Circular debt

Circular debt denotes the progressive accumulation of mutual arrears among interconnected entities in a supply chain, typically within the energy sector, wherein downstream participants—such as distribution companies—delay payments to upstream suppliers like generators due to insufficient revenue collections, untimely government subsidy disbursements, and pricing distortions that prevent cost recovery, thereby engendering a self-perpetuating liquidity deficit across the system despite aggregate solvency.^[1][2] This cascade arises fundamentally from discrepancies between regulated tariffs and actual production costs, compounded by high transmission and distribution losses, non-payment by end-users, and inefficient state-owned enterprises unable to enforce collections or optimize operations.^[3][4] The phenomenon manifests most acutely in developing economies with heavy state involvement in utilities, where circular debt impedes capital inflows for maintenance and expansion, elevates borrowing costs, and risks operational disruptions like power outages, as entities resort to informal financing or deferred obligations to sustain activities.^[5] In Pakistan's electricity and gas sectors, for instance, it has ballooned to approximately US$8.3 billion in power and US$6.3 billion in gas as of mid-2023, equivalent to several percentage points of GDP, driven by chronic under-recovery of costs and governance lapses in distribution firms.^[3][6] Resolution efforts, including tariff hikes and subsidy reforms, have proven recurrent but incomplete, as underlying structural issues—such as theft-enabled losses exceeding 20% in some areas and delayed fiscal transfers—persist, perpetuating the cycle and straining public finances.^[7][8] Notable interventions, such as one-time bailouts or debt securitizations, offer temporary alleviation but fail to address root causalities rooted in misaligned incentives and weak enforcement, underscoring the need for market-oriented pricing and privatization to break the impasse, though political resistance to cost-reflective reforms often delays progress.^[9][10] This entrenched dynamic exemplifies broader vulnerabilities in subsidized sectors, where deferred payments erode investor confidence and amplify macroeconomic pressures, including elevated fiscal deficits and inflation pass-throughs.^[11]

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Concept and Mechanism

Circular debt denotes the accumulation of interlinked arrears within a vertically integrated supply chain, particularly in state-dominated sectors like energy, where downstream entities underpay upstream ones due to revenue shortfalls, creating a self-reinforcing loop of liquidity constraints despite aggregate solvency.^[12] This phenomenon emerges when cash inflows fail to match outflows across the chain, often because end-user tariffs are regulated below marginal costs, subsidies are delayed, or recoveries are incomplete, leading to cascading defaults rather than isolated insolvencies.^[13] Unlike standard debt, which involves external borrowing, circular debt internalizes imbalances within the system, masking underlying fiscal mismatches until government infusions temporarily alleviate pressures.^[14] The mechanism operates through a sequential payment breakdown: consumers remit incomplete bills to distribution companies (DISCOs) owing to affordability issues, theft, or non-payment cultures; DISCOs, burdened by high operational losses—such as 18-20% aggregate technical and commercial (AT&C) losses in Pakistan's power sector—forward only partial dues to the central purchasing agency (e.g., CPPA-G).^[13] CPPA-G, facing its own shortfalls, delays settlements to independent power producers (IPPs) and government-owned generators (GENCOs), who in turn withhold payments to fuel suppliers like gas companies or oil importers.^[12] This propagation halts at international frontiers or government balance sheets, where unpaid fuel import bills strain foreign exchange reserves, prompting periodic state bailouts—totaling approximately PKR 5.7 trillion (about USD 35 billion) in Pakistan since 2007—that refinance rather than resolve the cycle.^[13] Key drivers include mismatched tariff adjustments, where fuel cost escalations outpace regulatory approvals, and structural inefficiencies like unmetered connections or aging infrastructure amplifying losses; for instance, Pakistan's DISCOs recorded PKR 241 billion in losses from FY2014 to FY2019 alone.^[13] The "circularity" intensifies as arrears compound with interest or penalties, deterring private investment and fostering reliance on sovereign guarantees, which ultimately transfer burdens to taxpayers via fiscal deficits.^[14] Resolution demands aligning prices with costs, enhancing collection enforcement, and privatizing inefficient segments to break the dependency on ad-hoc interventions.^[12]

