Understanding the economic crisis: Corruption a symptom, not the root cause

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The most common rationalisation of Sri Lanka’s economic crisis is to blame corruption, which is a complete mischaracterisation. This is not to say that corruption had no part in the crisis, but to place the blame solely on corruption would be inaccurate. In my view, there has been an economic policy problem which incentivised corruption, hence that is a problem that we have to fix, rather than trying to fix corruption. Corruption is just a symptom and policy is the root cause.

However, policy problems cannot be analysed in a vacuum, because simply having a policy does not mean everything will be alright. Policy has to be analysed based on the strength and stability of institutions.

One good example is the Fiscal Management (Responsibility) Act No.3 of 2003. According to the act (policy), the Government cannot exceed the budget deficit above 5% of the GDP. Since the act has enacted every budget we have presented, our budget deficit has been above 5%. Nothing has happened to any government for violating their own rules. We have the policy, but we do not have the institutions to enforce it or the stability or capacity for institutions to abide by the policy.

The anti-corruption commision is another good example. Many countries that wished to eradicate corruption have set up anti-corruption units, but when anti-corruption units are also corrupt, since they have been established by the existing powers, it is self-defeating.

Therefore, thinking that we can avoid an economic crisis or overcome the crisis by focusing on corruption as the sole measure shows a lack of depth. We have to evaluate the system somewhat more broadly to fix it.

A common question people ask is, “where are the assets for the loans we have taken?”. In that case, people think we have taken loans and syphoned that money out without investing. The deficit of the value of the projects and the loans we have taken is generally considered to be that which has been spent on corruption. While there have definitely been kickbacks from the projects, most of the money we have borrowed has been borrowed not for projects but to pay the interests of the loans we had borrowed before.

From our debt, about 74% has been used to pay interest or for exchange depreciation (40% for interest and 33% for currency depreciation). Since 1999, most of our debt has gone towards bad policies in the form of interest and for the exchange rate. At the point of borrowing money, similar to what happened in the Central Bank bond scam, there can be corruption, but the corruption is often an outcome of a bad policy or a poor system rather than a standalone problem.

Thus, rather than thinking about jailing the corrupt, it is easier to fill the gaps in the system where corruption takes place. This is where a market system is needed. The market system has the power to make the players of corruption uncompetitive, because corruption is costly. When the cost is too high, provided the consumer has a choice, they can shift to alternatives. Therefore, it is vitally important to set the market system straight and keep entry and exit barriers at a minimum.

Framework of the market system to think about corruption

How do we decide the project?

Generally, corruption takes place in projects and the decision-making processes of the projects. These mainly come as unsolicited proposals. Someone proposing a solution for a problem that even the government is unaware of falls under the category of unsolicited proposals. The government has the discretionary power to decide which projects are to be done and which projects are to be set aside. This is how quite a lot of construction projects, instead of education and healthcare, get priority.

Most projects under SOEs also fall under this category, which is why SOEs are considered vehicles of corruption and SOE reform is a must. Adhering to the National Physical Plan and getting it through Parliament is one way to minimise it.

Who does the project?

When the project is decided, the selection of the implementation partner is the next window for corruption. Again, it can be awarded through unsolicited proposals or there can be technical corruption where the specifications of the supplies are in favour of a selected supplier.

Unsolicited and competitive processes violate the market system, and on a technical level, corruption is very hard to detect even at the legal stage. However, with an open process on complaints and reevaluation, there is still room for improvement. There are also cases where even the competitive process is established due to a lack of trust in the system; the most suitable person doesn’t want to apply and go through the process.

Deciding on the price

The other point of corruption is when it comes to deciding on the price. It could be the interest rates on bonds, the contract value, or the price of the energy purchase. Price discovery is also a market-based process. When prices are allowed to be set without a market-based approach, there is room for corruption. That is how most of the energy agreements were signed and we borrowed money to pay the price. Rather than trying to fix the individual involved in corruption because the next person could repeat these same actions, it is advisable to fix the problem first.

