See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/371499767

Revitalizing Industrial Policy in Pakistan

Research · June 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10067.35365

CITATIONS READS

0 198

1 author:

Rabiya Imran
Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology
4 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rabiya Imran on 12 June 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

__________________________________________________________________________

Revitalizing Industrial Policy in Pakistan

By Rabiya Imran

Pakistan, like any other South Asian countries, witnessed a transition from an agriculture-based
to a service-based economy. In contrast to East Asia, where manufacturing has played a leading
role for economic growth, South Asian GDP rate remained static in all major countries since
1980’s except Bangladesh. Agriculture’s decline has been seen in part of South Asia but a poor
manufacturing sector may not be a huge problem in nations such as India, where economy has
been growing consistently for the previous quarter-century. The situation in Pakistan is
different. Since 1960, the country growth trajectory has been declining, and it has relied heavily
on financial inflows via aid. Nonetheless, a young and mainly under-skilled labor force,
including women, has been growing. Following the footstep of China, intense manufacturing
is a part of solution to get the country back on track for increased medium-term development
and shared prosperity. As China rises up the value chain with a more intelligent labor force and
rising salaries, the void left behind might be filled by Pakistan, just like Bangladesh. (Ernesto
Sánchez-Triana, 2014)

Industry has an important role in the developing countries such as Pakistan. Its growth boost
national revenue, provides jobs, and improves the balance of payments situation by creating
exportable items and substituting imports, but it also supports and drives growth on other areas
of the economy. Industries in Pakistan has been a contributor to the economy in past few years.
The five-year plan, the main goal is so be self-sufficient. In addition to state sector, private
sector has also played a dominant role in country’s industrialization. Foreign investment, along
with expertise, may also play a role in rapid implementation of the industrial agenda. Pakistan’s
industrial development has been self-sufficient because of this approach but in recent economic
crisis this may not be beneficial enough anymore. Pakistan has all the necessary natural and
human resources for industrial expansion, industrial strategy could continue to focus on
boosting the manufacturing sector’s share of the total economy. (Dawn Newspaper, 2007)

Pakistan has the lowest GDP per capita among the countries, with US$1,317 in 2014 (Bank,
2015). Korea has the greatest GDP per capita at US$27,970, with Malaysia coming in second
at US$11,300. China, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines had comparable values of
$7,590, $5,977, $3,492, and $2,813, respectively. Over the period 1960-2014, Pakistan's real
GDP per capita increased by 2.4 percent per year on average, above the Philippines' comparable
growth rate of 1.6 percent per year. (Nazeer, 2016) In 2023, according to Asian Development
Bank, there has been estimate drop in GDP per capita income for Pakistan from USD 1,1613
in 2021-2022 to USD 1399. This effects the industrial growth which reflect monetary aspects
of country’s economy. ((ADB), 2023)

Nonetheless, Pakistan began well, with an average income growth of 4.5% per year from 1960-
1970, which was only surpassed by Korea (In east Asia). Over the same time, Indonesia, the
Philippines, and China all dipped below 2.0 percent. Pakistan’s growth rate was 1.6 percent in
1970-1980, 2.1 percent in 2000-10, and 1.7 percent in 2010-14. (Nazeer, 2016)
The significance of manufacturing in Pakistan’s selected East Asian nations’ economic growth.
Because of measurement issues, we avoid using labor productivity and total productivity
because to management problem. We drastically shift from Labor force capabilities- to capital-
intensive production methods, whereas we ignore the learning and adapting of the new system.
Skill labor move to un-skilled labor and we again depend on assistance from aboard. (R, 2015)

Industrialization in Pakistan

Pakistan’s early industrialization history has been discussed above. Its Partition from India,
which provided basic source of industrial commodities, Pakistan was able to developed a
substantial industrial sector of its own in a very short time, initially through substitution of
imported goods aided by an expensive tariff barrier and strict regulations on imports, but later
through the growth of domestic and foreign demand. The manufacturing in early stages were
very expensive, maybe because country didn’t know how much the consumer demanded, since
no calculation were done, due to the vast gap that existed between consumer needs and
available supplies. (Guisinger, 1976)

