Hanky-panky under the blanket

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Who benefits from the licensing systems that come about with our blanket bans?

Recently I was thinking about why people do certain things and why they don’t. I realised there are things that have been banned but still, people do. Consumption of certain types of drugs is just an example. At the same time, there are things that are not banned,  but still, some people don’t use them. Smoking is a good example. It’s not banned but data shows that people are now less likely to smoke due to health reasons. Analysing human behaviour shows us that there are reasons to engage in some activities while reasons to avoid them. Undoubtedly knowledge, information, and many other factors influence and incentivise certain actions over others. However, there are certain activities, where the Government decides on behalf of the people, that such are either good or bad for the broader population and try to control the choices of people. Our ban on chemical fertiliser is one such instance out of many. 

Another round of discussions has erupted over whether the fertiliser ban is relaxed or not. In a recent statement, the Government reiterated that there are no changes in their policy announced earlier. This trend of banning product categories on the grounds that it is not good for society has been common over the past few years. Then-President Maithripala Sirisena proposed a ban on chainsaws and carpentry sheds as an attempt to protect forests. Another proposal was to ban glyphosate to maintain our soil structure and avoid unknown kidney diseases. Then recently another development was the banning of sachet packets, banning the importation of palm oil, numerous discussions to ban cattle slaughter, and now the blanket ban on the use and importation of chemical fertiliser. 

Whether these decisions were made based on grounds of scientific analysis or analysing data and economic principles, remains a serious question. These recent decisions will have serious consequences on economic activity, especially in the import sector. A key point to note is that these outright blanket bans have led to the proposition of issuing a license for the importation of the particular product category. 

Many policymakers as well as common Sri Lankans lack an understanding of the negative consequences of licensing. Having a licensing process, for example, to import chemical fertiliser will lead to an increase in prices, open avenues for corruption and bribery, activate informal black market activity, and allow inferior quality products to enter the market. This cost of maintaining a licensing regime will have to be borne by the general public. 

Any Sri Lankan who has attempted the construction of a house or shop or wall has to go through a process of getting the plan approved by the technical officer at the Local Government. It is a license or an approval that allows any individual to build any construction. Those who have gone through the system know how painful the process is. In the first place, meeting the technical officer is not easy. Secondly, regardless of how compliant the draft was, he/ she always has suggestions and changes. As a result many common people hand over the drafting process of the building to the technical officer himself so he can approve it. 

The economics behind this is that when anyone has an authoritative power to decide the “go” or “no-go” of a project the person who has the decision making power is naturally motivated to capitalise an incentive over the approval. On the other hand the person who wants approval is getting naturally motivated to incentivise the decision maker to provide the approval even compromising the quality and standard. The same dynamics work in every licensing process, including the licensing of imports. Examples of the licensing processes include the exercise department for alcohol shops, Sri Lanka Customs, passport office, driving license and Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV). 

When we first impose a ban and secondly issue a licensing system it is a double whammy to the economy. By creating a blanket ban we are creating a scarcity of resources which is in demand. Then by issuing a licence we are making the utilisation of that scarce resource unproductive. Simply, the more we keep the discretionary authority the more we leave room for corruption and inefficiency. Secondly, the immediate  implementation of a licensing process can lead to increased scarcity, where fewer goods are available relative to the population. Therefore there can be market shortages putting thousands of people into hardship and inconvenience. Unfortunately in Sri Lanka’s case these interventions and restrictions have come into place when the market system was working perfectly well, especially for the benefit of the general consumer. This therefore needs much thought and reflection. 

If the intentions behind imposing a ban on a certain product category are correct, then logically, there cannot be a justifiable reason to allow a few people to import the particular product, especially if the product is harmful for human consumption in the first place. 

As an example, if palm oil is carcinogenic, the cancer-causing ability doesn’t disappear just because few people are importing it. Instead it could be higher as now the market system is completely broken down as a result of the ban and as a result of the license only a few players are able to import any substandard products due to the limited competition. Secondly, when a licensing system is in place it allows close associates and people connected with authority to be issued with licenses, reaping benefits at the cost of the general public. The flip side is that  these licenses are issued not on a competitive basis. So the room for the political authority to share profits with a person who is getting a licence is higher than operating in a competitive environment. 

In a market where different players compete to supply a product, the general consumer will benefit from lower prices. Now as a result of a license raj the majority will be made worse off as a few players connected to the political authority can keep prices higher.  

Allowing a few people to import essential compounds and organic fertiliser is not different in my view. This will end up in few people controlling the entire market causing very high prices for the farmers which will end up in very high prices on food for common people. 

Additionally, the politicians who would back the licensing process will defend the same importers of suppliers in any case of any malpractice or importation of any substandard products.  

Just like I thought about why some people do certain things while others don’t, there are reasons why politicians prefer licensing. Simply the licensing process incentivises them and that is why they push for it regardless of the colour of the political flags they host. The current trend of setting up a licence raj which India had until the 1991 reforms and which were experimented in Sri Lanka in the 1970s is the surest way of making our entire country unproductive. 

However the ultimate loser of this game is the consumer and the farmer. Overall, Sri Lanka will lose while few politicians get some short term gains and the entire ecosystem feels the effects of instability. 

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