Deciding the quality of materials

The fourth case is where even the people selected through the competitive process simply use inferior quality products. Our experiences in poor quality medicine at the Ministry of Health is just one example.

Corruption can take place in projects or in processes based on any of the above or a combination of any of the four. However, this takes place only when the decision-making power or discretionary power is given to someone who is not the owner of the risk or the investment. Otherwise, it leaves competition out or maintains information asymmetry for someone to benefit from.

In a market system where competition is given priority and prices are allowed to reflect the scarcity value of money, it naturally leaves corruption behind, but creating the information balance is not easy.

Therefore, while no market or government is perfect, a market system is a better system to avoid corruption, rather than expecting the government to eradicate corruption, since the government has no interest or incentive to do business or to eradicate corruption.

It is not about the private sector versus the government – it is all about a market system which incentivises transparency and minimises room for corruption. Our continuous failure to build that system was the reason for our fall (economic crisis) and we can only overcome it by fixing it, since it is the root cause, and not by fixing the symptom called corruption.

(Source: CBSL, Advocata)

What happened to our debt?

By Dhananath Fernando

Sri Lanka’s debt situation is still a mystery for some. During a panel discussion, I pointed out that Sri Lanka’s State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) have amassed a staggering 1.8 trillion in debt, all guaranteed by the Treasury and classified as ‘Public Debt’. One question from the audience was, “What did we do with the money we borrowed?” The simple answer is that money was borrowed primarily to service the interest on the initial loans Sri Lanka took out. Therefore,  despite borrowing substantial amounts, there is nothing tangible or visible to show for it, as a majority was essentially sunk into interest. 

To provide context, since 1999, approximately 74% of the increase in debt can be attributed to interest payments and currency depreciation. Interest payments accounted for a substantial 40% of the debt accumulated since the 1990’s, while the exchange rate depreciation contributed to 33%. 

What Sri Lanka faced was a precarious combination in terms of borrowing and our monetary policy. Our expansionary monetary policy played a significant role in the depreciation of the currency over the years, exacerbating the situation further. Compounding this issue was the fact that approximately 50% of our borrowing was in foreign currency. As it is indicated in 2022, with Modern Monetary theory in play, the significant depreciation of the exchange rate since 2020 led to an accumulation of debt beyond our repayment capacity.

Printing more money artificially increases the demand for foreign exchange.  However, after depleting our reserves in an attempt to defend the currency, the only option left was to allow the currency to float, leading to a sharp depreciation. In the case for Sri Lanka, it was not just the currency depreciation; social unrest, debt default, and numerous other crises followed when the government resorted to borrowing from the Central Bank through money printing.

As at the end of June 2023, our total public debt has increased to USD 96.5 billion, with approximately 50% of it in domestic debt. The country’s public debt now stands at about 127.4% of GDP. Even if debt restructuring is successful after negotiations with the Paris Club and separate discussions with China, we only anticipate a reduction to 95% of GDP by 2032. 

Undoubtedly, expediting the debt restructuring process is crucial, especially given the unpredictable twists in geopolitics. While the tentative agreement with China Exim Bank to restructure the debt is a positive development for Sri Lanka, we must fast track negotiations with our other foreign creditors. Complicating matters, as we approach an election year, there is a significant risk of derailing the process as unfortunately, there is a lack of consensus among political parties regarding the economic stabilization program for the next few years. This further exacerbates the challenges Sri Lanka faces.

Solution 

If Sri Lanka is genuinely committed to resolving its debt crisis, a crucial step is to establish a consensus on public finance across the major political parties. At the very least, adherence to a single plan, such as the IMF program, is necessary. However, even the IMF program alone will be insufficient to take Sri Lanka to the next stage of economic stability. Therefore, there must be a fundamental agreement on specific reforms across party lines. For example, there exists a common minimum program in Parliament, shaped with contributions from the business community and organizations like Advocata. It is not too late to revisit and endorse this document. Committing to these agreed-upon reforms before political parties develop their individual manifestos in the coming years could provide a stable foundation for Sri Lanka's economic future.