Industries economic share was very low in 1950’s. the share grew in 1960-70’s from 13% to
16%, but average country like Pakistan also had a similar growth. But in 1970, the growth
increases due to West Pakistan contribution which was exceptionally higher than was expected
that Pakistan was able to maintain above-normal position in industrial growth, leading to export
cotton yard, for example, but only pennies were send to western wing. (Bussink, 1970)

The pattern of growth rates confirms some well-known elements of Pakistan’s early
industrialization. Manufacturing growth rates decreased substantially after 1955, stayed
relatively stable at a reasonably high level between 1995 and 1963, and then fell again after
1963. Consumer goods, which had the most disequilibrium to work off, increased at a pace of
more than 40% per year in the beginning, but slowed significantly after 1955. Linkage effects
were apparent in he second and third period, when growth in the intermediate and capital good
sector surpassed the pace of increase in consumer products. Growth in each of these areas
showed considerably after 1963. (Chenery, 1960)

Industrial Policy Making

In today's post-industrial era, high performing economies' drivers of growth are information
technology and high value-added services, and for Pakistan to catch up, the long suppressed
industrial and manufacturing sectors must first be unleashed in order to provide jobs to the
unemployed masses and promote innovation. The Ministry of Industries and Production
(MOIP) of Pakistan, as well as the Planning Commission and the writers of this document,
believe that industrialization is an absolute need. The issue of contention, however, is how this
may be accomplished. The MOIP argues that Pakistan's industries should be preserved for the
same reasons that this paper supports for a level playing field.
Pakistan’s industrial strategies were either developed in reaction to a crisis or as part of
medium-term growth goals, the majority of which were never implemented. Pakistan has gone
through fiver rounds of major industrial policy reforms. The first was based on India’s decision
to impose an economic boycott on Pakistan in 1948, immediately after independence. India
refuse to hand over finances it owned to Pakistan under 1947 partition agreement. This trade
conflict harmed Pakistan since it was heavily reliant on imports of essential products from
India. Pakistan initially supported investment in consumer products and offered protection
from external competition. As a result of this strategy, industrial production for domestic
consumption increased.
The following wave was part of President Ayub Khan's Second and Third Five-Year
Development Plans (1960-65 and 1965-70, respectively). This was a continuation of the first
wave, but with two differences. To begin, it used industrial licensing to encourage the
distribution of industrial ownership. Second, it enlisted the assistance of development finance
institutions such as the Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Investment Corporation (PICIC)
and the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (IDBP) to aid with industrialization. These
organizations were supported by the World Bank, and at the time, publicly owned development
finance organizations were seen to be the best way to accelerate the process of industrialization.

These organizations were supported by the World Bank, and at the time, publicly owned
development finance organizations were seen to be the best way to accelerate the process of
industrialization. The goal of this programmed was to build small-scale units (such as textile
spinning and weaving) in and around Karachi's industrial areas. Dozens of spinning mills were
built, although they were severely underutilized. This was the start of the distortive protection
offered to the textile sector that we are still seeing today.

Brecher and Abbas (1972) go more into economic planning and the subsequent performance
from 1950 to 1968. They discover that the maximum degree of economic growth occurred
during the first half of the 1960s, when political instability was maintained to a minimum.
Annual real GDP growth averaged 3.9% from 1950 to 1968: 2.7% from 1950 to 1955 (pre-
plan), 2.4% from 1955 to 1960 (first five-year plan), and 5.5% from 1960 to 1968 (second five-
year plan). The manufacturing sector grew at a pace of 9.2%, 5.7%, and 8.8% each year for the
three decades indicated above, and at an annual rate of 8.1% for the whole period. (Brecher,
1972)

The following are the authors' conclusions:

i. The manufacturing sector is expanding rapidly. The period from 1950 to 1955 displays
strong expansion, followed by a decline. Nonetheless, due to the starting amount of
extra unutilized capacity, industrial growth was rather strong throughout the research
period.

ii. The final period's boost in agricultural growth reflects favorable climatic circumstances
and insignificant productivity growth.

