Naveed Pirzada 1

The State of Pakistan and the World Economic System: A Path towards Underdevelopment

Introduction

The intention of this essay is to explore how the interplay of the world economic system

and the Pakistani state makes Pakistan a periphery of the world economic system and thereby

contributes to its own underdevelopment as a subsidiary of the world economic system. The

peripherality of Pakistan can be explained primarily by associated with the role of the world

economic system based on dependency theory which states that the underdeveloped situation of

any country of the Third World is due to the exploitative nature of one global economic system.

The dependent relationship is best defined as a “conditioning situation in which the economies of

one group of countries are conditioned by the development and expansion of others” (Dos

Santos, 1970:231). To define the peripherality of Pakistan is to show the ways by which the

penetration of core countries’ capital into the economy of Pakistan conditions its local economy,

class structure and whole social structure. In the words of Schuurman (1993) this

“penetration…alienated the periphery from itself and made it dependent on the core…” (p.5).

This necessitates discussing dependency theory in relation to the world economic system in order

to understand Pakistan’s peripherality as a Third World country. Dependency theory primarily

focuses on the unilateral relation between periphery and a core country, though the world

economic system is a multinational structure of capitalist relations in the shape of unrestricted

roaming of capital around the globe.

The peripherality of Pakistan has roots in the colonial period (before 1947), and therefore

the political and economic relationship between colonial India and the then British government

could be explained by dependency theory — a unilateral one-to-one relation between periphery

and the core country. However, the post-colonial period is marked by the imprints of

Naveed Pirzada 2

neocolonialism in the shape of global neo- liberal policies of the world’s wealthy nations and

multi-national corporations. It is, therefore, clear, that right from its creation, Pakistan has fallen

prey to the exploitative world economic system, or global neo- liberalism, and has been rendered

dependent on the world economic system as a whole. Since its inception, the Pakistani state

offered itself to global economic powers as a pawn to accomplish the neo-liberal agenda. First, I

will analyze the Pakistani state in light of Marxist analysis of the state by which it has assumed

greater autonomy — as compared to the “relative autonomy” of the capitalist state — because

the mode of production in Pakistan is indeterminate and no single class has sway in power

relations (Gold et al., 1975 & Trimberger, 1977). Second, this essay will discuss the role of the

strong state bureaucracy of Pakistan as inherited from the colonial era. This “overdeveloped”

(Alavi, 1972) bureaucracy was created by the British colonial government to control all the

indigenous classes of India. Amin (1976) argues this inherited bureaucracy, stems from the petty

bourgeoisie and has monopoly over modern education and technical skills. Third, the role of

state capitalism will be explored and analyzed in the context of Pakistan which gives it a shape

of an entrepreneurial state. By this, I mean that in the wake of local capital’s weakness, Pakistan

as a state assumes the main role of a developer of infrastructure and acts as the subsidiary of

multinational corporations and core capitalist countries.

It is therefore clear that Pakistan as a peripheral state of the world economic system is a

creature of complex social and economic pressures. These pressures owe the ir origin to internal

and external pressures and to historical and contemporary processes as well. In conclusion, it will

be argued that Pakistan, as a Third World and peripheral state of world economic system, plays a

very important role in its own underdevelopment in partnership with world such economic

Naveed Pirzada 3

forces, as core capitalist countries, international financial institutions and multi-national

corporations. I shall begin with the theoretical orientation of my essay.

From Colonialism to Post -Colonialism: Theoretical Orientation

The main objective of this essay is to explore the interplay between the world economic

system and the states of the Third World, out of which arises the underdevelopment of the Third

World country — in this case, Pakistan. The present era of theorizing about Third World

development is overwhelmed by the theories of dependency and other neo-Marxist theories. I use

an integrative approach to investigate and explore the causes of the underdevelopment of

Pakistan. This integrative approach will treat the interplay of the world economic system and the

state, which reinforce each other increasing the underdevelopment of Pakistan as a country at the

periphery of the world economic system. I regard both these factors (the world economic system

and state) as the central explanatory variables which lead Pakistan towards more dependency vis-

à-vis the world economic system.

