Defence expenditure: The elephant in the Budget

Originally appeared on the Morning

By Avishka Jayaweera

In his recent Budget speech, President Ranil Wickremesinghe stated: “It has been difficult to allocate resources to health, education, and other important sectors due to the lower level of Government revenue generated from taxes in comparison to other countries.” However, increasing revenue is only one side of the coin. On the flip side, an equally important aspect of a state’s finances is expenditure.

It is only logical that if one tends to spend in excess of what they earn, effectively living beyond their means, their spending is unsustainable in the long run. The same holds true for a state. If a state spends beyond its earnings, it has no alternative but to borrow money to finance its expenditure. However, such borrowing can only be sustained for so long. This is Sri Lanka’s folly.

Except for 2017 and 2018, Sri Lanka has regularly run on a primary deficit [1]. The deficit has largely been financed through debt and money printing. It is the foreign component of this debt, which kept growing incrementally, that is responsible for the crisis Sri Lanka faces today. There is a limit up to which creditors are willing to extend loans to the country. Once Sri Lanka’s credit rating was downgraded and it lost access to the International Sovereign Bond market, the Government could not finance the current account deficit, causing the balance of payments crisis.

Government expenditure and the 2023 Budget

It is clear that the Government must balance its Budget, which is what the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Staff-Level Agreement with the Government aims to achieve by aiming for a primary surplus of 2.3% of the GDP by 2025 [2]. The Government appears to be attempting to do this purely by increasing taxes. This places a high burden on consumers who are already facing diminishing standards of living and an inflation tax, caused by excess money printing among other factors.

What then is the alternative? The answer, although politically unpopular, is relatively straightforward. It lies in cutting down on State expenditure. State expenditure must be scrutinised and prioritised. Instead of reducing expenditure in the 2023 Budget, the Government has increased expenditure by 31% from the 2022 revised Budget to Rs. 5,819 billion.

Expenditure must be rationalised. Calls to cut Government spending do not mean reducing the amount spent on health, education, or social welfare. There are more obvious areas where expenses can be cut, freeing up resources to be used in these aforementioned areas that are of national importance. Defence and security spending is one of the main culprits. The Ministry of Defense has the third highest Budget allocation of all ministries.

Defence and public security spending

Allocations for defence and public security spending have risen in the 2023 Budget to Rs. 539.2 billion, which comprises approximately 1.78% of the GDP for 2023 [3]. The allocations for defence and public security spending have constantly been on the rise, with a 9.1% increase in the 2022 revised Budget and a 10.2% increase in the most recent 2023 Budget.

It has been 10 years since the civil war and Sri Lanka is yet to demilitarise. In fact, since the end of the war in 2009, military expenditure has consistently been on the rise. According to a publication in 2021 by Daniel Alphonsus, not only did military expenditure not return to pre-conflict levels, but even when adjusted for inflation, the military spending post-conflict (from 2009 to 2017) was higher than the spending during the wartime peak [4]. Defence expenditure as a percentage of the GDP was three times higher than in the last period of peace [5].

It must also be noted that 88% of the spending on defence and public security is for recurrent expenditure. Most of this is to sustain an active military force of around 250,000 – incidentally, the 17th highest in the world, exceeding even the military force sustained by the UK [6].

The defence expenditure also includes spending on a Police force of 74,835 officers and a Special Task Force of 8,860 [7]. In 2021, 34.6% of Government salaries and wages were spent on defence [8]. Bearing such a high cost on maintaining an active force during peacetime is not only overspending but is also an inefficient allocation of these resources.

The need for action

Reduction of these active personnel will not only lower Government expenditure but with proper programmes, provide valuable labour that can be utilised in an effective and productive manner in the private sector. While the proposal in the 2023 Budget speech mentions that armed force personnel will be allowed to retire after 18 years, it is unclear if this is optional or mandatory. Further, whether this proposal would even be implemented remains to be seen.

Many Sri Lankan citizens today find it difficult to simply get by due to the crisis brought about by the mismanagement of public finances. While the public is burdened with paying more in taxes, the Government should ensure that the public spendings are efficient, effective, and deliver good social outcomes. It is difficult to justify maintaining a large standing army or a vast defence expenditure in a time of peace.

