
Rationalizing priorities for federal and provincial budgets
For a country to be among the top ten countries in the world in terms of population, and with more than 60 percent of its population below 30 years of age, to have such a low GDP per capita, or average income per person, and where one-third of the country falls below the poverty line, along with weak economic institutional quality is a strong reason for concern. In addition, the country is also among the top ten climate challenged countries, not to mention the high association of climate change with the 'Pandemicene' phenomenon.
At the same time, the fast-unfolding climate change crisis has been producing strong negative consequences in the shape of heat waves, crop patterns and yields, and most importantly inducing poor air quality in terms of creating serious smog related issue all year long in many parts of the country, especially in winters, and where poor quality of petroleum, along with little forest cover being the main reasons for accentuating climate change in the first place.
Also, overboard application of austerity – both in terms of fiscal- and monetary austerity – policies has been employed to curtail aggregate demand excessively, rather than removing the supply-side bottlenecks to control inflation, and also increase domestic production, exports, and employment levels. Higher exports, and better import-side administrative controls, in turn, help keep current account sustainable.
Moreover, reined-in austerity policies enable better debt management, leave larger fiscal space mainly due to lower interest payments, which brings greater margin for government to introduce counter-cyclical policies. In an environment of low economic growth situation, which has been the case for Pakistan for some years now, means lowering taxes, and enhancing expenditures that overall help increase economic growth. Also, lower interest payment would also generate lesser need for downward revision of development expenditure in an overall effort to reach primary surplus, which being one of the conditionalities under the ongoing International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme.
At the same time, foreign portfolio investment (FPI) is not lured with keeping interest rates on the higher side, but rather better focus is placed for improving aggregate supply, along with introducing reforms to improve economic institutional quality all providing greater positive impetus to exports, and enhancing attractiveness for more reliable, and employment-enhancing foreign direct investment (FDI).
Hence, as a consequence of non-austerity and counter-cyclical policies on one hand, and greater administrative controls on imports, improved exports, and FDI levels on the other hand, produce strong positive impact on current account, enable bringing down tax burden and overall help reach higher, and more sustainable economic growth.
In addition, higher tariffs situation feeding into an already difficult world of polycrisis call for adoption of a well-focused policy for protectionism so that essential-natured domestic industrial base is established on a strong footing. This needs to be done to improve aggregate supply so as to safeguard against both the supply chain related disruptions, and the increase in imported inflation at the back of price gouging as was seen in the wake of Covid pandemic, where likelihood of more pandemics is significant due to strong influence of climate change in enhancing likelihood of zoonotic diseases and, in turn, pandemics in the future.
An August 15, 2024 Foreign Affairs article 'The World is not ready for the next pandemic' pointed out with regard to possible future pandemics as 'Less than five years after the outbreak of COVID-19, the world remains vulnerable to another pandemic. Over the past five months, a mutated strain of the H5N1 influenza virus detected in dairy cattle poses a potential risk for a pandemic-causing virus. Yet governments and international organizations have done far too little to prepare for such a scenario, despite the lessons they should have learned from the global battle with COVID-19.After the COVID-19 crisis revealed the shortcomings of the global public health response system, many assumed that governments and international organizations would strive to fix the most obvious problems. Given the catastrophic human and economic costs of the pandemic, countries had a strong incentive to start spending heavily on developing new generations of more protective influenza and coronavirus vaccines, as well as to greatly expand global manufacturing and distribution networks. But this has not happened. At current funding levels, it will likely take a decade or longer to develop more effective and longer-lasting vaccines.'
It is in this broader context that federal and provincial budgets are to be shaped. This whole budget context requires a consensus-based approach of both the levels of government, given many important subjects like health, education, environment, and agriculture stand transferred to the provinces under the 18th Constitutional amendment, along with meaningful enhancement of provincial share – which is close to 60 percent – in the divisible pool of resources going to provinces in the wake of the 7th National Finance Commission (NFC) award.
