Advocata Institute congratulates President Anura Kumara Dissanayake

Originally appeared in the Daily FT

The Advocata Institute has extended its heartfelt congratulations to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake on his election as the ninth Executive President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

In a message addressed to the President, Advocata Institute Chairman Murtaza Jafferjee and CEO Dhananath Fernando acknowledged the trust and confidence placed in President Dissanayake by the people of Sri Lanka.

They expressed optimism that his leadership will guide the country towards a more prosperous and equitable future.

“As an independent policy think tank committed to advancing economic freedoms and improving the well-being of Sri Lankans through economic prosperity, we believe your tenure offers a unique opportunity to pursue meaningful reforms that will continue economic stability, promote sustainable growth, enhance governance, and uplift the living standards of all citizens,” Jafferjee said.

The Advocata Institute also emphasised its readiness to support the new administration with its expertise in economic research and public policy, highlighting the power of evidence-based policymaking in driving positive change.

“We look forward to collaborating with your Government on initiatives that foster an open and thriving economy,” said Fernando, expressing the organisation’s commitment to the principles of economic freedom and innovation as drivers of national prosperity.

PUCSL Electricity Tariff Revision is Discriminatory

Originally appeared in the Daily FT

Electricity tariff design must meet two main objectives: firstly, raising the money needed to pay for the costs of provision, and secondly, sending the right economic signals to each customer to favour the optimal socio-economic use of electricity. 

To achieve the above objectives the principles that must be followed when designing tariffs are; 

1. Economic sustainability or revenue sufficiency, 

2. Equity or non-discrimination among users, 

3. Economic efficiency in resource allocation, and

4. Transparency, simplicity, and stability of the methodology.

A well-defined and appropriate tariff structure must balance the financial sustainability of the sector on the one hand and the well-being of various segments of society on the other. The CEB’s tariff revisions seem to be mainly focused on the aspect of revenue sufficiency, ignoring the other aspects.  As electricity is a commodity, there should be no difference in the prices charged to different users, except when reflecting any differences in the cost of providing services to different classes of users.

A differential tariff implies that some categories are subsidised leading to the question of who pays these subsidies. The current structure is such that households consuming an excess of 60 Kwh, and general purpose bulk supply users subsidise the industrial, hotel and charitable sectors.

Households that consume over 90 Kwh and general purpose bulk customers are charged a tariff that is double that of industries and hotels. With regards to hotels, in effect, domestic consumers subsidise foreign tourists. However, the differential tariff between general bulk supply and industrial/hotel users is meaningless. For example, a hall that hosts weddings and celebrations would be treated as a general bulk customer and be charged double the tariff that a hotel would be charged, even though both host similar events. A restaurant in a shopping mall would be charged as a general customer, but the same restaurant located within a hotel would enjoy a tariff half of that which a hotel incurs. While this differential existed under the previous tariff, it is made worse under the new structure; hotels faced a 10% increase in tariff while general users faced a 20% increase.

If the idea behind a lower tariff for hotels is to make the sector more competitive, then the solution is to address the causes of uncompetitiveness directly. One area is construction costs which raises the level of investment and the cost of maintenance.  Protectionism for the domestic construction materials industry raises the costs of steel bars and rods, sanitary ware, aluminium extrusions, granite, electrical fittings, and carpets resulting in high overall construction cost. The effective protection granted on these items can exceed 200%; the savings in finance cost from a lower capital outlay would probably exceed the savings from a lower electricity tariff.

Economic value creation can take place in many different ways in an economy and the service sector is no less important than other sectors. The cross subsidisation between customers violates the equity or non-discrimination principle of a good tariff and discourages use by the overcharged and promotes overconsumption by the subsidised. 

For example, the higher domestic tariff may serve as a disincentive for remote work. Remote or flexible work arrangements can reduce transport costs, congestion, energy use and for some, enable a better work/life balance. The government should be facilitating flexible work but the higher rates applicable to some domestic consumers may be a disincentive.

Economic activity is increasingly complex and a value chain can involve many different sectors. For example, the tea industry involves agriculture, processing in factories, transport, warehousing, blending, financing, marketing and exports. Moreover, products are now more knowledge intensive, so a greater part of the value addition arises in non-production-oriented components of the value chain. With differential tariffs, parts of the same value chain may pay different prices for use of the same commodity.