Distinction from Linear Debt Accumulation

Circular debt manifests as a self-perpetuating loop of inter-entity obligations within a supply chain, such as the energy sector, where one participant's unpaid receivables become another's mounting payables, preventing cash flows from circulating despite theoretical offsets.^[15] This contrasts with linear debt accumulation, which entails sequential, additive borrowing from external sources—such as banks or bond markets—resulting in a net expansion of total liabilities without inherent internal cycling.^[1] In linear scenarios, debt grows through discrete transactions, like government deficit financing via treasury bills, where repayment or rollover depends on fiscal capacity rather than systemic payment mismatches.^[16] The cyclic nature of circular debt amplifies its persistence through frictions like delayed subsidies or regulated prices below production costs; for instance, in Pakistan's power sector as of 2023, distribution companies' inability to collect full tariffs from consumers cascades upstream, leaving generators unpaid even as overall system debts exceed 2.3 trillion Pakistani rupees in accumulated shortfalls at the Central Power Purchasing Agency.^[14] Linear accumulation, by comparison, lacks this feedback loop and can be arrested by external refinancing or austerity, whereas circular debt requires breaking the chain via tariff reforms or subsidy restructuring to restore liquidity, as unresolved cycles accrue interest and operational penalties that exacerbate gross obligations.^[17] Critics argue the "circular" label is misleading, framing it instead as linear build-up of operational losses misattributed to circularity, yet the distinction holds in its reliance on policy-induced imbalances rather than exogenous borrowing.^[17] Empirically, linear debt in sovereign contexts, such as Pakistan's external obligations reaching $130 billion by mid-2023, reflects cumulative fiscal deficits financed abroad, amenable to IMF-style adjustments without addressing internal payment chains.^[16] Circular debt, however, traps value within the ecosystem—e.g., generators financing operations via costlier loans due to non-payment—creating illusory solvency where aggregate debts appear balanced on paper but yield real economic drag through halted investments and blackouts.^[1] This structural difference underscores why circular debt resists conventional debt relief, demanding targeted interventions like privatization or cost-reflective pricing to unwind the loop, unlike linear debt's reliance on creditor negotiations.^[14]

Root Causes

Government Policy Failures

Government policies have exacerbated circular debt in energy sectors, particularly in developing economies like Pakistan, by maintaining tariffs below cost-recovery levels to appease political constituencies, thereby creating persistent revenue shortfalls in the power supply chain. In Pakistan's case, consumer electricity tariffs from 2000 onward frequently failed to cover escalating generation costs driven by fuel price volatility and capacity additions, resulting in distribution companies (DISCOs) accumulating receivables that cascade upstream to generators and fuel suppliers.^[18] This under-recovery, estimated at hundreds of billions of Pakistani rupees annually during the 2010s, stemmed from delayed regulatory approvals for tariff hikes amid electoral cycles, where governments prioritized short-term affordability over fiscal sustainability.^[19] Subsidies intended to shield consumers from high energy prices have compounded the issue, as they are often unfunded or inadequately budgeted, forcing the government to issue sovereign guarantees or one-off bailouts that merely defer rather than resolve the debt cycle. For instance, between 2013 and 2023, Pakistan's power sector subsidies averaged over 1% of GDP annually, yet inconsistent fiscal transfers left the Central Power Purchasing Agency (CPPA-G) with mounting payables exceeding inflows from DISCOs, inflating circular debt stocks to Rs 2.42 trillion by early 2023.^[20] The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has repeatedly highlighted this as a policy lapse, noting in its 2025 reviews that without full cost pass-through via timely adjustments, such interventions perpetuate inefficiency rather than incentivizing collections or loss reduction.^[7] Regulatory and governance shortcomings further entrench circular debt, as governments have historically interfered in independent pricing mechanisms and enforcement against theft or non-payment, undermining market signals and operational discipline. In Pakistan, political patronage in DISCO appointments and reluctance to privatize or penalize underperforming entities have sustained high aggregate technical and commercial (AT&C) losses, often above 20% in rural areas, directly feeding the debt loop.^[17] Despite IMF-mandated reforms under multiple programs since 2019, including targets to cap annual circular debt flows at Rs 154 billion by mid-2025, implementation gaps—such as partial tariff notifications or evasion of governance overhauls—have allowed the stock to rebound, reaching Rs 1.6 trillion by June 2025 despite temporary reductions.^[21] These failures reflect a broader pattern in subsidized sectors where policy prioritizes populist relief over structural incentives for efficiency, as evidenced by recurring IMF critiques of non-compliance with prior commitments.^[20]

Operational and Structural Inefficiencies

Operational inefficiencies in the energy supply chain, particularly within distribution companies (DISCOs), significantly exacerbate circular debt by generating persistent revenue shortfalls that cascade upstream. In Pakistan's power sector, DISCOs incur annual losses of approximately $1 billion due to electricity theft, transmission and distribution losses, and inefficient operations as of February 2025.^[22] These include non-technical losses from theft, estimated to contribute substantially to system losses exceeding 20% in many areas, and technical losses from outdated infrastructure unable to minimize leakage during transmission.^[23] Inadequate billing and collection mechanisms further compound the issue, with outdated methods leading to aged receivables and recovery rates below cost-recovery thresholds, blocking cash flows to generators and suppliers.^[24] Power theft and mismanagement within DISCOs, often linked to corruption and weak enforcement, directly inflate unit costs as legitimate consumers subsidize losses through higher tariffs, perpetuating the debt cycle.^[25] For instance, halting unscheduled power supply to curb theft or overloads results in under-recovery of fixed charges, adding to payables owed to the Central Power Purchasing Agency-Guaranteed (CPPA-G).^[26] Aging grid infrastructure amplifies these problems, with transmission bottlenecks and inefficiencies causing up to 15-20% aggregate technical and commercial (AT&C) losses in some networks, far above global benchmarks of under 10%.^[14] Such operational failures not only delay payments to independent power producers (IPPs) but also deter investment in maintenance, locking the sector into a low-efficiency equilibrium. Structurally, the monopolistic ownership of DISCOs by state entities fosters accountability gaps and resistance to reforms, embedding inefficiencies that sustain circular debt across developing economies' energy markets.^[1] In Pakistan, the vertically integrated structure—where government-controlled entities dominate generation, transmission, and distribution—hinders competition and incentivizes cost pass-through rather than efficiency gains, with circular debt reaching PKR 2.3 trillion (5.6% of GDP) by 2020 due to unaddressed systemic bottlenecks.^[1] Regulatory frameworks fail to enforce performance standards, allowing persistent under-recovery from subsidies and non-paying public sector consumers to accumulate as payables, while distorted incentives discourage privatization or metering upgrades.^[16] This structure contrasts with more competitive models in other regions, where private participation reduces losses through better governance, highlighting how state dominance in Pakistan perpetuates a debt buildup estimated at $8.3 billion in electricity circular debt by 2023.^[3]

