Why it takes so long to recover from an economic crisis

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

I have been reflecting on the last few years of public policy and discussion, which I can broadly divide into three main chapters:

Chapter 1 – Denial

Chapter 2 – Realisation

Chapter 3 - Recovery

Chapter 1 – Denial

There was a time when even respected businessmen thought an economic crisis was a distant scenario. Many politicians, across all party lines, failed to consider a situation of 12-hour power cuts and long fuel lines, and viewed debt restructuring and accessing the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as taboo conversations.

We relied on a $ 3.6 billion bailout from an unknown Omani fund and thought China and the Port City would bail us out as a last resort. Some even thought the discovery of a sapphire cluster might be the breakthrough Sri Lanka needed. Sri Lankans believed we were a special nation with a magical power that would rescue us in some other way.

Despite our strategic location, beautiful weather, and natural beauty being undeniable assets, they do not guarantee a rescue from our own bad policies. Our denial was so strong that an international institution titled their report on the Sri Lankan economy as ‘Denial is Not a Strategy’.

Chapter 2 – Realisation

The moment of truth came, but we were too late to respond. None of our bailout expectations materialised and the international financial architecture found it difficult to save us. Our debt is unsustainable and the IMF requires a commitment from our creditors before providing us financial assistance.

We are struggling due to global geopolitics and our poor diplomatic service and lack of professionalism doesn’t allow us to be taken seriously. We hurt all our friendly nations as well as India, China, Japan, and the US. Islamic countries too were concerned and unhappy with us over different issues.

People only realised the depth of the crisis when medicine was in short supply and their loved ones considered leaving the country. Inflation skyrocketed, prices increased, and poverty affected about 30% of the population.

Chapter 3 – Recovery

The moment people realised the severity of the crisis, they started asking about when we would recover. The simple answer is that it takes a long time and now many of us understand why. Overcoming a crisis of this scale, which in itself is a combination of multiple crises, cannot be done easily.

Simultaneously, we face a balance of payment crisis, a debt crisis, a financial crisis, a humanitarian crisis, and a political crisis. The cost of delaying a response to the crisis and mismanagement has to be shared by us all, with mounting tax increases and high inflation pressure from the grassroots.

As a result, we can see constant protests and interruptions to public life, further worsening the situation. At the same time, this opens a new political space where any political party can make unrealistic promises and auction for votes. This vicious cycle is why recovery from the economic crisis takes a long time.

The specifics of debt restructuring are still a mystery to us. We don’t know how the restructuring will be carried out or the impact it will have on the banking industry. It is also unclear how the markets will respond.

Without domestic debt restructuring, even if we apply a 50% haircut on International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs) and Sri Lanka Development Bonds (SLDBs), our debt to GDP ratio after 10 years will be 136%, according to a Verité Research study published in October 2022. Cost of servicing new debt and the cost of rolling over previous debt at a high yield curve will not bring down our debt to GDP ratio.

Nevertheless, it is still possible for domestic debt to be restructured and banking recapitalisation is necessary. According to the same document, investments in Government securities, primarily Treasury bills and Treasury bonds, account for more than 30% of the interest revenue for the total banking industry.

Hence, changing the interest rates on these securities will affect the stability of banks. On the other hand, 82% of the money in the EPF and ETF has been put into Government securities.

As the required changes take place, no one will be happy, so people and opinion leaders will react in different ways. The changes will go back and forth and recovery will be prolonged. Elections will come and decision-making authorities will change and policy decisions will also go back and forth.

All this is why it takes so long to recover from an economic crisis.

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.

Our only saviour is reforms

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Whether we will be able to receive International Monetary Fund (IMF) Executive Board approval is now a topic of discussion even amongst the most economically-illiterate person. Let us first set the context.

The Sri Lankan Government and the IMF came to a Staff-Level Agreement in early September 2022. One of the key milestones we have to pass through is to get to some level of negotiation with our creditors. Our credit portfolio is diverse. We have multilateral senior creditors followed by bilateral creditors, including members of the Paris Club, mainly Japan.

On the other hand, there are two main creditors who are non-Paris Club members; India and China.

