Steering clear of divisive politics and economic populism

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

I was recently invited to moderate a session by the European Chamber of Commerce of Sri Lanka (ECCSL) on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Foreign Minister Ali Sabry was one of the Chief Guests and he shared two things we should not do, based on his experience over the past few years in managing a few key portfolios as the Minister of Justice, Finance, and Foreign Affairs.

The event focused on unleashing the power of diversity, equity, and inclusion for businesses in Sri Lanka. Keeping aside the political colours, Sabry’s message on the things Sri Lankans should not do is very apt given the current status of our affairs. These two exhortations were to never play divisive politics and never play with populist economic policies.

The final victim of divisive politics has been none other than our economy and our people. If Sri Lanka is serious about economic development, having a diverse culture is important, as highlighted by Prof. Ricardo Hausmann in his Harvard Growth Diagnostic study on Sri Lanka in 2016-2017. The economic theory behind it is that a diverse culture is capable of creating more combinations of ideas which translate to products, services, and exports.

He provided the example of Silicon Valley – most tech entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are immigrants to the US, which is one reason a high degree of innovation takes place there. Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka, our politics is used to dilute this strength, which has led to where we are today. At one point, ethnic tensions led to mass migration and we are very slow to include all our ethnicities and religions in our culture.

The divisive politics is now at a level that goes beyond ethnicities. It is now ranged against certain countries, trade agreements, and imports from certain countries. Some good examples are the Suwa Seriya ambulance service and the trade agreement between India and Sri Lanka.

We almost rejected Suwa Seriya on the grounds that it was an Indian invasion and that Indian Intelligence services wanted to collect intelligence data through the ambulance service. This is a service primarily impacting the poorest of the poor and has now been recognised as one of the fastest services in the region by the World Bank.

Divisive politics is now beyond ethnicities and religions. We created the same tensions with trade agreements and claimed that the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Singapore would result in foreigners taking over our jobs. Instead, most Sri Lankans left the country for jobs overseas due to the economic crisis and we now beg people to visit us.

We also created similar tensions over the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement by claiming that the agreement would cause more imports to flow into Sri Lanka, worsening our trade balance. The data shows the exact opposite taking place.

We have a trade surplus with India under the FTA and our trade deficit with India comes from outside the FTA. However, comparing trade balances between countries is completely misleading, since what we need to keep in mind is the budget deficit rather than the trade deficit, because the budget deficit arising from Central Bank lending is what leads to a trade deficit.

At one point, by playing divisive politics, we wanted to boycott our Islamic community. We also wanted to boycott Indian products and chase away Chinese and Japanese investments. To make diversity a strength, we need to look beyond borders and capitalise on the strengths of all communities and all countries.

Minister Sabry’s second directive was to never play with populist economic policies. However, we repeatedly witness political parties engaging in populist politics. We are building resistance against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme without any alternative suggestions. Without the IMF programme, even 0.1% of debt relief is not possible. Many funds by many international partners like the Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank, and bilateral creditor will evaporate in seconds.

On the other hand, growth reforms are almost non-existent. Not a single State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) reform has been implemented yet and the SOE Bill has been shelved. On the growth front, a complicated tariff structure remains. The establishment of the Central Bank’s independence was the main reform we have undertaken and we can see the results. It is a pity that the Central Bank completely ignored the optics and raised its staff salaries, even at the risk of some policymakers requesting the reversal of the hard-earned reform of the bank’s independence.

While Minister Sabry has correctly understood what exactly should not be done, unfortunately, our politics remains divisive at a new level and populist economic policies have taken a new turn. We still have a long way to go.

The other side of parate execution suspension

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

In India, there was a particular type of cobra that was causing havoc due to snake bites. People were protesting and social pressure was building. The then British Government had a brilliant idea to counter cobra bite-related deaths and bring down the reptiles’ population – it announced an incentive scheme for every dead cobra.

In essence, people in India were encouraged to kill cobras and hand over the animal’s dead body to established Government offices in India and collect cash in return. In the first few weeks, things worked out very well, but later the Government realised that the number of cobras being handed over was increasing exponentially.

Upon investigation, the Government realised that Indians had become somewhat entrepreneurial. They had started cobra breeding houses at homes and killing cobras as a means of revenue generation for the family. At one point, the Government withdrew the cash incentive system given the misuse of the entire scheme.

