Unlocking the Potential of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Essential to Sri Lanka’s Post Covid Economic Recovery (Part 2)

Originally appeared on Colombo Telegraph, Daily News and Daily FT

By Ayesha Zainudeen

Small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) represent over half of the businesses in Sri Lanka. They also provide an important source of employment for a large part of the labour force. They have been dubbed the ‘backbone’ of the economy in national policy frameworks. Supporting this sector and helping small businesses to grow should be an important part of the national strategy for post-COVID economic recovery. 

This article is the second in a multi-part series by the Advocata Institute and LIRNEasia on what needs to be done to empower Sri Lanka’s micro, small-medium businesses for post-COVID economic recovery. In Part 1, the Advocata Institute examined the barriers faced by small businesses to formalization and what needs to be done to lower them. In this part, LIRNEasia looks at what is holding SMEs back, through the lens of digital exclusion.

Connectivity is related to better business performance

 A 2019 LIRNEasia survey of SMEs across Sri Lanka showed that businesses classified as ‘high’ ICT users performed considerably better on a number of indicators such as revenues, profits, number of customers, etc. (Figure 1).  Perhaps most interestingly, they were also connected to a global value chain in some way. 

Figure 1: How SMEs classified as high ICT users are different to those classified as low ICT users (Source: LIRNEasia AfterAccess SME survey, 2019)

Unlocking Potential of Micro and Small businesses Essential for Post-COVID Economic Recover

Originally appeared on Ceylon Today, Economy Next, Colombo Telegraph, The Island and Daily FT

By K.D.D.B. Vimanga

Sole proprietorships account for 63.1% of businesses in the country and account for 27.1% of national employment (Annual Survey of Industries, Department of Census and Statistics). Their contribution to the local economy is significant and lockdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic have had an adverse impact on these small businesses.

At present, it is difficult to estimate how many small businesses would be out of business, but given that the department of labour has estimated (from a survey of 2,764 establishments) that 52.15% or 764 of firms, employing under 1 to 15 employees have closed down, it is likely that small businesses have also been hit hard.  

However successive Sri Lankan governments have failed to strategise on the potential of these enterprises to Sri Lanka’s economic development. Emerging markets such as Vietnam on the other hand have been able to capitalise on the potential of these businesses to accelerate economic growth.  

Any hope of inclusive economic growth for Sri Lanka’s post-COVID recovery can only then be achieved if we utilise this sector, unlock their potential and empower them to grow, compete and thrive. While there is a lot of work to be done in terms of policy reform in this area, there are a few low hanging fruits, namely re-hauling the business registration process, and bridging the digital divide. 

In the form of a multi-part series, the Advocata Institute in partnership with LIRNEasia will provide an in-depth analysis of these two vital policy tools to empower Sri Lanka’s small businesses. 

Sri Lanka’s business ecosystem:

According to the listing operation of Economic Census conducted in 2013/ 2014 the number of SMEs in Sri Lanka, most of which are categorized as sole ownerships, account for 1,019,681 of which 71,126 are small enterprises and 10,405 are medium scale enterprises.  This number only represents enterprises that have registered under the above criteria. However, according to the same survey, there are 3 million people who engage in a similar SME related industry, trade or services. 45% of the micro-enterprises and 10% of small enterprises remain unregistered. Overall, 42% of business establishments remain unregistered while 25% of these establishments are run by women entrepreneurs. In other words, informality is still high. 

According to a survey done by LIRNEasia, 40% of SMEs reported using the internet or social media for business; much of this use was limited to information seeking, rather than transactional use. Those who used the internet for business thought that access to the internet is either important or very important, while those who did not use the internet remained unconvinced of its benefits: most said there was ‘no need’ to use the internet. Few SMEs were capable of taking any form of card payment at the time of the survey, and the majority of SMEs did not use mobile money services. This research points to a serious digital divide restricting the potential of Sri Lanka’s small businesses. This would be tackled comprehensively during next week’s Op-Ed outlining the serious implications of the digital divide.  

So what is the problem?

Let’s look at it through the experience of a micro-entrepreneur. Chitra. She runs a string hopper stall opposite her village fish market and her story is similar to that of three million people who engage in an SME related industry, trade or service. Her business remains unregistered. She does not use any digital technology. Because she is unregistered, she cannot go to a bank and get a low-interest SME loan or even apply for the recently introduced Saubagya COVID-19 renaissance facility.

