Asif Mahmood

In every functioning economy, companies come and companies go. Some close because their business model fails. Others leave after completing projects. New firms register quietly, often without attracting headlines. This constant movement is not a sign of crisis. It is the ordinary rhythm of market life.

In recent months, fragments of data about foreign companies in Pakistan have been circulated as proof that international investors are abandoning the country. The argument is built on selective emphasis rather than full disclosure. Closures are highlighted. Registrations are ignored. Historical aggregates are presented as recent events.

When the full regulatory record is examined, the picture becomes more measured.

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, 19 foreign companies ceased operations between 2022 and 2025. During that same period, 79 new foreign companies registered. Meanwhile, 1,157 foreign companies remain on the SECP’s register as of February 2026. In just one recent month, foreign investment was recorded in 82 local firms, with participation from China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Turkey, South Korea, Spain and other economies.

These figures do not describe an emptying marketplace. They describe a country experiencing economic adjustment while maintaining international commercial ties.

This distinction matters because perception influences capital flows as much as policy does. Investors evaluate risk not only through fiscal indicators but through headlines, political signalling, and public discourse. When political contest spills into economic messaging, the consequences can travel beyond domestic audiences. Letters addressed to the International Monetary Fund or public appeals to overseas Pakistanis to halt remittances may serve short term political positioning. In financial markets, however, they register as uncertainty.

None of this absolves policymakers of responsibility. Pakistan’s economy has struggled with structural imbalances, inconsistent policy direction, and external shocks. Reform is not optional. Stability must be earned through discipline and credibility. Constructive criticism is part of that process.

But a mature economic debate requires proportion. Presenting cumulative business closures since 1977 as if they occurred within a single recent period does not strengthen accountability. It distorts context. Elevating isolated data points while ignoring concurrent investment does not inform citizens. It unsettles them.

Serious economies are not shielded from criticism. They are shielded from distortion by transparent data and responsible discourse. Pakistan’s regulatory record is publicly available. It shows a different story. 

If economic recovery is to take root, it will depend not only on fiscal reform and investor incentives but also on intellectual honesty. Markets can absorb bad news. What they struggle with is manufactured panic.