Plans to impose a Rs 10,000 Minimum wage: Will it improve welfare?

By Ravi Ratnasabapathy 

The article originally appeared on Dailynews on 7 May 2015

It is reported that the Government intends to legislate a minimum monthly wage of Rs.10,000 with an increment of 25% to be imposed over the next year. An increment of Rs.1,500 is to be effective from May 1 2015, while the rest will be effected from May 1 2016.

The legislation is probably founded in good intent: improvement of the welfare of citizens. Improving the welfare of people should be one of the fundamental objectives of a Government and one that few, if any, would question.

In simple terms we may measure welfare as the standard of living or in economics, the amount of goods and services that a person can enjoy. To the average person it may appear obvious that there is a minimum that one needs to earn to pay for basic foodstuffs, rent, electricity and utility bills and other expenses to live as a human being.

The standard of living is dependent on two factors: the income of people and the cost of goods and services. If the cost of goods and services is low then people do not need a high income.

A price list from Ceylon Cold Stores dating from the 1950's or 1960's lists the price of an imported Australian chicken at Rs.3.10 per pound, haddock fillet from Scotland at Rs.3.00 per pound and ice cream at Rs.10.00 per gallon. The author recalls paying a rupee for bread and 15 cents for the bus fare to school. If costs had remained at those levels people could have lived comfortably on a few hundred rupees a month.

Therefore in striving to improve the welfare of people there are two approaches that may be taken: the increase of wages or the reduction in the cost of living. Moreover if the cost of living increases faster than wages, people will be worse off, even if wages keep rising.

Sri Lanka has a highly distorted tax structure with essential commodities and foodstuffs being taxed at high rates. The previous regime excelled at the art of taxation by stealth with “special commodity levies” being imposed on milk powder, dhal, canned fish, potatoes, onions, chillies and a host of other foodstuffs. Milk powder is taxed at Rs.135 per kg, dried fish at Rs. 102 per kg, butter at Rs.880 per kg, cooking oil at Rs.110 per litre.

This is quite apart from VAT and other levies that add a further 15%-16% to costs. The taxes form a significant part of the final price of the goods. The current regime has cut some of the taxes but there is much more that could be done.

The problem that the Government faces in cutting taxes is that they have no means of paying for the bloated public service. The Government spends 54% of the tax revenue just paying the salaries and pensions of public servants.

Due to high levels of debt, interest cost takes up a further 38% of tax revenue.There are also huge inefficiencies and waste in the public sector. Sri Lankan Airlines lost Rs.30 bn in 2013, the cost of which is passed on to people as higher taxes.

The cost of living can be reduced significantly, with consequent improvement in welfare of the people, if taxes were cut but in order to do so waste and inefficiency in the public sector must be reduced.

Returning to the minimum wage, in order to impose a minimum wage, there needs to be employment.

The Government can impose minimum wages but this will have little effect in improving welfare if people are unemployed. There is no point in absorbing the unemployed into public service, as the previous regime did on grand scale because paying for this means taxing-and impoverishing the population at large.

Therefore the first step in poverty reduction is to ensure that jobs are created in the private sector, the second step being to control the cost of living.

The problem is that if the minimum wage is set too high and economic activity that takes place at low wage levels may become unviable.

Low wage jobs generally employ unskilled labour; if jobs are lost it is the poor who will suffer. It is better to have a low-paying job and some income rather than no job and no income.

As liberal economist Paul A. Samuelson wrote in 1973, “What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2.00 per hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?

In 2003, South Africa imposed minimum wages in agriculture to provide protection for workers to a sector with lowest average wages in the country.

A study on the impact of this by Bhorat, Kanbur and Stanwix concluded that while farmworker wages rose by approximately 17% as a result of the minimum wage, employment fell significantly, by over 20% within the first year.

A study of the impact of minimum wages in Indonesia by Asep Suryahadi, Wenefrida Widyanti, Daniel Perwira and Sudarno Sumarto reached similar conclusions. Since the late 1980's minimum wages had become an important plank of Indonesian government policy. While minimum wages succeeded in increasing average wages employment declined.

According to the study, a 10% increase in minimum wages resulted in a more than one per cent reduction in employment for all categories of workers except white collar workers.

