Non-negotiable reforms for election manifestos

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The year 2024 will be an election year. The general flow of events is that each political party and candidate will launch a manifesto of a grand-scale and present their plans for the people and the country. Most of these promises will not be implemented or will only be half implemented. In certain cases, the opposite of what was promised will be implemented. 

Most manifestos are presented in general terms with a target of 20 years ahead with little data. Many manifestos across all party lines are wish lists with no action plans.

In my view, this time there is a slight difference. 

Regardless of the party formation or whoever the presidential candidate will be, there are few reforms that are non-negotiable. Ideally, across all manifestos, there are five basic ideas which have to be the common denominator.

Strengthening social safety nets 

Following the worst economic crisis in Sri Lanka’s history and high inflation, about four million people have fallen below the poverty line. That puts seven million people under poverty. The recent Household Income and Expenditure Survey carried out by LIRNEasia and the World Bank indicates significant poverty levels and aftereffects of poverty due to the economic crisis. As a conscientious society, we need to take care of our poor people with the social safety net. 

The social safety net is not just an allowance. It is a system and a process of targeting the right people, providing an exit route, and with proper administration. The current Aswesuma programme is making some progress with World Bank assistance, but regardless of the political leader who comes to power, it is a non-negotiable condition that social safety nets have to be strengthened and improved. 

The current process has too many loopholes which have to be addressed and improved. Simplifying the process, providing the exit route, and monitoring and depoliticising has to be a continuous effort from the new leadership of the country.

SOE reforms 

Thus far, mandatory SOE reforms have been painfully slow. Many parties with vested interests are trying to delay it until the election. However, the continuation of SOE reforms is a must. 

Colossal losses, interference in the private sector, intervening in markets, creating an unfair playing field, and inefficiencies are a few reasons why SOEs played a pivotal role in Sri Lanka’s economic crisis. SOEs are vehicles of corruption and have diluted entrepreneurship and Foreign Direct Investments significantly. Without reforming SOEs, the future of Sri Lanka appears to be bleak. 

The principles announced by the SOE Restructuring Unit are in the right direction, but the SOE Act and reforms of the Ceylon Electricity Board, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and many other networking industries are a must. 

Anti-corruption and governance reforms

Execution of anti-corruption laws and governance reforms is another area which has no room for negotiation. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) Governance Diagnostic and many other locally-developed reports on governance provide direction on what needs to be done. 

Strengthening our Judiciary system, transparency and accountability in our tax system, removing tax exemptions, and repealing the Special Commodity Levy and the Strategic Development Act too falls under governance and anti-corruption reforms, as those acts provide the legal opportunity for corruption. 

There is a strong sentiment from people on the contribution of corruption to the crisis, so taking long-term measures regarding corruption is a must. Anti-corruption and governance reforms go beyond going after corrupt politicians. Rather, it is a system and framework for minimising government influence. Some reforms are complementary and reforming SOEs is also a key component of anti-corruption and governance reforms, as these SOEs play a vital role in corruption.

Following the IMF programme and debt restructuring 

Given the international financial architecture, we have no option other than sticking to the IMF programme. We can negotiate some of the actions that we have promised, but overall indicative targets and reforms have to be maintained. Otherwise, it will be yet another incomplete IMF programme and the debt restructuring process will be in jeopardy. 

Debt restructuring and the continuation of the IMF programme are very much interconnected. At the moment, external stakeholders are concerned about political instability and in fact, the IMF’s first review identifies the political risks for the continuation of the IMF programme. A commitment from any political leader on sticking to the programme will help Sri Lanka in rebuilding relationships with the world.  

Trade reforms and joining global supply chains 

We have to grow our economy to emerge from this crisis. Tax revisions make it likely that growth will slow down and the only solution to grow small island nations like Sri Lanka is through global trade. Our problems regarding global trade are mainly the problems in our own regulations and systems. 

We have to remove our para-tariffs and simplify the tariff structure for a few tariff lines. Not only will this help trade, but consumers will also have a greater choice of goods and services as well as competitive prices. 

On the other hand, the Government can improve the revenue from Customs since at the moment, the high tariffs are a main reason for revenue leakage in the form of corruption. Trade reforms are about growth, minimising corruption, encouraging exports, and assuring reasonable prices. Even at present, after very high taxes, there are levies such as the Special Commodity Levy, Ports and Airports Development Levy, and a huge array of taxes which hinder the competitive nature of our economy.

These five policies, in my view, are non-negotiable. If any administration deviates from them, it is very likely that we will fall back a few miles behind where we started. 

VAT: The good, the bad and the solutions

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The Value Added Tax (VAT) increase from 15% to 18% and the removal of about 95 items from the VAT exempted list to a VAT applicable list has raised concern among politicians and people alike. 

When taxes change too often, public confusion and erosion of tax revenue both have to be expected. VAT was once 8% in Sri Lanka and then revised to 12%. It was again increased to 15% and finally now to 18%. The VAT threshold was once at Rs. 12 million and later increased to Rs. 300 million. Currently it is at Rs. 80 million and expected to be reduced to Rs. 60 million. 

When the VAT threshold was increased to Rs. 300 million from Rs. 12 million, the number of individuals registered for VAT dropped to 8,000 from 28,000. Our policymakers are discussing expanding the tax base after diluting our tax base through our own inconsistent policies. 

One of the key principles of taxation is stability, according to the Tax Foundation. The other principles are simplicity, transparency, and neutrality. When tax rates and thresholds are changed often, thIMFe markets and individuals react and tax revenue will erode. 

A complicated context 

Sri Lanka’s context is sadly more complicated than many other cases. We have given a commitment to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on increasing our tax revenue because our interest costs are extremely high. Most of the interest is inherited due to bad financial management over the years and there is very little meaning in blaming each other. 

On one hand, the Government has no other option but to increase revenue through taxation. However, on the other hand, when taxes are increased the economy will contract. Growth, which is also a key requirement for us to emerge from the crisis, will be affected due to the lowered purchasing power of the people. When the economy contracts, tax revenue will also start to decline.  

Given the perennial weaknesses in our tax administration, the Government has selected the most convenient option of VAT to be increased, since it can be collected easily compared to other taxes. VAT is considered to be better compared to other taxes such as the Nation Building TAX (NBT) or the Social Security Levy (SSL), which are considered to be cascading taxes, where throughout the economic process one tax is applied on top of the other. 

This leads to a situation where the effective tax rate becomes very high, but with VAT, tax will only be applicable for the value added throughout the supply chain. Also, high income earners generally contribute a higher VAT in total as VAT is a consumption tax. People with higher incomes tend to consume more, so the more they spend, the more taxes the Government can recoup. 

The negative impact of VAT can be witnessed when it is applied to food items. The poorest of society gets adversely impacted, since their percentage of expenditure on food is very high compared to people who fall into higher income brackets. 

There will be considerable impact on the overall prices for the common people with the new VAT revisions. The price of petrol and diesel is expected to increase by about Rs. 50-60 (provided the other taxes are not changed and global fuel prices remain the same). LP Gas (12.5 kg cylinder) will increase by about Rs. 500-600. 

Prices of solar panels, electronic items, laptops, and mobile phones are expected to rise. This will also have an impact on inflation as well, but we need to keep in mind that inflation is always a monetary phenomenon. With high prices, people may consider cheaper alternatives and supply and demand will readjust, provided we keep our monetary policy right. 

Solutions 

A key solution to bringing down prices of food items is to remove the Special Commodity Levy (SCL) applied to these items. The SCL not only increases prices, but the provisions provided to the minister to impose and remove the SCL overnight opens significant room for corruption. The recent increase of the SCL on sugar to Rs. 50 from 25 cents is a good example of how an overnight gazette creates room for corruption and passes the burden to the people. 

Other taxes on food items including CESS, Ports and Airport Development Levy (PAL), and many other para-tariffs should be removed. There is a myth that productivity can be improved by imposing tariffs on domestic food items. If that is the case, our industries for milk, yoghurt, cheese, and many other food items have to be extremely productive and efficient. Instead of domestic product growth, we see the same producers ask the Government for further protection. 

Tax competitiveness as a framework 

 Moving forward, Sri Lanka has to look at tax competitiveness as a framework for thinking about taxes. In the global context, everything is about competitiveness, including the tax system. As an example, if corporate tax is 25% in competing markets in the region, we cannot increase the corporate tax to 30%, only considering the revenue requirement of the Government. 

At the same time, we cannot compromise our healthcare and education systems, which help to develop better skills through taxpayer money, by bringing taxes unnecessarily down and compromising our tax revenue. In a market system, competition and prices play a key role, and the same is applicable for taxes, FDIs, and many other variables. 

We have to first take the basic steps of improving tax administration. We then have to rationalise our expenditure and spend where we need to spend, thereafter raising revenue by being competitive. A VAT increase to increase Government revenue alone will not solve our macro instability. We have to ensure macro stability by being competitive in all aspects of the economy.  

Looming political and economic challenges ahead of elections

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

“We know what should be done to get the country on the right track, but we don’t know how to get power back after implementing the policies.” This is a popular statement I hear often when I meet quite a few politicians. The truth is that politicians do not know how to get back power because it’s not an attractive solution.

The popular policies that bring politicians into power are the very same that inspire their ousting at the very next election cycle. People hardly object to good policies unless the same politicians instigate false propaganda. The Right to Information (RTI) Act was just one such instance.

As an election is due next year, it is vital to understand and remember our priorities, otherwise our politicians are likely to take a wrong turn and pass the buck back to the people.

In an election year, the behaviour of any political party is to completely abandon rational economic reforms and play to populist narratives that result in outcomes that are the complete opposite, with the motive of coming to power.

Bringing down fuel prices and announcing other types of subsidies are common tactics. This is harmful, especially when those benefits cannot be financed sustainably, or in some situations, brought into life in the first place.

Even if it does not retain power, the newly-elected government will have a tough time preventing plans that have already been put in place and enacting better policies.

Political risk

In the current context, we run a very high risk of our politicians bringing us back to square one; i.e. another economic crisis. This, given the fact that 2024 is set to be an election year, is a recipe for disaster.

All political parties will shift their focus to slowly becoming more populist rather than being driven by objectivity. Therefore, the real risk is going back to another debt restructuring if we fail to grow the economy and our exports.

There are many politicians who do not understand the gravity of the need for reforms. Regardless of which party or coalition comes to power, there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

The process is more or less the same as handing over a house with structural issues from one tenant (government) to the other. The new tenant cannot function because neither the previous tenant nor the owner (people) is willing to fix the fundamental problems.

Risk of a second debt default

Given the unstable political environment coupled with a country already going through debt restructuring, the risks of a second debt default are astronomically high. As we are still struggling with finalising the first debt restructuring, adding a second one into the mix will leave us in dire straits.

The second one will undoubtedly be harder, especially given the significant increase in interest rates and being unable to print money with the new Central Bank Act. If we fail to raise money through markets in order to roll over debt and if we are not open to increasing interest rates, the only option we will be left with is to default again. At that point, most likely there will be pressure once again to amend the newly-enacted Central Bank Act to allow money printing.

Of course, that would be an inflationary measure and we will be back at square one with a balance of payments crisis, debt crisis, humanitarian crisis, and likely a banking crisis too.

Solutions: A common minimum programme for reforms

Reforms are easier in the first 100 days of any government. If we fail to enact reforms within the first 100 days, more often than not, no reforms will take place. Failing to undertake reforms in 100 days means a cost of a five-year delay plus many bad policy decisions in the middle, which are costly and difficult to reverse.

Ideally, if key political parties come to an agreement before an election on selected reforms and execute them regardless of who comes into power, it will at least ensure some stability for Sri Lanka. There are many ideas that all political parties have in common.

Regarding State-Owned Enterprise reforms, there is no political party that says the Government should run an airline. Even National People’s Power Economic Advisor Dr. Anil Jayantha, in an interview with Advocata, noted that they did not believe the Government should do any business with hotels.

