Beyond profit margins and scandals

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why focusing on trade is paramount

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

If you were to ask the average Sri Lankan what Sri Lanka’s economic problems are, you are most likely to hear three answers. The most common and popular answer would be corruption, a likely second would be high imports, and some may even say there is a lack of exports.

This article will address the second and third answers.

Contrary to popular belief, many Sri Lankans are unaware that our imports are declining compared to the size of our economy. Many make the mistake of checking the total value of imports and claiming that our imports are increasing.

That is correct, but import value can increase for many reasons. It could be due to a significant price fluctuation of certain imported commodities (fuel), a consumption hype due to a growing population over the years, or many other reasons.

Accordingly, imports and exports both have to be evaluated in comparison to the size of the economy – commonly known as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It is the same as considering a person’s weight relative to their height and age: weight as an absolute number has no meaning without comparing it with height and age.

Since the 1990s, Sri Lanka’s imports as well as exports have been declining compared to our economy. In recent years, exports have increased because our economy contracted steeply with the economic crisis while our exports remained fairly constant.

This indicates that the claim of our imports being a problem is a complete myth and misleading. Instead, our problem is that our imports are low because our exports are low. We need to export more so we can import more of the things that are being produced competitively and efficiently in other parts of the world.

For instance, let us consider the example of food items. There are many food items with a high range of protein sources and variety that food insecure people can afford, which face a high tariff rate in order to discourage consumption. The final victims of this process are the poorest people in the country who cannot afford a variety of food.

The impoverished spending more on food means they are left with little money to spend on non-food items such as education and health. Therefore, discouragement of imports through tariffs will affect the poor.

Another common myth in Sri Lanka is that Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) increase imports while drying out our USD reserves. Sri Lanka hasn’t signed many FTAs to begin with. Even when we analyse the data, trade primarily takes place outside FTAs.

Let us evaluate the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA). Imports are declining or stagnant from India to Sri Lanka under the ISFTA and we have undertaken more exports than imports under the agreement. However, more trade has taken place outside the ISFTA.

One potential reason for this could be the cost for companies to comply with the ISFTA and the complicated nature of FTAs. However, we have done more exports than imports under the ISFTA, indicating that trade agreements are not necessarily conspiracies by other countries to push their products but that Sri Lanka has done well in exports under FTAs in absolute numbers. As such, the claim that trade agreements push imports and discourage exports is also misleading and the data fails to support the claim.

Even if we check the numbers for the Pakistan-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (PSFTA), we export more under the FTA in absolute numbers than we import. However, compared to our GDP, our trade is very weak, which is one of the main constraints to our economic growth.

Our barriers to trade are beyond trade agreements. Most barriers are internally driven by Sri Lanka Customs, the complicated tariff structure, necessary regulatory barriers, and related to ease of doing business. Blaming FTAs or imports for our economic crisis is meaningless. Instead, our growth potential lies in when we import and export and simplifying the tariff structure unilaterally is the first intervention to minimise corruption and boost trade.

Joining global trade will not only make our country wealthier but position us strongly in Indo-Pacific geopolitics.

As it was famously said: “When goods and services don’t cross borders, soldiers will.”

(Special thank you to Advocata Institute Research Analyst Araliya Weerakoon)

Why are we poor?

By Ravi Ratnasabapathy

Originally appeared on the Daily FT

Economists tell us that Sri Lanka’s economy has stabilised but what does this mean if so many are struggling?

To economists stability means that the imbalances in the economy have been resolved. The symptoms of the imbalances appear as rising prices, shortages of foreign exchange and goods. These have indeed disappeared but what does it mean to ordinary people? It only means that the rate at which people were being impoverished has slowed. We were crashing down the mountainside but the fall has been broken, if only temporarily. This is no mean achievement but obviously people expect much better.

People enjoyed a particular standard of living in 2020 but three short years later find themselves pauperised and cannot fathom why. What caused this steep decline in living standards? Corruption, poor governance and weak public finances are blamed but these were prevalent for decades. Why did the effects of these pass unnoticed for so long and how did they suddenly manifest?

The fact is that while these are connected to the problem they are not the immediate causes. To understand the causes of poverty today we must understand what changed between 2020 and 2023.

Two distinct causes of poverty today

There are two distinct causes but for the sake of clarity they must be dealt with separately.

Between December 2019 and August 20221 the Central Bank printed huge volumes of money – net Central Bank credit to Government grew 10-fold; from 363 billion to 3,162 billion. The end result of the increase in the supply of money is the fall in its value. This is reflected in rising prices and depreciation of the rupee in the foreign exchange market.

The Government at the time tried to mask the symptoms of the problem by imposing price controls; the exchange rate for the rupee was fixed at Rs. 200 along with the prices of many other goods. The result was scarcities – of foreign exchange and of goods which were visible in the long queues and in power cuts. As the printing continued, the Government imposed ever tighter import and price controls until eventually economic activity ground to a near halt. People were either standing in queues or sitting in the dark. Work in factories and offices stopped because of the unavailability of materials, the inability to transport staff or products and the lack of power.