Reforming the Business Registration Process

So what must be done urgently is to simplify our business registration process. At present, the business registration process is implemented by the Divisional Secretariats. In contrast, the Business Registration process for companies under the Companies Act No. 7 of 2007 are streamlined through an online registration system called the e-ROC. However, this does not benefit small businesses who classify as sole proprietors and partnerships and is therefore regulated at the Divisional Secretariat.  At best we have about nine different regulatory processors for the registration of sole enterprises and partnerships. Typically, an entrepreneur like Chitra would have to visit the Divisional Secretariat, collect and fill forms, provide documentation such as proof of premises ownership such as deeds, or rent agreements, tax assessments etc. Then she would have to visit the Grama Niladhari and get the documents validated. She might need other approvals as per the request of the Grama Niladhari before she hands over the final forms to the Divisional Secretariat. A more effective method would be to have an online system. As implemented by New Zealand and Hong Kong, the applicant must be able to submit the form (available in all three languages) online on the Divisional Secretariat website, pay the business registration fee online or at a bank and receive the business registration the next day without the requirement for numerous signatures or documentation of ownership (the company registration process does not call for the original deed or proof of ownership, so why should a small business?). Then an entrepreneur such as Chitra can easily go to the nearest communication fill the forms, upload the deposit slip and get her business registration done with ease. 

Therefore, in practice, what has to be done is establishing an e-registration system which can be availed of by small businesses. The Ministry of Industries must play an active role in setting up the online platform in partnership with Provincial Councils. Secondly, the requirement for unnecessary documentation (proof of ownership, grama niladhari approval, etc.) has to be amended at the provincial council level.  Implementation of these two policy recommendations would significantly empower small businesses to get registered. 

Conclusion

Sri Lanka needs to urgently capitalise on the potential of MSMEs. Creating growth and productivity in the small business sector is an investment on our wider economy. This is not an easy task; however, mobilising synergies and bringing in much needed regulatory reforms such as making the business registration process simpler and secondly bridging the digital divide.

K.D.D.B. Vimanga is a Policy Analyst at the Advocata Institute. He can be contacted at kdvimanga@advocata.org. The Advocata Institute is an Independent Public Policy Think Tank. Learn more about Advocata’s work at www.advocata.org. LIRNEasia is a regional digital policy and regulation think tank active across Asia. The opinions expressed are the author’s own views. They may not necessarily reflect the views of the Advocata Institute or LIRNEasia.

Can industry-specific ministers fix this issue?

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

Originally appeared on The Morning

---

By Dhananath Fernando

The appointment of cabinet ministers and state ministers is still a topic at dinner tables, especially on the state ministerial portfolios. This is mostly because specific industries or fields have been provided for state ministers. There is general criticism surrounding ministers being appointed to micro sectors of the industries while the general expectation from a minister is to serve a broader mandate, and do justice to taxpayers’ money by formulating and implementing policies.

Many critics question the role a minister could play in a comparatively small industry where the designing, production, marketing, and distribution are mainly done by the micro-entrepreneurs themselves. For example, the state ministerial portfolio for Batik, Handloom Fabrics, and Local Apparel Products has been a topic of discussion since the appointments. Another state ministry that is being widely discussed is that of Cane, Brass, Clay Furniture, and Rural Industry Promotion.

The counterargument is that previous state minister portfolios were just token positions with no decision-making power. It is argued that in this case, ministers have been provided a specific role, scope, and focus, and people can directly hold them accountable for their industries and industry-related concerns. At the same time, a measurable key performance indicator (KPI) can be easily implemented and the respective and relevant institutions can be assigned to each minister. According to a recent TV interview by President’s Secretary Dr. P.B. Jayasundera, state ministers and their teams led by the ministry secretary have been given the decision-making power in that respective industry. According to Dr. Jayasundera, it is a scientific way of structuring and utilising taxpayer money without just appointing state ministers for the sake of doing so.

I believe there is truth to both arguments on the method of assigning the ministerial portfolio. The ground-level reality is that most of these assigned domestic industries are run by micro, small, and medium entrepreneurs (MSMEs) or businessmen who represent the private sector. It is important to remember that these small businesses are still part of the private sector and not the Government. The Government’s role is more to regulate some industries and facilitate the business processes because micro and small enterprises have industry-specific challenges as well as common challenges in running their daily operations. The minister’s role is to work with these sectors and assist them with reducing regulatory barriers for the sector to perform to its full potential.