The state of Pakistan submits to the “subordination of external (usually aggressive)

relations to the logic of…accumulation” (Amin, 1993:81). Amin (1993) further argues regarding

the ‘recompradorization’ as follows:

…the peripheral state (which like any state fulfils the functions of maintaining internal class domination) does not control local accumulation. It is – objectively – the instrument of the ‘adjustment’ of the local society to the demands of worldwide accumulation, and how it evolves is mainly determined by how the centre evolves. Here, the state is by nature comprador (p.81).

Dependency theory is clear that the processes of underdevelopment in Third World countries are

only to be understood in relation to the development processes in core capitalist countries and

also in relation to the policies of international economic bodies. Penetration of capital from core

countries into the economy of a country at the periphery has a strong conditioning effect on the

Naveed Pirzada 4

overall socio-economic system of the dependent peripheral country. Schuurman (1993) defines

dependency as a “penetration of…capital, and consumption ideology that alienated the periphery

from itself and made it dependent on the core, led to large scale marginalization and the non-

realisation of development potential” (p.5).

At this point, it is imperative to analyze dependency theory and the world economic

system in two different historical perspectives: colonialism and post-colonialism. I emphasize

that dependency theory argues that during the colonial period there was a unilateral relationship

between the colonial core country and the colonized country at the periphery of the world

system. Before 1947, India was a single country, the predecessor to Pakistan, and had a unilateral

colonial relationship with the British. In other words, the colonial British had self-granted sole

proprietary rights over the dominion of India and all economic benefits from all sources of

revenue generation went to the foreign imperial bourgeoisie. These propriety rights granted

power to British capital to penetrate into dependent colonial India and transfer surplus back to

the British as colonial power. To achieve these objectives, the British colonial government of

India equipped itself with apparatuses and mechanisms which enabled it to subordinate the

natives through direct rule. This was a case of a dependent unilateral relationship between the

colonial British and colonized India, manifested in the fact that Indian evolution was determined

by the evolution of the British as a core capitalist country.

On the other hand, the dependency in neo-colonialism has a multinational structure of

global neo-liberal relations and so the evolution of the country at the periphery of world

economic system depends on the movement patterns and cycles of global capital. It can be

argued that it is the world economic system that shapes and disadvantages the society and

economy of the peripheral country and therefore integrates it into a world economy. Amin

Naveed Pirzada 5

(1974) argues that “[n]ot a single concrete socio-economic formation of our time can be

understood except as part of this world system” (p.257). Consequently, the happenings in the

country at the periphery can be explained in the light of the patterns and cycles of movement of

global capital and the overall objectives of unrestricted capital moving around the globe.

Therefore, the processes of underdevelopment in the countries of the Third World

necessarily emanate from their dependency on the core of the world economic system. By this, I

mean the core’s capital is not just outside of the peripheral country, but is embedded in its

economy and negative ly affecting its socio-economic conditions. Some dependency theorists

think that “[e]verything is connected to everything else, but how and why, often remains

obscure” (O’Brien, 1975:23) so the notion of dependency may not be used as a meta-narrative to

explain all processes of underdevelopment in the less developed countries (Lall, 1975). These

theorists argue that the theoretical tendency to blame everything negative on dependency

“deprives local histories of their integrity and specificity, thereby making local actors little more

than the pawns of outside forces” (Smith, 1979:257). I, nevertheless, argue that in the particular

case of Pakistan, the state managers in the shape of the civil and military bureaucracy, the power-

hungry politicians and the dominant classes are no more than the pawns of outside forces.

However, some anti-systemic revolutionary forces, despite their limited resources, are present in

the shape of civil society, and thus do have their integrity and specificity in the development of

Pakistan at the periphery of the world economic system.