Accordingly, there are many other similar areas where we can arrive at an agreement with little difficulty. Therefore, regardless of who wins elections, people can win and sustain some of the economic reforms.

The truth is that reforms are inevitable if Sri Lanka needs to move forward and for any political party to sustain its power. Implementing bad policies, especially considering the status of our country, will make it very difficult to sustain power, because then we will be setting the standard for a new normal in economics and politics.

Import controls: Didn’t work in 2020, won’t work in 2022

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

When I was a university student in my final year, I did an internship at one of the leading garment companies in Sri Lanka. My internship stipend was Rs. 5,500 per month, and I worked in Nittambuwa. 

On the weekly payday, it was a tradition that I would bring a small, affordable treat home. Of course, in those days the value of Rs. 5,500 and the purchasing power of the rupee was better than it is today. When my bus reached Pettah station (my interchange for the next bus to my home in Moratuwa), I would walk through the local market. What I could afford to buy from my stipend were fruits like apples, oranges, and grapes that were sold on the market sidewalks, and I would purchase a few of each variety. 

I recalled those days when I heard that the Government would be imposing licensing requirements for the import of 367 products, including apples and oranges. It occurred to me that many of the small traders who used to sell me those fruits would probably go out of business. Furthermore, the consumers who enjoyed affordable sources of fruit may lose access too.

There appears to be a widespread misconception that fruits like apples and oranges are only consumed by the wealthy elite. If they were only consumed by wealthy people, they of course would not be sold on the Pettah pavements and at central bus stands in Colombo and across the country.

The fundamental logic that is important to understand is that we cannot categorise any product as ‘essential’ or ‘non-essential’ in the first place. Different products are essential to different people based on a multitude of factors. 

A particular type of fruit like apples may not be essential to me, as I prefer to eat mangoes instead of apples. But from the perspective of an entrepreneur who was making apple juice or apple vinegar in Sri Lanka, apples cannot be substituted with mangoes. It is very likely that they will go out of business. 

Licensing process

According to the new regulations, the importers of 367 product categories have to obtain a licence for importation. Imposing such a licensing process will undoubtedly lead to corruption.  This move will ultimately only allow people in well-connected elite circles with contacts amongst Customs officers and politicians to obtain the import licences. The small-scale importer will be hit the hardest.

All big industries that require a licence have been taken over by politically-connected individuals. For example, private buses require a licence or a route permit. As the route permit is more expensive than the vehicle itself, buses tend to be poorly maintained, which puts passengers and other road users at risk.

The need for a licence to sell liquor is another example: most of the liquor licences of any given electorate tend to be owned by ruling and Opposition MPs, their family members, or allies.

Similarly, licences for Ceylon Petroleum Corporation-owned filling stations and State-owned LP gas distribution (and many other industries that require licences) have been completely overtaken by politically-connected individuals and most areas have minimal competition as a result.

Even obtaining the licence or approval that is required for basic house construction is a very cumbersome process and is greatly influenced by bribery and corruption.

Furthermore, the prices of many of the newly-affected products will go up. The few people who have the licence will have controlling power over the pricing and will effectively monopolise the industry. 

Imports are not the problem

To think that imports are the cause of the present USD shortage is a completely inaccurate diagnosis of Sri Lanka’s economic situation. 

As the Advocata Institute has explained many times, higher rates of imports have been caused by a reckless monetary policy, including quantitative easing and low-interest rates. Our imports have been declining as a percentage of GDP for the last 30 years, as have our exports. Therefore, thinking that imports are the fundamental problem is a complete misconception.

However, the Government and the Central Bank have recently been taking measures which are steps in the right direction. Increasing interest rates and floating the currency are appropriate in the current context, given the balance of payment crisis the country is undergoing. 

Ideally, interest rates have to be low and the currency has to be strong, but both can happen with time by allowing market forces to work. It is clear that the value of the currency cannot be maintained by forceful intervention. 

However, currency depreciation and higher interest rates will affect citizens in multiple ways. Depreciating the currency will cause inflation rates, which is about 14.2% (CPI, January 2022), and prices of most essentials and non-essentials to spike dramatically. 

Increasing interest rates will encourage people to save more than they spend, so the cost of capital will be high and the economy will be slowed down. Hence, growth will be low. It’s a choice between two equally-difficult options.

Our policymakers should understand that imports are not the problem. The real problem is that we haven’t carried out any reforms to improve the productivity and efficiency of the economy. Until the Government identifies the existence of a problem and takes the necessary actions to rectify it, we will not be able to overcome this 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.

Fuelling reform

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Fuel shortages have become abundant. The implications of these shortages need no lengthy explanations. They will affect all of us: from a multinational company to the average man on the street, every action we take in life will be disturbed. The electrical grid is already experiencing multi-hour, island-wide blackouts and the situation could escalate to include water supply and many other utilities, for which the knock-on effect will be very severe. 

There were serious discussions in Parliament about the possibility of revising fuel prices. In fact, the CBSL Governor himself has requested that prices be increased. When fuel prices are increased, it may (to an extent) reduce the demand for fuel. But fuel is such an essential commodity that even when prices are increased, the drop in demand may be low. But when fuel prices are increased, people will have to spend more money on fuel and related products, hence there will be less money being spent on non-fuel imports. As the non-fuel imports come down, the balance of payments will come closer to equilibrium, reducing the extent of that crisis. Ultimately, that’s the fundamental feature of a market system.

Fuel price revisions have never been popular in Sri Lanka, as historically, revisions have always led to price increases. When the former Finance Minister late Mangala Samaraweera announced the price formula along with his team including the present Finance Ministry Secretary Dr. S.R. Attygalle, many people did not see the fuel pricing formula positively. 

In my opinion, the optics and launching the formula were also quite bad in the context of a political economy. The formula was introduced at a time when global crude oil prices were increasing, so many people thought the price formula was just an attempt – or an excuse – to increase the price rather than the proper market mechanism. At launch the officials were laughing and it was launched as V1+V2+V3 = V4 and it was captured in the media and popular rhetoric that policymakers were having fun by increasing the burden on poor people. So while the decision to implement the formula was appropriate, the marketing and getting the public on board with market-based pricing could have been better. Later on, with elections getting closer, adherence to the price formula was not maintained. But market-based pricing of fuel is definitely a need for the ailing Sri Lankan economy. 

It is crystal clear that we are unable to sell fuel at lower prices than the cost of production and distribution without incurring heavy losses and debts. The Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) makes a loss of Rs. 46.80 per for every litre of diesel even after receiving a duty waiver of Rs. 25. For petrol following a duty waiver of Rs. 45 the CPC makes a loss of about Rs. 18. 37. 

After the fuel shortage became prevalent, the common excuse trotted out by policymakers is that they don’t have dollars to buy fuel. In my view, this is misleading. While it is true that we do not have dollars to buy fuel at the soft-peg rate of approximately Rs. 200 per USD, we may have USD to buy fuel at the market rate of about Rs. 250-260 per dollar. Interestingly, we do not need the assistance of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to make these little changes with a big impact. Increasing domestic fuel prices may reduce the losses of CPC, but it will not solve the underlying problems causing shortages. Currently our Government makes two main losses on every litre of petrol or diesel: first, it suffers an operational loss on subsidised fuel and secondly, it suffers an exchange rate loss.

While the main reason for the current crisis is shortage of USD, it should be noted that the energy market dynamics are also very weak. It’s a duopoly market with over 80% share for the State-owned CPC, one of the biggest loss-making State-owned enterprises in the nation. As per sales for 2020 of diesel, because of the duty waiver alone, the Government is losing out on about Rs. 30 billion in revenue for petrol and about Rs. 98 billion for diesel. 

It is simply not worth making such losses, making life inconvenient for consumers while also losing political capital at the same time. There is no winner when the State tries to keep fuel prices low. Claiming that our prices are low doesn’t really matter when we have no fuel available at all! So although it is not a popular decision, the right and rational decision is to determine the price based on market forces. Also, the entry barriers have to be reduced or eliminated to allow other players to enter the market. Singapore, a smaller country with a population less than a quarter of Sri Lanka’s, has more fuel and energy suppliers, ensuring price and supply stability.

Rather than merely providing excuses as to why we do not have USD to buy fuel, the Government can identify the price at which it can make the USD available for our fuel imports. Long-term reforms are the only solution for this problem. Emerging from our economic strife is determined by when we start our reforms programme. It’s better for everyone that we start sooner than later. 

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.

Price controls worsen drug shortage

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Shortages have now become abundant and the new normal. We all know the reason: the foreign exchange shortage that is causing shortages of many essential and non-essential goods. Shortages have even affected our basic essentials, such as fuel and electricity.

We all know the solutions for the problems as well. Unfortunately, we have a shortage of policymakers who have the courage to enact the reforms to rescue our people from the commodity shortages. 

There are many contributing factors to potential shortages: supply chain disruptions, natural disasters, and many other externalities. However, in the Sri Lankan context, it is primarily price controls that are causing shortages. 

When there were price controls on tinned fish, there was a shortage of tinned fish. We had a controlled price for dhal, and dhal disappeared from the market. Cement prices were controlled and we experienced a cement shortage. The same has happened for US Dollars (USD). The Government controlled the price of USD, and the country has a shortage of USD. However, the USD problem is somewhat more complicated as price controls are just one of the reasons for the shortage. Controlling the price of the dollar has the worst effects of all the price controls as it has repercussions on all imports and exports.

As a result of the deteriorating situation, the Government removed price controls on most items which is commendable. It was clearly the right thing to do. Cement, milk powder, and many other commodities removed their price controls. But controls remained in a few very important categories: most significantly, USD and pharmaceuticals. The dollar shortage is worsening the shortages in all other industries and pharmaceutical shortages are creating a nightmare for many patients and their families. Even shortages of basic medicines such as the painkiller paracetamol have been reported. Although it was reported that the demand has increased by more than 200% due to Covid and Dengue, in a market system paracetamol cannot suffer shortages unless there is an economic issue (1).

One of my relatives has a rare type of pneumonia, and only one drug brand is effective in treating it. Since the disease is rare, only a small quantity of that particular drug was imported. Now with dollar shortages and delays in opening Letters of Credit (LCs), that particular drug is of less priority to the drug importer, as the same dollars could have been utilised to import more profitable drugs. 

On the other hand, there are price controls on some drugs and pharmaceuticals. As a result, when the prices have increased, no businesses would have the incentive to import them, as they would be engaging in a business where the cost is higher than the selling price (or where the profit margins are so razor-thin that investment is not justified).

Additionally, pharmaceutical prices and some active pharmaceutical ingredient prices have increased due to the pandemic and resulting supply chain interruptions. Simply maintaining rigid price controls doesn’t make economic sense and it only causes shortages in the market. It even makes the situation worse for local manufacturers, who find it difficult to source raw materials/ingredients. The State Pharmaceutical Corporation (SPC) can survive, because it’s a government institute, and it will receive preferential treatment from the State banks in opening LCs and will receive subsidies from the taxpayer. 

In the case of private companies, the importation of drugs and active pharmaceutical agents are conducted through long-term contracts. If LCs cannot be honoured or opened, both their professional business relationships and the reliability of supply will be affected. Sometimes with changes in credit periods, cost factors will change. This will occur particularly when there are doubts in the market on the exchange rate. In today’s Sri Lanka, where the kerb/black market rate is 20-30% higher than the rate offered by banks, the cost of imports is obviously going to be higher. 

Price controls on pharma are going to create shortages of the drugs that we depend on, as we have already experienced with products including tinned fish, dhal, milk powder, and cement. 

Due to shortages of USD and difficulties in opening LCs, even without price controls it will be difficult to avoid shortages. The main reason is that 2022’s entire global economy is connected through the dollar alone. In such a context, price controls are just going to make the problem worse. 