Common challenges

According to the Advocata Institute’s report “Barriers to Micro and Small Enterprises” in Sri Lanka, one main bottleneck across all industries is access to finance. Access to finance has multiple dimensions extending to the banking and financing sector, but it starts from the fundamental point of business registration.

Over the years, we have underestimated the potential of micro and small enterprises (leaving the medium enterprises aside). We have provided step-motherly treatment to the MSME industry to the extent of not even focusing on their ability to register their businesses.

According to the Advocata report, sole proprietorships comprise about 61% of total businesses in Sri Lanka and provide 27% of national employment. Interestingly, about 25% of the establishments are run by women and contribution from women-led enterprises increases up to 35% in rural areas.

While the whole country focuses on the big picture of revamping the entire domestic and specialised sectors such as batik, local apparels, handlooms, pottery, rattan, etc., our research has revealed that about 45% of micro-enterprises and 10% of small enterprises have not even obtained a basic business registration. The meaning of not having a business registration is that they do not have access to finance or any Government-sponsored programme or project.

Poor enthusiasm for business registration is mainly a result of the horrendous process of registering a proprietorship or partnership. A proprietorship or a partnership can be registered under the Business Names Ordinance Act No. 7 of 1987, which is under the authority of each provincial council and provides room for each provincial council to run their own procedure on registration of a proprietorship or partnership.

So even though a specific minister may have been given scope and specific task of revamping micro, small, and local enterprises, the minister may still face challenges due to common regulatory barriers starting from the business registration process, which is the entry ticket, to finance and markets, and even for relief schemes during Covid-19 brought in by the Government.

The good news is the Government and Department of Census and Statistics (DCS) have initiated an e- registry platform for registering micro and small enterprises. According to Advocata statistics, 97% of micro-businesses and 85% of small businesses are registered as sole proprietorships. This e-registration system is indeed a move in the right direction. Then, the authorities must also ensure that the e-registration process will be simple and not a replication where the same documents are just submitted online. A system of just submitting documents such as deeds, rent agreements, etc. online would add an additional burden for budding entrepreneurs; to scan and submit documents online in addition to the time they spend getting grama sevaka certificates, rent agreements, and a list of other documentation. Advocata has recommended the New Zealand model and a South Korean model where there is a three-step business registration process, while in Sri Lanka the current process has seven steps.

Daily survivors vs. entrepreneurs

Having a simplified business registration process is the first step of addressing the problem of access to finance and providing government assistance and accessing markets. Having a simple business registration process will ensure an effective tax collection system where businesses can grow and expand.

One other reason for the poor enthusiasm pertaining to registering a business is in the fear of paying taxes. As a result, most of these micro-businesses limit themselves to being “daily survivors” as opposed to them becoming real micro and small “entrepreneurs’’.

There is a significant difference between someone who just runs a small business for daily survival and someone who takes a risk in the form of money, property, time, or any form for entrepreneurship.

What Sri Lanka requires is for micro and small entrepreneurs to migrate from “daily survivors” to micro-entrepreneurs. The Government can facilitate the process by having a conducive environment for businesses, and the new state ministers can take this lead.

Industry-specific challenges

While the micro and small enterprises have been oppressed at the registration level, at the same time, there are industry-specific regulatory issues.

Most of these industries require a license for their sourcing and a license or a government authorisation that has to be taken at each touchpoint. In most industries, sourcing of raw material and transportation of raw materials both require licences. Some of the regulations are placed with good intentions, but most of it has ended up with extra bureaucracy burdening the industry and opening doors to corruption. All licences have just ended up being another hurdle for these entrepreneurs to cross. Additionally, these licences are also an opportunity for regulatory officials to earn extra money in the way of corruption and by providing preferential treatment to the affluent and higher classes of business that have networked with local political power centres.

The new industry-specific ministers’ primary mandate when developing these industries has to be a facilitatory role and not an interventionist role. The prosperity of micro and small enterprises will depend on this. The new ministers have to ensure that they do not apply the “brakes” by introducing more regulatory barriers; rather, they should remove those barriers in each sector for sustainable growth.

At the same time, they should not push the accelerator in the wrong direction to create market distortions which will impact other more productive sectors while bureaucratic powers work only thinking about their sector at the expense of others.

