Restructuring SriLankan Airlines can help reduce our economic woes

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Anuka Ratnayake

There is much discussion on the precarious financial situation of the island’s National Carrier SriLankan Airlines. A month ago, Minister of Ports, Shipping, and Aviation Nimal Siripala de Silva revealed that “The only way to rescue the National Carrier is via urgent restructuring” [1].
The airline has racked up significant losses while its debt obligations have increased significantly with the depreciation of the currency. Getting rid of the airline will allow the Government to focus on its limited resources to strengthen social security nets and improve social infrastructure.
The argument regarding the airline has been muddied by emotion, for it is ultimately the people who pay for it and who have the right to ask if this is the best use of taxpayers’ money.
SriLankan Airlines’ Annual Report for 2020/’21 (latest available annual report) provides that the SriLankan Airlines Group recorded a loss of Rs. 49.7 billion. However, the Ministry of Finance in its latest Annual Report records that the loss (before tax) of SriLankan Airlines for the year 2021/’22 is Rs. 170.8 billion [2]. The accumulated loss amounts to Rs. 542.5 billion as at 31 March 2022. The National Carrier lost Rs. 248.4 billion in the first four months of 2022 due to the volatility in exchange rates [3].
The airline is in debt to the Bank of Ceylon and the People’s Bank to the tune of $ 380 million in 2022, while another $ 80 million loan has been obtained from the Bank of Ceylon by mortgaging shares of SriLankan Catering. The banks have extended support to the airline on the basis of letters of comfort issued by the Ministry of Finance.

Further, the airline has a debt payable on an international bond on a Government guarantee of $ 175 million. The guarantees extended by the Government to banks and bondholders represent additional potential losses of public funds. The group owes an arrears amount of $ 325 million to State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) such as the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC), the Airport and Aviation Services (Sri Lanka) (AASL), and the Civil Aviation Authority of Sri Lanka (CAASL) [4].
The group’s current liabilities exceeded its current assets by Rs. 214.6 billion by 31 March 2021 and the total equity of the company as at reporting date has declined to a negative Rs. 281.5 billion.
The Auditor General’s report has continuously warned the company that “a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the group’s ability to continue as a going concern” [5]. The Auditor General has relied on the Cabinet approval dated 7 February 2022 and the letter issued by the Secretary to the Treasury on 24 February 2022 confirming the support of the Government to the company to continue its operations as a “going concern”. In simpler terms, the SriLankan Airlines Group is technically insolvent and it continues to operate using taxpayer money.
The airline last reported a profit in 2008, under the management of Emirates. It has failed to report a profit in any year since then. The airline industry is known to be a high-risk, low profitability business.

Future losses and lessons learnt from India

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has now reached a Staff-Level Agreement (SLA) with Sri Lanka to assist its economic recovery process. It was agreed that the IMF would provide an Extended Fund Facility (EFF) of $ 2.9 billion on a 48-month arrangement.
The total debt of SriLankan Airlines (just over $ 1 billion) is nearly one-third of the EFF. Sustaining further losses is an impossible task since the Government can no longer fund the airline. Covering future losses of the airline through tax increases is unacceptable given the dire economic conditions faced by the public.
Sri Lanka needs air connectivity, but this is best provided by privatising air services and not by operating an airline. A good example is the Air India privatisation which took place in the past year. The Indian National Carrier was sold to the Tata Group for the relatively small sum of INR 180 billion [6]. Prior to the sale of the airline, it was losing $ 3 million a day on average, which totaled to over $ 1 billion per year [7].
The rising aviation fuel prices and airport usage charges were not sustainable after the pandemic restricted air travel. Further, competition from low-cost carriers and the poor financial performance of the airline made things worse. Air India’s poor client orientation, lack of punctuality, obsolete productivity practises, and poor revenue generation techniques were among the reasons for its incompetency [8].
The impact of the Air India privatisation was discussed at a panel at the ReformNow Conference hosted by the Advocata Institute. The panellists stressed how the Tata Group had already begun the process of value addition through efficient customer care services, improving fleet productivity, and focusing on budget flights for the domestic market.

Aviation hub

Singapore’s aviation policy has been a key factor in the growth of Singapore’s Changi International Airport, where air transport contributed to nearly $ 20 billion of value added to the Singapore economy or about 6% of the Singapore GDP in 2011.
There is much public support for restructuring SriLankan Airlines due to its heavy burden on State coffers and thereby the taxpayers. However, rather than selling the airline alone, bundling the sale of the airline with the other business units such as SriLankan Catering and SriLankan Airlines Ground Handling would be attractive to investors. At the same time, the airport too can be included and marketed as an aviation package with a similar potential to the Changi International Airport.
A national carrier is a source of pride, but it is not a priority for a cash-strapped Government. The airline should be disposed of or even closed, and a liberal air services policy should be adopted instead.
This could boost growth and truly turn Sri Lanka into an aviation hub, freeing taxpayers’ money to be used for health, education, and other priorities.

References
1. https://www.ft.lk/top-story/Answering-aviation-Aragalaya/26-739243
2. https://www.treasury.gov.lk/api/file/a7a35d1a-556f-49b2-81e0-20294eb5a519
3. https://www.treasury.gov.lk/api/file/bc1e8eaf-91eb-4cb3-94e0-35d81f65a949
4. https://www.ft.lk/top-story/Answering-aviation-Aragalaya/26-739243
5. https://www.srilankan.com/pdf/annual-report/SriLankan_Airlines_Annual_Report_2020-21_English.pdf
6. https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/explained-air-india-handover-government-to-tata-group-changes-1904217-2022-01-25
7. https://www.advocata.org/commentary-archives/2021/10/11/air-india-sold-privatise-srilankan-now
8. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-60150531

Anuka Ratnayake is a Research Assistant at the Advocata Institute. She can be contacted at anuka.advocata@gmail.com. The Advocata Institute is an Independent Public Policy Think Tank. The opinions expressed are the authors’ own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute.

Salvaging the debt-ridden National Carrier

Originally appeared on The Morning.

By Dhananath Fernando

Privatising SriLankan Airlines is a hot topic once more, although this discussion is decades old now. Founded as Air Lanka in 1979, the airline was described by Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew as “a glamour project, not of great value for developing Sri Lanka”. 

In 1998 Air Lanka signed a 10-year management contract with Dubai-based Emirates Airline for 40% of shares and provided the Emirates management the ability to make most of the management decisions. Air Lanka was rebranded as SriLankan Airlines. However, after 10 years, Emirates realised that the Sri Lankan Government was not going to renew the contract. 

According to SriLankan Airlines Annual Reports from 2008, the final year in which Emirates operated the airline, it made a profit of Rs. 4.4 billion. It was mentioned in some reports that this profit included insurance claims after the terrorist attacks on the Bandaranaike International Airport. 

Fig 1: Losses and Profits of Sri Lankan Airlines

However, since then, SriLankan Airlines has not made a single cent of profit. Cumulatively it has lost Rs. 372 billion since 2008. The airline made a loss of Rs. 44 billion in 2019, Rs. 47 billion in 2020, and Rs. 45 billion in 2021. Losses in 2019 were equivalent to 93% of the Samurdhi scheme’s budget – Samurdhi being the main social safety net in place to protect the poor. The losses were also equivalent to 84% and 90% of the Samurdhi budget in 2020 and 2021, respectively. These losses are equivalent to 17% of 2019’s health sector allocation in the National Budget. 

The problem is both clear and dire. We maintain a national airline at a substantial loss and ask the common people, many of whom don’t even possess a passport or haven’t even stepped on an aeroplane, to foot the bill. In other words, we are maintaining a failing  airline at the expense of the education and healthcare of our people. 

There are multiple reasons why SriLankan Airlines incurs losses. It is too politicised and many politicians and their relatives are not charged for extra baggage when they travel. Board appointments and recruitments have all been politically driven. Simply put, it is bad management. The general remedy for bad management is to replace it with good management so we can make the enterprise profitable. This has been the popular suggestion each time that the privatisation of SriLankan Airlines has been proposed. That is the exact thing we have been trying to do since we ended the management contract with Emirates. 

We have to ask ourselves why the outcome hasn’t changed even after the same remedy has been proposed and implemented repeatedly. Simply put, when you don’t invest sufficient money, time, or reputation into a business, no one has the ability to make it profitable. All the business leaders who have been appointed to lead the firm already have their own businesses, so it is obvious that SriLankan Airlines will become a secondary priority. 

Airlines are a very competitive business. Even privately-owned airlines are finding it difficult to compete and maximise profits, so how can we expect a State-owned and managed airline to do the same? There is a difference between a private company making a loss versus a State-owned company making a loss. A private company’s losses are borne by the private investors, who knowingly and consensually made the choice to invest their money in a potentially risky endeavour. But when public companies make losses, taxpayers have to pay and their money will be spent without their consent. How can this be justified, especially in a country like Sri Lanka where people suffer from a lack of basic needs, and when our healthcare, education, and social safety nets need significant improvement?

So what can be done about SriLankan Airlines? SriLankan Airlines’ business has few strategic units: The airline operation, catering, and the ground handling operation. Each section has some assets as well as liabilities. Overall, the airline has a lot of liabilities and debt. Most of the debt is guaranteed by the Treasury (part of it dollar denominated), which is part of the debt that is to be restructured as per the announcement on 12 April 2022.

Table: Debt guaranteed by Sri Lanka treasury for Sri Lankan Airlines

Accordingly, one option is that we ask strategic investors to pitch in to buy SriLankan outright. The bidding process has to be made transparent and competitive. The airline as a group is making colossal losses, so it is unlikely that we will be able to realise significant proceeds from the sale. As has been said, beggars can’t be choosers. 

Another option is for divisions like catering to be sold at concessionary rates to a potential buyer, again through a competitive bidding process, so that we don’t have to shoulder the burden of managing an operation while also closing any future window for corruption.

There is also the option to explore the feasibility of a similar kind of management contract or a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) similar to that which existed with Emirates. However, our airline is now in such a poor shape financially that the feasibility of a management contract is questionable. 

