Ali Salman

PSM has received staggering Rs334b from taxpayers’ money over past 15 years

ISLAMABAD:

Over the last 15 years, Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM) has got a staggering sum of Rs334 billion from Pakistani taxpayers.

Financed by the public, it has suffered accumulated losses of Rs189 billion since 2009, received Rs90 billion in bailouts and Rs55 billion in salaries since 2005. For the last 11 years, it has generated zero profit.

After peak capacity utilisation of 93% in 2007, it plunged and never crossed more than 15% of utilisation. While it has more than 9,000 employees, its contribution to the industrial development of Pakistan has been nil over the last five years. The mill was shut down in 2015.

At the outset, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-led federal government deserves accolades as it has not only revived the privatisation programme but is also undertaking probably one of the most difficult transactions ie PSM sell-off.

The most important rationale for privatisation, in the cases where private sector substitutes exist and trade is open, such as PSM, is to cut down wasteful expenditures and losses, which eat into taxes.

If a private sector entity reports losses year after year, it is closed. However, when a government entity reports losses, it is given more budget. This is what has happened in the case of PSM. It is almost as if failure has a reward.

According to a report, by privatising PSM, the government would be saving Rs700 million each month. That money can alternatively be utilised for more productive purposes such as healthcare, education, job creation and investment in water and energy sectors that can yield long-term benefits for the people and the economy.

The government has approved a retrenchment package of Rs20 billion to lay off half or over 4,500 PSM employees to help them. It will ease the recurring financial burden on the government and make the enterprise viable for privatization.

This comes out to be Rs2.3 million per person on average. This money will not last long and by merely being employed by PSM over the years without doing any actual work, these employees may have become unemployable. Therefore, their logical action will be to go for collective action and gather political support for their survival. This situation certainly deserves a careful analysis. People rightly cite the ongoing pandemic and raise concerns about the timing of these layoffs.

However, there cannot be a perfect time for these decisions. Pakistan is under severe pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to cut down wasteful expenditures. Perhaps, the government should consider maximisation of benefits under the retrenchment package and can customise payments according to the capabilities.

Those employees who are willing and able to work in the industry should be provided with adequate training to increase their employability. Employees with some entrepreneurial attitude can be provided with cash grants to start a business.

And the bitter reality will be that many of these employees may just have to accept the golden handshake.

Will the closure of PSM affect the steel industry? The answer is clearly no. Closure of a factory, which is already shut for the past five years, can hardly be noticed. While PSM produced losses after losses, the private sector was busy in investing in the sector and producing more steel. We have developed a reasonable base for production of steel in the country over the last 10 years.

Whether the sustained losses of PSM and the rise of private sector investment are related is an empirical question and deserves serious research. I recall that Federal Planning Minister Asad Umar always claimed that once in power, the PTI would run state-owned enterprises efficiently through better corporate governance and professional management.

He was always opposed to privatisation. Consistent with his claim, he led the formation of Sarmaya-e-Pakistan Limited (SPL) when he became finance minister.

However, economic compulsions have led the government in a different direction. With PSM transaction, privatisation is back. SPL is gone. It is high time that the PTI rectifies its theory also.

The writer is founder and managing trustee of PRIME, an independent think tank based in Islamabad

Published in The Express Tribune, February 1^st, 2021.

Ali Salman

While public debt is important, the country must not be lost in these numbers

ISLAMABAD:

In November 2016, the federal government was in a happy mood. Pakistan had successfully graduated from an International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme.

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) investments were looking good and gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate was on an upward trajectory.

When PRIME think tank organised its third National Debt Conference exactly four years ago, the speakers including Dr Ashfaque Hasan Khan along with co-author Dr Hafiz Pasha made some disturbing projections.

Presenting in 2016, they projected that Pakistan’s external debt would swell to $110 billion (from $73 billion then) in 2020, the country will be spending at least 40% of its revenue on debt servicing and it will go for another IMF programme in 2018-19. This conference and its proceedings were covered in the media.

Fast forward to November 2020. Pakistan’s external debt stands at $113 billion, the country is spending 41% of its revenue on debt servicing and guess what? Pakistan entered into an IMF programme exactly as per the projection in fiscal year 2018-19.

One projection, however, proved wrong – in 2019-20, Pakistan spent just 17.20% of its foreign exchange earnings on external debt servicing, instead of the projected 40%.

But another projection was right on the money. It was projected that the country’s external debt-to-exports ratio will be 441%. Currently, it stands at 438%.

