Understanding the Gender Gap in the Workforce

Originally appeared on Groundviews, Daily Mirror and Lanka Business Online

By Thathsarani Siriwardana

The issue of female labor force participation in Sri Lanka has remained a subject of discussion for several decades, yet tangible progress in improving it has been elusive. As the country grapples with its most severe economic crisis since gaining independence,it is important to take a hard look at our labour force to maximize its potential in overcoming the economic crisis. 

Sri Lanka is approaching its last stages of its demographic dividend characterized by a significant proportion of its population falling within the working age bracket (typically aged 15-64) in relation to the dependent age categories,the aged and the children. According to the Asian Development Bank, Sri Lanka's working-age population is expected to reach its peak around 2027. This presents a unique opportunity for us to strengthen our economic prospects by using the right socioeconomic policy mix, similar to how the Tiger economies like Singapore, Hong Kong etc. have harnessed their demographic dividends to advance their economic growth. 

Importantly, a substantial portion of this working-age population comprises highly educated and women who are living longer. Hence necessary interventions must be made to harness their economic potential.

Current status of the labour market

According to the 2021 Labour Force Survey, Sri Lanka's total labor force comprises 8.5 million individuals, with 65% of them being male. The overall labor force participation rate (LFPR) in Sri Lanka hovers around 50%, revealing a significant gender gap that has persisted since the early 2000s. As of 2021, the male labor force participation rate in the country stands at 71%, whereas the female labor force participation rate is considerably lower at 31.8%. This enduringly low female labor force participation rate, spanning almost a decade, necessitates increased attention and intervention from the government. It represents an untapped potential within our economy that demands harnessing for the nation's benefit.

When examining the female labor force participation, it becomes evident that a significant proportion of females are employed in the estate sector, constituting 42.6% of the female workforce. In the year 2021, a substantial majority of the economically inactive population were females, accounting for approximately 73.3%. Interestingly, among these economically inactive women, 59.4% cited engagement in household work as their primary reason for not participating in the labor force. This sheds a light on household responsibilities as the main contributing factor, preventing women from entering the workforce.

Education status of the labour market
Sri Lankan women tend to achieve higher levels of education compared to men. However, this educational advantage hasn't  translated into higher levels of participation in the labor force. To illustrate this relationship between labor force participation and education, the chart below provides a clear visual representation of the situation.

This diagram highlights two important points. Firstly, it reveals that a significant majority of women who participate in the labor force (83.2%) possess degrees or higher levels of education. This suggests that women are more likely to apply for jobs that align with their skill set and education level. 

Secondly, it underscores a distinct contrast when it comes to men. Even if men have an education level of grade 5 or below, a substantial portion (65.7%) still actively contribute to the economy. This disparity suggests that women with lower levels of education face greater challenges or barriers when it comes to workforce participation compared to their male counterparts.

This statistic also serves as a clear illustration of the traditional societal norm of men being the breadwinner, which leads to men having higher labor force participation rates, irrespective of their educational levels. On the other hand, women, despite their advanced educational qualifications, may encounter societal pressures or constraints that discourage them from seeking or maintaining employment. Unemployment remains a significant challenge in Sri Lanka, with the highest rates observed among women holding education levels at Advanced Level and above. This represents a substantial untapped pool of potential in the Sri Lankan labor market.

Reasons for low Female Labour Force Participation despite having a high education level 

The low female labor force participation rate in Sri Lanka can be attributed to a range of socioeconomic factors. 

A primary factor that discourages women from actively contributing to the economy is the significant burden of care responsibilities they bear. This care work encompasses a broad range of household tasks, from cooking and cleaning to childcare and caring for the elderly. According to the 2017 Time Use Survey, women spent nearly four hours more per day on unpaid care work and domestic services compared to men. For many decades, there has been a prevailing societal stereotype that women are primarily responsible for managing households, while men are expected to be the breadwinners outside the household. This division of labor is a key reason why women with the qualifications and capabilities to pursue employment opportunities often choose to stay at home, while men even with lower levels of education enter the labor market.

