The Global Economy                                                                                                     Back

Gallup Pakistan not only conducts surveys on the domestic economy but also on the global economy as by doing so, it is possible to understand the effects of the international business world on individual economies and vice versa.

The people in Pakistan seem to have become more aware about the importance of the global economy. In a survey conducted in 2005, 11% of the people stated that economic growth and the improvement of the global economy should be amongst the top priorities of the world leaders. 23% said that eliminating extreme poverty should be the most important issue for the world leaders and 19% felt that closing the gap between rich and poor countries should take precedence in the minds of international leaders.  The same question was repeated in 2006, when 10% of the respondents stated that economic growth and the improvement of the world economy should the most important issue for the world leaders. 27% wanted the elimination of extreme poverty to be the top priority and 10% voted for the closing of the gap between rich and poor nations.

In 2005, the respondents were asked about the most important problem facing the global economy. 17% felt that global economic imbalances were the most important threat to the world economy, 39% asserted that rising oil prices was the biggest problem and 14% opted for global instability. 8% pointed out the rise of fundamentalism as the major peril, 10% considered potential disruptions as the most important risk and another 10% said that they did not know. Conversely, when asked about the most important global challenge that the local business world needs to adapt to 29% mentioned advances in technology, 21% opted for the consequences of a worldwide democracy, 24% voted for the emergence of new economic powers and 12% indicated towards the expectations of the new generation. 13%, on the other hand, said that they did not know.

In another similar question asked in 2005, 11% claimed that the emergence of India and China was the most important issue facing the world economy today, 13% said indicated towards the risks facing the global economy, 17% highlighted the need for new mindsets and 11% pointed out regional identities and struggles. 25% said that the creation of sufficient jobs in the future was the most significant issue, 8% stated that it was the erosion of trust in public and private institutions, 4% believed that is was the lack of effective leadership and 11% said that they did not know.

When questioned about the change which will have the most significant impact on the demand for jobs in the world markets 19% said that it was the increased mobility of labor, 26% asserted that it was the requirement and need for new skills, 14% claimed that it was the aging population in the developed countries and 11% believed that it was the new trade regimes while 11% felt that it was innovation and technological development. 13% were unsure. The respondents were also questioned about the consequences of India and China becoming major world actors. 19% said that the most important consequence was the increasing importance of Asian economies and 30% said that it was the lower production costs in Asia. 21% believed that the growth in the number of Asian consumers was the most significant result while 12% stated that it was the increased rights and fair wages for the workers in Asia. 17% were uncertain.

Last but not the least; the people were also questioned about the ways in which the international business leaders could play a more active role on the global front. In response, 27% said that they should get more involved in issues such as the eradication of poverty, 21% asserted that they should invest more in poor countries with an aim to improve education standards and 21% believed that they should focus on the improvement of living standards in developing countries. 17% also pointed out that they need to pay more attention to global issues.

These surveys and polls were conducted by Gallup Pakistan, an affiliate of Gallup International, on a sample of over 1100 respondents in urban areas of all four provinces of Pakistan. This sample was statistically selected across all ages, income groups and educational levels. The error   for a sample of this kind is estimated to be +/- 5% at a 95% confidence level.

Is Humanitarian Aid Neutral and Impartial?                                                              Back

Gallup Pakistan conducted surveys on humanitarian aid and non-government organizations following the October 8 earthquake and the lack of aid and coordination that was observed afterwards. The aim of these surveys was to assess the people’s familiarity with these organizations and monitor the public’s opinions about their performance.

In 2005, following the earthquake, the people were asked about the aid received from other countries. 32% of the respondents were of the opinion that the aid received from other countries such as America and other European countries for the relief of the earthquake victims was sufficient, 54% deemed it to be insufficient and 13% felt that it was more than necessary. Similarly, 37% of the people considered the aid received from other Muslim countries to be adequate, 50% thought that it was insufficient and 12% regarded it as more than required.

The people were also questioned about specific organizations in 2005. 57% had heard about the EU, 73% knew about the United Nations, 64% were familiar with the World Bank, 55% were aware of the IMF and 47% knew about the Red Cross. Similarly, 25% had heard about UNHCR, 46% were aware of MSF, 25% knew about UNICEF, 20% had heard about Care International and 23% were familiar with World Vision. 27% knew about ICC and 27% were aware of Amnesty International. When asked which of these institutions were good, 31% said that they considered they EU to be good, 32% viewed the United Nations as good, 34% liked World Bank,  33% viewed the IMF as respectable and upright, 43% voted for the Red Cross, 27% liked the UNHCR and 50% considered MSF to be a worthy institution. 31% viewed UNHCR as good, 23% liked World Vision, 24% considered Care International to be a worthy institution and 27% voted for the ICC. 36% also indicated that Amnesty International was a good institution.

In 2006, a survey was carried out regarding the neutrality of humanitarian organizations. The respondents were questioned about several organizations. Those who were familiar with a particular organization were asked if they considered it to be a neutral institution or not. The results were rather disappointing. Only 10% of the people viewed MSF as neutral, 13% considered the UN to be impartial, 9% thought of Amnesty International as unbiased, 4% were of the opinion that ICRC was neutral and 3% thought that Oxfam was unbiased. Human Rights Watch, UNHCR, World Vision and UNICEF managed to get only 9%, 5%, 3% and 16% of the votes respectively. 11% of the respondents considered Islamic Relief to be impartial and 13% viewed the Red Cross as neutral.

Further queries were made about the neutrality of these organizations in 2006. 35% of people questioned were of the view that it was absolutely essential for a humanitarian organization to be neutral, another 11% agreed with this viewpoint but also accepted that there is room for some exceptions, 12% thought that working with all sides in a conflict made such organizations less effective and biased and 11% believed that it was impossible for such institutions to be impartial.

When probed about the meaning of neutrality, 24% of those questioned were of the opinion that neutrality meant not taking sides in an armed conflict, 12% thought that neutrality meant not talking about human rights violations in public, 26% were of the view that the term meant helping all victims in an armed conflict, 16% thought it meant maintaining confidentiality and 11% took it to mean not commenting on political issues in public forums. For 28% of the respondents neutrality meant being motivated solely by the aim of helping others, 15% considered it as having no religious affiliations, 15% also thought that it indicated steering clear of any political interests in a conflict, 21% were of the view that the term suggested serving as an intermediary between warring parties in a conflict and for 6%, it meant abiding by Western values. 23% were under the impression that the word means obtaining access to all victims of wars and natural disasters and 10% believed that it meant refraining from giving evidence to tribunals which seek to punish those responsible for violating the rules of war.

These surveys and polls were conducted by Gallup Pakistan, an affiliate of Gallup International, on a sample of over 1100 respondents in urban areas of all four provinces of Pakistan. This sample was statistically selected across all ages, income groups and educational levels. The error   for a sample of this kind is estimated to be +/- 5% at a 95% confidence level.