Ashfaque Khan Claims IMF Policies Cost Pakistan $148 Billion
Former finance ministry economic adviser Dr Ashfaque Hassan Khan has claimed that IMF-linked policies cost Pakistan approximately $148 billion over five years, compared with a $130 billion economic cost over 13 years of the War on Terror.
He contrasted that estimate with roughly $6–7 billion in IMF lending during the period. The report does not identify the exact five-year window or explain his calculation.
What Would Be Needed to Verify the Estimate?
An economic-loss estimate needs a clear definition of what is being measured.
Lost production, reduced investment, higher borrowing costs and direct payments are different measures. Combining them without explaining the method can create overlap or double-counting.
Verification would also require a baseline: what would Pakistan’s economy have looked like without the policies being criticised?
That comparison would need to account for other influences, including domestic decisions and external shocks. Economic weakness during a programme does not, by itself, establish how much of that weakness the programme caused.
Loan Amounts and Economic Costs Measure Different Things
A loan disbursement measures financing received. An estimated economic loss measures an outcome relative to a chosen alternative.
Comparing the two can illustrate a policy argument, but it does not establish the programme’s net effect. That assessment would also require examining financing benefits and the consequences of alternative policy choices.
Khan Questions the Inflation Response
Khan also argued that higher interest rates were poorly suited to inflation driven by food and fuel costs rather than excessive demand.
The underlying policy question is how to respond when prices rise because supplies become more expensive or constrained.
Supply Shocks Still Create a Monetary Policy Dilemma
Interest-rate changes cannot directly produce more food or reverse an international energy-price increase.
However, central banks also consider whether an initial price shock will spread into persistent inflation through expectations and subsequent pricing decisions.
A 2026 IMF working paper examines this trade-off: central banks may initially look through supply shocks, but a stronger response can become appropriate when inflation expectations risk becoming unanchored. The paper represents its authors’ research rather than an official IMF policy position. IMF working paper
This means the effectiveness of monetary tightening cannot be assessed solely by identifying where the first price increase originated.
Why the War on Terror Comparison Needs Care
Comparing economic costs across different periods requires consistent methods.
The estimates would need comparable definitions, treatment of inflation and exchange rates, and a clear account of which losses each includes. Without those details, a larger dollar figure does not necessarily establish a greater overall economic burden.
What Readers Should Take From the Report
The report records a former adviser’s criticism of economic policy and a substantial loss estimate.
A stronger assessment would require the underlying calculations, supporting data and responses from the institutions concerned.
Until those are available, the $148 billion figure should remain clearly attributed to Khan rather than presented as a confirmed national accounting result.