Shaping Sri Lanka’s growth narrative

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Securing the second tranche from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an important step, especially to support our ability to successfully carry out the debt restructuring process. It is not just about the $ 330 million that this tranche brings; it is about the credibility it gives to the reform process and the confidence it instils in the international community, including bilateral and multilateral creditors. 

The moment we deviate from the IMF programme and allow our debt to remain unsustainable, we risk regressing to square one. However, we should not get our aims and priorities mixed up. Our aim is not to secure IMF tranches. We need to prioritise achieving deep and meaningful reforms. The IMF tranche will follow as a result. 

Ultimately, our goal should be to ensure that, in the future, we never find ourselves in a position where we need to turn to the IMF for assistance.

As this column has discussed many times, it is essential to recognise that the IMF can only stabilise the economy and facilitate credit access, which is a crucial element in our debt restructuring process. The responsibility to clear out the roadblocks that stand in the way of economic growth rests solely on our shoulders. We have to carry out reforms that go beyond the scope of the IMF programme. 

Three key reforms aiming to boost economic growth will be discussed below.

Reforms to attract more tourists 

Focusing on tourism can significantly contribute to the country’s economic recovery. In addition to bringing in foreign exchange, their spending in domestic markets contributes significantly to Government revenue through VAT. Instead of fixating on the number of inbound tourists, our focus should be on the number of nights a tourist stays in the hotel/country. Simplifying the entry process will attract more tourists, and more importantly, entice them to prolong their stay. 

In line with Daniel Alphonsus’ recent article, making the visa process more flexible for tourists is crucial. Our focus should not be on visa fees, but rather to encourage tourists to spend more. This allows local industries to capture the revenue and enhances Government revenue through VAT and various other forms of fees and indirect taxes.

Offering a two-year multiple-entry visa for citizens from countries with a per capita GDP four times higher than Sri Lanka’s is a strategic move to attract high-income tourists. Given our current fiscal situation, carrying out extensive global promotional campaigns are beyond our financial capacity. Therefore, our focus should shift to initiatives that can be implemented effectively with just a stroke of a pen.

Addressing labour force shortages 

Retaining skilled talent within Sri Lanka is a challenge faced by many industries, including blue chip companies. These labour shortages are anticipated to affect us from next year onwards, jeopardising the sustainability of existing businesses.

To address this issue and prevent businesses from relocating, it is essential to allow companies the flexibility to recruit from international markets. This approach is crucial to sustaining businesses and their supply chains. Permitting companies to hire skilled labour from outside Sri Lanka will not only alleviate pressure on the country’s labour market, but also offer advantages to consumers and businesses competing in global markets.

Further, it encourages the transfer of knowledge and skills, leading to improved productivity. For example, collaborating with professionals from countries like Japan could introduce advanced productivity management techniques, enhancing overall efficiency. Free movement of people is a crucial step in improving our productivity and driving the economic growth of the country.  

If relaxing labour market regulations proves too complicated, a pragmatic alternative is to permit foreign spouses of Sri Lankans to work in Sri Lanka. This measure could help in attracting more skilled workers, providing an incentive for Sri Lankans with families of mixed citizenship to return and settle here. Importantly, this reform won’t incur any costs for the Government; it simply involves changing existing regulations.

Industrial zones for private sector and simplifying tariffs  

For us to emerge from this crisis, our primary focus should be on global trade. The complicated tariff structure that is currently in place enables corruption and is a source of frustration for both exporters and importers. Simplifying the tariff structure into three to four tariff bands is essential to streamlining Government revenue administration. 

The existing high and complicated tariffs lead to massive leakages of tariff revenue. Moreover, these tariffs discourage imports, hampering productivity and burdening consumers. Implementing a straightforward tariff structure is imperative, removing para-tariffs such as CESS and PAL. Furthermore, we must ensure that the tariff structure for any HS Code is easy to compute and has minimal deviations.