Paris Club members agree on equal treatment in debt restructuring. In simple words, all member countries of the Paris Club will be treated equally when it comes to restructuring. India has also agreed to assist Sri Lanka in the debt restructuring plan and has provided a letter to the IMF. However, according to the IMF, letters provided by China are not adequate. It has indicated a two-year moratorium, but given the financial needs expected by the IMF, Sri Lanka will not be on a sustainable debt path after a two-year moratorium alone.

Generally, credit assistance provided by multilateral donor agencies such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank is not restructured, provided it has been given with very long maturity periods and very low interest rates. Therefore, restructuring those loans has not been the practice. That is how the global financial architecture is designed, given their assistance in eradicating poverty and the IMF being the lender of last resort. 

However, over the last few years, there has been a request by private creditors, bondholders, and some stakeholders that the credit of multilateral donor agencies should also be restructured and China is one party that has made this request. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka is too negligible an economy to make that request or challenge the global financial architecture. .

Given the delays, there is now an emerging conversation on whether we have any other alternative options if the IMF agreement is further delayed. In fact, I asked this question at the meeting convened by the National Council Sub-Committee on identifying short- and medium-term programmes related to economic stabilisation, on whether alternative options were being considered in the likelihood of a delay. According to its Chair MP Patali Champika Ranawaka, the committee has not considered it, but he has an aim of being prepared for the worst-case scenario.  

As we have been saying over the years, we have come to this situation through our own policy errors and with our bad reputation, we do not have many choices in hand. Therefore, finding a solution without the IMF is a major challenge, but we, as a country, cannot avoid the consequences should this agreement get further delayed; social discussion is needed on what we can do to get it soon and on the available alternatives. 

Managing with what we have

One option is to drastically cut down our consumption, including essentials such as food and medicine, and face the situation with what we have. That option can trigger some level of social unrest because ‘a hungry man is an angry man’. 

Even at this level of consumption contraction, our poverty rate has increased above 30% according to a Parliament committee. Out of about five million households, about 1.7 million receive Samurdhi and another 1.1 million are on the waiting list. Of course, Samurdhi is not a good indication, as some people who should receive Samurdhi benefits are not recipients, while others who should not be in the programme are included. However, managing with what we have is one available option that comes with its own consequences. 

Moving ahead with debt restructuring without China?

The next option is to move ahead with debt restructuring without China. This option has a significant limitation because IMF confirmation is required even to restructure the debt of bilateral creditors. Without the IMF, it will be difficult to get Paris Club members and other stakeholders to a debt negotiation table. The more we delay and if China takes a very hard stance, which is likely, we have to request the IMF to move ahead with those who have agreed and hold China’s debt payments until we come to some level of agreement.

We have to understand China’s point of view and geopolitics as well. Our crisis has also become a tug of war between two economic powerhouses. On one hand, China does not want to align or agree with a US-led programme. On the other hand, the relief measures given to Sri Lanka have to be provided to all other countries making similar requests in future.

Pakistan and many African countries and emerging economies are expected to face debt distress in the coming years. China’s growth predictions are low, impacting global economic growth. Hence, the more we delay opening up Sri Lanka to geopolitical sensitivities, the more we will be pushed to align with certain superpowers. If we were to depend on China or India for continuous relief measures, it would be extremely difficult to avoid becoming a geopolitical pawn.

Possible reforms and opportunities 

In this context, it is clear that all available options (with the IMF or without the IMF), will result in extremely difficult times. However, in a crisis, there will be winners as well. Regardless of any of the aforementioned options, there are basic levels of reforms we have to undertake in any scenario. 

State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) reforms must be at the forefront. Without this, we have no future. One good opportunity is to capture the drive within the Indian market. Even if Sri Lanka does nothing, there will be spillover effects from India. The Indian economy, especially the North Indian economy, is growing very fast and we have to connect to their market. If we had played our cards right, we could have become a good connection point for trade between India and China. Instead, we made enemies all over. However, there is still potential. 

The more we delay reforms, it will further exacerbate the problem. As such, reforms are the only saviour in any scenario. It is sad to see how we are distancing ourselves from reforms, with political developments triggering another round of economic and political uncertainty which will lead to social uncertainty. Let us hope reforms move forward fast. 

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.

Sri Lanka’s biggest insecurity: Fear of competition

Originally appeared on The Morning.

By Dhananath Fernando

If we were to take some collective responsibility for the sad state of our country and attribute it to any cause, I believe it is due to our ‘fear of competition’. 