It is understandable from the Government’s point of view that allowing a sudden price increase of pharma products may not be politically feasible. But it may have a more significant political impact if the products are simply not available on the market. As with oil products, we could have aligned the prices slowly at regular intervals so that the price hikes would be more digestible for the average citizen and therefore less politically damaging. If we had enacted price revisions that aligned with global market prices we may not be where we are today. That is why the market system depends on the price mechanism – it is the thermometer which balances supply and demand. 

For a market system, competition comes before regulation. Imports and exports must work together at full capacity for prices to come down. Therefore, the regulatory framework has to be managed in a way that allows market forces to work. 

When the Board of Investment was positioned as a ‘One Stop Shop,’ there was a joke among the business community that “It’s one more stop” would be more apt. Similarly, the National Medicines Regulatory Authority (NMRA) – supposed to be the regulator of prices and quality of medicines and medical equipment – has simply added a severe burden to the process rather than making it easier. 

References:

• https://ceylontoday.lk/index.php/news/paracetamol-demand-up-275

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.

Government must resign itself to reforms – now

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

My school Advanced Level biology teacher used to tell me how to study for exams. Her main advice was that the first step was to ‘make a decision to study’. I would think to myself, ‘Haven’t we all decided that we need to study?’ 

But she would explain the power of decision making, which applied everytime we make a decision – be it consciously or unconsciously – and mention life every time we had to make a decision: “Not making a decision is a decision. Thinking to ourselves to study later is also a decision. Studying now is a decision. Not studying is also a decision.” 

I realised that it’s all about the thousands of decisions that we make everyday. All of our destinations will be determined by such small decisions. What we are today is based on the decisions that we made in the past; what we will be tomorrow is based on decisions we make today.

The same lesson applies to our economic policy as well. It appears that our policymakers have made a decision to not make any decisions on the public policy front. Since the initial stages of Covid-19, multiple reports have been submitted by experts and the Government has even called for multiple reports on the current economic situation. There was an initial report by the Pathfinder Foundation which focused solely on the pandemic. Then a ‘Road Map for Economic Recovery’ was launched by the Advocata Institute. 

In fact, the President called for a deregulation report, which was chaired by Krishan Balendran and Lalith Weeratunga. Suggestions were handed over by the Delegation of German Industry and Commerce (1) to the Deregulation Committee. There were many other suggestions and ideas by many other stakeholders, including the Chamber of Commerce, on the brewing economic crisis. It was recently reported that the Pathfinder Foundation submitted another report to the Minister of Finance based on the findings of a tripartite discussion between experts from Sri Lanka, Japan, and India. 

After all these suggestions, the decision to delay reforms may have multiple reasons, of which which we can only guess. But keeping assumptions aside, the more we delay, the closer we get pinned to the wall with limited choices to escape from the crisis.

Economic reforms must always be looked at in a political context. Whether the present political power balance supports the reforms is a key question. While many are of the view that with a two-thirds majority reforms can be done, it seems otherwise. Reforms are going to be quite painful so it seems that policymakers are reluctant to push hard reforms, as they are scared that the citizens’ frustration during the reform period may dilute the political capital they enjoy.  Further, this may even cause them to lose the super-majority. 

Even the Minister of Finance has admitted that the State sector and State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) are a massive burden to Government coffers; yet no State sector reform programme is even on the table. Politics is obviously the concern of the Government and State sector employees and their families are a massive voter bloc. Some of them would lose their jobs or would be pushed into mandatory retirement which would not help politics at the ground level. So reforms are put on the back burner and the Government continues to procrastinate. 

On the other front, the more that we delay reforms, the more the people get frustrated with disturbances to their regular day-to-day activities and businesses, including shortages of essentials such as LP gas, fuel, milk powder, cement, etc. The Government is stuck between a rock and a hard place – whether it carries out reforms or not, its popular support and political capital will be diluted either way. Therefore, my view is that it is better to bite the bullet and carry out reforms, as procrastination is just going to make things worse in the long run.

Another reason that reforms are delayed could be that the energy and focus of policymakers and politicians is spent mainly on fire-fighting day-to-day micro-problems. The situation is such that everyday has become a challenge for the Government to find US Dollars for importing basics and debt repayments.

Weather conditions impacting hydropower generation and global crude oil prices reaching nearly $ 100 a barrel are making our crisis worse. So far our policymakers’ strategy has been to completely depend on swaps. 

Over the last few weeks, India provided us with swaps and credit lines worth $ 1.5 billion and China with another Yuan 10 billion (approximately $ 1.5 b), of which basic information such as interest rates and payment conditionality has yet to be published. Interestingly, the total amount of swaps and credit lines are equivalent to six times the value of the MCC Grant, which created an extensive social discussion on the attached binding conditions which caused the President to appoint a committee to evaluate the grant agreement.

But our economic crisis is such that we are extremely desperate for foreign exchange. We had a presidential commission for a mere $ 480 million grant at a time when people had a deeper sensitivity to the potential conditions, whereas now we have decided to borrow six times more than that without any political party, media, or public figure having voiced their concerns. 

The decisions available at hand for all political parties are limited and difficult. It has come down to simply having the courage to implement reforms. Politics or party lines have become irrelevant as the prescription will not change regardless of the person in the driver’s seat.

Since 1977 and 1990 there has been no effort for any hard economic reforms, so many policymakers think that hard reforms will dilute their popularity. As a result, procrastination on reforms has become the norm. At the same time, the practice and knowhow of driving reforms have not been common. But the truth is that reforms will have less damage on political capital, while not undertaking reforms will have far more serious consequences. Stagnation won’t take us anywhere, but reforms will. 

References

1 https://srilanka.ahk.de/aktuelles/news-details/handover-of-report-on-the-simplification-of-existing-laws-and-regulations-in-sri-lanka

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.

The danger of being anchored in anti-competitive safety

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

The ‘what not to do’ guide for Sri Lanka’s economy from its shipping sector

Once I met a businessman in one of the world’s largest waterproofing corporations, based in the United States. He spoke to me about his humble beginnings. I asked him what his secret for success was. He replied “market system and competition” with confidence. 

He explained that an average person like him was able to create such a large business and social impact which provides employment for thousands of people in just one generation solely because of the market system and competition. “The market system made me an innovative, hard working and a progressive person. I didn’t care about my background. Without competition I could have been the same person as I was 20 years ago,” he said.

In life, hard work and commitment are the basic requirements of prosperity. What we need is a system that rewards hard work and free exchange, so the market system can create progression and prosperity. In any sector when competition is restricted, stagnation is unavoidable. That is one of the main reasons why, in any advanced market system, institutions are built to promote competition and restrict anti-competitive practises such as monopolisation. 

In Sri Lanka our total factor productivity is very low compared to our regional players, due to lack of competition and anti-competitive business practises. Sri Lanka is ranked at 84th in the Global Competitiveness Index (out of 140 economies) while we were ranked 52 in the same index in 2012; clearly, the situation is only becoming more dire.

The shipping industry is just one prominent example of how the lack of competition and anti-competitive trade practises have made Sri Lankan industry stagnant over the decades. While Sri Lanka boasts of its strategic location, our growth has been far below potential for many decades now. We have not only failed at capitalising on our naturally-gifted location but we are mired in debate and friction due to anti-competitive trade practises and attempts to monopolise the shipping industry and supporting services.

Most protected industries and cartels practise  anti-competitive behaviour after a certain period of time, due to stagnation and poor productivity. In a competitive environment, businesses focus more on future opportunities and productivity improvement, than on defending their own interests even if it means resorting to anti-competitive practises. As the American sporting legend Tom Brady famously said: “While the winners are focused on winning, the losers focus on the winners.”

Sri Lanka is quite unfortunate as even shipping, a main sector where we have the opportunity to open up for competition, has fallen victim to protectionist and anti-competitive practises. Minister Vasudeva Nanayakkara filed a public litigation case on the monopolisation of the shipping industry when he was a member of the Joint Opposition during the last regime. However, the lack of regulation to avoid anti-competitive practises will provide very limited space for ordinary citizens to become aware of the extent of the problem. 

Attempts to eliminate minimum investment requirements on shipping industry and freight forwarding with the objective of bringing more competition has failed over the years due to industry resistance. 

The result is shown in the numbers: Sri Lanka has about 750 local shipping, freight forwarding, and clearing agents, whereas Singapore has about 5,000 – despite commencing on its journey to becoming a maritime hub several years after us. Even in the case of the X-Press Pearl environmental disaster, we really did not have the basic ecosystem in place to combat an emergency because of our anti-competitive, inward-looking approach. 

Of course, shipping is not the only industry closed for competition, with anti-competitive behaviour. The acquisition of two of the largest tile manufacturers in Sri Lanka, which operate in an industry that is already highly protected (at one point with 107% total tariff protection), has also been a concern. The result has been the continuous suffering of consumers and the construction industry over the years, with basic housing becoming almost a dream for aspirational Sri Lankans. 

According to the current regulation, the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) Act No. 09 of 2003 (which was brought after repealing the Fair Trading Commision [FTC] Act of 1987) is expected to promote competition. Unfortunately, the Act only sets price controls on selected consumer goods instead of truly promoting competition. They raid small mom-and-pop shops for selling goods at rates higher than the set prices, and cast a blind eye on all other anti-competitive behaviour. It should be noted, however, that the CAA is hindered by its limited purview on the Investigation of existence of monopolies, mergers and acquisitions, and anti-competitive practises. 

The previous FTC Act of 1987 had a broader purview to investigate anti-competitive trade practises (compared to current CAA) including agreements to limit production, refusal to prevent  predatory pricing, vertical agreements, and cartels. But the Fair Trade Commision Act lacked implementation guidelines and specific distinction between public and private sectors (1). Anti-competitive practises need to always be analysed with State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) as most monopolies and anti-competitive practises are SOE driven.

Additionally, the provisions for the appointment and removal of members to the FTC, as well as the way the Act was implemented, raised concerns of the departure from competitive policy at the FTC (2).

A good example of the shortcomings of the FTC is the merger of Glaxo-Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham. FTC considered that it was beyond their purview as it was an international merger. In relation to unfair trade practises, the oft-cited case is that of Ceylon Oxygen Ltd. Ceylon Oxygen had held a dominant market position since 1936 in Sri Lanka. When a new firm named Industrial Gases (Pvt) Ltd. entered the market in 1993, it was alleged that Ceylon Oxygen behaved in predatory manner by reducing the deposit fee on canisters and decreasing maintenance charges, and made discriminatory discounts as well as discriminatory rebates. 

FTC identified  three anti-competitive practices of Ceylon Oxygen, namely, predatory pricing, discriminatory rebates, and excluding dealing. However, when the case went up to the Appeals Court, it was held that the FTC had no jurisdiction to investigate such practises over the case and therefore did not recognise these practises as preventing competition.

Though the FTC had its own shortcomings, the subsequent CAA Act has a far more limited purview. Simply put, Sri Lanka’s business environment and ecosystem are  set on all fronts to avoid competition and promote anti-competitive behaviour, while our prosperity completely depends on the opposite. 

Competition is very important to Micro-, Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises. They are the first to adapt and grow due to flexibility and agility in a competitive environment. That is the reason the world-class waterproofing businessman whom I had met thanked competition and the market system for his success and the success of his business. 

If Sri Lanka is serious about achieving the status of a high income country, we can only get there by improving our productivity (total factor productivity) and certainly not through debt accumulation. Trade and competition policies play a pivotal role in this journey of reform and our policymakers should focus on implementing high-impact policies to promote competition and avoid anti-competitive behaviours. Unfortunately, the current focus has been on prices and market intervention.

Sri Lanka has a large number of talented young people who could become as successful as the waterproofing businessman I met. If we establish a market system and a competitive environment, then nothing will stand in the way of our youth reaching the top and Sri Lanka will become a far better and more prosperous nation than it is today.

