Economics of tyre imports and import controls

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The recent discussion on restricting tyre imports to boost local production, with the stated objective of saving USD outflow from the country, requires closer examination. 

In Sri Lanka, import restrictions are often perceived as a measure to promote exports, but in reality, they have the opposite effect. Restricting imports discourages exports and reduces the productivity of local manufacturing. 

Moreover, this strategy burdens consumers with higher prices and fosters corruption among Government officials and politicians. Ultimately, it is a strategy with no winners, leaving everyone worse off in the long run.

A deep dive into the tyre market

Sri Lanka is a leading exporter of solid tyres, holding approximately 25% of the global market share. Solid tyres, used in heavy-duty vehicles like tractors and forklifts, represent a key segment of our exports. 

However, even as a global player in this industry, we rely on importing raw materials such as metal to remain competitive. Across all rubber products, Sri Lanka imports approximately $ 200 million worth of raw materials annually, as local rubber production is insufficient. In 2019, the total export value of rubber products was approximately $ 1 billion.

Typically, industries add about 30% value through their processes. In the case of pneumatic tyres, the current tariff structure includes a 20% general duty, a 10% Ports and Airport Development Levy (PAL), an 18% Value-Added Tax (VAT), a 25% or Rs. 330/kg Commodity Export Subsidy Scheme (CESS), and a 2.5% Social Security Contribution Levy (SSCL). 

The cumulative tax burden amounts to 75.5% on paper, but due to the cascading effect of VAT applied on top of other taxes, the effective rate is significantly higher.

Sri Lanka has approximately five million vehicles, including tuk-tuks and motorcycles, which are often referred to as a ‘poor man’s transport’. These high tariffs or import bans effectively double the price of tyres, placing a disproportionate burden on ordinary consumers. 

For instance, the tax relief provided by expanding the tax-free threshold from Rs. 100,000 to Rs. 150,000 results in a monthly saving of just Rs. 3,500 – an amount easily offset by the additional cost of a single tyre. 

High tyre costs also drive up transportation expenses across the board, including bus fares, tuk-tuk fares, and freight costs, cascading through the economy without any corresponding productivity improvements.

Moreover, the new generation of Electric Vehicles (EVs) requires specialised, high-quality tyres. Import restrictions could limit access to these products, reducing the efficiency and viability of EV adoption in Sri Lanka.

Supporting local production the right way

Does this mean local production should not be supported? Absolutely not. However, support should come in the form of reducing structural barriers rather than imposing tariff protections. 

For instance, the high cost of energy is a major driver of manufacturing expenses in Sri Lanka. Addressing this issue through energy sector reforms would make local products more competitive. Alternatively, the Government could share the risk by subsidising loan interest rates, enabling manufacturers to compete globally and focus on exports rather than relying on protectionist tariffs.

High tariffs only serve to make local production uncompetitive, forcing consumers to bear the cost of substandard products. Instead, removing barriers to business and fostering an export-oriented industrial strategy is the way forward.

The problem with CESS and import tariffs

The CESS was introduced by the Export Development Board (EDB) to encourage value-added exports and discourage raw material exports. Ironically, this tax on exports has been extended to imports, significantly inflating tariff burdens. Few people realise the original intent of the CESS and its unintended consequences on trade.

Debunking protectionist arguments

Two common arguments are often made in favour of high import tariffs:

Infant industry argument: The idea is that new industries require time to establish themselves. However, the tyre industry in Sri Lanka dates back to the 1970s – well past its ‘infant’ stage. After more than half a century, it should be thriving without protectionist crutches.

Comparisons to India and the US: While India and the US impose some high tariffs, these nations have vastly different contexts. India, with a population of over a billion, and the US, with 300 million high-income consumers, can leverage economies of scale to make protectionism viable. Even in these countries, protectionism has shown its limits, and they increasingly focus on global competitiveness.

The tragedy of corruption through protectionism

Another significant downside of protectionism is its susceptibility to corruption. Sri Lanka has already witnessed scandals such as the sugar and garlic scams, where the Special Commodity Levy (SCL) was manipulated overnight through ministerial powers. 

Similarly, protectionist tariffs can be arbitrarily increased by corrupt officials, allowing certain companies to gain undue advantages. These benefits can even be funnelled into campaign financing, creating a vicious cycle of corruption.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) Governance Diagnostic Report highlights the vulnerabilities associated with protectionism, emphasising how such policies open the door to corrupt practices. By simply raising tariffs, policymakers can distort market dynamics, favouring a few while imposing costs on the wider public. This undermines the principles of fair competition and good governance.

The misguided USD savings argument

The notion that import restrictions save USD is flawed. Imports are driven by the ability to borrow in LKR rather than by direct dollar demand. With an appreciating currency and improving reserves, Sri Lanka has imported more without destabilising its economy. Restricting tyre imports could inadvertently increase wear and tear of other spare parts, like shock absorbers and rubber bushes, leading to higher overall costs.

If Sri Lanka continues to pursue import bans as a strategy to develop industries, it risks destroying exports, raising the cost of living, and undermining local industries’ competitiveness. Instead, we should focus on removing barriers to business and enabling local manufacturers to compete globally. 

Protectionism not only creates losers but also fosters corruption, making it an unsustainable and counterproductive strategy. A competitive, export-driven approach benefits everyone, ensuring a prosperous future for the economy. 

Mapping Sri Lanka’s growth strategy

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

With the final stage of Sri Lanka’s debt restructuring scheduled for next year, the focus must shift decisively towards economic growth. In this context, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s recent visit to India is particularly timely.

Over the past two years, Sri Lanka has been largely engaged in stabilisation efforts. Higher interest rates and increased taxes were central to this stabilisation agenda, which is fundamentally about avoiding bad decisions rather than actively pursuing the right ones.

Using a cricket analogy, stabilisation is like a No. 11 batsman in a Test match defending the wicket – the goal is simply to avoid getting out, not to score runs.

The next phase, however, demands a proactive growth strategy. Economic growth is less about avoiding pitfalls and more about taking the initiative and making bold moves. If stabilisation is about survival, growth is about thriving; it’s like playing a T20 match where you must play shots, protect your wicket, and actively score runs.

Connectivity represents a key area where Sri Lanka can catalyse growth. Connectivity to the Indian Ocean through maritime routes has been discussed for decades, but connectivity to India deserves equal, if not greater, attention.

India’s rapidly growing middle class presents significant economic opportunities for Sri Lanka. If we are serious about growth, enhancing connectivity with India is a necessity, not an option. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has been slow to respond over the years. This time, we must be proactive and get the work done.

There are already Sri Lankan companies like Damro, MAS, and Brandix, as well as service-sector organisations, that have successfully expanded to India. The fear that Sri Lanka might be at a disadvantage due to its smaller market size is unfounded. In fact, the small size of our market is precisely why we need to integrate with the Indian market.

Among the proposals discussed during the President’s State visit to India, connectivity projects related to energy, transport, and trade stand out as the most crucial. These initiatives provide Sri Lanka access to a market of over one billion people.

Grid connectivity, for instance, has been a topic of discussion for decades but has yet to be realised. Such connectivity would reduce energy costs and create opportunities to export surplus energy, particularly solar power generated during the day.

With South Indian states experiencing peak energy demand during the day due to industrialisation, Sri Lanka could sell excess electricity and, conversely, purchase electricity during the evening when its own demand peaks. This business model would encourage renewable energy investments in Sri Lanka, given the potential to export to India.

Lower energy costs would benefit Sri Lankan industries, including tourism, by reducing production expenses and enhancing global competitiveness. Similarly, an underwater pipeline for petroleum products could significantly cut transportation costs by enabling direct access to South Indian refineries.

A proposed land bridge could also integrate a rail line, telecommunications cables, and grid connectivity, excluding petroleum pipelines, which are expected to connect to Trincomalee’s oil tanks. These connectivity projects will require years of development, substantial investment, and careful geopolitical considerations to avoid supply chain disruptions or tensions.

Economic connectivity with India, particularly in factor markets such as land, labour, capital, and entrepreneurship, would drastically reduce production costs and provide access to a larger market. Connecting to bigger markets is essential for economic growth, and India, as a neighbouring economic giant, offers a ready opportunity.

Concerns about independence and fears of interdependence are common among Sri Lankans, but history reveals that Sri Lanka’s culture, including Buddhism, has been profoundly influenced by India. Even today, India accounts for the largest number of tourists to Sri Lanka.

The Government of Sri Lanka must establish competitive investment policies to attract foreign investments with clear cost-benefit analyses. Reviewing joint statements from past State visits shows recurring references to connectivity projects such as the land bridge, Trincomalee oil tanks, and investments. What has been missing is the political will and proactive action to turn these plans into reality.

If Sri Lanka fails to capitalise on this opportunity for economic growth, a second default may become unavoidable, leading to yet another request for assistance from India. The stakes are too high for inaction.

Supporting MSMEs requires more than parate suspension

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The Government has decided to extend the suspension of parate law until 31 March 2025, aiming to support Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) as they recover from the setbacks of the economic crisis.

Parate execution is a Roman-Dutch law that allows Licensed Commercial Banks (LCBs) to sell mortgaged property kept as collateral. The term ‘parate’ originates from Dutch and means ‘immediate’.

Under the Recovery of Loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act No.4 of 1990, parate execution empowers banks to recover unpaid debts by selling assets without undergoing judicial processes.

The previous Government introduced the suspension and the current Government appears to be continuing the policy without fully recognising the potential harm it could cause to the MSME sector. While the suspension has been extended until March 2025, there is a high likelihood of further extensions being requested in subsequent months.

Data accessed up to November 2023 indicates that only 557 parate cases were executed in 2023 (although the MSME Chamber claims the actual figure is 1,140 cases). The total value of these executions was Rs. 38 billion, which represents just 0.4% of total loans and only 2.7% of total bad loans. Even if the number of cases were doubled, the overall value remains insignificant.

Based on these statistics, it is evident that the suspension of parate execution does little to support MSMEs, as the affected segment represents a very small portion of the sector.

MSMEs are the backbone of Sri Lanka’s economy, constituting 99% of business establishments and contributing to 75% of employment. Supporting MSMEs requires broader initiatives beyond suspending parate execution, which is essential for safeguarding depositors’ funds in the current financial framework.

Banks primarily lend using depositors’ money. Therefore, when loans go unpaid, banks face significant challenges in recovering funds to repay depositors. Parate execution has historically served as a legal safety mechanism for banks, albeit not an ideal solution.

