Talk:Economy of Pakistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Economy of Pakistan was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 1, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
August 9, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Flag of Pakistan.svg
Notice Board for Pakistan Related Topics

Older Talks[edit]

Is there any body who can check with Pakistan's poverty rate?? 22% is unbelievable as it had more than 30% poverty rate around 2000, per World Bank report. - Jay 03:04, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)


Is all this true?

"Pakistan's major stock market index, the KSE-100, has grown by a larger percentage than any other major stock-market index in the world."
"Pakistan is a world leader in the use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) for personal automobiles."

It just sounds so hyped as to be improbable. What is the KSE-100 at today? Is it an accepted measurement? - Tεxτurε 18:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's a five-year chart of the KSE-100, compared to the S&P500 and Thailand's SET index (which I know is the best-performing index in SE Asia.) [1]. Investor confidence was very low, and dividend yields on Pakistani stocks were absurdly high at the beginning of the extended bull run. Then accelerating economic growth and low interest rates boosted corporate sales and profits. So stock values skyrocketed. There is still a big gap between the average yield on stocks and the T-bond rates.
I don't have the stats right now, but you can see CNG gas-stations in the cities. In the capital, Islamabad, nearly every filling station has CNG. A great many people in the cities drive CNG-equipped cars AmeriDesi 00:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Update: Argentina is the leader in total number of CNG vehicles [2], but I believe Pakistan is the leader by two measures: growth of CNG vehicles (>10,000 vehicles/month) and percentage of private cars that use CNG. More on CNG -
Are you going to include district and provincial stats breakdowns as part of this? Good job otherwise --Zak 17:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATES NEEDED[edit]

Declining Poverty Rate[edit]

According to the new World Bank figures, Pakistan's poverty rate is 17% and not 25% as typed here. Can someone please rewrite that part of the article and change it? Thank you very much. Here is the link: Economic Report Card- Napoleon12 10:38 am, 08 Jul 2006

It is unbelievable to assume this much reduction in the poverty rate. In actual terms it is about 33% as mentioned by IMF in its recent report on Pakistan(year 2006).
Due to higher inflationery pressure and contineouse monetary expansions the purchasing power of the peoples and shruck at about half.
This is a measurement problem because of the way poverty is defined. There is a certain income level – if you below it, you are counted as "poor"; if you are above it, you are counted as "not poor", even though you may be making only slightly more than the "poor" person who is just below the poverty line. Now a significant proportion of the Pakistani population is close to the poverty line – both above and below the line. As a result, an increase – even a small increase – in the income of the poor has an unavoidable statistical effect: a small increase pushes a large number of people to a level that is just over the poverty line. They are no longer officially poor. Pakistan's economy has roughly doubled in size in the past several years, so a huge number of people are now above the poverty line. They are still poor, but not as poor as before, and no longer counted as poor. Stanwatch 00:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Change nominal to real[edit]

The article has this text: "Current GDP per capita grew 112% in the Sixties and 81% in the Seventies but this proved unsustainable and growth fell sharply to 22% in the Eighties and 18% in the Nineties."

The problem is that nominal-growth comparisions across decades would have been valid if inflation was constant. But inflation has not been constant. You have to use real (inflation-adjusted growth) to compare the decades. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the time right now. Stanwatch 01:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't change[edit]

Inflation is relevant for the aggregate economy as a whole, not to the individual worker. Anyway inflation index is already given separately for the GDP. So no worries.

No, it's misleading: the article says, "Current GDP per capita grew 112% in the Sixties and 81% in the Seventies but this proved unsustainable and growth fell sharply to 22% in the Eighties and 18% in the Nineties". This is plainly wrong. Real economic growth was higher in the 1980s than the 1970s, which had high inflation. This makes the 1970s look good, when in fact the 1970s were almost as bad as the 1990s.
It is standard practice in economics to use inflation-adjusted measures for GDP growth. EastBayer 18:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Distribution of wealth and income[edit]

Largest economy without billionaires[edit]