From top to bottom, Sri Lankans have been fearful of competing. Over a period of time, we have become very reluctant to compete and our fear has grown into incompetence. The fear of competition syndrome is spread across all sections of society, from the top executives to people below the poverty line. 

Sadly, as a country, we have not understood the meaning of ‘competition’. In our vocabulary, competition is where winners are selected and losers are ridiculed. However, competition is actually where the winner and the loser both win – when the winner wins, the loser also wins. How can this be?

A winner is defined as an individual who takes the leap to utilise the resources available to their maximum potential. Even in a 100 m race, the winner is the person who covers the distance within the shortest time span.

The recipe for the title of a winner is determined by the effort endured by any individual to go that extra mile and maximise the resources available. Once that formula is found, even the loser can use the formula of the winning person without wasting their resources further. Losers can ask the winners to run on their behalf next time so that the losers can better use their skills elsewhere.

This is how we all use so many consumable goods. Let us take computers as an example: most of us have lost the race of manufacturing computers while many have not even tried. But someone found the computer formula, so now we can all use the winning formula, which helps many of us save our valuable resources. Thus, losers have also benefited. This is why competition makes winners win and losers also win. It is much more than simply picking a winner – it is about the allocation of resources.  

In the Sri Lankan context, the fear of competition is what mainly led to the misallocation of resources. From top to bottom, not only are Sri Lankans fearful, but we also instigate fear in others. 

It was recently reported that a driver who was providing a taxi service using a mobile app had been threatened by some other drivers who were not using the app-based taxi service. The threat had taken place while the service was being provided to foreigners. The underlying reason for this is the fear of competing with mobile app-based technology.  

Fear of competing with private medical schools

While our tuk-tuk drivers have fear of competition regarding app-based solutions, our doctors have a fear of competition regarding private medical schools. They do not want someone capable with a better service in the market because they are fearful that someone else will overtake them. 

Fear of competition in furniture manufacturing 

Our furniture manufacturers are fearful of competing with other furniture manufacturers in the region. Not only are they fearful, they even ask the Government to support some of these industries with taxpayer money.

Fear of competition in the construction industry

Our bathware and tile manufacturers are reluctant to compete with the same category of products overseas. As a result, our cost of construction is about 25-40% higher than the region due to our widespread fear of competition. Most of our construction materials have a tariff of nearly 100% to avoid competition. Even the private sector is suffering from the fear of competition, which is one of the main reasons Sri Lanka lacks big industries and innovation in the system.

University students’ and the labour force’s fear of competition 

Our university students and teachers do not want to compete with international students. As a result, resistance is high against the entrance of any type of private university to the market. Rankings of our universities and colleges have been deteriorating over the years, but we still remain reluctant to compete. Not only do university students want to avoid competition, but they also want to be dependent on the Government.

Our Government servants and entire labour force are fearful that if we open the job market, foreigners with better skills will replace them. Although we are not competitive, we want to maintain our stake.

Across the board, Sri Lankans are deeply fearful of competing with the world. We lack the courage to admit the truth that our competitors can produce high quality products with high efficiency and productivity. If we are so afraid to compete with the world, there is little reason to claim that we have to improve exports. Exporting would mean competing with the world on an uneven playing field with different tariffs imposed in different regions.

Hasn’t our fear of competition not only made the country worse, but also contributed greatly to our economic crisis? Not just politicians, but all Sri Lankans have promoted fear among our fellow citizens. There are no innovations, inventions, or new technologies without competition. That is the sad truth. We have unfortunately become victims of our own actions.

For once, we should admit that we are the problem without absolving ourselves and instead blaming our political elites. While the poor decision-making of politicians is definitely a problem, if we are reluctant to compete, they can easily say that they simply represented our worldview and opinion.

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.

A flawed independence

Originally appeared on The Morning.

By Dhananath Fernando

Over the years, our definition of ‘freedom’ has become full of flaws. We took freedom for granted and we lost both our freedom and independence. Even though we gained independence in 1948 from Great Britain, we have no understanding of what real freedom is. 

We fail to understand that freedom comes at the cost of hard work, courage, respect, the ability to cooperate, and being competitive with the world. There is an ecosystem we should have built if we really want to be free. We did not build that ecosystem, so over the 75 years of independence, we question ourselves and argue back, asking, “Are we really free?”