On the flip side, when parate execution is suspended, it discourages the majority of borrowers who struggle to repay their loans on time. These borrowers, who represent the largest segment of customers, may question why they should meet their obligations when a smaller group is granted exemptions. 

This creates a moral hazard and could encourage new loan applicants to skip payments, knowing the repercussions for non-payment are minimal.

Furthermore, if depositors perceive that banks lack sufficient legal provisions to ensure the security of their funds, they may seek alternative channels for their savings and become increasingly reluctant to deposit money in banks. This could destabilise the financial system over time.

In the absence of parate execution, banks may take precautionary measures, such as tightening lending criteria, raising interest rates for riskier sectors, and prioritising lending to existing or prime customers. 

These steps could harm new entrants to the MSME sector, limiting their access to credit or burdening them with high interest rates, which reduces their competitiveness and stifles economic growth.

The Central Bank of Sri Lanka’s Financial Stability Review for 2024 highlights that while Non-Performing Loans (NPLs) are declining, the rate remains high at over 13% as of Q2 2024, with more than Rs. 1,200 billion classified as non-performing. 

Although the tourism sector is booming, industries like transportation and manufacturing continue to report significantly higher NPL ratios than the industry average.

In the long term, the Government needs to prioritise the introduction of bankruptcy laws, enabling struggling businesses to efficiently settle liabilities and pivot to new ventures without undue delays. Such a framework would balance the interests of borrowers, banks, and depositors more effectively.

The continuation of the suspension of parate execution risks undermining the banking sector, endangering depositors’ funds, and harming MSMEs by fostering higher interest rates and restricted access to credit. 

It is time for policymakers to consider alternatives that promote sustainable economic recovery while maintaining financial stability

Graph 1 

Economic sectors with high NPL ratios 

Graph 2 -

NPL ratio

Are plans to lift vehicle import ban truly wise?

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Many Sri Lankans, including myself, are products of a failed middle-class dream. We aspire to be doctors, lawyers, and accountants because that path seems to promise a reasonable house and a decent vehicle.

Yet, bad economics has turned us into a generation of frustrated, failed middle-class citizens. Among the middle class, one of the most debated topics is vehicle imports – a key symbol of socioeconomic aspirations – which has recently resurfaced as a contentious issue.

While the Government has not clarified its stance on vehicle imports, the economic consequences of restricting them are evident. A black market emerges and people are forced to pay exorbitantly high prices for second-hand vehicles that are 5-10 years old. The economic impact of such inflated vehicle prices often goes unrecognised.

When someone spends three times the vehicle’s actual value, they lose the ability to invest the same amount in other life priorities – building or expanding a home, starting a business, pursuing professional or children’s education, or supporting leisure and the arts. This ripple effect stifles personal aspirations and reduces income opportunities for micro, small, and medium-sized businesses.

While I strongly advocate for relaxing vehicle import restrictions (or any import restrictions), the reasoning often used to justify such relaxation is flawed. Many argue that importing vehicles would boost Government revenue through increased border taxes, especially given the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) target of raising Sri Lanka’s revenue to 15% of GDP.

However, relying on border taxes for revenue sets a dangerous precedent, making our economy less competitive. This logic paves the way for protectionist measures like tariff hikes, a strategy that failed us during the 30-year war when high tariffs funded fiscal deficits but left our exports uncompetitive and fostered corruption.

Instead, the Government should focus on sunsetting unnecessary tax concessions, eliminating vehicle permit schemes for public servants, and broadening the tax net through investments in digitising the Inland Revenue Department.

The concerns: Currency depreciation and congestion

The two main arguments against vehicle imports are currency depreciation and increased congestion.

Currency depreciation

Currency depreciation is often wrongly attributed to imports. During the Covid-19 pandemic, Sri Lanka banned most imports, including essential medicines, yet the currency depreciated from Rs. 180 to Rs. 360. Before the ban, vehicle imports amounted to around $ 1 billion annually, while fuel imports, at $ 3 billion, should theoretically have had a greater impact on currency depreciation.

In reality, currency depreciation and reserve depletion occur when the Central Bank increases rupee supply by artificially lowering interest rates. When interest rates are kept low, borrowing becomes cheaper, prompting higher demand for credit – for vehicles, housing, and business expansion – which in turn drives up import demand. As a result, people demand more dollars from banks, leading to currency depreciation.

If the Central Bank refrains from artificially suppressing interest rates, banks will need to redirect credit for vehicle purchases from other sectors, naturally balancing the flow of rupees in the economy. Higher interest rates would curb excessive consumption, including vehicle purchases.

Unfortunately, the Central Bank has historically enabled excessive consumption by maintaining artificially low interest rates, which leads to higher import demand and ultimately depletes reserves as it attempts to defend the currency.

Thus, vehicle imports have little direct impact on currency depreciation or reserve depletion. Instead, the focus should be on managing interest rates to balance economic activity. That said, a phased approach to relaxing vehicle imports is advisable to avoid shocks to the economy. Notably, despite import relaxations, the Sri Lankan Rupee has appreciated by approximately 11%.

Congestion

Concerns about increased congestion due to vehicle imports are valid. However, the solution lies in improving public transportation. Significant investment in public transport infrastructure would reduce the demand for personal vehicles. Additionally, mechanisms for exporting used vehicles could help mitigate congestion.

Excessive taxes on vehicles will not develop public transport. On the contrary, such taxes exacerbate issues by suppressing aspirations, limiting personal choices, and further deteriorating the public transport system.

Developing public transport requires policy shifts, such as cancelling the restrictive route permit system, engaging the private sector, and relaxing price controls on bus fares. These reforms, not 300% vehicle taxes or outright bans, will address congestion effectively.

Way forward

Vehicle import restrictions and excessive taxes have far-reaching implications that go beyond economics, affecting aspirations and everyday lives.

While phasing out restrictions and ensuring fiscal discipline are essential, the Government must prioritise structural reforms and long-term solutions like public transport development and tax base expansion. Only then can we create an economy that balances growth, equity, and personal freedom.

Market-driven solutions for climate resilience

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

It is disheartening to see many areas and lives in Sri Lanka affected by severe weather conditions. The postponement of Advanced Level exams and the broader impact on human lives impose costs that cannot be measured in purely economic terms.

Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka, discussions on climate-related solutions tend to occur only during extreme events like floods or droughts. This article, admittedly, follows a similar trend.

The approach to solving natural disaster challenges in Sri Lanka has often been fragmented, relying heavily on the expertise of individual professions rather than adopting a holistic perspective. For instance, lawyers may frame the issue solely within a legal context, IT professionals may focus on technological solutions, and economists often emphasise financial and economic aspects. This siloed approach overlooks the need for an integrated strategy.

Additionally, many solutions in Sri Lanka depend heavily on Government intervention, creating inefficiencies due to limited governmental capacity and placing a burden on taxpayers. Unfortunately, market-driven solutions for climate and environmental challenges receive inadequate attention in public discourse. There are misconceptions that market-based systems are at odds with climate action, whereas, in reality, markets offer numerous innovative solutions.

Immediate vs. long-term solutions

In the short term, the Government must provide support to those affected by climate-related disasters. Generally, funds are allocated for this purpose in every national budget. However, for long-term solutions, incorporating climate risks into pricing mechanisms is crucial. The market system is not inherently complex; it simply needs to reflect the scarcity value of resources through proper pricing.

Currently, there is no effective way to associate climate risk with specific high-risk areas in Sri Lanka. If we had a digital land registry, we could assign risk values to lands based on factors such as flood, drought, or tsunami risks.

Similar to how platforms like Booking.com rate accommodations for cleanliness, food, and accessibility, land prices could reflect natural disaster risks. This would enable individuals to make informed decisions when selecting locations for agriculture or residence, ultimately reducing property damage and loss of life on a macro scale.

This approach could also encourage financial markets to extend quality credit for low-climate-risk properties within the existing collateral-driven credit system.

Infrastructure and investment prioritisation

The Government could prioritise infrastructure investments in canals and irrigation based on areas with the highest impact, rather than acting on an ad hoc basis. With risk data, disaster relief support could be incentive-based, aligning resources with identified risks.

The concept of property rights and reflective pricing for climate-resistant land can encourage optimal use and sustainable development. Ideally, integrating social safety net information and national identity cards would streamline rescue efforts and improve the efficiency of reaching the most affected people.

Catastrophe bonds

Catastrophe bonds (CAT bonds) represent another market-based solution. These bonds are typically issued through a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) by insurance companies to cover large-scale natural disaster risks.

Investors purchase CAT bonds, which provide funds to cover damages in the event of a disaster. If no disaster occurs during the bond’s term, investors receive higher returns. Returns and coupons vary depending on the type of natural disaster covered.

In the event of a catastrophe, investors may lose some or all of their capital. However, the relatively high returns reflect the associated risks. The issuance of CAT bonds also incentivises extensive research and investment in climate event analysis. Early identification of potential disasters not only minimises property damage but also saves lives by enabling timely alerts and evacuations.

With CAT bonds, investors have a financial incentive to invest in areas prone to climate risks, as they see potential returns. For investors, CAT bonds offer diversification opportunities and returns that are less affected by traditional stock market fluctuations or macroeconomic changes. Additionally, CAT bond returns are comparatively higher than those of other types of bonds.

The role of insurance and data

A mature insurance market can significantly mitigate climate risks. One of the main challenges for Sri Lanka’s insurance and capital markets is the lack of comprehensive data.

A digital land registry that integrates weather patterns and risk factors would enable insurance companies and banks to better assess investment risks for businesses and agriculture, in addition to considering the applicant’s credit history.

This would enhance the productivity of the financial sector and improve access to capital. Importantly, it would encourage businesses and agriculture to relocate to low-risk, high-productivity areas, enhancing overall efficiency.

Addressing climate challenges in Sri Lanka requires support from multilateral organisations, particularly for developing markets. However, it is crucial to avoid relying solely on Government interventions or over-regulating productive sectors.

By setting the right incentives and disincentives, and focusing on fundamental, long-term strategies, Sri Lanka can create sustainable solutions beyond ad hoc responses to climate events.

Sri Lanka’s rice dilemma

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

High rice prices, shortages of nadu rice, and the monthly importation of around 70,000 MT of rice have once again become key topics in national discussions.

As this column has highlighted previously, Sri Lanka’s per capita rice consumption is twice the global average. Yet, paradoxically, farmers remain poor and the market remains underdeveloped despite this significant consumption. The core issue lies in the complex and flawed economic dynamics governing the rice industry.

