Price controls are not the way to bring down the price of chicken

By Pravena Yogendra

Originally appeared on Newswire, Lanka Business Online, the Morning and Daily News

Most HoReCa channels in Sri Lanka sell a packet of chicken rice and curry at a higher price than a comparative packet of fish rice and curry. The price of a portion of chicken rice and curry is ~30% more than that of a portion of fish rice and curry. This differential has remained over time, as this existed in the pre-crisis environment as well, albeit at low prices.

Is this because of a difference in production costs or due to undue policy intervention by the government?

Sri Lanka has a long history of implementing price controls dating back to the 1970s. In recent years, the government has implemented price controls on various essential goods, including food, fuel, and pharmaceuticals. While the resulting lower prices may have been popular among consumers, they have had significant unintended consequences on the economy.

Such price controls create distortions in the marketplace by interfering with the pricing mechanism, thereby preventing resources from being allocated efficiently. The government’s current effort to control the retail price of chicken is a case in point.

Chicken and eggs are the most affordable and culturally accepted meat source in Sri Lanka. The domestic poultry industry produces 240,000 MT of chicken per year, with current per capita consumption standing at 10.8 kg. 

The recent economic events, such as the forex shortage and the ban on chemical fertilizers, led to a series of events that artificially inflated chicken prices, making them expensive for regular consumption. As a result, the state felt the need to intervene by controlling the price of broiler chicken.  

However, these price controls have only been imposed on the organized/ formal market. Industry specialists classify the domestic chicken market into the formal/ organized market, which accounts for 60% of the market, and the informal/ wet market, accounting for the remaining 40%. Branded broiler chicken producers cater to the organized market, and small and medium-scale poultry farmers cater to the wet market.

The formal market comprises highly productive tax-paying private-sector poultry operators whose products are on par with international quality, health, and safety standards, presenting an excellent opportunity to expand into export markets. This is proven by the fact that these poultry operators supply to sectors that insist on high-quality standards, such as multinational hotels and restaurants operating domestically and abroad.

However, the pricing restrictions imposed on these more productive players have created a situation where the producers cannot pass on their increased production costs to consumers, resulting in them facing compressed profit margins. The short-term implication would be a lower placement of chicks, resulting in a contraction in production, leading to shortages in the market. The medium to long-term significance would be a decline in investments channeled into capacity expansion, which also reduces innovation and technological progress.  

 It is also important to note that since the wet market players form the larger part of the industry, they are the price setters; and the branded players must follow suit to maintain demand for their products. Wet market chicken prices are mainly determined by the price and availability of other protein substitutes. 

Taxation significantly impacts the retail price of chicken while the burden on fish is lower. Fish is VAT exempt. The major source of costs is labour and entrepreneurship with inputs such as fuel (kerosene) having low tax incidence. In comparison, chicken is subject to VAT, with most producers lying above the VAT threshold of LKR 80Mn. The major cost is the cost of feed which is subject to VAT. It is estimated that both direct and indirect taxes account for 19.6% of the retail price of chicken. The tax treatment between the two alternatives significantly impacts relative prices, disadvantaging chicken over fish. This non-equitable VAT treatment of the two substitutes is expected to be further exacerbated in January 2024 as VAT rates are set to increase by 3% to 18%. 

Although the state is focusing on controlling the final retail price of chicken, the real issue lies in inflated input costs. Poultry producer’s input costs have escalated due to the depreciation of the rupee, higher staff costs, and higher admin costs. However, manufacturers' main point of contention has been the feed cost.

Maize is the largest component of poultry feed, accounting for ~60% of weight and 45% of feed cost. Although nutritionists discovered that rice can be used as a 1 for 1 substitute for maize, its utilization for purposes other than human consumption remains highly regulated, resulting in minimal availability

Domestic maize prices are currently at abnormally high levels as maize production is still reeling from the after-effects of the fertilizer crisis.

Sri Lanka's annual maize requirement is ~500,000 MT, of which ~300,000 MT are produced domestically. Roughly ~210,000 MT are cultivated during the primary Maha season and another ~90,000 MT during the secondary Yala season. The yield on maize cultivation by smallholders is currently 1.5 tons per acre. However, industry experts believe that a yield of 2.5 tons per acre can be achieved if correct farming practices are deployed. A kg of maize currently retails at ~LKR 160. Pre-crisis, it used to retail at LKR 45.

Industry practitioners believe that several efforts can be undertaken to improve the productivity of domestic maize cultivation, thereby bringing costs down. A higher yield can be achieved if proper agricultural land is utilized. Currently, maize farming is conducted on encroached forest land. Due to red tape, the 17,000 hectares allocated by the Mahaweli scheme for agriculture remain largely unutilized.

Farmers can also yield more if maize fields are irrigated instead of rainfed. Experts also believe that the right farming practices are not undertaken as proper soil analysis and spraying are not performed.

Currently, maize can be imported from Pakistan at USD 250-260 per tonne, which works out to LKR 110 per kg, including a special commodity levy of LKR 25. The SCL is a contentious tax and was even highlighted in the recently issued IMF technical assistance report, citing corruption. 

The SCL is a seasonal, quantity tax imposed on certain essential commodities as a composite tax in lieu of other prevailing levies such as customs duty, VAT, EDB, CESS, Excise duty, PAL, and NBT. The SCL has come under fire as it is subjective and arbitrary, imposed at the discretion of the finance minister, creating uncertainty among industry stakeholders.

In the case of maize, seeds imported for the purpose of animal feed production have been subjected to SCL during lean production periods, to facilitate imports. When the SCL is not in effect, a general duty of 20%, CESS of 30%, VAT of 15%, and SSCL of 2.5% are imposed at the border. 

Therefore, not only does the SCL drive up the cost of chicken, but it also creates uncertainty due to the unpredictability and subjective nature of the tax

Maize continues to remain a controlled import that can only be imported by license holders. Licenses to import maize are issued by the import controller based on recommendations issued by the agricultural minister, who issues said recommendations based on his view of the industry’s maize requirement. 

Sri Lanka's organized players are second to none in the poultry breeding process- they have adopted international quality standards regarding feed conversion ratio, mortality rates, farm productivity, etc., putting them on par with foreign players. In addition to being highly efficient, the industry also contains sufficient productive capacity to be self-sufficient, thereby rendering the case for importation redundant.

The industry also maintains biosecurity standards and adheres to industry and farming best practice to ensure healthy, safe, and high-quality output that match the quality and certifications required by export markets. 

The government should step back from intervening in the market for both maize and broiler and allow the magic of the hidden hand to do the heavy lifting. Not only will this lead to more stable prices, but competition will drive further innovation and productivity improvements, leading to more production and lower prices.

Why Prices are Slow to Fall Despite Easing Interest Rates, Inflation

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Inflation is gradually easing to the 20% range and the Central Bank has made the decision to reduce the interest rates by 2.5%. Additionally, the Sri Lankan Rupee is appreciating. In regular news stories, the media and people often ask the question, “Why, then, are prices still high?”

How can we understand this through economics and determine what policies should be implemented to bring about maximum benefits for Sri Lankan citizens? Since everyone is a producer as well as a consumer, this affects all individuals.

Declining inflation doesn’t mean prices will drop

First, many hold the perception that inflation results in a direct increase in prices. The rate at which prices are rising, however, is what is actually known as inflation. It is the same as the acceleration of a vehicle; when we accelerate a vehicle, its speed increases. But once the vehicle is in motion, even without accelerating, it will move.

Declining inflation simply means that the speed at which prices are increasing has slowed down, but it does not mean that prices are actually decreasing. That is why inflation is considered the worst enemy of everyone, particularly the poor.

As Milton Friedman said: “Inflation is always a monetary phenomenon.” Another reason why we should not allow inflation to raise its head is because the remedial actions required to curb inflation come with their own costs and drawbacks.

To bring down inflation, interest rates must be increased. However, when interest rates increase, the economy shrinks, making the business environment more difficult to operate in. This is exactly what Sri Lanka is going through. When the business environment becomes difficult, social pressures tend to rise as well.

However, for certain essential items such as petroleum products, LP Gas, and some construction materials, prices have reduced due to currency appreciation. A common question, which is fair to raise, is how prices increase overnight when currency depreciates, but are very slow to adjust when currency appreciates.

When the media questions traders, a typical reason provided is that the stocks had been bought at a higher exchange rate, so the prices will be adjusted only with the next shipment. While there is some truth to this explanation, the absence of competition laws and a poor regulatory framework allows for price coordination and rent-seeking behaviour to also take place.

One reason for the lack of price coordination is the elimination of micro, small, and medium traders by government regulations themselves. If we recall the last few months, both the spot and forward markets were effectively not functioning due to Government regulations.

This prevented the opening of Letters of Credit (LCs) for a future date, based on the exchange rate at the time of reserving the USD. Additionally, there were regulations that stopped credit facilities for opening LCs. When banks do not provide credit facilities to open LCs, only large players who have the capacity to pay the full amount upfront are able to engage in the market.

Exchange rate appreciation and prices

This is precisely what happened in the case of sugar imports. When the forward exchange rate market was squashed, traders were unable to predict what the exchange rate would be by the time they had cleared the LCs at which point the imported sugar would have already been sold and the money collected.

Therefore, if the exchange rate depreciates significantly, the trader will incur a massive loss. While most of these regulations have now been reversed, many micro, small, and medium traders were wiped out from the market during the time these regulations were in place.

The limited players have made it easier for price coordination to occur to keep prices high even when the exchange rate strengthens. Similarly, the same circumstances were observed when price controls were imposed on poultry products. With price controls in place, layer chickens were sold out and it takes time for the market to reverse the effects. Sometimes, it is easier to just impose a quick regulation, but the recovery from that regulation can take years.

Regarding the exchange rate, until there is significant progress on debt restructuring, uncertainty remains. As a result, markets are reluctant to perform any adjustments. That is why, as a country, we need stable policies so that the business environment becomes favourable and even consumers do not have to worry about price fluctuations, as they will be adjusted in a systematic manner.

Price controls will not work

A common suggestion that is made to bring down prices is to impose price controls. People and the media are quick to jump on the decision to impose price controls, thinking it will bring the prices down.

However, it is important to understand that price controls do not necessarily lead to lower prices. Instead, they can have unintended consequences such as the emergence of black markets or complete shortages of goods.