Distorted Incentives from Subsidies and Pricing

Government subsidies and artificially low pricing in the energy sector distort incentives by decoupling consumer payments from the true cost of supply, fostering overconsumption and operational inefficiencies that fuel circular debt accumulation. When tariffs are set below cost-recovery levels to provide affordability—often through explicit budget transfers or implicit cross-subsidies—distribution utilities collect insufficient revenues to settle obligations with generators and fuel suppliers, initiating a cascade of delayed payments across the chain. This underpricing signals false scarcity to consumers, encouraging higher demand without corresponding efficiency measures, while shielding utilities from market discipline and reducing incentives for loss reduction or infrastructure upgrades. In developing economies, such distortions have led to persistent fiscal strains, with subsidies comprising hidden costs like unrecovered tariffs that perpetuate borrowing cycles rather than resolving underlying imbalances.^[27] In Pakistan's power sector, these issues manifest acutely, where subsidies reached 2.6% of GDP in 2020, predominantly for electricity, yet notified tariffs remained below full cost recovery, contributing to circular debt totaling US$8.3 billion in electricity and US$6.3 billion in gas by June 2023. Regressive elements, such as universal or agriculture-focused subsidies benefiting higher-income groups, exacerbate distortions by inflating overall system costs through mechanisms like "take-or-pay" contracts that lock in high capacity payments, rising 50% in recent years. Delayed or unfunded tariff differential subsidies—intended to bridge the gap between subsidized consumer rates and supplier costs—further compound the debt, as utilities accrue interest-bearing payables while governments face budget shortfalls, deterring private investment due to payment risks and unreliable revenue streams.^[3] The resultant incentive misalignment extends to suppliers, who face underpayments prompting inefficient fuel procurement or reduced maintenance, and to policymakers, where short-term political gains from low prices override long-term viability, entrenching a cycle of bailouts and tariff hikes that ultimately burden unsubsidized consumers. For instance, financing costs from accumulated debt in Pakistan added approximately Rs3.81 per kWh to electricity bills for non-protected users as of 2024, reflecting mark-up payments on overdue obligations. Empirical evidence from regions like South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa shows that such subsidy-driven underpricing accounts for a significant share of hidden costs—up to 72% in some cases—undermining energy security and economic productivity by prioritizing consumption over sustainable supply.^[3][28][27]

Historical Development

Emergence in Developing Economies

Circular debt emerged in developing economies primarily within state-dominated energy sectors during the 1990s liberalization wave, when governments sought to alleviate power shortages by inviting private investment via independent power producers (IPPs) while preserving subsidized consumer tariffs for political and social reasons.^[29] This created inherent mismatches: IPPs signed contracts guaranteeing payments tied to fuel costs or capacity availability, but distribution utilities—often inefficient state entities with high transmission losses and non-payment rates—could not recover full costs from end-users due to regulated low prices and collection shortfalls exceeding 20-30% in many cases.^[2] Governments, facing fiscal constraints and electoral pressures, delayed subsidy transfers or tariff revisions, initiating the cycle where payables to generators accumulated as receivables from distributors, compounded by banks financing short-term gaps that eventually turned non-performing.^[24] The phenomenon crystallized around 2006 in paradigmatic cases like Pakistan's power sector, where the 1994 Private Power Policy's short-sighted IPP contracts—lacking robust adjustment mechanisms for volatile fuel inputs—intersected with a sharp rise in global oil prices from $30 to over $70 per barrel between 2003 and 2006.^{[29] [30]} Regulators failed to promptly notify fuel cost pass-throughs, causing distribution companies' dues to IPPs to balloon from negligible levels to hundreds of billions of rupees within months, as consumer tariffs remained frozen despite costs doubling.^[31] This was not isolated; analogous payment chain disruptions arose in other subsidy-reliant systems across South Asia and beyond, though often without the "circular debt" label, stemming from common institutional weaknesses like weak enforcement of cost-recovery mandates and over-reliance on sovereign guarantees that masked fiscal risks.^[32] In these economies, the initial buildup was fueled by operational realities—such as aggregate technical and commercial (AT&C) losses averaging 25% in distribution networks due to theft, metering gaps, and poor governance—interacting with policy distortions, where implicit subsidies averaged 2-5% of GDP but were never fully budgeted.^[2] Without market-driven pricing or privatization of loss-making utilities, the cycle perpetuated as generators withheld supply or invoked guarantees, forcing ad-hoc government bailouts that transferred liabilities to public finances, reaching 1-2% of GDP in affected sectors by the late 2000s.^[24] This pattern highlighted causal vulnerabilities in hybrid public-private models lacking transparent, automatic tariff linkages to inputs, contrasting with economies like India that mitigated escalation through periodic subsidy rationalization and discom financial restructuring under programs like UDAY in 2015.^[33]

