Globalization Index: How Connected is Pakistan?

Pakistan ranks 32nd in breadth and 99th overall among 140 countries in terms of globalization, according to DHL Global Connectedness Index compiled by professors at NYU Stern School of Business and IESE Business School. Pakistan ranks 137 on depth and 32 on breadth among 140 countries as measured in 2015.  Pakistan's neighbor India ranks 133 on depth and 21 on breadth. The report blames relatively higher breadth than depth on poor levels of regional integration, depressed in particular by the animosity between South Asia’s two largest economies, India and Pakistan.

Four Pillars of Globalization: 

The index is based on international flows of trade, capital, information and people. The index measures the parameters on depth and breadth. Depth evaluates the extent to which countries' international flows are distributed globally or more narrowly focused, while breadth compares countries' international flows to the sizes of their domestic economies.

Pakistan Globalization Ranking. Source: DHL/NYU Report 

Pakistan ranks 137 on depth and 32 on breadth among 140 countries as measured in 2015.  Pakistan's neighbor India ranks 133 on depth and 21 on breadth. The lowest ranked countries on the depth dimension are Iran, Bangladesh, Burundi, Pakistan, Nepal, Myanmar, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, and Egypt.

South Asia Lags in Globalization:

The DHL report says that South and Central Asia region lags across nearly all aspects of global connectedness. This region ranks last on depth and third from last on breadth. Furthermore, its relatively higher breadth than depth is a reflection of the poor levels of integration within the region, depressed in particular by the animosity between South Asia’s two largest economies, India and Pakistan.

SAARC or CAREC Regional Integration: 

Pakistan sits between two economically very dynamic regions: Central Asia (and Western China) and South Asia. Which region is better suited for its economic connectivity and integration? Should Islamabad focus on CAREC (Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation) rather than SAARC (South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation)?

Ideally, Pakistan should be a major player in both vibrant regions. However, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's policy of attempting to isolate Pakistan has essentially forced it to choose.

First, Mr. Modi decided to boycott last year's SAARC summit that was scheduled to take place in Islamabad, Pakistan. Then, he unsuccessfully attempted to hijack the BRICS economic summit in India to use it as a political platform to attack and isolate Pakistan.  The signal to Pakistan was unmistakable: Forget about SAARC.

Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC):

CAREC is a growing group of nations that is currently made up of 11 members, including China and a list of STANs.   The current membership includes Afghanistan (joined CAREC in 2005), Azerbaijan (2003), People's Republic of China (1997), Georgia (2016), Kazakhstan (1997), Kyrgyz Republic (1997), Mongolia (2003, Pakistan (2010), Tajikistan (1998), Turkmenistan (2010) and Uzbekistan (1997).

The 2016 ministerial meeting of CAREC nations was held in Islamabad. The conference theme was “Linking connectivity with economic transformation".

Welcoming fellow ministers, Pakistan's then Finance Minister Ishaq Dar talked about the importance of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to improve trade flow within the region and with the rest the rest of the world.

Dar said CPEC offered a massive opportunity for connectivity between Central Asia, Middle East and Africa and was bound to play a defining role in economic development of the regions. Dar said improving the transport corridor was not an end in itself but it was an investment in establishing sound infrastructure and complementary frameworks for shared prosperity of the present and future generations in the region, according to a report in Pakistani media.

CAREC Corridors:

CAREC region is building six economic corridors to link Central Asian nations. Six multi-national institutions support the CAREC infrastructure development, including the Asian Development Bank (ADB), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank,  Jeddah-based Islamic Development Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction & Development, according to Khaleej Times.

Out of the total $27.7 billion CAREC infrastructure investment so for, $9.9 billion or 36 per cent was financed by ADB, a senior officer of the Manila-based multinational bank told Khaleeej Times.

He said other donors had invested $10.9 billion while $6.9 billion was contributed by CAREC governments. Of these investments, transport got the major share with $8 billion or 78 per cent. Asian Development Bank Vice President Wencai Zhang said: "There are huge financing requirements in Carec for transport and trade facilitation, for which 108 projects have been identified at an investment cost of $38.8 billion for the period 2012-2020. Investment for the priority energy sector projects will be $45 billion in this period."

