Non-negotiable reforms for election manifestos

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

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

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

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

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

Strengthening social safety nets 

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

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

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

SOE reforms 

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

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

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

Anti-corruption and governance reforms

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

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

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

Following the IMF programme and debt restructuring 

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

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

Trade reforms and joining global supply chains 

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

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

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

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

VAT: The good, the bad and the solutions

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

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

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

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

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

A complicated context 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solutions 

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

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

Tax competitiveness as a framework 

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

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

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

Reforming Sri Lanka's Tax System: A Path to Fiscal Stability and Economic Growth

Originally appeared on Daily FT

By Dr Roshan Perera, Thashikala Mendis, Janani Wanigaratne

This article provides an insight on the Personal Income Tax structure in Sri Lanka as the second part of a series discussing potential tax reforms

Raising government revenue is critical for Sri Lanka to recover from the current economic crisis and create a more sustainable economic environment. However, taxes should be paid by those who can bear the burden. 

Personal Income Taxes (PIT) is an effective instrument in generating revenue as well as in reducing inequality through revenue redistribution.  In Sri Lanka, there has been a steady decline in revenue from PIT from 0.9% of GDP in 2000 to 0.2% of GDP in 2022. Revenue collection is  lower than that of even other low income economies. Furthermore, PIT tax revenue as a percentage of direct tax revenue declined from 40% in 2000 to 9.3% in 2022, although GDP per capita increased from USD 869 in 2000 to USD 3,474 in 2022. 

Advanced economies raise approximately 9% of GDP from PIT, while emerging economies and low income economies raise only 3.1% and 2.1% of GDP, respectively. (1)  Sri Lanka reports the  lowest contribution of PIT as a percentage of GDP in 2021, both among  advanced economies in Asia such as South Korea, as well as developing economies such as Bangladesh, Malaysia and Vietnam (See Figure 1).

Figure 1: Performance of Personal Income Tax Collection among Selected Countries

Source : IMF Data Library, OECD

Narrow Tax Base

The narrow tax base is one of the main reasons for Sri Lanka’s low PIT revenue performance. A narrow base not only limits revenue generation but it also makes revenue collection reliant on a small segment of the population. 

The number of income tax payers under the  Pay As You Earn (PAYE)/Advanced Personal Income Tax (APIT) Scheme (2) as a percentage of the total employed population shows  a relatively small proportion of the workforce contributing to income taxes (see Table 1). In 2019,  the proportion of tax paying employees was 33%. This proportion declined to less than 1% in 2021 due to abolishing of PAYE taxes with effect from 1st January 2020.  A voluntary APIT System was introduced with effect from April 1, 2020, where employees can opt in. This shift not only led to a revenue decline but also created monitoring gaps. With effect from January 1, 2023, it was mandated for employers to deduct APIT from employees' income, reverting to the original PAYE scheme.

(2 ) Note: PAYE/APIT is where employers deduct income tax on employment income of employees at the time of payment of remuneration.  PAYE was replaced by APIT with effect from April 2020. This measure of replacing PAYE with APIT essentially made PAYE optional. However, with effect from January 2023, deduction of Withholding Tax (WHT), Advanced Income Tax (AIT)  and APIT has been made mandatory.

Table 1: Employee Contribution to PIT

Source: IRD Performance Reports, Labour Force Survey

The large informal sector also contributes to the narrow tax base and low PIT performance. According to the Labor Force Survey (3) 2022,  the informal sector accounts for around 58% of total employment (see Table 1).  A large portion of the economy operating  outside formal regulation enables tax evasion and avoidance. Transforming the current informal self-employment system to a modern formal employee-employment system would be one way to improve tax revenue collection. 

Two alternative recommendations are proposed to capture informal economic activities into the tax net.  Establishing a universal online payments system would reduce cash transactions in the economy enabling better monitoring; and secondly, by introducing a unique digital identification system that connects tax accounts with income sources, bank accounts, motor vehicle and land registration etc. Authorities could cross check information provided in income tax returns as well as identify individuals who do not file returns. 

Tax Free Threshold and Tax slabs/Brackets

In the recent amendment to the Inland Revenue Act (4),  the tax free threshold for income was reduced from Rs.3 million per annum to Rs.1.2 million per annum. Further, the tax brackets were reduced  from Rs.3 mn to Rs.0.5 million.  Accordingly, the incremental tax rate for each additional Rs. 0.5 million of income was set at 6% (see Table 2).

Table 2:  Tax Threshold and Tax Brackets

Source :Inland  Revenue (Amendment) Act, No. 4 of  2023

Applying the current tax free threshold, income taxes are applicable to  approximately the top 15% of households where around  36% of total  income is concentrated (see figure 2) (5).

(5) Note This is based on the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2019

Figure 2: Share of Income by Population 2019

Source : HIES Survey Annual Report 2019

According to the national poverty line (6) for  July 2023, the minimum monthly expenditure per person required to meet basic needs is Rs. 15,978. Hence, the total cost for a family of four is approximately Rs. 65,000 per month. Assuming salaries and wages remain unchanged at 2019 levels,  more than two-thirds of income is spent by households up to the 9th decile, (see Table 3).  Any additional financial burden including income taxes could further reduce the disposable income of households up to the 9th income decile. Hence, information on household income and expenditure patterns must be considered when setting income tax thresholds.

Table 3 :  Mean Household Expenditure as a % of Mean Household Income

Source : HIES Survey Annual Report 2019 (7)

Although the current tax system applies differential tax rates based on income brackets, an analysis of the effective tax rates paid within these brackets indicates a less than progressive tax system.  An individual crossing the tax free threshold of Rs.1.2 million per annum (equivalent to a monthly income of Rs. 100,000) pays an effectives tax rate of 1%, which gradually increases to 12% until the highest income bracket is reached at over Rs. 3.7 million (which is equivalent to a monthly income of Rs. 308,333). All the income levels above this income would be taxed at the highest nominal marginal rate of 36%.  However, after a particular income level the effective tax rate flattens (see Table 4). This implies that individuals in the highest income categories effectively pay less taxes. Expanding the income tax brackets would introduce more fairness and progressivity into the tax system.

Table 4 :  Effective Rate of Tax

Source :  Author’s Calculation

Figure 3: Personal Income Tax as a percentage of Annual Income

Source : Authors’ Calculation

The fairness of the tax system is further exacerbated as those whose main income sources are subject to capital gains are taxed at only 10% versus those whose income are subject to PIT who are taxed at a higher rate of 36%. 

As wages and salaries rise to keep up with inflation, individuals may find themselves earning more in nominal terms, but their purchasing power remains relatively unchanged.  Adjusting thresholds for inflation ensures that employees are not disproportionately burdened by bracket creep where taxpayers are pushed into higher brackets due to inflation. A proper rationale and scientific basis for determining thresholds, tax slabs, and tax rates is needed to increase revenue collection and ensure fairness in the tax system.Also, the proposed tax system should generate the estimated tax revenue by the end of the year.

Frequent ad hoc policy changes

Tax policy is frequently subjected to change, without proper economic rationale. For instance, the tax slabs for PIT have been revised 9 times while the tax free threshold was revised 5 times since 2000. Frequent and ad hoc policy changes complicate tax administration and reduce tax compliance.

Conclusion

The country has failed to meet  the first quarter targets for revenue under the IMF’s Extended Fund Facility Program. Raising government revenue will be critical to remaining within the program. Improving revenue collection from income taxes will be critical to achieving the revenue targets, while broadening the tax base will ensure the burden of taxation falls on the broadest shoulders.

Part one of the OPED series on Reforming Sri Lanka's Tax System: A Path to Macroeconomic Stability and Sustainable Economic Growth can be found here

Ending the annual budget auction

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Budget 2022 must be the first step to getting the fundamentals right

As Lee Kuan Yew famously said: “Sri Lankan elections are an auction of non existing resources”. Over the years, our annual budget speech and promises have not been different. A long wish list of proposals skewed towards expenditure is read by the Minister of Finance. In between, some policy decisions and revenue proposals are pronounced 

A few weeks after a massive media focus, the budget is forgotten and everyone goes into deep slumber. This again gets the attention of next year’s budget. The same cycle follows, as some senior ministers fall asleep during the budget speech and wake up again for the traditional tea party generously sponsored by taxpayers. 