Escalation in Pakistan's Energy Sector (2000s–2010s)

Circular debt in Pakistan's power sector emerged prominently in fiscal year 2006 (FY2006), accumulating to PKR 111 billion amid surging international fuel prices and unplanned independent power producer (IPP) contracts that locked in high capacity payments and reliance on costly fuels like furnace oil.^[34] This initial buildup stemmed from structural mismatches, including distribution companies' (DISCOs) high transmission and distribution losses exceeding 20% and recovery rates below 90% in many regions, compounded by government policies that suppressed electricity tariffs to curb inflation and maintain political support.^[2] Delayed subsidy payments from the federal government to bridge the gap between notified tariffs and actual costs further strained cash flows, preventing DISCOs from settling dues with the National Transmission and Despatch Company (NTDC) and upstream generators.^[34] Throughout the late 2000s, the debt escalated as electricity demand grew rapidly—outpacing supply by up to 5,000 megawatts by 2009—while tariff adjustments lagged behind escalating generation costs, which rose sharply in FY2008 due to fuel price volatility.^[34] Aggregate technical and commercial (AT&C) losses in DISCOs, driven by widespread theft, unmetered agricultural consumption, and inefficient grid infrastructure, averaged 22-25% during this period, eroding revenues and perpetuating non-payments across the value chain from generators to fuel suppliers.^[2] Government interventions, such as partial tariff hikes under the Musharraf administration's power sector liberalization efforts, proved insufficient, as subsidies—intended to shield consumers—were often underfunded or delayed, creating a feedback loop where generators curtailed output due to unpaid bills, exacerbating loadshedding that reached 8-12 hours daily in urban areas by 2010.^[34] Into the 2010s, the crisis intensified, with circular debt stock surpassing PKR 500 billion by FY2013, fueled by ongoing inefficiencies and a failure to enforce cost-reflective pricing despite the establishment of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) in 1997.^[35] A 2013 government bailout of PKR 342 billion temporarily cleared arrears, boosting capacity utilization from 56% to 73%, but the debt reaccumulated to PKR 266 billion within a year as root causes persisted, including fuel supply shortages and quasi-fiscal deficits from tariff differential subsidies averaging 0.4-0.65% of GDP.^[34] By mid-decade, the cycle had led to chronic underutilization of added capacity from new IPPs under the 2010 policy, with debts constraining fuel imports and maintenance, resulting in economic losses estimated at 2-3% of GDP annually from disruptions.^[2] This escalation highlighted causal failures in aligning incentives, where politically motivated low tariffs and unaddressed operational losses prioritized short-term affordability over long-term viability.^[34]

Economic Impacts

Macroeconomic Consequences

Circular debt imposes substantial fiscal burdens on governments, as state entities must inject funds to service obligations within the cycle, exacerbating budget deficits and elevating public debt levels. In Pakistan, energy sector circular debt reached approximately US$8.3 billion in electricity and US$6.3 billion in gas by June 2023, equivalent to significant portions of GDP and necessitating subsidies that consumed 2.6% of GDP in 2020.^[3] By December 2024, combined power and gas circular debt stood at Rs. 4.7 trillion, representing 6% of total government debt.^[36] This dynamic crowds out productive spending, with a 10% rise in production costs from circular debt-linked inefficiencies linked to a 7.5% increase in fiscal deficits through revenue shortfalls and subsidy demands.^[34] The accumulation disrupts economic growth by inducing power shortages and load shedding, which elevate operational costs and curtail industrial output. Annual economic losses from unreliable supply in Pakistan exceed US$8 billion, directly impeding productivity and GDP expansion.^[3] Empirical analysis indicates that a 10% escalation in production costs due to circular debt reduces real GDP by 4.61%, as firms face higher electricity tariffs and outages that diminish manufacturing efficiency by 0.09% to 0.12%.^[34] In developing economies prone to such cycles, persistent energy unreliability further erodes per capita income by constraining overall economic activity and private sector expansion.^[37] Beyond growth, circular debt worsens trade balances and deters investment, fostering a feedback loop of reduced competitiveness. In Pakistan, it has been associated with a 6.4% deterioration in the trade balance, driven by 3.8% lower export volumes and 2.5% higher imports amid declining terms of trade by 3.2%.^[34] Investment returns fall by 5.06% due to profitability squeezes, while total public welfare losses from a 10% circular debt expansion reach US$13 billion, amplifying inflationary pressures through tariff hikes passed to consumers.^[34] These effects perpetuate external vulnerabilities, as flagged by international lenders, hindering sustainable macroeconomic stability in affected sectors.^[38]