First Five-Year Plan

In May 1956, the drafted Five-Year Plan was distributed around the country. The Board asked
institutions such as chambers of commerce and industries, universities, trade unions, local self-
governing bodies, co-operative societies, and the press to study the Plan and make suggestions
for improving its scope and content, in addition to the Local and Central Governments, which
were directly concerned with the execution of the majority of the programme expressed in it.
In response to this request, several sources provided comments and recommendations, many
of which were really helpful. The Commission carefully considered these proposals, and in
many cases, it had helpful talks with the agencies involved. Discussions were also conducted
with the governments of East and West Pakistan, as well as the Central Government Ministries
involved. The Board amended the strategy and submitted it to the National Economic Council
to be considered early in February 1957, based on the findings reached during these talks and
the most recent facts available at the time. The Council discussed the Plan at its first and second
meetings in February and April 1957, and on April 15, 1957, it gave its general approval to its
size, social and economic objectives, physical aims, and programmes. (Government of
Pakistan, 1957)

First Year Plan

The first five-year plan (1955-1960) allocated Rs. 7.5 billion to the public sector and Rs. 3.3
billion to the private sector. According to the plan, "while the government cannot predict
precisely the magnitude or nature of the private investment that will be made, it can greatly
influence the magnitude of private investment through appropriate policies and its significance
licensing powers. (Brecher I. &., 1976)" Sugar, cement, cotton textiles, cigarettes, and jute
commodities were chosen for protection by the government. As previously said, the policies
were led by short-term demands, and as a result, the economy remained consumer oriented.
(Islam, 1973)Although adverse weather conditions and a drop-in trade were factors in the plan's
failure, the researchers believe the main reasons were a lack of effort to cut non-developmental
expenses, an excessive budget deficit to meet current expenditures, and insufficient measures
to expand exports.

Second Year Plan

The second plan was nearly twice as large as the first, but the sectoral allocations altered
significantly, with agriculture receiving a larger part of the development budget. The country's
general political condition has improved. Sugar, vegetable ghee, jute, super-phosphates, soda
ash, and caustic soda were among the sectors targeted by the government. Actual growth
exceeded the projected rate of increase. It should be remembered, however, that this era was
also marked by enormous inflows of aid, (A, 2011)which contributed to the economic boom
and the election of a more capable administration.

Third Year Plan

The third five-year plan (1965-70) attempted to follow in the footsteps of the Second Plan's
achievements; nevertheless, this decade saw a significant worsening of Pakistan's economy
owing to the Indo-Pak dispute of 1965. (Brecher I. &., 1976) Resources were redirected to
defense spending, while assistance supplies were disrupted, reducing productive capacity. The
manufacturing sector's production fell as a result of capacity insufficient utilization, raw
material shortages, and lower capital equipment investment. Trade liberalization was reversed
in 1966/67, and by 1968, over 90% of all imported raw commodities were uncontrolled.
Because of the decrease in assistance inflows, the federal government reduced the amount of
the development budget. According to Islam (1973), at the conclusion of the third plan,
production was dropping owing to many unproductive government industries (especially in
East Pakistan, now Bangladesh). (Islam, 1973)

In addition, there were various exchange rates for exports and imports, and financial
intermediary was scarce. Under President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's government (1971-1973), the
third wave of industrial policy entailed the nationalization of large-scale industries. The
establishment of public sector enterprises to fund factories marked the beginning of today's
deeply established public management distortions. According to Ahmed and Amjad (1984),
the Board of Industrial Management (BIM) had jurisdiction over 32 larges industrial
(nationalized) businesses in ten sub-sectors.

BIM and Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC) collaborated to make the
industrial sector less efficient by selecting new projects on political rather than meritocratic
basis. With the return of military rule under President Zia-ul-Haq in 1977, a State Enterprises
Review Commission and later the implementation Committee on Reorganization of State
Industrial Enterprises recommended the abolition of the Ministry of Production, BIM, and
commodity-specific corporations.

Fourth Year Plan

The return of democracy in 1989 marked the beginning of the fourth wave of industrial strategy
for the 1990s. It consisted of three major components: deletion policy, deregulation measures,
and privatization. The elimination strategy emphasized self-sufficiency in the engineering
sector and the encouragement of technological transfer. Democratic governments began to
privatize significant banks and businesses. However, because little attempt was made to enact
pro-competition regulations, privatization initiatives did not enhance industrial activity
(especially in terms of value creation). The Small and Medium Enterprise Development
Authority (SMEDA) was founded in this era to improve goods, embrace new technology and
management practices, and assist with cost benefit analysis at the firm. (Brecher I. &., 1976)

Fifth Year Plan

The fifth wave (1999-2008) saw the private sector take on a larger role (Brecher and Abbas
1972). Deregulation and tariff modifications resulted in significant advancements in the car
and consumer electronics sectors. Macroeconomic stabilization was achieved in 2002-03 with
conservative fiscal and monetary policies followed by structural reforms, resulting in GDP
growth rates of 5.1% in 2002-03, 6.4% in 2003-04, and 9.1% in 2004-05. While agriculture
and industry both showed signs of improvement, the total growth rate remained lower than in
other comparable Asian countries. Pakistan's performance in human development indices and
technical development has remained poor (Planning Commission 2005).