According to the analysis by Verite Research on PublicFinance.lk, of 34 proposals from 2020 (Verite has analyzed 34 selected proposals in the absence of a budget speech in 2020), only 4% were fully completed. On 50% of the proposals, information is not disclosed even to track whether the projects are progressing. Even in the 2019 Budget, only about 32% of the budget proposals were fulfilled. 

Most  financial analysts and financial sector professionals provide comprehensive coverages on the budget speech along with insights. Generally, it’s a time when vehicle owners and potential buyers get stressed. It is also commonly known that liquor and cigarette prices increase, and some relief packages in the form of subsidies for people get announced during the budget speech. So far, the budget speech is kind of a festival where people and businesses look for relief. That shows the level of government intervention that exists in Sri Lanka. In an ideal system where the market economy works, decisions cannot be surprises nor ad hoc, enabling people to have time to adjust and the price determining the allocation of resources. 

Traditionally, parliamentarians who support the government say that: “It’s the best budget post independence,” and the opposition says: “It’s the worst budget post independence,” as the microphones get directed by the media for comments on the budget.  

The budget this time is crucial for Sri Lanka. As per the numbers reported by authorities and independent analysts, it is clear we are short of money for detailed expenditure proposals and for daily operations.

86% of our tax revenue goes for salaries and pensions of state workers, and more than 100% of our revenue goes for our debt servicing. 

So as Lee Kuan Yew commented on our elections, most of the budget promises are just mere statements. It’s just a feel good statement or the auction of non-existent resources.  

This time it’s different because we are already inside the eye of the storm. This storm is the worst economic crisis post independence. 

Credit rating agencies have downgraded us, limiting our access to international finances, and we have about $ 22 billion of debt servicing for the next five years to be paid with just less than $ 2.5 billion in our reserves, as of 5 November 2021.

As we highlighted in this column post Budget 2021, it missed the elephant in the room, ignoring the debt crisis and the Covid-19 healthcare crisis. Even most of the business tycoons in most industries did not have the courage to point out that the last budget lacked the policy mechanisms of addressing the brewing economic crisis. Instead, they only looked inwards and failed to look beyond their interest without realising that we are on the same ship. There is very little meaning in demarcating our own territory when the entire ship is sinking.  

So we have arrived at a new cycle with a more serious situation, along with a further credit rating downgrade and more disincentives for exporters. The recent new rules on converting export proceedings will impact exports negatively. First, the exporters are paid a rate of Rs. 203 for each US dollar (USD) they bring, while the market rate is about Rs. 235 per USD. On the other hand, for importers, a USD was sold at Rs. 203 when the market rate is Rs. 235. So, we have fueled more imports and discouraged exports on exchange rate. Secondly, imposing controls on converting export proceedings will make life difficult for exporters to do business. Already exporters suffer from USD shortages and supply chain issues. Current policies just double the weight on their shoulders. 

There were heavy social media criticisms on the response by the Finance Minister on a budget related question. A journalist asked: “What benefits do you expect to announce for the people?”, to which he responded: “We may have to take from the people”. The reality is that the poor people who spend a higher percentage of their income on food have been greatly impacted by the increasing food prices caused due to the global commodity bubble. This has been made worse by the implementation of the Modern Monetary Theory implemented by our policy makers. So, taking from the poor will be difficult. At present they are mainly taxed through indirect taxes. 

Accordingly, this year’s budget has to be the first step to getting the fundamentals right. If we start auctioning non existent resources, this budget would lead us towards the direction of a looming crisis, making the situation even worse. 

Since the budget is now out, we can do an evaluation and make a judgement on the direction of the economy. 

(This article was written before the budget speech) 

Sources:

• CBSL, Annual Reports

• https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/sites/default/files/cbslweb_documents/statistics/wei/WEI_20211105_e.pdf

The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or anyone affiliated with the institute.

Will Budget 2022 help reset Sri Lanka’s economy?

Originally appeared on Daily FT

By Dr. Roshan Perera

A budget sets out the government’s plan for the economy together with the financial resources required to achieve those plans. It also indicates the broad policy direction and priorities of the government. Any assessment of the Budget cannot be undertaken without an understanding of where the economy is right now. In other words, the Budget must be evaluated in the current economic context.

Looking at the key economic indicators, it is clear that the economy is at a critical juncture. The country suffered the sharpest decline in economic growth in 2020. Although growth is picking up, the economy is likely to remain below pre-pandemic levels. Inflation is rising due to external pressures from supply side disruptions and shortages in international markets. Domestically, financing of the Government’s budget through banking sources (Central Bank and commercial banks) is exerting upward pressure on prices. On the fiscal front, government revenue declined to historic lows due to the impact of sweeping tax policy changes as well as the slowdown in economic activity. Meanwhile, the Government has very little leeway on expenditure, as much of it goes to pay salaries of government servants and to make interest payments – all contractual obligations. The consequent widening fiscal deficit has been financed through increasing borrowings leading to higher debt levels and debt service payments. Downgrading of the sovereign by rating agencies has limited access to international capital markets, exacerbating issues in the macroeconomy. The current economic crisis is not due to the Covid-19 pandemic alone. Sri Lanka entered the pandemic with a slowing economy and a weak fiscal position; the result of years of poor economic policies undertaken by successive governments.

Budget 2022 was an opportunity for the country to reset and for the economy to move to a more sustainable growth path. With Sri Lanka losing access to capital markets and large debt service payments over the next few years, the urgent need was to restore fiscal credibility and strengthen market confidence. Because credibility of the fiscal strategy is vital for stabilising the macroeconomy and restoring the confidence of investors. Hence, the primary focus of the Budget 2022 should have been on correcting the twin deficits, i.e., the fiscal deficit and the external current account deficit, because of the spillover effects into the rest of the economy through interest rates and exchange rates.

According to the Medium-Term Fiscal Framework, the fiscal deficit is projected to decline to 8.8% in 2022 from 11.1% in 2021 (see Table 1 for details).

With minimal wiggle room on the expenditure front, the focus of fiscal consolidation is on revenue generation. Tax revenue is projected to increase by 50% in 2022 from the revised estimates for 2021. Given that actual revenue consistently falls short of estimates, how realistic these projections are is called into question. A major portion of the increase in tax collection in 2022 is expected from the introduction of several new taxes. In addition, the VAT rate on banks and financial service providers is proposed to be raised to 18% from 15% as a one-time increase. Collectively, these taxes are estimated to raise Rs. 304 billion, accounting for around 46% of the total projected increase in tax revenue in 2022 (See Table 2 for details).

As a comparison, the Interim Budget for 2015 introduced a super gains tax of 25% applicable on any company or individual with profits over Rs. 2 billion in the tax year 2013/14 as a one-off tax. The revenue collected from this tax was Rs. 50 billion. Furthermore, the social security contribution is similar to the Nation-Building Tax (NBT), which was a 2% tax on turnover imposed on entities with liable turnover in excess of Rs. 15 million per annum. In 2019, the NBT generated revenue of Rs. 70 billion before it was abolished in December 2019. With a higher turnover threshold and the current restrictions on imports, it will be challenging to raise the estimated revenue from the proposed social security contribution. In addition, the ability to raise the proposed revenue depends on how expeditiously required legislation can be presented to Parliament. Delays in passing legislation have hampered revenue collection in the past.

The question that needs to be asked is why introduce new taxes on a revenue administration that is already stretched when there is ample room to revise thresholds and rates on several existing taxes. This would have been much simpler to implement and would have required minimal amendments to existing legislation. In addition, taxes with retrospective effect, such as the surcharge tax, are not good signals for prospective investors.

The big question is whether the revenue estimates in Budget 2022 are based on reasonable projections. What if the proposed revenue collection does not materialise? Is there leeway to cut expenditure to match the revenue shortfall? If not, will this mean a widening budget deficit and additional borrowing? With minimal access to foreign financing sources, this will mean higher borrowing from domestic sources, particularly the banking sector. This will have economy-wide implications through higher domestic interest rates and crowding out resources from the private sector.