Low productivity and farmer incentives

One primary challenge is low paddy productivity. Farmers lack incentives to improve yields due to market dynamics. When production increases and supply exceeds demand, prices drop, negating any potential income gains for farmers.

Conversely, if yields fall, prices may rise, but the total crop volume decreases, leaving farmers with the same or even lower income. This discourages efforts to boost productivity, creating a cycle of stagnation and poverty.

Mismatch in rice varieties and market demand

Sri Lanka predominantly grows short-grain rice, while global demand favours long-grain varieties such as basmati and jasmine rice. Transitioning to long-grain cultivation presents challenges related to soil conditions and high production costs.

Moreover, the current pricing structure for rice does not reflect the true cost of production. Producing one kilogramme of rice requires approximately 2,400 litres of water, a resource for which farmers are not charged. Even accounting for a modest 20 LKR cents per litre, the true cost of rice would be significantly higher.

Market dynamics and oligopoly of millers

The paddy market is dominated by a few large-scale rice millers who have the financial capacity to purchase in bulk and maintain extensive storage facilities. Small and medium-scale millers often offer better prices but lack the scale to buy large quantities.

This oligopolistic structure limits competition and contributes to high consumer prices. While the Paddy Marketing Board has some storage capacity to intervene in the market, it is insufficient compared to the resources of large millers.

Implications of rice imports

Importing rice can benefit consumers by preventing shortages and stabilising prices. However, this strategy poses risks to small and medium-scale millers, who may struggle to secure sufficient paddy for milling if imported rice dominates the market.

The Government’s plan to import and distribute rice through State-run retailers, such as Sathosa, aims to control prices but introduces its own set of challenges.

Potential for corruption and market distortions

Government-led importation efforts create opportunities for corruption. The State must invest significant funds upfront and ensure that imported rice meets quality standards. Large-scale imports also raise the risk of mismanagement and unethical practices.

Additionally, limiting imported rice sales to Government outlets like Sathosa may inadvertently encourage private retailers to purchase and resell it at higher prices, undermining efforts to keep costs low for consumers. Imposing purchase limits at Sathosa could lead to long queues and inconvenience for shoppers.

Policy considerations and long-term solutions

There is no simple solution to Sri Lanka’s rice crisis. Addressing the issue requires long-term, multifaceted strategies.

Improving rice productivity and diversifying the buyer base beyond millers through strategic investments is essential. Establishing farmer associations with adequate storage facilities could enhance competition and stabilise the market. Allowing private sector rice imports without restrictive licensing could also promote fair competition and reduce corruption risks.

However, price controls or excessive Government intervention in the market are unlikely to resolve the underlying issues of consumer affordability or farmer poverty.

Ultimately, a sustainable solution involves balancing productivity improvements, market diversification, and transparent policies to ensure fair competition and equitable outcomes for all stakeholders in Sri Lanka’s rice industry.

Lanka’s fuel price tug of war: Who really pays the price?

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Fuel prices and fuel price revisions have always been a political football. Statements by various politicians on the taxes imposed on fuel and the scope for reducing fuel prices have come under renewed scrutiny with the 31 October price announcements.

Adding to the confusion, a statement by the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) Chairman – that the CPC must compensate for the losses of other players if deviating from the price formula – has sparked fresh controversy. It’s essential to unpack these issues one at a time.

According to Central Bank data, we imported approximately $ 1.5 billion in refined petroleum and $ 0.5 billion in crude oil in the first half of the year. Assuming demand and prices remain steady, total fuel imports this year will be around $ 4 billion.

About 70% of fuel is consumed by the top 30% of high-income earners in Sri Lanka who can actually afford higher fuel prices. Naturally, energy consumption rises with income, as wealthier households use personal vehicles, high-energy appliances, and consume more overall. Only 30% of the total fuel is consumed by the remaining 70% of the population, which includes fishermen, public transport users, and service providers.

Thus, if we artificially lower fuel prices through a subsidy, it effectively subsidises the wealthiest families in Sri Lanka. While a low-tax regime might be ideal, given our fiscal situation and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme, Government revenue must increase to about 15% of GDP. Lowering fuel taxes would thus provide tax relief to the wealthiest 30% of households and incentivise excessive fuel consumption.

Imperative to adhere to fuel formula

Instead of being swayed by popular demands to reduce fuel prices, especially with rising tensions in the Middle East, the Government should first review its balance sheet to ensure adequate revenue with minimal market distortions to achieve debt sustainability.

If the Government aims to lower fuel prices for the public transport and fisheries sectors, the best approach would be a direct cash transfer rather than lowering all fuel prices, which would mitigate the impact of high fuel prices on essential goods and services.

It is imperative that we stick with the fuel formula and strengthen it if necessary. Unfortunately, there is limited information regarding the recent controversy over agreements between fuel suppliers on price revisions. If, as the Chairman claims, there is a clause to compensate private players for losses, this would be unreasonable if true.

In the absence of the full report, the only available information is a post on X from the former Minister of Power and Energy, who claims the CPC only pays the difference when the Government provides a subsidy or other mechanism to deviate from the price formula. In fairness to private players, if only the CPC receives a fuel subsidy, it creates an unlevel playing field, as petrol and diesel would be cheaper at CPC stations than at private ones.

Although the subsidy benefits consumers, it primarily benefits the wealthiest 30%, and rising demand could drastically increase the total subsidy cost for the Government. Therefore, a fuel subsidy is not advisable, as it essentially transfers Treasury funds to the wealthiest households in Sri Lanka.

Another issue has arisen: one supplier has reportedly requested about Rs. 82 million as compensation for deviations from the fuel price formula. It is difficult to assess this claim fully, as the original documents are not publicly available, but if true, it raises questions about whether recent price revisions adhered to the formula.

In particular, price adjustments before and after the elections require examination. Data on whether the September and October price revisions complied with the formula has also not been published; making this information available would reduce information asymmetry, essential for a functioning market economy.

Providing consumers with the best price

A further question is whether only a Government-owned CPC can reduce prices, and why prices are not decreasing with private players like Lanka IOC, Sinopec, RM Parks, and United Petroleum in the market.

The answer is not straightforward. The CPC is already heavily in debt, with high financing costs that must be covered. Moreover, prior to the latest revision, Sinopec’s diesel prices were actually lower than others, illustrating how competition can bring prices down.

However, prices depend on global crude and refined oil rates, and sometimes on the efficiency of refineries. When a price formula is in place in a small market, players often charge similar prices, but more competitors could introduce value propositions, including price variations based on global fluctuations.

For example, Lanka IOC offered an environmentally friendly fuel at a higher price, while Sinopec sold diesel at a lower price. To remain competitive, each player must offer something unique, which may not always be a lower price but can include quality or convenience.

The final point is that the new administration has requested a flat dealer margin instead of a percentage tied to global fuel prices, which is a positive move. Dealer costs are mainly influenced by inflation rather than global prices. The purpose of the price formula is to account for both variable and fixed costs to prevent losses and provide consumers with the best price.

In a market system, the consumer is at the centre. To prioritise consumer needs, we must ensure multiple players and transparency in pricing to minimise information asymmetry. Publishing the final fuel price revision calculations for the past two months and the full price revision agreement with private players would be a constructive first step.

Central Bank Defends Liquidity Injections Amid “Money Printing” Controversy

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on Ada Derana Business

A fresh controversy has erupted following reports that Sri Lanka’s Central Bank (CBSL) injected nearly 100 billion rupees into the banking system by October 25. Given that money printing was the major cause of the country’s financial crisis, this news has sparked considerable attention. CBSL has defended its actions, arguing that these liquidity injections do not equate to money printing.

What is the CBSL’s Argument?

CBSL asserts that these liquidity injections were necessary to address persistent imbalances among banks. Despite an overall surplus of funds in the banking system, this liquidity is unevenly distributed. Foreign banks operating in Sri Lanka hold significant liquidity surpluses but remain cautious about interbank lending due to strict risk management guidelines. As Sri Lanka’s sovereign rating is still ‘Default, this limits their exposure to local financial institutions. As a result, foreign banks deposit excess rupees with the Central Bank rather than in the interbank market.

While this was a serious problem in the midst of the crisis things have improved since: interbank call market (clean or unbacked) trading volumes, once as low as zero 1-2 billion rupees daily, has now returned to Rs10bn to Rs20bn (averaged 10 billion last month). Repo volumes (backed by T-bills) are back around 30 to 70 billion rupees, which is higher than pre-crisis levels.

Notably, auction data shows the central bank offering more than what banks bid for, with some banks bidding close to the deposit rate, indicating a willingness to lose bids—yet CBSL still provided new funds.

Given the much healthier interbank volumes, the CBSL should avoid undermining the working of the interbank market. The CBSL should be the last resort for a bank facing a liquidity crunch, not the first.

The Core Issue: Temporary vs. Longer-Term Impact

The debate centers on whether these injections are temporary or enduring. If CBSL swiftly withdraws the new money by selling Treasury bills or foreign exchange, the money supply remains stable. However, if these short-term purchases are repeatedly rolled over, the increase in money supply could become more long-term. Critics warn that this scenario is no different from lending money to the government, potentially triggering balance of payments problems and inflation, thus jeopardising the ongoing economic recovery.

A Matter of Terminology

CBSL’s reluctance to label this as “money printing” is essentially terminological. Regardless of whether the funds are lent to banks or the government, the impact on the money supply is fundamentally the same. Therefore, interventions must uphold the principle of currency stability, given the grave consequences of unchecked money creation.

Acknowledging CBSL’s Efforts

It is It is important to acknowledge that since September 2022, the CBSL has done an admirable job in restoring monetary stability. The critical task now is to maintain this hard-won stability. These points are presented to promote a healthy academic debate on an issue of great importance, not to cast blame on any specific entity or person.

Potential Alternative Strategies

What alternatives could CBSL have considered?

Purchase Foreign Exchange from Banks: Where balance of payments conditions permit, CBSL could continue the practice of buying foreign exchange, injecting rupees but reducing foreign currency in the If the injected rupees were later used for imports, CBSL could sell foreign exchange back, maintaining balance and avoiding exchange rate issues.

Use the Standing Lending Facility: Lending at the Standing Lending Facility Rate of 9.25% would ensure banks only borrow for urgent liquidity needs. As this penal rate is higher than the interbank rate, it discourages long-term dependency and helps avoid a lasting increase in the reserve money supply.