Further, a lower tariff to “industry” penalises new economy enterprises while promoting highly energy intensive users. This distorts resource allocation by encouraging excessive energy consumption, artificially promoting capital-intensive industries where the country may not have a clear comparative advantage. A subsidised tariff also blunts the incentive to economise.

The cost of supplying electricity fluctuates throughout the day, depending on the power generation mix, cost of fuels used, transmission costs and energy losses but as electricity storage is not economically viable, it has to be consumed whenever it is produced. Households with rooftop solar thus enjoy a subsidy. Domestic solar generation takes place in day time where the cost of generation is low but the import of electricity to the house takes place at night when the cost of generation is high. Offsetting units generated against units imported results in a subsidy because of the difference in costs between the two. Time of use metres should be mandated for all domestic users on net metering with the import/export being accounted for on the respective time of use tariff. Indeed all users who consume above 60 Kwh should move to the time of use tariff. 

Should the government decide to subsidise the capital or operating costs to serve certain customer classes, it should do so directly from the budget and while a lifeline tariff for the poor is justified the high domestic users pay a tariff 7.4x that of the lowest. Not all households are the same size and an extended family living in a single house may face a much higher tariff although their income level may not differ greatly from the average.

The PUCSL should review tariffs to prevent the distortions highlighted above. Instead of cross-subsidies, the regulator should be working to reduce overall cost of the provision of electricity through better procurement and greater efficiency. 

Treating all costs as a pass-through in computing the tariff is a mistake. The PUCSL needs to set efficiency targets in order to set fair and reasonable tariffs. The CEB should be incentivised to control its costs by specifying and enforcing performance requirements. Benchmarking CEB performance against regional and international peers to assess relative efficiency is necessary, as is consulting stakeholders on achievable efficiency targets.

IMF & The Urgency of State-Owned Enterprise Reforms

In the wake of Sri Lanka's economic challenges, it is undeniable that State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) have had a substantial impact on the country's fiscal health. They squander resources, land, labour, and add to the debt burden. They monopolize markets limiting competitiveness and contribute to the inefficiency in the economy. At this economic juncture, the necessity for SOE reforms is not just a matter of economic prudence; it is a matter of national importance. Without swift and comprehensive SOE reforms, we risk prolonging our current economic downturn.

The Advocata Institute hosted a press briefing on IMF & The Urgency of State-Owned Enterprises Reforms, to create further awareness and public debate on the urgency of implementing reforms to State Owned Enterprises (SOE’s). This Press Brief was held at BMICH, Tulip Hall on October 10.

The Event commenced with a 15 minute presentation by Rehana Thowfeek, Research Associate at the Advocata Institute analysing the issues surrounding SOE’s and their link to broader macroeconomic issues. Following this, there will be introductory remarks by the main speakers for the evening:

• Professor Rohan Samarajiva - Advisor, Advocata Institute.

• Mr. Dhananath Fernando - Chief Executive Officer, Advocata Institute.

• Mr. Ravi Rathnasabapathy - Independent Consultant

The Presentation by Rehana Thowfeek can be found here

The Full video of the briefing can be found here

Sri Lanka Slips in Economic Freedom

Originally appeared in the The Island, Daily Mirror, Economy Next, Lanka Business online, NewsWire

Sri Lanka ranks 116 out of 165 jurisdictions included in the Economic Freedom of the World: 2023 Annual Report, released by Advocata Institute in conjunction with Canada’s Fraser Institute. The current ranking represents a decline in the economic freedom of the country which ranked 104th during 2020.

The report measures the economic freedom of individuals—their ability to make their own economic decisions—by analyzing the policies and institutions of 165 jurisdictions. The policies examined include regulation, freedom to trade internationally, size of government, legal system and property rights, and sound monetary policy. The 2023 report is based on data from 2021, the last year with available comparable statistics across jurisdictions.

Sri Lanka’s decline in score was driven by 4 out of the 5 sub indicators of economic freedom registering declines in their respective individual scores. These indicators are the size of government, access to sound money, freedom to trade internationally, and the regulation of credit, labour, and business. The only indicators that registered an improvement in its score is the indicator of legal system and property rights.

