High tariffs on basic food items: A blow to the struggling masses

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Last week it was reported that the Government has again imposed high tariffs (Special Commodity Levy) on some food items such as cowpea, finger millet, undu, maize, and a few others. At a time when seven million people are below the poverty line, tariffs on food items are a crime. Imposing tariffs on such food items is not done just to increase Government revenue.

The tariff on undu has increased to Rs. 300 from Rs. 200 per kg. For finger millet and other items, it has increased from Rs. 70 to Rs. 300. How much can a Government earn from a population of 22 million by imposing a Rs. 300 tariff on finger millet and cowpea?

According to the Ministry of Agriculture, the per annum demand for cowpea in Sri Lanka is 15,000 MT, while the demand for finger millet stands at 10,000 MT. Even if we import the entire demand for finger millet and cowpea, the amount the Government can earn as tariff is about Rs. 7.5 billion for the entire year.

This is a negligible amount compared to our expenditure. The expenditure for the President is about Rs. 5.8 billion as per the Budget estimate for 2024. It is clear that the increase of the Special Commodity Levy (SCL) for food items will have an impact beyond taxes, because at this tariff rate no one will import finger millet or cowpea.

However, it means that the consumer will lose the opportunity to purchase cowpea, undu, and finger millet for Rs. 300 less than what is available in the market. How can we justify people paying an additional Rs. 300 when seven million people – one-third of our country – live in poverty?

This general justification is that this tariff is imposed to protect local manufacturing of finger millet, cowpea, and maize. Even if this is true, what is the justification in terms of consumers when they no longer have access to affordable food items?

Given existing lifestyle changes, products such as undu, cowpea, and finger millet are mainly consumed not by the wealthiest section of the society but the poorest. Diabetes patients, pregnant mothers, estate workers, people in the north and east are the primary consumers of these food items.

It doesn’t stop there. High prices on maize will impact the entire food supply chain as maize is one of the main expenditures of the poultry industry. About 40% of the cost of poultry is on food, primarily driven by maize. This indicates that the cost of main protein sources such as chicken and eggs will increase.

The cost of chicken and eggs in turn impacts the costs of the bakery industry and all food items at restaurants and eateries.

Accordingly, the net impact on the entire food supply chain due to this ad hoc Special Commodity Levy is much greater than what we see at the surface level. Although it is not ideal, if the Government really wishes to protect finger millet, cowpea, and maize farmers, it can give a direct subsidy of Rs. 7.5 billion, based on the productivity and efficiency of farms.

This would mean that at least those who push for better cultivation methods receive an incentive to ensure a better harvest, rather than asking consumers to shoulder a flat price hike for all food items at a time when they are struggling to put three meals on the table per day. People are facing excessive burdens due to inflation and the high tax rate in order to pay for the mistakes of our policymakers.

The second argument against the high SCL on imported food items concerns saving foreign exchange. Firstly, we cannot save foreign exchange through higher tariffs because the demand for imports is determined by the money supply within the economy. People buy forex to import by spending the rupees they earn. When they buy forex in rupees, they have to reduce their consumption by some other means.

If we can save forex simply through higher tariffs and import controls, we have to question how we ran out of forex when import controls, in place since Covid, existed until very recently.

We even controlled some of our pharmaceutical imports but we were still unable to save forex. Foreign exchange cannot be saved by import controls or high tariffs.

Secondly, 40% of our imports is fuel. If we really want to cut down on our imports, we must reduce fuel imports, which this column has recommended multiple times, suggesting a market system for public transport. By imposing a Special Commodity Levy on food, we are simply asking the poorest of the poor to face starvation while providing the opportunity for rent-seeking behaviour of a few crony elites.

Whether in socialism or in capitalism or with the argument of saving foreign exchange, how can we justify a Special Commodity Levy of Rs. 300 on basic food items when one out of every three fellow Sri Lankans are forced to skip a meal due to poverty?