Reduce the Standing Deposit Facility Rate: If the CBSL wishes to lower rates, it could reduce the rate on deposits held at the Central Bank, which would encourage banks to lend more in the interbank market. However, this would also lower overall interest rates and must be carefully managed. To support reserve accumulation, interest rates need to remain at an appropriate level to curb credit and keep imports in check.

The Balancing Act

CBSL faces the difficult task of supporting the banking sector while safeguarding monetary stability. Any intervention must be carefully weighed to mitigate risks such as inflation and currency destabilisation.

Fuel deal without bidding sparks fears of economic instability

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

On Wednesday (16), a daily newspaper reported that the new Government was planning to strike a fuel supply deal between the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) for power generation.

Following this report, there was significant discussion on social media questioning why the Government would deviate from the competitive bidding process (a few Government representatives have personally informed us over the phone that the facts in the news story are incorrect and that the Government plans to clarify details through a press conference).

If the news is true, it would mean that the CEB would no longer engage in competitive bidding when purchasing fuel from the CPC. Fuel purchases, including hydrocarbons like naphtha and heavy fuel oil, are key input costs in electricity generation.

Regardless of the news story’s accuracy, the main concern for businesses is that bypassing the competitive bidding process in fuel procurement could lead to significant risks for CPC and CEB financial stability with corruption vulnerabilities. If the CPC and CEB start incurring losses or attempt to cover up losses by increasing tariffs, it could destabilise the economy.

To put this into perspective, the CPC’s revenue for 2023 was approximately Rs. 1,300 billion and the CEB’s about Rs. 679 billion. In comparison, Sri Lanka’s total tax revenue, including Value-Added Tax (VAT) for 2023, was around Rs. 3,000 billion.

Together, these two institutions manage a cash inflow that amounts to nearly two-thirds of the country’s total tax revenue. Even a minor financial misstep could result in a major crisis for the Government, leading to a complete economic collapse.

Avoiding the competitive bidding process creates a vulnerability to corruption. Competition is a crucial tool for preventing corruption, as it automatically introduces checks and balances through price signals on the supplier side. Without competitive bidding, any corruption within the CPC or CEB would likely manifest as significant financial losses in their balance sheets. Unlike other institutions, losses at the CPC and CEB have massive spillover effects, as has been seen under successive governments.

Typically, the CPC sells naphtha – a byproduct of its refinery – at a price higher than the market rate to the CEB. This is one way the CPC tries to offset its own inefficiencies or cover losses when the Government mandates fuel sales below production cost. However, when the CPC charges more for naphtha, electricity generation becomes more expensive, prompting the CEB to seek tariff increases.

On top of this, the CEB often delays payments to the CPC when it experiences losses, which forces the latter to borrow money from banks at high interest rates. These costs, in turn, are passed on to consumers, affecting industries across the board – from rice mills to poultry farms and even hotel operations, as energy costs are a major expense (CEB tariff hikes impact the water bill and many other industries, including through increasing inflation).

The CPC also sells jet fuel to SriLankan Airlines at inflated prices, similar to how it overcharges the CEB for naphtha. Jet fuel is a significant cost for the aviation industry and the high prices can push airlines into losses. When the CPC, CEB, and SriLankan Airlines all incur losses, they ultimately turn to the Treasury for bailouts.

It is no secret that the Treasury’s budget deficit has remained massive for years, compared to the country’s GDP. Consequently, the Government then turns to State-owned banks like the Bank of Ceylon (BOC) and People’s Bank (PB) to cover the losses. In many cases, the Government provides Treasury guarantees, sometimes even in US Dollars, for fuel purchases.

These banks, in turn, are forced to lend depositors’ money to these institutions, often at a high risk due to the prime lending rates. Ultimately, the financial mismanagement of the CPC and CEB trickles down to depositors’ hard-earned savings.

In the last Budget, the Government allocated Rs. 450 billion, equivalent to three years of Advance Personal Income Tax (APIT, previously the Pay-As-You-Earn [PAYE] tax), to recapitalise the banking sector, mainly with State banks. In addition, the Government absorbed $ 510 million into the Treasury to address losses at SriLankan Airlines, largely caused by the CPC’s inflated prices.

If the CPC indeed moves away from competitive bidding, it is a clear signal of poor governance and a warning of future economic hardship, potentially affecting depositors’ savings. When the CPC and CEB incur losses, the Government typically has to either increase the prices of electricity and fuel beyond what is set by price formulas or continue providing subsidies – both of which lead to higher taxes or interference with key economic indicators, thus creating political pressure.

This cycle has been ongoing for years, which is why the business community and others are deeply concerned about the CPC leaving the competitive bidding process. If the news is false, we can be relieved. But it is essential to understand the grave risks of abandoning competitive bidding, as it extends far beyond corruption; it threatens to bring about complete financial instability.

Scrambled supply: How maize, markets and policy cracked egg prices

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Just after the election, social media chatter quickly shifted to egg prices, which had dropped by about Rs. 10. Many speculated that a kickback had ended, causing the price drop. However, a few days later, the prices shot up again by Rs. 10 and memes started circulating, joking that now the hens were taking the kickback.

But there is a deeper story behind egg prices and the poultry industry in Sri Lanka. The primary cost in poultry is the cost of feed, with maize being the main ingredient, making up about 60% of the feed by weight. The cost of maize accounts for around 45-60% of the total cost of poultry production.

In Sri Lanka’s poultry market, 40% is through wet markets while 60% is through formal markets, which maintain high standards to supply to hotel chains. At one point, we were even exporting poultry products to the Maldives.

When it comes to eggs, however, the cost factors are front-loaded. Layer chickens must be imported and raised to maturity, which takes longer than broiler chickens. The cost of feeding these layer chickens, especially with maize prices being so high, significantly increases production costs.

After the economic crisis, inflation caused maize prices to soar from Rs. 45 to Rs. 165 per kg, pushing up poultry product prices. Our local maize market, which is the main cost driver for the poultry industry, is tricky.

While Sri Lanka requires about 500,000 MT of maize annually, we only produce 300,000 MT, leaving a shortfall of 200,000 MT, which is imported through a licensing process. This system creates a cartel of importers, driving up maize prices and, consequently, chicken and egg prices.

Maize imports are also heavily taxed, including Ports and Airport Development Levy (PAL), Value-Added Tax (VAT), and Customs duty, further increasing costs. Meanwhile, local maize production is inefficient, yielding only about 1.5 MT per hectare compared to the global average of 2.5 MT per hectare. This low productivity forces farmers to encroach on forests to increase their yield, creating environmental challenges.

In response to the crisis, the Government imposed price controls on eggs. Since farmers had already invested in layer chickens, they were unable to maintain them under the price controls and ended up selling the chickens for meat. This led to a reduction in egg production, driving prices higher.

In the formal market, producers with thin profit margins halted capacity improvements, keeping production stagnant. As a result, we were unable to expand exports, as there was no capital to fund growth. The combination of price controls, maize import licensing, and high tariffs led to low production and high prices.

Eventually, the Government resorted to importing eggs from India. This highlights how distortions in the maize market, coupled with tariffs and inefficient agriculture, have hurt Sri Lanka’s poultry industry.

Despite all the costs, including shipping, insurance, and handling, the cost of an imported egg is still cheaper than locally produced eggs, mainly due to irregularities in the maize market.

Over time, the market began to stabilise. The drop in egg prices right after the election was likely due to lower demand during election week, especially from eateries and bakeries. As eggs are perishable, the surplus likely drove prices down. However, as soon as prices fell, people began buying more than usual, which quickly drove demand back up and prices along with it.

While it’s possible that some farmers and wholesalers may have hoarded eggs, the primary reason for high egg prices lies in Government interference in the maize market and price controls. The well-intentioned move to make protein more affordable through price controls has had the opposite effect – something that happens with many policy decisions.

The new Government must focus on making decisions based on data, facts, and economics, not just good intentions. In economics, good intentions don’t guarantee good outcomes.

The first 200 days: Can the new government lead or will it be overtaken?

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

• Sri Lanka’s new Government faces critical early decisions

The first 100-200 days are critical for any new government. Being prepared to assume power is essential because if a government expects to prepare after getting to power, it risks being overtaken by circumstances.

This is particularly true in a country like Sri Lanka, where uncertainty is the only constant. Governments here face numerous internal and external shocks, and there is little time to prepare or adjust once in power. When a new president or government takes charge, it is akin to boarding a fast-moving train.

Many previous governments have been reactive, merely responding to crises rather than controlling the situation. If a new government fails to take command, the situation will inevitably take control of it.

During his second term, President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Government was overtaken by corruption and inefficiency before it could address core issues. The ‘Yahapalana’ Government came to power unprepared, only drafting its Vision 2025 plan after a Cabinet reshuffle, including changes to the Ministry of Finance. By then, its primary mandate for rule of law, good governance, and economic transformation had already faded.

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Government faced the unexpected Covid-19 pandemic. While somewhat prepared, its policies were misaligned with sound economic principles. The more policies it implemented, the more unpopular it became, given the delicate balance between economics and politics.

Learning from these past lessons, one hopes the current Government avoids the same mistakes. Its challenge is navigating back-to-back elections. While elections may strengthen the Government’s political power, delaying essential economic reforms could be disastrous for a fragile economy like Sri Lanka’s. Delays in reforms could take years to recover from, and in the meantime, other pressing issues may spiral out of control.

While the plan for economic stability continues, economic growth reforms are equally vital. According to the National People’s Power (NPP) manifesto, simplifying the tariff structure is a good starting point. A simplified tariff would not only boost growth and competition but also reduce corruption, benefiting consumers by lowering prices. The Government should see an increase in revenue as informal money leaks caused by a complex tariff system decline.

However, timing is crucial, and reforms need to be implemented quickly within the first 100-200 days. Simplifying the tariff structure will see resistance from trade unions and stakeholders benefiting from the corrupt system. The best way to minimise resistance is to act early. Some local companies, which profit from targeting only the domestic market, may resist the changes, as will officials who have benefitted from the complexity of the system.

The second key reform the new Government should prioritise is anti-corruption. In fact, it received a strong mandate for this. While addressing corrupt politicians and officials is important, the Government also needs to reduce the potential for future corruption by adjusting or removing certain regulations.

Even if the Government is not entirely prepared to tackle corruption vulnerabilities, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Governance Diagnostic is ready with specific actions, responsible divisions, and timelines. By committing to this framework, Sri Lanka can also secure financial and technical support from bilateral and multilateral sources. More importantly, it would significantly reduce the country’s corruption vulnerabilities.