It is pertinent to discuss classical Marxist theory which terms the modern state, a

committee to manage the affairs of bourgeoisie that oppresses subordinate classes and (Miliband,

1965). Miliband (1965) argues that this is the classical Marxist view of the state. He further

argues that the state is independent and superior to all social classes, not just an instrument of

Naveed Pirzada 6

dominant classes. Marx’s secondary view of the state emanates from his analysis of the

Bonapartist State and, in this regard, Miliband (1965) argues that for Marx, the Bonapartist State,

despite its political independence from any given class, continues the economic and social

protection of the dominant classes. However, in post-colonial countries, such as Pakistan, the

relationship between the state and the macro-economic structure is much more complicated than

in the Bonapartist State. It has its own unique historical, political, economical and social

trajectories and necessitates theorizing distinctively.

In post-colonial countries of the Third World there is a variety of classes which could be

termed ruling classes, with a very complex web of simultaneous inclusion and exclusion

tendencies for each other. Mostly, the economies of the post-colonia l peripheral countries consist

of more than one mode of production and, consequently, have more than one dominant socio-

economic classes, such as landed aristocracy, local bourgeoisie and neo-colonial bourgeoisie.

The different dominant modes of production in the post-colonial countries could also be

distinguished as pre-capitalist, capitalist and transitional. Therefore, in the case of Pakistan the

pre-capitalist mode of economy consists of landed aristocracy and could be termed as a mode of

production based on feudal relationships. The capitalist mode of production in Pakistan is visible

only in the urban centers of the country, and consists of local and neo-colonial bourgeoisie, and

the transitional mode of production is one in which collaboration occurs between these different

economies despite their divergent economic interests. Alavi (1972) puts this as follows:

…that the state in the post-colonial society is not the instrument of a single class. It is relatively autonomous and it mediates between the competing interests of the three propertied classes, namely the metropolitan bourgeoisies, the indigenous bourgeoisie and the landed class” (p.62).

I agree with how Alavi (1972) distinguishes the dominant classes in a post-colonial state, but I

disagree with his concept of relative autonomy of the post-colonial state. Marxian analys is of the

Naveed Pirzada 7

state argues that a capitalist state has a certain degree of relative autonomy and is therefore

considered relatively free from general control and interest of the capitalist class, but not free

from its general interests. Gold et al. (1975) argues that a relatively autonomous state is the cause

of cohesion for the bourgeois class and facilitates its dominance over all sections of the society.

This makes the relative autonomy a distinct characteristic of a bourgeoisie state to safeguard the

interest of the capitalist class.

In the post-colonial countries of the Third World, such as Pakistan, several factors lead

its state towards greater autonomy as opposed to Alavi’s (1972) relative autonomy in post-

colonial countries. This greater autonomy of the state is the by-product of the several modes of

production that compete with each other and thus survive simultaneously. Marxist analysts argue

that the state can achieve greater autonomy when the mode of production is indeterminate and

no single class has sway in power relations (Gold., et al, 1975; Trimberger, 1977). Alavi’s

(1972) three propertied classes — metropolitan bourgeoisie s, local bourgeoisie and landed class

— of a post-colonial state is the manifestation of the fact that the mode of the production is

indeterminate. He also discusses Pakistan as a post-colonial state and refers to bureaucratic-

military oligarchy as in the dominant position in the state and his reference to the military “coup

d` etat of October 1958” (Alavi, 1972:65) manifests the greater autonomy the Pakistani state has

assumed in the wake of indeterminate mode of production. Trimberger (1977) argues in the

context of Japanese economic transition to capitalism that it has achieved “dynamic autonomy”

and has actively promoted the capitalist mode of production to compete with other modes of

production. The same “dynamic autonomy”, which is a greater autonomy, has been achieved by

the state apparatuses of Pakistan to compete with the other modes of production.