The federal and provincial budgets need better focus and alignment with regard to the three fundamental pillars – economy, environment, and epidemiology. Moreover, budgets need to internalize a connected role of all three pillars in an era of polycrisis, a situation that also demands creating domestic resilience in terms of developing local industry in an overall effort to create a green, and resilient economy.
Hence, for instance, smog is an important issue, and one of the main contributors to smog is consumption of low-grade petroleum products in the country. Hence, a budgeting needs to be made for replacing low-grade petroleum products with better grade oil. Moreover, changing the composition and orientation of public transport is important for the smog crisis, which means purchasing electronic buses, for instance, and improving the rail system.
Moreover, better rationalized priorities of budgets require bringing overall improvement in the rail system for instance – and not making disproportionately high budgetary allocations for limited-natured projects like establishing high-speed rail, and bullet trains as announced recently by government of Punjab – for greater route coverage, catering for much more population, and creating needed support for transporting goods is much more consequential in dealing with climate change crisis, and also for instance, providing much-needed support for farmers in terms of transportation from farm to market.
Similarly, budgets should be rationalized in catering to the financial needs of the organizational reform strategy of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in an overall effort to improve upon the quality, and quantity of heavy industrial base, including the import substituting industry.
Moreover, budgets should be formulated in a mission-oriented way for improving the educational, and health sectors both in terms of improving the lagging performance with regard to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and also for creating better preparedness, and resilience of these sectors in an overall environment of climate change crisis, and 'Pandemicene' phenomenon. For example, preparedness of schools in terms of remote learning, in case of lockdown if another pandemic comes, and enhancing capacity to produce vaccines domestically, and creating depth in production capacity to better tailor research for a specific disease on which the pandemic is based.
Another important focus of the budgets has to be on creating a basis for starting and sustaining a 'dual track' pricing framework, where just like China in the 1980s, and 1990s – when it was at a similar stage of economic development as Pakistan currently –prices of essential natured commodities of agriculture, and industrial intermediaries, for instance, and which are also in scarce supply, are kept at a level that allows better management of inflation, and also keeping exports competitive.
Hence, a significant amount of subsidy allocation needs to be made in federal, and provincial budgets to sustain this much-needed 'dual track' pricing framework, coupled with a well-focused reform strategy, with adequate level of governance, and incentive structures for increasing the productive efficiency of these sectors, so that over time less support is needed to be provided in subsidy at the back of greater efficiency gains and better price discovery of such commodities.
It also needs to be pointed out here that the current level of climate finance for instance is much lower than what is needed to dent the climate change crisis, especially much needed financial augmentation of budgets of developing countries, in particular of the highly climate change vulnerable countries like Pakistan.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Business Recorder
18 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
Public debt recorded at Rs76,007bn by end-March
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan's total public debt was recorded at Rs 76,007 billion by end-March 2025, registering an increase of Rs 4,761 billion (6.7 percent) during first nine months of current fiscal year, as it was Rs 71,246 billion on June 30, 2024, the Economic Survey 2024-25 noted. External public debt was recorded at $87.4 billion by end-March 2025, revealing an increase of around $883 million during the first nine months of the current fiscal year compared to an increase of $2.6 billion during the same period of the last fiscal year, however it does not contain liabilities of foreign exchange, public sector enterprises (PSEs), banks and private sector. According to the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) data, the country's external debt and liabilities stood at $130.310 billion by end-March 2025, which contains, government external debt, short term, from International Monetary Fund (IMF) as well as liabilities of foreign exchange, public sector enterprises, banks and private sector. Pakistan govt's debt stock soars to Rs73.6trn