Another significant factor is the existing legal barriers in Sri Lanka. The two prominent legal constraints are restrictions on night-time work and the absence of recognition for part-time employment. While these legal provisions may have initially aimed to protect women, they inadvertently discriminate by limiting their employment opportunities and earning potential. For example IT/BPM sector employment is affected by the 1954 Act which only permits women over the age of 18, to work till 8 pm. The current statutory regimes governing employee rights fail to recognize part time-work. This oversight leads to a reluctance by employers to hire part-time workers as they are entitled to the same benefits as full time workers.

Moreover, the absence of adequate social infrastructure, such as quality child care centers and comprehensive parental leave policies, contributes significantly to the low female labor force participation rate. Presently, in Sri Lanka, approximately 80% of child care centers are privately operated. This situation creates a barrier to accessing quality and affordable child care facilities, making it financially challenging for skilled women to participate in the labor force, as many opt to stay at home to care for their children due to these constraints.

As highlighted in an ILO report the presence of skill mismatch in Sri Lanka's labor market since the early 1970s contributes as another reason. This skill mismatch exists because the country's education system does not adequately prepare graduates with the skills required by the job market. There is a notable disconnect between the courses offered by universities and the competencies needed by the private sector. 

This mismatch also contributes as a reason for the high levels of youth unemployment and the prevalent issue of arts degree holders struggling to find employment. A staggering 43.9% of unemployed graduates possess degrees in the arts. Notably, the majority of arts degree holders are women. This situation underscores a disconnect between the demand and supply within the labor market. It suggests that the current education system is not adequately preparing graduates with the skills and qualifications needed to meet the demands of available job opportunities.

Addressing these barriers are vital to improving the labor force participation rates, especially among women.

Policy Recommendations

• Recognise part time work under the existing statutes and provide needed benefits such as annual leave and remove provisions which restricts women from working at night.

• Utilize local government mandates via by-laws to enact local legislation to set up standardized and regularized day care centers while encouraging Public-Private partnerships in providing care for children by utilizing existing infrastructure.   

• Introduce more courses and degrees which are required by the private sector. This should be specially done by focusing on arts graduates. 

The effectiveness of the aforementioned policies would be limited if we do not address the need for a shift in people's mindsets. While Sri Lanka has made progress in challenging gender stereotypes there is still much work to be done. Initiating change, particularly within the education system, presents a promising starting point. The prevailing patriarchal system can be challenged and dismantled through education, which has the power to instill in both men and women the belief that predefined gender roles are unnecessary.

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.

Why is OT work necessary for women in Sri Lanka?

Originally appeared on the Morning

By Sumhiya Sallay

‘Overtime work for women’ is a topic that is not touched upon much in Sri Lanka, however, it can bring an array of benefits to women and our economy. It can improve financial security by providing an additional source of income and provide the next generation of women and girls with more opportunities to work and increase economic participation and improve productivity. 

Given Sri Lanka’s current economic crisis, there is a dire need for a dual income role in lower-income and lower-middle-income households. As Sri Lanka navigates through this economic crisis, where high levels of inflation have significantly reduced the purchasing power of the public, one earner is no longer sufficient for a household. This is where the need for laws that provide more opportunities for women are needed. 

The freedom to choose a job, a place of work, and how long to work are all decisions that should be given to every employee, whether male or female. However, in certain private sector industries in Sri Lanka, female employees do not have the legal right to choose overtime work, while male employees can [1]. 

Legal safeguards needed for overtime work

It is important for a country to have laws that support women so that women are given the choice and freedom to work in order to support themselves and their families. The World Bank’s ‘Women, Business and the Law 2021’ report states that when economies are more equal, they become more resilient [2].

It also highlighted the need to safeguard women’s economic rights under the law [3]. When laws are discriminatory against women, it makes it much more difficult for them to remain in the workforce. Therefore, it is vital for countries to enable laws that are more supportive towards women. 

The report, which captures the laws and regulations that restrict women’s economic opportunities, indicated that Sri Lanka scored 65.6 out of 100 in the ‘Women, Business and the Law’ 2021 index. Overtime work restrictions are also among one of the various discriminatory laws identified in Advocata’s report on ‘Gender Discriminatory Labour Laws in Sri Lanka and Female Labour Force Participation’. 