Sector-Specific Disruptions

In Pakistan's power sector, circular debt has severely constrained generation capacity by limiting access to fuel imports and maintenance funds for independent power producers (IPPs) and government-owned generation companies (GENCOs), resulting in delayed payments that cascade from the Central Power Purchasing Agency (CPPA-G).^[1] As of June 2023, the electricity sector's circular debt reached US$8.3 billion, reducing dependable generation capacity from 40.5 GW to a peak of approximately 28 GW amid a summer demand of 30 GW, which triggered widespread load-shedding and power outages in 2022.^[3] This shortfall has led to annual economic losses exceeding US$8 billion from forgone industrial and commercial output due to unreliable supply.^[3] Transmission networks face underinvestment, with circular debt blocking necessary upgrades estimated at US$700 million by 2026, exacerbating grid bottlenecks and hindering the integration of renewable sources like solar and wind.^[3] In distribution, state-owned companies (DISCOs) suffer from high aggregate technical and commercial (AT&C) losses—often over 20% due to theft and non-payment—fueling debt accumulation as they fail to recover costs from end-users, perpetuating managed load-shedding schedules that disrupt manufacturing and agriculture.^[26] By January 2024, power sector circular debt surpassed Rs 2.5 trillion, directly impairing DISCOs' operational efficiency and service reliability.^[39] The gas sector experiences parallel disruptions, with US$6.3 billion in circular debt as of June 2023 restricting pipeline expansions and exploration investments, forcing greater dependence on expensive imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) that constitutes 45% of supply and causing intermittent shortages for industrial users.^[3] In petroleum, which accounted for Rs 3.022 trillion of the total Rs 5.422 trillion energy circular debt in recent estimates, refineries and suppliers face payment delays that halt processing and distribution, amplifying fuel price volatility and supply chain fragility.^[16] These sector-specific effects compound, as unpaid obligations ripple across interconnected utilities, deterring private investment and sustaining inefficient state dominance in energy provision.^[14]

Case Studies

Pakistan's Persistent Crisis

Pakistan's power sector circular debt originated in fiscal year 2006 amid surging global fuel prices, which outpaced tariff adjustments, leading to initial accumulation of PKR 111 billion.^[34] By 2023, the stock reached a record Rs 2.5 trillion, equivalent to about 3% of GDP, driven by ongoing mismatches between costs and revenues.^[40] In fiscal year 2024, it climbed to PKR 2.4 trillion despite fuel cost adjustments, reflecting persistent accumulation at rates exceeding 3.6% year-over-year.^[41] The crisis encompasses unpaid dues from state-owned distribution companies (DISCOs) to generators and fuel suppliers, exacerbated by high aggregate technical and commercial (AT&C) losses averaging 18-20% in DISCOs, far above efficient benchmarks.^[29] Core causes include government-mandated subsidies that keep end-user tariffs below average costs—often by 20-30%—creating annual shortfalls subsidized via circular flows rather than direct fiscal outlays.^[14] Regulatory delays by the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) in approving quarterly tariff adjustments (QTAs) and fuel cost adjustments (FCAs) compound this, as imported fuel expenses (primarily furnace oil and LNG) fluctuate without timely pass-through to consumers.^[42] Political reluctance to raise tariffs, aimed at protecting low-income households and industrial users, sustains the imbalance, while non-payment by provincial governments and large public entities adds to receivables, with DISCO recoveries hovering at 70-80% of billed amounts.^[16] Overcapacity from rushed independent power producer (IPP) contracts in the 1990s and 2010s, including take-or-pay obligations for underutilized plants, further inflates fixed costs amid declining demand growth.^[43] Government interventions have repeatedly cleared portions of the stock but failed to halt the flow. In 2013, Rs 480 billion was injected to settle dues, mirroring earlier 2009 bond issuances for Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) liabilities.^[44] More recently, in September 2025, a Rs 1.225 trillion financing facility from 18 banks restructured power sector debt, reducing the stock to Rs 1.661 trillion by July 2025—a 29.3% year-over-year drop but with a 2.9% monthly rise indicating renewed buildup.^{[38] [45]} The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has conditioned loans on capping annual flow at Rs 200 billion and full elimination by 2031, yet projections show potential additions of Rs 505 billion in fiscal year 2026 due to unresolved inefficiencies.^{[46] [47]} This persistence stems from structural distortions: state dominance in generation and distribution fosters operational inefficiencies, such as theft-enabled losses and underinvestment in grid upgrades, while one-sided IPP contracts lock in high capacity payments regardless of output.^[1] Recurrent bailouts shift liabilities to public debt without addressing root incentives, like uncompetitive procurement or delayed privatization of loss-making DISCOs, perpetuating a cycle where fiscal resources—totaling over Rs 5 trillion across energy subsectors by mid-2025—are diverted from growth priorities.^[48] Empirical patterns show debt stock reductions post-bailout (e.g., 29% in 2025) quickly erode without cost-reflective pricing, underscoring the need for market-oriented reforms over ad-hoc financing.^[49]

