SkyscraperCity Forum banner
1121 - 1140 of 1177 Posts

Everythin bubble of water
22,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1,125 ·
Prime’s Research Report ranks most competitive city in Pakistan
Reported by: `CT Report April 13, 2018

ISLAMABAD: The Policy Research Institute of Market Economy (Prime) in collaboration with Islamabad Chamber of Commerce & Industry launched a metropolitan competitiveness index report titled “Cities as Drivers of Growth” which ranked Islamabad as the most competitive city in Pakistan. The report covered Islamabad and four provincial capitals. The report used three main indicators i.e. economic dynamism, infrastructure efficiency and livability. On economic dynamism index, Islamabad was ranked first, Lahore second, Karachi third, Peshawar fourth and Quetta last. On infrastructure efficiency index, Islamabad was ranked first, Quetta second, Lahore third, Karachi fourth and Peshawar last. On livability index Islamabad was first, Karachi second, Quetta third, Peshawar fourth and Lahore last.

Addressing the report launching ceremony, Ms. Ayesha Bilal, Chief Operating Officer of prime said that cities were becoming drivers of growth in the world and there was a greater need to highlight the competitiveness of Pakistani cities that would create more competition among them. She said that prime has focused on federal and provincial capitals in its initial research report while in the next phase, 6 more cities would be covered for such research study. She said ICCI was the key platform of private sector, therefore, Prime decided to launch this report from this platform.

Zia Banday, Director, Prime said that China achieved phenomenal economic growth by focusing on cities and stressed that Pakistan should also follow Chinese model to accelerate its economic growth. He hoped that this researched based index would help the policymakers in devising better plans for the development of cities. Ms. Aniqa Arshad, Research Fellow of Prime gave a detailed presentation on the Metropolitan Competitiveness Index of Prime.
Picking data from here:

Population per Hospital

Quetta: 16,413

Peshawar: 39,401
Islamabad: 44,123
Karachi: 90,366
Lahore: 206,042

Population per Bed

Islamabad: 158

Quetta: 231
Peshawar: 330
Lahore: 748
Karachi: 1,039

Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births)

Karachi: 52

Islamabad: 53
Lahore: 53
Quetta: 59
Peshawar: 79

Cost of Health index (2007-08 =100)

Lahore: 192.29

Quetta: 196.63
Karachi: 206.44
Peshawar: 232.64
Islamabad: 256.08

Access to water and sanitation facilities by city (% of Household)

Improved water source (% of household)

Lahore: 98.8%

Peshawar: 95.9%
Karachi: 86.4%
Islamabad: 85.7%
Quetta: 72.9%

Household with proper sanitation facilities

Lahore: 99%

Islamabad: 98%
Karachi: 95%
Peshawar: 89%
Quetta: 77%

Livability Indicators by City

Crime rate (per 100,000 persons)

Peshawar: 42

Islamabad: 107
Quetta: 208
Karachi: 271
Lahore: 779

Number of policemen (per 100,000 persons)

Islamabad: 976

Quetta: 685
Peshawar: 373
Lahore: 237
Karachi 179

Fatalities due to terrorist activities (per million of population)

Islamabad: 0
Karachi: 0

Lahore: 7
Peshawar: 53
Quetta: 135

Number of Cinemas (per million of population)

Islamabad: 10

Peshawar: 4
Karachi: 2
Lahore: 2
Quetta: 1

Air Pollution (suspended particles matter) (micrograms per cubic meter of air)

Karachi: 53

Quetta: 64
Peshawar: 75
Islamabad: 87
Lahore: 154

Waste Generation (Kg) Per capita per annum

Quetta: 90

Peshawar: 104
Karachi: 162
Lahore: 164
Islamabad: 180

Cost of Living (2007-08 = 100)

Lahore: 201

Quetta: 205
Karachi: 207
Peshawar: 214
Islamabad: 220

Everythin bubble of water
22,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1,128 ·

The state of human development in Pakistan, measured by the famous Human Development Index, has improved marginally between 2005 and 2015. The country is still caught in the medium-development bracket, even as a wide majority of districts in its biggest province (by population) have graduated from low and medium development to high development during this period.

