|
|
 | | From: | nkdatta8839 at bigmailbox.net | | Subject: | Pakistan's Capitalist System | | Date: | 18 Jan 2005 21:03:41 -0800 |
|
|
 | [Mahbub ul Haq was worried not about the twenty-two families being
wealthy, but the fact that they were starting to dictate the
country's economic policies. According to him, the main problem (at
the time) was that Pakistan's capitalist system was one of the most
primitive in the world, with economic feudalism prevailing, where a
handful of people made all the basic decisions]
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_19-1-2005_pg3_5
The Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
ECONOMY: On courage and wisdom
By Miguel Loureiro
...... what was really happening in the country in the high-growth
'60s? It was towards the end that Mahbub ul Haq made his famous
speech on the twenty-two wealthy families in Pakistan. His take was
that there were about twenty-two families in Pakistan that dominated
the economic and financial life of the country, controlling two thirds
of industrial assets, 80 percent of banking and 79 percent of
insurance. And there wasn't any real distribution of this growth
through all the citizens. The real disparity in the per capita incomes
of East and West Pakistan had more than doubled during the '60s, and
real wages of the industrial workers, concentrated in a few key urban
areas, had been reduced by a combination of inflation and weak
bargaining power of the unions. Generally speaking, personal income
inequalities had increased substantially, which meant that the majority
of Pakistanis had remained unaffected by the forces of economic change
(since economic development had favoured only a
privileged minority).
Today, similar symptoms are starting to appear (disparity of per capita
incomes between urban Punjab and the rest of the country, real wages
going down, inflation going up, unions' bargaining power almost
nonexistent) ...
Now what Haq was worried about (regarding these twenty-two families)
was not the fact that they were wealthy, but that they were starting to
dictate the country's economic policies. According to him, the main
problem (at the time) was that Pakistan's capitalist system was one
of the most primitive in the world, with economic feudalism prevailing,
where a handful of people, whether landlords or industrialists or
bureaucrats, made all the basic decisions and the system often worked
simply because there was an alliance between various vested interests.
And today?
Pakistan's policy-makers chose to learn nothing from the lessons
learnt by the country's most celebrated economist to date.
Development thought around the world has changed (for better) because
of his writings, but his own country hasn't.
|
|
| | From: | nkdatta8839 at bigmailbox.net | | Subject: | Re: Pakistan's Capitalist System | | Date: | 19 Jan 2005 13:09:56 -0800 |
|
|
| http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2004/cpi2004.en.html
Transparency International Corruption Perception Index 2004
Ranking Country CPI Score
1 Finland 9.7
17 USA 7.5
59 Brazil 3.9
67 Sri Lanka 3.5
71 China 3.4
90 India 2.8
90 Nepal 2.8
129 Pakistan 2.1
145 Bangladesh 1.5
=================================================================
> [Mahbub ul Haq was worried not about the twenty-two families being
> wealthy, but the fact that they were starting to dictate the
> country's economic policies. According to him, the main problem (at
> the time) was that Pakistan's capitalist system was one of the most
> primitive in the world, with economic feudalism prevailing, where a
> handful of people made all the basic decisions]
>
> http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_19-1-2005_pg3_5
>
> The Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan
> Wednesday, January 19, 2005
>
> ECONOMY: On courage and wisdom
> By Miguel Loureiro
>
> ..... what was really happening in the country in the high-growth
> '60s? It was towards the end that Mahbub ul Haq made his famous
> speech on the twenty-two wealthy families in Pakistan. His take was
> that there were about twenty-two families in Pakistan that dominated
> the economic and financial life of the country, controlling two
thirds
> of industrial assets, 80 percent of banking and 79 percent of
> insurance. And there wasn't any real distribution of this growth
> through all the citizens. The real disparity in the per capita
incomes
> of East and West Pakistan had more than doubled during the '60s, and
> real wages of the industrial workers, concentrated in a few key urban
> areas, had been reduced by a combination of inflation and weak
> bargaining power of the unions. Generally speaking, personal income
> inequalities had increased substantially, which meant that the
majority
> of Pakistanis had remained unaffected by the forces of economic
change
> (since economic development had favoured only a
> privileged minority).
>
> Today, similar symptoms are starting to appear (disparity of per
capita
> incomes between urban Punjab and the rest of the country, real wages
> going down, inflation going up, unions' bargaining power almost
> nonexistent) ...
>
> Now what Haq was worried about (regarding these twenty-two families)
> was not the fact that they were wealthy, but that they were starting
to
> dictate the country's economic policies. According to him, the main
> problem (at the time) was that Pakistan's capitalist system was one
> of the most primitive in the world, with economic feudalism
prevailing,
> where a handful of people, whether landlords or industrialists or
> bureaucrats, made all the basic decisions and the system often worked
> simply because there was an alliance between various vested
interests.
>
> And today?
>
> Pakistan's policy-makers chose to learn nothing from the lessons
> learnt by the country's most celebrated economist to date.
> Development thought around the world has changed (for better) because
> of his writings, but his own country hasn't.
|
|
|
