History of Lahore, Pakistan

Lahore is second largest city in Pakistan and is the capital of the Punjab province. It is a relatively rich, progressive, and cosmopolitan cities in Pakistan. Many different emperors came through the city of Lahore bringing with them the culture and people of their home towns. Surely Lahore is a favorable city to have been utilized by so many different types of people. During the 16th and 18th centuries, Lahore reached it height and glory under the Mughal empire After ward the Sikh empire came to house the city and finally the British had power over the land before independence was reached. Independence came in the for of the Pakistan Movement which called for the declaration of independence and the establishment of Pakistan. In 1941 the city was 64.5% Muslim and 35% Hindu and Sikh. Tensions over the boundary lines during the partition period, after British rule, were high as citizens argued over how much the Muslim majority should give power to some people and take power from others. This was a very violent period for the city of Lahore and there were riots, destroyed homes and fires that destroyed buildings and hurt people. This caused many of the Hindu and Sikh citizens to vacate the area for their safety and for refuge. Pakistan’s independence was declared on August 14, 1947 and Lahore was declared the capital until, after the riots, an unstable population and decrease in manufacturing created an economic decline. The new capital was made Karachi which was more prosperous. Until 1970, Lahore was in a reconstructive phase recovering from the riots and rebuilding the city. With a population decline, jobs were left unfilled and this partly kept the manufacturing production levels down. In 2009, there was an attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team in Lahore committed by a militant organization. That is the biggest and most recent event in Lahore.

Market Fundamentalism

Market fundamentalism (also known as free market fundamentalism) is a term applied to strong belief in the ability of regulated laissez-faire or free-market capitalist policies to solve most economic and social problems. The single word “Fundamentalism” means a religious movement characterized by a strict belief in the literal interpretation of religious texts, especially within American Protestantism and Islam, and it is originated from the American Protestant fundamentalism movement which arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in reaction to modernism, while the term “Market Fundamentalism” was coined by Nobel Prize winner and former chief economist of the World Bank itself –Joseph Stiglitz.

Critics of such policies have used the term to denote what they perceive as an unfounded misguided belief, or deliberate deception, that free markets provide the greatest possible equity and prosperity, and that any interference with the market process decreases social well-being. Users of the term include adherents of interventionist, mixed economy and protectionist positions, capitalists, as well as economists. Critics cite as fundamentalist the unshakable belief, even against the evidence, that unfettered markets maximize individual freedom, that they are the only means to economic growth and that society should adhere to their specific ideas of progress means. Stiglitz (2015) stated in an recent interview “The theories that I (and others) helped develop explained why unfettered markets often not only do not lead to social justice, but do not even produce efficient outcomes. Interestingly, there has been no intellectual challenge to the refutation of Adam Smith’s invisible hand: individuals and firms, in the pursuit of their self-interest, are not necessarily, or in general, led as if by an invisible hand, to economic efficiency.”

The myths of Market Fundamentalism include:

  1. The market is the only source of innovation and it must be left alone if we want to accelerate technological change.
  2. Government will always spend money less productively than private citizens; this is why tax cuts are almost always a good idea.
  3. Regulation of business is wasteful, unproductive and usually unnecessary.
  4. Financial markets thrive when regulation is kept to a minimum.
  5. Private firms will always produce a good or a service more efficiently than the government.
  6. It is wrong to regulate wages or executive compensation because markets always get prices right.
  7. Government assistance always ends up hurting the people it is supposed to help.

Market Fundamentalism has dominated public policy debates in the United States since the 1980’s, when financial markets started to become globalized and the US started to run a current account deficit, serving to justify huge Federal tax cuts, dramatic reductions in government regulatory activity, and continued efforts to downsize the government’s civilian programs. While Republicans and conservatives have embraced Market Fundamentalist ideas, many Democrats and liberals have also accepted much of this mistaken belief system.

