Prof Colombage: Tax Amnesty Bill: A quick fix for budget gap?

Originally appeared on The Daily FT

By Prof. Sirimevan Colombage

Tax amnesties have the potential to encourage corruption and money laundering. They could weaken law enforcement in such grey areas, as income tax officers are prohibited to investigate the perpetrators of white-collar crimes who benefit from tax amnesties

The Ministry of Finance gazetted the Tax Amnesty Bill on 12 July in order to provide relief to tax defaulters who are prepared to voluntarily disclose their undisclosed taxable income or assets, against liability from investigation, prosecution and penalties under specified laws.

This Bill is introduced in the backdrop of the Government’s annual revenue loss of over Rs. 500 billion caused by the haphazard tax cuts implemented in 2020. The resulting budget deficit is largely funded by borrowings from the Central Bank and commercial banks, falling in line with the dubious Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), as explained in my last week’s FT column.

Tax Amnesty Bill

The new Tax Amnesty Bill provides a wide range of reliefs to tax evaders who had failed to disclose any taxable income or assets before March 2020. 

These reliefs include writing off penalties and interest, and permitting to invest the undisclosed taxable assets in financial instruments such as shares of a resident company, Treasury bills and bonds, debt securities issued by a company or to buy movable or immovable property in Sri Lanka. This facility will be effective after the commencement of the Act until 31 December 2021. The voluntary disclosures are subject to 1% nominal tax. 

Under the Bill, the Commissioner-General of Inland Revenue and other officers in the Department are bound to preserve absolute secrecy of the declarant’s identity and the content of the declaration. 

Benefits of tax amnesties debatable

Tax amnesties are used in developed and developing countries around the world to raise revenue collection and to improve tax compliance. In Sri Lanka, several tax amnesty laws were implemented beginning from 1964. 

While tax amnesties might serve as a quick fix to raise tax revenue during a fiscal crisis, their effectiveness in generating higher revenues in the medium and long term is found to be doubtful, as evident from the past experiences of tax amnesties operated in Sri Lanka and other countries. 

Tax amnesties have the potential to encourage corruption and money laundering. They could weaken law enforcement in such grey areas, as income tax officers are prohibited to investigate the perpetrators of white-collar crimes who benefit from tax amnesties. 

Investment attracted through a tax amnesty might leak out from the country once the tax evaders who made such investments decide to leave the financial market after cleaning their black money. Such tendencies would have adverse effects on the country’s money and capital markets.

 Types of tax amnesties

The word amnesty is originated from the Greek word ‘amnestia’. A tax amnesty can be defined as a package of concessions offered by a government to a specified group of taxpayers to exempt them from tax liability (including penalties and interest) relating to a previous period, and to relieve them from legal prosecution. Thus, tax amnesties usually involve both financial and legal concessions. 

Tax amnesties can be designed to cover all taxpayers, broad categories of tax payers (e.g. small taxpayers) or certain tax types (e.g. corporate income tax, personal income tax).

Objectives of tax amnesties

The fiscal authorities implementing a tax amnesty usually view it as an efficient tool to raise government tax revenue in both short and medium terms. In the short-term, amnesties can generate additional revenue from tax evaders. Such extra income in the short-term is most welcome during periods when a government faces a severe budget crisis due to revenue shortfalls and expenditure overruns, as in the case of the fiscal pressures faced by the Sri Lankan Government at present. 

In the medium term, a successful tax amnesty is expected to widen the tax base by bringing tax evaders into the tax net, and thereby to improve tax compliance.

Some tax amnesty measures have a wider scope than immediate revenue and tax compliance motives, aimed at broader objectives such as improving capital inflows and domestic investment. The new Tax Amnesty Bill falls into this category, as it provides facilities for tax invaders to invest in financial instruments, in addition to tax reliefs. 

 Tax amnesty inadequate to recover revenue losses 

Following the victory of the Presidential election in November 2019, the newly formed Government took steps to revise the Inland Revenue Act so as to provide a wide range of concessions to taxpayers, without considering their adverse consequences on fiscal and monetary stability. 