Furthermore, the 2008 fiscal crisis and a lack of internal backing for innovation did not instill
confidence in businesses. Trade liberalization was effective, but not enough to keep Pakistan
growing. According to Burki (2008), the failure of the textile sector to gain from the conclusion
of the Multi-fiber Arrangement (MFA) in 2005 exemplifies the long-term harmful impact of
industrial regulations on entrepreneurship. (Burki, 2008) Although the Musharraf government
intended to foster the business community, it did not provide the essential legislation to protect
consumers, encourage competition on a broad scale, and ensure accountability. (Sahar S.
Hussain, Vaqar Ahmed, 2012)

Policies

At the time of independence, Pakistan has inherited only 34 industrial units out of 921
industrial units in subcontinent. They were cotton textile, cigarettes, sugar, rice husking,
cotton ginning and flour milling industries; and together they contributed only 7% of GDP
and employed a little over 26,000 employees.
Industrial development or history of industries in Pakistan can be divided into six phases:

Phase 1 (1947-1957):

1. This phase started from 1947 ended to 1958. During this period, the country was
newly born and politically immature. During this 11-years period, 8 prime ministers came
into power. Not a single prime minister was strong enough to pursue the industrial policy
well.

2. During this period, the policy emphasis was on import substitution.

3. Government had established a committee to formulate industrial policy.

4. This committee emphasized on manufacturing industries, reduction of imports, and net

social and economic advantages to the country.

5. Pakistan Industrial Finance Corporation (PIFC) and Pakistan Industrial Credit and
Investment Corporation (PICIC) were established in 1948.

6. To create skilled labour, a Swedish-Pak Institute of Technology was established in

1955.

7. Pakistan Industrial Technical Assistance Centre (PITAC) was established in 1956.

Phase 2 (1958-1969):

1. In 1958, a military government of Ayub came into power in Pakistan and announces a
new industrial policy in 1959. This phase witnessed the massive industrial growth in the
country.

2. This industrial policy emphasis on private sector and the development of agro-based
industries.

3. During this period, the government gave emphasis on intermediate and capital goods,
i.e., electrical, chemical, machine tools, etc.

4. Various types of funds were established to promote the industrial development in the
country.

Phase 3 (1973-1977):

1. During this period, a new democratic government of Bhutto came into power and
adopted the principles of mixed economy.

2. Government ruthlessly nationalized 34 industrial units belonging to the following basic

units:

(a) Vegetable ghee and oil industries (26 industrial units)

(b) Shipping industry

(c) Iron and steel industries

(d) Basic metal industries

(e) Heavy engineering industries

(f) Assembly and manufacture of motor vehicles

(g) Tractor plants

(h) Heavy and basic chemicals

(i) Petro-chemical industries

(j) Cement industries

(k) Public utilities including electric generations, gas and oil industries.

3. The nationalized industries were put under the management of Board of Industrial
Management (BIM).

4. Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC) was established.

5. Other reforms were taken by the government were:

(a) Labour reforms

(b) Abolition of bonus voucher system

(c) Reduction of sales tax on imported items

(d) Revision of import policy

(e) Establishment of industrial units in less developed / rural areas.

Phase 4 (1977-1988):

1. A new martial law government by Zia came into power in 1977. The new military
government in 1977 announced the reversal of previous government’s nationalization policy
and introduced a new industrial policy.

2. The federal government offered for the transfer of shares of nationalized industries to
their former owners, under Economic Reforms Order 1978, and thus the new open way for
denationalization of industries.

3. Government announced tax holidays and revised import policy.

4. To boost private industrial development, following measures were taken:

(a) Reduction in interest charges by banks to 12.5% on all fixed investments.

(b) Removal of taxes on issuance of bonus shares.

(c) Fixing standard rebates of excise duty on additional 17 items.

