Sri Lanka’s rice dilemma

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

High rice prices, shortages of nadu rice, and the monthly importation of around 70,000 MT of rice have once again become key topics in national discussions.

As this column has highlighted previously, Sri Lanka’s per capita rice consumption is twice the global average. Yet, paradoxically, farmers remain poor and the market remains underdeveloped despite this significant consumption. The core issue lies in the complex and flawed economic dynamics governing the rice industry.

Low productivity and farmer incentives

One primary challenge is low paddy productivity. Farmers lack incentives to improve yields due to market dynamics. When production increases and supply exceeds demand, prices drop, negating any potential income gains for farmers.

Conversely, if yields fall, prices may rise, but the total crop volume decreases, leaving farmers with the same or even lower income. This discourages efforts to boost productivity, creating a cycle of stagnation and poverty.

Mismatch in rice varieties and market demand

Sri Lanka predominantly grows short-grain rice, while global demand favours long-grain varieties such as basmati and jasmine rice. Transitioning to long-grain cultivation presents challenges related to soil conditions and high production costs.

Moreover, the current pricing structure for rice does not reflect the true cost of production. Producing one kilogramme of rice requires approximately 2,400 litres of water, a resource for which farmers are not charged. Even accounting for a modest 20 LKR cents per litre, the true cost of rice would be significantly higher.

Market dynamics and oligopoly of millers

The paddy market is dominated by a few large-scale rice millers who have the financial capacity to purchase in bulk and maintain extensive storage facilities. Small and medium-scale millers often offer better prices but lack the scale to buy large quantities.

This oligopolistic structure limits competition and contributes to high consumer prices. While the Paddy Marketing Board has some storage capacity to intervene in the market, it is insufficient compared to the resources of large millers.

Implications of rice imports

Importing rice can benefit consumers by preventing shortages and stabilising prices. However, this strategy poses risks to small and medium-scale millers, who may struggle to secure sufficient paddy for milling if imported rice dominates the market.

The Government’s plan to import and distribute rice through State-run retailers, such as Sathosa, aims to control prices but introduces its own set of challenges.

Potential for corruption and market distortions

Government-led importation efforts create opportunities for corruption. The State must invest significant funds upfront and ensure that imported rice meets quality standards. Large-scale imports also raise the risk of mismanagement and unethical practices.

Additionally, limiting imported rice sales to Government outlets like Sathosa may inadvertently encourage private retailers to purchase and resell it at higher prices, undermining efforts to keep costs low for consumers. Imposing purchase limits at Sathosa could lead to long queues and inconvenience for shoppers.

Policy considerations and long-term solutions

There is no simple solution to Sri Lanka’s rice crisis. Addressing the issue requires long-term, multifaceted strategies.

Improving rice productivity and diversifying the buyer base beyond millers through strategic investments is essential. Establishing farmer associations with adequate storage facilities could enhance competition and stabilise the market. Allowing private sector rice imports without restrictive licensing could also promote fair competition and reduce corruption risks.

However, price controls or excessive Government intervention in the market are unlikely to resolve the underlying issues of consumer affordability or farmer poverty.

Ultimately, a sustainable solution involves balancing productivity improvements, market diversification, and transparent policies to ensure fair competition and equitable outcomes for all stakeholders in Sri Lanka’s rice industry.

Lanka’s fuel price tug of war: Who really pays the price?

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Fuel prices and fuel price revisions have always been a political football. Statements by various politicians on the taxes imposed on fuel and the scope for reducing fuel prices have come under renewed scrutiny with the 31 October price announcements.

Adding to the confusion, a statement by the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) Chairman – that the CPC must compensate for the losses of other players if deviating from the price formula – has sparked fresh controversy. It’s essential to unpack these issues one at a time.

According to Central Bank data, we imported approximately $ 1.5 billion in refined petroleum and $ 0.5 billion in crude oil in the first half of the year. Assuming demand and prices remain steady, total fuel imports this year will be around $ 4 billion.