Naveed Pirzada 8

The specificity of the colonial and, thereafter, post-colonial situation developed a web of

complex social relationships between the state and the social classes. In Western societies, the

creation of the nation state owes its origin to the indigenous capitalist class. This indigenous

capitalist class helped create the necessary governmental institutions and define the parameters

of law in order to protect the interests of the capitalist class. These institutions, procedures and

analyses created by the capitalist class are later on known as the apparatuses of

‘governmentality’1 (Foucault, 1991). However, the processes of relationship between the state

and the heterogeneity of the dominant social classes in the post-colonial societies are very

complex in nature and quite different from the evolution of the nation state in the West. In the

following section, I shall discuss Pakistan as a post-colonial state with reference to its

heterogeneity of the dominant social classes.

Pakistan: From Colony to Post-Colony

The British left the Indian subcontinent in 1947, and in the wake of the Indian partition,

Pakistan was created as an independent nation, but with the solid imprints of the colonial history

in the shape of an ‘overdeveloped’ (Alavi, 1972) bureaucratic-military structure. Soon after its

independence, Pakistan plunged into a trap of global neo-colonialism as a post-colonial state.

Pakistan as a state has always played a very active role, enabling global neo-colonialism to hold

its foot firmly on Pakistani soil. As discussed earlier, the colonial state facilitates the penetration

of a colonial country’s capital directly. This role was continued after the so-called independence

in the shape of allowing neo-colonialism forces to penetrate into the country’s economic

structure. This role only changed the shape of dependency from unilateral to multilateral; from

1 Foucault (1991) says that ‘governmentality’ is “[t]he ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, the calculations and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power”

Naveed Pirzada 9

the British as a single colonial country, to the plethora of countries, international monetary

organizations and the multi-national corporations.

Since its creation, the dearth of a local entrepreneur class in Pakistan created a vacuum

allowing the global neo-colonialist bourgeoisie to take over. This phenomenon was very

common to almost all post-colonial states because “it is not established by an ascendant native

bourgeoisie but instead by a foreign imperialist bourgeoisie” (Alavi, 172:61). A very small

number of non-Muslim industrial/ merchant classes existed and migrated to India before the

Indian sub-continent’s partition2. Nevertheless, the direct control of the foreign imperialist

bourgeoisie was ended at the time of Indian partition, but by no means had its domination

become history. This foreign imperial class was later on known as the neo-colonialist class and

surfaced in the economy of Pakistan. As a consequence of the global neo-capitalist class’s

economic hegemony in Pakistan, the weaker indigenous bourgeoisie came to form an alliance

with it as an inferior partner. Therefore, the alliance of local and neo-colonialist bourgeoisie very

significantly shaped their relationship with the Pakistani state. This alliance became a triple

alliance when the landed aristocracy jumped in and sought its share of money-making from the

local and neo-colonial bourgeoisie.

In areas that comprise today’s Pakistan, agriculture has been the predominant lifestyle

due to the increased land for cultivation through irrigation. This settled agrarian based lifestyle

and increased land for cultivation gave birth to large land holdings and this evolution eventually

emerged in the shape of a society based on feudal relations. The British colonial government in

the Indian subcontinent devised a system of political and administrative control by securing the

feudal interests of the local feudal lords. This system worked for the British as well for the local

2 In the wake of the Indian partition there was a mass migration between India and Pakistan, because of the partition’s religious characteristics. Muslims of India migrated to Pakistan, and Hindus of Pakistan (especially from Sindh province) migrated to India, because of the fear of victimization on the basis of religion.

Naveed Pirzada 10

landed aristocracy to share the power over the local people (Ansari, 1992). These big land

owners remain very powerful due to their political power base in the shape of land and people,

and that increased their socio-economic position to bargain with other two emerging classes —

the local and neo-colonial bourgeoisie. Thus, in the backdrop of this tripartite economic power

sharing, there emerged a Pakistani state which “mediates between the competing interests of the

three propertied classes, namely the metropolitan bourgeoisie, the indigenous bourgeoisie and

the landed classes” (Alavi, 1972:62).