During the 1990s, Williamson’s original conception of the ‘Washington consensus’ became distorted as it was popularized, and evolved ‘to signify a set of ‘neoliberal’ policy prescriptions’. The Washington consensus quickly became associated with market fundamentalism. In Stiglitz’s view, all versions of the Washington consensus, but especially the neo-liberal or market fundamentalist interpretation, are fundamentally flawed. Their policy prescriptions, concept of development and agenda for government all embrace far too narrow a perspective. With respect to the modern role of government Stiglitz argues that the “ideological debates should be over; there should be agreement that while markets are at the center of the economy, governments must play an important role. The issue is one of balance, and where that balance is may depend on the country, the capacity of its government, the institutional development of its markets. In other words, development advice should be adapted to the circumstances of the country” (Stiglitz, 1998). Further, Dani Rodrik has argued that “The idea of a mixed economy is possibly the most valuable heritage that the twentieth century bequeaths to the twenty-first in the realm of economic policy”, and that “successful development requires markets underpinned by solid public institutions” (Rodrik, 2000).


Stiglitz, J.E. (1998), “Towards a new paradigm for development: Strategies, policies, and processes”. The Prebisch Lecture at UNCTAD, October. www.worldbank.org

Longviewinstitute.org. n.d. Market Fundamentalism — Longview Institute. http://www.longviewinstitute.org/projects/marketfundamentalism/marketfundamentalism/

Stiglitz, Joseph E. The pact with the devil. Beppe Grillo’s Friends interview”. Beppe Grillo’s Blog. Jan. 24, 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20150124040716/http://www.beppegrillo.it/eng/2007/01/stiglitz.html

Stiglitz, J.E. (1998), “Towards a new paradigm for development: Strategies, policies, and processes”. The Prebisch Lecture at UNCTAD, October. www.worldbank.org




Diplomatic/military relations between the US and Pakistan since September 11, 2001

The United States was one of the first nations to establish relations with Pakistan after they achieved independence from the British Raj in 1947. Since then, the relationship has had its ups and downs, but the September 11 attacks sparked significant changes. Pakistan, which neighbors Afghanistan and provided conveniently placed US military locations, became a key American ally as President Bush initiated the war on terror. Essentially, Pakistan was a necessary ally for the US’s terrorism concerns. Pakistan also benefited in ways such as US financial and military assistance as well as the US lifting sanctions on their nuclear weapons program. The relationship is largely driven because the United States is able to use its economic power to incentivise Pakistani aid. Perhaps more importantly, President Bush indirectly threatened to treat Pakistan like the terrorists if they didn’t cooperate. This is encapsulated in his famous quote, “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (Collins, p. 2-6).

While Pakistan provided logistical resources and captured terrorists, the alliance created after the September 11 attacks has not been without conflict. A few years after the September 11 attacks, both countries grew frustrated with each other. The US suspected Pakistan of hiding terrorists while some Pakistanis did not feel as if the US was sufficiently protecting them from Afghanistan. In 2011, the successful assassination of Osama Bin Laden occurred in Pakistan, which made the US governemnt and public skeptical of Pakistani intentions (Goldberg and Ambinder, 2018). On the other hand, Pakistanis were upset that America made this attack without notifying them.

The Reluctant Fundamentalist was published in 2007, and polls from that year show that Pakistan was one of the most anti-American countries in the world. This was at least in part due to public opinion in Pakistan that America was manipulating them and directing their destiny (Hathaway, p. 11, 21). Further, at this time period, data suggests that although Pakistanis largely rejected terrorism, they feared the US and generally did not support the war on terror (Wike, 2007). From the perspective of Pakistan’s citizens, aiding the war on terror came at the cost of lives and some aspects of their domestic security. Also in 2007, polls in the US showed that 64% of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of Pakistan (Newport, 2007). This likely influenced treatment of Pakistani Americans in the US.



Collins, Liam. “United States diplomacy with Pakistan following 9/11.” A case study in coercive diplomacy. WWS 547 (2008).

Goldberg, Jeffrey, and Marc Ambinder. “The Ally From Hell.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 2 Jan. 2018, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/the-ally-from-hell/308730/.

Hathaway, Robert M. “Leverage and largesse: Pakistan’s post-9/11 partnership with America.” Contemporary South Asia 16.1 (2008): 11-24.

Newport, Frank. “Americans’ Attitudes Toward Pakistan Largely Negative.” Gallup.com, Gallup, 5 Mar. 2020, news.gallup.com/poll/102640/americans-attitudes-toward-pakistan-largely-negative.aspx.

Wike, Richard. “Musharraf’s Support Shrinks, Even As More Pakistanis Reject Terrorism… and the U.S.” Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, Pew Research Center, 30 Dec. 2019, www.pewresearch.org/global/2007/08/08/pakistanis-increasingly-reject-terrorism-and-the-us/.