References:

(1)  ​​Trade and Competition Policies: Their implications for productivity Growth in Sri Lanka by Dr.Sarath Rajapathirana

(2)  Thurairtnam (2006), Malathi Knight Jones (2002)

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.

No true independence without economic freedom?

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

This is a story I’ve heard, the validity of which I am not too sure about. The story goes that post India’s independence in 1947 the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was visiting villages to celebrate the newly attained freedom. However, the Prime Minister was slapped by an old man who emerged from the crowd, stating that he had lost his three sons and wife to the war. “Is this the freedom you brought to India?’” he asked the Prime Minister. 

The old gentleman’s question contained a great deal of emotions and obviously it went beyond a matter of political freedom. Income and wealth wise it was not sustainable and India as a country was very poor then, even more than it is today, and quality of life was deteriorating. 

After thinking for a little while Prime Minister Nehru provided a thought-provoking answer: “Now a senior citizen of India like you can slap the Prime Minister. That’s the freedom we brought to Bharat.” 

While Nehru’s answer was more relevant in the context of political freedom, the same story remains valid even in the context of economic freedom. Every citizen prefers to live in a society and an economy where they are free to make their own choices and have the freedom of choice when it comes to economic matters. As a result, countries that experience a higher degree of economic freedom have a higher GDP per capita. 

Graph 1 – Per capita GDP of least free countries and most free countries 

Graph 2 – Economic freedom and the income share of poorest 10% 

Indeed, economic freedom and political freedom usually go hand in hand, especially in attracting investments, skills, and capital. 

Currently, Sri Lanka is celebrating its 74th Independence anniversary. We must ask ourselves, how economically free are we, really? 

According to the Economic Freedom of the World Index in 2019 Sri Lanka ranked 92nd out of 165 countries and in most of the indicators our performance has been constantly poor.

Economic Freedom of the World Index evaluates countries on five main parameters. Our performance is extremely poor in International Trade. Being an Island located in one of the main maritime routes, we have been ranked 146 out of 165 countries which really reflects our constant policy flaws over the years. Our inward looking anti-trade bias policies have brought Sri Lanka to where it is today. 

Our ranking is equally bad in Regulation. Our score is 6.9 out of 10 and our rank is 110. Sri Lanka has too many regulations for micro, small, and medium enterprises and a fairly large licensing system. In fact, in the inaugural 72nd speech on Independence Day, the President pledged to remove unnecessary regulation. He appointed a deregulation commission headed by Lalith Weerathunga and Krishan Balendran, and we are awaiting the implementation of the recommendations. 

Soundness of Money is another important parameter evaluated by the Economic Freedom of the World Index. This considers the standard deviation of inflation and how strong the currency will be. So, the property in cash form will not be diluted over sudden currency depreciation. Sri Lanka ranks 103 with a score of  8.2 on this measure. The above numbers are from 2019 when we had single digit inflation. Now our year-on-year (YoY) headline inflation is 14% and food inflation is 25%. Therefore, on a sound money front our ranking obviously cannot be performing well. 

In the pillar of Legal System and Property Rights our ranking is 85th out of 165 countries with a  score of 5.1. This is an area we need urgent attention, and some reforms such as digitising our judiciary system is commendable. However, we have a lot to improve, especially regarding the time taken to resolve a case. As the Minister of Justice once said, an average criminal case takes about 10 years and a land case takes more than 20 years, which is a serious bottleneck in our investment system. Investors impart extra attention in doing their due diligence on matters of the judiciary system, as rule of law and independence of the judiciary are one of the fundamentals of democracy. 

On the pillar of Size of the Government as per 2019 data we were doing reasonably well. We ranked 17th out of 165 countries with a score of 8.28. However, our scores seem to be skewed due to low taxes and not actually because the size of our government is limited. We have 1.5 million State workers and in most of the industries State Owned Enterprises have a fairly large footprint with government intervention. 

Ultimately, after celebrating independence for 74 years, our economic freedom is deteriorating overall. Most Sri Lankans apply for visas and make attempts to get permanent residency in countries that are economically free. Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, the US, and Denmark are the countries at the top of the list. Rather than blaming Sri Lankans who plan to migrate permanently, we should focus on changing our policies to become a country with more economic freedom, and ensure that the same Sri Lankans who are looking to leave as well as others around the world will find Sri Lanka an attractive place to live and work. 

As Jawaharlal Nehru responded to the old gentleman on freedom in 1947, if we start our reforms and bring economic freedom to Sri Lanka, our leaders too can tell our youth and boast of how they made Sri lanka an economically attractive country. 

Reference:

https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/sites/default/files/cbslweb_documents/press/pr/press_20220131_inflation_in_january_2022_ccpi_e.pdf

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.

Cycling to work in Colombo is easier said than done

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

A new proposal is under discussion to encourage travelling to work by bicycle. No doubt any policymaker who pays a trip to Europe may observe many people commuting to work by bicycle and on foot. So it is normal for anyone to think “if Europeans can do it, why can’t we?”

Some may even believe that countries in Europe have become developed nations because of behaviour involving “a healthier way of life”; commuting to work by bicycles and using electronic vehicles to reduce pollution.

That line of thought is no different to thinking that the work of Usain Bolt, the Olympic Gold Medallist is easy – running 100 metres in about 10 seconds while accumulating millions of dollars in wealth. All this while many other people cannot come close to accumulating the same amount of wealth even by working throughout their lifetime. 

But what many fail to realise is that Bolt had to put about 20 years or more of training to run that 100 metre in 10 seconds under Olympic game conditions. Similarly, most of the outcomes are a result of a series of policies which go hand in hand with culture, geography, and many other economic factors. 

There is no doubt that cycling is good for health and it will help reduce emissions as well. But if policymakers are deeply interested in encouraging people to cycle to work, it has a lot to do with Sri Lanka’s land, housing, and tariffs on construction materials policy rather than being purely based on cycling. 

You may ask how ‘cycling to work’ is connected to housing, construction tariffs, and land policy? 

It goes without saying that people can cycle to work when they reside at a reasonable distance from their workplaces. When many of the members of the workforce live far away from their workplace, they have to have a convenient mode of transportation not only for reporting to work but also for other personal needs. Given the poor public transportation and lack of interest in developing public transportation, the reasonable option available for the middle class is to have their own vehicle. 

As Sri Lanka became a middle-income country, many could afford a vehicle even at very high border taxes, which are as high as above 100%. So for the average middle class, the available reasonable choice is to reside far from the city limits (main cities such as Colombo, Gampaha, Kandy, and Galle) and commute in their personal vehicles.

The question is why people reside so far away from city limits. It is mainly because housing is not affordable within city limits. Unaffordability of housing is due to two main reasons. First, about 82% of the land in Sri Lanka is owned by the Government, including prime properties within city limits. So land prices are very high due to the Government holding land for completely unproductive enterprises. 

A simple walk around Colombo would bring to view a number of  single-storeyed State buildings where the space is utilised in a very unproductive manner due to poor city planning and excessive regulation. 

Secondly, our cost of construction is very high due to tariffs and paratariffs. Hence, the cost of productive land usage housing schemes such as apartments have become only affordable to the elite and not the middle class. Our floor tiles, wall tiles, cement, steel, construction, aluminium, electrical material and a long list of other materials are more expensive than the global market prices. This is due to very high tariff rates that do not generate much revenue for the Government but only benefit a few protectionist industries, which is called ‘rent’ in economic terms. On housing projects there is a regulation which stipulates that every apartment should have a parking space.

A young professional who uses mobile app-based taxi services or lives at a walking distance to their office does not necessarily need to pay for the land, bearing the construction cost for a 300 Sq.Ft. parking slot in an 800 Sq.Ft. apartment. It is such regulations that drive the housing prices within city limits and minimise choice for the consumer.

As a result we have very few vertical housing schemes that are affordable to the working middle class located within city limits. Young professionals who could easily settle in a two-bedroom apartment within walking or cycling distance to their workplace now have to buy unproductively utilised and expensive land far away from the city, along with a vehicle to commute to work.

If the middle class has housing options within city limits, they would be the happiest to settle in Colombo. They can save their hard-earned money on an apartment property which is a transferable asset rather than purchasing five-year-old low quality reconditioned vehicles which are subject to a tariff of more than 100% to commute to the workplace, burning fuel in the congested and traffic-riddled city streets. 

When middle-class aspirational Sri Lankans can afford to reside in the city where they will be able to use a bike instead of a reconditioned vehicle to commute to work, it is then that we will achieve the objective of saving fuel and minimising emissions and valuable foreign exchange, thus increasing productivity across the board. 

A few years ago the Colombo Mayor and Dutch Ambassador also promoted cycling on weekends. It just became a typical Colombo event and now we hardly see people cycling in Colombo. Often cyclists in Colombo are lottery sellers selling a dream of a fortune to the working middle class and aspirational Sri Lankans, where they can buy a house if they have the luck on a State-issued lottery ticket.

Additionally, we have to remember that there are regions in Europe where it’s less humid than Sri Lanka, so cycling to work is easier than in a tropical country.

If our policymakers really want to see a city of cyclists, they have to start working on our land policy, housing, and tariffs on construction. If we set those policies right, many more developments will be achieved rather than just producing cycling professionals within city limits. 

The Government will need to consider enforcing traffic laws and providing cycling space to enable safe and easy cycling to and from work. 

Reference:

• https://www.newswire.lk/2022/01/26/proposal-to-travel-by-bicycles-to-work/

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.

Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

There’s a childhood memory engraved in my mind, of an incident with a fellow schoolmate concerning an act of borrowing. Back then, we borrowed money from each other constantly to eat sweets and junk food and buy video game gadgets. A particular friend of mine had the habit of borrowing a little money every week and settling the same again after a week’s time right on schedule. After a few weeks, I realised he borrowed the same amount of money from another friend as well. 

Like a well-planned roster, he proceeds to settle his debt with the other friend in a week’s time. One day my frequently borrowing friend did not settle my money as he promised. When I confronted him on the matter, he plainly stated that he settled the amount owed to me with the money he borrowed from my other friend and vice versa. At this one instance, the other friend had refused to lend money to my frequently borrowing friend so he was unable to settle with me. 

But what was particularly amusing was what he said after. “What I have been borrowing and settling for the past few weeks is money from the two of you to each other. So to resolve the matter, the two of you must settle with each other because it’s your money. Not mine.” 

Sri Lanka’s debt servicing is a much more complex version of what my classmate did; we settle our creditors by borrowing from someone else. Most sovereign countries do the same. However, this can only be done when someone agrees to give us money. Similar to the incident with my friend, the moment people refuse to lend us money, the cycle starts collapsing. That is exactly what happened to Sri Lanka. As a result, the country has lost its credit rating by international rating agencies and has thereby lost market access. 

The current strategy we follow is requesting lifelines from our bi-lateral partners as a form of assistance. As a result, in just five days, India threw in about $ 1.4 billion worth of credit lines and swaps to secure our fuel, medicine, essential supplies, and debt repayments. 

Initially, China provided us with a swap of 10 billion Yuan as a back-up, which the Central Bank absorbed as reserves according to their data. 

At the same time with some of the bi-lateral partners, our relationship has not been professional. We cancelled the LRT project with Japan, which is our main bilateral creditor as well as the main funder for one of our main multilateral partners, the Asian Development Bank (ADB). To make matters worse, we keep the trade channels such as vehicles and spare parts closed, which is precisely where the bilateral relationships can be strengthened. 

Our mismanagement of bilateral relations is reflected, even with China. Recent events, such as our shortsighted handling of diplomatic relations over the fertiliser issue, with China blacklisting a state bank for not honouring payments, illustrates this issue. 

