Clear Useful Details
Clear Useful Details: The IMF released a much-awaited report on Pakistan’s governance and corruption. People discussed it widely on talk shows and social media. The report likely cost around $10 million, but it disappointed many. Most of its information could have been shared in a much shorter format. Instead, we got a long, self-important 186-page document with little real insight. Its physical length outweighed its content value.
Flawed Report
The report contains dense writing and general statements. It presents hearsay as investigative findings. It repeats issues already well-known in Pakistan. The report uses development jargon and rhetorical language, but it does not explain corruption clearly. It also fails to suggest new solutions.
The report claims NAB recovered Rs5.3 trillion in the last two years, about four percent of GDP. It does not show evidence or explain the calculation. NAB’s website reports a total recovery of Rs6.7 trillion over 25 years. The report does not break down the recovery into cash, land, or settlements. It also ignores the number of corruption cases resolved and actions taken against wrongdoers.
Contradictory Claims
The report exaggerates NAB’s success while criticizing it for targeting political opponents. This contradiction is obvious. The report also avoids asking why institutions perform poorly. Corruption does not happen by itself. Policies and systems create opportunities for corruption. By focusing only on weak institutions and regulatory gaps, the report ignores the policies that encourage misconduct.
IMF Role
This omission is deliberate. Domestic and external actors, including the IMF, shaped these policies over decades. The report criticizes Pakistan’s complex tax system but ignores that the IMF helped design it. The tax system includes many duties, taxes, and surcharges, often imposed under IMF guidance. These measures hurt Pakistan’s economy and violate best-practice advice. The report also ignores how IMF loans and technical support shaped the very institutions it now criticizes.
Selective Criticism
The report overlooks external contributions to regulatory confusion and problems in the energy sector. It criticizes past governance while ignoring the current government’s weak, arbitrary decisions, ad hoc regulations, and poorly designed taxes. Mentioning “data cut-off dates” does not excuse ignoring current issues.
Overall, the report criticizes the past but stays silent on the present. This selective approach reduces its neutrality and weakens its credibility.
Published in Dawn, 1st December 2025