Sri Lankans are more than capable of competing at the global level and “daily surviving micro and small businesses” will jump to the seat of “micro and small entrepreneurs” if we facilitate and provide a more simple regulatory scheme.

We should never underestimate the common man’s skill and the ability of micro and small enterprises, which at present are already contributing more than 30% of our national employment.

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

Reform for our micro and small businesses

Covered in the Daily FT and Daily Mirror

By Aneetha Warusavitarana

Last Saturday was the UN World Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Day, and in light of that, focus should be given to Sri Lanka’s small businesses and the challenges they face. 

Sri Lankan micro and small enterprises form a substantial part of our economy. Sole proprietorships account for 63.1% of all businesses in the country, and account for 27.1% of national employment (Department of Census and Statistics). However, they face a myriad of challenges and this focus on improving their business environment is welcome. As highlighted in a study conducted by the Advocata Institute on the regulatory barriers faced by micro and small enterprises, the three main challenges faced are access to finance, labour, and rent.

In addition, 45% of micro-enterprises and 10% of small enterprises remain unregistered, exacerbating these problems. Unregistered businesses are excluded from formal sources of finance, business networks, and do not qualify for Government assistance. 

In early March this year, the Cabinet approved the establishment of ‘one-stop shops’ for micro and small businesses in Sri Lanka. This project is now moving forward, with the Government working with the EU to set up these ‘one-stop shops’ in each district; with the aim of streamlining the registration process and providing assistance on issues of access to technology, quality control and access to markets. However, what else is there to be done? 

The problem of registration

Registering a business in Sri Lanka has always been a long, tedious process; one that discouraged businesses and negatively impacted our ease of doing business ranking. However, in 2018, Sri Lanka was witness to some welcome reform with the launch of ‘E-RoC portal’, which streamlined registration, and brought the process completely online. This success in reform was reflected in the country’s ranking on the ease of doing business ranking and was hailed as a reform success. 

However, the E-RoC portal is only applicable to the registration of private companies. 

In Sri Lanka, the registration of private companies is governed by the Companies Act No 07 of 2007, while the registration of sole proprietorships and partnerships are governed by Business Names Ordinance No 06 of 1918. As a result, the E-RoC could not be broadened to include the sole proprietors and partnerships. 

97% of micro-businesses in Sri Lanka and 85% of small businesses have registered their business as sole proprietorships, with only 3% of the businesses surveyed having registered themselves as a partnership, and 2% registering themselves as a Private Limited Company.4 In other words, for the vast majority of micro and small businesses in Sri Lanka, their registration process is long, tedious and unnecessarily convoluted.

How does business registration work for sole proprietors and partnerships?

The process of registration is implemented by the Divisional Secretariats. At best, the country currently has nine different regulatory processes for the registration of sole proprietors and partnerships. The process of registering a sole proprietorship or a partnership in Sri Lanka is a time consuming, complicated task, with the main steps detailed below: 

1. Visit the Divisional Secretariat and collect form and instructions

2. Fill out the application

3. Provide documentation

   • Proof of ownership of business premises

   • Original Deed and notarised copy or

   • Original Rent agreement and notarised copy, or

   • No Objection letter from the owner of the premises

   • NIC copy

   • Tax assessment notification for the premises

   • Copy of the partnership business agreement

   4. Visit the Grama Niladhari and get the application and attached documents approved

   5. Receive additional approvals depending on the business type e.g.: PHI approval

   6. Hand over completed application to the Divisional Secretariat.

A majority of provinces do not have the application for business registration or the instructions sheet available for download from the Divisional Secretariat or Provincial Council website, and the instruction form is not always available in all three languages. 

This is in comparison to much simpler processes that have become standard internationally, and have also been replicated in Sri Lanka, as was seen with the E-RoC reform for private companies. 

Address the problem at hand

According to the island-wide survey conducted by the Advocata Institute, over 80% of respondents found the Grama Niladhari and the Divisional Secretariat to be an effective touch point. This would indicate that improving service at this point may not be an immediate requirement. Instead, focus should be placed on reforming the registration process for micro and small enterprises. 

