October 17, 2017

China vs. India: No Comparison Whatsoever

By: Azhar Azam

Soaking mature markets, Middle East turmoil, and oil glut that substantially slashed Arab countries spending are some the major factors which enforced developed nations to explore emerging markets. Additionally, they needed an ally around China who could serve their economic, political, and strategic interests. They finally found India!

This is the reason why some of the western countries have almost been forcing the rest of the world to believe that Indian blooming economy is going to tear up China across all economic spheres and India is the country that would replenish the Chinese dominion in coming times.

In an effort to build-up and rationalize their narrative, they manipulated international media and financial institutions and analysts to glorify Indian economy in various economic development reports, future economic outlooks, and financial perspectives. In spite of tactical maneuvers, the truth cannot be prevented to surface.

The fastest growth rate is certainly a nutritious economic indicator but it does not guarantee that India could compete Chinese decades of tireless toils and efforts immediately. No doubt China’s economy has peeled a bit in past few years but still is carting some mountainous figures that India is nowhere close to pose a real threat.

In fact, there is indeed no comparison whatsoever between the two countries except for rare areas. From economic growth to public welfare, resources to development, communications to energy, trade to foreign exchange reserves, and foreign direct investment – home or abroad, China is dominating India exceptionally.


Although India posted an impressive GDP growth rate of 7.2% in 2016; to $2.3 trillion yet China’s GDP ($11.2 trillion) is five-times larger than India’s at a lesser growth rate of 6.7%. China’s GDP-per capita ($8123) also predominantly outperforms India’s ($1,709).

China’s exports are whooping eight-times larger than India and it is maintaining a massive trade surplus of $511 billion against India’s trade deficit (-$119 billion). Inflation rate is widely incomparable as well. China’s foreign exchange reserves are nearly eight-times to India whereas inflation in China is also one-third to India.

External debt of China has increased by 8.7% quarter-over-quarter – to 1.56 trillion at the close of June 2017 as a result of short term borrowing while Indian external debt grew 1.3% – to $486 billion at the same time. Foreign direct investment in 2016 nevertheless rose to 1.5 trillion too.


China has incredibly shriveled the number of people living below the poverty line in the last 30-years. Since 2012, the Asian economic giant has lifted people from poverty at an average of 13 million per year. According to the World Bank, 28.7% in India are living below the poverty line as well as 56.7% of Indian people have to survive on $2.90 or less.

In overall social sector, China is not only improving but also overshadowing India on all indicators including maternal mortality rate, infant mortality rate, literacy rate, physicians’ density, hospital bed density, improved sanitation access and unemployment. China created nearly 9.74 million jobs in urban areas in first eight months of the year and reported the lowest unemployment rate since 2012.


In energy sector, China has greatly capitalized on the available resources and now is producing electricity, crude oil, refined petroleum products, and natural gas to an extent, India thoroughly fail to match with.

China is also leading the world in solar energy and its economic investment of an up to 2.5 trillion yuan is expected to produce another about 13 million new jobs by 2020, according to National Energy Administration (NEA).


The huge railways, roadways, waterways, airports, registered aircrafts, and merchant marine networks of China also muscles down India to even dream to compete. And the Chinese Silk Road (OBOR) is going to give China the stout edge not only in the region but also around the globe.

On the basis of these raw economic, social, energy, and infrastructure; even a novice in economic affairs would shortly flush out any Indian chances to catch up China for many decades to follow so a few economic experts’ prophesy that India could compete China is only a blatant lie.

Even if the China’s growth rate remains sluggish to 6.7% or below and India maintains a growth rate of 7.5% or higher for a century – there will yet be such an enormous gap between the two countries’ GDPs due to unprecedented Chinese achievements in the last 30 years.

Moreover, India prevails in a highly corrupt and rotten political and social system as well as the country is facing internal, regional and transnational challenges including Kashmir, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Naxalite-Maoist insurgency, and also has volatile relations with two neighboring nuclear armed countries – China and Pakistan.

The Sino-Indo comparison is therefore is utterly deceptive and far from facts. China has established itself in all areas whilst nearly half of Indian population (564 million) lacks the toilet facility and defecates openly – ‘in fields, forests, next to ponds, along highway medians and on the beach’.


October 10, 2017

Why $110 billion US-Saudi Defense Deal is a Fib?

By: Azhar Azam

On his first stop to his first foreign trip in May this year, President Trump signed various defense ‘contracts’ of nearly $110 billion with his counterpart, King Salman.

