There’s a number that keeps showing up in every conversation about Pakistan’s economy, and it keeps getting bigger: circular debt. As of early July 2026, the gas sector’s share of that debt alone has topped Rs 3.44 trillion, and Islamabad has missed a deadline the IMF set for tariff reforms meant to arrest the slide, according to Dawn.

What circular debt actually is, and why it won’t go away

Circular debt is the chain of unpaid obligations that builds up when the price consumers pay for electricity or gas doesn’t cover what it actually costs to produce and deliver it. Someone in the chain — a power producer, a gas utility, a state-owned enterprise — ends up carrying an IOU, and that IOU gets passed down the line. Earlier this year, IMF officials pressed Pakistan on exactly this dynamic, questioning the government’s plan to zero out gas-sector circular debt, according to Aaj English. At the time, officials said around Rs 150 billion remained payable to companies including Oil and Gas Development Company Limited and Pakistan Petroleum Limited.

Islamabad’s proposed fix included a Rs 5-per-unit levy on gas, dividends from state-owned companies redirected toward debt reduction, and the sale of 35 LNG cargoes annually on the international market. The IMF, per that same reporting, raised pointed questions about whether the plan was actually viable.

The commitments Pakistan has already made

Under its Extended Fund Facility, Pakistan has committed to capping circular debt growth at Rs 300 billion for FY2027 and cutting power-sector subsidies from 0.7% of GDP to 0.6%, according to details reported by ProPakistani. The government has also shifted Nepra’s annual tariff-rebasing cycle from July to January, and Ogra now revises gas tariffs twice a year instead of once.

Structurally, some of this is working. The IMF’s own review in May 2026 credited Pakistan with a primary fiscal surplus of 1.6% of GDP for FY26, broadly in line with program targets, and noted gross reserves had climbed to $16 billion by end-December, up from $14.5 billion six months earlier, according to the IMF’s own press release. That progress unlocked roughly $1.1 billion under the EFF and $220 million under a parallel climate-resilience facility, bringing total disbursements under the two arrangements to about $4.8 billion.

Where the fault lines actually are

The uncomfortable part of this story, laid out by commentary reported in The Hans India, is that revenue targets get IMF scrutiny with great precision, while structural reform of loss-making public enterprises — Pakistan International Airlines and Pakistan Steel Mills chief among them — moves far more slowly. Those enterprises’ losses are absorbed by the national exchequer through subsidies, guarantees, and debt restructuring year after year, and privatization plans keep slipping because the political cost of confronting them is high.

Distribution company inefficiency compounds the problem. In FY25, Discos posted Rs 265 billion in losses, an improvement on FY24’s Rs 276 billion but still a substantial drag, according to Geo News, with Quetta, Peshawar and Hyderabad among the worst-performing utilities.

What happens if the pattern holds

Pakistan’s debt-to-GDP ratio sits between 70% and 80% as of 2026, according to Wikipedia’s economic summary, with debt servicing occasionally consuming two-thirds of government spending. That’s the backdrop against which every circular-debt conversation happens: there is very little fiscal room left to absorb another missed deadline.

The missed gas tariff deadline doesn’t automatically trigger a program breakdown — Pakistan has weathered similar friction points before during its current EFF arrangement. But with the IMF’s own documentation showing persistent concern about the credibility of debt-reduction plans, and with global energy prices still elevated in the aftermath of the Iran war, the margin for further slippage is thin. The next review will likely hinge less on the rhetoric around reform and more on whether the Rs 5 levy and LNG cargo sales actually show up in the numbers.

The Bank of Canada has maintained its policy rate at 2.25% for a consecutive meeting, navigating a rare combination of tariff-driven trade disruption and Middle East-driven energy inflation that is squeezing the economy from two directions at once, according to the Bank of Canada’s June 2026 rate announcement.

A Soft Economy Absorbing Two Shocks

Canadian GDP edged down 0.1% in the first quarter, weaker than the Bank’s April projection, even as global equity markets stayed buoyant and the Canadian dollar weakened against its US counterpart. Governing Council says it will “look through” the near-term inflation impact of the Middle East conflict but will not allow higher energy prices to become entrenched, a distinction the Bank has drawn explicitly to avoid repeating the policy mistakes of the 2021-22 inflation surge, per the Bank’s official statement.

The Bank’s April Monetary Policy Report forecasts GDP growth of just 1.2% in 2026, rising to 1.6% in 2027, as exports and business investment recover only gradually from a US tariff regime the Bank now treats as a structural, not cyclical, feature of the outlook, according to the Bank of Canada’s April 2026 report.