The Government must also avoid certain pitfalls. Delaying economic growth reforms in favour of focusing solely on anti-corruption would be a mistake. Both reforms need to move forward simultaneously, and the Government must be proactive rather than reactive.

Another mistake to avoid is the overuse of relief packages and price controls. When governments fail to deliver on promises, they often impose price controls as a last resort, covering everything from eggs and milk powder to hotel rooms. While intended to protect consumers, price controls often lead to unintended consequences. If the controlled price is lower than production costs, sellers lose the incentive to sell, creating black markets.

We hope the Government can maintain stability, grow the economy, and continue its anti-corruption drive in parallel. Failing to do so will only lead to further losses for all.

Why we won’t be able to find the thieves after the election

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

If you ask the average person the reason for our economic crisis, they would probably say one word: ‘corruption’. The idea of corruption was hyped so much that it became the main theme of the people’s movement – the ‘Aragalaya’. 

However, the truth is a little different. This doesn’t mean there hasn’t been corruption; it means corruption is more of a symptom than the root cause. Corruption is like a fever, while the real infection lies elsewhere. The problem is, we don’t fully understand how corruption occurred, and if we don’t know that, it’s unlikely that we can fix it either. 

Even when we look at the election manifestos of political parties, they talk about eliminating corruption, but corruption isn’t the main focus. Instead, they place more emphasis on proposals for exports, business environment reforms, social safety nets, and debt restructuring.

Why don’t we know?

The way many Sri Lankans calculate corruption is simple: they take the total value of loans we have taken over the years, compare it with the asset value of infrastructure projects, and conclude that the difference equals corruption. 

However, most of the money we borrowed was not for infrastructure. In fact, since 2010, about 47% of the loans were taken just to pay interest. Another 26% of the debt increase came from currency depreciation. This means that from 2010 to 2023, about 72% of the total loans was used for interest payments and dealing with currency depreciation. 

Therefore, comparing the value of infrastructure projects to the total debt doesn’t give a clear picture of corruption because we have been borrowing mostly in order to pay interest. As a result, the debt keeps growing and we remain stuck in the same place.

Does that mean there’s no corruption?

This doesn’t mean there has been no corruption. It simply means we don’t fully understand how it took place. As a result, the solutions proposed for corruption only address the symptoms, not the root cause. 

Corruption has taken place during procurement. Most of the projects we conducted have been priced far above their actual value. 

For example, a project that should have cost $ 1 million was priced at $ 3 million. We then borrowed money at high interest rates for that inflated amount. The project is completed, but we’re still paying interest on an inflated value and the interest keeps snowballing. Now, we’re borrowing more just to pay the interest, which only pushes the total debt higher.

How to fix it

This problem needs to be fixed at the beginning, not at the end. Most anti-corruption methods focus on the aftermath – finding thieves and recovering stolen money. Of course, we should recover stolen money and hold people accountable for misuse of public funds. But on a policy level, the real need is for transparency in procurement and competitive bidding. 

Digital procurement systems and a proper procurement law can take us to the next stage. Otherwise, it’s akin to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Without competitive bidding, we may never even know the true value of projects or how much was stolen. Recovering stolen money becomes incredibly difficult if we don’t know the amount or the method used to steal it.

The solution is upfront disclosure of the values of large infrastructure projects, as well as clear financing methods and guidelines.

The graph shows the impact of State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) losses on debt. The contributions of Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) and SriLankan Airlines to the debt are clear; in 2024, we will see more debt from SriLankan Airlines, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWSDB), and other entities.

Simply put, we borrowed too much at high interest rates with short maturities for infrastructure projects that didn’t generate enough revenue to even cover the interest payments. As a result, the interest compounded and we have been continuously borrowing to pay off that growing interest, leaving the debt in place and forcing us to keep borrowing.

Albert Einstein put it wisely when he said: “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it; he who doesn’t, pays it.”

Sri Lanka’s next leader faces a web of crises

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

In two weeks, a newly-elected president and government will take charge of steering the country.

At the beginning of the forex crisis, we warned that an economic crisis often comes as a package of five interconnected crises.

Balance of payments crisis

A balance of payments crisis occurs when excessive borrowing from the central bank (money printing) leads to inflation. In countries like Sri Lanka, where the local currency is not a reserve currency and the economy relies heavily on imports, printing too much money increases the demand for goods and services – many of which are imported.

If exports, remittances, and Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) fail to keep up with this increased demand for imports, we run out of foreign exchange reserves, causing the currency to depreciate.

Debt crisis

When foreign currency reserves are depleted, the country struggles to meet its obligations to creditors. While borrowing from international markets might offer temporary relief, credit rating downgrades make this option limited, triggering a debt crisis. On 12 April 2022, Sri Lanka officially declared it could no longer service its debts, despite having the intention to do so.

Banking crisis

If local banks have provided significant loans to the government and the government defaults, a banking crisis can unfold. Sri Lanka narrowly avoided this scenario.

Humanitarian crisis

With debt defaults and depleted foreign reserves, imports become limited. Inflation makes basic necessities unaffordable for the poorest segments of society. In Sri Lanka, poverty numbers surged from three million to seven million, pushing more than 30% of the population below the poverty line.

Political crisis

When a government faces multiple crises such as these, political instability inevitably follows, as we have seen in Sri Lanka. The President was ousted, the Prime Minister and Finance Minister resigned, and an interim Government was formed.

Although the political crisis continues, it is only one phase in an ongoing cycle of instability, with the Presidential Election being a milestone in this process.

Current political landscape

The incumbent President has introduced significant relief measures, including raising public sector salaries, forgiving agricultural loans, and making other promises. However, if re-elected, he will struggle to deliver on these promises within the limited fiscal space, potentially leading to a deviation from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme.

Alternatively, he might be forced to raise taxes or borrow more, which would increase interest rates and add to the economic strain.

If another candidate is elected, they will face the same fiscal limitations and may have to reverse salary increases to maintain fiscal discipline.

In the case of a Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) government, the challenges are compounded. The Economic Council within the SJB sends mixed signals about achieving revenue targets to support proposed expenditures. Additionally, the broad alliance of political factions under the SJB presents internal challenges, especially concerning sensitive reforms like State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) restructuring and maintaining Central Bank independence.

Not all factions have aligned views based on previous voting records and public statements. Managing these internal differences will be critical for an SJB government, especially in the context of carrying forward the relief measures introduced by the current President.

Similarly, in a National People’s Power (NPP) government, the same challenges apply. The NPP, primarily led by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), advocates for a more State-led development approach, but many professionals in the party’s outer circle lean toward market-driven policies. This could lead to internal conflict, making reforms difficult to implement without alienating part of the party.

This situation resembles the ‘Yahapalana’ Government, where the President and Prime Minister held differing ideologies. As a result, governance became more about managing stakeholders than effective government operation.

If you recall, the Prime Minister made economic decisions through the Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM), which was later replaced by the National Economic Council appointed by then President Maithripala Sirisena. Stakeholder management within an NPP government could prove just as challenging.

On top of these internal struggles, Parliamentary and Provincial Council Elections are expected to follow, adding even more political promises that will further constrain the fiscal space. Reforms tend to slow down during election periods, making debt restructuring more difficult and putting the IMF programme and long-term debt sustainability at risk.

While we may see temporary relief from one or more of these crises, the interconnected nature of these issues means that one crisis could easily trigger the others. The risk factors remain extremely high, underscoring how difficult and sensitive sovereign debt restructuring and recovery can be. There is always a risk of setbacks before we see real progress.

The path forward

Whoever takes office, the best-case scenario involves continuing with reforms aimed at growing the economy, with all political parties supporting these efforts with transparency and accountability.

Stakeholder management will be crucial, but there is no other way to avoid the complete package of five crises. Economic growth, fiscal discipline, and political unity are essential if Sri Lanka is to emerge from this difficult period.

The thin line between gaining power and triggering crises

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The game has begun. The familiar auctioning of non-existent resources during election season is in full swing. Candidates are making various promises without considering the repercussions they will face whether they win or lose.

Candidates are likely contemplating two things: first, promise now, gain power, then deal with the aftermath of those promises. Secondly, if they know they’re not going to win, they might promise the impossible, thinking they won’t have to deal with the consequences. Neither of these approaches is without significant risks and either can lead to disastrous consequences.

Elections and governing a country go beyond mere promises and their execution; it’s about managing people’s expectations with available resources.

After the economic crisis, all indicators suggest we are slowly recovering, thanks to stringent measures. Interest rates have soared to record highs to curb inflation. Urban poverty has tripled, rural poverty has doubled, and the already impoverished estate sector has seen a 1.5-fold increase in poverty.

Apart from our parliamentarians, all citizens have compromised their wealth and earnings. The public has reluctantly understood that tough sacrifices are necessary.

Impossible promises

The promises being made now are simply impossible to deliver. One such promise is a 25-50% salary increase for Government employees. Even the last Budget’s cost of living allowance increment is yet to be fully implemented. According to the 2023 Budget, Government salaries and wages total approximately Rs. 939 billion. Therefore, a 25-50% increase would require an additional Rs. 230-460 billion next year.

Our annual revenue from Advance Personal Income Tax (APIT) is at most Rs. 160 billion. This means that the proposed salary hike would require almost 1.5 to three times APIT. Is the private sector ready to shoulder an additional 150-300% in tax or revenue hikes for these Government salary increases?

Just in July, the Government rejected a proposed Rs. 20,000 salary hike for State workers, stating that it would need an additional Rs. 275 billion, which would require increasing the Value-Added Tax (VAT) by 4% to proceed.

Making matters worse, there are suggestions to amend VAT and many other tax rates by different candidates to align with their earlier pitches.

The danger of these promises is that whoever becomes the candidate who comes into power will need to fulfil all these promises, even those made by their competitors, which are unattainable.

The losing candidate, who will then be in the opposition, will always pressure the government to fulfil these unsustainable promises, raising public expectations for things that cannot be delivered. When expectations are unmet, it typically results in a political crisis, or if they try to fulfil what was promised and it is not economically viable, we will end up in an economic crisis.

That is why elections are not just about gaining power but also about managing people’s expectations.

Making promises responsibly

A salary hike for senior Government officials is necessary, but it is only feasible through a complete restructuring of the Government cadre and our military.

Currently, about 48% of our salary expenditure is for the defence sector, with about 32% going to the military. Restructuring the military is complicated and sensitive. A salary hike without restructuring will disincentivise staff who are expecting to leave, adding a massive burden on Government pensions and leading to a pension crisis.

