I. Introduction
September 11, 2001 is a day that will live in infamy. Fifteen terrorists
hijacked four airplanes over the United States. Two planes were flown into
the World Trade Center in New York City; one into the Pentagon in Washington
D.C., and a fourth was taken over by passengers and crashed in a field in
Pennsylvania before reaching its intended destination. The United States government
immediately announced a “War on Terror” against all those who
carry out or harbor international terrorism. The following month the United
States launched "Operation Enduring Freedom," a war in Afghanistan
that started with a massive bombing campaign. The United States military forces
and their Afghan allies quickly conquered major Afghan cities in an effort
to drive terrorists alleged to be responsible for the attack on the United
States from the country. The Bush administration insists that the “War
on Terrorism” will be a long military campaign. Many allies as well
as the United Nations Security Council support the United States military
campaign against terrorism. The terrorist attacks on the United States and
the subsequent war against terrorism caused many changes in the social, political
and economic climate throughout the world. In particular, the attacks have
pushed the world closer to the brink of recession.
The tragic events of September 11th came at a time when the global economy
was already slowing down and particularly vulnerable to adverse shocks. Consequently,
the ripples spread rapidly through the economy of the United States. Since
September 11th the federal budget surplus has disappeared, security costs
for businesses have increased, and transportation, hospitality and tourism
industries continue to be depressed. The attacks, while affecting the United
States most directly, “can clearly be seen as a shock with global reach,
given the worldwide impact on confidence, financial markets, and growth prospects”
(“How Has September 11 Influenced the Global Economy?”). "’[The
attacks] really brought the bar down on the end of the exuberant 1990s,’
said Brown Brothers Harriman economist Lara Rhame. ‘A lot of the issues
we're seeing now with the economy have to do with shaky business confidence
and investor uncertainty -- that was all spawned from Sept. 11’”
(Gongloff).
The terrorist attacks on the United States had far reaching effects on a world
economy already experiencing slowdown. The attacks severely rocked what was
already a difficult and fragile economic situation causing world economic
growth to come to a halt (“Slowing World Economy”). In particular,
the world textile and apparel industry had been pushed to the edge of recession
despite the fact that prior to September 11, 2001 the industries seemed to
be recovering from the impact of the 1998 Asian crisis (“World Economic
Situation and Prospects”). Retailers were forced to place fewer orders
with manufacturers as a result of dips in consumer spending on apparel and
textiles. Sourcing was impacted by new uncertainties throughout the global
marketplace. Additionally, the Bush administration proposed trade legislation
that would forever change the world textile and apparel industry in the post
9/11 era. Furthermore, President Bush set out to assist the Pakistani economy
as part of an effort to reward the country for joining the United States campaign
against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan
(Looney). The following case study of Pakistan addresses the variety of economic
difficulties caused by the fallout of the terrorist attacks, as well as how
the attacks themselves affected the Pakistani textile and apparel industry.
II. Global Trend/Regional Issue
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were unlike the terrorist attacks
of the past because they were directed at the nation’s financial system.
As a result, the unprecedented act of terrorism further slowed a world economy
already growing at its lowest rate in a decade. Like all major attacks, natural
or manmade, the terrorist attacks of September 11th resulted in a tragic loss
of life and destruction of property, as well as short-term disruption of activity
more generally. In addition, because of the size and premeditated nature of
the attacks, there were more lasting effects in some industries, most notably
airlines, civilian aircraft manufacture, hotels, insurance, leisure activities,
and the postal service (taking into account the subsequent anthrax attack).
The human toll and property damage had limited macroeconomic impact; however,
the short-term losses through specific industries proved to be significant.
The multiplicity of the channels-including the direct loss of life and property,
the confidence factor, financial market responses and the impact on commodity
markets-reflects the complex web of relationships that make up the world economy.
The importance of the channels varies by country. For the major industrial
countries, the main impact is likely to depend primarily on the fall in demand
generated by the loss in confidence about the economy and its impact on output,
together with the direct effect on some industries. This reaction is most
notable in the United States. Slowing external demand (including tourism)
is the major factor for many emerging market economies, particularly in Asia,
central America, and the Caribbean, while elsewhere in Latin America the main
channel is likely to be through a flight to quality in financial markets,
which increases the cost of borrowing for emerging markets, as they are seen
as relatively risky borrowers. Finally, both the trade and financial channels
will matter for central Europe and Russia. For other developing countries,
including many of the poorest, the main impact is likely to come through commodity
markets (“How September 11 Influenced the Global Market?”).