We need to realise that the best-case scenario is to have both lower prices and sufficient availability of goods and services in the market. The second-best option would be to have goods available even at a higher price, as the non-availability of goods will cost consumers more in terms of finding alternatives for their needs. In such cases, the ultimate burden to the consumer is high due to the unavailability of goods.

That is why price controls are not a solution, as they do not effectively bring down prices and can create shortages.

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.

Import controls: Regression when we really need reform

Originally appeared on The Morning.

By Dhananath Fernando

I recall a visit I made to a small eatery back in 2015, just a few weeks after the interim budget speech by the new Yahapalanaya Government. The eatery prepared hoppers, egg hoppers, and short-eats – this was just after the then Finance Minister, in his Budget speech, had announced price controls on hoppers at Rs. 10, egg hoppers at Rs. 25, and, if my memory serves me right, plain tea at Rs. 5 and Rs. 10 for milk tea.

When I asked for an egg hopper, the shopkeeper (‘mudalali’) said: “Sir, we are not selling egg hoppers. If you want, you can buy an egg here for Rs. 17 and give it to the chef and he will put the egg on a normal hopper, which is priced at Rs. 10, and you will get your egg hopper.” I was totally confused and I asked the shopkeeper: “What do you mean? Can’t you give the egg from your counter straight away and give me the final bill?”

He replied: “Sir, because of the price controls we can’t sell egg hoppers at profitable prices. An egg costs about Rs. 17-18. Coconut is also expensive, as are rice flour, wheat flour, and cooking gas, so we can’t sell egg hoppers at Rs. 25. So we sell eggs and hoppers separately.” I then followed his instructions and got the egg hopper prepared.

Generally when buying hoppers, chilli sambol, known as ‘lunu miris,’ comes complementary. I was waiting for ‘lunu miris,’ which did not arrive. I asked the shopkeeper: “Where is my lunu miris?” He replied: “How can we give lunu miris free when we sell hoppers at Rs. 10? You have to buy lunu miris separately by paying an extra Rs. 10.”

Price controls never work

The recently-imposed price controls on eggs will not make any difference to the same set of outcomes I observed about seven years ago. Sadly, Sri Lanka’s policymakers have not learnt their lesson – that price controls have never worked and will never work. Following the implementation of price controls on tea, tea shops will stop serving sugar and ask people to buy their sugar separately. 

If you recall, in the recent past there was a Government-controlled price for chicken. Meat shops at one point stopped selling whole chicken and instead only sold chicken parts. Thereafter, we had many price controls on rice, dhal, tinned fish, sugar, cement, and even on USD. Anyone who has a reasonable memory will remember that none of these price controls worked. 

At one point, there were price controls on pharmaceutical products despite the currency depreciating by 80%. How can a company import the same drugs and keep the same price, with the cost rising by 80% due to poor monetary policy? The only option available for pharma companies was to stop procuring those formulas. 

The same happened with milk powder. The consumer became the ultimate loser by suffering shortages in the market. There is a sentiment that private businesses hoard similar goods, which are stocked at lower prices, and sell only when the prices are increased. There may be some truth in it. As we all are aware, the private sector is also a reflection of our Government sector and policymakers, and the private sector has been given those opportunities when competition is not allowed and financial instability is not managed. But ultimately the common person loses on both ends – both through shortages and higher prices. 

The price control on eggs is going to impact the less-fortunate the most, since eggs are their main source of protein. They don’t require refrigeration and they are more affordable compared to the other protein options. The price of 500 g of fish is now Rs. 1,500-1,800. Chicken and other protein sources are also very expensive. Even dried fish and sprats are more expensive than eggs when calculated on a per meal basis and when accounting for overall convenience, effort, LP gas consumption, etc. 

So when price controls discourage suppliers from supplying eggs at that rate in an environment where chicken feed prices have gone up and prices of medicine for poultry and transportation have increased, price controls simply become meaningless and send a completely wrong signal to markets, while we are in the spotlight for an IMF programme and debt restructuring. 

Import controls a mistake

The Government made a similar, crucial mistake by announcing import controls on 300 selected HS codes as a measure to save our valuable dollars. We need to first remember that we have already cut down quite a lot of imports and we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel by restricting our fuel and some essential medicines. We have completely banned imports such as vehicles for more than two years now. 

Sri Lanka’s imports have been declining since the 1990s; policymakers should ask themselves: if import controls brought us to our darkest hour, how are the same import controls expected to save us from the crisis? Some import bans are on intermediary goods, and, as economic theory has shown around the world, with import restrictions, exports will also decline and Sri Lanka will become a net loser. We have to discourage imports through the pricing of dollars so imports will automatically come down with higher prices.

Import controls will also confuse markets and dilute the credibility of the Central Bank Governor. As he mentioned, we have adequate forex for essentials in the coming months. So the question arises: if we have enough forex, what is the purpose of import controls?

Secondly, both import controls and price controls, in my view, will have an impact on IMF negotiations at home. The Article IV IMF staff report clearly notes that we have to phase out import controls. Announcing import controls at a time when they are visiting Sri Lanka sends a negative signal to the IMF and to our creditors that Sri Lanka is not open to reforms.

Trade is a two-way street

Already the European Union and Japan have on multiple occasions indicated the importance of trade. In fact, the European Union stated: “Trade is a two-way street.” In this context, we are creating more resistance from our neighbouring countries at the brink of a very important debt restructuring and IMF programme. 

Both recent policy actions indicate to the world that we are just following the same old methods and are not open to serious market reforms. We will also not comply with some guidelines of the World Trade Organization with this decision, isolating ourselves globally at a time we need support the most.

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.

Regulating prices: From price mandates to more competition

Originally appeared on Daily FT, Lanka Business Online, Colombo Telegraph, Ceylon Today and the Morning

By Thiloka Yapa

As price controls ultimately lead to instability in the system, a surer way to achieve stability and growth is to allow markets to flow freely and responsibly

The Government recently removed the maximum retail price (MRP) on rice with a decision to import a buffer stock of rice to prevent any shortages.1 This is an important step in the right direction. Opening up the market for more competition will reduce the market power of the alleged oligopoly of large-scale rice mill owners. While the removal of the MRP is commendable, the Government’s action on this front has been anything but consistent. Despite the frequent use of price controls and their appeal to politicians, economists are generally opposed to them, except perhaps for very brief periods during emergencies. While the pandemic is undoubtedly an emergency, Sri Lanka’s current economic problems are largely due to poor policies. 

Although the politicians who impose them may be motivated by good intentions, they are counterproductive, often leading to higher prices and damaging the market. 

The Parliament recently passed an amendment to the Consumer Affairs Authority Act which increases fines on traders who do not follow the MRP issued by the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA).2 Raising the penalties seems to indicate that the Government intends to impose controls more strictly. The reason that some of the ill-effects of price controls were not experienced is because they were not strictly enforced. Previous research by Advocata Institute revealed that only larger producers and the larger retailers in the formal sector adhered to them; in the informal markets and among smaller retailers these were routinely ignored so the shortages and black markets associated with price controls were not widespread.3 Strict enforcement and larger fines could see products disappearing from shelves as traders find it no longer profitable to engage in the trade of the controlled commodities.  

Price regulation and its impact 

Price controls are administered through the Consumer Affairs Authority Act which has the power to regulate prices.4

Under Section 10(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, the authority, in protection of the consumer, can call retailers and wholesale traders to register their stocks and warehouses with the CAA. Moreover, under Section 18, the Minister in consultation with the CAA is empowered to specify any good or service, as essential to the life of the community, by way of gazette notification. Manufacturers and traders are restricted from increasing prices without the prior written approval of the CAA. A period of 30 days is provided for the authority to examine the application for any price revision and convey the decision to the applicant company. 

This Section permits the CAA to make decisions on behalf of traders in the market, whenever it regards a product to be ‘essential’. Further, under Section 20(5), the Authority can fix the maximum price above which goods and services cannot be sold. It was under this section that the recent MRP for sugar, rice and LP Gas was imposed. 

This regulation could be a barrier against market competition, as it may deter the entry of new firms and discourage innovation which curtails competition. Competition plays a vital role in a market economy. It incentivises firms to challenge each other, create new markets and expand existing markets. While this leads efficient firms to enter and grow, inefficient firms shrink and exit. Firms innovate, leading to lower prices and enhance consumer choices. While the objective of the Consumer Affairs Authority Act No. 9 of 2003 in itself is to promote competition and protect consumers, the impact of the provisions which allow the authority to regulate prices lead to the exact opposite, resulting in high prices and less choice for consumers.

Prices play a key role in a market economy. It is a signal, wrapped in an incentive. Change in prices incentivise individuals to respond; either by consuming less of a product, or shifting to alternatives. Price controls distort these signals. Since the Government defines market prices when controls are imposed, it forces the market to function based on the imposed price. As producers and consumers respond to controls, they produce an excess supply when the prices are set high or increase the demand when prices are set low. This leads to wastage and shortages, exacerbating the fundamental economic problem that the controls expect to solve. 

A 2018 report on price controls by the Advocata Institute revealed that price controls have limited value in controlling the cost of goods, particularly in the consumer market due to weak enforcement.5 The report highlighted other ill-effects: traders surveyed have admitted to the problem of low-quality goods being brought into the market, meaning that quality suffers as a result. As traders are under pressure to comply, they resort to importing substandard products to supply at prices close to the controlled price.

The enforcement of ad-hoc controls also adds up to the costs of suppliers, as these regulations distort their cost structures. This was the case when the Government slashed the Special Commodity Levy on sugar, big onions, dhal and canned fish in November last year, imposing an MRP on these commodities.6 The sellers who were impacted, opposed the MRP and continued their sale at high prices, claiming they would incur massive losses since the stocks were purchased before tax revisions, at a much higher price. 

Price controls also result in policy uncertainty. This is a situation where there is ambiguity in the stability of future rules and regulations. While entrepreneurs in the market will then keep attempting to predict what regulators would do in the future, this comes at the expense of consumers, who would have otherwise been the main-focus of these businesses.7

What can be done?

