Originally appeared on The Morning
By Dhananath Fernando
The ‘what not to do’ guide for Sri Lanka’s economy from its shipping sector
Once I met a businessman in one of the world’s largest waterproofing corporations, based in the United States. He spoke to me about his humble beginnings. I asked him what his secret for success was. He replied “market system and competition” with confidence.
He explained that an average person like him was able to create such a large business and social impact which provides employment for thousands of people in just one generation solely because of the market system and competition. “The market system made me an innovative, hard working and a progressive person. I didn’t care about my background. Without competition I could have been the same person as I was 20 years ago,” he said.
In life, hard work and commitment are the basic requirements of prosperity. What we need is a system that rewards hard work and free exchange, so the market system can create progression and prosperity. In any sector when competition is restricted, stagnation is unavoidable. That is one of the main reasons why, in any advanced market system, institutions are built to promote competition and restrict anti-competitive practises such as monopolisation.
In Sri Lanka our total factor productivity is very low compared to our regional players, due to lack of competition and anti-competitive business practises. Sri Lanka is ranked at 84th in the Global Competitiveness Index (out of 140 economies) while we were ranked 52 in the same index in 2012; clearly, the situation is only becoming more dire.
The shipping industry is just one prominent example of how the lack of competition and anti-competitive trade practises have made Sri Lankan industry stagnant over the decades. While Sri Lanka boasts of its strategic location, our growth has been far below potential for many decades now. We have not only failed at capitalising on our naturally-gifted location but we are mired in debate and friction due to anti-competitive trade practises and attempts to monopolise the shipping industry and supporting services.
Most protected industries and cartels practise anti-competitive behaviour after a certain period of time, due to stagnation and poor productivity. In a competitive environment, businesses focus more on future opportunities and productivity improvement, than on defending their own interests even if it means resorting to anti-competitive practises. As the American sporting legend Tom Brady famously said: “While the winners are focused on winning, the losers focus on the winners.”
Sri Lanka is quite unfortunate as even shipping, a main sector where we have the opportunity to open up for competition, has fallen victim to protectionist and anti-competitive practises. Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara filed a public litigation case on the monopolisation of the shipping industry when he was a member of the Joint Opposition during the last regime. However, the lack of regulation to avoid anti-competitive practises will provide very limited space for ordinary citizens to become aware of the extent of the problem.
Attempts to eliminate minimum investment requirements on shipping industry and freight forwarding with the objective of bringing more competition has failed over the years due to industry resistance.
The result is shown in the numbers: Sri Lanka has about 750 local shipping, freight forwarding, and clearing agents, whereas Singapore has about 5,000 – despite commencing on its journey to becoming a maritime hub several years after us. Even in the case of the X-Press Pearl environmental disaster, we really did not have the basic ecosystem in place to combat an emergency because of our anti-competitive, inward-looking approach.
Of course, shipping is not the only industry closed for competition, with anti-competitive behaviour. The acquisition of two of the largest tile manufacturers in Sri Lanka, which operate in an industry that is already highly protected (at one point with 107% total tariff protection), has also been a concern. The result has been the continuous suffering of consumers and the construction industry over the years, with basic housing becoming almost a dream for aspirational Sri Lankans.
According to the current regulation, the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) Act No. 09 of 2003 (which was brought after repealing the Fair Trading Commision [FTC] Act of 1987) is expected to promote competition. Unfortunately, the Act only sets price controls on selected consumer goods instead of truly promoting competition. They raid small mom-and-pop shops for selling goods at rates higher than the set prices, and cast a blind eye on all other anti-competitive behaviour. It should be noted, however, that the CAA is hindered by its limited purview on the Investigation of existence of monopolies, mergers and acquisitions, and anti-competitive practises.
The previous FTC Act of 1987 had a broader purview to investigate anti-competitive trade practises (compared to current CAA) including agreements to limit production, refusal to prevent predatory pricing, vertical agreements, and cartels. But the Fair Trade Commision Act lacked implementation guidelines and specific distinction between public and private sectors (1). Anti-competitive practises need to always be analysed with State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) as most monopolies and anti-competitive practises are SOE driven.
Additionally, the provisions for the appointment and removal of members to the FTC, as well as the way the Act was implemented, raised concerns of the departure from competitive policy at the FTC (2).
A good example of the shortcomings of the FTC is the merger of Glaxo-Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham. FTC considered that it was beyond their purview as it was an international merger. In relation to unfair trade practises, the oft-cited case is that of Ceylon Oxygen Ltd. Ceylon Oxygen had held a dominant market position since 1936 in Sri Lanka. When a new firm named Industrial Gases (Pvt) Ltd. entered the market in 1993, it was alleged that Ceylon Oxygen behaved in predatory manner by reducing the deposit fee on canisters and decreasing maintenance charges, and made discriminatory discounts as well as discriminatory rebates.
FTC identified three anti-competitive practices of Ceylon Oxygen, namely, predatory pricing, discriminatory rebates, and excluding dealing. However, when the case went up to the Appeals Court, it was held that the FTC had no jurisdiction to investigate such practises over the case and therefore did not recognise these practises as preventing competition.
Though the FTC had its own shortcomings, the subsequent CAA Act has a far more limited purview. Simply put, Sri Lanka’s business environment and ecosystem are set on all fronts to avoid competition and promote anti-competitive behaviour, while our prosperity completely depends on the opposite.
Competition is very important to Micro-, Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises. They are the first to adapt and grow due to flexibility and agility in a competitive environment. That is the reason the world-class waterproofing businessman whom I had met thanked competition and the market system for his success and the success of his business.
If Sri Lanka is serious about achieving the status of a high income country, we can only get there by improving our productivity (total factor productivity) and certainly not through debt accumulation. Trade and competition policies play a pivotal role in this journey of reform and our policymakers should focus on implementing high-impact policies to promote competition and avoid anti-competitive behaviours. Unfortunately, the current focus has been on prices and market intervention.
Sri Lanka has a large number of talented young people who could become as successful as the waterproofing businessman I met. If we establish a market system and a competitive environment, then nothing will stand in the way of our youth reaching the top and Sri Lanka will become a far better and more prosperous nation than it is today.
References:
(1) Trade and Competition Policies: Their implications for productivity Growth in Sri Lanka by Dr.Sarath Rajapathirana
(2) Thurairtnam (2006), Malathi Knight Jones (2002)
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.