Contemporary Issues in Agri-Food Supply Chain in Sri Lanka

Originally appeared on the Morning

By Thilini Bandara and Niumi Amarasekara

Introduction

In the current context of food insecurity, building a resilient agri-food supply chain is crucial for Sri Lanka. The agri-food supply chains are a set of activities involved in a “farm to fork'' sequence including farming, processing, testing, packaging, warehousing, transportation, distribution, and marketing. So far, the supply chains have been providing mass quantities of food for the country’s growing population. However, the supply chains are plagued by a number of issues stemming from within and outside the supply chain. Hence this article sheds light on various inefficiencies prevalent in the agri-food supply chain and  the way forward to establish a more resilient supply chain.

Overview of agri-food supply chain in Sri Lanka

Agri-food sector plays a major role in the Sri Lankan economy. It is a key source of food supplies which comprises a complex system of supply chains involving farmers, distributors, processing firms, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers.

Figure 01: Flow of agri-food supply chain

Issues in the agri-food supply chain sector

The country has been experiencing inefficiencies within its agriculture sector due to various issues stemming from within the supply chain.  For instance, Sri Lanka  annually loses 270,000 metric tons of fruits and vegetables along the supply chain, which are estimated to cost around Rs. 20 billion. This accounts for 30-40% of the total agri-food production in the country.One of the key causes of this is the lack of integration between supply and demand . For instance, farmers cultivate their lands without having a scientific understanding of future needs and in the absence of a national-level cultivation strategy to fulfill local demand. This leads to an overproduction of certain crops, which ultimately results in considerable losses for farmers.

Nevertheless, high food miles set along the supply chain also causes a high degree of inefficiency. For instance, when commodities from different parts of the country reach the main economic centers , only to be redistributed, it can cause high cost and further damage to the produce. Also maladaptation of post harvest handling practices at various stages of the supply chain further lead to high wastage and inefficiencies.

Apart from that, a number of additional factors (eg: information asymmetry, limited supply of inputs, lack of infrastructure and support facilities, poor agricultural policies, import restrictions, and price controls, etc.) also hinder the smooth operation of supply chains. Finally, these can lead to significant pricing disparities of the commodities across the island.

Source: Weekly prices, Hector Kobbekaduwa Research & Training Institute

In order to analyze the pricing disparities of Raw Rice (white) across the island, the average of weekly prices were obtained from the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute for four weeks from 6th of January 2023 to 2nd of February 2023 of 10 districts across Sri Lanka. Colombo was taken as the base district and the percentage changes were calculated to identify whether there is a significant difference in the prices of each district against Colombo.

Due to lower average retail pricing than Colombo's average retail price, it can be seen from the calculations that in certain paddy production areas like Ampara, Hambantota, and Matara have greater percentage changes of 13.2%, 10.2%, and 9.97% against Colombo respectively. In comparison to Colombo; Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, and Kurunegala also have relatively lower average retail prices. The common reason behind this is that food supply to Colombo varies between types of commodities and does not depend on the closest production areas. The variations in distance and transport costs are reflected in the price disparities in Colombo. Apart from that, some other reasons for the price disparities across the island could be possibly due to complex interactions between supply and demand, income variation, uneven population distribution, price controls and the price of close substitutes.

Way forward

In light of the aforementioned issues, continuous development and tailor made policies should be introduced to establish a more resilient agri-food supply chain. Hence below are a few recommendations that can be introduced to the system.

• Establish post harvest handling hubs across main cities of the island to improve the efficiency of the sector

• Farmers/ supply chain actors to be more vigilant on proper post harvest handling techniques to minimize losses

• Utilize railway system as a cost effective source of transportation

• Promote the use of digital marketing platforms to connect different actors across the supply chain

• Integrate these platforms with financial services such as online payments, credit-based transactions, and loan facilities through banks 

• Enhance collaboration among different actors across the supply chain to reduce cost and increase efficiency (eg: promote forward and backward integration via business partnerships)

• Encourage private sector participants to invest in modern technologies along the supply chain to reduce losses

• Encourage innovations/processes that can improve the efficiency and reduce losses along the supply chain
  

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.