Since there was no incentive for people to maintain cobra breeding houses, they released the reptiles into the jungle. The cobra population then multiplied several fold more than what it was initially as a result of the same policy being implemented to reduce the cobra population. This is called the Cobra Effect.

The Government decision to suspend parate execution as a relief for Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) is no different. It is true that MSMEs are going through a difficult time as a result of higher inflation, high interest rates, and economic contraction. It is necessary to protect the MSMEs as they comprise about 99% of business establishments and about 75% of employment in Sri Lanka.

However, whether the suspension of parate is really for MSMEs is a question; 557 parate executions have been undertaken as of November 2023. The total value of the parate executions was just Rs. 38 billion, which stands at just 0.4% of total loans and a mere 2.7% of total impaired loans. From the numbers, it is clear that most MSMEs have not been impacted by parate executions.

Effect on MSMEs

Parate is an execution power on the part of banks under the Recovery of Loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act, No.4 of 1990, where lending banks can recover non-repaid debt by borrowers by selling assets without going through the judicial processes. In 1961, this power was only granted to People’s Bank and the Bank of Ceylon, and in 1985, the power was extended to regional rural development banks as well.

If MSMEs are not affected, what could be expected to happen when parate executions are suspended until December by the Government? This is likely to backfire on MSMEs given the nature of the banking industry, akin to the Cobra Effect.

Banks lend depositors money. Parate was a safeguard for depositors’ money in case someone was not repaying loans they had taken, giving banks a final resort to recover that money so they could honour the depositors.

Now with parate suspension, banks have a higher risk of not being able to recover the money from the loans extended, so they have to charge a higher risk premium when borrowing for anybody, including MSMEs. Therefore, if MSMEs want to borrow money now, they have to pay higher interest rates, which means further contraction of the economy at a time when it needs to grow.

Triple whammy

On the flip side, this will encourage borrowers to default as they now know the banks cannot execute parate even if they were to willfully default. Additionally, borrowers who are honouring their loan repayments with the greatest difficulty during this economic crisis will be discouraged, because their hard work in honouring the dues will not be rewarded. This does not mean that even the Rs. 38 billion through parate execution has to be understated, but it has to be addressed separately without changing a law which affects the entire banking sector.

The Government declared a Rs. 450 billion bank recapitalisation in Budget 2024 given the instability of the banking sector as losses and loans of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) have to be absorbed. On the other hand, licensed commercial banks including State banks are being exposed to sovereign debt restructuring, which is at its final stage. Accordingly, this is detrimental to the stability of the banking sector.

On the depositors’ end, they may be reluctant to deposit money as their risk is now higher on recovery.

Parate execution generally takes place at the last stage of recovery and must go through a court process. Suspension of parate without even consulting banks may provide wrong signals for the ongoing International Monetary Fund (IMF) review, since the IMF initially advised to conduct an assessment on the stability of the banks, although the context has now changed after a few months.

The Non-Performing Loan (NPL) ratios of banks are also on the rise, so banks basically face a triple whammy with this parate suspension – having to charge risk premiums, high NPL, exposure to sovereign default, and now difficulties in recovering money and incentives for not servicing existing loans.

However, the need to protect MSMEs is paramount, which requires a separate sequence of actions. Setting up a bank specifically to absorb bad loans, setting up bankruptcy laws, or moratoria on some of the bad loans under parate executions are options. Changing the entire parate system will indeed bring consequences similar to the Cobra Effect in India.

Losing by focusing on the winners

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

• Winners focus on winning and losers focus on winners.

“Winners focus on winning and losers focus on winners”, I recalled this statement when I saw different headlines on Sri Lanka’s budget for the fiscal year 2022. As per media reports, the Government expects three main policy proposals in the upcoming budget. These include the development of local industries, expansion of infrastructure development, and having an expansionary monetary policy. 

Speculations too have highlighted continued import restrictions as a strategy to develop local industries. This is what reminded me of the saying that losers focus on winners while winners focus on winning. 

In a hundred metre race the most rational thing to do is to focus on one’s timing and speed as opposed to focusing on obstructing fellow athletes. Similarly in economics and business if one wants to develop local industries one must increase productivity and efficiency rather than resorting to import restrictions. 

