The chapter is finally over. The government’s decision to shut down the Utility Stores Corporation (USC) is, in essence, a formal abdication of its welfare responsibilities at the worst possible moment.
Founded in 1971, USC was conceived as a response to Pakistan’s economic instability, designed to provide subsidized essentials like flour, sugar, rice, and cooking oil to the most vulnerable.
Over time, it became one of the few remaining mechanisms through which the state could fulfill its responsibility to safeguard the basic needs of its citizens. At its height, it reached millions, particularly in rural areas, where access to affordable goods was limited.
The timing of the closure is egregiously irresponsible. Despite the government’s rhetoric of “restructuring,” the real cost of basic foodstuffs has spiraled far beyond official inflation rates. According to the World Bank, 44.7% of Pakistan’s population now lives below the poverty line, with 60% of household income dedicated to food.
For years, successive governments have starved USC of resources-slashing subsidies and shrinking operational budgets until it became a hollow shell of its former self.
Mismanagement was systemic, from corruption at the top to inefficiency in daily operations. Subsidies meant to help the poor were siphoned off by middlemen, and USC shelves remained empty during peak demand, leaving the most vulnerable to suffer. The claim that USC failed due to inefficiency ignores the root cause: political negligence. The government refused to modernize the corporation with the necessary technological investments that could have ensured transparency, efficiency, and better resource management.
For the working class, particularly in rural areas, USC was a lifeline. Its closure will inevitably worsen food insecurity, deepen malnutrition, and expand the economic divide. Families who already spend 60% of their income on food will now be left to navigate an unregulated market; one that thrives on exploitative pricing.
The government’s insistence on privatizing welfare (a strategy that has consistently failed) is short-sighted. It ignores the glaring reality that market-driven welfare systems cannot address the needs of a population suffering from extreme inequality. This long-standing reluctance to invest in public institutions, from education to food security, reveals its prioritization of elite interests over the needs of the masses.
Instead of allowing USC to fail, the government should have reformed and modernized it. With targeted technological innovations and a focus on resource management, USC could have become a responsive, transparent institution; one that effectively served those most at risk. But the political will for such reform was always absent.