This conglomeration of the class base in Pakistan leads its macro economic structure to

the definition of indetermination. As stated earlier, that economies of the post-colonial peripheral

countries have indeterminate modes of production due to the multi-mode production system

(pre-capitalist, capitalist and transitional). In this way, no single economic class has sway in

power relations (Gold et al., 1975 & Trimberger, 1977). This indeterminacy in terms of the mode

of production leads the post-colonial Pakistan state to greater autonomy as opposed to relative

autonomy of capitalist state. The greater autonomy of the Pakistani state is evident from the

dominance of military and civil bureaucracy, since mid-1950s. The first martial law was

imposed in Pakistan in the year of 1958, and thus stage was set to accommodate the Western

neo-capitalism to enter into Pakistan. Jalal (1990) puts this situation as follows:

It was during the first decade of independence that an interplay of domestic, regional and international factors saw the civil bureaucracy and the army gradually registering their dominance over [political] parties and politicians within the evolving structure of the state (p.295)…there were strong domestic, regional and international compulsion for the bureaucratic military axis want to depoliticize Pakistani society (p.301).

I argue that these international factors or compulsions were the forces of global neo-colonialism

making it a dependent society. Therefore, the garrison state became an ideal state structure for the

global neo-liberal powers to make their power base stronger in Pakistan. During the first military

Naveed Pirzada 11

government of General Ayub Khan (1958-1969) there were no means to restrict the operations of

the global neo- liberal capital which rendered local capital weaker vis-à-vis its international

counterpart. If we briefly look at the political history of Pakistan, it is evident that much of the

period is taken up by direct military rule and the rest is quasi or procedural democracies. From

1971 to 1977 was the only epoch in the political history of Pakistan when first popularly elected

Prime Minister of Pakistan Z.A. Bhutto challenged the power base of neo-liberal capital in

Pakistan and tried to dismantle the power structure of landed aristocracy through land reforms

(Esposito, 1974; Gustafson, 1976). As a consequence, he was hanged by another military ruler

General Zia in 1979. From 1985 to 1999 Pakistan witnessed the emergence of quasi-procedural

or controlled democracies under the tutelage of the Pakistani military. In 1999, the present ruler

of Pakistan General Parvez Musharaf, overthrew the controlled democracy of Nawaz Sharif,

when he attempted to assert an all powerful role of the Pakistani army.

The macro economic history of Pakistan is dominated by the nexus of three propertied

classes, as discussed above, under the auspices of the military junta. However, the military

bureaucracy, despite differences, has sought help from the ‘overdeveloped’ (Alavi, 1972) civil

bureaucracy. The notion of ‘overdeveloped’ refers to the state machinery developed by the

British colonial government/bourgeoisie to control all the indigenous social classes. The civil

bureaucracy under colonial rule was also known as a steel frame of the British government.

Ziemann and Lazendorfer (1977) argue that after independence the post-colonial countries inherit

these ‘overdeveloped’ state apparatuses and its institutionalized practices to regulate and control

the local bourgeoisie. Amin (1976) puts this as follows:

The bureaucracy inherits that prestige of state power that is traditional in non-Western societies and is strengthened by the experience of the colonial administration power, which seemed absolute, and by the fact that the petty

Naveed Pirzada 12

bourgeoisie from which this bureaucracy stems has a monopoly of modern education and technical skills (pp.345-346).

In post-colonial Pakistan, however, the nexus of the military and civil bureaucracies emerged as

a viable and effective apparatus of the garrison state to further the cause of the tripartite alliance

of the three propertied classes of Pakistan. Alavi (1972) calls this nexus a military-bureaucratic

oligarchy and argues that besides performing a role of mediation between these three dominant

economic classes, it “assumes also a new and relatively autonomous economic role, which is not

paralleled in the classical bourgeoisie state” (Alavi, 1972:62). The civil bureaucracy of Pakistan,

as a legacy from colonial government, reproduces itself in the post-colonial Pakistan to maintain

the hyper-authoritarian mentalities of the Pakistani state. This partly happened because the

democratic forces were explicitly thrown out of the political arena and civil society was also

refrained to assert its power out of the state.

