Making sense of the CPEC controversy — III
In my previous articles on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, I deconstructed the government’s claims about having prioritised the western route of the project as well as critically examined the various justifications advanced by those defending the prioritisation of the eastern route. In the concluding part of this series of articles, I aim to examine the way our public policy is developed and the trade-off that often occurs between concerns for equity and those for efficiency. Specifically, I will deconstruct the public policy paradigm underlying the arguments advanced in favour of the eastern route.
Public policies aimed at regional development have traditionally tended to focus on the trade-off between equity and efficiency. Most of the arguments advanced to justify the prioritisation of the eastern route of the CPEC are based on the technocratic efficiency-based criterion. There are three major flaws in this line of reasoning.
First, the efficiency-based criterion ignores the history of past injustices and the absence of a level playing field between the developed and the lagging regions of the country. Pakistan inherited regional inequality from the colonial period. The British had strategic interests in contemporary Balochistan, Fata and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) and therefore developed only the infrastructure that was vital for defence logistics. In contrast, they had deep economic and political interests in Punjab and Sindh. The infrastructure developed in these regions favoured agricultural growth and industrialisation. After Pakistan’s creation, the post-colonial ruling elite did very little to undo economic and political inequality among the different ethnic groups and regions. Power asymmetries among ethno-regional groups reinforced regional disparities and ensured that resource distribution remained biased in favour of Punjab. The fact that Pakhtun representation in the military and the bureaucracy significantly increased and they became economically integrated didn’t significantly alter the regional development equation owing to two factors, the first being that the institutional interests of the establishment and the bureaucracy favoured a centralised state apparatus and the expansion of the overall national pie, with little concern for its regional distribution. In addition, the economic integration of Pakhtuns was primarily a result of migration to Karachi and urban centres of Punjab, meaning that indigenous growth remained stymied.
Second, given that Balochistan, Fata and K-P have been mired in conflict for the last two decades, it is high time that development of these regions was prioritised and a Marshall Plan of sorts was developed to lift them from deadly conflict and poverty traps. Denying them development on grounds of poor security and infrastructure is an insult to the resilient people of these regions who have disproportionately suffered in the ongoing conflict. According to data collated by the South Asia Terrorism Portal, 58,855 people have died in terrorist violence across the country from 2005 to 2016. Out of these, 42,094 casualties have occurred in Fata and K-P alone, followed by Sindh with 7,732 casualties, Balochistan with 6,010 casualties and Punjab with 1,972 casualties. In proportional terms, Balochistan, Fata and K-P together account for 82 per cent of the total fatalities that occurred in Pakistan between 2005 and 2016. Besides the loss of human lives, the sociocultural, economic and political fabric of these regions has been destroyed. Islamabad is adding insult to injury by leaving these regions to fend for themselves in economic competition with the developed regions of the country, thus reinforcing the political economy of violence and the self-sustaining cycles of poverty and conflict.
Thus, it is against this background that equity acquires great significance not only for reducing regional inequalities and sustaining growth in the long term but also for lessening power asymmetries and inter-group tension and conflict. However, unfortunately, in developing countries like Pakistan, tackling inequity is an almost insurmountable obstacle because it often requires working against the interests of the national elite, challenging vested interests and speaking for people who are ignored and excluded systematically by those making policy.
Third, even if the strictly efficiency-based principle is followed, it won’t necessarily and inevitably result in an outcome that favours the prioritisation of the eastern route. Instead, a comparative cost-benefit analysis of the two routes could conceivably lead one to make a case for prioritising the western route. Here are some arguments:
1) The western route is the shortest; 2) the costs of land acquisition and dislocation compensation are much lower along the western route compared to the eastern route; 3) many bridges will have to be built on the eastern route compared to the almost negligible number on the western route given that the former passes through rivers and canals; 4) the eastern route is vulnerable to floods in monsoon and has the ‘fog’ problem in winter; 5) the development of the western route will help create new growth centres and reduce the economic burden on the relatively-developed big cities, thus putting a limit on existing patterns of migration; 6) the marginal return on investment in terms of improvement in living standards will be much higher on the western route compared to the eastern route; 7) security costs will be lower along the eastern route but that is offset by the inter-provincial discord and weakening of federal integrity that may result from the current design of the CPEC; 8) strategically, development of the western route will mean the addition of a safer communication line compared to the eastern route, which is closer to the Indian border and therefore vulnerable in case of an attack.
Based on the above arguments, it won’t be unfair to say that it is not the efficiency-based technocratic criterion alone that has created the current crisis. Instead, it is the political preferences of the ruling party and its obsession with the 2018 general elections that explains the discriminatory design of the CPEC. The PML-N may succeed in appeasing its political constituency and secure victory in the 2018 elections but that is likely to happen at a great cost to the already fragile federal integrity.
Source: Making sense of the CPEC controversy — III
Published in The Express Tribune, February 12th, 2016.