Prof. Amal Kumarage in a recent tweet has asked this question very eloquently on independence and freedom.

“I’m confused as to what’s happening on 4 February in #SriLanka. Is it: 

1. A fake celebration of a real independence, 

2. A real celebration of a fake independence, or 

3. A fake celebration of a fake independence?”

Freedom is an alluring subject to many as people in general summarise freedom to being liberated to have an easy life, getting things free of charge. Over time, as the dire need for freedom kept rising, the wrong seeds of freedom grew by encapsulating and manipulating the idea of freedom to a level where people truly believed that we are entitled to many benefits even though we lack the resources. 

The drive down the tunnel of distorted versions of freedom led to many ethnic and religious turns over the years, believing that freedom is restricting someone else’s freedom for the betterment of someone else.

This is similar to a situation where a child learns the wrong values or habits without realising they are wrong and instead thinking they are right. After 75 years of practising the wrong values and ethics, we now have an operating system which we try to sustain with unsustainable resources. That is a brief summary of insights on our 75 years of independence.    

During that journey of 75 years, we have failed to understand the damage done by the existing system to our competitiveness and productivity. We simply became irrelevant in the world over a period of time. By deciding not to compete with the world, we decided to sacrifice our freedom. 

Our decision to not compete with the world mainly came through our economic policy. We simply misread the world and future of the world. In a world of sharing resources and collaborating for each other’s benefit and independence, we thought that real freedom is the ability to produce everything on our own. 

We supported the narrative of ‘self sufficiency’ when the world actually moved away from self sufficiency to interdependence. As per the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World Index, Sri Lanka has been ranked at the 138th position out of 165 countries based on our ‘Freedom to Trade Internationally’. Though we claim we are an open economy, the facts say otherwise. In terms of our openness, we are at one of our lowest points.

My father used to say: “If you think you are the smartest person on the street, it is time to change the street.” This is because an uncompetitive environment does not support growth. Without growth, no wealth will be created nor will there be freedom or independence.

When we isolate ourselves from global trade, we avoid competition. Avoiding competition means we are out of touch with the real needs and wants of people. Not only that, we try to become dependent on the world without contributing anything to the world or to its maximum utility of resources. Being open to competition is what keeps us all competitive and relevant.

Real freedom is the freedom to compete and be competitive in a global landscape. Even when we are one of the closed economies in the world, we are open for global competition. Our IT, apparel, tea, and rubber sectors and even unskilled labour that contribute with remittances are competing at a global level. 

When we are really competitive it provides us the tools and freedom to change the direction of our fellow human beings and to support humanity. That comes only through the freedom to trade. That is the real freedom we should all aspire to. We are far from this and we are moving further away, but at least it is important to keep the idea alive so that one day someone can move towards it. 

A fake celebration of a real independence, 

A real celebration of a fake independence, or

A fake celebration of a fake independence? 

According to Prof. Kumarage, it is difficult to judge what we are actually trying to do this year, but we should aspire to have real freedom and this real freedom comes at the cost of hard work, free exchange, and free trade by being relevant and competitive in relation to the world.

Source : Central Bank of Sri Lanka

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.

Celebrating all the wrong things

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

There can be no independence without economic freedom

The lockdowns amidst the pandemic left all of us with ample time to explore new avenues in life. A friend of mine, excited to learn, enrolled himself in a bunch of online lessons with the motive of productively utilising this time. However, as time progressed, he got too lazy to keep up with the lessons and succumbed to the comforts of his home. He watched television, read novels, and baked way too many cupcakes. He did everything except follow through with his lessons, all the while feeling immensely guilty for failing to do so.

Every independence day, I can’t help but draw parallels between my friend and my motherland. We, Sri Lankans, are quick to celebrate independence with much excitement, just like my friend was to learn, but we fail to actually do the hard work to follow through with the initial commitment. We are quick to identify that learning is vital and even advocate for education. However, we lack initiative. Similarly, we proudly celebrate the British leaving us but have failed to do the work to achieve freedom in real terms.

As a result, over the years, Sri Lanka has only achieved certain elements of independence and democracy. Economic freedom remains an enigma up to date. Whether our fellow Sri Lankans have the ability to engage in business and trade with each other voluntarily has become a serious question. 80% of our land is owned by the Government. People have to wait in long lines and oil the palms of bureaucrats with discretionary powers to obtain a licence to cultivate a crop they think is best to earn a living.