This military-bureaucratic oligarchy vested itself with extreme administrative powers,

because in Pakistani state discourses they were termed as highly efficient and equipped with the

administrative acumen to implement and oversee the country’s development process. The local

or indigenous bourgeoisie has failed to assert its active and productive role in the economy and

paved the way for the greater autonomy of the Pakistani state to assert its own entrepreneurship.

Simultaneously, corruption was heightened in the so-called military-bureaucratic oligarchy and

enabled these civil and military bureaucrats to enter in the arena of entrepreneurship, either

directly or indirectly through others. However, the Pakistani state’s role in entrepreneurship is a

form of a new dependent development in the periphery of the world capitalist economy, which

helped the Pakistani state to assert its strength even more vigorously with the help of the

‘overdeveloped’ state machinery in the shape of a so-called military-bureaucratic oligarchy. The

main characteristic of the dependent development is a collaborative functioning of the Pakistani

Naveed Pirzada 13

state with both the global neo- imperialist class, and local capital and the landed class. Local

capital is gaining visibility in Pakistan due to the capital generated through heightened corruption

of the military-bureaucratic oligarchy and its investment in the business and industry. The

interaction of the Pakistani state with the landed aristocracy is in the shape of tax relief and

forthcoming corporate farming. The largest beneficiary of this collaboration is international

capital to gain maximum privileges from the Pakistani state. Evans (1979) calls it a ‘triple

alliance’, because dependent development in the periphery of the world capitalist system is

between the peripheral state and both international and local capitalist classes. In the case of

Pakistan, I call it a quadruple alliance, because dependent development in Pakistan is a

collaborative strategy among the peripheral state, both international and local capitalist classes,

and the landed class.

Since the local /indigenous capitalist class is weak in terms of its operational capabilities,

the post-colonial Pakistani state started assuming the role of problem solver through building an

infrastructure, devising an institutional base to favor international monetary organizations, and

bargaining with transnational corporations and Western core capitalist countries. The state of

Pakistan has practically moved into spheres which traditionally are the domain of private sector.

The Fuaji Foundation is the example of the role of the Pakistani state as an entrepreneur. To

quote Jalal (1995):

[The Fauji Foundation] run by the army has eight manufacturing units, including sugar, fertilizers, cereals, liquid gas, metals, a gas field as well as transportation companies, schools, hospitals and investment in defense production industries (p.143).

The entrepreneur ial role of the Pakistani state is also manifested from Burki’s (1999) following

observations regarding the Pakistan’s nationalization program:

Naveed Pirzada 14

nationalization of a number of economic enterprises in the sector of industry, finance, trade, and communication…[f]or political reasons, the public sector received a much larger share of investment—more than 60 percent—and much greater attention from the policymakers (p.106).

However, Burki (1999) argues that the Pakistani state only entered those areas of

entrepreneurship in which private entrepreneurs were reluctant to invest. By disagreeing with

him, I argue that the local private entrepreneur was simply discouraged from rising as a powerful

class, because it would have entailed a new-liberal democracy in Pakistan with a free political

culture and civil liberties at the helm of the affairs. The free political culture and the increase in

civil liberties in the form of a powerful civil society were seen as a threat to the free intervention

of global neo-capital in the economic activities of Pakistan. Burki (1999) himself mentioned that

in the first decade of the creation of Pakistan, the Ford Foundation and the Harvard advisers in

Pakistan contended that economic planning “had to be done by the Pakistanis with the assistance

of foreign advisers” (p.113). This clearly shows how the state of Pakistan became a captive to the

global neo-capitalist class and thus, assumed the role of entrepreneurship at the state level

primarily to appease the neo-colonialism and the military-bureaucratic oligarchy. The secondary

beneficiary of this conglomeration of the international and local exploitative sections is the

landed aristocracy who also secured benefits out of this arrangement. Despite their support of the

Pakistani state and global neo-colonialism, the local capitalist class is on the lowest position on

the beneficiaries of the “state capitalism” or “entrepreneurial state” (Petras, 1976; Sobhan, 1979).

