Whether we lack sound academic institutions because of our general disdain for patient research and inquiry or vice versa is like a "chicken and egg" question and therefore perhaps not worth discussing in much detail. What we observe is that the simultaneous prevalence of a disdain for academics and the lack of academic institutions. The result is that there is no conception of what learning and inquiry is.

While the academic institutions have been declining in quality so has everything else in Pakistan. As many would argue civil society has rapidly deteriorated. Even basic rights are no longer available to the citizenry as everything from the economy to personal security is threatened. Meanwhile corruption and maladministration has further destroyed all semblance of order in the institutional infrastructure of the country.

There is a growing impatience as well as helplessness with this sad situation. Those who cannot benefit from it or those who are marginalized from the power structures wish to change this and at as rapid a pace as they can. This impels them to activism and towards finding the easiest available solution.

I met many young students and professionals when cruising the net who claim that there is no time for thought but only for marching in and doing. "Research and inquiry is not necessary for that will not develop change. We need to act and not think." They march with this motto and blindly indulge in some activism for a few years and then when realities of life catch up with them either migrate or seek a job with a multinational.

Surprisingly, the same theme is struck by those in power. They may say it differently but the underlying idea is the same. "You academics have no solutions that are applicable to us. We know what needs to be done and there is nothing to read and I have no time between my shadi/janaza/meeting/political functions." They have no time to read or understand and they need to justify it by means of putting down thought and inquiry. The political activist creed has recently been given a great boost by the donor community. They are directly funded by the donors who are fighting for them to have a place in policymaking. Donors are defining the agenda for these activists and the agenda seems to be heavily in favor of activism. I recently heard one of these major donors argue that "prescriptions are easy" mimicking the activist creed in the country. The donors know it all. Unfortunately we are not implementing it. The problem has always been the implementation capacity in the country and not the prescription.

This is too important an issue to be left unexplored. It has generated a youth that is non-reading and non-inquisitive and decidedly not prepared for the long haul. Action today regardless of the direction that it takes has become the norm.

Are prescriptions easy?

The donor who considers prescriptions to be easy should look at his/her own society and tell us if the maxim of "prescriptions are easy" holds there. In answering this question, the donor may wish to examine the following three propositions. The enormous infrastructure that they have created seems to fly in the face of this maxim. Whatever policy initiative is taken is well researched frequently debated. Political parties, even in opposition maintain think-tanks for the development of policy initiatives to be used when they come to power. Is it that they mean that thinking is a luxury good for which we are not ready yet? Why is it that the policy in the industrial countries has been following academic thinking and not activism? They followed Keynesianism and academic school of thought for a long time and when the academic debate was won by the neoclassical thinker that policy was based on neoclassical lines. It seems that research leads policy and that policymakers do not seem to rush into the most easily available prescription. If prescriptions are easy, why is it that the West has not solved its unemployment and trade cycle problems? Why is there an enormous research effort underway to solve these problems and why are policy makers looking toward that research effort for answers.

The Separation of Prescription and Implementation

Why should prescription and implementation be separated? Granted that understanding socio-politico-economic systems are extremely difficult. Often for convenience of analysis or improved understanding we have to look at partial views of the system. But a good analysis will take into account the prescriptive and implementation aspects of the particular situation. All analysts worth their merit will examine the practical aspects of their prescriptions. To separate the two is, at the minimum, naive.

What most critics of the thinking and analysis are implicitly expressing is a frustration with the lack of political will for a change. Unfortunately, the impatience and its accompanying disdain for inquiry and informed analysis, may itself be the reason for the difficulties with implementation. Perhaps they should examine the two types of inputs that the policymaker is getting: The activist input which throws up prescriptions too quickly and cavalierly at the policymaker without backing it up with a clear analysis of the costs and benefits and possible pitfalls. Why should all such quick reactions should be implemented? Who can distinguish between these? The donor input based on a similar quick approach that does not inspire much confidence: hire a retired bureaucrat for a quick consulting job that presents the donor's favorite viewpoint. That is then considered to form the basis of reform and policy. The donor's agenda is visible, the skills of the consultant are apparent, and therefore the honesty of the inquiry is always questioned. The policymaker and domestic groups are divided on the issue if at all they are interested. Where is the ownership of reform?

Are all Prescriptions Good?

Imagine that you are sitting there as the policymaker and are willing to follow the maxim of "prescription is easy," would you follow all these prescriptions? How do you distinguish between the good and the bad prescriptions. As I have discussed in my book Governance, Economic Policy and Reform in Pakistan, the donor too has been wrong in making prescriptions.

Given our current state of understanding of socio-politico-economic processes, we should be more humble and inquiring and not claim that "prescriptions are easy." On the contrary, the hypotheis can be advanced that the reason that things looks so gloomy in the country, may be because of our cavalier attitude towards prescriptions and the prescription-making process. The donor too should adopt the same humility and rather than provide us with pat solutions and drive us away from thinking, move toward investing in our thinking, analytical and prescription-generating infrastructure.

---

---