(The writer is a Research Assistant at the Advocata Institute. He can be contacted at avishka@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 or anyone affiliated with the institute.)

References

• Central Bank, Annual Report 2021.

• IMF, Press Release No. 22/295.

• Based on 2023 Budget Estimates; Public Finance.

• Daniel Alphonsus, Sri Lanka’s Post-War Defence Budget: Overspending and Underprotection, South Asia Scan, Issue No. 15 (Singapore: Institute of South Asian Studies, November 2021).

• Daniel Alphonsus, Sri Lanka’s Post-War Defence Budget: Overspending and Underprotection, South Asia Scan, Issue No. 15 (Singapore: Institute of South Asian Studies, November 2021).

• The International Institute For Strategic Studies, ‘The Military Balance 2021’; Global Fire Power.

• Sri Lanka Police, ‘Performance Report 2019’.

• Calculations based on Central Bank, Annual Report 2021.

Budget 2021 : Ignoring the elephant in Parliament

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Doesn’t the ‘pandemic budget’ have to be about the pandemic?

When I was an undergraduate, I used to borrow lecture notes from my senior batchmates to study for exams. As I was engaged in many other extracurricular activities, including in the students’ council, I often missed lectures and used to self-study with the assistance of my friends. In local universities, there is a collaborative learning session called “kuppiya” and this was my main source of learning. For one course unit, I borrowed lecture notes from a senior batchmate and got his assistance, and sat for the exam.

During the exam, I realised that most of the questions asked in the paper had not been in my notes and I hardly knew any answers, especially for the main sections of the question paper.  At first, I thought I had been given the wrong exam paper by mistake. Then I thought it was a mistake by the examiner and that it must be the same for all my batchmates. After the exam, when I inquired from my friends as to why the questions in the exam paper were not covered in the lecture notes, I realised that the notes that I had been referring to from my senior batchmate was prior to a syllabus revision. The exam paper that I wrote had been set for the new syllabus. Sometimes we miss the obvious facts.

I was reminded of this incident from years ago when I was evaluating the Budget 2021, which was presented to Parliament last week. Have we ignored the big elephant in the room: The fact that we are navigating our way through a Covid-19 world? That we are passing through an unprecedented time locally and globally? To what extent does our budget address and cater to the new normal is a matter for discussion.

Presenting a budget when a global pandemic ravages our economies and societies is undoubtedly a challenging task. I would like to congratulate the Government and the Minister of Finance for all the hard work put into the proposed budget. However, as with any policy proposal or annual budget, there will be praise and criticism.

Relating the budget to the new normal COVID-19

A big component the Budget 2021 lacked was its compatibility with the Covid-19 pandemic at hand. The obvious expectation was to know how we are to sustain operations in the country at its full capacity until we get access to the much-anticipated vaccine. The second expectation was on the financial allocation for PCR testing, contact tracing, and preparation to purchase the vaccine, as well as the distribution of it to our Sri Lankans citizens. According to global news stories on vaccines, it looks like the pandemic is going to continue till at least early 2021.

Furthermore, the main vaccine manufacturing pharma companies have revealed that the current vaccines have to be stored at low temperatures. Therefore, it is vital that we have resources such as refrigerators and necessary equipment when the vaccine is ready. Otherwise, it is likely that the process gets delayed. Sri Lanka already has refrigerators and cold storage bottlenecks. This is one main reason why we can’t store perishable food items from farmers to the consumer.

This is evident in the recent stories we heard of how farmers had to throw away unsold harvest and how consumers complain about higher prices at the same time. In addition, we need a strategy to prioritise testing, vaccine distribution, and meet our ever-growing healthcare needs at hand.

Fiscal consolidation and market-based solutions

One positive in the Budget 2021 is there are no grand-scale expenditure schemes such as salary hikes or special allowances. However, it is obvious that even if our budget deficit is expected to be at 8.9% of GDP in 2021, the Government does not have the spending space or borrowing power. In such a situation, the ideal option is to go for market-based solutions and allow the market to come up with solutions organically, rather than the Government trying to intervene, which in turn would make things more inefficient and complicated. That is one reason this column highlighted the Budget 2021 as a golden opportunity for reforms. 