“The report captured a stark warning: Sri Lanka's economic freedom declined prior to the economic crisis of 2022, a testament to the vulnerability of nations with limited economic freedom in the face of economic turmoil. If the country is to recover, Sri Lanka must prioritize economic growth within the framework of maximising economic freedom for its citizens to trade, work, and transact freely in a stable monetary and fiscal environment” said Dhananath Fernando, Chief Executive Officer at the Advocata Institute.

The number one spot is now occupied by Singapore, followed by Hong Kong, Switzerland, New Zealand, the United States, Ireland, Denmark, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Other notable countries include Japan (20th), Germany (23th), France (47th) and Russia (104th).

Venezuela once again ranks last. Some countries such as North Korea and Cuba can’t be ranked due to lack of data.

The Fraser Institute produces the annual Economic Freedom of the World report in cooperation with the Economic Freedom Network, a group of independent research and educational institutes in nearly 100 countries and territories. It’s the world’s premier measure of economic freedom.

The report was prepared by Professor James Gwartney of Florida State University and Professors Robert A. Lawson and Ryan Murphy of Southern Methodist University.

According to research in top peer-reviewed academic journals, people living in countries with high levels of economic freedom enjoy greater prosperity, more political and civil liberties, and longer lives.

For example, countries in the top quartile of economic freedom had an average per-capita GDP of US$48,569, compared to US$6,324 for bottom quartile countries. Poverty rates are lower. In the top quartile, less than one per cent of the population experienced extreme poverty (US$1.90 a day) compared to 32 per cent in the lowest quartile. Finally, life expectancy is 81.1 years in the top quartile of countries compared to 65 years in the bottom quartile.

“Where people are free to pursue their own opportunities and make their own choices, they lead more prosperous, happier and healthier lives,” Fred McMahon, Dr. Michael A. Walker Research Chair in Economic Freedom with the Fraser Institute said.

See the full report at www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom.

About the Economic Freedom Index

The Fraser Institute produces the annual Economic Freedom of the World report in cooperation with the Economic Freedom Network, a group of independent research and educational institutes in nearly 100 countries and territories.

Economic Freedom of the World measures how policies and institutions of countries support economic freedom. This year’s publication ranks 165 countries and territories. The report also updates data in earlier reports where data has been revised.

For more information on the Economic Freedom Network, datasets, and previous Economic Freedom of the World reports, go to www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom.

The Government Should Rethink the Minimum Room Rates Policy

Originally appeared in the Daily FT, Daily Mirror, Daily News, Lanka News Web

The Advocata Institute expresses concern over the recent proposal by the Sri Lankan Authorities to impose minimum room rates on hotels in the city of Colombo.  

This proposal, set to take effect from October 1st 2023, stipulates rates of USD 130 for 5-star hotels, USD 100 for 4-star hotels, and USD 80 for 3-star hotels. While the authorities argue that this measure aims to counter underpricing by higher-tier hotels, this policy threatens to undermine the growth and vitality of the tourism sector. It places an unnecessary burden on hoteliers already grappling with the challenges posed by the global pandemic and subsequent economic crisis. Further, it undermines the country’s competitiveness in the regional tourism market.  

Pricing acts as a reflection of the quality of services offered by hotels and serves as a differentiating factor. If prices fail to accurately represent the services provided, customer dissatisfaction can ensue, especially when compared to more competitively priced options in neighboring countries such as Thailand and Vietnam. This is supported by a comment made by the Sri Lanka Association of Inbound Tour Operators (SLAITO) which states that “before implementing such prescribed rates, it is crucial to generate demand and interest in Sri Lanka...Adopting these rates will render Sri Lanka uncompetitive and result in a loss of clients, even when compared to hotels in New Delhi, with which they are currently competitive”.

Sri Lanka has previously attempted to implement price controls between 2009 and 2019, following lobbying by a segment of  hoteliers aiming to compete more effectively against 5-star rated hotels. However, this policy failed due to numerous violations resulting from inadequate monitoring and enforcement by the authorities. Many hotels, including those that initially advocated for the government's proposed room rates, have not complied with the established rates, as alleged by the former Minister of Tourism, John Amaratunga. 