The massive deals stormed all sorts of media – talk shows were shrieking, analysis were steered, editorials were published, posts were spammed, memes were shared, and trends were set – without gaging the essentials of US or global arms trade.

Pentagon press release cites the deal as defense capabilities package that will be conveyed through Foreign Military Sales (FMS). These deals are mostly letters of intent or offer based on ‘potential’ future needs of Saudi Arabia over a period of time.

Underlining the global arms trade, US arms exports, and Saudi arms imports and its economy vulnerability due to falling oil pricing; the financial value of these defense ‘agreements’ is clearly enormously overstated by Trump administration.

According to Congressional Research Service report, worldwide arms agreements, to both developed and developing countries, totaled just $79.9 billion in 2015 – up from $71.8 billion in 2014.

The noted report tables that total value of arms agreements with developing nations in 2015 was $65.2 billion – up from $61.8 billion in 2014. Whereas the total value of arms deliveries to developing nations in 2015 was $33.6 billion – up from $20.6 billion in 2014.


In 2015, United States’ (#1 arms exporter) total arms deliveries were $16.9 billion ahead of Russia ($7.2 billion) and France ($7.0 billion) whereas Saudi Arabia was the third-largest recipient of arms deliveries (imports) worth of $4.5 billion behind Egypt ($5.3 billion) and Iraq ($5.0 billion).


Similarly in 2014, Saudi Arabia ($4.2 billion) was the second largest arms importer behind India ($5.5 billion) and ahead of Iraq ($3.4 billion). United States ($12.2 billion), Russia ($9.2 billion), and France ($5.1 billion) were the largest arms suppliers to the world for the year.

Overall during 2008 to 2015, Saudi Arabia basically spent a total of just $30.7 billion in 8-years at an average of $3.8 billion per year on arms purchased against total arms purchase agreements of $93.5 billion for the same period.

In the first nine months of 2017 (January to September), the US foreign military sales (FMS) notifications totaled just $31.5 billion – despite almost doubling it $17.7 billion for the same period in last year, according to Security Assistance Monitor.


Five months into the largest defense pact, US proposed arms sales to Saudi Arabia could grow by just $2 billion – from $1.6 billion to $3.6 billion for January to September. Again, the value refers to ‘proposed sales’ and not sales concluded.

The factsheet further avers that United States would be selling more arms to Japan ($6.6 billion), Canada ($5.8 billion), Romania ($$5.2 billion), and Bahrain ($4.0) billion than the most-chanted Saudi Arabia.

And recalling that the financial realization of actual arms deliveries inevitably much lesser than the value of US arms sales notifications; the reality to bragging billions of dollars and thousands of jobs exposes blatantly.

SIPRI Arms Transfers Database is another platform that tracks and provides all transfers of major conventional weapons. The conflict and weapons transfers’ watchdog estimates that the volume of global arms trade in 2015 was $91.3 billion.


In 2016, although United States remained the star in major arms supply to world but total value of its exports stood $9.9 billion and likewise Saudi Arabia was the leading major weapons importer in the same year nonetheless it purchase value did not exceed $3.0 billion.

The multiple arms data sources sum up that the United States is highly exaggerating the $110 billion defense deals with Saudi Arabia – that also includes about $25 billion agreements signed in Obama term.

Saudi Arabia is aggressively implementing its Vision 2030 that maps to diversify its economy, easing onerous reliance on oil and focus on domestic spending including over 50% spending on domestic arms production, research, and development.

Contrariwise, the Trump administration is playing politically to rationalize his election-campaign’s promises to create and bring jobs back home – as immediately the defense stocks scaled up after the raining dollars newscasts from Saudi Arabia.


October 5, 2017

Corruption Stays No. 1 for Three Consecutive Years: Vapors PMLN’s ‘Good Governance’ as Health, Education, and Labor Stalls Business Growth

Index Component
Pakistan
Rank/137
Rank/138
Rank/140
2017-18
2016-17
2015-16
Global Competitiveness Index (2017-2018)
115
122
126
A.
Basic requirements
114
126
131
1.
Institutions
90
111
119
2.
Infrastructure
110
116
117
3.
Macroeconomic environment
106
116
128
4.
Health and primary education
129
128
127
B.
Efficiency enhancers
104
113
107
5.
Higher education and training
120
123
124
6.
Goods market efficiency
107
117
116
7.
Labor market efficiency
128
129
132
8.
Financial market development
96
107
99
9.
Technological readiness
111
119
113
10
Market size
28
29
28
C.
Innovation and sophistication
72
85
89
11.
Business sophistication
81
95
86
12.
Innovation
60
75
89


Pakistan’s Global Competitiveness 2017-18

Pakistan managed to tonic its overall competitiveness ranking by seven (7) places – to 115th from prior year’s 122nd in a recent report touted as Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) 2017-2018 released by World Economic Forum (WEC).