Current Food Inflation in Sri Lanka: Causes, Consequences and Way Forward

Originally appeared on the Morning

By Thilini Bandara

In recent times, rising food prices have become a global phenomenon owing to various factors including the Covid-19 pandemic, climate impacts, the Russia-Ukraine war and the downturn of the global economy. These have played a part in Sri Lanka recording the highest food inflation rate of 94.9% in September 2022 according to the Colombo Consumer Price Index—a rate which averaged at 9.39 per cent during 2009–2022. The World Bank's food security update highlights  Sri Lanka among the top 5 countries with the highest food price inflation in September 2022. This article explores the recent trends, causes and consequences of food inflation in the country. 

Fluctuation of food prices over time

Advocata Institute’s Bath Curry Indicator (BCI) tracks the monthly changes in the retail prices of a limited basket of goods normally consumed by Sri Lankans as per the 2016 Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES). 

Accordingly, the BCI supermarket prices recorded a 78% increase between September 2021 to 2022.  However, there is a slight decrease in prices on a month-on-month basis of 7.63% in September 2022 compared to August 2022. Further, when considering the BCI-Supermarket prices, it has recorded an 83.88% increase between August 2021 to August 2022 on a year-on-year basis, while showing a slight decline of 6.59% between September 2022 and August 2022. 

Table 1 depicts the price fluctuations in terms of BCI and BCI-Supermarket from 2019 to 2022.

Table 1: Price fluctuation over time according to the BCI index

Causes of food inflation in Sri Lanka

At a glance, rising food prices can be attributed to disruptions in both global and local supply chains due to various factors that include the energy crisis, climate impacts, the pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine War. Additionally, domestic policy restrictions such as import bans of essential commodities, the rising cost of agricultural inputs, recent changes to agricultural policy, and the ban on chemical fertilisers and quick shift to organic fertilizer lowered agricultural production and heightened supply chain disruptions. 

Moreover, the expansionary monetary policy of the previous government through lowered interest rates and heightened money printing contributed to higher food inflation.

Additionally, due to the uncertainty surrounding imports entering the markets, traders must reassess their pricing decisions. This creates distortions in the marketplace and can lead to additional pressure on consumers. 

Consequences of food inflation

People living below the poverty line and middle-income groups with a fixed income are the most severely impacted by this high inflation. Food inflation rising rapidly in contrast to household incomes has widened the income gaps. It has further dealt a massive blow to the economic stability and well-being of the poor through poverty and malnutrition. A recent survey by the Sri Lankan Red Cross Society and the International Federal of Red Crescent Societies has revealed that 50% of households have reduced the intake of meat and fish, while 11% have completely dropped protein intake from their diets. Also, a survey conducted by WFP in September 2022, reveals that more than 1/3rd of Sri Lanka’s population is in food insecurity, while 79% of households are adopting food-based coping strategies to keep food on the table.  Moreover, the evidence revealed that even non-food expenditure such as education, housing, and health has lowered owing to rising food costs, which will lead to socioeconomic pressure.

Way forward

A recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the WFP highlights that the food security problem could be further heightened during the upcoming “maha” season between October 2022 - February 2023, if the country is unable to import sufficient amounts of rice and other food products to meet demand. In the absence of a sufficient supply of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and other supplies, targeted assistance should be provided to farmers to increase domestic production and resilience of the agri-food systems. In fact, introducing incentive schemes, identifying special regions for off-season cultivation, implementing innovative food storage and preservation strategies, distributing farm inputs at subsidized rates, and promoting substitutes for imported items are some of the measures that can be implemented to address the food security problems. 

Targeted interventions should also be provided through social safety nets and humanitarian initiatives for low-income groups that are food insecure and require immediate assistance. Though funds for this have been already allocated from the 2022 interim budget, effective and efficient execution is required to identify the most vulnerable groups and provide them with the food assistance they require. 