There are suggestions to list the airline on the Colombo Stock Exchange and allow investors to buy shares. Generally listings are successful when the company is doing well. At the moment, given the present economic conditions of the country and the historical performance of the entity, this may be challenging.   

Finding a strategic investor through a competitive bidding process is still a possibility given our connectivity with the main South Indian airports. Some Indian and international airlines may have an interest in expanding their network and will see a potential win-win situation. 

We have to begin the process of privatisation as it is obvious that we can’t run a business on taxpayer money at a time when the people are struggling for their basic survival. The citizens of Sri Lanka gave the management experts of all political parties and their close associates multiple opportunities over 14 years to turn the airline around and bore significant losses in return. Let us hope that policymakers will understand the gravity of the situation and that they will not allow such a huge drain on our coffers to continue unimpeded. 

For explanation of SLA losses for 4 years.

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.

Walking the talk on reforms: First step to Lankan recovery

Originally appeared on The Morning.

By Dhananath Fernando

Often we all see the world the way we want to see it, and not as it is. Sri Lanka’s economic crisis is also seen by many people through their own perception of reality. 

In previous years, we believed that self-sufficiency, State-led industrialisation, State-centred economic planning, and more recently, Modern Monetary Theory, were the way forward for our economy. The current crisis has shown that none of that has really helped us; by contrast, it has exacerbated a poor situation to where we are today.  

Next comes the question of overcoming the crisis. This has to be analysed with context; the most significant piece of context is that we are facing the worst situation we’ve been in since independence in 1948 – and it is only getting worse. 

There are some suggestions to increase industrialisation, improve exports and the trade balance, and incentivise Foriegn Direct Investments (FDIs). However, it is of no use to have lofty goals of industrialisation when we can hardly provide an uninterrupted electricity supply. 

Foreign investors are planning to leave. Investors are by no means considering entering the country. Thus, potential solutions have to be evaluated based on this context. Simply having a wishlist of suggestions with minimal viability will add very little value at this juncture. We need rational solutions to solve the crisis immediately, rather than policies that can only be enacted in times of relative normalcy. 

The Government needs to bring its finances into a sustainable state. Revenue must increase and expenditure should be reduced. Reducing the losses of State enterprises is a way to reduce the deficit without touching social expenditure.

With that in mind, here are a few suggestions for reform:

1. Privatise SriLankan Airlines

At a time when people are struggling to feed their families and when our official usable reserves are less than $ 200 million, there are very few upsides to running a fully State-owned airline making losses equivalent to the value of our entire Samurdhi scheme, which, despite its flaws, is the main social safety net in Sri Lanka. Privatisation will provide strong signals that we are serious about reforms. 

For the last 15 years, we have not made any profits on SriLankan Airlines. We can disclose all finances and ask for interested companies to buy it outright with assets and liabilities. Having a higher liability than assets is the main problem in this instance. With the suspension of debt repayment of State enterprises, Treasury guarantees for the State are on hold at the moment. 

Even if we need to pay a certain amount to the buyer to take it off our hands and sell it off with staff, it is much better than keeping the enterprise in-house and incurring colossal losses repeatedly. The new buyer can be given the responsibility of staff restructuring. We can follow the playbook through which Air India was sold outright by the Modi Government. Our airline is unfortunately no longer an asset but a liability to our national coffers. 

However, it is not only the National Airline that makes losses. There are many institutes that add little value to the public, make massive losses, and are a very high burden on the Treasury. Some of these public enterprises are classified as ‘strategic’ and others as ‘non-strategic,’ but two things they have in common is that, more often than not, they make substantial losses and have very limited transparency. 

There were some discussions to revive Sri Lankan Airlines by appointing business leaders with a profit motive, converting it to a budget airline, and appointing committees to reform and restructure. We have run out of time to even attempt these options. Unfortunately, hard times require hard decisions and we do not have the time, money, or options to avoid them. 

With interest rates and Treasury bill interest rates reaching above 20%, running loss-making enterprises on borrowed money will make our local debt increasingly unstable the more we delay reforms. Most importantly, we don’t need to wait for pressure from creditors or the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to kickstart reforms; we can begin them now.

2. Better utilisation of idle assets

Improving service efficiency and increasing revenue of railways through Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) have to be the way forward for better utilisation of idle assets. 

Sri Lanka Railways is categorised as a department of the Government, even though it is actually a State-Owned Enterprise. Sri Lanka Railways holds a considerable amount of State land which is used very unproductively. 

Fort Railway Station, Maradana Railway Station, and the surrounding land along the track between these two stations are prime examples. Major railway stations such as Kollupitiya, Wellawatte, and Bambalapitiya are all prime beachfront properties which are very poorly maintained and completely underutilised. Land prices in Colombo are extremely high. There are plenty of such examples under the Railways Department with zero or negative value addition to our economy. Sri Lanka Railways first has to be made a State-Owned Enterprise, and then the sector needs to be opened for private sector investment. 

In the past, some train compartments were operated by private players and it was a very successful and lucrative business model. If we eliminate the State railway monopoly and open up the time table, tracks, and properties to the private sector, we can cut down on our fuel consumption significantly, provide a convenient service to passengers, and even turn a loss-making liability into a revenue-generating asset.

Given the very high energy prices at present – which are only set to increase – many people need the option of efficient and robust public transit infrastructure. In any case, the majority of people in Sri Lanka cannot afford to purchase and operate personal vehicles, and trains have been the main source of transportation in areas where they are available.

It is also of paramount importance that the most vulnerable segments of the population benefit from a rehauled cash transfer system, which should cover the energy price component in public transport. Everyone, regardless of their socio-economic stratification, should be given a fair chance to compete in life. 

However, it should be emphasised that these two steps alone will not help overcome the crisis. However, it is a good start to get the wheels rolling on reforms. These reforms will provide an unambiguous signal to investors and the world that we are no longer a NATO (No Action, Talk Only) nation, but a nation that walks the talk.

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.

State-owned enterprises: A major crisis in the making

Originally appeared on Daily FT, The Island, Ada Derana Biz, Ground Views and The Morning

By Migara Rodrigo

Sri Lankan State-Owned Enterprises: A Major Crisis in the Making

Sri Lanka has a whopping 527 state-owned enterprises (1) (SOEs). The 55 SOEs classified as “strategically important” alone employ 10% of the public sector workforce (2) or about 1.9% of all workers. Such a large number of SOEs are not the norm globally(3); many other countries (such as India) have been reducing their stakes in SOEs and, in some cases (e.g. Air India), have been privatizing them entirely. SOEs - particularly many in Sri Lanka - tend to be grossly inefficient, loss-making, and a burden on the taxpayer. The time is ripe for major SOE reforms. 

What is an SOE?

An SOE is traditionally defined as a commercial entity that has majority ownership/control by a nation’s government – in Sri Lanka, this can include statutory bodies, regulatory agencies, promotional institutions, educational institutions, public and limited companies. While Sri Lankan SOEs have traditionally been incorporated by an Act of Parliament, in recent years these entities have also been incorporated under the Companies Act instead. 

Sri Lankan SOEs can be divided into three categories: 55 Strategic SOEs, 287 SOEs with commercial interests, and 185 SOEs with non-commercial interests. Unlike nations such as India which mandate internal audits of their SOE’s business activities and publish an annual overview with a balance sheet of each individual business, the majority of Sri Lankan SOEs do not reveal this pertinent information to the public; financial information is available for just 10.4% of SOEs. 

Fundamental problems with Sri Lankan SOEs

Contrary to what some believe, low quality of talent is not the most significant issue with SOEs; many employees are eminently qualified and capable. Unfortunately, these organisations fall victim to government mismanagement and corruption. In addition to excessive employment to fulfil their political ambitions, there have been allegations that some SOEs have been formed purely to facilitate corruption – for example, the Lanka Coal Company engaged in fraudulent deals to purchase coal causing a loss of over Rs. 4 billion (allegedly with the knowledge of the minister in charge)(4). 

SOE financials are late and few obtain ‘clean’ audit reports. Investigations have revealed repeated instances of fraud, mismanagement, corruption and negligence. Furthermore, the internal control, monitoring and governance frameworks seem inadequate to deal with these problems – of over 500 SOEs, regular information is only available for 55. Even obtaining a complete list of entities proved to be a challenge. Public access to information is limited – the Department of Public Enterprises has not released an annual report since 2018, and right-to-information requests often go unanswered.

Figure 1 Source: Ginting, Edimon et al, 2020, Reforms, Opportunities, and Challenges for State-Owned Enterprises, Asian Development Bank

Moreover, SOEs have few budget constraints and shareholder (public) accountability and therefore have limited incentive to control costs. Unlike with private sector enterprises, which have a need to make a profit, many SOEs (particularly in Sri Lanka) can simply borrow from other state organisations/banks or the government when they require additional funds, which undermines the threat of bankruptcy as a source of discipline(5). Some recently established SOEs have found a new way of bypassing budgets and oversight: by incorporating as companies rather than through an act of Parliament, they are excluded from Parliamentary accountability and allowed to rack up unsustainable debts and surpass budgets more easily. This has led to SOEs burning through taxpayer rupees: the cumulative losses of the 55 strategic SOEs from 2006-20 amounts to Rs. 1.2 trillion.

Finally, while some SOEs do manage to make a profit this is, more often than not, due to the advantage that these companies have in an uneven playing field. In addition to lax budgetary requirements and the ability to rack up unsustainable debts, these companies are supported by the government through direct subsidies and state-backed guarantees; by regulators through exemptions from antitrust policies and preferential treatment; and by the justice system through an ability to sidestep parliament. This has led to private sector organisations being crowded out of the industries that SOEs operate in. Instead of having private firms in the marketplace with efficient and high-quality services, the Sri Lankan taxpayer is beset with SOEs with total liabilities of 4-5% of GDP(6).

Potential reforms 

Given that the nation has reached an economic tipping point, with serious questions about debt sustainability and government solvency, it is clear that immediate action must be taken. Advocata proposes a short-term policy solution consisting of privatisation, restructuring and disinvestment, and listing on the Colombo Stock Exchange. None of these solutions are particularly radical in the global or local context. According to Lankan Angel Network Director Anarkali Moonesinghe, the two main policies of both Western and Eastern governments when reforming SOEs are to reduce subsidies and increase efficiency, forcing SOEs to compete more equitably with private enterprises.