According to the World Bank (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP_PPP.pdf) the 24 economies larger than Pakistan are: The USA, China, Japan, India, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Russia, Spain, Canada, Korea, Mexico, Indonesia, Australia, Turkey, Argentina, South Africa, Iran, Netherlands, Poland, Philippines. Of these, all but Iran are represented in the Forbes list. As for Iran, it used to have at least one billionaire, the Shah. Since Pakistan has never had a billionaire, it is now the largest economy that has never had one.Stanwatch 16:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Largest country without billionaires[edit]

According to the US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbrank.html) and http://geography.about.com/cs/worldpopulation/a/mostpopulous.htm, the five countries that have more people than Pakistan are China, India, USA, Indonesia, and Brazil, all of which have multiple billionaires, according to the Forbes list. So Pakistan is the most populous country without billionaires. User:Stanwatch

This is due to the privatization in 70s.This privitization has changed the income inequality and there fore we did not have multi billinaires in Pakistan.--Faraz Akhtar 12:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan B2B Companies/Exporters[edit]

Several apparel and industrial Pakistani exporters listed here in this site:

http://www.sulekhab2b.com/Company/Search/Pakistan/.htm

203.187.244.141 04:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


Not sure which world bank report says it takes 80 days in India to get a Lanline. It usally takes 2-5 days in Urban Areas, where as it takes a week more in rural areas. Tele communications Sector is highly competetive in India.

The mentioned World Bank Report in the main article was misquotig the information. This was around 90s.

Impact of Privatization on Human Resource of PTCL in Pakistan[edit]

Hello, i am a student with my dissertation degree and i need to have some information on how the privatization as effected the Human Resource in the Pakistan Telecommunications Company Limited. I would appriciate if some web references and some text with authenticated references be given in the discussion .. thankyou ...

External debt[edit]

I am removing following paragraph

"The administration of President Pervez Musharraf sought and received debt relief in 2001 from international lenders, reducing its external debt from $32 billion to a discounted present value less than half of that. The government used Pakistan's surplus to prepay expensive debt and replace it with commercial debt, which it has been able to obtain at low interest rates as a result of its improved credit rating."

This paragraph is libelously portraying Pakistan as opportunist and dependent on foreign aid. Pakistan's present external debt is $36 billion, not 'less than half' of $32 billion. Pakistan's External Debt and Liabilities Mnyaseen 00:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment left in the article[edit]

I am pasting the comment left in the article down here. I have removed personal contact info from it.


Madam/Sir, I had the privilege of using Wikipedia as a source of information on several important topics. However, I would like to bring it to your attention that GDP figure given for Pakistan (i.e. 475 billion US$) is a gross overestimate and hence totally incorrect. I have been able to confirm this from several Pakistani newspapers and other online sources. Please click on http://www.who.int/countries/pak/en/ http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/pakistan_pakistan_statistics.html for making a reasonable comparison. The GDP for current fiscal year 2006-2007 has been quoted as 160 billion US dollars. If you want, I may be able to provide you the supporting material in this regard. This is just an observation in order to improve the accuracy of the information. This figure has been displayed in a number of items related to Pakistan, one of them being; '''Economy of Pakistan''' From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So, it is imperative that you rectify this misquotation. This is just a request for you to rectify the mistake, and several other related misrepresentations in articles relevant to Pakistan. DR. FAHEEM AKHTAR


Somebody in the know might want to have a look into question raised. --Webkami 09:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

GA[edit]

This article was properly reviewed on June 1 2006 according to the rules in place at the time. As the article seems generally well cited I am reinstating the GA. The external links obviously need pruning and the lead is missing a period, so I'm sure this article could be improved, and that's what Wikipedia:Peer review is for. If you don't think it's a GA, then delist it. Gimmetrow 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vague, lack of in-text citations, POV issues[edit]