One reason many justify import controls as a strategy for the development of local industries is the lack of knowledge rather than a strong ideological stance. Sri Lanka has had a trade deficit for a long time, which is “value of imports – value of exports”. Therefore, many Sri Lankans generally believe that by reducing imports the trade deficit can be reduced. 

The same argument applies when people assume that we have to spend foreign exchange earned from exports when importing. People believe that producing locally will save foreign exchange due to the reduced need for imports. As a result, there is growing animosity against imports across all products and services. People believe that this will leave local industries better off. This thought process has led Sri Lanka to become a nation full of people who detest imports. But they forget that local industries depend significantly on raw materials and parts. 

This idea is not endemic to Sri Lanka but can also be found in some other parts of the world. So there is a global belief that having complete import controls can help homegrown local innovation regardless of its severe economic consequences. However the reality is far different. Banning imports would do more harm for local businesses than good. It can significantly impact the production and manufacturing potential of the economy. However, we will only be able to arrive at a reasonable conclusion once the budget is presented. 

One of the main arguments provided by proponents of import controls, is the belief that Micro and Small Enterprises (MSMEs) cannot compete with large-scale global brands. However, the truth is different. In Sri Lanka, the apparel sector especially consists of quite a number of MSMEs. They produce goods at the standards acceptable to international markets. These target markets are far different from the domestic market. Therefore they actually compete internationally and are capable of doing so because they are able to maintain productivity. Therefore the best way to empower small enterprises is by helping them improve productivity and allowing them to compete. 

Another common belief is that some developed countries too have import controls or higher tariffs. Ardent believers of import substitution present these examples to defend their case. A common example provided was the import duty and tariff rates in India and South Korea in comparison to Sri Lanka’s, claiming that our tariff rates are much lower. However the truth is that Sri Lanka has a complicated system of para tariffs. These are additional tariffs on custom duties (CESS and PAL). Para tariffs increase the effective rate of protectionism, which is the overall protection levied at the border on imports. Sri Lanka’s effective rate of protection is much higher than other countries in the region. Once again, this exhibits Sri Lanka’s obsession with winners and the lack of attention given to winning. In addition, many new winners in trade have appreciated the importance of neutral policies that give similar incentives for export production as well as import substitution production.  

Another common argument is that the similar practices by the west at the initial trajectory on their development and the extent to which they protected their industries is often provided by proponents who believe banning imports is a strategy for local industry development. South Korea and Japan have been provided as an example often on how they banned car imports which made the boom of brands like Toyota and Hyundai is a common story. If that argument is true then countries like North Korea have to be most prosperous as they have very serious import restrictions. 

Second, for the country and the market size of Sri Lanka to get economies of scale, we need to produce bigger volumes beyond our shores. So competition is inevitable. Just because one country has succeeded at doing it doesn’t make sense for us to repeat without understanding geography, demography, and geopolitics. Thirdly if we look at the brands that have really done well those are the ones who have been opened for competition. In the case of Japan, the Ministry of Trade and Industry recommended to Toyota Founder Kiichiro Toyoda, not to produce cars in the first place and the rest of the Toyota brand is just history. 

We are all in agreement that the local industries should prosper and have to be productive. But thinking that the import bans as a strategy for local industry development is not in the right direction. It would set a bad example for people to just target winners instead of winning and ultimately the entire country will be a net loser. We have to become a country of thinking about winning rather than a country of focusing on winners and the budget 2022 should lay a broader strategy to achieve this objective. 

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.

Unlocking the Potential of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Essential to Sri Lanka’s Post Covid Economic Recovery (Part 2)

Originally appeared on Colombo Telegraph, Daily News and Daily FT

By Ayesha Zainudeen

Small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) represent over half of the businesses in Sri Lanka. They also provide an important source of employment for a large part of the labour force. They have been dubbed the ‘backbone’ of the economy in national policy frameworks. Supporting this sector and helping small businesses to grow should be an important part of the national strategy for post-COVID economic recovery. 