With the new Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) Act, the Treasury cannot borrow money from the CBSL or print money. Therefore, if the Government borrows more from the market, interest rates will rise and the overall cost of capital will skyrocket.

The proposals to revise VAT are no different. VAT is a reasonable tax system because it only charges for the value added, unlike other indirect taxes like the Social Security Contribution Levy (SSCL), which has a cascading effect. VAT is easier to collect and it creates minimal distortions. Additionally, high-income earners contribute a higher amount of VAT as their consumption is greater.

The discussion about renegotiating the International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreement needs to be approached with caution. In every IMF review, it is clear that adjustments or shifts in timelines are made based on our performance.

However, trying to renegotiate the entire IMF agreement and its structural benchmarks could invite unnecessary complications. Not only Sri Lanka, but our bilateral partners including China, Japan, and India; multilaterals such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA); and our bondholders have all based their calculations on the existing IMF agreement.

It took over a year to negotiate our current terms. Another renegotiation would be time-consuming, and by the time we reach a settlement, the accumulated interest would be unbearable and market confidence would likely falter.

The damage our candidates are collectively doing is by making promises that cannot be delivered during this crucial time, and people’s expectations are a combination of all these. Whoever wins may have to deliver most of these pledges, which is not feasible. If the winner cannot deliver, a political crisis is certain, or if the winner tries to implement what was promised, another economic and social crisis is assured.

While people must vote carefully, candidates must make their promises responsibly; otherwise, they will start losing power from the very first day they receive it.

The State’s business is no business at all

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

We can’t judge a book by its cover, but in the Sri Lankan Presidential Election, we can certainly gauge many people’s futures based on what is said about State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) reforms.

The simple truth is that we can only progress with SOE reforms. These reforms are rare and even mentioning them on a political stage requires courage. However, the fact remains that there is no future without SOE reforms.

Given the resistance by political leaders, this column is another attempt to reiterate why the State should not engage in business and how State involvement in business impacts all citizens.

Why should the State not do business?

The role of the State is not to do business but to ensure the rule of law. As the saying goes, “When you do something, you are not doing something else.” When the State engages in business, it neglects its primary duty – upholding the rule of law, which is its core mandate.

Another reason the State should not do business is that it has a unique way of participating in every business as a mandatory shareholder through the tax system. Every corporation is required to pay 30% of its profit to the State, which is essentially the Government’s share.

Additionally, businesses must pay an 18% tax based on their income. This means that the Government collects more than 50% of the profit value without doing anything. Since the Government is already collecting money from all businesses, there is no need for it to engage in business directly.

Why sell profit-making SOEs?

A common argument against privatisation is, ‘why sell profit-making SOEs?” The answer is that the State has no role in business, and even if these enterprises are making a profit, those profits must be evaluated against the value of the assets.

For instance, the Sri Lanka Cashew Corporation has an asset base of about Rs. 500 million, but its annual profit is only around Rs. 14 million. This translates to roughly Rs. 1 million per month. Does it make sense to run a business that generates just Rs. 1 million in profit after tying up resources worth Rs. 500 million?

If we had Rs. 500 million, even the safest investment, such as a fixed deposit at a 6% interest rate, would yield about Rs. 30 million per year, which is more than double the profit of the Cashew Corporation. Just because an enterprise is making a profit doesn’t justify the State continuing to run it if we can’t maximise the return on those assets.

What about the SOEs of Vietnam and South Korea?

Like Sri Lanka, both South Korea and Vietnam had significant SOEs in the 1960s due to limited private capital. As private capital slowly developed, both countries began reforming their SOEs. These reforms included privatisations and gradual government withdrawal through corporatisation.

In Vietnam, there were about 5,600 SOEs in 2001, which was reduced to 3,200 by 2010 through various reform packages under the Doi Moi reforms. By 2016, the number of SOEs had further decreased to 2,600, thanks to reforms including Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and corporatisation.

Vietcombank, which was a 100% State-owned bank, was listed on the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange as part of a pilot project in 1990. The State’s ownership was reduced by 75%, with 15% of the shares sold to Japan’s Mizuho Bank. Similarly, Petrolimex, a petroleum company in Vietnam, sold 9% of its shares to JX Nippon Oil & Energy on the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange.

In South Korea, Korea Telecom (KT) was fully privatised by listing it on the Korean Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange, and London Stock Exchange. The Korea Electric Power Corporation was also opened to private investors by listing on the Korean Stock Exchange in 1989 and the New York Stock Exchange in 1999. Other companies, like Pohang Iron and Steel Company, Korea Exchange Bank, and Korea Tobacco & Ginseng Corporation, also underwent reforms to allow private sector participation.

Vietnam attracted Nokia as a key investor for economic growth, while South Korea grew with Samsung and other electronics companies. If Sri Lanka wants to progress, we need to bring in world-class operators that can run these enterprises efficiently, rather than have the Government manage them.

Benefits of SOE reforms

SOE reforms offer a package of four solutions to our problems.

First, they boost Government revenue, as efficiently-run companies will generate higher profits, allowing the Government to increase its revenue.

Second, SOEs have significantly contributed to our sovereign debt, and reforming them can help reduce the national debt.

Third, Sri Lanka requires Foreign Direct Investment, and SOE reforms can serve as a channel to attract such investments.

Fourth, SOE reforms can help cut down Government expenditure, as these enterprises currently contribute to massive Government losses.

SOE reforms require political will because incorporating them into a manifesto is unlikely to attract votes; in fact, it may deter traditional voters. However, the moment of truth will come, and ultimately, we all have to face it – it’s just a matter of time.

Why public transport should be the real campaign promise

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

All political parties want to make promises during the election to attract their voter base.

Some politicians in the Opposition provide material benefits such as roofing sheets, sarees, and mobile phones. Additionally, the ruling party often announces salary hikes for Government servants, special interest rates for retirees, fuel cost reductions, and fertiliser subsidies, expecting to provide relief for voters and secure their votes in return.

The biggest benefit voters can receive from politicians and their manifestos is the improvement of the public transport system. A solid mechanism to improve public transport is more beneficial compared to all other promises combined.

However, the way most politicians are opting to provide relief for the problem of commuting is by removing the vehicle import ban. Removing the ban is necessary because our vehicle stock has not been renewed for the last 4-5 years. However, vehicle imports will not solve the problem of public transportation. Not many politicians or parties understand that our economy and many of the other struggles related to the cost of living are connected to the problem of commuting.

Given the poor status of our public transport system, every middle-class family living in suburban areas within a 20-30 km radius of Colombo wants to travel in their own vehicle. To own a personal vehicle, a middle-income family pays about 150-200% in tariffs on imported vehicles. Simply put, this means that middle-class people pay twice the value of a car, often with a vehicle loan taken at about 12-14% interest.

The solution many middle-class families choose to solve their commuting problem comes at a significant cost to their living expenses and lifestyle. As a result, they end up spending two to three times the value of a vehicle at high-interest rates, cutting down on other potential expenditure, such as higher education or investing in a business.

When the middle class cuts down on spending, many other industries that could have benefited from middle-class expenditure are negatively impacted.

Moreover, as middle-class citizens purchase personal vehicles to solve their commuting problems, the roads become overcrowded. Our average speed during peak hours is dropping below 20 km/h. By spending a fortune on a car at a very high-interest rate, we spend valuable time on the road.

During peak hours, residents from the stretch of Moratuwa, Wattala, Pelawatta, Battaramulla, Maharagama, Kottawa, and Homagama take at least one hour to enter Colombo and another hour to return home. Spending two hours a day commuting means that if a person works for 22 days per month for 12 months, they spend about 22 full days (24-hour days) on the road. This translates to spending at least one month out of 12 on daily commuting. We are spending a month in the most expensive and uncomfortable way possible.

Politicians need to understand the need for a solid public transport system, which will not only provide relief for people but also improve our productivity manifold and boost economic growth and investments.

How can we fix it?

Many political parties make only broad statements, but none specify how to solve the problem. An often-tried solution is buying extra buses from India for the Sri Lanka Transport Board (SLTB) or purchasing new train engines or compartments from India. Despite trying this approach for over two decades, the situation remains the same.

Recent data reveals that after Covid-19, the number of bus routes has declined. One notable bus route that disappeared in Colombo was route number 155, which operated from Mount Lavinia to Mattakkuliya.

While the problem is complicated, the first step to solving it is to encourage people to commute to the city using public transport rather than personal vehicles. Therefore, we need to prioritise high-passenger capacity vehicles in traffic lanes. The priority lane system for buses was a step in the right direction, but the condition of the buses remains very poor. Bus owners are already complaining that high costs and a lack of labour are causing them to leave the industry.

The framework for the solution is to provide a public transport option that is less expensive than travelling by personal vehicle and allows for faster commuting with the same level of comfort as a personal vehicle. In terms of buses, the option is to allow more air-conditioned buses and permit them to charge a higher price.

However, the route permit system must be abolished or replaced with a new mechanism where supply and demand can be matched. With the current route permit system, even if there are many passengers on a particular route, no new buses can be introduced. With controlled pricing, service providers have no incentive to improve their services. Therefore, allowing players to enter with different price points is the first requirement.

Secondly, we can consider high-level options such as a Light Rail Transit (LRT) system, where we can tap into bilateral and multilateral funds.

In terms of trains, private investment must also be allowed. For instance, railway stations across the island are generally located at points where real estate values are the highest. With amendments to the Railways Authority Act, private investments can be tapped to generate alternative revenue models for these stations. Additionally, railway tracks, compartments, and operations can be unbundled, allowing different players to enter each segment rather than running it as a State-run, loss-making monopoly.

Solutions for public transport do not lie solely in Government investments. They lie in making regulatory changes that can unleash the potential of capital, allowing players to enter the market according to demand, and making regulatory changes that offer the public more choices.

Let’s hope that the manifestos of political parties will address the above issues in the upcoming Presidential and General Elections.

Economics 101: A lesson for presidential candidates

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The story of how Singapore wanted to emulate Sri Lanka and how Sri Lanka later aspired to be like Singapore is widely known. This narrative has been discussed at many forums and political rallies.

Less known, however, is that Dr. Goh Keng Swee, the architect of Singapore’s financial system, advised the Sri Lankan Government and the then President in the 1980s. He clearly outlined what needed to be done and what should be monitored in our economy. Unfortunately, we did not heed Dr. Goh’s advice. He was then the Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore.