On the expenditure front, overall, there has not been a huge increase in total expenditure. However, the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Public Security account for around 12% of total expenditure, while spending on health and education accounts for 6% and 4%, respectively, of the total. In terms of the composition of expenditure, salaries and wages comprise 34% of recurrent expenditure while interest payments account for 37%. While the Government has limited room to cut expenditure, making permanent another 53,000 graduate trainees may not provide the best signal in terms of the Government’s commitment to reversing the fiscal situation. Furthermore, the Budget for 2022 has reduced the allocation for subsidies and transfers. An important lesson from the pandemic was the need to build buffers during good times to be able to assist vulnerable households and micro and small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) who were disproportionately affected. Although the Budget proposes a one-off cash transfer to selected groups such as MSME entrepreneurs, school bus and van drivers, three-wheel drivers, and private bus drivers who were affected by the lockdowns, it does not address informal workers in other sectors of the economy who account for around 60% of the total workforce. Ad hoc cash transfers are not sufficient to address these issues. A more comprehensive social protection scheme is required to prevent vulnerable groups from falling into poverty due to unexpected events.

Macroeconomic stability also requires external sector stability. Large foreign debt service payments and dwindling foreign reserves have led to import controls and a tight rein on foreign exchange market. But a more sustainable solution to the external crisis is to encourage exports. The Budget refers to transforming the economy into an advanced manufacturing economy and encouraging exports to earn foreign exchange. This requires addressing the structural weaknesses in the economy hindering competitiveness and productivity. In this light, the question to ask is if spending priorities and policy measures announced in Budget 2022 address these bottlenecks. The Budget has allocated Rs. 5 billion for infrastructure for new product investment zones. In addition, the Budget refers to “…a special focus on expanding the IT sector and promoting BPOs and…a techno-entrepreneurship-driven economy”. However, the allocation for digitalisation is less than Rs. 5 billion. This is in comparison to the allocation for highways of around Rs. 270 billion and rural development programmes (Gama Samaga Pilisandara) of around Rs. 85 billion.

(The writer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Advocata Institute and a former Director of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka)

A framework for economic recovery

Originally appeared on Daily FT

By Dr. Roshan Perera

A twin deficit problem

For much of its post-independence period Sri Lanka has been characterised by twin deficits: fiscal deficits and deficits in the external current account. What this implies is the country spends more than it earns and consumes more than it produces. The two deficits are linked because the deficit in the external current account reflects the sum of the deficit in private savings (where private investment is greater than private savings) and government dissaving (where government expenditure is greater than government revenue). If a government continues to consume more than it earns and/or domestic private savings are not sufficient to finance investment in the economy this is reflected in a widening of the deficit in the external current account. 

If a country is running a deficit in the external current account deficit it is important to understand what is driving this deficit. If it is due to a deficit in private savings and investment that may not be such a bad thing because the shortfall is probably being financed through foreign direct investments (FDI) and in any case it is leading to an increase in the productive capacity of the economy. Thereby increasing future growth potential of the country. On the other hand, if the current account deficit is due to the government spending more than it earns, this would need to be financed through increased borrowings. And a country just like a household cannot continue to borrow indefinitely. There will come a day of reckoning. You will come to a point where you are not able to service your debt or you may be able to service your debt, but you won’t have the income to buy what you need to live (food, clothing, education, health etc).  It may come to a point where your creditors will stop lending to you. Or even if they do lend, they will charge you a very high interest rate which will only worsen your debt situation. So, what is true for a household is true for a country.  

Consequences of living beyond our means

Large deficits in the fiscal and external account have been financed through borrowings both from the domestic market (which has crowded out resources for the private sector) and external sources (which has led to an unsustainable level of foreign debt). Although in the short-term high government spending may stimulate economic growth in the medium to long term it acts as a drag on growth due to its impact on interest rates and the exchange rate. 

When a government borrows continuously from the domestic market it crowds out resources from the private sector and drives up interest rates. Thus, making it unviable for a firm to borrow because the cost of borrowing is higher than the return it could earn from investing. In addition, when a country has a large external debt, it attempts to fix the currency to stabilize the debt stock. But this could result in an overvalued exchange rate which leads to an anti-export bias and an import bias which further worsens the trade deficit and external finances. This is contrary to what an economy like Sri Lanka with a small market (both in terms of size and per capita income) needs. As expanding trade is the only sustainable path to faster growth and employment generation. 

The availability of concessional financing from multilateral and bilateral donors enabled the country to run fiscal and external deficits over many decades. Although access to low-cost financing ended when the country graduated to middle-income status, we didn’t change our spending patterns to suit our income. Instead, we sought alternative sources of financing, borrowing from financial markets and commercial sources at high interest rates and with shorter repayment periods. Consequently, by 2016, the share of foreign debt from non-concessional sources rose to over 50%. This has enormously increased debt service payments. Today, Sri Lanka has one of the highest levels of government debt in its history and its debt service payments are one of the highest in the world (absorbing 72% of government revenue in 2020). This has led to both domestic and external resources being diverted to servicing past debt to the detriment of future growth. 

Policy Priorities

Advocata Institutes’ recent report “A Framework for Economic Recovery” propose several policies to address macroeconomic imbalances and structural reforms for sustainable and inclusive growth. 

Firstly we need to address the macroeconomic imbalances in the economy. Primarily, correcting the twin deficits because they have spillover effects into the rest of the economy through interest rates and exchange rates. Priority should be given to fixing the tax system. Tax revenue which was over 20% of GDP in the 1990s has plummeted to 8% in 2020 and is likely to fall further in 2021. Expanding the tax base and improving tax administration are key to reversing the long-term downward trend in government revenue. Currently the personal income tax threshold in Sri Lanka is more than four times its per capita GDP and even higher than the tax threshold in countries with per capita incomes that are several times that of Sri Lanka, such as Singapore and Australia. A high tax threshold removes a significant portion of the working population that can contribute to tax revenue. Tax exemptions for businesses should be rationalised and the granting of exemptions centralised under one authority.  Evidence suggests that sweeping tax exemptions are not the most important factor in attracting investments and foregoing this tax revenue is not sustainable in the long term. 

With declining tax revenue collection, the government faces severe resource constraints. Expenditure on contractual obligations interest payments, salaries and wages and pension payments) has come at the cost of spending on building human capital (health and education). This needs to be reversed. Serious attention needs to be paid in the budget to rationalising the public sector and strengthening budgetary oversight mechanisms so that the government is held accountable for how they use the resources entrusted to them.

Secondly, we need to stimulate economic growth and improve the country’s competitiveness. Sri Lanka has experienced very volatile growth rates and in recent times spurts of debt fuelled economic growth. But this growth has neither been inclusive nor sustainable. We need to generate growth that is both inclusive (benefits all our citizens) and sustainable (growth that does not jeopardise future generations). The budget needs to address the structural weaknesses in the economy hindering productivity driven growth. Some policies that we discuss in our report are: (1) improving the business environment by reducing regulatory barriers which are needed to attract foreign direct investment. Sri Lanka lags its peers in the areas of doing business and competitiveness; (2) unlocking access to land which has been identified as a major bottleneck for investment; (3) creating a flexible labour market and raising labour force participation. There are a plethora of legislation governing labour in SL which act as a serious impediment for job creation. Further, Sri Lanka has a rapidly aging population and is no longer benefitting from a demographic dividend. However, it has access to a large untapped source of female labour. Encouraging greater female participation in the labour force requires removal of legislation restricting employment of female workers and improved provision of services such as childcare and safe transport; (4) addressing infrastructure gaps to enhance productivity and efficiency of the factors of production. We need to invest in infrastructure that has high social and economic returns. This requires better processes for project appraisal and selection, better management of risks which otherwise could lead to cost overruns and project delays and greater accountability to reduce waste and corruption.

Finally, the budget needs to build buffers to strengthen the resilience of the economy to shocks. 

Households have been disproportionately affected by the ongoing pandemic because they lack the buffers to cushion them from economic shocks. Workers, particularly in the informal sector, have lost jobs due to the impact of lockdowns and the closure of borders. Although the government provided some relief to households affected by the pandemic by way of income transfers, the lack of fiscal space constrained the government’s ability to adequately respond to the crisis. In addition, Sri Lanka’s existing social protection scheme has significant coverage gaps. Establishing a universal social safety net and reducing targeting errors will ensure that those who need support receive it when they need it most. 

Micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) play a vital role in the Sri Lankan economy. This sector was severely affected by measures taken to contain the spread of the virus, such as travel bans, lockdowns and social distancing. To mitigate the impact of the pandemic, the government and the Central Bank introduced various emergency liquidity support programs, debt moratoriums and extension of credit at concessionary interest rates. These schemes may have prevented some firms from bankruptcy. However, the inability of the government to continue providing such relief given the prolonged nature of the pandemic and fiscal constraints requires other measures to be put in place to deal with such situations. Given the size of this sector and its importance to the economy, ensuring the solvency of these firms as well as increasing their productivity is paramount to Sri Lanka’s long term economic growth prospects. Many firms will emerge from this pandemic with seriously impaired balance sheets. Firms that are not resilient, uncompetitive, or heavily indebted will probably fold due the crisis. To reduce the adverse economic impact of ad hoc closures, the government must ensure access to an effective bankruptcy regime. Such a mechanism will strengthen economic resilience, while incentivising firms to prioritise strategies to repair balance sheets in the medium term before they reach bankruptcy.  

(The writer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Advocata Institute and a former Director of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka)

Budget 2022: Macroeconomic stabilisation and structural reforms for inclusive and sustainable growth

Originally appeared on The Morning.

By Dr. Roshan Perera

Years of profligate living finally caught up with us. Sri Lanka, for much of its post-Independence period, has been living beyond its means: We have been spending more than we earn and consuming more than we produce. Our extravagant lifestyle was made possible by the availability of concessional financing from multilateral and bilateral donors. This ended once we graduated to a middle-income country. But we didn’t change our spending patterns to match our income. Instead, we sought alternative sources of financing. We borrowed from financial markets and commercial sources at high interest rates and with shorter repayment periods.

Consequently, by 2016, the share of foreign debt from non-concessional sources rose to over 50%. This had an enormous impact on our debt service payments. Today, Sri Lanka has one of the highest levels of government debt in its history and its debt service payments are one of the highest in the world (absorbing 72% of government revenue in 2020). This led to both domestic and external resources being diverted to servicing past debt to the detriment of future growth.

According to current estimates, Sri Lanka has around $ 26 billion in foreign debt obligations due between now and 2026. Sovereign rating downgrades made rolling over this debt challenging. But these are contractual obligations and there could be serious repercussions if a country defaults on its debt. Due to the decline in foreign inflows owing to the pandemic, the Government resorted to short-term measures such as bilateral swaps to shore up foreign reserves. However, there was a steady drawdown of the country’s foreign reserves to meet these debt obligations. Foreign reserves, as at end-September 2021, declined to $ 2.5 billion (which was equivalent to 1.5 months of import cover). Foreign currency obligations falling due within the next 12 months amount to around $ 7 billion. The current level of foreign reserves is grossly inadequate to service the Government’s debt.

Furthermore, using a country’s foreign reserves to pay debt obligations is not a good strategy in the long term. Foreign reserves play an important role in an economy – by providing a buffer against possible external shocks, smoothing temporary fluctuations in the exchange rate, and providing confidence to foreign investors.

With limited access to foreign financing, the Government is relying more on domestic sources to bridge the fiscal deficit. To keep interest costs low, domestic interest rates have been suppressed, which has effectively dried up the market for government securities. This has led to debt monetisation, with the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) purchasing a major share of government securities issued in the primary auction. However, there are costs involved with this strategy, as high monetary growth leads to high inflation. It also undermines the independence of the CBSL and hinders its use of its key monetary policy instrument, the interest rate, to manage inflation.

So, what needs to be done? Advocata Institutes’ recent report titled “A Framework for Economic Recovery” proposes several policies to address macroeconomic imbalances and structural reforms for sustainable and inclusive growth. These policies are not new. If you examine macro stabilisation programmes that have been implemented in this country (or in other countries that have faced similar economic issues), you would broadly find similar recommendations. This does not mean the recommendations made in the past were wrong – but rather that successive governments did not follow through on the reforms needed to ensure long-term macroeconomic stability and sustained economic growth.

This time is different in one aspect. Sri Lanka has lost access to financial markets due to its rating downgrade. Hence, it is not able to easily refinance its foreign debt. In previous stabilisation programmes, although debt sustainability was a major concern, it was addressed through a fiscal consolidation programme. This alone may not be sufficient in the current context. The country may need to engage in a pre-emptive debt restructuring exercise to prevent default. A wilful default could disrupt access to future financing, reduce investor confidence, affect credit ratings, and have a negative impact on the reputation of the country. However, debt restructuring is a complex process and securing a deal that is acceptable to a majority of creditors is fraught with difficulty, as there are many stakeholders involved, and conflicts of interest are inevitable, hence the need to engage with an institution such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the negotiation process.

The focus of Budget 2022 should be to address the macroeconomic imbalances in the economy. Primarily, correcting the twin deficits, i.e. the fiscal deficit and the external current account deficit, because these have spillover effects into the rest of the economy through interest rates and exchange rates. Priority should be given to fixing the tax system. Tax revenue, which was over 20% of gross domestic product (GDP) in the 1990s, has plummeted to 8% in 2020 and is likely to fall further in 2021. Expanding the tax base and improving tax administration are key to reversing the long-term downward trend in government revenue.

Currently, the income tax threshold in Sri Lanka is more than four times its per capita GDP and even higher than the tax threshold in countries with per capita incomes that are several times that of Sri Lanka, such as Singapore and Australia. A high tax threshold removes a significant portion of the working population that can contribute to tax revenue. Tax exemptions should be rationalised and the granting of exemptions centralised under one authority. Evidence suggests that sweeping tax exemptions is not the most important factor in attracting investments, and foregoing this tax revenue is not sustainable in the long term. With declining tax revenue collection, the Government faces severe resource constraints.  Expenditure on contractual obligations (interest payments, salaries and wages, and pension payments) has come at the cost of spending on building human capital (health and education). This needs to be reversed. Serious attention needs to be paid in the budget to rationalising the public sector and strengthening budgetary oversight mechanisms so that the Government is held accountable for how they use the resources entrusted to them.

Secondly, we need to stimulate economic growth and improve the country’s competitiveness. Sri Lanka has experienced very volatile growth rates and in recent times, sudden spurts of debt-fuelled economic growth. But this growth has neither been inclusive nor sustainable. We need to generate growth that is both inclusive (benefits all our citizens) and sustainable (growth that does not jeopardise future generations). The budget needs to address the structural weaknesses in the economy hindering productivity-driven growth. Some policies that we discuss in our report are:

1. Improving the business environment by reducing regulatory barriers, which is needed to attract foreign direct investment (FDI). Sri Lanka lags behind its peers in the areas of doing business and competitiveness

2. Unlocking access to land that has been identified as a major bottleneck for investment

3. Creating a flexible labour market and raising labour force participation. There are a plethora of legislation governing labour in Sri Lanka which act as a serious impediment for job creation. Furthermore, Sri Lanka has a rapidly ageing population and is no longer benefitting from a demographic dividend. However, it has access to a large untapped source of female labour. Encouraging greater female participation in the labour force requires removal of legislation restricting employment of female workers and improved infrastructure such as childcare and safe transport services

4. Addressing infrastructure gaps to enhance productivity and efficiency of the factors of production. We need to invest in infrastructure that has high social and economic returns. This requires better processes for project appraisal and selection, better management of risks which otherwise could lead to cost overruns and project delays, and greater accountability to reduce waste and corruption.

Finally, the budget needs to build buffers to strengthen the resilience of the economy to shocks. Households have been disproportionately affected by the ongoing pandemic because they lack the buffers to cushion them from economic shocks. Workers, particularly in the informal sector, have lost jobs due to the impact of lockdowns and the closure of borders. Although the Government provided some relief to households affected by the pandemic by way of income transfers, the lack of fiscal space constrained the Government’s ability to adequately respond to the crisis.

In addition, Sri Lanka’s existing social protection scheme has significant coverage gaps and needs to be extended to include informal sector employees, daily wage earners, and self-employed workers. Ad hoc payments are not sufficient to keep people from falling into poverty. Urgent action is needed to establish a universal social safety net and reduce targeting errors to ensure those who need support receive it when they need it most.

Micro, small, and medium-scale enterprises (MSMEs) play a vital role in the Sri Lankan economy, accounting for over half of Sri Lanka’s GDP and over 90% of total enterprises and 45% of employment in the non-agriculture sector. This sector was severely affected by measures taken to contain the spread of the virus, such as travel bans, lockdowns, and social distancing. To mitigate the impact of the pandemic, the Government and CBSL introduced various emergency liquidity support programmes, debt moratoriums, and extension of facilities at concessionary interest rates. While these schemes may have prevented some firms from bankruptcy, the Government is unable to continue providing such relief, given the prolonged nature of the pandemic and the fiscal constraints it faces.

