PAKISTAN cannot build a competitive industry by protecting it indefinitely. Nor can reducing protection, by itself, turn domestic manufacturers into exporters. Tariffs shape investment decisi­o­­ns, but competitiveness also depends on energy, te­­­chnology, scale, supply chains, market access, and security. A credible industrial strategy must address them together. Unconditional protection raises prices, blunts incentives to innovate, and rewards selling to a captive home market. Consu­mers finance inefficiency, and capital chases protected returns rather than export opportunities. Where there is no credible prospect of competitiveness, protection merely postpones adjustment at public expense.

The National Tariff Policy 2025-30, therefore, points broadly in the right direction. Fewer tariff slabs, cheaper imported inputs, and phased elimination of additional customs and regulatory duties can lower costs and reduce the bias against exports. But these are instruments of competitiveness, not substitutes for the conditions that make exports possible.

The essential complement is a measurable programme to cut the costs the state imposes on production. If manufacturers face a timetable for lower protection, the government should face one for affordable, reliable energy, prompt tax refunds, simpler regulation, and efficient logistics. Otherwise, industry is asked to adjust while the state’s own contribution to uncompetitiveness goes unaddressed. This is not an argument for waiting until every domestic problem is solved; that would make protection permanent. It is a case for distinguishing activities with little prospect of competitiveness, those capable of achieving it, and a narrow set of strategic capabilities.

The polyester chain shows the cost of failing to draw these distinctions. The........

© Dawn