by March-end Pakistan's domestic debt stood at Rs 51.5 trillion by end-March fiscal year 2025, reflecting an increase of Rs 4.8 trillion during the first nine months of the fiscal year, from Rs 47.160 trillion by end-June 2024. The increase of Rs 4761 billion in public debt include Rs (2415) billion of federal primary deficit, Rs 6,439 billion interest on debt, Rs 738 billion on other (Exchange Rate / Cash Balances / Accounting impact). Government external debt accounts for the majority, amounting to $79,131 million, while debt from the IMF stands at $8,277 million. The IMF debt further consists of the federal government debt ($3,878 million) and the central bank debt ($4,399 million). The government's external debt is predominantly long-term in nature, with $78,181 million long-term debt (greater than one year) and $950 million as short-term debt (less than one year). Among long-term external debt sources, multilateral loans form the largest portion, totaling $40,468 million, constituting around 51.8 percent of the long-term external debt. These loans are provided by development partners like the World Bank and Asian Development Bank and are concessional in nature, with lower interest rates and extended repayment periods. The Paris Club debt amounts to $5,943 million, representing approximately 7.6 percent of Pakistan's long-term external public debt. Bilateral loans from non-Paris Club countries amount to $17,860 million (22.8 percent of longterm debt). Outstanding loans from foreign commercial banks amount to $5,850 million constituting around 7.5 percent of long-term debt. These loans are short-to-medium term (i.e., 1-3 years) with market-based interest rates. Short-term debt, which poses refinancing risk, is significantly lower. Multilateral short-term loans amount to $426 million, while local currency securities (T-bills) add another $524 million. In the first nine months of the fiscal year 2025, the total inflows from external debt disbursements amounted to $5,066 million. Of this, multilateral sources contributed the largest ($2,797), followed by commercial/other ($2,011), and bilateral sources ($258 million). There were no bond issuances during this period. Repayments totaled $5,636 million, with multilateral creditors receiving the largest portion ($2,828 million), followed by bilateral creditors ($1,565 million), and commercial/other sources ($1,243 million). Interest payments amounted to $2,660 million, with the bulk of these payments directed towards multilateral creditors ($1,315 million). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025


Business Recorder
18 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
Tola highlights importance of home-grown ‘Green Pakistan'
LAHORE: Leading economist Ashfaq Yousuf Tola has stressed on policymakers to choose between home-grown recipe of Green Pakistan and IMF policies for growth. The home-grown Green Pakistan, he said, includes keeping policy rates closer to inflation rate; reduce debt servicing; and maintain the currency at its true value; stimulating growth; reduce fiscal deficit, and IMF policies focus on monetary tightening; import led growth, and tariff reduction. To achieve sustainable growth, he said, we must prioritise policies that foster robust economic expansion. These policies include achieving an export surplus by focusing on our key cash crops: rice, wheat, and cotton. Tola said Pakistan can reduce its cotton imports by enhancing cotton yields besides increasing rice exports. Furthermore, said Tola, the FY26 economic strategy must prioritise on introducing targeted policy measures for industrial development. These include rationalising interest rates for industrial borrowers, electricity tariff reduction, abolishment of export financing scheme (EFS) on semi-finished and finished goods, implementing a balanced tariff structure on raw materials, duty free on intermediate goods and fostering export-oriented industrial clusters. In parallel, he said, advancing the IT sector must be a strategic focus. It is imperative to address the growing trend of IT businesses operating via digital platforms under foreign identities, which leads to foreign exchange losses. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025


Business Recorder
18 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
The Budget of Pakistan