The recently released national HDI Report 2017 by UNDP Pakistan, the first in more than a decade, reveals that in 2005 about 76 percent of the districts, whose data was available for that year, were categorized in the low-HDI bracket. In 2015, only 45 percent (51 districts out of total 114) are categorized as such.

While UNDP Pakistan has used six classifications to analyse Pakistan’s district-wise HDI data, for clarity sake, the table here uses the classifications defined by UNDP’s mothership, where HDI classifications are based on fixed HDI cut-off points that are derived from the quartiles of distributions of the component indicators (highest score = 1). The cut-off points are: HDI of less than 0.550 for low human development; 0.550 – 0.699 for medium human development; 0.700 – 0.799 for high human development; and 0.800 or greater for very high human development.

According to the report, majority of the districts in KP have outperformed those in Sindh, “even though the provincial HDI of Sindh is slightly better than that of KP.” This is because almost 40 percent of Sindh’s population resides in Karachi and Hyderabad, the most developed districts in Sindh.

“However, in terms of district performance, KP’s median value of district HDIs is 0.10 points greater than that of Sindh,” the UNDP notes adding the implication that although a greater number of people enjoy higher levels of HDI in Sindh as compared to KP, the latter experiences a better situation in terms of administrative bodies (districts).

If 88 percent of the districts in KP belonged to low human development in 2005, in 2015 about 32 percent of the total districts in KP fell in that classification of development. Similar improvements are visible in Punjab.

Falling behind are Sindh and Balochistan. There are only two districts in Sindh, Karachi and Hyderabad, that belong to high or very high human development, whereas Balochistan has none; even Quetta falls in the medium development category. Quetta’s score has in fact worsened over the years, from 0.677 in 2005 to 0.664 in 2015.

The UNDP Pakistan’s effort is much appreciated here. However, in order to make this an annual publication, this task should be assigned to the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS). After all, all the data that has fed into this analysis came from the various surveys done by the PBS. Why should donor-money be channeled into producing district-wise HDI data? Are these calculations beyond the capacity of the PBS?

If the government of Pakistan sees value in producing this data, and there is indeed some value especially after fiscal and political devolution, then it should task and train the PBS to produce this dataset every year, instead of using donor-money for this exercise.

Second, it’s one thing to know what has happened; its another to know the reasons why. The UNDP HDI report offers plenty of insights into what has happened, but the reader is left clueless about the reasons of those changes in the district-wise HDI scores and its components.

Whatever reasons explained are somewhat tautological: HDI score of a certain district improved because of XYZ sub-index for that district improved. Whether it was because of certain policies, politics, governance or perhaps unintended consequences of something else that happened in some other time or space; the reader doesn’t know.

It is understandable that the UNDP Pakistan could not have done in-depth analysis for each of the 100 plus districts. But it could have analysed the causes for at least some of them – say the top-ten and bottom-ten performing districts by HDI growth during 2005-2015 – to glean summarised lessons for the rest of the districts.

According to the report, the UNDP Pakistan reached out to more than hundred thousand young people across the country, in addition to 1300 hundred experts and key stakeholder meetings, to develop an understanding of Pakistan’s youth.

When it can undertake such an exhaustive exercise, it can surely analyse the reasons of changes in HDI scores.