What Dr. Goh recommended remains relevant for whoever is elected as the new president on 22 September. His focus was mainly on the financial architecture of the country because he knew that without stability in the financial system, other achievements would be impossible. As it is famously said, ‘Stability is not everything, but without stability, everything is nothing.’

Dr. Goh’s first advice to the President was to monitor the Central Bank of Sri Lanka’s (CBSL) Government securities holdings, which essentially means the money printed by the CBSL. He noted that should the Government continue to print more money beyond the rate of economic growth, it would be a sign of significant trouble and unsustainability.

Evaluating Sri Lanka’s data since 2020, this issue is evident. The Government’s total securities holdings, which were about Rs. 400 billion in June 2020, rose to about Rs. 1,500 billion in September 2021 and exploded to almost Rs. 3,000 billion by June 2022.

Dr. Goh explained that excessive money printing indicated three things: first, the government is spending more than it can afford. Second, it cannot afford to borrow and spend because borrowing from the market will raise interest rates. Thus, excessive printing means spending beyond our borrowing capacity at market interest rates. Third, it points to leakages in revenue.

Essentially, a government that prints too much money fails in all three areas. Therefore, the new president must avoid money printing at all costs. Although the new CBSL Act imposes limitations, the bank can still add excessive money when buying US Dollar reserves while collecting reserves for upcoming debt repayments.

The second metric Dr. Goh advised monitoring was the CBSL’s reserve levels; how the bank accumulates or depletes reserves signals financial stability.

The third indicator to monitor was the exchange rate, which should be observed alongside reserves and money printing. If reserves are depleting while the exchange rate remains stable, it means the currency is being defended at the expense of reserves. Conversely, if the exchange rate depreciates without reserve depletion, it might indicate influencing forex demand by printing more money.

Dr. Goh’s last two parameters were the consumer price index and the cost of construction materials. Printing too much money leads to inflation, raising consumer prices. If the cost of construction materials is high, it indicates slow development. Economic growth involves building and investing, mainly in the construction sector.

It is unfortunate that the Cabinet recently approved an increase in the cess on cement clinker, which will raise cement prices and open room for corruption. Higher cement prices slow down the economy. When construction costs rise, people cut back on other expenditures, shrinking the overall economic cycle and slowing the economy when growth is most needed.

Dr. Goh’s advice to then President J.R. Jayewardene remains valid for the new president, whoever that may be. The real victory lies not just in electing a president through a massive political campaign, but campaigning for an economic programme that can rescue us from the ongoing crisis.

Reforming the tax incentive structure in Sri Lanka

Originally appeared on Daily FT

By Roshan Perera, Thashikala Mendis, and Janani Wanigaratne

The second tranche of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Extended Fund Facility (EFF) was delayed as the country failed to meet some of the program targets including the Government revenue target. This prompted the IMF in their latest review to reiterate the need to “strengthen tax administration, remove tax exemptions, and actively eliminate tax evasion” to ensure revenue is collected as per the program targets. This requires intense efforts by the Government if the country is to achieve sustainable macroeconomic stability.

Corporate Income Tax (CIT) in Sri Lanka has the potential to significantly contribute to Government revenue. However, CIT performance has been dismal with collection averaging around 1% of GDP over the last two decades although economic growth averaged around 4% during the corresponding period. It peaked at 1.9% in 2022 due to some one-off taxes.1 Compared to other countries in the region as well, CIT collection in Sri Lanka has been abysmally low (see Figure 1).

Further, CIT collection is concentrated in a few sectors in the economy. The 230 companies listed in the Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE) for financial year 2019/20 account for around 25% of total corporate income tax collection. However, financial services, food & beverages, and telecommunications account for a disproportionate share of taxes (see Figure 2). Sectors such as wholesale and retail trade, real estate and transportation which account for more than 25% of GDP, contribute less than 2% in CIT. Tax holidays and concessionary tax rates to selected sectors have eroded the CIT tax base, leading to lower CIT revenue collection. Ad hoc tax concessions complicate tax administration, distort resource allocation and provide opportunities for rent seeking and corruption.

Tax incentives

With the liberalisation of the economy in 1977 and the shift to a more export oriented development strategy, the Government sought to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) by offering attractive tax incentives, first under the GCEC Act No. 4 of 1978 and subsequently the Board of Investment (BOI) of Sri Lanka from 1992. Tax incentives were also offered under the Inland Revenue Act. The enactment of the Strategic Development Projects (SDP) Act, No. 14 of 2008 permitted the Minister in charge of investment the discretion to grant incentives to projects deemed of strategic importance with only subsequent ratification by Cabinet and Parliament.

The lack of clear criteria of what constitutes a “strategic development project” in the SDP Act and the discretion given to the Minister to decide on what constituted a “strategic” project led to generous tax holidays and incentives granted to projects that were not in any sense strategic (see Table 1 for a list of projects granted under the SDP Act). Furthermore, tax concessions under the Act have been awarded to projects that are not purely foreign funded, violating one of the core objectives of this Act, which is to attract foreign investment.

The operation of multiple tax jurisdictions has led to an overlap of tax incentives, obscuring the process of monitoring the overall benefits and costs of tax incentives provided. Lack of transparency and well-defined criteria as well as poor evaluation of projects has led to the granting of tax incentives without proper justification, leading to large revenue losses.

Transparency, availability and accessibility of information regarding companies that have received tax incentives, especially under the BOI Act, are limited3. In light of this, the IMF diagnostic report has highlighted the need for a more transparent data sharing protocol.

The case of Port City

More recently the Colombo Port City Economic Commission Act, No. 11 of 2021 was given the authority to grant tax incentives within the Port City.

The CPC Act grants incentives to businesses that are identified as strategically important. Extraordinary Gazette 2343/604 lists several industries as strategically important. Even though the Act provides a descriptive definition of a business of strategic importance, the rationalisation for these industries to be selected for special incentives is unclear. Especially as some of these industries already exist in Sri Lanka, which puts them at a disadvantage. Moreover, under section (4) subregulation (3) of the Extraordinary gazette 2343/60, one of the criteria for granting incentives is the ability of the business to demonstrate to the Port City Commission the potential contribution to Sri Lanka’s economy and social development by fostering innovation, knowledge transfer, technology transfer, research and development. This criteria is vague and subjective, thus allowing the Commission to grant incentives at its discretion.

Granting incentives often leads to differential tax treatment creating an unlevel playing field. While an entity in an already established industry within the country located within the CPC is provided generous tax incentives, the firm located outside is subject to the normal taxes operating in the rest of the country. Such differential treatment could create labour market distortions, as the employees in the Port City benefit from tax exemptions.

Sri Lanka has not been able to attract Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) despite the plethora of incentives offered. It is questionable whether we can expect different results by applying the same failed strategy with the Colombo Port City. For instance, out of 74 land plots, only 6 were leased so far, and even those have not yet materialised.

To improve the performance of CIT, reforming the existing incentive structure is critical.

Improving investment environment

Evidence suggests that tax incentives are not the most important factor attracting FDI. Rather investors prioritise factors such as macroeconomic stability, access to skilled labour, and quality infrastructure facilities when making investment decisions. Therefore, shifting focus from relying on tax incentives to creating a favourable macroeconomic environment and policy consistency while providing the necessary resources and infrastructure will be more important to attracting investments. This will reduce distortions in the economy while ensuring the Government’s revenue base is protected.

Renegotiating tax incentives

Given the weak fiscal position of the country and the debt restructuring exercise being carried out at present, a similar exercise to renegotiate existing tax incentives may be warranted. Rationalising existing tax incentives would widen the tax base and enable lowering corporate tax rates.

Centralising tax incentives

If tax incentives are to be granted it should be done by a centralised authority. This authority should be able provide justification for granting special tax incentives by carrying out a cost benefit analysis. Clear objectives and proper criteria for granting incentives should be established and the authority held accountable for monitoring the progress of the investments to ensure the objectives of the investment are fulfilled. Failure to meet the objectives should lead to an immediate cancellation of the incentives granted. To ensure transparency, all incentives granted should require Cabinet and Parliamentary approval and information on incentives granted made publicly available through gazette notices. Sunset clauses will ensure that incentives have a limited timeframe and are periodically reviewed.

Conducting tax expenditure analysis

Tax expenditure refers to concessions such as tax exemptions, deductions, concessionary tax rates, etc. granted to specific industries or entities. While typically a government budget provides estimates of government revenue, tax expenditures are rarely reported. However, given the generous tax incentives offered it is vital to ensure the costs and benefits of tax expenditures are properly accounted for. Conducting regular tax expenditure analysis will enable comprehensive cost benefit analysis to evaluate the potential revenue loss and the expected economic benefits of tax incentives. Moreover, it is essential to carry out regular assessments to ascertain whether the revenue loss resulting from tax exemptions is justified by the employment, GDP contribution, and economic impact of these projects.

Global Minimum Tax 5

When tax incentives and holidays are granted, it should be ensured that their rates are not lower than the rate recommended by the Global Minimum Tax (GMT). This is an agreement introduced by the OECD/G20 in October 2021, with the purpose of establishing a minimum tax rate of 15% for large multinational companies. It allows countries with taxable parent companies of Multinational Enterprises (MNE) to impose a top-up tax on the profits of any foreign subsidiary that pays an effective rate less than 15%. It also allows the host country where the MNE subsidiary carries out its activities to charge a top-up tax rate on subsidiaries, if the home country of the parent company imposes a CIT rate less than 15%. So even if the countries are free to grant tax holidays and incentives with a CIT rate lower than 15%, the agreement grants the taxing rights to either the FDI exporting countries or the countries in which the MNE subsidiaries are operated. Therefore the MNEs would not be benefitted by lower rates as they will be taxed by either country.

The countries that do not adopt this GMT rule would lose out on tax income as the other countries will adjust their domestic tax rules to top up undertaxed profits. This proposal has already been strongly backed by 130 countries. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka was one of the nine countries that did not agree to this proposal.

The country is struggling to meet its revenue targets. The potential of CIT as a significant source of revenue has not been not fully exploited. A plethora of tax incentives granted under numerous agencies have seriously eroded the tax base. Reversing these trends are vital for restoring fiscal sustainability and enabling the Government to promote sustainable and inclusive growth.

Footnotes:

1This is due to the imposition of a retrospective one-time surcharge tax of 25% on individuals, companies, and partnerships with a taxable income exceeding 2 billion for the 2020/2021 tax assessment year.

2Based on the taxes paid by around 230 listed companies on the Colombo Stock Exchange in 2019/2020.

