By Sardar Khan Niazi

After nearly three decades of stagnation and decline, Pakistan’s industrial sector is finally being acknowledged as a critical engine of economic growth that can no longer be allowed to idle. The government’s approval of a 10-year industrial policy aimed at reversing this decline is a welcome development and, on paper, a step in the right direction. With a focus on reviving sick units, boosting small and medium enterprises (SMEs), reducing corporate tax rates, and amending outdated regulations, the policy addresses several structural impediments that have long plagued industrial growth. Importantly, the creation of multiple sub-committees to fast-track implementation indicates a level of seriousness that has been conspicuously absent in past efforts. Yet, even the most well-crafted policy risks failure when key stakeholders are excluded from the process. The response from the Pakistan Business Council (PBC) underscores this point sharply. For a policy that claims to be a national industrial revival plan, the omission of Pakistan’s largest formal manufacturers from both the consultation and implementation process is not just ironic — it is self-defeating. The PBC, which represents nearly 100 of the country’s most influential businesses — both local and multinational — contributes around 40 percent of Pakistan’s exports and employs millions through formal value chains. For years, it has actively advocated for industrial reform under its Make-in-Pakistan strategy, offering data-driven recommendations and policy blueprints. That such an institution was not shown the draft policy before it was approved raises serious questions about the policy’s design process. More troubling is the reported exclusion of the PBC from the majority of sub-committees formed to guide implementation, with those positions largely given to trader representatives. This choice suggests a skew toward short-term commercial interests rather than long-term industrial development, threatening to dilute the policy’s strategic value. Industrial policy is not an extension of retail or trade interests — it requires the input of those who operate within the sector’s core and understand its complexities. The government’s urgency is understandable. With exports faltering and industrial output in contraction, the need for a corrective path is immediate. But revolutions are not achieved through symbolism or sheer volume of paperwork. They require inclusive planning and meticulous execution. Here lies another concern: the proliferation of committees. With eight groups assigned to recommendations, ten more on implementation, and presumably others to oversee them, the bureaucratic weight of this initiative could become a liability. Committees only deliver when they function as platforms for expert insight — not when they serve as placeholders for political or superficial representation. The inclusion of progressive policy features — better credit access for SMEs, mechanisms for early detection of industrial distress, and legal incentives for investment — is certainly promising. However, the success of these reforms hinges on implementation, which in turn depends on the quality and relevance of those executing them. Without meaningful participation from the institutions and individuals who understand the sector best, the policy risks becoming yet another top-down directive with limited buy-in and even less impact. Crucially, the PBC has not dismissed the policy. On the contrary, it has welcomed the direction and broadly endorsed its goals. Its critique stems from the process, not the product. This presents the government with a rare opportunity to course-correct without sacrificing momentum. By revisiting the composition of the committees and bringing the PBC and similar institutions into the fold, the government can enhance both the credibility and viability of its industrial policy. If this initiative is to be more than just another document in a growing stack of unrealized ambitions, it must be grounded in both expertise and partnership. Anything less risks letting another chance for genuine industrial revival slip away.

ReplyForwardAdd reaction