However, given the size of this sector and its importance to the economy, ensuring the solvency of these firms as well as increasing their productivity is paramount to Sri Lanka’s long-term economic growth prospects. As the pandemic continues to affect economic activity, many firms will emerge with serious impact on their balance sheets. Therefore, as economies transition to normalcy, it is important to repair balance sheets by reducing unsustainable debt and rebuilding cash reserves. Firms that are not resilient, are uncompetitive, or are heavily indebted will collapse during such crises. To reduce the adverse economic impact of ad hoc closures in the most productive manner, the Government must ensure access to an effective bankruptcy regime. Such a mechanism will strengthen economic resilience, while incentivising firms to prioritise strategies to repair balance sheets in the medium term before they reach bankruptcy.

In conclusion, the key focus of policymakers should be on addressing macroeconomic imbalances. Priority should be given to correcting the twin deficits, i.e. the fiscal deficit and the external current account deficit, stimulating economic growth, and improving competitiveness while building buffers to strengthen the resilience of the economy to shocks.

(The writer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Advocata Institute and a former Director of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka)

Will the sugar tax leave a bad taste in your mouth?

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

Originally appeared on The Morning

---

By Aneetha Warusavitarana

Rising rates of obesity and incidence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) have long been a point of concern for the Sri Lankan health sector. As a country, we have made significant strides in addressing the challenge of communicable diseases, and now policymakers are shifting focus onto NCDs. The imposition of a tax on sweetened drinks in 2018 was a point of serious debate. It was both lauded as an admirable step in tackling the issue of NCDs, while simultaneously facing serious protest from the soft drink industry.

In 2018, the 51-day Government reduced this tax, and now the present Government stated that it will re-impose the tax, citing health concerns as the motivation behind it. While a final decision is yet to be taken on this, given that this is the same Government that imposed the tax, it seems likely that we will be seeing a tax increase.

Political packaging

Imposing this tax is an easy way to gain some political mileage. The narrative presented is simple – obesity and non-communicable diseases are a serious health concern for the Sri Lankan population. Sugar consumption is a contributor to this problem and as a responsible Government, they need to take steps to discourage consumption – this will be done through a tax per gram of sugar in carbonated drinks. In essence, the tax is packaged as a health-positive policy measure. Indeed, at face value, the tax does present as such. However, there are a few questions which can be raised.

Is this tax fair?

There are two things in life that are certain – death and taxes. While it may be that we will have to continue paying taxes, these taxes should be sensible, effective, and should not be prohibitively burdensome. This idea has been espoused in basic principles of taxation to ensure the tax is effective and equitable. One of the principles the OECD expounds is that of neutrality: “Taxation should seek to be neutral and equitable between forms of business activities.” Neutrality also means that the tax system will raise revenue while minimising discrimination in favour of or against an economic choice.

In the case of the sugar tax being imposed by the Sri Lankan Government, it is clear that the principle of neutrality is not adhered to. At a fundamental level, it is a “sin tax” or a “fat tax” – a tax being imposed to change the economic choices of the population – the aim of the tax is not to raise revenue, but to shift consumer behaviour away to more healthy options. Given that the sugar tax is applicable only to carbonated drinks, and excludes other sweetened drinks like fruit juice or milk packets, it is clear that the principle of neutrality has been ignored here.

Does unfair equal ineffective?

The principle of neutrality in taxation is all well and good, but does this affect people? The answer is yes. When the principle of neutrality is violated and a tax is imposed in a manner that is inequitable to business activities, it loses its effectiveness. The objective of this tax is to discourage the consumption of carbonated drinks with a high sugar content, to achieve a higher goal of good health. When the tax is imposed unfairly only on carbonated drinks, it means the consumers which simply substitute a carbonated drink with an alternative – and there is no guarantee that the alternative will be a sugar-free, healthy one. In fact, the likelihood is that people will switch to a different product with a similar calorie/sugar count – if a bottle of fruit juice is cheaper than a bottle of Sprite in the supermarket, you don’t want to pay more for the bottle of Sprite and you are likely to buy the juice instead. The health concerns will not end up being addressed because consumers will simply substitute one drink which is high in sugar with another drink that is also high in sugar.

Unfortunately, in the case of taxing food and beverages, the issue is that consumers can simply choose to continue to consume a similar level of sugar, just from a different source. Given that this tax only applies to one category of sweetened beverages, consumers can easily substitute it with another, cheaper beverage. There is also the question of whether sales of carbonated beverages drop; international evidence has mixed results. While the WHO (World Health Organisation) applauds these taxes, other studies question whether the tax affects sales of carbonated drinks to an extent that it would have an effect on overall health, or whether consumers are simply shifting preference to an alternative which is an equally sugary substitute.

The final word on this is that there is, at best, uncertainty about whether this tax creates a positive health externality; and at worst, consumers switch to unhealthy alternatives while businesses lose out on revenue.

Tariffs and the law of unintended consequences

Originally appeared on Sunday Times

By Aneetha Warusavitarana

The law of unintended consequences is a theory that dates back to Adam Smith, but was popularised by the sociologist Robert K. Merton. In short, the law explains the reality that when governments intervene to create a set of outcomes, as the theory of cetris paribus (holding other factors constant) cannot be achieved in a market situation - the result is a series of unintended consequences.

Colonial India and Cobras

This law is also known as the ‘Cobra Effect’, dating all the way back to when the British first colonised India. The British were understandably concerned about poisonous snakes in India, Cobras apparently being a source of some worry. The solution they presented was to provide a reward for every Cobra that was killed, creating a clear incentive for locals to capture and kill any Cobras in the vicinity. While this worked well in the short term, the British slowly realised that enterprising individuals were actively breeding Cobras; creating a very profitable business out of collecting bounties. Once this was clear, the British removed the bounty, and now as this was no longer a profitable venture, the breeders released all their Cobras. The final outcome of this was an increase in the general Cobra population, completely the opposite of what the intervention set out to achieve.

While this makes for a good anecdote, the economic realities of the law of unintended consequences are often more dire. Interventions into the market are often well-intended, but have the potential to backfire. A shining example of this is the case of tariffs. Forbes recently published an article which detailed the unintended consequences of a washing machine tariff imposed in the US. This well-meaning tariff was introduced to protect domestic producers in the US, and boost employment in that industry. If one evaluates the effectiveness of the tariff simply on those two criteria, then the tariff has been a resounding success; US washer and dryer industry created around 1,800 new jobs. This could easily be written off as a success story.

The Cobra effect on washing machines

However, the focus here is only on the producer, and the consumer has been removed from the narrative. The first unintended consequence was that as imported machines were now more expensive, domestic manufacturers could safely raise their prices, without fear of losing out on sales. The second unintended consequence was that dryers also became more expensive. As a complementary good to washing machines in the US, manufacturers of dryers saw this as the perfect window in which to raise their prices and increase their profits (clotheslines would save Sri Lanka from this unintended consequence).

Taking all this into account, according to Forbes, this has cost American consumers around USD 1.5 billion. One could argue that this increase in prices and resultant cost to consumers can be justified by the 1,800 jobs that were created. The reality is that each job is equivalent to USD 815,000 in increased consumer costs. This tariff policy effectively protects the local industry at the cost of their own consumers.

Why should Sri Lankans care about washing machine prices in the US?

While we can agree that this does appear to be an unfortunate example of unintended consequences, and that it is pretty clear that domestic consumers got a bad deal here, why should the average Sri Lankan care? After all, we have sunlight soap and clotheslines.

Sri Lankan consumers should care because the same unintended consequences that took place oceans away in the United States is happening here, in our little island nation. Tariffs have long been the favoured tool of successive governments. Tariffs sound really good on paper, and better if said paper is an election manifesto. ‘We will protect our domestic producers’ is a statement that tugs at the heartstrings of too many voters. The fine print ‘at the cost of domestic consumers’ is not something that is publicised, but it should be.

Tariffs have been imposed on goods ranging from household care, personal care and food. The price of items as diverse as school shoes and construction material are affected by this. The entire country complains about how the cost of living is too high, and unreasonably high tariffs are one of the drivers behind this. Unfortunately for us, the imposition of these tariffs create exactly the same series of unintended consequences that American consumers have to face. The price of the weekly shop an average Sri Lankan does whether it is from the delkanda pola, the closest supermarket or the handiye kade is affected by tariffs. A potato, even if it is locally produced is more expensive than it needs to be, because tariffs push the price of imported tomatoes up, allowing domestic producers to raise prices with the consumer losing out.