3Information on projects granted under the SDP Act are publicly available through gazette notices which are mandatory. This is unlike projects granted incentives under the BOI Act which are not publicly available. An RTI filed to extract this information was also not responded to by the relevant authority.

4http://documents.gov.lk/files/egz/2023/8/2343-60_E.pdf

5World Bank, 2023, “Can the global minimum tax agreement reduce tax breaks in East Asia?” https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/can-global-minimum-tax-agreement-reduce-tax-breaks-east-asia#:~:text=In%20October%202021%2C%20the%20G20,to%20be%20implemented%20in%202024.

(Roshan Perera is a Senior Research Fellow at Advocata Institute. She can be contacted via roshananne@gmail.com. Thashikala Mendis is a Data Analyst at Advocata Institute. She can be contacted via thashikala@advocata.org. Janani Wanigaratne is a Research Consultant at Advocata Institute. She can be contacted via janani.advocata@gmail.com.

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

SL slides down to 115 on Global Soft Power Index

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Global research outfit Brand Finance ranks countries by considering each country as a brand through the Global Soft Power Index. Sri Lanka’s brand results as a nation were released in partnership with the Sri Lanka Institute of Marketing (SLIM) last week and the country was ranked 115th out of 121 countries – a steep drop of 42 positions from ranking at 73 on the index in 2022.

Below us are Iraq, Laos, Trinidad, Uganda, Guatemala, and Zimbabwe. This survey was conducted globally with more than 11,000 samples. SLIM has to be appreciated for taking such an initiative at a very difficult time for Sri Lanka. A country’s perception and brand image are very important, especially when it comes to ‘Country of Origin’ status in global trade. The same matters in tourism and many other income-generating activities.

Brand strength of a country is determined under eight key themes and sub categories for each key pillar:

Business and trade

Governance

International relations

Culture and heritage

Media and communication

Education and science

People and values

Sustainable future

It is said that “perception is reality”. In simple terms, though we may feel that we do not deserve to be ranked 115th, outsiders do not perceive us positively. The reasons for our steep drop are quite obvious. It is more important to understand the drivers of positive perception according to the Brand Finance survey than to dwell on our ranking.

Out of the key drivers of reputation, a strong and stable economy is considered the most important driver for people. In a survey conducted within the index, it ranked very highly, with 8.9 points out of 10. The next driver, with 6.2 points, is having internationally admired leaders. Being politically stable and well-governed is ranked as the third most important attribute, while ease of doing business and sustainable cities for transport are ranked at fourth and fifth place respectively, based on importance.

Developing a nation’s brand

The expectations of people indicate that a dynamic economy and the ability to do business easily are the main drivers of pretty much everything else. If we, as Sri Lankans, are serious about building our brand, attracting FDIs, and bringing in tourists, there is no other choice than to undergo economic reforms.

The expectations indicate that most of the attributes that help develop a nation’s branding are influenced by the market and freedom. When a paternal government steps in, there is no ease of doing business for enterprises. When a government imposes high tariffs on imports, there is no efficient trade. When a government restricts movement of people and adds visa regulations, tourism cannot prosper. Countries which experience a higher degree of economic freedom also have credible country brands and soft power.

In Sri Lanka’s assessment, our worst ranking is for ‘international relations’. We have ranked 120 out of 121 countries. This comes as no surprise after our poor management of foreign relationships with all our key friends including India, China, Japan, the Middle East, and the US.

Our immaturity in managing the Indian Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the East Container Terminal (India), managing the Port City and the fertiliser shipment (China), cancelling the Light Rail Transit Project (Japan), forced cremations of Muslims (the Middle East), and dealing with the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) (the US) undeniably isolated us, pushing our reputation to a historic low.

Our diplomatic service is basically a meal ticket for unemployable relatives of politicians. It is imperative that a merit-based exam for diplomatic service be required in order to ensure our economic prosperity. Diplomacy is economic; a friendship built on doing business is much better than a business built on a friendship.

We have ranked relatively better on ‘culture and heritage,’ standing at 92 from among 121 nations. On ‘governance,’ we are ranked at 118 and on ‘business and trade’ we come in at 115.

Solutions

There are quick fixes, but building a brand is like raising a child. Values, ethics, and dynamism take time to instil. If we are to improve Sri Lanka’s brand, a comprehensive economic reform package is needed. Countries that recently picked up their ranking did it through reforms and allowing markets to work smoothly.

New Zealand had a reform plan in the 1980s while South Korea transformed through market-based reforms. Dubai was converted into a business hub, Vietnam was converted into an export-oriented economy, and so on. The common denominator is a concrete economic reform plan.

In the short run, what we can consider is implementing a free, six-month business and vacation visa plan for countries with twice the per capita GDP of Sri Lanka. This will allow us to earn much more through their spending in Sri Lanka. At present, we have nothing to lose, as they are not visiting Sri Lanka anyway.

The next step is to allow foreign spouses to work in Sri Lanka. As many people leave the country, at least some may consider staying back in these cases, especially those married to foreigners. They will bring their skill set, which enables better knowledge transfer. In some areas such as Galle, this synergy can already be observed in the tourism industry, despite bad regulations.

Thirdly, all tariffs should be brought under either a four-tier structure (0%, 5%, 10%, and 15%) or a higher tariff structure that is simple and unified so that it can incentivise trade. We need to keep our Central Bank independent and not intervene in the forex market in order to get the maximum benefits out of this. All these can be done with just a stroke of a pen at zero cost to the Government.

The brand ‘Sri Lanka’ can only be built by instilling the right values within the brand. A communications campaign may only dilute the brand when people realise we oversell ourselves by overpromising and under-delivering.

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.

Which reforms should take the spotlight after the IMF?

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

According to news reports and a tweet by International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva, Sri Lanka is likely to enter its 17th IMF programme since its membership began. We are yet to know the details of the programme, but we have an overview of key areas as per the press conference in September 2022, when we entered the Staff-Level Agreement. Out of the previous 16, we have only completed nine programmes and have given up in the midst of seven programmes without completion.

This time, things are slightly different, because on the previous 16 occasions our debt was sustainable, but this time it is not. Dropping out in the middle of the programme while we are under a debt restructuring plan will erode even the remaining confidence of investors and many other stakeholders.

There seems to be an overestimation that the IMF can fix all our problems. We have been trying to debunk this myth for a long time; the IMF cannot fix our economy. It is merely a lifeboat to make sure we don’t drown in our debt. Only we can fix our economy through economic reforms.

What the IMF can bring us is credibility. Credibility will provide us breathing space on a few fronts. It will provide room to negotiate debt with external creditors and enable us to obtain some relief before we start our debt repayments. This credibility will allow Sri Lanka to tap into more bilateral and multilateral funds to reactivate some of its economic activity.

It is imperative that we reform the economy and move forward with all this funding. Other countries that have gone through debt distress have fallen into a cycle of defaulting. We have to avoid this, which can only be done by creating a competitive economy.

A competitive economy can only be achieved through economic reforms and not in any other way. Most of these reforms are simple to understand but complicated to execute, as many of the beneficiaries of the current inefficiencies will be on the losing end. They will all have to work hard and compete in a market environment.

While there are many reforms to be undertaken, which will also be included in the IMF agreement in different forms, I would like to prioritise three key reforms.

Social safety nets to protect the poor

During an economic crisis, people are angry as well as hungry. Protecting the most vulnerable section of society has to be a priority. Ultimately, the objective of all economic principles we practise is to eradicate poverty.

Poverty eradication cannot be undertaken simply by distributing money to the poor. We can only eradicate poverty by opening up opportunities for the impoverished to engage in economic activity and expand their capacity to add productive value to society. During difficult times, they should have some support so they can worry less about basics and worry more about joining economic activities.

The current expenditure on our main social safety net programme – Samurdhi – is about Rs. 55.4 billion. This is peanuts compared to the losses of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) over eight months in 2022, which amounted to Rs. 632 billion. Most of the losses in petroleum caused by the Government’s fuel subsidy have benefitted 60% of the wealthiest families in the country.

Rather than entertaining the inefficiencies of the CPC and transferring fuel subsidies to those who can obviously afford it, the money should be channelled to the poor. This needs to be done by proper targeting and via cash transfers to their accounts, rather than in a material form.

It was reported that about 3.7 million families have applied for the social safety net system, but unfortunately, the Government authorities have been on strike without having verified the families that have applied. Cash transfer systems should ideally be connected to inflation with a targeted time frame, so that those below the poverty line are incentivised for upskilling and to contribute to economic activity.

State-Owned Enterprises reforms

It is no secret that our State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) are massive burdens to taxpayers with limited value being added to our economy. Therefore, selected SOEs should be privatised, which will improve the income levels of employees.

It cannot be emphasised enough that the privatisation process has to be transparent and should take place on a competitive basis. Politicians cannot be the facilitators of these transactions. There are some SOEs which can be opened up for Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs). Certain SOEs can be consolidated and others can be brought under a holding company.

Some of these SOEs are managed extremely poorly. Therefore, with the current liabilities, finding a buyer too seems next to impossible. As such, unfortunately, some of the debt may have to be absorbed by the Government, considering the stoppage of longer-term money leakage. We have to realise that the Government has no role in doing business. This has been proven many times globally and in Sri Lanka. Without SOE reforms, Sri Lanka simply has no future.

Trade reforms

In many forums where we converse about solutions for Sri Lanka’s economic crisis, a common refrain is that “Sri Lanka has to come out of this crisis”. A country of 22 million, which is almost the same population as the city of Mumbai, cannot grow by selling goods and services to its own citizens.

Sri Lanka’s market size is very small, so we have to sell to a global market. However, we cannot sell to a global market without being competitive. As such, imports are a big component in being competitive. What we need is a simple unified tariff structure; when things are simple, we can limit the room for corruption.

The complicated para-tariffs such as cess, PAL, and many other tariffs added one on top of the other have to ideally be within three main tiers. For instance, 5%, 10%, and 15% customs duty so that importers are clear on what to pay and can estimate in advance.

Monetary policy has to be fixed with trade reforms so that we will not face a currency crisis. It is true that the US Dollar is required for imports, but import demand is created by the Sri Lankan Rupee when the exchange rate is artificially low and money is added to the monetary system in the form of filling the deficit in Government expenditure and income.

When we fix this monetary policy, the currency will remain solid and exports will automatically start picking up with the stability in the market. The scarce US Dollar resources will be shared only for the prioritised needs through the pricing system.

In conclusion

If we can implement these three reforms within the next 12 months and maintain them for three years, we most likely will not require an IMF bailout for the 18th time.

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