The first 200 days: Can the new government lead or will it be overtaken?

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

• Sri Lanka’s new Government faces critical early decisions

The first 100-200 days are critical for any new government. Being prepared to assume power is essential because if a government expects to prepare after getting to power, it risks being overtaken by circumstances.

This is particularly true in a country like Sri Lanka, where uncertainty is the only constant. Governments here face numerous internal and external shocks, and there is little time to prepare or adjust once in power. When a new president or government takes charge, it is akin to boarding a fast-moving train.

Many previous governments have been reactive, merely responding to crises rather than controlling the situation. If a new government fails to take command, the situation will inevitably take control of it.

During his second term, President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Government was overtaken by corruption and inefficiency before it could address core issues. The ‘Yahapalana’ Government came to power unprepared, only drafting its Vision 2025 plan after a Cabinet reshuffle, including changes to the Ministry of Finance. By then, its primary mandate for rule of law, good governance, and economic transformation had already faded.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Government faced the unexpected Covid-19 pandemic. While somewhat prepared, its policies were misaligned with sound economic principles. The more policies it implemented, the more unpopular it became, given the delicate balance between economics and politics.

Learning from these past lessons, one hopes the current Government avoids the same mistakes. Its challenge is navigating back-to-back elections. While elections may strengthen the Government’s political power, delaying essential economic reforms could be disastrous for a fragile economy like Sri Lanka’s. Delays in reforms could take years to recover from, and in the meantime, other pressing issues may spiral out of control.

While the plan for economic stability continues, economic growth reforms are equally vital. According to the National People’s Power (NPP) manifesto, simplifying the tariff structure is a good starting point. A simplified tariff would not only boost growth and competition but also reduce corruption, benefiting consumers by lowering prices. The Government should see an increase in revenue as informal money leaks caused by a complex tariff system decline.

However, timing is crucial, and reforms need to be implemented quickly within the first 100-200 days. Simplifying the tariff structure will see resistance from trade unions and stakeholders benefiting from the corrupt system. The best way to minimise resistance is to act early. Some local companies, which profit from targeting only the domestic market, may resist the changes, as will officials who have benefitted from the complexity of the system.

The second key reform the new Government should prioritise is anti-corruption. In fact, it received a strong mandate for this. While addressing corrupt politicians and officials is important, the Government also needs to reduce the potential for future corruption by adjusting or removing certain regulations.

Even if the Government is not entirely prepared to tackle corruption vulnerabilities, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Governance Diagnostic is ready with specific actions, responsible divisions, and timelines. By committing to this framework, Sri Lanka can also secure financial and technical support from bilateral and multilateral sources. More importantly, it would significantly reduce the country’s corruption vulnerabilities.

The Government must also avoid certain pitfalls. Delaying economic growth reforms in favour of focusing solely on anti-corruption would be a mistake. Both reforms need to move forward simultaneously, and the Government must be proactive rather than reactive.

Another mistake to avoid is the overuse of relief packages and price controls. When governments fail to deliver on promises, they often impose price controls as a last resort, covering everything from eggs and milk powder to hotel rooms. While intended to protect consumers, price controls often lead to unintended consequences. If the controlled price is lower than production costs, sellers lose the incentive to sell, creating black markets.

We hope the Government can maintain stability, grow the economy, and continue its anti-corruption drive in parallel. Failing to do so will only lead to further losses for all.

Why we won’t be able to find the thieves after the election

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

If you ask the average person the reason for our economic crisis, they would probably say one word: ‘corruption’. The idea of corruption was hyped so much that it became the main theme of the people’s movement – the ‘Aragalaya’. 

However, the truth is a little different. This doesn’t mean there hasn’t been corruption; it means corruption is more of a symptom than the root cause. Corruption is like a fever, while the real infection lies elsewhere. The problem is, we don’t fully understand how corruption occurred, and if we don’t know that, it’s unlikely that we can fix it either. 

Even when we look at the election manifestos of political parties, they talk about eliminating corruption, but corruption isn’t the main focus. Instead, they place more emphasis on proposals for exports, business environment reforms, social safety nets, and debt restructuring.

Why don’t we know?

The way many Sri Lankans calculate corruption is simple: they take the total value of loans we have taken over the years, compare it with the asset value of infrastructure projects, and conclude that the difference equals corruption. 