Tariffs on essential goods in Sri Lanka can range from 45% to 107.6%. There needs to be a serious re-evaluation of the role of tariffs in our economy – the rationale behind imposing them, the consequences of the tariff (which are well understood and cannot be discounted or ignored), and ideally a faster regime for phasing them out.

How import taxes drive up the cost of living

Originally appeared on Daily News

By Ravi Ratnasabapathy

“The Lanka Confectionery Manufacturers Association (LCMA) is actively seeking Government intervention to introduce a ‘negative list of manufacturing’ to safeguard local firms engaged in the industry before opening up the economy to giants like India and China.” - DailyFT 25 September, 2017

The above is an illustration of a phenomenon that is common in Sri Lanka – an industry seeking protection from foreign competition. This protection generally takes the form of a tariff – a tax that is imposed on the imported product that is not applied to the domestic equivalent. In the above instance the LCMA is requesting that the existing tariff protection enjoyed by the industry is continued even if a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is signed. (An item in the “negative list” of an FTA is not subject to the FTA). For example imported biscuits are taxed at a total of around 107% of price, if biscuits are on the negative list this tax would continue, despite the FTA.

Although a tariff is imposed, this does not generally cause foreign exporters to reduce the price that they charge for the product. Therefore the domestic price of the imported product rises by the amount of the tariff.

Domestic producers competing with these imports do not have to pay the import tax so have an advantage over the imported product. As the price of imported products rise, domestic producers have the opportunity to raise their own selling prices because competing imported products now cost more.

Will the domestic producer raise his prices? Yes, it makes no sense otherwise. If the domestic producer were to set his prices at exactly the same level he would if imports were not taxed there would be no point in seeking tariff protection from imports. They very purpose of the tariff is to enable the domestic producer to sell his product at a higher price. The domestic producer is thus better off as a result of the tariff.

What happens to consumers?

Domestic consumers of the product are equally affected by the imposition of the tariff. They must pay a higher price for both imported and local products.

In other words, the protection for domestic industry is actually paid for by domestic consumers, in the form of higher prices.

What of the Government that imposes the tariff?

The government collects tariff revenue, on whatever quantity is imported, although they do not collect it on the local product. The benefit that the Government creates for the local producer by raising the price of imports is collected by the producer. This surplus is called a “rent”, of which more below.

We thus have two domestic winners (domestic producers and the government) and one domestic loser (domestic consumers) because of the imposition of a tariff.

The local producer who is able to charge a higher price from the consumer thanks to the tariff on competing imports is said to enjoy a “rent”. In economics, a “rent”, is an unearned reward. The producer is able to charge a higher price not because of superior quality or service but because a tax imposed by the Government.

If the producer was able to charge a higher price because of better quality, even while cheaper imports were available the producer would be earning the premium price. There is an important distinction here.

Consumers would only buy a more expensive product while lower priced products are available is if they valued what they were getting. The producer must do something extra to persuade consumers that his product is superior and worth paying a higher price.

When a tariff raises the price of imports, local producers are able to charge higher prices with no increase in value to the consumers. Given a choice consumers may well chose cheaper alternatives – but the tariff makes sure that the alternative is no longer cheap. Consumers are thus forced to pay a higher price, not because they want to but because there is no alternative. This is why the premium in this instance is said to be unearned. Consumers do not perceive better value but pay more.

Thus producers gain at the expense of consumers. As noted before, it is domestic consumers (not foreign producers) who pay for the protection of domestic industries. The net impact is a transfer of wealth, from consumer to producer that is facilitated by the tariff.  Is this good policy?

If it were confined to a handful of industries it may not matter much, but in Sri Lanka it is all-pervasive. Over thirty common household items affected are listed below. This is only a selection-many others are affected. It explains why Sri Lanka’s cost of living is so high. All necessities from food (fruit, meats, pasta, jams) to toiletries (soap, shampoo, toothpaste) to household products attract taxes from 62%-101%.

Sri Lankan consumers suffer a high cost of living in order to support domestic industries. There is an argument that supporting local producers to build an industrial base will accelerate growth in the long run.

Japan, Korea and Taiwan practiced industrial policy(IP), but even proponents of the policy admit that care is needed to pick the right industries. In Japan and Korea the main industries were steel, shipbuilding, heavy electrical equipment, chemicals and later cars. Taiwan had light manufacturing (electrical appliances, textiles) before moving to heavy and chemical industries and electronics.

Sri Lanka seems to want to emulate this in toiletries, household cleaning products and food: soap, shampoo, washing powder, floor polish, pasta, cheese and biscuits.

To succeed, industrial policies need to foster a structural transformation in the economy that leads to rapid creation of jobs, especially more productive and better jobs. Selecting the right industries is important.

“it matters how realistically the target industries are selected in light of the country’s technological capabilities and world market conditions” [1]

Krugman [2] summarises some criteria advanced by proponents of IP in selecting sectors:

1. High value-added per worker. Real income can rise only if resources flow to businesses that add greater value per employee.

2. Linkage industries-such as steel and semiconductors. Industries whose outputs are used as inputs by other industries can create a cycle of industrialization. In Japan cheap, high quality steel gave downstream industries-ships, automobiles, rails, locomotives, heavy electrical equipment-a competitive advantage.

3. Present or future competitiveness on world markets. If the industry can meet this test, we can presume that resources are being allocated efficiently. Competitiveness is critical for linkage benefits to flow.

The selected industries need to target exports (albeit not exclusively)– to achieve scale economies and because it provides a “tangible criterion for the policy makers to judge the performances of the enterprises promoted by the government” [3]. The failure to promote exports is the key reason for failure of industrial policy in Latin America. (Chang, 2009)

The exports focus also ensures competitiveness. The purpose of policy is not to protect inefficiency but improve productivity.

Therefore support for industry must be conditional-on meeting performance targets.

“The results of industrial policy (or indeed of any policy in general) depends critically on how effectively the state can monitor the outcome that is desired, and change the allocation and terms of support in the light of emerging  results” [4]

Deliberation Councils were set up in Japan and Korea which would set targets together with industry. To ensure targets were stringent they also involved independent technical experts, academics and others.

Performance would be monitored and targets revised. Where a policy was seen to be ineffective it would be revised. Industrial policy is not only about picking winners but also phasing out losers.

“The success of industrial policy depends critically on how willing and able the government is to discipline the recipients of the rents that it creates through various policy means (tariffs, subsidies, entry barriers). The point is that the suspension of market discipline, which is inevitable in the conduct of industrial policy, means that the government has to play the role of a disciplinarian” [5].

This requires a bureaucracy insulated from political pressure to take impartial decisions on the support to industry-and change or withdraw support, depending on performance.

“How closely the government interacts with the private sector while not becoming its hostage is very important.” [6]

It becomes clear that successful industrial policy is a sophisticated partnership between industry and state, governed by the underlying principles of competitiveness and productivity. Unfortunately what takes place in Sri Lanka is unlike that of East Asia but similar to Latin America.

“Import substitution policies got a bad name, especially in Latin America, because the industries that were created often only survived as the result of protection. It was particularly costly when countries protected intermediate goods, because that made goods farther down the production chain less competitive. Countries often paid a high price for this kind of protectionism, and the maintenance of this protection was often associated with corruption.” [7]

---

[1] Chang, H. J, 2006. Industrial policy in East Asia – lessons for Europe. An industrial policy for Europe? From concepts to action EIB Papers, [Online]. Vol 2 No.6, 106-132. (Accessed 07 January 2019)

[2] Paul R. Krugman, 1983. Targeted Industrial Policies: Theory and Evidence. [Online] (Accessed 07 January 2019)

[3] Ibid

[4] M Khan, 2018. The Role of Industrial Policy:Lessons from Asia. [Online] (Accessed 07 January 2019)

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

[7] Joseph E. Stiglitz. Industrial Policy, Learning, and Development. [Online] (Accessed 07 January 2019)

---

For the full list of taxes on Food Items, Household Items and Personal Care items, click here.

Import Taxes and the Cost of Living

Originally appeared on Echelon

By Ravi Ratnasabapathy

The Encylopaedia Brittanica defines the cost of living as the “monetary cost of maintaining a particular standard of living, usually measured by calculating the average cost of a number of specific goods and services required by a particular group.”

