Posted on February 24, 2011
Filed Under >Ahmed Jamal Pirzada, Economy & Development
14 Comments
Total Views: 73091

Email a copy of 'Devising a Growth Strategy for Pakistan (5): Answering The Critics' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 3 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 3 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

14 responses to “Devising a Growth Strategy for Pakistan (5): Answering The Critics”

  1. Mazhar Mughal says:

    @Talat: I guess your French guide was not much informed. The so-called muslim marauders didn’t last in France for more than two, three decades, and all this was thirteen centuries back. May be the reason of the French South’s supposed backwardness is something other the religion your guide hates so much?
    Having lived both in the North and the South, I find Southern France much more peaceful, open and tolerant. Should I make the same correlation?
    And one correction: Two of the South’s 5 regions are among the richest in France, and according to the latest economic figures (4th quarter 2010), jobless rate in the South is lower in the South and economic growth higher.

  2. Ahmed Jamal Pirzada says:

    the issue is not with privatization but with how to privatize…

    Following is the reason given for the failure of privatization in-case of British rail:

    “The private train operating companies, with their de facto monopolies and their undemanding contracts, have had little incentive to deliver a better service to customers.”

    state monopoly is better than private sector monopoly. but a competitive private sector is way better than anything.

    in our case we need to think about how to privatize so that the end result is competitive private sector. taking railways as our example: if we unbundle railways and then individually privatize its many assets, we will succeed in generating competition.

    unbundling is only a necessity in sectors where state monopoly exists. for sectors where there are already other market players (private), such a procedure will not be required.

  3. Anwer says:

    Here is some commentary on the consequences of privatization in UK.
    =============================
    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-artic les/leading-article-highspeed-is-still-the-right-t rack-for-britain-2228575.html


    Yet high-speed rail is no solution to that other great curse of the British rail network: bad management. The Conservatives failed to invest adequately in British Rail in the 1980s. And under John Major in 1993 they imposed a disastrous privatisation. The private train operating companies, with their de facto monopolies and their undemanding contracts, have had little incentive to deliver a better service to customers. Fares have soared even as the public subsidy for the rail network has increased. One of the reasons public enthusiasm for high-speed rail is absent is that many people’s experience of British trains has been so unsatisfactory.

  4. Ahmed Jamal Pirzada says:

    in response to the ‘tribune’ article, I have got following to say:

    the ideals are to gain efficiency and productivity whether through privatization or any other means.

    looking at our ground situation, we must realize that we dont have adequate institutional infrastructure. plus all the red tapism and poor administrative structure makes it almost impossible for the state to effectively run the businesses. also we cannot undermine political interventions which have taken place in existing organizations such as PIA, PR etc.

    another issue which cannot be ignored is financing of development plan of any business. do we have enough financial capital to develop such entities? obviously not.

    keeping our ground realities in mind, we must consider other means of achieving efficiency and productivity.

    as per my limited understanding, privatization is the best option available to us today.