Alternatively, full or partial privatisation is a possible solution: SLT-Mobitel’s service has markedly improved following its 1997 privatisation and the entrance of competitors such as Dialog Axiata, all held accountable by the broadly competent Telecommunications Regulatory Commission. Listing on the CSE would allow these firms to have broad-based direct ownership, while also improving the growth of the CSE and capital markets. Importantly, these firms would have to be ‘corporatised’ before listing, an opportunity to improve productivity and eliminate bloat. 

There are, unfortunately, firms that will essentially have to be given away due to their huge debts and poor reputations. A prime example of this is SriLankan Airlines, which has racked up Rs. 316 billion in losses (7) since control was taken from Emirates in 2008. While some will regard this as a blow to our national pride, Sri Lanka would not be alone in taking such a pragmatic step to improve government finances and customer experience; Air India, the Indian national carrier, is currently in the process of being sold to the Tata Group for the relatively small sum of INR 18,000 crore. This would also inspire confidence in Sri Lanka amongst foreign investors as it would show the country’s commitment to meeting its upcoming debt servicing obligations.

Furthermore, long-term solutions include strengthening governance/limiting corruption and influence, improving efficiency, enacting cost-reflective pricing, and finally unbundling key sectors. This applies particularly to firms like the Ceylon Electricity Board which, as a natural monopoly, cannot be broken up and privatised without losing efficiency. A 2006 study by the Japan International Cooperation Agency recommended breaking up CEB into three parts: “making the generation, transmission, and distribution divisions…independent” (8). Despite the 15 years and multiple nationwide blackouts that have occurred since, GoSL continues to drag their feet on the issue, as it is politically unpopular. 

Cost-reflective pricing (also prevented due to political unpopularity) is another essential reform. The existing system of having electricity tariffs priced below cost is a public subsidy whose cost will be borne by future generations. It is also inequitable, as the Government could provide low-cost services to those who need it by giving them direct cash transfers, instead of subsidising the wealthy who can afford to pay. A similar situation is evident with the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, which currently makes a loss of Rs. 23-38 per litre of fuel (9); again, a public subsidy to those who can often afford to pay the market price. Finally, greater accountability, by means of annual internal audits and the availability of SOEs’ financial information to the public, is also important to ensure these firms stick to the targets they are given.

A successful and thriving market, in most industries, will only occur with the presence of three crucial factors: competition, a good framework, and competent regulation. By reforming Sri Lanka’s SOEs to meet these criteria, we will ensure a good customer experience, a reduction in the government deficit, and general prosperity for all key stakeholders. 

References:

1 Ratnsabapathy, Ravi et al, 2019, The State of State Enterprises in Sri Lanka, Advocata Institute

2 Dissanayake, Imesha, 2021, SOE Reforms; the Impetus for Post Pandemic Economic Revival, Ceylon Chamber of Commerce

3 Büge, Max et al, State-owned enterprises in the global economy: Reason for concern? Last modified: May 2nd, 2013 

4 ColomboPage.com, President to take action against removal of head of Lanka Coal Company, Last modified: January 21st, 2017, http://www.colombopage.com/archive_17A/Jan21_1484983651CH.php

5 Ratnsabapathy, et al, The State of State Enterprises in Sri Lanka

6 WorldBank.org, South Asia Must Reform Debt-Accumulating State-Owned Banks and Enterprises to Avert Next Financial Crisis, Last modified: June 29th, 2021, https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/06/24/south-asia-must-reform-debt-accumulating-state-owned-banks-and-enterprises

7 PublicFinance.lk, Sri Lankan Airlines: Annual and Accumulated Loss to the Public, Last modified: 24th August 2021, https://publicfinance.lk/en/topics/Sri-Lankan-Airlines:-Annual-and-Accumulated-Loss-to-the-Public-1629789830

8 Saito, Yoshitaka et al, 2006, Master Plan Study on the Development of Power Generation and Transmission System in Sri Lanka, Japan International Cooperation Agency Economic Development Department

9 EconomyNext.com, Sri Lanka’s CPC says petrol, diesel losses rise as LIOC hikes prices, Last modified: 25th October 2021, https://economynext.com/sri-lankas-cpc-says-petrol-diesel-losses-rise-as-lioc-hikes-prices-87276/#modal-one

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.

Air India sold; privatise SriLankan now

Originally appeared on the Daily FT

By Prof. Rohan Samarajiva

Privatisation should not take into account the nationality of the purchaser, but that a foreign acquisition would, on balance, yield a more sustainable solution

Air India, which was losing $ 3 million a day on average (over $ 1 billion per year) has been sold for what amounts to loose change for a conglomerate the size of Tata Sons: $ 400 million plus the assumption of $ 2 billion out of the massive debts in excess of $ 8 billion accumulated by the state-owned carrier over the years.

But this is a good deal for the people of India. It is one that we in Sri Lanka should study and emulate.

Air India, founded by the Tatas in 1932, was expropriated by the state a few years after independence. It, and Indian Airlines which was merged with it a few years back, had the backing of the state, unlimited financing, and monopoly rights in both the domestic and international segments. Yet, service was awful, and profits were rare. 

As the market was opened to competition, first in the domestic segment and then in the international, the two state-owned airlines failed to meet the challenge. Even today, Air India is smaller than IndiGo, an airline which commenced operations in 2005.

The greatest benefit to the public is the avoidance of subsidising the airline. The government will still have to deal with the remaining debts of the company but at least the liabilities will not keep growing. And if the Tatas manage to turn it around, the government will receive tax revenues.

100% sale

It took the Modi government four years to get to this point in the sale. But in fact, various Indian governments have been trying to do something about this bleeding sore for much longer. Earlier attempts failed because the government was trying to keep an ownership stake and the ability to interfere in management. 

In 1998, the Kumaratunge government sold only 40% of the money-losing and inefficient Air Lanka for $ 70 million. It bundled the sale with a 10-year management contract to Emirates. But given the crudity of how the letter and spirit of the management contract was violated by the government in a fit of pique, it was unlikely that any new investor/manager would trust the government of Sri Lanka to keep its word.

Back in the 1990s or even in the following decade, state-owned airlines were seen as having value. But over time, the environment has changed, and they are beginning to look less like marquee investments and more like collections of landing slots and aircraft. With the present transaction, more attention is being paid to Air India’s Heathrow landing slots than the value of its brand or the prestige of being a flag carrier. The airline business is a regulated activity vulnerable to state interference and coercion. Even having 100% ownership is not going to protect an airline with the major presence in a national market from the caprice of a head of state annoyed that his entourage did not all get seats in business class. But it is better than having thieves foisted on the airline as managers. The thievery engaged in by SriLankan management is now in the public record, thanks to the Airbus investigation. 

For how much?

Even when Emirates was remitting dividends to Treasury, the airline itself was not profitable (though it was not haemorrhaging money like after Emirates departed); the real money makers were catering and ground handling, which were monopolies. The considerable pressures that will be exerted to bundle these activities along with the airline to show a less cringeworthy sale price should be resisted. 

Once we get rid of the money-guzzling airline, action should be taken to provide the best possible services to all airlines without discrimination through optimal use of the tools of competition: competition for the market and competition in the market.

The Government can save face by manipulating the debt component of the sale, as has been demonstrated in India. Because the government of India is absorbing more of the debt than the stated sale price of $ 2.4 billion or the actual cash component of $ 400 million, an uncharitable observer could even claim that the Modi government is giving away an airline for nothing. But that disregards how much is saved by not having the white elephant in government hands: more than $ 1 billion a year.

With SriLankan, the avoided losses to Treasury would be Rs. 99 million a day, the average per day loss incurred by the airline in 2018, 2019 and 2020. The less abnormal years of 2018 and 2019 were included lest it be said that no general claims could be made from losses in a pandemic year. Rs. 99 million ($ 0.5 million a day) is quite a bit lower than Air India’s $ 3 million a day benchmark. But it must be remembered that most things in India are around 50 times the size of Sri Lanka, whereas the daily loss is only six times. 

But still, not losing Rs. 36 billion per year ($ 180 million) a year would be nice. That’s close to one fourth of what the Government spent on pensions in 2020. In times like this, every billion matters.

But it should be Sri Lankan

Once I was on a TV talk show with JVP leader, making headway with the argument that the taxes paid on potatoes and milk powder by a housewife in Siyambalanduwa should not be spent on subsidising SriLankan Airlines. He conceded that such subsidies were wrong and that the government appeared incapable of running an airline. But he said, why do we have to sell it to foreigners? Why cannot some good Sri Lankan capitalists take it over and run it professionally? 

So shocked was I by this ceding of ground that I was unable to properly respond, which I will do now. My first response would have been to say that from a Marxian perspective the nationality of the capitalist makes no difference. Exploitation is no less objectionable because the capitalist carries the same passport as the exploited. But then, perhaps Marxism is no longer relevant, this being three decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall and all that. 

As a consumer why would I care about anything other than the price-quality bundle offered by the airlines offering service to the destinations I wished to travel to? If one of the airlines happened to be a lossmaker like Air India or SriLankan, subsidised by other people’s tax dollars, that would be even better for me as a consumer. 

But then, it could be argued that this was a form of predatory pricing, whereby even efficient airlines were driven to rack and ruin because they have to match the artificially low prices of the state-subsidised carriers. As a consumer I would not care, but perhaps as a policy maker I may. The remedy for this would be some form of inter-state agreement not to offer subsidies, as there exists in the European Union.

But this would be a digression, because the whole point of privatising to a foreign or domestic investor would be to get away from subsidising the flying rich. If the investor believed he would not be bailed out, he would run the business in a responsible manner, offering reasonable prices and withdrawing from ruinous competition where such popped up. The only danger would be the state (or the Cardinal through the state) exerting pressure not to withdraw from unprofitable routes, something SriLankan is very familiar with.

Who would be able to better resist such pressures, a domestic or a foreign investor? The answer being the latter, I would conclude that privatisation should not take into account the nationality of the purchaser, but that a foreign acquisition would, on balance, yield a more sustainable solution.