This article is the second in a multi-part series by the Advocata Institute and LIRNEasia on what needs to be done to empower Sri Lanka’s micro, small-medium businesses for post-COVID economic recovery. In Part 1, the Advocata Institute examined the barriers faced by small businesses to formalization and what needs to be done to lower them. In this part, LIRNEasia looks at what is holding SMEs back, through the lens of digital exclusion.

Connectivity is related to better business performance

 A 2019 LIRNEasia survey of SMEs across Sri Lanka showed that businesses classified as ‘high’ ICT users performed considerably better on a number of indicators such as revenues, profits, number of customers, etc. (Figure 1).  Perhaps most interestingly, they were also connected to a global value chain in some way. 

Figure 1: How SMEs classified as high ICT users are different to those classified as low ICT users (Source: LIRNEasia AfterAccess SME survey, 2019)

Unlocking Potential of Micro and Small businesses Essential for Post-COVID Economic Recover

Originally appeared on Ceylon Today, Economy Next, Colombo Telegraph, The Island and Daily FT

By K.D.D.B. Vimanga

Sole proprietorships account for 63.1% of businesses in the country and account for 27.1% of national employment (Annual Survey of Industries, Department of Census and Statistics). Their contribution to the local economy is significant and lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic have had an adverse impact on these small businesses.

At present, it is difficult to estimate how many small businesses would be out of business, but given that the department of labour has estimated (from a survey of 2,764 establishments) that 52.15% or 764 of firms, employing under 1 to 15 employees have closed down, it is likely that small businesses have also been hit hard.  

However successive Sri Lankan governments have failed to strategise on the potential of these enterprises to Sri Lanka’s economic development. Emerging markets such as Vietnam on the other hand have been able to capitalise on the potential of these businesses to accelerate economic growth.  

Any hope of inclusive economic growth for Sri Lanka’s post-COVID recovery can only then be achieved if we utilise this sector, unlock their potential and empower them to grow, compete and thrive. While there is a lot of work to be done in terms of policy reform in this area, there are a few low hanging fruits, namely re-hauling the business registration process, and bridging the digital divide. 

In the form of a multi-part series, the Advocata Institute in partnership with LIRNEasia will provide an in-depth analysis of these two vital policy tools to empower Sri Lanka’s small businesses. 

Sri Lanka’s business ecosystem:

According to the listing operation of Economic Census conducted in 2013/ 2014 the number of SMEs in Sri Lanka, most of which are categorized as sole ownerships, account for 1,019,681 of which 71,126 are small enterprises and 10,405 are medium scale enterprises.  This number only represents enterprises that have registered under the above criteria. However, according to the same survey, there are 3 million people who engage in a similar SME related industry, trade or services. 45% of the micro-enterprises and 10% of small enterprises remain unregistered. Overall, 42% of business establishments remain unregistered while 25% of these establishments are run by women entrepreneurs. In other words, informality is still high. 

According to a survey done by LIRNEasia, 40% of SMEs reported using the internet or social media for business; much of this use was limited to information seeking, rather than transactional use. Those who used the internet for business thought that access to the internet is either important or very important, while those who did not use the internet remained unconvinced of its benefits: most said there was ‘no need’ to use the internet. Few SMEs were capable of taking any form of card payment at the time of the survey, and the majority of SMEs did not use mobile money services. This research points to a serious digital divide restricting the potential of Sri Lanka’s small businesses. This would be tackled comprehensively during next week’s Op-Ed outlining the serious implications of the digital divide.  

So what is the problem?

Let’s look at it through the experience of a micro-entrepreneur. Chitra. She runs a string hopper stall opposite her village fish market and her story is similar to that of three million people who engage in an SME related industry, trade or service. Her business remains unregistered. She does not use any digital technology. Because she is unregistered, she cannot go to a bank and get a low-interest SME loan or even apply for the recently introduced Saubagya COVID-19 renaissance facility.