Phrases like: "business friendly policies", "Pakistan is now the most investment-friendly nation in South Asia. Business regulations have been profoundly overhauled along liberal lines, especially since 1999.", and "Last week's reports of Pakistan's electricity producers seeking a parity in returns for both domestic and foreign investors is indicative of one of the key unresolved issues in overseeing a surge in electricity generation when the country faces growing shortages. " all either lack citations or show prominent POV. In addition, the latter-most quote speaks for itself: using "last week" is not a great idea in an encyclopedia. There are plenty of external links, but much of this long article is far from factual or clear. Parts of the article, especially towards the end, sound like they are from government websites... not an encyclopedia. ~ clearthought 23:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

As part of the WP:UCGA I came across this article lacking an oldid for the GA, and notices issues with how the GA was given and some recent edits involving it. The article itself may have a good amount of referenced information but it may be too broad, and certainly the references need significant cleanup per WP:CITET. I've put this article up at WP:GA/R for consideration. --Masem 05:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

By unanimous consensus, this article has been delisted from WP:GA. The discussion, now in archive, can be seen here. Once the article is brought up to standards it may be renominated at WP:GAC. Regards, Lara♥Love 02:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

3rd fastest growing economy[edit]

Any source? Anyways, 7% economy growth rate is of little significance when your inflation rate is 7.9%! The article should mention the dire consequences of such a high inflation rate. --Lokanth 09:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I know for a fact that the Pakistani economy was second fastest growing in 2005 and (I think) third fastest the year before. But I\m pretty sure it's fallen after the financial debacle we're all in =| Cheese1125 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Opinion786[edit]

Thank you "A Fantasy" and "Sambot" for the wonderful additions you made to this page. The page represents a wonderful projection of Pakistan's economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opinion786 (talkcontribs) 15:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is a propaganda outlet of the pakistani interior ministry and the ministry of commerce. and opinion786 you are a douchebag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.168.54 (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

CIA factbook links[edit]

They dont work (the first three) : The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.168.54 (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

They don't work because they refer to the old Factbook. The new version uses ...geos/pk.html instead of ...geos/PK.html. It has been fixed now. Green Giant (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole article reads as though it were written by the Pakistani dept. of commerce. How does it miss that in Oct. 2008 the country nearly went bankrupt and needed an IMF loan? Where is the section on what happened preceeding that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.102.159 (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


to add to that the link for CIA factbook shows PPP per capita for pakistan to be $2800 in 2011. The cia factbook stats dont add up to whats posted in the wiki article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.50.56 (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone changed poverty rate to 40%[edit]

Someone has changed the poverty rate from original 24% according to CIA factbook to some news paper article. The poverty rate should be given by reliable source. If you have to provide rate by some research or study article then Pakistan poverty rate is 17%. please change poverty rate to CIA factbook as mentioned in every country economy page. links provided. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html 24% http://www.daily.pk/undp-reports-pakistan-poverty-declined-to-17-under-musharraf-10324/ 17%

Poverty rate[edit]