About 70% of fuel is consumed by the top 30% of high-income earners in Sri Lanka who can actually afford higher fuel prices. Naturally, energy consumption rises with income, as wealthier households use personal vehicles, high-energy appliances, and consume more overall. Only 30% of the total fuel is consumed by the remaining 70% of the population, which includes fishermen, public transport users, and service providers.

Thus, if we artificially lower fuel prices through a subsidy, it effectively subsidises the wealthiest families in Sri Lanka. While a low-tax regime might be ideal, given our fiscal situation and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme, Government revenue must increase to about 15% of GDP. Lowering fuel taxes would thus provide tax relief to the wealthiest 30% of households and incentivise excessive fuel consumption.

Imperative to adhere to fuel formula

Instead of being swayed by popular demands to reduce fuel prices, especially with rising tensions in the Middle East, the Government should first review its balance sheet to ensure adequate revenue with minimal market distortions to achieve debt sustainability.

If the Government aims to lower fuel prices for the public transport and fisheries sectors, the best approach would be a direct cash transfer rather than lowering all fuel prices, which would mitigate the impact of high fuel prices on essential goods and services.

It is imperative that we stick with the fuel formula and strengthen it if necessary. Unfortunately, there is limited information regarding the recent controversy over agreements between fuel suppliers on price revisions. If, as the Chairman claims, there is a clause to compensate private players for losses, this would be unreasonable if true.

In the absence of the full report, the only available information is a post on X from the former Minister of Power and Energy, who claims the CPC only pays the difference when the Government provides a subsidy or other mechanism to deviate from the price formula. In fairness to private players, if only the CPC receives a fuel subsidy, it creates an unlevel playing field, as petrol and diesel would be cheaper at CPC stations than at private ones.

Although the subsidy benefits consumers, it primarily benefits the wealthiest 30%, and rising demand could drastically increase the total subsidy cost for the Government. Therefore, a fuel subsidy is not advisable, as it essentially transfers Treasury funds to the wealthiest households in Sri Lanka.

Another issue has arisen: one supplier has reportedly requested about Rs. 82 million as compensation for deviations from the fuel price formula. It is difficult to assess this claim fully, as the original documents are not publicly available, but if true, it raises questions about whether recent price revisions adhered to the formula.

In particular, price adjustments before and after the elections require examination. Data on whether the September and October price revisions complied with the formula has also not been published; making this information available would reduce information asymmetry, essential for a functioning market economy.

Providing consumers with the best price

A further question is whether only a Government-owned CPC can reduce prices, and why prices are not decreasing with private players like Lanka IOC, Sinopec, RM Parks, and United Petroleum in the market.

The answer is not straightforward. The CPC is already heavily in debt, with high financing costs that must be covered. Moreover, prior to the latest revision, Sinopec’s diesel prices were actually lower than others, illustrating how competition can bring prices down.

However, prices depend on global crude and refined oil rates, and sometimes on the efficiency of refineries. When a price formula is in place in a small market, players often charge similar prices, but more competitors could introduce value propositions, including price variations based on global fluctuations.

For example, Lanka IOC offered an environmentally friendly fuel at a higher price, while Sinopec sold diesel at a lower price. To remain competitive, each player must offer something unique, which may not always be a lower price but can include quality or convenience.

The final point is that the new administration has requested a flat dealer margin instead of a percentage tied to global fuel prices, which is a positive move. Dealer costs are mainly influenced by inflation rather than global prices. The purpose of the price formula is to account for both variable and fixed costs to prevent losses and provide consumers with the best price.

In a market system, the consumer is at the centre. To prioritise consumer needs, we must ensure multiple players and transparency in pricing to minimise information asymmetry. Publishing the final fuel price revision calculations for the past two months and the full price revision agreement with private players would be a constructive first step.

Understanding the economic crisis: Corruption a symptom, not the root cause

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The most common rationalisation of Sri Lanka’s economic crisis is to blame corruption, which is a complete mischaracterisation. This is not to say that corruption had no part in the crisis, but to place the blame solely on corruption would be inaccurate. In my view, there has been an economic policy problem which incentivised corruption, hence that is a problem that we have to fix, rather than trying to fix corruption. Corruption is just a symptom and policy is the root cause.