Instances in Other Sectors and Countries

In Argentina's energy sector, circular debt has persisted as a structural issue stemming from discrepancies between regulated tariffs and production costs, leading to accumulating unpaid obligations among generators, distributors, and the government. By 2022, this cycle contributed to broader fiscal strains, exacerbated by subsidies and delayed payments that mirrored patterns seen in subsidized utilities globally.^[50] Iran's energy sector similarly grapples with circular debt, where heavy subsidies distort pricing, causing distributors to underpay producers and suppliers, resulting in a buildup of arrears estimated to hinder investment and reliability as of 2025. This has been compounded by inefficient state-owned enterprises and currency mismatches, perpetuating reliance on government infusions without addressing underlying losses.^[33] In Ukraine's electricity market, a comparable debt cycle emerged post-2022, with total arrears reaching approximately UAH 66 billion (about €1.5 billion) by the end of 2024, driven by policy-induced underfunding, delayed tariff approvals, and non-payments between market participants like generators and the state grid operator Ukrenergo. These obligations, often termed a "debt knot," have threatened renewable investments and overall sector liquidity, with consumer-side debts tripling from 2021 levels amid wartime disruptions and regulatory lags.^[51] Outside energy, circular debt dynamics appear in interconnected public supply chains, such as healthcare procurement in developing economies, where hospitals accrue payables to pharmaceutical suppliers due to budget shortfalls, prompting suppliers to delay deliveries or seek state guarantees, though specific quantified cases remain less documented than in utilities. In general, such cycles arise from mismatched cash flows in subsidized or regulated chains, but empirical data highlights energy as the predominant arena due to high capital intensity and volumetric pricing.^[52]

Proposed Solutions

Short-Term Interventions

Short-term interventions for circular debt typically involve immediate liquidity infusions by governments or central banks to settle overdue payments within the affected chain, thereby preventing operational shutdowns and cascading defaults. In Pakistan's power sector, these measures have frequently taken the form of one-off fiscal allocations or bank-financed restructurings to clear dues owed by distribution companies to generators and fuel suppliers. For instance, in September 2025, the Pakistani government signed a Rs1.225 trillion agreement with a consortium of 18 banks, restructuring Rs660 billion in existing loans and securing Rs565 billion in new financing to pay off accumulated obligations to independent power producers (IPPs), restoring short-term cash flows and averting load-shedding escalations.^[53][38] Such interventions aim to cap the debt stock temporarily, as seen in efforts tied to IMF programs requiring circular debt limits, though targets like reducing it to Rs200 billion have often proven elusive due to persistent under-recovery of tariffs.^[46] These actions provide operational continuity but rely on budget reallocations or borrowing, exacerbating fiscal deficits without resolving inefficiencies like theft or non-payment. In the 2024-2025 period, similar bailouts included Rs565 billion disbursed directly to settle government arrears, stabilizing supply chains amid a circular debt buildup reaching Rs2.396 trillion by March 2025.^[44][54] Bridge financing and payment plans with creditors have also been employed, such as short-term loans to cover imminent maturities, tightening covenants to enforce collections from end-users.^[55] Empirical outcomes indicate these palliatives reduce immediate disruptions—e.g., minimizing power outages—but lead to debt recurrence, with Pakistan's energy circular debt escalating from Rs1.3 trillion in 2020 to over Rs5 trillion by 2025 across power and gas subsectors, as underlying mismatches in pricing and enforcement persist.^[16] In broader contexts beyond Pakistan, short-term fixes mirror these, including emergency subsidies or sovereign guarantees to utilities, as observed in Turkey's energy sector during 2018-2020, where government transfers of approximately $5 billion cleared intergenerational debts but deferred reforms.^[1] Critics, including IMF assessments, argue such measures incentivize moral hazard, as entities anticipate recurrent rescues rather than improving recovery rates, which in Pakistan hover below 80% for distribution firms due to agricultural subsidies and evasion.^[20] Overall, while effective for averting acute crises, these interventions demand vigilant monitoring to avoid entrenching dependency, with success hinging on concurrent enforcement of bill collections and anti-theft drives.

