Beyond profit margins and scandals

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Blaming imports and importers has long been ingrained in Sri Lankan culture, often seen as a root cause of the country’s economic issues. This perspective not only overlooks the fact that many importers are also exporters, but also fails to recognise that imports and exports are fundamentally interconnected components of the global trade system.

Despite this, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all imports are conducted ethically or transparently. Recent scandals, such as the sugar scam, misinvoicing, bribery, and procedural irregularities at Customs, highlight the darker aspects of importation. However, casting imports in a universally negative light and fostering resentment based on ideological reasons could prove to be more harmful than beneficial.

Recent investigative reports have revealed staggering profits made by importers on essential commodities like green gram, B-onions, and potatoes. Some profit margins have been reported as high as 280% when comparing the Cost, Insurance, and Freight (CIF) value to the market prices of these goods.

Before rushing to judgement on these profit margins, it is essential to delve deeper into the circumstances surrounding these imports. For example, the importation of green gram has been severely restricted since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, requiring special approval from the Ministry of Agriculture. As a result, the quantity of green gram imported in 2023 has been minimal.

Thus, comparing the CIF value at the port to market prices can be misleading, as it does not accurately reflect the profits made by importers. This situation raises questions about the high market prices for green gram, pointing to inefficiencies in local production rather than exorbitant profits by importers.

The scenario with undu, a staple food item, is similar. With a Rs. 300 import tariff, the market price for 1 kg of undu ranges between Rs. 1,500-1,700. This high cost is partly because importers cannot bring in undu without approval from the Ministry of Agriculture, despite the imposition of tariffs.

Allowing imports could potentially reduce the price of undu to around Rs. 700 per kg, even after tariffs. The restriction on undu imports exacerbates price inflation, making it unaffordable for many, particularly those in estate regions and the northeast, leading to food insecurity among vulnerable populations.

During the recent economic crisis and the consequent shortage of foreign exchange, many imports were facilitated through informal payment channels and ‘open papers’ in undiyal markets. This practice, aimed at evading high tariffs and taxes through under-invoicing, underscores the complexity of Sri Lanka’s tariff structure and the urgent need for its simplification.

The report by the Ways and Means Committee suggests that focusing solely on the cost of goods at the port does not provide a complete picture of the import value, especially considering the prevalence of informal payments. This approach to calculating profits, based solely on declared document values, overlooks additional costs borne by importers, thus distorting the perception of their profit margins.

Moreover, the perishability of essential food items, along with the significant costs associated with storage, wastage, and the impact of rising fuel and electricity prices, further complicates the economic landscape. These factors, combined with high inflation rates, have significantly influenced the cost structure of both the wholesale and retail markets, affecting pricing and profit margins.

The impact of export controls on certain commodities, such as B-onions by India, has also played a role in inflating global prices, illustrating the complex interplay of international trade policies and local market dynamics.

This situation underscores the phenomenon of unintended consequences in economic policy, where well-intentioned policies can lead to outcomes that are diametrically opposed to their original goals. Sri Lanka’s intricate tariff structure and monetary instability have inadvertently encouraged informal payment methods on one hand and escalated costs on the other, placing the poorest members of society in an increasingly precarious position.

While it is undeniable that practices like misinvoicing represent clear violations of the law and must be addressed through appropriate legal channels, attributing the entirety of Sri Lanka’s economic challenges to importers overlooks the broader systemic issues at play. Simplifying the tariff structure, as this column has long advocated, could lead to increased Government revenue and minimise systemic leakages, offering a more sustainable solution to the economic challenges faced by importers and consumers alike.

In conclusion, while illicit practices within the import sector must be rigorously tackled, the solution to Sri Lanka’s economic dilemmas lies not in vilifying importers but in addressing the complex policy and structural issues that underpin the nation’s trade dynamics. A comprehensive approach, focusing on policy reform, tariff simplification, and enhancing local production efficiencies, is essential for creating a more stable and equitable economic environment.

Unveiling the true culprit behind economic woes

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Sri Lankans have a very negative view of imports, which are often portrayed on TV as the problem behind the economic crisis. Not only politicians, but also those who have opinions on our economy subscribe to the idea that imports are the problem.

Our politicians’ favourite pastime is to blame imports and impose various tariffs or ban imports. Banning imports also makes for a very pro-Sri Lankan image, because a common excuse provided is that high imports are damaging to local industries. Accordingly, the banning of imports has been portrayed as a measure to help develop local industries.

A favourite area when it comes to cutting down imports is food imports. Often, media headlines and politicians comment aggressively, even quoting figures on the value of food imported. The middle class, upper middle class, and wealthiest of society often make the argument of needing to save valuable foreign exchange by cutting down food imports.

However, when we consider the data, it indicates the exact opposite. The middle class, upper middle class, and the wealthiest are the ones who consume the most amount of imports in the form of fuel, mainly through personal vehicles and as energy. About 27% of our imports in January was fuel. Fuel is the largest component of our import basket as a single commodity.

What we have imported as food is less than 11% of our total imports. Non-food consumer goods are just 8% of our total imports. Most pharmaceutical products and medicines for patients fall under the non-food consumer goods category, which are primarily consumed by the most vulnerable people in society.

Imported food items are also consumed by the most vulnerable sections of society. Food items such as canned fish, maize, green gram, lentils, black gram, sprats, b-onions, potatoes, and wheat flour are critical food items for the poorest of the poor.

Firstly, these can be stored without a refrigerator, which saves their energy cost. Secondly, they are easily available and affordable compared to many other items of food they consume. Therefore, the request of politicians and academics to cut back on these food items, which comprise less than 11% of our total imports, is nearly impossible to fulfil, and reducing these imports further is tantamount to asking the poor to live in hunger and their children to suffer from malnutrition.

Thirty-seven percent of our import basket comprises intermediate goods, besides food. These are goods required for exports and to produce many things without interrupting the supply chain. For instance while our main export is apparels, our main import is also apparels. Therefore, asking to reduce apparel sector imports amounts to reducing our valuable exports.

In reality, while there persists a belief that imports have to be reduced, it is not the solution it is touted to be. If we have to cut down on food imports, it will lead to increased malnutrition, hunger levels, or food costs for Sri Lankans.

Ways of reducing imports

If we want to bring down our imports, cutting down on fuel is one way to consider. A World Bank study revealed that 70% of the fuel is consumed by the wealthiest 30% of society. Therefore, it only makes sense to maintain fuel prices at market price.

As indicated in the graphs, there is a correlation between high fuel prices and fuel imports. Our fuel imports have decreased when prices are high as people use it sparingly. Compared to January 2023, our fuel imports had declined by about $ 100 million per month by January this year. With the expansion of the economy, this number is expected to slowly grow. Prices can bring imports down without import bans or tariffs.

Another way to reduce fuel imports is by improving public transport. Most of our fuel is wasted in traffic jams as a result of our poor public transportation infrastructure. If we invest in public transport, not only will it reduce fuel imports, but it will also uplift many Sri Lankans and provide significant relief in terms of their purchasing power. Many middle class Sri Lankans pay a 200% tariff to buy a second-hand vehicle at an interest rate of above 12% because they have no other choice but to commute.

Saving foreign exchange

Sri Lanka has been offered many grants, including for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) project, which we turned down on numerous occasions, leading to geopolitical tensions. When people spend less money on commuting and waste less time in traffic congestion, it will not only improve productivity but also their purchasing power, creating many jobs and generating income.

It is an inalienable truth that we need more food imports with different varieties of protein sources for the benefit of the impoverished. Foreign exchange has to be earned through exports, tourism, and remittances.

Saving foreign exchange is a function of the monetary policy or the supply of the Sri Lankan Rupee to the financial system rather than a function of imports and exports. When the rupee becomes expensive, the US Dollar demand decreases automatically because people buy the latter using rupees that they could have used in an alternative manner.

Asking the public to cut down on food imports, which are mainly consumed by the poor, at the expense of allowing the use of more fuel-driven vehicles cannot be justified and borders on cruelty.

Steering clear of divisive politics and economic populism

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

I was recently invited to moderate a session by the European Chamber of Commerce of Sri Lanka (ECCSL) on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Foreign Minister Ali Sabry was one of the Chief Guests and he shared two things we should not do, based on his experience over the past few years in managing a few key portfolios as the Minister of Justice, Finance, and Foreign Affairs.

The event focused on unleashing the power of diversity, equity, and inclusion for businesses in Sri Lanka. Keeping aside the political colours, Sabry’s message on the things Sri Lankans should not do is very apt given the current status of our affairs. These two exhortations were to never play divisive politics and never play with populist economic policies.

The final victim of divisive politics has been none other than our economy and our people. If Sri Lanka is serious about economic development, having a diverse culture is important, as highlighted by Prof. Ricardo Hausmann in his Harvard Growth Diagnostic study on Sri Lanka in 2016-2017. The economic theory behind it is that a diverse culture is capable of creating more combinations of ideas which translate to products, services, and exports.

He provided the example of Silicon Valley – most tech entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley are immigrants to the US, which is one reason a high degree of innovation takes place there. Unfortunately, in Sri Lanka, our politics is used to dilute this strength, which has led to where we are today. At one point, ethnic tensions led to mass migration and we are very slow to include all our ethnicities and religions in our culture.

The divisive politics is now at a level that goes beyond ethnicities. It is now ranged against certain countries, trade agreements, and imports from certain countries. Some good examples are the Suwa Seriya ambulance service and the trade agreement between India and Sri Lanka.

We almost rejected Suwa Seriya on the grounds that it was an Indian invasion and that Indian Intelligence services wanted to collect intelligence data through the ambulance service. This is a service primarily impacting the poorest of the poor and has now been recognised as one of the fastest services in the region by the World Bank.