Everythin bubble of water
22,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1,129 ·
UNDP (Pakistan) - National Human Development Report 2017

Human Development by Region [2015 Data]

Very High Human Development (0.800+)

Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT): 0.875

High Human Development (0.700-0.799)

Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK): 0.734
Punjab: 0.732

Medium Human Development (0.555-0.699)

Sindh: 0.640
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK): 0.628

Low Human Development (below 0.555)

Gilgit-Baltistan: 0.523
Balochistan: 0.421

Very Low Human Development (below 0.400)

Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA): 0.216

Top & Bottom Districts:

Very High Human Development (0.800+) [2015 Data]

1) Lahore: 0.877 - up from 0.858 (2013)
2) Islamabad: 0.875 - down from 0.891 (2013)
3) Rawalpindi: 0.871 - up from 0.826 (2013)
4) Karachi: 0.854 - down from 0.867 (2013)
5) Sialkot: 0.834 - up from 0.770 (2013)
6) Jhelum: 0.829 - up from 0.811 (2013)

Very Low Human Development [2015 Data]

Bottom 5:

Chagai (Balochistan): 0.210
Washuk (Balochistan): 0.188
Harnai (Balochistan): 0.184
Jhal Magsi (Balochistan): 0.183
Awaran (Balochistan): 0.173

Full report:

17,209 Posts
Balochistan is at the bottom in all of the stats you've posted :eek:hno:

Everythin bubble of water
22,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1,131 ·
Yes, though all seem to have improved since 2013:

Azad Jammu & Kashmir

2015: 0.734
2013: 0.726



2015: 0.732
2013: 0.705



2015: 0.640
2013: 0.620


Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

2015: 0.628
2013: 0.605



2015: 0.523
2013: 0.426

+0.097 :eek:


2015: 0.421
2013: 0.382



2015: 0.216
2013: N/A

17,209 Posts

2015: 0.523
2013: 0.426

+0.097 :eek:
CPEC effect, maybe.

Everythin bubble of water
22,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1,134 · (Edited)

Central Balochistan:
Bolan/Kachhi, Jhal Magsi, Naseerabad, Jaffarabad, Chaghi, Mastung, Kalat, Kharan, Noshki

Northern Balochistan:
Quetta, Killa Abdullah, Killa Saifullah, Musakhail, Barkhan, Ziarat, Pishin, Loralai, Zhob, Kohlu, Dera Bugti, Sibi, Sherani,

Southeastern Balochistan:
Awaran, Lasbela, Panjgur, Gawadar, Khuzdar, Washuk, Kech/Turbat

Central Khyber Pakhtunkhwa:
Peshawar, Nowshehra, Mardan, Swabi, Charsadda

Northern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa:
Buner, Kohistan, Malakand, Shangla, Chitral, Battagram, Swat, Mansehra, Abbottabad, Lower Dir, Haripur, Upper Dir,
Tor Ghar

Southern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa:
Kohat, Karak, Bannu, Hangu, Lakki Marwat, Dera Ismail Khan, Tank

Central Punjab:
Sargodha, Khushab, Faisalabad, Jhang, Toba Tek Singh, Okara, Chiniot

Eastern Punjab:
Hafizabad, Narowal, Sheikhupura, Nankana Sahib, Gujrat, Kasur, Mandi Bahauddin, Gujranwala, Sialkot, Lahore

Northern Punjab:
Attock, Jhelum, Chakwal, Rawalpindi

Southeastern Punjab:
Bahawalnagar, Bahawalpur, Sahiwal, Lodhran, Rahimyar Khan, Vehari, Multan, Khanewal, Pakpattan

Western Punjab:
Mianwali, Bhakkar, Dera Ghazi Khan, Layyah, Rajanpur, Muzaffargarh

Eastern Sindh:
Sukkur, Khairpur, Nawabshah/ Shaheed Benazir Abad, Tharparkar, Naushehro Feroze, Ghotki, Umerkot, Mirpurkhas,
Sanghar, Matiari, Tando Allahyar, Tando Muhammad Khan

Western Sindh:
Jamshoro, Dadu, Kashmore, Jacobabad, Kamber Shahdadkot, Thatta, Badin, Shikarpur, Larkana, Sujawal

Everythin bubble of water
22,671 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1,139 ·
Karachi & Lahore mentioned here:

Fertility rates of all metro areas of more than 10 million inhabitants (and those close to it)

PS: Don't care too much about the population estimates, they are only meant as a rough guideline. ;)

1121 - 1140 of 1177 Posts