Whether our fellow Sri Lankans can make economic decisions for the betterment of themselves and their children is a question which still remains unanswered. Yet, we opt to proudly celebrate “independence” with minimal comprehension of the true essence of freedom. I fail to see a big difference between my friend and this popular uninformed “patriotism”. 

Over the years, we have been excessively reactive rather than being proactive. Similar to my friend who celebrated the opportunity he had to learn but failed to follow through with it, we too continue to celebrate independence in its literal terms. To put things into perspective, let’s take a look at Sri Lanka’s economic incidents in the recent past.

We signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Singapore and went against our own terms and celebrated the “victory”. Since then, we have done very little to enhance Sri Lanka’s involvement in global trade. Instead, we continue to hamper the island’s economic growth and development through consistent import and export restrictions as highlighted by this column on numerous occasions.

We spent way too much time debating the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact for more than two years and eventually celebrated not signing the agreement. The agreement could have helped Sri Lanka enhance her land use and improve transport and traffic. It is clear the issue was politicised. However, we could have informed the donors as to why we opted not to sign the agreement before they directed the funds elsewhere. Even without the MCC Compact, we have done very little to reform the island’s myriad transport, traffic, and land use issues.

Recently, we celebrated withdrawing from signing a Memorandum of Understanding  (MoU), foregoing much-needed Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) for the development of the East Container Terminal (ECT). The development here had already been delayed by more than five years. Do we have a plan for the ECT’s development? Have we thought of competitive bidding? Do we have a better cost structure to implement investments on strategic assets? Sadly, the answer is “no”, yet again. It is clear that we Sri Lankans celebrate poor policy measures as victories and fail to embark on proactive actions that cause real change.

What causes real change?

Instead of celebrating policy measures that stunt Sri Lanka’s growth, we have to work towards establishing economic freedom and initiate important but hard reforms. What we should celebrate, however, is the implementation and impact of progressive policies.

The Economic Freedom of the World Index by the Fraser Institute states that countries with high economic freedom are more likely to prosper. The quality of life in these countries is evidently much better than countries with low economic freedom. If we wish to be free and independent, we have to prioritise economic freedom.

Sri Lanka has to implement reforms that ensure people’s ability to do business with ease, voluntarily without any barriers. We have to strive towards attaining a small government. The legal system and property rights have to be strong. People should be able to resolve their court cases faster and with improved efficiency. Sri Lankans should be given the right of ownership to their land and property especially on what they wish to do and grow on these lands.

Sri Lanka’s monetary system has to be stronger. We should have sound money where people do not lose the value of money in hand, due to the use of a bad monetary policy. When the value of money depreciates (from inflation), it is the poor who lose their freedom to buy what they want. Vulnerable sections of Sri Lanka are definitely the most affected.  Inflation is the unkindest tax of all as the poor have no defence against it.

Our businesses should have the freedom to trade internationally and barriers to trade have to be removed. Sri Lankans should not pay about 80% on their tiny bathroom tiles or 300% for the vehicles they use as taxes. They should be given access to trade internationally without any barriers. A minimum and appropriate regulatory environment is fundamental if we Sri Lankans wish to enjoy real freedom. Currently, to register a sole proprietorship or a partnership, a library of documents have to be submitted to authorities. It takes weeks for these documents to process when it should be a matter of a few minutes. The Government should not hinder the growth and development of our own people and their businesses.

On last year’s Independence Day, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa stated that he wants to remove regulatory barriers at all levels. A few weeks ago, he appointed a committee to evaluate unnecessary regulation for businesses.

The Economic Freedom of the World Index compiled by the Fraser Institute is a good indication of whether a country is moving in the right direction in terms of economic freedom. I wish and pray that we celebrate actions and reforms taken to improve economic freedom instead of celebrating the wrong forms of independence. If we fail to initiate hard reform and establish economic freedom, we will continue to celebrate independence for the wrong reasons. Then Sri Lanka’s prospects would be the same as my friend who makes no progress.

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.

Economic freedom in free fall

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

Originally appeared on The Morning

---

By Aneetha Warusavitarana

Sri Lanka’s sharp drop in 2019 index should worry us all

This year’s report on the Economic Freedom of the World is out, and Sri Lanka is ranked 104th out of 162 countries.