Economically and geopolitically, we have lost market access for borrowing on one hand, and on the other, we have somewhat tarnished the relationship with our friends at a time when we need their assistance the most. So far, we have been very lucky to still have their continuous support regardless of the setbacks even though the fault is on our end entirely. As a recommendation, the Government should not take the silence of some bilateral partners lightly, but work double-time to restore trust and understanding in business and trade. 

The current strategy of paying our International Sovereign Bonds through bilateral swaps and depending on credit lines for essentials will eventually come at a geopolitical expense. We become more vulnerable with our past track record of working with our bilateral partners. 

In this context, the Central Bank increased policy rates by 50 basis points, a policy move in the right direction. However, this comes – unfortunately – too late to stop the inflationary pressure constantly building, probably due to the faulty use of Modern Monetary Theory, which we have been following for some time now. The policy rate revisions will encourage people to save more money instead of spending more. This will somewhat ease the pressure, but at the same time slow the economy down. But we can’t afford to accelerate the economy with a historic balance of payment crisis which was already exacerbated by a price control on US Dollars (USD) in an attempt to encourage imports and discourage exports. 

Surprisingly, policymakers have not taken any reforms to overcome the situation, believing that debt servicing through borrowed money will solve the problem. Very high hopes have been kept on tourism but the same thing that happened to remittances will happen to tourism when we try to keep the exchange rate very low. We encourage people to keep the USD in grey markets so people will become further reluctant to sell their hard-earned USD to the Central Bank. 

At the same time, we need to understand tourism also increases the consumption of the economy where, with USD inflows, there will be a fair share of USD outflows concurrently. Thus, keeping all our eggs in the basket of tourism would not be advisable at all. If policymakers recall, at the beginning of the pandemic, remittances were at a record high. With mounting debt, our policymakers replied that our solutions remained in our remittances, which today are in decline due to our own policy failures. In this context, there are certain areas for restructuring that policymakers have to consider if they were to come out of the crisis: 

1. Restructuring of our social security net. A market pricing-based digital cash transfer system with better targeting than Samurdhi is recommended to provide poor people the opportunity to keep their noses above the water to navigate through the economic reform period

2. Restructuring and Reforms on the State sector and State-owned enterprises are a must. Listing the debt of State-owned enterprises, privatisations, consolidations and outright sale of some of the assets owned by State-owned enterprises is required for the private sector, including land. Government care has to be limited through a reasonable voluntary retirement scheme

3. Restructuring and Reforming in our Central Bank .The current tools of excessive interventions by the Central Bank on interest rates, exchange rates and every part of monetary policy has to be refined

4. Restructuring and reforming our tax system and tariff system is a must. Currently, our income and corporate tax systems are too complicated and it has to be simplified if policy makers are interested in increasing revenue. The complicated tariff structure has to be simplified with three tariff bands. Bringing down tariffs will also help the Government increase the revenue and boost trade

5. Restructuring and reforming our production structures for it to be aligned with global production and supply chains is vital to increase export revenue. At the same time, a deregulation drive has to be initiated to ensure conducive business environment for locals and foreigners

6. If our debt is unsustainable, we have to consider a restructuring of debt, but with the above-mentioned reforms. Attempting to do a debt restructuring without a solid commitment to reform will worsen the problem and debt restructuring could become a frequent event causing us to lose our credibility and market access if we fail to do the necessary reforms

All these ideas are not new and not a first mention in this column. These have been repeatedly spoken of by countless economic experts. It is simply that the call to action rate is very low. Policymakers whose job is to change policies and get things done. Not to behave like my classmate – paying debts with borrowed money, wiping their hands clean, and shifting the responsibility elsewhere at the last minute.

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.

Debt restructuring: Between a rock and a hard place?

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

According to news sources, the President has requested the Chinese Foreign Minister to assist Sri Lanka in restructuring our debt. The Finance Minister too has indicated to Japan and India, our long-standing bilateral partners, the need for more assistance to overcome the economic crisis Sri Lanka is going through. 

In a recent press conference, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) Governor also mentioned that discussions for a new loan from China to restructure our debt is underway. 

However, it seems that the President and the CBSL Governor have given the term ‘restructuring’ two different meanings. One as run by the Global Times, the Chinese Communist Party-run newspaper, which said: “After President Rajapaksa’s request to restructure debt, Song Wei, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation stated that interest-free loans offered by the Chinese Government are applicable for debt relief while the concessional loans raised through the market cannot be written off.” 

However, as measures for debt restructuring, the CBSL Governor suggested taking more swap agreements, paying International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs) and bilaterally skewing our debt profile from market borrowing. Considering all this, we are yet to know what would be the final decision.

In Sri Lanka’s external debt profile as at the end of 2020, about 57% was borrowed from financial markets (34% from ISBs and 8% from China Exim Bank). 

In my view, we cannot evaluate debt restructuring without really understanding the problem. The issue at hand is that Sri Lanka borrowed money in US Dollar terms with a short maturity at high-interest rates and invested in assets on non-revenue generating non-tradable assets. As a result, we had to borrow money at even higher interest rates to service the interest of previous debts which has snowballed to a point where Sri Lanka has lost access to capital markets.

So the choices are not between ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’. The choices are between ‘worse’ vs. still ‘worse’. That is why it is called an economic crisis. Either measure will result in a catastrophic impact on the people of Sri Lanka. So in this context let us evaluate debt restructuring. 

The objective of any debt restructuring is to avoid a similar situation in the future and ensure sovereign debt sustainability. So a debt restructuring plan without an economic reform plan to improve competition, trade, and efficiency of the economy will not bring us any sustainable solution. Rather, it will worsen the situation. 

Secondly, debt restructuring is also a very difficult process for a country like Sri Lanka with a limited resource base. Countries such as Argentina and Ecuador defaulted but they have large reserve bases including oil to get back on a path of recovery. But Sri Lanka is a small $ 82 billion economy with no experience on debt restructuring.

Debt restructuring is not an easy process given Sri Lanka’s debt profile. Usually, senior creditors such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) are unlikely to restructure debt as it is provided at a concessional rate and with a longer maturity period. In restructuring multilateral debt, generally, a new programme would be introduced to recover the previous debt. 

Restructuring bilateral debt is complicated. The debt of Paris Club members has to be negotiated at the Paris Club. Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the US are the members of Paris Club. So any bilateral debt restructuring from the above nations have to be at the Paris Club. According to data, 10% of our creditors are members of the Paris Club, with Japan being the main bilateral creditor for Sri Lanka.

Our debts with China and India, who are not Paris Club partners, have to be negotiated outside the Paris Club. Generally, any bilateral creditor would not agree to single-handedly bear the entire restructuring loss of one particular country. They will request other partners to assist. Even in the case of China, according to NewsIn Asia, Long Xingchun, a senior research fellow at the Academy of Regional and Global Governance of the Beijing Foreign Studies University, stated that restructuring loans with China alone is insufficient to help the island nation tide over its difficulty, which needs a package plan with other involved parties.

The geopolitical situation in Sri Lanka will give way to more geopolitical externalities in debt restructuring with bilateral partners. But it seems we have to move towards that direction as we have very limited alternatives at hand. 

Additionally, bilateral partners will also request to share the debt burden with commercial creditors including ISB holders. This is because in debt restructuring, the main objective is to distribute the loss as much as possible. 

Restructuring commercial debt has to be dealt with by international law and it is somewhat an expensive and time-consuming process to reach a consensus with all creditors. According to global debt restructuring expert Prof. Lee Buchheit, it can take about nine months to a few years based on the profile of the debt. 

In debt restructuring, there are four parameters generally considered. 

1. Reducing debt stock or principal amount commonly known as haircuts

2. Adjusting the interest rates to be paid or coupon rates commonly known as coupon adjustment

3. Extending the repayment or maturity period

4. Mix and match of all above

The general practice is creditors ask to conduct a debt sustainability study of the country before deciding the adjustment or deciding which parameters of restructuring are to be used. The only credible organisation to conduct an independent study is the IMF, and that is why in most of the debt restructuring processes, the countries are under the IMF programme. In Sri Lanka’s case, in the event of a restructuring as our President requested, we have to disclose all debt including the debt owed by the State-Owned Enterprises because the restructuring burden will be calculated across the board. 

Creditors are generally very reluctant to restructure debt especially when it is due to financial mismanagement. In case of a natural disaster or a negative externality, the negotiation would be easier compared to a situation concerning economic mismanagement. 

So the available choices for Sri Lanka are very limited and every choice may have its own set of consequences. Reserves are declining and people often complain about shortages of essentials and interruption of utilities. Businesses are complaining about the inconvenience of working with banks due to difficulties in opening Letters of Credit (LCs). Creditors and investors are embroiled in suspicion and confusion with constant credit rating downgrades. Debt restructuring will be complicated and an open Sri Lanka for geopolitical sensitivities will affect political stability. 

The choices at hand are difficult. This column has continuously highlighted the need for reforms since the beginning of the pandemic with full knowledge that delays will limit the alternatives. We need to shift gears and move forward with hard reforms before people become hard on reforms. 

References:

• https://newsin.asia/china-to-revise-lankan-loans-repayment-schedules/

• https://newsin.asia/china-to-revise-lankan-loans-repayment-schedules/

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1hezyj2YxA&list=WL&index=1&t=7182s

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.

Government relief packages: Pros, cons, and criteria for perfecting

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Last Monday (3), Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa announced a relief package worth Rs. 229 billion. This package consists of a Rs. 5,000 allowance for government workers, 500 g wheat flour for estate communities per day, an increase in the purchasing price of paddy by Rs. 25 to Rs. 75 a kilogramme to assist farmers, a Rs. 1,000 increase for Samurdhi beneficiaries and an incentive scheme for home gardening. When evaluating relief packages, a long list of factors should be considered. One such factor is inflation. It is no secret that there is creeping inflation affecting the livelihoods of all cross sections of society. This is openly being expressed to politicians. Food inflation is at 22% and headline inflation is at 12%. 

This column has always highlighted the grave dangers of high inflation. We have been closely following these developments and our prediction has now been admitted by the Government. The sources for financing the Rs. 229 billion was not specified. The Finance Minister only mentioned that it would be utilised from the 2022 Budget while also mentioning that no tax will be increased. Both the budget numbers and their justification in the text were problematic. Inflation is the worst tax which hurts the poor more than middle income families. 

Given these circumstances, the available options are to cut down some of the already allocated capital expenditure or to borrow money from the Central Bank to finance this new expense. The former is happening already, as when the Government made reductions in capital expenditure as per the budget speech. Some were manifested through policy decisions such as halting construction activities for the next two years. Therefore, if there is a reduction in capital expenditure, it will have to come through cutting down budget lines allocated to areas such as highways, road development, education, and health care. 

Alternatively, we may have to finance this by borrowing more money from the Central Bank, continuing the dangerous policy of believing in Modern Monetary Theory. It will have a very high risk of starting a wage spiral and contributing further to inflation and the depreciation of our currency faster than we expect. Most of this (extra) money will be spent on imported goods. This increase of demand on imports will continue to dry up our limited foriegn reserves. 

In my view, the announcement will confuse investors and businesses, putting the credibility of the Finance Minister at risk. Presenting the Appropriation Bill, the Finance Minister used an anecdote to express how our economy is trapped between three competing challenges. The proposals of the budget such as to cut down expenditure by cutting down the fuel quota and extending the pension entitlement for 10 years for parliamentarians, was a positive signal. However, announcing a relief package completely opposing this may cause further business uncertainty. 

An ideal relief package 

While a relief package has its own pros and cons in politics and economics, it is worthwhile to explore how the relief package should be structured. As this column expressed multiple times, the only solution to overcome this crisis is through structural reforms. Structural reforms will be initially painful across the board, specially for low income earners. Pressure is already upon them with high inflation, and this demographic is being forced to make sacrifices to their food basket. 