“Cost of Living is the most fundamental measure of well-being; how good a life we can lead, the degree of comfort we have, and the number and types of products and services that we can buy.”

In a modern society everybody is a consumer, no one is self-sufficient. The prices we pay for our food and clothing, our necessities and luxuries, and everything else in between are what determine our cost of living.

Naturally, for anyone other than a committed ascetic this is the most important aspect of life. For any politician sensitive to the public it should top the list of priorities.

A lot of our daily necessities, from food to household products are imported. This should allow us to take advantage global efficiencies to source the cheapest or best products, depending what people want. Unfortunately high taxes and poor trade policies drive up end-costs for consumers in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka imposes a variety of taxes on imports: customs duty, VAT, Port and Airport Levy, Nation Building Tax and Cess. Although the maximum customs duty is only 30%, once these other taxes are added the total tax can increase to anywhere from 50% to 100%.

Heavy taxes are imposed on food (meat, dairy, vegetables, fruit, coffee, cocoa, pasta, breakfast cereal, biscuits, jams); personal care (soap, shampoo, toothpaste, diapers, sanitary napkins, shaving cream, razors), household care ( washing powder, wet wipes, polishes, brooms, brushes),  children’s needs (diapers, pens, pencils, pencil sharpeners, toys).

Older generations who experienced pre-1970s Sri Lanka may recall people cleaning their teeth with fingers (using charcoal or something called ‘tooth powder’), scrubbing dishes with a pol-mudda (coconut husk) or washing clothes by dashing them on a rock.

Toothpaste, washing powder, soap and shampoo are no longer luxuries; if they were a high tax may be understandable but they are necessities, even for the less well-off. Perversely luxuries like perfumes, wristwatches sunglasses are taxed the most lightly.

This has a significant impact on overall household budgets and the standard of living.

Voters need to ask our politicians why they need to tax these items so heavily. Baloo, the bear in the Disney cartoon sang of the bare necessities of life. Our leaders need to understand just how far their tax and trade policies are putting necessities out of reach for ordinary people; the main reason why so many seek opportunities overseas. Local salaries cannot keep up with the cost of living.

For full list of taxes, click here.

Some of the tariffs generate revenue for the government but many are imposed to protect local industry. Tariff protection for local industry comes at a cost: high prices for consumers. Supporting local industry is laudable but instead of protection the support should be targeted to help improve competitiveness and productivity. Firm level productivity depends on:

1. the sophistication with which domestic companies or foreign subsidiaries operating in the country compete, and

2.  the quality of the microeconomic business environment in which they operate.

Government support to upgrade technology, worker skills, improve access to capital, R&D and infrastructure is positive. These, together with more efficient government processes, improved infrastructure, more advanced research institutions-in short a healthier business environment; can yield long term productivity gains for the economy and the firm. Competitive pressure provides the incentive to improve productivity; the Government needs to work with firms to help this happen.  

Price protection for local industry is a blunt tool that hurts consumers and incubates inefficiency. Industry has demanded this for centuries; the French economist Frederic Bastiat explored this in satirical essay in 1845 that addresses the essence protection. It is reproduced, in an edited form, below:

A PETITION

From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.

To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.

Open letter to the French Parliament, originally published in 1845

Gentlemen:

You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.

.....We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us. 

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support. 

First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged? 

If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth. 

If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land. 

Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion. 

The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc. 

But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls. 

......Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense? 

We have our answer ready: 

You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too. 

....The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!

---

For the full list of taxes, click here.

The cost of being a Sri Lankan (woman)

Originally appeared on Sunday Observer

By Anuki Premachandra

Being a Sri Lankan woman is not easy. From having to constantly battle gender stereotypes and rebel gender roles, women also have to burden the financial cost of something that is beyond them; the exorbitant costs of sanitary pads and tampons. With a population that is 52% women, you’d think that we’d know better than to tax a woman’s necessity, but we don't.

Earlier this year, the Advocata Institute revealed some data and statistics on the import taxes on sanitary napkins, which were being taxed at a total of 101.2%. It was our Fellow, Deane Jayamanne who shed light on the absurdity of taxes on diapers and sanitary napkins, both practical necessities. This tax structure is not only a reflection of poor public policy, but also a testament to how little we’ve progressed as a society. Taxing a women’s necessity so heavily (it is treated as a luxury) does not reflect well on our policy choices, especially when our progressive neighbor, India recently scrapped a 12% GST (Goods and Services Tax) on sanitary towels.

A breakdown of the tax system is as follows:

At least one could say that we know better now. On that revolutionary note, in a statement last week, the Finance Minister has stated that the CESS on sanitary pads will finally be removed. However, the issue of protective taxes is much larger than just this, and needs immediate attention.

HOW TAXES WORK

In Sri Lanka, a lot of our daily necessities, from food to household products are imported. This is true in the case of sanitary napkins and tampons as well. In an ideal sense, this should allow us to take advantage of global efficiencies to source the cheapest or best products, depending on what people want. Unfortunately high taxes and poor trade policies only end in driving up the price of these products in the market.

Some of the taxes generate revenue for the government but many are imposed to protect local industry. Tariff protection for local industry comes at a cost: high prices for consumers.

In textbook terms, higher prices of imports means that consumers switch to locally produced products, boosting local business. However, a ripple effect of import taxes is that local producers can now sell their products at high profit margins because the selling price of the competing imported product is raised by the taxes - this is unfortunately the case of sanitary towels and many other household products in Sri Lanka.

Our Resident fellow, Ravi Ratnasabapathy highlighted the absurdity of taxes on commonly used household products in his latest column on the Echelon Business Magazine. Import taxes for cereal adds up to 101%, fruit juices to 107%, noodles to 101%, aftershave to 120% , toothpaste to 107%, etc etc. The list continues.

Lifting the taxes on sanitary pads is a signal that as consumers and citizens, we still have hope. Hope, that government authorities realise the absurdity of taxing daily consumption. Sri Lankan’s are literally taxed to go about their daily lives, from the toothpaste you use to brush your teeth in the morning to the ingredients that go into your daily buth packet, our taxes are absurd.

Price protection for local industry is a blunt tool that hurts consumers and incubates inefficiency.

Government support for industry should be directed away from tariff protection towards efficiency improvements: to  upgrade technology, worker skills, improve access to capital, R&D and infrastructure.

These, together with more efficient government processes, improved infrastructure, more advanced research institutions-in short a healthier business environment; can yield long term productivity gains for the economy and the firm.

Attracting FDI: Sorting out contradictions in policy

By Ravi Ratnasabapathy

The article originally appeared on the Daily News on 15 May 2015

The BOI is reportedly developing a new investment policy for Sri Lanka with the help of a panel of experts.

This is a welcome move, but the investment policy needs take a broad view in order to remove some of the impediments to investment that stem from different sources. Two in particular, the policy on land ownership by foreigners and the visas for foreigners have become a source of confusion and a barrier to investment.

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is widely used by developing countries as a tool to solve their economic problems. FDI can create employment and result in the transfer of technology which contributes to long term growth.

In countries where unemployment or underemployment is a prevalent the creation of new jobs is a priority and a good enough reason to attract FDI.

Even more important is technology transfer, a broad term that encompasses not only equipment but technical know-how, organisational, managerial, marketing practices and other skills that the employees of a firm learn while working with a foreign partner. When employees move to other firms they take these skills with them, which results in the skills being diffused into the local labour market, improving its productivity.

The transfer of knowledge is not limited to direct employees; foreign affiliates can also diffuse technology and skills to domestic suppliers, customers and entities with which they have direct and indirect dealings.

To ensure that local inputs meet their stringent technical requirements, foreign affiliates often provide the local suppliers not just with specifications but sometimes also with assistance in raising their technological capabilities.

Naturally, as countries have become more aware of the benefits of FDI an intense 'global race' for foreign investment has developed and Sri Lanka should ensure that it is not left behind.

In order for a country to be more attractive to investors (both local and foreign), there is a need to put in place measures to ensure an enabling environment by reducing so-called hassle costs, which is why the BOI was set up as a central point for all paperwork.

Access to land is necessary for investment but recent shifts in policy on land have caused concern.

The purchase of land by foreigners was prohibited in 1963, under the Finance Act. In 1992, the Exchange Control Act repealed the Finance Act allowing the purchase of land by non-residents on payment of a 100% tax.