A significant bottleneck in our system that hinders investments and export growth is the shortage of land for industrial activities. Currently, 95% of the land in Board of Investment (BOI) industrial zones in the Western Province is occupied. Investors are required to obtain approximately 17 approvals in order to set up operations and this process can take more than two years. 

Regrettably, the BOI has not initiated any development projects in the last 15 years. A viable solution that the Government should consider is utilising State-Owned Enterprise (SOE)-owned land and allowing the private sector to develop industrial zones on it. 

Private sector-run industrial zones can operate as a plug-and-play model, where the private sector attracts investors and secures the necessary approvals in advance. This approach does not require any Government investments; in fact, it can generate more revenue for the Government through leasing or selling the land for development. 

If Sri Lanka is genuinely committed to economic growth and recovery from the crisis, our primary focus should be on implementing these reforms rather than solely relying on the IMF.  While the IMF can provide us with short-term stability, it’s our responsibility as Sri Lankan citizens to shape our own growth narrative.

Why was the IMF Tranche Delayed?

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

There is some uncertainty in the market regarding the reasons for the delay in the IMF's second tranche. The simple reason is that although we have made some progress, given the depth of the crisis, our speed of reforms is inadequate for a swift recovery, particularly in revenue collection.

A shortfall in revenue collection, expected to be about 15% compared to initial projections by the year end, has been cited as a key reason. Secondly, until we finalize debt restructuring, especially external debt restructuring, the risk factors remain high in achieving our desired debt-to-GDP ratio. Even after the expected debt restructuring, in 10 years, our debt-to-GDP ratio will still be above 90% according to estimates.

Thirdly, the Central Bank's reserve collection has slowed down. Consequently, with our macroeconomic indicators sending mixed signals, it can not be assured that the economic recovery is still on the right path. Furthermore, at the press briefing held on the 27th of September IMF officials reiterated that more work needs to be done to sustain the reform momentum.

It is crucial to identify the reasons for the delay in reforms. Our framework for driving reforms is not well-established. The current structure, where the President acts in the capacity of the Minister of Finance, appoints committees, and delegates tasks, is flawed. Some tasks are interconnected, and the entire drive must come from the Finance Minister alone.

Further, these two roles can have contradictory interests. The Finance Minister holds an unpopular job, requiring revenue increases through taxation and expenditure reduction. Conversely, when the President, a politician expecting re-election, occupies the role, there's a natural tendency to make popular decisions, deviating from essential reforms.

Our reform process is highly complicated, demanding direct involvement of the Finance Minister in debt negotiations with external creditors in several categories, namely multilateral, bilateral, and private creditors. This task alone is equivalent to a few full-time jobs. Additionally, structural reforms are expected to focus on State-Owned Enterprises, where considerable trade union influence will come into play with appointments made by fellow cabinet ministers. Thus, driving such unpopular yet critical reforms becomes nearly impossible, especially when the finance minister is also the President or vice versa. More importantly, for key appointments such as the Central Bank Monetary Board and Governance Board, the President nominates with the Minister of Finance's approval and the Constitutional Council's endorsement. When the President and the Finance Minister are the same, the objective of checks and balances significantly diminishes.

In the case of India's reforms in the 1990s, it was Dr. Manmohan Singh who spearheaded reforms. He had Dr. Montek Singh Alhuwalia as the Chairman of the National Planning Committee to drive reforms. With his experience working with the IMF and a keen understanding of the Indian perspective, the reforms initiated in the 1990s continue to fuel India's growth, making it one of the countries with the highest economic growth rate.

The IMF Governance Diagnosis report, subsequently released, provided numerous recommendations out of which approximately 16 recommendations have been prioritized, mainly focusing on governance and transparency.

One reason this column advocates moving beyond IMF reforms is that corruption cannot be curtailed solely through governance structures. The size of the government must be limited in conjunction with effective governance structures. Aligning governance structures with the vast expanse of the government is nearly impossible.