In Sri Lanka, women above the age of 18 are not allowed to work for more than nine hours per day (45 hours per week) within a five-day workweek, with an exception provided for female employees employed in residential hotels, clubs, and other places of entertainment or in any shop situated at an airport where they may be employed until 10 p.m. under specific conditions [4][5]. However, male employees are entitled to work for up to 12 hours of overtime per week (on a five-day work week). This discrimination towards female employees prevents them from working overtime. 

Although a practice known as administrative relaxation exists where the law is relaxed to allow women to work overtime, it is not recognised by the law [6]. Due to this, issues arise where employees who have worked overtime are not provided compensation for the hours worked overtime by the employer. Therefore, not having a formal, legally recognised law or regulation for overtime work discourages employees from working overtime. 

Furthermore, having laws that are not supportive towards women, especially discriminatory overtime laws that prohibit women from working overtime prevents them from having an extra source of income. 

Benefits of enabling overtime work

Given the current situation in Sri Lanka, with the high inflation rates, more income generation is needed and increasing female labour force participation by having supportive laws will give women the opportunity to earn more and also be financially independent. In return, women can increase their household spending on items that will enhance a country’s growth prospects by changing spending in ways that benefit children’s nutrition, health, and education [7].

Overtime work can not only benefit female employees but also benefit employers as it increases productivity and contributes towards the overall economic development of a country. The economies of both developed and developing countries would greatly benefit from increasing female labour force participation if women participate in the labour force at the same rate as men, work the same number of hours as men, and are employed at the same levels as men across sectors [8]. 

Overall productivity will increase if employees’ skills and talents are used more fully. There are several studies that have been published on how much more productive an economy could be if it took full advantage of the potential of its women workforce [9].

As more women enter the labour force, economies have the potential to grow faster in response to higher labour inputs. Women’s supply of labour increases household incomes, which helps families escape poverty and increase their consumption of goods and services. 

In Advocata’s report on ‘Gender Discriminatory Labour Laws in Sri Lanka and Female Labour Force Participation,’ key reforms and recommendations that need to take place in order to allow women to work overtime are highlighted. 

These recommendations include removing the restriction on overtime work under the Shop and Office Employees (Regulation of Employment and Remuneration) Act No. 19 of 1954 [10] and introducing a regulation to allow women to work overtime. In order to support this regulation, we also recommended that certain guidelines be included within the law to prevent the exploitation of excessive overtime. 

References

• Shop and Office Employees (Regulation of Employment and Remuneration) (SOE) Act No. 19 of 1954.

• Women, Business and the Law 2021, (Washington: The World Bank, 2021).

• Women, Business and the Law 2022, (Washington: The World Bank, 2022).

• Subject to conditions under the Shop and Office Employees (Regulation of Employment and Remuneration) (Amendment) (No. 32 of 1984), Section 2A.

• Employment In Terms Of The Shop And Offices Employees’ Act Monograph No. 17 (Rajagiriya: The Employers’ Federation of Ceylon, 2016), 13.

• Employment In Terms Of The Shop And Offices Employees’ Act Monograph No. 17 (Rajagiriya: The Employers’ Federation of Ceylon, 2016), 13.

• Ana Revenga and Sudhir Shetty, ‘Empowering Women Is Smart Economics’.

• McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), ‘The Power of Parity: How Advancing Women’s Equality Can Add $12 Trillion to Global Growth,’ (2015).

• McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), ‘The Power of Parity: How Advancing Women’s Equality Can Add $12 Trillion to Global Growth,’ (2015).

• Shop and Office Employees (Regulation of Employment and Remuneration) (SOE) Act No. 19 of 1954, Section 3 (1)(3)(a).

Sumhiya Sallay is a Programmes Executive at the Advocata Institute. She can be contacted at thilini@advocata.org. The Advocata Institute is an Independent Public Policy Think Tank. The opinions expressed are the authors’ own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute.