The long-term solution for this problem is establishing a digital cash transfer system based on market prices. For example, a fisherman may consume a fair share of fuel to generate income and to contribute to the economy. But the consumption of fuel of a daily wage earning labourer is limited. So the fuel subsidy has to be targeted more towards the fisherman and less towards the labourer. A digital cash transfer to the bank account based on market prices of fuel is the most efficient way of undertaking this. If we try to keep the entire fuel price low through a non-targeted system, consumers who consume more and can afford market prices will automatically benefit as well. At the same time it may be an incentive for low fuel economic machines to be used when fuel prices are low across the board. A cash transfer will not only provide dignity for a person to consume based on their needs, but also provides freedom of choice to shift to alternatives.

Making it a cash transfer avoids political interference where beneficiaries need not worry about their political opinion in order to be entitled for the scheme. Governments can also save resources and be more efficient by adhering to the market forces of demand and supply.

The Samurdhi programme which is the main safety net in Sri Lanka is very poorly targeted and about half our households have become entitled to it. Additionally, about 25% of the Samurdhi fund is spent on administration costs. Therefore, a direct cash transfer can be more efficient than Samurdhi by saving administration costs. 

India administers a system called Adhar with a colour-coded system, where the value of the cash transfer is determined based on the level of poverty. In addition to being based on the poverty level, the option of managing the cash transfer in subsidies often varies with global prices of fuel and liquid petroleum gas. 

Unfortunately, the relief package which was announced did not have the depth necessary, and the targeting could have been better. If we look at the public service, it is usually overstaffed and worker category cardres who are entitled for overtime are maintained by the Sri Lankan Government. As a result, in addition to the basic pay, people simply sign up for overtime work without really having the need to commit for overtime. On multiple occasions many board chairpersons and senior officers have mentioned that they sign off on overtime for their staff assistants and chauffeurs, where in most cases, the total take-home pay is higher than that of the chairman or the senior officer. As such, providing a Rs. 5,000 allowance with non-existing resources would not really help to overcome the crisis. 

Sri Lanka should move towards a digital cash transfer system to strengthen our safety net. But simply strengthening the safety net won’t help the poor. Making imports competitive, bringing down tariffs on essentials and connecting with global value chains is of paramount importance in order to help the poor out of poverty. 

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.

It’s not about reserves – it’s about reforms

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

We spent another year just debating so many economic issues without really getting anything substantial done. 

During the last few days, the debate has been around the official reserves position of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL). So many questions have been raised on whether it can be used to service our debt or whether this is just a double account entry of the Chinese Yuan worth of $ 1.5 billion, which we secured many months ago. The reasonable answer is “we don’t know” until the CBSL makes the data available. The CBSL now says that our reserves are currently at $ 3.1 billion, but refuses to reveal the breakdown of how the country doubled its reserves. So much for transparency!

However, we all have to admit that the economic solutions implemented to overcome the crisis haven’t really worked. Rather, they have thrown the lower and middle-class Sri Lankans from the frying pans to the fire. 

A self-sufficient economic model was proposed at the initial stages. Many economic experts including this column highlighted why a self-sufficient economic model is an expired concept in the 21st Century. Therefore, we must reiterate that the pursuit of self-sufficiency can completely isolate Sri Lanka from global supply chains. As a result, our trade balance will be adversely affected and will continue to be so, due to our lack of understanding of the simple balance of payments and the dependency of exports on imports. Further, there is the absence of incentive reforms.  

A policy of strict import controls and price controls was imposed with the objective of boosting local production, sidelining the market forces. The result was shortages and long lines even for essentials such as liquid petroleum gas and milk powder. Another argument was brought in that the import controls can create a trade surplus. The past two years have proven fair and square that the direction of our policies is completely wrong. In the period of January-October 2021 imports rose by 26.5% and the overall trade balance grew by 34% to $ 6,498 million. This is while the strong performance of exports increased by 22%. All this happened against the backdrop of attempting to keep the interest rates artificially low and keeping the US dollar artificially fixed at around Rs. 200. This is one main reason for our US dollar shortage. Simply, the excess demand created by a loose monetary policy is the reason for there being excess demand for imports. 

Afterwards, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) was introduced as a panacea for all forex problems, claiming there is no connection between inflation and money supply. Today, inflation has risen to 11.5% fueling the balance of payment crisis to a boiling point. Instead of resolving the problem at its root, shortsighted measures were proposed such as tax amnesties and incentives for some US dollar savings without realising the basics – which is that investments are driven by the perception of trust, credibility, and policy consistency instead of ad hoc factors. People who believe in the efficacy of MMT for a small country with a non-international currency could be believing in the tooth fairy. 

Meanwhile, some considerable effort was also made by the Government in the right direction, but it was not adequate. Someone may call it a half-hearted attempt to overcome the scale of the crisis we are facing. The Deregulation Commission, appointed by His Excellency the President, proposed to do some land reforms and improve ease of doing business. Further price controls have been removed, except the price control on the US dollar and interest rates. 

With our inability to provide a clear direction, rating agencies questioned Sri Lanka’s debt sustainability multiple times and requested a credible plan which failed on many occasions. 

The new Governor presented a six-month roadmap, but in my view, the damage of the MMT, the self-sufficient economic model, and industrial policy logic had already been done by then. 

A discussion has always been up in the air regarding whether we should go to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). At the same time, the discussion was underway on whether we should re-profile and restructure our debt. 

In simple terms, that was the summary of economic policy in 2021. We were optimistic that tourism numbers will pick up and it’s a relief that the numbers indicate a positive trend. However, higher tourism increases our import components as well. Expansions, maintenance, and consumption by tourists result in a fair share of imports, so expecting the tourism revival as a panacea for our forex shortages is just another shortsighted dream similar to the MMT. 

In 2022, the outlook will remain the same or it will worsen unless we undertake economic reforms. Expecting a different result without reforms is mere wishful thinking. 

Whether we go to the IMF or not, the economic reforms have to be the starting point. The Government should initiate the reform agenda without waiting for anyone else. However, an IMF programme (always with the agreement of the Government), would be more credible to our lenders and potential FDI partners. Our present situation is not credible to both foreign and domestic investors. 

Below are a few suggestions we have to think through:

1. Establish independence of the CBSL and make sure that the exchange rate is competitive

2. Privatise loss-making state-owned enterprises and consolidate and privatise non-strategic SOE’s

3. A cash transfer system for poor people based on market prices to face the high cost of living during the reform period

4. A grand-scale deregulation of business regulations as per the report submitted to the President (by the Lalith Weerathunga and Krishan Balendra committee)

5. Lower tariff rates with Sri Lanka customs reforms to increase global trade and increase competitiveness

6. Freeze government sector recruitment and offer voluntary retirement schemes and minimise the government cadre

We have to provide a rapid response for this economic crisis without waiting until the last minute to come up with solutions. 

The reality is we are already too late – not by months but by a few decades. 

Rather than focusing on the official reserves position, we have to shift our gears towards reforms. No country ever overcame an economic crisis without any economic reforms.  

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.

Sri Lanka’s unwieldy state sector: A growing burden?

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Recently a minister proudly proclaimed that the Government, for the last two years, has recruited approximately 45,000 new civil servants who have failed their Ordinary Level (O/L) examinations (of those who have studied up to the O/Ls). Comparing this to government recruitment of about 22,145 workers during the 2015-2019 Yahapalanaya regime, he explained that the present Government has recruited about 60,000 new workers for the state sector. 

While most ministers and parliamentarians see the recruitment numbers for the Government as an achievement from a business and economic point of view, the tail-heavy government cadre is one of the key reasons for Sri Lanka’s poor economic performance. 

We have more than 1.5 million state sector employees – a figure which has doubled since 2005. Their burden on the taxpayer is not a one-off expense, but one that is long term, as their pensions accumulate throughout the state sector and sometimes are even transferable to their spouses. 

The reasoning for increasing the size of the government cadre is part of a popular yet vicious cycle. For most politicians and political parties, job offers in the state sector are one way of establishing their political brand image for the next election – a priority over effectively managing taxpayer money. On the flip-side, for most of the unqualified voters the carrot for supporting the uneducated politicians is a government job opportunity with low work/productivity requirements and a tidy pension. 

When looking at the structure of the cadre, it is mostly chauffeurs, clerks, office assistants, and other unskilled/menial workers who have been recruited. Skilled jobs are very limited in the Government. As a result of high expenditure on the bottom-heavy structure of the Government, skilled job openings at the top cannot offer competitive salaries compared to the private sector. The outcome of this is that top-level jobs in the state are occupied by poorly skilled officers with low intellectual capacity. Furthermore, as a result of poor pay, top-level public officers have a significant incentive to engage in corrupt practices to remunerate themselves. One of the main reasons for white collar corruption across all ministries is the twin problem of offering non-competitive salaries and their natural result: poor leaders in top positions. Many ministry secretaries earn a salary that amounts to less than Rs. 100,000 per month. By contrast, it is likely that a high-skilled junior executive with an undergraduate degree would earn a better salary and enjoy a better work-life balance in the private sector. 

The recent statement by one of the ministers of the Government proves that the view inside the Government on state sector employment is divided. The Minister of Finance has stated that the state sector is becoming a significant burden for the Government (particularly due to mounting debt repayment concerns), and went on to propose an increase of the retirement age in the state sector to 65. 

Over-staffing of state workers is not inherent to one government. A viral social media video released during the last regime drew great controversy for that government, as it showed the then Minister of Housing (now Leader of the Opposition) interviewing candidates and directing his subordinates to choose workers for security and labourer jobs based on height. The aforementioned statement by a present minister about the Government hiring 45,000 candidates who failed their O/L examinations is purely an indicator that all governments subscribe to the same, flawed ideology – that expanding the state sector is a pathway to development. 

The salary scale for unskilled staff in government offices are in the range of Rs. 30,000-45,000 per month; as a result many of them simply stay in their offices needlessly (burning electricity generated on imported fuel) to claim a very high overtime income. Once, a chairman of a state authority mentioned (during a personal conversation) that he has to approve overtime pay for many drivers that is higher than the entire take-home salary package of the Chairman himself.

The situation is similar in many government institutions. Executive level state workers – who are not entitled to overtime pay – simply block every file and proposal and try to extort money out of the applicants. Alternatively, they may try to claim bills which are not spent on their other perks (e.g. travel expenses, fuel, etc.) and earn some extra money. 

This has always been the vicious cycle of state jobs. Now, the situation has deteriorated to the point that the Government is finding it difficult to keep even extremely important employees such as the directors and chairman of the Board of Investments (BOI), due to the pressure mounting from unskilled workers and trade unions over the salary hikes of the board. When the employment structure is unbalanced and too bottom-heavy, the final outcome is that the tail end takes control – with trade union activities and strikes completely disrupting all activities of citizens and the government alike. 

Attracting billion dollar investments is a highly skilled job which requires a specific sales mindset, credibility, intellectual power, and a business network to perform. Throughout the world, the work of investment bankers and high-level sales executives is very well compensated. Hence, it is doubtless that for investment promotions, Sri Lanka will require very highly skilled individuals. However, investors will not be attracted to Sri Lanka by merit of our talent alone; a regulatory framework that is conducive to business activities is also necessary to attract foreign direct investment inflows. In a bottom-heavy organisational structure, when salary increments are taken by the senior level staff or when top executives are recruited, bottom-level employees get concerned that their salaries will be affected by higher resource absorption by the senior level. This is the case in many institutions and public enterprises in Sri Lanka.  

Sri Lanka’s state sector is, without a doubt, too large and expensive for us to maintain. It’s exploding to a level beyond our control. If we fail to implement reforms as fast as possible, the situation would be disastrous for both the state sector as well as the private sector. The best solution for our current problems is economic reforms. The idea that the state can maintain its public capital by simply hiring more workers is a myth. Without reform, we will soon lose both our solvent economy and our politicians’ credibility and political capital. 