References

Aneez, S. (2022). Crisis-hit Sri Lanka looks for foster parents to face malnutrition among children. Economynext. Available at: https://economynext.com/crisis-hit-sri-lanka-looks-for-foster-parents-to-face-malnutrition-among-children-101200/. [Accessed 17 October 2022]

CBSL. (2022). CCPI based headline inflation recorded at 69.8% on year-on-year basis in September 2022. CBSL. Available at: https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/sites/default/files/cbslweb_documents/press/pr/press_20220930_inflation_in_september_2022_ccpi_e.pdf. [Accessed 13 October 2022]

Economynext. (2022). Sri Lanka households drop meat from diet, slash drug doses as poverty worsens: survey. Available at: https://economynext.com/sri-lanka-households-drop-meat-from-diet-slash-drug-doses-as-poverty-worsens-survey-101259/.[Accessed 19 October, 2022]

FAO & WFP.(2022). FAO/WFP Crop & Food Security Assessment Mission (CFSAM) to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Rome: FAO & WFP. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/cc1886en/cc1886en.pdf.[Accessed 17 October 2022]

OCHA. (2022). Food Security and Nutrition Crisis in Sri Lanka. OCHA. Available at: https://reliefweb.int/report/sri-lanka/food-security-and-nutrition-crisis-sri-lanka. [Accessed 17 October 2022]

Trading Economics. (2022). Sri Lanka Food Inflation. [online] Available at: https://tradingeconomics.com/sri-lanka/food-inflation. [Accessed 19 October 2022]

The World Bank. (2022). Food Security Update. The World Bank. Available at: Food-Security-Update-LXX-September-29-2022.pdf (worldbank.org). [Accessed 20 October 2022]

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.

Thilini Bandara is a Research Analyst 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.

Let’s not look too far ahead

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 Dhananath Fernando

In cricket, most great batsmen will tell you that they don’t go out to bat thinking “I will score a century today”. They break their innings down to phases; “let’s score 10 runs”, “let’s score 20 runs”, “let’s survive the next four overs”, etc. Basically, “let’s face the next ball”. While this may be misconstrued as a lack of ambition, the underlying principle is that when you look too far ahead you can lose sight of the here and now. In cricket, this could mean getting out for zero while your mind is on the 100. Covid-19, the virus that found its origins in China, not only has Sri Lanka locked in its megalodon jaws but the entire world as well. While this too shall pass, we have to admit that we are well and truly in an unprecedented crisis. We will not be safe until the world is safe and that is the reality. Having faith that things will be back to normal soon is good but our actions should go beyond simply being optimistic and hopeful. Without beating around the bush, let’s be realistic and pragmatic by being scientific. In the past, we have relied on soothsayers who appear on television, devil dancers, turmeric (good luck finding turmeric, now that there’s a price control), and our love of bashing coconuts. The fact is that until we see the production of a vaccine or an acceptable solution, the entire human race is sailing in the eye of the corona storm. Many corporate dons and government officials in Sri Lanka have been pitching in with their business plans and strategies on what can be done “post-COVID”. Sri Lanka has faced the pandemic reasonably well compared to a few of the other countries, but in a crisis of this magnitude, in a closely connected world, the impact of a neighboring nation’s mishandling of the crisis can serve as a cautionary tale for the rest of the world. There is no point in early celebrations for doing well or having anxiety about those who may have mishandled the crisis, as we all are at square one and need to overcome this together. Sentiments on anti-globalisation and going back to the fallacy of “self-sufficiency” is not the solution as we failed that experiment comprehensively almost five decades ago. In a crisis of this scale, all predictions made will fall apart in a matter of not months but days. Take Sri Lanka as an example. We had all planned to open up the Western Province on 22 April but reported cases increased rapidly just two days before. How do we plan in an unpredictable crisis and what should we do is the question that has to be answered sensibly.