Unfortunately, these projections were ignored by the then government and I can recall the public rebuke by the then finance minister, who rejected this analysis. Did it help?

Where are we now?

The public debt-to-GDP ratio has crossed 87%, thus violating the constitutional limit of 60% defined in the Fiscal Responsibility and Debt Limitation Act 2005.

To be fair, the federal government does not have many options now. The Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) has approved increase in electricity tariff by 17% and gas tariff by 14% in line with the IMF programme. The cabinet has stalled this given the rising momentum of the opposition.

Despite the shock therapy of foreign exchange regime, which was a step in the right direction, exports have continued to be sticky around $21-24 billion. The government may set whatever targets in the new trade policy framework, these are unlikely to be achieved.

The only hope for Pakistan is a continued and increasing flow of remittances. However, this channel is also coming under pressure due to the changing global political economy, particularly around Iran and Israel.

Additionally, no one is sure how to explain rising remittances in a global economic meltdown in the midst of a worst possible pandemic. I recall that a senior economist used the term remittance plus for this phenomenon.

Roshan Digital Accounts are proving helpful and thousands have already opened their accounts. However, this will only help in improving the current account, which is already in surplus, thanks in part to suppressed imports.

Also, as argued by economist Beenish Javed in her report, the present government has done well by stopping borrowing from the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP). However, this report clearly establishes that debt sustainability indicators have deteriorated.

There is the Medium-Term Debt Management Strategy FY20-23 in place. As a good economic policy document, it is built on three assumptions as targets – GDP growth, inflation and fiscal balance.

The implementation of the strategy is conditioned on achieving these targets. It is no-brainer that the growth rate has gone southward while inflation and fiscal deficit have gone north.

As these targets remain far-fetched and unattainable, the Debt Management Strategy becomes a meaningless document.

However, this does bring home important points. Ultimately, while public debt is important, we should not be lost in these numbers. The underlying characteristic of any economy is the growth as well as its source and composition. Growth can sustain responsibly assumed debt. Similarly, a government which can cut down wasteful expenditures can contain the deficit which becomes a reason for borrowing.

We have lost Rs2.3 trillion in the energy sector alone in the last 10 years and continue to lose Rs2 trillion a year through state-owned enterprises and other inefficiencies.

Money printing is bad as it eats up purchasing power and it is a good sign that the government is not doing it. But borrowing from domestic banks is worse, as it displaces the private sector and yields risk-free profits for fat bankers at the cost of taxpayers. It is these issues that an open debate on national debt can shine a light on.

Debate matters but it is not happening. We were asked to stop organising the National Debt Conference in 2018 after the fifth conference. While the debate was cut off, the debt rise did not rest.

It is true that a dialogue on public debt does not directly solve the problem but silencing the debate can only make matters worse. Sadly, this has happened. Perhaps, it is time to revive the debt conference. Are there any takers?

The writer is the founder of PRIME Institute, an independent think tank based in Islamabad

Published in The Express Tribune, November 30^th, 2020.

Ali Salman

To change this, there is need to share stories of wealth creation without subsidy

ISLAMABAD: “Pakistan is a capitalist country with a socialist mindset.” This was aptly stated by a politician a couple of years ago, who is now part of the present government.

I was reminded of this statement when I read this headline recently attributed to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) chairman. The chairman is reported to have said “NAB was pursuing cases of people who did not have a penny in the 1980s but owned multi-storey buildings today.”

In January 2019, Prime Minister Imran Khan said that Pakistan in the 1970s “went wrong because we had a socialist mindset, which became a deterrent to wealth creation”.

Speaking to Turkish businessmen then, PM Imran continued that though the socialist governments stepped down in subsequent decades, the mindset prevailed among the bureaucracy.

The recent statement of the NAB chairman shows that the socialist mindset prevails today. He is not alone of course. Our academia and media, which together shape the public opinion, are of socialist mindset, while practically following a capitalist model.

Media owners, for example, know quite well how to make money, whether from government ads or from preferring the rating over anything else. To be fair, one would be too naive to equate this behaviour with capitalism. This can be pure commercialism. But here I am using capitalism to offer a contrast.

What is wrong with not having a penny 40 years ago and owing multi-storey buildings today? Why we have largely a negative connotation about wealth in this society?

Part of the answer lies in what the prime minister mentioned. It was the nationalisation drive of the 1970s and the accompanying socialist rhetoric of the Pakistan Peoples Party which created this perception.