The imposition of minimum room rates restricts hotel owners' flexibility in setting prices in accordance with market demand and effectively stifles healthy competition among various establishments. The tourism industry experiences fluctuations in demand that correspond to seasonal and weekly trends. Such demand patterns necessitate the ability for hotels to tailor their pricing strategies to capitalize on peaks and optimize profitability.

Every hotel has its unique room pricing considerations depending on factors such as location, size of the hotel, market demographics, level of competition, and type of service offered to name a few. The uniform imposition of minimum rates disregards the diverse range of hotels and accommodations available in Sri Lanka, catering to various budgets and preferences. This one-size-fits-all approach disregards the crucial factor of consumer choice. Imposing minimum room rates on a certain type of accommodation whilst disregarding alternate forms of accommodation available within the city of Colombo such as guest houses and Airbnbs, undermines the effectiveness of this policy.  

Furthermore, hotels do not solely rely on revenue from room occupancy; rather, the occupancy of rooms paves the way for alternative sources of income such as from food and beverages, along with the provision of other hotel-related services. For example, a leading hotel in Colombo earned 77% of their revenue from food and beverages in contrast to the 19% earned from accommodation services in 2022. Therefore, when the government intervenes in one component of a hotel’s business model, it disrupts the interconnected methods of revenue generation.  

Further, the foundation for these minimum rates—star classifications—is itself flawed. This system primarily relies on quantitative factors, often overlooking qualitative aspects such as service quality and ambiance. The inability to quantify these vital attributes compromises the accuracy of the classification.

The tourism industry in Sri Lanka has historically played a crucial role in the country's economic development, providing employment opportunities, promoting cultural exchange, and contributing significantly to foreign exchange earnings. However, the recent decision to enforce minimum room rates could deter these potential visitors who are seeking affordable accommodation options, particularly given the publicity international vloggers have given Sri Lanka as a tourist destination. Further, this approach stifles innovation within the hospitality sector, and ultimately leads to reduced tourist arrivals and negatively impacts the entire value chain that relies on a thriving hospitality sector.

This policy undermines competition and oversteps in a serious way the role of government in a competitive market economy, the stated policy framework of the government. 

The Advocata Institute strongly urges Sri Lankan Authorities to reconsider this ill-advised proposal. 

By fostering an environment that embraces market competition, Sri Lanka can position itself as an attractive destination for travelers while allowing its hotels to thrive and cater to diverse consumer demands.

Economic crisis to reverse SL’s gains in economic freedom

Originally appeared in the Daily Mirror, Daily News, The Morning

Sri Lanka ranks 89 among 165 jurisdictions on the Economic Freedom of the World index. 

Colombo, Sri Lanka— Sri Lanka ranks 89  out of 165 countries and territories included in the Economic Freedom of the World: 2022 Annual Report, released by the Fraser Institute in association with the Advocata Institute in Sri Lanka.

Hong Kong and Singapore top the index, continuing their streak as 1st and 2nd respectively. New Zealand, Switzerland, Denmark, Australia, the United States, Estonia, Mauritius, and Ireland round up the top 10.  

Research shows that people living in countries with high levels of economic freedom enjoy greater prosperity, more political and civil liberties, and longer lives. For example, nations in the top quartile of the economic freedom index had an average per-capita GDP of $48,251 in 2020, compared to $6,542 for nations in the bottom quartile (PPP constant 2017, international US $).

In the top quartile, the average income of the poorest 10% was $14,204, compared to $1,736 in the bottom quartile (PPP constant 2017, international US $). The average income of the poorest 10% in the most economically free nations is more than twice the average per-capita income in the least free nations. 

Sri Lanka’s ranking for Economic Freedom

The report, which is based on data until 2020 shows that Sri Lanka gained 11 places to be ranked 89th compared to the previous year where the country was ranked 100. However, Sri Lanka’s overall score has remained the same (6.72), which suggests that the improvement in ranking is due to a decrease in economic freedom in other countries.