As a result, different regions of the world were expected to experience the
negative impacts of the slowdown in various degrees in the aftermath of the
attacks. According to a report released from the United Nations in October
2001, the developing economies expected to be most severely affected by the
slowdown were South and East Asia, where 2001 (Gross Domestic Product) GDP
growth projections were adjusted downwards from 4.1% to 1.7% following the
attacks. Likewise, GDP growth in Africa was adjusted from 4.3% to 3.0%, and
in Latin American countries the GDP was revised to grow at 0.8%, down from
3.1%. Among developed countries, Canada was expected to feel the greatest
impact of the significantly weaker US economy, but Japan’s performance
was expected to be the weakest, with GDP predicted to decline more than 0.5%
in 2001 (“World Economic and Social Survey 2001”). As a result,
the Gross World Product (GWP) in 2001 was 1.3 percent, down from over 4 percent
in 2000. Consequently, in light of decelerated world economic growth the United
Nations projected GWP of only 1.5 percent in 2002. (“Developing Economies
Hit Hardest by Global Slowdown”).
The UN's World Economic Situation and Prospects 2002 projects growth of only
1.5 per cent in Gross World Product (GWP) in 2002 (as compared to 1.3 per
cent in 2001) and suggests that this modest improvement is hostage to a number
of economic uncertainties, notably the high dependency of the global economy
on the recovery of the United States. This involves risks because of the country's
still-high equity prices, its low saving rate, its high level of private sector
debt and its external deficits. The difficulties in Japan and the uncertainties
surrounding the Argentinian situation are additional frailties. Two consecutive
years of GWP growth that lags behind world population growth encompasses particular
difficulties for the developing countries, according to the United Nations.
Several of these countries experienced a fall in output in 2001 and, on a
per capita basis, there was a setback in East and West Asia and Latin America
and the Caribbean. These reversals compound the challenge of reducing the
number of people living in poverty (“Developing Economies Hit Hardest
by Slowdown”).
On December 11, 2002 The World Bank warned there was a "significant risk"
the global economy would slide into recession in the coming months, jeopardizing
attempts to relieve poverty in the developing world (Stewart). Downgrading
economic forecasts, The World Bank reported volatility in the financial markets
and the continued weakness of business investment had held back growth. (Stewart).
“‘The recovery has been much more hesitant than we expected,’
said chief economist Nick Stern. ‘Growth in 2003 seems certain to be
weaker for almost all developing regions than we anticipated, highlighting
sharp cuts in inward investment as richer countries shift their assets into
havens’” (Stewart). Additionally, the United Nations stated that
the slow pace of growth was expected to continue for the first half of 2003,
with momentum gradually gathering in the second half of the year. As a result,
the GWP was cautiously forecast to grow by 2 3/4 percent for the year as a
whole (“World Economic Situation and Prospects 2003”). It is apparent
by the decelerated world economic growth since September 11, 2001 that the
initial shock associated with the terrorist attacks has reverberated through
the world economy and global financial markets.
III. Impact on Your Profession
The world textile and apparel industry has experienced a number of difficulties
since September 11th. Sourcing has become far more challenging since the terrorist
attacks, especially for goods being acquired from nations in the turbulent
Middle East. Sourcing experts have had to reevaluate strategy and revise orders
and reassess the key elements of their souring portfolio (“Sourcing
in a Troubled World”). The possibility of shipping disruptions and the
instability in Southwest Asia has prompted retailers and textile and apparel
firms to shift production to other parts of the world such as Mexico and the
Caribbean Basin, that are closer to domestic markets.
‘The mix of issues that have impacted global sourcing is just unprecedented,’
says Charles Price the president of Atlanta-based Kurt Salmon Associates.
‘Sourcing in the post 9/11 climate is fraught with complexity and ambiguity.
Firms need to balance cost-effectiveness with reliable sourcing locations
while accounting for reasonable lead times, given what’s happening in
the world. Overriding this challenge is the issue of the United States recession’,
Price continues. ‘Businesses are going to be looking for ways to cut
costs, including improving internal efficiencies, downsizing assortments,
and paying close attention to costs and margins’ (“Sourcing in
a Troubled World”).
