which surely is not the progressive purpose of education.

I believe, in the current day- the IBA effect- has a positive social, yet negative mental (empowerment) fall out on each individual that goes to that university. The cost-benefit can be weighted on the current standing of the institute. Although, the cost-benefit is tilted in favour of the benefit today, it will certainly be offset in the near future by the cost due to the availability of better alternatives of education specifically the external education programs and the inability of the Institute to change progressively.

The Institute today is a lost soul, an army prototype machine- which although is a job creating factory for its graduates, lacks the juice to motivate learning. Its fame is predominantly driven by the lack of better alternatives to the school instead of the bounties you may associate with a tier one institution and the knowledge it disseminates to its students. What a great education model that is? – given the purpose and meaning of education discussed in an earlier post by Mona Shahzad. [Multiple Education Systems or Single System of Complete Education?]

However, its social standing and running today will inevitably change as better options mature and spread through our society.

In terms of practice, the Institute demands a lot of work from its students, and fairly so. However, the demands are based on quantity relative to quality. In the developed world (for lack of a better word), education is purposed to empower the human mind, instigate a road to on-going learning and trigger confidence (on a absolute rather than relative level) – not measured in terms of domestic value but in terms of drivers of unbounded boundaries. The system is complemented by state of openness, access and free (libre) thinking.

Up-to-date research papers, comprehensive discussions groups, question answers with progressive study, questioning the very gut of the best of the best, with no absolute answer and all relative ideas- the student as the king, the student as the focus, their mentality and personality as their differentiation attributes, learning and education is disseminated in its true form (a further inspiration to learn). The system triggers a set of belief and support in the student and maps the roads to unbounded development.

However in the current IBA (not the one 15 years from ago), learning is based on books from the past decades, rout learning and a ‘yes’ sir attitude is the demand of each day, no questions- and very little answers, the teacher is the king and a reproduction of doctrine rhetoric rather than any creative input of the best of the best is the map for a successful grade, exceptions apart. Therefore, let alone the epidemic of no education, the educated are also being cursed with the plague of our surroundings.

However recently (2004), the National Curriculum Revision Committee for Business Schools (Pakistan) revised and standardised text books across business schools in the country. Paradoxically enough, the majority of text books approved are written by Western authors, particularly American. Most books listed by Pakistani authors are predominantly based around subjects specific to Pakistan and Islam (Sarah Khan, 2007). One wonders why such a classification exist, what happened to context specific application? If anything, alternatives from India and other developing countries which face similar business environments to Pakistan would be better relative to models from business environments which are alien to our surroundings- given the practical purpose of BBA and MBA programs (which are run in the IBA) relative to the academic scientific tone provided by BSC and MSC programs (not provided in IBA). Further, does this indicate incompetence of our authors on the international arena or exposes our mental dependence on the west?

Undoubtedly, the graduates from the University are very hard working, goal oriented individuals- even if the goal is to meet deadlines, get through course work, achieve the IBA stamp and attain a high paying job, they are being nurtured and tuned in a mentality of dependency which is not surprising given the feudal mentality grilled in our surroundings. This is further evident, given the lack of students the school inspires to go attain a PHD, which truly shows that education has become the consequence rather than the cause of our lives.

Today, the future is at stake, if we don’t identify and rectify these bottlenecks, we will be plagued for decades to come, until we will be so far behind- that the current foreign exchange burdens would have exponentially multiplied- given the infiltration of external programmes coming into the country plus our very graduates going abroad- let alone other indirect strains on the foreign exchange.

As always, even today we strive for freedom but we do not know what to do with that freedom- as we rarely will, if we do not have a matured and progressive domestic platform. We need to break free from the strings of our traditional mentality, the doctrines of our system- especially given that by definition, the University in question produces the future leaders of our nation.

It is believed that education drives change, however, in Pakistan education itself is caught in the vicious circle. Mind you, as a policy perspective this requires no money- not at all, only foresight, belief, the acceptance of our shortcoming and willingness to change.

Under a protectionist regime, a regime which says NO to competition, free markets and empowerment of the human mind.

It certainly does not fit with the future we want to attain in our country (Pakistan) in terms of mentality, thought or practice. It replicates the mentality of dependency and being second tier in world practice, even if that qualifies as first tier in our domestic market. The methodology is based on grilling knowledge and fostering dependency rather than sowing the seeds for academic fruit, human thinking and breaking the stereotypes. Hence its objective and focus is not suited to competition on a global scale given the early half of the 21st century, where capitalism in its innovative form is the norm or believed norm for growth and progress.

