Himalayan Research Institute - Lahore

Debt, Dependency & Development: How IMF Conditionalities Reshape Pakistan's Economic Policy and Who Pays the Price

Moiz ur Rehman

Since 1950, Pakistan has entered into 25 loan agreements with the IMF, an average of one every three years. Each program, rather than leading to graduation from financial dependency, sets the stage for the next. This is not a story of crisis management, but of a structural condition of subordinated sovereignty.

The conditionalities of the IMF, such as austerity, subsidy removal, tariff increases, and regressive taxation, are aimed at macroeconomic stabilisation within a neoliberal framework that treats inflation control and fiscal consolidation as ends in themselves. But stabilisation without equity is an empty aspiration for a country like Pakistan, with 25 million children out of school, health spending down to just 1pc of GDP, and electricity prices up over 110pc since 2019.

The 2024 program was conditional on tax rises, changes to energy tariffs and governance overhauls. What is then the result? Petrol prices up 840pc since 2019. The World Bank estimates that 40.5pc of Pakistanis are now below the poverty line, 2.6 million more being added in 2024 alone.

Pakistan’s external debt jumped from $37.2 billion in 2006 to $130 billion in 2024, a 250pc increase in 18 years. More than half of the national budget is spent on servicing the debt – the equivalent of 105pc of all taxes collected. The country borrows to pay its debts. That’s the dependency trap at work.

 

67 Years of Borrowed Time: Key IMF Milestones

 

 

1958 — BAILOUT #1

The First Loan

Pakistan’s first IMF arrangement, a standby of $25 million, established a precedent of conditional lending that would shape economic policy for decades to come

. $25 MILLION

 

 

1971–74 — POST-WAR CRISIS

Loss of East Pakistan

Three loans in three years after the independence war of Bangladesh. External shocks and structural fragility have increased Pakistan’s reliance on the IMF.

 3 LOANS IN 3 YEARS

 

 

1988–1997 — STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT ERA

The Bhutto–Sharif Cycle

Six IMF programs under successive regimes. Privatization, deregulation and austerity become the standard. No reform of domestic institutions.

 6 PROGRAMMES

 

 

2001 — 9/11 & GEOPOLITICS

Politics Shapes the Bailout

So, the IMF is political. Weeks after 9/11, the US wants to incentivize Pakistan to work with them in Afghanistan, so the IMF gives ~$ 2B to Musharraf 's government.

 ~$2 BILLION

 

 

 

2008 — LARGEST LOAN IN HISTORY

Global Crisis Hits Pakistan

As the global financial crisis hit and foreign reserves were running low, the Gillani government sealed Pakistan’s biggest-ever IMF loan at the time.

 $7.6 BILLION

 

 

2019 — PTI AUSTERITY PACKAGE

Extended Fund Facility

A strong conditionality based $6 billion program. weakened twice - by COVID-19 and political crisis. Inflation is over 38pc. Electricity Prices Start Historic Climb.

 $6 BILLION (EFF)

 

 

2023 — BRINK OF DEFAULT

Emergency Stand-By Arrangement

Pakistan is heading toward a near-default situation due to political chaos, the fallout from the pandemic and 2022 floods that led to $30 billion in losses. $3B SBA with heavy prior actions taken.

 $3 BILLION (SBA)

 

 

2024 — BAILOUT #25

The Latest $7 Billion Program

Pakistan's 25th IMF program approved. External debt soars to $130B. Poverty, 40.5pc. Conditions Tax hikes, energy tariff reform, SOE privatization.

 $7 BILLION (EFF)

 

What Pakistan Agrees to And Who Bears the Cost

 

 

Energy Tariff Hikes

Under the IMF programs, electricity prices have shot up from Rs 10 to Rs 65 per unit, the highest in the region. Gas prices are up 840pc since 2019. It harms rural and low-income households and undermines industrial competitiveness.

 

 

 

? Regressive Taxation

GST increased to 18pc. Indirect taxes account for 60pc of total tax revenue, placing a disproportionate burden on the poor. The rich agrarian and trading sectors are still largely outside the formal tax net.

 

 

 

✂️ Subsidy Removal

Systematically dismantled fuel and food subsidies. Consumer buying power fell 38pc in 2023. Food insecurity currently affects 16pc of the population – exceeding emergency thresholds in many areas.

 

 

 

 

? Privatization Mandates

Required to sell state-owned companies. Failed attempt to privatize PIA in 2024. SOEs received PKR 905 billion in subsidies in FY22–23 but political economy makes structural reform very difficult.

 

 

?️ Fiscal Consolidation

To reduce the fiscal deficit to 5.9pc of GDP, public investment will need to be cut. The debt service is increasing; the development budget is decreasing. Sacrificing long-term growth for short-term macro-economic metrics.

 

Pathways Beyond the Dependency Trap

 

01

Expand the Domestic Tax Base

Agriculture and retail trade are largely exempt from taxation. If Pakistan were to raise the tax-to-GDP ratio from 8.5pc to the developing country median of 16pc, it could generate PKR 13 trillion, eliminating the structural need for IMF borrowing altogether.

 

 

02

Redirect from Debt to Development

52pc of the budget set aside for debt servicing is structurally unsustainable. Pakistan needs to negotiate debt restructuring with Paris Club creditors and realign fiscal space towards education, health and productive infrastructure.

 

 

03

Export-Led Growth Strategy

Pakistan's $35B exports vs $60B imports is a structural crisis. Textile diversification, tech services and agricultural value addition are the real ways to external balance and debt reduction and not IMF austerity.

 

 

04

South-South Cooperation

Pakistan must strengthen economic architecture with Muslim-majority economies likely OIC trade integration, Gulf investment corridors, and CPEC renegotiation to reduce structural dependence on Bretton Woods institutions.

 

05

Democratic Conditionality Reform

IMF conditionalities must be debated in parliament and scrutinized by civil society. Pakistan should push for governance reform at the IMF in the G24 that enhances the voice and voting power of borrowers.

 

 

 

 

 Conclusion:

25 bailouts have not brought development; they have brought dependence. The IMF offers a fire extinguisher, while the structural conditions that ignited the fire remain untouched: a narrow tax base, weak exports, elite capture, and a foreign policy that barters economic sovereignty for geopolitical usefulness.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of The Himalayan Research Institute Pakistan (THRIP)

_________________________________ 

 

Moiz ur Rehman is a Research Intern at Rethinking Economics Islamabad, where he produces analytical work on developmental economics and emerging technologies. He holds an MSc in Economics & Economic Policy from the Higher School of Economics, Russia. He is dedicated to fostering interdisciplinary    approaches to economic growth and structural reform and can be reached at [email protected]                      

Contact us

Image Description

Write with Us

The Himalayan Research Institute is proud to introduce "Himalayan," a dynamic and insightful magazin...


Related News