Originally appeared on The Morning
By Dhananath Fernando
Winners focus on winning and losers focus on winners.
“Winners focus on winning and losers focus on winners”, I recalled this statement when I saw different headlines on Sri Lanka’s budget for the fiscal year 2022. As per media reports, the Government expects three main policy proposals in the upcoming budget. These include the development of local industries, expansion of infrastructure development, and having an expansionary monetary policy.
Speculations too have highlighted continued import restrictions as a strategy to develop local industries. This is what reminded me of the saying that losers focus on winners while winners focus on winning.
In a hundred metre race the most rational thing to do is to focus on one’s timing and speed as opposed to focusing on obstructing fellow athletes. Similarly in economics and business if one wants to develop local industries one must increase productivity and efficiency rather than resorting to import restrictions.
One reason many justify import controls as a strategy for the development of local industries is the lack of knowledge rather than a strong ideological stance. Sri Lanka has had a trade deficit for a long time, which is “value of imports – value of exports”. Therefore, many Sri Lankans generally believe that by reducing imports the trade deficit can be reduced.
The same argument applies when people assume that we have to spend foreign exchange earned from exports when importing. People believe that producing locally will save foreign exchange due to the reduced need for imports. As a result, there is growing animosity against imports across all products and services. People believe that this will leave local industries better off. This thought process has led Sri Lanka to become a nation full of people who detest imports. But they forget that local industries depend significantly on raw materials and parts.
This idea is not endemic to Sri Lanka but can also be found in some other parts of the world. So there is a global belief that having complete import controls can help homegrown local innovation regardless of its severe economic consequences. However the reality is far different. Banning imports would do more harm for local businesses than good. It can significantly impact the production and manufacturing potential of the economy. However, we will only be able to arrive at a reasonable conclusion once the budget is presented.
One of the main arguments provided by proponents of import controls, is the belief that Micro and Small Enterprises (MSMEs) cannot compete with large-scale global brands. However, the truth is different. In Sri Lanka, the apparel sector especially consists of quite a number of MSMEs. They produce goods at the standards acceptable to international markets. These target markets are far different from the domestic market. Therefore they actually compete internationally and are capable of doing so because they are able to maintain productivity. Therefore the best way to empower small enterprises is by helping them improve productivity and allowing them to compete.
Another common belief is that some developed countries too have import controls or higher tariffs. Ardent believers of import substitution present these examples to defend their case. A common example provided was the import duty and tariff rates in India and South Korea in comparison to Sri Lanka’s, claiming that our tariff rates are much lower. However the truth is that Sri Lanka has a complicated system of para tariffs. These are additional tariffs on custom duties (CESS and PAL). Para tariffs increase the effective rate of protectionism, which is the overall protection levied at the border on imports. Sri Lanka’s effective rate of protection is much higher than other countries in the region. Once again, this exhibits Sri Lanka’s obsession with winners and the lack of attention given to winning. In addition, many new winners in trade have appreciated the importance of neutral policies that give similar incentives for export production as well as import substitution production.
Another common argument is that the similar practices by the west at the initial trajectory on their development and the extent to which they protected their industries is often provided by proponents who believe banning imports is a strategy for local industry development. South Korea and Japan have been provided as an example often on how they banned car imports which made the boom of brands like Toyota and Hyundai is a common story. If that argument is true then countries like North Korea have to be most prosperous as they have very serious import restrictions.
Second, for the country and the market size of Sri Lanka to get economies of scale, we need to produce bigger volumes beyond our shores. So competition is inevitable. Just because one country has succeeded at doing it doesn’t make sense for us to repeat without understanding geography, demography, and geopolitics. Thirdly if we look at the brands that have really done well those are the ones who have been opened for competition. In the case of Japan, the Ministry of Trade and Industry recommended to Toyota Founder Kiichiro Toyoda, not to produce cars in the first place and the rest of the Toyota brand is just history.
We are all in agreement that the local industries should prosper and have to be productive. But thinking that the import bans as a strategy for local industry development is not in the right direction. It would set a bad example for people to just target winners instead of winning and ultimately the entire country will be a net loser. We have to become a country of thinking about winning rather than a country of focusing on winners and the budget 2022 should lay a broader strategy to achieve this objective.
The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.