Further, its business model and success in the current years is based on the lack of competitive alternatives (LUMS as an exception) in terms of networking, business education and the high and lust created by the graduates of the past decades. The norms of the system were compatible with the markets of the past decades. However, the changing tide and the lack of flexibility is evident by the influx and take over being drafted by the external programs infiltrating and further deepening our foreign exchange problems.

Further, the lust of the early 1990’s does not exist today, not due to the graduates themselves- who probably are the tier one students and hardworking academic souls in the country but rather through the norms of dependency inculcated in our practice (system) by the British pre-partition.

In the next issue, I will discuss my claims in depth (this is a teaser- to say the most), drawing a link between the current issue and my quotation from an earlier post ‘quantity, quality and the deepening of the education system is the only way to prosperity’.

Till then,

Note: To my friends from IBA- your response is especially appreciated and further, this is not to discount your hard work but to highlight your spirit and work with a framework of constructive criticism for progress and a better future.

IBA: Institute of Business Administration- Pakistan

For starters, I would draw an analogy between the current Asian giant (China) and the pre 1990’s crisis East Asian giant (South Korea) and then diverge away as the discussion unfolds.

Currently, the pre giant is bagging 3-4% growth rate every year- which is sustainable and draws in line with the economic fundamentals of its economy. However, what was so different a dozen or more years ago. Regardless of the factors leading up to the crisis, it was achieving 8-9% growth levels each year, driven by its transforming indigenous and export economy supported by the creative and innovative management of its leaders.

Apart from the obvious reasons which instigated the crisis, why has South Korea not been able to maintain its pre-crisis high’s? As pointed out by Dr Anjum Altaf, It can be argued, such high growth rates cannot be maintained forever, as evident by studying the US economy, within which an average 1.5% growth rate each year translates into a large absolute expansion in real terms. However, I would argue, in the case of South Korea, regardless of its classification as a developed country and the current trend, its eventual flattening of growth rates, investment to saving patters and changing composition of exports post crisis, can be contributed to deeper factors within its economy.

The following can be well articulated through the point made by a few in the field (Krugman/Quah), they argue that the only manner to sustain and value growth in the long run is by increases in total factor productivity (the residual in output not explained by inputs), which the current China (similar to South Korea of the pre crisis period) is heavily slacking in, relative to the developed world. Therefore, considering the total factor productivity (TFP) as a direct measure, is China’s growth sustainable? A direct critique would be our capacity to accurately measure TFP, which is a highly debatable issue (Quah).

Secondly, the contribution of China is driven primarily by its large population size (who said, a large population is a curse), therefore once we correct for GDP per capita, the economy is not classified in the current race.

However it would be naïve to draw a conclusion based on these findings as there are several other factors at play, which when considered can negate the above drift. Important considerations and differences need to be drawn based on China’s untapped market potential driven by its population numbers, unskilled labour and the west-east divide within the country. Other factors such as trade as a share of output, mode of governance, positive sum territorial competition, dependency of the western markets along side environment and social sustainability, are very important considerations to make. Therefore my argument is inconclusive and fruits a strong basis for future research (Current trends).

Furthermore, if China is to be the future giant of the world economy as claimed by the figures produced by Merrill Lynch- would it be the beauty or the beast in its imperial life. Will its history, values and culture detach itself from the western mode of imperial practice or would it soon follow. Its recent expeditions in Africa and how they nurture in dialogue and practice over the coming years can be a base of evaluating the inevitable future.

Read the snipet by Pranad Bardhan to overview some myths about the rise of the new asian giants.

Above all, the real question is: What Does China Think? (A Interesting Book by Mark Leonard)

For one, I would say – nothing of the universal kind exists. The relevant distinction between good and bad is based upon the social context of application, the forces at play, the realities undefined and the mentality at bay. The view point is well narrated through the concept of Second Best Institution (Dani Rodrik).

If anything, it is not a distinction between good and bad but in between ‘low risk’ and ‘high risk’ policies, given a specific environment. For Instance, Investment in Infrastructure and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), although a politically viable and easier policy to implement, can be categorized as a high risk policy that is given the local labour and firm market are not susceptible or flexible to such inherent changes given their current standing and structural stance (most of the developing regions of the world). Therefore, a fore front priority of projects based on solely Infrastructure and FDI in such regions, will not only drive the local firms out of business and lead to massive brain drain, but will ultimately exacerbate the employment problems and realities(structural) of the region (Rodriguez Pose).

