Daily Times

What is development? How do we measure progress? Is development about economic growth? These are some of the fundamental questions international development practitioners seek to address. While development is incredibly broad phenomena, policymakers and public in Pakistan have a restricted understanding of the term. The mainstream perception focuses on infrastructural transformation viewing physical and tangible aspects of development as criterion for progress. This thinking has traditionally dominated national development policy and planning since the inception of Pakistan. What is wrong with this approach?

Before we go on to critique development thinking, let us first get the definition straight. In its true sense, development means improvement in economic and social well-being of the poor. This means meeting basic needs such as affordable healthcare, shelter, affordable transportation, education and psychological well-being. The real goal of development is to ensure that the citizens feel secure, healthy and empowered. Development, therefore, is a multidimensional concept encompassing multifarious economic and social objectives.

Earlier approaches in the 1950s and 1960s stressed the economic aspects of development such as income and industrialisation. But as the discipline evolved, the definition widened considerably to include social and political objectives. The focus on alternate ideas of development in the late 1980s led to construction of new measures of economic and social transformation. The most notable of these measures for assessing long-term progress is the Human Development Index (HDI), launched by the UNDP in 1990. The UNDP’s HDI focuses on life expectancy, educational attainment and income as a measure of well-being. This represented a shift in traditional approaches to development that focused solely on Gross Domestic Progress (GDP) as a measure of progress. The recent Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the latest Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent the vast and diverse scope of development goals including gender equality and climate change.

Unfortunately, the social aspects of development have been grossly neglected by policymakers in Pakistan. Pakistan ranks hopelessly low on the human development ladder with an HDI value of 0.538 for 2014, positioning it at 147 out of 188 countries. Health and education sectors are in shambles as a result of criminal neglect and consistent apathy by successive governments. There are currently 25.02 million children out of school in Pakistan, representing almost half of all school-age children while the Constitution of Pakistan states that every child has the right to free and compulsory education. More than half of the country’s out-of-school children live in Punjab. Girls make up more than half of all out-of-school children. Between 30-40 percent of schools are without basic facilities like electricity, water and sanitation. The statistics in health are equally depressing. Local infant mortality and maternal mortality rates are awfully high. At 44 percent, Pakistan’s under-five stunting rates are much higher than the global rate. Pakistan’s maternal mortality ratio is estimated to be between 350 and 600 per 100,000 live births as compared to 17 per 100,000 live births in the United States. Despite these alarming statistics, the social development sector remains ignored. Why?

Development trends and policy pathways can only be fully understood if their historical dimensions are taken into account. Using a historical perspective, it becomes clear why human development has received such little attention by decision makers. One key factor has been the excessive military influence in national matters. Frequent military takeovers and the constant threat from India gave the military decisive influence over budgetary allocation and spending. This resulted in substantial resources being allocated to defence sector at the expense of social sector. Since early years, the defence sector accounts for a disproportionate share in GDP. Over the years, government spending on defence has increased significantly with the development of nuclear assets and present-day challenges such as terrorism. Meanwhile, human development budgets have remained appallingly low. Pakistan spends less than three percent of its GDP on health and education sectors. Besides high defence spending, however, there are other powerful motives responsible for the dismal state of social development. There has been a criminal neglect of social sectors by civilian governments for personal gains. Personal interests have dominated policymaking at the cost of collective public good. Policies have been motivated by short-term goals and incentives rather than long-term progress. Feudal lords in rural areas have resisted social development in order to keep their local power and authority unchallenged. A common criticism of democracy is that it creates politicians with short-term horizons who cannot think beyond the next election and instead focus on short-term gains. It is no wonder then that infrastructural projects take precedence over human development objectives. It takes a few months to build a new underpass or a highway but the rewards from investing in education can take years to show. The relatively quick delivery and glitz of mega-projects bring immediate political gains but do little to create long-term meaningful change. Metro sells, schools don’t.

Although less valued, the importance of human development cannot be overemphasised. Health has intrinsic as well as instrumental value. Intrinsically, being healthy is a very important source of well-being. The instrumental value of health lies in its contribution to economic growth. For example, it raises worker productivity, improves learning among school children as a result of better nutrition and allows productive use of financial resources. Similarly, education besides being a fundamental human right promises tremendous benefits. It beats poverty, promotes gender equality and better health. Women with higher levels of education are likely to adopt improved hygiene and sanitation practices, seek healthcare and adopt birth-control measures. No country has progressed without investing in its human capital and social opportunities. The rise of East Asian countries known as the East Asian miracle is attributed to significant investments in human development. Singapore is celebrated as a development success story. The country’s first prime minister, the late Lee Kuan Yew, is credited with transforming Singapore through building efficient institutions, attracting foreign investment and investing heavily in education.

Many of the challenges facing Pakistan today are rooted in poor literacy rates. A huge proportion of our youth is unemployed not due to limited opportunities but largely because they lack basic professional and technical skills needed to enable them to secure jobs. Dilapidated public schools, poverty and high rates of teacher absenteeism have forced children to alternate institutions such as madrassas, many of which are breeding grounds for extremism in Pakistan. Investment in education will be necessary to combat issues like honour killing, domestic violence and climate change. Even for a well-functioning democracy, education is imperative so people can make rational and informed choices. If our ruling elite is so concerned about consolidating democracy, they must pay attention to democratic pre-conditions such as decent literacy rates.

Development requires decisive, context-specific and honest policies that enhance well-being and quality of life. While infrastructural development is an important part of the process, there are more pressing needs that demand immediate attention. It is more important to save children dying of malnutrition in Tharparker than to build a motorway. We all want better roads and mass-transit projects, but with Pakistan ranked among the top five most vulnerable countries to climate change impacts, the question here is about prioritising.

Pakistan needs structural shifts in development policy. Without structural measures, transformation is unlikely. But who would bring structural change? There are significant barriers standing in the way: personalistic leaders and extractive institutions.

The writer is lecturer in International Development for University of London International Programmes