Many companies are looking for sources closer to home and with lower perceived
risk, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean Basin. NAFTA, Caribbean
Basin Trade Partners Act and regional trade initiatives have combined to make
the Caribbean, Latin America and Mexico attractive. “The National Retail
Federation (NRF) backed legislation approved in 2000 provides duty-free treatment
to certain apparel products made in Caribbean Basin countries. A similar measure
extends duty-free access to U.S. markets in sub-Saharan Africa, although observers
say that region’s under-developed infrastructure will make it difficult
to achieve a major increase in exports” (“Sourcing in a Troubled
World”).
Throughout the world, textiles and clothing manufacturing and trade have long
been an engine of economic development. In 2001, it accounted for over 350
billion of trade worldwide (“Textiles and Clothing”). In terms
of share of population employed and of total exports, it is particularly important
for developing countries, especially for some of the least developed countries
that have a very high dependence on textile and clothing exports. Textiles
and clothing account for about 9.1 percent of world manufactured goods exports
or of 6.5 percent of all merchandise exports (“Textiles and Clothing”).
According to an estimate in 1994 by what was then the GATT Secretariat, the
removal of quotas and a reduction in tariffs could add 18 percent to the value
of trade in textiles (excluding clothing) by 2005. Liberalization under the
(World Trade Organization) WTO would increase the value of clothing trade
by as much as 69 percent (“Textiles and Clothing”). This growth
is a major factor behind the estimated 14-37 percent expansion in exports
calculated to accrue to developing and transitional economy countries as a
result of the Uruguay Round (“Textiles and Clothing”).
The WTO textiles agreement says that the sector will be integrated into GATT
1994 in four steps (marking the beginning and end of three periods). On 1
January 1995 members were required to integrate no less than 16 per cent of
the total volume of 1990 imports; on 1 January 1998 a further 17 per cent
will be integrated, followed by 18 per cent on 1 January 2002 and the remainder
(maximum 49 per cent) when the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing itself is
to disappear, on 1 January 2005. Each member chooses what products to integrate,
provided they cover at least one product of each of the four groupings: tops
and yarns, fabrics, made-ups and clothing. As products are integrated into
GATT, any quotas imposed on them will be removed. Through the staged integration
process, the textiles and clothing products covered by the provisions of the
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing will progressively shrink, and the number
of quotas will diminish, until the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing's own
elimination on 1 January 2005 (“Textiles and Clothing”).
In theory, removal of garment quotas through the Agreement on Textiles and
Clothing should benefit United States’ consumers, who should see lower
prices, as well as the most competitive foreign producers, who should be able
to export more of their products to America. In practice, many small producers
may be unable to compete with larger competitors, which could result in a
greater concentration of garment production in the lowest-cost economies (“Textiles
and Clothing”).
However, the Bush administration remains unsettled by the global economic
fallout associated with the terrorist attacks on September 11th. The administration
has eagerly proposed a trade agreement between the United States and the Western
Hemisphere. The (Free Trade Area of the Americas) FTAA proposes the removal
of all tariffs on textiles and apparel for the United States and nearly every
other country in the Western Hemisphere by January 2005. The FTAA is essentially
the expansion of the existing (North American Free Trade Agreement) NAFTA
to virtually all of the countries in the hemisphere, with the exception of
Cuba. Countries, of what would become the Free Trade Area of Americas, exported
$20.7 billion in textiles and apparel to the United States in 2002 (Becker).
“The FTAA Treaty, to be completed by 2005, will create the largest free
trade area in the world, stretching from Tierra del Fuego to Alaska, with
a total GDP of more than $14 trillion and 800 million consumers” (Becker).
“In this context, the U.S. wants to assure itself of an edge, in effect
by having 'private reserves' where its corporations have greater access than
others. These private reserves are the FTAA, NAFTA and the bilateral accords
the U.S. wants to force on individual countries” (Rosset). In these
free trade areas, American corporations will have privileged access
over their European and Asian counterparts. Additionally, American corporations
will become far more competitive on a global scale once the entire hemisphere
is available for trade without penalty. The elimination of tariffs will have
a significant impact in sourcing of textiles and apparel. The United States
textile and apparel industry will surely shift their sourcing operations to
the Americas, in particular the Caribbean Basin.