Long-Term Market Reforms

Long-term market reforms for addressing circular debt emphasize structural changes to foster competition, efficiency, and cost recovery in energy sectors, particularly where state-owned enterprises dominate and subsidies distort pricing. These reforms aim to transition from recurrent fiscal bailouts to self-sustaining systems by introducing private sector incentives, reducing government interference, and aligning tariffs with actual costs. In Pakistan's power sector, where circular debt has accumulated due to mismatched tariffs, high transmission and distribution losses, and inefficient independent power producer (IPP) contracts, such measures seek to break the cycle of arrears by prioritizing market mechanisms over ad-hoc interventions.^[8][29] Privatization of distribution companies (DISCOs) and generation assets represents a core reform, intended to inject managerial expertise and accountability absent in public monopolies. Pakistan's partial privatization of the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC, now K-Electric) in 2005 demonstrated potential benefits, with transmission and distribution losses dropping from 35% to around 20% by 2016 and net profit margins improving from negative to 17%, though collection inefficiencies and regulatory disputes persisted. Broader efforts, such as unbundling the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) into generation companies (GENCOs), the National Transmission and Despatch Company (NTDC), and DISCOs in 1997, laid groundwork for privatization but stalled due to political resistance and mixed outcomes, with no further DISCO sales despite initial plans for entities like LESCO and FESCO. Proponents argue that full privatization, coupled with competitive bidding, could reduce losses exceeding 20% in many DISCOs and curb theft, which accounts for significant arrears.^[8][29] Enhancing competition through wholesale power markets and IPP contract reforms is another pillar, shifting from a single-buyer model reliant on the Central Power Purchasing Agency (CPPA-G) to decentralized trading. The 1994 IPP policy added 4,500 MW via private investment but led to dollar-indexed returns that exacerbated debt during currency depreciation; subsequent recommendations include rupee-based returns, forensic audits of IPP profitability, and phasing out matured contracts to favor cost-competitive renewables and indigenous sources like Thar coal, with potential exceeding 100 GW. Establishing an independent wholesale market, as separated in CPPA-G's 2015 creation from NTDC, could enable direct producer-consumer deals, reducing intermediation arrears that peaked at USD 6.52 billion in 2012 before temporary reductions via IMF-mandated adjustments. Empirical evidence from partial unbundling shows incremental progress in renewables via 2015 policy bidding, but persistent single-buyer dominance has limited broader competition.^[8][29] Regulatory independence and tariff rationalization underpin these market shifts, requiring bodies like the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA), established in 1997, to enforce cost-reflective pricing without government overrides, which have historically delayed notifications and fueled subsidies equivalent to 0.4% of GDP. Reforms advocate eliminating cross-subsidies through direct cash transfers to vulnerable households, deploying smart metering to boost collections below 90% in high-loss DISCOs like PESCO, and breaking large utilities into smaller, manageable units to localize accountability. IMF programs stress timely tariff hikes for full cost recovery to halt debt flows, as seen in reductions from Rs 2.42 trillion to Rs 1.6 trillion by mid-2025, though long-term success hinges on de-politicizing subsidies and governance. Past cycles indicate that without sustained implementation—evident in debt recurrence post-2015/16 near-zero incremental arrears—reforms risk failure, underscoring the need for enforceable legal frameworks like the 2018 NEPRA Act amendments.^[20][8][29]

Empirical Evidence on Reform Outcomes

Reforms in Pakistan's power sector, including the unbundling of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) in 2002 and the establishment of the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) in 1997, initially improved operational metrics such as generation capacity and private investment inflows, reaching over 12,000 MW of independent power producer capacity by the mid-2010s.^[8] However, these structural changes failed to curb circular debt accumulation, which originated at PKR 111 billion in fiscal year 2006 and escalated to PKR 2.3 trillion by 2020, representing 5.6% of GDP, primarily due to ongoing mismatches between cost recovery and expenditures.^{[34] [1]} Subsequent interventions, such as government liquidity injections totaling over PKR 1.5 trillion between 2013 and 2018 and the creation of a circular debt stock company in 2021 to manage legacy arrears, achieved short-term debt reductions—for instance, clearing PKR 480 billion in 2014—but flows resumed rapidly, with stock levels rebounding to PKR 2.396 trillion by March 2025 amid persistent transmission and distribution losses averaging 18-20% and bill collection rates below 80%.^{[42] [54]} Empirical analyses attribute this recurrence to inadequate enforcement of tariff hikes, delayed subsidies, and governance failures, including political interference in distribution companies, which econometric models link to a 1-2% drag on annual GDP growth via reduced investment and load-shedding.^{[34] [56]} A September 2025 syndicated financing deal resolved PKR 1.225 trillion in arrears without direct fiscal burden, lowering stock to PKR 1.64 trillion temporarily, yet analysts note it addresses stock rather than flow issues, with projections indicating potential re-accumulation absent deeper privatization and loss-reduction mandates.^{[38] [57]} Cross-country comparisons from Asian reforms highlight that Pakistan's outcomes lag due to weak regulatory independence, contrasting with successes in India where governance improvements halved similar debt ratios post-2003.^[58] Overall, data from sources like the Asian Development Bank and Pakistan Institute of Development Economics underscore that while efficiency gains occurred, circular debt's systemic persistence—reaching 4% of GDP by 2023—demonstrates reforms' insufficiency without causal fixes to subsidy distortions and operational incentives.^{[1] [59]}

Controversies and Debates

Validity of the "Circular" Terminology

The term "circular debt" describes a situation in which financial obligations accumulate across entities in a supply chain, particularly in the energy sector, due to mismatches between receivables and payables, often requiring external interventions to prevent defaults.^[60] In contexts like Pakistan's power sector, it refers specifically to the shortfall at the Central Power Purchasing Agency (CPPA), where payments from distribution companies lag behind obligations to generators and fuel suppliers, leading to delayed disbursements upstream.^[31] The nomenclature implies a self-sustaining loop of mutual indebtedness, akin to a closed circuit where unpaid amounts theoretically circulate without net accumulation if resolved internally. Proponents of the terminology argue it captures the interconnected nature of non-payments, where downstream defaults (e.g., low consumer bill collections due to theft or inefficiencies) cascade to upstream providers, creating a recurring pattern that persists absent government bailouts.^[31] For instance, in Pakistan, this has manifested as a buildup exceeding annual generation costs, with liabilities reaching Rs. 1.22 trillion by June 2020, compounded by Rs. 3.1 trillion in subsidies since fiscal year 2007.^[17] However, there is no formal legal definition, rendering the term descriptive rather than precise, and it has been applied since around 2007-2008 to denote non-payments for generated electricity.^[31] Critics contend the "circular" label is a misnomer, as the phenomenon does not constitute a true cycle but a structural liquidity deficit driven by guaranteed outflows exceeding uncertain inflows, necessitating perpetual fiscal injections rather than internal resolution.^[60] This misrepresentation obscures root causes such as tariff under-recovery, governance failures, and policy distortions like capacity payments for ungenerated power, which lock in costs without corresponding revenue.^[31] Empirical analysis shows the debt as a chronic accumulation—e.g., Rs. 2.6 trillion in equity adjustments since fiscal year 2013—rather than a balanced loop, akin to a "chronic disease" since 2006, where external funding masks inefficiencies without addressing supply-demand imbalances.^[17] Consequently, the terminology may foster complacency by implying self-correction, diverting focus from reforms like competitive bidding and accountability enforcement.^[60]