Furthermore, the IMF primarily brings stability; the responsibility for growth lies in our hands. We must unlock our growth potential through necessary reforms, extending beyond the IMF program. This underscores the urgency of accelerating comprehensive reforms and establishing a dedicated team to drive these changes. Regrettably, what we observe is mere enactment of legislation without robust mechanisms to execute and ensure continuity of the process, and this leading to delays in the IMF's second tranche.

SOE sector: Promises of change on the horizon?

Originally appeared on Daily FT

By Maleeka Hassan

With the harsh reality of a global recession slowly descending on Sri Lanka, questions about Government expenditure and its allocation of resources have begun to dominate dinner table discussions. Fears of higher taxation to cover the losses earned and to sustain the blows from the impending recession have started to emerge.

There is a simple solution: introduce reforms to prevent areas for corruption and inefficiency within SOEs – thus preventing the State from bearing tremendous losses. However, there is hesitation and discomfort amongst the general public, when consolidation or privatisation of SOEs are discussed. This begs the question: why?  

Why are SOEs so popular amongst the public?

One of the reasons could be due to the portrayal and framing of the SOE sector, over the years. SOEs are perceived by the public as a source of stable employment as well as a source of goods and services at affordable prices. This perception is backed up by the fact that the SOEs hire over 200,000 people; framing the sector as ‘people-oriented’ over ‘profit-oriented’, with no consideration given to the losses sustained by these entities. Moreover, privatisation is often viewed in the same light as capitalism: cold, hard and unforgiving.

This perspective could be propelled by our history with the SOE sector. In the 1980s, the incumbent Government was pushed to reform the SOE sector. This was due to SOE products struggling to remain competitive amongst imported substitutes and therefore turning to the State to fund and sustain most of them. In addition, foreign aid agencies lobbied the Government to adopt a privatisation programme in order to secure external aid. However to avoid backlash from labour unions and state employees, the media and other campaigns around the policy were careful to avoid associating the policy with employee redundancy. Privatisation was concealed by the word ‘peoplisation’, and involved providing 10% of the shares to employees from former public enterprises.

Another reason behind the immense support for SOEs could be due to their heavily subsidised products. However, when products are sold below cost, the cost is still indirectly borne by taxpayers in the form of higher taxes, to recover the loss. The belief that privatisation will result in the prices of goods rising is contingent upon the creation of a monopoly. However, with the reduction of red tape and appropriate measures taken to prevent anti-competitive practices, prices may reduce or remain the same in a competitive market. An example of this was the conversion of Sri Lanka Telecom to a public company. This resulted in an improvement of internal operational efficiency and the number of new connections provided increased from 72,457 in 1997 to 143,075 in 1998.2

A similar reason that may have contributed to shaping current public opinion that SOEs are most effective at serving the people when they remain public, was the introduction of ‘The Revival of Underperforming Enterprises or Underutilised Assets Act’ of 2011 (also known as the Expropriation Act). This is where 37 businesses that were classified as ‘underperforming and ineffective’, were nationalised – suggesting to the public that privatisation wasn't always effective and ideal. However, these attitudes may be fuelling the problem.

Why are these perceptions wrong?

By utilising the narratives above, certain SOEs and officials attached are able to conceal corruption and nepotism behind the idea of employment, and ‘helping the people’. An example of this is the Sathosa scandal that emerged earlier this year, relating to 67 files that tied Sathosa to controversial transactions, such as land deeds that were purchased under various names and involved hundreds of acres, that cost the State billions of rupees.

Similar instances of bribery are easily carried out, and go unrealised, due to the absence of monitoring and oversight of the rest of the 524 SOEs that are ‘not essential’. The lack of transparency with regards to the financial reports of the SOEs makes it easier for these companies to commit such acts. In the Annual Report for 2019, published by the Ministry of Finance (MOF), only 14 SOEs had submitted their Annual Reports for 2018 out of the 52 that are monitored by the MOF and Public Enterprise Department (PED). Even more worrying is the fact that 21 out of the 52 companies hadn't submitted their 2017 Annual Reports either. 

