Why Did FDI Inflows of Pakistan Decline? From the Perspective of Terrorism,Energy Shortage,Financial Instability,and Political Instability

Foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows are important for economic development in all countries, especially developing ones. In many developing countries, FDI inflows have increased over the past two decades. However, in Pakistan FDI inflows declined over the past decade. This study examines the reasons for declining FDI inflows to Pakistan, considering the main issues, such as terrorism, energy shortages, financial instability, and political instability, with some macroeconomic indicators as control variables. These analyses are based on pre- and post-global financial crisis events, and we check the robustness by controlling for the global financial crisis. Our analyses are conducted using an autoregressive distributed lag model (ARDL) for co-integration among variables. The results show that energy shortages, financial instability, and political instability have adverse effects, and terrorism has insignificant effects on FDI inflows to Pakistan before the financial crisis in the long term. However, the post-financial crisis period indicates that terrorism and energy shortages are the main drivers of decline in FDI inflows to Pakistan. Market size, inflation, and exchange rates affect FDI inflows positively. The global financial crisis has an adverse impact on FDI inflows to Pakistan. This study is helpful for the Pakistani government as it attempts to design useful policies for attracting FDI.     

Can a path to peace promote export growth? Evidence from Pakistan and its trading partners

Quality & Quantity - This study has investigated the connection between peace and performance of Pakistan’s export sector. The interstates conflicts, terrorist activities and war elements...     

The cost-effectiveness of extended-release calcifediol versus paricalcitol for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in stage 3–4 CKD

Abstract

Aims: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not on dialysis frequently have vitamin D insufficiency (VDI) and secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT), which are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease, fracture, CKD progression, and death. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of extended-release calcifediol (ERC) vs paricalcitol for the treatment of patients with CKD stages 3–4 that have SHPT and VDI.

Materials and methods: An economic analysis of SHPT treatments among a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients with CKD Stage 3 and 4 with SHPT and VDI was developed to estimate differences in the rates and costs of CV events, fractures, CKD stage progression, and mortality in patients treated with ERC and paricalcitol. A Markov model was developed with 1-year cycles and a 5-year time horizon from a US Medicare payer perspective with costs valued in 2017?US dollars.

Results: The outcomes of the model were rates of clinical events, total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Across a 1,000-person cohort, ERC was the dominant (less costly, more effective) treatment strategy when compared with paricalcitol. Treatment with ERC resulted in cost savings of $14.8?M (95% CI = –$10.0?M–$45.2?M) and an incremental gain of 340 QALYs (95% CI = 200–496) compared to treatment with paricalcitol.

Limitations: Bridging biochemical levels to clinical outcomes may not represent real-world risk of the clinical events modeled. Future real-world outcomes of patients treated with ERC and paricalcitol may be used to evaluate the model results.

Conclusions: This model demonstrated favorable short- and long-term clinical benefits associated with the use of ERC in patients with CKD Stage 3 and 4 with SHPT and VDI, suggesting ERC may be cost-effective from the Medicare perspective compared to paricalcitol.