New Delhi, Jan 15 (NationPress) Ineffective governance and mismanagement arising from political interference are resulting in severe losses among Pakistan's state-owned enterprises, which are subsequently offered for distress sales at meager prices, according to a report from a Pakistani media outlet.

An article published in Pakistan's Express Tribune emphasizes that rather than undertaking early governance reforms, successive administrations consistently delay tough decisions. State-owned enterprises are maintained despite diminishing performance, political meddling, and inadequate accountability. It is only after these enterprises have accrued significant losses and unbearable debt that privatisation is hastily adopted as the solution.

This cycle is evident across various sectors with remarkable consistency. Professional management is gradually supplanted by political appointments, commercial discipline deteriorates, and inefficiencies become commonplace. Selling these firms after years of neglect and the misuse of public funds effectively socialises losses while privatising profits, the article asserts.

Privatisation in Pakistan has seldom been a systematic or well-conceived economic reform but rather a series of hurried sales.

The case of PIA exemplifies this failure. Once a highly regarded regional airline, PIA has been compromised by overstaffing, political interference, and a lack of business rationale. Successive governments have treated the airline as a patronage source rather than as a commercial entity. Billions of rupees have been wasted to keep it operational while service quality has plummeted and competitiveness lost. Its eventual privatisation was not a strategic move; it was a recognition of long-standing governance failures, the article notes.

Advocates of privatisation often point to PTCL, a major telecom operator, as an example of how private ownership can enhance performance. Certainly, PTCL has made operational and technological advancements following its privatisation, resulting in network modernisation and service expansion.

However, this instance also reveals the significant flaws in Pakistan's privatisation practices. Years later, numerous former government employees and pensioners remain ensnared in legal battles over pensions, service regularisation, and post-privatisation rights. These unresolved issues underscore that human and legal costs were treated as secondary. They indicate a process prioritising transactional completion over institutional accountability, the article concludes.

Furthermore, the assumption that privatisation inherently benefits consumers through reduced prices is misleading. Pakistan's own experience disproves this notion. K-Electric serves as a stark example; despite its privatisation, electricity prices have surged to unprecedented levels. In the absence of stringent regulation, privatisation merely substitutes a public monopoly with a private one, often resulting in greater pricing power and diminished accountability.

Additionally, the article cites the British rail system, which, post-privatisation, has become fragmented, prone to delays, burdened by inflated fares, and reliant on outdated infrastructure. In contrast, European nations like Germany and France, which maintained public ownership, operate modern, high-speed rail networks that surpass Britain's privatised system in terms of reliability and efficiency.