Sri Lanka urgently needs to rethink government interventions that increase the costs of competing. At a recent discussion hosted by the Advocata Institute, the newly-appointed Governor emphasised the importance of growth and stability. He stated that the lack of stability would lead to uncertainty. As price controls ultimately lead to instability in the system, a surer way to achieve stability and growth is to allow markets to flow freely and responsibly. For this to happen, as one major reform, Sri Lanka needs to amend the sections in the Consumer Affairs Authority Act that permits the authority to regulate market prices. In doing so, it is also worthy to review Sections 34 to Section 38 in the Act, which aims to promote competition and revisit the mandate of the CAA. 

1.  Ruwani Fonseka, ‘Alagiyawanna explains removal of MRP on rice’, The Morning, September 28, 2021 https://www.themorning.lk/alagiyawanna-explains-removal-of-mrp-on-rice/ (accessed September 29, 2021)

2. Parliament of Sri Lanka, ‘Hon. Speaker endorses the certificate on the Consumer Affairs Authority (Amendment) Bill’, Parliament of Sri Lanka. September 23, 2021, https://parliament.lk/en/news-en/view/2263 (accessed September 25, 2021)

3. Advocata Institute, ‘Price Controls in Sri Lanka-Political Theatre’( Sri Lanka: Advocata Institute, 2018), 24 https://www.research.advocata.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Price-Controls-in-Srilanka-Book.pdf (accessed September 25, 2021)

4.  Consumer Affairs Authority Act No. 09 of 2003 

5. Advocata Institute, ‘Price Controls in Sri Lanka-Political Theatre’( Sri Lanka: Advocata Institute, 2018), 9 https://www.research.advocata.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Price-Controls-in-Srilanka-Book.pdf (accessed September 25, 2021) 

6. ‘Revised taxes, MRP complicate commodities market’, The Sunday Times, November 22, 2020 https://www.sundaytimes.lk/201122/business-times/revised-taxes-mrp-complicate-commodities-market-423077.html (accessed September 30, 2021)

7. Institute of Economic Affairs, ‘Flaws and Ceilings: Price Controls and the damage they cause’ (London: London Publishing Partnership, 2015) quoted in Advocata Institute, ‘Price Controls in Sri Lanka-Political Theatre’( Sri Lanka: Advocata Institute, 2018), 43 https://www.research.advocata.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Price-Controls-in-Srilanka-Book.pdf (accessed September 25, 2021)
   
   ‘රටේ ආර්ථිකය හා අපේ හෙට දවස’ YouTube video, posted by “Advocata Plus,” September 25, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JvWQWn7cHw (accessed September 25, 2021)
   

Thiloka Yapa is the Research Analyst at the Advocata Institute and can be contacted at thiloka@advocata.org. Learn more about Advocata’s work at www.advocata.org. 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.

When price controls get out of control

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

• Price controls lead to shortages and distort markets

Why has Sri Lanka’s economy remained stagnant? This is not a difficult puzzle to solve. It is simply because Sri Lanka has repeated the same failed policies ignoring “economic fundamentals”. This is evident now more so than ever by the number of “price controls” imposed by the Government. Even an amateur student of economics would know that price controls distort markets creating black markets. Black markets mean reduced quality of goods and services and shortages. The recent conundrum of a few rice millers declaring rice prices and the Government having to withdraw price controls is the best example of the failure of this policy measure. The lack of economic analysis behind such policies have not only diluted the Government’s political capital but also have created shortages of rice in the market. 

It is no secret that the entire economic system has been damaged by the implementation of price controls. The real impact, like in the case of rice, is much more severe than what we see on the surface. 

A retired army officer was appointed to ensure the supply of essential food items. He raided a few rice mills, warehouses, sugar storages, and other essential commodities as per media reports to ensure the supply of essential food items. However, the recent withdrawal of price controls on rice is an indication of the failure of such short-sighted policies. Shortages sprouted, markets reacted and prices have increased further. These miscalculated policies have also led to the dilution of investor confidence by providing all the wrong signals to investors. Heavy Government intervention in businesses and private property, confiscating stocks and storages discourage investors. 

Markets work on the principles of demand and supply. It is a series of coordinated actions and reactions. These happen as a result of people working for the benefit of each other when allocating scarce resources which have alternative uses. Allowing this system to function can achieve the best outcomes for everyone, especially the consumers. Controlling the price by means of force is counterproductive. This will leave a bitter taste for both the consumer and producer as well as the Government. 

The political theatre of price controls is not new to Sri Lanka. It goes back to the 1970’s. Since then Sri Lanka has had a habit of imposing, relaxing and reimposing price controls. We have been in the same vicious cycle for decades. The previous Yahapalana Government imposed price controls on hoppers, tea, and milk tea. The current Government imposed price controls on another long list of goods including lentils and tinned fish. Even today, our USD has a price control of Rs. 203 per dollar. As a result there is a serious shortage of USD in the market. What is evident is that all items which have price controls imposed, experience some level of shortage or market distortions. 

How can the distorted rice market be rectified? 

The distortion of our rice and paddy market ultimately boils down to poor productivity along with excessive political and Governmental interference in the industry. The contribution of the agricultural sector to the country’s GDP is 8% with about 24% of the country’s labour force in agriculture. This is a good indicator to highlight how unproductive the sector is. Additionally, analysis shows that our pricing of one kilogramme of rice is completely irrational. According to research, paddy is a water guzzler that consumes about 2400 litres of water for transpiration. Further, 1200 litres is required to produce one kilogramme of rice. At the moment we do not charge for water needed for paddy cultivation. Most of the water provided is subsidized by taxpayer money. Additionally we provide fertiliser at a subsidised rate (organic or chemical). The subsidy is included in the price of paddy and rice. One of the main factors of production which is land is also not calculated in the cost of production as most of the cultivated land is owned by the Government. 

If we were to calculate the price of water, land and fertiliser, the cost of production of rice in Sri Lanka is extremely high. So if Sri Lanka is serious about rectifying the problem of rice, all these issues must be addressed. Attempting to control the price which is the final indication of resource allocation is not the solution. Failure to address the real bottlenecks at the root of the issue will exacerbate problems faced by the paddy farmer as well as the consumer. 

Importation of rice is not a popular topic in Sri Lanka for many reasons including the current forex crisis. One way to address the market manipulation by rice millers and provide consumers affordable prices is to let the market system work. That includes allowing the importation of rice by private businesses. Unlocking land for our farmers too is important to increase their productivity by using low cost methods of farming. At the moment since the land is owned by the Government, capital infusion and technological development that could be done is limited. Farmers cannot take a loan from the bank or do any technological advancement using the land as collateral. Farmers have very limited options and they are trapped in a vicious debt cycle while continuing to resort to unproductive methods of farming on land they do not own. 

Until Sri Lanka comprehends the problem, our solutions will be mere performative political theatre. Without evidenced-based public policies and a good understanding of economics, price controls will be imposed and reversed overnight, leaving the consumer, producer and the Government with a foul taste.

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.

Markets: We can’t see them, but they exist

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

When I was a kid, my father used to share stories about heroes, science, literature, and many more. I still remember the day he shared the story of Sir Issac Newton’s famous story of an apple falling from a tree, which made him think more and discovered the theory of gravitational forces. I wasn’t very impressed with the story. I questioned back as a kid: “If there is a force, why can’t we see it. Can’t we avoid gravity during the night? How can gravity act on a water surface and how can water flow if there is gravity?”

Later I realised, just because we can’t see it, that does not mean it doesn’t exist. It was because as a kid I simply did not understand the concept of gravity. The concept of “markets” is the same. It’s there and we all are part of it. When markets work well, we do not feel the existence of it. We only feel the existence of markets when we try to intervene in markets.

The current milk powder shortage and long lines to buy LP gas is a classic case of market interventions. While we have long lines for LP gas and milk powder, there are no lines to buy shampoo or soap or similar household products. In both cases, the market exists, but we just don’t see it.

Milk powder shortage

In the case of milk powder, supermarkets have rationed the quantity that can be purchased and most of the milk powder shelves are empty. There are many sides to the story. One side is that milk powder is not good for health, so we should move to liquid milk. There is further argument that Sri Lanka has to be self-sufficient in milk and produce all the milk it requires. As a result, Sri Lanka has always imposed high tariffs on powdered milk as well as imported milk, as high as 33.1%, as per the previous tariff calculations. This has been carried out with the objective of promoting local milk farmers and industry.

In Sri Lanka, there is a conspiracy theory for anything. The conspiracy theory is that milk powder companies create artificial shortages to cause inconvenience for the government and promote milk powder.

When we look at data and numbers, however, the story is different and it is multidimensional. First, global milk powder prices have been increasing significantly over the past few years. Since most of the milk powder is imported, when the global prices are increasing and when our currency is depreciating, there is no alternative to keeping prices constant. However, the Government and it’s main price regulating body, the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA), are not allowing price increases by milk powder companies. They have at present imposed a price control – if you visit their website, the price controls can be seen.

Different brands and different pack sizes have specified prices. However, when global prices continue to increase constantly at one point, milk powder companies will reach a point where the losses of selling one pack of milk powder exceeds the loss of not selling a packet of milk powder at all.

At that point, obviously, the supply will be curtailed by the companies as no company can survive by making losses. So in a market system, the shortages start taking place. The long lines or shortages of any product category is the outcome of the market intervention in the form of price controls. (Source: https://www.globaldairytrade.info/en/product-results/)

This is basic economics which this column has explained many times.

The second argument is on the health concerns of milk powder. Many people are confused about why people do not consume liquid milk regardless of much propaganda by certain trade union groups and ideological groups.

The answer again lies in economics. In Sri Lanka, the domestic liquid milk demand is at about 700 million litres per annum, whereas our production is only 374 million litres per annum. Obviously, the balance has to be matched if we cannot produce it. On the flip side, our milk production is extremely unproductive. The average production by a milking cow is about 4.3 litres per day, whereas the world average is about 28 litres per day. In some countries like Israel, the productivity is about 40 litres per milking cow per day. Obviously, our productivity is very low to match the demand and we have been protecting the inefficiencies in the milk industry by imposing high tariff rates as high as 33.1%, as per the previous tariff calculations on milk-related products in importation.

When the global prices move up and when our currency is depreciating, when banks are going through a hard time to provide foreign exchange for importations, there is no way we can keep our prices constant in the milk powder market.

Only if we allow the prices to move up will the people who value milk powder at those prices will buy it, and there will be an incentive for other alternatives for milk powder to enter the market. So people can decide what they want and shift to alternatives. Even the promoters of liquid milk should now support a move to raise the prices of powdered milk, so that there is an incentive for increasing the supply of liquid milk in the market.