This index of economic freedom is compiled on a yearly basis by the Fraser Institute, measuring the degree to which the policies and institutions in a country facilitate and support economic freedom.

The report quantifies economic freedom by looking at five key components which uphold personal choice, voluntary exchange, freedom to enter markets and compete, and the security of the person and private property. The five key components measured are the size of the government, legal systems and property rights, sound money, freedom to trade internationally, and levels of regulation.

Economic freedom, as measured in this index, is rooted in the concept of self-ownership, or whether individuals have the right to choose. In other words, the index can be thought of as a measure of the extent to which scarce resources are allocated by individual choices and free markets, as opposed to central government planning.

Does this index matter?

The value of this index lies in the impact economic freedom has on the lived experiences of people. Greater economic freedom has been linked to improved performance on indicators of human wellbeing, with freer countries reporting higher levels of income, happiness, and life expectancy. When looking at the dataset for the time period of 1995 to 2017, the report indicates that countries which rank highly on the Economic Freedom Index also rank highly on key indicators of human progress.

For instance, countries categorised as “most free” had an average per capita GDP of $ 36,770 in 2017, compared to $ 6,140 for those ranked as “least free”. Interestingly, the average income of the poorest 10% in the most economically free nations is two-thirds higher than the average per capita income in the least free nations. Countries that are highly ranked on economic freedom also have lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy. They also perform better on civil and political freedoms and enjoy greater gender equality.

These may appear to be rather sweeping statements – a concern echoed in the report. While the authors are hesitant to imply a direct causal relationship between economic freedom and these variables, they do acknowledge that it is possible that the factors that contribute to higher economic freedom also contribute to increased political and civil freedoms. Higher incomes could also result in greater investment in citizens, which is reflected in lower rates of infant mortality and higher life expectancy.

How has Sri Lanka performed?

Sri Lanka ranks 104th out of 162 countries for 2017 data. This is a drop from our previous position where we were ranked 90th in 2015. On the size of government, a component that focuses on lower levels of government spending, lower marginal tax rates, and limited state ownership of assets, we have barely improved with a rating of 7.63 (out of 10), compared to our rating of 7.62 in 2015. Given Sri Lanka’s expansive public sector and innumerous state-owned enterprises, perhaps this is to be expected. On legal systems, emphasis is placed on the protection of persons and their property and whether the rule of law, security of property rights, and an independent judiciary are present.

Here, Sri Lanka’s rating is a low 4.91, and looking at sub-indicators, we have performed poorly on impartiality of courts and legal enforcement of contracts.

On sound money, we fare comparatively better, with a rating of 7.58 and strong performance on sub-indicators of money growth and inflation. Unsurprisingly, our rating for freedom to trade internationally is 5.83, with low ratings on the sub-indicators for movement of capital and people, capital controls, and freedom of foreigners to visit. In comparison, we have a rather average rating on regulation, with 6.91 being a slight increase from 2015. While we perform well on most sub-indicators, hiring and firing regulations, administrative requirements, and bribes are low performers.

Looking forward

Sri Lanka’s drop in this index should be a cause for concern. Strong institutions form the foundation of meaningful economic growth; they are less vulnerable to political capture and ensure long-term protection of basic rights and freedoms. Presidential hopefuls have been quite vocal on the topic of economic growth and prosperity. However, if the kind of growth that is being envisioned is to become a reality, the country needs to shift trajectory. We need to put in place structural reform that will strengthen the independence of our judiciary, address the corruption that plagues our public sector, and rationalise the Government’s approach to economic policy.

The compelling case for greater economic freedom

Originally appeared on Daily FT

By Alexander C. R. Hammond

The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, published the 22nd edition of its annual Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) report. For a long time, we’ve known that, on average, freer economies are richer, grow faster and have longer life expectancies.

But the 2018 edition of the EFW gives us more insight than ever before into the intrinsic link between economic freedom and other measures of human wellbeing — such as infant mortality, equality, happiness and extreme poverty rates. 

To rank the level of freedom for 162 economies, the EFW analyses 42 indices across five major areas (size of government, legal system and property rights, sound money, freedom to trade internationally, and regulation), using figures from 2016 — the most recent data available.