However, policy problems cannot be analysed in a vacuum, because simply having a policy does not mean everything will be alright. Policy has to be analysed based on the strength and stability of institutions.

One good example is the Fiscal Management (Responsibility) Act No.3 of 2003. According to the act (policy), the Government cannot exceed the budget deficit above 5% of the GDP. Since the act has enacted every budget we have presented, our budget deficit has been above 5%. Nothing has happened to any government for violating their own rules. We have the policy, but we do not have the institutions to enforce it or the stability or capacity for institutions to abide by the policy.

The anti-corruption commision is another good example. Many countries that wished to eradicate corruption have set up anti-corruption units, but when anti-corruption units are also corrupt, since they have been established by the existing powers, it is self-defeating.

Therefore, thinking that we can avoid an economic crisis or overcome the crisis by focusing on corruption as the sole measure shows a lack of depth. We have to evaluate the system somewhat more broadly to fix it.

A common question people ask is, “where are the assets for the loans we have taken?”. In that case, people think we have taken loans and syphoned that money out without investing. The deficit of the value of the projects and the loans we have taken is generally considered to be that which has been spent on corruption. While there have definitely been kickbacks from the projects, most of the money we have borrowed has been borrowed not for projects but to pay the interests of the loans we had borrowed before.

From our debt, about 74% has been used to pay interest or for exchange depreciation (40% for interest and 33% for currency depreciation). Since 1999, most of our debt has gone towards bad policies in the form of interest and for the exchange rate. At the point of borrowing money, similar to what happened in the Central Bank bond scam, there can be corruption, but the corruption is often an outcome of a bad policy or a poor system rather than a standalone problem.

Thus, rather than thinking about jailing the corrupt, it is easier to fill the gaps in the system where corruption takes place. This is where a market system is needed. The market system has the power to make the players of corruption uncompetitive, because corruption is costly. When the cost is too high, provided the consumer has a choice, they can shift to alternatives. Therefore, it is vitally important to set the market system straight and keep entry and exit barriers at a minimum.

Framework of the market system to think about corruption

How do we decide the project?

Generally, corruption takes place in projects and the decision-making processes of the projects. These mainly come as unsolicited proposals. Someone proposing a solution for a problem that even the government is unaware of falls under the category of unsolicited proposals. The government has the discretionary power to decide which projects are to be done and which projects are to be set aside. This is how quite a lot of construction projects, instead of education and healthcare, get priority.

Most projects under SOEs also fall under this category, which is why SOEs are considered vehicles of corruption and SOE reform is a must. Adhering to the National Physical Plan and getting it through Parliament is one way to minimise it.

Who does the project?

When the project is decided, the selection of the implementation partner is the next window for corruption. Again, it can be awarded through unsolicited proposals or there can be technical corruption where the specifications of the supplies are in favour of a selected supplier.

Unsolicited and competitive processes violate the market system, and on a technical level, corruption is very hard to detect even at the legal stage. However, with an open process on complaints and reevaluation, there is still room for improvement. There are also cases where even the competitive process is established due to a lack of trust in the system; the most suitable person doesn’t want to apply and go through the process.

Deciding on the price

The other point of corruption is when it comes to deciding on the price. It could be the interest rates on bonds, the contract value, or the price of the energy purchase. Price discovery is also a market-based process. When prices are allowed to be set without a market-based approach, there is room for corruption. That is how most of the energy agreements were signed and we borrowed money to pay the price. Rather than trying to fix the individual involved in corruption because the next person could repeat these same actions, it is advisable to fix the problem first.

Deciding the quality of materials

The fourth case is where even the people selected through the competitive process simply use inferior quality products. Our experiences in poor quality medicine at the Ministry of Health is just one example.

Corruption can take place in projects or in processes based on any of the above or a combination of any of the four. However, this takes place only when the decision-making power or discretionary power is given to someone who is not the owner of the risk or the investment. Otherwise, it leaves competition out or maintains information asymmetry for someone to benefit from.