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.

Did we miss the opportunity to formulate ‘a non-traditional budget’?

Originally appeared on The Morning

By K.D.D.B Vimanga

A non-traditional budget was what the country needed. In general, budgets in Sri Lanka have mostly been giveaways to maintain political status quo or simply an outline of the Government’s plan for the economy, without taking into consideration current economic realities. As a result of numerous governments prioritising political gains over economic realities, the nation is currently experiencing severe economic consequences. These are manifested to the public in the form of steep price increases, shortages of essential goods, import restrictions, and much more. The macroeconomic consequences of this are fiscal and monetary instability, coupled with serious questions on Sri Lanka’s debt sustainability. A non-traditional budget would have indicated the broad policy direction and priorities of the Government with an understanding of where the economy is right now. The Budget would have prioritised macroeconomic stabilisation, taking into consideration the seriousness of the present economic crisis. Whether the budget proposals for 2022 achieve this remains a question.

Analysing the Budget Speech makes it clear that the intention of the Budget was to be conscious of government expenditure. Is this consciousness sufficient? Especially at a time where the foreign debt service forecast for 2022 is an estimated $ 4,483.80 million? (1), when the state of the country’s foreign reserves stood at about $ 2.6 billion in September 2021 (1.7 months of imports [2]), and following which the net foreign assets have been negative in the months after. This very question of debt sustainability remains the elephant in the room. Yet, the Budget Speech failed to elaborate on specific measures that the Government hopes to utilise to meet this target. A budget that understands the present challenges would have presented a roadmap of actions to meet these outflows. The failure to do so highlights the failure to streamline the Budget to meet the seriousness of the present economic crisis.

A certain amount of credit must be given to the Government for refraining from making excessive government expenditure proposals. There is a slight increase in government total expenditure from the revised estimate of Rs. 3,387 billion for 2021 to Rs. 3,912 billion for 2022. This remains prudent in comparison to the Government’s total revenue from the revised estimate of Rs. 1,556 billion in 2021 to Rs. 2,284 billion (3). According to the figures provided by the Ministry of Finance, the budget deficit would see a reduction from Rs. 1,826 billion in 2021 to Rs. 1,628 billion in 2022. However, it should be noted that while the Budget Speech of 2021 promised a deficit of 9%, the revised estimate of the deficit has increased to 11.1% as per the Fiscal Management Report of 2022.

The budget deficit still remains unsustainably large for a country with a gross domestic product (GDP) of $ 80.7 billion in 2020 (4). The Budget tries to reduce government expenditure by proposing policies to reduce recurrent expenditure. These include reducing the fuel allowance provided to ministers and government officials by five litres per month, a 25% reduction in telephone expenses, and increasing the eligibility of MPs to receive a pension from five to 10 years. The magnitude of these cuts in government expenditure remains insignificant in contrast to the real need of the hour; especially when the Budget has made provisions to further expand the public sector, by offering permanent appointments to over 53,000 graduates which would drain a further Rs. 27,600 million from the exchequer. Such is counterintuitive to policies aimed at countering recurrent expenditure, and maintaining a bloated public sector is simply unaffordable with the current state of our public finances. Bold cuts to government expenditure would have reassured Sri Lanka’s creditors, donors, and lenders that we are serious about reforms while also making more resources and talent available to the private sector. Maintaining inflated departments with little or no productive output is a luxury we cannot afford anymore.

The continuation of financing this budget deficit through the domestic market borrowings will have a crowding out effect, especially as it will stunt credit available for the private sector and in return slow the country’s medium to long-term growth potential. Therefore, an ideal budget or a non-traditional budget would have prioritised fiscal consolidation. This includes setting a clear path to reduce the fiscal deficit to 5% by 2024. More efficient tax policy alternatives would have been reintroducing PAYE and withholding taxes and widening the tax base and spreading the tax burden to include a significant number of organisations that were given long tax breaks.

The Budget Speech highlighted three policies that, if implemented right, could direct the economy towards growth. The first being the acknowledgement that price controls have failed, and that market intervention creates uncertainties that affect consumers. This must be looked at with pragmatism, as the complete elimination of price controls including in the energy sector, can achieve better outcomes for the economy. The second being a policy focus to ensure a fair and competitive market. Recognising the role of the market economy and competition is a move in the right direction. This remains the only tried and tested solution to lower prices in the economy. The third policy that should be highlighted is the Finance Minister’s acknowledgement of a re-examination of the Samurdhi scheme. The scheme currently excludes some of the most vulnerable households and therefore, there is a need for tighter administration to ensure benefits accrue to those who need it most. The focus to streamline this initiative towards building entrepreneurship, fostering SMEs, and skill development is the right decision. However, for this to materialise, the Government needs to implement comprehensive reforms to improve ease of doing business and a comprehensive programme of digitalisation.

Addressing macroeconomic imbalances should have been a policy priority of the Budget. This includes addressing the fiscal deficit and the external current account deficit which have effects on the rest of the economy through interest rates and exchange rates. The Budget tries to address this issue by focusing on empowering local production. Prioritising self-sufficiency without opening the domestic market for competition is untenable. The Finance Minister’s speech outlined proposals to boost productivity, which are indeed pragmatic. Yet, one cannot increase productivity without improving competition. Focusing on improving national output has no economic impact without boosting domestic competition.

In the background, there was hope that the Government would start stabilising public finances, which would restore confidence. However, analysing the policy priorities of the Budget makes it clear that there has been little attempt to address the deficit and debt sustainability. Therefore, markets are unlikely to respond positively. At this juncture, Sri Lanka cannot afford to be complacent about our credit ratings. The Budget provided an ideal opportunity to provide a credible plan of action to get our credit ratings up. However, we seem to have missed this opportunity.

Measures to control public finances: spending, budget deficits, and debt 

Year after year, the budget proposals have highlighted large-scale policies that remain limited to budget speeches. However, the present economic storm makes no space for such complacency. Hard structural reforms will need to be implemented inevitably. The Budget could have been the starting point. However, it seems that this window has passed. Therefore, there is a conscious need to build consensus for the implementation of key structural reforms that achieve macroeconomic stabilisation and long-term economic growth. Without macroeconomic stability, there will be no growth. Furthermore, these reforms need to be institutionalised. One way of doing this is the adoption of a medium-term fiscal and monetary framework that gives confidence to donors, lenders, investors, and citizens. Having such a framework will act as a clear sign that the State is committed to fiscal prudence and monetary stability. A medium-term expenditure framework is a tool for establishing public expenditure programmes within a coherent multi-year economic and fiscal framework. 

Other key structural reforms for macroeconomic stabilisation, as outlined in Advocata’s Framework for Economic Recovery, include public finance management and public sector reforms, state-owned enterprise reforms, enhancing monetary policy effectiveness and maintaining exchange rate flexibility, supporting trade and investment to strengthen external trade, land reform, improving ease of doing business, and bridging infrastructure gaps. The only salvation to Sri Lanka’s present economic crisis is such a comprehensive reform package that goes beyond a traditional budget.

References:

1. MOF annual report 2020

2. CBSL Recent Economic Developments: Highlights of 2021 and prospects for 2022

3. https://www.treasury.gov.lk/api/file/0c3639d9-cb0a-4f9d-b4f9-5571c2d16a8b

4. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=LK

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. The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute

Crisis is here, reforms must be too

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Providing a definition for an economic crisis is a difficult task. Especially for a country like ours, which has had an ever present economic crisis, since independence. Realising the depth of the crisis is too difficult when we don’t know the real potential outside. This is because we have normalised our economic difficulties. As a result a transition from one phase of the crisis to another phase is celebrated as a victory. In certain instances due to lack of understanding, deepening the economic crisis too has been celebrated as a move towards economic prosperity without realisation of the reality. 

Our comparison has always been “how we did in the past” or “how the previous governments had done it”. As a result we have become accustomed to having very low levels of expectations. This is also a result of  a lack of exposure to where we really want to be and without realising our potential. 

The current economic crisis is just a good reflection of where we all stand including our policy-makers. Many of us consider that having adequate USD (foreign currency) to settle our foreign debts is the point of getting over the line from our economic hardships. Basically, the ability to pay debts is perceived as prosperity.  As a result we have added enormous pressure on all our businesses to celebrate a fake victory. At this backdrop we keep implementing the wrong policies, such as import restrictions without realising that we are deepening our economic crisis by adding extra burden on their raw material importation. We have reached a stage where we look for credit lines to secure our fuel imports mainly from Oman, India, and the Middle East. 

At the rate crude oil prices are increasing, without a significant reduction in consumption, credit lines will increase the amount of bi-lateral debt. It is also most likely that our bi-lateral partners would ask for a condition to join an IMF programme, if they are to lend to us in the future. This is because the individual countries who we borrow money from, need an assurance of our solvency. On the flip side, our bilateral partners too need to take precautionary measures to minimise the risk of lending to us, or else it would cause political unrest in their respective countries. There will be questions raised as to why a bi-lateral loan was provided to a country with a low credit rating. Some of Sri Lanka’s potential borrowers are beneficiaries of different forms of IMF assistance. The recent Bangladesh swap facility is a good example. Bangladesh received a $ 732 million disbursement from the IMF to address the Covid-19 pandemic, following which they have agreed to provide us with a $ 250 million swap facility in tranches. 

Adding fuel to fire is the lack of reforms. The failure to do so is like not using the tools in our tool box. So, existing hardships will prevail or worsen, and complaints on delays on clearing shipments haven’t been addressed as yet and the USD shortages still continue at banks. Further, the lack of decisive action being taken is risking the stability of our banking sector. As a result we have downscaled our capacity and expectations to a greater extent and everyone has gone to a survival mode and comparing an era of survival with another era of survival while the human race and societies have taken great strides on developing the entire society as a whole. 

The current control of the USD has now started to affect our remittances. Our remittances are declining significantly even with the nature of the pandemic we had earlier. Increasing remittances was a key goal of our policy-makers. In fact remittances were encouraged by agreeing to offer a slightly higher exchange rate for remittances to cover up the loss of revenue from tourism. It is not rocket science to figure out why our remittances are in decline, when the kerb market offers a rate about 20-30% higher than the rate fixed by the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. At the same time, when imports are restricted people are motivated to get goods directly, at a reasonable price from overseas travellers, instead of transferring foreign currency to Sri Lanka and bearing the exchange rate loss. 

The most recent statement by the Central Bank, the six-month road map, places a bigger weight on the generation of foreign exchange through investments in national assets such as the West Container Terminal, power plants and development projects. That is a positive sign that our underutilised assets are now being looked at for revenue generation. But in terms of the tools that we have used, are they sufficient? Most likely not. However we will have to wait for a few weeks to make an estimation on the effectiveness of these tools and measures. 

On the other hand, investments such as the WCT and other infrastructure development carry a larger import component. Even in tourism about 80% of the revenue consists of imported content. Unfortunately there are no shortcuts for a deepening economic crisis brewing for decades. We are already in a crisis for too long and we are cornering ourselves. The impact for common people would be to sacrifice their quality of life. That is to let go of what they consumed before and give way even to the little convenience we had. 

Solution 

The solution to overcome the problem are economic reforms. We reiterate often on reforms because there is no other solution. They are the only solution. Budget 2022 is a golden opportunity to direct the country towards economic reforms. Merely reading numbers that allocate money on expenditure that we cannot afford, will take us nowhere. 

The policy direction has to be on allowing the markets to operate based on prices instead of excessive regulation or promoting a culture of banning. The price signalling system will optimise the resources allocation. Markets and investments will receive a positive signalling that Sri Lanka is open for change. Only an optimisation of resource allocation and getting our economic fundamentals right can take us out from this crisis. Otherwise, Sri Lanka will remain where it has been in the past into the foreseeable future. Reforms provide the only road out of this 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.