CPEC North-South Corridor:

China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a major part of the north-south corridor that will allow trade to flow among CAREC member countries, many of which are resource-rich but landlocked nations. The corridor will enable the group to access to the Pakistani seaports in Gwadar and Karachi as part of the new maritime silk route (MSR) as envisioned by China and Pakistan.

Pakistan's Finance Minister Dar says the CPEC would complement the regional connectivity initiatives of CAREC. "Once the six CAREC corridors and mega ports, now under construction, start operating, they will provide access to global markets. They will deliver services that will be important for national and regional competitiveness, productivity, employment, mobility and environmental sustainability. All of us should gear our national policies to achieve these targets."

CPEC consists of transport and communication infrastructure—roads, railways, cable, and oil and gas pipelines—that will stretch 2,700 kilometers from Gwadar on the Arabian Sea to the Khunjerab Pass at the China-Pakistan border in the Karakorams.

China and Pakistan are developing plans for an 1,800 kilometer international rail link from the city of Kashgar in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region in Western China to Pakistan's deep-sea Gwadar Port on the Arabian Sea, according to Zhang Chunlin, director of Xinjiang's regional development and reform commission.

 "The 1,800-kilometer China-Pakistan railway is planned to also pass through Pakistan's capital of Islamabad and Karachi," Zhang Chunlin said at the two-day International Seminar on the Silk Road Economic Belt in Urumqi, Xinjiang's capital, according to China Daily.

"Although the cost of constructing the railway is expected to be high due to the hostile environment and complicated geographic conditions, the study of the project has already started," Zhang said. "China and Pakistan will co-fund the railway construction. Building oil and gas pipelines between Gwadar Port and China is also on the agenda," Zhang added.

Afghan Instability:

Pakistan is making a serious effort to stabilize Afghanistan, a member of CAREC. Trilateral conferences of China, Russia and Pakistan support this effort. Afghan instability has prevented Pakistan from connecting with other STANs for commerce and trade. Now the development of CPEC will enable Pakistan to bypass Afghanistan, if necessary, to connect with Central Asia region through Western China.

Summary:

Pakistan ranks 32nd in breadth and 99th overall among 140 countries in terms of globalization, according to DHL Global Connectedness Index compiled by professors at NYU Stern School of Business and IESE Business School. Pakistan ranks 137 on depth and 32 on breadth among 140 countries as measured in 2015.  Pakistan's neighbor India ranks 133 on depth and 21 on breadth. The report blames relatively higher breadth than depth on poor levels of regional integration, depressed in particular by the animosity between South Asia’s two largest economies, India and Pakistan.

History shows that growth of regional and global trade in East Asia, Europe and North America regions has been a major driver of economic opportunity and prosperity.  Unfortunately, SAARC has been a huge disappointment for Pakistanis.  With the development of CPEC and CAREC, Pakistan can now begin to participate in the growth of regional and global trade that will benefit the people of Pakistan.  The path to Pakistan's participation in SAARC will open up if or when India-Pakistan relations improve.

Here's a National Geographic Documentary on CPEC:

https://youtu.be/q2lWYxbIBCs




Related Links:

Haq's Musings

1800 Km Pak-China Rail Link

China Pakistan Economic Corridor

CPEC to Create Over 2 Million Jobs

Modi's Covert War in Pakistan

ADB Raises Pakistan GDP Growth Forecast

Gwadar as Hong Kong West

China-Pakistan Industrial Corridor

Indian Spy Kulbhushan Yadav's Confession

Ex Indian Spy Documents RAW Successes Against Pakistan

Is Pakistan's Global Diplomacy Working?

Trump Inauguration; WEF17 & Inequality in India; Killing of LeJ Chief

What tone did President Donald J. Trump set in his inauguration speech on Jan 20, 2017? Can Trump simultaneously take on the US establishment, friends and foes all at the same time? How will he browbeat US businesses to stop offshoring of manufacturing and jobs? How will he "eradicate radical Islamic terrorism" without the help of allies whose armies he says will not be "subsidized" by the United States? How's Trump's rise seen in Pakistan? Will he start trade wars with China and other countries running trade surpluses with the United States? Will he change Washington or will Washington change him?