Historical examples may have limited relevance

As with managing any crisis, we generally make our decisions based on historic perspectives we have and connect with learnings from peers. First, we have to realise Covid-19 is an unprecedented scenario and how we managed previous crises will hardly help us to overcome the current battle. The strategies that worked for us in overcoming the Boxing Day Tsunami, fighting the brutal civil war against the LTTE, and overcoming the Easter Sunday bombings last year may not work in this battle against Covid-19. We are in a situation where every contract/agreement signed at every level has been challenged. It starts from a simple violation of a rent agreement, by not being able to pay the house rent on time, to a national-level crisis where we lack adequate foreign currency to pay our foreign debt commitments. Having seen the negative side, the reality is there will be a multitude of opportunities which will open up once the storm dies down. The challenge is the inability to predict the opportunities or the shortfalls. So when managing and strategising for the long term, a “one size fits all solutions” plan is very futile at this juncture. However, it doesn’t mean that we need to take a comfortable seat or take a “do nothing and wait” stance. Our game plan has to be pragmatic and dynamic. A game plan can be pragmatic if we have our basic fundamentals right. Predicting opportunities and developing strategies for a crisis without having the “basics” is similar to trying to solve an integration and differentiation mathematical question without having the basic knowledge of addition, subtraction, and multiplication functions. In a recent conversation with Advocata, Export Development Board Chairperson Prabash Subasinghe said it well: “This is a marathon, not a race.” At this point of time, it is of paramount importance that we have a strategy to float for the next 12-18 months and we have to play it dynamically and sail based on the direction of the wind. For the economy to stay afloat, we have to negotiate with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a balance of payment (BOP) bailout programme and request them to provide financial assistance to keep us afloat in the coming months. At the same time, we need to use our foreign office and actively seek bilateral loan facilities to manage the crisis. Import controls, liquidity injections, the Government taking over food distribution, and price controls are not at all advisable actions and they won’t help us to keep the rupee afloat, versus the dollar. Rather we will lose our dynamism and pragmatism and crush even the little credibility we have on markets.

The status of our basics

The next question is what can we do and what should we do to get beyond the floating stage. We have to evaluate the status of the basics and spend time on getting our basics right at this dark and stormy hour. Our fundamentals for sound economic policy have never been right in the last three to four decades. We should not lose the benefits of bringing hard reforms and getting the fundamentals right while we fight this crisis. For example, when pay cuts and job losses take place post opening up, people will actively look at part-time opportunities and work more to earn an income. At that point, if our business registration takes three months and if getting an online payment platform takes months for an e-commerce business to take off, the million opportunities created due to Covid-19 will be taken away by our neighbouring competitors. A study done by the Advocata Institute has found that registering a sole proprietorship is far more difficult than incorporating a private limited company. If we fail to fix that level of basic reforms (which can be easily fixed) we will not have any space to capitalise on the opportunities even if we get the support from development agencies over the next few months. Convoluted and complicated customs procedures and red tape have been discussed for years. South Asia Gateway Terminals (Pvt.) Ltd. (SAGT) CEO Romesh David, at a recent online forum on Sri Lanka’s exports economy with Advocata, said that even in the context of Covid-19, goods can cross borders and systems can be automated. If we are not ready to fix these basic regulatory barriers at Sri Lanka Customs, even our revised export target will be just an imaginary number. In summary, our strategy from a national level to that of a small business has to encompass the ability to float pragmatically as we are still in the eye of the storm. At the same time, we have to make sure to utilise our energy on getting our basics in economics right if we are to capitalise on the opportunities that will unfold when the storm is over. In difficult times people will be open to hard reforms and governments can spend political capital on getting hard reforms done. The Government should move back to their role as a facilitator rather than trying to become an active player and throw long-term strategies during one of the most serious crises in the history of mankind.

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.

Sacrificing food security for self-sufficiency

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 Dhananath Fernando

The fallacy of a society that thrives on the myth of “self-sufficiency” after the colossal failure during the mid-70s that left nearly the entire population sans the ruling elite’s belly full is making the rounds again. The very definition of the term “self-sufficiency” has different meanings. One school of thought is going back in time to an era where Sri Lanka never existed on the international map with absolutely zero trade. In this instance, one had no choice as you live off of what you grow. Then there are the alternative arguments – the one that argues that one needs self-sufficiency to ensure food security; to be self-sufficient in food but import fuel, coal, medicine, raw materials, and other “essentials” as prescribed by the state. There are others who believe our trade deficit is beyond our means and we need to be self-sufficient to the extent of our export capacity. Out of all the arguments, the one on food security is the most popular. Hence, let›s take a look at data and definitions on food security and evaluate whether Sri Lanka can truly be “self-sufficient”.

What does food security mean?

The popular belief of “food security” is to have enough food for our consumption during a crisis. The present global COVID-19 crisis we are grappling with is a prime example. Another common myth on food security is having sufficient food stocks to last six months and the ability to produce the required calorie intake within the country’s territorial borders. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Food Summit have defined food security as follows: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.”