These reforms are essential to make markets operate and make them competitive so that productivity will be higher and the waste will be lower. Cutting regulatory barriers and market entry barriers have to be the main focus when we don’t have deep pockets to spend money. That was a key promise made by His Excellency the President during his Independence Day speech on 4 February 2020.

Priority should have been given to how the country is going to settle its external debt. A clear methodology and plan to ensure debt sustainability too should have been pronounced. This would have provided markets with positive signals. Whether we have received any assistance from our neighbouring countries or how our strategy is expected to produce the expected results should ideally have been made. A clear statement on this would have cleared many doubts from markets.

The overall macroeconomic numbers the Government expects to achieve – such as price stability of 5%, a debt-to-GDP ratio of 70%, and reducing the budget deficit to 4% from the expected 9% – are in the right direction. How the Government is to achieve this in the midst of a global pandemic with its same old strategies, however, remains a mystery.

According to budget promises tracking by Verite Research (www.budgetpromises.org), only 29% of the promises in the Budget 2019 have been fulfilled, while most of it remains unsolicited and 8% have been broken. This is not different from previous budgets, as most have been wish lists without a detailed strategy and in-depth thought, making implementation difficult.

Whether we have done the right contextualisation of the Budget 2021 with Covid-19 in mind is my main concern. Effective implementation of budget proposals will depend on how they are streamlined to meet the demands of the new normal. My wish is that when the budget proposals meet the unavoidable challenges of these extraordinary times, the Government won’t be rudely surprised as I was in learning the syllabus I revised was outdated.

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.

Should we abolish the budget?

In this weekly column on The Sunday Morning Business titled “The Coordination Problem”, the scholars and fellows associated with Advocata attempt to explore issues around economics, public policy, the institutions that govern them and their impact on our lives and society.

Originally appeared on The Morning

---

By Aneetha Warusavitarana

On the 5th of March 2019, the Ministry of Finance presented the much-delayed budget for 2019. The budget is a tool of extraordinary influence, which is used to affect government revenue, expenditures and national policy. That being said, our budgets don't appear to be exerting that influence, or creating the impact they could. According to Verité Research’s budget tracker only 8% of projects from the budget 2018 are progressing, with a staggering 59% lagging behind in implementation.

Everyone has come to expect the budget, but what purpose does it serve? Why does it exist? During the rest of the year the government continues to make decisions on policy, pass legislature and try to run the country. The allocations made during the budget to specific ministries are not set in stone. The reality is that these allocations are moved around government in a manner than bewilders all involved, and when a year passes and the next budget is announced, it is found that budget promises have not been met, and very little has actually been implemented.

Budgets by definition should focus on revenue and expenditure. In the case of Sri Lanka and the mountain of debt that we need to contend with, this is all the more important.

When looking at this year’s budget, a wide variety of topics have been touched on. The Ministry of Finance has revised taxes on multiple fronts, with a focus on reducing the indirect tax base and increasing direct taxes. However, the budget has not limited itself to detailing expenditure and revenues. There has been a substantial amount of general policy which has been included, bringing up the question of whether there is a point to their inclusion in the budget. Surely these general policies would be better suited in a national policy document or election manifesto?

The policy decisions in the budget 2019 have ranged from establishing a national pension plan, increasing government servants’ salaries, to amending labour laws, and this is where the problem lies. Increasing government servants’ salaries would technically be the duty of the Ministry of Public Administration and Disaster Management (an apt ministry to handle the government sector) and salary revisions should follow a system, and not be dependent on ad hoc decisions. A national pension plan, while much needed is not an endeavor that can be completed in a year. The same reasoning applies to amending labour laws. These two in particular will in all likelihood take at least a few years to be finalized and implemented.

The alternative?

The alternative to the current budgeting process is following a medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF). This framework integrates policy, planning and budgeting for the medium term, combining a top-down resource envelope with a bottom-up estimate of the current and medium-term cost of existing programmes. The result is the alignment of macroeconomic stability and broad policies with more specific programmes. It is essentially a three to five year rolling budget, which sets fiscal targets and allocates money for that time frame. This system addresses the reality that very few projects can be successfully implemented within one year and allows the government to acknowledge this and act accordingly.

What does a Medium-Term Expenditure Framework mean for policy?