Accordingly, tax concessions were offered with respect to personal income tax rates, tax-free thresholds and tax slabs. Also, Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) tax on employment receipts, withholding Tax and Economic Service Charge were removed. Downward revisions were made to the Value Added Tax and Nation Building Tax to stimulate business activities.

As a result of those tax cuts, the total tax revenue fell by Rs. 518 billion from Rs. 1,735 billion in 2019 to Rs. 1,217 billion in 2020. This amounted to a loss of almost one third of the total tax revenue. It resulted in an expansion of the budget deficit by Rs. 229 billion from Rs. 1,439 billion in 2019 to Rs. 1,668 billion in 2020. Thus, the budget deficit rose from 9.6% of GDP in 2019 to 11.1% in 2020.

Income tax revenue alone fell by a whopping Rs. 160 billion from Rs. 428 billion in 2019 to Rs. 268 billion in 2020 due to the tax cuts. Such revenue loss cannot be recovered by the proposed tax amnesty. Even optimistically assuming a 10% increase in income tax revenue following this tax amnesty, the additional revenue generated would be only Rs. 43 billion, which is hardly sufficient to compensate for the policy-driven revenue loss.  

Tax amnesty discriminates against honest taxpayers

The short-term revenue mobilisation, which is often considered as the main benefit of tax amnesties, may be offset by various other factors. In particular, taxpayer compliance may decline after the amnesty due to the loss of credibility of the tax administration. The reason is that tax amnesty could be viewed as a weakness of tax administration. The regular taxpayers might see tax amnesty as a penalty for them and a reward for tax defaulters. 

Hence, an amnesty may create disincentive in the form of moral hazard among law abiding tax payers not to pay taxes. If people expect further rounds of tax amnesties in the future, then they will feel tax evasion would be profitable. As a result, the number of tax evaders will rise causing deterioration of tax compliance. 

Repeated tax amnesties would result in revenue losses due to reduced compliance. This might lead to a vicious circle which would necessitate more and more generous and frequent tax amnesties to widen the tax net.

 Costs of tax amnesty offset benefits

The direct cost of administering the amnesty, which includes administrative resources and advertising, might offset the additional revenue collected through the amnesty. Also, the foregone tax revenue on account of waived penalties and interest levies might be quite high. Hence, the net benefit of tax amnesty would be marginal, if not negative. 

 Policy alternatives

Notwithstanding the benefits of tax amnesties, there are various other alternative policy strategies that can be used to enhance revenue mobilisation in both the short and medium terms. In contrast to tax amnesties, such alternative strategies are geared to deal with the root cause of the fiscal gap, namely weak tax compliance. 

In general, low tax compliance is due to (a) weak tax administration, (2) weak legal system or enforcement of the law, and (c) poor tax policy characterised by complexities, regressive taxes and high taxes. 

Abandoned tax reforms under EFF

The above-mentioned weaknesses have been prevalent in the tax system of Sri Lanka for many decades. An attempt was made to overcome such weaknesses through the tax reforms that were to be implemented under the now abandoned Extended Fund Facility (EFF) arrangement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for the period, 2016-2019. 

Accordingly, administrative improvements were initiated in the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) and Customs Department. The new Inland Revenue Act was launched in 2018, and IRD continued its outreach strategy to ensure that the new tax rules and incentives are clearly understood by taxpayers. 

Specific improvements in electronic database and surveillance systems were introduced to enhance income tax and Value Added Tax (VAT) revenue mobilisation. Steps were also to be taken to enhance capacity building in IRD including training programmes for the staff.  Most of such tax reforms were abandoned due to the suspension of the EFF prematurely in 2019.

Low tax compliance could be better addressed by such far-reaching improvements in tax administration, rather than favouring corrupt tax defaulters vis-à-vis law-abiding taxpayers through tax amnesties. It is widely recognised that tax amnesties could induce corruption and money laundering. 

Therefore, tax reforms that go beyond tax amnesties are essential to overcome the structural weaknesses of Sri Lanka’s tax policy and administration.