However, most of the money we borrowed was not for infrastructure. In fact, since 2010, about 47% of the loans were taken just to pay interest. Another 26% of the debt increase came from currency depreciation. This means that from 2010 to 2023, about 72% of the total loans was used for interest payments and dealing with currency depreciation. 

Therefore, comparing the value of infrastructure projects to the total debt doesn’t give a clear picture of corruption because we have been borrowing mostly in order to pay interest. As a result, the debt keeps growing and we remain stuck in the same place.

Does that mean there’s no corruption?

This doesn’t mean there has been no corruption. It simply means we don’t fully understand how it took place. As a result, the solutions proposed for corruption only address the symptoms, not the root cause. 

Corruption has taken place during procurement. Most of the projects we conducted have been priced far above their actual value. 

For example, a project that should have cost $ 1 million was priced at $ 3 million. We then borrowed money at high interest rates for that inflated amount. The project is completed, but we’re still paying interest on an inflated value and the interest keeps snowballing. Now, we’re borrowing more just to pay the interest, which only pushes the total debt higher.

How to fix it

This problem needs to be fixed at the beginning, not at the end. Most anti-corruption methods focus on the aftermath – finding thieves and recovering stolen money. Of course, we should recover stolen money and hold people accountable for misuse of public funds. But on a policy level, the real need is for transparency in procurement and competitive bidding. 

Digital procurement systems and a proper procurement law can take us to the next stage. Otherwise, it’s akin to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Without competitive bidding, we may never even know the true value of projects or how much was stolen. Recovering stolen money becomes incredibly difficult if we don’t know the amount or the method used to steal it.

The solution is upfront disclosure of the values of large infrastructure projects, as well as clear financing methods and guidelines.

The graph shows the impact of State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) losses on debt. The contributions of Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and SriLankan Airlines to the debt are clear; in 2024, we will see more debt from SriLankan Airlines, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWSDB), and other entities.

Simply put, we borrowed too much at high interest rates with short maturities for infrastructure projects that didn’t generate enough revenue to even cover the interest payments. As a result, the interest compounded and we have been continuously borrowing to pay off that growing interest, leaving the debt in place and forcing us to keep borrowing.

Albert Einstein put it wisely when he said: “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it; he who doesn’t, pays it.”

Sri Lanka’s next leader faces a web of crises

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

In two weeks, a newly-elected president and government will take charge of steering the country.

At the beginning of the forex crisis, we warned that an economic crisis often comes as a package of five interconnected crises.

Balance of payments crisis

A balance of payments crisis occurs when excessive borrowing from the central bank (money printing) leads to inflation. In countries like Sri Lanka, where the local currency is not a reserve currency and the economy relies heavily on imports, printing too much money increases the demand for goods and services – many of which are imported.

If exports, remittances, and Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) fail to keep up with this increased demand for imports, we run out of foreign exchange reserves, causing the currency to depreciate.

Debt crisis

When foreign currency reserves are depleted, the country struggles to meet its obligations to creditors. While borrowing from international markets might offer temporary relief, credit rating downgrades make this option limited, triggering a debt crisis. On 12 April 2022, Sri Lanka officially declared it could no longer service its debts, despite having the intention to do so.

Banking crisis

If local banks have provided significant loans to the government and the government defaults, a banking crisis can unfold. Sri Lanka narrowly avoided this scenario.

Humanitarian crisis

With debt defaults and depleted foreign reserves, imports become limited. Inflation makes basic necessities unaffordable for the poorest segments of society. In Sri Lanka, poverty numbers surged from three million to seven million, pushing more than 30% of the population below the poverty line.

Political crisis

When a government faces multiple crises such as these, political instability inevitably follows, as we have seen in Sri Lanka. The President was ousted, the Prime Minister and Finance Minister resigned, and an interim Government was formed.

Although the political crisis continues, it is only one phase in an ongoing cycle of instability, with the Presidential Election being a milestone in this process.

Current political landscape

The incumbent President has introduced significant relief measures, including raising public sector salaries, forgiving agricultural loans, and making other promises. However, if re-elected, he will struggle to deliver on these promises within the limited fiscal space, potentially leading to a deviation from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme.

Alternatively, he might be forced to raise taxes or borrow more, which would increase interest rates and add to the economic strain.

