Sri Lanka’s Productivity Push: Exploring Policy Pathways for the Proposed National Productivity Commission

By Tilani Jayawardhana

Why Does Productivity Matter for Sri Lanka?

Productivity is not just a technical measure of economic efficiency; it is fundamental to improving living standards, sustaining economic growth, and ensuring the long-term prosperity of society. Evaluating and enhancing the productive forces of the economy is crucial for informed policymaking, targeted investments, and achieving sustainable development. For Sri Lanka, focusing on productivity is key to overcoming economic challenges and realizing its potential in the global economy.

Sri Lanka should increase productivity across the economy if it wants to successfully compete in the global value chain. Improvement in productivity will reduce the costs and place the country in a better position to supply to the global markets at competitive prices. 

Productivity growth has to be a top priority of all the successive governments. Without productivity growth, the country’s production system, be it agriculture, industry, or services, will be displaced in the global system.  Therefore, the role of the NPC should be to ensure a data-driven approach to productivity in each sector, promote competition, and encourage international competitiveness. 

Sri Lanka’s productivity has to be built up through investments in physical capital stock, human capital and the diversity and dynamism of our industries. To ignite productivity growth, new business investment and workforce capabilities will need to improve in ways that respond to the changing shape and nature of the economy. Investments in physical capital are expected to continue to drive Sri Lanka’s productivity potential. International evidence shows that about two-thirds of labour productivity growth since the early 1970s has been due to capital deepening. This is because when the amount and quality of capital available to workers increases, they are generally able to produce more per hour worked. As the industrial mix changes, investment in growing industries and effective adoption of new technologies, including digital technologies, will be essential.

The productivity challenges and opportunities that we will face in the future will be different to what we have seen in the past. Improving productivity in the large and growing services sector will be increasingly important, as it will have an outsized impact on Sri Lanka’s overall productivity outcome. Country’s productivity agenda needs to respond to current economic circumstances and identify modern strategies to advance enduring policy goals.

Rationale in establishing the National Productivity Commission (NPC)

An economy’s ability to use labour, capital and other resources efficiently is the essence of productivity and it is when this efficiency increases a country’s economy would expand. In a bid to revive the country’s struggling economy, Sri Lanka has implemented a comprehensive economic reforms agenda. The government has initiated several key recovery strategies, with the establishment of a National Productivity Commission (NPC) being a flagship project under the Economic Transformation Bill. The proposed NPC is expected to help address the productivity enhancement needs of the domestic industrial sector as they are struggling to come out of the economic crisis and exposed to greater international competition. The government of Sri Lanka has taken this correct step forward and acknowledged that higher productivity growth has the advantage of raising average living standards by increasing GDP per capita. 

Productivity growth is an important aspect of economic and social development of a country. Moreover, increasing productivity enhances competitiveness, making it a crucial factor in attracting foreign investments and boosting international trade. Productivity drives economic growth and helps realize improved living standards. 

Though Sri Lanka’s output structure shows a shift to services (with an average share of 59.2% during 2016–2022) and away from agriculture (8.5%), a large share of the employed are still in agriculture (26.4%), where productivity is about 31% of the national average. Furthermore, its manufacturing sector—a sector widely regarded as one that can gainfully employ semiskilled workers—lags in labor productivity. Though Sri Lanka’s manufacturing labor productivity is one of South Asia’s highest, it is roughly half of that in the Philippines and Thailand, and about one-third of that in Malaysia and the People’s Republic of China (ADB Country Partnership Strategy: Sri Lanka, 2024–2028).

Sri Lanka's aging population presents a significant challenge to sustaining high economic growth, while boosting productivity is the key solution to overcoming this hurdle. Sri Lanka is “growing old” before becoming “rich” and thereby there is an urgent need in preparing for an aging society that will require increasing labor force participation and productivity of the workforce. Productivity improvements can offset the economic impacts of a shrinking workforce by enabling the remaining labor force to produce more. This is crucial for sustaining economic growth in the face of demographic challenges. Therefore, establishment of the NPC is a clear step forward in the correct direction. 

Overview of the Proposed NPC

The broad objective of the proposed NPC is to promote economic growth through increased productivity for the improvement of wellbeing of people in a sustainable manner. The NPC will be an independent body which is accountable to Parliament. 

The main duties and functions of the NPC shall be to: 

• Make recommendations to the relevant authorities based on evidence and comprehensive analysis in order to increase productivity and economic performance by; streamlining regulation of productivity, promoting healthy competition and contestable markets, catalysing structural transformation and encouraging international competitiveness

• Make recommendations to the Government on introducing a national competition policy and advise on subsequent revisions as needed from time to time

• Conduct public inquiries and evidence-based research on issues related to productivity, either in-house or contracted out, and disclose the methodologies used for such inquiry or research

• Carry out, performance, monitoring, evaluation and benchmarking on the productivity

• Report annually to Parliament on the productivity trends within the first four months of the following year

• Advocate on the need for productivity improvement 

Although the objectives of the NPC cover a wide range of responsibilities, from streamlining regulation to promoting competition and international competitiveness, this broad scope might dilute the focus and effectiveness of the NPC. It is important to narrow the focus to specific, high-impact areas initially, such as catalyzing structural transformation or enhancing international competitiveness. Clear prioritization of tasks could improve the efficiency and outcomes of the commission’s work. NPC’s work and policy orientation should address the country's on-going productivity issues, it also should carry a longer-term perspective in achieving the development goals of the country.

In addition, conducting inquiries and evidence-based research in-house might lead to biased outcomes, especially if the NPC faces political or administrative pressures. This issue can be resolved through the establishment of an independent research unit within the NPC with a clear mandate. 

NPC should Advocate for the development of standardized productivity metrics and benchmarks, perhaps aligned with international best practices to facilitate performance monitoring, evaluation and benchmarking. 

It is also important to have within the NPC mandate to promote public advocacy and engagement. The mandate to advocate for productivity improvement is broad, and without a clear strategy, these efforts might not reach the right audience or create the desired impact. Development of a targeted communication and advocacy strategy that includes specific campaigns for different sectors, public education initiatives, and collaboration with media and civil society to raise awareness should be taken into consideration.

Concerns on the proposed NPC and some policy recommendations

• The process of appointing the chairman and five members to the NPC is under presidential authority, which raises concerns about potential political interference and the practicality of the level of independence of the commission. Even if the commission operates under an independent entity, the inherent structure would not warrant it to operate at arm’s-length from politicians and other public agencies. 

• The two core features of the NPC has to be its transparency and its economy-wide perspective. The commission’s activities should encompass all levels of government and all sectors of the economy, with the core values of independence, transparency and community-wide perspective, including social and environmental aspects. 

• The NPC should have permanent staff that has the capacity to evaluate all aspects of the public sector operational activities with special emphasis on macroeconomics and competition policy. Their work should be overseen by independent commissioners appointed for a fixed term. 

• The NPC must be geared to contributing by providing quality, independent advice and information to the government, and on the communication of ideas and analysis. - The commission ideally should be an agency of the Government of Sri Lanka, located within the
  Treasury portfolio, covering all levels of government and encompass all sectors of the economy, as well as social and environmental issues 

• National performance monitoring system has to be based on the Total Factor Productivity (TFP). TFP is referred to as the productivity measure involving all factors of production. Most often productivity measurement is based on Partial Factor Productivity, where one or more outputs are measured relative to one particular input (eg. Labour productivity is a ratio of output to labour input). Therefore, unlike labour productivity (or capital productivity), which considers only the labour input (or capital input), TFP is a comprehensive measure of productivity. TFP is usually calculated as the ratio of the total output to the combined inputs of labor and capital. Partial productivity measures are widely used as they are simple to calculate. However, partial factor productivity should be interpreted with caution.  

Regulatory Power of the NPC.The NPC’s mandate to "streamline regulation" and "promote healthy competition" might be limited if the commission does not have sufficient authority to enforce its recommendations. Without enforcement powers, the NPC could become merely an advisory body, with its recommendations being ignored or delayed by the government.

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.

Revising Sri Lanka’s Competition Law Is Essential for Economic Growth

By Ashanthi Abayasekara and Yasmin Raji

As Sri Lanka’s gears itself toward a path of economic recovery, it is now more important than ever that we rethink Sri Lanka’s existing competition law framework. Why is there a need for such a framework, one might wonder, and what is wrong with the current law? 

The answer to the first, is that competition has profound implications on economic growth. In a dynamic market, competition between businesses becomes the catalyst for technological innovation, improved product quality, and increased productivity. 