To resolve this problem the only option was to allow interest rates to rise to slow the credit growth that was fuelling excess demand. A partial devaluation was initially attempted without a significant rate increase but this failed and forex shortages persisted. The corner was turned only when rates were hiked significantly and a peg re-established at 360.

As the rupee fell all prices rose. Price controls had to be removed, most importantly on energy – fuel, electricity and cooking gas to reflect the diminished value of the currency. This explains the sudden increase in prices of both goods and services.

Unfortunately while prices rose people’s incomes and savings did not. People’s living standards are measured not by their income but by what that income can procure. When the value of money falls living standards fall.

Effects of currency debasement are permanent

How is this to be reversed? The tragedy is that the effects of currency debasement are permanent. Complete reversal requires that stock money to shrink back to the level it was in 2019 – this would lead to a massive increase in interest rates; much higher than present. The consequences of this would be widespread business collapse and an economic contraction that would impose even more suffering.

What should be done? The debasement of the currency can only happen through the Central Bank. It must be prevented by rules from ever doing so again.

People mistakenly think that the Central Bank should try to keep interest rates low but the only way in which this can be done is (a) if the Government reduces its volume of borrowing, the sheer size of which puts significant upward pressure on rates or (b) if the Central Bank keeps increasing the supply money (money printing) which lowers rates. It is difficult to reduce Government spending in the short term, therefore the borrowing will have to continue. This means the only avenue to lower interest rates is money printing which ultimately impoverishes all.

The Central Bank should not engage in activist monetary policy to stimulate the economy. It must not finance the Government’s budget deficit and in its role as provider of liquidity to the banking sector it must not become a banking intermediary. Liquidity to the interbank market needs to be purely temporary, based on market rates with an added premium to prevent moral hazard. Central Bank intermediation is in some way a substitute for interbank markets and therefore the relative level of costs between the two is crucial.

If the value of the rupee holds it will allow people to try and restore what has been lost. People need to start all over again and through their own efforts try to rebuild their lives.

Second reason for increase in poverty – increase in taxes

The second reason for the increase in poverty is the increase in taxes. People who have already suffered terribly because of currency debasement now face another blow when the Government appropriates even more of their income and raises the prices of goods through sales based taxes. The Government is fixing the problems in its own finances but doing so by passing the buck on to the people.

In the short-term some increases in taxes were unavoidable because of the rigidity in Government spending – the bulk of which is salaries, pensions and interest. These must be reduced but this takes time. However there is no excuse for making no attempt to cut costs. For example, the high prices of electricity and fuel include the extra costs caused by corruption in fuel purchases, inflated power purchase costs, excess payroll and inefficiency.

Corruption and waste become relevant to the problem of impoverishment when their costs are transferred to citizens through increased taxes, higher prices and poorer quality of services provided by the Government. The use of debt and more moderate levels of money printing allowed the Government to conceal the real burden of its spending from people for decades.

The public blames the general increases in prices that result from money printing on “profiteering” by traders. Increases in debt have no immediate impact, it is only when it has to be repaid are the consequences felt at which point the lenders are blamed.

Citizens who voted repeatedly for corrupt populists have awoken from slumber as the costs of past profligacy have finally become apparent.

Ability of the Government to disguise the real burden of its activities

Because of the ability of the Government to disguise the real burden of its activities, in the context of corruption citizens need to have a singular focus on all economic activities of the Government. It is Government spending rather than taxation that ultimately determines the total burden of Government activity on the private sector. The critical question citizens must ask is how far does Government activity and spending actually improve the lives of citizens?

The IMF program is trying to reduce the Government’s deficit and debt – but the approach they have taken is to simply increase taxes rather than doing so concurrently with cutting expenditure. There seems to be unquestioned acceptance of the level of public spending, regardless of its quality or nature.

Tax morale – citizens’ willingness to pay taxes – depends on the trust they have in the Government and the quality of services they receive. In the modern world a state must earn the right to collect tax. To do so it must treat its citizens fairly. It must be responsive and seen to be addressing needs and improving services. The lack of this was evident in the protests of 2022.

The Sri Lankan State fails in the provision of the most fundamental of public goods – those that cannot be provided by private markets: the rule of law and a functioning system of justice. While some useful services are provided in health and education, quality is poor. The spending on private tuition, private schools and private healthcare is a testament to this. Corruption is rampant. For example, COPE reports show the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation has repeatedly procured substandard drugs2, dud software3 and failed to follow strictures imposed by COPE4.

Promises of jobs are a vote-winner. Elections have been won, jobs have been created but only now have the public been presented with the bill. A large proportion of taxes are in effect sustaining the patronage system that enables the election of corrupt politicians.