Given the evidence available, the Government's decision to impose a minimum wage must be viewed with caution. If the minimum wage is significantly above market rates it will cause a decline in employment. The current wage level of Rs.10,000 is fairly low and anecdotal evidence suggests that its impact on employment will be small but once such legislation is in place the question of increments comes up.

A politician looking for quick votes in an election year may promise a high increase to the minimum wage which may reduce employment in the long term, to the detriment of the poor.

This policy, taken together with the ill-conceived taxes imposed in the budget sends a negative signal to investors. Investment in new business is needed to create employment, so sending the right signals is important. Not only could this policy destroy existing employment it could also be a dis-incentive to the creation of employment in the future.

It is advisable that the Government reconsider this policy. 

---

Ravi Ratnasabapathy trained as a management accountant and has broad industry experience in finance. He is interested in economic policy and governance issues.

Expanding Trade with India : Winning with Competition or Cowering under Protection?

By Anushka Wijesinha

The article originally appeared on the Daily Mirror on April 29, 2015

In preferential trade agreements, we often see the potential losers being the most vociferous and more organized, while the gainers are quieter and more fragmented. This has been a typical characteristic of the debates on the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA) and the proposed Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) as well. But Sri Lanka must be careful of letting one side be heard more – by the public as well as by policymakers – than the other. More eclectic and informed debate representing all sides is essential, which is why I look forward to moderating this afternoon’s National Chamber forum on ‘CEPA and Its Implications for the Sri Lankan Economy’ – the first by the private sector following Indian PM Modi’s visit and announcements by both him and the new Sri Lankan government that they would forge ahead with the deal.

Deeper Engagement

The proposed CEPA would expand the current ISFTA to cover services, investment, and economic cooperation. The agreement was to take in to account the massive asymmetry between the two countries (economic size, population, etc.), afford Sri Lanka a more than disproportionate advantage, and allow for partially or fully restricting sectors it didn’t wish to open up right away. Following aggressive lobbying by narrow nationalist business leaders with close political affiliations, there was an eruption of uninformed and exaggerated sentiments against promoting greater commerce with India over the past few years. These groups successfully scuttled efforts at completing the CEPA deal several times in the past. “CEPA” became such a taboo word that the India-Sri Lanka Joint Statement in January 2013 avoided using that terminology, and referred to a “special economic partnership framework” instead!

Problem with Protectionism

It is not surprising that protectionist trade lobbies have emerged so influential. Sri Lanka has been sliding backwards in its openness to the world. For around 10-15 years now, protectionism has been on the rise and there has been a creeping up of applied tariffs and para-tariffs. A tangle of para-tariffs has now effectively doubled nominal protection rates to over 20%. Simultaneously, successive Budgets have introduced a range of ad hoc, special protection and promotion schemes for various domestic industries and indigenous enterprise. While this is not an unprecedented industrial policy approach, it does serve to weaken competitiveness of Sri Lankan firms. I recall a conversation with a business school friend of mine who started a high value added spice export operation out of Sri Lanka some years back. He lamented about the severe protectionist behaviour from local spice industrialists even though the project had been given the green light by the necessary authorities. Economic theory and evidence amply proves that in the presence of protection and in the absence of competition, firms become more complacent, less innovative and dynamic, and less able to face international markets. Is this what has happened to Sri Lankan firms vehemently against expanding trade ties with India? Ill-prepared for competition, cushioned by industrial policy that afforded special comforts?

 Government Must Play Smarter Role

It is incumbent on the government to ensure that stakeholder concerns are heard and addressed; that as much transparency as possible is maintained (without of course compromising the country’s negotiation position), and information is shared more comprehensively and consistently so as to prevent groups with narrow vested interests being able to misinform an mislead. Most importantly, the government cannot let the agenda be highjacked and held hostage by narrow interests groups, like in the past. A bilateral trade or economic partnership agreement that Sri Lanka enters in to affects not just a handful of firms and their employees but hundreds of other firms, hundreds of thousands of employees, and millions of consumers in Sri Lanka. The government must provide a clear policy direction on its economic engagement with India, making a strong departure from the ambiguous statements of the past – i.e., calling for a ‘special economic partnership agreement’. Meanwhile, although I did acknowledge at the start that the gainers from freer trade are often fragmented, less organized and less vociferous, it’s time that changed. Consumer and producer groups that gain from freer trade must speak up.