For example, Advocata Institute’s newest study on the ‘Impact of Anti-Competitive Practices in the Construction Industry on Affordable Housing in Urban Sri Lanka’, highlights the prevalence of specific anti-competitive practices (such as tied selling, cross-ownerships, prevalence of monopolies, exclusive dealings and misleading advertisements) in the domestic tile, cement, and aluminum industries. These anti-competitive practices have deterred fair competition and stifled innovation among businesses, leading to increased prices of these construction goods in the market. A well-crafted and strictly enforced competition law can help minimise such effects by promoting fair competition  and the efficient allocation of scarce resources within markets. 

However, Sri Lanka’s current competition framework, the Consumer Affairs Authority Act of 2003, is far from comprehensive as it does not effectively address anti-competitive practices in markets. Here’s why.

Although the law has provisions that address abuse of dominance between businesses and anti-competitive trade practices, it fails to address issues pertaining to mergers and acquisitions, which is a fundamental aspect of competition law. Current efforts to privatise Sri Lanka’s state-owned enterprises underscore the urgency of addressing this deficiency in the current competition law to prevent the transition from government monopolies to private sector monopolies.

In addition, despite having the legislative powers, the current competition authority, the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA), lacks the independence and institutional capacity to practically implement the above law, including successfully investigating and adjudicating anti-competitive practice cases. 

The CAA comes under the purview of a line ministry (presently the Ministry of Trade, Commerce and Food Security), with staff appointments, dismissals and decisions about remuneration being made by the minister in charge, leaving the authority susceptible to undue political influence. The CAA  relies on ministry budget allocations for its daily operations, which constrains the extent to which the authority can strengthen its institutional capacity (by hiring qualified, competent and experienced legal staff) to handle cases related to anti-competitive practices in markets, as and when needed. These financial constraints are also a major reason behind the prevalence of low salary scales for staff members. The fact that the Consumer Affairs Authority has not investigated a single case related to anti-competitive practices in the past ten years, according to findings by Verité Research, is indicative of these issues. 

The CAA also suffers from a lack of transparency, wherein their procedures and scope for carrying out raids and investigations, which are largely limited to consumer protection issues, are discretionary, making it difficult to gain the trust of the public. There is also a lack of awareness amongst the general public of the CAA and its functions. Often, this means that the public are not aware of what anti-competitive practices look like, are unaware of their consumer rights and how the CAA can help them address their concerns, resulting in very few complaints filed with the CAA. Whilst the CAA does carry out some awareness campaigns, they are mostly limited to consumer protection issues.  

To enhance the effectiveness of Sri Lanka's competition law and address anti-competitive practices, the Consumer Affairs Act of 2003 needs to be amended to include provisions on mergers and acquisitions.

Improvements to the transparency of the CAA will also be of importance to enhance legitimacy and build public trust in the organisation. One of the ways in which this can be done is by allowing public access to information on the CAA’s mandate and procedures, including actions taken by the CAA against anti-competitive practices.

In addition, awareness about the nature and consequences of anti-competitive practices should be improved amongst the public, law makers, the business community as well as the judiciary, who will be directly involved in matters related to competition.

Most importantly, establishing an independent competition authority with adequate resources is vital for the successful enforcement of competition law in the country. Some ways to do this would be to transfer the power to appoint and remove staff from the line minister to a parliamentary body. Also, revamping the CAA to serve as an appellate body for specialised regulators, like the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL), funded through regulatory levies rather than government allocations, can contribute to its financial independence and effective enforcement.

While implementing reforms to the current competition legal framework will pose challenges, the long-term benefits of fostering a fair and competitive market far outweigh them. Such reforms are crucial for sustained economic growth and prosperity for businesses and consumers alike. Sri Lanka must pursue recommended changes without delay to secure its economic future.

How Trade Restrictions are Inflating Urban Housing Costs in Sri Lanka

By Ashanthi Abayasekara and Yasmin Raji

A glance at Colombo’s (and suburban) housing prices will quickly establish that buying or renting a house is expensive for a vast majority of Sri Lankans. Advocata Institute in a study found that 70% of Sri Lankans cannot afford to own even a basic 500 square foot house in their lifetime. But what is driving up urban housing prices making house ownership unaffordable?

A recent study by Advocata Institute on the ‘Impact of Anti-Competitive Practices in the Construction Industry on Affordable Housing in Urban Sri Lanka’, reveals that urban housing prices are inflated partly due to restrictive trade policies and anti-competitive practices in the markets for housing construction materials.

The study examined the tiles, cement, and aluminum markets, all essential inputs in urban housing construction. These industries were found to be highly concentrated, with few firms involved. Barriers to entry are high due to substantial capital requirements and the need for economies of scale, which new entrants cannot afford. Additionally, market players benefit from significant trade protection through high import tariffs, cementing the dominance of domestic players.

In the case of domestically produced cement, the raw material used in the production of cement, clinker, has been subjected to a cumulative tariff ranging between 16% and 25% from 2014 to 2022. In comparison, importers of bulk and bag cement—the direct competitors of domestic manufacturers—have faced an additional para tariff of CESS consistently over the same period, ranging between 8% and 14%. This put cumulative tariffs for bulk and bag importers significantly higher than for clinker importers, ranging between 27.5% - 38.5% and 26% - 32.5% for bulk and bag cement importers respectively..

Figure 1: Changes to quantity of cement imported, prices, and tariff structures

A similar situation can be observed in the tile market, where imported tiles have been subjected to a total tariff rate ranging between 79% and 89.5% from 2013 to 2022 while tile raw materials were only subjected to a VAT of 8%. This discrepancy in tariff rates creates an uneven playing field, giving domestic manufacturers an unfair advantage over their importing counterparts. 

In addition to the high border tariffs, quantity restrictions have also been utilized to curtail imports. This was predominantly observed in the sweeping import restrictions imposed in April 2020 owing to the foreign exchange shortage prevailing at the time. This saw the quantity of bag cement imported reducing by 65% and tiles reducing by 87%. While most of these restrictions were placed as an attempt to conserve foreign exchange during the forex crisis, the inconsistent way in which these policies have been implemented has disproportionately benefited the larger domestic players in the markets. 

Apart from its implications on the producers and importers of construction materials, the high border tariffs coupled with import suspensions (protectionist trade policies) have resulted in a limited supply of construction materials available for customers, not only limiting their choices but more importantly, driving up the prices of goods exponentially. For example, high tariffs and import restrictions in the tile market led to customers being subjected to price increases of 93%-123% by August 2022 compared to April 2020. Customers also reported waiting times of over a year to receive the goods. 

So how does all of this impact housing affordability? With rising prices of construction materials due to these protectionist trade policies and the lack of competition in the domestic market, the cost of constructing a house has also seen a significant increase over the years, making it unaffordable to a vast majority of Sri Lankans. 

Given these impacts on necessities like housing, the corrective action would be to abolish tariffs altogether as soon as possible, and boost competition in construction material materials. However, due to Sri Lanka’s constrained fiscal space, reducing tariffs and removing trade restrictions should be done gradually. This approach will steadily increase the import of these goods, boost their supply, gradually drive down prices, and ultimately minimize housing affordability issues.

A new era or more turbulence?

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

• The challenges facing Sri Lanka’s next president

The Presidential Election has been announced. Ideally, by 22 September, there will be a new president with a new mandate from the people.

Sustaining power will be more difficult than winning the election. Generally, from the very first day after assuming office, things start to fall apart. This will be the first election after the ‘Aragalaya,’ and we do not know the ground reality.

The last power transition wasn’t smooth. While there was a democratic element in appointing the eighth President after the resignation of the former, that episode had many dark elements, including a massive economic contraction and impact on human lives.

Focus on economics and corruption

Previous elections had a national element, but this time the focus is completely on economics and corruption. The good news is that the path forward is well defined, including macro targets. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) Governance Diagnostic has provided the main reforms needed to curtail corruption, with timelines and responsible institutions. Most of these are non-controversial.

This time, all candidates will also have to declare their assets electronically. We, as the people, should demand that the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) enforces this.

The new president must deliver on anti-corruption promises because the demands of the ‘Aragalaya’ have not been met yet. However, some promises, like recovering assets overseas, are not easy to execute. Therefore, delivering on the anti-corruption sentiment is challenging.

Delivering on the economic front is equally tough. After debt restructuring, our interest rates will likely remain high. When interest rates are high, the cost of capital is higher, slowing down investment.