IV. Case Study
A major turning point in Pakistan's economy came following the events of September
11, 2001. According to “The World Fact Book” published by the
CIA, Pakistan is an impoverished and underdeveloped country that suffers from
internal political disputes, lack of foreign investment, and a costly confrontation
with neighboring India. Poor human development indicators, exorbitant debt
and reliance on international creditors spoil Pakistan’s economic prospects
(“The World Fact Book”). Pakistan has had a difficult time economically
and politically over the past decade. The IMF and WTO have established several
reform programs for the country, but domestic political weaknesses have made
effective reform difficult (“The World Fact Book”). Poor tax collection
and administration infrastructure kept the government budget perpetually in
deficit and limited the public sector's ability to fund infrastructure development
and basic social services (“The World Fact Book”). Pakistan’s
double-digit inflation spoiled any hope for the country's macro economy and
leadership. Weak investment in the industrial and agricultural sectors inhibited
productivity and competitiveness. Pakistan was chronically in deficit and
international reserve levels were unsteady. When Pakistan began testing nuclear
weapons it attracted international political problems that its economy did
not need (“IMF Completes Fourth Review of Pakistan's PRGF-Supported
Program, Approves US$118 Million Disbursement to Pakistan”).
The United States led the war on terrorism in neighboring Afghanistan. Not
without risk Pakistan’s leader General Musharraf cooperated with the
United States. Eventually, Pakistan was compensated for its support with international
assistance. Prospects for aid and debt relief are much improved and progress
is already being made that will reduce Pakistan's international debt burden
(Tarm). That doesn’t mean that September 11th did not have any negative
effect on Pakistan. Overall economic activity slowed in 2001 as a result of
an unprecedented drought, a weakening external environment and higher oil
prices. Unfortunately, foreign demand for Pakistan’s products dropped
significantly after it became clear there was going to be a war between the
United States and the neighboring Taliban regime in Afghanistan. “Insurance
companies began charging exorbitant premiums for shipments out of Pakistan;
American textile buyers refused to venture into a potential war zone and cold-footed
manufacturers reduced their orders,” textile exports to the United States
from Pakistan dropped significantly (Looney). “Textile exports to the
United States—about 80 percent of Pakistan's total U.S. exports—dropped
by 40 percent. By December an estimated 48,000 Pakistani workers had lost
their textile jobs” (Looney).
On January 1, 2002 Pakistan received additional substantial trade concessions
from the United States in textiles as a result of its membership in the WTO.
“Pakistan’s quotas were increased by approximately 70 million
square meters. Pakistan received a 25% increase in its quota growth rates
(Pakistan’s annual quota growth rates were increased from an average
of 8.7% to 11%). Quota coverage was removed on 27 textile and apparel categories,
including several categories that Pakistan is a major shipper in. As part
of the ten-year U.S. tariff phase-downs, Pakistan received reduced tariffs
on almost every U.S. textile and apparel product it ships” (Hassan).
As a result, there was a noticeable surge in Pakistani exports following the
trade concessions rewarded after September 11th.
In 2002 textile and apparel imports from Pakistan increased almost 10%, while
imports from the rest of the world declined. Further, the U.S. Department
of Commerce reported in January that textile and apparel exports from Pakistan
have actually surged since September 11, 2001 rising 21% to a record 410 million
square meters total in October and November. At the same time, imports of
textiles and apparel from all other sources fell by nearly 2%. Even the government
of Pakistan has reported that Pakistani exports were up by 14% during July-November
2001. Most recently, U.S. Customs Service records show that quota usage by
Pakistan during the month of January 2002 is up strongly, with Pakistan shipping
as much as 12% to 20% of its annual quota in five major textile categories
in just one month (Rizvi).
Altogether, Pakistan surpassed Mexico to become the largest supplier of cotton
textile and apparel products to the United States in 2001 (Rivzi). Pakistan
now exports nearly 2 billion square meters of textile and apparel products
a year to the United States (Rizvi). Furthermore, the United States “remains
the biggest trading partner of Pakistan as well as the destination of the
highest country-to-country exports from Pakistan” (Hassan). However,
“it is feared that the exports may not keep pace at the present rate
due to variety of reasons” (Hassan). Strong criticism from the textile
lobby recently prompted the United States Department of Commerce to update
its list of imports, which were placed under embargo. As a result, cotton
sheets from Pakistan and Turkey were placed under embargo. This step will
further create problems for the Pakistani exporters (Hassan). Additionally,
the dynamics of the apparel industry are changing. There continues to be a
shift of apparel sourcing from the Asian countries to the Americas, especially
Latin America and Caribbean countries due to lead time, product quality and
unit cost of the garment which is influenced by the quota price, import duty,
labor cost and raw material cost. The shift in sourcing toward South America
will become more prominent as the Bush administration works toward forming
the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Moreover, with the start of year 2005,
Pakistan’s textile industry will have to face tough competition from
the countries like India, China, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh when the quotas
will be done away with under the WTO agreement. “As a matter of fact,
Pakistan’s textile industry will have to face high competition, both
in domestic and international markets, from foreign producers under the existing
and the impending WTO regime in near future” (Waleed)
V. Implications for the Future
The attacks on the United States had devastating effects on an already fragile
world economy. Because of the size and premeditated nature of the attacks,
there were lasting effects in many industries, most notably the airlines,
hotels and insurance. The immediate losses through specific industries proved
to be significant. Furthermore, industrial and developing countries experienced
the negative impacts of the slowdown differently. Unfortunately, the developing
countries were most adversely affected. At the end of 2002, the world economic
growth was reported as 1.7 percent, down considerably from over 4 percent
in 2000 (“Developing Economies Hit Hardest by Global Slowdown”).