Opportunity to Win Big or Cower Down

Whether its called a CEPA or any other variation of it, the fact remains clear – it is in Sri Lanka’s interests to deepen economic ties with India. An agreement must be forged that cleverly expands Sri Lanka’s economic interests – those of our firms and our consumers; not a narrow few of them, but the wider many. To those who claim that it threatens our national interest, we must remind them that expanding our trade interests for the benefit of the many is also a part of our national interest. Just the opportunity to tap in to India’s growing middle class alone, set to be over 250 million this year – 20 times our entire domestic market – can be transformative. There are Sri Lankan firms with quality products that can and must break in to India. There are service providers, including dynamic Sri Lankan start-ups like Trekurious – a provider of unique lifestyle experiences – that have already entered India and demonstrated early success. A bilateral agreement will ensure that the systems are set out, for companies like these to operate in a rules-based environment. And if it is that we feel Sri Lankan firms cannot face competition, and it is for that reason alone we should not go for deeper economic engagement, then I’m afraid we have bigger things to worry about than a four-letter word starting with C.

---

Anushka Wijesinha is a development economist and a consultant to a host of governmental and non-governmental organizations in Sri Lanka.  He has previously worked at Institute for Policy Studies, The World Bank and the presidential commision on taxation.  His writings on economics are found on his blog -- The curionomist.  You can follow him on Twitter @anushwij

Reforming Sri Lanka’s power sector

By Ravi Ratnasabapathy

 The article originally appeared in the Daily News.

Electricity was introduced to Ceylon by a private company in 1895, but since 1927, with the formation of the Department of Government Electrical Undertakings the industry has been a vertically integrated state monopoly.

The electricity infrastructure comprises generation, transmission and distribution. Transmission refers to the bulk transfer of electricity from power plants to substations located near demand centres. Distribution is the delivery of power to consumers from substations.

Some reform of the industry took place during the 1980's and 1990's. LECO, a state owned private company established in 1983 to undertake the distribution of power in Kotte. Independent Power Producers (IPPs) and small hydro developers entered the industry in the mid1990s when generation was opened to private investors following a severe power crisis in 1996.

Since 2004 policy reverted to state-lead investment with the exception of small renewable power projects. The CEB reports regular losses, is heavily indebted and has invested billions but does Sri Lanka have an efficient and economic system of electricity supply, the stated mission of the CEB?

The disaster that is the coal power plant is well known and provides good reason to reassess the long term plans for the provision of power.

Before examining long term solutions there are immediate problems that need to be addressed so some short-term measures are necessary. A peculiarity of Sri Lanka's electricity demand is the high evening peak load. A steep increase in demand occurs between 6pm-7pm which then peaks from 7pm-8pm. Thereafter demand gradually eases over the following three hours.

Peak demand is about 50% higher than average demand and coping with this presents the most urgent problem for the CEB. A study by the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) in 2012 recommended that “aggressive action is still required to curb further growth in peak demand, since an adverse trend is observed during recent past”.

The simplest solution to this is to move to daylight saving time, which means setting the clock forward by an hour. This proved to be an effective curb on demand when it was implemented after the power crisis of 1996. It was previously used in Ceylon during WWII to conserve power and also by Pakistan after a power crisis in 2008. It is a simple cost free solution that demands immediate implementation.

The management of the demand for power by bulk consumers is also needed. An overlooked aspect of this is the waste of power in the telecommunications industry. Transmission towers consume a lot of power but operators in Sri Lanka do not have a comprehensive infrastructure sharing regime. Operators regard their networks as a source of competitive advantage and share only limited sites. This has resulted in widespread duplication of infrastructure, unnecessary strain on the grid and unsightly visual pollution. The Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRC) needs to impose a proper infrastructure sharing regime. Sharing must cover all infrastructure including SLT’s fibre backbone and the TRC should incentivise the decommissioning of redundant sites. Moving on to longer term solutions should private power have a role to play?