Despite the introduction of the COPE reports and the appointment of the Department of Public Enterprises (PED) to monitor the operations and efficiency of SOEs, the SOE sector continues to amass tremendous losses. The recently published Annual Report by the Ministry of Finance estimates a total loss of Rs. 151,439 million from the 52 essential SOEs for 2019 based on provisional data.

These numbers would change drastically if they included data for the rest of the 524 SOEs (which include subsidiaries and sub-subsidiaries that have been gazetted but are not monitored by the Ministry of Finance, due to them not being ‘essential). The opacity of this sector would usually raise alarm bells amongst the Sri Lankan public if it was occurring anywhere else – and yet it doesn’t with SOEs. change drastically if they included data for the rest of the 524 SOEs (which include subsidiaries and sub-subsidiaries that have been gazetted but are not monitored by the Ministry of Finance, due to them not being ‘essential). The opacity of this sector would usually raise alarm bells amongst the Sri Lankan public if it was occurring anywhere else – and yet it doesn’t with SOEs.

Evolving circumstances propelling change

Despite these concerning particulars, there may still be hope on the horizon. The manifesto of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa indicated that whilst privatisation was not up for consideration, consolidation was still an option. Additionally, a board was appointed to select the heads for loss-making, inefficient SOEs, in order to reform and improve such entities.

More importantly, however, is the question of SOEs in a COVID-19 economy. 

With predictions for Sri Lanka’s estimated real GDP (percentage change) for 2020 amounting to -0.5 due to COVID-19, some economists predict that large scale reforms may be introduced in order to improve efficiency and increase its global competitiveness when seeking foreign direct investment and increased capital inflows. These reforms may extend to the SOE sector – in order to improve the financial accounts of the country and to reduce room for corruption and bribery.

What reforms can the Government adopt?

Reform of SOEs, focusing on underperforming entities, in particular, could create some much needed fiscal space for the treasury. The first phase of reform would be improving governance and accountability in SOEs. The Government should compile a comprehensive list of all SOEs; at present, the Government only tracks the financial of the key 52 entities. This should be expanded to include all entities. Clear reporting guidelines for SOEs should be introduced and enforced, with COPE and COPA strengthened to improve accountability. If these reforms are adopted, the SOE sector will increase productivity and efficiency immensely, saving the Government and the average taxpayer – millions of rupees.

The second phase of reform would be on the consolidation of SOEs. Of Sri Lanka’s 524 SOEs, the Government recognises only 52 of these as strategic or key entities. In line with Government policy, underperforming, non-strategic SOEs should be identified for a consolidation plan. 

This may be the golden window of opportunity to reform and improve the transparency of the sector, but if missed – may not come again for a long time. 

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.

Limited government – Ideal State

In this weekly column on The Sunday Morning Business titled “The Coordination Problem”, the scholars and fellows associated with Advocata attempt to explore issues around economics, public policy, the institutions that govern them and their impact on our lives and society.

Originally appeared on The Morning

---

Limited Government; Ideal State – Part IV

By Dhananath Fernando

This article completes Advocata’s four-piece series on “limited government”. Over the past three weeks, we have presented three arguments in favour of a limited government. We began the series by delving into the mounting costs associated with a government of this size. The article questioned the rationale behind expenditure on this scale, given that the services provided by the Government are characteristically inefficient. Erratic power cuts and railway strikes seen in the recent past are testament to this. From here, the series explored the question of how a government can best serve its citizens.

The main argument presented was that when the powers and responsibilities of the State are decentralised, voters are given a stronger voice and are better able to hold elected officials accountable. The result is that public finances are better managed and service delivery improves. The last topic tackled in this series was that of corruption, expanding on how the window of opportunity for corruption widens when a government grows in scope as well as physical size, without the necessary governance and accountability measures in place. All three articles concluded on the same point – the size and role of the Government needs to be re-visited.