Divisive politics is now beyond ethnicities and religions. We created the same tensions with trade agreements and claimed that the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Singapore would result in foreigners taking over our jobs. Instead, most Sri Lankans left the country for jobs overseas due to the economic crisis and we now beg people to visit us.

We also created similar tensions over the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement by claiming that the agreement would cause more imports to flow into Sri Lanka, worsening our trade balance. The data shows the exact opposite taking place.

We have a trade surplus with India under the FTA and our trade deficit with India comes from outside the FTA. However, comparing trade balances between countries is completely misleading, since what we need to keep in mind is the budget deficit rather than the trade deficit, because the budget deficit arising from Central Bank lending is what leads to a trade deficit.

At one point, by playing divisive politics, we wanted to boycott our Islamic community. We also wanted to boycott Indian products and chase away Chinese and Japanese investments. To make diversity a strength, we need to look beyond borders and capitalise on the strengths of all communities and all countries.

Minister Sabry’s second directive was to never play with populist economic policies. However, we repeatedly witness political parties engaging in populist politics. We are building resistance against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme without any alternative suggestions. Without the IMF programme, even 0.1% of debt relief is not possible. Many funds by many international partners like the Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank, and bilateral creditor will evaporate in seconds.

On the other hand, growth reforms are almost non-existent. Not a single State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) reform has been implemented yet and the SOE Bill has been shelved. On the growth front, a complicated tariff structure remains. The establishment of the Central Bank’s independence was the main reform we have undertaken and we can see the results. It is a pity that the Central Bank completely ignored the optics and raised its staff salaries, even at the risk of some policymakers requesting the reversal of the hard-earned reform of the bank’s independence.

While Minister Sabry has correctly understood what exactly should not be done, unfortunately, our politics remains divisive at a new level and populist economic policies have taken a new turn. We still have a long way to go.

The other side of parate execution suspension

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

In India, there was a particular type of cobra that was causing havoc due to snake bites. People were protesting and social pressure was building. The then British Government had a brilliant idea to counter cobra bite-related deaths and bring down the reptiles’ population – it announced an incentive scheme for every dead cobra.

In essence, people in India were encouraged to kill cobras and hand over the animal’s dead body to established Government offices in India and collect cash in return. In the first few weeks, things worked out very well, but later the Government realised that the number of cobras being handed over was increasing exponentially.

Upon investigation, the Government realised that Indians had become somewhat entrepreneurial. They had started cobra breeding houses at homes and killing cobras as a means of revenue generation for the family. At one point, the Government withdrew the cash incentive system given the misuse of the entire scheme.

Since there was no incentive for people to maintain cobra breeding houses, they released the reptiles into the jungle. The cobra population then multiplied several fold more than what it was initially as a result of the same policy being implemented to reduce the cobra population. This is called the Cobra Effect.

The Government decision to suspend parate execution as a relief for Micro, Small, and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) is no different. It is true that MSMEs are going through a difficult time as a result of higher inflation, high interest rates, and economic contraction. It is necessary to protect the MSMEs as they comprise about 99% of business establishments and about 75% of employment in Sri Lanka.

However, whether the suspension of parate is really for MSMEs is a question; 557 parate executions have been undertaken as of November 2023. The total value of the parate executions was just Rs. 38 billion, which stands at just 0.4% of total loans and a mere 2.7% of total impaired loans. From the numbers, it is clear that most MSMEs have not been impacted by parate executions.

Effect on MSMEs

Parate is an execution power on the part of banks under the Recovery of Loans by Banks (Special Provisions) Act, No.4 of 1990, where lending banks can recover non-repaid debt by borrowers by selling assets without going through the judicial processes. In 1961, this power was only granted to People’s Bank and the Bank of Ceylon, and in 1985, the power was extended to regional rural development banks as well.

If MSMEs are not affected, what could be expected to happen when parate executions are suspended until December by the Government? This is likely to backfire on MSMEs given the nature of the banking industry, akin to the Cobra Effect.

Banks lend depositors money. Parate was a safeguard for depositors’ money in case someone was not repaying loans they had taken, giving banks a final resort to recover that money so they could honour the depositors.

Now with parate suspension, banks have a higher risk of not being able to recover the money from the loans extended, so they have to charge a higher risk premium when borrowing for anybody, including MSMEs. Therefore, if MSMEs want to borrow money now, they have to pay higher interest rates, which means further contraction of the economy at a time when it needs to grow.

Triple whammy

On the flip side, this will encourage borrowers to default as they now know the banks cannot execute parate even if they were to willfully default. Additionally, borrowers who are honouring their loan repayments with the greatest difficulty during this economic crisis will be discouraged, because their hard work in honouring the dues will not be rewarded. This does not mean that even the Rs. 38 billion through parate execution has to be understated, but it has to be addressed separately without changing a law which affects the entire banking sector.

The Government declared a Rs. 450 billion bank recapitalisation in Budget 2024 given the instability of the banking sector as losses and loans of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) have to be absorbed. On the other hand, licensed commercial banks including State banks are being exposed to sovereign debt restructuring, which is at its final stage. Accordingly, this is detrimental to the stability of the banking sector.

On the depositors’ end, they may be reluctant to deposit money as their risk is now higher on recovery.

Parate execution generally takes place at the last stage of recovery and must go through a court process. Suspension of parate without even consulting banks may provide wrong signals for the ongoing International Monetary Fund (IMF) review, since the IMF initially advised to conduct an assessment on the stability of the banks, although the context has now changed after a few months.

The Non-Performing Loan (NPL) ratios of banks are also on the rise, so banks basically face a triple whammy with this parate suspension – having to charge risk premiums, high NPL, exposure to sovereign default, and now difficulties in recovering money and incentives for not servicing existing loans.

However, the need to protect MSMEs is paramount, which requires a separate sequence of actions. Setting up a bank specifically to absorb bad loans, setting up bankruptcy laws, or moratoria on some of the bad loans under parate executions are options. Changing the entire parate system will indeed bring consequences similar to the Cobra Effect in India.

Why focusing on trade is paramount

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

If you were to ask the average Sri Lankan what Sri Lanka’s economic problems are, you are most likely to hear three answers. The most common and popular answer would be corruption, a likely second would be high imports, and some may even say there is a lack of exports.

This article will address the second and third answers.

Contrary to popular belief, many Sri Lankans are unaware that our imports are declining compared to the size of our economy. Many make the mistake of checking the total value of imports and claiming that our imports are increasing.

That is correct, but import value can increase for many reasons. It could be due to a significant price fluctuation of certain imported commodities (fuel), a consumption hype due to a growing population over the years, or many other reasons.

Accordingly, imports and exports both have to be evaluated in comparison to the size of the economy – commonly known as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It is the same as considering a person’s weight relative to their height and age: weight as an absolute number has no meaning without comparing it with height and age.

Since the 1990s, Sri Lanka’s imports as well as exports have been declining compared to our economy. In recent years, exports have increased because our economy contracted steeply with the economic crisis while our exports remained fairly constant.

This indicates that the claim of our imports being a problem is a complete myth and misleading. Instead, our problem is that our imports are low because our exports are low. We need to export more so we can import more of the things that are being produced competitively and efficiently in other parts of the world.

For instance, let us consider the example of food items. There are many food items with a high range of protein sources and variety that food insecure people can afford, which face a high tariff rate in order to discourage consumption. The final victims of this process are the poorest people in the country who cannot afford a variety of food.

The impoverished spending more on food means they are left with little money to spend on non-food items such as education and health. Therefore, discouragement of imports through tariffs will affect the poor.

Another common myth in Sri Lanka is that Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) increase imports while drying out our USD reserves. Sri Lanka hasn’t signed many FTAs to begin with. Even when we analyse the data, trade primarily takes place outside FTAs.

Let us evaluate the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (ISFTA). Imports are declining or stagnant from India to Sri Lanka under the ISFTA and we have undertaken more exports than imports under the agreement. However, more trade has taken place outside the ISFTA.

One potential reason for this could be the cost for companies to comply with the ISFTA and the complicated nature of FTAs. However, we have done more exports than imports under the ISFTA, indicating that trade agreements are not necessarily conspiracies by other countries to push their products but that Sri Lanka has done well in exports under FTAs in absolute numbers. As such, the claim that trade agreements push imports and discourage exports is also misleading and the data fails to support the claim.

Even if we check the numbers for the Pakistan-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (PSFTA), we export more under the FTA in absolute numbers than we import. However, compared to our GDP, our trade is very weak, which is one of the main constraints to our economic growth.

Our barriers to trade are beyond trade agreements. Most barriers are internally driven by Sri Lanka Customs, the complicated tariff structure, necessary regulatory barriers, and related to ease of doing business. Blaming FTAs or imports for our economic crisis is meaningless. Instead, our growth potential lies in when we import and export and simplifying the tariff structure unilaterally is the first intervention to minimise corruption and boost trade.

Joining global trade will not only make our country wealthier but position us strongly in Indo-Pacific geopolitics.

As it was famously said: “When goods and services don’t cross borders, soldiers will.”

(Special thank you to Advocata Institute Research Analyst Araliya Weerakoon)

High tariffs on basic food items: A blow to the struggling masses

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Last week it was reported that the Government has again imposed high tariffs (Special Commodity Levy) on some food items such as cowpea, finger millet, undu, maize, and a few others. At a time when seven million people are below the poverty line, tariffs on food items are a crime. Imposing tariffs on such food items is not done just to increase Government revenue.

The tariff on undu has increased to Rs. 300 from Rs. 200 per kg. For finger millet and other items, it has increased from Rs. 70 to Rs. 300. How much can a Government earn from a population of 22 million by imposing a Rs. 300 tariff on finger millet and cowpea?

According to the Ministry of Agriculture, the per annum demand for cowpea in Sri Lanka is 15,000 MT, while the demand for finger millet stands at 10,000 MT. Even if we import the entire demand for finger millet and cowpea, the amount the Government can earn as tariff is about Rs. 7.5 billion for the entire year.