Within this framework, policy proposals are considered in the medium to long term context. Spending agencies have a stronger voice, as they have significant input into the design of sector strategies and some flexibility in managing their resources to meet their objectives. New projects are undertaken dependent on whether they are affordable and implementable in the medium term, allowing the government to have a very clear and mostly accurate statement of fiscal policy objectives, fiscal deficit and debt management.

At a project level, this framework creates two main wins. First, both policy and funding are more reliable and predictable. Second, it allows for policy to drive funding, as opposed to the reverse. This in turn means that budgeting is linked more strongly to results, as focus shifts to specific outcomes and what resources are required to achieve them.

What happens to the annual budget?

The annual budget will be announced, but it will simply reflect what is achievable in the short-term, within the larger three to five-year framework. This is beneficial, as spending will be more specific, and tied to clear targets. Funding is not allocated for an entire project, but only for the section of the project that can be reasonably achieved during the next twelve months. The entire budget is more focused on results, and less on broad policy statements. Given the low levels of implementation mentioned earlier, it is evident that a greater degree of specificity, combined with a results-focused approach to the budget is required.

What needs to be done?

Interestingly, even now a substantial amount of planning follows the structure of a three-year rolling plan. The Public Investment Programme or the PIP, is a three-year rolling document which details government expenditure of projects and programmes. The Ministry of Finance also publishes an annual medium-term fiscal strategy which establishes the general direction or objectives of fiscal policy for the next three years. According to the Ministry of Finance website, budget estimates are prepared in the larger context of a medium-term budgetary framework.

It appears that the key components of an effective medium-term expenditure framework already exist. The next step would be to align the annual budget more clearly with these components. Allocations should be made more specific, with clear ties to the three-year plan. New projects and programmes should be introduced taking into account a three-year resource envelope and fiscal objectives. In other words, the budget in its current iteration should be completely overhauled and refined.

---

Aneetha Warusavitarana is a research analyst at the Advocata Institute and her research focuses on public policy and governance. She could be contacted at aneetha@advocata.org or @AneethaW on Twitter. Advocata is an independent policy think tank based in Colombo, Sri Lanka which conducts research, provides commentary, and holds events to promote sound policy ideas compatible with a free society in Sri Lanka.

The 2016 Budget in Sri Lanka -- The Good. The Bad. And the Ugly.

Sri Lanka's budget for 2016 included several liberal  measures but also many seemingly senseless interventions that may boomerang.

The budget contained the various give-aways to many constituencies: farmers, fishermen, housewives, and relatively higher salary earners who are in the pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) tax bracket.

The budget deficit is large and revenue proposals ambitious.

The budget takes some steps in the right direction, but overall, we consider it a mixed bag. There were no shocks as in the interim budget earlier in the year, but the extent and timeframe over which reforms will be implemented is crucial.

We have highlighted some of the key proposals below, classifying them as either Good: liberal measures that will help people, Bad: poorly-conceived proposals that may be administratively difficult and Ugly: those that will impair the quality of life and society of Sri Lankans.

There were some proposals, such as the one to strengthen law and order by building police stations, that appeared to be more in line with a police state.

We have emphasized changes in policy rather changes in tax rates.

The Good: Liberalisation Measures

The government deserves credit for restarting Sri Lanka’s halted reform program in the areas of finance and trade. The budget contains many solid proposals in this area, including the liberalization of certain trades that were previously closed, including removal of certain products from the ‘negative list’ where prior permission is needed for imports.  The proposed repeal of the Exchange Control Act is also a major step in the right direction. This signals an end of an archaic law, to be replaced by a more market-friendly exchange management process.

Land lease and ownership regulations for foreigners are also to be to be eased. The tax imposed on land leases and the prohibition on freehold ownership were viewed as obstacles to investment. These measures should positively impact investor sentiment and encourage investment. This proposal also has the potential to inject fresh capital into Sri Lanka’s now fledgling real estate sector that has taken a brow beating following the curtailing of foreign state backed development projects.

Proposals to liberalise the labour market by allowing more part-time work, relaxation of rules on contract employees (although not spelled out in detail) is welcome. Sri Lanka’s labour laws are seen to be very rigid and a barrier to investment and overall business efficiency.

