HERE we go again. Newspaper headlines sound a warning note. For instance consider this: ‘Painful economic decisions await the new government’. Similar views have been expressed in the recent past by several organisations.

The World Bank said last month that Pakistan needs to increase its capacity-building and social-sector spending for any enhancement in the bank’s annual assistance from the present $1.5bn. The State Bank warns of further inflationary risks.

This isn’t a situation that can be changed easily. It calls for true national development, with sizable investments to build a qualified, skilled, strong and healthy human resource base. But we’re far from such utopian ideals.

As in the past, this time around too the worst impact of budgetary cuts will probably be on the social sector. But let’s not be cynical — there could still be light at the end of the tunnel. As things stand right now, the majority population lives with the frustration of daily inflation, traffic jams, potholed roads, water scarcity, dengue fever, pollution, ghost schools et al, and with ‘elected’ representatives who promised the moon but delivered little. In this confused process, the bulk of people, especially those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, are exempt from the country’s much-trumpeted economic progress.

So far, development has been heavily in favour of the rich and powerful, with industries, roads, motorways, imported cars and luxury goods taking priority — lopsided growth which has left the poor with lifelong struggles. Meaningful human development, which could have benefited the have-nots, gets short shrift year after year. Annual development plans rarely give human development the significance which is its due: its corollary thus becomes the gradual erosion of the social sectors.

Health, education, housing, population planning and the environment have all suffered in the past, with results that indicate that even among South Asian countries, Pakistan’s social sector indicators are abysmally low. Take just health and education as examples. National allocations have usually been less than one per cent of GDP for health and under three per cent of GDP for education — amounts totally inadequate for the needs of a developing country.

More generous allocations for health and education could have speeded up progress. Their repeated non-availability has contributed appreciably to high levels of poverty, illiteracy, ill health, and suppression of human rights and development.

A brief study of past national economic surveys shows that this critically essential sector has barely received lip service. Data was often exasperatingly opaque: financial allocations were quoted, at various times, as percentages of GNP or GDP or per capita; or as so many millions each to health, education, etc. Nevertheless, tracing social development through population growth, education, health and housing was initially encouraging, with the emphasis placed on these sectors in early five-year plans.

Later, a harsh impact on the social sector emerged as a consequence of the Bangladesh war. Fortunately, the high priority given in subsequent years to land, labour, industrial and corporate growth, banking, education and health reforms, with supplementation by donor funds, allayed some of the negative trends seen post-1971. They led to visible benefits.

Greater emphasis on education and health stemmed from progressive change in 1980-81. There was a shift from tertiary, curative medicare to preventive health care, and better balance between rural and urban development.

Despite high GDP, the social sector still failed to receive due significance in annual development plans. A mixed picture emerged: a high population growth rate (at 3.1 per cent per annum), improved life expectancy and improved health. But there were high unemployment, severe housing problems, low literacy and high infant mortality to contend with.

Gradually, from 1987 onwards, a more meaningful focus on the quality of life emerged, with improved life expectancy, reduction in infant and child mortality, increase in the literacy rate, access to education, health and housing, provision of water and sanitation. Yet strangely, maternal morbidity and mortality were not even included in the economic surveys, although mothers have a lot to do with the survival of their children.

As the population grew in swift geometric progression, access to basic necessities — water, food, health, housing, employment — became critical national needs. The rural to urban population influx generated its own pressures, particularly in Karachi. Mortality rates still continue to be high, especially for children below the age of five, and for women during their reproductive life spans. Non-communicable diseases and injuries, the top ten causes of morbidity and mortality, account for 25 per cent of deaths. Impure water is responsible for the largest burden of infectious diseases. Men lose their lives in their most productive years, to accidents and wars; both sexes lose lives to cardiac diseases, cancer and other non-infectious diseases. HIV/AIDS and dengue have emerged.

The picture remains one of a developing country struggling through political upheavals, heavy doses of military dictatorship, civic strife, religious extremism, pressures of globalisation and poverty. The economic sun has yet to shine equally on all. Could the picture have been more progressive? Agreed there is chaos, political infighting, nuances within nuances, black money floating around. But even so, had the social sector received the significance that was its due, and with the necessary financial allocations and optimal human development policies, there could surely have been change for the better.

Regrettably, the alternatives are few. A quote from the UNDP’s Human Development Report 2002 is pertinent, and expressive of an unchanged situation: “South Asia is one of the world’s poorest regions…. There are grotesque levels of inequality; control over assets and resources is concentrated in the hands of a few…. There are widening gaps, great income disparity … and gender gaps.”

The economic surveys of 2001-2005 indicate high poverty levels, at 34 per cent. Nearly 60 per cent of the population is adversely affected by inflation — millions are at risk of sliding into poverty. And, given the policies of past years, a mere 20 per cent of the population monopolises 93 per cent of the country’s wealth. Is this development?

In this unequal world, the poverty-stricken are relegated to ghettoised katchi abadis. The government spends nothing on them — they get no water, no electricity, no proper roads or sanitation. It is as if they are not even recognised as human beings. Since nothing is spent on them, they cannot be considered a drain on national resources. The loss is the nation’s. Human resources which could have enhanced this nation’s progress are being lost in wasted lives.

Even small investments in human development have shown promise, with improvements in education and health, and lowered population growth. The efforts, when genuine, have paid dividends. For instance, the focus on the millennium development goal in terms of gender parity has led to an increase in female gross enrolment from 61 per cent to 80 per cent for 2006-2007. These changes can, and must be maximised.

Clearly, enhanced allocations are required for the entire social sector, with corresponding reductions in other items. The time has come to re-examine national priorities. Isn’t an enriched human resource base a national priority? Can Pakistan truly prosper without it? But where is the political will to achieve this?