This is a negligible amount compared to our expenditure. The expenditure for the President is about Rs. 5.8 billion as per the Budget estimate for 2024. It is clear that the increase of the Special Commodity Levy (SCL) for food items will have an impact beyond taxes, because at this tariff rate no one will import finger millet or cowpea.

However, it means that the consumer will lose the opportunity to purchase cowpea, undu, and finger millet for Rs. 300 less than what is available in the market. How can we justify people paying an additional Rs. 300 when seven million people – one-third of our country – live in poverty?

This general justification is that this tariff is imposed to protect local manufacturing of finger millet, cowpea, and maize. Even if this is true, what is the justification in terms of consumers when they no longer have access to affordable food items?

Given existing lifestyle changes, products such as undu, cowpea, and finger millet are mainly consumed not by the wealthiest section of the society but the poorest. Diabetes patients, pregnant mothers, estate workers, people in the north and east are the primary consumers of these food items.

It doesn’t stop there. High prices on maize will impact the entire food supply chain as maize is one of the main expenditures of the poultry industry. About 40% of the cost of poultry is on food, primarily driven by maize. This indicates that the cost of main protein sources such as chicken and eggs will increase.

The cost of chicken and eggs in turn impacts the costs of the bakery industry and all food items at restaurants and eateries.

Accordingly, the net impact on the entire food supply chain due to this ad hoc Special Commodity Levy is much greater than what we see at the surface level. Although it is not ideal, if the Government really wishes to protect finger millet, cowpea, and maize farmers, it can give a direct subsidy of Rs. 7.5 billion, based on the productivity and efficiency of farms.

This would mean that at least those who push for better cultivation methods receive an incentive to ensure a better harvest, rather than asking consumers to shoulder a flat price hike for all food items at a time when they are struggling to put three meals on the table per day. People are facing excessive burdens due to inflation and the high tax rate in order to pay for the mistakes of our policymakers.

The second argument against the high SCL on imported food items concerns saving foreign exchange. Firstly, we cannot save foreign exchange through higher tariffs because the demand for imports is determined by the money supply within the economy. People buy forex to import by spending the rupees they earn. When they buy forex in rupees, they have to reduce their consumption by some other means.

If we can save forex simply through higher tariffs and import controls, we have to question how we ran out of forex when import controls, in place since Covid, existed until very recently.

We even controlled some of our pharmaceutical imports but we were still unable to save forex. Foreign exchange cannot be saved by import controls or high tariffs.

Secondly, 40% of our imports is fuel. If we really want to cut down on our imports, we must reduce fuel imports, which this column has recommended multiple times, suggesting a market system for public transport. By imposing a Special Commodity Levy on food, we are simply asking the poorest of the poor to face starvation while providing the opportunity for rent-seeking behaviour of a few crony elites.

Whether in socialism or in capitalism or with the argument of saving foreign exchange, how can we justify a Special Commodity Levy of Rs. 300 on basic food items when one out of every three fellow Sri Lankans are forced to skip a meal due to poverty?

Prioritising SOE bill over OSA: A shift in economic direction

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

While the Government has prioritised the Online Safety Act (OSA), which is extremely negative for our economy, there are other bills in the line-up which are expected to get through. One such bill is on the State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) holding company.

The SOE Restructuring Unit (SOERU) has outlined the principles of SOE reforms, which are in the right direction, but the Government’s prioritisation of bringing the OSA is definitely in the wrong direction.

Key principles

While the bill on the SOE holding company is yet to be released, the SOERU has outlined nine key principles on which they expect to base the SOE reforms. In the first principle it admits the Government has no role in commercial activities except for three instances.

(1) If there is a concern on national security, the Government can engage in business.

(2) If there will be no private participation in certain industries given the size of our market, the Government can engage in business. For instance, if we open the rural bus routes for the private sector, there may be a possibility that, given the nature of the low population density, no private bus operator will be interested in entering the market. While it can be to an extent addressed through allowing to charge a higher price and the Government providing a direct cash subsidy to the citizens in the rural area, there can be practical challenges. In that case the SOERU principals have left the space for the Government to enter business.

(3) If the service from the Government is essential in nature but if the regulatory mechanisms are weak for competition, where there is opportunity for market exploitation by the private sector, the Government can be in the business.

While the three areas are logically right, we have to wait for the final bill to see how exactly this has been worded. The danger is that governments are so powerful that even in the above three areas, it can leave a lot of room to keep a lot of existing SOEs under the government of the day if the political ideology is to keep SOEs, claiming it is under national security.

In the Right to Information (RTI) Act, there is provision that the authority can decline to disclose the requested information if it threatens national security. For most RTI requests, many Government institutions have been responding that the information cannot be disclosed due to national security reasons. Therefore, defining national security or the process of deciding how an organisation or industry comes under national security is important.

Unless the Government can always build a logical stand, even institutions like the Cashew Corporation will have to be under the Government as it can impact national security.

On the second condition, that in the absence of a private player due to limitation of the market size or another criterion for a service that is essential in nature, the guidelines have to be developed in the case of what could be a new player wanting to join the industry later.

For example, it could be an industry with high capital investment and low market penetration, making Sri Lanka unattractive at the beginning due to the market size. As a result the Government can be in that business as the service is in the nature of being essential.

But over the years as technology and other parameters develop, at one point there may be new players interested in joining the industry. At that point, a natural resistance may occur from the SOEs over a new entrant being in the market as they will lose their monopoly status. The same happened when Lanka IOC entered the market and still there is some resistance to the entrance of Sinopec and other players in the energy market.

Deciding what an essential service is also requires a framework. Otherwise, when a government wants to be in a business, it can easily announce that industry as an essential service and enter the business, bringing forth various reasons.

All of the above are beyond the scope of the SOE law, but we need to keep in mind that these are the loopholes governments always have when ideological stances are different. Even if the new bill passes, we should not underestimate the skills of policymakers in finding the loopholes.

Other principles

The fourth principle of the SOE holding company is to bring all SOEs under one registration format. At the moment, different SOEs have different structures with a very high degree of complexity. For instance, the railway is a commercial activity and runs as the ‘Railway Department,’ while the Ceylon Electric Board runs as a board under an act. Meanwhile, Lanka Hospitals is a hospital but operates as a private limited company. Therefore bringing them all under one registration is vital when we set up the SOE holding company.

The fifth principle mainly focuses on the governance of SOEs as the SOE reform process is a longhaul game. The SOE holding company and the subsidiaries are required to adhere to Colombo Stock Exchange guidelines. This includes releasing quarterly financial statements and the board of directors being required to conform to the Code of Best Practice on Corporate Governance.

The other principles in the list are on unbundling the regulator and the operator in certain industries. There are industries run by the Government where the Government is a player as well as a regulator at the same time.

Overall the SOERU’s principles to base the SOE holding company is in the right direction, although there is always room for politicians to exploit the principles.

It is sad to see the pushing back of such important SOE holding company legislation over the draconian Online Safety Act.

Middle class caught in housing dilemma

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The system in Sri Lanka often categorises many individuals in the middle class as products of failure, not because they have failed themselves, but because the system has failed them. An evident sign of this failure emerges when individuals strive to afford a house, as the decision to build or buy a basic house in Sri Lanka frequently forces them to sacrifice many other life choices due to the exorbitant cost of construction.

Dr. Roshan Perera and Dr. Malathy Knight of the Advocata Institute recently authored a research report revealing that property prices in Colombo exceed the same income-to-property ratio found in New York, Tokyo, Beijing, and London.

The exorbitant cost of construction primarily stems from the steep prices of raw materials in Sri Lanka. For instance, a tonne of cement costs about $ 114 in Sri Lanka, compared to $ 53 in Thailand. Similarly, the cost of a tonne of steel in Sri Lanka is around $ 760, in contrast to $ 561 in Singapore.

Factors behind high costs

Two main factors force consumers to pay higher prices. First, Sri Lankans encounter restricted access to construction materials at lower prices due to import restrictions or tariff barriers, even when Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) are in place, as most construction items remain on the negative list. A negative list refers to an exclusion clause in an FTA that prevents an item from being imported.

Second, the high tariffs or import protection for construction materials are often justified under the narrative of ‘saving dollars’ or ‘preserving valuable foreign exchange’. However, the truth lies in the high cost structures of local manufacturers, making them unable to compete if import bans or tariffs are reduced.

For example, the total tariffs on tiles were approximately 83% in 2021, with para-tariffs such as CESS and PAL making up about 50%. High energy prices in Sri Lanka contribute to the high costs for local companies, and importing tiles may actually reduce foreign exchange expenditure due to energy savings.

Far-reaching impact

The high cost of construction for the middle class results in sacrificing many life choices, including higher education, education for children, investments, and wealth creation. This challenge becomes even more pronounced when faced with an interest rate of 10% for housing loans or business expansion.

The impact of the high cost of construction extends beyond housing to the tourism sector. Hotels require refurbishment approximately every five years to remain competitive, and with high construction costs, room rates tend to be high. This puts a strain on hoteliers, including small and medium-scale hotels, making them less competitive with markets like Thailand or the Maldives.

According to research, a 500 sq ft house can only be affordable for Sri Lankans in the 70th income percentile, while a 1,000 sq ft house is attainable only for those in the 75th income percentile, highlighting the underlying tragedy of the high cost of construction. Many construction inputs in the market exhibit characteristics of monopolies or oligopolies.

The solution to reduce construction costs involves first removing construction materials from the negative list and eliminating imposed para-tariffs. This competitive market approach will lead to lower prices, benefiting consumers. As a result, aspirational Sri Lankans will have more space in life for better choices, rather than spending their entire lives paying off housing loans. When the middle class has more choices in life, their decisions become a source of income for many other industries, fostering economic growth.