In a market system where competition is given priority and prices are allowed to reflect the scarcity value of money, it naturally leaves corruption behind, but creating the information balance is not easy.

Therefore, while no market or government is perfect, a market system is a better system to avoid corruption, rather than expecting the government to eradicate corruption, since the government has no interest or incentive to do business or to eradicate corruption.

It is not about the private sector versus the government – it is all about a market system which incentivises transparency and minimises room for corruption. Our continuous failure to build that system was the reason for our fall (economic crisis) and we can only overcome it by fixing it, since it is the root cause, and not by fixing the symptom called corruption.

(Source: CBSL, Advocata)

Rich man plays, poor man pays

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

How we end up footing the bill for Government price controls

Purchasing alcohol was an expensive endeavour back in college. I remember the total alcohol bill being shared equally amongst those who drink and those who don’t. Sri Lanka’s fuel pricing mechanism is quite similar to this. The subsidised prices are a blessing for direct users of fuel who can afford it. The majority, who are secondary users, end up paying for the subsidy indirectly. Sri Lanka’s fuel problem is quite complex. If we are to overcome this issue it is vital that policymakers understand the concept of “markets” and “prices”. 

It is important that Sri Lanka integrates with global markets and continues to allow fuel imports. This costs the Government approximately about $ 3.5 billion per annum. Global fuel prices fluctuate based on market conditions, and it is crucial to understand why prices fluctuate and the indicators of these fluctuations. Some oil deposits in the world are located such that their extraction process is relatively easy and less costly. Some others are very costly to extract. The Middle East and the OPEC (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) are reputed for their oil reserves, whereas the extraction of oil is comparatively more costly in areas like Alberta, Canada. Global oil prices are determined based on this ability of countries to supply to the global market. Political, economic, and climatic developments, and changes in these countries have a direct impact on global oil prices.

So what does the “price” increase communicate? It communicates to the consumer the scarcity of that particular resource within the particular time frame. So increases in global oil “prices” is an indication to consumers that fuel is becoming a scarce resource, and we have to use it optimally. It is also an indication to producers that they can earn more by producing more. This narrows down to the basics of supply and demand. Price is an indicator of scarcity. The “market economy” is not complicated, it is merely allowing the “price system” to work. This allows prices to indicate what should be done. Price is not just a number or a sum a consumer pays. Final retail prices are an accumulation of labour costs, material costs, scarcity, externalities, and factors of production. This is fundamentally why we must not intervene in the market price mechanism.

Sri Lanka has always ignored market principles. The island nation has been trying to artificially keep fuel prices constant despite the continuous fluctuations of global prices. We have failed to understand that such fabricated interventions to either inflate or deflate prices will only result in ceasing to keep up with global indications on whether the resource is scarce or not.

Sri Lanka’s fiscal discipline and stability has always been connected to fuel and the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC). As a result of fuel price changes, there are significant knock-on effects on all utilities, including electricity and water. CPC provides fuel at a lower price to the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), which is one of the main sources for electricity generation. As a result, the pricing of electricity is also now not indicative of scarcity. The CPC, which buys fuel at higher prices and sells it lower, now owes significant debts to most of the state banks. 

The debt incurred is in US dollar terms. A delay in payment or a default may adversely affect the entire financial system. The heavy impact this would have on the banking sector will consequently impact the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL). It is no secret that the CBSL bails out the CPC and CEB through Treasury Bills, or by printing money. Therefore it is clear that by intervening, we have successfully exposed the entire financial system to deep peril.

The current Minister of Energy said the banks have informed the  CPC Chairman that they do not have foreign currency to pay for fuel imports. This was informed to the Secretary of the Treasury, who then summoned all the heads of banks, who collectively assured the payments for fuel imports. He further stated that the CBSL said it cannot offer any reserves, given the country’s economic woes. It is perplexing to say that the problem is really this severe. It is clear that intervention in the price system has caused a massive domino effect beyond comprehension. 

