Nearing debt negotiation deal amid economic uncertainty

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Sri Lanka is hopeful that we can reach a debt negotiation before the first half of the year. Many are focused on the potential for reductions in principal and interest rates or extensions of debt maturities.

According to a recent update from the Ministry of Finance, we are yet to finalise a settlement with our bondholders, although we are close to an agreement. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the Sri Lankan Government’s proposal is about 9.7%, while the bondholders’ proposal is 11.51%. The total cash outflow according to the bondholder proposal for 2024-2028 is approximately $ 16.6 billion, compared to $ 14.7 billion for the Government’s proposal. Ideally, we should reach a settlement close to the Government’s proposal if all goes well.

Both the initial and revised proposals indicate that bondholders are reluctant to reduce the interest accrued during the suspension of debt repayments. In both proposals, there have been no haircuts on $ 1,678 million of accumulated interest. Only a 4% interest rate has been proposed for 2024-2028.

Bondholders have suggested a 28% reduction on existing bonds, reducing the total bond value from $ 12,550 million to $ 9,036 million. Both parties appreciate the depth of the haircut, particularly with respect to economic growth. These adjustments depend heavily on adhering to the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) baseline projections. If we fail to achieve the necessary growth rates, we will receive a deeper concession, and vice versa.

Achieving the best debt restructuring plan for Sri Lanka is crucial and our future hinges on economic growth. The debt level must be compared with the size and growth of the economy because only growth can ensure our ability to repay our debt. Our debt sustainability can only be secured through high growth rates, not solely through the debt relief offered by bondholders.

Economic and governance reforms are essential for growth. Notably, bondholders have proposed an innovative idea called Governance-Linked Bonds (GLB), where Sri Lanka would receive an additional benefit of 50 basis points on two selected bonds, each worth $ 800 million, if we implement two key governance reforms – one qualitative and one quantitative. The quantitative target is to reach a 14% tax-to-GDP ratio in 2026 and 14.1% in 2027.

A list of qualitative targets primarily focuses on publishing procurement contracts and tax exemptions, both of which are included in the IMF Staff-Level Agreement. However, the governance linked bonds, according to the proposal, would only apply to two bonds maturing in 2034 and 2035, each worth about $ 800 million.

While GLBs are an excellent idea, it is questionable whether the incentive is sufficient to encourage a strong governance programme. The savings from a 50 basis point cut in interest for $ 1,600 million would be about $ 80 million. Given that our accumulated interest is also about $ 1,600 million, there is a risk that governments could easily deviate.

Nevertheless, GLBs would send a strong signal to the market that the Sri Lankan administration is committed to governance reforms, which would enhance confidence in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka’s real challenge is avoiding a second debt restructuring. We can only achieve this by taking necessary steps and reforms to grow the economy, not solely relying on debt restructuring agreements.

Even if we secure a 30% haircut, our debt-to-GDP ratio in 2032 would still be approximately 95%. Over 50% of countries that have undergone a first debt restructuring have experienced a second. In Sri Lanka’s case, a second debt restructuring would be extremely painful for the population.

Moreover, our interest rates must remain high to meet the Government’s debt servicing requirements, attracting more funds. However, high interest rates discourage investment as people prefer to deposit their money in banks, leading to a low investment environment that could slow down growth. This slowdown would bring us back to the challenge of managing debt sustainability. This vicious cycle must be avoided.

Growth can only be achieved through improved productivity in a competitive environment, which arises when people are incentivised to perform. When the State dominates business and we try to manage everything independently, people do not become competitive.

Ultimately, growth is the only viable solution. Sadly, it is the only solution. Growth occurs when markets function effectively.

Beyond profit margins and scandals

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Blaming imports and importers has long been ingrained in Sri Lankan culture, often seen as a root cause of the country’s economic issues. This perspective not only overlooks the fact that many importers are also exporters, but also fails to recognise that imports and exports are fundamentally interconnected components of the global trade system.

Despite this, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all imports are conducted ethically or transparently. Recent scandals, such as the sugar scam, misinvoicing, bribery, and procedural irregularities at Customs, highlight the darker aspects of importation. However, casting imports in a universally negative light and fostering resentment based on ideological reasons could prove to be more harmful than beneficial.

Recent investigative reports have revealed staggering profits made by importers on essential commodities like green gram, B-onions, and potatoes. Some profit margins have been reported as high as 280% when comparing the Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) value to the market prices of these goods.

Before rushing to judgement on these profit margins, it is essential to delve deeper into the circumstances surrounding these imports. For example, the importation of green gram has been severely restricted since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, requiring special approval from the Ministry of Agriculture. As a result, the quantity of green gram imported in 2023 has been minimal.

Thus, comparing the CIF value at the port to market prices can be misleading, as it does not accurately reflect the profits made by importers. This situation raises questions about the high market prices for green gram, pointing to inefficiencies in local production rather than exorbitant profits by importers.

The scenario with undu, a staple food item, is similar. With a Rs. 300 import tariff, the market price for 1 kg of undu ranges between Rs. 1,500-1,700. This high cost is partly because importers cannot bring in undu without approval from the Ministry of Agriculture, despite the imposition of tariffs.

Allowing imports could potentially reduce the price of undu to around Rs. 700 per kg, even after tariffs. The restriction on undu imports exacerbates price inflation, making it unaffordable for many, particularly those in estate regions and the northeast, leading to food insecurity among vulnerable populations.

During the recent economic crisis and the consequent shortage of foreign exchange, many imports were facilitated through informal payment channels and ‘open papers’ in undiyal markets. This practice, aimed at evading high tariffs and taxes through under-invoicing, underscores the complexity of Sri Lanka’s tariff structure and the urgent need for its simplification.

The report by the Ways and Means Committee suggests that focusing solely on the cost of goods at the port does not provide a complete picture of the import value, especially considering the prevalence of informal payments. This approach to calculating profits, based solely on declared document values, overlooks additional costs borne by importers, thus distorting the perception of their profit margins.

Moreover, the perishability of essential food items, along with the significant costs associated with storage, wastage, and the impact of rising fuel and electricity prices, further complicates the economic landscape. These factors, combined with high inflation rates, have significantly influenced the cost structure of both the wholesale and retail markets, affecting pricing and profit margins.

The impact of export controls on certain commodities, such as B-onions by India, has also played a role in inflating global prices, illustrating the complex interplay of international trade policies and local market dynamics.

This situation underscores the phenomenon of unintended consequences in economic policy, where well-intentioned policies can lead to outcomes that are diametrically opposed to their original goals. Sri Lanka’s intricate tariff structure and monetary instability have inadvertently encouraged informal payment methods on one hand and escalated costs on the other, placing the poorest members of society in an increasingly precarious position.

While it is undeniable that practices like misinvoicing represent clear violations of the law and must be addressed through appropriate legal channels, attributing the entirety of Sri Lanka’s economic challenges to importers overlooks the broader systemic issues at play. Simplifying the tariff structure, as this column has long advocated, could lead to increased Government revenue and minimise systemic leakages, offering a more sustainable solution to the economic challenges faced by importers and consumers alike.

In conclusion, while illicit practices within the import sector must be rigorously tackled, the solution to Sri Lanka’s economic dilemmas lies not in vilifying importers but in addressing the complex policy and structural issues that underpin the nation’s trade dynamics. A comprehensive approach, focusing on policy reform, tariff simplification, and enhancing local production efficiencies, is essential for creating a more stable and equitable economic environment.

The dangers of the Online Safety Bill

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The Online Safety Bill is scheduled to be taken up for debate at its second reading in Parliament on 23 and 24 January. Unfortunately, this bill is going to make our current economic situation a bit more difficult in the short run and as well as the long run.  

The Asia Internet Coalition (AIC), where tech platform giants such as Google, Meta, and Amazon are partners, twice brought up the danger this bill could pose to the digital economy.  

Economy is beyond just supply and demand of rupees and cents. Economies are mainly the ideas that solve a problem of fellow humans and an exchange of those products and services with scarcity of resources. 

Problem-solving for humans comes with the freedom to think and with freedom of speech and dissemination of information. All attempts to restrict our freedom of expression, speech, and dissemination of information will backfire on the country and the economy. 

Sadly, the Online Safety Bill seems to be doing just that.

Self-censorship kills ideas for prosperity 

The bill has left significant room for vagueness in many clauses and definitions. According to the proposed bill, the commission appointed by the Constitutional Council has the powers to determine whether some facts are true or false and take follow-up actions. 

One example to showcase the impractical nature of this approach is the case of the Government decision on cremation of Covid-infected bodies, claiming that viruses could leak into the waterbed and cause contamination. This decision was highly debated on social media platforms and even scientists were divided on the decision. 