The case of LP gas

The liquefied petroleum (LP) gas market follows similar dimensions. Global gas prices have increased rapidly along with crude oil prices, and Sri Lanka has only two players. One is the government-owned operator and the other is the private sector operator. Private sector local businessmen cannot increase prices and they cannot import due to the US dollar shortage in the country. When we only have two players in the market and when one player is going out of the market due to price controls and US dollar shortages, the markets react naturally. It reacts in ways such as shortages, hoarding, or people who are storing more than what they want for future usage/panic-buying. So naturally, products will start disappearing at an accelerated rate. (Source: Saudi Aramco LPG prices per metric tonne)

The prices should move up and there is no doubt it would burden people with an increasing cost of living. But having long lines and making people inconvenienced during a global pandemic would cause more harm than a rise in the cost of living. As a result, the Government has finally decided to let the prices go up by Rs. 386 for the private sector player, but the actual value will be determined by the market.

Markets work whether we like it or not. Thinking that we can oversmart markets by price controls and regulations is no different to a man who tries to avoid gravity without realising the entire concept in the first place.

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.

Living the same economic year 73 times

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Both the Government and the Opposition are in agreement that Sri Lanka’s ailing economy is at peril. A few weeks ago, the Minister of Energy admitted that buying fuel has become a challenging task with import payments only being settled after nine months. These same sentiments were echoed by the former Prime Minister when he was recently sworn in as a Member of Parliament. However, the diagnosis of the problem at hand and building an action plan to address it is continuing at a snail’s pace.

The problem has reached a level where letters of credit (LCs) are opened on a rationed basis and some importers have claimed that private banks do not facilitate foreign currency for their imports. On the other hand, forex dealers have been barred from quoting above Rs. 200 for the dollar.

This will simply create more forex shortages as people who have USD now would not sell it to the Government as it does not reflect the market value. Instead, people may consider parking money outside or keep it in USD terms considering the devaluation of the Sri Lankan rupee in real terms. Owing to the Central Bank regulation, even though the USD rate is less than Rs. 200, in the open market the rates are much higher.

Shortages in foreign exchange is not a recent phenomenon. The Minister of Trade mentioned at Parliament that the current foreign exchange crisis is the worst ever in history. However, our solution for the problem so far has been “not proposing any solution”.

We are doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If we rewind back to 16 June 2020, the President criticised the Central Bank for not extending their support and not utilising the tools to revive the economy.

In February this year, the State Minister of Finance mentioned that the fears of debt sustainability have no grounds as we expect $ 32 billion of inflows and total International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs). He went on to say that the country’s outstanding debt is only about 16% and annual debt servicing of $ 4 billion is manageable compared to $ 32 billion of inflows.

Depending on the same figures, the President in November last year assured debt sustainability after a credit rating downgrade by Fitch.

However, the forex crisis pops up again and the frequency of the problem is getting higher. Earlier imports were controlled and then exporters were requested to convert 25% of their earnings on an immediate basis. However, regardless of strict measures and stringent regulations being imposed, the results have been the same or are getting worse.

Now even the members of the ruling party have started to admit the forex challenge at hand.

Earlier, the Leader of the House said answering a question posted by a journalist that the Government has enough money to take up mega development projects. However, last week, the Minister of Trade and the Minister of Energy were open about how difficult the situation is.

It is an indication that things are getting challenging. On the flip side, it’s a positive indication. At least, everyone is getting to realise the gravity of the problem in the first place. Until recently, there was denial of the fact that there is even a crisis to begin with. A Citi Bank report in December last year was titled “Denial is not a strategy”. This shows that even our international stakeholders were aware that we as a country have been denying the problem rather than providing a solution.

According to the current Government, the previous Government is mainly responsible for the economic crisis at hand as growth numbers were low and the debt numbers were high at the point of the transition. According to the main Opposition, this Government’s tax cut programme introduced in December 2019 and poor Covid management are the main reasons for where we are now. In politics that is how things are. It is always someone else that is responsible for the problem.

The common belief is that bad politics is leading to bad economics as the politicians lack understanding of economic policy and the inherent corruption. While there is some truth to it, often bad economics leads to bad politics.

It is unavoidable that bad economics fuel political storms. If we look at the defeat of the previous Government, it was too led by bad economics. Policies by the two Heads of State were in two different directions. The very first interim budget was stretching the government balance sheet beyond our capacity with massive pay increases for government employees. A proper economic plan was absent and by the time the V2025 policy formulation was done which was poorly implemented, it was too late to come back to a growth trajectory. The Cabinet Committee on Economic Management (CCEM) was dissolved and a National Economic Council (NEC) was appointed and later even the NEC was dissolved. The same policy contradiction on the top led to a constitutional crisis and a vacuum in national security ended up in a terrorist attack that could have been prevented. The Easter attacks were a big negative shock to our entire economy.

As a result of this sequence of events, the then ruling party, United National Party (UNP), was divided into two and the then Prime Minister had to experience a historic defeat in the last general election, which was just 10 months ago with a roaring two-thirds majority for the current ruling party.

It seems back-to-back economic decisions by the current administration are repeating the same mistake of the previous administration and another political crisis spiral is brewing.

Growing import bans, not implementing a proper economic reform agenda, and inward-looking policies of self-sufficiency combined with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has created instability in the entire financial system leading to a historic balance of payment crisis. Politically, it has opened a window for the same Prime Minister who was defeated just 10 months ago and has challenged the Government on economic and Covid management. So we are back again on the vicious cycle of bad economics leading to bad politics. The irony is that bad economics not only leads to bad politics but also has a serious negative effect on the quality of life and poverty of all Sri Lankans. Unfortunately, we as a nation have become victims of this vicious cycle. Robin Sharma popularly said: “Don’t spend the same year 75 times and call it a life.” There is no doubt that here in Sri Lanka, we have been doing exactly that for the past 73 years since Independence.

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.

Rich man plays, poor man pays

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

How we end up footing the bill for Government price controls

Purchasing alcohol was an expensive endeavour back in college. I remember the total alcohol bill being shared equally amongst those who drink and those who don’t. Sri Lanka’s fuel pricing mechanism is quite similar to this. The subsidised prices are a blessing for direct users of fuel who can afford it. The majority, who are secondary users, end up paying for the subsidy indirectly. Sri Lanka’s fuel problem is quite complex. If we are to overcome this issue it is vital that policymakers understand the concept of “markets” and “prices”. 

It is important that Sri Lanka integrates with global markets and continues to allow fuel imports. This costs the Government approximately about $ 3.5 billion per annum. Global fuel prices fluctuate based on market conditions, and it is crucial to understand why prices fluctuate and the indicators of these fluctuations. Some oil deposits in the world are located such that their extraction process is relatively easy and less costly. Some others are very costly to extract. The Middle East and the OPEC (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) are reputed for their oil reserves, whereas the extraction of oil is comparatively more costly in areas like Alberta, Canada. Global oil prices are determined based on this ability of countries to supply to the global market. Political, economic, and climatic developments, and changes in these countries have a direct impact on global oil prices.

So what does the “price” increase communicate? It communicates to the consumer the scarcity of that particular resource within the particular time frame. So increases in global oil “prices” is an indication to consumers that fuel is becoming a scarce resource, and we have to use it optimally. It is also an indication to producers that they can earn more by producing more. This narrows down to the basics of supply and demand. Price is an indicator of scarcity. The “market economy” is not complicated, it is merely allowing the “price system” to work. This allows prices to indicate what should be done. Price is not just a number or a sum a consumer pays. Final retail prices are an accumulation of labour costs, material costs, scarcity, externalities, and factors of production. This is fundamentally why we must not intervene in the market price mechanism.

Sri Lanka has always ignored market principles. The island nation has been trying to artificially keep fuel prices constant despite the continuous fluctuations of global prices. We have failed to understand that such fabricated interventions to either inflate or deflate prices will only result in ceasing to keep up with global indications on whether the resource is scarce or not.

Sri Lanka’s fiscal discipline and stability has always been connected to fuel and the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC). As a result of fuel price changes, there are significant knock-on effects on all utilities, including electricity and water. CPC provides fuel at a lower price to the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), which is one of the main sources for electricity generation. As a result, the pricing of electricity is also now not indicative of scarcity. The CPC, which buys fuel at higher prices and sells it lower, now owes significant debts to most of the state banks. 

The debt incurred is in US dollar terms. A delay in payment or a default may adversely affect the entire financial system. The heavy impact this would have on the banking sector will consequently impact the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL). It is no secret that the CBSL bails out the CPC and CEB through Treasury Bills, or by printing money. Therefore it is clear that by intervening, we have successfully exposed the entire financial system to deep peril.

The current Minister of Energy said the banks have informed the  CPC Chairman that they do not have foreign currency to pay for fuel imports. This was informed to the Secretary of the Treasury, who then summoned all the heads of banks, who collectively assured the payments for fuel imports. He further stated that the CBSL said it cannot offer any reserves, given the country’s economic woes. It is perplexing to say that the problem is really this severe. It is clear that intervention in the price system has caused a massive domino effect beyond comprehension. 

According to a World Bank report, the biggest beneficiary of subsidised fuel prices are the highest echelons of society. “The non-poor are the largest consumers of fuel and electricity (the top 30% of society consumes 70% of fuel. This is well ahead of direct and indirect consumption of fuel by the bottom 40% through public transport). The administered fuel prices are an effective subsidy to the non-poor funded indirectly by fiscal resources,” stated the World Bank in its Development Update for Sri Lanka in November 2017.

I see no difference in this fuel pricing phenomenon and how the final alcohol bill was shared amongst those who drink and those who don’t in my college days. The poor are bearing the burden of fuel subsidies so the rich can buy fuel for much cheaper. The weighed-down poor only consume fuel in the form of transport, electricity, and other secondary forms. We have to understand that the losses of the CPC have to be paid by someone. Currently, that someone is constituted by both the rich and the poor. 

One important aspect is that the Government also collects revenue through the consumption of fuel. Changes made to the duty waiver have caused enormous losses to the Government. Giving cash subsidies to the poorest section of society could have been a much better strategy than tampering with duty waivers and underpricing fuel, ignoring market signals.

According to the calculations shown in Figure 1, the recent price changes do not reflect market prices of diesel, as illustrated in Figure 2.