The discussion and debates on budget are generally made in technical terms due to which the common man is not able to understand what is there in Pakistan's budget. In this article very complicated issues are handled in the most possible lucid manner. The conclusion is that things are not in control; however, there are solutions for achieving sustainable development. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) in its report of May 2025 has included Table 4a. Pakistan: General Government Budget, 2019/20–2029/30. This table provides the cash inflows and outflows of Pakistan, including provinces for ten years. Table A These figures are also in line with the budget that would be presented by the government today. For an accountant the story is very simple. The deficit is almost equal to or slightly higher than domestic interest expense. That domestic interest is not actually paid. It is actually further borrowing from the same sources. So actually nothing is done. Taxes are collected by squeezing economic activities and the funds so collected are spent essentially for current expenses. The budget for development expenditure on an overall basis is around 10 percent only. So, in order for simplicity financial adjustment is excluded, then the position emerges as under: Table B This means that in Pakistan there are two budgets. On an overall basis there is an inflow of Rs 18,402 billion (out of which Rs 13,316 billion is from a limited number of people from taxes). There is an expenditure, most of which is current, of Rs 24,888 billion out of which Rs 7,938 billion is domestic interest. This results in a deficit Rs 6486 billion which is again borrowed from the people to whom the interest is paid. The borrowing from the bank is Rs 4,090 billion and other saving schemes, etc. 1,753 billion. The calculation and working is very simple and straightforward. The other is the budget for the banks who have lent to the government. They do book entries on a yearly basis. Under those book entries the Asset being 'Loan to Government' increases on a year to year basis. This increase finances around 80 percent of the budget deficit of the government for that year. The status of domestic debt is as under: Rs Billion 2020: 23,875 2021: 26,959 2022: 31,858 2023: 39,655 2024: 47,160 2025: 54,789 2026: 60,861 2027: 65,629 2028: 71,019 2029: 75,995 2030: 80,841 Then there is another book entry of interest income on that loan. That interest income is never received. It forms part of the new debt given. Out of the interest income around 90 percent of the sum is paid to depositors and expenses and the remaining 10 percent is given to the owners of the banks and taxes on income in almost equal proportion. So the banks are doing a risk free business with the banks. This happens in every developing country, except those who have got out of this trap like India. Bangladesh is still in. However, the position of Pakistan is worsening gradually. This means that nothing is being done. Each year the domestic debt is increasing by the budget deficit, which correspondingly increases the debt servicing. So in other words, Pakistani banks are running the Pakistani government. They get the deposit from the people at 'x' rate of interest and lend the same to x+1 to the government. The difference is their margin. For them interest/discount rate is not relevant as their margin effectively remains the same. There is a fixed, risk-free, profit for the banks. Whatever spread the banks have is subject to heavy taxes say up to 50 percent. This also does not affect as the business model for them which is simple as under: This is a risk-free model as the depositors are secured and the borrower is the government. 50 percent of the spread is the guaranteed after tax profit. Each year this model is being strengthened. Borrowing from banks suits as the cost to the government after tax is lesser than private borrowing as there is no tax recovery from such sources. ================================================ Interest income from government 100 Interest to depositor and expenses 90 Margin 10 Tax 5 Net Profit 5 ================================================ The author may consider about the possibility of restructuring the domestic debt; however, for that purpose the following remark of IMF in the case of Ghana is to be taken into consideration: IMF (2021) and subsequently Gregorian (2023) provide a framework for thinking about the decision on whether to undertake a domestic debt restructuring and how to approach its design. According to this approach, the decision to restructure any type of claims (e.g., external, domestic, nonfinancial state-owned company debt, etc.) should depend on the relative economic costs of doing so, the amount of debt relief that could be secured from each type of claims, and of the total debt relief required to reach sustainability. If a decision is made to restructure domestic debt, the approach essentially argues that domestic debt should be restructured up to a point where the gross debt relief accrued to the budget by restructuring still exceeds the costs of recapitalization of affected institutions and of ring fencing financial stability.41 Both decisions (i.e., whether to restructure and how much) are complex choices requiring a significant amount of data and technical analysis (see IMF, 2021, for details). Despite the earlier position the author would not recommend any such step at this stage. Notwithstanding the status of domestic debt, on an overall basis the cost of external debt has almost remained the same and it is not expected to increase substantially. The possibility of arranging