Training 50,000 Engineers Without Industrial Growth: Promise or Policy Mismatch? -

PAKISTAN

By Manzoor Shaikh

Federal Minister for Planning, Development and Special Initiatives Ahsan Iqbal has announced a five-year program under which 10,000 engineers will be trained annually on PSDP project sites for a year, with a monthly stipend of Rs50,000. The initiative, part of the government’s youth-focused program, aims to benefit 50,000 engineers in total, with funding drawn from development program contingencies.

The minister has compared the initiative to the house job system for doctors, arguing that it will improve employability, reduce unemployment, and discourage outward migration. While the announcement signals recognition of the engineering employment crisis, experts argue that training without economic restructuring risks becoming symbolic rather than transformational.

Pakistan’s Economic Context: Why Numbers Matter
Any serious assessment of this program must begin with Pakistan’s economic fundamentals, because engineering demand is not driven by population size alone but by industrial depth and GDP composition.

Pakistan is the world’s fifth most populous country, yet remains under-industrialized. Manufacturing contributes only around 13 percent of GDP, while growth is largely driven by consumption, remittances, agriculture, and real estate, sectors that generate limited demand for engineers.

Pakistan at a glance

Indicator	Pakistan
Population	240 million
GDP (nominal)	$US 340–360 billion
Average GDP growth	3–4 percent
Manufacturing share of GDP	13 percent
Engineering exports	Negligible

This context explains why engineering unemployment persists despite a steady output of graduates.

Engineering Density: How Pakistan Compares Regionally

One commonly used global benchmark is engineers per 10,000 population, which reflects how deeply engineering is embedded in an economy. Countries with strong manufacturing, technology, and export sectors consistently show higher engineering density.

Pakistan’s ratio remains significantly lower than its regional peers—not because it produces fewer graduates, but because industry does not absorb them.

Engineers per 10,000 population:This gap reflects differences in economic structure, not education systems.

Country	Engineers / 10,000
Malaysia	45–50
India	25–30
Pakistan	8–10

This gap reflects differences in economic structure, not education systems.

Pakistan, India, and Malaysia: Similar Size, Very Different Outcomes

A comparison with India and Malaysia further highlights the structural issue. Malaysia’s economy is only modestly larger than Pakistan’s in nominal terms, yet it sustains a far higher number of engineers due to export-led industrialization and technology-intensive growth.

Macro comparison:

Indicator	Pakistan	India	Malaysia
Population	240m	1.43bn	34m
GDP (nominal)	$US 350bn	$US 3.7tn	$US 440bn
Manufacturing (percent of GDP)	13 percent	17–18 percent	23–25 percent
Engineering exports	Negligible	$US 100bn+	$US 40bn+
Engineers per 10,000	8–10	25–30	45–50

The lesson is clear: engineering employment follows industrialization, not training programs alone.

GDP Growth Quality: Why Engineers Remain Underutilized
Experts stress that not all GDP growth creates engineering jobs. Growth driven by agriculture, consumption, or remittances produces limited technical demand, whereas growth driven by manufacturing, infrastructure, energy, and technology is engineering-intensive.
This distinction explains why Pakistan experiences periods of GDP growth without corresponding improvements in engineering employment.

The Engineer–GDP Demand Relationship
Planners often use an Engineering Intensity Factor (EIF) to estimate how many engineers an economy can realistically absorb per $US 1 billion of GDP.

Engineering Intensity Factor benchmarks:

Economy Type	Engineers per $US 1 bn GDP
Low-industrial	700–900
Mid-industrial	1,200–1,500
Export-led / high-tech	1,600–2,000

Applying this framework to Pakistan

GDP $US 350 billion
Current EIF 700
Estimated demand 245,000 engineers

This figure closely matches the number of engineers currently absorbed in core sectors, explaining why additional graduates face underemployment.

Sectoral Distribution: Where Engineers Actually Work

Another revealing comparison is how engineers are distributed across sectors. In Pakistan, most engineers are confined to execution-heavy construction roles, while design, automation, R&D, and technology remain underdeveloped.

Share of engineers by sector:

Sector	Pakistan	India	Malaysia
Manufacturing	25 Percent	40 Percent	45 Percent
Construction & infrastructure	35 Percent	25 Percent	20 Percent
Energy & utilities	15 Percent	15 Percent	15 Percent
Technology & automation	5 Percent	15 Percent	20 Percent
R&D & design	<2 Percent	10 Percent	1 Percent

This imbalance limits productivity, innovation, and export potential.

Why the “House Job” Analogy Is Problematic
Experts argue that equating the proposed program with doctors’ house jobs overlooks key differences:
– Medical house jobs operate within a regulated national healthcare system
– Engineering projects are contractor-driven, often lump-sum, cost-focused, and short-term
– Engineering competence develops through long-term industrial engagement, not brief site exposure
– Without permanent roles, six-month/one year placements risk becoming stopgap measures rather than career pathways.

Persistent Concerns Raised by the Engineering Community
Key concerns include:
– Political motivation and past failures of similar program
– Lack of transparency and merit-based selection
– Temporary nature with no guaranteed absorption
– Absence of credible national data on engineering unemployment
– Ignoring private-sector contracting practices
– Global mobility of engineers cannot be restricted
– Rapid disruption from AI and emerging technologies
– Weak linkage between economic growth and engineering demand

The Core Issue Remains Economic Structure
The central conclusion emerging from expert analysis is unequivocal:
Pakistan does not have too many engineers—it has too little engineering-driven growth.
Until manufacturing rises toward 20 Percent of GDP, engineering exports expand meaningfully, and growth becomes industry-and technology-led, training initiatives alone will not resolve unemployment.

Necessary, But Not Sufficient

The government’s training program may offer short-term exposure and financial relief, but without structural economic reform, it risks joining a long list of well-intentioned but ineffective interventions.

As global experience shows, skills follow growth, not the other way around. For Pakistan’s engineers, sustainable employment will come not from temporary placements, but from an economy that finally begins to grow through engineering itself.

READ MORE