 Sri Lanka’s score in key components of economic freedom (from 1 to 10 where a higher value indicates a higher level of economic freedom)

“Improvement of Sri Lanka’s ranking on the Economic Freedom index is welcome, but we have to note the data is based on upto the year 2020 and the ground reality today is the economy has deteriorated further as Sri Lanka defaulted on its sovereign debt for the first time in history," Said Dhananath Fernando, CEO of Advocata Institute.

"Hence, it is quite evident that due to the ongoing economic crisis in Sri Lanka several of these indicators, if measured now, are going to paint a different picture, especially in the areas of access to carryout international transactions unhindered and the freedom to trade.”

Based on Advocata’s own calculations with 2021 data, the access to sound money has fallen.

"In the process for Economic Recovery, Economic Freedom is the best framework to structure our reforms, especially on reforms that target Economic Freedom will not only provide stability but also ensures economic growth and higher quality of life for our citizens,“ Fernando further stated

About the Economic Freedom Index

The Fraser Institute produces the annual Economic Freedom of the World report in cooperation with the Economic Freedom Network, a group of independent research and educational institutes in nearly 100 countries and territories. It’s the world’s premier measurement of economic freedom, measuring and ranking countries in five areas—size of government, legal structure and security of property rights, access to sound money, freedom to trade internationally and regulation of credit, labour and business.

This year’s publication ranks 165 countries and territories. The report also updates data in earlier reports where data has been revised.

For more information on the Economic Freedom Network, datasets and previous Economic Freedom of the World reports, visit www.fraserinstitute.org. And you can “Like” the Economic Freedom Network on Facebook at www.facebook.com/EconomicFreedomNetwork. See the full report at www.fraserinstitute.org/economic-freedom.

Advocata mention in the Business Times: Back to the basics for Sri Lanka

Excerpt from an article on Sunday Times

Support from  lending agencies

By Dhananath Fernando, COO, Advocata Institute

The Sri Lankan Government must proactively negotiate on a specific timeline with lending agencies such as IMF, World Bank and ADB to reschedule our existing facilities and for a new finance package to mitigate the indicated economic downturn. It is essential to open a dialogue with China, US, India and EU for bilateral lending given the negative outlook to raise debt from the market. Near zero rate in US interest rates in the US provides a good opportunity to restructure our foreign debt.

During the curfew period, the government should abolish price controls immediately which has created shortages of food items in the market where the most economically marginalised segment in the community is the most impacted. Import controls have to be abolished to avoid sending the wrong signals to the market and the government should work closely with the private sector to rapidly expand the testing capacity in the battle against COVID-19.

Read full article here.

Fighting COVID-19: Economic implications for Sri Lanka

Excerpt from an article on Ceylon Today

In an online discussion organised by the Advocata Institute on the ‘Economic Impcy of COVID-1 in Sri Lanka, Chair of the Academic Programme of the Advocata Institute, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana, Executie Drirector of Verite Research, Dr. Nishan de Mel and Associate Professor of the National Universoty of Singapore, Prof. Razeen Sally elaborated on these concerns.

“When COVID-19 stuck us, we were actually in a relatively weak economic situation. Our growth rate had fallen 2.6%, which is very low compared to our growth rates in the last three decades. earning from tourism has fallen particularly after the Easter Sunday attacks. The immediate future for tourism did not look good. when we look at the economic impact of COVID-19, there is a direct effect and indirect effect” - Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana.

Read full article here.

Advocata mentioned in article on Price Controls during COVID-19

Excerpt from an article on Roar

Price Controls: Who Will Pay For The Canned Fish And Dhal?

“But as Gunasiri attends to his next customer, a thought weighs heavy on his mind— he has just made a loss of Rs. 60 on that sale. And by the time he exhausts his stock of dhal alone, he would have made a loss of a few thousand rupees. A princely sum, considering the circumstances."

“It is commendable that the government has taken steps towards easing the burden on the poor, especially during a time like this. But, controlled prices can also lead to shortages, as producers lose incentive and ability to stock these products. In addition, when imposed with no prior warning, price controls force smaller businesses to take losses, which can sometimes be inequitable. Despite the good intentions behind this decision, it has the potential to make the situation worse,” Aneetha Warusawitarana, Research Manager, Advocata Institute told Roar Media. 

Read full article here.