Economic freedom for true independence

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

For the last 76 years, we Sri Lankans have looked at different ways of making Sri Lanka a wealthier and developed country. A popular refrain during every Independence Day celebration week has been that “when we got independence, we were only second to Japan”. Another quote bragged about how good we were, as “Singapore was behind us and they took Sri Lanka as their model for development”. 

Unfortunately, much of Sri Lanka’s independence has only been ceremonial, not real. We have still failed to capture the science of equitable wealth creation, which only comes with economic freedom. Economic freedom leads to true and meaningful independence. All countries in the region, including Singapore and Japan, overtook us by establishing the elements of economic freedom at various degrees rather than simply taking Sri Lanka as an example.  

Science of wealth creation 

Wealth creation is science, not magic. It has always been a function of maximising the use of limited resources and increasing productivity. Both can be done when individuals have better incentives to create wealth. For individuals to create wealth, their rights over property have to be secure. The government should ensure that the property of people belongs to them. 

The government should allow individuals to do business and create wealth instead of trying to intervene in markets and pricing. Further, a government poking its fingers in and preferential treatments in a sector serve to discourage individuals from being in the same business. 

Wealth can also be created when raw materials are competitive in price and good in quality. Having a variety of choices in a competitive market system is paramount. The simplest way of creating a competitive environment is by opening up for international trade. 

Regulatory barriers have to be minimal. This does not mean the government plays no part in regulation. The government can adopt a regulatory function without intervening in the market to ensure that the competition and competitive nature of the industries are protected. 

Lastly, all transactions in the modern world take place in a fiat currency. Simply put, we store all our production as individuals in a form of a paper called money. The monopoly of money belongs to the government and when it does not protect the value of the money, it amounts to theft of the hard work and production of an individual. 

The science of wealth creation is simply establishing these five principles. This has been statistically proven by the Economic Freedom of the World Index by the Fraser Institute. 

Over the decades, it has monitored these five indicators and data have shown the relationship and causation between wealth creation. 

The per capita GDP of countries with the highest level of economic freedom is on average about $ 48,000 while for countries with the lowest level of economic freedom the per capita GDP averages at $ 6,300. 

Even if we consider the standard of living amongst the poorest 10% of the population in the countries with higher economic freedom, the income distribution among the poorest 10% is eight times higher than in countries with very low economic freedom. 

Sri Lanka falls under the third quartile, meaning that our performance in economic freedom is not that great. We have ranked 116 out of 165 countries. 

Science of economic freedom

In modern times, many people consider happiness as a function of wealth, freedom, and independence. When we look at the data on economic freedom, it is clear that countries with higher ratings indicate a higher score on the UN World Happiness Index as well. 

Even if we look at poverty numbers, the countries with higher economic freedom obviously have low poverty rates compared to countries with low economic freedom. 

Over the last 76 years, the science of economic freedom is something we have failed to utilise. One reason this column has always advocated for reforms of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) is because a limited government improves the economic freedom of people, which leads to creating wealth. People having ownership and rights over land is another reform we require to improve the property rights indicated in economic freedom, which will also lead the process of wealth creation.   

On this independence day, our prime focus has to be on creating wealth. We can create wealth by establishing economic freedom. When we have wealth and economic freedom, we become independent. That is when we leave the trap of poverty, our standards of living improve, and we provide value for the globe. 

Happy Independence Day, Sri Lanka.

The dangers of the Online Safety Bill

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The Online Safety Bill is scheduled to be taken up for debate at its second reading in Parliament on 23 and 24 January. Unfortunately, this bill is going to make our current economic situation a bit more difficult in the short run and as well as the long run.  

The Asia Internet Coalition (AIC), where tech platform giants such as Google, Meta, and Amazon are partners, twice brought up the danger this bill could pose to the digital economy.  

Economy is beyond just supply and demand of rupees and cents. Economies are mainly the ideas that solve a problem of fellow humans and an exchange of those products and services with scarcity of resources. 

Problem-solving for humans comes with the freedom to think and with freedom of speech and dissemination of information. All attempts to restrict our freedom of expression, speech, and dissemination of information will backfire on the country and the economy. 

Sadly, the Online Safety Bill seems to be doing just that.

Self-censorship kills ideas for prosperity 

The bill has left significant room for vagueness in many clauses and definitions. According to the proposed bill, the commission appointed by the Constitutional Council has the powers to determine whether some facts are true or false and take follow-up actions. 

One example to showcase the impractical nature of this approach is the case of the Government decision on cremation of Covid-infected bodies, claiming that viruses could leak into the waterbed and cause contamination. This decision was highly debated on social media platforms and even scientists were divided on the decision. 

So if someone complains based on the Online Safety Bill, how does the committee decide on what is true and what is untrue when even scientists are unsure? Later the Government withdrew its decision and changed its initial stance. What was perceived as truth at one point was proved to be wrong at another point. What could have been the outcome if the Online Safety Bill had been enacted by then and if legal proceedings had been taken forward for those who commented for and against cremation of Covid deaths?

Looking at lessons from history, Galileo was killed for bringing an alternative view of the perceived truth on the shelving of the solar system. This act in this form takes us back to the repression faced by Galileo. It is severely problematic when the arbiter of ‘truths’ of fringe politics can also hand out punishments.

Generally when there is uncertainty, for their own safety, people engage in self-censorship. Self-censorship restricts the flow of ideas and minimises the ability of the economy to solve the problem. 

Let’s imagine that the Online Safety Bill had been enacted before 2021. During that time many analysts and economists on all social media platforms warned the Central Bank that excessive money printing could lead to inflation. The Central Bank was of the view that there was no relationship between money printing and inflation. So if the Central Bank complained to the Online Safety Commision on the opinions on the matter, most of the economists would have been punished by the bill by the time inflation was hitting 72%.

If the Central Bank says inflation has no relationship to money supply, there would have been no other way the commission could establish what was true or what was false at that point of time. The other possibility is that most of the economists would have self-censored knowing the repercussions of the bill, which could have caused greater harm to society.

If this bill creates a culture of self-censorship, our ability to hold the State accountable, ability to innovate, and ability to create would be quenched, leading to a stagnant economy. 

Impact on SMEs

The business models of tech giants are very cost effective. They do not have offices in every country, nor staff to monitor all content. Most of that is done through algorithms. They regulate harmful content through technology (algorithms) and very strict community guidelines are adhered to.

Anyone can read how comprehensive the guidelines of these tech platforms are on safety and trust and how effective they are on responding to these platforms’ community guidelines. Tech firms have refined algorithms to an extent that not a single photo falling under nudity can be found as the algorithm restricts them automatically. In that sense the tech companies have done a fantastic job compared to what a government tries to do with a bill in a market-based system.

Platforms such as TikTok are not only concerned about human rights but also about human safety, where drone shots with a risk of accidents are eliminated due to very high community standards.

If the Online Safety Bill becomes too much of a burden for these tech companies, with a response time of 24 hours for inquiries by the commision as per the bill, they will tune their algorithms to be very strict, which will have an impact on SME businesses run on social media. Simply, the competitors can complain on certain pages featuring products with various claims and pose an unnecessary burden to SMEs. 

Our tourism industry, where we have a long-tail SME sector, especially uses these platforms for room reservations. The reviews coming in the form of discrimination will fall under this and the booking sites will also fall under that purview, so they are likely to react to the online safety regulation, which will have an impact on our dollar-earning tourism industry.

The AIC has already twice highlighted its displeasure in diplomatic language, claiming as follows in a statement: “The proposed legislation, in its present form, poses significant challenges that, if not addressed comprehensively, could undermine the potential growth of Sri Lanka’s digital economy.”

Wrong signals to markets 

The Online Safety Bill also provides wrong signals to the market, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and our creditors. The IMF has provided a governance diagnostic where many other pieces of legislation, including the SOE Holding Company Act and Procurement Law, are among the top 16 priorities. Sadly our Government has brought a bill on Online Safety Bill, for which no stakeholder group which assisted Sri Lanka during the economic crisis has shown any interest other than highlighting its problematic nature, which ultimately impacts economic growth. 

Since actions speak louder than words, this will provide the wrong messaging to our creditors, bilateral and multilateral partners, and investors that our Government’s priority is not the economic crisis.

From the point of view of the investor, this will also have a serious impact on attracting FDI and key players with the potential to transform our economy. For instance, one company which has shown interest in investing in Government shares of Sri Lanka Telecom is Jio, where a majority share is with Reliance Group in India. Meta, Google, Intel, and the Saudi Arabia Wealth Fund are a few other strategic partners and shareholders of Jio. Can we expect a tech company to provide a positive referral to its main shareholder in an investment decision when its own platforms are under risk through an Online Safety Bill in Sri Lanka?

This bill is beyond repair and just plastering over its shortcomings will not make it any better. If this goes through Parliament, the risks on freedom and signalling for investors will be quite negative. Importantly, in an environment where freedom does not prevail, economic growth and prosperity will fail drastically. The only solution left for this bill is to repeal it.

Non-negotiable reforms for election manifestos

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The year 2024 will be an election year. The general flow of events is that each political party and candidate will launch a manifesto of a grand-scale and present their plans for the people and the country. Most of these promises will not be implemented or will only be half implemented. In certain cases, the opposite of what was promised will be implemented. 

Most manifestos are presented in general terms with a target of 20 years ahead with little data. Many manifestos across all party lines are wish lists with no action plans.

In my view, this time there is a slight difference. 

Regardless of the party formation or whoever the presidential candidate will be, there are few reforms that are non-negotiable. Ideally, across all manifestos, there are five basic ideas which have to be the common denominator.

