Every year the UNDP publishes the Human Development Report (HDR) measuring the performance of nations. HDR 2003 based on data of 2001 has been released a few days ago. The relative performance of nations is judged in terms of human development index (HDI).
This index is a composite measure of three indicators. The first is per capita income reflecting economic growth. The second is literacy indicating educational attainment. The third is life expectancy at birth showing achievement in the field of health. The nations are subsequently ranked according to their HDI. HDI varies from 0.944 for Norway which is ranked as number one to 0.275 for Sierra Leone which is ranked at number 175. Being a composite measure of per capita income, literacy and life expectancy at birth, it is fairly good estimate of performance of nations.
In the HDR 1991 Pakistan was ranked at 120, India at 123 and Bangladesh at 136. In the HDR 2003, Pakistan is ranked at 144, India at 127 and Bangladesh at 139. During the last year our ranking has fallen from 138 to 144. Part of this slide is due to data errors by UNDP but most of it reflects long run neglect of human development which has accentuated in recent past.
The HDR 2003 shows that Pakistan’s life expectancy at birth is 60.4 years, Bangladesh’s 60.5 years and India’s 63.3 years. The World Development Report (2003 of the World Bank shows Pakistan’s life expectancy at birth 63 years, India has also 63 years and Bangladesh 61 years. In all UN publications, life expectancy at birth of India and Pakistan is estimated at the same level and Bangladesh about 2 to 3 years less.
The World Development Report (WDR) 2003 correctly reflects the situation. It is surprising that the World Bank and UNDP give different figures for vital national statistics. If Pakistan’s life expectancy is shown 3 years higher at the same level as India then our ranking will climb higher than Bangladesh and Sudan, which are at 139 and 138 and we will move into Middle Income Group with an HDI of more than 0.500.
It seems that UNDP statistical office does not like to see Pakistan in middle income group. Another interesting aspect of the HDI calculation by UNDP is that our HDI in 1995 was 0.498 and 2001 it is 0.499. It means that during these 6 years there was no improvement in per capital income, literacy and life expectancy at birth in Pakistan which is impossible to believe.
Our relative progress may be less than that of other nations but there has been some progress in all these fields during the last 6 years. The Bangladesh HDI during the 6 years has gone up by .059 whereas we have moved up by .001 only. There is undoubtedly anti-Pakistan bias in the UNDP statistical office as indicated above. There is definite need for improving connections with UN offices at the working level so that true picture of Pakistan emerges in the UN publications which are read and quoted world-wide.
Education and health have never been the priority of our planners and economic policy makers. This continues till date. Pakistan’s failure to realize the importance of primary education is reflected in low allocations for education in the five years plans. Up to Sixth Plan it was less than 2 per cent, 3 per cent of the Seventh Plan and jumped to 8 percent in the Eighth Plan as a result of incorporation of Social Action Programme which tripled the allocation for social sectors including education, health, family planning and water supply and drainage.
Dr Mehboobul Haq while he was Finance Minister in the 1980s introduced Iqra surcharge at the rate of 5 percent on value of all imported goods. The annual collection of Iqra surcharge was Rs8 billion, more than one per cent of the GDP. If Iqra surcharge was really meant for increasing public expenditure on education, he should have set up a separate Iqra fund whose proceeds could be used exclusively for education and the expenditure on education could have increased by 60 per cent. However, Iqra surcharge was deposited into federal consolidated fund into which all tax receipts are pooled. Thus, Iqra surcharge was used for spending more on defence and buying vehicles for civilian employees. Why did a brilliant son of Pakistan, like Dr Haq, use a Quranic injunction to cheat the nation? It is symptomatic of national hypocrisy towards education and health.
The less than expected performance of the Social Action Programme (SAP) which was abandoned few years ago shows that it is not only the insufficient allocation which results in Pakistan’s disappointing social indicators but more importantly it is the failure of implementation. Funds are allocated but there are no signs in the field. In a recent survey of ghost schools in Punjab it was found that out of 1,66,000 teachers drawing salaries, 50,000 were fake. Almost 10 per cent of the schools never existed. Hence about one - sixth of the amount allocated to primary education was embezzled. The same is the story of basic health units (BHU) and Primary Health Care Centres which are often without doctors and more often without medicines.
Another reason for the slide in the HDI ranking is the low rate of GDP growth at 4.6 per cent during 1990s, whereas India grew by 6 per cent during this decade. Our population growth is over 2 percent whereas India population growth during 2001-15 is shown in HDR 2003 at 1.3. India’s literacy rate has always been better than Pakistan even in 1980s when their per capita income was lower than Pakistan. Hence India’s HDI is higher than Pakistan because their per capita income is higher stemming from higher rate of the GDP growth and lower rate of population growth. Secondly their literacy rate is 58 per cent whereas Pakistan’s 44 per cent.
HDR data is published with lag of two years. The HDR 2003 is based on data of 2001. Hence our better performance in 2003 will be shown in the HDI 2005. The sharp reduction in Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) from 7 per cent of the GDP which has been the norm in the years when we performed well has been reduced to about 3 per cent during the last 4 years. This has resulted in slowing down of the GDP growth and reductions in allocation for public expenditure on education and health. It is distressing to note that Pakistan’s public expenditure on education has decreased from 2.6 per cent of the GDP in 1990 to 1.8 percent in 2000.
Allocations may not be all important but about a one third decrease in public sector allocation for education in an environment when per capita income is growing by less than 2 percent per annum is bound to lead to a deep slide in HDI ranking. The credit for Pakistan’s slide in HDI ranking goes to the IMF whose advice has resulted in soaring poverty and falling GDP growth. Our education and health indicators were never good but IMF stablization programme has led to further deterioration in these sectors.
One hopes that this international embarrassment leads to revamping of priorities with economic growth as the top target followed by rapid improvements in education and health. A ranking below Sudan in the HDR should at least arouse our national spirit to perform much better.
(The author is a former Secretary Planning)