Set aside the GDP growth rate, which has been projected at around seven per cent or slightly less, the year 2006 will offer disproportionately less to the poorer segment of the population. The government will spend less than what is needed to pull a sizeable proportion of the poverty stricken out of the mire. There may be an issue with the adequacy of resources to deal with the problem of economic exclusion. This, however, seem not to be the limiting factor. The problem is with the national leaders who are quite contented with the performance of the economy in terms of GDP growth and other numbers and see no need for any change in the set of policies guiding the economic management. They expect the GDP growth to be sustainable even when its base is relatively narrow and beneficiaries limited.

The year ahead will, therefore, be another good year for the rich and prosperous people. For city dwellers who are left behind, it might be more of the same. But for about 10 per cent crushingly rural poor who are at the survival level, the year ahead could prove to be more distressful with many losing their loved ones to hunger and disease.

Person who works hard all day for Rs35 in paddy fields of Sindh and has to support ten people, young and old, with no help from the society has little future to look forward to. These overworked underfed Pakistanis probably accept suffering as their fate. They are mostly illiterate, ignorant and therefore vulnerable.

It is probably the instinct of survival that keeps them going. It is only when they see their very survival in danger that they look for alternatives. Those luckier and bolder with exposure, require resources or connections, get a chance to break out of their local ties and move to unfamiliar world of cities. Others continue to toil and suffer.

Had life been tolerable in rural areas the pressure on cities wouldn’t be what it is. Many families from Southern Punjab and men from upcountry in NWFP and Azad Kashmir move to cities in the south every year to join the teeming millions living a pitiable life in horrific slum areas. The decision to migrate is most certainly a conscious one based on economic assessment of options.

Life might not be easy for them, but in cities at least they do not sleep hungry. Big cities like Karachi, no matter how dehumanized, feed all its residents somehow. You may not be able to find the type of employment you prefer but if willing, you can find work to pay for your meals. Then, there are charities and dargahs and so many rich people. Here poor who cannot or do not work can beg, borrow or steal; options not always viable in their homelands.

The results of a sample survey of the Federal Bureau of Statistics were reproduced in the current Economic Survey by the government to substantiate its claims that a stellar growth along with increased spending on the social sector is taking care of distributive justice.

A quote from the survey: “Not only has the incidence of poverty shown a significant decline but other social indicators as well as those that represent the living conditions of the people have shown marked improvement (in FY20904-5) over 2000-01.”

The government finds the results of household consumption expenditure survey “highly encouraging”. The following paragraph from a public document reflects the fact that government is fully satisfied with direction of economic policies: “Wide ranging structural reforms, prudent macroeconomic policies, financial discipline and a consistency and continuity of policies, not seen before, have transformed Pakistan into a stable and resurgent economy. The stage is now set for economic growth to accelerate with private sector expected to play the leading role in the taking the economy on a higher growth trajectory.”

There is no denying the fact that the growth aggregates are good. But they are a poor measure to reflect a realistic picture of the economy. The distortion is greater when an economy is plagued by stark disparities (in-between regions and classes). It tends to translate reality no better than the statement that: ‘mean age in X room is 40’. In the X room an old woman of 79 is rocking an infant of one year.

The official documents state: “The per capita income in dollar terms increased from $526 in 1999-2000 to $625_ an increase of 24.0 per cent”. This does not necessarily mean that living conditions of all people of the country has changed for better.

Even if we ignore newspapers reports that do not confirm the official claims of rich dividends of prudent policies, brush aside from memories interaction with tragic reality and just take into account the specific poverty-centred development targets that the government is committed to achieve over the next ten years, the progress is far from satisfactory.

Pakistan endorsed eight millennium development goals along with other United Nation members in the year 2000. The overriding goal was to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger.

The current Pakistan Millennium Development Report 2005 that is a self-evaluation of the progress made by the country towards achieving development goals claims that the country has made “significant progress in all critical areas since the UN Summit in September 2000”. The relevant numbers were not convincing.

According to figures in the report the proportion of population below the calorie based food plus non-food poverty line was 32.1 per cent in 2001. The target is to reduce it to 13 per cent by 2015, i.e. bring it down by 19 per cent. To be on the target the country should have reduced it by above six per cent in the first five years to little above 25 per cent.

The report instead of giving the actual percentage to reflect the progress has given a target figure of 28 per cent. In all other categories such as prevalence of underweight children under five years of age and proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption again targets and not actual prevalent rates are produced in the table dealing with these numbers.

Again the government did not feel any compulsion to explain as to why it has not been able to provide these key numbers instead of targets. How in absence of relevant numbers to confirm the progress can the government justify that the philosophy of liberalization, deregulation, and privatization has enhanced the prospects of attaining these goals is not clear.

The government again took a position in the report that was not authenticated by the leaders of the private sector. It says that the MDGs are now centre piece of the country’s development agenda and that the involvement of all tiers of government, civil society and development partners has strengthened national ownership.

All indications, however, were that the report was prepared in comforts of government offices by a closed group of experts in consultation with representatives of donors who are now referred to as development partners.

The private sector leaders who are in constant touch with the government were not aware of any such exercise. Some even confessed that they were hearing the term MDGs for the first time. This was the participatory nature of evaluation.

Interestingly, the table reflecting the trend in income distribution covered the period till 2000-01 in the said report. What happened after that and during the period under review is left to the readers’ to imagine.

To give credit where it is due the pro-poor expenditure over the period of last five years has doubled in absolute terms from Rs150 to 300 billion. The spending as percentage of GDP increased for the first three years fell in 2003-04 and is static since.

By facts and policy statements of the government stated earlier, it is clear that there is no reason to expect anything dramatic that could trigger a process of change to ensure distributive justice in surging economy over the year ahead. The government is comfortable because rich who have power to pressurize are happy. Poor on the sidelines are distressed and not organized and therefore in no position to exert pressure on the government for their economic rights.

The initiatives to popularize micro credit and success of telecommunication sector resulting in massive increase in connectivity from three to 15 per cent of country’s population will improve lives of urban lower classes and rural middle classes over the year 2006. However, unless the government realizes and acknowledges the limitations of the current economic philosophy and changes it to more inclusive set of policies not centred on GDP growth alone, there is little hope for the poorest of the poor.

Even the State Bank of Pakistan has warned of deviation from the growth trajectory if the government is not vigilant and fails to address the weakness in the key indicators such as “lack of buoyancy in taxes, growth in current expenditure, and the external sector imbalance”. Achieving MDGs is crucial in social expenditure focused on rural sector, where poverty is most biting.

The view that policies of economic exclusion are not sustainable has failed to attract attention of dominant economic players.

Pressure is required to persuade the government to adopt more people friendly policies. In the current scenario the government in its quest for higher GDP growth seems to be insensitive to the distribution aspect of the growth and that is disturbing. In the absence of full political democracy, a move towards social democracy is a goal unattainable.