Strengthening social safety nets 

Following the worst economic crisis in Sri Lanka’s history and high inflation, about four million people have fallen below the poverty line. That puts seven million people under poverty. The recent Household Income and Expenditure Survey carried out by LIRNEasia and the World Bank indicates significant poverty levels and aftereffects of poverty due to the economic crisis. As a conscientious society, we need to take care of our poor people with the social safety net. 

The social safety net is not just an allowance. It is a system and a process of targeting the right people, providing an exit route, and with proper administration. The current Aswesuma programme is making some progress with World Bank assistance, but regardless of the political leader who comes to power, it is a non-negotiable condition that social safety nets have to be strengthened and improved. 

The current process has too many loopholes which have to be addressed and improved. Simplifying the process, providing the exit route, and monitoring and depoliticising has to be a continuous effort from the new leadership of the country.

SOE reforms 

Thus far, mandatory SOE reforms have been painfully slow. Many parties with vested interests are trying to delay it until the election. However, the continuation of SOE reforms is a must. 

Colossal losses, interference in the private sector, intervening in markets, creating an unfair playing field, and inefficiencies are a few reasons why SOEs played a pivotal role in Sri Lanka’s economic crisis. SOEs are vehicles of corruption and have diluted entrepreneurship and Foreign Direct Investments significantly. Without reforming SOEs, the future of Sri Lanka appears to be bleak. 

The principles announced by the SOE Restructuring Unit are in the right direction, but the SOE Act and reforms of the Ceylon Electricity Board, Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and many other networking industries are a must. 

Anti-corruption and governance reforms

Execution of anti-corruption laws and governance reforms is another area which has no room for negotiation. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) Governance Diagnostic and many other locally-developed reports on governance provide direction on what needs to be done. 

Strengthening our Judiciary system, transparency and accountability in our tax system, removing tax exemptions, and repealing the Special Commodity Levy and the Strategic Development Act too falls under governance and anti-corruption reforms, as those acts provide the legal opportunity for corruption. 

There is a strong sentiment from people on the contribution of corruption to the crisis, so taking long-term measures regarding corruption is a must. Anti-corruption and governance reforms go beyond going after corrupt politicians. Rather, it is a system and framework for minimising government influence. Some reforms are complementary and reforming SOEs is also a key component of anti-corruption and governance reforms, as these SOEs play a vital role in corruption.

Following the IMF programme and debt restructuring 

Given the international financial architecture, we have no option other than sticking to the IMF programme. We can negotiate some of the actions that we have promised, but overall indicative targets and reforms have to be maintained. Otherwise, it will be yet another incomplete IMF programme and the debt restructuring process will be in jeopardy. 

Debt restructuring and the continuation of the IMF programme are very much interconnected. At the moment, external stakeholders are concerned about political instability and in fact, the IMF’s first review identifies the political risks for the continuation of the IMF programme. A commitment from any political leader on sticking to the programme will help Sri Lanka in rebuilding relationships with the world.  

Trade reforms and joining global supply chains 

We have to grow our economy to emerge from this crisis. Tax revisions make it likely that growth will slow down and the only solution to grow small island nations like Sri Lanka is through global trade. Our problems regarding global trade are mainly the problems in our own regulations and systems. 

We have to remove our para-tariffs and simplify the tariff structure for a few tariff lines. Not only will this help trade, but consumers will also have a greater choice of goods and services as well as competitive prices. 

On the other hand, the Government can improve the revenue from Customs since at the moment, the high tariffs are a main reason for revenue leakage in the form of corruption. Trade reforms are about growth, minimising corruption, encouraging exports, and assuring reasonable prices. Even at present, after very high taxes, there are levies such as the Special Commodity Levy, Ports and Airports Development Levy, and a huge array of taxes which hinder the competitive nature of our economy.

These five policies, in my view, are non-negotiable. If any administration deviates from them, it is very likely that we will fall back a few miles behind where we started. 

Understanding the economic crisis: Corruption a symptom, not the root cause

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The most common rationalisation of Sri Lanka’s economic crisis is to blame corruption, which is a complete mischaracterisation. This is not to say that corruption had no part in the crisis, but to place the blame solely on corruption would be inaccurate. In my view, there has been an economic policy problem which incentivised corruption, hence that is a problem that we have to fix, rather than trying to fix corruption. Corruption is just a symptom and policy is the root cause.

However, policy problems cannot be analysed in a vacuum, because simply having a policy does not mean everything will be alright. Policy has to be analysed based on the strength and stability of institutions.

One good example is the Fiscal Management (Responsibility) Act No.3 of 2003. According to the act (policy), the Government cannot exceed the budget deficit above 5% of the GDP. Since the act has enacted every budget we have presented, our budget deficit has been above 5%. Nothing has happened to any government for violating their own rules. We have the policy, but we do not have the institutions to enforce it or the stability or capacity for institutions to abide by the policy.

The anti-corruption commision is another good example. Many countries that wished to eradicate corruption have set up anti-corruption units, but when anti-corruption units are also corrupt, since they have been established by the existing powers, it is self-defeating.

Therefore, thinking that we can avoid an economic crisis or overcome the crisis by focusing on corruption as the sole measure shows a lack of depth. We have to evaluate the system somewhat more broadly to fix it.

A common question people ask is, “where are the assets for the loans we have taken?”. In that case, people think we have taken loans and syphoned that money out without investing. The deficit of the value of the projects and the loans we have taken is generally considered to be that which has been spent on corruption. While there have definitely been kickbacks from the projects, most of the money we have borrowed has been borrowed not for projects but to pay the interests of the loans we had borrowed before.

From our debt, about 74% has been used to pay interest or for exchange depreciation (40% for interest and 33% for currency depreciation). Since 1999, most of our debt has gone towards bad policies in the form of interest and for the exchange rate. At the point of borrowing money, similar to what happened in the Central Bank bond scam, there can be corruption, but the corruption is often an outcome of a bad policy or a poor system rather than a standalone problem.

Thus, rather than thinking about jailing the corrupt, it is easier to fill the gaps in the system where corruption takes place. This is where a market system is needed. The market system has the power to make the players of corruption uncompetitive, because corruption is costly. When the cost is too high, provided the consumer has a choice, they can shift to alternatives. Therefore, it is vitally important to set the market system straight and keep entry and exit barriers at a minimum.

Framework of the market system to think about corruption

How do we decide the project?

Generally, corruption takes place in projects and the decision-making processes of the projects. These mainly come as unsolicited proposals. Someone proposing a solution for a problem that even the government is unaware of falls under the category of unsolicited proposals. The government has the discretionary power to decide which projects are to be done and which projects are to be set aside. This is how quite a lot of construction projects, instead of education and healthcare, get priority.

Most projects under SOEs also fall under this category, which is why SOEs are considered vehicles of corruption and SOE reform is a must. Adhering to the National Physical Plan and getting it through Parliament is one way to minimise it.

Who does the project?

When the project is decided, the selection of the implementation partner is the next window for corruption. Again, it can be awarded through unsolicited proposals or there can be technical corruption where the specifications of the supplies are in favour of a selected supplier.

Unsolicited and competitive processes violate the market system, and on a technical level, corruption is very hard to detect even at the legal stage. However, with an open process on complaints and reevaluation, there is still room for improvement. There are also cases where even the competitive process is established due to a lack of trust in the system; the most suitable person doesn’t want to apply and go through the process.

Deciding on the price

The other point of corruption is when it comes to deciding on the price. It could be the interest rates on bonds, the contract value, or the price of the energy purchase. Price discovery is also a market-based process. When prices are allowed to be set without a market-based approach, there is room for corruption. That is how most of the energy agreements were signed and we borrowed money to pay the price. Rather than trying to fix the individual involved in corruption because the next person could repeat these same actions, it is advisable to fix the problem first.

Deciding the quality of materials

The fourth case is where even the people selected through the competitive process simply use inferior quality products. Our experiences in poor quality medicine at the Ministry of Health is just one example.

Corruption can take place in projects or in processes based on any of the above or a combination of any of the four. However, this takes place only when the decision-making power or discretionary power is given to someone who is not the owner of the risk or the investment. Otherwise, it leaves competition out or maintains information asymmetry for someone to benefit from.

In a market system where competition is given priority and prices are allowed to reflect the scarcity value of money, it naturally leaves corruption behind, but creating the information balance is not easy.

Therefore, while no market or government is perfect, a market system is a better system to avoid corruption, rather than expecting the government to eradicate corruption, since the government has no interest or incentive to do business or to eradicate corruption.

It is not about the private sector versus the government – it is all about a market system which incentivises transparency and minimises room for corruption. Our continuous failure to build that system was the reason for our fall (economic crisis) and we can only overcome it by fixing it, since it is the root cause, and not by fixing the symptom called corruption.

(Source: CBSL, Advocata)

VAT: The good, the bad and the solutions

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

The Value Added Tax (VAT) increase from 15% to 18% and the removal of about 95 items from the VAT exempted list to a VAT applicable list has raised concern among politicians and people alike. 

When taxes change too often, public confusion and erosion of tax revenue both have to be expected. VAT was once 8% in Sri Lanka and then revised to 12%. It was again increased to 15% and finally now to 18%. The VAT threshold was once at Rs. 12 million and later increased to Rs. 300 million. Currently it is at Rs. 80 million and expected to be reduced to Rs. 60 million. 

When the VAT threshold was increased to Rs. 300 million from Rs. 12 million, the number of individuals registered for VAT dropped to 8,000 from 28,000. Our policymakers are discussing expanding the tax base after diluting our tax base through our own inconsistent policies. 

One of the key principles of taxation is stability, according to the Tax Foundation. The other principles are simplicity, transparency, and neutrality. When tax rates and thresholds are changed often, thIMFe markets and individuals react and tax revenue will erode. 