Sri Lanka’s micro and small enterprises will have faced significant economic fallout during the curfew period. The Government has recognised this and responded with policy action like the debt moratorium to help ease some financial pressure. However, this is unlikely to be sufficient. These policies would only apply to entities that have registered their business and would leave the segment of unregistered businesses without support. It is vital that the registration process is streamlined, making it easier for these businesses to enter the formal sector and reap the benefits for formal sources of finance, and better access to markets that come with formalisation. There is a window for reform that exists, and we hope that the Government takes advantage of this to bring about some much-needed change. 

Empowering Our SMEs

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

Originally appeared on The Morning

---

By Sajani Ramanayake

In recent months, there has been extensive debate around the topic of making Sri Lanka a hub for technology and innovation. Across the globe, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), particularly start-ups, have been proven as critical to fostering a culture of disruption and innovation. In Sri Lanka, SMEs are already an integral part of the economy and hold significant potential for achieving our economic vision. Despite this, many of these businesses continue to face debilitating obstacles to growth due to an unfriendly regulatory environment.

Why are SMEs important?

Contributing to 45% of domestic employment and 52% of Sri Lanka’s gross domestic product (GDP), the role SMEs play in the Sri Lankan economy should not be underestimated. While these businesses do form the backbone of the economy, there is potential for growth that should be explored.

The National Export Strategy of Sri Lanka (2018-2022) acknowledges the need to “strengthen Sri Lankan exporters’ market entry capacities” and support “the integration of SMEs from across Sri Lanka into the export value chain”, as this would help increase the overall generation of income in the country. Currently, Sri Lanka lags behind other Asian countries in terms of export figures, and the expansion of SMEs is a good way to facilitate much-needed growth. If SMEs are provided with adequate resources and opportunity, they can plug into global value chains, capitalise on international markets, and drive innovation.

Currently, Sri Lanka’s export portfolio is relatively limited, with a small amount of companies accounting for a majority of export revenue, with SMEs providing a very minor contribution. This lack of export diversification in Sri Lanka’s portfolio thereby makes it particularly vulnerable to the external economic environment and reduces national economic stability. Strengthening SMEs and their access to the export market could thereby present a viable solution to reducing these risks, while improving export earnings, diversifying our export portfolio, and transitioning Sri Lanka into a more complex economy.

What is stopping SMEs from growing?

A lack of finance has been identified as a key constraint by 59% of SMEs in Sri Lanka. SMEs lack the collateral that many lending organisations insist on and often cannot afford to pay the high interest rates charged on loans. Unavailability of accounts and financial information due to the inability to maintain proper accounting records and lack of know-how on business plan creation, also makes it difficult for SMEs to be eligible for loans.

Another problem that SMEs face is the sheer number of regulatory barriers. The clearing of imports and exports through customs as well as high credit periods can be challenging to small businesses. Taxes on imported raw material and capital goods also increase costs and reduce profits. There are also many licenses and permits that need to be obtained before obtaining state lands for business purposes, such as clearances from the Central Environmental Authority, Forest Department, and Department of Archaeology, depending on the nature of the business. This makes obtaining land difficult for SMEs, and deters potential entrepreneurs.

The lack of information and guidance for entrepreneurs about how to set up and expand their businesses is also a major hurdle. In a study conducted by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, in conjunction with Ernst & Young and GiZ, about the institutional and regulatory framework relating to the SME sector in Sri Lanka, SMEs expressed a lack of understanding about potential export markets and opportunities, a lack of clarity on the process to obtain grants and lease agreements for state-owned lands for business purposes, and low awareness on applicable taxes and the benefits of registering for taxes.

What is being done to help SMEs?

One initiative that has recently been put in place is the establishment of “Empower” by the Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE) and Securities and Exchange Commission of Sri Lanka (SEC). Empower is a board dedicated to attracting SMEs to the CSE and seeks to improve access to finance for SMEs while also providing them with the opportunity to build credibility through the disclosure of information and by making governance standards more balanced. This not only helps attract investors, but also helps improve business visibility for the SME. The board allows SMEs to sell equity in order to raise capital – a major obstacle to growth for a large number of SMEs – essentially functioning as a miniature stock market for these enterprises. Listed companies receive guidance both during and after the listing process, and have access to one-on-one meetings, awareness sessions, and public consultations.

There are also other initiatives like export credit facilities provided by several banks seeking to ease the burden of pre and post-shipment financing, the Enterprise Sri Lanka credit programme which offers a range of loan schemes to SMEs, and workshops carried out by private sector companies such as Microsoft to help address a myriad of barriers faced by these businesses. Despite these initiatives, which are a positive step in the right direction, more needs to be done to help Sri Lanka cultivate a holistic ecosystem for SME growth.