The growth of tourism in Galle and the southern coast since the mid 1990's, particularly the development of a new concept of 'boutique hotels' may be traced to this event. Prior to this Sri Lanka focused mainly on mass tourism, the change in land ownership policy attracted a different type of investor, who brought with them a new concept of selling to niche markets. The 100% transfer tax on land was repealed in 2002. This, together with the tax amnesty of 2003 created a boom in property.

Up to that point the policy on land followed a clear trajectory towards greater liberalisation. Then followed a series of policy flip flops. First the 100% land tax was re-imposed in 2004. The tax was initially applied only to foreign nationals but was later extended to local companies owned by foreigners.

Then an announcement was made in November 2012, during the budget speech, that the sale of land would be banned. No legislation was enacted but the land registry simply refused to register any transfers due to the uncertainty causing much annoyance and confusion amongst investors.

Parliament finally enacted the Land (Restrictions on Alienation) Act No. 38 of 2014 in October 2014. This banned the sale of land to foreigners and companies where 50% or more of the shares were held by foreigners. Foreigners were allowed to lease land but a 15% tax was to be imposed on the lease rental for the entire term of the lease.

If a firm entered into a 99 year lease, it would be required to pay 15% of the total lease rental payable over the 99 years immediately as tax. In effect the firm would be asked to pay 15 years rent, up front as tax. Moreover, the tax was applied retrospectively, from January 2013.

On a short term lease of a year or two, a 15% tax may be tolerable but for any investor who is here for the long term, the type of investor that the country needs, the tax is prohibitive. Should investment slow there may be knock-on effects on areas such as tourism. Boutique hotels, being small, sell through word of mouth, to friends and associates of the owners. If foreigners are made to feel unwelcome they, along with their friends and family, are likely to start looking elsewhere for their annual holidays and winter escapes.

The spirit of the new Act appears aimed at restricting the access to land for foreigners, first by outright prohibition on sale and second by imposing an extortionate tax on leases, creating an effective barrier to investment.

Inconsistent with such a restrictive law is provision for the Minister with the approval of cabinet to grant exemptions to the Act. Therefore in practice foreigners can buy whatever they want, provided they have the blessings of the appropriate politicians and government officials. Analysts say that such wide discretion is designed to encourage what economists call 'rent-seeking' behaviour or in common parlance, corruption. Similarly confusing are the visa rules. On one hand the country wants to attract talent from overseas, initiatives such as Work In Sri Lanka have been launched to encourage skilled people from overseas to relocate but the country still denies work visas to foreign spouses of citizens. These are foreigners already resident in the country, many have skills that can be utilised productively, yet they are denied the right to work.

Although the sale of land is restricted, the Government still seems interested in promoting the sale of flats in high rises to foreigners-flats situated on or above the fourth floor of a building are specifically exempt from the restriction on the sale of land to foreigners. It does not seem to have struck anyone in authority that foreigners may not be interested in buying flats if residency visas and dual citizenship are hard to get. If the foreign spouse of a Sri Lankan has to give up a career in order to relocate the attractiveness of the country will diminish.

Some countries do restrict ownership of land and work permits are required almost everywhere but the rules need to be sensible investment is not to be deterred. Coherence, consistency and simplicity in policy will promote investment. 

---

Ravi Ratnasabapathy trained as a management accountant and has broad industry experience in finance. He is interested in economic policy and governance issues. 

Plans to impose a Rs 10,000 Minimum wage: Will it improve welfare?

By Ravi Ratnasabapathy 

The article originally appeared on Dailynews on 7 May 2015

It is reported that the Government intends to legislate a minimum monthly wage of Rs.10,000 with an increment of 25% to be imposed over the next year. An increment of Rs.1,500 is to be effective from May 1 2015, while the rest will be effected from May 1 2016.

The legislation is probably founded in good intent: improvement of the welfare of citizens. Improving the welfare of people should be one of the fundamental objectives of a Government and one that few, if any, would question.

In simple terms we may measure welfare as the standard of living or in economics, the amount of goods and services that a person can enjoy. To the average person it may appear obvious that there is a minimum that one needs to earn to pay for basic foodstuffs, rent, electricity and utility bills and other expenses to live as a human being.

The standard of living is dependent on two factors: the income of people and the cost of goods and services. If the cost of goods and services is low then people do not need a high income.

A price list from Ceylon Cold Stores dating from the 1950's or 1960's lists the price of an imported Australian chicken at Rs.3.10 per pound, haddock fillet from Scotland at Rs.3.00 per pound and ice cream at Rs.10.00 per gallon. The author recalls paying a rupee for bread and 15 cents for the bus fare to school. If costs had remained at those levels people could have lived comfortably on a few hundred rupees a month.

Therefore in striving to improve the welfare of people there are two approaches that may be taken: the increase of wages or the reduction in the cost of living. Moreover if the cost of living increases faster than wages, people will be worse off, even if wages keep rising.

Sri Lanka has a highly distorted tax structure with essential commodities and foodstuffs being taxed at high rates. The previous regime excelled at the art of taxation by stealth with “special commodity levies” being imposed on milk powder, dhal, canned fish, potatoes, onions, chillies and a host of other foodstuffs. Milk powder is taxed at Rs.135 per kg, dried fish at Rs. 102 per kg, butter at Rs.880 per kg, cooking oil at Rs.110 per litre.

This is quite apart from VAT and other levies that add a further 15%-16% to costs. The taxes form a significant part of the final price of the goods. The current regime has cut some of the taxes but there is much more that could be done.

The problem that the Government faces in cutting taxes is that they have no means of paying for the bloated public service. The Government spends 54% of the tax revenue just paying the salaries and pensions of public servants.

Due to high levels of debt, interest cost takes up a further 38% of tax revenue.There are also huge inefficiencies and waste in the public sector. Sri Lankan Airlines lost Rs.30 bn in 2013, the cost of which is passed on to people as higher taxes.

The cost of living can be reduced significantly, with consequent improvement in welfare of the people, if taxes were cut but in order to do so waste and inefficiency in the public sector must be reduced.

Returning to the minimum wage, in order to impose a minimum wage, there needs to be employment.

The Government can impose minimum wages but this will have little effect in improving welfare if people are unemployed. There is no point in absorbing the unemployed into public service, as the previous regime did on grand scale because paying for this means taxing-and impoverishing the population at large.

Therefore the first step in poverty reduction is to ensure that jobs are created in the private sector, the second step being to control the cost of living.

The problem is that if the minimum wage is set too high and economic activity that takes place at low wage levels may become unviable.

Low wage jobs generally employ unskilled labour; if jobs are lost it is the poor who will suffer. It is better to have a low-paying job and some income rather than no job and no income.

As liberal economist Paul A. Samuelson wrote in 1973, “What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2.00 per hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?

In 2003, South Africa imposed minimum wages in agriculture to provide protection for workers to a sector with lowest average wages in the country.

A study on the impact of this by Bhorat, Kanbur and Stanwix concluded that while farmworker wages rose by approximately 17% as a result of the minimum wage, employment fell significantly, by over 20% within the first year.

A study of the impact of minimum wages in Indonesia by Asep Suryahadi, Wenefrida Widyanti, Daniel Perwira and Sudarno Sumarto reached similar conclusions. Since the late 1980's minimum wages had become an important plank of Indonesian government policy. While minimum wages succeeded in increasing average wages employment declined.

According to the study, a 10% increase in minimum wages resulted in a more than one per cent reduction in employment for all categories of workers except white collar workers.

Given the evidence available, the Government's decision to impose a minimum wage must be viewed with caution. If the minimum wage is significantly above market rates it will cause a decline in employment. The current wage level of Rs.10,000 is fairly low and anecdotal evidence suggests that its impact on employment will be small but once such legislation is in place the question of increments comes up.

A politician looking for quick votes in an election year may promise a high increase to the minimum wage which may reduce employment in the long term, to the detriment of the poor.

This policy, taken together with the ill-conceived taxes imposed in the budget sends a negative signal to investors. Investment in new business is needed to create employment, so sending the right signals is important. Not only could this policy destroy existing employment it could also be a dis-incentive to the creation of employment in the future.

It is advisable that the Government reconsider this policy. 

---

Ravi Ratnasabapathy trained as a management accountant and has broad industry experience in finance. He is interested in economic policy and governance issues.