What I learned on my Pakistani vacation

Just back from a trip to Pakistan, Straight Goods columnist Richard Shillington reflects on the ways in which Canadians can learn from both the good and the bad of Pakistani life

By: Richard Shillington

  Having just returned from my second visit to Pakistan (where I was working for an NGO on indicators of social well-being), I've had a chance to reflect on the dramatic differences between Canadian and Pakistani society. One major gulf between the two cultures is over the question of social obligations - which of them should be addressed by the family, and which should be addressed by public institutions.
  In Pakistan, the family is paramount. There is a very strong sense of obligation to family members - parents, children, aunts, and the entire (often very large) extended family. Pakistani families will sacrifice so that one can get an advanced education. That individual in return will assist the whole family.
 

Pakistanis cannot comprehend how families in the west could "kick their children out." Or that homeless people have families. "You mean their families just abandon them?"

  This provides a strong contrast with the west, where an advanced education can lead to divorce. The individual with the new professional degree often divorces the one who "put them through". Winning a lottery in Canada, instead of helping a family, can just as easily lead to divorce.
  Pakistanis can not comprehend how families in the west could "kick their children out". Or that homeless people have families. "You mean families just abandon them?" one person asked me.
  However, the family support system that exists in Pakistan has its drawbacks. For one, it places a disproportionate burden on women (a disturbing aspect of life that deserves another column). In addition, the sense of caring that exists within families has not been extend to society as a whole; has not seeped out into public life.
  This means that government's role in Pakistani society has remained very limited, with public services such as hydro, water supply, sanitation, education and basic health care remaining chronically underfunded and inadequate.
  The results of this state of affairs is evident in many aspects of life. Streets tend to be in poor repair and litter is everywhere, since individuals feel little stake in the appearance of public places. Power failures occur daily, and the public water supply is unreliable and unsafe.
 

Two views from Pakistan

  Naturally, elite groups arrange their own parallel supply systems. They own massive diesel generators that are noisy and pollute but isolate them, at a price, from an unreliable public hydro system. Security systems based on walled communities and armed guards are common place.
  As well, those elites arrange for their own delivery of safe water. The consequence of an unsafe water supply for poor families is a very high infant mortality rate (10% of newborns die in their first year). Dysentery and dehydration are major causes of death.
  Yet it's impossible for the rich to remain isolated from all of the consequences of a weak public sector. For example, one impact of the poor sanitation - drainage ditches and no sewage treatment - are the odors which everyone shares. Meanwhile, literacy rates (simply being able to read and write) are still below 50% for young people. The are lower in rural areas and still lower - about 20% - for girls in rural areas.
  Some would say that poor public institutions are an inevitable consequence of poverty. But several countries in South and East Asia (Sri Lanka and China) prove that this is not the case (Amartya Sen's recent books provide fascinating insight into those cases).
  Nor does wealth ensure strong public institutions; the U.S.'s expensive and selective health care system is proof of that. Sen's books document that poor blacks in the U.S. have much higher incomes but lower life expectancy than average citizens in poor countries like Sri Lanka.
  Pakistan's elites consistently demand that public spending be reduced for education and health (which they can better purchase privately) and increased for the police and army (necessary to protect their safety and property).
  Their purchase of education and health is more cost-efficient when they do not share with others. Does the push for two tier private education and health care in Ontario and Alberta show that Canada may be heading in the same direction?
  What does all this mean for Canada? We need to be vigilant in recognizing that the best things about being Canadian; Medicare, safe streets, public education and public services reflect a broad sense of civil society and mutual obligations. Our sense of mutual support has grown out of necessity due to our geography and weather. Anyone who has lived on the prairies knows that you stop to investigate a car stopped by the road because being stuck can be fatal. Perhaps the demands of a precarious, life-threatening environment explains why populist political movements sprout naturally on the prairies.
  In summary, although one can respect the Pakistani sense of family obligations over individualism, it comes at a price that is paid disproportionately by women. And the undesirable consequences of limited public investment are stark. Good education and basic health care are possible in poorer countries (such as Sri Lanka) and are not ensured for the poor in wealthy countries (such as the U.S. and, increasingly, Canada).

Richard Shillington, Ph.D., is a statistician who specializes in the quantitative analysis of health, social and economic policy. He appears regularly before committees of the House of Commons and the Senate, and frequently provides commentaries for television, radio and newspapers on issues of taxation, human rights and social policy. Richard's Straight Goods column appears weekly.

Other articles from Richard Shillington
  Budget: something for everyone - with any political clout - and nothing for Canada's poorest families
  Death by the rules
  House Finance Committee gives more windfalls to wealthy; rotten apples to poor kids
  Attn: Paul Martin - a REAL "children's budget", please
  A poor measure of poverty
  Are RRSPs really for you?

[ Front Page ]