Why is the World Economic Forum 2017 in Davos so concerned about growing economic inequality? Is globalization alone responsible for it? Why is India so unequal with 58.4% of the wealth owned by the top 1% of Indians? Why have the Brexit vote and Trump victory sent shockwaves through the ranks of the owners/investors of global businesses and industries? How will they respond to the powerful backlash against globalization? How is automation affecting the jobs situation? Is it equally responsible for loss of jobs?

Why was the new Laskar e Jhangvi chief Asif Chhotu, like his predecessor Malik Ishaq, killed in a police encounter in Punjab? Was this just another fake encounter? Will it help reduce sectarian carnage in Pakistan?

Viewpoint From Overseas host Misbah Azam discusses these questions with leading Pakistani journalist Zahid Husain and regular panelists Ali H. Cemendtaur and Riaz Haq (www.riazhaq.com)

https://youtu.be/PDANReBBSBo





Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Trump Phenomenon

America and the Rise of ISIS

London Mayor Sadiq Khan's Election

Trump Policies

Economic Inequality in India, Pakistan

Economy and Security Situation in Pakistan

Pakistan's Choice: Talibanization Versus Globalization

"Pakistan has to be part of globalization or you end up with Talibanization. Until we put these (Pakistan's) young people into industrialization and services, and off-farm work, they will drift into this negative extremism; there is nothing worse than not having a job," says Salman Shah, finance adviser to former Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz of Pakistan, in an interview published by the Wall Street Journal today.

With Pakistan's growing population and rising expectations of its young people, it appears to me that the radical Islam is now spreading beyond its traditional home in NWFP and FATA to Pakistan's heartland of Punjab. It is also clear that the new generation of Pakistanis do not want to accept life under a feudal or tribal system that denies them basic human dignity. In the absence of significant economic growth (even the phenomenal 8% growth roughly equals 2.5m jobs), not enough jobs are being created for 3 million young people ready to join the work force each year, resulting in growing availability of recruits for terror outfits who pay them fairly well by local standards. According to Rand corporation estimates, the Taliban pay about $150 a month to each fighter, much higher than the $100 a month paid by the governments in the region. This fact has been amply illustrated by recent growth of the Punjabi Taliban who have been found recruited by terrorist groups for suicide bombings and violence within and outside Pakistan.

Here's the text of the report by Paul Beckett of Wall Street Journal:

Talking to Salman Shah, Pakistan's de facto finance minister until a year ago, you are immediately struck by the similarities between his country's long-term economic challenges and India's.

Pakistan, he notes over green tea in his Lahore home, has a huge youthful population as India does: roughly 105 million out of 170 million Pakistanis are under 25 years old. It will be these people who drive Pakistan's economy in the decades ahead. "Pakistan is a mini-India," Mr. Shah declares.

Pakistan, like India, also is relatively light on exports as a part of the overall economy. In Pakistan, exports account for less than 15% of gross domestic product, he says, compared with about 25% in India and 40% in China.

Like India, Pakistan saw a domestic economic boom time until recently. Sales of cellphones, cars, motorbikes and other consumer durables soared.

And Pakistan's future, as India's, lies in the nation's ability to move workers from the fields to manufacturing plants and in engaging more with the world rather than retreating from it.

But India has done a better job with that global engagement, led by its technology companies and through tapping international markets and international investors.

Pakistan made some headway in the last few years by successfully selling global depositary receipts of state-owned companies and issuing bonds and convertible bonds on international financial markets. International investors were taking heed, which in turn projected Pakistan's industrial potential to the wider world.

But recently, as with so much else in Pakistan, it's gone awry. The current administration nixed the international money-raising program, even before the seize-up in global markets could do the job for it. The government – Pakistan's first democratically-elected in a decade – decided it was akin to giving away the "family silver," Mr. Shah scoffs.

International investors, not surprisingly, also have bailed: Pakistan by almost any measure fails to meet the definition of a low-risk investment that is attracting money today. As a result, its economy is slowing dramatically. In part that's because the central bank has kept interest rates in double digits, hemmed in by the strictures of its IMF package.

