PIDE's existential crisis

Today marks the first day of PIDE's 31st Annual General Meeting of Pakistan Society of development Economists (PSDE). PSDE is touted as the only Pakistani professional association of economists and other social scientists housed at PIDE itself.
Like many of its AGMs in the past, one looks forward to the three-day gala of economists and social scientists talking among themselves, though lately they have also been talking to the policymakers and the public at large. But it is increasingly becoming clear that one of these days, if not today, PIDE should also hold an AGM just to resolve its who-am-I crisis, of which there appears to be three roots.
The first of these seems to be the still unsettled question of whether PIDE should be a think tank at its core or a teaching institution. PIDE was formed as a think tank for the countrys Planning Commission, but more recently it has taken on a new role of a degree awarding institution, which people in the know say has compromised its research or think-tanking core.
We all know how academicians are inherently torn between researching and teaching; its a global phenomenon. And after years of building a tradition of research at any institution, you suddenly burden the researchers of that institution with the task of teaching, you will probably get neither.
However, now that PIDE's teaching division is up and running there is probably no way to unwind that business, but a rethink is indeed required as to how should the institution strike a balance between being a degree awarding institution and being a think tank. This rethinking exercise must also consider the question whether PIDE should be headed by researchers or by teaching faculty.
PIDE's second dilemma is whether it wants to be an institution that upholds and thrives on conventional or mainstream economics - both in its research and teaching divisions - or whether it wants to move away from the mainstream and tilt towards the alternative areas such as behavioural economics, economics of happiness etcetera.
At the risk of putting off the hegemonic lobby of neo-classical and other mainstream economists, PIDE's tilt towards unconventional areas of economic discipline would be a bold and refreshing move. However, it might be a futile exercise in Pakistan, given the absence of economic thinkers in this country.
For all sense and purpose, how many of Pakistan's public economists can be credited to have contributed an original economic thought, or otherwise any form of towering contribution to economic theory. Short of the late Mahbub-ul-Haq who gave the world a new concept of poverty by producing the HDI index, the answer to that question is probably little or zilch.
In the interest of making that habitually clichéd comparison, readers should recall that India boasts Jagdish Bhagwati at one end; Amartya Sen at the other end, whereas her economists from the south have their own globally unique leftist school of thought.
Pakistans academia by comparison is yet to produce an economic thought. With such an intellectual deficit at home even in mainstream economic thinking - an area that has existed for much longer - how can PIDE be expected to be find its identity in the still developing behavioural economics and other new/ unconventional areas when in fact there is no academic base to teach or research along these lines.
This brings us to PIDE's fourth dilemma of whether it wants to be beacon of Islamic economics or one that is based on secular rational foundations. BR Research's interaction with students and staff informs us that PIDE has lately been focussing on Islamic economic thinking, which is reportedly only a rebuttal of the existing economic thought framework without putting a concrete, credible and workable alternative.
An institution at crisis only leaves the students confused, which in turn compromises their understanding of the discipline and their careers. It also affects the quality of research produced by both the institutions staff and its students.
If indeed PIDE wishes to change its course from mainstream economics towards new areas of economy - such as behavioural economics, Islamic economics (however the latter is conceived) - then it has to be a stated objective - one that is deliberated upon by related stakeholders of the society since after all PIDE is a government institution.
Changing directions without any sense of direction or coherent and publicly shared strategy isn a professional way to work. Hopefully these issues will be sorted out at the sidelines of PIDE's AGM this week, for time is indeed running short and we don't want to leave PIDE's students at the mercy of the institutions existential crisis.
Afterthought
Most PIDE economists lament the quality of economic discourse in Pakistan's print and electronic media; some of their academics and researchers also frown on the quality of research of many think tanks in Pakistan saying that their advocacy comprises their research quality. Yet PIDE itself fails to expand its media outreach. If PIDE is indeed doing good quality research then why isn't it sharing with the public in a manner that is understandable and can be consumed by media as well?