Nearly 60 per cent of net federal revenue goes to interest payments. Subsidies and tax exemptions (Rs 2.53 trillion) for influential groups exceed what the state spends on health and education and are more than twice the development budget. All of that is true. But it is also the kind of truth that has been published every budget cycle for more than a decade.

The question is why every attempt to change them reaches the same point, collides with the same barrier, and then stops.

In 2007, the Central Board of Revenue prepared a reform blueprint that included proposals to strengthen taxation of agricultural income. At the time, officials and reform advocates argued that the sector represented a major untapped source of revenue. The proposal quickly encountered political resistance from landed interests. Constitutional and administrative arguments were also advanced, including the view that agricultural taxation fell primarily within provincial jurisdiction. The discussion gradually lost momentum before any meaningful implementation could take place.

In 2018, the incoming government launched a high-profile anti-encroachment drive targeting illegal occupation of state land. The campaign initially included action against properties alleged to be linked to politically connected interests, generating controversy in several local cases. In at least some instances, officials involved in enforcement were reassigned shortly thereafter. The episode contributed to a broader perception that enforcement intensity varied depending on the actors involved and the interests affected.

In 2022, a coalition government entered another IMF programme that included commitments related to state-owned enterprise reform and broader governance improvements. Implementation proved uneven, with recurring political and institutional resistance to changes in state-owned enterprise (SOE) oversight and management structures. Subsequent IMF reviews have continued to emphasise many of the same areas, including energy sector reforms, transparency measures and revenue mobilisation.

The pattern never truly changes. Each reform effort reaches a specific point and then stops. That point is not economics. It is political. And the dividing line is a simple........

© The Friday Times