John Rawls, an American political philosopher, pointed out that justice is the first virtue of social institutions just like truth is the first virtue of thought. In the same spirit, economic autonomy is the first virtue of a national development policy. If a national development policy cannot enhance economic independence, call it anything but a development policy.
The question that the architects of state policy ought to ask is whether a development policy increases national independence or increases international dependence. If a policy increases national independence and economic autonomy, it is a development policy. If not, then please call it something else. The job of policy makers and experts is to suggest ways in which a country abates and mellows constraints imposed by its history, politics, geography and other variables.
Keeping that view in mind, how do we assess the current government’s grand development policy- tourism? People from around the world, and from within the country, it is hoped, visit areas in Pakistan, spend their income, which would improve living conditions and bring prosperity.
It is important to consider whether tourism is a development policy. Especially because the present government has spent energy convincing voters and citizens that the fortunes will improve by creating right conditions for tourists.
This focus has gained international attention. In 2017, Financial Times (FT), perhaps the most influential financial broadsheet in the world, suggested Pakistan as one of eight places to visit. In 2019, the same newspaper, put Pakistan in one of five countries to visit.
In simple terms, the primary focus of any national tourism policy is to attract foreign tourists, or wealthy domestic individuals. Domestic middle class, and working class, tourists, in theory, do not bring in any additional income to the country. Imagine a middle class family travels to Skurdu from Larkana. They would spend their income in Skurdu, but in order to save for the holidays, the family would cut their spending in Larkana.
Now imagine, if an extremely wealthy family from Larkana visits Skurdu. This family normally visits London or other foreign countries during their holidays. But, this time they visit Skurdu. This would bring income to the people of Skurdu without cutting off any spending in Larkana. Money, instead of it being spent in London, is being spent in Skurdu. By the same reasoning, foreign nationals, who, for example, visit Bhutan or Nepal, come to visit Skurdu would add to the national income without any loss to other regions of Pakistan.
To be clear, conditions and living standards would improve in the tourist areas. Small businesses will emerge. Demand for guides would create employment opportunities. And of course, the biggest benefit would be to those who own land and property in these areas that can be rented to tourists. But, there is no doubt that everyone in the area would be affected. The arrival of people would, I agree, improve the ‘image problem’.
But, is tourism a national development policy? No. Because it does not enhance a country’s national sovereignty and economic independence. On top, as a policy, I don’t think it is sustainable in the long run. As climate change becomes an urgent priority, tourism will be one of the things affected by it. Though climate change would require changes at a national and international level, focus on individual action would come under scrutiny. Already in the Scandinavian countries, people are thinking about ‘flying responsibly’. Greta Thunrberg, climate change activist, sailed, not flew, to the US from Europe.
Second, the tourism industry is dependent on the prevalent geo-political situation. The latest pandemic of coronavirus lays bare the ineffectiveness of tourism as the supreme development policy. Imagine a society relying on tourism during such a pandemic. In Portugal, for example, one region reports 60% hotel cancellations. Italy, in a total lockdown, is another example. Mauritius, a small country that relies on tourism, will also be severely affected by the pandemic. These are no small issues and should be considered when devising and emphasising a national development policy.
Climate Change and coronavirus are just two examples of why the present government needs to understand that focusing on tourism may help a small minority but does not classify as a development policy.
If not tourism, then what? Cambridge based development economist Ha Joon Chang in his book Kicking Away the Ladder looked at all the developed countries and observed a pattern in how they developed. All the countries instituted industrial policies that supported their infant industries through subsidies and protectionism. Once these countries had efficient industries, only then, these countries opened their borders for trade.
The present government should invest in agriculture, health, education and industry. Educate doctors, engineers, scientists. Create incentives for farmers to produce essential crops to sustain and feed the population. Provide incentives not to real estate monopolies but to businesses that invest in productive, green and sustainable industries. All these policies enhance economic independence and autonomy.
All these policies take time. A generation or two-if not more. But, the present government, and other political parties, urgently need to start making these policies. Pakistani economy and its citizens cannot afford yet another delay.
There was a time when Imran Khan questioned whether Shahid Afridi, the boom boom cricketer, understood development policy. Now, by emphasising tourism as his grand development policy, PM Khan leaves himself open to the same criticism.
The writer is a freelancer