According to a World Bank report, the biggest beneficiary of subsidised fuel prices are the highest echelons of society. “The non-poor are the largest consumers of fuel and electricity (the top 30% of society consumes 70% of fuel. This is well ahead of direct and indirect consumption of fuel by the bottom 40% through public transport). The administered fuel prices are an effective subsidy to the non-poor funded indirectly by fiscal resources,” stated the World Bank in its Development Update for Sri Lanka in November 2017.

I see no difference in this fuel pricing phenomenon and how the final alcohol bill was shared amongst those who drink and those who don’t in my college days. The poor are bearing the burden of fuel subsidies so the rich can buy fuel for much cheaper. The weighed-down poor only consume fuel in the form of transport, electricity, and other secondary forms. We have to understand that the losses of the CPC have to be paid by someone. Currently, that someone is constituted by both the rich and the poor. 

One important aspect is that the Government also collects revenue through the consumption of fuel. Changes made to the duty waiver have caused enormous losses to the Government. Giving cash subsidies to the poorest section of society could have been a much better strategy than tampering with duty waivers and underpricing fuel, ignoring market signals.

According to the calculations shown in Figure 1, the recent price changes do not reflect market prices of diesel, as illustrated in Figure 2.

What is the solution?

The first solution lies in addressing the problem. As of now, Sri Lanka’s fuel prices fail to indicate scarcity, hampering the independent function of market prices. One way of doing this is by setting up a transparent mechanism and changing the prices to reflect market prices. It may be a price formula or a process where transparency is assured. 

Such a step will incentivise better resource allocation. Consumers will be able to shift between alternative choices and manage their decisions based on price signals. The previous administration introduced a pricing formula that was very poorly administered. The method of calculation was not properly communicated. 

I recall a time when elections were approaching, with a simultaneous spike in global oil prices underway. However, Sri Lanka’s oil prices remained the same. The same was seen when global prices reduced during the first lockdown, and the local consumer was deprived of the deflation. 

One common misperception on this strategy was voiced politically as: “Why do we need a Government if the prices are going to change according to the world market prices?” Simply because we are now experiencing the consequences of such control by the Government. As The Morning reported, the fuel fund has a negative Rs. 26 billion and there are many discrepancies over the numbers in numerous reports. 

Another common misperception is that based on the price changes of fuel, we are going to allow bus fares and other connected prices to change daily. It may be daily changes or it can be changes over a month or a quarter, and there are so many ways we can structure it based on market forces. We have all forgotten that we deal with so many daily price fluctuations. Vegetable prices, Gold prices, stock market prices, and even the prices we pay as interest for Treasury Bills and Bonds change everyday. Price changes for a reason: they communicate the market conditions, which is the ultimate objective of “price”, and allowing the markets to work. 

It is true that this price hike has an impact on the poor. The Government can consider direct cash transfers. The cost of cash transfers will be lower than the losses we collectively incur from the CPC, CEB, and other fuel-dependent state institutions. The current price hike is just another temporary solution; it does not fix the problem. 

Increasing the share collected by everyone at my university party does not change the unfair division of the cost. Likewise, a price increase without setting up a market system and price signals to operate won’t solve Sri Lanka’s fuel and economic crisis.Purchasing alcohol was an expensive endeavour back in college. I remember the total alcohol bill being shared equally amongst those who drink and those who don’t. Sri Lanka’s fuel pricing mechanism is quite similar to this. The subsidised prices are a blessing for direct users of fuel who can afford it. The majority, who are secondary users, end up paying for the subsidy indirectly. Sri Lanka’s fuel problem is quite complex. If we are to overcome this issue it is vital that policymakers understand the concept of “markets” and “prices”. 

It is important that Sri Lanka integrates with global markets and continues to allow fuel imports. This costs the Government approximately about $ 3.5 billion per annum. Global fuel prices fluctuate based on market conditions, and it is crucial to understand why prices fluctuate and the indicators of these fluctuations. Some oil deposits in the world are located such that their extraction process is relatively easy and less costly. Some others are very costly to extract. The Middle East and the OPEC (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) are reputed for their oil reserves, whereas the extraction of oil is comparatively more costly in areas like Alberta, Canada. Global oil prices are determined based on this ability of countries to supply to the global market. Political, economic, and climatic developments, and changes in these countries have a direct impact on global oil prices.

