William of Occam provided, in the 14th Century, the basis for shaving off unnecessary costs from industrial intervention by cleverly, metaphorically referring to it as the shaving off unnecessary hair from wherever. The razor comes from the idea of shaving off any unnecessary assumptions from a theory or a practice. In industry, at that time, it meant the siphoning off of resources under the garb of providing employment. The industry in Pakistan is no better. The textile town that is supposed to bring in prosperity to the entire country will probably not do so. The over-invoicing and the pilferage of resources will go on unabated. They have been found wanting in the past so how can they not be found wanting in the present and the future. The country needs to diversify and diversify fast.
Pakistan has not worked out the intangible aspects of policy. Pakistan's economic situation is akin to developing a system where the diagnosis is different from the prescription. If one hears hoof beats one should not expect to see a zebra. The reason is simple. If one has inefficient personnel in position that were previously with the Musharraf government, then you will have this kind of inefficiency writ large-by intentional design and by unintentional moronic behaviour. The Chicago school may be talking about monetary policy as contributing to inflation but the fact is that in Pakistan, inflation may be due to different reasons. There is a tendency in the western educated Pakistani economists that they tend to complicate matters as the exotic aspects are in keeping with their elite education. It is very rare that the difficulties encountered in an economy have limited interventions. In other words, there is a judgement call. The choice may be between multiple choices.
Sometimes known as the principle of parsimony, Occam's razor is an injunction not to seek a more complicated explanation [intervention] for where a simpler one is available. Where several alternatives are available the simpler one should be taken as an option. Not that the simpler option will be correct, but then where is there a guarantee that the more complex one would be correct. Pakistan's policy-makers are parsimonious, where debate should take place, there is no debate, where slugging should be the order of the day the voice is unheard, where it is decent to be quiet and let the cricket principle of 'well left' work, they will shout their heads. Pakistan's western educated and academically competent but practically incompetent economists, with no field experience and no exponential knowledge, have led this country to the pits of the world. Make no mistake they are very articulate and the ordinary policy-maker has no chance of avoiding the jargon and the double-speak of the worldly foolish but language-wise economist. Gunnar Myrdal, who am I to say this, called them the vulgar economists. Gunnar Myrdal was the one that wrote the Asian Drama. He was the first one from the Sussex Development School to chastise the WB for its policies.
The outcome of all this - hybrid Occam's razor policies and WB has led to complete confusion in the developing countries. The already messed-up social development has been reduced to smithereens and the chances of survival of the many strands of society seem very bleak. These societies and countries that may be doing well are then taken to the cleaners by the imperialists on one pretext or the other. With the electronic media at their feet, the West has managed the propaganda war to their entire benefit and has been able to cloak lies with public and international requirement policies. Where does that leave the developing countries like Pakistan? Not to worry for have we done any better with all the articulation by the WB/IMF and the aid that we have received so far. In fact, the aid that we receive leaves us less wise as we tend to be wasters as the financial aid received is without any work and in the hands of the tyrannical powers that come to use it for their kith and kin.
The development policies have been so out of place that academics use it for experimental purposes in the developing countries for even if this goes waste, it is no big deal. This has happened to us in the case of the Tarbela dam for it was the wisdom of Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the then Finance Minister, that managed the difficulties created by the consultants who had come out of Harvard and were trying out new technologies. The loss was borne entirely by Pakistan. The development policies articulated by the armchair economists were of little consequences for us in Pakistan. Even the budget does not touch the rural areas, despite nearly seven decades of independence.
Can Pakistan survive the economics derived from the West? That is the moot question facing Pakistan with the fact that three State Bank governors have come and gone, is not what one should be talking about. Was anyone of them rural-wise? Pakistan's dilemma seems to be the discontinuity between the rural and the urban. The last government of Musharraf had a commerce minister whom I offered a stay in the rural areas suitably equipped. Has the growth of knowledge made a dent in the functioning and improving the system of and the life of the ordinary citizens? One would be surprised if the answer was in the affirmative. It did help the minority mafia, but now the majority is becoming more informed and they want an answer. The sociologists have called this world one of disenchantment and that seems to be appropriate.
What can Pakistan do? It has to chart its own course. What Adam Smith called our moral sentiments. What may one ask is human nature that can be made more humane? Forget the cleverness and the ability to put one over the other. Historians dealing with economics have started calling the current economists as a bunch of pygmies while the past had giants. Is the past to be enamoured? The present as is obvious from the media is involved in insignificant babble.
Pakistan is in crisis one is told. Well, do not waste this crisis. There can be much that can be done during crises. Tensions create more tensions and more frustrations. Shall we tackle for the future generations? Are we going to create them or buckle under? Is the present form of development and knowledge generation acceptable? What use is mathematical economics or any branch of technical economics? The time has come to reassess the entire effort and to seek people that are eminent. Forget for one moment that the West would develop your country. Why should they be humane enough for this? They can wash off their guilt in different ways. Kill civilians and still justify as is happening in the Middle East and North Africa.
For all this politics has to be kept steady - not sustainable, for there is nothing like a sustainable system of governance. The ultimate requirement is that the people of this country are the first priority not some goon country telling us what to do. No preachers please. Occam's razor has still a lot of promise, a difficult philosophy for the greedy and the elite rich. A judicious use of Occam's razor is supposed to facilitate rational choice between rival alternatives. His pupil is associated with what has been called the paradox of the Buridan's ass. In short, this is simply that an ass has two possible haystacks and he cannot make up his mind as to which one to use. Unable to make up his mind he dies of hunger. Our economists are very much like Buridan's ass unable to make up their minds as to which haystack to attack. It may not be rational to do nothing. So do something. Economists are in activities and activities do not help in rational choice. What will Pakistan do with a blunt razor? The expert [?] cannot keep anything simple. Politicians can but then the collective choice of the people matters. Condensed idea is to keep it simple.