(Prof. Sirimevan Colombage is Emeritus Professor in Economics at the Open University of Sri Lanka and Senior Visiting Fellow of the Advocata Institute. He is a former Director of Statistics of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, and reachable through sscol@ou.ac.lk)

Prof Colombage: Central Bank's V shape recovery projection unrealistic

Originally appeared on The Daily FT

By Prof. Sirimevan Colombage

There is an impending danger that delaying corrective policy decisions might push Sri Lanka towards an L-shaped recovery, prolonging the pandemic-led recession indefinitely

Sri Lanka’s economy contracted by 3.6% in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2020 in the aftermath of the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, recording the worst economic performance, as in the case of many countries. Industrial output declined by 6.9%, largely reflecting the adverse performance in apparel, manufacturing and construction. The services sector contracted by 1.5% due to the setback in tourism, transport and personal services. Agricultural production too fell by 2.4% in 2020.

In an effort to revive the economy and to mitigate the adverse impact of the pandemic on individuals and businesses, the Government has implemented a series of measures including health allocations, cash transfers and tax postponements.  These have been supplemented by the monetary easing policy adopted by the Central Bank since last year.

Despite such proactive measures, Sri Lanka is experiencing a prolonged economic recession due to the outbreak of the third wave of the pandemic. The economic recovery has become even more difficult due to the macroeconomic constraints faced by the country even before the pandemic. They include growth slowdown, high fiscal deficit, debt burden and balance of payments difficulties. 

 Alphabet of economic recovery

Questions have been raised across the world regarding the shape of the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic applicable to different countries; whether it is V-shaped, U-shaped, W-shaped or L-shaped.

The best-case scenario is the V-shaped recovery in which the economy rebounds quickly after a sharp decline. In a U-shaped recovery, it takes months or years to revive economic activity. In a W-shaped recovery, the economy recovers quickly but falls into a second recession. Hence, it is known as a double-dip recession. 

The worst-case scenario is the L-shaped recovery in which the economy fails to recover in the foreseeable future.

Central Bank’s V-shaped projection unrealistic

As per the medium-term macroeconomic outlook presented in the Central Bank’s Annual Report-2020, the Sri Lankan economy is expected to rebound strongly in 2021 and sustain the high growth momentum over the medium term, buoyed by growth-oriented policy support. 

Accordingly, the economy is expected to achieve a V-shaped recovery with GDP growth jumping exorbitantly to 6.0% this year from the negative growth experienced last year, as shown in the chart. The growth momentum is projected to remain in the next five years accelerating the growth to 7.0% by 2025.

The Central Bank’s above projection seems to be over-optimistic, given the structural economic imbalances that have been prevailing in the country for a long time, leaving aside the adverse effects of the pandemic. This is clearly reflected by the fact that the economy was already on a downward path even before the pandemic. 

GDP growth averaged only 3.7% during the ‘Yahapalana’ regime of 2015-2019. The average growth rate was down to mere 3.1% in 2017-2019, the period immediately preceding the pandemic. 
Based on our time series projections as shown in the dotted line in the Chart, the annual GDP growth would not have been more than 2% from this year onwards, assuming there is no COVID-19 pandemic. The scenario appears even worse when a non-linear trend projection is applied, which indicates negative growth in the medium-term even without the pandemic. 

Thus, Sri Lanka’s economic downturn is deeply rooted in factors beyond the pandemic which call for immediate policy action.

As the pandemic has exacerbated the economic slowdown, it is highly unrealistic to anticipate a V-shaped economic recovery overtaking the pre-pandemic growth, as projected by the Central Bank.

SL’s poor growth record

Following the cessation of the war in 2009, the economy followed a high growth path supported by the revival of production activities in the north and east together with post-war reconstruction and infrastructure development. However, that construction-based economic recovery was short-lived due to the lack of sustainable growth strategies, fiscal imbalances and export setback. 

The weak economic performance has continued during the ‘Yahapalana’ regime during 2015-2019 in the absence of a coherent economic reform agenda aimed at export-led growth. 