So what does the “price” increase communicate? It communicates to the consumer the scarcity of that particular resource within the particular time frame. So increases in global oil “prices” is an indication to consumers that fuel is becoming a scarce resource, and we have to use it optimally. It is also an indication to producers that they can earn more by producing more. This narrows down to the basics of supply and demand. Price is an indicator of scarcity. The “market economy” is not complicated, it is merely allowing the “price system” to work. This allows prices to indicate what should be done. Price is not just a number or a sum a consumer pays. Final retail prices are an accumulation of labour costs, material costs, scarcity, externalities, and factors of production. This is fundamentally why we must not intervene in the market price mechanism.

Sri Lanka has always ignored market principles. The island nation has been trying to artificially keep fuel prices constant despite the continuous fluctuations of global prices. We have failed to understand that such fabricated interventions to either inflate or deflate prices will only result in ceasing to keep up with global indications on whether the resource is scarce or not.

Sri Lanka’s fiscal discipline and stability has always been connected to fuel and the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC). As a result of fuel price changes, there are significant knock-on effects on all utilities, including electricity and water. CPC provides fuel at a lower price to the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), which is one of the main sources for electricity generation. As a result, the pricing of electricity is also now not indicative of scarcity. The CPC, which buys fuel at higher prices and sells it lower, now owes significant debts to most of the state banks. 

The debt incurred is in US dollar terms. A delay in payment or a default may adversely affect the entire financial system. The heavy impact this would have on the banking sector will consequently impact the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL). It is no secret that the CBSL bails out the CPC and CEB through Treasury Bills, or by printing money. Therefore it is clear that by intervening, we have successfully exposed the entire financial system to deep peril.

The current Minister of Energy said the banks have informed the  CPC Chairman that they do not have foreign currency to pay for fuel imports. This was informed to the Secretary of the Treasury, who then summoned all the heads of banks, who collectively assured the payments for fuel imports. He further stated that the CBSL said it cannot offer any reserves, given the country’s economic woes. It is perplexing to say that the problem is really this severe. It is clear that intervention in the price system has caused a massive domino effect beyond comprehension. 

According to a World Bank report, the biggest beneficiary of subsidised fuel prices are the highest echelons of society. “The non-poor are the largest consumers of fuel and electricity (the top 30% of society consumes 70% of fuel. This is well ahead of direct and indirect consumption of fuel by the bottom 40% through public transport). The administered fuel prices are an effective subsidy to the non-poor funded indirectly by fiscal resources,” stated the World Bank in its Development Update for Sri Lanka in November 2017.

I see no difference in this fuel pricing phenomenon and how the final alcohol bill was shared amongst those who drink and those who don’t in my college days. The poor are bearing the burden of fuel subsidies so the rich can buy fuel for much cheaper. The weighed-down poor only consume fuel in the form of transport, electricity, and other secondary forms. We have to understand that the losses of the CPC have to be paid by someone. Currently, that someone is constituted by both the rich and the poor. 

One important aspect is that the Government also collects revenue through the consumption of fuel. Changes made to the duty waiver have caused enormous losses to the Government. Giving cash subsidies to the poorest section of society could have been a much better strategy than tampering with duty waivers and underpricing fuel, ignoring market signals.

According to the calculations shown in Figure 1, the recent price changes do not reflect market prices of diesel, as illustrated in Figure 2.

What is the solution?

The first solution lies in addressing the problem. As of now, Sri Lanka’s fuel prices fail to indicate scarcity, hampering the independent function of market prices. One way of doing this is by setting up a transparent mechanism and changing the prices to reflect market prices. It may be a price formula or a process where transparency is assured. 