Also encouraging is the outward looking rhetoric of the government, including the proposed Financial Centre, modeled along the lines of Dubai’s International Finance Centre (DIFC). The DIFC operates as a tax-free zone which essentially imports laws and judges more familiar to international investors, and a similar model could help enhance Sri Lanka’s attractiveness in this regard.

The announced open sky policy is also a welcome move that could open up Sri Lanka as an aviation hub and help tourism.

We are also encouraged by the right rhetoric in terms of promoting Start-ups and small and medium enterprises including motivations to expand access to capital.

The decision to reduce import tariffs on consumer items such as electronics, shoes and clothing is also a welcome move so that people are able to enjoy more from their earnings than sending it to the government as well as playing a role in tourist spending.

Reforming Agriculture

Agriculture sector has suffered from years of populist pandering, price controls and a host of other misguided policies that has benefited neither the farmer nor the consumer. The moves to reform this sector is encouraging.  Cash grant to small farmers in place of the fertiliser subsidy is a step in the right direction.  While we view subsidies with caution,  it is better to give the farmer an outright grant with the discretion to apply it where they deem necessary rather than blanket subsidy which may promote overuse or waste.

The over usage of fertilizer which was encouraged by the subsidies has resulted in unanticipated negative externalities such as the recent contamination of lakes, rivers and groundwater supplies. This is suspected to be the cause of kidney ailments of residents in in the Rajarata region.
 

Underutilised state land is to be leased to fruit and vegetable farmers. There are large tracts of marginal land under the State Plantations Corporation and the Janatha Estates Development Board. Allowing farmers access to this for other crops is far better than to allow the land to to lie fallow.

The budget also proposes that RPCs (Plantation companies) to be allowed more flexibility in land use. This will allow them to make better use of land uneconomical for tea or rubber greatly enhancing their economic freedom.

PPPs and State Reform

Reform of State-owned Enterprises is proposed. We welcome the fact that the problem is recognised and some attempt is being made to address it. Exiting from non-strategic holdings via the stock exchange is better than what the government policy has been for the last decade.  While we advocate re-looking at privatisation of state industries that burden the government finances and in turn the taxpayer, we welcome the moves to address this problem.

Other noteworthy proposals such as restructuring the BOI, EDB and the Tourism Board to streamline operations and grant investment approvals within 50 days is welcome.

We are encouraged by the government’s apparent willingness to let the private sector into areas traditionally monopolised by an inefficient government sector.  

Creating Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) for state owned projects (the highways, coal plant, etc.) to attract private investment to repay debt requires further study but may be a step in the right direction.  Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) on Domestic airports,  monorail, investment zones, transport sector and developments in the proposed megapolis are all positive if carried out transparently.

The Bad

The budget text does have the customary give-aways and hand-outs as well as several measures that interfere unnecessarily in the market.

Price controls and subsidies on food items.

The Government has proposed price controls on six essential items including Mysoor Shal (Rs. 190/kg) , potatoes (Rs. 145/kg) , onions (Rs. 155/kg) , chicken (Rs. 480/kg) , packeted wheat flour (Rs. 95/kg) and dried chillies (Rs. 355/kg).

Price controls are administratively clumsy to implement and result in either goods disappearing from the shelves, lower quality goods, or the creation of black markets. This was a regular occurrence during the 1970s socialist era.   

A License-Quota regime.

Licenses are notorious for creating avenues for graft. Fifty licenses for duty free import of gold unnecessarily regulates the market place. The government should focus on dismantling current licensing regimes instead of putting up new ones.

Unintended consequences

Proposals to tax cash withdrawals will have an adverse impact on informal sectors of the economy. The  high rate (2% for withdrawals of Rs1-10m and 3% on withdrawals above Rs.10m) is designed to bring the informal sector into the normal banking system. While the objective is laudable it may hinder trade, especially among SMEs.   

The proposal to spend Rs.21bn or Rs.1.5mn for each cluster village is not clearly spelled out. This could be a license for wasting tax-payer money.

Fixing non-existent problems

The government proposes introducing regulations into certain previously unregulated markets. This includes Three-wheelers, School Vans and Taxis. One of the redeeming aspects of Sri Lankan public transport is that the free-market in private transport provision including Taxis and three-wheelers that provides a better service than most countries in the region. While the type of regulation is not spelt out in the budget speech, the government intervention could very well worsen matters.