SL lacks technology-driven growth

Economic growth achieved thus far has been driven by using more factors of production – capital and labour. Such growth is identified as ‘factor-driven growth’.  The economic slowdown immediately prior to the COVID-19 pandemic indicated that the economy could not grow any further solely depending on labour and capital inputs. 

In other words, Sri Lanka has reached the ‘Production Possibility Frontier’ (PPF), in economic terminology. Raising the output beyond PPF requires application of technology and innovation thus enabling the economy to materialise ‘technology and innovation-driven growth’. 
In the current global set up, technology and innovations based on human capital are the core growth drivers in many fast-growing countries, which have achieved the knowledge-economy status. Sri Lanka has been lagging behind in terms of knowledge economy indicators: economic and institutional status, education and skills development, Research and Development (R&D) and information and communication technology. 

Unless appropriate policy measures are adopted to fill such gaps targeting technology and innovation-driven growth without further delay, it would be impossible to revive the country’s economic growth hampered by the pandemic in the near future. 

Sri Lanka has lost numerous opportunities to achieve such growth in the post-liberalisation period mainly due to the politically-motivated decisions adopted by successive governments leaving aside economic priorities.

Import-dependent export growth 

A country’s long-run growth rate is constrained by its export capacity and import demand, according to the well-tested theory introduced by Prof. Anthony Thirlwall of University of Kent in 1979. It is known as ‘Thirlwall’s Law of ‘Balance of Payments – constrained economic growth’. The larger the trade surplus (exports minus imports), the faster the economic growth. 

In the long run, therefore, no country can grow faster than that rate consistent with balance of payments equilibrium on current account, unless it can continuously finance ever-growing deficits by foreign borrowing which, in general, is impossible, as evident from Sri Lanka’s experience. 

The country’s envisaged economic recovery largely depends on its ability to raise exports. The pandemic-hit export sector showed some resilience in the first quarter of this year recording a 12.6% increase in total export earnings; industrial exports rose by 7.9%, and agricultural exports by 31.0%. Nevertheless, the trade deficit expanded in the first quarter due to a 12% increase in import outlays. 

The Government has imposed import restrictions on a variety of goods since last year to ease the balance of payments difficulties. Given the high import content of domestic production, such restrictions have downside effects on the export sector as well as on overall economic growth. The recently-announced import ban on chemical fertiliser will adversely affect the agriculture sector, causing food security problems during the pandemic.

Thus, import controls are likely to prolong the pandemic-led recession, as per Thirlwall’s law. 

Selective import relaxation for lawmakers

Whilst import restrictions on some of the essential goods consumed by ordinary people (including turmeric) are in force, the Cabinet is reported to have given its nod to permit importation of luxury vehicles for MPs, reflecting the Government’s absolute insensitivity to the country’s fiscal and foreign exchange crisis amidst the pandemic.  

In contrast, New Zealand’s Prime Minister has said she and the ministers will offer a 20% pay cut lasting six months to show solidarity with those affected by the coronavirus outbreak, as the death toll continues to rise. 

CB’s frequent tinkering with export proceed conversion rules

Last week, the Central Bank once again revised the rules on repatriation of export proceeds, requiring 25% of the proceeds to be converted within 30 days after receiving such proceeds. 

The Monetary Board keeps its discretion to determine the specific export sectors or industries or individual exporters, who or which may be permitted to convert less than 25% of the total of the export proceeds received. This, however, will continue to be subject to not below 10% conversion of the export proceeds and received no later than 180 days from the date of shipment. 

Such discretionary rules introduced in a bid to salvage the country’s foreign exchange situation have severe detrimental effects on the export sector hit by the pandemic, as reiterated in this column earlier. 

Fiscal deficit and debt burden

A crucial macroeconomic imbalance that impinges on Sri Lanka’s growth recovery is the fiscal deficit and the accumulating debt service payments. The budget deficit rose to 11.1% of GDP in 2020 and the available indicators show even a higher increase in the deficit over 13% of GDP this year. 

