This refers to the article, ‘The trilemma of developing states,’ (Dec 24, 2016) by Professor Naseem where he honoured me by publishing his reservations regarding my proposals. Criticism can be internal or external. Internal criticism questions (on grounds of fact or logic) the analysis of a phenomenon and consequently the efficacy of the action proposed. External criticism questions the phenomenon chosen for analysis and offers an alternative programme of research. Professor Naseem’s criticism is external. While I would readily agree that income inequality may be one of the greatest problems “of our times”, surely we can speak also of other, arguably less important, things? Speak in ways that trespass across academic boundary lines and choose tools (like geopolitics and ideology) to solve problems rather than apply tools (like economics and development economics)? Where we do have an unavoidable disagreement is in our assessment of capabilities; Professor Naseem feels that Pakistan is a “minor player”, I don’t. But this is largely a subjective matter of judgement.
While Professor Naseem is authority enough for me, he chose inscrutably to invoke Harvard economist, Dani Rodrik in his title and conclusion. Rodrik speculated playfully in 2010 “about the future of the world economy” (not about policy choices) and asked whether democratic nation-states would survive global economic integration (the “trilemma”). He predicted, “Since that is the option that I personally like best, it will be the nation-state system that will disappear with global federalism taking its place”. Today, this seems both wrong and irrelevant, but these are the hazards of prediction.
Arshad Zaman
Islamabad