The prospects of a better future for Pakistan’s working families appear increasingly remote as the government’s economic team remains fixated on the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) stabilisation agenda. This means higher taxes, costlier utilities, and job cuts, while the country’s intellectual community seems too complacent to craft credible, growth-oriented policy options. Responsibility for Pakistan’s chronic underperformance rests equally with the state and the elite. It is vested interests, not ignorance, that block meaningful reforms. When the path to prosperity remains undefined, political leaders, policymakers, intellectuals and civil society all share the blame. Blaming the IMF for all of Pakistan’s problems is misguided, just as expecting the Fund to deliver perfect solutions is unrealistic. It is not the Fund’s mandate to fix a country’s weaknesses, nor has Pakistan’s long history of repeated programmes ever suggested it could. If IMF programmes solved everything, Pakistan would not be returning to the IMF every few years — currently, Pakistan is under the second year of the 24th Extended Fund Facility arrangement, a $7 billion, 37-month deal. The Fund’s role is to stabilise economies in acute distress, and its support comes with conditions meant to restore fiscal health and creditworthiness. Like any lender, it demands stronger safeguards when dealing with a vulnerable client. Many Pakistani analysts argue that IMF conditionalities only address the financial dimension of the country’s complex economic challenges. They view the reforms as neither politically neutral nor aligned with the sequencing required for inclusive, sustainable development that fully leverages Pakistan’s human and natural endowments. Business leaders were even more critical, contending that the IMF’s stabilisation-focused approach has contributed to the current low-investment cycle and weakened the environment for domestic growth. Little intellectual pushback and scant policy innovation has reinforced dependence on the Fund’s prescriptions Dr Aliya Hashmi Khan, an economist and adviser to several local and global bodies, pointed to a fundamental lack of clarity on Pakistan’s growth paradigm. “My short answer is that alignment remains weak,” she observed, further elaborating that, “Since we still lack clarity on goals, policies and sequencing, it is difficult to judge the programme’s impact. She added that institutional fragility and persistent volatility limit the state’s ability to undertake structural reforms needed to address deep developmental gaps. At the same time, she acknowledged the economic team’s success in persuading the IMF to proceed with reforms despite clear evidence that the chosen trajectory remains uncertain. Dr Nadeem ul Haq, former vice chancellor of the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, noted that an IMF programme is merely an emergency stabilisation tool; it can steady an economy, but it cannot place a country on a sustained growth path. Yet Pakistan’s policy debate remains dominated by bankers and political appointees focused only on meeting the Fund’s minimum conditions. Equally troubling, he argued, is an economist community that behaves more like a passive follower than an idea generator. There is little intellectual pushback, scant policy innovation, and no meaningful effort to present the government with alternative reform models. This absence of bold, homegrown ideas, he said, has narrowed Pakistan’s policy space and reinforced dependence on IMF prescriptions instead of building a long-term vision for growth and shared prosperity. Muhammad Sohail, CEO of Topline Securities, was brief and unequivocal. “When a country is in trouble and turns to the IMF in desperation, it must follow the Fund’s policies. There is simply no alternative.” Tensions between the IMF and the government persist over the pace of tax, energy and state-owned enterprise reforms, now filtered through the IMF’s governance lens. Despite accepting the Fund’s governance diagnostic, Pakistan still lacks a coherent roadmap linking stabilisation to sustained growth, investment and employment. Auto sector leader Mashood Ali Khan noted that IMF policies are not politically neutral and repeated bailouts have raised concerns about Pakistan’s economic sovereignty, industrialisation and inclusive growth. He warned that tariff rationalisation, removal of industrial-zone incentives, costly energy, high interest rates, and austerity risks are deepening de-industrialisation and deterring investment, while electric vehicle-import incentives without local capacity add new vulnerabilities. Dr Kaisar Waheed, former president of the Pakistan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, remarked that IMF programmes align only partly with Pakistan’s priorities. While they address urgent stabilisation needs, they conflict with long-term goals of growth, job creation and poverty reduction. The Fund’s singular focus on stability imposes heavy social costs, while state-owned enterprise reforms and tax base expansion entail entrenched resistance. On the contrary, Majyd Aziz, former president of the Employers’ Federation of Pakistan, defended the IMF and its stance. He argued that the criticism of the IMF often ignores that countries approach it only after their economies have already deteriorated. The Fund’s role is to stabilise and restructure through a standard framework, adjusted to each country. Pakistan’s real problem is not IMF conditions but weak implementation, elite capture, and failure to undertake structural reforms. Dr Khaqan Hasan Najeeb argues that IMF engagement aligns with Pakistan’s short-term macro-stability needs — containing inflation, narrowing fiscal and external deficits, and restoring credibility. However, the country’s longer-term priorities, export diversification, industrial upgrading, job creation and productivity-driven growth, require far deeper structural reforms. n Published in Dawn, The Business and Finance Weekly, December 22nd, 2025