Such a step will incentivise better resource allocation. Consumers will be able to shift between alternative choices and manage their decisions based on price signals. The previous administration introduced a pricing formula that was very poorly administered. The method of calculation was not properly communicated. 

I recall a time when elections were approaching, with a simultaneous spike in global oil prices underway. However, Sri Lanka’s oil prices remained the same. The same was seen when global prices reduced during the first lockdown, and the local consumer was deprived of the deflation. 

One common misperception on this strategy was voiced politically as: “Why do we need a Government if the prices are going to change according to the world market prices?” Simply because we are now experiencing the consequences of such control by the Government. As The Morning reported, the fuel fund has a negative Rs. 26 billion and there are many discrepancies over the numbers in numerous reports. 

Another common misperception is that based on the price changes of fuel, we are going to allow bus fares and other connected prices to change daily. It may be daily changes or it can be changes over a month or a quarter, and there are so many ways we can structure it based on market forces. We have all forgotten that we deal with so many daily price fluctuations. Vegetable prices, Gold prices, stock market prices, and even the prices we pay as interest for Treasury Bills and Bonds change everyday. Price changes for a reason: they communicate the market conditions, which is the ultimate objective of “price”, and allowing the markets to work. 

It is true that this price hike has an impact on the poor. The Government can consider direct cash transfers. The cost of cash transfers will be lower than the losses we collectively incur from the CPC, CEB, and other fuel-dependent state institutions. The current price hike is just another temporary solution; it does not fix the problem. 

Increasing the share collected by everyone at my university party does not change the unfair division of the cost. Likewise, a price increase without setting up a market system and price signals to operate won’t solve Sri Lanka’s fuel and economic crisis.Purchasing alcohol was an expensive endeavour back in college. I remember the total alcohol bill being shared equally amongst those who drink and those who don’t. Sri Lanka’s fuel pricing mechanism is quite similar to this. The subsidised prices are a blessing for direct users of fuel who can afford it. The majority, who are secondary users, end up paying for the subsidy indirectly. Sri Lanka’s fuel problem is quite complex. If we are to overcome this issue it is vital that policymakers understand the concept of “markets” and “prices”. 

It is important that Sri Lanka integrates with global markets and continues to allow fuel imports. This costs the Government approximately about $ 3.5 billion per annum. Global fuel prices fluctuate based on market conditions, and it is crucial to understand why prices fluctuate and the indicators of these fluctuations. Some oil deposits in the world are located such that their extraction process is relatively easy and less costly. Some others are very costly to extract. The Middle East and the OPEC (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) are reputed for their oil reserves, whereas the extraction of oil is comparatively more costly in areas like Alberta, Canada. Global oil prices are determined based on this ability of countries to supply to the global market. Political, economic, and climatic developments, and changes in these countries have a direct impact on global oil prices.

So what does the “price” increase communicate? It communicates to the consumer the scarcity of that particular resource within the particular time frame. So increases in global oil “prices” is an indication to consumers that fuel is becoming a scarce resource, and we have to use it optimally. It is also an indication to producers that they can earn more by producing more. This narrows down to the basics of supply and demand. Price is an indicator of scarcity. The “market economy” is not complicated, it is merely allowing the “price system” to work. This allows prices to indicate what should be done. Price is not just a number or a sum a consumer pays. Final retail prices are an accumulation of labour costs, material costs, scarcity, externalities, and factors of production. This is fundamentally why we must not intervene in the market price mechanism.

Sri Lanka has always ignored market principles. The island nation has been trying to artificially keep fuel prices constant despite the continuous fluctuations of global prices. We have failed to understand that such fabricated interventions to either inflate or deflate prices will only result in ceasing to keep up with global indications on whether the resource is scarce or not.

Sri Lanka’s fiscal discipline and stability has always been connected to fuel and the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC). As a result of fuel price changes, there are significant knock-on effects on all utilities, including electricity and water. CPC provides fuel at a lower price to the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), which is one of the main sources for electricity generation. As a result, the pricing of electricity is also now not indicative of scarcity. The CPC, which buys fuel at higher prices and sells it lower, now owes significant debts to most of the state banks. 

