The Pakistani government spent Rs 905 billion on development projects last year (2024-25). This was significantly less than the planned Rs 1.1 trillion.
Why This Matters:
- The government had predicted the economy would grow by 2.7%, based on spending the full Rs 1.1 trillion.
- Experts now warn this lower spending means the actual economic growth rate might be lower than 2.7%. Officials admit the growth figure needs checking.
How the Spending Happened:
- Over half the money (Rs 456 billion) was spent very late, just in the last two months (May-June).
- This last-minute rush is a common pattern and is considered inefficient.
Reasons for the Shortfall:
- Slow Approvals: The Planning Minister, Ahsan Iqbal, said government accountants (AGPR) were slow to approve payments towards the end, preventing them from reaching nearly Rs 1 trillion.
- IMF Targets: Sources suggest the Finance Ministry told accountants to slow down payments in June. This was likely done to meet budget deficit targets required by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Spending on Key Areas:
- Projects for lawmakers (SDGs): Rs 60.5 billion (more than planned).
- Projects in specific provinces and former tribal areas: Rs 69.5 billion & Rs 64 billion (controversial as per agreements).
- Water projects (including dams): Rs 154 billion (less than planned).
- Highways: Rs 144 billion (less than planned).
- Power projects: Rs 88 billion (less than planned).
In short: Pakistan spent billions less than planned on building roads, dams, power, and other projects last year, mainly due to late-year bottlenecks linked to IMF targets. This missed target puts the official economic growth forecast of 2.7% at risk.The article suggests this “last-minute rush” spending pattern is problematic. There are quotes from officials – the Planning Minister blames slow approvals by the AGPR department, while sources hint the Finance Ministry deliberately slowed spending to meet IMF targets.I should simplify all these technical terms: PSDP becomes “development projects”, AGPR is just “government accountants”, and I’ll explain that IMF targets refer to budget conditions set by the International Monetary Fund. The sector breakdowns (parliamentarians’ schemes, water resources etc.) can be condensed into one line about “key areas like roads and energy”. The political angle about provincial funding being against agreements can be mentioned briefly as “controversial spending”.For the rewrite structure: opening with the core shortfall, then explaining consequences, followed by reasons (last-minute spending pattern + IMF pressure), and ending with the growth revision concern. Need to keep it neutral while making complex financial data digestible.
