@ Farooq: okay good to know that inflation is at least taken into account. It makes sense to mention that as is the norm in high-quality research. However, since you seem like an educated person, please don't forget several other important issues like population growth, conditions of health, education, etc. There is something called the HDI that could help with some more interesting analysis.
On a related note, it is unfortunate but a well known amongst senior officials in the government that during dictatorships i.e. Zia/Musharraf's time the numbers were freely fudged. Therefore, the ridiculously high inflation in General Musharraf's time was underestimated.
@ Riaz Haq: If you read my second para above, that is one issue I have with dictators. And secondly, even if if Zia led us to 100% GDP growth the Muhajideen and Shia/Sunni issues started in his time. He is responsible for starting the mess due to which Pakistanis have lost respect in the world!
Farooq Tirmizi
| 12 years ago
| Reply
Adeel,
Nobody in the world is dumb enough to use nominal GDP numbers. All the numbers used here are real GDP numbers, which are derived AFTER taking into consideration the effects of inflation.
Riaz Haq
| 12 years ago
| Reply
@Adeel: "These very simple numbers will just mislead the public that Zia Ul Haq was No 1. Economists.."
No, Gen Zia was no economist, but he relied on a really good economist by the name of Dr. Mahbub ul Haq, the same economist who also advised Gen Ayub. Dr. Haq saw the corruption, waste and abuse in the system of political patronage under civilian leaders as the main culprit for their poor performance relative to military leaders.
These very simple numbers will just mislead the public that Zia Ul Haq was No 1. Economists around the world though don't agree on much but at least they understand how GDP alone is such a flawed measure. Very disappointed that this has been published in the Tribune.
Adeel
| 12 years ago
| Reply
These numbers have no value. Look at Real GDP please. It is all wiped away by high inflation. Especially more recently.
Ziaahmad
| 12 years ago
| Reply
This expose Nawaz Sharif claim of economic growth as well
Fg
| 12 years ago
| Reply
Tirmizi sahib, very informative and insightful article. Do the results change much when arithmetic mean is considered rather than geometric mean as used in your analysis?
khalil
| 12 years ago
| Reply
whats the truth..... they keep on changing the base... so.. now the drooling finance minister has one up on his sleeve to change and show it at over 3%,... reality is it is hovering around 2%,....... the truth is self ecomolation!!!!
Abdullah
| 12 years ago
| Reply
military rule is good for Pakistan history proves
truth will free you
| 12 years ago
| Reply
It should be pertinent to mention that high economic growth coincides with injection of US aid usually when the Generals roll in. The generals have been canny, whenever they smelt the likely hood of US aid the 111 brigades rolled and garnered the kudos from higher economic aid. The only exception was Musharaf who wanted to save his own skin. He was fortunate though as the plummating economy under him was saved again by 9/11 and the aid taps opened full again.
syed
| 12 years ago
| Reply
My research indicates that macro economic indicators improved during military rules, however, socio-economic deteriorated. Contrary to that under the democratic lead govts socio indicators improved, and macro indicators worsen. The truth, however, is the current period is the worst period for both counts.
Meekal Ahmed
| 12 years ago
| Reply
Farooq, this is interesting but raises so many questions. I realize that you could write a book on this but you are constrained for space here.
You need to PROBE behind these figures. Short periods (BB, NS) are just too short to be meaningful.
For longer periods of 10 years, you should have run regressions to estimate the growth rate.
This was good as a first cut. But the story behind the numbers is more interesting that the numbers themselves.
faraz
| 12 years ago
| Reply
If I'm not mistaken, high economic growth during Zia's term was mainly due to US and other foreign aid.
ammar
| 12 years ago
| Reply
Keeping in the dollars and petro dollars that came during dictatorship...Bhuttos have done a decent job...
ashar
| 12 years ago
| Reply
Good analysis, however it should have been complemented with the anticipated figures or what was required.
Riaz Haq
| 12 years ago
| Reply
It appears to me that the author is understating growth during military regimes and overstating it for periods under civilian rulers. For example, most independent economists believe that 1990s was Pakistan's "lost decade" and this piece does not bring out that fact clearly.
In the 1990s, economic growth plummeted to between 3% and 4%, poverty rose to 33%, inflation was in double digits and the foreign debt mounted to nearly the entire GDP of Pakistan as the governments of Benazir Bhutto (PPP) and Nawaz Sharif (PML) played musical chairs. Before Sharif was ousted in 1999, the two parties had presided over a decade of corruption and mismanagement. In 1999 Pakistan’s total public debt as percentage of GDP was the highest in South Asia – 99.3 percent of its GDP and 629 percent of its revenue receipts, compared to Sri Lanka (91.1% & 528.3% respectively in 1998) and India (47.2% & 384.9% respectively in 1998). Internal Debt of Pakistan in 1999 was 45.6 per cent of GDP and 289.1 per cent of its revenue receipts, as compared to Sri Lanka (45.7% & 264.8% respectively in 1998) and India (44.0% & 358.4% respectively in 1998).
These comparisons are way to simplistic, and mask the fact that the growth/lack of growth has less to do with their policies but what was going on in the wider world. Ayubs period saw the Korean War increase the demand for raw materials, particularly jute. Zia's period saw influx of US/Saudi Funds and the growth of remittances from migrants workers from the Middle East who had settled and some who had started enterprises. Musharaf led a consumption fueled period of growth, which was impressive for some, but poor quality growth that magnified inequality and caused long term problems. Both the end of the Musharaf era and Zardaris reign have been dampened by high global energy prices which were above the long term trend over the period. BB probably enjoyed the bump in GDP figures from baby steps towards privitization and the influx of IPP money. The qualifications and analysis are endless, just looking at GDP figures draws poor conclusions.
ReplyingtoX
Saved ! Your comment will be displayed after the approval.
@ Farooq: okay good to know that inflation is at least taken into account. It makes sense to mention that as is the norm in high-quality research. However, since you seem like an educated person, please don't forget several other important issues like population growth, conditions of health, education, etc. There is something called the HDI that could help with some more interesting analysis.