Talk:Economy of Pakistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Notice Board for Pakistan Related Topics

Contents

[edit] Older Talks

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)

[edit] UPDATES NEEDED

[edit] Declining Poverty Rate

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)

[edit] Change nominal to real

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)

[edit] Don't change

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)

[edit] Distribution of wealth and income

[edit] Largest economy without billionaires

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)

[edit] Largest country without billionaires

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)

[edit] Pakistan B2B Companies/Exporters

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.

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

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 ...

[edit] External debt

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)

[edit] Comment left in the article

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)

[edit] GA

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)

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

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)

[edit] GA Review

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)

[edit] 3rd fastest growing economy

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)