Tanks guarding a ‘jhuggi’

[Skeptic]

Yes, but the population of India, and therefore the needs, are also similarly greater.

Still if we get down to micro level of per capita expenses and number of Army personnels per 1000 of population, the ratios will be quite different for Pakistan and India. Although I am generally against comparing India and Pakistan in every aspect, it seems to be the norm on this forum. I am just going with this flow.

No doubt Military rule has retarded the growth of institutions, which has had a negative impact in the long run, and the shortcomings have come to a head in the current civilian government, faced with multiple crises.

However, it is also true that there has been a tremendous amount of development and progress in Pakistan under military rule. You see this under Ayub Khan and recently under Musharraf. So while military rule has played a negative role, it has not necessarily retarded development directly, and there is an even weaker argument indicating a correlation between Military expenses and lack of development.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. Either you can say "No doubt Military rule has retarded the growth of institutions" or you can say "it has not necessarily retarded development directly". General perception is that millitary rule does have a negative impact on growth and also the growth achieved under milletary rule does not sustain in longer run.

The commercial entities under the PA are audited, held accountable, and contribute a significant amount of taxes to the government.

Again media reports that I have encountered suggest otherwise. Just to take discussion further I will concede that point but still a significant number of Ex Army people heading large corporation does not make the best of economic sense. Different skills are required in managing a bank and managing group of soldiers.

But regardless of who controlled the country, my point was that I do not see defence expenditure as a significant retardant for development - poor policies and implementation of policies is primarily responsible.

No-one says that the article is a gospel of truth but there seems to be enough substance to probe further. Army expenses may not be the sole reason but PA has to take up its share of discredit for all the lack of development. It is not necessarily the funds that are important but also the focus on these measures. Do you really think that an Army General is the ideal person to take financial and economic decisions? Parvez Musharraf is frequently highlighted for the growth he achieved but does the current scenario shows that those decisions were taken with long term goals and sustained development in mind.

Basically my point is PA can not have its cake and eat it too. It can not take all the credit for development and territorial safeguarding but blame the rest on political leadership. "Tanks guarding jhuggi" to me symbolizes the contrast between the prosperity level of PA and civilians.

 

[wtf]

I had earlier argued that even if Pak Military spending had not affected economic development, the lack of attention to economic development in favor of attention would have hurt the economy.
Seems like that is a hard argument to prove, you can't always think very clearly in terms of possible alternative histories for countries.

So here is an actual study by an economist - he works for US Census department and is an adviser to Saudi Arabia.

Military Expenditures and Economic Growth in Pakistan -NASIR M. KHILJI and AKHTAR MAHMOOD
We test four different single equation models that are widely used in the defence literature. In these frameworks we generally find the defence burden to be negatively related to GDP growth.

From their studies a percentage increase in defence spending would take down the gdp growth rate by about half a percent (-0.640).

A general study by IMF (not Pakistan specific) again finds substantial benefits from lower military spending.
SSRN-Economic Consequences of Lower Military Spending: Some Simulation Results by Tamim Bayoumi, Daniel Hewitt, Jerald Schiff

But the oddest study (that both these studies cite) is this one
The Indo-Pakistani Arms Competition: A Deductive and Statistical Analysis -- Oren 38 (2): 185 -- Journal of Conflict Resolution

It says that whenever India spends on military, Pakistan does not and vice versa. They are not sure if it is due to alliances with China/Russia or whether it is just a co-incidence.
They imply no causality - ie they don't claim that if India cuts military spending, Pakistan would increase spending and hence bankrupt itself