For instance, buying a computer to automate manual work becomes difficult when money is hard to source due to high interest rates. As a result, our economy will not grow. If the economy is slow to grow, it invites another crisis. Simply put, if the economy doesn’t grow, our debt will not be sustainable.

In other words, if the economy is slow to grow, it indicates that we are heading towards another debt crisis. The next leader must ensure both growth and stability.

The second piece of good news is that we at least have an idea of what targets we need to achieve on the economic front. Our debt-to-GDP ratio must gradually come down to 95% and our revenue must increase by improving our tax net.

Many promises about increasing Government sector salaries and public sector expenditure are good, but will be difficult to keep.

Limited options

In this context, there are two limited options available to increase money and productivity.

The first is improving productivity in what we already do. Simply working harder and putting in more effort can help. For example, reducing the number of holidays by 10% should increase the economy’s momentum because people will work more. But this race cannot be won solely by working harder. We must also look into channels for improving productivity without capital investments.

One such area is opening up business ventures that change the business format. For example, app-based taxi companies have significantly improved the productivity of both passengers and drivers by connecting potential riders with drivers. Companies like Booking.com connect tourists looking for lodging with small-scale lodging options.

Changing the business model has increased income for many people, reduced expenditure for many, and decreased waiting times, increasing overall productivity. The new leader must leverage this productivity lever.

The second option is to reform State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) to attract capital. Allowing SOEs to undergo privatisation and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) can attract capital through investments. Additionally, rather than incurring losses, private entities can generate revenue for the Government through taxes and improve productivity.

The third option is to release land to improve productivity and circulate capital. Providing land ownership to people allows them to use it as security to unleash capital from the banking system, improving productivity.

Beyond these three options, any president will have limited choices. Relying on geopolitical powers in a highly volatile geopolitical environment may also be unfeasible.

Therefore, the challenge for the new president extends beyond getting elected. The real challenge is navigating the period after the election, which will undoubtedly be tougher than getting elected.

Delaying elections threatens political and economic stability

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Whenever there is an election, there is always a conversation about delaying it. Already, Provincial Council Elections and Local Government Elections have been delayed. This was the case in 2004/2005 and again in 2019.

One rationale is that, having just achieved stability after a massive economic crisis, we need more time to complete some structural reforms and ensure political stability. On the flip side, how can we execute any reform without the mandate of the people? Operating without the people’s mandate means political stability is the first thing to go out the window.

After the resignation of the former President, the process of appointing a new President followed a democratic process. While it may not have been perfect, there was a democratic element involved. Political parties with a mandate from the people were able to contest, and the candidate who could command a majority of confidence through votes was given the responsibility to lead the country for the remaining term of the previous President.

Despite its flaws, this democratic element brought political stability, which led to economic stability. With the President’s support from Parliament, it was possible to enter into an agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and continue discussions with external and internal creditors for debt restructuring. The political stability that came through the democratic element in the power transition process made it possible to achieve some level of economic stability.

Uncertainty and economic growth

However, the same democratic process has clear guidelines on the expiry time of the mandate. If we do not follow this process, the system that brought stability will push us towards instability again.

Delaying or attempting to delay elections often prompts political parties and their supporters to demand elections, creating instability as people seek to test the mandate of the public. Delaying an election in the hope of completing unfinished reforms rarely works as planned.

Moreover, postponing elections increases uncertainty. Even holding an election carries some uncertainty, but postponing it intensifies this uncertainty. The biggest enemy of any economic development is uncertainty.

After debt restructuring, the only way out for the country is economic growth. According to agreements with bondholders, we start repaying our interest from September onwards. A year of uncertainty will hinder even the small growth potential we have.

For economic growth, we need investments, and in an uncertain economic environment, attracting investments will be difficult. Falling behind our growth targets due to political uncertainty will challenge our debt repayments and credit rating updates.

International support may not be as easy to secure if the legitimacy of the Government is questioned over a delayed national election. It is true that elections themselves have an element of uncertainty. Especially post-Presidential Elections, if Parliamentary Elections result in fragmented party compositions, we risk returning to a scenario similar to President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s era, with a Coalition Government barely holding a majority.

Passing bills during a time when growth and structural reforms are needed could face resistance and pushback, leading to maintaining the status quo rather than shifting gears for growth and development.

Having a majority or even two-thirds power does not guarantee that all decisions will be right or fast. As we witnessed, a two-thirds majority Government was short-lived due to misguided economic policies. However, a diluted majority will also bring instability and frequent power changes, causing things to go back and forth.

The solution: A common reform programme

If we think about the country and the people, the only solution is a common minimum reform programme where parties agree on a baseline level of reforms. This ensures that regardless of who comes to power, progress continues. The common minimum programme can start with implementing the IMF Governance Diagnostic, which has recommended significant structural reforms for fiscal, monetary, anti-corruption, and State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) sectors.

If we can at least implement the IMF Governance Diagnostic Report as a common minimum programme, even in case of a drift, it will be slow. Delaying elections, however, will accelerate the drift and slow down existing reforms and growth.

The real challenge will be for whoever comes to power next. If the next government cannot drive economic growth through improving productivity, investment, and efficiency, another collapse is inevitable. A common agreement on reforms is required because the common people care less about who rules the country and more about how their future and standard of living will improve.

Bouquets and brickbats for Economic Transformation Bill

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

We all agree that Sri Lanka’s economy requires transformation. Can we transform an economy solely through an Economic Transformation Bill? No. Can we do it without a bill, without a proper legal framework and institutional structure? Again, the answer is a definite no.

Overall, the bill essentially unbundles the Board of Investment (BOI) into three main parts: establishing a powerful Economic Commission to decide and drive investment strategy at a national level, improving the investment climate for investors, and setting up Invest Sri Lanka to attract investors.

The current zones managed under the BOI have been transferred to a new organisation, with options for establishing industrial zones in collaboration with the private sector. This aims to resolve land issues and improve facilities for investors. The new institution is focused purely on trade agreements and economic integration with global supply chains.

A Productivity Commission, modelled after Australia’s, is proposed to enhance market efficiency and prevent anti-competitive practices. Lastly, a type of Government think tank is proposed to provide research services and analytics on trade and investment.

The bill also appears to compile six ideas into one comprehensive piece of legislation. Incorporating debt-to-GDP ratio targets, export-to-GDP ratio targets, and gross financing needs expectations seems to be another objective, as outlined in the preamble.

Risk of political interference

On the flip side, the appointment of members for the Economic Commission and other institutions falls directly under the president’s purview. In instances where the president is also the minister of finance, significant economic powers are concentrated in the hands of a single individual. Given that the majority of members can be appointed by the president, there is a significant risk of political interference in the business and investment climate.

We can set up numerous institutions, but real reform and transformation occur not when the bill is passed but rather when capable individuals drive real change. If we have flawed provisions for the appointment of members to the Economic Commission and other institutions, allowing for political interference, we risk creating another ineffective BOI.

Ideally, appointments should be nominated or approved by the Constitutional Council (CC). Additionally, representation from professional bodies such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka (CA Sri Lanka) could ensure adherence to ethical standards.

Steps in the right direction

The new bill proposes six key institutions:

Economic Commission (EC)

Invest Sri Lanka (Invest SL)

Zones Sri Lanka (Zones SL)

National Productivity Commission (NPC)

Office for International Trade (OIT)

Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade (SIEIT)

The idea of establishing a separate entity to manage investment zones is a step in the right direction. A 2018 study by the Harvard Center for International Development revealed that 95% of BOI investment zones were occupied and investors had identified land availability as a constraint.

Rather than having the BOI run industrial zones, there are many private sector players who can provide better services to investors. Zones SL should collaborate with the private sector to open new zones, providing infrastructure as landlords rather than managing the zones themselves.

The Productivity Commission is another positive policy step, provided it is implemented correctly. Its role should be to ensure a data-driven approach to productivity in each sector, promote competition, and encourage international competitiveness.

The commission should work with industry experts, as productivity expertise varies by sector. Australia’s experience with its Productivity Commission demonstrates the importance of maintaining focus on competition and avoiding mission drift, as seen with the Consumer Affairs Authority, which has deviated from its original purpose.

The OIT aims to address the lack of capacity in trade negotiations. The bill’s overall concept targets structural issues that hinder exports and Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs). However, it does not guarantee the intentions of politicians or ensure that everything will improve after the passage of the bill. The appointment process and selection of competent individuals for committees are crucial.