Is Wealth Tax the Solution to Sri Lanka’s Low Tax Revenue Collection

Originally appeared on Daily FT, Biz Adaderana , The Morning, Daily Mirror, The Island and Lanka Business Online

By Sathya Karunarathne

Successive governments have run fiscal deficits. Inadequate revenue collection and unrestrained government expenditure have worsened the country’s fiscal position.  

Tax revenue which averaged over 20% of GDP in 1990 has declined to under 10% of GDP in 2020. Ad hoc tax policy changes have significantly eroded the tax base. Weak tax administration has also contributed to the sharp decline in tax collection.

While tax revenue has contracted, government expenditure has ballooned over time. Today, government revenue is not sufficient even to meet its expenditure on salaries and wages and transfers and subsidies to households which include pension payments and social welfare payments such as Samurdhi.  

In this context, there are various proposals put forward to raise government revenue. One proposal is the reintroduction of the wealth tax.  

A wealth tax is expected to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor, achieving equality. This tax shifts the tax burden to affluent households, taxing an individual’s net wealth, which is the market value of total owned assets. Proponents of wealth taxation argue that this is a progressive system of taxation and is a more powerful tool in comparison to income, estate or corporate taxes as it addresses the issue of wealth concentration.  

Moreover, a tax should ideally satisfy basic characteristics of taxation: it should not be distortionary; it should be fair, and it should not be difficult to collect. 

The rationale for a wealth tax

One of the earliest proponents of the wealth tax for developing countries was Nicholas Kaldor.  Based on his recommendation, a wealth tax together with an income tax, expenditure tax and a gift tax were introduced in Sri Lanka in 1958. However, these new taxes yielded little revenue due to difficulties in determining the tax base and problems in administration.  Following the recommendation of the Tax Commission in 1990, the government abolished the wealth tax from the year of assessment 1992/1993.

Wealth taxes have mainly been implemented in European countries. In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland.  Several non-European countries have also imposed wealth taxes from time to time including such as Argentina, Bangladesh, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Pakistan 

In recent times there has been renewed interest in wealth taxes. Presidential candidates in the US proposed various forms of a wealth tax. In the UK and France, there were proposals to impose “super taxes” on the rich. The primary justification was to address the increasing inequality in society.  

Issues with a wealth tax

Despite renewed interest in the wealth tax as a progressive tax based on equity, it scores poorly on the criteria of efficiency, and administrative feasibility.  

Many factors have justified the repeal of wealth taxes in OECD countries. The reasons cited are related to efficiency costs, risk of capital flight particularly in light of increased capital mobility and wealthy taxpayers' access to tax havens, failure to meet redistributive goals as a result of narrow tax bases, tax avoidance and evasion, high administrative and compliance costs compared to limited revenues (high cost yield ratio).  

To understand the efficiency costs of wealth taxes one can look at taxing a person’s wealth accumulated through savings. Despite the common consensus that taxing savings is an effective way to redistribute, a person’s saving decisions reveal little about their underlying lifetime resources and wellbeing. It only reveals their preference to consume tomorrow rather than today. Thereby a wealth tax imposes a tax on those who prefer to spend their money later as opposed to taxing the wealthy. Efficiency costs refer to the reduction of the welfare of the taxed individuals by more than $1 to generate $1 of revenue. Therefore, the efficiency cost of a wealth tax in terms of taxing savings is a reduction of  future consumption that can be bought with earnings, reducing incentive to work for those who prefer to consume the proceeds later and reducing incentive for young people to save for their retirement.

Capital flight is the possibility of holding assets outside of one's resident country without declaring them.As wealth taxes are imposed on residents it increases the risk of the wealthy

reallocating their assets to avoid taxation. Therefore a high tax burden encourages taxpayers to change their tax residence to a lower tax jurisdiction or tax havens.

Both income-generating and non-income generating assets are taxed under wealth taxation. They can include land, real estate, bank accounts, investment funds, intellectual or industrial property rights, bonds, shares, and even jewellery, vehicles, art and antiques. However, this tax base for wealth taxes has often been narrowed through exemptions. These exemptions have been justified most commonly on the grounds of social concerns such as the negative social implications of taxing  pension assets. Further liquidity issues (eg - farm assets), supporting entrepreneurship and investment (eg- business assets), avoiding valuation difficulties ( eg- artwork and jewellery) and preserving countries cultural heritage (eg - artwork and antiques) have also been cited as reasons for wealth tax reliefs. While some of these exemptions can be justified, they have led to the reduction of revenue raised from wealth taxes. They have also contributed to wealth taxes being less equitable as the wealthiest such as businesses benefit from these exemptions defeating the very purpose of imposing a wealth tax which is to meet its redistributive goals.