What is the solution?

The first solution lies in addressing the problem. As of now, Sri Lanka’s fuel prices fail to indicate scarcity, hampering the independent function of market prices. One way of doing this is by setting up a transparent mechanism and changing the prices to reflect market prices. It may be a price formula or a process where transparency is assured. 

Such a step will incentivise better resource allocation. Consumers will be able to shift between alternative choices and manage their decisions based on price signals. The previous administration introduced a pricing formula that was very poorly administered. The method of calculation was not properly communicated. 

I recall a time when elections were approaching, with a simultaneous spike in global oil prices underway. However, Sri Lanka’s oil prices remained the same. The same was seen when global prices reduced during the first lockdown, and the local consumer was deprived of the deflation. 

One common misperception on this strategy was voiced politically as: “Why do we need a Government if the prices are going to change according to the world market prices?” Simply because we are now experiencing the consequences of such control by the Government. As The Morning reported, the fuel fund has a negative Rs. 26 billion and there are many discrepancies over the numbers in numerous reports. 

Another common misperception is that based on the price changes of fuel, we are going to allow bus fares and other connected prices to change daily. It may be daily changes or it can be changes over a month or a quarter, and there are so many ways we can structure it based on market forces. We have all forgotten that we deal with so many daily price fluctuations. Vegetable prices, Gold prices, stock market prices, and even the prices we pay as interest for Treasury Bills and Bonds change everyday. Price changes for a reason: they communicate the market conditions, which is the ultimate objective of “price”, and allowing the markets to work. 

It is true that this price hike has an impact on the poor. The Government can consider direct cash transfers. The cost of cash transfers will be lower than the losses we collectively incur from the CPC, CEB, and other fuel-dependent state institutions. The current price hike is just another temporary solution; it does not fix the problem. 

Increasing the share collected by everyone at my university party does not change the unfair division of the cost. Likewise, a price increase without setting up a market system and price signals to operate won’t solve Sri Lanka’s fuel and economic crisis.Purchasing alcohol was an expensive endeavour back in college. I remember the total alcohol bill being shared equally amongst those who drink and those who don’t. Sri Lanka’s fuel pricing mechanism is quite similar to this. The subsidised prices are a blessing for direct users of fuel who can afford it. The majority, who are secondary users, end up paying for the subsidy indirectly. Sri Lanka’s fuel problem is quite complex. If we are to overcome this issue it is vital that policymakers understand the concept of “markets” and “prices”. 

It is important that Sri Lanka integrates with global markets and continues to allow fuel imports. This costs the Government approximately about $ 3.5 billion per annum. Global fuel prices fluctuate based on market conditions, and it is crucial to understand why prices fluctuate and the indicators of these fluctuations. Some oil deposits in the world are located such that their extraction process is relatively easy and less costly. Some others are very costly to extract. The Middle East and the OPEC (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) are reputed for their oil reserves, whereas the extraction of oil is comparatively more costly in areas like Alberta, Canada. Global oil prices are determined based on this ability of countries to supply to the global market. Political, economic, and climatic developments, and changes in these countries have a direct impact on global oil prices.

So what does the “price” increase communicate? It communicates to the consumer the scarcity of that particular resource within the particular time frame. So increases in global oil “prices” is an indication to consumers that fuel is becoming a scarce resource, and we have to use it optimally. It is also an indication to producers that they can earn more by producing more. This narrows down to the basics of supply and demand. Price is an indicator of scarcity. The “market economy” is not complicated, it is merely allowing the “price system” to work. This allows prices to indicate what should be done. Price is not just a number or a sum a consumer pays. Final retail prices are an accumulation of labour costs, material costs, scarcity, externalities, and factors of production. This is fundamentally why we must not intervene in the market price mechanism.

Sri Lanka has always ignored market principles. The island nation has been trying to artificially keep fuel prices constant despite the continuous fluctuations of global prices. We have failed to understand that such fabricated interventions to either inflate or deflate prices will only result in ceasing to keep up with global indications on whether the resource is scarce or not.

Sri Lanka’s fiscal discipline and stability has always been connected to fuel and the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC). As a result of fuel price changes, there are significant knock-on effects on all utilities, including electricity and water. CPC provides fuel at a lower price to the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), which is one of the main sources for electricity generation. As a result, the pricing of electricity is also now not indicative of scarcity. The CPC, which buys fuel at higher prices and sells it lower, now owes significant debts to most of the state banks. 

The debt incurred is in US dollar terms. A delay in payment or a default may adversely affect the entire financial system. The heavy impact this would have on the banking sector will consequently impact the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL). It is no secret that the CBSL bails out the CPC and CEB through Treasury Bills, or by printing money. Therefore it is clear that by intervening, we have successfully exposed the entire financial system to deep peril.

The current Minister of Energy said the banks have informed the  CPC Chairman that they do not have foreign currency to pay for fuel imports. This was informed to the Secretary of the Treasury, who then summoned all the heads of banks, who collectively assured the payments for fuel imports. He further stated that the CBSL said it cannot offer any reserves, given the country’s economic woes. It is perplexing to say that the problem is really this severe. It is clear that intervention in the price system has caused a massive domino effect beyond comprehension. 

According to a World Bank report, the biggest beneficiary of subsidised fuel prices are the highest echelons of society. “The non-poor are the largest consumers of fuel and electricity (the top 30% of society consumes 70% of fuel. This is well ahead of direct and indirect consumption of fuel by the bottom 40% through public transport). The administered fuel prices are an effective subsidy to the non-poor funded indirectly by fiscal resources,” stated the World Bank in its Development Update for Sri Lanka in November 2017.

I see no difference in this fuel pricing phenomenon and how the final alcohol bill was shared amongst those who drink and those who don’t in my college days. The poor are bearing the burden of fuel subsidies so the rich can buy fuel for much cheaper. The weighed-down poor only consume fuel in the form of transport, electricity, and other secondary forms. We have to understand that the losses of the CPC have to be paid by someone. Currently, that someone is constituted by both the rich and the poor. 

One important aspect is that the Government also collects revenue through the consumption of fuel. Changes made to the duty waiver have caused enormous losses to the Government. Giving cash subsidies to the poorest section of society could have been a much better strategy than tampering with duty waivers and underpricing fuel, ignoring market signals.

According to the calculations shown in Figure 1, the recent price changes do not reflect market prices of diesel, as illustrated in Figure 2.

What is the solution?

The first solution lies in addressing the problem. As of now, Sri Lanka’s fuel prices fail to indicate scarcity, hampering the independent function of market prices. One way of doing this is by setting up a transparent mechanism and changing the prices to reflect market prices. It may be a price formula or a process where transparency is assured. 

Such a step will incentivise better resource allocation. Consumers will be able to shift between alternative choices and manage their decisions based on price signals. The previous administration introduced a pricing formula that was very poorly administered. The method of calculation was not properly communicated. 

I recall a time when elections were approaching, with a simultaneous spike in global oil prices underway. However, Sri Lanka’s oil prices remained the same. The same was seen when global prices reduced during the first lockdown, and the local consumer was deprived of the deflation. 

One common misperception on this strategy was voiced politically as: “Why do we need a Government if the prices are going to change according to the world market prices?” Simply because we are now experiencing the consequences of such control by the Government. As The Morning reported, the fuel fund has a negative Rs. 26 billion and there are many discrepancies over the numbers in numerous reports. 

Another common misperception is that based on the price changes of fuel, we are going to allow bus fares and other connected prices to change daily. It may be daily changes or it can be changes over a month or a quarter, and there are so many ways we can structure it based on market forces. We have all forgotten that we deal with so many daily price fluctuations. Vegetable prices, Gold prices, stock market prices, and even the prices we pay as interest for Treasury Bills and Bonds change everyday. Price changes for a reason: they communicate the market conditions, which is the ultimate objective of “price”, and allowing the markets to work. 

It is true that this price hike has an impact on the poor. The Government can consider direct cash transfers. The cost of cash transfers will be lower than the losses we collectively incur from the CPC, CEB, and other fuel-dependent state institutions. The current price hike is just another temporary solution; it does not fix the problem. 

Increasing the share collected by everyone at my university party does not change the unfair division of the cost. Likewise, a price increase without setting up a market system and price signals to operate won’t solve Sri Lanka’s fuel and economic crisis.Purchasing alcohol was an expensive endeavour back in college. I remember the total alcohol bill being shared equally amongst those who drink and those who don’t. Sri Lanka’s fuel pricing mechanism is quite similar to this. The subsidised prices are a blessing for direct users of fuel who can afford it. The majority, who are secondary users, end up paying for the subsidy indirectly. Sri Lanka’s fuel problem is quite complex. If we are to overcome this issue it is vital that policymakers understand the concept of “markets” and “prices”. 

It is important that Sri Lanka integrates with global markets and continues to allow fuel imports. This costs the Government approximately about $ 3.5 billion per annum. Global fuel prices fluctuate based on market conditions, and it is crucial to understand why prices fluctuate and the indicators of these fluctuations. Some oil deposits in the world are located such that their extraction process is relatively easy and less costly. Some others are very costly to extract. The Middle East and the OPEC (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) are reputed for their oil reserves, whereas the extraction of oil is comparatively more costly in areas like Alberta, Canada. Global oil prices are determined based on this ability of countries to supply to the global market. Political, economic, and climatic developments, and changes in these countries have a direct impact on global oil prices.

So what does the “price” increase communicate? It communicates to the consumer the scarcity of that particular resource within the particular time frame. So increases in global oil “prices” is an indication to consumers that fuel is becoming a scarce resource, and we have to use it optimally. It is also an indication to producers that they can earn more by producing more. This narrows down to the basics of supply and demand. Price is an indicator of scarcity. The “market economy” is not complicated, it is merely allowing the “price system” to work. This allows prices to indicate what should be done. Price is not just a number or a sum a consumer pays. Final retail prices are an accumulation of labour costs, material costs, scarcity, externalities, and factors of production. This is fundamentally why we must not intervene in the market price mechanism.

Sri Lanka has always ignored market principles. The island nation has been trying to artificially keep fuel prices constant despite the continuous fluctuations of global prices. We have failed to understand that such fabricated interventions to either inflate or deflate prices will only result in ceasing to keep up with global indications on whether the resource is scarce or not.