Implementation challenges

The key challenge for Sri Lanka will be execution. A large government with poor capacity is likely to result in political appointees populating these commissions, given the current appointment structure and salary scales. There is little incentive for qualified individuals to join at the current salaries offered.

Moreover, the Government lacks the capacity to offer higher salaries, and doing so for one segment could lead to demands for salary increases across the board or protests during a politically sensitive period. Phased reforms to reduce the State’s workforce are necessary to improve State capacity and manage these institutions effectively.

When the BOI was established, it was intended to be a one-stop shop for investors. However, it has become another bureaucratic hurdle. We risk repeating this mistake with all six proposed institutions if the wrong individuals are appointed. Conceptually, the policy is in the right direction, but its success depends on the implementation and the people driving it.

Nearing debt negotiation deal amid economic uncertainty

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Sri Lanka is hopeful that we can reach a debt negotiation before the first half of the year. Many are focused on the potential for reductions in principal and interest rates or extensions of debt maturities.

According to a recent update from the Ministry of Finance, we are yet to finalise a settlement with our bondholders, although we are close to an agreement. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the Sri Lankan Government’s proposal is about 9.7%, while the bondholders’ proposal is 11.51%. The total cash outflow according to the bondholder proposal for 2024-2028 is approximately $ 16.6 billion, compared to $ 14.7 billion for the Government’s proposal. Ideally, we should reach a settlement close to the Government’s proposal if all goes well.

Both the initial and revised proposals indicate that bondholders are reluctant to reduce the interest accrued during the suspension of debt repayments. In both proposals, there have been no haircuts on $ 1,678 million of accumulated interest. Only a 4% interest rate has been proposed for 2024-2028.

Bondholders have suggested a 28% reduction on existing bonds, reducing the total bond value from $ 12,550 million to $ 9,036 million. Both parties appreciate the depth of the haircut, particularly with respect to economic growth. These adjustments depend heavily on adhering to the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) baseline projections. If we fail to achieve the necessary growth rates, we will receive a deeper concession, and vice versa.

Achieving the best debt restructuring plan for Sri Lanka is crucial and our future hinges on economic growth. The debt level must be compared with the size and growth of the economy because only growth can ensure our ability to repay our debt. Our debt sustainability can only be secured through high growth rates, not solely through the debt relief offered by bondholders.

Economic and governance reforms are essential for growth. Notably, bondholders have proposed an innovative idea called Governance-Linked Bonds (GLB), where Sri Lanka would receive an additional benefit of 50 basis points on two selected bonds, each worth $ 800 million, if we implement two key governance reforms – one qualitative and one quantitative. The quantitative target is to reach a 14% tax-to-GDP ratio in 2026 and 14.1% in 2027.

A list of qualitative targets primarily focuses on publishing procurement contracts and tax exemptions, both of which are included in the IMF Staff-Level Agreement. However, the governance linked bonds, according to the proposal, would only apply to two bonds maturing in 2034 and 2035, each worth about $ 800 million.

While GLBs are an excellent idea, it is questionable whether the incentive is sufficient to encourage a strong governance programme. The savings from a 50 basis point cut in interest for $ 1,600 million would be about $ 80 million. Given that our accumulated interest is also about $ 1,600 million, there is a risk that governments could easily deviate.

Nevertheless, GLBs would send a strong signal to the market that the Sri Lankan administration is committed to governance reforms, which would enhance confidence in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka’s real challenge is avoiding a second debt restructuring. We can only achieve this by taking necessary steps and reforms to grow the economy, not solely relying on debt restructuring agreements.

Even if we secure a 30% haircut, our debt-to-GDP ratio in 2032 would still be approximately 95%. Over 50% of countries that have undergone a first debt restructuring have experienced a second. In Sri Lanka’s case, a second debt restructuring would be extremely painful for the population.

Moreover, our interest rates must remain high to meet the Government’s debt servicing requirements, attracting more funds. However, high interest rates discourage investment as people prefer to deposit their money in banks, leading to a low investment environment that could slow down growth. This slowdown would bring us back to the challenge of managing debt sustainability. This vicious cycle must be avoided.

Growth can only be achieved through improved productivity in a competitive environment, which arises when people are incentivised to perform. When the State dominates business and we try to manage everything independently, people do not become competitive.

Ultimately, growth is the only viable solution. Sadly, it is the only solution. Growth occurs when markets function effectively.

Beyond profit margins and scandals

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Blaming imports and importers has long been ingrained in Sri Lankan culture, often seen as a root cause of the country’s economic issues. This perspective not only overlooks the fact that many importers are also exporters, but also fails to recognise that imports and exports are fundamentally interconnected components of the global trade system.

Despite this, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all imports are conducted ethically or transparently. Recent scandals, such as the sugar scam, misinvoicing, bribery, and procedural irregularities at Customs, highlight the darker aspects of importation. However, casting imports in a universally negative light and fostering resentment based on ideological reasons could prove to be more harmful than beneficial.

Recent investigative reports have revealed staggering profits made by importers on essential commodities like green gram, B-onions, and potatoes. Some profit margins have been reported as high as 280% when comparing the Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) value to the market prices of these goods.

Before rushing to judgement on these profit margins, it is essential to delve deeper into the circumstances surrounding these imports. For example, the importation of green gram has been severely restricted since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, requiring special approval from the Ministry of Agriculture. As a result, the quantity of green gram imported in 2023 has been minimal.

Thus, comparing the CIF value at the port to market prices can be misleading, as it does not accurately reflect the profits made by importers. This situation raises questions about the high market prices for green gram, pointing to inefficiencies in local production rather than exorbitant profits by importers.

The scenario with undu, a staple food item, is similar. With a Rs. 300 import tariff, the market price for 1 kg of undu ranges between Rs. 1,500-1,700. This high cost is partly because importers cannot bring in undu without approval from the Ministry of Agriculture, despite the imposition of tariffs.

Allowing imports could potentially reduce the price of undu to around Rs. 700 per kg, even after tariffs. The restriction on undu imports exacerbates price inflation, making it unaffordable for many, particularly those in estate regions and the northeast, leading to food insecurity among vulnerable populations.

During the recent economic crisis and the consequent shortage of foreign exchange, many imports were facilitated through informal payment channels and ‘open papers’ in undiyal markets. This practice, aimed at evading high tariffs and taxes through under-invoicing, underscores the complexity of Sri Lanka’s tariff structure and the urgent need for its simplification.

The report by the Ways and Means Committee suggests that focusing solely on the cost of goods at the port does not provide a complete picture of the import value, especially considering the prevalence of informal payments. This approach to calculating profits, based solely on declared document values, overlooks additional costs borne by importers, thus distorting the perception of their profit margins.

Moreover, the perishability of essential food items, along with the significant costs associated with storage, wastage, and the impact of rising fuel and electricity prices, further complicates the economic landscape. These factors, combined with high inflation rates, have significantly influenced the cost structure of both the wholesale and retail markets, affecting pricing and profit margins.

The impact of export controls on certain commodities, such as B-onions by India, has also played a role in inflating global prices, illustrating the complex interplay of international trade policies and local market dynamics.

This situation underscores the phenomenon of unintended consequences in economic policy, where well-intentioned policies can lead to outcomes that are diametrically opposed to their original goals. Sri Lanka’s intricate tariff structure and monetary instability have inadvertently encouraged informal payment methods on one hand and escalated costs on the other, placing the poorest members of society in an increasingly precarious position.

While it is undeniable that practices like misinvoicing represent clear violations of the law and must be addressed through appropriate legal channels, attributing the entirety of Sri Lanka’s economic challenges to importers overlooks the broader systemic issues at play. Simplifying the tariff structure, as this column has long advocated, could lead to increased Government revenue and minimise systemic leakages, offering a more sustainable solution to the economic challenges faced by importers and consumers alike.

In conclusion, while illicit practices within the import sector must be rigorously tackled, the solution to Sri Lanka’s economic dilemmas lies not in vilifying importers but in addressing the complex policy and structural issues that underpin the nation’s trade dynamics. A comprehensive approach, focusing on policy reform, tariff simplification, and enhancing local production efficiencies, is essential for creating a more stable and equitable economic environment.

Unveiling the true culprit behind economic woes

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Sri Lankans have a very negative view of imports, which are often portrayed on TV as the problem behind the economic crisis. Not only politicians, but also those who have opinions on our economy subscribe to the idea that imports are the problem.