If another candidate is elected, they will face the same fiscal limitations and may have to reverse salary increases to maintain fiscal discipline.

In the case of a Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) government, the challenges are compounded. The Economic Council within the SJB sends mixed signals about achieving revenue targets to support proposed expenditures. Additionally, the broad alliance of political factions under the SJB presents internal challenges, especially concerning sensitive reforms like State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) restructuring and maintaining Central Bank independence.

Not all factions have aligned views based on previous voting records and public statements. Managing these internal differences will be critical for an SJB government, especially in the context of carrying forward the relief measures introduced by the current President.

Similarly, in a National People’s Power (NPP) government, the same challenges apply. The NPP, primarily led by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), advocates for a more State-led development approach, but many professionals in the party’s outer circle lean toward market-driven policies. This could lead to internal conflict, making reforms difficult to implement without alienating part of the party.

This situation resembles the ‘Yahapalana’ Government, where the President and Prime Minister held differing ideologies. As a result, governance became more about managing stakeholders than effective government operation.

If you recall, the Prime Minister made economic decisions through the Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM), which was later replaced by the National Economic Council appointed by then President Maithripala Sirisena. Stakeholder management within an NPP government could prove just as challenging.

On top of these internal struggles, Parliamentary and Provincial Council Elections are expected to follow, adding even more political promises that will further constrain the fiscal space. Reforms tend to slow down during election periods, making debt restructuring more difficult and putting the IMF programme and long-term debt sustainability at risk.

While we may see temporary relief from one or more of these crises, the interconnected nature of these issues means that one crisis could easily trigger the others. The risk factors remain extremely high, underscoring how difficult and sensitive sovereign debt restructuring and recovery can be. There is always a risk of setbacks before we see real progress.

The path forward

Whoever takes office, the best-case scenario involves continuing with reforms aimed at growing the economy, with all political parties supporting these efforts with transparency and accountability.

Stakeholder management will be crucial, but there is no other way to avoid the complete package of five crises. Economic growth, fiscal discipline, and political unity are essential if Sri Lanka is to emerge from this difficult period.

A new era or more turbulence?

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

• The challenges facing Sri Lanka’s next president

The Presidential Election has been announced. Ideally, by 22 September, there will be a new president with a new mandate from the people.

Sustaining power will be more difficult than winning the election. Generally, from the very first day after assuming office, things start to fall apart. This will be the first election after the ‘Aragalaya,’ and we do not know the ground reality.

The last power transition wasn’t smooth. While there was a democratic element in appointing the eighth President after the resignation of the former, that episode had many dark elements, including a massive economic contraction and impact on human lives.

Focus on economics and corruption

Previous elections had a national element, but this time the focus is completely on economics and corruption. The good news is that the path forward is well defined, including macro targets. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) Governance Diagnostic has provided the main reforms needed to curtail corruption, with timelines and responsible institutions. Most of these are non-controversial.

This time, all candidates will also have to declare their assets electronically. We, as the people, should demand that the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) enforces this.

The new president must deliver on anti-corruption promises because the demands of the ‘Aragalaya’ have not been met yet. However, some promises, like recovering assets overseas, are not easy to execute. Therefore, delivering on the anti-corruption sentiment is challenging.

Delivering on the economic front is equally tough. After debt restructuring, our interest rates will likely remain high. When interest rates are high, the cost of capital is higher, slowing down investment.

For instance, buying a computer to automate manual work becomes difficult when money is hard to source due to high interest rates. As a result, our economy will not grow. If the economy is slow to grow, it invites another crisis. Simply put, if the economy doesn’t grow, our debt will not be sustainable.

In other words, if the economy is slow to grow, it indicates that we are heading towards another debt crisis. The next leader must ensure both growth and stability.

The second piece of good news is that we at least have an idea of what targets we need to achieve on the economic front. Our debt-to-GDP ratio must gradually come down to 95% and our revenue must increase by improving our tax net.

Many promises about increasing Government sector salaries and public sector expenditure are good, but will be difficult to keep.

Limited options

In this context, there are two limited options available to increase money and productivity.

The first is improving productivity in what we already do. Simply working harder and putting in more effort can help. For example, reducing the number of holidays by 10% should increase the economy’s momentum because people will work more. But this race cannot be won solely by working harder. We must also look into channels for improving productivity without capital investments.