Sri Lanka’s fiscal discipline and stability has always been connected to fuel and the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC). As a result of fuel price changes, there are significant knock-on effects on all utilities, including electricity and water. CPC provides fuel at a lower price to the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB), which is one of the main sources for electricity generation. As a result, the pricing of electricity is also now not indicative of scarcity. The CPC, which buys fuel at higher prices and sells it lower, now owes significant debts to most of the state banks. 

The debt incurred is in US dollar terms. A delay in payment or a default may adversely affect the entire financial system. The heavy impact this would have on the banking sector will consequently impact the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL). It is no secret that the CBSL bails out the CPC and CEB through Treasury Bills, or by printing money. Therefore it is clear that by intervening, we have successfully exposed the entire financial system to deep peril.

The current Minister of Energy said the banks have informed the  CPC Chairman that they do not have foreign currency to pay for fuel imports. This was informed to the Secretary of the Treasury, who then summoned all the heads of banks, who collectively assured the payments for fuel imports. He further stated that the CBSL said it cannot offer any reserves, given the country’s economic woes. It is perplexing to say that the problem is really this severe. It is clear that intervention in the price system has caused a massive domino effect beyond comprehension. 

According to a World Bank report, the biggest beneficiary of subsidised fuel prices are the highest echelons of society. “The non-poor are the largest consumers of fuel and electricity (the top 30% of society consumes 70% of fuel. This is well ahead of direct and indirect consumption of fuel by the bottom 40% through public transport). The administered fuel prices are an effective subsidy to the non-poor funded indirectly by fiscal resources,” stated the World Bank in its Development Update for Sri Lanka in November 2017.

I see no difference in this fuel pricing phenomenon and how the final alcohol bill was shared amongst those who drink and those who don’t in my college days. The poor are bearing the burden of fuel subsidies so the rich can buy fuel for much cheaper. The weighed-down poor only consume fuel in the form of transport, electricity, and other secondary forms. We have to understand that the losses of the CPC have to be paid by someone. Currently, that someone is constituted by both the rich and the poor. 

One important aspect is that the Government also collects revenue through the consumption of fuel. Changes made to the duty waiver have caused enormous losses to the Government. Giving cash subsidies to the poorest section of society could have been a much better strategy than tampering with duty waivers and underpricing fuel, ignoring market signals.

According to the calculations shown in Figure 1, the recent price changes do not reflect market prices of diesel, as illustrated in Figure 2.

What is the solution?

The first solution lies in addressing the problem. As of now, Sri Lanka’s fuel prices fail to indicate scarcity, hampering the independent function of market prices. One way of doing this is by setting up a transparent mechanism and changing the prices to reflect market prices. It may be a price formula or a process where transparency is assured. 

Such a step will incentivise better resource allocation. Consumers will be able to shift between alternative choices and manage their decisions based on price signals. The previous administration introduced a pricing formula that was very poorly administered. The method of calculation was not properly communicated. 

I recall a time when elections were approaching, with a simultaneous spike in global oil prices underway. However, Sri Lanka’s oil prices remained the same. The same was seen when global prices reduced during the first lockdown, and the local consumer was deprived of the deflation. 

One common misperception on this strategy was voiced politically as: “Why do we need a Government if the prices are going to change according to the world market prices?” Simply because we are now experiencing the consequences of such control by the Government. As The Morning reported, the fuel fund has a negative Rs. 26 billion and there are many discrepancies over the numbers in numerous reports. 

Another common misperception is that based on the price changes of fuel, we are going to allow bus fares and other connected prices to change daily. It may be daily changes or it can be changes over a month or a quarter, and there are so many ways we can structure it based on market forces. We have all forgotten that we deal with so many daily price fluctuations. Vegetable prices, Gold prices, stock market prices, and even the prices we pay as interest for Treasury Bills and Bonds change everyday. Price changes for a reason: they communicate the market conditions, which is the ultimate objective of “price”, and allowing the markets to work. 

It is true that this price hike has an impact on the poor. The Government can consider direct cash transfers. The cost of cash transfers will be lower than the losses we collectively incur from the CPC, CEB, and other fuel-dependent state institutions. The current price hike is just another temporary solution; it does not fix the problem. 

Increasing the share collected by everyone at my university party does not change the unfair division of the cost. Likewise, a price increase without setting up a market system and price signals to operate won’t solve Sri Lanka’s fuel and economic crisis.

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.

Price controls don’t work and I told you so

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

Originally appeared on The Morning

---

By Dhananath Fernando

A story my biology teacher taught me when I was a schoolboy is even in the present day a formidable anecdote in the grey area of public policy and economic management. Once upon a time, deer and lions were living in the same forest. The then king was very fond of deer and felt that deer are treated unfairly as they often become prey to a marauding pride of merciless lions. The king ordered his guards to destroy all lions in the jungle. After a few months, the deer population grew rapidly and the king was very happy. A few more months later, the deer population grew exponentially and the food sources in the forest were not adequate for their consumption and they, in desperation, resorted to eating the barks of trees. This resulted in the death of the forest, which ultimately extended to the deer. Soon, there were neither deer nor a forest. The entire ecosystem had collapsed because of one single intervention. 

The public and economic policy have similar dimensions and that is why we should not intervene in markets but allow free exchange, as there could be a chain of unintended consequences, even though the initial intention was good. In the current global economic landscape interdependencies of two or more cogs in the global market make the wheel turn, and the time it takes from action to reaction could be a mere few seconds or just days. A good recent example is the price controls imposed by the Government on tinned fish and dhal which were revoked recently. The Government’s decision to revoke the price controls is commendable, but the damage to the market is done, at least for the moment. 

Markets are not limited to the supply and demand of goods and services so they have a mechanism to reach an optimal price and quality. It’s more than that. It is important that market sentiments are kept consistent so as to ensure the key wheels of the economy – investors, buyers, and sellers – keep turning as efficiently as possible. If this takes place, consumers, that is you and I, get the best products and services at the best price, without being prey to black-market racketeers. 

The domino effect

The Advocata Institute, and this column, highlighted why price controls are impractical and how they lead to the creation of black markets and shortages of food for people. Sri Lanka imports 90% of its tinned fish and has a 35% tariff on imported tinned fish. When the marked/market price is Rs. 225, but the legally allowed selling price is only Rs. 100, the obvious reaction of importers would be to stop importing tinned fish. It’s not the prerogative of a business to knowingly sell at a loss, regulated or not. 

Price controls during a pandemic like Covid-19 look insignificant, but it is not. The stories of the adverse effects of price controls haven’t been spoken about and the connection in this hullabaloo is not visible. It has had the most impact on the poor and vulnerable community in society who do not have a voice. Tinned fish was probably their most affordable source of protein, but instead had to shift to more expensive sources which is beyond their affordability, and in most cases, I’m sure that they stayed with empty bellies due to the unavailability of affordable and nutritious food.  

This has also resulted in the President having to sacrifice his political capital as a significant priority was given to price controls during his address to the nation, and now the decision has been revoked. Price controls in Sri Lanka are not a new phenomenon. Every government has imposed price controls and these have constantly and comprehensively failed, but are continually included in the political theatre to mislead the taxpayer. It is unfortunate that the taxpayers too continue to swallow the same trick, regardless of their past experiences. 

Price controls are not limited to tinned fish and dhal. There are price controls still in place for essential goods such as rice, milk powder, turmeric powder, big onions, and maize. The results from this will not be different from what we experienced with tinned fish and dhal. Not only food essentials, but LP gas and cement also have price controls. In the leisure sector, hotels have a minimum room rate. Our petroleum products (diesel, petrol, and kerosene for example) and bus fares have price controls.   

Price controls, more so than regulation and lack of competitiveness, are sure ways of stagnating any market or industry. Without going into detail, if you observe sectors like public transport, it is evident how the combination of price controls, lack of competitiveness, and overregulation has led to a terrible public service for the taxpayers.

Backward Sri Lanka

Although the world has moved from travelling from Earth to space over the last five decades, the brand of the buses, train compartments, and their service condition have remained the same during the same period in Sri Lanka. The reason is simple. Trains are a complete government monopoly and there is no competitiveness at all; no one can enter that market. As a result, the trains are late, always on strike, and overcrowded. The route permit for a bus is more expensive than the bus itself for most of the routes and is heavily politicised. 

Market entry is extremely difficult and prices are controlled. As a result, buses are always slow with very poor safety precautions. Passenger service is unimaginably terrible as a result of the absence of choice for people to shift to alternatives. Simply, bus owners have no incentive to provide a better service. Making things worse, private vehicular traffic to the city is increasing alarmingly, combusting more hydrocarbons and impacting the environment. As a side effect, we spend billions of dollars on importing fuel to burn on bumper-to-bumper traffic. This is just a single example of the disastrous combination of price controls, lack of competitiveness, and overregulation. 

The other two main macro decisions by the Government this column has highlighted are most likely to cause further unintended consequences with the gradual opening up of the Western Province from tomorrow (11) onwards.

1. Imposing import controls will have an impact on local industries and employment, along with shortages of essential items for consumption, and cause supply-side shocks and create inflation. 

2. Money creation (quantitative easing or money printing) will further depreciate our currency in the long run and create an artificial demand for imports. Already our rating has been downgraded by Fitch.  

Enhance competition

We need to realise that not making a bad decision is equal to making a good decision. Rather than controlling prices, we need to enhance competition with the gradual opening up of the economy, and not waste time during this crisis, without easing regulatory barriers such as price controls and opening up for regulation that is both consistent and transparent. Institutes like the Consumer Affairs Authority’s mandate need to be revisited and they should lead the promotion of competition instead of becoming the neighbourhood cop for price controls. 

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.

Price controls no solution to rice crisis

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

Originally appeared on The Morning

---

By Dhananath Fernando

Rice farmers and the price of their rice have always been a political football. For a long time, our politicians and policymakers sold their grief, tears, fertiliser subsidies, and debt-ridden suicides for votes. Government intervention, without first identifying the unique complications of the rice market, has made the rice farmer poorer for decades. Because of such reasons, people engaged in farming have not been able to move out of the low-income rut and better their lives as long as they remain within the farming industry.

Simply put, have you ever heard of a rice farmer who managed to escape these issues and thrive within the last 20 years? The solutions that successive governments have provided for farmers over the years have been very shallow, and their intention to control the market appears to have gradually ruined it.