Our politicians’ favourite pastime is to blame imports and impose various tariffs or ban imports. Banning imports also makes for a very pro-Sri Lankan image, because a common excuse provided is that high imports are damaging to local industries. Accordingly, the banning of imports has been portrayed as a measure to help develop local industries.

A favourite area when it comes to cutting down imports is food imports. Often, media headlines and politicians comment aggressively, even quoting figures on the value of food imported. The middle class, upper middle class, and wealthiest of society often make the argument of needing to save valuable foreign exchange by cutting down food imports.

However, when we consider the data, it indicates the exact opposite. The middle class, upper middle class, and the wealthiest are the ones who consume the most amount of imports in the form of fuel, mainly through personal vehicles and as energy. About 27% of our imports in January was fuel. Fuel is the largest component of our import basket as a single commodity.

What we have imported as food is less than 11% of our total imports. Non-food consumer goods are just 8% of our total imports. Most pharmaceutical products and medicines for patients fall under the non-food consumer goods category, which are primarily consumed by the most vulnerable people in society.

Imported food items are also consumed by the most vulnerable sections of society. Food items such as canned fish, maize, green gram, lentils, black gram, sprats, b-onions, potatoes, and wheat flour are critical food items for the poorest of the poor.

Firstly, these can be stored without a refrigerator, which saves their energy cost. Secondly, they are easily available and affordable compared to many other items of food they consume. Therefore, the request of politicians and academics to cut back on these food items, which comprise less than 11% of our total imports, is nearly impossible to fulfil, and reducing these imports further is tantamount to asking the poor to live in hunger and their children to suffer from malnutrition.

Thirty-seven percent of our import basket comprises intermediate goods, besides food. These are goods required for exports and to produce many things without interrupting the supply chain. For instance while our main export is apparels, our main import is also apparels. Therefore, asking to reduce apparel sector imports amounts to reducing our valuable exports.

In reality, while there persists a belief that imports have to be reduced, it is not the solution it is touted to be. If we have to cut down on food imports, it will lead to increased malnutrition, hunger levels, or food costs for Sri Lankans.

Ways of reducing imports

If we want to bring down our imports, cutting down on fuel is one way to consider. A World Bank study revealed that 70% of the fuel is consumed by the wealthiest 30% of society. Therefore, it only makes sense to maintain fuel prices at market price.

As indicated in the graphs, there is a correlation between high fuel prices and fuel imports. Our fuel imports have decreased when prices are high as people use it sparingly. Compared to January 2023, our fuel imports had declined by about $ 100 million per month by January this year. With the expansion of the economy, this number is expected to slowly grow. Prices can bring imports down without import bans or tariffs.

Another way to reduce fuel imports is by improving public transport. Most of our fuel is wasted in traffic jams as a result of our poor public transportation infrastructure. If we invest in public transport, not only will it reduce fuel imports, but it will also uplift many Sri Lankans and provide significant relief in terms of their purchasing power. Many middle class Sri Lankans pay a 200% tariff to buy a second-hand vehicle at an interest rate of above 12% because they have no other choice but to commute.

Saving foreign exchange

Sri Lanka has been offered many grants, including for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) project, which we turned down on numerous occasions, leading to geopolitical tensions. When people spend less money on commuting and waste less time in traffic congestion, it will not only improve productivity but also their purchasing power, creating many jobs and generating income.

It is an inalienable truth that we need more food imports with different varieties of protein sources for the benefit of the impoverished. Foreign exchange has to be earned through exports, tourism, and remittances.

Saving foreign exchange is a function of the monetary policy or the supply of the Sri Lankan Rupee to the financial system rather than a function of imports and exports. When the rupee becomes expensive, the US Dollar demand decreases automatically because people buy the latter using rupees that they could have used in an alternative manner.

Asking the public to cut down on food imports, which are mainly consumed by the poor, at the expense of allowing the use of more fuel-driven vehicles cannot be justified and borders on cruelty.

Steering clear of divisive politics and economic populism

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

I was recently invited to moderate a session by the European Chamber of Commerce of Sri Lanka (ECCSL) on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Foreign Minister Ali Sabry was one of the Chief Guests and he shared two things we should not do, based on his experience over the past few years in managing a few key portfolios as the Minister of Justice, Finance, and Foreign Affairs.

The event focused on unleashing the power of diversity, equity, and inclusion for businesses in Sri Lanka. Keeping aside the political colours, Sabry’s message on the things Sri Lankans should not do is very apt given the current status of our affairs. These two exhortations were to never play divisive politics and never play with populist economic policies.

The final victim of divisive politics has been none other than our economy and our people. If Sri Lanka is serious about economic development, having a diverse culture is important, as highlighted by Prof. Ricardo Hausmann in his Harvard Growth Diagnostic study on Sri Lanka in 2016-2017. The economic theory behind it is that a diverse culture is capable of creating more combinations of ideas which translate to products, services, and exports.

He provided the example of Silicon Valley – most tech entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are immigrants to the US, which is one reason a high degree of innovation takes place there. Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka, our politics is used to dilute this strength, which has led to where we are today. At one point, ethnic tensions led to mass migration and we are very slow to include all our ethnicities and religions in our culture.

The divisive politics is now at a level that goes beyond ethnicities. It is now ranged against certain countries, trade agreements, and imports from certain countries. Some good examples are the Suwa Seriya ambulance service and the trade agreement between India and Sri Lanka.

We almost rejected Suwa Seriya on the grounds that it was an Indian invasion and that Indian Intelligence services wanted to collect intelligence data through the ambulance service. This is a service primarily impacting the poorest of the poor and has now been recognised as one of the fastest services in the region by the World Bank.

Divisive politics is now beyond ethnicities and religions. We created the same tensions with trade agreements and claimed that the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Singapore would result in foreigners taking over our jobs. Instead, most Sri Lankans left the country for jobs overseas due to the economic crisis and we now beg people to visit us.

We also created similar tensions over the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement by claiming that the agreement would cause more imports to flow into Sri Lanka, worsening our trade balance. The data shows the exact opposite taking place.

We have a trade surplus with India under the FTA and our trade deficit with India comes from outside the FTA. However, comparing trade balances between countries is completely misleading, since what we need to keep in mind is the budget deficit rather than the trade deficit, because the budget deficit arising from Central Bank lending is what leads to a trade deficit.

At one point, by playing divisive politics, we wanted to boycott our Islamic community. We also wanted to boycott Indian products and chase away Chinese and Japanese investments. To make diversity a strength, we need to look beyond borders and capitalise on the strengths of all communities and all countries.

Minister Sabry’s second directive was to never play with populist economic policies. However, we repeatedly witness political parties engaging in populist politics. We are building resistance against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme without any alternative suggestions. Without the IMF programme, even 0.1% of debt relief is not possible. Many funds by many international partners like the Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank, and bilateral creditor will evaporate in seconds.

On the other hand, growth reforms are almost non-existent. Not a single State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) reform has been implemented yet and the SOE Bill has been shelved. On the growth front, a complicated tariff structure remains. The establishment of the Central Bank’s independence was the main reform we have undertaken and we can see the results. It is a pity that the Central Bank completely ignored the optics and raised its staff salaries, even at the risk of some policymakers requesting the reversal of the hard-earned reform of the bank’s independence.

While Minister Sabry has correctly understood what exactly should not be done, unfortunately, our politics remains divisive at a new level and populist economic policies have taken a new turn. We still have a long way to go.

The other side of parate execution suspension

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

In India, there was a particular type of cobra that was causing havoc due to snake bites. People were protesting and social pressure was building. The then British Government had a brilliant idea to counter cobra bite-related deaths and bring down the reptiles’ population – it announced an incentive scheme for every dead cobra.

In essence, people in India were encouraged to kill cobras and hand over the animal’s dead body to established Government offices in India and collect cash in return. In the first few weeks, things worked out very well, but later the Government realised that the number of cobras being handed over was increasing exponentially.

Upon investigation, the Government realised that Indians had become somewhat entrepreneurial. They had started cobra breeding houses at homes and killing cobras as a means of revenue generation for the family. At one point, the Government withdrew the cash incentive system given the misuse of the entire scheme.

Since there was no incentive for people to maintain cobra breeding houses, they released the reptiles into the jungle. The cobra population then multiplied several fold more than what it was initially as a result of the same policy being implemented to reduce the cobra population. This is called the Cobra Effect.

The Government decision to suspend parate execution as a relief for Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) is no different. It is true that MSMEs are going through a difficult time as a result of higher inflation, high interest rates, and economic contraction. It is necessary to protect the MSMEs as they comprise about 99% of business establishments and about 75% of employment in Sri Lanka.