Therefore, as a policy specialist when advising a local government or enforcing the pursuit of a goal, my policy recommendation to the authority would be based on implementing a low risk policy, defined in terms of making the best of what exist, fine tuning and diversification within the existing base. However, while doing so I would propose gradual but necessary investment in enhancing the flexibility and mobility of the local labour and firm market, reducing their susceptibility to external shocks and changes in the environment (Balanced policy). However, an important assumption to note is my hindsight conclusion that policy intervention will help juice up the economy in question.

This is especially important and relevant for external specialist, who are alien or mere acquaintances to the surroundings and workings of the environment in which they are intervening and providing advice, if not action. The above narration falls in line with the new paradigm in development policy, based on the social context and learning by doing policy practice, as outlined by a few in the field.

The narration is supplemented by several case studies, under which similar policies applied to different regions under a similar framework have provided diverging if not opposite results. Therefore socio-economic and political characteristics and realities are very important considerations.

For year’s policy makers have been cornered for their short falls, for the mismatch between promise and result, for their adhocism in policy driven by inconsistency and on-off approach. In practice, the real question within the academic and policy world has been what works and what doesn’t. What role does policy have in the local let alone global economy? What is its impact and target market? Its nature, form and characteristics and above all what does it want to achieve. As many policy specialist, as either students or practicing experts are confronted with the conundrum to lay out a distinction between what works and what doesn’t, their minds are subverted towards drawing conclusions.

However, very few would say, we cannot precisely pinpoint what works and what doesn’t on a broader scale, we are unclear what is better and what is worse given a complex environment, which is the real world we live in, and we certainly cannot claim its absolute success, as it is a combination of several forces working outside the scope and domain of the policy table. If anything, we can give a drift but rarely a precise conclusion. However, such is the test of their expertise and role in the global race. For starters, maybe, acceptance is the way forward.

You drew a contrast between South Korea and Pakistan- I disagree with the comparison, primarily based on 2 factors.

1) Given that 35 years ago, the foreign interest in South Korea was very different in purpose, even if not in action, relative to the Pakistan.
2) South Korea progressed into democracy, did not jump into it. Implying that the transition was coupled with several institutional reforms which are not allowed to take place in Pakistan, at least not peacefully.

On a different note, like today we continue to advocate for a military free democratic government, fairly and rightly so! Although we do not really know how to progress in the future with this government, which is based on the very bottlenecks our society is plagued with. Similarly, further back in the day we kept advocating for independence, however we did not know what to do with it, once we attained it. For instance if we would have implemented land reforms right after independence, our economic and social policies would not be contained around such sticky structural rigidities. Therefore, foresight is our biggest constraint.

I think it is misleading to say that the people of Pakistan are not aware of the cost at stake. However, I do agree they seem tuned and immune to their surroundings, hence the lack of panic in the business environment and the robustness shown by the stock market, in terms of its ability to bounce back, which if anything, is a positive rather than a negative.

I certainly agree, that the wheat and energy crisis are the result of the mishandlings of the previous government, however past portfolios of other standing governments do show differing but not better results.

In terms of inequality, yes it has been a chronic disease with a natural outcome of the neo-liberal policies imposed in the capital given our environment, these policies are predominantly efficiency based and instigate inequality in the short run. However, it is never the case of one for the other; better redistribution policies need to be implemented. However, redistribution is not the long term solution. Better education in terms of quantity and quality is the only way to prosperity, with a core emphasis on deepening of the system. Therefore, regardless of the economic policy, due to the low literacy and flexibility among the major crux of the masses, inequality is inevitable!

However, it is important to note that issues of redistribution have existed for much longer than the period of this government therefore in terms of issues relative to redistribution (corruption and mismanagement of funds through the system) it is virtually impossible to enforce an effective redistribution system without a long term commitment to solve the problem. However, better interim action could have been taken.

I would further argue, based on hindsight, although relative inequality has increased, absolute poverty which is the true measure of poverty has decreased in core terms- i.e. if we disregard the current wheat and energy crisis, which is more a global rather than Pakistan instigated phenomena. However, alternatives such a better management for wheat and coal as a energy alternative should be looked into as well.

Ali Sohail wrote this article while responding to a previous article by Anas Tahir: Pakistan: Into The Future