Isn't the poverty rate: 60% considering the minimum wage $2 that is an international standard for developing countries, according to 2013-14 Economic Survey Report of GoP? Sources: [6], [7], [8]. -- SMS Talk 08:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't know why every user here fail to see the line in this link, With 77 million food-insecure people, 40 per cent of population is below poverty line, that is why I wrote the figure of 40%, this figure is from 2012, the figures in List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty are outdated, from 2008 and 2006. But as you have said, $2 the international standard for developing countries and 60% of the population fell under the line according to 2013-14 Economic Survey Report of GoP, so 60% should be the appropriate figure. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well first of all, if the article needs more references, then "{{ref improve}}" template is intended for it. And the references that User:Smsarmad has provided give the outdated figure of 60%, because they are of 2008. The poverty declined to 12.4 percent population during 2010-11, so we need latest figures. Why such haste towards increasing the poverty figures? You did not even see that the figures were of 2008? The reference that I.Bhardwaj provided, was of Express Tribune January 22, 2014. It said that 77 million people are living below poverty line. The latest figures provided by Express Tribune show a decrease in poverty with people living under poverty line as 58.7 million people as of February 25, 2014, and getting the percentage of 58.7/186, we get 31% poverty figures for 2014. 186 million was the May 2014 population estimate for Pakistan. Faizan 06:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Adding $2-below figures is incorrect because the poverty line used to be $2 but it was later revised to $1.25. Bhardwaj keeps putting poverty figures as 40% (that's double the given figure of around 20%!) but the link Bhardwaj keeps referencing is a vague/unclear news article that does not explicitly mention anywhere that 40% of people are living under $1.25. It says that 40% of people are "affected" by poverty levels or the poverty line. As an economics student myself, that can be understood in various meanings when you take various economics indicators into account. Anyone can be "affected" by poverty, including an income-earning middle class person when you take socio-economic factors and standards of living into consideration. Being "affected" by poverty does not mean they are living below the official poverty line of $1.25 (roughly 123 Pakistani rupees) a day. Per estimates given by IMF, World Bank, UNICEF and various other sources that I can see, the percentage of Pakistan's population living under that amount per day is usually given at around 21% [9]. I will not hesitate in saying that Bhardwaj has a tendency of exaggerating things, engaging in original research and synthesis, and presenting half-verified inferences as facts, and that applies not only to this article, but to other articles where he is active as well. This sort of tendentious editing usually does not last very long and such editors usually end up being blocked on Wikipedia. I say this as an editor who is much more experienced here. It would be wise if the said editor takes a cue and some wisdom out of this. Mar4d (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
From Poverty threshold: "In 2008, the World Bank came out with a revised figure of $1.25.....". Agreed with Mar4d, BHardwaj is misrepresenting the source, as it does not indicate that what is the standard they have taken for their figure. The figures of 21% are well comprehensible, and as per the international standard of $1.25. Faizan 06:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not misrepresenting the source, the source says With 77 million food-insecure people, 40 per cent of population is below poverty line that is exactly what I edited. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
That source is not reliable. It's just a news article and it clearly attributes the figure of 40% as an assessment of "independent research studies". The figure cannot be considered reliable or authoritative as it is not coming from an official source. As I mentioned before, this figure contradicts the statistics recorded by IMF, World Bank, UNICEF and numerous other international bodies who are officially consulted internationally for poverty figures, and per what we have, the population living below the official poverty line of $1.25 corresponds to 21%. Moreover, the sentence you are quoting is not even in the article itself, it's a caption of the picture and there is no clarification or economic analysis presented over the figure. It fails verification and makes it insufficient to be confirmed. Lastly, the sentence is also quite vague as it links food insecurity to living below the poverty line, while the poverty threshold is actually an international figure for people who live below $1.25. Those 77 million people (about 40% of Pakistan's population) who are described as living below the line or being "affected" by poverty are people who are said to be food insecure, but that does not mean they are living below $1.25. Even the starting sentence of your source says "Increasing poverty levels over the past decade are now affecting 40 per cent of Pakistan’s population", and as I said before, being "affected" by poverty does not = living below $1.25. Mar4d (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Poverty threshold doesn't need to be uniform for all countries since every country has its own national poverty line. According to this report official poverty line in Pakistan is calorie-based and consumption-based absolute poverty is estimated after converting the household consumption level to its adult equivalent, based on the recommended nutritional requirements of 2,350 calories per person, per day. If you consider the international poverty line then it has to be $2 per day according to the same report But if the poverty line is raised to $2 per day in line with international standards for middle income countries, then 60.19pc of the population falls below the poverty line. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Poverty threshold[edit]

If you still think it's $2, get it solved here at talk first. I think getting third-party comments from RfC would be better. Faizan 13:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The source you mentioned is from 2008 and this source is from 2014 which says if the poverty line is raised to $2 per day in line with international standards for middle income countries, then 60.19pc of the population falls below the poverty line. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I.Bhardwaj you have been engaged in a low level edit war for some time and no one agrees with you no nation has used that figure so why should Pakistan maybe you can experiment on the Indian economy page all countries on wikipedia comply with the same poverty threshold figures so Pakistan must also get consensus. GaryKhanna (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is required to make a change, it was 21% before, but I.Bhardwaj has not got it. Faizan 15:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Started an RfC below, wait till it ends, no unilateral changes to the figures be made prior to that. Faizan 15:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