So if someone complains based on the Online Safety Bill, how does the committee decide on what is true and what is untrue when even scientists are unsure? Later the Government withdrew its decision and changed its initial stance. What was perceived as truth at one point was proved to be wrong at another point. What could have been the outcome if the Online Safety Bill had been enacted by then and if legal proceedings had been taken forward for those who commented for and against cremation of Covid deaths?

Looking at lessons from history, Galileo was killed for bringing an alternative view of the perceived truth on the shelving of the solar system. This act in this form takes us back to the repression faced by Galileo. It is severely problematic when the arbiter of ‘truths’ of fringe politics can also hand out punishments.

Generally when there is uncertainty, for their own safety, people engage in self-censorship. Self-censorship restricts the flow of ideas and minimises the ability of the economy to solve the problem. 

Let’s imagine that the Online Safety Bill had been enacted before 2021. During that time many analysts and economists on all social media platforms warned the Central Bank that excessive money printing could lead to inflation. The Central Bank was of the view that there was no relationship between money printing and inflation. So if the Central Bank complained to the Online Safety Commision on the opinions on the matter, most of the economists would have been punished by the bill by the time inflation was hitting 72%.

If the Central Bank says inflation has no relationship to money supply, there would have been no other way the commission could establish what was true or what was false at that point of time. The other possibility is that most of the economists would have self-censored knowing the repercussions of the bill, which could have caused greater harm to society.

If this bill creates a culture of self-censorship, our ability to hold the State accountable, ability to innovate, and ability to create would be quenched, leading to a stagnant economy. 

Impact on SMEs

The business models of tech giants are very cost effective. They do not have offices in every country, nor staff to monitor all content. Most of that is done through algorithms. They regulate harmful content through technology (algorithms) and very strict community guidelines are adhered to.

Anyone can read how comprehensive the guidelines of these tech platforms are on safety and trust and how effective they are on responding to these platforms’ community guidelines. Tech firms have refined algorithms to an extent that not a single photo falling under nudity can be found as the algorithm restricts them automatically. In that sense the tech companies have done a fantastic job compared to what a government tries to do with a bill in a market-based system.

Platforms such as TikTok are not only concerned about human rights but also about human safety, where drone shots with a risk of accidents are eliminated due to very high community standards.

If the Online Safety Bill becomes too much of a burden for these tech companies, with a response time of 24 hours for inquiries by the commision as per the bill, they will tune their algorithms to be very strict, which will have an impact on SME businesses run on social media. Simply, the competitors can complain on certain pages featuring products with various claims and pose an unnecessary burden to SMEs. 

Our tourism industry, where we have a long-tail SME sector, especially uses these platforms for room reservations. The reviews coming in the form of discrimination will fall under this and the booking sites will also fall under that purview, so they are likely to react to the online safety regulation, which will have an impact on our dollar-earning tourism industry.

The AIC has already twice highlighted its displeasure in diplomatic language, claiming as follows in a statement: “The proposed legislation, in its present form, poses significant challenges that, if not addressed comprehensively, could undermine the potential growth of Sri Lanka’s digital economy.”

Wrong signals to markets 

The Online Safety Bill also provides wrong signals to the market, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and our creditors. The IMF has provided a governance diagnostic where many other pieces of legislation, including the SOE Holding Company Act and Procurement Law, are among the top 16 priorities. Sadly our Government has brought a bill on Online Safety Bill, for which no stakeholder group which assisted Sri Lanka during the economic crisis has shown any interest other than highlighting its problematic nature, which ultimately impacts economic growth. 

Since actions speak louder than words, this will provide the wrong messaging to our creditors, bilateral and multilateral partners, and investors that our Government’s priority is not the economic crisis.

From the point of view of the investor, this will also have a serious impact on attracting FDI and key players with the potential to transform our economy. For instance, one company which has shown interest in investing in Government shares of Sri Lanka Telecom is Jio, where a majority share is with Reliance Group in India. Meta, Google, Intel, and the Saudi Arabia Wealth Fund are a few other strategic partners and shareholders of Jio. Can we expect a tech company to provide a positive referral to its main shareholder in an investment decision when its own platforms are under risk through an Online Safety Bill in Sri Lanka?

This bill is beyond repair and just plastering over its shortcomings will not make it any better. If this goes through Parliament, the risks on freedom and signalling for investors will be quite negative. Importantly, in an environment where freedom does not prevail, economic growth and prosperity will fail drastically. The only solution left for this bill is to repeal it.

Non-negotiable reforms for election manifestos

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The year 2024 will be an election year. The general flow of events is that each political party and candidate will launch a manifesto of a grand-scale and present their plans for the people and the country. Most of these promises will not be implemented or will only be half implemented. In certain cases, the opposite of what was promised will be implemented. 

Most manifestos are presented in general terms with a target of 20 years ahead with little data. Many manifestos across all party lines are wish lists with no action plans.

In my view, this time there is a slight difference. 

Regardless of the party formation or whoever the presidential candidate will be, there are few reforms that are non-negotiable. Ideally, across all manifestos, there are five basic ideas which have to be the common denominator.

Strengthening social safety nets 

Following the worst economic crisis in Sri Lanka’s history and high inflation, about four million people have fallen below the poverty line. That puts seven million people under poverty. The recent Household Income and Expenditure Survey carried out by LIRNEasia and the World Bank indicates significant poverty levels and aftereffects of poverty due to the economic crisis. As a conscientious society, we need to take care of our poor people with the social safety net. 

The social safety net is not just an allowance. It is a system and a process of targeting the right people, providing an exit route, and with proper administration. The current Aswesuma programme is making some progress with World Bank assistance, but regardless of the political leader who comes to power, it is a non-negotiable condition that social safety nets have to be strengthened and improved. 

The current process has too many loopholes which have to be addressed and improved. Simplifying the process, providing the exit route, and monitoring and depoliticising has to be a continuous effort from the new leadership of the country.

SOE reforms 

Thus far, mandatory SOE reforms have been painfully slow. Many parties with vested interests are trying to delay it until the election. However, the continuation of SOE reforms is a must. 

Colossal losses, interference in the private sector, intervening in markets, creating an unfair playing field, and inefficiencies are a few reasons why SOEs played a pivotal role in Sri Lanka’s economic crisis. SOEs are vehicles of corruption and have diluted entrepreneurship and Foreign Direct Investments significantly. Without reforming SOEs, the future of Sri Lanka appears to be bleak. 

The principles announced by the SOE Restructuring Unit are in the right direction, but the SOE Act and reforms of the Ceylon Electricity Board, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and many other networking industries are a must. 

Anti-corruption and governance reforms

Execution of anti-corruption laws and governance reforms is another area which has no room for negotiation. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) Governance Diagnostic and many other locally-developed reports on governance provide direction on what needs to be done. 

Strengthening our Judiciary system, transparency and accountability in our tax system, removing tax exemptions, and repealing the Special Commodity Levy and the Strategic Development Act too falls under governance and anti-corruption reforms, as those acts provide the legal opportunity for corruption. 

There is a strong sentiment from people on the contribution of corruption to the crisis, so taking long-term measures regarding corruption is a must. Anti-corruption and governance reforms go beyond going after corrupt politicians. Rather, it is a system and framework for minimising government influence. Some reforms are complementary and reforming SOEs is also a key component of anti-corruption and governance reforms, as these SOEs play a vital role in corruption.

Following the IMF programme and debt restructuring 

Given the international financial architecture, we have no option other than sticking to the IMF programme. We can negotiate some of the actions that we have promised, but overall indicative targets and reforms have to be maintained. Otherwise, it will be yet another incomplete IMF programme and the debt restructuring process will be in jeopardy. 

Debt restructuring and the continuation of the IMF programme are very much interconnected. At the moment, external stakeholders are concerned about political instability and in fact, the IMF’s first review identifies the political risks for the continuation of the IMF programme. A commitment from any political leader on sticking to the programme will help Sri Lanka in rebuilding relationships with the world.  

Trade reforms and joining global supply chains 

We have to grow our economy to emerge from this crisis. Tax revisions make it likely that growth will slow down and the only solution to grow small island nations like Sri Lanka is through global trade. Our problems regarding global trade are mainly the problems in our own regulations and systems. 

We have to remove our para-tariffs and simplify the tariff structure for a few tariff lines. Not only will this help trade, but consumers will also have a greater choice of goods and services as well as competitive prices. 

On the other hand, the Government can improve the revenue from Customs since at the moment, the high tariffs are a main reason for revenue leakage in the form of corruption. Trade reforms are about growth, minimising corruption, encouraging exports, and assuring reasonable prices. Even at present, after very high taxes, there are levies such as the Special Commodity Levy, Ports and Airports Development Levy, and a huge array of taxes which hinder the competitive nature of our economy.