The continuation of the arbitrary tax cuts and the expenditure hikes already worsened the fiscal situation requiring frequent borrowings from domestic and foreign sources. Annual debt service payments amounting to around 150% of the Government revenue exert enormous pressure on budgetary management. 

While the Central Bank’s low interest rate policy helps to ease the domestic debt service burden, the depreciation of the rupee in recent weeks makes external debt service payments extremely costly. 

Overdependence on foreign loans and swaps

Instead of pursuing the Government to stick to a fiscal consolidation programme targeting a lower fiscal deficit so as to ease the debt burden, the Central Bank continues to rely on short-term foreign borrowings and swap arrangements. This is in addition to its accommodative monetary policy stance with regard to Government’s domestic borrowings.  

Last week, the Bangladesh Bank has agreed to provide a swap facility of $ 200 million. Sri Lanka received renminbi-denominated swap of $ 1.5 billion from China last month. In addition, the Republic of Korea last month agreed to provide concessional loans amounting to $ 500 million to finance the identified projects. 

More swap facilities are in the pipeline, according to the Finance Ministry sources, as reported in the media. 

Fresh debt-funded infrastructure projects 

Meanwhile, the Government is reported to have launched several major debt-funded infrastructure projects including highways a few days ago amidst the pandemic and severe external debt problems. Such borrowings will certainly aggravate the country’s staggering macroeconomic imbalances.

U- or L-shaped recovery for Sri Lanka?

In the backdrop of Sri Lanka’s growth slowdown even prior to the pandemic, the V-shaped recovery projected by the Central Bank is far from reality. 

Assuming a best possible scenario, hopefully the economy would revive after two to three years characterised by U-shaped recovery. The bottom of the U shape represents the extended period of the recession before recovery. 

A longer post-pandemic U-shaped recovery implies that the economy will take a number of years for recovery. First and foremost, the length of the economic recession depends on how long it takes to eradicate the coronavirus at the national and global levels.

Proactive policies are essential to correct the macroeconomic imbalances, specifically the fiscal deficit, bad debt dynamics and the balance of payments deficit so as to revive the Sri Lankan economy at least with U-shape recovery, which is considered to be the second-best option below V-shape recovery. 

There is an impending danger that delaying corrective policy decisions might push Sri Lanka towards an L-shaped recovery, prolonging the pandemic-led recession indefinitely. 

(Prof. Sirimevan Colombage is Emeritus Professor in Economics at the Open University of Sri Lanka and Senior Visiting Fellow of the Advocata Institute. He is a former Director of Statistics of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, and reachable through sscol@ou.ac.lk)

Poverty reduction needs to be prioritised with cohesive export-led growth policy framework

Originally appeared on The Daily FT

By Prof. Sirimevan Colombage

In Sri Lanka, around 40% of the population lives below the poverty line, according to expert opinion based on the survey data for 2016, in contrast to the official poverty ratio of only 4%. In the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the poverty ratio is likely to have reached nearly 50% of the population by now.

Adequate attention has not been given to poverty reduction in policy formulation agendas in recent times. 

An outward-looking trade policy aiming at export-led economic growth is imperative for poverty reduction, as evident from the fast-grown East Asian countries and emerging Asian economies such as Vietnam and Bangladesh. 

SL’s actual poverty 10 times bigger than official estimate

According to the Department of Census and Statistics (DCS), Sri Lanka’s headcount poverty index dramatically declined from 22.7% in 2002 to 4.1% in 2016, as per consumption approach. In computing this poverty index, DCS has used the National Poverty Line (NPL). 

The limitations of using the NPL for poverty estimation have been articulated in his incisive article by Wimal Nanayakkara, Senior Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and former Director General of the Department of Census and Statistics. 

He suggests that the World Bank’s Global Poverty Line (GPL) is more appropriate for estimating the headcount index in keeping with international standards. The current NPL is based on the market values of an outdated basket of goods and services drawn from the Household Income and Expenditure Survey conducted by DCS way back in 2002. 