However, whether the suspension of parate is really for MSMEs is a question; 557 parate executions have been undertaken as of November 2023. The total value of the parate executions was just Rs. 38 billion, which stands at just 0.4% of total loans and a mere 2.7% of total impaired loans. From the numbers, it is clear that most MSMEs have not been impacted by parate executions.

Effect on MSMEs

Parate is an execution power on the part of banks under the Recovery of Loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act, No.4 of 1990, where lending banks can recover non-repaid debt by borrowers by selling assets without going through the judicial processes. In 1961, this power was only granted to People’s Bank and the Bank of Ceylon, and in 1985, the power was extended to regional rural development banks as well.

If MSMEs are not affected, what could be expected to happen when parate executions are suspended until December by the Government? This is likely to backfire on MSMEs given the nature of the banking industry, akin to the Cobra Effect.

Banks lend depositors money. Parate was a safeguard for depositors’ money in case someone was not repaying loans they had taken, giving banks a final resort to recover that money so they could honour the depositors.

Now with parate suspension, banks have a higher risk of not being able to recover the money from the loans extended, so they have to charge a higher risk premium when borrowing for anybody, including MSMEs. Therefore, if MSMEs want to borrow money now, they have to pay higher interest rates, which means further contraction of the economy at a time when it needs to grow.

Triple whammy

On the flip side, this will encourage borrowers to default as they now know the banks cannot execute parate even if they were to willfully default. Additionally, borrowers who are honouring their loan repayments with the greatest difficulty during this economic crisis will be discouraged, because their hard work in honouring the dues will not be rewarded. This does not mean that even the Rs. 38 billion through parate execution has to be understated, but it has to be addressed separately without changing a law which affects the entire banking sector.

The Government declared a Rs. 450 billion bank recapitalisation in Budget 2024 given the instability of the banking sector as losses and loans of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) have to be absorbed. On the other hand, licensed commercial banks including State banks are being exposed to sovereign debt restructuring, which is at its final stage. Accordingly, this is detrimental to the stability of the banking sector.

On the depositors’ end, they may be reluctant to deposit money as their risk is now higher on recovery.

Parate execution generally takes place at the last stage of recovery and must go through a court process. Suspension of parate without even consulting banks may provide wrong signals for the ongoing International Monetary Fund (IMF) review, since the IMF initially advised to conduct an assessment on the stability of the banks, although the context has now changed after a few months.

The Non-Performing Loan (NPL) ratios of banks are also on the rise, so banks basically face a triple whammy with this parate suspension – having to charge risk premiums, high NPL, exposure to sovereign default, and now difficulties in recovering money and incentives for not servicing existing loans.

However, the need to protect MSMEs is paramount, which requires a separate sequence of actions. Setting up a bank specifically to absorb bad loans, setting up bankruptcy laws, or moratoria on some of the bad loans under parate executions are options. Changing the entire parate system will indeed bring consequences similar to the Cobra Effect in India.

Why focusing on trade is paramount

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

If you were to ask the average Sri Lankan what Sri Lanka’s economic problems are, you are most likely to hear three answers. The most common and popular answer would be corruption, a likely second would be high imports, and some may even say there is a lack of exports.

This article will address the second and third answers.

Contrary to popular belief, many Sri Lankans are unaware that our imports are declining compared to the size of our economy. Many make the mistake of checking the total value of imports and claiming that our imports are increasing.

That is correct, but import value can increase for many reasons. It could be due to a significant price fluctuation of certain imported commodities (fuel), a consumption hype due to a growing population over the years, or many other reasons.

Accordingly, imports and exports both have to be evaluated in comparison to the size of the economy – commonly known as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It is the same as considering a person’s weight relative to their height and age: weight as an absolute number has no meaning without comparing it with height and age.

Since the 1990s, Sri Lanka’s imports as well as exports have been declining compared to our economy. In recent years, exports have increased because our economy contracted steeply with the economic crisis while our exports remained fairly constant.

This indicates that the claim of our imports being a problem is a complete myth and misleading. Instead, our problem is that our imports are low because our exports are low. We need to export more so we can import more of the things that are being produced competitively and efficiently in other parts of the world.

For instance, let us consider the example of food items. There are many food items with a high range of protein sources and variety that food insecure people can afford, which face a high tariff rate in order to discourage consumption. The final victims of this process are the poorest people in the country who cannot afford a variety of food.

The impoverished spending more on food means they are left with little money to spend on non-food items such as education and health. Therefore, discouragement of imports through tariffs will affect the poor.

Another common myth in Sri Lanka is that Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) increase imports while drying out our USD reserves. Sri Lanka hasn’t signed many FTAs to begin with. Even when we analyse the data, trade primarily takes place outside FTAs.

Let us evaluate the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA). Imports are declining or stagnant from India to Sri Lanka under the ISFTA and we have undertaken more exports than imports under the agreement. However, more trade has taken place outside the ISFTA.

One potential reason for this could be the cost for companies to comply with the ISFTA and the complicated nature of FTAs. However, we have done more exports than imports under the ISFTA, indicating that trade agreements are not necessarily conspiracies by other countries to push their products but that Sri Lanka has done well in exports under FTAs in absolute numbers. As such, the claim that trade agreements push imports and discourage exports is also misleading and the data fails to support the claim.

Even if we check the numbers for the Pakistan-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (PSFTA), we export more under the FTA in absolute numbers than we import. However, compared to our GDP, our trade is very weak, which is one of the main constraints to our economic growth.

Our barriers to trade are beyond trade agreements. Most barriers are internally driven by Sri Lanka Customs, the complicated tariff structure, necessary regulatory barriers, and related to ease of doing business. Blaming FTAs or imports for our economic crisis is meaningless. Instead, our growth potential lies in when we import and export and simplifying the tariff structure unilaterally is the first intervention to minimise corruption and boost trade.

Joining global trade will not only make our country wealthier but position us strongly in Indo-Pacific geopolitics.

As it was famously said: “When goods and services don’t cross borders, soldiers will.”

(Special thank you to Advocata Institute Research Analyst Araliya Weerakoon)

Why are we poor?

By Ravi Ratnasabapathy

Originally appeared on the Daily FT

Economists tell us that Sri Lanka’s economy has stabilised but what does this mean if so many are struggling?

To economists stability means that the imbalances in the economy have been resolved. The symptoms of the imbalances appear as rising prices, shortages of foreign exchange and goods. These have indeed disappeared but what does it mean to ordinary people? It only means that the rate at which people were being impoverished has slowed. We were crashing down the mountainside but the fall has been broken, if only temporarily. This is no mean achievement but obviously people expect much better.

People enjoyed a particular standard of living in 2020 but three short years later find themselves pauperised and cannot fathom why. What caused this steep decline in living standards? Corruption, poor governance and weak public finances are blamed but these were prevalent for decades. Why did the effects of these pass unnoticed for so long and how did they suddenly manifest?

The fact is that while these are connected to the problem they are not the immediate causes. To understand the causes of poverty today we must understand what changed between 2020 and 2023.

Two distinct causes of poverty today

There are two distinct causes but for the sake of clarity they must be dealt with separately.

Between December 2019 and August 20221 the Central Bank printed huge volumes of money – net Central Bank credit to Government grew 10-fold; from 363 billion to 3,162 billion. The end result of the increase in the supply of money is the fall in its value. This is reflected in rising prices and depreciation of the rupee in the foreign exchange market.

The Government at the time tried to mask the symptoms of the problem by imposing price controls; the exchange rate for the rupee was fixed at Rs. 200 along with the prices of many other goods. The result was scarcities – of foreign exchange and of goods which were visible in the long queues and in power cuts. As the printing continued, the Government imposed ever tighter import and price controls until eventually economic activity ground to a near halt. People were either standing in queues or sitting in the dark. Work in factories and offices stopped because of the unavailability of materials, the inability to transport staff or products and the lack of power.

To resolve this problem the only option was to allow interest rates to rise to slow the credit growth that was fuelling excess demand. A partial devaluation was initially attempted without a significant rate increase but this failed and forex shortages persisted. The corner was turned only when rates were hiked significantly and a peg re-established at 360.

As the rupee fell all prices rose. Price controls had to be removed, most importantly on energy – fuel, electricity and cooking gas to reflect the diminished value of the currency. This explains the sudden increase in prices of both goods and services.