Where India and Pakistan's paths diverge dramatically is in the consequences if their governments fail to do what is necessary now -- stimulate their economies, bring foreign investors back, and create employment for all those youth.

In India, where about 12 million people come of working age each year, commentators frequently warn that if sufficient jobs aren't created, there could be social unrest.

The important phrase here is "could be social unrest." It's a possibility, not a definite. It is very vague.

Not so in Pakistan. Pakistan, by Mr. Shah's estimate, needs to create 3 million jobs a year to employ those coming of working age. Growing at 8% a year creates up to 2.5 million.

The central bank recently forecast growth in the year ending June 30 of 2.5-3.5%.

Shaukat Tarin, Pakistan's new finance minister, recently was quoted in Pakistan's Daily Times as saying growth could reach 8% over the next three years.

But the World Bank recently predicted Pakistan's economy would grow by 1% in 2009. Mr. Shah calls 1% "suicide for Pakistan."

Unlike in India, the consequences seem all too predictable if Pakistan fails to reengage with global commerce and do what's needed to get things rolling again.

"Pakistan has to be part of globalization or you end up with Talibanization," Mr. Shah says. "Until we put these young people into industrialization and services, and off-farm work, they will drift into this negative extremism; there is nothing worse than not having a job."

You just have to hope it's not already too late.

—Mr. Beckett is the Wall Street Journal's bureau chief in New Delhi

Related Links:

Insights Into a Suicide Bombing in Pakistan

Feudal Punjab Fertile For Terrorism

Shaukat Aziz's Economic Legacy

Valuing Life in Afghanistan and Pakistan

India Follows Pakistan To Food Inflation

The food inflation has hit India a few months after it rose its head in Pakistan. This sequence makes sense based on the fact that Pakistani economy is considered freer than India's economy and the food inflation is driven by rising global demand and tight supplies. In today's global world, it is hard to isolate any national economy from the impact of international economic problems.

In terms of economic freedom, Pakistan is ranked ahead of many regional economies, according to a worldwide index of economic freedom. The 2007 Index of Economic Freedom, jointly conducted by The Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal, has put Pakistan at the 89th place while India is ranked 104. A free economy means an economy that is based on liberal rules that preclude extreme measures against free trade and price increases. Such measures do not prevent problems, they simply delay the impact of such problems, as just demonstrated by inflationary pressures seen in South Asia.

As Indian economist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta recently wrote for the BBC that milk costs 11% more than last year. Edible oil prices have climbed by a whopping 40% over the same period. More crucially, rice prices have risen by 20% and prices of certain lentils by 18%. Rice and lentils comprise the staple diet for many Indians.

Thakurta says, "Food inflation is bad news for ruling politicians because the poor in India vote in much larger numbers than the affluent. Roughly one out of four Indians lives on less than $1 a day and three out of four earn $2 or less."

"Food riots in India, Yemen and Mexico, warnings of hunger in Jamaica, Nepal, the Philippines and sub-Saharan Africa, empty shelves in Caracas have been witnessed in the recent past which was not seen in decades of low global food commodity prices,"
a report by the UN FAO said.

A rise of more than 10 per cent is recorded in India and Russia while food price has inflated by 18 per cent in China, 13 per cent in Pakistan and Indonesia, according to the UN agency.

Meanwhile, there is shortage of beef, chicken and milk in the countries as governments try to keep a lid on food price inflation, it added.
Reports say that there are 854 million hungry people in the world and 4 million more join their ranks every year. Wheat has doubled in price, maize is nearly 50 per cent higher than a year ago and rice is 20 per cent more expensive, the UN said. FAO claimed that global food reserves were at their lowest in 25 years and prices would remain high for years. Moreover, any natural disaster such as a drought or flood might lead to an international crisis.

The price rise is a fallout of record oil prices, US farmers switching out of cereals to grow biofuel crops, extreme weather and growing demand from countries like India and China, the FAO said.