Here are a few of the solutions promised and provided by consecutive governments:

• Imposing price controls on retail prices of rice

• Pointing fingers at rice millers and all intermediates for imposing massive mark-ups

• Promising fertiliser subsidies or just free fertiliser

• Absorbing farmers’ debt through taxpayers’ money

• Providing a certified farm gate price for farmers and government buying paddy

• Building and implementing irrigation projects with taxpayers’ money

None of the solutions above really fit the nature or shape of the problem. While all these solutions have aspects that are attractive to the Government, imposing price controls on retail prices has been the most popular strategy by far. Conducting raids under the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) and filing cases against retailers who sell above the government-set price has also been a prevalent practice. Consecutive governments tend to drift towards imposing price controls as it can be easily enacted, even overnight, and can be marketed to consumers and voter bases as a tool that lowers prices. However, the reality is that price controls do almost nothing to bring prices down while ignoring a multitude of deeper problems that lie below the surface.

From the farmers’ point of view, the primary issue is the absence of an incentive to increase their crop. If the crop is increased, the price of rice in the market would come down, bringing them low incomes as supply grows; if the crop is low, the prices will go up, but due to price controls and low volumes, their income will still be meagre. These issues are exacerbated as any surplus production cannot be exported or turned into a value addition. Therefore, whether the crop is good or bad, the farmer is perpetually perched on the losing end. During bad crop seasons, the inclement climate, water supply issues, and fertiliser issues come into the limelight. Farmers often complain about the low prices offered by the mills during good crop seasons due to these larger problems.

The consumption of rice amongst Sri Lankans is approximately 108 kg per person every year, which is two times the global average rice consumption of 54 kg. However, our rice consumption has been stagnant over the years, which means that people have not been increasing their rice consumption and the population growth margin is the only way to increase aggregate consumption.

Although most Sri Lankans use rice as their main source of carbohydrates, if the rice crop is increased, the local market would be unable to absorb any excess supply, resulting in prices dropping very low in the market and making life more difficult for farmers. A potential solution for excess rice production is the use of rice as an industrial input, such as in the production of rice wine, but this would require industrial co-operation.

The only other option left would be to export rice, but the short-grain varieties that we cultivate locally have very little demand in the world market as demand is currently directed towards long-grain Thai rice varieties.

Additionally, our farming methods are those learnt and exchanged among peers and families such that most of the techniques utilised are extremely outdated and inefficient. In order to increase the crop, farmers continuously engage in the overuse of weedicides and fertiliser. Although it appears like the correct strategy to most farmers, this causes the total expenses of farming to shoot up, often leaving individuals trapped in debt. Sri Lanka has constantly bragged about our rice cultivation over a few millennia, but the harsh reality is that we use unsystematic and wasteful methods to produce an incredibly basic form of rice that accrues very little demand.

Furthermore, we contribute very little value addition to the original product and squander land and water, our most precious resources, in the process. Recent research has revealed that 1 kg of rice requires about 2,500 litres of water to be produced, but half of this is lost through seepage and percolation. As a result, only about 1,400 litres of water is actually used to produce 1 kg of rice. Even if we factor in a low cost of five cents per litre of water, producing 1 kg of rice appears no longer economically viable. All stakeholders seem to be working at multiple levels to increase productivity through regulations brought in with good intentions. However, these regulations have ended in disastrous consequences (Sri Lanka is at the 93rd position in rice productivity out of 119. Nepal is 67th and Thailand, 68th).

Another primary issue is that farmers have not been given the titles to the lands they cultivate in. This essentially means they do not have ownership rights over the land, blocking them from investing in establishing greenhouses, climate-resistant cultivation methods, or other innovative establishments within the space.

Many paddy lands have already been abandoned as farmers realise that it doesn’t make financial sense to cultivate rice anymore, and the labour market offers better options – especially for the youth. The downside of this trajectory is that it leaves land that could have been transformed into a useful income generator completely forsaken.

Simply imposing price controls and ordering the CAA to carry out raids and fine retailers is not the right approach for this complicated problem. In fact, price controls only bring further market distortion instead of taking prices down. Price is meant to function like a thermometer in a market, measuring the temperature of demand and supply to provide an accurate rate. If your child has an infection, as a result of his or her immune system, the temperature will rise. Instead of treating the infection, what would happen if you manipulated the thermometer, reset it at normal body temperature, and attempted to convince yourself and others that your kid has magically recovered?

Artificially controlling the price is the same as manipulating the thermometer – it perverts and misrepresents the market while failing to address the problem at its root.

Price controls also create black markets and increase corruption. More rice may be stocked in stores in order to bribe and create a black market for rice. Another possibility is the release of inferior quality products into the market as producers attempt to lower their costs to match the regulated price. In certain cases, the product may go completely off the shelf as no retailer wants to sell it at a loss. The best way to get an estimation of the myth of price controls is to compare controlled prices on the CAA website and the Department of Census and Statistics’ weekly prices.

In conclusion, the idea that price controls imposed by the Government will benefit the farmer is nothing but a myth to please the crowd within our political theatre. However, in managing this political theatre, it is important to remember that behind the curtain, these policies are far from the solutions we need, and they will have dire consequences that affect many connected industries and consumers into the foreseeable future.

---

Ceiling price to floor bottled water industry

Originally appeared on Daily FT

By Joshua Karpinski

The recently instilled price control on bottled water seems like a positive for all consumers. How can a lower priced good hurt society? A recent report by the Advocata Institute “Price Controls in Sri Lanka” finds that price controls are of limited value in reducing costs. The report claims that price controls can cause significant welfare losses, deterioration in product quality, reduction in investment and, in the long run, higher prices. Hence, one must approach production and economic fundamentals to observe a price controls’ potentially detrimental outcomes.

As per the extraordinary gazette notification released by the government on the 5th of October 2018, the maximum retail prices of bottled water are as follows:

As shown (table), the new ceiling prices shave off a fair chunk of the bottled water seller’s margin (for instance, the cheapest common 500ml brand retailed at Rs. 45.00). This falling margin trickles down from the retailer/wholesaler to the distributor and eventually the producer (bottler). As with any economic activity, the goal is to generate profit. This aim remains with the producer to the retailer, and a ceiling price disrupts economic activity. We must observe how this industry operates.

The common water bottler sources his PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles from local plastic producers or importers. These bottles are a product of the petrochemical industry, a sector of rising cost due to increasing petroleum prices, internationally. Additionally, the ailing Sri Lankan Rupee has done no favours to importers.

The water is sourced from dug wells to springs and deep wells, and various brands treat the water using different techniques (like pricey reverse osmosis or cheaper chemical treatment). The water and the PET bottles need to abide by a predetermined SLS criteria and Health Ministry specifications. Additionally, they undergo licensing (with periodic renewals), site inspections, water and product testing and random checks (by the Consumer Affairs Authority).

The finished water bottles then make their way to wholesalers or retailers, to be purchased in large quantities (for events or corporates) or shelved at boutiques and supermarkets. This is done with the help of distributors, who range from large corporate in-house logistics departments, to the DIMO Batta owners outstation. This price control lowers the distributor’s margin, potentially removing the smaller distributors altogether.

The larger sellers, like Keells with “K Choice” water or Cargills’ “KIST Knuckles”, vertically integrate the entire process. It will no longer be in the interest of these supermarket oligopolies, to use up shelf space for rival brands (this is already apparent in some Keells outlets) and eventually the consumer suffers with few to no brand alternative. The price ceiling acts as a barrier to entry for new producers, as now they do not have the freedom to charge prices in line with economic forces. Existing producers may be forced out of the market or absorbed by larger entities. In economic terms, consumer choice falls.

A shift to aggressively cut costs could lead to lower quality plastic, (albeit still in line with health standards) being used and recycled. Furthermore, cheaper alternatives to water purification like chemical treatment will become the standard, despite poorer taste and lower healthy mineral content. A fall in research and development investment will lower innovation into current and future water products and services and this too will be at cost to the consumer.

Lower priced bottled water leads to higher demand and consumption. This does not bode well for the environment, owing to more plastic use and waste. Sri Lanka annually imports 9,600 tonnes of raw virgin plastic (PET) to manufacture bottles, packaging and for other requirements. 70% of this is processed and consumed as an end product in Sri Lanka and the used plastic waste creates monstrous environmental issues. Although recyclers are trying to address this issue, the price control in question could severely contribute to even greater plastic waste.

Tap water is the cheapest water option available. It usually goes through a process of basic filtration techniques like flocculation, which adds chemicals to the water to get particles to coagulate and float, so that they can be removed; sand filtration, which filters out large pieces of debris; or chlorination, which adds chlorine to kill bacteria and microorganisms. Despite tap water being considered drinkable (to some, purely out of convenience), it can lead to numerous problems. Chlorine is not ideal for human consumption (while our bodies can technically handle it, chlorine can lead to a variety of health complications and is potentially carcinogenic). The presence of microbes and impurities from pipes add health issues too. These risks have not gone unnoticed as we observe tourist forums and foreign travel bloggers strongly urging future visitors to avoid Sri Lankan tap water and to always opt for sealed bottled water. This leads on to the variety of bottled water available to consumers.

• Artesian Water: Water from a well that taps a confined aquifer (a water-bearing underground layer of rock or sand) in which the water level stands at some height above the top of the aquifer.

• Spring Water: Water derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface of the earth.

• Purified Water: Water that has been produced by distillation, deionization, reverse osmosis, or other suitable processes.

• Distilled Water: Water that has been vaporized into steam, then cooled to re-condense it back into water. The water's minerals are left behind, leaving only pure tasting steam-distilled water.

• Mineral Water: Water that contains no less than 250 parts per million (ppm) total dissolved solids (TDS).

It is evident that a variety of water sources can be tapped and different purification methods can be employed to produce consumable water. This “clean, drinkable water” is then bottled and intensely marketed across a spectrum of brands, along with their source and unique purification methodology.

Below, tabulated, is a collection of some local branded water. (Source: bottle label/bottler website)

These bottles contain drinking water that was sourced differently. It was then processed (filtered/purified) differently. The plastic it is contained in is not standardized (it just has to fulfil a minimum health and quality requirement). These aspects of a seemingly simple good exposes variety with differentiability, and this may sway demand for one brand over the other. This should influence price and create a variation of prices for different brands, at the stimulus of consumer choice.

However, in essence, this price control has homogenized a differentiable good. The consumer now pays one price across a range of bottled water.