One way to do this is by improving infrastructure facilities such as roads and highways to improve connectivity. This would assist in reducing regional differences in the setting up and operation of SMEs, as people and capital become more mobile. Sri Lanka also needs to streamline its regulatory mechanisms if it wants to help SMEs reach their full potential. Currently, there are at least 43 different institutions affiliated with SME governance in Sri Lanka, resulting in a climate of fragmented governance and poor information. Other potential solutions could include the creation of a dedicated export-import bank to ease access to finance and the establishment of an advisory board comprising exporters, academic experts, bankers, and professionals to enhance the ability of SMEs to formulate strategies and products that meet client expectations and emerging market needs.

If Sri Lanka wants to improve economic growth in the country, it is crucial that concrete strategies to improve productivity and increase export volumes are implemented. If Sri Lanka is to remain competitive on the world stage, SME growth is crucial.

---

Coping with latest COPE report

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

Originally appeared on The Morning

---

By Nishtha Chadha

On 22 October, the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) presented its Third Report to Parliament which examines the performance of 23 state-owned enterprises (SOEs) over the last 19 months. The findings are certainly characteristic of the widescale corruption, wasteful spending, and poor management practices that Sri Lanka’s SOEs are renowned for.

The Chairman’s Note within the report states: “As people are the true shareholders of public enterprises, the right to ascertain that public enterprises invest money so that people get a fair share of its benefits rests with them while it reinforces the democratic foundation of our country.” But unfortunately, as they stand today, Sri Lanka’s SOEs serve exactly the opposite function. Rather than equally distributing the benefits of invested taxpayer money through the Treasury, SOEs place an exorbitant burden on an already debt-ridden economy.

Investigating just 23 of the 450 institutions that the Committee is responsible for overseeing, the report paints a frightening picture of the cumulative extent of damage SOEs have done to Sri Lanka’s economy in recent years. There is no doubt that the current system within which SOEs operate cannot be sustained by the economy. A multitude of reforms have thus been proposed to reduce the toll that SOEs take on the Treasury, ranging from the creation of a public enterprise board to partial and complete privatisation. However, little to no headway has been made in terms of implementation, likely due to the size of these reforms and supplementary lack of political willpower.

How bad is the damage?

According to the Third Report of the COPE, the 18 SOEs with furnished financial statements investigated in the report made a net loss in 2018 amounting to Rs. 61 billion. The report highlights that the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation alone made an enormous loss of Rs. 105 billion in 2018, while the National Water Supply and Drainage Board incurred a loss of Rs. 505 million, and Elkaduwa Plantation Ltd. incurred a loss of Rs. 33 million. Of the 23 institutions being examined, five were found to have annual losses over Rs. 2 million, while another five did not have furnished end-of-year financial statements to present.

The report also outlined several accounts of a wide array of malpractice, including tampering with financial statements, bloating project valuations, conducting unauthorised procurement, failing to collect outstanding debts, and perpetrating political victimisation. Some explicit examples include:

•The Ceylon Petroleum Corporation was found to have wasted over $ 1.5 million on 11 urgent procurements that were undertaken while term agreements were still in place

• Payments for the construction of the Sooriyawewa Stadium by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority amounting to Rs. 3.9 billion, were found to have been removed from the books of the Port Authority in 2017

• An enquiry on the Football Federation of Sri Lanka revealed instances of financial fraud committed by the Manager – Finance, through tampering with the official audit reports of the Auditor General and fraudulently impersonating the President of the Federation on repeated occasions

• A stocktake of the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation found Rs. 20.7 million worth of stocks missing, while Rs. 104.4 million was found to be spent on substandard and expired medicine in 2017 alone

The report thus records over 250 recommendations provided by the Committee to the public enterprises being examined. However, the findings of the Committee also reveal that approximately a third of these recommendations have either not been implemented or not been reported on.

Avenues for SOE reform

Sri Lanka’s total public debt currently amounts to 82.9% of GDP, with domestic debt amounting to 41.6% of GDP, making it one of the most debt-ridden economies in South Asia.

With slowing growth and increasing rollover risks, Sri Lanka’s Treasury cannot sustain annually bailing out loss-making enterprises. There is an urgent need for stronger regulation and tight reforms to stop SOEs from draining public funds.