These five policies, in my view, are non-negotiable. If any administration deviates from them, it is very likely that we will fall back a few miles behind where we started. 

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)

VAT: The good, the bad and the solutions

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The Value Added Tax (VAT) increase from 15% to 18% and the removal of about 95 items from the VAT exempted list to a VAT applicable list has raised concern among politicians and people alike. 

When taxes change too often, public confusion and erosion of tax revenue both have to be expected. VAT was once 8% in Sri Lanka and then revised to 12%. It was again increased to 15% and finally now to 18%. The VAT threshold was once at Rs. 12 million and later increased to Rs. 300 million. Currently it is at Rs. 80 million and expected to be reduced to Rs. 60 million. 

When the VAT threshold was increased to Rs. 300 million from Rs. 12 million, the number of individuals registered for VAT dropped to 8,000 from 28,000. Our policymakers are discussing expanding the tax base after diluting our tax base through our own inconsistent policies. 

One of the key principles of taxation is stability, according to the Tax Foundation. The other principles are simplicity, transparency, and neutrality. When tax rates and thresholds are changed often, thIMFe markets and individuals react and tax revenue will erode. 

A complicated context 

Sri Lanka’s context is sadly more complicated than many other cases. We have given a commitment to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on increasing our tax revenue because our interest costs are extremely high. Most of the interest is inherited due to bad financial management over the years and there is very little meaning in blaming each other. 

On one hand, the Government has no other option but to increase revenue through taxation. However, on the other hand, when taxes are increased the economy will contract. Growth, which is also a key requirement for us to emerge from the crisis, will be affected due to the lowered purchasing power of the people. When the economy contracts, tax revenue will also start to decline.  

Given the perennial weaknesses in our tax administration, the Government has selected the most convenient option of VAT to be increased, since it can be collected easily compared to other taxes. VAT is considered to be better compared to other taxes such as the Nation Building TAX (NBT) or the Social Security Levy (SSL), which are considered to be cascading taxes, where throughout the economic process one tax is applied on top of the other. 

This leads to a situation where the effective tax rate becomes very high, but with VAT, tax will only be applicable for the value added throughout the supply chain. Also, high income earners generally contribute a higher VAT in total as VAT is a consumption tax. People with higher incomes tend to consume more, so the more they spend, the more taxes the Government can recoup. 

The negative impact of VAT can be witnessed when it is applied to food items. The poorest of society gets adversely impacted, since their percentage of expenditure on food is very high compared to people who fall into higher income brackets. 

There will be considerable impact on the overall prices for the common people with the new VAT revisions. The price of petrol and diesel is expected to increase by about Rs. 50-60 (provided the other taxes are not changed and global fuel prices remain the same). LP Gas (12.5 kg cylinder) will increase by about Rs. 500-600. 

Prices of solar panels, electronic items, laptops, and mobile phones are expected to rise. This will also have an impact on inflation as well, but we need to keep in mind that inflation is always a monetary phenomenon. With high prices, people may consider cheaper alternatives and supply and demand will readjust, provided we keep our monetary policy right. 

Solutions 

A key solution to bringing down prices of food items is to remove the Special Commodity Levy (SCL) applied to these items. The SCL not only increases prices, but the provisions provided to the minister to impose and remove the SCL overnight opens significant room for corruption. The recent increase of the SCL on sugar to Rs. 50 from 25 cents is a good example of how an overnight gazette creates room for corruption and passes the burden to the people. 

Other taxes on food items including CESS, Ports and Airport Development Levy (PAL), and many other para-tariffs should be removed. There is a myth that productivity can be improved by imposing tariffs on domestic food items. If that is the case, our industries for milk, yoghurt, cheese, and many other food items have to be extremely productive and efficient. Instead of domestic product growth, we see the same producers ask the Government for further protection. 

Tax competitiveness as a framework 

 Moving forward, Sri Lanka has to look at tax competitiveness as a framework for thinking about taxes. In the global context, everything is about competitiveness, including the tax system. As an example, if corporate tax is 25% in competing markets in the region, we cannot increase the corporate tax to 30%, only considering the revenue requirement of the Government. 

At the same time, we cannot compromise our healthcare and education systems, which help to develop better skills through taxpayer money, by bringing taxes unnecessarily down and compromising our tax revenue. In a market system, competition and prices play a key role, and the same is applicable for taxes, FDIs, and many other variables. 

We have to first take the basic steps of improving tax administration. We then have to rationalise our expenditure and spend where we need to spend, thereafter raising revenue by being competitive. A VAT increase to increase Government revenue alone will not solve our macro instability. We have to ensure macro stability by being competitive in all aspects of the economy.  

Looming political and economic challenges ahead of elections

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

“We know what should be done to get the country on the right track, but we don’t know how to get power back after implementing the policies.” This is a popular statement I hear often when I meet quite a few politicians. The truth is that politicians do not know how to get back power because it’s not an attractive solution.

The popular policies that bring politicians into power are the very same that inspire their ousting at the very next election cycle. People hardly object to good policies unless the same politicians instigate false propaganda. The Right to Information (RTI) Act was just one such instance.

As an election is due next year, it is vital to understand and remember our priorities, otherwise our politicians are likely to take a wrong turn and pass the buck back to the people.

In an election year, the behaviour of any political party is to completely abandon rational economic reforms and play to populist narratives that result in outcomes that are the complete opposite, with the motive of coming to power.

Bringing down fuel prices and announcing other types of subsidies are common tactics. This is harmful, especially when those benefits cannot be financed sustainably, or in some situations, brought into life in the first place.

Even if it does not retain power, the newly-elected government will have a tough time preventing plans that have already been put in place and enacting better policies.

Political risk

In the current context, we run a very high risk of our politicians bringing us back to square one; i.e. another economic crisis. This, given the fact that 2024 is set to be an election year, is a recipe for disaster.

All political parties will shift their focus to slowly becoming more populist rather than being driven by objectivity. Therefore, the real risk is going back to another debt restructuring if we fail to grow the economy and our exports.

There are many politicians who do not understand the gravity of the need for reforms. Regardless of which party or coalition comes to power, there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

The process is more or less the same as handing over a house with structural issues from one tenant (government) to the other. The new tenant cannot function because neither the previous tenant nor the owner (people) is willing to fix the fundamental problems.

Risk of a second debt default

Given the unstable political environment coupled with a country already going through debt restructuring, the risks of a second debt default are astronomically high. As we are still struggling with finalising the first debt restructuring, adding a second one into the mix will leave us in dire straits.

The second one will undoubtedly be harder, especially given the significant increase in interest rates and being unable to print money with the new Central Bank Act. If we fail to raise money through markets in order to roll over debt and if we are not open to increasing interest rates, the only option we will be left with is to default again. At that point, most likely there will be pressure once again to amend the newly-enacted Central Bank Act to allow money printing.

Of course, that would be an inflationary measure and we will be back at square one with a balance of payments crisis, debt crisis, humanitarian crisis, and likely a banking crisis too.

Solutions: A common minimum programme for reforms

Reforms are easier in the first 100 days of any government. If we fail to enact reforms within the first 100 days, more often than not, no reforms will take place. Failing to undertake reforms in 100 days means a cost of a five-year delay plus many bad policy decisions in the middle, which are costly and difficult to reverse.

Ideally, if key political parties come to an agreement before an election on selected reforms and execute them regardless of who comes into power, it will at least ensure some stability for Sri Lanka. There are many ideas that all political parties have in common.

Regarding State-Owned Enterprise reforms, there is no political party that says the Government should run an airline. Even National People’s Power Economic Advisor Dr. Anil Jayantha, in an interview with Advocata, noted that they did not believe the Government should do any business with hotels.

Accordingly, there are many other similar areas where we can arrive at an agreement with little difficulty. Therefore, regardless of who wins elections, people can win and sustain some of the economic reforms.

The truth is that reforms are inevitable if Sri Lanka needs to move forward and for any political party to sustain its power. Implementing bad policies, especially considering the status of our country, will make it very difficult to sustain power, because then we will be setting the standard for a new normal in economics and politics.

Fiscal path amidst promises and uncertainties

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Starting from the second week of November, every minute in Parliament will be focused on the national Budget. Fortunately or unfortunately, many of the promises outlined in the Budget are unlikely to be implemented or fulfilled.

At the same time, items that are not in the Budget may be implemented midway through the year, based on the direction of the wind. Things are especially likely to take a completely different turn in an election year.

A key criticism against this Budget is that the revenue proposals to cover up the expenditure proposals are not adequately mentioned. A revenue of Rs. 4,100 billion is expected for an expenditure of Rs. 6,900 billion. It’s akin to wanting to spend Rs. 69 while only having Rs. 41 in hand. The challenge is that we are uncertain as to how we will earn even Rs. 41.