Rohan Samarajiva is founding Chair of LIRNEasia, an ICT policy and regulation think tank active across emerging Asia and the Pacific. He was CEO from 2004 to 2012. He is also an advisor to the Advocata Institute.

Other people’s money: Lessons from the Airbus corruption case

Published in the Daily FT

By Prof. Rohan Samarajiva

An insightful writer I follow had written that the corruption revealed in the Airbus case, technically described as a deferred prosecution agreement, is intrinsic to capitalism or to the market system. The implication is that it may not be intrinsic to not-capitalism, usually described as socialism. But all one has to do is to read Kautilya’s Arthashasthra, from 321-298 BC, to understand that corruption transcends the market system.

Big purchases, big bribes

Within our memory, major aircraft purchases were made by the National Carrier of Sri Lanka on three occasions. The first was during the Premadasa presidency, when much was made over the pricing of Airbus aircraft procured for the National Carrier and the interest rates of the financing arrangements. 

Then Emirates made major purchases as part owners and managers, both before the 2001 airport attack that destroyed half the fleet. No controversy ensued. 

The third instance was in the waning days of the Mahinda Rajapaksa presidency, when contracts for multiple Airbus aircraft and a VIP kit were entered into. There was no controversy at the time, but questions were raised after 2015 when large penalties in excess of Rs. 17 billion had to be paid for not completing the purchases. The real controversy has erupted only now with admissions of specific acts of bribery by Airbus. 

Though the European court documents did not name the recipients of the bribes, the Attorney General sought the arrest of Kapila Chandrasena, the CEO at the time, and his wife. 

In a related development not much discussed in Sri Lanka, the private Malaysia-based budget carrier Air Asia announced that its Chief Executive Tony Fernandes and Executive Chairman Kamarudin Meranun would leave their positions immediately until investigations were completed on an Airbus sponsorship worth $ 50 million for a sports team owned by them. The Air Asia contracts were larger than SriLankan’s and so were the associated payments from Airbus.

Principal-agent problem

In both cases, executives (agents) entrusted with managing airlines on behalf of the owners (principals), the Sri Lankan State in one case and private shareholders in the other, are alleged to have acted to the detriment of the principals, for personal gain. This is a manifestation of the principal-agent problem. Agents always have more information than the principals and their interests are different from those of the principals. How to ensure agents act in the interests of the principals is the problem. 

The executives entrusted with prudent management of other people’s money are alleged to have breached that trust by not getting the best possible deal from Airbus. Airbus may have transferred the bribes, but the actual payers were the owners of SriLankan and of Air Asia. If not for the bribes, the airline owners would have obtained greater value for money from Airbus or its competitor.

Why did these actions occur? One must begin from the larger context of market structure.

Assume a workably competitive market with privately-owned firms. Here, if executives pay inflated prices or accept lower quality, their firm will be disadvantaged. The firm will lose market share and/or profits will be eroded by the higher costs. The owners will not keep pumping in capital because of they have hard-budget constraints. They will fire the executives and/or wind up the firm. Air Asia has chosen the former path even though Tony Fernandes was the visionary founder. 

In privately-owned firms, bribe-induced non-optimal procurements will be rare because the principals have strong incentives to set in place mechanisms to minimise bad behaviour by agents. One could ask why it took so long for the Air Asia board to act on Fernandes and Meranun. The explanation must lie in the complexity of the airline business which exacerbated the information asymmetry and allowed the agents to mask their less-than-optimal purchasing decisions. The principals suffered the consequences, earning lower returns than they would have if proper controls were in place.

In SriLankan Airlines the true owners have no seat on its Board. They are the citizens of Sri Lanka, who have designated certain politicians as their agents. At one time, these politicians decided to operate a State-owned airline. Other politicians at various times appointed persons to the Board of the airline as their agents to efficiently manage it. These agents serve as the principals to the executives who actually manage the airline. So, it’s not a simple principal-agent relationship but a concatenated series of such relationships, ending in a principal who is incapable of exercising effective supervision. 

If the airline loses money, the Board members are not affected because the money at risk is not theirs. The politicians also do not have own funds at risk. The politicians, their agents the Board, and the Board’s agents the senior managers, all take decisions that affect other people’s money. Intrinsically, there will be fewer incentives to set up effective controls. The general public, whose is money is being mismanaged, are not part of the decision making. Their only recourse is voting out the politicians at the next election. But elections are not decided on single issues.

In the effort to find a third way between State ownership which was failing and markets which they were opposed to ideologically, the socialist rulers of the former Yugoslavia claimed that it would impose hard-budget constraints on State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs). 

In fact, the constraints were never hard. There were always reasons for exceptions: national security, welfare of consumers, avoidance of unrest that could be caused by layoffs, etc. All these reasons and more have been heard in the case of the endless infusions of public funds into SriLankan, the latest being the need to have the ability to evacuate citizens from foreign lands. 

What can be done?

The first-best solution is to avoid the use of taxpayer funds in firms such as airlines that operate in competitive markets. In other words, they should be privatised. These businesses are complex. If they are not operated efficiently, the risks of losing money are high, as evidenced by the demise of private airlines all over the world. 

The information asymmetries that must be managed to ensure effective control of agents are difficult enough even for private owners. But they have incentives to work at it because their money is at risk. When public funds are being used no such incentives exist. If owners fail to control their agents as was the case with fully private Air Asia, they suffer the consequences in the form of foregone profits and lower share prices. Their losses are of no concern to the public. 

Partial private ownership is a second-best option. There was no fuss when Emirates management bought aircraft for SriLankan. Some public funds were at risk but Emirates which owned 43% of the airline was the decision maker. If the CEO bought aircraft in return for bribes paid to his wife’s company, Emirates would lose money along with Treasury. It had incentives to create good controls. The proof was in the dividends paid to Treasury during the period of partial ownership and management by Emirates.

The last-best solution is continued State ownership. If this option is adopted, one would have to rely on procedures, not on self-interest. Honest, diligent individuals would have to be found as managers and as Board members. They would appoint tender board and technical evaluation committees that follow strict procurement rules designed to ensure financial probity. Just to ensure that all these actors were indeed honest and diligent, oversight bodies would be empowered. Parliamentary committees would exercise oversight of everything. 

Described above is how Government agencies are supposed to operate. Government procurement rules when implemented properly do work. But they are slow and cumbersome. They are unlikely to be optimal for the nimble operations needed in complex competitive businesses such the airline business. The money that is not lost to pilfering CEOs may be lost simply by the inability to meet the requirements of a competitive business. Air India’s accumulated losses in the past decade amounted to $ 9,730 million, despite there not yet being any evidence of bribes paid by Airbus.

The best course of action is to align the incentives of owners so that proper controls are implemented. That requires privatisation, complete or partial. It is simply not possible to run a fully State-owned airline in the competitive era without burdening the public.  

Why SriLankan hasn’t aged well

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 Nishtha Chadha

A 2019 poll commissioned by the Advocata Institute found that 81% (Sparkwinn Opinion Poll April 2019. Sample size of 855 participants.) of surveyed Sri Lankans did not believe that the services provided by state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were worth the financial losses incurred by them. Spanning eight provinces and 18 districts, the poll revealed an overwhelming dissatisfaction amongst citizens of all ages and income demographics about the continued use of state funds to bail out loss-making SOEs.

SOEs such as SriLankan Airlines continue to remain some of the largest burdens on Sri Lanka’s already debt-ridden Treasury. While it is a no-brainer that public expenditure should be representative of public interests, there is a severe misalignment between public priorities and government expenditure in Sri Lanka. The above poll results show quite clearly that the public has no interest in bankrolling loss-making SOEs that offer minimal public benefit, but the Government continues to actively support them. Funds wasted on SOEs could easily be redirected to essential public services and institutions, such as healthcare and education, to make real improvements to the everyday lives of Sri Lankans. Instead, exorbitant taxes and low-quality public services have become a staple of Sri Lanka’s public sector, serving the personal interests of corrupt politicians over the legitimate needs of the wider public.

Siphoning taxpayer money

This week, SriLankan Airlines celebrated 40 years since its first flight in 1979. Hailed for its “service to the nation”, the airline has certainly become a hallmark of Sri Lanka’s tourism industry. With an impressive network of 109 cities in 48 countries, SriLankan Airlines Group CEO Vipula Gunatilleka states that the airline’s objective now is “to become the most customer-centric airline in Asia, both in the air and on the ground, building on our four decades of excellence in customer service for which we have won numerous international accolades with our emphasis on safety, punctuality, and service.”

Source: Ministry of Finance Annual Report, 2018

But with the accumulation of Rs. 17.2 billion in net losses for the year 2018, it has become prudent to ask the question: What part of the nation is this airline really serving?

Much like its other state-owned counterparts, the SriLankan Airlines enterprise has become a rampant vehicle for corruption in Sri Lanka’s public sector. A 2018 special report on the airline by the Auditor General’s Department found various accounts of malpractice across the enterprise, including:

• Failure to follow procurement guidelines in the selection of consultative companies

• Failure to introduce formal control systems for the implementation of plans

• Lack of proper cost-benefit analysis in validating expansion of the fleet of aircrafts

• Failure to conduct proper analysis on the method of selection for acquiring aircrafts

• Failure to follow government procurement guidelines in the acquisition of aircraft

Simply put, this suggests a complete lack of accountability within the company. There are few, if any, checks and balances in place to monitor spending, and transparency is scarce. This makes it extremely difficult for the general public to hold managers and public officials to account, despite technically being the owners of the enterprise.

The airline has thus managed to squander a loss of Rs. 58.7 billion of public funds for the past three years. What seems most outrageous about the scale of public expenditure on SriLankan Airlines is the fact that most of the citizens funding these losses will never even get the chance to sit on a SriLankan Airlines flight in their lifetime. As the owners of the enterprise, the public deserves a much larger say in where their money is going.