Reform or Perish. It’s not too late

Originally appeared on The Island, ColomboTelegraph and Groundviews

By K.D.D.B Vimanga and Naqiya Shiraz

The Sri Lankan economy faces a historical crisis.  The root causes are the twin deficits. First, the persistent fiscal deficit - the gap between government expenditure and income. Second, the external current account deficit - the gap between total exports and imports.  The problems have been festering for too long. Without urgent reforms, the crisis could easily morph into a full-blown debt crisis. 

Sovereign debt workouts are extremely painful for citizens. A mangled debt restructuring can perpetuate the sense of crisis for years or even decades. A return to normal economic activity may be delayed, credit market access frozen, trade finance unavailable.

With the global pandemic, these are unusual and difficult times. The next five years are going to be crucial for the country.  The problems can no longer be avoided and should be faced squarely. The journey ahead is going to be painful but the longer these are delayed the worse the problem becomes and the magnitude of the damage compounds. 

The State of the Economy 

The new government inherited a fragile economy, battered by the Easter attacks of 2019, the constitutional crisis of October 2018 and the worst drought in 40 years in 2017. With the pandemic in 2020 Sri Lanka’s economy shrank by 3.6% with all sectors of the economy contracting. 

Yet, the pandemic is not the sole cause - it only accelerated the decline of Sri Lanka’s economy that was weak to begin with.  The country has long been plagued by structural weaknesses, with growth rates in the last few years even below the average growth rate during the war. Mismanaged government expenditure coupled with a long term decline in revenue have characterised Sri Lanka’s fiscal policy. As of 2020 total tax as a percentage of GDP fell to just 8%, while recurrent expenditure increased. 

Borrowing to finance the persistent budget deficits is proving to be unsustainable. Total government debt rose to 101% of GDP in 2020 and has grown since. Sovereign downgrades have shut the country from international debt markets. The foreign reserves declined from US$ 7.6 bn in 2019 to US$ 5.7bn at the end of 2020 and to US$ 2.8 bn by July 2021. This level of reserves is equivalent to less than two months of imports. With future debt obligations also in need of financing, the situation is dire. 

The import restrictions placed to combat this foreign exchange crisis have failed to achieve their purpose and are doing more harm than good. imports rose 30% in the first half of  2021 compared to 2020 despite stringent restrictions.

The problem lies not in the trade policy but in loose fiscal and monetary policy that has increased demand pressures within the economy, drawing in imports and leading to the balance of payments crisis and consequently the depreciation of the currency.  

Measures by the Central Bank to address this by exchange rate controls and moral suasion have caused a shortage of foreign currency leading to a logjam in imports.

Fundamental and long-running macroeconomic problems were  intensified by the pandemic.Import restrictions, price and exchange controls do not address the real causes.

Treating symptoms instead of the underlying causes is a recipe for disaster.

The continuation of such policies will lead to the deterioration of the economy,  elevate scarcities, disadvantage the poor who are more vulnerable and in the long run lead to even higher prices and lower output due to lack of investment. 

Sri Lanka’s GDP growth over the last decade has been alternating between short periods of high growth and prolonged periods of low growth. This is a result of the state-led, inward-looking policies of the last decade.

A comprehensive reform agenda must be built around  five fundamental pillars:

i) fiscal consolidation - The need to manage government spending within available resources and to reduce debt are paramount. Revenue mobilization must improve but the control of expenditure cannot be ignored. Budgetary institutions must be strengthened and there must be reviews not only of the scale of spending but also the scope of Government.

 ii) Much of government expenditure is rigid - the bulk comprises salaries, pensions and interest so reducing these is a long term process. Reforming State Enterprises, especially in the energy sector and Sri Lankan Airlines is less difficult and could yield substantial savings. Continued operation of  inefficient and loss-making SOE’s is untenable under such tight fiscal conditions. Financing SOE’s from state bank borrowings and transfers from government reduces the funds available for vital and underfunded sectors such as healthcare and education. Excessive SOE debt also  weakens the financial sector and increases the contingent liabilities of the state. Therefore SOE reforms commencing with improving governance, transparency, establishing cost reflective pricing and privatisation are necessary. This can take a significant weight off the public finances and by fostering competition contribute to improvements in overall economic  productivity. 

iii) Tighten monetary policy and maintain exchange rate flexibility.  Immediate structural reforms include, Inflation targeting, ensuring the independence of the central bank by way of legislation and enabling the functioning of a flexible exchange rate regime. Further significant  attention has to be placed on the  financial sector stability with a cohesive financial sector consolidation plan, with special emphasis on restructuring of SOE debt. 

 iv) Supporting trade and investment. Sri Lanka cannot achieve economic growth without international trade which means linking to  global production sharing networks. Special focus has to be given to reducing Sri Lanka’s high rates of protection which creates a domestic market bias in the economy along with measures to improve trade facilitation and attract new export oriented FDI. 

Attempts to build local champions supported by high levels of protection have 

(a) diverted resources away from competitive businesses, 

(b) created a hostile environment for foreign investment, 

(c) been detrimental to consumer welfare,

(d) dragged down growth

v) Structural reforms to increase productivity and attract FDI - Productivity levels in Sri Lanka have not matched pace with the rest of the growing economies. The reforms mentioned above are extensively discussed in Advocata’s  latest publication “Framework for Economic Recovery”.

Sri Lanka  stumbled into the coronavirus crisis in bad shape,with weak finances; high debt and widening fiscal deficits. It no longer has the luxury to delay painful reforms. Failure to do so will not only jeopardize the economy; it could even spawn social and humanitarian crises.

Naqiya Shiraz is the Research Analyst at the Advocata Institute and can be contacted at naqiya@advocata.org.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. The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata 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. 

SOE sector: Promises of change on the horizon?

Originally appeared on Daily FT

By Maleeka Hassan

With the harsh reality of a global recession slowly descending on Sri Lanka, questions about Government expenditure and its allocation of resources have begun to dominate dinner table discussions. Fears of higher taxation to cover the losses earned and to sustain the blows from the impending recession have started to emerge.

There is a simple solution: introduce reforms to prevent areas for corruption and inefficiency within SOEs – thus preventing the State from bearing tremendous losses. However, there is hesitation and discomfort amongst the general public, when consolidation or privatisation of SOEs are discussed. This begs the question: why?  

Why are SOEs so popular amongst the public?

One of the reasons could be due to the portrayal and framing of the SOE sector, over the years. SOEs are perceived by the public as a source of stable employment as well as a source of goods and services at affordable prices. This perception is backed up by the fact that the SOEs hire over 200,000 people; framing the sector as ‘people-oriented’ over ‘profit-oriented’, with no consideration given to the losses sustained by these entities. Moreover, privatisation is often viewed in the same light as capitalism: cold, hard and unforgiving.

This perspective could be propelled by our history with the SOE sector. In the 1980s, the incumbent Government was pushed to reform the SOE sector. This was due to SOE products struggling to remain competitive amongst imported substitutes and therefore turning to the State to fund and sustain most of them. In addition, foreign aid agencies lobbied the Government to adopt a privatisation programme in order to secure external aid. However to avoid backlash from labour unions and state employees, the media and other campaigns around the policy were careful to avoid associating the policy with employee redundancy. Privatisation was concealed by the word ‘peoplisation’, and involved providing 10% of the shares to employees from former public enterprises.

Another reason behind the immense support for SOEs could be due to their heavily subsidised products. However, when products are sold below cost, the cost is still indirectly borne by taxpayers in the form of higher taxes, to recover the loss. The belief that privatisation will result in the prices of goods rising is contingent upon the creation of a monopoly. However, with the reduction of red tape and appropriate measures taken to prevent anti-competitive practices, prices may reduce or remain the same in a competitive market. An example of this was the conversion of Sri Lanka Telecom to a public company. This resulted in an improvement of internal operational efficiency and the number of new connections provided increased from 72,457 in 1997 to 143,075 in 1998.2

A similar reason that may have contributed to shaping current public opinion that SOEs are most effective at serving the people when they remain public, was the introduction of ‘The Revival of Underperforming Enterprises or Underutilised Assets Act’ of 2011 (also known as the Expropriation Act). This is where 37 businesses that were classified as ‘underperforming and ineffective’, were nationalised – suggesting to the public that privatisation wasn't always effective and ideal. However, these attitudes may be fuelling the problem.

Why are these perceptions wrong?

By utilising the narratives above, certain SOEs and officials attached are able to conceal corruption and nepotism behind the idea of employment, and ‘helping the people’. An example of this is the Sathosa scandal that emerged earlier this year, relating to 67 files that tied Sathosa to controversial transactions, such as land deeds that were purchased under various names and involved hundreds of acres, that cost the State billions of rupees.

Similar instances of bribery are easily carried out, and go unrealised, due to the absence of monitoring and oversight of the rest of the 524 SOEs that are ‘not essential’. The lack of transparency with regards to the financial reports of the SOEs makes it easier for these companies to commit such acts. In the Annual Report for 2019, published by the Ministry of Finance (MOF), only 14 SOEs had submitted their Annual Reports for 2018 out of the 52 that are monitored by the MOF and Public Enterprise Department (PED). Even more worrying is the fact that 21 out of the 52 companies hadn't submitted their 2017 Annual Reports either. 

Despite the introduction of the COPE reports and the appointment of the Department of Public Enterprises (PED) to monitor the operations and efficiency of SOEs, the SOE sector continues to amass tremendous losses. The recently published Annual Report by the Ministry of Finance estimates a total loss of Rs. 151,439 million from the 52 essential SOEs for 2019 based on provisional data.

These numbers would change drastically if they included data for the rest of the 524 SOEs (which include subsidiaries and sub-subsidiaries that have been gazetted but are not monitored by the Ministry of Finance, due to them not being ‘essential). The opacity of this sector would usually raise alarm bells amongst the Sri Lankan public if it was occurring anywhere else – and yet it doesn’t with SOEs. change drastically if they included data for the rest of the 524 SOEs (which include subsidiaries and sub-subsidiaries that have been gazetted but are not monitored by the Ministry of Finance, due to them not being ‘essential). The opacity of this sector would usually raise alarm bells amongst the Sri Lankan public if it was occurring anywhere else – and yet it doesn’t with SOEs.

Evolving circumstances propelling change

Despite these concerning particulars, there may still be hope on the horizon. The manifesto of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa indicated that whilst privatisation was not up for consideration, consolidation was still an option. Additionally, a board was appointed to select the heads for loss-making, inefficient SOEs, in order to reform and improve such entities.

More importantly, however, is the question of SOEs in a COVID-19 economy. 

With predictions for Sri Lanka’s estimated real GDP (percentage change) for 2020 amounting to -0.5 due to COVID-19, some economists predict that large scale reforms may be introduced in order to improve efficiency and increase its global competitiveness when seeking foreign direct investment and increased capital inflows. These reforms may extend to the SOE sector – in order to improve the financial accounts of the country and to reduce room for corruption and bribery.

What reforms can the Government adopt?

Reform of SOEs, focusing on underperforming entities, in particular, could create some much needed fiscal space for the treasury. The first phase of reform would be improving governance and accountability in SOEs. The Government should compile a comprehensive list of all SOEs; at present, the Government only tracks the financial of the key 52 entities. This should be expanded to include all entities. Clear reporting guidelines for SOEs should be introduced and enforced, with COPE and COPA strengthened to improve accountability. If these reforms are adopted, the SOE sector will increase productivity and efficiency immensely, saving the Government and the average taxpayer – millions of rupees.

The second phase of reform would be on the consolidation of SOEs. Of Sri Lanka’s 524 SOEs, the Government recognises only 52 of these as strategic or key entities. In line with Government policy, underperforming, non-strategic SOEs should be identified for a consolidation plan. 

This may be the golden window of opportunity to reform and improve the transparency of the sector, but if missed – may not come again for a long time. 

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.