One such area is opening up business ventures that change the business format. For example, app-based taxi companies have significantly improved the productivity of both passengers and drivers by connecting potential riders with drivers. Companies like Booking.com connect tourists looking for lodging with small-scale lodging options.

Changing the business model has increased income for many people, reduced expenditure for many, and decreased waiting times, increasing overall productivity. The new leader must leverage this productivity lever.

The second option is to reform State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) to attract capital. Allowing SOEs to undergo privatisation and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) can attract capital through investments. Additionally, rather than incurring losses, private entities can generate revenue for the Government through taxes and improve productivity.

The third option is to release land to improve productivity and circulate capital. Providing land ownership to people allows them to use it as security to unleash capital from the banking system, improving productivity.

Beyond these three options, any president will have limited choices. Relying on geopolitical powers in a highly volatile geopolitical environment may also be unfeasible.

Therefore, the challenge for the new president extends beyond getting elected. The real challenge is navigating the period after the election, which will undoubtedly be tougher than getting elected.

Delaying elections threatens political and economic stability

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Whenever there is an election, there is always a conversation about delaying it. Already, Provincial Council Elections and Local Government Elections have been delayed. This was the case in 2004/2005 and again in 2019.

One rationale is that, having just achieved stability after a massive economic crisis, we need more time to complete some structural reforms and ensure political stability. On the flip side, how can we execute any reform without the mandate of the people? Operating without the people’s mandate means political stability is the first thing to go out the window.

After the resignation of the former President, the process of appointing a new President followed a democratic process. While it may not have been perfect, there was a democratic element involved. Political parties with a mandate from the people were able to contest, and the candidate who could command a majority of confidence through votes was given the responsibility to lead the country for the remaining term of the previous President.

Despite its flaws, this democratic element brought political stability, which led to economic stability. With the President’s support from Parliament, it was possible to enter into an agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and continue discussions with external and internal creditors for debt restructuring. The political stability that came through the democratic element in the power transition process made it possible to achieve some level of economic stability.

Uncertainty and economic growth

However, the same democratic process has clear guidelines on the expiry time of the mandate. If we do not follow this process, the system that brought stability will push us towards instability again.

Delaying or attempting to delay elections often prompts political parties and their supporters to demand elections, creating instability as people seek to test the mandate of the public. Delaying an election in the hope of completing unfinished reforms rarely works as planned.

Moreover, postponing elections increases uncertainty. Even holding an election carries some uncertainty, but postponing it intensifies this uncertainty. The biggest enemy of any economic development is uncertainty.

After debt restructuring, the only way out for the country is economic growth. According to agreements with bondholders, we start repaying our interest from September onwards. A year of uncertainty will hinder even the small growth potential we have.

For economic growth, we need investments, and in an uncertain economic environment, attracting investments will be difficult. Falling behind our growth targets due to political uncertainty will challenge our debt repayments and credit rating updates.

International support may not be as easy to secure if the legitimacy of the Government is questioned over a delayed national election. It is true that elections themselves have an element of uncertainty. Especially post-Presidential Elections, if Parliamentary Elections result in fragmented party compositions, we risk returning to a scenario similar to President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s era, with a Coalition Government barely holding a majority.

Passing bills during a time when growth and structural reforms are needed could face resistance and pushback, leading to maintaining the status quo rather than shifting gears for growth and development.

Having a majority or even two-thirds power does not guarantee that all decisions will be right or fast. As we witnessed, a two-thirds majority Government was short-lived due to misguided economic policies. However, a diluted majority will also bring instability and frequent power changes, causing things to go back and forth.

The solution: A common reform programme

If we think about the country and the people, the only solution is a common minimum reform programme where parties agree on a baseline level of reforms. This ensures that regardless of who comes to power, progress continues. The common minimum programme can start with implementing the IMF Governance Diagnostic, which has recommended significant structural reforms for fiscal, monetary, anti-corruption, and State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) sectors.

If we can at least implement the IMF Governance Diagnostic Report as a common minimum programme, even in case of a drift, it will be slow. Delaying elections, however, will accelerate the drift and slow down existing reforms and growth.

The real challenge will be for whoever comes to power next. If the next government cannot drive economic growth through improving productivity, investment, and efficiency, another collapse is inevitable. A common agreement on reforms is required because the common people care less about who rules the country and more about how their future and standard of living will improve.