Reforming the Business Registration Process

So what must be done urgently is to simplify our business registration process. At present, the business registration process is implemented by the Divisional Secretariats. In contrast, the Business Registration process for companies under the Companies Act No. 7 of 2007 are streamlined through an online registration system called the e-ROC. However, this does not benefit small businesses who classify as sole proprietors and partnerships and is therefore regulated at the Divisional Secretariat.  At best we have about nine different regulatory processors for the registration of sole enterprises and partnerships. Typically, an entrepreneur like Chitra would have to visit the Divisional Secretariat, collect and fill forms, provide documentation such as proof of premises ownership such as deeds, or rent agreements, tax assessments etc. Then she would have to visit the Grama Niladhari and get the documents validated. She might need other approvals as per the request of the Grama Niladhari before she hands over the final forms to the Divisional Secretariat. A more effective method would be to have an online system. As implemented by New Zealand and Hong Kong, the applicant must be able to submit the form (available in all three languages) online on the Divisional Secretariat website, pay the business registration fee online or at a bank and receive the business registration the next day without the requirement for numerous signatures or documentation of ownership (the company registration process does not call for the original deed or proof of ownership, so why should a small business?). Then an entrepreneur such as Chitra can easily go to the nearest communication fill the forms, upload the deposit slip and get her business registration done with ease. 

Therefore, in practice, what has to be done is establishing an e-registration system which can be availed of by small businesses. The Ministry of Industries must play an active role in setting up the online platform in partnership with Provincial Councils. Secondly, the requirement for unnecessary documentation (proof of ownership, grama niladhari approval, etc.) has to be amended at the provincial council level.  Implementation of these two policy recommendations would significantly empower small businesses to get registered. 

Conclusion

Sri Lanka needs to urgently capitalise on the potential of MSMEs. Creating growth and productivity in the small business sector is an investment on our wider economy. This is not an easy task; however, mobilising synergies and bringing in much needed regulatory reforms such as making the business registration process simpler and secondly bridging the digital divide.

K.D.D.B. Vimanga is a Policy Analyst at the Advocata Institute. He can be contacted at kdvimanga@advocata.org. The Advocata Institute is an Independent Public Policy Think Tank. Learn more about Advocata’s work at www.advocata.org. LIRNEasia is a regional digital policy and regulation think tank active across Asia. The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or LIRNEasia.

Can industry-specific ministers fix this issue?

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 appointment of cabinet ministers and state ministers is still a topic at dinner tables, especially on the state ministerial portfolios. This is mostly because specific industries or fields have been provided for state ministers. There is general criticism surrounding ministers being appointed to micro sectors of the industries while the general expectation from a minister is to serve a broader mandate, and do justice to taxpayers’ money by formulating and implementing policies.

Many critics question the role a minister could play in a comparatively small industry where the designing, production, marketing, and distribution are mainly done by the micro-entrepreneurs themselves. For example, the state ministerial portfolio for Batik, Handloom Fabrics, and Local Apparel Products has been a topic of discussion since the appointments. Another state ministry that is being widely discussed is that of Cane, Brass, Clay Furniture, and Rural Industry Promotion.

The counterargument is that previous state minister portfolios were just token positions with no decision-making power. It is argued that in this case, ministers have been provided a specific role, scope, and focus, and people can directly hold them accountable for their industries and industry-related concerns. At the same time, a measurable key performance indicator (KPI) can be easily implemented and the respective and relevant institutions can be assigned to each minister. According to a recent TV interview by President’s Secretary Dr. P.B. Jayasundera, state ministers and their teams led by the ministry secretary have been given the decision-making power in that respective industry. According to Dr. Jayasundera, it is a scientific way of structuring and utilising taxpayer money without just appointing state ministers for the sake of doing so.

I believe there is truth to both arguments on the method of assigning the ministerial portfolio. The ground-level reality is that most of these assigned domestic industries are run by micro, small, and medium entrepreneurs (MSMEs) or businessmen who represent the private sector. It is important to remember that these small businesses are still part of the private sector and not the Government. The Government’s role is more to regulate some industries and facilitate the business processes because micro and small enterprises have industry-specific challenges as well as common challenges in running their daily operations. The minister’s role is to work with these sectors and assist them with reducing regulatory barriers for the sector to perform to its full potential.

Common challenges

According to the Advocata Institute’s report “Barriers to Micro and Small Enterprises” in Sri Lanka, one main bottleneck across all industries is access to finance. Access to finance has multiple dimensions extending to the banking and financing sector, but it starts from the fundamental point of business registration.

Over the years, we have underestimated the potential of micro and small enterprises (leaving the medium enterprises aside). We have provided step-motherly treatment to the MSME industry to the extent of not even focusing on their ability to register their businesses.