Unfortunately while prices rose people’s incomes and savings did not. People’s living standards are measured not by their income but by what that income can procure. When the value of money falls living standards fall.

Effects of currency debasement are permanent

How is this to be reversed? The tragedy is that the effects of currency debasement are permanent. Complete reversal requires that stock money to shrink back to the level it was in 2019 – this would lead to a massive increase in interest rates; much higher than present. The consequences of this would be widespread business collapse and an economic contraction that would impose even more suffering.

What should be done? The debasement of the currency can only happen through the Central Bank. It must be prevented by rules from ever doing so again.

People mistakenly think that the Central Bank should try to keep interest rates low but the only way in which this can be done is (a) if the Government reduces its volume of borrowing, the sheer size of which puts significant upward pressure on rates or (b) if the Central Bank keeps increasing the supply money (money printing) which lowers rates. It is difficult to reduce Government spending in the short term, therefore the borrowing will have to continue. This means the only avenue to lower interest rates is money printing which ultimately impoverishes all.

The Central Bank should not engage in activist monetary policy to stimulate the economy. It must not finance the Government’s budget deficit and in its role as provider of liquidity to the banking sector it must not become a banking intermediary. Liquidity to the interbank market needs to be purely temporary, based on market rates with an added premium to prevent moral hazard. Central Bank intermediation is in some way a substitute for interbank markets and therefore the relative level of costs between the two is crucial.

If the value of the rupee holds it will allow people to try and restore what has been lost. People need to start all over again and through their own efforts try to rebuild their lives.

Second reason for increase in poverty – increase in taxes

The second reason for the increase in poverty is the increase in taxes. People who have already suffered terribly because of currency debasement now face another blow when the Government appropriates even more of their income and raises the prices of goods through sales based taxes. The Government is fixing the problems in its own finances but doing so by passing the buck on to the people.

In the short-term some increases in taxes were unavoidable because of the rigidity in Government spending – the bulk of which is salaries, pensions and interest. These must be reduced but this takes time. However there is no excuse for making no attempt to cut costs. For example, the high prices of electricity and fuel include the extra costs caused by corruption in fuel purchases, inflated power purchase costs, excess payroll and inefficiency.

Corruption and waste become relevant to the problem of impoverishment when their costs are transferred to citizens through increased taxes, higher prices and poorer quality of services provided by the Government. The use of debt and more moderate levels of money printing allowed the Government to conceal the real burden of its spending from people for decades.

The public blames the general increases in prices that result from money printing on “profiteering” by traders. Increases in debt have no immediate impact, it is only when it has to be repaid are the consequences felt at which point the lenders are blamed.

Citizens who voted repeatedly for corrupt populists have awoken from slumber as the costs of past profligacy have finally become apparent.

Ability of the Government to disguise the real burden of its activities

Because of the ability of the Government to disguise the real burden of its activities, in the context of corruption citizens need to have a singular focus on all economic activities of the Government. It is Government spending rather than taxation that ultimately determines the total burden of Government activity on the private sector. The critical question citizens must ask is how far does Government activity and spending actually improve the lives of citizens?

The IMF program is trying to reduce the Government’s deficit and debt – but the approach they have taken is to simply increase taxes rather than doing so concurrently with cutting expenditure. There seems to be unquestioned acceptance of the level of public spending, regardless of its quality or nature.

Tax morale – citizens’ willingness to pay taxes – depends on the trust they have in the Government and the quality of services they receive. In the modern world a state must earn the right to collect tax. To do so it must treat its citizens fairly. It must be responsive and seen to be addressing needs and improving services. The lack of this was evident in the protests of 2022.

The Sri Lankan State fails in the provision of the most fundamental of public goods – those that cannot be provided by private markets: the rule of law and a functioning system of justice. While some useful services are provided in health and education, quality is poor. The spending on private tuition, private schools and private healthcare is a testament to this. Corruption is rampant. For example, COPE reports show the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation has repeatedly procured substandard drugs2, dud software3 and failed to follow strictures imposed by COPE4.

Promises of jobs are a vote-winner. Elections have been won, jobs have been created but only now have the public been presented with the bill. A large proportion of taxes are in effect sustaining the patronage system that enables the election of corrupt politicians.

Voters must realise that there are no easy or painless solutions. After a crisis such as this, countries may experience ‘a lost decade’ before output reaches its pre-crisis level. Populists who promise quick solutions without proper diagnosis or are unable to locate the sources of the problem could easily tip the country back into crisis

Identify the villains in this tragedy

People need to identify clearly the villains in this tragedy; the Central Bank and mis-spending by the Government. Public outrage is justified but unless the sources of the problem; the Central Bank and Government spending are correctly identified, they may well be duped again.

That the rate of impoverishment has slowed will not satisfy the public but do they realise the fragility of this meagre achievement? Politicians are eager to promise quick and painless solutions. The electorate can expect to be subjected to “death by slogan” over the election cycle. A fairer society. End corruption. A brighter future.

Desperate people may clutch at any alternative assuming that things cannot get any worse but they are gravely mistaken. Politicians who do not grasp the problem may trigger another spiral. Criticism of the current approach is needed but people should look for politicians who offer realistic alternatives. How should voters evaluate alternatives?

To avoid another crisis it is vital to maintain monetary stability and fiscal prudence. Serious politicians must commit to both. Ambitious manifestos must be seen to translate into pragmatic programs within the fiscal constraint. The British tradition of access talks: pre-election talks between opposition politicians and civil servants helps prepare the opposition for Government. They need to decide on policy priorities and the mechanics of delivery. Those who have done their homework will demonstrate familiarity with the public finances5.

Some talk of billions in stolen assets and imply that all it takes is to recover this and all will be well. Have they examined the complexity of the legal proceedings in the recovery of stolen assets? The international record of successful of stolen asset recovery is poor. The Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative – a partnership between the World Bank and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has over 15 years recovered a total of around $ 1.9 billion6. The most successful has been the Philippines which recovered more than $ 1 billion over 21 years. This is a tidy sum but do those who tout this as a solution understand the gargantuan size of the Government expenditure?

Public salaries and wages cost Rs. 956.2 billion in 20227. For year of 365 days that works out to Rs. 2.62 billion per day. Subsidies cost another 1,020 billion or Rs. 2.23 billion per day. Including interest total recurrent expenditure runs at Rs. 9.64 billion a day.

The sum total recovered under the StAR over 15 years would only cover the public sector salaries for a little over seven months; total recurrent expenditure for only two. In any case can a realistic budget be built on such an uncertain stream of revenues? Can the rich pay for this all? How many billionaires and millionaires does the Government need to find to sustain spending at a rate of Rs. 9.6 billion per day?

Government spending

Government spending can create the opportunities for corruption; affecting not just the level of public expenditure, but also its composition, favouring projects that allow the collection bribes.

If the misspending in the public sector were reduced greatly then the tax burden could be reduced. Salaries and pensions for the 1.5 million employees of public sector and the 672,0008 pensioners made up 36% of recurrent spending in 2022 (interest took up 44%). This is an ongoing expense that needs to be paid. Are the citizens receiving valuable public services in return?

In 2016 there were 230,525 teachers and around 62,000 in the health service. The problem is with the million others in employment. The number in public employment stood at 812,472 in 19949 but is now estimated at 1.5 m10. Was there a proportionate increase in the quality of services that people received?

Voters must realise that there are no easy or painless solutions. After a crisis such as this, countries may experience ‘a lost decade’ before output reaches its pre-crisis level. Populists who promise quick solutions without proper diagnosis or are unable to locate the sources of the problem could easily tip the country back into crisis.

Footnotes:

1 Sri Lanka: Macroeconomic Developments in Charts, First Quarter 2023, p34 https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/sites/default/files/cbslweb_documents/statistics/mecpac/Chart_Pack_Q1_2023_e1.pdf

2 See reports: https://www.advocata.org/commentary-archives/2019/11/5/coping-with-latest-cope-report; https://www.dailymirror.lk/breaking-news/Fraud-corruption-rampant-at-SPC-GMOF/108-276243;

3 https://readme.lk/spc-has-paid-lkr-644-million-for-software-that-doesnt-work/

4 https://www.news.lk/news/political-current-affairs/item/26077-govt-agencies-failure-to-act-on-cope-recommendations

5 The Institute for Government, a think tank offers a useful guide: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-01/preparing-for-government.pdf

6 https://star.worldbank.org/blog/fifteen-years-star

7 Ministry of Finance Annual Report 2022, p109, https://www.treasury.gov.lk/api/file/39a16e61-7659-476b-8f18-d969c7a69733

8 https://www.parliament.lk/uploads/documents/paperspresented/1662013778004147.pdf

9 “Census Of The Public And Semi-Government Sector Employment 1994”. 1994. Statistics.Gov.Lk. http://www.

statistics.gov.lk/PublicEmployment/StaticalInformation/census_reports/CensusOfPublicAndSemiGovernmentSectorEmployment-1994FinalReport.