The debt incurred is in US dollar terms. A delay in payment or a default may adversely affect the entire financial system. The heavy impact this would have on the banking sector will consequently impact the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL). It is no secret that the CBSL bails out the CPC and CEB through Treasury Bills, or by printing money. Therefore it is clear that by intervening, we have successfully exposed the entire financial system to deep peril.

The current Minister of Energy said the banks have informed the  CPC Chairman that they do not have foreign currency to pay for fuel imports. This was informed to the Secretary of the Treasury, who then summoned all the heads of banks, who collectively assured the payments for fuel imports. He further stated that the CBSL said it cannot offer any reserves, given the country’s economic woes. It is perplexing to say that the problem is really this severe. It is clear that intervention in the price system has caused a massive domino effect beyond comprehension. 

According to a World Bank report, the biggest beneficiary of subsidised fuel prices are the highest echelons of society. “The non-poor are the largest consumers of fuel and electricity (the top 30% of society consumes 70% of fuel. This is well ahead of direct and indirect consumption of fuel by the bottom 40% through public transport). The administered fuel prices are an effective subsidy to the non-poor funded indirectly by fiscal resources,” stated the World Bank in its Development Update for Sri Lanka in November 2017.

I see no difference in this fuel pricing phenomenon and how the final alcohol bill was shared amongst those who drink and those who don’t in my college days. The poor are bearing the burden of fuel subsidies so the rich can buy fuel for much cheaper. The weighed-down poor only consume fuel in the form of transport, electricity, and other secondary forms. We have to understand that the losses of the CPC have to be paid by someone. Currently, that someone is constituted by both the rich and the poor. 

One important aspect is that the Government also collects revenue through the consumption of fuel. Changes made to the duty waiver have caused enormous losses to the Government. Giving cash subsidies to the poorest section of society could have been a much better strategy than tampering with duty waivers and underpricing fuel, ignoring market signals.

According to the calculations shown in Figure 1, the recent price changes do not reflect market prices of diesel, as illustrated in Figure 2.

What is the solution?

The first solution lies in addressing the problem. As of now, Sri Lanka’s fuel prices fail to indicate scarcity, hampering the independent function of market prices. One way of doing this is by setting up a transparent mechanism and changing the prices to reflect market prices. It may be a price formula or a process where transparency is assured. 

Such a step will incentivise better resource allocation. Consumers will be able to shift between alternative choices and manage their decisions based on price signals. The previous administration introduced a pricing formula that was very poorly administered. The method of calculation was not properly communicated. 

I recall a time when elections were approaching, with a simultaneous spike in global oil prices underway. However, Sri Lanka’s oil prices remained the same. The same was seen when global prices reduced during the first lockdown, and the local consumer was deprived of the deflation. 

One common misperception on this strategy was voiced politically as: “Why do we need a Government if the prices are going to change according to the world market prices?” Simply because we are now experiencing the consequences of such control by the Government. As The Morning reported, the fuel fund has a negative Rs. 26 billion and there are many discrepancies over the numbers in numerous reports. 

Another common misperception is that based on the price changes of fuel, we are going to allow bus fares and other connected prices to change daily. It may be daily changes or it can be changes over a month or a quarter, and there are so many ways we can structure it based on market forces. We have all forgotten that we deal with so many daily price fluctuations. Vegetable prices, Gold prices, stock market prices, and even the prices we pay as interest for Treasury Bills and Bonds change everyday. Price changes for a reason: they communicate the market conditions, which is the ultimate objective of “price”, and allowing the markets to work. 

It is true that this price hike has an impact on the poor. The Government can consider direct cash transfers. The cost of cash transfers will be lower than the losses we collectively incur from the CPC, CEB, and other fuel-dependent state institutions. The current price hike is just another temporary solution; it does not fix the problem. 

Increasing the share collected by everyone at my university party does not change the unfair division of the cost. Likewise, a price increase without setting up a market system and price signals to operate won’t solve Sri Lanka’s fuel and economic crisis.

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.