A complicated context 

Sri Lanka’s context is sadly more complicated than many other cases. We have given a commitment to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on increasing our tax revenue because our interest costs are extremely high. Most of the interest is inherited due to bad financial management over the years and there is very little meaning in blaming each other. 

On one hand, the Government has no other option but to increase revenue through taxation. However, on the other hand, when taxes are increased the economy will contract. Growth, which is also a key requirement for us to emerge from the crisis, will be affected due to the lowered purchasing power of the people. When the economy contracts, tax revenue will also start to decline.  

Given the perennial weaknesses in our tax administration, the Government has selected the most convenient option of VAT to be increased, since it can be collected easily compared to other taxes. VAT is considered to be better compared to other taxes such as the Nation Building TAX (NBT) or the Social Security Levy (SSL), which are considered to be cascading taxes, where throughout the economic process one tax is applied on top of the other. 

This leads to a situation where the effective tax rate becomes very high, but with VAT, tax will only be applicable for the value added throughout the supply chain. Also, high income earners generally contribute a higher VAT in total as VAT is a consumption tax. People with higher incomes tend to consume more, so the more they spend, the more taxes the Government can recoup. 

The negative impact of VAT can be witnessed when it is applied to food items. The poorest of society gets adversely impacted, since their percentage of expenditure on food is very high compared to people who fall into higher income brackets. 

There will be considerable impact on the overall prices for the common people with the new VAT revisions. The price of petrol and diesel is expected to increase by about Rs. 50-60 (provided the other taxes are not changed and global fuel prices remain the same). LP Gas (12.5 kg cylinder) will increase by about Rs. 500-600. 

Prices of solar panels, electronic items, laptops, and mobile phones are expected to rise. This will also have an impact on inflation as well, but we need to keep in mind that inflation is always a monetary phenomenon. With high prices, people may consider cheaper alternatives and supply and demand will readjust, provided we keep our monetary policy right. 

Solutions 

A key solution to bringing down prices of food items is to remove the Special Commodity Levy (SCL) applied to these items. The SCL not only increases prices, but the provisions provided to the minister to impose and remove the SCL overnight opens significant room for corruption. The recent increase of the SCL on sugar to Rs. 50 from 25 cents is a good example of how an overnight gazette creates room for corruption and passes the burden to the people. 

Other taxes on food items including CESS, Ports and Airport Development Levy (PAL), and many other para-tariffs should be removed. There is a myth that productivity can be improved by imposing tariffs on domestic food items. If that is the case, our industries for milk, yoghurt, cheese, and many other food items have to be extremely productive and efficient. Instead of domestic product growth, we see the same producers ask the Government for further protection. 

Tax competitiveness as a framework 

 Moving forward, Sri Lanka has to look at tax competitiveness as a framework for thinking about taxes. In the global context, everything is about competitiveness, including the tax system. As an example, if corporate tax is 25% in competing markets in the region, we cannot increase the corporate tax to 30%, only considering the revenue requirement of the Government. 

At the same time, we cannot compromise our healthcare and education systems, which help to develop better skills through taxpayer money, by bringing taxes unnecessarily down and compromising our tax revenue. In a market system, competition and prices play a key role, and the same is applicable for taxes, FDIs, and many other variables. 

We have to first take the basic steps of improving tax administration. We then have to rationalise our expenditure and spend where we need to spend, thereafter raising revenue by being competitive. A VAT increase to increase Government revenue alone will not solve our macro instability. We have to ensure macro stability by being competitive in all aspects of the economy.  

Looming political and economic challenges ahead of elections

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

“We know what should be done to get the country on the right track, but we don’t know how to get power back after implementing the policies.” This is a popular statement I hear often when I meet quite a few politicians. The truth is that politicians do not know how to get back power because it’s not an attractive solution.

The popular policies that bring politicians into power are the very same that inspire their ousting at the very next election cycle. People hardly object to good policies unless the same politicians instigate false propaganda. The Right to Information (RTI) Act was just one such instance.

As an election is due next year, it is vital to understand and remember our priorities, otherwise our politicians are likely to take a wrong turn and pass the buck back to the people.

In an election year, the behaviour of any political party is to completely abandon rational economic reforms and play to populist narratives that result in outcomes that are the complete opposite, with the motive of coming to power.

Bringing down fuel prices and announcing other types of subsidies are common tactics. This is harmful, especially when those benefits cannot be financed sustainably, or in some situations, brought into life in the first place.

Even if it does not retain power, the newly-elected government will have a tough time preventing plans that have already been put in place and enacting better policies.

Political risk

In the current context, we run a very high risk of our politicians bringing us back to square one; i.e. another economic crisis. This, given the fact that 2024 is set to be an election year, is a recipe for disaster.

All political parties will shift their focus to slowly becoming more populist rather than being driven by objectivity. Therefore, the real risk is going back to another debt restructuring if we fail to grow the economy and our exports.

There are many politicians who do not understand the gravity of the need for reforms. Regardless of which party or coalition comes to power, there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

The process is more or less the same as handing over a house with structural issues from one tenant (government) to the other. The new tenant cannot function because neither the previous tenant nor the owner (people) is willing to fix the fundamental problems.

Risk of a second debt default

Given the unstable political environment coupled with a country already going through debt restructuring, the risks of a second debt default are astronomically high. As we are still struggling with finalising the first debt restructuring, adding a second one into the mix will leave us in dire straits.

The second one will undoubtedly be harder, especially given the significant increase in interest rates and being unable to print money with the new Central Bank Act. If we fail to raise money through markets in order to roll over debt and if we are not open to increasing interest rates, the only option we will be left with is to default again. At that point, most likely there will be pressure once again to amend the newly-enacted Central Bank Act to allow money printing.

Of course, that would be an inflationary measure and we will be back at square one with a balance of payments crisis, debt crisis, humanitarian crisis, and likely a banking crisis too.

Solutions: A common minimum programme for reforms

Reforms are easier in the first 100 days of any government. If we fail to enact reforms within the first 100 days, more often than not, no reforms will take place. Failing to undertake reforms in 100 days means a cost of a five-year delay plus many bad policy decisions in the middle, which are costly and difficult to reverse.

Ideally, if key political parties come to an agreement before an election on selected reforms and execute them regardless of who comes into power, it will at least ensure some stability for Sri Lanka. There are many ideas that all political parties have in common.

Regarding State-Owned Enterprise reforms, there is no political party that says the Government should run an airline. Even National People’s Power Economic Advisor Dr. Anil Jayantha, in an interview with Advocata, noted that they did not believe the Government should do any business with hotels.

Accordingly, there are many other similar areas where we can arrive at an agreement with little difficulty. Therefore, regardless of who wins elections, people can win and sustain some of the economic reforms.

The truth is that reforms are inevitable if Sri Lanka needs to move forward and for any political party to sustain its power. Implementing bad policies, especially considering the status of our country, will make it very difficult to sustain power, because then we will be setting the standard for a new normal in economics and politics.

Fiscal path amidst promises and uncertainties

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Starting from the second week of November, every minute in Parliament will be focused on the national Budget. Fortunately or unfortunately, many of the promises outlined in the Budget are unlikely to be implemented or fulfilled.

At the same time, items that are not in the Budget may be implemented midway through the year, based on the direction of the wind. Things are especially likely to take a completely different turn in an election year.

A key criticism against this Budget is that the revenue proposals to cover up the expenditure proposals are not adequately mentioned. A revenue of Rs. 4,100 billion is expected for an expenditure of Rs. 6,900 billion. It’s akin to wanting to spend Rs. 69 while only having Rs. 41 in hand. The challenge is that we are uncertain as to how we will earn even Rs. 41.

An earlier proposal to increase VAT by 3% and remove the exemptions on VAT can be seen as a measure to increase revenue. There are a few proposals to increase the tax base, which is a step in the right direction, such as the requirement of a Tax Identification Number (TIN) for opening a current account, obtaining a building licence, and for revenue licences for vehicles.

The question that arises is what would happen if we fail to generate even the expected revenue and I think there are three scenarios that can occur if we fail to achieve the revenue targets in the middle of the year.

Scenario 1: Cutting down on capital expenditure

Approximately Rs. 1,200 billion has been allocated for capital expenditure in the 2024 Budget. This includes some proposals such as a new airport and building a few universities. So we will likely have to rechannel some of the capital expenditure to recurrent expenditure if we fail to generate revenue.

What is important to note is that, compared to last year, capital expenditure makes up a lower percentage of total expenditure. So in a context of starting with an already lower capital expenditure base, cutting capital expenditure from key areas of growth such as health or education further will maim our growth in the long run.

Slower growth is also not favourable for Sri Lanka because the need of the moment is growth. Only growth will increase our tax revenue and create more employment opportunities and business opportunities.

Scenario 2: High inflation

The second scenario would be the Government exploring the opportunity to get finances from the Central Bank to bridge the deficit. With the new Central Bank Act, the space for doing this is very low, but if past experiences hold true, anything is possible. There is a transition period of about 18 months and we should not underestimate the crafty nature of our politicians to find legal loopholes.

If the Budget deficit is being financed through the Central Bank (money printing), further increases in cost of living and high inflation are unavoidable. It will also drain our forex reserves and build additional pressure on our currency and likely end up with a currency depreciation after a few months’ cycle: a cycle not so distant in memory.

The Central Bank financing this Budget deficit will also challenge the sustainability of the IMF programme. As the next year is an election year, politicians will mainly think about the elections before the economy, despite promises made. While the new Central Bank Act tries to stop this from taking place, the possibility cannot be ruled out fully.

Scenario 3: Hike in interest rates

The third scenario is where the Government borrows money from the market to bridge the gap and allow interest rates to move. This will not cause inflation as the Budget deficit is not being financed through the Central Bank, but the cost of money will go up (interest rates moving up).

When the cost of money goes up, growth will contract. When this happens, businesses start winding-up operations and expansions become difficult. Also, banks will lend more money to the Government at higher interest rates, slowing down credit for the private sector.