Prof. Amal Kumarage, Dr. Saman Widanapathiranage and Mr. Sarath Jayatilaka's insights on $480 million MCC compact projects

The Advocata Institute hosted a public forum on the MCC compact “එම්.සී.සී. ගිවිසුම ගැන ඇත්ත නැත්ත” on the 19th of September, with the aim of separating fact from fiction around this hotly debated topic.

By 2030, the number of vehicles on our roads will triple. Prof. Amal Kumarage, the Head of the Dept of Transport and Logistics Management of the University of Moratuwa, emphasizes the immediate need to improve our public transport systems.

---

Colombo’s traffic problem has become a serious issue in the past few years. Dr. Saman Widanapathiranage, Deputy Director, Highway Designs at the RDA explains that by 2030, our average speed around Colombo will fall to at least 10 km/h.

---

Mr. Sarath Jayatilaka, Former Deputy Surveyor General, explains the $67 million land component of the MCC Compact.

---

Link to full video: https://youtu.be/FZKveXeXQJU

MCC ගිවිසුම ගැන ඇත්ත නැත්ත - Event Video

The Advocata Institute hosted a public discussion on the MCC Compact with technical experts, MCC representatives and the Government to separate fact from fiction around the Compact.

The event was held on the 19th of September at the Lighthouse Auditorium and Lawns.

Local experts offer insights on $480 million MCC compact projects

First appeared in Sunday Morning, Sunday Observer, News First, Daily Mirror and Economy Next

The Advocata Institute hosted a public forum on the MCC compact “එම්.සී.සී. ගිවිසුම ගැන ඇත්ත නැත්ත”  on the 19th of September, with the aim of separating fact from fiction around this hotly debated topic. 

Since 2015, Sri Lanka was engaged in a competitive selection process for the  Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) grant. In April 2019, Sri Lanka was awarded a grant from the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) for USD 480 million. Since the awarding  of the Compact, concerns around the agreement had gone unaddressed.

To help provide a public platform for the addressal of these concerns, The Advocata Institute convened an open discussion with experts involved in designing the projects for the MCC Compact, Prof. Amal Kumarage (Head of the Department of Transport and Logistics Management, University of Moratuwa); Dr. Saman Widanapathiranage (Deputy Director, Highway Designs at the Road Development Authority (RDA) and Mr. Sarath Jayatilaka (Former Deputy Surveyor General); MCC representatives, Ms. Jenner Endleman (Sri Lanka Resident Country Director - Millennium Challenge Corporation) and the Government, Dr Jagath Munasinghe (Chairman, Urban Development  Authority). 

The experts highlighted the technical details of the Land and Transport Management projects in the grant followed by a Q&A with representatives of the MCC and the Government. 

Prof. Amal Kumarage explained that out of USD 350 million allocated to the Transport Project, USD 50 million would be spent on Bus Services Modernization. He stated that by 2030, the number of vehicles on our roads will triple and it is crucial for our transport system to reflect this. 

Dr. Saman Widanapathiranage (Deputy Director, Highway Designs at the Road Development Authority (RDA) discussed the Advanced Traffic Management System component in the Transport Project. He stated how average speed in Colombo will reduce to 10kmph by 2030, communicating the urgency of improving the city’s traffic management. 

Mr. Sarath Jayatilaka (Former Deputy Surveyor General) detailed the Land Project in the compact which amounts to USD 67 million of the total grant. Since the Sri Lankan government owns 82% of all land and the remaining 18% land is privately owned, he emphasised the importance of developing a State Land Bank to improve land administration policies. 

Joining the Q&A, MCC Sri Lanka Resident Country Director Ms. Jenner Endleman answered some concerns around the compact. To the question of whether the MCC Compact is linked to military agreements, she answered that MCC has no relation to ACSA or SOFA and that the MCC Compact was ready for signing before the renewal of these military agreements. Another question posed was why the Compact was not available in the public domain and that she stated that itis the MCC’s policy to not share the document prior to it being signed by the recipient government. However, she urged concerned citizens to reach out to the Government to release these documents, as they are in a position to share the agreement. 