Part of the answer lies in our religious interpretations. It is commonly perceived that being poor is a virtue, which goes against the sayings and practice of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH, himself a successful merchant.

Part of the answer lies in the nexus between businesses and the government. This nexus was founded in the 1960s and has only deepened since then.

Today, we witness the manifestation of this nexus in markets such as sugar, wheat, electricity and housing. In markets, where such a nexus is non-existent, we see no problems. For example, in the domestic clothing markets, even the poorest of the poor in our country can afford some kind of clothing.

As compared to shelter and food, the access to clothing is not perceived as a problem. A government footprint in the form of subsidies for the textile sector exists but that is largely directed at the international market. The domestic market of clothing is open.

In order to change the socialist mindset, we need to share stories of our entrepreneurs, especially those who have created wealth without government subsidy.

We need to explain the process of wealth creation to the public. Those who create wealth in a productive manner, also create jobs and products. They are our heroes. They can be our small neighbourhood store owners and can be owners of large factories.

Inevitably, wealth creation leads to wealth distribution. For example, the entry of a new firm in a market, while assuming the market size remains the same, redistributes the pie wider. In many cases, new entrants, through their innovation, expands the market size.

It should be acknowledged that access to capital does give an advantage over those who do not have this access. All said and done, return on capital and return on labour may not converge in the long run.

However, paths to wealth creation through innovation and creative destruction always remain open and do not require capital as a prior condition. For that to happen, we need social arrangements which can provide a minimum level of education, health care and infrastructure for all.

Needless to say that general peace and easy taxation, as Adam Smith argued, remain critical. Pakistanis are great entrepreneurs. They are also reckless rent-seekers. In search for a better society, we ought to create room for creative destruction and entrepreneurship.

This may exhibit in favourable laws for street vendors. This may be done by abolishing all forms of subsidies. This may also be demonstrated through removing trade barriers.

We cannot do all at once. But in order to change our mindset, we need to take these actions. Capitalism may have a negative connotation for many, but certainly having more socialists than capitalists in a country does not augur well for future generations.

The writer is founder of PRIME Institute, an independent think tank based in Islamabad

Published in The Express Tribune, November 9^th, 2020.

Ali Salman

Wheat crisis brewing as evident from recent price hike and shortage of commodity

ISLAMABAD: Last week, the Indonesian parliament passed historic laws to liberate its agriculture market from excessive state control, opening up its food trade and increasing the role of private sector.

My good friend Rainer Huefers, who leads a think tank named Centre for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS) in Jakarta, has been part of the voices demanding these reforms. Some of the highlights of these changes, as reported by CIPS, are worth consideration by Pakistan’s policymakers as the country is reportedly going to face another wheat, and probably sugar, crisis in a matter of weeks.

Like Indonesia, Pakistan is a populous country and thus agricultural policies have serious implications for the productivity of farmers and food security for consumers. Here is one part of these reforms, which are directly relevant to us.

Just like Pakistan, previously, Indonesian laws only allowed considering imports when domestic supplies were insufficient. The new Indonesian law:

• Acknowledges imports as a legitimate source of food (but also seeks to protect farmers, fishermen and micro and small food actors through tariff and non-tariff trade measures).

• Drops import restrictions as a strategy to support farmers and plans to boost domestic agricultural growth instead.

• Removes penalties on imported agricultural commodities when national stocks are considered sufficient.

• Permits imports of horticulture, livestock and animal products.

It is expected that Indonesian consumers will be able to get cheaper and more nutritional food as a result of these changes. Furthermore, these laws will encourage international investors to return to Indonesia and as a result more jobs will be created for the Indonesians.

Pakistan should seriously study these changes in Indonesia and should conduct an extensive review of its laws. In fact, if such reviews have been made, which is likely the case, then there should be a public discourse leading to policy changes.

In Pakistan, earlier this year, the government, through its Economic Coordination Committee (ECC), decided to export wheat, which it thought was surplus. After a few months, it decided to import wheat, which it discovered to be short in supply.

When it asked the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (TCP) to issue tenders, it failed to decide three times. In the meantime, international prices of wheat went up considerably, while first shipment of imported wheat has just arrived. Precious time and money have been wasted in this exercise.

Wheat stock

On the other hand, the wheat stock available in the country, reportedly in government warehouses, is also waiting for government permission to be released.

I recall how there were deaths and a famine-like situation in Thar a few years ago simply because the deputy commissioner did not sign a letter for some months to release wheat.