International independent body tracks Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) of an up to 140-150 countries every year – measuring the various world economies on the basis of 12-pillars and 3-subindices – basic requirements, efficiency enhancers, and innovation and sophistication factors.

This is for the first time in the past few years that Pakistan managed to skirt the ignominy of being included in bottom-20 GCI nations. The ranking is however still by far poor (down 24) since 2007 when the country soared to 91st place in a dictator’s rule.

Political and economic analysts believe that the ongoing China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) floored the improvement in Pakistan’s infrastructure development – helping leading country in war on terror to climb another six (6) placed.

Twenty-fourth largest economy of the world followed up with these rankings in later years – 2008 (N/A); 2009 (101st); 2010 (101st); 2011 (123rd); 2012 (118th); 2013 (124th); 2014 (133rd); 2015 (129th); 2016 (126th); 2017 (122nd); and 2018 (115th).

PMLN Dismal Performance in Health and primary education, Higher education and training, and Labor market efficiency

However despite PMLN’s large-mouthed claims to taking revolutionary steps and bringing structural reforms in education and health sectors – Pakistan’s GCI index in Health and primary education, Higher education and training, and Labor market efficiency failed to improve.

All the areas in 4th pillar: Health and primary education including malaria, tuberculosis, HIV prevalence, their business impacts, infant mortality, life expectancy, quality of primary education, and primary education enrollment rate did not performed enough to elevate Pakistan’s global ranking and could realize to scale only one (1) place up.

Same has been the case with 5th pillar: Higher education and training including secondary education enrollment rate, tertiary education enrollment rate, quality of education system, quality of math and science education, quality of management schools, internet access in schools, local availability of specialized training services, and extent of staff training – all performed below average and pushed country’s global competitiveness three (3) places down.

The progress in the 7th pillar: Labor market efficiency has been mediocre – improved 0ne (1) place only – as well to cope with the international competitiveness in areas such as cooperation in labor-employer relations, flexibility of wages determination, hiring and firing practices, redundancy costs, effect of taxation on incentives to work, pay and productivity, reliance on professional management, country capacity to entertain talent, country capacity to attract talent, and female participation in the labor force.

Competitiveness Comparison with other South-Asian Countries

Furthermore, aching to the PMLN’s regime, the country’ GCI also trailed to other South-Asian countries – Bangladesh (99th, up 7), Sri Lanka (85th, down 14), Nepal (88th, up 10), Bhutan (82nd, up 15), and India (40th, down 1); the WEC annual report re-counted.

Even so, the international independent body classifies all the regional economies at stage-1 (factor-driven) except for Sri Lanka (stage 2: efficiency driven) and Bhutan (transition from stage 1 to stage 2: toward efficiency driven).

Included in low-income economies, Pakistan is however identified as one of the three most competitive economies along with Vietnam and Nigeria on the basis of 10-years average growth rate from 2007 to 2016.

Corruption-Corruption-Corruption

The faux proclamations to actively and effectively govern the country’s economy by the ruling party of Pakistan also littered as corruption lingers to constantly pose a serious challenge to the economy of Pakistan.

The data compiled below through last ten World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Surveys reveal that corruption has atrociously dominated as the major thorny factor that is meddling with the economic growth of in Pakistan.


Instead of dropping down in the chart from #2 in 2014-15; corruption has rather climbed and sustained the top position (#1) for last three consecutive years.

Transparency International in its Corruption Perception Index 2016, released earlier this year, had ranked Pakistan at 116th place with a score of 32 out of 100 – representing the ‘high’ level of corruption in the country.

The CPI scores of Pakistan for the earlier years were not promising at all either – 2015 (30); 2014 (29); 2013 (28); and 2012 (27).

And corruption, being the apex problematic area for three year in a row, coupled with tax rates or inefficient bureaucracy, inevitably led toward the government instability despite decline in crime and theft in 2017-2018.

According to the GCI 2017-18, Pakistan is only country in South-Asia where ‘Corruption’ has been the #1 problematic factor for last three years whereas there are overall only 10-countries in the world that have achieved this milestone – Cambodia, Cameroon, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Mexico, Moldova, Pakistan, and Paraguay.