“In our 15 year history, we’ve never had a situation where an eligible country has come to us and proposed a grant, our board has accepted it, and that same partner country has not approved it” stated Mr. Endleman addressing questions from the audience. 

Inviting media to COPE meetings will help increase accountability of COPE and SOEs: Advocata

First appeared in Sunday Observer, Daily Mirror and Republic Next

“State owned enterprises are a vehicle of large scale corruption in Sri Lanka that hasn’t caught public attention. Advocata’s latest report on SOEs highlights some of these abuses documented by COPE.

Adocata’s 2019 report on The State of State Owned Enterprises, highlights some of these abuses documented by COPE. Opening meetings to the public is a good first step to ensure that people understand the massive abuses by SOEs done by using taxpayer money! We urge the government to consider further reform to strengthen COPE and promote accountability of SOEs”

— Dhananath Fernando, Chief Operating Officer Advocata Institute

In an attempt to promote transparency and accountability, the hearings of the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) will be open to the media. The government has enforced this timely initiative in a greater attempt to promote accountability of State Owned Enterprises. The Speaker, Hon. Karu Jayasuriya MP has officially announced the ceremony to mark the opening of the COPE sessions to the media, and should be commended for this decision.

The COPE is a key committee that oversees State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in Sri Lanka.  The duty of the Committee is to examine the accounts of the Public Corporations and of any business undertaking vested in the government. Although their reports thus far have lacked comprehensiveness, they have examined a limited number of issues in a few institutions, and are a devastating critique on the state of governance. 

Advocata Institute’s 2019 report, “The State of State Enterprises: Systemic Misgovernance”, highlighted the imminent need of strengthening the COPE and COPA (Committee on Public Accounts; the second financial committee whose duty is to examine the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure). The report recommended that COPE and COPA proceedings be opened to the media and the public in efforts to enhance the transparency of financial management of public institutions and hold state institutions to account. 

Advocata Institute urges that further reform be considered seriously in efforts to improve structural failings and misgovernance that promote a breeding ground for corruption in Sri Lanka’s state sector. We insist that the government opens committee proceedings to non parliamentarians;  specifically for technical experts, to bring in industry knowledge and scrutiny. 

Key Points:

• Advocata welcomes the decision to open COPE meetings to the media.  

• The duty of the COPE is to examine the accounts of the Public Corporations and of any business undertaking vested in the government.

• Advocata Institute’s 2019 report, “The State of State Enterprises: Systemic Misgovernance”, highlighted the imminent need of strengthening the COPE and COPA.

• The report recommended that COPE and COPA proceedings be open to the media and public in attempts to promote transparency and accountability.

• Advocata urges the government to further consider reform to strengthen COPE and COPA.

Advocata commends the government’s decision to shut down SaluSala - a State Owned textile Enterprise

First appeared in Daily News, Daily Mirror, Daily FT, Lanka Business Online, Economy Next, Republic Next, Colombo Page and Sunday Observer

Advocata Institute commends President Maithripala Sirisena’s directive to shut down the loss-making, state-owned handloom enterprise Salu Sala. While we commend this decision, we are also anticipating the official gazette enacting this statement.

The SaluSala, now a white elephant to society, was once the only state textile trading enterprise in the country. As the only provider of textile during the closed economy, SaluSala received heavy protection.

In 2011, the First Committee of Public Enterprises Report (COPE) revealed that for the year 2009/2010, Lanka SaluSala Ltd. has made a loss of Rs. 30 million. The reason for this loss, as identified by the report, was due to salaries paid to staff who had been sent on compulsory leave during the restructuring process of the organisation. However, Advocata has been unable to track the financials of Lanka SaluSala thereafter as there has been no Annual Reports or Performance Reports published and available to the public.

“‘A lack of accountability is leading to flagrant abuse within SOE’s. The government must act urgently to prevent it spiraling out of control. Salu Sala is only one of many examples””

— Ravi Ratnasabapathy - Resident Fellow, Advocata Institute

Advocata Institute strongly believes that the state should have no role in running business enterprises using taxpayer money,  particularly in industries with enough private investment and competition. Advocata encourages the government to look at other ‘white elephant’ State Owned Enterprises (SOEs), and divest and exit industries that serves no strategic purpose. Out of 527 SOEs identified by Advocata’s 2018 State of State Enterprises report, only 54 are classified as being ‘strategic’ by the government.