During the presentation of the latest report to Parliament, COPE Chairman MP Sunil Handunetti requested the Speaker to allow the Attorney General’s Department representatives to observe the proceedings of the COPE, in an effort to expedite accountability procedures. This would certainly present a positive step towards strengthening the legal oversight of malpractice within SOEs and expediting the prosecution of this malpractice. Although the COPE is doing a relatively robust job at identifying incidences of malpractice, this process tends to be slow and lacks sufficient follow through to hold responsible individuals accountable.

The opening up of COPE proceedings to the media has already brought about substantial scrutiny of SOE conduct, however, a lack of enforceable, follow-up accountability mechanisms limits the capacity of this measure. As noted above, several of the SOEs being examined are yet to implement any of the regulatory measures recommended to them by the COPE.

Strengthened accountability mechanisms are thus essential to both holding corruption within SOEs to account, as well as ensuring that the recommendations of the COPE are adhered to. A mechanism needs to be established in order for individuals to be held personally liable for the damages that they are responsible for, beyond just the COPE proceedings. This should extend to all persons who perpetrate, assist, and become aware of malpractice, and do not report it through the appropriate channels.

The surcharge provision of the National Audit Act that allows for the recoupment of any loss caused to the Government by the responsible public servant(s) could prove a useful avenue to achieving this.

There is also an apparent need for industry experts to be further involved in the oversight process. Currently, the COPE reports offer little in the way of strategic enterprise reforms that go beyond merely identifying areas of issue, and look to improve the efficiency and profitability of public enterprises. Technical expertise could therefore prove extremely useful in not only identifying areas for further scrutiny and investigation, but also in creating more effective recommendations for management reforms.

The Commonwealth Association of Public Accounts Committees itself states that the appointment of non-parliamentarians is not without precedent, and given the importance of the Committee, is something that should be considered seriously.

Parliamentary members of the COPE often lack the time and capability to rigorously investigate instances of collusion and malpractice as they happen, and thus support committees of industry experts could prove a valuable resource in addressing this. Appointing non-parliamentarians to the COPE would thereby strengthen the Committee’s independence, increase diversity, and enhance its competency.

Moreover, if the Sri Lankan people are to truly act as the shareholders of public enterprises, they need to be provided with open access to COPE proceedings.

At present, inquiries must be raised by a member of Parliament in order for them to be addressed by the COPE. This distinctly undermines the ability of the public to hold SOE malpractice to account. The limits on non-parliamentarians for attending COPE hearings should be removed, and hearings should be made more accessible to all members of the public. Increased transparency is not something shareholders should have to ask for, especially not from their government.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation (OECD) proposes a range of guidelines for the corporate governance of SOEs, including the equitable treatment of all shareholders, equal access to corporate information, transparency, and disclosure.

Perhaps a relatively simple way of achieving this would be to list all of Sri Lanka’s SOEs on the Colombo Stock Exchange, thereby making them subjected to the already robust Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations.

These avenues present achievable interim measures that Sri Lanka should capitalise on. The recent strides made by the COPE are certainly promising in their movement towards stronger regulation and increased public scrutiny, however, Sri Lanka still has a long way to go if it is to seriously mitigate the burden placed on its Treasury by the current state of SOEs. Implementing these reforms could serve as a strong start, but larger reforms will also be essential in achieving sustainable fiscal consolidation.

---

Is Sri Lanka keeping its small businesses small?

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

Originally appeared on The Morning

---

By Nishtha Chadha

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have been a hot topic of this year’s presidential election candidates. Across the spectrum of political parties, SMEs have repeatedly been highlighted as avenues for sustainable economic growth and new innovation. There have been an array of promises to uplift the status and capabilities of SMEs through targeted assistance mechanisms that seek to bolster the role of SMEs in the Sri Lankan economy. However, if the Government truly intends to empower local SMEs, there needs to be a holistic approach to policy reforms and programme implementation.

There is no doubt that SMEs make up a crucial part of the national economy. Accounting for 52% of total GDP and 45% of national employment, these enterprises present a wealth of opportunity for domestic economic growth (1).

Generally, SMEs tend to be labour-intensive and require less establishment capital than larger firms. As such, growth in the SME sector poses significant potential to create new employment opportunities and facilitate wider distribution of wealth across rural and regional areas. They also hold the potential to increase tax bases at a quicker pace than larger enterprises, thereby contributing to government revenue.

