Pushing the frontiers of research by challenging accepted truths is a noble cause. But should it be done at the cost of an institution’s mandate? That’s the existential crisis facing Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) for the last few years. (See BR Research, PIDE’s existential crisis, Dec 17, 2015)
Over the past five years, postgraduate research scholars have been encouraged by the institute to focus their energies on areas of research as disparate as behavioural finance and Islamic economics. The previously uncharted territories of business studies and management sciences have also been added to PIDE’s areas of interest ever since it acquired degree awarding status.
To understand the consequences, it needs to be established that heterodox school of thoughts, whether Islamic or behavioural economics, begin their critique by challenging the microeconomic foundations of mainstream economics, such as utility theory. World over, empirical research in behavioural economics has shown promise in explaining firm and individual behavioural alike.
However, since both of these schools of thought are currently in their nascent stages, it will be long before theories from either school could be used to develop frameworks for macroeconomic planning and growth, whether in areas of social sector or of public finance.
Is it then wise for country’s premier public sector research organization to go out on a limb to dismantle mainstream neoclassical theory? And that too in a manner where PIDE’s faculty is simply told to convert to heterodox school of thoughts since everything “else is just rubbish”, instead of offering formal academic critique?
First, as Planning Commission’s ‘supposed’ think tank, PIDE’s foremost objective is to devote itself to “theoretical and empirical research in development economics in general, and on Pakistan-related economic issues in particular”, and to provide “firm academic basis to economic policy-making”. Noble as it may be, effecting structural course-correction in mainstream theory should hardly be on the mind of researchers & academicians charged with the mandate of supporting economic planners of a 200 million plus country.
If PIDE really believes that Pakistan’s federal & provincial governments and businesses should adopt heterodox school of thoughts on urgent basis, then why hasn’t it called a national conference on the crises of economic thought? Has it laid waste the great forum of PSDE (Pakistan Society of development Economists) that it has at its disposal?
The purpose is not to question management’s commitment to ground-breaking research, for every truth begins as a heresy. But only to point out that PIDE’s raison d’être, which isn’t only to provide research input to the Planning Commission but also do academic research at large, has suffered as result.
Moreover, serious questions could be raised on PIDE’s capacity to advance the causes of heterodox economics. For one, university sources say, PIDE no more attracts top talent in economic thinking, in new faculty and scholars alike. Perhaps, the market’s lack of receptiveness stems from the confusion between PIDE’s explicit mandate as a teaching institute via the PIDE Act 2010, and its implicit mandate to act as a think tank to the Planning Commission.
The latter is implicit by virtue of the facts that (a) PIDE’s Vice Chancellor position is also a Member (Research) of the Planning Commission, that (b) PIDE is still financially dependant on the Planning Commission, and that (c) PIDE’s Chancellor is the Deputy Chairman Planning Commission. Yet the Planning Commission does not have power over PIDE’s research agenda; since PIDE has become a university, successive VCs have sought intellectual independence, strangely without seeking financially independence as the monies for salaries are still being happily received from the Planning Commission.
Sources in the Planning Commission say that when their office invites input from PIDE for policymaking, the institution’s staffs is unable to provide timely input since they are teaching and are burdened with course load. Planning staff has been reportedly embarrassed in front of the Chinese because PIDE could not provide timely research input on SEZ, various sectoral analyses, and the CPEC at large despite being informed in advance. Nor has PIDE been able to provide able guidance on the National Finance Commission recently formed by the government.
Yet while PIDE’s think tank function appears to have been reduced to only in name, its teaching has also suffered. In their paper titled “Making ‘Impact Factor’ Impactful: universities, think tanks and policy research in Pakistan”, SDPI’s Executive Director, Abid Suleri and Arif Naveed wrote that at PIDE’s recently formed School of Public Policy engagement with public policy is conceived through teaching academic courses rather than through practical engagement with policy problems at the federal and provincial levels.
“Teaching is demanding and we cannot delay it as academic programmes follow their own calendars. If we don’t have sufficient human resources to conduct research, we might keep meeting the teaching demands only,” an anonymous senior official at PIDE told Suleri et al anonymously.
There was a time, according to PIDE’s former VC Haider Naqvi, when the noted economist Amartya Sen said before a large gathering that PIDE “both for the quality of its contents, and its regularity did not even have a peer in India.” Restoring its old glory may be too much asking, but at the least PIDE could become a functional think tank for Planning Commission. Or is it so that the commission should channel its current funding to PIDE to set up an altogether new think tank?
As PIDE looks for new leadership under the new political regime, a host of big names have applied to the position. Whoever is selected for the position has got a lot of long pending potholes to fix, as well as course correction after some serious introspection about the role, purpose, academic leaning, future as well as the extent of the institution’s independence.
Comments
Comments are closed.