When the economy slows down there may be an impact on the tax revenue on one side. On the other side, with limited growth, achieving debt sustainability will be challenging.

Solution

In order to prevent these scenarios from taking place, it is imperative that we reduce wasteful expenditure. The key solution is to focus on reforming State-Owned Enterprises (SOE). SOE reforms can increase revenue, cut down expenditure, bring down our debt, and attract foreign investments.

The bank recapitalisation of Rs. 450 billion, mentioned in the Budget, is due to the debt owed by two SOEs that have losses which amount to Rs. 1,800 billion. The taxpayer is now expected to pay the bill. It amounts to about Rs. 20,000 per citizen from taxpayer money for bank recapitalisation. That is a staggering Rs. 80,000 per household of four members.

Boosting tourism is also another option. While there is a fund for tourism promotions which has to be utilised well for building our brand image, it will all be in vain if we do not do things as simple as removing regulatory barriers to tourism.

The final bird in our hand as a solution is the Colombo Port City. We have to accelerate the process and attract investments.

If we play our cards right, we can at least move a step ahead in 2024.

Navigating salary hikes amid the storm of inflation

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Sri Lanka is currently going through a difficult period and this extends to Government sector employees as well. In light of these difficulties, there have been recent discussions centred around the possibility of a salary hike of Rs. 20,000 for Government sector employees in the upcoming Budget. While a salary increment is desirable, a more effective policy-level alternative could be maintaining a low inflation rate, which is more than equivalent to a salary increment across the board. 

The call for salary increments in the Government sector intensified following last year’s inflation, which exceeded 70%. Private sector salaries are just now adjusting to the new economic landscape. Inflation is a significantly more severe and burdensome tax on people, and unfortunately, we have been experiencing its effects over the last year or so.

Government employees are undeniably facing a challenging period, but it’s crucial not to overlook the fundamental cause of the high cost of living. The current cost of living crisis is the direct result of carrying out excessive money printing, as endorsed by the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

If the salaries of Government sector workers are increased by Rs. 20,000, a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that it will cost the Government an additional Rs. 360 billion (1.5 million Government employees x Rs. 20,0000 (increment) x 12 (months) = Rs. 360 billion). 

For the year 2023, the expected Government revenue from PAYE Tax is approximately Rs. 100 billion following the tax revision. Notably, the salary increment alone requires more than three times the amount of tax collected through PAYE Tax.

In 2022, the collection of VAT amounted to Rs. 464 billion. This proposed Government sector pay increase would equal more than 75% of the total VAT collection. Even with a more modest increment of Rs. 10,000, it would still be 1.5 times the PAYE Tax collection and one-third of VAT collection. 

An alternative approach to financing this salary increase is to borrow from the Central Bank. Since the new Central Bank Act imposes significant restrictions on borrowing, it is not entirely impossible, especially during the transition period. 

If the Government opts to borrow from the Central Bank to cover additional expenditure while artificially keeping interest rates low, a second round of high inflation becomes almost inevitable. On the other hand, if the Government borrows at market rates, it would result in an increase in interest rates, potentially slowing down economic growth and creating challenges for businesses. 

If the Government intends to pursue this path, it is advisable to let interest rates fluctuate rather than resorting to money printing and keeping interest rates artificially low. This is because, in the aftermath of a high inflation cycle, there was an inevitable need to raise interest rates to curb inflation. 

On the other hand, we need to keep in mind that the last inflation cycle pushed four million Sri Lankans below the poverty line, bringing the total number of people in poverty to seven million. This has forced many to reduce the number of meals or the size of their meals. The latest reports indicate a rise in malnutrition levels, particularly among infants. 

Given the limited resources, the Government should prioritise assistance for the truly vulnerable and allocate the limited resources to social safety nets. For the last two months, the new Aswesuma programme has faced delays in cash distribution due to various political and logistical challenges. By continuing to not prioritise social safety nets, the Government is inviting instability at the grassroots level. 

International partners and donor agencies have generously supported the establishment of these social safety nets by providing foreign exchange. Delaying and complicating the process may result in the perception that addressing the issue is of lower priority, potentially reducing the willingness of stakeholders to contribute further.

According to the Appropriation Bill tabled in Parliament, total Government expenditure is expected to exceed Rs. 6 trillion for the first time in history. A substantial portion, over Rs. 2.5 trillion, accounts for interest expense on loans. There is limited room for new expenditure items as we are already on an IMF programme and any deviations could have a direct impact on debt restructuring. 

High inflation, though currently low, has lasting negative effects from the previous year. This cost of living crisis, affecting all citizens, particularly hits those below the poverty line. Some of the potential solutions may be challenging and carry potential risks, so the Government must exercise caution in implementation to avoid exacerbating problems.

Understanding corruption: How Sri Lanka’s economic system favours a select few

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Dr. Sharmini Cooray, one of the Advisors to the Sri Lankan Government regarding the IMF, at the 73rd Oration at the Central Bank made an interesting comment, “Lots of Sri Lankans say nothing works in Sri Lanka. That’s not true. Things work well for a small group of people”. 

Unfortunately Sri Lankans do not understand how things are set up to work for a small group of people. The common narrative is that corrupt individuals created the system we are in today, but the stark reality is that the economic system has been set up in a way to incentivise corruption for individuals. Misdirected anger is then projected on individuals forgetting that the system itself creates the corrupt individuals. This is not to say that the individuals are completely absolved of responsibility, a part of the responsibility is on the individual, yet without fixing the system we cannot fix individuals. 

Below are a few examples of how the current system works for corruption.

Last week the President as the Minister of Finance issued a Gazette notification to increase the Special Commodity Levy (SCL) from Rs.0.25 (25 cents) per Kg to Rs.50 per Kg overnight. The problem here is twofold; it creates the possibility for corruption that incurs a cost to the consumer but also ensures that the government loses tax revenue. 

Information symmetry

Information symmetry or availability of information for all players in the market is very important. As the finance minister increases the tariff by almost 5000% if one importer gets to know of this decision before it is enacted he can easily import adequate stocks for about a year early at Rs. 25 cents per Kg before the festive season. The other players' prices now simply become uncompetitive because their 1Kg of sugar has to be at least higher than Rs. 49, given the tariff rate imposed overnight. As a result the small and medium sugar importers will be wiped out of  the market as they simply cannot compete where one or few players have already imported enough stocks at 25 cents tariff and now the rest have to import at Rs.50 per Kg tariff rate. That is how things are made to work only for a small group of people. One of the main criticisms for the Gotabhaya Rajapaksa Government was that the sugar scam was done in a similar manner. 

Most importantly the tariff increase on sugar will not generate revenue for the government because adequate sugar has been already imported. After about a year it is just a matter of another gazette notification to the finance minister to bring the tariff back to 25 cents and claiming that the relief has been provided to the betterment of the poor people. So ultimately a selected group of people are just getting benefited with the support of the politicians. The truth is the loss tariff revenue will be collected from the poverty stricken by increasing the indirect taxes such as VAT.  

This is one reason this column constantly highlighted the need for keeping a simple tariff structure with menial deviations among HS codes as well as over a period of time. This is just one way of how things are only getting worked out for a selected group of people. 

As a result the public builds a bad perception with a misunderstanding of markets that all businesses are run on the same operating system. The truth is the system affects other businesses very badly because of not having a level playing field. 

The solution is to change regulation where any tariff lines cannot be imposed just by the minister of finance. It ideally has to go through parliament and keep the tariffs on HS codes simple and consistent. The more we keep it complicated the more we incentivise corruption. 

The need for a competitive system has to be institutionalized. The best governance system is making sure competitiveness remains stable. We can only do that by removing laws empowering policy makers that further information asymmetry and provide more power to the people so the market system continues. 

Tax shenanigans 

Not only have we  increased SCL by 5000%, our VAT has also been increased by 3%. When we observe the VAT rate changes, the threshold changes over the last 5 years is very concerning. By doing so we have violated the tax principle of “Stability” by changing things often. When we make one mistake at the beginning, retroactively correcting it is not easy. The VAT increase may have come to compensate for the 20,000 salary hike for the 1.5 million government employees. To make things politically digestible, an attempt may be to increase the VAT before the budget as a press release and announce a big salary increase for government employees as victory. On top of it there vehicle permits and so many perks are the system of how things are making well for a small group of people.  

The simple truth is to make governance work, we have to make market works. Governance is the system of making markets work and making a level playing field. The moment we deviate from markets there is no way we can keep the governance going.  

What happened to our debt?

By Dhananath Fernando

Sri Lanka’s debt situation is still a mystery for some. During a panel discussion, I pointed out that Sri Lanka’s State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) have amassed a staggering 1.8 trillion in debt, all guaranteed by the Treasury and classified as ‘Public Debt’. One question from the audience was, “What did we do with the money we borrowed?” The simple answer is that money was borrowed primarily to service the interest on the initial loans Sri Lanka took out. Therefore,  despite borrowing substantial amounts, there is nothing tangible or visible to show for it, as a majority was essentially sunk into interest. 

To provide context, since 1999, approximately 74% of the increase in debt can be attributed to interest payments and currency depreciation. Interest payments accounted for a substantial 40% of the debt accumulated since the 1990’s, while the exchange rate depreciation contributed to 33%. 

What Sri Lanka faced was a precarious combination in terms of borrowing and our monetary policy. Our expansionary monetary policy played a significant role in the depreciation of the currency over the years, exacerbating the situation further. Compounding this issue was the fact that approximately 50% of our borrowing was in foreign currency. As it is indicated in 2022, with Modern Monetary theory in play, the significant depreciation of the exchange rate since 2020 led to an accumulation of debt beyond our repayment capacity.