The airline has thus managed to squander a loss of Rs. 58.7 billion of public funds for the past three years. What seems most outrageous about the scale of public expenditure on SriLankan Airlines is the fact that most of the citizens funding these losses will never even get the chance to sit on a SriLankan Airlines flight in their lifetime

There have been various justifications for the State’s continued commitment to fund these losses, such as the need for capital expenditure to reverse losses and keep the airline internationally competitive. However, evidence suggests that even with the billions of rupees of taxpayer investment, the enterprise is actually becoming increasingly uncompetitive. In 2011, SriLankan Airlines was ranked 52nd globally in the Skytrax World Airline Awards, but today, it does not even rank within the top 100.

What’s the alternative?

Looking at recent years, 2008 stands out among the losses. In this year, SriLankan Airlines enjoyed a net profit of Rs. 4.4 billion. What was different? The airline was running in partnership with Emirates, which had a 40% stake in the company at the time. Emirates was contracted to manage the company for 10 years and completely overhauled the company’s infrastructure and operations to build it into a profit-making enterprise.

However, in 2008, the Government took back sole ownership of the airline after tensions broke out between the Chief Executive and the Sri Lankan Government over the refusal to bump 35 passengers from a full London-Colombo flight to make way for the Sri Lankan President and his entourage (10). From this point onwards, the losses incurred by the airline skyrocketed.

This is an explicit example of why the government should not be running state-owned enterprises. The endemic conflict of interest between players and regulators creates a dangerous breeding ground for malpractice, with taxpayers paying the ultimate price.

SriLankan Airlines’ experience with Emirates has shown the marked benefits of private management, and should serve as a model for future SOE reforms. While partial privatisation can certainly put an end to poor management practices and restore the profit-making capacity of enterprises, the risk of political interference remains pervasive.

Thus, if the Government is to put an end to the enormous burden that loss-making SOEs currently place on the Sri Lankan public sector, it needs to actively pursue avenues for full privatisation while bolstering its role as regulator.

Privatising SOEs will not only allow for better management and increased public expenditure on essential services, but also restore competitive neutrality to the airline business, making air travel more affordable for all Sri Lankans.

Taxpayers should not be spending their hard-earned money on rescuing failing government enterprises with poor management practices. It is high time the Government took a hard look at what the people want and fulfilled its mandate as a representative body. SOEs have become a vehicle for corruption in Sri Lanka’s public sector, and clearly, Sri Lankans are tired of paying for them.

---

Limited government – Ideal State

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

---

Limited Government; Ideal State – Part IV

By Dhananath Fernando

This article completes Advocata’s four-piece series on “limited government”. Over the past three weeks, we have presented three arguments in favour of a limited government. We began the series by delving into the mounting costs associated with a government of this size. The article questioned the rationale behind expenditure on this scale, given that the services provided by the Government are characteristically inefficient. Erratic power cuts and railway strikes seen in the recent past are testament to this. From here, the series explored the question of how a government can best serve its citizens.

The main argument presented was that when the powers and responsibilities of the State are decentralised, voters are given a stronger voice and are better able to hold elected officials accountable. The result is that public finances are better managed and service delivery improves. The last topic tackled in this series was that of corruption, expanding on how the window of opportunity for corruption widens when a government grows in scope as well as physical size, without the necessary governance and accountability measures in place. All three articles concluded on the same point – the size and role of the Government needs to be re-visited.

At a fundamental level, a government exists to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. This is the first and foremost responsibility of a government and it is vital that this is given priority. The danger of governments expanding into other sectors is that these foundational responsibilities are pushed to the sidelines. When a government provides subsidies, creates price ceilings, and gives ad hoc handouts, it loses incentive to focus on its priorities. Giving a subsidy has an immediate impact on its voters and a cycle of instant gratification begins. Parallel to election cycles, governments now have an easier, quicker method to win over voters. Ensuring the rule of law and enshrining the negative freedoms of a population does not have the shiny appeal of a handout – the positive, virtuous cycles these freedoms and protections create are strong, they can permeate institutions and change cultures of work. However, they can take years to come into effect and are difficult concepts to convey through the flashy advertisements of an election campaign.

Of course, this means that governments respond to the attractive incentive of a quick win and an extended term in office, and prioritises the handout over the fundamentals of freedom. As much as these freedoms can create virtuous cycles of growth and development, the neglect and deterioration of these freedoms can create dangerous cycles of corruption, misuse, and violence.

The best way to illustrate these dangerous cycles is through the justice system. Unfortunately, we witnessed first-hand the aftermath of the Easter attacks where virulent rhetoric against the Muslim community resulted in riots, with 500 Muslim-owned shops being attacked and set on fire. In the face of this outbreak of violence, the rule of law was flagrantly abused, and peace was not upheld.

Eammon Butler, in his book “Foundations of a Free Society”, expounds on this in some detail. According to him, the rules of justice are a cornerstone of any free society. While rules of justice would mean there are penalties for harming other people, in a free society, emphasis is also given to ensuring the role and power of a government is strictly limited. This will mean that the monopoly over violence a government has will not be used arbitrarily or in the self-interest of those who wield it. To quote: “The main problem of political organisation is not how to choose our leaders – that is easy – but how to restrain them.”

This seems reasonable and rational. No one wants an army-running rampant – you want to ensure the people with the guns and ammunition have clear rules on when and why they can use it. Most governments recognise this and have mechanisms such as constitutions and the separation of the executive, legislature, and judiciary to restrain those in positions of power. But the foundation of this is to ensure that citizens are all treated equally under the law – that all laws apply equally to all citizens and there is equal treatment and due process of justice. For freedom to have meaning, it has to apply equally to the whole population. When this does not take place and there is essentially a break down in the rule of law, the immediate impacts might seem inconsequential. It might mean that someone gets out on bail when maybe they shouldn’t. It might mean that tariffs are raised to protect politically important local business interests. Taken alone, these are singular events, which, while problematic, don’t cause much consternation. However, this is a slippery slope which often ends in widespread corruption in the best case, and a complete breakdown of law and order in other instances.

Once again, recent events illustrate that all citizens are not treated equally under the law, and that instances where law and order break down are increasing in frequency. The Wennappuwa Pradeshiya Sabha (PS) Chairman issuing a letter prohibiting Muslim traders from conducting business at the Dankotuwa Market is a case in point. It is of utmost importance that steps are taken to ensure the rule of law is maintained, and the Government prioritises its core functions putting the safety and freedom of all its citizens at the forefront.

Less spending, less corruption

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

---

Why should we have a limited government? – Part III

By Aneetha Warusavitarana

The World Bank quite simply defines corruption as the “abuse of public office for private gain”. Accordingly, public office can be abused when private agents actively offer or accept bribes, institute practices of patronage and nepotism, and engage in the theft of state assets or misuse public funds. In Sri Lanka, corruption has become institutionalised and can range from the traffic policeman who accepts a bribe to a high-ranking bureaucrat siphoning public money for personal expenses.

In 2018, Sri Lanka ranked 89th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index. As a country, we score 38 out of 100, with 100 representing a clean, corruption-free country. The magnitude of this problem is clear.

What’s the big deal about corruption?

Is corruption really bad? You can’t deny that when your garbage is piling up, it’s easier to bribe the garbage collectors to take your garbage than visit your municipal council and file a complaint. Sometimes, it can just be easier to pay a bribe to the traffic police than go to court and settle a traffic violation, or to pay a little extra and get your driving license renewed faster. These are all very mundane, commonplace occurrences that have become normalised to the point one does not think of it as “corruption”. It’s just a small payment to make your life a little easier – a small payment to ensure an application is processed smoothly. So, if corruption can make things simpler, what’s the issue?

While corruption on this scale can appear to be insignificant, in reality, it is one component of a much larger, systemic problem which has far-reaching consequences. Corruption in government is institutional, and given the outsized role the Sri Lankan Government plays in markets and business, the impact is far-reaching. The difficulty in holding government officials accountable and the considerable discretion they can wield creates an environment in which corruption can flourish.

The far-reaching impacts of corruption

Large corruption scandals often focus on the amount of money that has been misused, placing emphasis on face value loss that is created by corruption. However, the impact of one act of bribery or corruption goes far beyond the initial monetary loss. Corruption raises the transaction costs of conducting business and creates uncertainty in the market. In an environment where corruption flourishes, a business will not win a contract based on merit and skill alone. Procurement-related issues (read: corruption) associated with the Kerawalapitiya Power Plant meant that it took three years to award the tender. This lowers profitability within firms and creates an overall environment of uncertainty which discourages foreign investment. The result is that the positive spillover effects from investments, like increased competition and technology transfers, will not take place. Corruption also reduces the attractiveness of entrepreneurship, resulting in higher prices and lower quality. The problem does not end there. The culture of corruption is one of impunity and complete disregard for the rule of law. When this culture permeates the government, it affects the independence and credibility of the legislature and the judiciary – the very institutions which should be ensuring that the rule of law is upheld.

State-Owned Enterprises and corruption

Sri Lanka’s state-owned enterprises are a prime example of institutionalised corruption. In Advocata’s flagship report, the State of State Enterprises in Sri Lanka – 2019, the problem of corruption is a key issue tackled. In this report, corruption is explained through the perverse incentives that exist in the Sri Lankan bureaucracy. In the case of state-owned enterprises, as the money invested in state-owned enterprises is not of the politicians, there are no incentives for politicians to work towards making these enterprises efficient or productive. However, given the deep-rooted culture of patronage that exists in Sri Lanka, there is a strong incentive for politicians to use state-owned enterprises for their own gain. The lack of oversight or accountability means politicians can hire almost indiscriminately, giving out jobs for political gain. The reports from the Committee on Public Enterprise (COPE) make this abundantly clear, highlighting the numerous instances where recruitment had taken place without the appropriate approval from the Department of Management Services.

This problem is exacerbated by weak systems of accountability and governance. While the COPE and the Committee on Public Accounts (COPA) do play a role in the governance of state-owned enterprises, they have access to limited resources and equipment and are in need of specialised skills such as legal aid.

What is the solution?

