difference sometime, far exceeding the cost of transport and distribution. Price differences widened during the period of the second plan. Over the period from 1959-60 to 1962-63 the regional price index increased from 100 to 112 in East Pakistan as against the increase from 100 to only 102 in the West. In the Mid-Plan Review of the Third five-Year Plan it was officially recognized that the upward trend in disparity had continued till the middle of the Third Plan period91965-70).
Structural differences between the economies of the two regions support the picture of per capita income disparity. In the early years of independence, the industrial bases of the two regions were of about the same size, and banking activity might have been greater in the East. However, evidence on the relative contributions of different sectors pointed toward a relatively backward structure of East Pakistan’s economy even then. The relative share of agriculture was higher in the East (70) per cent of so as compared with 50-55 per cent in the West, that of the manufacturing sector was somewhat lower, and that of the tertiary sector as a whole was distinctly lower.
Over time, the structural differences increased further, with a higher rate of “structural development” in West Pakistan associated with a higher rate of growth in total (and per capita) domestic income. By the mid 1960’s the relative share of agriculture in East Pakistan declined to only 60 per cent while in West Pakistan it reached 46 per cent; the manufacturing sector contributed about 7-8 per cent of the total value added in East Pakistan, and about 14-15 per cent in West Pakistan; the relative contribution of the tertiary sectors also increased at a faster rate in West than in East Pakistan. From 1951 to 1961 the proportion of the civilian a labor force in agriculture increased from 83.2 to 85.3 per cent in East Pakistan, and declined from 65.1 per cent to 59.3 per cent in West Pakistan.
These structural differences were associated with a higher rate of unemployment in East than in West Pakistan. The available evidence suggests that more than 20 per cent of the total labor force in East Pakistan was unemployed whereas in West Pakistan it was less than 8 per cent. In addition West Pakistan had a higher proportion of the more complex, capital intensive, in a sense more advanced, and industries.
West Pakistan had a more developed infrastructure. The transport system was more developed: in 1960 the mileage of the high type of roads was over six times that in East Pakistan; railway mileage was about three times that in Last Pakistan; the number of trucks and buses exceeded that in East Pakistan by five-fold. West Pakistan also enjoyed better facilities in communication, with more post and telegraph offices and nearly five times the number of telephones as in East Pakistan in 1960. The power-generating capacity in West Pakistan was from 5 to 6 times that in cast Pakistan. West Pakistan also had a greater supply of engineering, industrial, and technical personnel. Finally she had greater access to the administrative machinery of the central government.
The seat of the federal government was in West Pakistan. The over-whelming majority of the central government offers were from West Pakistan. The to positions (Secretaries and Joint Secretaries) including those of the Finance Ministry which are of obvious importance for the allocation of resources, were occupied almost exclusively by