The price ceiling, although seemingly to help us buy cheaper bottled water, could cycle back to hinder the bottled water industry from giving the end consumer the best possible product. Water is not a scarce good (yet) in Sri Lanka and there are plenty of existing alternatives to bottled water. Has the government truly taken this into consideration? How have the new prices been calculated? What research has been carried out? Has a cost benefit analysis been performed? If so, where is it? Where is the data? Despite multiple attempts to communicate with senior employees at the CAA, we failed to gather any meaningful answers, useful information nor a compliant contact. Why does the CAA pass the buck to its ministry who in turn has no one willing to answer these queries? Does society truly benefit from this seemingly positive, yet irrational gazette? Who really stands to benefit from this decision in the long run?

Game of charades: The lackadaisical implementation of price controls on basic foods

Originally appeared on Daily News

By Ravi Ratnasabapathy

The Government has imposed price controls on a number of basic foods in order to control the cost of living. For the purpose of study, we wanted to ascertain the products subject to controls, as well as the prices at which they were supposed to be sold.

A list of price controlled items is a straightforward piece of information that should be readily available to any consumer.

Unfortunately, this does not appear to be available anywhere. The website of the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) lists a few items; gas, cement, milk powder, chicken, rice, and pharmaceuticals. The other items were not listed.

The information on the CAA website is outdated (eg. A controlled price from 2014 is listed for chicken although chicken was removed from the list of controlled items in April 2017). On inquiring from the CAA over telephone, we were asked to refer to the website. A list was eventually compiled after a field visit to the CAA by extracting the relevant information from copies of the gazettes.

How are price controls to be enforced if a list of items subject to control is not readily available?

The proper approach would be to ensure that list of controlled prices is displayed at every outlet, so customers know if they are being overcharged and can then make their purchasing decisions accordingly.

Having compiled a list, we compared the controlled prices with the weekly market prices published by the Department of Census and Statistics in its survey of the main markets in the Colombo district in the period September 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018.

It is evident from the table we have collated that the controlled prices are not being followed in most instances.

The surveys of traders by Breakthrough indicate that 67% of retailers and 46% of wholesalers react to raids by the CAA by temporarily adjusting prices. They later revert to business as usual. Trying to enforce retail level price control across the informal trade and public markets is a practical impossibility. The CAA annual report (2014) states that 22,402 raids were carried out that year and 25,287 in 2013. This is small fraction of 205,573 retail outlets (general as well as those specialised in food, beverages and tobacco) in the country.

In any case if the controlled prices were strictly enforced, then the usual distortions such as shortages and queues would become obvious with unpalatable political consequences.

The CAA is successful in enforcing prices on items supplied by large businesses or corporates such as in cement or milk powder. Whether this actually keeps prices low is questionable.

Large businesses are relatively easy to monitor and they are open to pressure to supply even at a loss; on the implicit understanding that they will be allowed to recoup this at some point, as noted in the articles included in the appendices to this report. It is very clear that the only item consistently being sold at the controlled price is milk powder produced by a multinational. Wheat flour, which is also produced by large corporates tends to track the controlled price closely. The majority of the other items were being traded at prices above the controlled price.

During the period under survey, price controls were imposed on Nadu rice (December 26, 2017) coconuts (December 6) and revised on dhal and kata (December 6) with minimal impact on prices.

The impact of taxes on prices is particularly interesting. When some taxes were reduced in November 2017 (dhal, potatoes, Big onions), prices declined on these items over period of weeks, sometimes falling below the controlled price. When taxes were later raised (potatoes to Rs.30/kg on February 24, B onions to Rs.40 on May 2) prices rose again eventually breaching the controlled price. In the case of dhal prices eventually fell below the original controlled price (159/kg) following the reduction in tax – but prices did not respond significantly when the controlled prices was reduced to Rs.130 (December 6, 2017).

This underlines the case for reducing specific food taxes if there is any serious intention to control prices.

It is also worth noting the difference in prices between imported and local items, potatoes, and big onions. Locally produced items are not subject to tax or price control, but when available, these retail at prices higher than the controlled price and are sometimes higher than the (taxed) imported items.

Instead of attempting to protect agriculture through taxes (which raises prices for consumers) the government should facilitate the modernisation of the sector, supporting investments that improve productivity (eg. mechanisation, drip irrigation, greenhouses, quality seeds etc).

“Using controls to reduce prices does not appear to work.”

Addressing the inefficiencies within local agricultural is the sustainable way to lower prices: increased productivity raises farmer incomes and lower consumer prices in the long term.

The scheme itself is ill-conceived and there seems little intent or capacity to enforce. Reducing taxes, increasing competition and productivity in local agriculture is a surer path to lower consumer prices.

---

“Price Controls in Sri Lanka: Political Theatre”, a new report by the Advocata Institute finds that consumer price controls lead to unintended outcomes including lower quality.

To read more on Price Controls and download full report: www.research.advocata.org/pricecontrol

A video documentary: https://youtu.be/zG5hV94G7Qc

---

Floors and Ceilings: State Intervention in the Dairy Industry

Originally appeared on Echelon

By Ravi Ratnasabapathy

Milking the consumer

The dairy industry has been promoted by the government with the objective of achieving self-sufficiency in milk products. The objective appears to be a moving target, with the most recent year for achievement being set to 2020. Currently, local production meets less than 40% of the total domestic milk requirement.

In 2015, local milk production was 374 million litres, a 12.1% increase from the previous year. In comparison, imports of milk and milk products grew 21.5%. Growth in imports of milk powder outstripped growth in local production over seven of the last ten years. Unfortunately, policy towards the dairy industry is a confused tangle of taxes and controls designed to achieve contradictory objectives. A bulk of the consumption takes the form of milk powder, most of which is imported. Local milk is mainly used for value-added products, and only surpluses are converted to milk powder. The policy is complicated because there are two administered prices in the value chain – a maximum retail price on powdered milk and a guaranteed farm gate price for liquid milk. Influencing the value chain and adding complexity are taxes on imports of milk powder. Milk powder prices are politically sensitive.

Policy is primarily geared towards the goal of protecting consumers, and interventions are made from time to time to set maximum retail prices. Farm gate prices of milk are mandated to encourage local production, with the objective of achieving self-sufficiency. Farm gate prices of local milk tend to be high; the cost of production of MILCO being the key determinant of price.

According to the FAO:
“The farm gate milk price is largely determined by state-owned MILCO’s processing and marketing costs, both of which are reputed to be relatively high. The government uses the farm gate price as a political tool because it needs MILCO to cover its costs. The large private firms engaged in milk product manufacturing follow the purchasing prices offered by MILCO.”

Naturally, this increases the cost of the final domestic product. Between 2010 and 2016, farm gate prices doubled from Rs34 a litre to Rs70. International prices of powdered milk halved between 2014 and 2016, but Sri Lankan consumers did not benefit, as the controlled prices of imported powdered milk were only reduced by 16% from Rs386 to Rs325 for a 400g pack.

There is an inherent conflict between the maximum retail price, designed to protect the interests of consumers, and minimum farm gate prices, aimed at encouraging domestic production. The contradiction between a floor price on liquid milk and a price ceiling on powdered milk means that producers have an incentive to produce items not subject to price control such as liquid milk, flavoured milk, butter, cheese and yoghurt. However, as the input cost is high, they can only retail at high prices and are not competitive compared to imported products.

The government resolves this particular dilemma by imposing punitive taxes on imported dairy products: Rs880/kg on butter, Rs625/kg on yoghurt and around 140% on cheese. This raises the price of imports, enabling local producers to compete, but as this has the effect of raising overall prices it is detrimental to consumers.

In a further contradiction, the government also taxes the import of powdered milk, even while it imposes a maximum selling price. The tax is designed to earn revenue for the state. Importers of milk powder are squeezed between the tax (which raises costs) and the controlled price, which sets a ceiling at which the product retails. The taxes change, depending on world market prices. In the past, when world market prices dropped, tax rates were increased (while retail prices were unchanged) to earn revenue for the government. When world market prices increase, the importers lobby for revisions to the controlled price, and the government responds either by raising the controlled price, or if a price increase is deemed to be politically unfeasible, reducing the tax temporarily. After a recent reduction, the current tax (approximately 28% of the import price) is relatively low, but historically it was much higher: as much as Rs350/kg in 2014.

The ceiling on milk powder prices also creates problems for local liquid milk producers, as they are unable to convert any surplus liquid milk to powder at a profit. The local dairy industry focuses on value-added products due to better margins, but the market is too small to absorb the entirety of liquid milk produced. As excess milk cannot be stored for long in liquid form, it must either be converted to powder or disposed of. It appears that although high taxes on value-added products mean that local production is encouraged, the resulting high consumer prices restrict consumption growth. Whenever a surplus of liquid milk is collected, producers face the dilemma of either destroying it or converting it to powder, both options resulting in a loss.

The government is committed to raising domestic production and competitiveness, but structural impediments mean the cost of local production is high. Prof. Sivali Ranawana of the Faculty of Livestock, Fisheries and Nutrition of the Wayamba University has identified some of the reasons for the low productivity, including lack of quality pasture/forage, small farm holdings and the climate (which restricts the breeds that can be used).

The best livestock, pure European breeds, can only be maintained in the hill country, and even in that region, there is a lack of forage of adequate quality. The FAO note that: “Animals are mostly fed on natural grasses available in common lands, such as roadsides, railway banks, fallow paddy fields, tank beds and other vacant lots, all maintained under rain-fed conditions.”

Although the good breeds in the upcountry have the potential to yield 20 litres of milk per day, a level achieved on some intensive farms; the average yield, even in the best climatic conditions, is only half this level.

According to the last comprehensive survey (conducted in 2008/9) by the Department of Animal Production and Health, average daily milk yields per cow were 10 litres in Nuwara Eliya, 5 litres in Kandy and 3 litres in Matale. Overall Sri Lanka’s cows produce a woeful average of 2 litres of milk per day. Given the problems facing the domestic dairy industry, it is not surprising that the costs of production are high. Government intervention in the dairy market is a game of political theatre. Price ceilings on milk powder placate the public, even while the government contributes to raise costs by taxing the input. Minimum farm gate prices please the dairyman, but squeeze value-added producers who then need protection from imports. Consumers are the ultimate losers, facing limited choice and high prices.