An earlier proposal to increase VAT by 3% and remove the exemptions on VAT can be seen as a measure to increase revenue. There are a few proposals to increase the tax base, which is a step in the right direction, such as the requirement of a Tax Identification Number (TIN) for opening a current account, obtaining a building licence, and for revenue licences for vehicles.

The question that arises is what would happen if we fail to generate even the expected revenue and I think there are three scenarios that can occur if we fail to achieve the revenue targets in the middle of the year.

Scenario 1: Cutting down on capital expenditure

Approximately Rs. 1,200 billion has been allocated for capital expenditure in the 2024 Budget. This includes some proposals such as a new airport and building a few universities. So we will likely have to rechannel some of the capital expenditure to recurrent expenditure if we fail to generate revenue.

What is important to note is that, compared to last year, capital expenditure makes up a lower percentage of total expenditure. So in a context of starting with an already lower capital expenditure base, cutting capital expenditure from key areas of growth such as health or education further will maim our growth in the long run.

Slower growth is also not favourable for Sri Lanka because the need of the moment is growth. Only growth will increase our tax revenue and create more employment opportunities and business opportunities.

Scenario 2: High inflation

The second scenario would be the Government exploring the opportunity to get finances from the Central Bank to bridge the deficit. With the new Central Bank Act, the space for doing this is very low, but if past experiences hold true, anything is possible. There is a transition period of about 18 months and we should not underestimate the crafty nature of our politicians to find legal loopholes.

If the Budget deficit is being financed through the Central Bank (money printing), further increases in cost of living and high inflation are unavoidable. It will also drain our forex reserves and build additional pressure on our currency and likely end up with a currency depreciation after a few months’ cycle: a cycle not so distant in memory.

The Central Bank financing this Budget deficit will also challenge the sustainability of the IMF programme. As the next year is an election year, politicians will mainly think about the elections before the economy, despite promises made. While the new Central Bank Act tries to stop this from taking place, the possibility cannot be ruled out fully.

Scenario 3: Hike in interest rates

The third scenario is where the Government borrows money from the market to bridge the gap and allow interest rates to move. This will not cause inflation as the Budget deficit is not being financed through the Central Bank, but the cost of money will go up (interest rates moving up).

When the cost of money goes up, growth will contract. When this happens, businesses start winding-up operations and expansions become difficult. Also, banks will lend more money to the Government at higher interest rates, slowing down credit for the private sector.

When the economy slows down there may be an impact on the tax revenue on one side. On the other side, with limited growth, achieving debt sustainability will be challenging.

Solution

In order to prevent these scenarios from taking place, it is imperative that we reduce wasteful expenditure. The key solution is to focus on reforming State-Owned Enterprises (SOE). SOE reforms can increase revenue, cut down expenditure, bring down our debt, and attract foreign investments.

The bank recapitalisation of Rs. 450 billion, mentioned in the Budget, is due to the debt owed by two SOEs that have losses which amount to Rs. 1,800 billion. The taxpayer is now expected to pay the bill. It amounts to about Rs. 20,000 per citizen from taxpayer money for bank recapitalisation. That is a staggering Rs. 80,000 per household of four members.

Boosting tourism is also another option. While there is a fund for tourism promotions which has to be utilised well for building our brand image, it will all be in vain if we do not do things as simple as removing regulatory barriers to tourism.

The final bird in our hand as a solution is the Colombo Port City. We have to accelerate the process and attract investments.

If we play our cards right, we can at least move a step ahead in 2024.

Price controls are not the way to bring down the price of chicken

By Pravena Yogendra

Originally appeared on Newswire, Lanka Business Online, the Morning and Daily News

Most HoReCa channels in Sri Lanka sell a packet of chicken rice and curry at a higher price than a comparative packet of fish rice and curry. The price of a portion of chicken rice and curry is ~30% more than that of a portion of fish rice and curry. This differential has remained over time, as this existed in the pre-crisis environment as well, albeit at low prices.

Is this because of a difference in production costs or due to undue policy intervention by the government?

Sri Lanka has a long history of implementing price controls dating back to the 1970s. In recent years, the government has implemented price controls on various essential goods, including food, fuel, and pharmaceuticals. While the resulting lower prices may have been popular among consumers, they have had significant unintended consequences on the economy.

Such price controls create distortions in the marketplace by interfering with the pricing mechanism, thereby preventing resources from being allocated efficiently. The government’s current effort to control the retail price of chicken is a case in point.

Chicken and eggs are the most affordable and culturally accepted meat source in Sri Lanka. The domestic poultry industry produces 240,000 MT of chicken per year, with current per capita consumption standing at 10.8 kg. 

The recent economic events, such as the forex shortage and the ban on chemical fertilizers, led to a series of events that artificially inflated chicken prices, making them expensive for regular consumption. As a result, the state felt the need to intervene by controlling the price of broiler chicken.  

However, these price controls have only been imposed on the organized/ formal market. Industry specialists classify the domestic chicken market into the formal/ organized market, which accounts for 60% of the market, and the informal/ wet market, accounting for the remaining 40%. Branded broiler chicken producers cater to the organized market, and small and medium-scale poultry farmers cater to the wet market.

The formal market comprises highly productive tax-paying private-sector poultry operators whose products are on par with international quality, health, and safety standards, presenting an excellent opportunity to expand into export markets. This is proven by the fact that these poultry operators supply to sectors that insist on high-quality standards, such as multinational hotels and restaurants operating domestically and abroad.

However, the pricing restrictions imposed on these more productive players have created a situation where the producers cannot pass on their increased production costs to consumers, resulting in them facing compressed profit margins. The short-term implication would be a lower placement of chicks, resulting in a contraction in production, leading to shortages in the market. The medium to long-term significance would be a decline in investments channeled into capacity expansion, which also reduces innovation and technological progress.  

 It is also important to note that since the wet market players form the larger part of the industry, they are the price setters; and the branded players must follow suit to maintain demand for their products. Wet market chicken prices are mainly determined by the price and availability of other protein substitutes. 

Taxation significantly impacts the retail price of chicken while the burden on fish is lower. Fish is VAT exempt. The major source of costs is labour and entrepreneurship with inputs such as fuel (kerosene) having low tax incidence. In comparison, chicken is subject to VAT, with most producers lying above the VAT threshold of LKR 80Mn. The major cost is the cost of feed which is subject to VAT. It is estimated that both direct and indirect taxes account for 19.6% of the retail price of chicken. The tax treatment between the two alternatives significantly impacts relative prices, disadvantaging chicken over fish. This non-equitable VAT treatment of the two substitutes is expected to be further exacerbated in January 2024 as VAT rates are set to increase by 3% to 18%. 

Although the state is focusing on controlling the final retail price of chicken, the real issue lies in inflated input costs. Poultry producer’s input costs have escalated due to the depreciation of the rupee, higher staff costs, and higher admin costs. However, manufacturers' main point of contention has been the feed cost.

Maize is the largest component of poultry feed, accounting for ~60% of weight and 45% of feed cost. Although nutritionists discovered that rice can be used as a 1 for 1 substitute for maize, its utilization for purposes other than human consumption remains highly regulated, resulting in minimal availability

Domestic maize prices are currently at abnormally high levels as maize production is still reeling from the after-effects of the fertilizer crisis.

Sri Lanka's annual maize requirement is ~500,000 MT, of which ~300,000 MT are produced domestically. Roughly ~210,000 MT are cultivated during the primary Maha season and another ~90,000 MT during the secondary Yala season. The yield on maize cultivation by smallholders is currently 1.5 tons per acre. However, industry experts believe that a yield of 2.5 tons per acre can be achieved if correct farming practices are deployed. A kg of maize currently retails at ~LKR 160. Pre-crisis, it used to retail at LKR 45.

Industry practitioners believe that several efforts can be undertaken to improve the productivity of domestic maize cultivation, thereby bringing costs down. A higher yield can be achieved if proper agricultural land is utilized. Currently, maize farming is conducted on encroached forest land. Due to red tape, the 17,000 hectares allocated by the Mahaweli scheme for agriculture remain largely unutilized.

Farmers can also yield more if maize fields are irrigated instead of rainfed. Experts also believe that the right farming practices are not undertaken as proper soil analysis and spraying are not performed.

Currently, maize can be imported from Pakistan at USD 250-260 per tonne, which works out to LKR 110 per kg, including a special commodity levy of LKR 25. The SCL is a contentious tax and was even highlighted in the recently issued IMF technical assistance report, citing corruption. 

The SCL is a seasonal, quantity tax imposed on certain essential commodities as a composite tax in lieu of other prevailing levies such as customs duty, VAT, EDB, CESS, Excise duty, PAL, and NBT. The SCL has come under fire as it is subjective and arbitrary, imposed at the discretion of the finance minister, creating uncertainty among industry stakeholders.

