IN Pakistan’s recent history, billionaire bankers and former staff of multilateral institutions, among others, have led national development. After assuming office as finance minister, one was alleged to have declared that he empathised with ordinary people and then promptly imposed a tax on baby food in a country where, due to malnutrition, 40 per cent of children are stunted. The results are hardly what we had hoped for.
How, then, should national development policy be made? Let us take a hypothetical case of a recently formed country, its borders determined by departing colonialists. It is not a ‘civilisational state’ with thousands of years of shared history, so the allegiance and love of its people should now be earned.
There must be a clear rationale for forming the new country. A civilised society might agree that its rationale is the welfare of its citizens: people come together to improve their standard of living, to have equal opportunity to reach their full potential, and to live by their values. The citizens are to pay a share of their income to a common fund, from which the state would administer services to all, such as education, healthcare, support for economic endeavour and security. The country must be sovereign and independent.
If the former colonialists offered to guide and direct the new country’s development, surely they would be spurned: after 200 years of ruthless exploitation, they could hardly be trusted. While the people’s priorities are likely to be efficient agriculture and affordable food, quality education and skills training, healthcare and economic development, outsiders might want to prioritise gender issues and preparedness for future disasters.
Policy must be made by those who represent the people.
Conventionally, to pay for imports such as oil, gas and advanced machinery, a country has to earn international currency through exports. If imports were double the exports, that would be untenable. The country would then have to take loans from foreign sources on conditions that absolutely compromise its sovereignty. Even multilateral institutions have voting systems firmly controlled by the West. At the IMF, for instance, Pakistan has 0.43pc of the vote, Russia 2.59pc, China 6.08pc, and the US 16.5pc, besides the votes of all its ‘loyal allies’.
To be sovereign, the country would focus its exports on markets where its products — including new ones beyond traditional leather goods, towels and the like — were more likely to find acceptance. A developing country’s products are more likely to be accepted in the Global South, among other developing countries that are more price-sensitive and less demanding about quality. It should try to exchange goods in national currencies or through a swap arrangement. The country would not implore its former colonial masters to grant it limited market access — as a great favour — that could be rescinded over any supposed breach, with sanctions imposed.
The country would encourage innovative, efficient and cost-effective production. Open and fair competition would bring forward businesspeople capable of competing internationally. Surely, ‘crony’ business groups with no merit beyond maintaining relationships with decision-makers would not be tolerated. Nor would rules be made or changed to benefit particular businesspeople, or unjustified subsidies and concessions be granted to them. Where a subsidy was justified, proportionate shares and profits would go to the state.
Taking full advantage of its border with a great power — the world’s manufacturing centre — the developing country would offer every facility to serve as a goods-processing hub, especially in its coastal regions.
The key lessons are clear: policy ought to be made by people who understand and represent the people, not by narrowly focused technical specialists. A country’s national development policy must be predicated on an agreed direction — its rationale, and the people’s priorities, needs and values. Not foreign donor agendas. The country’s economic transformation requires open and fair business competition. ‘Cronyism’ sabotages it. Focus exports on the Global South and make every effort to exchange goods in national currencies or through similar arrangements. Especially in the coastal zones, offer every facility for goods processing from the bordering great power. Incentivise officials by aligning promotions with the performance of the areas they serve.
This is a time of great opportunity for the Global South. The global power balance and systems are changing — a change so fundamental that nothing comparable has happened in hundreds of years. Pakistan must tailor its public policy to the changing environment to achieve its national development goals and pursue national sovereignty and dignity.
The writer is the author of Pakistan: Principles of Public Policy Redefined.
Published in Dawn, September 14th, 2026