Narrow tax bases in wealth taxation often leads to tax avoidance and evasion opportunities. For example, Spain's 1994 wealth tax exemption for the shares of owner managers resulted in wealthy businesses reorganizing their activities to reap benefits of the exemption resulting in a significant erosion of the wealth tax base. 

Further, several other factors have also discouraged countries to sustain a wealth tax. They are namely, the difficulty in determining the tax base or what assets to be taxed, underreporting and undervaluation of assets, difficulty in measuring wealth taxes, distinguishing between individuals who are asset rich but cash poor, the constant need to value assets and audit returns increasing administrative and enforcement costs

Low revenue collection as well as the other reasons discussed have led to the abolishing of wealth taxes in most countries  (See Table 1 for details) . Tax revenue from individual net wealth taxes in 2016 ranged from only 0.2% of GDP in Spain to 1.0% of GDP in Switzerland. Sri Lanka’s experience with wealth taxation was no different with the tax yielding low revenue as reported by the 1990 Tax Commission.

Table 1: Implementation of Wealth Taxes in Selected Countries

Conclusion 

Taxing the wealth of the rich to generate income and to eliminate economic inequality sounds promising in terms of political debate. However, wealth taxes have failed to generate adequate revenue, failed to meet redistributive goals as a result of narrow tax bases, proven to have high administrative and enforcement costs, resulted in tax evasion and avoidance due to underreporting and undervaluation of assets, increased the risk of capital flight and access to tax havens and may have contributed to the reduction of investment and employment. 

Therefore, imposing a wealth tax may not be the ideal policy response to Sri Lanka’s low tax revenue, especially given the country’s previous experience with the tax yielding low revenue.

Sathya Karunarathne is the Research Analyst at the Advocata Institute and can be contacted at sathya@advocata.org. Learn more about Advocata’s work at www.advocata.org. 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.

Abuse of Sri Lanka's migrant workers: Is a ban on migrant labour the best solution?

By Ravi Ratnasabapathy

Reports of abuse of migrant workers have prompted calls to ban the outflow of labour, is this a solution?  There are some real concerns that need to be addressed but the economic consequence of a complete ban would be dire as foreign employment, is, by far, the dominant sub-economy of Sri Lanka. Remittances reached US$ 7,018 m in 2014, accounting for 39% of all foreign exchange earnings. The estimated 1.9 million foreign workers form 25% of our labour force.

To put things in context it is worth examining the history of migrant labour.

The oil boom in the 1970’s resulted in labour shortages in the Middle East. Fortuitously, the Non-Aligned Conference held in Colombo in 1976 opened up employment opportunities for Sri Lankans in the Gulf. By 1976 unemployment had reached almost 25 percent of the labour force, leaving 1.5 million unemployed in a population of 15 million. Migration was a solution to a problem of severe unemployment.   

It is ironic that even today, migrant labour absorbs 25% of the labour force. Hypothetically if there was no overseas employment Sri Lanka should have an unemployment rate of around 29%, far worse than that of 1976.

Overseas employment is therefore a solution to economic problems faced at home. A report by the UN states that out-migration in Sri Lanka is driven by low per capita income, unemployment and/or underemployment, high inflation, indebtedness and lack of access to resources. A long term solution needs to address these fundamental problems, most crucially the creation of employment. If there are sufficient well-paying jobs at home there is no need to seek work overseas. The steady increase in total departures testifies that Sri Lankan workers are making a choice, that it is better to risk abuse abroad than suffer poverty at home.

The abuse stems from weaknesses in the legal system in host countries. Fear of being overwhelmed by migrant workers may be one reason why host-country legal systems offer scant protection to temporary workers.