Printing more money artificially increases the demand for foreign exchange.  However, after depleting our reserves in an attempt to defend the currency, the only option left was to allow the currency to float, leading to a sharp depreciation. In the case for Sri Lanka, it was not just the currency depreciation; social unrest, debt default, and numerous other crises followed when the government resorted to borrowing from the Central Bank through money printing.

As at the end of June 2023, our total public debt has increased to USD 96.5 billion, with approximately 50% of it in domestic debt. The country’s public debt now stands at about 127.4% of GDP. Even if debt restructuring is successful after negotiations with the Paris Club and separate discussions with China, we only anticipate a reduction to 95% of GDP by 2032. 

Undoubtedly, expediting the debt restructuring process is crucial, especially given the unpredictable twists in geopolitics. While the tentative agreement with China Exim Bank to restructure the debt is a positive development for Sri Lanka, we must fast track negotiations with our other foreign creditors. Complicating matters, as we approach an election year, there is a significant risk of derailing the process as unfortunately, there is a lack of consensus among political parties regarding the economic stabilization program for the next few years. This further exacerbates the challenges Sri Lanka faces.

Solution 

If Sri Lanka is genuinely committed to resolving its debt crisis, a crucial step is to establish a consensus on public finance across the major political parties. At the very least, adherence to a single plan, such as the IMF program, is necessary. However, even the IMF program alone will be insufficient to take Sri Lanka to the next stage of economic stability. Therefore, there must be a fundamental agreement on specific reforms across party lines. For example, there exists a common minimum program in Parliament, shaped with contributions from the business community and organizations like Advocata. It is not too late to revisit and endorse this document. Committing to these agreed-upon reforms before political parties develop their individual manifestos in the coming years could provide a stable foundation for Sri Lanka's economic future.

Shaping Sri Lanka’s growth narrative

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

Securing the second tranche from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an important step, especially to support our ability to successfully carry out the debt restructuring process. It is not just about the $ 330 million that this tranche brings; it is about the credibility it gives to the reform process and the confidence it instils in the international community, including bilateral and multilateral creditors. 

The moment we deviate from the IMF programme and allow our debt to remain unsustainable, we risk regressing to square one. However, we should not get our aims and priorities mixed up. Our aim is not to secure IMF tranches. We need to prioritise achieving deep and meaningful reforms. The IMF tranche will follow as a result. 

Ultimately, our goal should be to ensure that, in the future, we never find ourselves in a position where we need to turn to the IMF for assistance.

As this column has discussed many times, it is essential to recognise that the IMF can only stabilise the economy and facilitate credit access, which is a crucial element in our debt restructuring process. The responsibility to clear out the roadblocks that stand in the way of economic growth rests solely on our shoulders. We have to carry out reforms that go beyond the scope of the IMF programme. 

Three key reforms aiming to boost economic growth will be discussed below.

Reforms to attract more tourists 

Focusing on tourism can significantly contribute to the country’s economic recovery. In addition to bringing in foreign exchange, their spending in domestic markets contributes significantly to Government revenue through VAT. Instead of fixating on the number of inbound tourists, our focus should be on the number of nights a tourist stays in the hotel/country. Simplifying the entry process will attract more tourists, and more importantly, entice them to prolong their stay. 

In line with Daniel Alphonsus’ recent article, making the visa process more flexible for tourists is crucial. Our focus should not be on visa fees, but rather to encourage tourists to spend more. This allows local industries to capture the revenue and enhances Government revenue through VAT and various other forms of fees and indirect taxes.

Offering a two-year multiple-entry visa for citizens from countries with a per capita GDP four times higher than Sri Lanka’s is a strategic move to attract high-income tourists. Given our current fiscal situation, carrying out extensive global promotional campaigns are beyond our financial capacity. Therefore, our focus should shift to initiatives that can be implemented effectively with just a stroke of a pen.

Addressing labour force shortages 

Retaining skilled talent within Sri Lanka is a challenge faced by many industries, including blue chip companies. These labour shortages are anticipated to affect us from next year onwards, jeopardising the sustainability of existing businesses.

To address this issue and prevent businesses from relocating, it is essential to allow companies the flexibility to recruit from international markets. This approach is crucial to sustaining businesses and their supply chains. Permitting companies to hire skilled labour from outside Sri Lanka will not only alleviate pressure on the country’s labour market, but also offer advantages to consumers and businesses competing in global markets.

Further, it encourages the transfer of knowledge and skills, leading to improved productivity. For example, collaborating with professionals from countries like Japan could introduce advanced productivity management techniques, enhancing overall efficiency. Free movement of people is a crucial step in improving our productivity and driving the economic growth of the country.  

If relaxing labour market regulations proves too complicated, a pragmatic alternative is to permit foreign spouses of Sri Lankans to work in Sri Lanka. This measure could help in attracting more skilled workers, providing an incentive for Sri Lankans with families of mixed citizenship to return and settle here. Importantly, this reform won’t incur any costs for the Government; it simply involves changing existing regulations.

Industrial zones for private sector and simplifying tariffs  

For us to emerge from this crisis, our primary focus should be on global trade. The complicated tariff structure that is currently in place enables corruption and is a source of frustration for both exporters and importers. Simplifying the tariff structure into three to four tariff bands is essential to streamlining Government revenue administration. 

The existing high and complicated tariffs lead to massive leakages of tariff revenue. Moreover, these tariffs discourage imports, hampering productivity and burdening consumers. Implementing a straightforward tariff structure is imperative, removing para-tariffs such as CESS and PAL. Furthermore, we must ensure that the tariff structure for any HS Code is easy to compute and has minimal deviations.

A significant bottleneck in our system that hinders investments and export growth is the shortage of land for industrial activities. Currently, 95% of the land in Board of Investment (BOI) industrial zones in the Western Province is occupied. Investors are required to obtain approximately 17 approvals in order to set up operations and this process can take more than two years. 

Regrettably, the BOI has not initiated any development projects in the last 15 years. A viable solution that the Government should consider is utilising State-Owned Enterprise (SOE)-owned land and allowing the private sector to develop industrial zones on it. 

Private sector-run industrial zones can operate as a plug-and-play model, where the private sector attracts investors and secures the necessary approvals in advance. This approach does not require any Government investments; in fact, it can generate more revenue for the Government through leasing or selling the land for development. 

If Sri Lanka is genuinely committed to economic growth and recovery from the crisis, our primary focus should be on implementing these reforms rather than solely relying on the IMF.  While the IMF can provide us with short-term stability, it’s our responsibility as Sri Lankan citizens to shape our own growth narrative.

Securing Food Security

Originally appeared on The Morning

By Dhananath Fernando

World Food Day falls on 16 October. In Sri Lanka, food security has been a topic of discussion for a considerable period of time, especially gaining prominence during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

During that period, there was confusion between food security and self-sufficiency. Instead of focusing on ensuring food security, the emphasis was placed on self-sufficiency, with the belief that all food consumed in Sri Lanka should be produced within the country. There were even discussions among Sri Lankans about shifting from using lentils (dhal) to locally-grown maize.

After approximately two years, when we assess the Global Food Security Index report, Sri Lanka is ranked 79th out of 113 countries. Food security isn’t solely about achieving self-sufficiency by producing all the food within the country; it encompasses the affordability, availability, quality and safety, as well as a nation’s exposure and resilience to natural resource risks.

Prior to the inclusion of the natural resources and resilience component, Singapore led the Global Food Security Index. However, after adding this component in 2022, Singapore dropped to the 28th position, with Finland now topping the Index. India is in the 68th position, Nepal in the 74th position, and Bangladesh in the 80th position, just one spot below Sri Lanka.

Due to the economic crisis, characterised by high inflation rates, particularly in food prices, the number of people who were food insecure exceeded six million. This number has now decreased to less than four million, emphasising the significant role economic stability plays in ensuring people’s food security.

Sri Lanka’s food security has always been a challenge due to economic policies that have been against market dynamics. Monetary instability resulting from the unfettered levels of money printing led to food inflation, affecting the affordability of food. 

The Government’s imposition of price controls led to shortages of protein sources such as eggs and chicken, further impacting the availability of food. Additionally, the Government imposed a Special Commodity Levy (SCL) on selected food items as a protectionist measure, maize being a prime example, driving up prices. 

Maize is a key raw material for the aquaculture and poultry industries. Price volatility in maize also affects the prices of poultry products and other locally consumed protein sources, sometimes impacting the competitiveness of our agricultural exports. 

The Government’s approach, whether through higher tariffs or import bans, is equally detrimental. Our food security structure is simply unsustainable, with weak and unpredictable supply chains and inconsistent policies.

Ensuring food security involves addressing both macro and micro issues. A holistic approach, taking into account land rights, is essential. The documentary recently released by the Advocata Institute titled ‘Land, Freedom and Life’ highlights the challenges faced by farmers due to the absence of land rights, hindering their access to capital or technology to enhance productivity.

In addition to land rights, water management is another critical aspect that needs serious consideration. Currently, our water usage in paddy cultivation is unsustainable. We consume approximately 1,400 litres of water to produce 1 kg of rice. Even if we price a litre of water at 50 cents, the cost of the rice we consume would significantly surpass current prices. 

With the challenges posed by climate change, future water availability cannot be guaranteed. Despite the number of people experiencing food insecurity declining, our approach in food production is not sustainable. Another local or global shock could easily set us back.

The Government has attempted various approaches such as providing subsidies for farmers, free meals for school children, and free nutritional packages for women during maternity. However, in order to truly  address Sri Lanka’s food security crisis, a multifaceted approach is required. 

This should begin with macroeconomic stabilisation, providing land titles for farmers and agro-companies to enhance agricultural productivity, reducing labour costs in agriculture, recognising the interconnectedness of markets, and allowing market forces to operate.

Until these issues are resolved, World Food Day will remain a day for discussing problems without implementing solutions.