In the case of maize, seeds imported for the purpose of animal feed production have been subjected to SCL during lean production periods, to facilitate imports. When the SCL is not in effect, a general duty of 20%, CESS of 30%, VAT of 15%, and SSCL of 2.5% are imposed at the border. 

Therefore, not only does the SCL drive up the cost of chicken, but it also creates uncertainty due to the unpredictability and subjective nature of the tax

Maize continues to remain a controlled import that can only be imported by license holders. Licenses to import maize are issued by the import controller based on recommendations issued by the agricultural minister, who issues said recommendations based on his view of the industry’s maize requirement. 

Sri Lanka's organized players are second to none in the poultry breeding process- they have adopted international quality standards regarding feed conversion ratio, mortality rates, farm productivity, etc., putting them on par with foreign players. In addition to being highly efficient, the industry also contains sufficient productive capacity to be self-sufficient, thereby rendering the case for importation redundant.

The industry also maintains biosecurity standards and adheres to industry and farming best practice to ensure healthy, safe, and high-quality output that match the quality and certifications required by export markets. 

The government should step back from intervening in the market for both maize and broiler and allow the magic of the hidden hand to do the heavy lifting. Not only will this lead to more stable prices, but competition will drive further innovation and productivity improvements, leading to more production and lower prices.

Navigating salary hikes amid the storm of inflation

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Sri Lanka is currently going through a difficult period and this extends to Government sector employees as well. In light of these difficulties, there have been recent discussions centred around the possibility of a salary hike of Rs. 20,000 for Government sector employees in the upcoming Budget. While a salary increment is desirable, a more effective policy-level alternative could be maintaining a low inflation rate, which is more than equivalent to a salary increment across the board. 

The call for salary increments in the Government sector intensified following last year’s inflation, which exceeded 70%. Private sector salaries are just now adjusting to the new economic landscape. Inflation is a significantly more severe and burdensome tax on people, and unfortunately, we have been experiencing its effects over the last year or so.

Government employees are undeniably facing a challenging period, but it’s crucial not to overlook the fundamental cause of the high cost of living. The current cost of living crisis is the direct result of carrying out excessive money printing, as endorsed by the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

If the salaries of Government sector workers are increased by Rs. 20,000, a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that it will cost the Government an additional Rs. 360 billion (1.5 million Government employees x Rs. 20,0000 (increment) x 12 (months) = Rs. 360 billion). 

For the year 2023, the expected Government revenue from PAYE Tax is approximately Rs. 100 billion following the tax revision. Notably, the salary increment alone requires more than three times the amount of tax collected through PAYE Tax.

In 2022, the collection of VAT amounted to Rs. 464 billion. This proposed Government sector pay increase would equal more than 75% of the total VAT collection. Even with a more modest increment of Rs. 10,000, it would still be 1.5 times the PAYE Tax collection and one-third of VAT collection. 

An alternative approach to financing this salary increase is to borrow from the Central Bank. Since the new Central Bank Act imposes significant restrictions on borrowing, it is not entirely impossible, especially during the transition period. 

If the Government opts to borrow from the Central Bank to cover additional expenditure while artificially keeping interest rates low, a second round of high inflation becomes almost inevitable. On the other hand, if the Government borrows at market rates, it would result in an increase in interest rates, potentially slowing down economic growth and creating challenges for businesses. 

If the Government intends to pursue this path, it is advisable to let interest rates fluctuate rather than resorting to money printing and keeping interest rates artificially low. This is because, in the aftermath of a high inflation cycle, there was an inevitable need to raise interest rates to curb inflation. 

On the other hand, we need to keep in mind that the last inflation cycle pushed four million Sri Lankans below the poverty line, bringing the total number of people in poverty to seven million. This has forced many to reduce the number of meals or the size of their meals. The latest reports indicate a rise in malnutrition levels, particularly among infants. 

Given the limited resources, the Government should prioritise assistance for the truly vulnerable and allocate the limited resources to social safety nets. For the last two months, the new Aswesuma programme has faced delays in cash distribution due to various political and logistical challenges. By continuing to not prioritise social safety nets, the Government is inviting instability at the grassroots level. 

International partners and donor agencies have generously supported the establishment of these social safety nets by providing foreign exchange. Delaying and complicating the process may result in the perception that addressing the issue is of lower priority, potentially reducing the willingness of stakeholders to contribute further.

According to the Appropriation Bill tabled in Parliament, total Government expenditure is expected to exceed Rs. 6 trillion for the first time in history. A substantial portion, over Rs. 2.5 trillion, accounts for interest expense on loans. There is limited room for new expenditure items as we are already on an IMF programme and any deviations could have a direct impact on debt restructuring. 

High inflation, though currently low, has lasting negative effects from the previous year. This cost of living crisis, affecting all citizens, particularly hits those below the poverty line. Some of the potential solutions may be challenging and carry potential risks, so the Government must exercise caution in implementation to avoid exacerbating problems.

Understanding corruption: How Sri Lanka’s economic system favours a select few

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Dr. Sharmini Cooray, one of the Advisors to the Sri Lankan Government regarding the IMF, at the 73rd Oration at the Central Bank made an interesting comment, “Lots of Sri Lankans say nothing works in Sri Lanka. That’s not true. Things work well for a small group of people”. 

Unfortunately Sri Lankans do not understand how things are set up to work for a small group of people. The common narrative is that corrupt individuals created the system we are in today, but the stark reality is that the economic system has been set up in a way to incentivise corruption for individuals. Misdirected anger is then projected on individuals forgetting that the system itself creates the corrupt individuals. This is not to say that the individuals are completely absolved of responsibility, a part of the responsibility is on the individual, yet without fixing the system we cannot fix individuals. 

Below are a few examples of how the current system works for corruption.

Last week the President as the Minister of Finance issued a Gazette notification to increase the Special Commodity Levy (SCL) from Rs.0.25 (25 cents) per Kg to Rs.50 per Kg overnight. The problem here is twofold; it creates the possibility for corruption that incurs a cost to the consumer but also ensures that the government loses tax revenue. 

Information symmetry

Information symmetry or availability of information for all players in the market is very important. As the finance minister increases the tariff by almost 5000% if one importer gets to know of this decision before it is enacted he can easily import adequate stocks for about a year early at Rs. 25 cents per Kg before the festive season. The other players' prices now simply become uncompetitive because their 1Kg of sugar has to be at least higher than Rs. 49, given the tariff rate imposed overnight. As a result the small and medium sugar importers will be wiped out of  the market as they simply cannot compete where one or few players have already imported enough stocks at 25 cents tariff and now the rest have to import at Rs.50 per Kg tariff rate. That is how things are made to work only for a small group of people. One of the main criticisms for the Gotabhaya Rajapaksa Government was that the sugar scam was done in a similar manner. 

Most importantly the tariff increase on sugar will not generate revenue for the government because adequate sugar has been already imported. After about a year it is just a matter of another gazette notification to the finance minister to bring the tariff back to 25 cents and claiming that the relief has been provided to the betterment of the poor people. So ultimately a selected group of people are just getting benefited with the support of the politicians. The truth is the loss tariff revenue will be collected from the poverty stricken by increasing the indirect taxes such as VAT.  

This is one reason this column constantly highlighted the need for keeping a simple tariff structure with menial deviations among HS codes as well as over a period of time. This is just one way of how things are only getting worked out for a selected group of people. 

As a result the public builds a bad perception with a misunderstanding of markets that all businesses are run on the same operating system. The truth is the system affects other businesses very badly because of not having a level playing field. 

The solution is to change regulation where any tariff lines cannot be imposed just by the minister of finance. It ideally has to go through parliament and keep the tariffs on HS codes simple and consistent. The more we keep it complicated the more we incentivise corruption. 

The need for a competitive system has to be institutionalized. The best governance system is making sure competitiveness remains stable. We can only do that by removing laws empowering policy makers that further information asymmetry and provide more power to the people so the market system continues. 

Tax shenanigans 

Not only have we  increased SCL by 5000%, our VAT has also been increased by 3%. When we observe the VAT rate changes, the threshold changes over the last 5 years is very concerning. By doing so we have violated the tax principle of “Stability” by changing things often. When we make one mistake at the beginning, retroactively correcting it is not easy. The VAT increase may have come to compensate for the 20,000 salary hike for the 1.5 million government employees. To make things politically digestible, an attempt may be to increase the VAT before the budget as a press release and announce a big salary increase for government employees as victory. On top of it there vehicle permits and so many perks are the system of how things are making well for a small group of people.  

The simple truth is to make governance work, we have to make market works. Governance is the system of making markets work and making a level playing field. The moment we deviate from markets there is no way we can keep the governance going.  