At a fundamental level, a government exists to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. This is the first and foremost responsibility of a government and it is vital that this is given priority. The danger of governments expanding into other sectors is that these foundational responsibilities are pushed to the sidelines. When a government provides subsidies, creates price ceilings, and gives ad hoc handouts, it loses incentive to focus on its priorities. Giving a subsidy has an immediate impact on its voters and a cycle of instant gratification begins. Parallel to election cycles, governments now have an easier, quicker method to win over voters. Ensuring the rule of law and enshrining the negative freedoms of a population does not have the shiny appeal of a handout – the positive, virtuous cycles these freedoms and protections create are strong, they can permeate institutions and change cultures of work. However, they can take years to come into effect and are difficult concepts to convey through the flashy advertisements of an election campaign.

Of course, this means that governments respond to the attractive incentive of a quick win and an extended term in office, and prioritises the handout over the fundamentals of freedom. As much as these freedoms can create virtuous cycles of growth and development, the neglect and deterioration of these freedoms can create dangerous cycles of corruption, misuse, and violence.

The best way to illustrate these dangerous cycles is through the justice system. Unfortunately, we witnessed first-hand the aftermath of the Easter attacks where virulent rhetoric against the Muslim community resulted in riots, with 500 Muslim-owned shops being attacked and set on fire. In the face of this outbreak of violence, the rule of law was flagrantly abused, and peace was not upheld.

Eammon Butler, in his book “Foundations of a Free Society”, expounds on this in some detail. According to him, the rules of justice are a cornerstone of any free society. While rules of justice would mean there are penalties for harming other people, in a free society, emphasis is also given to ensuring the role and power of a government is strictly limited. This will mean that the monopoly over violence a government has will not be used arbitrarily or in the self-interest of those who wield it. To quote: “The main problem of political organisation is not how to choose our leaders – that is easy – but how to restrain them.”

This seems reasonable and rational. No one wants an army-running rampant – you want to ensure the people with the guns and ammunition have clear rules on when and why they can use it. Most governments recognise this and have mechanisms such as constitutions and the separation of the executive, legislature, and judiciary to restrain those in positions of power. But the foundation of this is to ensure that citizens are all treated equally under the law – that all laws apply equally to all citizens and there is equal treatment and due process of justice. For freedom to have meaning, it has to apply equally to the whole population. When this does not take place and there is essentially a break down in the rule of law, the immediate impacts might seem inconsequential. It might mean that someone gets out on bail when maybe they shouldn’t. It might mean that tariffs are raised to protect politically important local business interests. Taken alone, these are singular events, which, while problematic, don’t cause much consternation. However, this is a slippery slope which often ends in widespread corruption in the best case, and a complete breakdown of law and order in other instances.

Once again, recent events illustrate that all citizens are not treated equally under the law, and that instances where law and order break down are increasing in frequency. The Wennappuwa Pradeshiya Sabha (PS) Chairman issuing a letter prohibiting Muslim traders from conducting business at the Dankotuwa Market is a case in point. It is of utmost importance that steps are taken to ensure the rule of law is maintained, and the Government prioritises its core functions putting the safety and freedom of all its citizens at the forefront.

Less spending, less corruption

In this weekly column on The Sunday Morning Business titled “The Coordination Problem”, the scholars and fellows associated with Advocata attempt to explore issues around economics, public policy, the institutions that govern them and their impact on our lives and society.

Originally appeared on The Morning

---

Why should we have a limited government? – Part III

By Aneetha Warusavitarana

The World Bank quite simply defines corruption as the “abuse of public office for private gain”. Accordingly, public office can be abused when private agents actively offer or accept bribes, institute practices of patronage and nepotism, and engage in the theft of state assets or misuse public funds. In Sri Lanka, corruption has become institutionalised and can range from the traffic policeman who accepts a bribe to a high-ranking bureaucrat siphoning public money for personal expenses.

In 2018, Sri Lanka ranked 89th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index. As a country, we score 38 out of 100, with 100 representing a clean, corruption-free country. The magnitude of this problem is clear.

