‘Development’ since 1999
By Miguel Loureiro
“THE basic purpose of development is to enlarge people’s choices. In principle, these choices can be infinite and can change over time.
People often value achievements that do not show up at all, or not immediately, in income or growth figures: greater access to knowledge, better nutrition and health services, more secure livelihoods, security against crime and physical violence, satisfying leisure hours, political and cultural freedoms and sense of participation in community activities.
The objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives.”
These are the words of Mahbubul Haq, Pakistan’s most famous economist and one of the brains behind the creation of the Human Development Index. Together with Amartya Sen and a few others, he came up with a series of formulas to calculate how developed countries (or regions) are, by looking at how long people live, how much they know and how much money they can spend. In other words, health, education and consumption.
The latest Human Development Report was published last month. Shall we look at how they have graded Pakistan’s performance? In fact, let’s look at the previous reports to compare the country’s performance over the past eight years.
Starting with health, we notice from the latest Human Development Report that only 31 per cent of births in Pakistan are attended by skilled health personnel. Compared with the remaining 177 countries for which the report has data, this indicates that Pakistan is the twelfth country with the lowest percentage.
Nearly 24 per cent of Pakistan’s population is undernourished. This means that it is the 35th country in terms of the most number of undernourished people, percentage wise. If we remove the African countries from this list, Pakistan takes tenth place percentage wise. But there’s another interesting, and sad, fact: this figure (24 per cent) was exactly the same in the 90s. Then Pakistan was 47th in the list, meaning that while most countries have improved their figures of malnutrition, Pakistan has done nothing.
Why these pathetic results on health? Let me give you a hint. Pakistan in the past few years has been spending, on average, 0.4 per cent of its GDP on public health. The result: Pakistan’s expenditure on public health, as a percentage of GDP, is the lowest among 177 countries. Another sad fact: this is a downward trend, as public health expenditure in the ’90s was 0.7 per cent of GDP.
Now let’s look at education. Pakistan’s combined gross enrolment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary education is 40 per cent. In other words, 60 per cent of the population that should be in school isn’t. This ratio is so low that it places Pakistan 15th from the bottom in terms of combined gross school enrolment ratio. By the way, the 14 countries worse than Pakistan are all African.
Public expenditure on education over the last few years has been, on average, 2.3 per cent of GDP. This is the 17th lowest public expenditure on education out of 177 countries. Sadly, just like health expenditure, public expenditure on education also shows a downward trend, since it was 2.6 per cent of GDP in the ’90s.
Finally, let’s look at consumption. The easiest, but very crude, way to look at how much people consume is to link GDP growth to inflation. Here, we notice that despite GDP growth being above six per cent (especially since 2003), except in 2002 and 2003 inflation has always been higher than GDP growth. And even worse, food inflation has always been higher than GDP growth. The result is that the majority of people have been consuming less, while paying more for what they consume.
Summing up, Pakistan today has the 39th lowest human development rating, sixth if we remove the African countries. Interestingly and sadly, Pakistan’s rank for the past three years has been 135, 134 and 136 — just like in the late ’90s. This means that since 1999 there has been very, very little human development in Pakistan.
So what has changed in the last eight years? Let’s look again at Mahbubul Haq’s words.
Do all Pakistanis have greater access to knowledge? Despite a slight improvement in primary education enrolment and increased funding for higher education, Pakistan’s education figures are (still) amongst the worst in the world.
Do all Pakistanis enjoy better nutrition and health services? Apart from hiring a few thousand Lady Care Workers, and infant mortality decreasing slightly, health figures are (still) amongst the worst in the world. And an added fact: Pakistan is one of the few countries in the world where HIV/AIDS is on the rise.
Do all Pakistanis have more secure livelihoods? The famous “more than six per cent GDP growth” has benefited only a couple of million Pakistanis (do remember that there are more than 160 million in the country), with the obvious result that inequality has been on the rise. Plus, we have been faced with the worst wheat and sugar shortages in history.
Do all Pakistanis feel safer vis-ŕ-vis crime and physical violence? Crime rates are up, there are still quite a few feudals with private jails, we still have bonded labour, domestic violence figures are high, reports of sectarianism and terrorism have increased, and these days if you demand democracy you get beaten up by the police.
Do all Pakistanis enjoy satisfying leisure hours? With little or no money in their pockets and with mouths to feed, for about 80 per of Pakistanis (the not ‘non-poor’ according to the government’s official poverty line) the last thing in their minds is fursat or leisure.
Do all Pakistanis enjoy political and cultural freedoms? Attacks on civil rights have increased (especially since Nov 3), as well as attacks on the independence of the judiciary, opposition parties, journalists, human rights activists, academics and students.
Do all Pakistanis have a sense of participation in community activities? Since 2001 Pakistan has implemented a plan to devolve power to the local level; the so-called Devolution Plan. But this plan has largely been a failure due to Pakistan’s systemic, endemic and syndicated corruption of democracy. Systemic because it affects most of the local leaders, government officials, politicians and donors; endemic because it is limited to the corridors of power; and syndicated because it is a group of people who have always held power and won’t let go.
What has, indeed, changed in the past eight years.
The writer is a researcher currently pursuing doctoral studies in the UK.