Can Sri Lanka’s Economic Revival Weather the Storm of a 2024 Election?

By Rehana Thowfeek

Originally appeared on Groundviews

Photo courtesy of EFE

By all estimates, Sri Lanka’s economy is expected to grow around 1.5% in 2024, making inroads into reversing the economic contraction the country experienced since 2020. Sri Lankan authorities have reached a staff level agreement with the IMF earlier this month and, pending executive board approval, Sri Lanka will receive the second tranche of $330 million soon.

Sri Lanka’s reserve position has improved somewhat from the record low levels it was once at – there are $3.5 million currently in reserves, which is sufficient to cover 2.6 months worth of imports, albeit still a worrisome situation. Tourism earnings and worker remittances are picking up and the cumulative trade deficit has narrowed in comparison to last year. Inflation is tapering at 0.8% in September (the base year has been revised to 2021), the result of the tight monetary policy stance taken by the Central Bank since April 2022.

Import restrictions brought in response to the dwindling foreign reserves are now being phased out with all but a few items still restricted. Due to the rapid decline in purchasing power experienced by the people in the past year, demand for imports may remain subdued but maybe offset by more favorable credit conditions. Policy rates have been further reduced and due to more favorable economic conditions banks are now showing greater willingness to lend in comparison to 2022, which bodes well for business revival.

The ability of Sri Lanka’s economy to redeem itself and firmly place itself on a path of inclusive and sustainable growth lies in how successfully the country can execute the necessary economic and governance reforms. Debt restructuring will ease the burden of external debt repayments in the medium term but eventually Sri Lanka will have to start servicing its external debts once again.

If Sri Lanka does not manage to adequately grow its economy to accommodate these payments with sufficient tax revenues and export earnings, the country risks slipping back into a situation similar to that experienced in 2021 and early 2022. The global situation is not favorable for economic recovery with many large economies undergoing recession and multiple wars being fought on different fronts.

The tourism industry shows signs of recovery but can be impeded by the labor migration. The tourism industry already faced issues with attracting labor, as it is not seen as an attractive or well-paying industry to work in. With workers either having left the industry to join other industries in the wake of the Easter attacks and the Covid impact or migrating to other countries due to the crisis, the industry will struggle to cater to the demand that it once managed to.

This calls for exploring the possibility of opening up the borders for foreign labor to work in Sri Lanka, which is a controversial issue to say the least. With mass migration, the country’s health sector is also in a bad state but opening up this sector to foreign labor is even more controversial than it would be to the tourism sector.

The importance of governance reforms cannot be overstated; addressing the governance failures that precipitated Sri Lanka’s economic decline over the past few decades is the only way to prevent reneging back into bad policy making. Checks and balances are important for a well-functioning economy and society. Since pockets have grown fat and powerful with lax governance structures for many decades, dismantling these systems that work in favor of a few and shaping them to work in favor of many is a difficult endeavor in the best of time.

Reforms to state owned enterprises are in the works, albeit at a slow pace. There are plans to pass the necessary laws to divest State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and to set up a holding company to manage whatever SOEs remain. Reforms to SOE behemoths like the Ceylon Electricity Board are being tackled separately. The country’s flagship poverty program, Samurdhi, is being rehauled into a consolidated welfare program called Aswesuma with better targeting mechanisms, better entry criteria and exit clauses to make the program more effective. The new program also attempts to depoliticize welfare which hindered the effective function of its predecessor.

The budget, which can effectively signal the incumbent government’s commitment to reforms, is already off to a bad start. The government announced that public sector salaries would be increased. With no access to printed money from the Central Bank since the enactment of the new Central Bank Act nor access to foreign loans, the government has decided to increase VAT, perhaps to fund these salary increments.

The incumbent government has made no attempt to cut public sector expenditure and has instead opted to further increase its salary bill, which already swallows up a massive share of the tax revenue – 65% in 2022. This number is even higher when you add in the pensions bill. The government has fallen short of IMF targets on tax revenues in the recent review, so increasing expenditure further, especially just to pacify public sector workers in the light of elections, is utterly imprudent in the context.

Continuing to burden the general public with taxes to fund frivolous, unbridled expenses with no meaningful reform of public expenditure would serve as a harsh reminder to the people of Sri Lanka that the system change once demanded by the sea at Galle Face is yet to be seen, precipitating another wave of civil unrest.

It is not an understatement to say that the precarious stability that has been achieved hangs in the balance, and now with a looming election, the precarity worsens. There is no political consensus on the way forward which can solidify the reforms that the country ought to take – every possible reform is contested which does not bode well for the economy. The jostle is between the NPP, SJB, SLPP+UNP and other possible wildcards such as Dilith Jayaweera and Dhammika Perera, all of whom propose varying economic policies.

The resolution lies in a concerted effort towards comprehensive economic and governance reforms, fiscal prudence and a unified political will that transcends party divisions. The critical choices ahead will determine whether Sri Lanka can chart a stable, inclusive and sustainable economic course or succumb to the persistent vulnerabilities that always threaten its progress.

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.

Reforming Sri Lanka's Tax System: A Path to Fiscal Stability and Economic Growth

Originally appeared on Daily FT

By Dr Roshan Perera, Thashikala Mendis, Janani Wanigaratne

This article provides an insight on the Personal Income Tax structure in Sri Lanka as the second part of a series discussing potential tax reforms

Raising government revenue is critical for Sri Lanka to recover from the current economic crisis and create a more sustainable economic environment. However, taxes should be paid by those who can bear the burden. 

Personal Income Taxes (PIT) is an effective instrument in generating revenue as well as in reducing inequality through revenue redistribution.  In Sri Lanka, there has been a steady decline in revenue from PIT from 0.9% of GDP in 2000 to 0.2% of GDP in 2022. Revenue collection is  lower than that of even other low income economies. Furthermore, PIT tax revenue as a percentage of direct tax revenue declined from 40% in 2000 to 9.3% in 2022, although GDP per capita increased from USD 869 in 2000 to USD 3,474 in 2022. 

Advanced economies raise approximately 9% of GDP from PIT, while emerging economies and low income economies raise only 3.1% and 2.1% of GDP, respectively. (1)  Sri Lanka reports the  lowest contribution of PIT as a percentage of GDP in 2021, both among  advanced economies in Asia such as South Korea, as well as developing economies such as Bangladesh, Malaysia and Vietnam (See Figure 1).

Figure 1: Performance of Personal Income Tax Collection among Selected Countries

Source : IMF Data Library, OECD

Narrow Tax Base

The narrow tax base is one of the main reasons for Sri Lanka’s low PIT revenue performance. A narrow base not only limits revenue generation but it also makes revenue collection reliant on a small segment of the population. 

The number of income tax payers under the  Pay As You Earn (PAYE)/Advanced Personal Income Tax (APIT) Scheme (2) as a percentage of the total employed population shows  a relatively small proportion of the workforce contributing to income taxes (see Table 1). In 2019,  the proportion of tax paying employees was 33%. This proportion declined to less than 1% in 2021 due to abolishing of PAYE taxes with effect from 1st January 2020.  A voluntary APIT System was introduced with effect from April 1, 2020, where employees can opt in. This shift not only led to a revenue decline but also created monitoring gaps. With effect from January 1, 2023, it was mandated for employers to deduct APIT from employees' income, reverting to the original PAYE scheme.

(2 ) Note: PAYE/APIT is where employers deduct income tax on employment income of employees at the time of payment of remuneration.  PAYE was replaced by APIT with effect from April 2020. This measure of replacing PAYE with APIT essentially made PAYE optional. However, with effect from January 2023, deduction of Withholding Tax (WHT), Advanced Income Tax (AIT)  and APIT has been made mandatory.

Table 1: Employee Contribution to PIT

Source: IRD Performance Reports, Labour Force Survey

The large informal sector also contributes to the narrow tax base and low PIT performance. According to the Labor Force Survey (3) 2022,  the informal sector accounts for around 58% of total employment (see Table 1).  A large portion of the economy operating  outside formal regulation enables tax evasion and avoidance. Transforming the current informal self-employment system to a modern formal employee-employment system would be one way to improve tax revenue collection. 

Two alternative recommendations are proposed to capture informal economic activities into the tax net.  Establishing a universal online payments system would reduce cash transactions in the economy enabling better monitoring; and secondly, by introducing a unique digital identification system that connects tax accounts with income sources, bank accounts, motor vehicle and land registration etc. Authorities could cross check information provided in income tax returns as well as identify individuals who do not file returns. 

Tax Free Threshold and Tax slabs/Brackets

In the recent amendment to the Inland Revenue Act (4),  the tax free threshold for income was reduced from Rs.3 million per annum to Rs.1.2 million per annum. Further, the tax brackets were reduced  from Rs.3 mn to Rs.0.5 million.  Accordingly, the incremental tax rate for each additional Rs. 0.5 million of income was set at 6% (see Table 2).