In other words, the local bourgeoisie has assumed the status of an appendage to the post-colonial

Pakistani state and also to the neo-capitalist class, which is fully operationalized in Pakistan.

Conclusion

The greater autonomous Pakistani state in the shape of state capitalism, however, is by no

means a step towards transformation of social relations of production from capitalism to

Naveed Pirzada 15

socialism. On the contrary, it is an attempt on the part of the Pakistani state to pave the way for

the smooth functioning of global neo-colonial forces. The concentration of power in the

Pakistani state could be defined as a precondition to dependent underdevelopment. Evans (1979)

argues in the Brazilian context that “the entire success of the dependent development is

predicated on multinationals willing to invest, international bankers willing to extend credit”

(p.290), but in Pakistan’s context, dependency on the world economic system is creating a sheer

dependent underdevelopment. However, it is important to place the state of Pakistan in the center

of the analysis and thus class relationships and the processes of accumulation and distribution of

capital ought to be defined as mediated by the state.

The basic proposition of my essay suggests that world economic system and the state

apparatuses of Pakistan interplay to influence the process of capital accumulation to the benefit

of each other. This essay provides an integrative analysis which regards the underdevelopment

processes in Pakistan as a logical outcome of the interplay of the world economic system and the

state of Pakistan. The penetration of global neo- liberal capital in the economy of Pakistan not

only creates socio-economic problems, such as unemployment, poverty and hunger, but also

constantly generates new class relations which created new challenges for the class struggle. In

capitalist core countries the state has relative autonomy, but the degree of the greater autonomy

in Pakistan as a Third World country is largely determined by the interplay of the state and the

world economic system — with the dominant position of the World economic system.

Dependency theorizing has, however, established that the processes of underdevelopment

in Pakistan as a post-colonial state, are the outcome of the development processes in Western

core countries and the policies of the world monetary bodies and multinational corporations.

Ronald Muller, co-author of Global Reach, says that “the MNC [Multinational Corporation] is

Naveed Pirzada 16

one of the most powerful impediments to Third World development” (as cited in Ghosh, 1984:7).

Dr. Mahbubul Haq, the leading economist of Pakistan, says that Pakistan has one of the poorest

records on UNDP’s human development criteria in the region (Haq, 1997). External borrowings

and defense spending in Pakistan have reached an alarming point3. The continuing budget

deficits due to the heavy spending on debt servicing, defense spending and the structural

adjustment programs (SAP) of IMF and the World Bank have entangled Pakistani people into a

vicious circle of poverty and hunger. “This neo- liberal trickle-down economic logic was

encouraged, and indeed perpetrated” (Hak, 2002) in the shape of structural reforms under the

SAP, thereby, increasing the misery of poor people of Pakistan. It is, therefore, clear, that the

dependent underdevelopment of Pakistan as a post-colonial state is due to the dominant position

of global neo-colonialism in collaboration with the state apparatuses of Pakistan. In other words,

Pakistan as a country at the periphery of the world economic system renders itself vulnerable to

underdevelopment at the behest of global capitalist powers thus increasing its dependent position

vis-à-vis world economic system.

References

Alavi, Hamza. (1972). The State in Post-colonial societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh.

New Left Review, Vol. 74, pp. 59-81.

Amin, Samir. (1974). Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of

Underdevelopment (2 Vols) New York: Monthly Review

Amin, Samir. (1976). Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formation of

Peripheral Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review.

3 In the wake of 9/11 international politics, aid flowed to Pakistan from the core countries and international monetary organizations and temporarily saved the life of Pakistan standing on the verge of state bankruptcy.