The World Bank’s poverty thresholds vary with the member country’s per capita Gross National Income (GNI). With her per capita GNI of $ 4,060, Sri Lanka reached the Upper-Middle Income Country (UMIC) status ($ 3,996 – $ 12,375) in July 2019, and hence, people who live below $ 5.5 daily income per person are poor based on GPL relevant to UMIC, according to Nanayakkara. 

Sri Lanka’s per capita GNI declined to $ 4,010 in 2019. As it was lower than the revised July 2020 UMIC classification ($ 4,046 - $ 12,535), Sri Lanka quickly slipped back to the Lower Middle-Income Country (LMIC) status ($ 1,036 - $ 4,045) along with Algeria and Sudan, as rightly predicted by Nanayakkara.  The applicable GPL for LMIC is $ 3.20. 

In terms of the GPL of $ 5.5, which is applicable for UMIC, Sri Lanka’s headcount poverty index for 2019 is as much as 40.4%, according to Nanayakkara. This can still be considered as the current poverty position of Sri Lanka, as her per capita GNI is still very close to the lower end of per capita GNI of UMIC, though she is now in LMIC category. 

Thus, the actual number of people living below the poverty line in Sri Lanka is about 10 times bigger than the mere 4.1% of population, as reflected in official statistics. 

Export-led growth for poverty reduction

It is essential to accelerate the rate of growth of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to overcome poverty. The main ingredient for growth acceleration is foreign trade expansion which enables developing countries to gain market access, economies of scale, capital inflows, technology infusion, productivity improvements and efficiency. 

Open trade has been increasingly recognised as the key driver of employment creation and poverty reduction across the world in recent decades. Exports are critically important for economic growth, particularly for developing countries where domestic markets are small. Exports allow domestic producers to access international markets, and thereby to benefit from economies of scale. 

The world-wide evidence proves that those countries that achieved high export growth are the ones that enjoy high GDP growth and extensive poverty reduction. 

Sri Lanka’s backward technology and innovation

The formidable challenge currently faced by Sri Lanka is to raise her export growth at a rapid pace to achieve high GDP growth so as to reduce poverty. 

The country’s export sector, which is limited to a few low-tech products particularly apparels, has failed to graduate to high-tech and high value-added exports such as electronics and bio-technology products, unlike East Asian countries. This was due to the country’s backwardness in technology and innovation. 

In this regard, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) can play a major role in fostering export growth by way of facilitating foreign capital inflows, technology infusion and foreign market access.

Trade opening and FDI inflows are found to be the major driving force behind the success stories of East Asian economies. More recent examples are India, China, Vietnam and Bangladesh. Outward-oriented economic strategies adopted in these countries, much later than Sri Lanka, led to foster export-led growth enabling millions of people to come out of poverty. 

Bangladesh: from a “basket case” to an economic powerhouse

Bangladesh is a good example to illustrate how prudent economic policies can turn a poor country, which was once branded as a “basket case”, into fastest growing economy in the Asian-Pacific region. It has become the new economic leader in South Asia with annual GDP growth rate over 6% in recent years, which was driven by the three star-performers – agriculture, garment exports and worker remittances. 

The key factor that fosters export-led growth in Bangladesh has been the liberal foreign investment regime by means of legal protection for foreign investment, generous fiscal incentives, concessions on machinery imports, unrestricted exit policy and full repatriation of dividends. 

Prudent fiscal management too was achieved in Bangladesh containing budget deficit to 3.5 - 4.0% of GDP. It helped to lessen inflationary pressures and to maintain exchange rate stability so as to facilitate the export drive. 

Export-led growth has enabled Bangladesh to reduce poverty from 40% of the population to 14%. In parallel, there have been substantial improvements in social indicators – infant mortality, maternal mortality, undernourishment, school education and adult literacy

Phases of foreign trade regimes

Sri Lanka has oscillated between inward-looking and outward-looking trade policies from time to time since Independence, and therefore, failed to sustain steady export-led growth path so as to bring down poverty levels. 