Phase 5 (1988-2008):

1. During the first half of this phase, i.e., 1988 to 1999 the country had faced worst
political conditions in the history of Pakistan.

2. Two governments had come into power for twice, i.e., Benazir’s Government and
Nawaz’s Government, and not even governed for more than three years. Therefore, the
industrial policy was never the top priority of those two governments.

3. Nawaz Sharif, however, lightly emphasized on infrastructural development in Pakistan,

but interrupted by the bloodless coup d’etat by Musharraf in 1999. Although Nawaz had
adopted considerable economic policies, i.e., deletion policy, deregulation policy and
privatization policy, which were also pursued by succeeding governments. Much of these
policies were influenced by IMF.

4. During the second half of this phase (i.e., 2000-2008), industries of Pakistan faced
greater influence of cheaper goods imported under WTO agreements.

5. The highlights of industrial policy of this phase are as below:

(a) Deletion Policy: Although this policy was announced during Phase 4 in 1987 but also
pursued by the governments in later phase. The objective of deletion policy was to obtain
self-reliance in engineering sector.

(b) Deregulation Policy: Almost the whole industrial sector was exempted from the
requirement of government sanctions except:

(i) Arms and ammunitions

(ii) Security printing, currency and mint

(iii) High explosives

(iv) Radioactive substances

(c) Privatization Policy: To reduce the financial burden imposed on government and to
reduce slack utilization of resources, privatization policy was adopted and is still
continued. The main objectives of privatization were to improve the overall performance of
state-owned industries and to promote healthy competition.

Pakistan Economic and Industrial Growth

Since the country has the necessary natural and human resources for industrial expansion,
industrial strategy would continue to focus on boosting the manufacturing sector's share of the
total economy.
The focus, however, would progressively be on strengthening the industrial framework by
increasing the importance of high-value-added, more complex engineering, chemicals, and
other fundamental sectors.
It is also critical to guarantee that current industrial capacity is fully utilized and that sick and
shuttered industrial units be revived if their economic viability and management competency
justify it. (Dawn Newspaper, 2007)

At the same time, the public sector has laid the groundwork for management and
entrepreneurship. It is in an advantageous position to chart its future direction in a way that
promotes a mutually beneficial interaction between the public and private sectors.
The public sector has established itself in industries such as steel, fertilizer, cement, petroleum
refining and petrochemical, automotive equipment, and so on, where it will continue to be
engaged while focusing on rationalization, balance, modernization, and selective expansion.
These industries, however, are not the only presence of the public sector.

The public sector has also maintained its socioeconomic role in the economic growth of
developing regions. According to current policy, the majority of the investments required by
the public sector for its plan must be generated by public sector firms using their own resources
such as retained earnings and capital provision. Despite intense competition in the worldwide
market, development finance institutions (DFIs) have aided the industry's growth. To that end,
the government established several banks and financial organizations to expressly meet the
requirements and desires of the sector. These included the former NDFC, IDBP, PICIC, ADBP,
former BEL, SBFC, and RDFC, among others. (Dawn Newspaper, 2007)
The graphic below depicts the finance provided by DFIs to the sector over the years:

The role of small industries: Small-scale industry growth is a key socioeconomic need for the
country. They need less capital, create more job possibilities, spread the benefits of expansion
to a greater number of people, have a shorter gestation time, and bring the benefits of
industrialization to rural areas. Even in the face of hardship, small businesses have
demonstrated extraordinary tenacity. The small industry approach is expected to boost the
national economy's growth through exports. (Dawn Newspaper, 2007)

A small industry is defined as one that requires a fixed capital investment of up to Rs 10 million.
The following is a critical component in the development of small businesses:

i) Adequate and timely credit at a concessional rate;

ii) Continuing training-cum-service centers for small businesses will be strengthened,
and more will be opened to provide training and common facilities;
iii) Large-scale manufacturing units, particularly in the field of engineering, are going
to be urged to utilize small unit suppliers. The government will aid them in
developing a technical assistance programmed, loans for new investment, design
and mold provision, and long-term contracts for the procurement of small unit
items.
iv) The Small Business Finance Corporation will broaden its services to include
different small-scale industrial developments, as well as technical guidance and
finance.
Pakistan is deindustrializing – the contribution of manufacturing at 12.1% in 2018 is down
from a high of 17.5% in 2005. This decline in share of manufacturing has seen Pakistan’s share
of global exports staying flat while those of competitor countries have seen large increases. A
lack of focus on industry is seeing Pakistan lag other South Asian countries in growth in
manufacturing and composition of manufactured goods in exports. Without significant
intervention to reverse this trend of deindustrialization, Pakistan will continue to be plagued by
high unemployment and a low export base as the country continues to focus on either
commodity, intermediate goods or low value-added finished products. The current account
deficit will grow if we continue to import sophisticated consumer products for which a
manufacturing base no longer exists in the country, nor there appears to be a plan to create, to
leverage on a large domestic market of 200 million + consumers.

