The decision to make the Special Investment Facilitation a separate division merely adds to an already large number of divisions pertaining to the economy. The decision also does not make clear what is to happen to the Board of Investment, which has overlapping functions. The new status for the SIFC raises a fresh series of questions. The most significant is who will be the minister-in-charge. For the time being, it will continue to be the PM, but it is only a matter of time before politicians realise that someone could be accommodated against the portfolio. In that case, the Prime Minister may not preside, and delegate the task to the Minister. It is also not clear, if under those circumstances, The Chief of Army Staff would attend personally, or depute someone. It is also not clear who will be the secretary of the new division.
The empire-building tendencies of bureaucrats have already displayed themselves in the panoply of economic ministries that already exist, with no less than three divisions, Finance, Revenue and Economic Affairs, under one minister. It should be remembered that the Production and Industries divisions are the remains of the nationalisations of the 1970s. The divisions remain, even as they have given rise to a new one, the Privatisation Division, and the industries are being sold off. One of the most salient features of this new division is the permanence that it accords to the voice of the COAS in economic decision-making. As was pointed out to the PM in the course of the meeting where he took the decision, attracting investment has become covering the entire economy. The SIFC seems to have started as a very targeted vehicle, of bringing investors and investment from the Gulf, with the COAS acting as a sort of guarantor. There were c couple of investors’ conferences held, and Saudi participation in the Riko Diq project has occurred, but even the most enthusiastic booster of the SIFC would not argue that it has been a roaring success.
It is true that where investment is involved, expecting quick successes is not wise. Perhaps the upgradation of the SIFC could have been considered more. After all, though some economic indicators are positive, how much credit can be allocated to the SIFC?