According to the Middle East Institute, a think tank, foreigners make up an estimated 37-43% of the population of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and constitute 70% of the workforce, with workforce numbers rising significantly higher in the UAE (90%), Kuwait (82%), and Qatar (90%).

The high percentage of guest workers worries government officials in host countries. Accordingly, governments have legislated to minimise the perceived threat. Restrictions on length of stay, strict regulations about changing jobs, hurdles imposed by the sponsorship system, difficult-to-meet criteria for bringing in family members, the inability to own land and businesses, the near-impossibility of obtaining citizenship, and the absence of legal rights all work to keep guest workers’ stays short, temporary, or informal.

Unfortunately, this is what enables the abuse. According to Human Rights Watch, workers typically have their passports confiscated and are forced to work under the highly exploitative kafala system of sponsorship-based employment, which prevents them from leaving employers. Migrants often have limited information about their rights and channels to seek help, and face discrimination and obstacles to redress. Domestic workers are worst off because labour laws in the Gulf exclude domestic workers from even the basic protections guaranteed other workers such as a weekly rest day, limits to hours of work, and compensation in case of work-related injury. Restrictive immigration rules make it difficult for domestic workers to escape from abusive employers.

Worker remittances have become a mainstay both for the national economy and for the households which receive them. Domestic workers, the category most vulnerable to abuse, are generally unskilled and drawn from the poorest sections of society. Many are below the poverty line or just above it, working overseas represents an opportunity to escape from poverty.

Therefore what the Government needs to do is to work with GCC countries to improving the system so that abuses are minimised.

Some work is being done, eleven Asian countries set up the Colombo Process in 2003, a regional consultative process to address the needs of contractual migrant workers employed overseas. In 2012, participating governments, including South Asian countries and all six GCC countries, adopted a Framework of Regional Collaboration committing to prevent abuse and foster greater benefits from migration. These include reducing recruitment costs, developing standard employment contracts, and making recruiting agencies responsible for the activities of local-level labour brokers. It also recommends pre-departure and post-arrival information seminars for migrant workers and government action to enforce labour laws.

Charities such as Helvitas are implementing projects to educate workers, provide guidance, support and access to legal advice. The Helvitas Labour Migration project works along 4 main threads:

• Access to Information: Migrants and their families are empowered to take an informed decision, based on safe migration knowledge. This includes the ability to follow the legal process or to detect fraudulent practices of sub-agents.

  At the same time, local government officials are supported to increasingly provide safe migration messages to the community and guide a decision-making process.

• Access to psycho-social support: By raising awareness on migrants'psycho-social issues with counsellors, midwives, and other relevant officers, the migrants are increasingly able to access services to mitigate their psycho-social hardships. Individual counselling and psycho-education sessions are provided for caregivers, migrants'children and returnees.

• Access to justice: Together with The Centre for Human Rights and Development (CHRD) Sri Lanka, migrants are provided free legal assistance and access to legal redress mechanisms provided by the Sri Lankan Bureau of Foreign Employment.

• Remittances management: Migration can only be successful when remittances are managed sustainably. Financial literacy and knowledge about productive investments is key for migrants and their families. Therefore, they are sensitised on access to loans, budgeting, savings, formal banking and remittances transfer systems in order to maximise the financial benefits of migration.

The Government should partner with such organisations to ensure wide dissemination of these programmes.

Not all abuse takes place overseas, some local recruitment agencies have been known to be guilty of poor practices including failure to observe blacklists of employers/overseas recruitment firms compiled by the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment (SLBFE), excessive fees, double-charging migrants for fees already paid by the employer and misrepresentation of pay or working conditions. More seriously some employment agencies have been accused of theft of wages and refusal to assist in mediation and repatriation. The SLBFE monitoring and enforcement functions also need to be strengthened to limit any local malpractices.  

Banning overseas employment is not a solution, although Nepal did experiment with one, temporarily banning women under the age of 30 from working in Gulf countries. The danger with a ban is that it may push workers into irregular migration channels with heightened risk of exploitation and trafficking. Instead, the Government needs to work in partnership with international agencies and other countries to strengthen the system so abuse is minimised.