ISLAMABAD, Tuesday, September 22, 2026: The Ministry of Finance on Tuesday rejected what it called “misleading” assertions about Pakistan’s IMF programme, saying the programme is a whole-of-government effort involving multiple federal and provincial institutions rather than one controlled solely by the Finance Division.
The clarification came in response to a report published by The Express Tribune on September 22 under the headline “Iqbal seeks role in IMF talks.”
The ministry said some assertions and interpretations in the report regarding the Finance Division, Pakistan’s engagement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the government’s economic stabilisation programme did not accurately reflect the facts or institutional process.
It said the clarification was necessary to prevent an incorrect impression among the public and market participants.
IMF programme involves multiple institutions
Rejecting the suggestion that the Finance Ministry maintained “tight control” over programme design and negotiations, the ministry said Pakistan’s IMF programme involved institutions across federal and provincial governments.
It said reforms and commitments under the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) and Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF) fell within the mandates of the Finance Division, Planning Commission and Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Energy, provincial governments, Federal Board of Revenue, State Bank of Pakistan and other relevant institutions.
According to the ministry, concerned institutions participate in and lead technical discussions, including negotiations over benchmarks relating to their respective mandates.
The Finance Division said the IMF programme was also not confined to fiscal targets or “numbers”.
It said the programme included structural reforms aimed at economic growth as well as social protection, governance, energy-sector efficiency, climate resilience and measures to reduce distortions in the economy.
Petroleum levy not centrepiece of IMF programme
The ministry also rejected the assertion that the petroleum development levy (PDL) had become the “central point” of the IMF programme.
It said the programme’s fiscal strategy was much broader and covered FBR revenue mobilisation, expansion of the tax base, provincial taxation and expenditure rationalisation.
For FY2026-27, it said the programme placed emphasis on additional revenue mobilisation and stronger FBR performance rather than relying solely on petroleum taxation.
The ministry, however, acknowledged that petroleum pricing policy formed part of the agreed programme framework.
It said programme documents contained provisions relating to petroleum pricing and levies, including regular adjustments to align domestic fuel prices with international rates. The RSF also included a reform measure involving a supplementary carbon levy through the PDL framework.
The ministry therefore argued that petroleum pricing was part of the jointly agreed programme framework rather than a fiscal strategy developed unilaterally by the Finance Division.
Ministry disputes linking PDL alone to inflation and poverty
The Finance Division also rejected attempts to directly link the petroleum levy with inflation, unemployment, poverty and low economic growth.
It said broad macroeconomic outcomes could not be attributed to a single fiscal instrument and were influenced by factors including geopolitical developments, domestic and international commodity prices, exchange-rate movements, monetary conditions, fiscal imbalances, external financing constraints and global shocks.
Stabilisation and growth ‘cannot be separated’
The ministry said Pakistan entered the IMF programme with limited fiscal and external buffers and significant financing requirements.
It argued that restoring fiscal sustainability, rebuilding foreign exchange reserves and reducing refinancing risks were necessary to create conditions for sustainable private investment and economic growth.
The ministry also rejected the suggestion that fiscal consolidation had been pursued without social safeguards.
It cited social-protection commitments under the programme, including targeted BISP cash transfers and inflation adjustments to unconditional cash benefits, as well as the government’s latest targeted fuel-relief initiative.
According to the Finance Division, such targeted and temporary interventions were intended to protect vulnerable households without creating the fiscal liabilities associated with broad, untargeted subsidies.
It also said debt growth during the previous financial year had been restricted to its lowest level in two decades.
Provinces responsible for agriculture-related reforms
Addressing agriculture-related commitments under the IMF programme, the ministry said these were not exclusively the responsibility of the Finance Division.
Agricultural income taxation, for example, was constitutionally and administratively a provincial responsibility, requiring implementation by provincial governments, it said.
The ministry stressed that a distinction should be made between the Finance Division’s responsibility for overall coordination of the IMF programme and the policy-making, legislative and implementation responsibilities of relevant federal ministries and provincial governments.
It said the appropriate economic debate was not “stabilisation versus growth”, but how Pakistan could transition from stabilisation to sustainable growth without recreating the fiscal and external imbalances that had repeatedly forced the country to return to IMF stabilisation programmes.