& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

MARKET ECONOMY, DEREGULATION AND PRIVATISATION

It’s Time to Clear up Confusion over Future Direction

by Jamal Uddin Ahmad
IN the Third World eoun trk* of Asia. Africa and Latin America, particularly l hose countries which are heavily dependent on aid programmes of multilateral financing agencies like World Bank, IMF. ADU. OECF. EEC etc., the terminologies such ns market cronony, deregulation, privatisation, transparency. ar countability, poverty allevMlloii etc have assumed the Impor lance almost similar to Biblical commandments
Talking about South Asia, regardless of where you hap pen to be — India. Pakistan. HangMcsh. Nepal or Sn Lanka — economic discussions Invariably gravitate between market economy, deregulation and privatisation. These arc not merely subjects of academlc discourses at coffee shops or political fora, but very serious ones because they form the neo-economic foundations up on which national economics of these countries are now being structured. Without mu ch exception and difference either in dimensions or emphasis. the Inherent concc ptual thought process and Implementation strategics arc almost identical throughout the region. For the first time In history, over a billion pcoplc scuttered over five sovereign and independent countries in a great landmass, are now marching, hand in hand, tow ards achievement of the same economic goals with the same strategic plans under the same command
Make no mistake The command or the battle plan has originated not from the great leaders of SAARC This organisation is now in deep slumber. These have come from the World Bank. The bat tie plan was conceived, dcvcl oped and approved In Was hington and the field com manders were briefed and given assignments al Puris Consortium meetings The support machinery is provided by the never-ending stream- of foreign consultants. The ma
chincry to monitor and adjust UullcaJ plana arc taken care of by the frequent visits of expert teams from the head office In Washington.
The battle plan envisages pretty well the whole spectrum of national life — political. social, economic, intellectual. defense and security and the lot. Nothing of Importance is left out. Plans, methodolo gies, lime span, financing, arc all provided by the World Bank The only thing left to the na tlonal Governments Is cxccu lion and Implementation Even In Ihts sector priorities, short and long term methodology * to execute and implement arc spelled out In the Instruction Books which in the circle of plan executives arc apparently known as “Bible
On the (acx of II. there Is no great problem with these- con expts nor arc they totally alien to this region At the level of ordinary people, they had more or less been used to free economy from time Immcmo rial provided they had enough purchasing power There were and still arc. of course, social and religious barriers between man and man but on the eco nomic front, people generally were left on their own to fend for themselves without too much intervention from the State As the level got higher and higher, one became more and more exposed to rules.
regulations, restrictions, graft, corruption, government poll clcs etc.
Prior to 1947. excepting for a few utility services the economy in this region was, by the large, totally free. The economic sectors were not demarcated between public and private sectors With Independence. however, everything changed very rapidly In the nans- of achieving an economic growth unprecedented in the past Io conform to the “hopes and aspirations' of the masses of the denied people and to dispense cquilnbk- and dis irfbullvc Justice among people mammoth public- sector In vestments were undertaken In al) walks of hfc From artific ial Insemination of cattk- slock to the running of the most mod ern fleet of aeroplanes which defied sound barriers, from providing primary education to nuclear science al post doc-lorn) level; front the manufacture of Ice cream to giant ocean going vessels from the manufacture of 303 rifles to most sophisticated war ma chincry Including nuclear arsenals — all came under the purview of stale owne rship and control
In course of time and deft tritely by the end of 1980*. questions were being raised k>udly and ek-arly — what hove’ these huge- economic monsters
contributed to the genera) well-being of the people? Dissatisfaction and anger wen manifest all round, even among the classical socialists, about the criminal mismanagement of economic resources, rampant corruption and graft, bu reaucratfoatton and pohtfcaltsa-Hon of economic sectors Neither the promised massive growths were achieved nor the hopes and aspiration* of the people fulfilled, nor the equitable and distributive Ju* lice ever got beyond the politl clan* slogans The so-called development syndrome of 45 years Involving many thousand* of billion* of dollars pretty we II came to n naught
Thl* phenomenon coupled with the sudden collapse of socialism In the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, like a house of cards, k-fl no option for the countries of the region which have, by this time, be enme totally dependent on the financial doles of World Bank, but to accept It* prescription for their survival Thia prescription meant. In a nutshell, a complete departure from public ownership to private ownership — lock, slock and barrel The time frame? Qulc kcal possible time, no more than three years is apparently an unwritten tlmc-tnblc.
In Bangladesh, the reason for moving away from the past economic experiments I* un-
derslnndnbk but what is not understood Is the haste In making a full circle swing without adequate research, debate and understanding of the issues Involved Just because public ownership of national economy was bad. It docs not automatically mean that private ownership 1* the panacea Before making deci ■Ions, there should be thor* ough discussion* at national level* as well as In our Parliament to set objectives and directions of national economy It is profoundly regrettable that both the treasury bench and the opposition In the Parliament have totally disappointed the nation. They are In the Parliament to provide guidance, direction and lend ■ rshtp but these arc precisely the areas in which they have failed miserably. 1
Market economy, dcrcgula Hon privatisation are compo nents of n capitalistic economy Neither these components nor the capitalistic economy itself arc new concepts The world Including the poor countries of South Asia have experienced some form of capitalism at some time or another. However. no country, even In todny * context, can claim to have had undiluted or uncon trolled economy totally sub-servient to the market. Within capitalistic economics, there
hav. always been restrictions, regulations. limitation- tin posed by the Acts of P.irlia mcni. Ordinances. Charter* etc for public interest The restrict Ive list of such regu lotions in the USA and Japan, the two countries most exposed to market economy is quite formidable This does not. however. mean that these countries have compromised with the fundamental concept of capitalism What it means is that whilst the adherence and commitment to the concept of capitalism arc total, some adjustments considered vital were legislated for better management of economics, to provide greater service to the people and io achieve belter distributive Justice.
If countries having the highest economic develop men! are allowed to have 11 mi taitons imposed on the man agerhent of their economies, why the poor countries of South Asia be made to accept a prescription which is totally market oriented and deregulated? One wonders If the meaning of “public Interest has different connotations for different countries If subsidk-s to agriculture Is a norm In de velopcd countries for public interest", why should II be prohibited In poorest of the poor countries? If restriction* on Imports are permissible to protect the markets of richer countries, why the same flexibility be denied to the poorer countries? These arc vita! questions of national tmpor tancc which should be frankly and freely debated As said car Iter. conceptually there arc no major differences of opinion But opinions vary on how. to what extent and to what Mme frame these are to be Impk-mented? Enough confusion ha* already been created. It's now time to clear them.
The writer, a former Deputy Prime Minister, In currently the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Uangladesh