Yet again, Hong Kong takes the top spot in the EFW rankings — a position it has held since 1980. Singapore remains second, as it has since 2005. The remaining top 10 most free nations are: New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, the United States, Georgia, Mauritius, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, the latter two being tied for 10th spot. The three least free countries are Argentina, Libya, and Venezuela. Out of the 162 countries the EFW report measures, Sri Lanka ranks in 106th place. Sri Lanka’s position in the report is a staggering 10 places lower than it was in 2017. Of all the areas the report analyses, Sri Lanka experienced the steepest decline in ‘Legal Systems and Property Rights’ – a drop from 5.28 to 4.93. Sri Lanka specifically lags behind in judicial integrity, openness to trade, and access to sound money. 

The positions of the economies in the EFW matter because there is a significant correlation between economic freedom and human wellbeing. To analyse this, the Fraser Institute splits the 161 measured countries into quartiles (i.e. each quartile represents a quarter of the economies) based on their level of economic freedom.

The average income in the freest quartile of nations is a staggering 7.1 times higher than the average income in the least free quartile ($40,376 and $5,649 respectively). The bottom 10% of income earners in the freest countries make, on average, 7.9 times more than the poorest 10% in the least free quartile. 

Comparatively, extreme poverty (as defined by the World Bank as an income of than $1.90 per day) is almost non-existent in the freest countries. By comparison, almost a third of all people in the bottom quartile of economies live in extreme poverty. It is clear, then, that for the absolute poorest in any given society, it is unimaginably better to live in a freer economy.

Of the four quartiles, Sri Lanka belongs to the third quartile, which is suitably titled “Non-Economically Free Countries”. With an average GDP per capita of $3,842, Sri Lanka’s average income is an incredible 2.9 times lower than the average income in this quartile ($11,465). As the freest nations have an average income of $40,376 it undeniable that on average, freedom and prosperity are heavily correlated.

But economic freedom isn’t just about money. Take life expectancy for example. In the freest countries, people live on average 15 years longer than those in the most restrictive systems. For many people, that amounts to a difference between knowing one’s grandchildren—or dying before their birth.

Infant mortality is another measure that highlights the immeasurable human cost of isolationist economic policies. Measured in the number of deaths per 1000 births, the devastating death rate in the least economically free nations is 6.8 times higher than the rate in the freest —42.2 and 6.2, respectively.

Problems of misogyny also creep in. When looking to the United Nations (UN) Gender Inequality Index, where zero represents complete gender equality and one represents complete inequality, the least free countries have an average score of just 0.46–compared to 0.18 for the freest quartile.

Free people are also happier people. The UN World Happiness Index asked respondents to rank their lives on a scale of zero to 10, with 10 representing the best possible life and zero representing the worst imaginable. The most economically liberal countries once more win out: the EFW shows that the freest quartile has an average score two points higher than the least free – 6.5 compared to 4.48.

There is more good news. Despite our tendency toward pessimism about the current state of the world, the EFW shows that economic freedom has increased substantially over the last 25 years and that the largest gains have been made in developing nations.

In 1990, the average economic freedom score for a “high-income industrial” country was 7.18 out of 10, compared to just 5.28 for the average “developing” country—a gap of 1.90. By 2016, that gap had narrowed by 46%: developing economies were a mere 1.06 points behind the industrial nations. The rapid increase in the EFW score by many developing economies was primarily driven by gains in the area of trade liberalisation and sound money (meaning the stabilisation of purchasing power by combating inflation.)

The result of these advances is that, when weighted for population, the average person now lives in a far freer economy. Consider this: if the world of 1980 were a country today, its economic freedom score would place it at 160 out of 163 nations — ranking two places below war-torn Syria. But if a 2016 world was a nation in 1980, it would be the 12th freest, with a score of 6.62 — slightly above 1980 Australia.

The latest EFW once again shows the deep and continued link between economic freedom and important indicators of human wellbeing, including; wealth, poverty alleviation, life expectancy, inequality, infant mortality and happiness.

It is clear that despite the many challenges that remain, the poorest in society continue to benefit the most from secure property rights, loosened regulatory barriers, and greater trade liberalisation. Long may policymakers remember this so that the march toward greater economic freedom continues.

---

(The writer is the Research Assistant for HumanProgress.org. He writes about economic freedom, globalisation, and human wellbeing. Hammond is a graduate of History and Politics, from the University of Exeter in Great Britain).