According to the US Dept of Agriculture, the average person in the developed world of Western Europe and North America spends less than 10% of his or her income on food. By contrast, South Asians' food expenditures account for 40% of the average income. Thus the impact of food price inflation is much greater in South Asia than in the industrialized world.

Like Pakistan, the current crisis in Indian agriculture is a consequence of many factors - low rise in farm productivity, low prices for cultivators, poor food storage facilities resulting in high levels of wastage. Also, big differences between domestic and world prices encourage smuggling to neighboring countries resulting in local food shortages.

South Asian governments need to encourage higher food production by various incentive programs such as higher prices for farmers and subsidies for farming inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, and machinery. At the same time, better farmer education, reliable food storage, transportation, better water management and modern irrigation techniques and infrastructure require greater attention by the agriculture officials. A serious longer term effort is also needed to encourage substitution and diversification of the sources of calories for the average South Asian.

Indian Companies Going Global

India's Tata Motors Ltd has agreed to acquire Jaguar and Land Rover, the well known international luxury brand names. The price tag of $2.3 billion represents a real bargain at a fraction of what Ford paid to buy these brands a few years ago. The Wall Street Journal reports that the deal, expected to be made final with regulators sometime during the second quarter, capped off months of discussions between the parties and much speculation among investors about the fate of the brands in the sale. The process began last June when the U.S. auto maker hired Goldman Sachs Group and Morgan Stanley to run an auction of the two units, part of its Premier Automotive Group.

While this high-profile deal by an Indian company is making headlines around the world, the data shows that Indian companies have been on a global shopping spree for a several years. The number of Indian companies that are investing abroad has been steadily growing ever since the Tata Group successfully acquired UK's Tetley Tea for $430 million four years ago. According to KPMG, Indian companies shelled out $1.7 billion in the first eight months of 2005 for acquiring 62 overseas companies. While the IT sector, banking and financial services and pharmaceutical companies have been the most active in M&A deals, increasingly other sectors too are getting in on the act. If the small and mid-sized Indian companies too go in for acquisition deals - in the $1 million range - this could give a tremendous boost to India's manufacturing sector, D.V. Venkatagiri wrote in late 2005.

The acquisition binge further intensified with Tata Steel's $13.6 billion takeover in 2007 of Corus, the British steel company. The Aditya Birla group made a $6 billion bid to buy Novelis, a Canadian aluminum company, and Suzlon, a wind-power company, offered $1.6 billion for REpower, a German turbine maker. Ranbaxy, one of India's top pharmaceutical companies, which has spent $500 million acquiring 14 companies abroad since 2004, joined the bidding for the generics business of Merck, a German pharmaceutical company, at about $5 billion. Then Reliance Industries, one of India's two largest groups, was reportedly in talks with three U.S. companies - Dow Chemical, Chevron and GE and two European retailers, Carrefour and Sainsbury, about possible deals. There has been so much foreign acquisition talk by Indian companies it seemed as if herd instinct had replaced financial caution, reports Forbes magazine.

Both Tata and Birla are cushioned by substantial internal cash reserves that will enable them to cover debt taken on with the acquisitions, says Nimesh Kampani, chairman and managing director of JM Financial, a leading Indian investment bank. Kampani says companies that aren't part of large diversified groups, such as Ranbaxy or Suzlon, "have to be much more careful in foreign acquisitions."

Still, the pressure on these and other Indian companies to go global will continue. In 2007, 34 foreign acquisitions totaling $10.4 billion were reported by Indian companies as completed or pending, according to Dealogic, a British research firm. That is almost half of the $23.1 billion total for all of last year.

Indian companies have two targets abroad: businesses that enable them to grow beyond India and become globally competitive, and those that add value in terms of markets, brands, technology or raw materials. In the first category, globalization is forcing companies to choose what to do because they could be vulnerable to foreign takeover bids in a market downturn.

"Scale is a key competitive weapon," says Rajeev Gupta, Indian managing director of Carlyle, a U.S. private-equity firm. "You have to have scale working for you, and that will lead some companies to sell and some to buy. All the top family companies are clear that they have to make choices."

Sources: Wall Street Journal, Forbes, ICFDC (India)