If corruption is the abuse of public office for private gain, then in order to stop corruption, we should focus our attention on how and where this abuse happens. When the government moves outside its core mandate to protect life, liberty, and property, it grows in size and in scope, making the government difficult to monitor and hold accountable. Additionally, as a government grows in size, so does its spending. Changing a culture of corruption will take a great deal of political will and leadership, as well as buy-in from the bureaucracy. While accountability and transparency play an important role in countering corruption, the effects of this are seen in the long term. In the short term, focus should be on limiting the scope of the government and thereby drastically reducing government spending. A 10% cut of Rs. 3 million is significantly lower than a 10% cut of Rs. 300 million; reducing government spending is the fastest way to reduce corruption in quantitative terms. A reduction in government spending will also make transparency within the government easier to enforce, helping create a culture of accountability.

If we are to seriously tackle the problem of corruption in government, the role and scope of the government needs to be revisited and limited.

Decentralisation: Taking governance to the ground level

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

---

Why should we have a limited government? – Part II

By Aneetha Warusavitarana

When speaking of a limited government, the first thing that comes to mind is the fact that governments tend to be so expansive. A plethora of ministries and an innumerable amount of departments and agencies spring to mind. However, it is important to keep in mind that when speaking of a limited government, the rationale goes far beyond arguing for fewer ministries and reducing the duplication of work and responsibilities within the government system. A limited government is one that is limited in scope – it identifies its key functions and expends all resources to achieve them. When speaking of the role of the government, its primary functions can be described as the protection of life, liberty, and property. When a government’s main role expands beyond this, there is a strong likelihood that the government will prove to be ineffective and even harmful.

How can a limited government run a country?

It’s all well and good to say that the role of the State should be limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property, but governments also provide a myriad of public goods. Doing all this requires resources, people, and departments. Given that this requires a significant amount of administration, how do you ensure the government does this effectively, while staying within its key mandate and with minimal corruption or abuse of power?

Can decentralisation be the answer?

Why should Sri Lanka move away from a centralised system of governance and increase the levels of decentralisation in the country? While there are some very theoretical explanations for decentralisation (which are important in their own right), we will use a simpler approach. In a population of approximately 21 million diverse people with different interests, preferences, and disposable incomes, how do markets allocate resources efficiently? Any A/L economics student will reply with the brief answer of the “invisible hand”. In reality, of course, there is no puppet master moving fruits and vegetables from one place to another. Each individual business acts in their own self-interest, resulting in a more efficient allocation of resources. Prices signal to these businesses – and the profits or losses these businesses make guide decisions to produce or sell – and thus, without the convening of committees or the presentation of any findings, an entire country is provided with goods and services it requires. William Easterly sums up this phenomenon as such: “The wonder of markets is that they reconcile the choices of myriad individuals”.

Price signalling works well in allocating resources because at any given point of time, it is impossible for one bureaucrat, or even a host of committees of bureaucrats, to have all the information necessary to dictate the production and distribution of a single good in an economy, much less all goods in an economy. This is because information and knowledge are localised, time sensitive, and tacit. In other words, information and knowledge cannot be transferred effectively in their entirety or in time. The fall of the Soviet Union is a testament to this.

What do markets have to do with decentralisation?

The same principle applies. The decision-making in a market economy is never centralised. While decentralisation will, of course, function differently – the spontaneous order created by price signalling in markets will not be making administrative decisions – the principle that centralised decisions are not effective stands. The reason behind this is that the information problems, which plague centralised decision-making of economics, also plague centralised decision-making for administration and governance. As much as a bureaucrat will find it impossible to distribute exactly the number of potatoes required to each province of this country, it is equally difficult for a bureaucrat to be located in a central government and to take decisions on local infrastructure. Any decision taken at a central level will not be ideal. There will always be information and local contexts that a bureaucrat is not privy to, and as a result, the decision will not be as effective.

Decentralisation brings governance and administration down to the ground level – it means decisions are taken by local government authorities who are best placed to make that decision. They are aware of local contexts and have been elected into office by the people in the locality, which would mean they have an understanding of what is needed. Of course, where the rule of law is weak, decentralisation can mean that local government authorities succumb to crony capitalism, as a system it is not without its faults. However, when comparing central governance and decentralised governance, in the case of decentralisation, there is greater opportunity for electorates to hold their representatives accountable, make their demands heard, and push for the reform that they want. In other words, it puts more power with the people and makes elected individuals more accountable to their voters – an admirable objective not only in principle, but also because of its effectiveness.

The burden of unprecedented costs

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

---

Why should we have a limited government? – Part I

By Dilshani Ranawaka

“The government that governs best, governs least” – Thomas Jefferson

A state has three core tasks within a society: Protecting the life, liberty, and property of the people. As societies evolved, these core tasks were overlooked when more emphasis was given to managing economies. Should the state intervene in economic affairs? Would that be more beneficial to the economy and society?

For the following four weeks, “The coordination problem” will discuss why large governments cause more harm than good when they engage in tasks beyond ensuring freedom and security of the citizens and the rule of law.

The series titled “Why should we have a limited government?” will justify why large governments are a bane to the economy through arguments on costs, problems of coordination, and corruption. The series will then conclude with a fourth piece on what an ideal state looks like.

It is intuitive that larger governments incur larger costs. This takes place through two avenues: recurrent expenditures and management expenditures. The present Government has lost count of the number of enterprises the State owns, as revealed by the Advocata Institute’s recently published report “The State of State Enterprises in Sri Lanka – 2019”.

As of 2017, 1,389,767 of the labour force in Sri Lanka are employed in the public service. This is around 14.5% of the labour force. The enormity of these numbers is clear when compared with developed countries. For instance, Canada, which has a population of 37.6 million, has a public sector of 262,696, according to the official Government of Canada website, making it clear that a government does not need to be expansive even in the instance of a large population.

To make things even worse, the Government introduces salary increments either at the onset of an election or during a new budget proposal, instead of having increments dependent on performance.

With the recently proposed increment of Rs. 10,000 for the public sector, the expenditure for wages adds up to Rs. 768 billion for the year. This is around 25% of the government’s expenditure, as per the Budget in 2019. This exceeds the amount allocated for public investment (Rs. 756 billion) for the year 2019, which is around 24% of the budgeted expenditure for this year.

These complicated numbers bring questions to mind: Is providing jobs a role of a government? What is the opportunity cost? What are the indirect consequences? What is the concealed political gain from this process?

A state’s role goes beyond providing job opportunities. Some of the crucial elements a state should look into are national defence and maintaining law and order. The Easter attacks and ensuing events highlighted that the Government should be focusing more on its core functions before moving beyond.

Furthermore, when looking retrospectively at political campaigns, politicians target the votes of government officers mainly through the introduction of wage increments. While increments are positive incentives for productivity, politicians use them for popularity. In such cases, two factors increase the costs for the government. Since larger governments require more state officers for administration purposes, the costs incurred just for administration purposes increase. When politicians promising higher increments become popular, the cost burden for the government piles up.

Every decision made in the economy has an opportunity cost. A state could allocate resources either for consumption or for investments. Investments generate direct income in the long run while consumption creates effective demand which indirectly generates income. Given this backdrop, it is important to answer why unregulated and irresponsible expenditure by a state is catastrophic.

Let us explain through a simple example. If a household spends on consumption which does not generate income, the household has to resort to loans. A similar argument can be transposed towards a state. If a state spends on consumption (in this case the cost for expansion of the government), they have to utilise other methods such as loans or taxes which are reflected back on the taxpayers of the country. These wage expenditures incurred by the government are utilised for consumption most of the time. Alternatively, if politicians stop promising salary increments and reduce the size of the government, these wages could be utilised for public investments – a critical requirement for economic growth and long-term income generation.

Leaving vital services aside, what do state officers incur to the government? Losses or revenues? Would an additional state officer cover the cost of their wages and generate revenue through their productivity? Would it increase the efficiency of the department? These questions should be standard criteria before unnecessarily expanding particular state departments. The experience one has at most government institutions speaks for the inefficiency that plagues these institutions.

What is the underlying cause of incompetence of the State in Sri Lanka? If the government is supposed to facilitate services, why do they operate their entities in a manner they generate losses? Why do we constantly see power cuts through the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) if larger governments are meant to provide better services? Could we keep our trust on the State, given the way they function with our money?

Do larger governments function better? The evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

How many committees does it take to fix an airline?

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 Dilshani Ranawaka

On 1 March, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved $ 164.1 million under the Extended Fund Facility after successfully completing the fifth review for the country. According to the IMF, restructuring and enhancing the governance of SriLankan Airlines and other state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the implementation of price formula are key issues that should be addressed.

SriLankan Airlines has a new CCO and CFO as a result of the numerous numbers of commissions formed to assess and come up with a restructuring process. Presently, the losses alone had accumulated up to Rs. 40 billion in a time frame of 2016-2018.

The solution is pretty straightforward – find the root cause and then come up with recommendations. However, restructuring in the case of SriLankan Airlines appears to be a rather daunting process for the Government, with endless committees and subcommittees working on a strategy. The Government started off by appointing Cabinet members and state officials in the first commission. It took them three years to realise that it is crucial to appoint experts to look into this matter. Even after appointing four committees plus consulting the best in the aviation industry, Nyras, what they have achieved so far is the appointment of a new board and a new management along with the CCO and CFO. Given the climbing amount of debt from operating the airline and also knowing the intensity of the losses, why have they taken such a long time to plan a way out of this?

The first such committee was formed back in May 2017, focusing on privatising the airline. The council was headed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and consisted of officials from the Cabinet and other state officials. Following up on the process, it was reported that the Prime Minister was to take the decision on restructuring the airline in July 2017.

“By 31 July, we have to give an internal restructuring plan to the Prime Minister, basically looking at what we have to do internally with SriLankan – irrespective of whether we are getting a partner or not, we need to move forward,” a statement given by then Minister of Public Enterprise Development Kabir Hashim.

However, implementation did not materialise, and on 8 December 2017, the President appointed another special ministerial committee and a committee of officials to assist them to decide the fate of SriLankan Airlines with a deadline of two weeks, with a report due to be submitted on 20 December 2017. The actions regarding the airline were to be implemented on or before 31 July 2018. Why does the Government take such a long time – almost half a year – to implement these recommendations? The role of any government in an economy is to adjust market failures, not to cause more.