10 https://economynext.com/crisis-hit-sri-lanka-finally-starts-to-deal-with-bloated-public-sector-96277/

(The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not reflect the views of organisations he is affiliated to.)

High tariffs on basic food items: A blow to the struggling masses

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Last week it was reported that the Government has again imposed high tariffs (Special Commodity Levy) on some food items such as cowpea, finger millet, undu, maize, and a few others. At a time when seven million people are below the poverty line, tariffs on food items are a crime. Imposing tariffs on such food items is not done just to increase Government revenue.

The tariff on undu has increased to Rs. 300 from Rs. 200 per kg. For finger millet and other items, it has increased from Rs. 70 to Rs. 300. How much can a Government earn from a population of 22 million by imposing a Rs. 300 tariff on finger millet and cowpea?

According to the Ministry of Agriculture, the per annum demand for cowpea in Sri Lanka is 15,000 MT, while the demand for finger millet stands at 10,000 MT. Even if we import the entire demand for finger millet and cowpea, the amount the Government can earn as tariff is about Rs. 7.5 billion for the entire year.

This is a negligible amount compared to our expenditure. The expenditure for the President is about Rs. 5.8 billion as per the Budget estimate for 2024. It is clear that the increase of the Special Commodity Levy (SCL) for food items will have an impact beyond taxes, because at this tariff rate no one will import finger millet or cowpea.

However, it means that the consumer will lose the opportunity to purchase cowpea, undu, and finger millet for Rs. 300 less than what is available in the market. How can we justify people paying an additional Rs. 300 when seven million people – one-third of our country – live in poverty?

This general justification is that this tariff is imposed to protect local manufacturing of finger millet, cowpea, and maize. Even if this is true, what is the justification in terms of consumers when they no longer have access to affordable food items?

Given existing lifestyle changes, products such as undu, cowpea, and finger millet are mainly consumed not by the wealthiest section of the society but the poorest. Diabetes patients, pregnant mothers, estate workers, people in the north and east are the primary consumers of these food items.

It doesn’t stop there. High prices on maize will impact the entire food supply chain as maize is one of the main expenditures of the poultry industry. About 40% of the cost of poultry is on food, primarily driven by maize. This indicates that the cost of main protein sources such as chicken and eggs will increase.

The cost of chicken and eggs in turn impacts the costs of the bakery industry and all food items at restaurants and eateries.

Accordingly, the net impact on the entire food supply chain due to this ad hoc Special Commodity Levy is much greater than what we see at the surface level. Although it is not ideal, if the Government really wishes to protect finger millet, cowpea, and maize farmers, it can give a direct subsidy of Rs. 7.5 billion, based on the productivity and efficiency of farms.

This would mean that at least those who push for better cultivation methods receive an incentive to ensure a better harvest, rather than asking consumers to shoulder a flat price hike for all food items at a time when they are struggling to put three meals on the table per day. People are facing excessive burdens due to inflation and the high tax rate in order to pay for the mistakes of our policymakers.

The second argument against the high SCL on imported food items concerns saving foreign exchange. Firstly, we cannot save foreign exchange through higher tariffs because the demand for imports is determined by the money supply within the economy. People buy forex to import by spending the rupees they earn. When they buy forex in rupees, they have to reduce their consumption by some other means.

If we can save forex simply through higher tariffs and import controls, we have to question how we ran out of forex when import controls, in place since Covid, existed until very recently.

We even controlled some of our pharmaceutical imports but we were still unable to save forex. Foreign exchange cannot be saved by import controls or high tariffs.

Secondly, 40% of our imports is fuel. If we really want to cut down on our imports, we must reduce fuel imports, which this column has recommended multiple times, suggesting a market system for public transport. By imposing a Special Commodity Levy on food, we are simply asking the poorest of the poor to face starvation while providing the opportunity for rent-seeking behaviour of a few crony elites.

Whether in socialism or in capitalism or with the argument of saving foreign exchange, how can we justify a Special Commodity Levy of Rs. 300 on basic food items when one out of every three fellow Sri Lankans are forced to skip a meal due to poverty?

Prioritising SOE bill over OSA: A shift in economic direction

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

While the Government has prioritised the Online Safety Act (OSA), which is extremely negative for our economy, there are other bills in the line-up which are expected to get through. One such bill is on the State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) holding company.

The SOE Restructuring Unit (SOERU) has outlined the principles of SOE reforms, which are in the right direction, but the Government’s prioritisation of bringing the OSA is definitely in the wrong direction.

Key principles

While the bill on the SOE holding company is yet to be released, the SOERU has outlined nine key principles on which they expect to base the SOE reforms. In the first principle it admits the Government has no role in commercial activities except for three instances.

(1) If there is a concern on national security, the Government can engage in business.

(2) If there will be no private participation in certain industries given the size of our market, the Government can engage in business. For instance, if we open the rural bus routes for the private sector, there may be a possibility that, given the nature of the low population density, no private bus operator will be interested in entering the market. While it can be to an extent addressed through allowing to charge a higher price and the Government providing a direct cash subsidy to the citizens in the rural area, there can be practical challenges. In that case the SOERU principals have left the space for the Government to enter business.

(3) If the service from the Government is essential in nature but if the regulatory mechanisms are weak for competition, where there is opportunity for market exploitation by the private sector, the Government can be in the business.

While the three areas are logically right, we have to wait for the final bill to see how exactly this has been worded. The danger is that governments are so powerful that even in the above three areas, it can leave a lot of room to keep a lot of existing SOEs under the government of the day if the political ideology is to keep SOEs, claiming it is under national security.

In the Right to Information (RTI) Act, there is provision that the authority can decline to disclose the requested information if it threatens national security. For most RTI requests, many Government institutions have been responding that the information cannot be disclosed due to national security reasons. Therefore, defining national security or the process of deciding how an organisation or industry comes under national security is important.

Unless the Government can always build a logical stand, even institutions like the Cashew Corporation will have to be under the Government as it can impact national security.

On the second condition, that in the absence of a private player due to limitation of the market size or another criterion for a service that is essential in nature, the guidelines have to be developed in the case of what could be a new player wanting to join the industry later.

For example, it could be an industry with high capital investment and low market penetration, making Sri Lanka unattractive at the beginning due to the market size. As a result the Government can be in that business as the service is in the nature of being essential.

But over the years as technology and other parameters develop, at one point there may be new players interested in joining the industry. At that point, a natural resistance may occur from the SOEs over a new entrant being in the market as they will lose their monopoly status. The same happened when Lanka IOC entered the market and still there is some resistance to the entrance of Sinopec and other players in the energy market.

Deciding what an essential service is also requires a framework. Otherwise, when a government wants to be in a business, it can easily announce that industry as an essential service and enter the business, bringing forth various reasons.

All of the above are beyond the scope of the SOE law, but we need to keep in mind that these are the loopholes governments always have when ideological stances are different. Even if the new bill passes, we should not underestimate the skills of policymakers in finding the loopholes.

Other principles

The fourth principle of the SOE holding company is to bring all SOEs under one registration format. At the moment, different SOEs have different structures with a very high degree of complexity. For instance, the railway is a commercial activity and runs as the ‘Railway Department,’ while the Ceylon Electric Board runs as a board under an act. Meanwhile, Lanka Hospitals is a hospital but operates as a private limited company. Therefore bringing them all under one registration is vital when we set up the SOE holding company.

The fifth principle mainly focuses on the governance of SOEs as the SOE reform process is a longhaul game. The SOE holding company and the subsidiaries are required to adhere to Colombo Stock Exchange guidelines. This includes releasing quarterly financial statements and the board of directors being required to conform to the Code of Best Practice on Corporate Governance.

The other principles in the list are on unbundling the regulator and the operator in certain industries. There are industries run by the Government where the Government is a player as well as a regulator at the same time.

Overall the SOERU’s principles to base the SOE holding company is in the right direction, although there is always room for politicians to exploit the principles.

It is sad to see the pushing back of such important SOE holding company legislation over the draconian Online Safety Act.