Despite popular belief, to achieve food security, the country in concern need not produce the food it needs within its borders. The key is to produce the required food at scale and desired quality economically. Otherwise, we will waste our precious and limited resources. For example, take Singapore which has a land area of just 725.7 km2, compared with Sri Lanka’s 65,610 km². Singapore has topped the global food security index for the second year running, despite lacking commercial agriculture. This is because Singapore has integrated fully into the global food supply chain and constructed adequate storage to feed its citizens during external shocks. This is truly remarkable as Singaporeans can consume food that is, as defined by the FAO, safe, sufficient, and to the preference of the consumer. In comparison, Sri Lanka is ranked 66th in the same index. How can we ensure fellow Sri Lankans have access to food physically and economically at all times? According to the FAO definition, it is evident through the COVID-19 crisis that although we have food physically, our food security as a country has been hit by not having physical access to this food due to delivery concerns, people losing both economic and physical access to food due to the interruption of their daily wages, and the absence of food preferences. The failed socialism experiment adopted by the Bandaranaike Government failed to achieve any of the above. Food was inadequate, to say the least; choice was a dream and quality was never present. If a citizen was apprehended with anything more than that was rationed, it was deemed a heinous crime and he or she was promptly jailed. Flour was infested with bugs and rice with stones, and apparel was perfumed with the stench of kerosene and the risk of setting on fire those who were careless near the wood-fired kitchen stove. We had the longest queues in the world for the poorest quality of bread, and that too for only one loaf irrespective of the size of your family. In summary, for the urban community (where the majority had cash to buy food), food security was challenged by the absence of physical access and preferences, while the rural and estate communities’ food security was challenged by the absence of income and preferences as they consumed whatever that was available in their gardens or that grew in the wild. So it is obvious that food security is not something we can attain just by trying to be self-sufficient as there are so many other components to it such as access, affordability, safety, preferences, and nutritional value. According to FAO, the average daily per capita energy requirement per person is 1,680 kcal and Sri Lanka on average is at about 500 kcal above the limit, but according to census and statistics data, the energy intake in the poor segment across Sri Lanka is below world standards. So if we are serious about food security in the long run, we need to ensure our people can afford safe and nutritional food, maintain access, and ensure choice rather than living in the fallacy of self-sufficiency. To achieve this, we need to create secure access to the global food supply chains so that our people can afford the diverse range of food required to meet their energy intake (balanced diet). Then the next question one may have is whether this means that we are going to import all our food and whether we have enough foreign exchange to import all that we require.

Low agriculture productivity

To answer both aforementioned questions, we need to check why the productivity in our agriculture (sector) is low. The technology not reaching our paddy fields is the common excuse that has been given over the years. But have we thought about the reason why technology hasn’t reached the paddy fields? Out of 6.5 million hectares of land in Sri Lanka, 5.4 million hectares are owned by the government. As a percentage, private lands are just 18% of Sri Lanka’s total land extent. Farmers are required to take a permit from the government office if they are to cultivate a higher-yielding paddy. Access to a bank loan is very limited for most paddy lands as farmers are not given the title to the land they cultivate. No construction can be done on paddy land as it’s forbidden by law. Under the current regulatory regime, no investor would invest in a greenhouse farm or high-tech farm. In addition to the above, most of the paddy lands are fragmented, so the opportunity to scale up for a big operation is very limited, keeping costs of production high. This means that even if we were to go back to self-sufficiency and cultivate in our backyards, we have just a fifth of our entire land to cultivate, build houses, and do all other industrial work. This also means that we have about 25% of our labour force engaged in farming, but contributing only 7-8% to our GDP, which leaves most of our land unproductive.

Importing food and the trade deficit

Extreme self-sufficiency is not at all an option regardless of how resourceful we are, as it is obvious that we can’t produce all that we need – for example, fuel and machinery. The only way to keep our trade deficit narrow and convert it to a surplus is to develop our exports. Exports and imports are two sides of the same coin. We import products we cannot produce or products for which we do not have a competitive advantage. We export commodities and services where we have a competitive advantage. Following is an extract from FAO which summarises why food security can only be achieved by global collaboration: “Global food trade has to be kept going. One of every five calories people eat has crossed at least one international border, up more than 50% from 40 years ago.” Therefore, our inability and traditionally lethargic approach to developing our exports should not be a trade compromise for the real and meaningful food security of our people.