By 2018, Nyras, one of the leading aviation consultancy firms, was hired after the initial round of recommendations, and it presented a comprehensive report. However, the consultancy group has now filed a lawsuit against the Government because of delayed consultancy payments. While these measures were taken and international consultants were hired, SriLankan Airlines was still piling up losses at an exponential rate.

By 7 January 2019, the President formed yet another commission to conduct a comprehensive study – review the present vision and mission objectives, strategies, corporate plan, and action plan of the airline – and come up with recommendations for restructuring, which does not consist of any member of the previous committees formed by the President. Does this mean that the previous four committees appointed (two committees in 2017, one in 2018, and another in 2019) are redundant?

Exercising our rights as citizens, we need to push for fast reforms as this is a black hole sucking out tax-payer money. It has taken five committees, including consultancy from Nyras, to address various issues of SriLankan Airlines for the past three and a half years. With these five committees, what the Government has achieved so far is inducting the board of the airlines.

What we can take from this is:

1. The commissions have submitted recommendations that wouldn’t work

   or

2. The Government is incapable of implementing these recommendations

   or

3. The Government is being willfully negligent by not taking action and implementing recommendations.

Given past experiences, these failures indicate a combination of the second and third conclusions.
SriLankan Airlines, which was then operated under Emirates – a renowned carrier of United Arab of Emirates, enjoyed a profit of Rs. 4.4 billion for the year 2008. The next 10 years, once the airline was taken over by the Government, suffered heavy losses due to the decline in performance and poor governance. The national airline had been climbing down in terms of performance as well as losses.

How many committees would it take for the Government to really execute any of these plans? When the good governance regime started their office in mid-2015, the losses of SriLankan Airlines were Rs. 16.4 billion. The losses of the airline had more than doubled up to a cumulative loss of Rs. 40 billion for the time period between 2016 and 2018. It took losses of Rs. 40 billion, and three years’ worth of planning to appoint two vital roles, the Chief Commercial Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, to the airline. How enormous should the losses be for the government to implement restructuring procedures? What would be at stake by then? This is indefinitely an answer Sri Lankans would not like to find out.

SriLankan Airlines and the Case for Privatisation

Originally appeared on Sunday Times

By Aneetha Warusavitarana

The government’s policy document ‘Vision 2025: A Country Enriched’ positions Sri Lanka as a knowledge based, highly competitive, social market economy; and much of the content of the document is in line with increasing competition, productivity and efficiency.

The state of SriLankan Airlines, however, is in the antithesis of efficiency and productivity. The airline has been raking in losses for years now, and on Monday the 7th of January, the president appointed a committee to once again work on its restructuring. The new committee will assess the previous reports and restructuring plans and have now completed their recommendations.

It is evident that state ownership of this airline is not working, so what are the solutions?

Back when SriLankan Airlines was still Air Lanka, it was privatised. The government sold a 40% shareholding to Emirates Airlines in 1998, and contracted Emirates to manage the company for ten years with the government of Sri Lanka retaining majority shareholding. In 2008, the government took back complete ownership of the airline, and from then on, the losses began [1].

Source: Sri Lankan Treasury Annual Report (2008, 2018)

Privatisation has worked in the past, and the argument for privatisation of a state-owned airline is strong. To begin with, the aviation industry is an investment heavy industry, which requires expertise and foresight. Beyond procuring airplanes and terminal space, there is a web of domestic and international regulations to navigate, not to mention standards to adhere to. From then on, once you have the planes and are ready to start, the airline needs to be competitive in order to survive. It requires strong management and effective marketing, with a team that can adapt to external shocks in fuel prices, domestic and international politics, and changes in foreign exchange rates. Even if it has the money, a government is ill-equipped for this task, evidenced by the track record of the airline in state hands. During the period of 2009-2017, when the airline was under state management, it has accumulated losses of Rs. 148,707 Mn [2]. Repeated promises of restructuring or turnaround have remained unfulfilled.

While privatisation of SOEs, and specifically the privatisation of state-owned airlines is theoretically sound, appropriate implementation is necessary. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has done extensive research on privatisation of state-owned enterprises and has identified some key features that successful privatisations have had in common. Detailed below are some features that are relevant to Sri Lanka [3].

• Strong political commitment to privatisation at the highest level in order to overcome bureaucratic inertia and to resolve inter-institution rivalries in order to move the process forward.

• Clearly identified and prioritised objectives in order to provide the policy with focus and a sense of trade-offs that may be required.

• A transparent process to enhance the integrity of the privatisation process, gain credibility with potential investors and political support from the public.

• An effective communication campaign to explain the policy objectives of privatisation and the means by which they are to be achieved in order to respond to public concerns and to gain support for the policy.

• Allocation of adequate resources in order to meet the demands of the shift to privatization.

Partial privatisation of SriLankan as a more viable solution?

Privatisation does not always have to be full divestiture of the asset; the option of partial privatisation is open. In this scenario, governments sell a minority stake and retain a degree of control, while the enterprise reaps the benefits that accompany privatisation. The process of privatisation will bring with it a much needed infusion of private equity, new management, clearly defined guidelines and a more flexible financial structure. The focus of the airline will shift towards increasing profitability and efficiency, with the aim of increasing shareholder value. Given Sri Lanka’s past success story with the partial privatisation of Air Lanka, it is possible that this solution will be pursued or at least considered.

The pitfall of partial privatisation

Drawing from the experience of privatisation in other countries when governments remain the majority shareholder, the space for political interference continues to exist [4]. This is the biggest potential pitfall, and the SriLankan experience can attest to the damage this can cause. As of now the government is struggling to create interest in the purchase of the airlines, and the fear that the government will once again step in and interfere with the management is the most probable reason behind this.

If the government is considering partial privatisation, steps should be taken to ensure that the government’s interests remain those of a shareholder and not those of a political entity. Given past track records, assurances of non-interference are unlikely to inspire confidence.

In 2015 the Hon. Prime Minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe mentioned that the government was considering the Singaporean Temasek model of a holding company as a solution to the problems of SOEs in Sri Lanka [5]. Establishing a holding company for SOEs would help bolster investor confidence and improve the functioning of the airline. It would professionalize the management and create distance from local politics [6]. It is a shame that even though this idea was brought out in 2015, it was never implemented. The question that remains is whether the government will take this into consideration and take decisive action on this problem four years later.

---

[1] Ratnasabapathy, R. (2016). The renationalisation of SriLankan airlines and the follies of state enterprise. In: The State of State Enterprises in Sri Lanka. Colombo: The Advocata Institute.

[2] Ten Year Review: SriLankan Airlines Annual Report 2016/17. Colombo.

[3] Privatising State-Owned Enterprises: An Overview of Policies and Practices in OECD Countries. (2003). Paris: OECD Publishing.

[4] Ibid

[5] Wettasinghe, C. (2015). Temasek model to make public enterprises viable. Daily Mirror. (Online - Accessed 16 Jan. 2019)

[6] Kim, K. (2018). Matchmaking: Establishment of state-owned holding companies in Indonesia. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 5(2), pp.313-330.

What we could have done with the losses of state-owned enterprises

By Dhananath Fernando

The article originally appeared on the Daily Mirror on May 15, 2016

Would you believe the Sri Lankan government could have declared a Rs. 5000 bonus for each and every citizen in 2016 April New Year if Sri Lankan Airlines even if they had broken even for last 10 years.

The subject is State Owned Enterprises (SOE) and strangely most of them do not have proper financial data (Data is publicly available for 55 out of 255 SOE’s). I am adding my two cents worth to write about the mega losers of public money and some ‘why’ factors for the reader’s consumption.

The total losses of the 55 SOE’s from 2006-2015 amounts to a gigantic Rs. 636 billion. Interestingly 5 key institutes are responsible for 95 percent of the losses which adds up to Rs. 605 billion losses. Namely Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, Ceylon Electricity Board, Sri Lankan Air Lines, Mihin Lanka and Sri Lanka Transportation Board are the money eating machines of poor taxpayers. 

Surprisingly significant discrepancies were identified even in the figures disclosed to public through the COPE report, the Treasury Annual Report and Fiscal Management Report for the same institute.

Obviously all 3 the figures cannot be true and we can come to a reasonable conclusion that either two figures or all 3 figures are false. The simple reason we cannot ignore the discrepancy is because it exceeds Rs. 5 billion of tax payer’s money. If I take examples of other institutes this column will run out of space

Naturally, with such drastic discrepancies the following appalling questions cross our minds: nAre accepted accounting standards followed when profit calculations are made?  nIs the data fabricated to misguide the 20 million population?

Has COPE done their job well and does the money spent on the COPE committee justify taxpayer’s money.

If these government workers cannot manage these institutes and cannot even calculate profit and loss accurately, are they worth the money they are paid from tax payers’money.  The ‘Profits and losses’ analysis shows that in 2011 and 2012 there is a sharp increase in losses and the reasons for the increase in losses should be investigated to avoid reoccurrence of such situations in the future. 

Although it is a fact that the global economic conditions took a beating in 2012, but Sri Lanka had just emerged from a war situation in 2009, and this was a huge advantage to the Sri Lankan economy. SLTB and Mihin Air has failed to make any profit for last 10 long years and if a company cannot be turned around in 10 years, the ability of the management should be questioned. How many years must one wait to see a progress being made? 

Sometimes we the ordinary citizens of Sri Lanka cannot comprehend the value of Rs. 605 billion. Most of us, including the ministers and parliamentarians confuse millions and billions. In order to illustrate the potential of Rs. 605 billion, a list of things which could be done, if the 5 key institutes were well managed and were able to break even is given below:

1. Ten more highways

The cost of southern high way was 60 Billion rupees and we could have easily built 10 southern highways connecting all corners of the island with this money because the cost of the southern highway was way above the average cost. The Ministry of Highways attributes the high cost to the high prices paid for land acquisitions and land diversity. Even if this is true, 10 highways with similar capacity could have been constructed for the same price.  