Whilst the policy debate in Sri Lanka on SOEs has focused on ‘privatisation’, many of  Sri Lanka’s SOEs have no commercial purpose, riddled with corruption and mismanagement and, in the core justification of existence, is not attractive to private investors looking for profit making ventures. Advocata urges the government to exit enterprises of  this nature and release the valuable resources they occupy into more productive sectors of the economy, while awarding fair compensation to public sector employees of these enterprises.

In the case of Sal Sala, the Treasury has allocated Rs. 340 million to pay compensation for 217 employees under a voluntary retirement scheme. This is a model the government should consider adopting in cases where paying a compensation is more economically viable than continuing to keep a loss making enterprise afloat. Lanka SaluSala is not the only State Owned Enterprise (SOE) that is a fiscal strain on Sri Lanka’s Economy. Non Strategic SOEs like Sri Lankan Airlines, Lanka Sathosa and Agriculture and Agrarian Insurance Corporation are in need of immediate reform.

Source: Department of Public Enterprises, Performance Reports (2015-2017) and Ministry of Finance - Annual Report (2018)

Key Points

• Lanka SaluSala, a state owned handloom enterprise will be shut down as per orders by the President.

• Advocata Institute commends this decision and is anticipating the gazette formally enacting this order.

• The Treasury has allocated Rs. 340 million to pay compensation for 217 employees of SaluSala under a voluntary retirement scheme.

• SaluSalu has been a “white elephant” for years, and the government has failed to keep track of the financials for this enterprise.

• The first COPE report in 2011 revealed that Lanka SaluSala Ltd. has made a loss of Rs. 30 million for the year 2009/2010. Annual Reports have not been published thereafter, and the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, which is the designated line ministry has also not published any information on the performance of Lanka SaluSala thereafter.

• SaluSala is only one of the many SOEs fiscally straining Sri Lanka’s economy, and it is only one of the many SOEs that the government has failed to monitor financials for. Out of the 527 state owned enterprises identified by the Advocata Institute, the government regularly tracks the financials of only 54.

• While the Advocata commends the government’s decision to close SaluSala, it is equally important that the government conducts a survey of all state owned enterprises in order to establish a comprehensive system of financial monitoring.

• Other non-strategic loss making State Owned Enterprises in need of immediate reform includeSri Lankan Airlines, Lanka Sathosa and Agriculture and Agrarian Insurance Corporation.

Razeen Sally delivers Lecture on Three scenarios for Sri Lanka's future

Prof. Razeen Sally delivered a public lecture at the Advocata Institute, last week on Sri Lanka's future.  This is the third edition on Advocata's series of public lectures.  The full lecture is now online.  The event was done in partnership with the Echelon Magazine. 

From Economy Next:

Sri Lanka had windows of opportunity to change direction in the past, but had 'missed the bus' several times in its post-independence history according to many commentators.

Sally recalled something that is said often about Brazil: "Brazil is the country of the future, it always was and it always will be.

"There is that golden potential out there, but it is never achieved," Sally said.

"Of course Sri Lanka never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I hope that opportunity has not been squandered. It is late in the day, but it is still there."

Sri Lanka's economy did not have enough competition with 'commanding heights' of the economy controlled by oligarchs. 

The country was in the grip entrenched political and economic interests without any new blood to bring change and competition.

"Sri Lankan economy has a competitiveness problem," Sally said. "It has a productivity problem," The way to raise productivity and to raise competitiveness is to have a stronger private sector. 

"And also to have much more globalization of the Sri Lankan economy. More trade, more exports import as well as more foreign investments.

Doing business policies had to change. A combination of domestic and private sector investment was needed to transform the economy to have 6-8 percent growth.

Reforms were needed to bring 3 to 5 billion US dollars of foreign investment. 

Sri Lanka needed simple and predictable tax policies.

"No more price controls, no more announcements of exchange controls."

A stable macro-economic policy that went beyond the IMF program, including tax reforms that were genuinely simpler and relatively low without sudden changes was needed.  Institutional checks were needed including a genuinely independent central bank with better policies.

Full Article