Critiques of Recurrent Bailouts

Recurrent bailouts for circular debt, particularly in Pakistan's power sector, have been criticized for fostering moral hazard, whereby state-owned enterprises and distribution companies anticipate government intervention, thereby disincentivizing efficiency improvements and cost controls. Economic analyses highlight that such interventions encourage excessive risk-taking and operational inefficiencies, as entities delay addressing root causes like high transmission losses—averaging 18-20% in Pakistan—and non-recovery of dues from government entities, perpetuating the debt cycle rather than resolving it.^[61][42] These bailouts impose significant fiscal strain, diverting public funds to cover accumulated arrears that reached approximately PKR 2.4 trillion in the power sector by mid-2024, equivalent to about 4% of GDP, while contributing to persistent budget deficits exceeding 7% of GDP in recent years. Critics argue this transfers the cost of mismanagement to taxpayers, exacerbating Pakistan's overall public debt-to-GDP ratio, which stood at 74% by 2024, and crowding out investments in productive sectors amid high interest payments.^[62][59][63] International financial institutions, including the IMF, have repeatedly faulted the approach for lacking credible reforms, rejecting Pakistan's revised Circular Debt Management Plans as unrealistic in 2023 due to flawed assumptions on subsidy flows and arrears clearance. The IMF has demanded zero net inflows into circular debt for fiscal year 2025 and a phased elimination of the stock by setting strict targets, such as capping it at PKR 2.31 trillion under prior programs, underscoring that recurrent financing without structural changes— like privatizing loss-making entities or enforcing tariff compliance—merely postpones insolvency.^[64][65][63] Empirical evidence from multiple bailout cycles shows no sustained reduction in circular debt buildup, with Pakistan incurring 25 IMF programs since 1958, often tied to power sector rescues that fail to break the dependency loop, as inflows resume shortly after injections due to unchanged governance and pricing distortions. This pattern reinforces critiques that bailouts entrench vested interests, delaying market-oriented solutions like competitive bidding for generation and independent regulation, which have proven effective in reducing similar debts elsewhere, such as in India's power reforms post-2003.^[66][67]

Barriers to Effective Resolution

Resolving circular debt in Pakistan's power sector faces formidable structural and institutional barriers that have perpetuated the crisis despite interventions exceeding Rs 2 trillion in bailouts since the early 2000s.^[1] The debt stock reached Rs 2.3 trillion by 2020, representing 5.6% of GDP, and continued escalating into 2025 due to recurrent failure to address root causes beyond temporary fiscal injections.^[1][68] Political reluctance to enact politically sensitive reforms constitutes a primary impediment, as governments favor short-term tariff adjustments or ad-hoc loans over privatization of loss-making distribution companies (DISCOs) or rigorous enforcement against theft and inefficiencies.^[69] Bureaucratic inertia and sensitivities around state-owned enterprises delay divestment and oversight strengthening, allowing circular flows to rebuild post-bailout.^[69] For instance, efforts to reduce debt by Rs 1.3 trillion through 2031 faltered in 2025 when independent power producers (IPPs), including Chinese firms under CPEC, refused to waive late payment surcharges exceeding Rs 3 per unit, highlighting dependency on uncooperative stakeholders.^[43][70] Operational deficiencies in DISCOs exacerbate the cycle, with transmission losses, power theft, and outdated billing systems yielding recovery rates below 80% in many regions, directly fueling under-payments to generators.^[26][14] Aging infrastructure and grid anomalies resist quick fixes, as financial reshuffling ignores the need for engineering upgrades and integrated planning across electricity, gas, and petroleum silos.^[43] These inefficiencies, compounded by non-payment from provincial and federal entities, sustain a vicious loop where subsidies—intended to bridge consumer-government gaps—remain undisbursed amid fiscal shortfalls.^[42] Rigid power purchase agreements (PPAs) with IPPs pose contractual hurdles, as one-sided terms from past expansions lock in high capacity payments regardless of demand, complicating renegotiations without legal or diplomatic fallout.^[43] Unresolved CPEC plant deals in 2025, for example, blocked broader debt-slashing initiatives despite terminations for five non-CPEC IPPs and revisions for eight bagasse-based ones.^[70] Non-cost-reflective tariffs and punitive policy distortions, such as 60% taxes on furnace oil, further entrench distortions, undermining incentives for efficiency or market-based pricing.^[43][42]