2. Eleven harbours

The Hambantota port cost US$ 361 million and we could have built 11 ports and even saved another 600 million for the grand opening ceremony  

3. Cover 81% of the current budget deficit

The current budget deficit is estimated to be LKR 740 billion rupees and if the 5 institutes mentioned herein could have performed at breakeven level, we could easily cover 81% of the current budget deficit  

4. Twenty more airports

The current government is planning to make Sri Lanka an aviation hub and if they think they need airports like Mattala, even if it is only to store paddy during the harvest season, 20 similar airports could be built. The San Francisco Air Port in the USA, which incidentally is one of the top airports in the world, with the size of the runway being 3600 meters long and 45 meters wide is smaller than the Mattala airport runway which has a 3500 long and 60 meters wide runway. So I am talking about an investment of 20 airports having a capacity equal to the San Francisco Airport, not small domestic airports carrying light aircrafts  

5. Nine power plants as Norochchole

Making a Sri Lanka a hub of energy is another popular topic in town. The first phase of Norchchole cost US$ 455 million and losses made by the 5 key SOE’s in 10 years is 9 times  this cost.  

6. 10% of the Megapolis project 2030

The initial mega project in 2016 targeting to make Sri Lanka a middle income country by 2030, requires an investment of US$ 44 billion. The Government could easily cover 10 percent of the total investment with the losses made by these key 5 institutes.  

7. Relief of 22% of total tax revenue in 2016 on tax payers

The total estimated tax revenue of the government for 2016 is Rs. 1,584 billion. Even if Sri Lankan Airlines and Ceylon Petroleum Corporation could operate at breakeven level it could still cover 22 percent of the total estimated tax revenue from 2016 budget. I reiterate the values are just face values and the net present value (NPV) will show a worse situation  

8. Rs. 30,000 bonus by the first citizen with his annual greeting SMS

Leaving alone all of the above, the President instead of sending a SMS message to all Sri Lankan citizens who own a phone, wishing them a happy Sinhala and Tamil New Year, could give a cash gift of Rs.30,000 to every citizen of this country, including newly born infants, if these 5 key loss making institutes performed better by breaking even. (Rs. 120,000 for a 4 member house family) With the losses incurred by Sri Lankan Airlines alone, the President could gift Rs. 5000 to each citizen. 

What would be the solution?

It is a globally accepted theory that when you run a business, focussing on your strengths is a must and establishing monitoring and evaluation procedures is essential. If you do not possess the required skills or expertise within your organizations, you have to either hire the right people or outsource the job.I t is sad that the words like “Privatization” are injected as terrorist words into the blood of the nation but the reality is just leaving these 5 institutes in the hands of honest politicians had lost the country 605 billion which no one can justify. Those who promote concepts like state ownerships and big government has absolutely no idea on financial management.

If they had any sense on fiscal management a decade is a too long period even for a below average management.  The fear of privatization is same as fear of failure and the success is always lies beyond our comfortable zone. It is Albert Einstein, the brain of the 21stcentury, who said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. 

---

Dhananath Fernando is the Chief Operating Officer of AdvocataInstitute; an independent Sri Lankan think tank works for economic freedom. He could be reached via dhananath@advovata.org

The re-nationalisation of SriLankan Airlines and the follies of State enterprise

A couple of weeks ago, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe announced that the debts of SriLankan Airlines, amounting to a mammoth US$ 3.2 billion, will have to borne by the taxpayer. He said the government is taking this action to defuse an economic ‘landmine’ and that his government is actively looking for an international partner to manage the airline.

When a three billion dollar bill is passed on to ordinary Sri Lankans, many of whom have never flown the airline, it’s worth examining what let do this disastrous situation. In examining the data, it’s clear that Srilankan Airlines provides an excellent example of the problems that arise from state-owned enterprises.

Air Lanka, the state-owned airline was privatised in April 1998. The government of Sri Lanka sold a 40% shareholding to Emirates Airlines, which was also contracted to manage the company for a period of 10 years. The government of Sri Lanka continued to retain the majority shareholding but management was relinquished to Emirates.

Emirates re-branded the airline as ‘SriLankan’, overhauled the airline’s infrastructure and adopted a new approach to its operations. Cost-effective strategies were introduced; new pro-active management teams were put in place; Information technology became the basis of everyday activities. The airline’s network was constantly reappraised and product enhancement became a part of the airline’s philosophy. The airline was completely re-fleeted with an all-Airbus fleet of A340, A330 and A320 aircraft replacing the ageing Lockheed Tristars.

Although the privatisation and restructuring attracted a lot of criticism at the time, the exercise was eventually deemed a success; indeed in many quarters it was hailed as model for other airlines.

At an international seminar on airline restructuring and privatisation, held a couple of years after the divestment; the President of the employees union of Srilankan spoke on how union rights were protected and the improvement of working conditions.

At the time of the privatisation all employees were gifted shares by the government based on the number of years of service. Although a voluntary retirement scheme was also implemented the President of the union stated that employees were given an excellent deal if they wanted to leave and no-one was made redundant. Collective Agreements signed by the airline with employee unions guaranteed increments to employees. New human resource development programmes were instituted after privatisation to upgrade employees’ skills and a new grade and pay structure put in place.

Union representatives from other state-owned airlines were also impressed by the manner in which the airline disclosed information to employees; “they had never seen such transparency from an airline’s management,” said K J L Perera president of the employees union. SriLankan published its quarterly financial results in its staff newsletter.

Following a spat in December 2007 the Chief Executive Peter Hill, had his work permit revoked.The dispute began when Hill refused to bump 35 passengers from a full London-Colombo flight to make way for Sri Lanka’s president and his entourage. The Government cancelled the work permit of the CEO of the airline and in March 2008, Emirates did not renew the management contract. The airline, which had been consistently profitable under the management of Emirates last reported a profit in 2008; a bumper Rs.4.4bn. Since then the airline has racked up enormous losses; according to the latest published accounts for the year ended March 2015 losses stood 123.26bn rupees.

The airline reported an operating loss of Rs.16bn in the year 2015, an improvement from the loss of Rs.31.3bn in 2014. To put these figures into context, the Government bought out Emirates for only US$53m (or Rs.7bn at today’s exchange rate). Last year alone the airline lostfour times its original purchase price, a truly remarkable feat.  The airline’s accumulated losses amount to almost a billion dollars; the entire Southern highway was built for around 700 million dollars, cost overruns included.

The management of the airline has claimed that the recession in Europe and high oil prices caused the losses. The public was urged to look beyond the “mere profitability aspect” and understand the “catalyst role played” by the airline in tourism; in the words of the former CEO.

Airlines are global businesses and the same factors affect all airlines. Singapore Airlines cited by many who try to justify state ownership of airlines reported a marginal operating loss in only a single year during the last ten years; a loss of US$38m in 2009/10.

Singapore airlines is no less affected by the recession and oil prices, but it did not report losses. Singapore Airlines is a well-run state airline that is something of an exception. Many cite it’s example but few have been able to emulate its success, so we should not try to justify our Government’s ownership by looking to Singapore. Srilankan Airlines own track record is what we need to examine.

What changed when the Government took it over? They inherited a profitable business with the same staff, systems and infrastructure; the principal difference was in the management. The truth is that the airline suffered from gross mismanagement and corruption, some of which has recently been uncovered.

These problems seem to plague state owned enterprises (SOE’s), but why do they occur?

There are two elements to explanation: the principal-agent problem and the free-rider problem, both based on the assumption of self-seeking individuals.

An SOE is run by managers who do not own the firm. In a firm under state control managers know that their salaries will be paid regardless of how the business performs, therefore there is no incentive to maximise efficiency.

Frequently in Sri Lanka the Government will be under pressure to appoint various loyalists to key positions. In some, (although not all) instances, those who seek political patronage to be ‘fixed up in a job’ are people who lack the skills or abilities to find a job on their own merits. Thus the enterprise may become stuffed with incompetents; good staff will find it very difficult to work with these people so they either leave or give up trying to do any work and concentrate on keeping in the good books of the bosses.

The maxim of “more work, more trouble, less work, less trouble and no work, no trouble” is applied. In any case pay and benefits are not dependent on performance, so why bother to stick ones neck out? Soon, this attitude poisons the enterprise and staff work on surviving in their jobs rather than trying to manage the business.

This problem would not exist if the citizens, who are the owners (principals) of SOEs, can perfectly monitor the SOE managers (their agents) but individual citizens do not have the incentive, and means, to monitor the SOE managers.

This leads to the second element of the problem, even if they did try to hold the SOE to account, the costs that an individual citizen incurs in monitoring SOE managers (obtaining and analysing financial information, seeking explanations through public channels etc.) are solely his or hers, while the benefits of improved management accrue to all owners. Time and effort will be expended in the exercise by the citizen who receives no immediate benefit. Thus, individually, the citizens have little incentive to monitor the SOE managers, which means that in the end, no one monitors them. This is the so-called free-rider problem.

This is the fundamental structural flaw with SOE’s which explains why many operating in truly competitive markets are doomed to failure. There are apparently profitable SOE’s but In some instances they operate as a monopoly, like the Sri Lanka Port Aunthority.  In other instances such as LakSathosa, Governments  may  create an  uneven-playing  field  in  markets  where  an  SOE  competes  with private  firms,  as  they  have  a  vested  interest  in  ensuring  that  state-owned  firms  succeed. LakSathosa is exempt from the VAT and NBT charged on other supermarkets giving them a significant competitive advantage.

Accordingly, despite its role as regulator the government may, in fact, restrict competition through granting SOEs various benefits not offered to private firms. In such instances SOE’s may appear to be profitable but this is due to hidden subsidies and distortions which are ultimately borne by taxpayers.  

Airlines used to be regarded as a key part of transport infrastructure, like roads or bridges, which should be owned by the Government. Until the mid-1980s, most governments did own airlines and protected flag-carriers by restricting new entrants. This thinking has changed.

Privatisation made air travel more competitive and liberalisation brought competition from low-cost carriers. Most airlines in state control have failed to adapt and are losing money. There is little strategic interest in owning an airline; Switzerland and Belgium have done without a flag carrier for years.

The airline is currently a huge drain on the treasury and the previous experience with Emirates demonstrates the clear benefit of privatisation.

---

A version of this article originally appeared in “The State of State Enterprises in Sri Lanka” Report as well as Ground Views