High govt. revenue and low foreign exchange reserves High foreign exchange reserves and low govt. revenue!

Government has permitted, after several years, the import of motor cars. Imports, including cars, were cut off because the government then wisely prioritised importing other commodities vital to the everyday life of the general public. It is fair to expect that some pent-up demand for motor vehicles has developed. But at what prices? Government seems to have expected that consumers would pay much higher prices than had prevailed earlier.

The rupee price of foreign exchange had risen by about half from Rs.200 per US$ to Rs.300. In those years, the cost of production of cars also had risen. The government dearly wanted more revenue to meet increasing government expenditure. Usually, motor cars are bought by those with higher incomes or larger amounts of wealth. Taxes on the purchase of cars probably promote equity in the distribution of incomes. The collection of tax on motor cars is convenient. What better commodity to tax?

The announced price of a Toyota Camry is about Rs.34 million. Among us, a Camry is usually bought by those with a substantially higher income than the average middle-income earner. It is not a luxury car like a Mercedes Benz 500/ BMW 700i. Yes, there are some Ferrari drivers. When converted into US dollars, the market price of a Camry 2025 in Sri Lankan amounts to about $110,000. The market price of a Camry in US is about $34,000, where it is usually bought by income earners in the middle-middle class: typically assistant professors in state universities or young executives. Who in Lanka will buy a Camry at Rs.34 million or $110,000 a piece?

How did Treasury experts expect high revenue from the import of motor cars? The price of a Toyota Camry in US markets is about $34,000. GDP per person, a rough measure of income per person in US, was about $ 88,000 in 2024. That mythical ‘average person’ in US in 2024, could spend about 2.5 month’s income and buy a Toyota Camry. Income per person, in Lanka in 2024, was about $ 4,000. The market price of a Camry in Lanka is about $ 133,000. A person in Lanka must pay 33 years of annual income to buy a Toyota Camry in 2025.

Whoever imagined that with those incomes and prices, there would be any sales of Camry in Lanka? After making necessary adjustments (mutatis mutandis), Toyota Camry’s example applies to all import dues increases. Higher import duties will yield some additional revenue to government. How much they will yield cannot be answered without much more work. High import duties will deter people from buying imported goods. There will be no large drawdown of foreign exchange; nor will there be additional government revenue: result, high government foreign exchange reserves and low government revenue.

For people to buy cars at such higher prices in 2025, their incomes must rise substantially (unlikely) or they must shift their preferences for motor cars and drop their demand for other goods and services. There is no reason to believe that any of those changes have taken place. In the 2025 budget, government has an ambitious programme of expenditure. For government to implement that programme, they need high government revenue. If the high rates of duties on imports do not yield higher government revenue as hypothesised earlier, government must borrow in the domestic market. The economy is not worthy of raising funds in international capital markets yet.

If government sells large amounts of bonds, the price of all bonds will fall, i.e. interest rates will rise, with two consequences. First, expenditure on interest payments by government will rise for which they would need more revenue. Second, high interest rates may send money to banks rather than to industry. Finding out how these complexities will work out needs careful, methodically satisfactory work. It is probable that if government borrows heavily to pay for budgetary allocations, the fundamental problem arising out of heavy public debt will not be solved.

The congratulatory comments made by the Manager of IMF applied to the recent limited exercise of handling the severity of balance of payments and public debt problems. The fundamental problem of paying back debt can be solved only when the economy grows fast enough (perhaps 7.5 % annually) for several years. Of that growth, perhaps, half (say 4 % points) need to be paid back for many years to reduce the burden of external debt.

Domestic use of additional resources can increase annually by no more than 3.5 percent, even if the economy grows at 7.5 percent per year. Leaders in society, including scholars in the JJB government, university teachers and others must highlight the problems and seek solutions therefor, rather than repeat over and over again accounts of the problem itself.

Growth must not only be fast and sustained but also exports heavy. The reasoning is as follows. This economy is highly import-dependent. One percent growth in the economy required 0.31% percent increase in imports in 2012 and 0. 21 percent increase in 2024. The scarcity of imports cut down the rate of growth of the economy in 2024. Total GDP will not catch up with what it was in (say) 2017, until the ratio of imports to GDP rises above 30 percent.

The availability of imports is a binding constraint on the rate of growth of the economy. An economy that is free to grow will require much more imports (not only cement and structural steel but also intermediate imports of many kinds). I guess that the required ratio will exceed 35 percent. Import capacity is determined by the value of exports reduced by debt repayments to the rest of the world. The most important structural change in the economy is producing exports to provide adequate import capacity. (The constant chatter by IMF and the Treasury officials about another kind of structural change confuses the issue.) An annual 7.5 percent growth in the economy requires import capacity to grow by about 2.6 percent annually.

This economy needs, besides, resources to pay back accumulated foreign debt. If servicing that accumulation requires, takes 4% points of GDP, import capacity needs to grow by (about) 6.6 percent per year, for many years. Import capacity is created when the economy exports to earn foreign exchange and when persons working overseas remit substantial parts of their earnings to persons in Lanka. Both tourism and remittances from overseas have begun to grow robustly. They must continue to flow in persistently.

There are darkening clouds raised by fires in prominent markets for exports from all countries including those poor. This is a form of race to the bottom, which a prominent economist once called ‘a policy to beggar thy neighbour (even across the wide Pacific)’. Unlike the thirty years from 1995, the next 30 years now seem fraught with much danger to processes of growth aided by open international trade. East Asian economies grew phenomenally by selling in booming rich markets, using technology developed in rich countries.

Lanka weighed down with 2,500 years of high culture ignored that reality. The United States of America now is swinging with might and main a wrecking ball to destroy that structure which they had put up, one thought foolishly, with conviction. Among those storms, many container ships would rather be put to port than brave choppy seas. High rates of growth in export earnings seem a bleak prospect. There yet may be some room in the massive economies of China and India.

Consequently, it is fanciful to expect that living conditions will improve rapidly, beginning with the implementation of the 2025 budget. It will be a major achievement if the 2025 budget is fully implemented, as I have argued earlier. Remarkable efforts to cut down on extravagance, waste and the plunder of public funds will help, somewhat; but not enough. IMF or not, there is no way of paying back accumulated debt without running an export surplus sufficient to service debt obligations.

Exports are necessary to permit the economy to pay off accumulated debt and permit some increase in the standard of living. Austerity will be the order of the day for many years to come. It is most unlikely that the next five years will usher in prosperity.

By Usvatte-aratchi