In fact, according to some news reports, the wheat stockpiled in some warehouses in Sindh is being infested because the tenders needed to procure medicinal spray could not be awarded.

From support price for wheat farmers to procurement, storage, trade and release of stock, the government permission is needed at each and every stage. Why blame so-called mafia?

Governments have been involved in these decisions in the past as well. These decisions stem from a belief that some ministers and bureaucrats know the supply and demand of wheat better than farmers and consumers.

In their moment of self-belief, they mostly make mistakes because there is no mechanism to centralise information from the market. It is not just about crop size, it is also about expectations of consumers, traders and farmers, which are simply too complex to be understood.

Governments, in general, also believe that if somehow they let these permissions go away, heavens will fall. They see these controls as necessary tools to protect farmers and consumers.

They are sadly mistaken. As Indonesian case of reforms indicate, solutions lie in letting go of these controls, not increasing them.

The impending wheat crisis in Pakistan, as evident from recent price hike and shortage of wheat, is an opportune moment. Let us not allow another crisis. Instead of bureaucrats and politicians, let consumers and farmers make decisions.

The writer is the founder of PRIME Institute, an independent think tank based in Islamabad

Published in The Express Tribune, October 12^th, 2020.

Ali Salman

Board of Investment needs to step up efforts to exploit opportunities which country offers

ISLAMABAD: In my last few weeks before I relocated from Malaysia to Pakistan, I spent several hours in conversations on prospects of investment by Malaysia in Pakistan, and for that matter, from any other destination.

I spoke with government officials, businessmen, private equity investors, financial consultants, bankers as well as those associated with investment-related responsibilities within Pakistan.

I am sharing some general issues, which apply to prospects of not only foreign investment, but to a large extent, also domestic investment within Pakistan. By no means, this is an exhaustive list.

Property rights

Pakistan adopted a policy of encouraging corporate agriculture about 15 years ago. When I spoke about the prospects of commercial farming with better productivity gains, the first question I received was about property rights.

Does Pakistan offer secure property rights for large-scale land acquisitions and are large land parcels available easily free of encumbrance? The last thing an investor would want is losing capital investment, which is land purchase in the case of agricultural business.

Missing information

After a presentation I made to a group of Malaysian investors and business community where Pakistan’s Overseas Investors Chamber of Commerce and Industry was also present, SME Corp of Malaysia asked a basic question: where Malaysian companies interested in sourcing products from Pakistan can get data about potential companies and products.

In fact, an explicit reference was made of India, for which such information was readily available. It turned out that neither the government nor Pakistani chambers and business associations are equipped with such credible data.

Marketing

Apparently, Pakistan’s government and business associations have not prepared basic documentaries that can introduce basic features of Pakistan’s economy including challenges and opportunities.

While some videos are available that introduce Pakistan’s scenic mountains, investment angle is missing. I could only find videos prepared by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which were focused on structural and institutional reforms as per their mandate. In this age of digital media, this rather basic shortcoming is not understandable.

Missing projects

On its homepage, Pakistan’s Board of Investment enlists nine natural resources under its appeal to invest in Pakistan. These include salt, copper, coal, gold, cotton, milk, wheat and meat.

It also mentions some generic reasons like population, economic outlook and geostrategic location for investment in Pakistan. However, well-researched project documents, which can identify demand and commercial opportunities, are not available.

Investors need to be ready to act on intelligence before considering moving their capital.

Political stability

Pakistan has achieved considerable stability with successive democratic changes over the last decade or so. However, the common perception is contrary.

Investors still look at Pakistan as a country where frequent government changes and military intervention are a norm. On a positive, they view Prime Minister Imran Khan as a sign of positive change where economic governance is improving.

India factor, negative experiences

Pakistan has not gone into a full-scale war with India for the past 50 years, yet the common perception is that it is a country in constant conflict with one of the world’s largest economies.

Potential investors would always ask existing investors about embarking on in a new destination.

While the presentation by the Overseas Investors Chamber of Commerce did communicate that multinationals present in Pakistan have increased their investment considerably, many of the past investment transactions between Malaysia and Pakistan have not been successful. These include investment transactions in areas of telecom, banking and real estate.

While some of these issues do not have an immediate solution, most of these issues are manageable without spending huge resources. Perhaps, the Board of Investment needs to take a fresh look and redeploy its efforts to exploit the opportunities which Pakistan offers.

The writer is the founder of think tank PRIME and has established a platform to promote Malaysia-Pakistan bilateral investment

Published in The Express Tribune, August 17^th, 2020.