According to the Advocata report, sole proprietorships comprise about 61% of total businesses in Sri Lanka and provide 27% of national employment. Interestingly, about 25% of the establishments are run by women and contribution from women-led enterprises increases up to 35% in rural areas.

While the whole country focuses on the big picture of revamping the entire domestic and specialised sectors such as batik, local apparels, handlooms, pottery, rattan, etc., our research has revealed that about 45% of micro-enterprises and 10% of small enterprises have not even obtained a basic business registration. The meaning of not having a business registration is that they do not have access to finance or any Government-sponsored programme or project.

Poor enthusiasm for business registration is mainly a result of the horrendous process of registering a proprietorship or partnership. A proprietorship or a partnership can be registered under the Business Names Ordinance Act No. 7 of 1987, which is under the authority of each provincial council and provides room for each provincial council to run their own procedure on registration of a proprietorship or partnership.

So even though a specific minister may have been given scope and specific task of revamping micro, small, and local enterprises, the minister may still face challenges due to common regulatory barriers starting from the business registration process, which is the entry ticket, to finance and markets, and even for relief schemes during Covid-19 brought in by the Government.

The good news is the Government and Department of Census and Statistics (DCS) have initiated an e- registry platform for registering micro and small enterprises. According to Advocata statistics, 97% of micro-businesses and 85% of small businesses are registered as sole proprietorships. This e-registration system is indeed a move in the right direction. Then, the authorities must also ensure that the e-registration process will be simple and not a replication where the same documents are just submitted online. A system of just submitting documents such as deeds, rent agreements, etc. online would add an additional burden for budding entrepreneurs; to scan and submit documents online in addition to the time they spend getting grama sevaka certificates, rent agreements, and a list of other documentation. Advocata has recommended the New Zealand model and a South Korean model where there is a three-step business registration process, while in Sri Lanka the current process has seven steps.

Daily survivors vs. entrepreneurs

Having a simplified business registration process is the first step of addressing the problem of access to finance and providing government assistance and accessing markets. Having a simple business registration process will ensure an effective tax collection system where businesses can grow and expand.

One other reason for the poor enthusiasm pertaining to registering a business is in the fear of paying taxes. As a result, most of these micro-businesses limit themselves to being “daily survivors” as opposed to them becoming real micro and small “entrepreneurs’’.

There is a significant difference between someone who just runs a small business for daily survival and someone who takes a risk in the form of money, property, time, or any form for entrepreneurship.

What Sri Lanka requires is for micro and small entrepreneurs to migrate from “daily survivors” to micro-entrepreneurs. The Government can facilitate the process by having a conducive environment for businesses, and the new state ministers can take this lead.

Industry-specific challenges

While the micro and small enterprises have been oppressed at the registration level, at the same time, there are industry-specific regulatory issues.

Most of these industries require a license for their sourcing and a license or a government authorisation that has to be taken at each touchpoint. In most industries, sourcing of raw material and transportation of raw materials both require licences. Some of the regulations are placed with good intentions, but most of it has ended up with extra bureaucracy burdening the industry and opening doors to corruption. All licences have just ended up being another hurdle for these entrepreneurs to cross. Additionally, these licences are also an opportunity for regulatory officials to earn extra money in the way of corruption and by providing preferential treatment to the affluent and higher classes of business that have networked with local political power centres.

The new industry-specific ministers’ primary mandate when developing these industries has to be a facilitatory role and not an interventionist role. The prosperity of micro and small enterprises will depend on this. The new ministers have to ensure that they do not apply the “brakes” by introducing more regulatory barriers; rather, they should remove those barriers in each sector for sustainable growth.

At the same time, they should not push the accelerator in the wrong direction to create market distortions which will impact other more productive sectors while bureaucratic powers work only thinking about their sector at the expense of others.

Sri Lankans are more than capable of competing at the global level and “daily surviving micro and small businesses” will jump to the seat of “micro and small entrepreneurs” if we facilitate and provide a more simple regulatory scheme.

We should never underestimate the common man’s skill and the ability of micro and small enterprises, which at present are already contributing more than 30% of our national employment.

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.