In Sri Lanka IPPs have been controversial but the solution is not be to ignore the private sector but instead to move to electricity auctions to procure power. Auctions increase the competition and transparency of electricity procurement and are now quite widely used. Examples include the UK, New Zealand, Australia and Singapore. Open, transparent competition promotes efficiency and reduces costs to consumers. Singapore moved from state monopoly in 1995 to competitive market in stages over a period of years, yielding tangible benefits to consumers. Although the price of oil, the major cost in electricity generation, increased by 152% between 2001 and 2008, Singapore’s electricity tariff rose only 14% during that period. This was possible largely due to efficiency gains in generation, such as utilising more cost-efficient technology.

Competitive pricing encouraged firms to invest, for example in more efficient gas fired combined cycle turbines and retro-fitting existing plants. The share of electricity generated in Singapore by natural gas increased from 19% in 2000 to 79% in 2010 and overall power generation efficiency increased from 38% to 44%. Consequently, carbon dioxide emissions per unit of electricity generated declined by 30% between 2000 and 2007.

The tangible benefits from liberalising the electricity market make a compelling case to move in that direction although the process is by no means a simple or easy. Even in Singapore the major reforms were introduced gradually over a period of a decade, but this should be the vision for Sri Lanka’s power sector.

The Pathfinder Foundation published a paper in 2007 examining in some detail how Sri Lanka could move to a competitive electricity market. The conceptual model for an electricity market, in very simple terms is to have the generation, transmission and distribution split into independent units with competition between them.

It is essential to have several entities carrying out generation (IPPs and entities carved out from existing CEB generation assets). These will compete in a daily computerised auction to sell power to the transmission entity, which should have no links to the generating entities. The auction is usually held a few says before the actual despatch of power is needed. The generating units compete to supply power for fixed time slots in the day, usually for each hour or half hour and the system automatically awards the time slots to each generating unit based on the lowest cost. The transmission entity in turn sells the power to distribution units, which will be monopolies in their respective areas of operation. When distribution utilities operate in similar operational areas, the regulator can easily set up realistic performance targets by comparing their performances. Similarly since the transmission will be carried out by a separate entity the losses in transmission are easily monitored and the incentive is created to minimise leakage.

If practical advice were needed the Government of Singapore has always been willing to share its expertise.

---

Ravi Ratnasabapathy trained as a management accountant and has broad industry experience in finance. He is interested in economic policy and governance issues.

Tea & Hoppers - Fixed Prices, perverse incentives [Podcast]

By Anushka Wijesinha

In my latest podcast, I talk about tea and hoppers; two of my favourite food items, and indeed of most Sri Lankans. But the government now dictates how much shops can charge me for these – and its a pretty fantastic, lower price than ever before – milk tea at Rs 25, plain tea at Rs. 10, and plain hoppers at Rs. 10. As a consumer, I should be pretty happy right? “Not if it’s causing unintended consequences!”, the economist inside me is saying.

In this article titled ‘The Problems of Price Controls‘, The Cato Institute – a prominent libertarian think tank in the US, asserts that,

“price controls reduce quality, create black markets, and stimulate costly rationing”.

We are seeing this play out right here in Sri Lanka. Last month, we saw one of the most intrusive and bizarre examples of administered prices (or price controls) being introduced by a government in recent times. This was on tea, and hoppers, served anywhere in the country, to be enforced by the Consumer Affairs Authority. What this has done is cause perverse incentives among those making and selling these items. Using poorer quality ingredients, shaving off quantity, skimping on the add-ons. Government-imposed fixed prices not only completely violates basic economic freedoms enjoyed by firms – like the freedom (and ability) to use price to signal quality or differentiation – but it is also notoriously difficult for a government to enforce fully and fairly. We must do more to make policymakers and bureaucrats understand that badly thought out public policies cause perverse incentives by economic agents, and this helps nobody. Listen to the podcast by clicking play below, or visit it on Soundcloud 

---

Anushka Wijesinha is a development economist and a consultant to a host of governmental and non-governmental organizations in Sri Lanka.  He has previously worked at Institute for Policy Studies, The World Bank and the presidential commision on taxation.  His writings on economics are found on his blog -- The curionomist.  You can follow him on Twitter @anushwij 

The Colombo Port City: dealing with unsolicited proposals

By Ravi Ratnasabapathy

The Colombo Port City has generated a storm of criticism, the latest from the Friday Forum, which has called for systematic reviews of large state infrastructure projects. The Chinese Government is now reportedly weighing in on the side of the developer, The China Harbour Engineering Corporation.