Table 2:  Tax Threshold and Tax Brackets

Source :Inland  Revenue (Amendment) Act, No. 4 of  2023

Applying the current tax free threshold, income taxes are applicable to  approximately the top 15% of households where around  36% of total  income is concentrated (see figure 2) (5).

(5) Note This is based on the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2019

Figure 2: Share of Income by Population 2019

Source : HIES Survey Annual Report 2019

According to the national poverty line (6) for  July 2023, the minimum monthly expenditure per person required to meet basic needs is Rs. 15,978. Hence, the total cost for a family of four is approximately Rs. 65,000 per month. Assuming salaries and wages remain unchanged at 2019 levels,  more than two-thirds of income is spent by households up to the 9th decile, (see Table 3).  Any additional financial burden including income taxes could further reduce the disposable income of households up to the 9th income decile. Hence, information on household income and expenditure patterns must be considered when setting income tax thresholds.

Table 3 :  Mean Household Expenditure as a % of Mean Household Income

Source : HIES Survey Annual Report 2019 (7)

Although the current tax system applies differential tax rates based on income brackets, an analysis of the effective tax rates paid within these brackets indicates a less than progressive tax system.  An individual crossing the tax free threshold of Rs.1.2 million per annum (equivalent to a monthly income of Rs. 100,000) pays an effectives tax rate of 1%, which gradually increases to 12% until the highest income bracket is reached at over Rs. 3.7 million (which is equivalent to a monthly income of Rs. 308,333). All the income levels above this income would be taxed at the highest nominal marginal rate of 36%.  However, after a particular income level the effective tax rate flattens (see Table 4). This implies that individuals in the highest income categories effectively pay less taxes. Expanding the income tax brackets would introduce more fairness and progressivity into the tax system.

Table 4 :  Effective Rate of Tax

Source :  Author’s Calculation

Figure 3: Personal Income Tax as a percentage of Annual Income

Source : Authors’ Calculation

The fairness of the tax system is further exacerbated as those whose main income sources are subject to capital gains are taxed at only 10% versus those whose income are subject to PIT who are taxed at a higher rate of 36%. 

As wages and salaries rise to keep up with inflation, individuals may find themselves earning more in nominal terms, but their purchasing power remains relatively unchanged.  Adjusting thresholds for inflation ensures that employees are not disproportionately burdened by bracket creep where taxpayers are pushed into higher brackets due to inflation. A proper rationale and scientific basis for determining thresholds, tax slabs, and tax rates is needed to increase revenue collection and ensure fairness in the tax system.Also, the proposed tax system should generate the estimated tax revenue by the end of the year.

Frequent ad hoc policy changes

Tax policy is frequently subjected to change, without proper economic rationale. For instance, the tax slabs for PIT have been revised 9 times while the tax free threshold was revised 5 times since 2000. Frequent and ad hoc policy changes complicate tax administration and reduce tax compliance.

Conclusion

The country has failed to meet  the first quarter targets for revenue under the IMF’s Extended Fund Facility Program. Raising government revenue will be critical to remaining within the program. Improving revenue collection from income taxes will be critical to achieving the revenue targets, while broadening the tax base will ensure the burden of taxation falls on the broadest shoulders.

Part one of the OPED series on Reforming Sri Lanka's Tax System: A Path to Macroeconomic Stability and Sustainable Economic Growth can be found here

Securing Food Security

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

World Food Day falls on 16 October. In Sri Lanka, food security has been a topic of discussion for a considerable period of time, especially gaining prominence during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

During that period, there was confusion between food security and self-sufficiency. Instead of focusing on ensuring food security, the emphasis was placed on self-sufficiency, with the belief that all food consumed in Sri Lanka should be produced within the country. There were even discussions among Sri Lankans about shifting from using lentils (dhal) to locally-grown maize.

After approximately two years, when we assess the Global Food Security Index report, Sri Lanka is ranked 79th out of 113 countries. Food security isn’t solely about achieving self-sufficiency by producing all the food within the country; it encompasses the affordability, availability, quality and safety, as well as a nation’s exposure and resilience to natural resource risks.

Prior to the inclusion of the natural resources and resilience component, Singapore led the Global Food Security Index. However, after adding this component in 2022, Singapore dropped to the 28th position, with Finland now topping the Index. India is in the 68th position, Nepal in the 74th position, and Bangladesh in the 80th position, just one spot below Sri Lanka.

Due to the economic crisis, characterised by high inflation rates, particularly in food prices, the number of people who were food insecure exceeded six million. This number has now decreased to less than four million, emphasising the significant role economic stability plays in ensuring people’s food security.

Sri Lanka’s food security has always been a challenge due to economic policies that have been against market dynamics. Monetary instability resulting from the unfettered levels of money printing led to food inflation, affecting the affordability of food. 

The Government’s imposition of price controls led to shortages of protein sources such as eggs and chicken, further impacting the availability of food. Additionally, the Government imposed a Special Commodity Levy (SCL) on selected food items as a protectionist measure, maize being a prime example, driving up prices. 

Maize is a key raw material for the aquaculture and poultry industries. Price volatility in maize also affects the prices of poultry products and other locally consumed protein sources, sometimes impacting the competitiveness of our agricultural exports. 

The Government’s approach, whether through higher tariffs or import bans, is equally detrimental. Our food security structure is simply unsustainable, with weak and unpredictable supply chains and inconsistent policies.

Ensuring food security involves addressing both macro and micro issues. A holistic approach, taking into account land rights, is essential. The documentary recently released by the Advocata Institute titled ‘Land, Freedom and Life’ highlights the challenges faced by farmers due to the absence of land rights, hindering their access to capital or technology to enhance productivity.

In addition to land rights, water management is another critical aspect that needs serious consideration. Currently, our water usage in paddy cultivation is unsustainable. We consume approximately 1,400 litres of water to produce 1 kg of rice. Even if we price a litre of water at 50 cents, the cost of the rice we consume would significantly surpass current prices. 

With the challenges posed by climate change, future water availability cannot be guaranteed. Despite the number of people experiencing food insecurity declining, our approach in food production is not sustainable. Another local or global shock could easily set us back.

The Government has attempted various approaches such as providing subsidies for farmers, free meals for school children, and free nutritional packages for women during maternity. However, in order to truly  address Sri Lanka’s food security crisis, a multifaceted approach is required. 

This should begin with macroeconomic stabilisation, providing land titles for farmers and agro-companies to enhance agricultural productivity, reducing labour costs in agriculture, recognising the interconnectedness of markets, and allowing market forces to operate.

Until these issues are resolved, World Food Day will remain a day for discussing problems without implementing solutions.

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.

Sri Lanka needs a bottom-up approach

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Regrettably, over the years, Sri Lanka's approach to development has primarily relied on aid and subsidies for its impoverished population. Many politicians have spoken about poverty, but they have often neglected to address its root causes. If our policies were centered on eradicating poverty rather than simply targeting the poor, our development framework could have evolved significantly.

As the adage goes, "there are no poor people, only poor places or countries." A recent report by LirneAsia revealed a startling increase in poverty numbers, rising from 3 million to 7 million people, pushing over 4 million individuals below the poverty line. If our long-standing strategies, such as fertilizer subsidies, Samurdhi, and fuel subsidies were on the right track, how did an economic crisis suddenly plunge 4 million Sri Lankans into poverty?

The ability to maintain strong international relationships and secure more aid has been considered a crucial qualification for candidates, during election cycles. Within the voting community, politicians offering the most substantial subsidy handouts are often perceived as popular leaders. While it is true that we need comprehensive international relationships in modern politics and must take care of our citizens, we must do so while keeping a development-oriented mindset at the core. Regrettably, development cannot rely solely on foreign aid, nor can we lift people out of poverty by offering aid exclusively to the poor.

This situation is not unique to Sri Lanka; it's a global phenomenon. No country has achieved development solely through aid programs. Instead, countries that have reached the development stage share strong institutions and reasonably functioning market systems as common denominators.

The primary focus of any government or political leader should revolve around two key conceptual frameworks:

1. Are we establishing institutions that promote a level playing field?

2. Are we encouraging a functioning market system?

Development is generally a bottom-up approach. People often know what's best for themselves better than politicians or leaders do. We simply need to provide them with opportunities in a competitive environment. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting a few small and medium-sized exporters. The entire system and processes seemed designed to hinder their export activities. Many exporters emphasized the difficulties they face when exporting in Sri Lanka, including challenges and harassment from government regulatory authorities, such as Sri Lanka Customs.

