Dhananath Fernando 00:19 Hello, hello! Welcome to another episode to discuss about our book, Policy Challenges of Globalisation in Sri Lanka. If you haven't followed us, please make sure that you follow the first episode we discussed about the chapter one of Dr. Sarat Rajapatiranas book, and today we are going to discuss about chapter two, which is movements towards and away from globalisation. Dr. Ajavadiran, welcome to our programme. Thank you very much for joining Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 00:48 us. Thank you very much for having me. Dhananath Fernando 00:50 And in the first episode, we discussed about the methodology of the book and what made you to write that book. And it's a it's a book about Sri Lanka, and at the same time, some other historical periods that he has evaluated as a decade and the reasons for that. So we discussed pretty much the basics and the foundation of the book. And today we are really coming to the hard facts and truths about the book under chapter two: movements towards and away from globalisation, Dr. Ajbaruna. First, in as we discussed last time in the last episode, we broadly touched upon globalised friendly and globalised unfriendly policies, which you have mentioned, and this is a continuous conversation in the book. And I first would like to again refresh our audience's mind, what are globalisation friendly? What is globalisation unfriendly? Why do you? Why? What is that basis for that definition? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 01:52 Yeah, the definition is was necessary. It is arbitrary, but it's a way of making a difference between countries that reform in common language and countries don't reform, and so you see the implications of reforming that if we take a globalisation friendly and not reforming globalisation unfriendly. The fact is that if a economy is run well, then it is certainly on the Gurugrachar friendly field because it's where they the they are free and free movement of goods and services, and that and that the the the numbers and the things deflect the position of the government. Dhananath Fernando 02:41 Basically, things work. Things work. Things work when it's globalised. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 02:44 Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 02:45 Doctor Ajay, now coming back to this episode. I mean, coming back to back to chapter two. Now there you speak about a couple of eras, or like you take you have taken about I mean different time periods to evaluate whether that particular time period was globalised friendly or globalised unfriendly, and you are going back to the era of like pre-independence, which is from 1920 to 1947. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 03:16 Yeah, Dhananath Fernando 03:17 what re? I mean, how do you evaluate that period, and what is the basis? Because that was even I don't know whether the term globalisation was coined during that time. So what made you to evaluate a period whether it's globalised or not? Even the term wasn't coined. Yeah, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 03:35 but actually, since we want to get this discussion going on globalisation. I think that it's easy to mention maybe 2520, years ago. Dhananath Fernando 03:50 Yeah, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 03:51 and nobody thought in those terms. Those terms terms came to be included when leading economists of the day saw they looked at it and analysed Jagdish Bhagores of the world and Kriegers of the world, you know those are the people who who saw this. And Siglis was the first one to define it. Yes, what do you mean by globalisation? Is a very good definition. Dhananath Fernando 04:16 Yeah. So my question was why you evaluated so a period of till 1947 when even the term wasn't coined but and also what is your take on that period how do you connect the globalisation principles or whatever the activities for that period in particularly for Sri Lanka? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 04:39 Yeah, it's all about Sri Lanka, right? So the question is that we look at 1947 is a very important year. We are just one year before independence, but we are getting ready to independent on the political side. On the economic side, we were still a British colony. It was so. So therefore, there is no question of being goblastically unfriendly because Brits are here to make money, and and they did quite a decent job of getting the the country going, having good institutions and the laws being well identified and set up the legal system and all those things. So it's a period in which we we are about to become independent. Dhananath Fernando 05:31 Right. Yeah. Now, for example, one may misinterpret because you explained this in the last episode. But for the safe side, one may interpret since you have mentioned it in the book, like the pre-independence liberal and globalisation friendly policies, one may think actually whether the colonialization is part of globalisation. How do you? I mean, one can argue whether are you saying that the global? I mean, colonialization is also part of globalisation, or whether are you endorsing the same thing to happen may that sentiment may come in. I would like you to clarify that. How do you see that? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 06:06 Well, there was no such intent. First of all, number one. Second thing is that 47 is an important year because it's just before getting independent from the from Britain, and 47 is sort of, if you like, a starting point. Right. And it's when you can define it and say people are just about to get that. In 47, they didn't know they were going to get it. Right. We got it only because India got it. India got it. Yes. Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 06:34 And Dr. Ajwathan, you actually speak about even you go back while this 47 is the end of that period that you have analysed, but you go back to 1920s and you speak about the Karlbrug Commission and the reforms. And how do you see these as part of the entire globalisation? Because you have pretty much defined that period as globalisation friendly. Yeah, what made you to define that period as globalisation friendly? For what? Is it mainly because of institutions, or do you see? Do you have any other logic to define it as globalisation friendly? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 07:06 I think firstly institutions. The other thing is that since we are starting starting point, Dhananath Fernando 07:13 right? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 07:14 Things were started. Things were being they had to globalise friendly. If you take the economy were to take off, Dhananath Fernando 07:21 right? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 07:21 Without global education, economy wouldn't have taken off, and the beings Brits were in power. They wanted the economic do well because they want to get their profits and send it to their you know people in Britain. So that's the reason, yeah. Right, Dhananath Fernando 07:37 Doctor Ajay. Now then, also you have basically analysed the economic growth of that particular different like periods, and you have basically given GF, which is globalisation friendly, and GU, which is globalisation unfriendly. From the data, what we can see is pretty much in the globalisation friendly eras or like that particular period, the economic growth is. I'm not sure whether it is right to say that. I mean, comparatively, it's higher than the other periods. Whether statistically there is a difference or not, probably you have to weigh in there. But in particularly from 1994 to 2000, when there is a centre, a left of centre government, which you have identified as partially open economy, you have mentioned it as globalisation, globalisation friendly and globalisation unfriendly, and the economic growth is about 5.19% which is pretty much the second highest, the third highest in your entire analysis from if you consider 1950 to 2021. Yeah, the two periods are there are 6.59 economic growth from 2005 to 2014 and 5.69 from 2003 to 2004. But what made you to say that from 1994 to 2000 globalisation friendly and globalisation unfriendly, and also to see sort of a fairly higher economic growth. Is there? If I miss anything, or is it like? Do you have a Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 09:10 complicated period for first of all? First of all, because actually that's the period in which mrs. Miss Chandra Bandaranaike was in power. Now she had a very good group of advisers who were very good economists, probably the best economists in the country, and she listened to them. Dhananath Fernando 09:32 Okay, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 09:32 so I was not ready to put her in the bad category. Right, and because she listened to them, and there are some important things done during that time. That's why there's some ambiguity putting here and there. Right. And if you ask her questions, that she would give very good answers. That ASDA and others, you know, her advices. Dhananath Fernando 09:57 Right. Yeah. So, Dr. I don't know what, why, how. So what was the GU part? Like globalisation unfriendly. While once you mentioned it's a complicated period, while she did some reforms, of course, with a very complicated and a challenging civil environment because the war was ongoing and a lot of things happened. What was the globalisation unfriendly part, if you would recall? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 10:24 Unfriendly is that if it first of all, if it doesn't do anything about the economy, it's unfriendly by definition. Dhananath Fernando 10:30 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 10:31 They they were not really applying good economics at that time. Dhananath Fernando 10:37 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 10:37 There was nobody. Yeah, the type of thinking on was not advanced enough to bring this type of analysis. Dhananath Fernando 10:48 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 10:48 Yeah. So Dhananath Fernando 10:50 that's that's the reason. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 10:51 But it's good to clarify which we should do. Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 10:54 Correct. Then, Doctor Ajbadhi, you come to the second era, which is From 19, basically the post independence. That is from 1948 to 1955. Yeah, and you have analysed that period as the post independent continued liberal and globalisation friendly policies. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 11:15 Yes, correct. Dhananath Fernando 11:16 Could you kindly elaborate like what was the reasoning, what was the logic to say that it was globalisation friendly, and what was the benefits during that? They were Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 11:24 not doing anything hurtful to the economy, right? Right. Yeah, that's the reason. Dhananath Fernando 11:28 That's the reason. Yeah. Okay. And then also because from 1970s onwards, that there was a war that was continued till 2008. Could you also elaborate, like, what was the impact on the war on the economy at the same time for the globalisation itself and for the policies? Because these two doesn't work like in isolation; it works hand in hand. What was the context impact on the war, civil Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 11:56 war? We are talking about pre 47. Dhananath Fernando 11:59 We are we are talking about the pre-47, but I would like to quickly accelerate or jump to the war matter and then go back to the 47 era unevaluated. 47 Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 12:09 era, you were being governed by the Brits. Dhananath Fernando 12:11 Yes, no, not the 47. After this, I was saying the 77. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 12:15 Ah, 77 is a very different story. Yes, we are fully developed country at that time, and 77 is a remarkable thing to make those changes to the economy, and we started improving, doing very well after that. And Sri Lanka was the first country to do this type of. We can use the word liberalisation at the very start. Dhananath Fernando 12:39 The Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 12:40 other country, Chile, Dhananath Fernando 12:41 right? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 12:42 Yeah, actually, Chile. We were just Chile was just ahead of us, Dhananath Fernando 12:46 right? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 12:46 And this is Dhananath Fernando 12:48 during Chile's president. I forget his name. During that period, he was the first to liberalise the economy in Chile. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 12:57 Yeah, we talked about it. Yes, actually, in the Dhananath Fernando 13:00 previous episode, yes. Yeah, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 13:01 he was an army man. Yes, is the but the Dhananath Fernando 13:04 Pinochet, right? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 13:06 Pinochet. Yes, people around him were the great economists that were made their names also in that area, but they were friends. They were trained by Milton Friedman. They were all free trade people, they are globalisation from the head to the toe. Actually, right, yeah, and also why? Also, these plots showing results. Dhananath Fernando 13:31 Correct. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 13:31 Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 13:32 So coming back to 1977 period, Dr. Ajpatrana, also the war slowly was. I mean, the civil war started, and then it basically came up to 2008. Yeah. But I wanted to overall before we move on to that particular era, wise, want to also understand about what was the impact of the civil war on the economy. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 13:53 Yeah. Actually, it was very interesting for me to see there not a great change. Dhananath Fernando 13:58 Okay. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 13:58 There was a small, just small some changes to. authors, I have their names, estimated the what what happened to during civil war. They put it down to a number to two point 52% Dhananath Fernando 14:15 right? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 14:16 You know, less than 3% Dhananath Fernando 14:17 right? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 14:18 So, so I have some, what is the word, doubt about that? Dhananath Fernando 14:25 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 14:26 Yeah, but actually, we had to say other part also that even in the height of Dhananath Fernando 14:30 the war, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 14:32 the people in the south were sending provisions and food to the north and the east. Dhananath Fernando 14:38 Correct. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 14:39 So there could not have been a very tough situation for them, and the economy also. It depends on the weather. For example, you would have good weather. Dhananath Fernando 14:49 Correct. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 14:50 Yeah. So, Dhananath Fernando 14:51 so Dr. Ajay, what I read from with particularly with Dr. Professor Premichanda Athokorola's work, what he has mentioned was. That the war, while it was okay, while it was a challenging period, the impact was also came in a way in your definition globalisation unfriendly because to finance the war we increased the tariff rates, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 15:16 yeah, Dhananath Fernando 15:16 which pretty much made us a bit un not a bit we. So if you Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 15:21 did that, then we are no longer budget friendly. Absolutely. Dhananath Fernando 15:24 Yeah. So that was his one of the definitions. I fully Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 15:27 agree. You you fully Dhananath Fernando 15:28 agree. Yeah. Okay. Then Dr. Alibata, coming back to the post independence. That's after independence from 1948 to 1955. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 15:38 Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 15:38 What is your take on that period in Sri Lanka? Because then the Korean War took place in 1950, to 1951, and then the people's there was a rubber rice agreement with China. So how do you see? And there was Hartal in 1953, So with all that, how do you define that period globalisation friendly or unfriendly, and what is your reasoning? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 16:04 Now, if I go to 47, these are sort of a place where things changes. We leave the British rule, but practically, although on the paper it happens in 4047 onwards, it was known that we were going to get independence, and because 47 is important because when India got independence, right, 47, yeah, Dhananath Fernando 16:30 right. So my question was, how do you define whether it's friendly or unfriendly during that period from 47 to 55, with all the changes that took place, and is there particular reasoning? No, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 16:42 but those changes were mostly political. Political. That it is not. I didn't consider economics there. Yeah, Dhananath Fernando 16:48 fine, fine, fine. Then you have defined 1956 to 1964 as globalisation unfriendly policies. Interventionism globalisation unfriendly. Yeah, that's where SWAT may have came into power in 1956, and so on and so forth. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 17:06 Yeah, Dhananath Fernando 17:06 could you elaborate a bit on the reasoning? Yeah, yeah. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 17:11 Actually, he was very interesting. People don't have not exploit explored this area. He was Bandar Nayak followed the Indians very closely. Dhananath Fernando 17:28 Right, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 17:29 Nehru was his friend, so Nehru was an out-and-out protectionist. Right, but because he was came from that background, and so that period must be globally unfriendly because it didn't do anything to facilitate the economy, Dhananath Fernando 17:52 right? But Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 17:53 remove any barriers that were there. Dhananath Fernando 17:55 Okay, so that's why, because barriers were, I mean, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 17:59 no barriers were part of his Dhananath Fernando 18:02 policy. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 18:02 Policy. Dhananath Fernando 18:03 So that's why you define that period as well. Yeah, they also want Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 18:06 to produce things like iron. This thing, steel. This thing really has no, no way of using that to grow. Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 18:16 Got it. Then Dr. Ajay Patrina comes to 1970 to 1977, which is the black period. Black period. Would you want to share some experience and also on economic theory-wise, and also you lived during that period in actually Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 18:32 much before also, much before. So no, whatever not that way. I give you an anecdote that I explained to the World Bank World Bank discussion on trade. I said you go to good important schools talk about this thing, but you don't have a basic experience that I have, and I'm going to explain to you what it was, so you can make your own mind. What was that? What was this like? I said I had three children then, started having children, and you had to get them milk food. You had to get in huge queue to the milk food, and it was in a tin. And when the milk milk food was collected, they smash it on the floor, think to prevent it being sold to somebody. That was so stupid. And so that was the state of affairs. And my clerks at the central bank where I was working came with me. I tried to discourage them, but they said no. We come with you. Other you children won't have food, and it was the situation. And so, so that is what they did. They did silly things. For example, if you had a car, had a problem. Say the plate had a problem. They had to send somebody from the from institute that they have created to come and check we actually need it. Why would he take trouble to go and buy the plate if he didn't need it? I mean, really, it was just interference into the economy, into private sector, without any justification. Dhananath Fernando 20:25 Right, and basically, Dr. Austin speak a little bit about the politics. I mean, not the politics, politics, but of course because it was led by a Trotskyite Lanka Sama Samaj party, and how basically that influenced this policy. Very much Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 20:42 so. Yeah, very interesting. Begins out with Miss Bandar Naga. Miss Bandar Nagar was an innocent woman who didn't have any political stuff. Her husband was, of course, the prime minister assassinated. Actually, I was in school at that day, Dhananath Fernando 20:59 right, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 21:00 and heard that he had been shot. Yeah. So what happened to it? Interesting story because all the Trotskyites came into power with me Bandar Nayaka. Right. Me Bandar Nagar is into them. Dhananath Fernando 21:14 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 21:15 And recently I saw an article in which he said I am I am a socialist. Right. Yeah. And so the sources meaning N.N. Pera, Kalinadi Silva, Guna Adhana, very smart people. Unfortunately, with the wrong policies, Dhananath Fernando 21:33 good human beings, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 21:36 good human beings, but good human beings, smart people, but completely wrong on that side. Yeah, Dhananath Fernando 21:44 and it's interesting because it it reminds us about the power of influence to president or prime minister. Because in your analysis, Madam Bandar Nayaka's daughter Charity Bandar Naga, you mentioned ASJ Awardanasan. Basically, she associated them. They have a wrong policies, but they have a you define that period as globalisation friendly and unfriendly both. Both, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 22:06 yeah. Dhananath Fernando 22:06 But Madam Bannar Nagar, since she really did not have background, she was completely carried away with globalisation unfriendly policies. And what happened afterwards? She had to. I think we all know she had to pay a price. Yeah. After 1976, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 22:22 yeah. Dhananath Fernando 22:22 So want to understand then what happened in 1977? Like what led to this opening up, or like main change after that period? Or it was like easy. Was it made easier by that tough policies like Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 22:38 exactly they because they realise how ridiculous it was smashing the thing already in years. You know, and ridiculous. So anyway, the what I was going to say now is that Dhananath Fernando 22:55 yes, you were speaking about the 1977 opening up. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 22:59 Opening up, it is it is the work of one man, Dhananath Fernando 23:03 right? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 23:03 Yajana's hell bent on liberalising the economy. He didn't know what it meant, right? But he was a great lawyer and a very intelligent man. He had an idea from an Indian person, Indian who was very interested in free trade and all that, and he talked to him, and he said, "That's what we want to do. So he was influenced. I can we can insert the name later. Very famous man who got free trade at the very beginning. Dhananath Fernando 23:32 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 23:33 Yeah. So he was highly influenced by. So people don't talk about it. We we were influenced by India on two occasions. One was bad. One was very good. Dhananath Fernando 23:44 So that was the story of 1977. Yeah, and then we come from 1977 onwards. That is like 1978 to 2004. You have taken fairly longer period. Yeah, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 23:59 actually, we don't you didn't look at it from the period from period to period from event to event event yeah who who came into power and who who who lost the election and things like that Dhananath Fernando 24:13 right so you actually defined that period from 1978 to 2004 long period as pretty much globalisation friendly policies yeah could you elaborate a bit more, Dr. Ajavatiran, on that period? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 24:26 No, actually, if you are talking about 77 up to 77 years, it is a very good period. People have allowed freedom of movement of people and allowed goods and services during that period, Dhananath Fernando 24:43 right? And that's actually that period is where the war was started, and even some people claim that war was an out. I mean, outcome of like globalisation as well, which you need not to respond. But I would like to know the impact of which you broadly discussed. But is there is there because you define that period as globalisation friendly, but at the same time to finance the war the tariff rates were fairly increased. I'm not sure whether it was happened till 2004, whether it happened after 2004. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 25:15 I think it's after 2000. After 2004. Dhananath Fernando 25:18 But how do you define like having a globalised economy or globalised friendly economy, even with a brutal war, which is basically covered pretty much the entire island, but predominantly two thirds covering two thirds of Sri Lanka, 1/3 of Sri Lanka, which is the north and east part of the island. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 25:37 Yeah, yeah, the numbers showed it to me. Dhananath Fernando 25:41 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 25:42 Yeah, that where they could have gone. Actually, she was more liberal than Miss Bandaranaike. Right. Miss Bandaranaike was run by Trotsky. Dhananath Fernando 25:52 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 25:53 She was run by S. D. A. Dhananath Fernando 25:55 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 25:55 So that's quite a different. Yeah, and also this man whose name I'll find, when we do the revision, he was a very free trader. Even today, you mean Dhananath Fernando 26:07 Ronnie Dimel? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 26:08 No, no, Dhananath Fernando 26:09 no. Okay, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 26:10 Ronnie Dimel was also. I don't know. He was a Dhananath Fernando 26:14 finance minister when 1977. Yeah, he was a very Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 26:17 good public official. No question about. Yeah, right. But Romilly didn't. Demand was convinced by the Indian gentleman. Indian gentleman, but the main person was, I say it is ideology. Dhananath Fernando 26:29 Right, it Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 26:30 was ideology of Jaya who wanted to do it, and some of us had a hand in it by giving our comments on the. Do you Dhananath Fernando 26:38 mean to say we are Chenoi? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 26:41 Chenoi, there you are, Dhananath Fernando 26:43 right? Yes. So I think Shenoi did a report. I think there's still still there's lot to be implemented from the Shenoi report if you were to do Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 26:51 it right. Yeah, that's right. Dhananath Fernando 26:52 Yes, and then Dr. Ajay, after 2004, what was the what was your take on that? Because you defined that period as interventionalist and globalisation unfriendly. What was the reasoning? Was it the tariff regime change, or what was what what made you to say that it's interventionist? What do you mean by that? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 27:16 They introduce tariffs, of course. Okay. Yeah, and that is in their system, you know, to get revenue. Dhananath Fernando 27:26 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 27:27 But on the other hand, we talked about the this period we want to see that there's a rubber boom. We've all got enough lot of money actually. Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 27:37 In fact, actually, you have given some reasons to basically highlight. One is like the the the social responsibility levy, the nation building tax and exercise duties, which basically made the effective rate of protectionism on Paddy for about 111 percent. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 27:54 Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 27:55 So likewise, a lot of tariffs were imposed, including the para tariffs. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 27:59 Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 28:00 In 2010, for about like 6,500 odd tariff lines, so which probably made you to define this period as a globalisation unfriendly, and also you are quoting a study by the International Trade Centre in 2010 that found that the NTM has created formidable barriers to exports and imports, much to the detriment of the economy. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 28:29 Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 28:29 So that's probably made you to define as globalisation unfriendly. Yeah. And then want to come back to after 2004 from to afterwards, like from 2000, then after 2015, what is your take on that? Because then the Yahaparana government came. How do you see it? Globalisation friendly or unfriendly or a combination of it? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 28:56 Yawana says is a very curious case. Right. I admit that I was working in the government. There was no progress, and without mentioning names, going through names, there was no unity, and there were two people. One person was very for free trade; other people had no idea what it was about. Dhananath Fernando 29:20 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 29:20 Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 29:21 So we basically covered about few eras that you discussed in the book on globalisation, friendly versus unfriendly. But I would like to, since in this period I think there are a lot of events that took place, as you very correctly point out. Yeah. But one such main event is the war, because every Sri Lankan remembers that, and that has an impact, but here basically you have we are mentioning that it's a and you mentioned it's 2.52% Yeah, that was the impact from 1960 to 2009. Not for a Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 29:51 particular reason, Dhananath Fernando 29:52 right? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 29:53 For whatever human and physical capital, Dhananath Fernando 29:55 right? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 29:56 Only there. Dhananath Fernando 29:56 Could you elaborate? Like, what do you mean by what is. For someone who doesn't have a background on economics, on human capital and reducing sorry, namely reducing physical and human capital by 2.52, could you elaborate a bit more, Doctor Ajapatina, for us, please? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 30:14 I know that they did a good job, but I don't know what methodology they were used. Dhananath Fernando 30:18 Right, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 30:19 human capital is very difficult to define. Dhananath Fernando 30:21 Right Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 30:22 now, if for example, if the government produces more money to students to go to college somewhere, then there's a increase in human capital. If the certain programmes are discontinued, then there's a Has a negative effect on human capital, so that is the basis. I am just guessing, and that's why they did it. But I can look at it and see how it works. All Dhananath Fernando 30:52 right. So, Dr. Ajwaja, we spoke about chapter two. Anything else that our audience should know about chapter two? Again, this is we are evaluating and going going through some of the, I mean, the highlighted events in the book. As you know, it's available online, and this is not a book promotion. It's mainly targeted for an academic audience, and of course, you can buy it online. But it's more in the libraries and academic studies, the cases of globalisation, and it's a book about Sri Lanka. That's the most important thing because, as Dr. Ajay, what did you mention after Chile? Can you imagine? We are like the second country who embrace globalisation. And what is surprising is after opening up the current status that we are in, because basically according to his analysis, we then moved on the globalisation unfriendly policies. Otherwise, all of us, our destination could have been quite different to where we are today. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 31:47 There are such a word that we have not used here, but very dominant. That is the ideological position of the people. Dhananath Fernando 31:54 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 31:55 The leftists, by definition, have their very well distinct ideology coming from Karl Marx. Then other people have somewhere in between. Right. They they don't they don't have definite policy, but they are very good people, by the way. Dhananath Fernando 32:13 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 32:13 Who are trying to do these things. When I want to, when I went to Peradeniya, you want to know the year 1960. Everybody was a socialist. Dhananath Fernando 32:23 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 32:24 So I stopped the guy who was named Pad, and I said, "What do you mean by socialist? That's interesting. Dhananath Fernando 32:31 You do know Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 32:32 what happened there. I can tell the story. There was a group of people, professors, who were doing their campaigning inside the university, saying they call it economics economic club. Dhananath Fernando 32:47 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 32:48 All the lefties are there. Dhananath Fernando 32:49 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 32:50 So they asked me to join. I said no way. I I said I don't want any club about which I have to apologise in the future. In the future. Dhananath Fernando 33:00 Dr. Rajesh is a very interesting way. So, if now I'm I'm surprised now because how come in 1960 when you entered the university? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 33:08 Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 33:08 Now if the world was like more socialist. Yeah. Like you said, like everyone who met and it's everyone was. I mean, most of them were Karl believing Karl Marx and others were like in between. How did you get exposed to these ideas? I Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 33:22 was a reader. Dhananath Fernando 33:23 He was a reader. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 33:23 Yeah, I read, read, read, and read. Okay, I enjoy reading even today. Dhananath Fernando 33:28 Right. So then, that's where you got exposed to these ideas. Yeah. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 33:32 No. Also, to be fair, my father was totally against socialism. Dhananath Fernando 33:38 Okay. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 33:39 I I I looked into it. I discussed it with people, and Piradeni was a guy who did Singala special, great great man. He knew the Karl Marx books left to right. I mean, right. So only socialist I know, only the East Sanskrit Pali specialist, very famous name, and he he I could discuss with the thing what what Karl Marx was saying, and what are the basis of it. You know, there are. Dhananath Fernando 34:14 So you basically read the other side, and also Karl Marx. So you had an understanding of both sides. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 34:19 Yeah, I, I, Kalman, they say he was a good social social animal, but was terrible for economics. Right. Yeah, and so there were a lot of people who followed them. Say I am a socialist. I said, "Define. What do you mean, socialist? So they gave me up as when everybody went on strike in 1963. I went to class, Dhananath Fernando 34:50 right? Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 34:50 Because I told Professor Kunal Seker, "I I don't want to. I come to class not to have a class, but to show that I don't agree with what they do." When I in the institute, I got up and said, "Why are you striking? Who is going to benefit? Can you tell me away? What is the benefit? Nobody thinks they. She was very Dhananath Fernando 35:11 courageous, Doctor Rajavari. No, no, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 35:13 no. It was a fantastic place. Right. Nobody would, nobody would have a disagreement and have a fight, but I was told that the ward nurse told these guys left it. If I hear anything, I'm going to send you home. Right. I learned it only later. Dhananath Fernando 35:35 Right. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 35:36 Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 35:36 Right. No, that's also interesting because that means you you could have had a cordial argument or like discussion by disagreeing and agreeing to disagree. We Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 35:44 had it. We all had it. We are very nice, very nice to each other. Actually, so there one guy who is hard and thing. When I went to class two weeks later, whatever, they all came as boys and girls put their arm around me, so nice to see you. We missed you, and all that, right? And the other guy had tried to get a group to walk out when I was coming. Then the whole group said, "What? We allow him to come in. He's our friend. What are you talking about? So recently I met him and he said, "You, your system didn't work. They were very nice people, by the way. Thank you, Dhananath Fernando 36:26 Dr. Rajiv Madina. Thank you very much for bringing that personal experience. So we discuss about the chapter two today. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 36:33 Yeah. Dhananath Fernando 36:33 So we invite our viewers to go and check both episodes, chapter one and chapter two, so then you can go through it, and next week we are going to discuss about chapter three, which is through eminent eyes. It's a very Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 36:45 interesting chapter. Yes, a Dhananath Fernando 36:47 50-year retrospective as a background of to globalisation. Yeah. So we are going to discuss briefly because, as you know, these are detailed writings, which is very difficult to go through in half an hour's time to 45 minutes, but of course we try our level best to bring you the insight so that will make you interesting not to read, in particular Dr. Rajabatirano's book, but to understand about economic policy and what has worked and what hasn't worked. And as he said, otherwise you may not have to apologise in future for for for being standing on the wrong side of economic policy, wrong side of Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 37:24 history, wrong Dhananath Fernando 37:25 side of the history. So please subscribe us, and you can become an Advocata insider. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 37:31 Yeah, Dhananath Fernando 37:32 12,000 rupees is the annual Advocata insider subscription. You get lot of content, a lot of uncut any uncut videos of in English and Singhala on Advocata Institute, and plus of course we provide an analysis on vehicle market, of course the exchange rate, and any particular event which is which is important to the economy, and importantly how it affects your business. You could be a fisherman, you could be a grocery store owner. You could be a tuition master. You could be an insurance agent. But actually, all the economic activities finally ends up in your personal finances, and we are going to explain how it is going to impact you and your businesses. And for that specific analysis, you can join and become an Advocata insider, and also by becoming an Advocata insider, you help others to get to know this content free of charge, which is a great social service. In the in the other way around, so Dr. Ajavarina, thank you very much, and looking forward for more stories and more conversation with Chapter Three. Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 38:37 Yeah, Chapter Three, I like very much. I wrote a paper on it. Dhananath Fernando 38:40 Excellent, Dr. Sarath Rajapatirana 38:40 because nobody has used the very good, great economists came to Sri Lanka, you know, and they advised us, and there was an interview between the prime minister and one of the leading American economists, and the American economist said shamefully, "If I were in Sri Lanka, I'd be a socialist. Dhananath Fernando 39:06 Excellent. Thank you very much, Dr. Rajbarad, and thank you for watching us. We'll see you with another episode with Chapter Three next week. Transcribed by https://otter.ai