The Pakistan Business Council (PBC) has developed "Contours of a New Industrial Policy" in
order to highlight the important policy thrusts and emphasis areas that the government must
examine as it develops a new and long-overdue industrial policy for Pakistan. (Contours of a
New Industrial Policy , 2018)According to the PBC, the new industrial policy should focus on
a "Make-in-Pakistan" theme and be guided by three important performance metrics:

a) the development of new jobs;

b) a rise in value-added exports; and
c) the replacement of imports.

I will conclude now by summing up the argument presented in this paper. I have argued that
Pakistan have been working on a stable policy in order to sustain our industries. But we have
made more policies on the process on how we will improve our industrial sector, through five-
year plans in six decade but haven’t done any implementation of those polices. Since the
implementation is very low, there is no report of the outcome in term of weather these policies
are correct or should we adopt some other module. I am not an expert on public policy but the
research I have gathered above tells me that our policy on industrialization hasn’t been very
effective to gain us any economic benefits. If we have succeeded in order to have any capital
for our industries to work in through international aid, industry itself doesn’t support the
economy. Although, we do have big industries in different sectors that have been very
supported towards our goal to be considered as industrialize nation but most of those were
privatize with grew decades and some were already a private industry.
 References
Dawn Newspaper. (2007). Industrialization in Pakistan. Karachi: Dawn.
Bank, W. (2015). World development indicators. Washington DC: World Bank.
(ADB), A. D. (2023). Pakistan Economic Recovery Rests On Resuming Robust Reforms .
Islamabad: Asian Development Bank.
Nazeer, R. R. (2016). Comparing Industrialization in Pakistan and the East Asian Economies.
The Lahore Journal of Economics, 167-192.
R, R. (2015). The state of manufacturing in Pakistan [Special edition]. Lahore Journal of
Economics, 205–224.
Bussink, W. (1970). A Complete Set of Consumption Coefficients for West Pakistan.
Pakistan Developmnt Review.
Guisinger, S. E. (1976). Patterns of Industrial Growth in Pakistan. Pakistan Institute of
Development Economics, Islamabad, 8-27.
Ernesto Sánchez-Triana, D. B. (2014). Revitalizing Industrial Growth in Pakistan Trade,
Infrastructure, and Environmental Performance. World Bank.
Chenery. (1960). Patteras of Industrial Growth. American Economic Review.
Brecher, I. &. (1972). Foreign aid and industrial development in Pakistan. Cambridge
University Press.
Brecher, I. &. (1976). Foreign Aid and Industrial Development in Pakistan. Cambridge
University Press.
Industrial Development in Pakistan. (n.d.). National Institute of Social and Economic
Research, Karachi.
Islam. (1973). ‘Industrial Development in Pakistan’, Eds., Moin Baqai and Irving Brescher:
Development Planning and Policy in Pakistan 1950-70. National Institute of Social
and Economic Research, Karachi.
A, J. M. (2011). ‘Foreign Aid and Growth Nexus in Pakistan: The Role of Macroeconomic
Policies’,. PIDE Working Papers, 72.
Burki, S. (2008). Changing perceptions, altered reality: Pakistan's economy under Musharraf,
1999-2006. Oxford University Press. .
Government of Pakistan. (1957). The First Five Year Plan . National Planning Board.
Sahar S. Hussain, Vaqar Ahmed. (2012). EXPERIMENTS WITH INDUSTRIAL POLICY:
THE CASE OF PAKISTAN. Sustainable Development Policy Institute.
Islam. (1973). Industrial Development in Pakistan. Development Planning and Policy in
Pakistan 1950-70.
Contours of a New Industrial Policy . (2018). Pakistan Business Council .
(n.d.).

View publication stats