The Tariff Toll So Far

RBC Economics estimates the US has imposed a roughly 6% average effective tariff rate on Canadian exports, with most trade remaining exempt under CUSMA compliance rules, based on RBC’s structural-damage assessment. Steel, aluminum, and auto exports have declined sharply, while other sectors have proven more resilient than initially feared. HSB Pricing Lab research conducted with Bank of Canada staff found roughly a quarter of Canada’s own retaliatory tariff costs passed through to consumer prices before being rapidly unwound once most retaliatory measures were lifted.

The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) review is, in the words of Desjardins Group economists, “the defining issue” of 2026 for Canadian policy, with FTSE Russell analysts suggesting the agreement is unlikely to survive in its current form even as the broader global trading system adapts around it, according to Yahoo Finance Canada’s economist survey.

Structural Damage, Not Just a Cyclical Dip

Bank of Canada officials have been unusually direct about the long-run cost of trade disruption. The Bank’s own commentary describes Canada’s potential output growth falling to roughly 1.0% in 2026 before a modest recovery to 1.3% in 2027, driven by both trade friction and slower population growth from reduced immigration, according to the Bank of Canada’s “Structural change” commentary. The labour market remains soft, with unemployment in the 6.5%–7% range reflecting weak hiring rather than mass layoffs — what Indeed Canada economist Brendon Bernard describes as a “low-hire, low-fire” dynamic.

Watching the Same AI Risk From Ottawa

Notably, the Bank of Canada’s own risk assessment flags the same concern now dominating global financial commentary: a “sudden tightening in global financial conditions sparked by a correction in AI related stock market valuations” as a distinct downside risk to its inflation projections, according to RBC’s analysis of the Bank’s scenario planning. That makes Canada one of the first G7 central banks to formally embed AI-valuation risk into its published monetary policy framework.

The Bank’s next rate decision and full Monetary Policy Report are due July 15, 2026.

The Bank of England has held its benchmark rate at 3.75% for a second consecutive meeting, but the real story is what comes next: policymakers now expect inflation to climb from roughly 2.8% toward 3.25% by the fourth quarter of 2026, driven by an energy shock the central bank says it cannot offset, according to the Bank of England’s June 2026 Monetary Policy Summary.

A Vote Split by Geography, Not Just Economics

The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) voted 7–2 to hold rates, with two members pushing for a 0.25 percentage-point increase to 4%. Governor Andrew Bailey has said that expectations for rate cuts this year were “off the table” following the Middle East conflict’s disruption of oil and gas supply routes. Brent crude and UK wholesale gas have averaged $100 per barrel and 116 pence per therm respectively since the Bank’s April report — sharply above pre-conflict levels.

The Household Squeeze Behind the Numbers

Ofgem’s headline energy price cap for July–September rose by £221, a 13.5% increase, to £1,862, broadly matching the Bank’s April projections but landing at a moment when consumer confidence is already fragile. The Institute of Directors’ sentiment index fell to minus 61 in June from minus 53 in May, and the ICAEW Business Confidence Monitor recorded six consecutive quarters of negative readings, based on the Credit Protection Association’s UK business briefing for July 1, 2026.

Real household disposable income fell 0.8% in the first quarter as rising prices and higher taxes squeezed spending power, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics. GDP grew 0.6% in Q1 but then contracted 0.1% in April, a pattern economists warn could prove short-lived once the second-round effects of higher energy costs propagate through the wider economy, per KPMG UK’s economic outlook.

Housing and Credit Stress Building Underneath

Nationwide figures show UK house prices were flat in June at an average of £277,484, with the average two-year fixed mortgage rate climbing to 5.53% as the Middle East conflict pushed borrowing costs higher. Separately, a Bank of England credit survey found the balance of lenders reporting rising unsecured-loan defaults jumped to 34 percentage points in Q2, up from 18 in Q1 — the highest reading since 2009, according to CPA’s July 3 briefing.

The Next Decision Point

The MPC’s next rate announcement falls on July 30, 2026, alongside a fresh Financial Stability Report. Markets are not currently pricing in a hike at that meeting, but the Bank has signaled it stands ready to act if energy-driven inflation proves more persistent than the current forecast implies. For UK businesses, the message is that elevated borrowing costs are likely to persist well into 2027, with the Bank targeting a return to 2% inflation only by Q2 of that year if energy disruption proves short-lived.