Voters must realise that there are no easy or painless solutions. After a crisis such as this, countries may experience ‘a lost decade’ before output reaches its pre-crisis level. Populists who promise quick solutions without proper diagnosis or are unable to locate the sources of the problem could easily tip the country back into crisis

Identify the villains in this tragedy

People need to identify clearly the villains in this tragedy; the Central Bank and mis-spending by the Government. Public outrage is justified but unless the sources of the problem; the Central Bank and Government spending are correctly identified, they may well be duped again.

That the rate of impoverishment has slowed will not satisfy the public but do they realise the fragility of this meagre achievement? Politicians are eager to promise quick and painless solutions. The electorate can expect to be subjected to “death by slogan” over the election cycle. A fairer society. End corruption. A brighter future.

Desperate people may clutch at any alternative assuming that things cannot get any worse but they are gravely mistaken. Politicians who do not grasp the problem may trigger another spiral. Criticism of the current approach is needed but people should look for politicians who offer realistic alternatives. How should voters evaluate alternatives?

To avoid another crisis it is vital to maintain monetary stability and fiscal prudence. Serious politicians must commit to both. Ambitious manifestos must be seen to translate into pragmatic programs within the fiscal constraint. The British tradition of access talks: pre-election talks between opposition politicians and civil servants helps prepare the opposition for Government. They need to decide on policy priorities and the mechanics of delivery. Those who have done their homework will demonstrate familiarity with the public finances5.

Some talk of billions in stolen assets and imply that all it takes is to recover this and all will be well. Have they examined the complexity of the legal proceedings in the recovery of stolen assets? The international record of successful of stolen asset recovery is poor. The Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative – a partnership between the World Bank and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has over 15 years recovered a total of around $ 1.9 billion6. The most successful has been the Philippines which recovered more than $ 1 billion over 21 years. This is a tidy sum but do those who tout this as a solution understand the gargantuan size of the Government expenditure?

Public salaries and wages cost Rs. 956.2 billion in 20227. For year of 365 days that works out to Rs. 2.62 billion per day. Subsidies cost another 1,020 billion or Rs. 2.23 billion per day. Including interest total recurrent expenditure runs at Rs. 9.64 billion a day.

The sum total recovered under the StAR over 15 years would only cover the public sector salaries for a little over seven months; total recurrent expenditure for only two. In any case can a realistic budget be built on such an uncertain stream of revenues? Can the rich pay for this all? How many billionaires and millionaires does the Government need to find to sustain spending at a rate of Rs. 9.6 billion per day?

Government spending

Government spending can create the opportunities for corruption; affecting not just the level of public expenditure, but also its composition, favouring projects that allow the collection bribes.

If the misspending in the public sector were reduced greatly then the tax burden could be reduced. Salaries and pensions for the 1.5 million employees of public sector and the 672,0008 pensioners made up 36% of recurrent spending in 2022 (interest took up 44%). This is an ongoing expense that needs to be paid. Are the citizens receiving valuable public services in return?

In 2016 there were 230,525 teachers and around 62,000 in the health service. The problem is with the million others in employment. The number in public employment stood at 812,472 in 19949 but is now estimated at 1.5 m10. Was there a proportionate increase in the quality of services that people received?

Voters must realise that there are no easy or painless solutions. After a crisis such as this, countries may experience ‘a lost decade’ before output reaches its pre-crisis level. Populists who promise quick solutions without proper diagnosis or are unable to locate the sources of the problem could easily tip the country back into crisis.

Footnotes:

1 Sri Lanka: Macroeconomic Developments in Charts, First Quarter 2023, p34 https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/sites/default/files/cbslweb_documents/statistics/mecpac/Chart_Pack_Q1_2023_e1.pdf

2 See reports: https://www.advocata.org/commentary-archives/2019/11/5/coping-with-latest-cope-report; https://www.dailymirror.lk/breaking-news/Fraud-corruption-rampant-at-SPC-GMOF/108-276243;

3 https://readme.lk/spc-has-paid-lkr-644-million-for-software-that-doesnt-work/

4 https://www.news.lk/news/political-current-affairs/item/26077-govt-agencies-failure-to-act-on-cope-recommendations

5 The Institute for Government, a think tank offers a useful guide: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-01/preparing-for-government.pdf

6 https://star.worldbank.org/blog/fifteen-years-star

7 Ministry of Finance Annual Report 2022, p109, https://www.treasury.gov.lk/api/file/39a16e61-7659-476b-8f18-d969c7a69733

8 https://www.parliament.lk/uploads/documents/paperspresented/1662013778004147.pdf

9 “Census Of The Public And Semi-Government Sector Employment 1994”. 1994. Statistics.Gov.Lk. http://www.

statistics.gov.lk/PublicEmployment/StaticalInformation/census_reports/CensusOfPublicAndSemiGovernmentSectorEmployment-1994FinalReport.

10 https://economynext.com/crisis-hit-sri-lanka-finally-starts-to-deal-with-bloated-public-sector-96277/

(The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not reflect the views of organisations he is affiliated to.)

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?