What’s the big deal about corruption?

Is corruption really bad? You can’t deny that when your garbage is piling up, it’s easier to bribe the garbage collectors to take your garbage than visit your municipal council and file a complaint. Sometimes, it can just be easier to pay a bribe to the traffic police than go to court and settle a traffic violation, or to pay a little extra and get your driving license renewed faster. These are all very mundane, commonplace occurrences that have become normalised to the point one does not think of it as “corruption”. It’s just a small payment to make your life a little easier – a small payment to ensure an application is processed smoothly. So, if corruption can make things simpler, what’s the issue?

While corruption on this scale can appear to be insignificant, in reality, it is one component of a much larger, systemic problem which has far-reaching consequences. Corruption in government is institutional, and given the outsized role the Sri Lankan Government plays in markets and business, the impact is far-reaching. The difficulty in holding government officials accountable and the considerable discretion they can wield creates an environment in which corruption can flourish.

The far-reaching impacts of corruption

Large corruption scandals often focus on the amount of money that has been misused, placing emphasis on face value loss that is created by corruption. However, the impact of one act of bribery or corruption goes far beyond the initial monetary loss. Corruption raises the transaction costs of conducting business and creates uncertainty in the market. In an environment where corruption flourishes, a business will not win a contract based on merit and skill alone. Procurement-related issues (read: corruption) associated with the Kerawalapitiya Power Plant meant that it took three years to award the tender. This lowers profitability within firms and creates an overall environment of uncertainty which discourages foreign investment. The result is that the positive spillover effects from investments, like increased competition and technology transfers, will not take place. Corruption also reduces the attractiveness of entrepreneurship, resulting in higher prices and lower quality. The problem does not end there. The culture of corruption is one of impunity and complete disregard for the rule of law. When this culture permeates the government, it affects the independence and credibility of the legislature and the judiciary – the very institutions which should be ensuring that the rule of law is upheld.

State-Owned Enterprises and corruption

Sri Lanka’s state-owned enterprises are a prime example of institutionalised corruption. In Advocata’s flagship report, the State of State Enterprises in Sri Lanka – 2019, the problem of corruption is a key issue tackled. In this report, corruption is explained through the perverse incentives that exist in the Sri Lankan bureaucracy. In the case of state-owned enterprises, as the money invested in state-owned enterprises is not of the politicians, there are no incentives for politicians to work towards making these enterprises efficient or productive. However, given the deep-rooted culture of patronage that exists in Sri Lanka, there is a strong incentive for politicians to use state-owned enterprises for their own gain. The lack of oversight or accountability means politicians can hire almost indiscriminately, giving out jobs for political gain. The reports from the Committee on Public Enterprise (COPE) make this abundantly clear, highlighting the numerous instances where recruitment had taken place without the appropriate approval from the Department of Management Services.

This problem is exacerbated by weak systems of accountability and governance. While the COPE and the Committee on Public Accounts (COPA) do play a role in the governance of state-owned enterprises, they have access to limited resources and equipment and are in need of specialised skills such as legal aid.

What is the solution?

If corruption is the abuse of public office for private gain, then in order to stop corruption, we should focus our attention on how and where this abuse happens. When the government moves outside its core mandate to protect life, liberty, and property, it grows in size and in scope, making the government difficult to monitor and hold accountable. Additionally, as a government grows in size, so does its spending. Changing a culture of corruption will take a great deal of political will and leadership, as well as buy-in from the bureaucracy. While accountability and transparency play an important role in countering corruption, the effects of this are seen in the long term. In the short term, focus should be on limiting the scope of the government and thereby drastically reducing government spending. A 10% cut of Rs. 3 million is significantly lower than a 10% cut of Rs. 300 million; reducing government spending is the fastest way to reduce corruption in quantitative terms. A reduction in government spending will also make transparency within the government easier to enforce, helping create a culture of accountability.

If we are to seriously tackle the problem of corruption in government, the role and scope of the government needs to be revisited and limited.