Tariff hikes on onions and potatoes: Farmers protected, poor forgotten

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

Over the last few weeks, while the Government and Opposition sparred over political theatre, ‘crossing the Rubicon’ as they call it, a decision with far more impact on ordinary people went largely unnoticed. The import tariffs on big onions and potatoes were increased to Rs. 50 and Rs. 80 per kilo, respectively.

The Minister claims that earlier the Special Commodity Levy (SCL) was Rs. 10 for big onions and Rs. 60 for potatoes. The justification? Protecting farmers.

Yes, farmers matter. But protecting them at this cost by placing the full burden on consumers is unacceptable. Sri Lanka is still reeling from its economic crisis. According to a LIRNEasia survey, four million people fell into poverty during the crisis, raising the total to seven million.

World Bank data suggests nearly 25% of Sri Lankans now live below the poverty line. The Department of Census and Statistics (DCS) estimates that one needs around Rs. 17,000 per month just to stay above it. In this context, how do we justify a Rs. 80 and Rs. 50 tariff on two of the poorest man’s dry rations?

When ‘protection’ means higher prices

These tariffs are not unique to onions and potatoes. Similar duties apply to many day-to-day essentials. Take onions: the DCS notes that the retail price is about Rs. 140 per kilo. With the revised SCL, the price will likely hit Rs. 170–180. That means nearly one-third of the price is simply a tax disguised as ‘farmer protection.’

Potatoes tell the same story. At Rs. 300 a kilo, the extra Rs. 20 levy pushes the price to Rs. 310–320. Roughly a quarter of the price is tax. Supermarket shelves already show potatoes at Rs. 340 and onions between Rs. 190 and Rs. 230.

So should we not protect farmers? Of course we must. But let’s remember: farmers already receive fertiliser subsidies, seed subsidies, and other support. If further protection is needed, the better way is direct cash support linked to output. That way, the cost does not cascade to millions of poor consumers who have no escape. After all, the number of onion and potato farmers is tiny compared to the number of people who eat them.

A breeding ground for corruption

Tariffs that change overnight also open space for corruption. Anyone with inside information can import just before the revision and pocket huge windfalls after the levy kicks in. With commodities like onions and potatoes, which last more than a month in storage, the temptation is obvious.

We have been here before. Remember the sugar levy hike years ago? That saga exposed how easy it is to game the system with commodities that have long shelf lives. Garlic, rice, and other essentials are also caught in this cycle of discretionary tariff tinkering.

The vicious cycle

High food tariffs ripple through the entire economy. When essentials become expensive, workers from estate labourers to factory staff inevitably demand higher wages. Over time, these wage pressures erode competitiveness and trap the country in a vicious cycle of high costs and low productivity.

Even the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Governance Diagnostic has flagged this issue, urging Sri Lanka to remove discretionary powers over tariffs and taxes. Reforms to the Strategic Development Projects Act are meant to address exactly this kind of arbitrary policymaking.

Who really drowns in the Rubicon?

At a time when taxpayers are already stretched thin, paying some of the highest personal taxes in the region and facing steep border taxes on everything from food to vehicles, an SCL of Rs. 80 on potatoes and Rs. 50 on onions is simply unfair. If farmers are to be supported, it should be done directly, with incentives for productivity, not by inflating the grocery bill of every struggling household.

Politicians may talk about crossing the Rubicon. But for the poorest of the poor, the Rubicon is not crossed; it is drowned in. And they drown in it under the weight of a rising cost of living.

Why economic reality matters more than honesty

By Dhananath Fernando

Originally appeared on the Morning

At least once a week, we find ourselves blaming corruption and criticising how corrupt our current and former leaders are.

Blaming dishonesty and corruption often suggests that honesty alone could solve all our problems. Honesty, integrity, and transparency are universal values that we must all uphold. However, these values alone cannot guarantee success, especially if we lack an understanding of economics and how the world truly works.

The world operates on incentives. People naturally prioritise their self-interest, even when their actions seem altruistic. A common mistake is believing that policies based on good intentions will always lead to good outcomes.

However, in economics and public policy, success is measured by consequences, not intentions. A well-meaning policy, even when created by an honest person, can have disastrous outcomes. Good intentions alone are not an excuse for poor results in economics.

Take the example of the rice, coconut, and egg markets in Sri Lanka. In the case of rice, many believe that a mafia of rice millers hoarding stocks is the root cause of the problem. To address this, price controls were imposed with the honest intention of lowering prices. Instead, this led to shortages in the rice market and the creation of a black market.

When rice imports were allowed, the landing cost was around Rs. 130 per kilo. It was assumed that traders would add a profit margin if the imports were sold without price controls, so a tariff of Rs. 65 was imposed to limit their earnings.

This, however, resulted in consumers paying an additional Rs. 65 per kilo at a time when approximately 25% of the population lives below the poverty line. This demonstrates how well-intentioned policies can backfire when basic economic principles, like how price controls create shortages and tariffs burden the poor, are ignored.

A classic example of unintended consequences is the subsidy for kerosene. The subsidy was introduced to provide an affordable fuel source for poor households. At the refinery level, kerosene is a byproduct closely related to jet fuel.

The subsidy made kerosene so cheap that it created excessive demand, prompting industries to convert boilers and heat-generating systems to run on kerosene. Even tuk-tuks and long-distance buses began mixing kerosene with fuel to cut costs and boost performance. Once again, good intentions resulted in undesirable consequences.

The maize market provides a similar example. To encourage local maize farmers, a licensing system and high tariffs were introduced. This policy led to inflated maize prices, which significantly impacted the poultry industry since maize is a primary ingredient in animal feed.

As feed costs soared, chicken and egg prices increased, driving up the cost of bakery items. At a time when 25% of the population lives in poverty, the policy intended to protect maize farmers ended up raising food prices for everyone, disproportionately affecting the poor.

Even in the coconut market, the story is no different. Coconut imports are prohibited, forcing domestic production to meet all demands, including those for coconut oil and other byproducts. If imports of specific varieties were allowed, the prime coconuts could be reserved for export, potentially increasing export revenue.

While transparency, honesty, and integrity are essential values, they are not substitutes for sound economic principles. Economics operates on incentives and consequences. In public policy, we must focus on outcomes rather than intentions. That’s why, in economics, honesty alone is not enough – it must be accompanied by an understanding of how systems work.