Reform for our micro and small businesses

Covered in the Daily FT and Daily Mirror

By Aneetha Warusavitarana

Last Saturday was the UN World Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Day, and in light of that, focus should be given to Sri Lanka’s small businesses and the challenges they face. 

Sri Lankan micro and small enterprises form a substantial part of our economy. Sole proprietorships account for 63.1% of all businesses in the country, and account for 27.1% of national employment (Department of Census and Statistics). However, they face a myriad of challenges and this focus on improving their business environment is welcome. As highlighted in a study conducted by the Advocata Institute on the regulatory barriers faced by micro and small enterprises, the three main challenges faced are access to finance, labour, and rent.

In addition, 45% of micro-enterprises and 10% of small enterprises remain unregistered, exacerbating these problems. Unregistered businesses are excluded from formal sources of finance, business networks, and do not qualify for Government assistance. 

In early March this year, the Cabinet approved the establishment of ‘one-stop shops’ for micro and small businesses in Sri Lanka. This project is now moving forward, with the Government working with the EU to set up these ‘one-stop shops’ in each district; with the aim of streamlining the registration process and providing assistance on issues of access to technology, quality control and access to markets. However, what else is there to be done? 

The problem of registration

Registering a business in Sri Lanka has always been a long, tedious process; one that discouraged businesses and negatively impacted our ease of doing business ranking. However, in 2018, Sri Lanka was witness to some welcome reform with the launch of ‘E-RoC portal’, which streamlined registration, and brought the process completely online. This success in reform was reflected in the country’s ranking on the ease of doing business ranking and was hailed as a reform success. 

However, the E-RoC portal is only applicable to the registration of private companies. 

In Sri Lanka, the registration of private companies is governed by the Companies Act No 07 of 2007, while the registration of sole proprietorships and partnerships are governed by Business Names Ordinance No 06 of 1918. As a result, the E-RoC could not be broadened to include the sole proprietors and partnerships. 

97% of micro-businesses in Sri Lanka and 85% of small businesses have registered their business as sole proprietorships, with only 3% of the businesses surveyed having registered themselves as a partnership, and 2% registering themselves as a Private Limited Company.4 In other words, for the vast majority of micro and small businesses in Sri Lanka, their registration process is long, tedious and unnecessarily convoluted.

How does business registration work for sole proprietors and partnerships?

The process of registration is implemented by the Divisional Secretariats. At best, the country currently has nine different regulatory processes for the registration of sole proprietors and partnerships. The process of registering a sole proprietorship or a partnership in Sri Lanka is a time consuming, complicated task, with the main steps detailed below: 

1. Visit the Divisional Secretariat and collect form and instructions

2. Fill out the application

3. Provide documentation

   • Proof of ownership of business premises

   • Original Deed and notarised copy or

   • Original Rent agreement and notarised copy, or

   • No Objection letter from the owner of the premises

   • NIC copy

   • Tax assessment notification for the premises

   • Copy of the partnership business agreement

   4. Visit the Grama Niladhari and get the application and attached documents approved

   5. Receive additional approvals depending on the business type e.g.: PHI approval

   6. Hand over completed application to the Divisional Secretariat.

A majority of provinces do not have the application for business registration or the instructions sheet available for download from the Divisional Secretariat or Provincial Council website, and the instruction form is not always available in all three languages. 

This is in comparison to much simpler processes that have become standard internationally, and have also been replicated in Sri Lanka, as was seen with the E-RoC reform for private companies. 

Address the problem at hand

According to the island-wide survey conducted by the Advocata Institute, over 80% of respondents found the Grama Niladhari and the Divisional Secretariat to be an effective touch point. This would indicate that improving service at this point may not be an immediate requirement. Instead, focus should be placed on reforming the registration process for micro and small enterprises. 

Sri Lanka’s micro and small enterprises will have faced significant economic fallout during the curfew period. The Government has recognised this and responded with policy action like the debt moratorium to help ease some financial pressure. However, this is unlikely to be sufficient. These policies would only apply to entities that have registered their business and would leave the segment of unregistered businesses without support. It is vital that the registration process is streamlined, making it easier for these businesses to enter the formal sector and reap the benefits for formal sources of finance, and better access to markets that come with formalisation. There is a window for reform that exists, and we hope that the Government takes advantage of this to bring about some much-needed change.