A prime example of our low export numbers is not only market access problems but the barriers within our own system that obstruct exports. One exporter from Kandy, specializing in vanilla exports, highlighted how customs consistently questioned HS codes and demanded repetitive documentation, causing him to spend more time on export processes than on developing his product and capacity. These challenges are consistent across the board for exporters, explaining why Sri Lanka's exports remain stagnant despite numerous committees, task forces, and chairpersons at the Export Development Boards.

Real change should start from the bottom by removing barriers for businesses and offering people the freedom to pursue their desired endeavors. Such reforms may not bring personal glory, as they empower individuals to make their own choices. In contrast, an aid-driven approach often results in leaders or countries seeking personal recognition through associated aid packages.

In Sri Lanka's case, we must remind ourselves that only we can make a difference and pull ourselves out of this crisis. While we need the support of international institutions like the International Monetary Fund and bilateral and multilateral creditors, they alone cannot rescue us from our predicament. It is only through economic reforms and the development of inclusive institutions that we can compete on a level playing field and extricate ourselves from this mess. Both small and large reforms are essential, and we must implement them swiftly and effectively.

SL’s tariff regime

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

The Minister of Finance mentioned that “many surprises” would be contained in the Annual Budget for 2024. In economics, surprises are something we would want to avoid; the more surprises we get, the lower stability is. Frequent surprises are a sure way to push away investors and the business community. One surprise measure mentioned recently in Parliament was a tax on primary dealers in the bond markets as they were left out in the Domestic Debt Restructuring (DDR) process.

Just a few weeks ago, this column speculated about the likelihood of selective taxes, such as super gains tax or wealth tax, in the Annual Budget for 2024. If the reason to impose a special tax on primary dealers is the high profits they made as a result of being left out of the restructuring process, does this mean the Government is admitting it made a mistake by leaving them out of the debt restructuring processes? If so, we cannot correct it by imposing a tax, since two wrongs do not make a right.

A special tax on selected groups or industries is the opposite of tax holidays. The way we select industries or business categories for special taxes is the same way we select industries for tax holidays. Both are two sides of the same coin.

It is true that Government revenue is low compared to the size of our economy, but it is definitely not the fault of the businesses which made profits, unless their profits are exempted from taxes.

Sri Lanka’s corporate tax of 30% is a reasonably high rate. Even the UK increased its corporate tax to 25% in 2023 from 19%. Tax competitiveness is already low due to unreasonably high taxes and an unstable economic and political environment. Therefore, what is the rationale for charging a higher tax on a selected industry or a group if they already pay a corporate tax of 30%?

The unfortunate reality is that we cannot increase tax revenue simply by imposing selected taxes or by spontaneously increasing rates. This would bring the same consequences as our tariff structure.

The issue with the tariff structure in Sri Lanka is that we have imposed different taxes for different HS codes, making it very complicated. Some HS codes are charged a CESS and others are charged para-tariffs, creating considerable doubt as to which taxes are applicable when importing anything. This complexity in the tariff structure has resulted in a high level of corruption.

It is argued that bringing the tariff rates down and making it simple will improve tariff revenue. The same logic is applied for income tax and corporate taxes. The more complicated and more targeted special segments are, the more likely tax evasion is, and will eventually lead to our overall tax revenue further deteriorating.

In 2015 and 2021, a similar attempt was made to impose a singular super gains tax on companies earning over Rs. 2 billion. There were many instances where special taxes were imposed on the financial sector without any detailed analysis or impact analysis on overall tax principles.

Has it made our tax revenue better? The answer is an obvious no. Therefore, special taxes which may come as surprises for selected industries may not lead to the expected outcome. Instead, they will create more confusion in the market.

It is likely that the Government is targeting primary dealers due to the controversy that arose during the bond scam in 2015 and similar incidents, with suspicions of insider trading taking place afterwards.

If the reason for super profits is insider trading, the answer is a forensic audit and bringing the related parties to justice. The Government can start the process by releasing the full forensic audit report on the investigation of the presidential commission appointed for the bond scam.

Imposing a special tax to correct the super profits of insider trading may start a vicious cycle of unethical trading and business operations.

Investors will consider the occurrence of a similar circumstance if they make better profits – that they too will be liable for a special tax in addition to the corporate tax they pay.

More importantly, it dilutes the principles of an aspirational society. Assuming that someone should pay a higher tax simply because they made a profit is discriminatory and acts as a disincentive for generating wealth and profit. Those who made a higher profit are already paying a higher tax proportionately, compared to those who made less profit, at a rate of 30%.

Taxes have to be imposed based on principles of simplicity, transparency, neutrality, and stability. These are referred to as ‘principles’ because there is a rationale behind it. Statistics without principles and principles without statistics are both dangerous.

Reforming Sri Lanka's Tax System: A Path to Macroeconomic Stability and Sustainable Economic Growth

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dr Roshan Perera, Thashikala Mendis, Janani Wanigaratne

This article provides an overview of the current tax system in Sri Lanka as part of a series discussing potential tax reforms.

Sri Lanka is recovering from the worst economic crisis in its history. Continuous high fiscal deficits due to insufficient government revenue to finance growing government expenditure has resulted in an unsustainable level of debt. This has hindered the government's ability to make capital investments and allocate sufficient funds for essential services such as education and healthcare. A large proportion of revenue (77.7% in 2022) goes to finance interest payments, It is also one of the largest items of recurrent expenditure accounting for 44.5% of recurrent expenditure in 2022.  In comparison expenditure on education, health and social protection (Samurdhi) accounted for only 9.3%, 7.9% and 3.4% of recurrent expenditure, respectively, in 2022.  

Getting back on a path of macroeconomic stability requires a significant boost in revenue.Revenue based fiscal consolidation is one of the key pillars of the stabilization program agreed with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  The program sets a target of raising tax revenue to 14% of GDP (at the minimum) by 2026 through tax policy reforms and revenue administration reforms.

Taxation as a social contract

The main purpose of taxes is to provide funding for public services. Moreover, it redistributes income through transfer payments to low income households. Taxation is a classic example of the social contract between the citizens of a country and their government but also between citizens. This unwritten agreement influences the willingness of citizens to pay taxes in return for the services they receive from the government. Tax compliance rates in countries indicate a correlation between the payment of taxes and public service delivery. Dissatisfaction with public service delivery is found to be associated with low tax compliance. In Sri Lanka, the state is responsible for providing a wide range of public services such as education and healthcare.  However, the collection of taxes required to finance these public services is woefully inadequate. This could be due to lack of awareness of the role of citizens in the social contract or a lack of quality and availability of public services.  This leads to citizens abandoning public services in favour of the private provision of such services and being unwilling to pay for public services they  feel they don’t use. A robust tax system is necessary for a government to deliver high-quality public services to all its citizens.

The current state of taxes in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka’s tax revenue collection  has steadily declined from 19% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1990 to 7.3% in 2022. Although national income has increased over time with  GDP per capita rising from US $ 472 in 1990 to US $ 3,474 in 2022 there has not been a corresponding rise in tax collection (See figure 1).

Figure 1: Declining Tax to GDP

Source : Central Bank Annual Reports

Revenue collection in the country is also highly skewed, with 69.5% of tax revenue collected from indirect taxes. Undue reliance on indirect taxes is due to the large informal sector which is ‘difficult to tax’.  The direct to indirect tax ratio has consistently remained around 20:80 over time. Although direct taxes as a proportion of total tax has gradually increased from around 15% revenue in 2000 to 31.5% in 2022, as a percentage of GDP it has remained at a low level of around 2% for the last two decades, implying that it has not kept pace with the growth in the economy.

Figure 2: Composition of tax revenue

Source : Central Bank Annual Reports

The steady decline in revenue is due to inherent weaknesses in the tax system. One of the key issues is ad hoc policy changes relating to tax rates, thresholds, and exemptions, with little or no economic rationale. The frequency of these tax policy changes worsens the existing compliance issues as well as administrative issues. The resulting loss of government revenue, worsens income inequalities and reduces funds available for essential public services.

These concerns need to be addressed through comprehensive reforms in all 3 broad bases of tax, namely, (1) taxes on earnings such as personal and corporate income taxes; (2) taxes on what is purchased such as the value added taxes (VAT); and (3) taxes on what is owned such as land and property taxes. Identifying the issues in each of these taxes will be key to reforming the tax system and optimizing revenue collection which is vital for ensuring macroeconomic stability.

Conclusion

Building an effective fiscal social contract through taxation is as equally important as addressing the issues prevalent in the current tax system. It requires the government  to use the taxpayers’ money in a responsible and effective manner. Lack of transparency and accountability for the way a government uses the taxes it collects will make it very difficult for the government to convince its citizens to pay their taxes.  On the other hand, citizens are responsible for holding the government accountable and ensuring taxes are utilised for providing good quality public services for the benefit of society as a whole.