It is apparent by the lack of world growth that the shock associated with
the attacks of September 11th rippled throughout the globe causing major damage
to the economy as well as financial markets.
The textile and apparel industry has experienced a number of difficulties
in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Most notably, sourcing has become
far more challenging. Textile and apparel firms immediately shifted production
to other parts of the world such as Mexico and the Caribbean Basin in an effort
to avoid costly shipping disruptions and take advantage of duty-free treatment.
Ironically, the strong shift in sourcing came at a crucial time. According
to the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing all quotas will diminish on
January 1, 2005. The elimination of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing
would essentially signify the consolidation of all countries within “one
global economy” (Rosset). However, the concept of “one global
economy” was far more attractive before the events of September 11th.
As a result, the Bush administration has proposed a trade agreement between
the United States and the Western Hemisphere. The FTAA Treaty, to be completed
by 2005, would offer American corporations privileged access over their European
and Asian counterparts. In this global economy, American industries could
circumvent their problems of competitiveness when faced with competitors from
Europe, Japan and China (Rosset). In this context, the elimination of quotas
would have a significant impact on sourcing of textiles and apparel. The United
States textile and apparel industry would surely continue to shift their sourcing
operations to the Americas, in particular the Caribbean Basin.
A major turning point in Pakistan’s economy came following the terrorist
attacks of September 11th. The United States generously rewarded General Musharraf’s
cooperation in the war on terrorism with much needed aid and debt relief.
In addition, the Bush administration offered substantial trade concessions
to Pakistan in an effort to counteract the initial damage caused by the drop
in foreign demand for Pakistani products. There was a noticeable surge in
Pakistani exports following the trade concessions rewarded after September
11th. As a result, Pakistan surpassed Mexico to become the largest supplier
of cotton textile and apparel products to the United Sates in 2001 (Rivzi).
However, “it is feared that the exports may not keep pace at the present
rate due to variety of reasons” (Hassan). The dynamics of the apparel
industry are quickly changing. There continues to be a shift of apparel sourcing
from the Asian countries to the Americas due to lead time, product quality
and unit cost of the garment. Furthermore, the FTAA Treaty will indubitably
impact the volume of Pakistani exports, of textiles and apparel, to the United
States. Moreover, as a result of the elimination of the WTO Agreement on Textiles
and Clothing in 2005, Pakistan’s textile industry will have to face
tough competition from the countries like India, China, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh
when the quotas will be done away with under the WTO regime.
It is evident that the attacks of September 11th had far reaching effects
on the world economy. The effects of the attacks have prompted the Bush administration
to take note of the negative consequences that may be associated with the
inevitable onset of “one global economy”. In an effort to protect
the United States from the ebb and flow of the world market, President Bush
has proposed a trade agreement throughout the Western Hemisphere that could
have an incredible effect on the textile and apparel industries. With the
“New Age” dawning, the United States may be able to secure the
protection of its intellectual property throughout the Western Hemisphere.
The protection of intellectual property would stimulate advanced technology
research and development potential. Across the Western Hemisphere, the textile
and apparel industry would evolve into a state-of-the-art operation with the
ability to quickly facilitate just-in-time manufacturing. Going forward, The
United States will become dominant in the area of technological research and
development far surpassing Europe and Asia. This presents a world of opportunity
in the future for textile technologists, designers and marketers alike.
Works Cited
Anson, Robin. “Press Release: Interstoff Asia Autumn 2002 in Hong Kong.”