External link to tariff data[edit]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC586%7cPakistan&source=1%7CITC) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by Pakistan. Visitors can easily look up market access information for Pakistan by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: What should be the poverty threshold?[edit]

Close request from ANRFC. no consensus Not enough input to really determine consensus. Id suggest the compromise position is to include both, particularly as the dawn source discusses both.Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What should be the poverty threshold to be used in articles of the countries of "middle-income" like Economy of Pakistan, Economy of India, etc? Whether World Bank or DAWN? Faizan 15:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • World Bank - $1.25 standard, as proposer. Faizan 17:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this article says that $2 per day is the international standard for middle income countries. the 21% is figure is also from 2008 and not up to date. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Neither -- More research is needed on this, you can report what other entities consider to be "poverty level" however you have a significant problem when attempting to be encyclopedic in that such entities which set such thresholds are highly biased and the concept of what constitutes a dollar is highly fluid. If you pick a dollar value -- $1.25 or $2.00 -- you would need to state which entity is making that claimed threshold, and offer a cuitable reference to a web page operated by that entity which makes the claim, however it would not be appropriate to glibly state "this is the dollar threshold," there is great inaccuracy, bias, and right wing ideology in such statements, all of which would require full disclosure (and suitable references) of who it is making the statement. Damotclese (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Both -- The rfcbot sent me. If this is controversial and there are two opposing standards used by international organizations, why not just include the numbers for both of them, and explain that there is no universal agreement about which is best? EllenCT (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer to use the world bank standard, which is relatively common across countries. That said, there's no need to establish it as a standard for this article in particular. The text can state that according to WB's poverty threshold, X% of people in Pakistan are under the poverty line. If we wanted to, we could include the Dawn article and note that under the threshold for middle income countries, Y% of people in pakistan are under the poverty line. However I'd like to see another source that promotes $2 PPP for middle income countries. Protonk (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • World Bank. I believe the World Bank criterion for poverty line is widely used. The World Bank's poverty and equity data for Pakistan is here [10]. Although many poverty thresholds can be entered, I can only find descriptions for the $1.25 threshold in the links on the web page, with no explanation for why other poverty thresholds should be used (please forgive my ignorance). If a $2 threshold is to be used for Pakistan, there should be reliable sources explaining why this is used instead of the more ubiquitous $1.25 threshold.
DAWN is a news outlet and does not declare poverty lines, so it is the content of the article we should consider, not the news agency itself. The above cited article reports what appears to be a one-off statement by Pakistan's minister of finance that he thinks the poverty line should probably be $2/day rather than $1.25/day, which I don't think is enough for including the $2/day threshold in the Pakistan article, and certainly not for the Economy of India article. (I'm a bit confused by the Dawn article which appears to use "daily minimum wage", "income per adult ... per day", and "poverty line" interchangeably; they mean three different things in the USA, where I live.)
National measures of poverty should also be mentioned, and according to the DAWN article, Pakistan uses a "consumption-based approach", rather than an dollar income threshold, but more sources would be needed to flesh this out. Criteria would vary from country to country.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
World Bank and IMF measures poverty on two thresholds, income less than $2 per day and less than $1.25 per day. I don't think DAWN is declaring the poverty threshold but stating that World Bank's poverty threshold for middle income countries is income less than $2 per day threshold. If we take the consumption based approach into account, the population below poverty level stands at 40% as of 2012 according to this article which is the latest figure. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, the DAWN article gives data for both poverty lines. Here's a source (pdf) that defines the two poverty lines [11]. Here $1.25/day is considered the "extreme poverty line", which is the average poverty line of the 15 poorest countries, while $2/day is the median poverty line for all developing countries. Based on the sources presented so far, I still don't see much basis for choosing one over the other. Perhaps both (or all 3) should be used as EllenCT has suggested, at least until it can be determined if reliable sources predominantly apply one or the other to Pakistan. Or figures could be presented in terms of "extreme poverty line" and "median poverty line for developing countries".--Wikimedes (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.