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.

Tariffs and the law of unintended consequences

Originally appeared on Sunday Times

By Aneetha Warusavitarana

The law of unintended consequences is a theory that dates back to Adam Smith, but was popularised by the sociologist Robert K. Merton. In short, the law explains the reality that when governments intervene to create a set of outcomes, as the theory of cetris paribus (holding other factors constant) cannot be achieved in a market situation - the result is a series of unintended consequences.

Colonial India and Cobras

This law is also known as the ‘Cobra Effect’, dating all the way back to when the British first colonised India. The British were understandably concerned about poisonous snakes in India, Cobras apparently being a source of some worry. The solution they presented was to provide a reward for every Cobra that was killed, creating a clear incentive for locals to capture and kill any Cobras in the vicinity. While this worked well in the short term, the British slowly realised that enterprising individuals were actively breeding Cobras; creating a very profitable business out of collecting bounties. Once this was clear, the British removed the bounty, and now as this was no longer a profitable venture, the breeders released all their Cobras. The final outcome of this was an increase in the general Cobra population, completely the opposite of what the intervention set out to achieve.

While this makes for a good anecdote, the economic realities of the law of unintended consequences are often more dire. Interventions into the market are often well-intended, but have the potential to backfire. A shining example of this is the case of tariffs. Forbes recently published an article which detailed the unintended consequences of a washing machine tariff imposed in the US. This well-meaning tariff was introduced to protect domestic producers in the US, and boost employment in that industry. If one evaluates the effectiveness of the tariff simply on those two criteria, then the tariff has been a resounding success; US washer and dryer industry created around 1,800 new jobs. This could easily be written off as a success story.

The Cobra effect on washing machines

However, the focus here is only on the producer, and the consumer has been removed from the narrative. The first unintended consequence was that as imported machines were now more expensive, domestic manufacturers could safely raise their prices, without fear of losing out on sales. The second unintended consequence was that dryers also became more expensive. As a complementary good to washing machines in the US, manufacturers of dryers saw this as the perfect window in which to raise their prices and increase their profits (clotheslines would save Sri Lanka from this unintended consequence).

Taking all this into account, according to Forbes, this has cost American consumers around USD 1.5 billion. One could argue that this increase in prices and resultant cost to consumers can be justified by the 1,800 jobs that were created. The reality is that each job is equivalent to USD 815,000 in increased consumer costs. This tariff policy effectively protects the local industry at the cost of their own consumers.

Why should Sri Lankans care about washing machine prices in the US?

While we can agree that this does appear to be an unfortunate example of unintended consequences, and that it is pretty clear that domestic consumers got a bad deal here, why should the average Sri Lankan care? After all, we have sunlight soap and clotheslines.

Sri Lankan consumers should care because the same unintended consequences that took place oceans away in the United States is happening here, in our little island nation. Tariffs have long been the favoured tool of successive governments. Tariffs sound really good on paper, and better if said paper is an election manifesto. ‘We will protect our domestic producers’ is a statement that tugs at the heartstrings of too many voters. The fine print ‘at the cost of domestic consumers’ is not something that is publicised, but it should be.

Tariffs have been imposed on goods ranging from household care, personal care and food. The price of items as diverse as school shoes and construction material are affected by this. The entire country complains about how the cost of living is too high, and unreasonably high tariffs are one of the drivers behind this. Unfortunately for us, the imposition of these tariffs create exactly the same series of unintended consequences that American consumers have to face. The price of the weekly shop an average Sri Lankan does whether it is from the delkanda pola, the closest supermarket or the handiye kade is affected by tariffs. A potato, even if it is locally produced is more expensive than it needs to be, because tariffs push the price of imported tomatoes up, allowing domestic producers to raise prices with the consumer losing out.

Tariffs on essential goods in Sri Lanka can range from 45% to 107.6%. There needs to be a serious re-evaluation of the role of tariffs in our economy – the rationale behind imposing them, the consequences of the tariff (which are well understood and cannot be discounted or ignored), and ideally a faster regime for phasing them out.