dollars for principal sum remains an issue, which is not the subject of this article. The problem lies with the local debt. At present total debt is around 75 percent of GDP. There's no universally 'ideal' debt-to-GDP ratio for a state. However, it's generally considered best to keep the ratio low, ideally under 60 percent. Some models suggest an 'optimal' level around 50-80 percent for certain economic conditions. A higher ratio can indicate a greater risk of economic problems. The problem lies with the ratio of debt servicing to total revenue or expenditure or GDP. In Pakistan, it is estimated at 49.03 percent, 34.03 percent, 8.32 percent of revenue, expenditure or GDP respectively. In simple words, the amount of loan is not high; however, there is no income to pay the interest and the principal. Or, in other words, fixed expenditures swallow all the revenues. This means that the entity is not a 'going concern'. In the case of a state the shop is not closed. However, when the shop is continued to be run in this manner then people suffer and the talent migrates, which leads to further deprivation. The economic issues, which are arising from this system, are as under: a. All of the savings of the people are effectively being used for consumption purposes instead of investment. This reduces the employment level substantially. This gets aggravated when there is a population growth of 2.5 percent; b. Taxpayers are not provided any facility or welfare as their taxes are used effectively for non-developmental expenses. There is no money left for the government for infrastructure development; c. Especially in the Pakistani environment, bank deposits out of untaxed wealth are lured to provide necessary credit to the government. The banks' debt to the government is Rs 40 trillion, which is even higher than total deposits. The result is that the Central Bank funds the commercial banks to lend to the government. This debt trap started after 2014. In 2014 the 1 dollar was equal to around 65 Pakistani rupees. Earlier the debt was less than 60 percent of GDP. Now in 2024 it reached over 78 percent and crossed 80 percent in 2020. These are the bad years of Pakistan's governance. During the Musharraf time of 2005/2006, it was at an international level of around 40 percent. This means that democratic governments after 2008 have not been able to run the economy. The manner in which tax revenues are collected has prospered the cash economy. At the moment there is around Rs 9.4 trillion worth of currency in circulation. This is one of the highest proportions with reference to GDP in the world. The future does appear to be promising. However, it cannot be left like this. The solutions are: a. Retirement of the domestic public debt by selling the unutilised real estate of the government (both Federal and Provincial) including that held by the military in the urban areas. Huge pieces of land and property are available. Provincial Governments and military to surrender their rights if the proceeds are used for settling the national debt. The target should be a reduction of domestic debts by 50 percent in the next five years. At the moment it is an unutilised asset not generating any economic activity; b. Property survey of all urban properties for Urban Immovable Property Tax in Pakistan. At the moment UIPT is the lowest in Pakistan. For the financial year 2024-25 the Bombay Municipal Corporation collected property tax amounting to Rs 619 billion Indian rupees which equals to around Rs 1,800 billion in Pakistan. It is around 13 percent of total taxes collected in Pakistan. Total tax of this nature in Punjab is only Rs 28 billion; c. Provincial governments to be given the right to tax agricultural business activity like 'Arthis' with a condition that Provincial Governments will be given the whole share in NFC if their own revenue is not less than 40 percent of the share of NFC. d. Reduction in the tax rate for companies to a maximum of 30 percent to incentivise reinvestment and maintain the same for another twenty years; e. Substantial reduction in tax rate for salaried class. Limiting the effective rate to 25 percent with total exemption for salary up to Rs 1.5 million; f. Substantial reduction in expenses referred to as 1A in Table 1. This includes subsidy, grants, pensions and other administrative expenses of the federal government; g. Stop frequent adjustment in discount rates. Review to be limited to quarter only. h. Providing a ten-year government plan 2025-2035 for Pakistan including Constitutional Amendment for new provinces, devolution under Article 140A. Pakistan's economic condition is to be understood in a simple sense. The model is not working and from the papers issued by the IMF and the government it appears that no out of box solution is on the cards. The author is of the view that there is no space for more taxation in the traditional way to resolve the economic issues of Pakistan. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025