Textiles Intelligence. 01 Oct. 2002. 22 Mar. 2003. <http://www.textilesintelligence.com>
Becker, Elizabeth, “U.S. Ready to End Tariffs on Textiles in Hemisphere.” New York Times on the Web. 11 Feb. 2003. 22 Mar. 2003 <http://nytimes.com/archives>
“Developing Economies Hit Hardest by Global Slowdown.” United Nations. 10 Jan. 2002. 22 Mar. 2003. <http://www.un.org/esa/analysis/wess>
Gongloff, Mark. “Did September 11 Save the Economy?” CNN/Money. 4 Sept. 2002. 20 Mar. 2003. <http://www.money.cnn.com>
Hassan, Munawar. “Pak-US Trade in Recent Years.” The Nation (Pakistan).
6 Jan. 2003. Online. Lexis Nexis. 22 Feb.2003.
“How Has September 11 Influenced the Global Economy?” IMF Organization.
Dec. 2001. 22 Mar 2003. <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs>
“IMF Completes Fourth Review of Pakistan's PRGF-Supported Program, Approves
US$118 Million Disbursement to Pakistan.” IMF Organization. 22 Feb.
2003.
<http://www.imf.org/external/country/PAK>
Johnson, Tim. “Number of Nations Seeking Nuclear Weapons Increasing.” The Miami Herald. 12 Feb. 2003. Online. Lexis Nexis. 19 Feb. 2003.
Looney, Robert. “Problems in Using Trade to Counter Terrorism: The Case of Pakistan.” Center for Contemporary Conflict. 01 Oct. 2002. 10 Mar. 2003. <http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil>
Manzella, John. “Globalization’s Effects; Efforts Have Opened Doors.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 1 Sept. 2002. Online. Lexis Nexis. 19 Feb. 2003.
McMurray, Jeffrey. “Textiles Lobby Fears Lower Tariffs.” Associated Press. 12 Jan. 2002. 22 Mar. 2003. <http://www.atmi.org>
Nadeem, Tahir. “Strengths and Weaknesses of the Economy”. The Nation (Pakistan). 11 Nov. 2002. Online. Lexis Nexis. 19 Feb. 2003.
“Pakistan Country Update.” The World Bank. 2 Feb. 2003. <http://www.worldbank.org.pk>
“Pakistan Data Profile.” The World Bank. 2 Feb. 2003. <http://devdata.worldbank.org>
“Pakistan-US Ink Agreement to Reschedule 3 Billion Dollars Debt.”
The Pakistan Newswire. 23 Aug. 2002. Online. Lexis Nexis. 19 Feb. 2003.
Rizvi, Muzaffar. “Trends Since September11.” The Nation (Pakistan). 9 Sept. 2002. Online. Lexis Nexis. 22 Feb. 2002.
Rosset, Peter. “War and So-Called Free Trade: The Two Faces of Empire.” 3 Mar. 2003. 22 Mar. 2003. <http://www.organicconsumers.org>
“Sourcing in a Troubled World.” Store Online. 25 Feb. 2003. <http://www.stores.org.html>
Stewart, Heather. “Risk of Recession, says World Bank as Recovery Falters.”
The Guardian. 12 Dec. 2002. 22 Mar. 2003. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/recession/archive.html>
Tarm, Michael. “Poverty Stricken Pakistan's Economy Improves, in Part
from Post-September 11 Windfall.” Associated Press Worldstream. 7 Jan.
2003. Online. Lexis Nexis. 19 Feb. 2003.
“The World Fact Book.” CIA. 22 Mar. 2003. <http://cia.sgeine.net>
Waleed, Hamid. “Restoring Investors' Confidence is a Key to Prosperity.”
The Nation (Pakistan). 6 Dec. 2002. Online. Lexis Nexis. 19 Feb. 2003.
“World Economic and Social Survey 2001.” United Nations. 11 Oct. 2001. 22 Feb. 2003. <http://www.un.org/esa/analysis/wess>
“World Economic Situation and Prospects 2003.” United Nations. Jan. 2003. 22 Mar. 2003. <http://www.un.org/esa/analysis/wess>
“World Report 2002 Pakistan by Human Rights Watch.” The Pakistan
Newswire. 10 Dec. 2002. Online. Lexis Nexis. 19 Feb. 2003.
Home | Syllabus | Seminar Paper | Awards | Awards by School | Awards by Semester | Links
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||