However, Sri Lanka still lags behind regional neighbours when it comes to SMEs as a percentage of total enterprises.

In India, Malaysia, and Singapore, SMEs make up between 95-99% of total enterprises, while in Sri Lanka, they barely make up 80% (2018). Moreover, despite their significant contribution to the economy, SMEs in Sri Lanka only account for a marginal proportion of total national exports, suggesting a severe disconnect between the interest of the SME community in expanding their market base beyond the domestic sphere and their practical ability to do so.

The Government itself has acknowledged the need to strengthen the SME sector and increase its export potential.

The National Export Strategy of Sri Lanka (2018-2022) explicitly acknowledges the need to “strengthen Sri Lankan exporters’ market entry capacities” and support “the integration of SMEs from across Sri Lanka into the export value chain”. As a result, the Enterprise Sri Lanka credit programme has been launched by the Government in an attempt to improve awareness and access to finance for small and medium entrepreneurs through a variety of loan schemes. These include interest subsidy loan schemes, donor-funded refinance loan schemes, and financial and non-financial support programmes. Enterprise Sri Lanka seeks to make the Government’s vision of creating 100,000 entrepreneurs in Sri Lanka by 2020 a reality, and has already disbursed Rs. 88 billion through the loan schemes since its launch.

A band-aid approach

While access to finance has certainly been cited as a common barrier to SME growth, there needs to be a more holistic effort to address the various other obstacles that currently deter small and medium entrepreneurs from achieving their export potential. The development of e-commerce has created an era of new opportunity for SMEs to engage in international trade at a fraction of the cost, and Sri Lanka should capitalise on this window of opportunity to reboot its economic growth. The renewed focus of politicians on SMEs does indicate some positive posturing.

However, there is a pressing need to change the narrative on SME growth. Although SMEs are the backbone of the national economy, they need to be supported to grow beyond this classification.

Regulatory burdens and poor access to information continue to remain major impediments to SME expansion.

There are over 20 ministries that serve the business sector in Sri Lanka, with numerous departments, authorities, and councils established under each of them. This has resulted in a major fragmentation of governance mechanisms, critical information gaps, and poor private-public synergy. Thus, in addition to improving access to finance, the Government needs to streamline its SME strategy and make opportunities more accessible to entrepreneurs.

The ultimate goal of SMEs should be to grow into large enterprises that compete at an international scale, and SME-related reforms should reflect these aspirations. Band-aid approaches that target singular obstacles to growth without looking at the bigger picture cannot cultivate the effective ecosystem for entrepreneurship that Sri Lanka needs, if it is to achieve high income status. Present requirements such as the minimum capital contribution of $ 5 million from foreign shareholders in companies that engage in retail trade are not in line with this growth agenda. SMEs should be encouraged to grow faster through partnerships with overseas businesses to access capital and skills. However, restrictions like these hinder the growth of SMEs in the retail sector.

Sri Lanka is already at great risk of falling into the “middle-income trap”, with high debt burdens and slowing national growth. Having recently achieved upper middle-income status, the economy can no longer rely on foreign aid inflows to facilitate economic growth and development. As such, the country must find ways to improve productivity and increase export volumes if it is to remain competitive on the world stage. SMEs present a unique opportunity to facilitate this growth by plugging into global value chains, capitalising on international markets, and driving innovation – but only if they are provided with meaningful resources to do so.

SME success stories from the developed world have demonstrated the importance of public-private co-operation for sustainable growth, and Sri Lanka should look to emulate this if it intends to move beyond its current middle-income status. As noted by the OECD: “Start-ups and SMEs are typically more dependent than large companies on their business ecosystem and, due to their internal constraints, are more vulnerable to market failures, policy inefficiencies, and inconsistencies…a transparent regulatory environment, efficient bankruptcy regulation, and judicial system are essential to support the growth of start-ups and SMEs, especially in innovative, high-risk sectors.” (10)

Thus, to escape the middle-income trap, Sri Lanka needs to make a real commitment to implement all facets of the National Export Strategy and streamline transparent regulatory mechanisms. If Sri Lanka’s next government truly intends to achieve its entrepreneurial vision, it needs to do more than make conflated promises to emerging entrepreneurs and commit to real reforms that will create a fruitful business ecosystem for growth.

---