Similar micro interventions in a mandate to register all hotels, and government subsidies for accountancy students seem like solutions in search of problems. A mandate to to have four people in a vehicle entering Colombo is also bound to be unpopular and difficult to administer.

Left unsaid

Whilst the finance minister spoke for a taxing four hours on the budget proposals, there was still much unsaid.  The budget was not explicit on what the government would do to tackle the over-staffed public sector. Nor were there proposals to put gasoline on a market-based pricing formula as was promised during the elections.

The Ugly

National Digital Identity Card.  

Whilst there is a tendency in Sri Lanka to cheer on anything to do with technology, we advocate caution on this proposal.  Little is known about the program except that it was initiated by the previous government.   For a country that’s emerging from an all powerful state,  a national security mindset, with the full extent of surveillance on citizens still unknown, people should demand more transparency and information before blanket implementation of this program. The country requires a robust debate on privacy and surveillance.

Micro interventions in the Banking & Financial Sector

Banks are asked to cease leasing operations from June 2016.

The rationale for this micro level interference in the banking sector is weak. It will be hugely disruptive to the operation of most banks with little benefit to anyone other than the non-bank financial sector.  

Similarly the directive to lend to agriculture, SME's and Women & Youth (whatever that may be) is poorly thought out. Fixing the fees on bank drafts at Rs.150 is another intervention proposed.  

We see no reason why government should be involved in these matters that should be left to the market place

 Confusing “Canned Fish” Proposal

A buy back scheme for locally produced canned fish to be sold at a subsidised price may open the door to massive losses at Lak Sathosa. If prices are high enough supply of canned fish to Sathosa will increase significantly and the losses may exceed the amounts budgeted.

At the same time taxes on imported canned fish will be increased, which will only increase the pressure to consume the subsidised products driving up the final bill to the taxpayer.

In another part of the budget speech the Minister blames a policy at Lak Sathosa where rice was imported at Rs.75 per kg and sold at Rs.50 per kg for the Rs.8bn accumulated losses in that institution. The Minister is proposing the same policy, but for canned fish instead of rice. 

The government seems to be concerned about reducing prices for the consumer as well as protecting local industry, these two objectives seems at odds with each other.

New Government entities and unfunded programs

On education, while the government has made election promises to expand state funding of education, the establishing of yet another state university (The Mahapola University, to teach ICT, business and English) is the wrong way to go about it.  Instead of spending Rs. 3bn  on buildings for a new state university the money would better spent on improving facilities at existing ones, expanding scholarships or setting up a market-led voucher schemes for funding of higher education.

The University of Moratuwa has a well deserved reputation for excellence in ICT, the Postgraduate Institute of Management has a similar reputation for business studies and faculties of English at both Colombo and Peradeniya produce high quality graduates. Should this money be better spent on strengthening facilities or faculties at these institutions? Much like the administrations before this, the government confuses funding for education with the provision of education.

A new proposal to spend Rs 1 billion on increasing the number of police stations from 428 to 600 is not explained properly. It is unclear if law and order will improve simply by building police stations. There is no mention of the manpower that is needed and whether that adds to the burden of an already mega public sector.

In Conclusion

The many steps taken by the government to transform Sri Lanka into a more outward looking, open market are welcome. The Finance minister certainly hit the right notes on Friday, about the government’s commitment to a market-friendly policy regime, a technology-focus and the emphasis on the private sector as the key driver of economic growth.

However glaring inconsistencies takes the shine off the Finance Minister’s claims.  Continued use of price controls and a readiness to make micro-level interventions in markets is not how a thriving market economy operates.  

As a society, Sri Lankan has also been unable to move away from expecting short-term goodies from the budget statement. Whether it’s price controlled big onions or powdered milk someone has to pick up the tab, and it’s often the same people as tax payers or their children in the next generation as government racks up debt.

There are reasonable questions asked whether the budget actually could meet the  deficit target the set by the Finance minister. The elephant in the room as always is Sri Lanka’s mega government apparatus. Slow dismantling the leviathan should be the answer to the long-term untying of the Gordian fiscal mess.

Advocata Institute is a public policy think tank based out of Colombo, Sri Lanka.