Naveed Pirzada 17

Amin, Samir. (1993). Social Movements at the Periphery. New Social Movements in the

South: Empowering the People. In Ponna Wignaria (Ed.). London: Zed Books.

Pp. 76-100.

Ansari, Sarah. F.D. (1992). Sufi, Saints and State Power: The Pirs of Sind, 1843-1947.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burki, Javed Shahid. (1999). Pakistan: Fifty Years of Nationhood. Colorado: Westview

Press.

Dos Santos, T. (1970). The Structure of Dependence, American Economic Review, Vol.

60, pp. 231-236.

Esposito, Bruce J. The Politics of Agrarian Reform in Pakistan. Asian Survey, Vol. XIV,

No. 5. pp. 429-438.

Evans, Peter. (1979). Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational, State, and

Local Capital in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality, in G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller (Eds.)

The Foucault Effect: Studies in governmentality, Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, pp. 87-104.

Gardezi, Hassan N. (1998) The Failure of Capitalism in Pakistan, Journal of

Contemporary Asia Vol. 28, No3. pp. 310-26.

Ghosh, Pradip K. (1984). Multi-National Corporations and Third World Development,

Westport: Greenwood Press.

Gold, D., C. Lo, and E. Wright. (1975). Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of the

capitalist State. Monthly Review 27, pp. 29-43 & 36-51.

Gustafson, W. Eric. (1976). Economic Problems of Pakistan Under Bhutto, Asian

Survey, Vol. XVI, No. 4. Pp.364-380.

Hak, Zain. (2002, June 6th). Alleviation of poverty and the IBRD pundits, Daily Dawn,

Karachi, Pakistan. Retrieved on November 15th, 2003 from

http://www.dawn.com/2002/06/10/ebr3.htm.

Haq, Mahbubul. (1997). Human Development in South Asia, Karachi: Oxford University

Press.

Jalal, Ayesha (1995) Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia, Cambridge:

Cambridge

Naveed Pirzada 18

Jalal, Ayesha, (1990) The State of Martial Rule: the origins of Pakistan’s political

economy of defence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Joshi, P.C. (1974). Land Reform and Agrarian Change since 1947:II. The Journal of

Peasant Studies, Vol.1, No.3 pp. 326-362

Lall, S. (1975). Is ‘dependence’ a useful concept in analyzing underdevelopment?, World

Development, Vol.3, pp. 799-810.

Miliband, Ralph. (1965). Marx and the State, In R. Miliband and J. Saville (Eds.)

Socialist Register. New York: Monthly Review Press.

O’Brien, P. (1975). A critique of Latin American theories of dependency, In I. Oxaal, T.

Barnett and D. Booth (Eds.). Beyond the Sociology Development. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul. Pp. 7-27.

Petras, J. (1976). State Capitalism and the Third World, Journal of Contemporary Asia,

Vol.6

Schuurman, Frans J. (1993). Introduction: Development Theory in the 1990s. In

Schuurman, Frans J (Ed.), Beyond the Impasse: New Directions in Development

Theory (pp. 1-41) Atlantic Highland, New Jersey: Zed Books.

Smith, T. (1979). The underdevelopment of development literature: the case of

dependency theory. World Politics, Vol. 31. pp. 247-288.

Sobhan, R. (1979). The Nature of the State and its Implications for the Development of

Public Enterprises in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 9 (4). Pp. 410-

433.

Trimberger, K.E. (1977). State Power and Modes of Production: implications of the

Japanese transition to capitalism. Insurgent Sociologist Vol.7: pp. 85-98

Weinbaum, Marvin G. (1996). Civic Culture and Democracy in Pakistan. Asian Survey,

Vol.36, No.7, pp. 639-654.

Ziemann, W. & M. Lazendorfer. (1977). The State in Peripheral Society, In R. Miliband

and J. Saville (Eds.) Socialist Register. New York: Monthly Review Press. Pp.

143-177.