Unsolicited proposals such as the Port City are controversial. How should a government deal with them? What should be done with the Port City project itself?

Public procurement, especially for infrastructure is a complex process. The general procedure is that a project, once identified and screened by the relevant line Ministry (in regard to the economic and financial viability), should be submitted to the Ministry of Finance for preliminary clearance. If Finance Ministry Clearance is obtained it must be submitted to the Cabinet for approval in principle. If this is obtained, the Finance Ministry will appoint a Project Committee to develop a detailed Request for Proposal (RFP).

The RFP is very important, since it is the foundation of the project. It spells out the project needs clearly and sets the framework within which competing bids can be evaluated. The RFP would include the following:

1. Criteria of assessment of technical and financial viability of the project.

2.  Details of specifications

3. Models of relevant Agreements as decided on a case by case basis.

4. Environmental data and information.

5. Any other relevant information.

An unsolicited proposal bypasses this process of vetting, which means a bad project can get through. Therefore, traditionally unsolicited proposals were viewed with disfavour. The United Kingdom for example does not permit unsolicited projects.

Many of the world’s most controversial private infrastructure projects originated as unsolicited proposals, such as the Dabhol Power Plant in India and many independent power generation plants in Indonesia. In some countries private companies submitting unsolicited proposals often did so in an attempt to avoid a competitive process to determine the project developer. If successful, they were then able to finalise project details with the government through exclusive negotiations behind closed doors, which is also the case in Sri Lanka.

Should Sri Lanka bar unsolicited proposals?

There are positive aspects of unsolicited proposals. Sometimes such proposals are based on innovative ideas and it is useful to obtain external input in conceptualising, designing, and developing projects.

The difficulty is in getting the right balance between obtaining innovative project ideas without losing the transparency and efficiency of a competitive tender process.

Therefore a proper written policy is essential. At a minimum, the principle should be that all unsolicited proposals are channeled into a transparent, competitive process where challengers have a fair chance of winning the tender.  

There are two main approaches that have been developed to deal with unsolicited proposals. These are:

1. In a formal bidding process, a predetermined bonus point is awarded to the original proponent of the project. Chile and the Republic of Korea have such a system. Problems may arise with definition of appropriate bonuses which is subjective and potentially open to manipulation.

2. The Swiss challenge system in which other parties are invited to make better offers than the original proponent within a specified time period. If a better offer is received, the original proponent has the right to counter match any such better offer. This system is practiced in the Philippines, South Africa and Gujarat in India. This is the preferred option since it does not require further analysis or subjective decision making.

Either of the above approaches can work with proposals that are still on the drawing board. How do we deal with a project where work has already commenced such as the Colombo Port City where the developer has already spent a substantial amount of funds? It cannot simply be cancelled, despite various contradictory claims emanating from the sections of the Government, nor can be easily be opened to tender.

A Developers fee approach – where the project is opened to tender but development costs to date are reimbursed, either by the government or the winning bidder, could be a solution. There will be difficulties in assessing the costs and it is not certain whether either the Government or another developer would be willing to take it on, but at least opening up for tender will give us an idea of the alternatives available.

The project will initially need to be subjected to an independent technical review to ensure that concerns in areas such as water supply, sewage disposal and power have been addressed. The city of Colombo is already overloaded in all these respects, adding the strain of the port city to the crumbling infrastructure of the capital could take it to bursting point.

The environmental issues are another can of worms, from the supply to sand, to the damage to corals, impact on marine life to altering of tidal patterns that may cause coastal erosion elsewhere. A full independent review is needed.

If both areas of concern can be addressed then it may proceed, after being opened to tender as discussed above.  If the project cannot proceed there is another headache as to what to do with the partially built site-a separate study on the best alternate use is needed.

What is tragic is that all these problems could have been avoided. There were processes and institutions in place to ensure proper procurement, but they were abolished in 2007.

The National Procurement Agency (NPA) of Sri Lanka provided the general framework for handling unsolicited proposals. Written guidelines on unsolicited proposals were in place. All unsolicited proposals were to be dealt with through the Swiss Challenge system.

 Set up in 2004 by then president Chandrika Kumaratunga the NPA was shut down in December 2007. All the more reason that the proposals in hand should be channeled into a transparent, competitive process.