Perhaps, such policy changes can be conceptualised by using the theoretical framework developed by the US National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in its series of studies on trade liberalisation under the direction of Anne Krueger and Jagdish Bhagwati in 1978. They divided a country’s liberalisation process into five phases from trade controls to liberalisation, as shown in the Table.

The NBER studies, drawn from the experiences from different trade regimes in a number of countries including India, Ghana, the Philippines, South Korea and Chile provided ample evidence on the benefits of trade liberalisation.

Sri Lanka’s trade liberalisation under stress

In 1977, Sri Lanka moved from Phase II (NBER classification) of stringent trade and exchange control controls to Phase III marking the initial stages of trade and exchange liberalisation. The liberalisation process had been intensified since then.

In 1994, the Sri Lankan Government accepted the obligations under Article VIII of the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Accordingly, all restrictions on current account transactions of the balance of payments (BOP) were removed and the Sri Lankan Rupee was allowed to be freely convertible for such transactions. This shift to Phase V (NBER classification) was a major step towards trade liberalisation. 

However, the momentum of liberalisation was short-lived as various types of controls had to be imposed frequently due to the ethnic conflict, balance of payments difficulties, macroeconomic instability and external trade shocks. Thus, the country reverts back to Phases I and II from time to time.

Recent import controls

The country’s BOP situation has worsened since last year due to the COVID-19 pandemic which has adversely affected the export and tourism sectors. The external payments problems have been compounded by foreign debt commitments which amount to $ 6 billion this year. The rise in global market prices of crude oil and other commodities has further pressurised the BOP situation. The likely decline in worker remittances will further enhance the BOP deficit. 

In the backdrop of BOP difficulties, the Government has imposed import controls on a number of “non-essential” goods since last year. These include motor vehicles and various other consumer durables.

These import controls have adverse implications for economic activity, GDP growth and poverty reduction. 

Debt sustainability risks ignored through swaps  

The Government was able to secure $ 1.5 billion swap from the People’s Bank of China last week to meet immediate BOP needs. It is reported that the Government is negotiating with India to obtain another $1.1 billion under swap facility, debt freezing arrangement and development aid.

These swap facilities are temporary solutions to overcome BOP difficulties, and hence, deeper policy adjustments are essential to address the disarrays in macroeconomic fundamentals, particularly debt sustainability risks.   

Keeping IMF at distance

Overwhelmed by the Chinese swap, State Minister Ajith Nivard Cabraal claims that the Government can manage without IMF assistance. In fact, the challenge is to resolve the macroeconomic imbalances, rather than stubbornly refusing to go to IMF. 

Malaysia, which had strong macroeconomic fundamentals during the Asian financial crisis, could afford to refuse bailout from IMF. 

Sri Lanka’s case is totally different with her high budget deficit, unsustainable debt commitments, balance of payments difficulties, slow economic growth and more than anything else, acute poverty. 

It is ideal that if these deep-rooted problems can be resolved by ourselves without seeking anybody’s assistance, leaving aside the IMF.

IMF’s conditionality requires correction of macroeconomic fundamentals with stipulated deadlines. We ourselves can make these corrections without obliging to IMF. It is not happening that way, and therefore, swaps which do not impose any corrective measures, are the easy way out for the authorities to evade the much-needed policy reforms. 

So, the macroeconomic disarrays will remain unresolved forever exerting disastrous effects on the country’s economic growth. As a result, the poor who represent about one half of the population will continue to suffer without having basic human needs met. 

Outward-looking strategy imperative for poverty reduction

The current restrictive trade policy measures, which are based on the inward-looking approach, have been imposed to tackle the BOP difficulties. However, they are detrimental to export-led growth and poverty reduction.  

Hence, a cohesive export-led growth policy framework is essential to address the socioeconomic problems faced by nearly 50% of the population living below the poverty line. Poverty reduction, which is almost ignored in the current economic policy formulation, should be an explicit target of any future growth strategy. 

(Prof. Sirimevan Colombage is Emeritus Professor in Economics at the Open University of Sri Lanka and Senior Visiting Fellow of the Advocata Institute. He is a former Director of Statistics of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, and reachable through sscol@ou.ac.lk)