October 14, 2002	Monday	Sha'aban 7, 1423

GNP and population, both being numerator and denominator respectively, need serious attention as far as improved per capita income is concerned. In fact, a simultaneous exercise with greater emphasis to enhance the former and curtail the growth rate of the later is the real art of good economic management.

True, that scientific advancement by improving upon the survival rate has inadvertently contributed towards overpopulation, which in turn drags back the per capita income. But the same source, that is the scientific advancement, should also be brought into use to boost up economic productivity and growth. Why alone the economic growth is inhibited; the question calls for a serious consideration.

So, maligning overpopulation as the only degenerative factor towards per capita income would be an injustice. Rather in spite of just controlling a population, measures should also be contemplated to amplify GNP.

There are examples of nations where population density is very high; still their per capita income is not diminutive. To cite a couple, Japan’s surface area is just 47.5 per cent and population equal to 95 per cent of that of Pakistan, but still it does not seem overpopulated.What makes a difference is its second highest GNP (per capita) in the world. In the recent past, the United States with the third largest population in the world (270 million), after China and India had the highest GNP per capita. These are exceptions, but like of these are plenty.

Still, by dint of a predominant scientific and technological advancement, and through better economic management, many nations have demonstrated an astonishing surge in economic growth. For example, the GDP of Korea rose by a colossal 7.13 times in just 17 years, so did the Malaysian by 4.04 times. The GDP of China increased from $202 billion on 1980 to $825 billion in 1997 (simply 4.08 times).

As against all this, Pakistan’s GDP rose just by 2.8 times in almost two decades. This is apart from the per capita income enigma and hence the overpopulation snag remains out of question. Rather same overly produced humans can be rendered more productive both individually and collectively, through better education and superior training and development, nevertheless supported by a conducive environment to function. This in turn would swell GDP. But regrettably the case is not so at present and the fact remains that alone GDP, forgetting about per capita, is paltry.

Cursing over-population will not serve as disclaimer against dwindling GNP per capita. Established, that a commensurate orientation towards improving upon all macroeconomic variables would be the key to attain balanced and sustained growth, eliminating structural rigidities and bottlenecks towards development, resource generation and resource mobilization should also have become the focal points. Isolated attempts bit by bit, will just afford temporal betterment by and by, but the macabre corollary of low GNP and high rate of population; in the form of low per capita income in specific and poverty in general sense will remain.

Take poverty. Given a 3 per cent population growth rate, our average size of family is 5.5 members, each getting less than 2 dollars per day. Our children and women are almost 35 million (25 per cent), both being parasite. The pool of poverty has 50 million people, which would in a decade touch 120 million (at present population growth rate), out of which 100 million will be women alone. Our poor spent a massive 53 per cent of their income on food and 11 per cent on shelter and clothing.

So a lion’s share (64 per cent) is devoured by the subsistence hitch. Our Gini’s coefficient rose during 1996-97 and 1998-99 from 27 to 31 respectively, reflecting an increased incidence of poverty to 33 per cent. The situation has got weaker in the sense that our 34.5 per cent people were below poverty line in 1999-2000; the figure was 25.2 per cent in 1990. Today only 52 per cent population has access to electricity, and other 24 per cent have to take unsafe water. Some 44 million (32 per cent) people earn one dollar a day and 119 million (85.5 per cent) earn less than $2 a day.

Nevertheless, the iniquitous income distribution is also at the helm of economic mismanagement. In Pakistan the bottom 10 per cent receive 4.1 per cent and top 10 per cent 27.6 per cent of total income; the difference is 6.73 times (27.6 divided by 4.1). The Indian top 10 per cent get 33.5 per cent and the bottom 10 per cent gets 3.5 per cent, the difference is 10 times; that is Indian richer section is richer than ours, and poor is poorer than ours, hence bleak income inequality. As per worn-out phenomenon that income inequality is greater at early levels and lesser at higher levels of economic growth (Kuznet’s hypothesis); one may not be misled that greater income inequality (in Pakistan) essentially reciprocates early stage of growth. The notion has lost its vitality in the eyes of modern economists who do not accept a strong relationship between growth and income inequality.

As far population is concerned, it is coming within the realm of control gradually. It is further evident from the fact that life expectancy has increased from 44 per cent in 1960 to 63 per cent in 1998, yet the population growth rate has still decreased from 3.2 to 2.4 per cent per annum during last few years. There has also been a decline of 8 per cent and 35.3 per cent in crude birth rate during 1980-1998 and 1965-1998 respectively.

But alas, the cumulative effect of high population growth rate of past has been awfully gigantic to drag back our per capita income. The implication however of the standpoint is not to reverse the phenomenon of improved life expectancy. Rather in spite of lamenting population growth rate or overpopulation for that matter, augmentation of the economic resources needs to be prioritized. Since, if they are also tried to redouble, the former can be rendered less itching.