Will NPP continue Sri Lanka’s path of Economic Suicide?

By Sunil Abhayawardhana

Though Sri Lanka has a new government, its first budget for 2025 remains within the conditions and targets of the ongoing IMF programme (which will continue until the end of 2027).

A major shortfall in the budget is the lack of a ‘developmental thrust,’ which is essential for the country to grow out of the current crisis. Rather than discussing the minutiae of the budget, it is worth looking at how Sri Lanka got into this situation by making the same mistakes over and over again.

Though these mistakes can be pointed out, mainstream economists prefer to stick to the outdated textbook economics taught at university even when proven wrong. Therefore, the best way to bring up Sri Lanka’s mistakes is through a comparative approach with the High Performing Asian Economies (HPAEs).

Missed Opportunities

At independence in 1948, Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) was expected to develop rapidly due to advantages such as its strategic location, which was expected to be a multiplier by itself. This ‘strategic location’ has not fully been made use of to this day.

The oil tank farm in Trincomalee was a big storage facility in 1948. If the government had negotiated to buy the facility from the British (which was finally done in 1965 for 250,000 sterling pounds) and set up a refinery, Trincomalee could have become the oil hub of Asia, long before Singapore. This could have saved the country from the perennial forex crisis that it had to deal with due to the diminishing returns from the plantation economy.

The plantation economy had reached its peak over two decades before Independence and was not able to sustain a growing population. Yet, the immediate post-Independence governments did nothing about this. Though funds were available, there was a deficit in the thinking and a lack of vision for the future. The lack of immediate effort to diversify and industrialise the economy was the first act of economic suicide.

At around the same time, HPAEs such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan (China) embarked on their development programmes, which have brought results far exceeding their own expectations. What was it that the HPAEs got so right, and what did Sri Lanka get so wrong?

A comparison between Sri Lanka and the HPAEs brings up many differences. The four major points of interest that stand out were as follows:

1) No plan

2) Bad theory

3) Bad advice

4) Not understanding development

No Plan

A sovereign country should know where it wants to go and how it hopes to reach its objectives. This is normally expressed in a development plan that provides the public with a clear roadmap. A plan becomes more necessary when countries start out from a very low level of development. An initial burst of energy is required before markets can take over.

A fair amount of strategic thinking goes into the formulation of such a plan. It should take into account the natural and human resources available and the strategic sectors that need development. The plan should aim to keep the cost of development as low as possible.

In a country with different communities, the plan should also unite people to work towards a common objective. A development plan looks not only at growth but also at the pattern of growth. When growth becomes more widespread, it opens up more opportunities for the public.

All HPAEs began their journeys with development plans covering many decades. Some countries, like China and Vietnam, still adhere to five-year plans. Sri Lanka is the one country that tried to develop without a plan. The World Bank mission of 1952 recommended a planning process for Sri Lanka, though it was hardly implemented. The first Ten-Year Plan of 1959 (which took three years to formulate) was never implemented. The Five-Year Plan of 1972 was derailed by the 1973 oil shock.

While Sri Lanka struggled to plan, the HPAEs were already implementing their plans and seeing results. Sri Lanka drifted to depending on ad-hoc methods without long-term objectives. Even after 77 years of Independence, the country is still unable to identify the sectors for industrial development.

Bad Theory

At independence, the country did not have much know-how in economics. The few who had been educated in economics at the UK universities were taught neoclassical economics with a Keynesian tinge. The Quantity Theory of Money (QTM) was the guiding orthodoxy of the time. What the QTM says is that if the quantity of money is increased, there would be a corresponding increase in prices and therefore inflation.

However, the HPAEs realised that if new money was directed towards investment in productive industry, the result would be an expansion of the economy rather than inflation. The bulk of their funds for development came from monetary financing from the Central Bank. They would have taken inspiration from examples such as Canada in the 1940s and Japan in the 1930s, both of which used monetary financing for specific purposes.

Another point to note is the fact that all the HPAEs had multiple development banks, which helped in the development drive. In contrast, Sri Lanka got rid of its two development banks on advice from the West, thereby reducing the availability of long-term credit for the development process.

Due to Sri Lanka’s adherence to the QTM, we have had to rely on other methods of finance, which has created a dependency on foreign aid and a huge foreign currency debt. Though there is so much evidence that monetary financing used wisely can bring great results, many in Sri Lanka still adhere to the QTM. While most universities still teach the old concepts, it is sad that students at the master’s level and beyond do not think for themselves.

Bad Advice

When a country lacks knowledge and experience, it becomes necessary to seek advice from others. The World Bank and the IMF did perform this function in the early days. However, since the neoliberal onslaught, the purpose of these institutions has taken a more politicised turn.

The advice given by the IMF and other international advice has to be analysed, as it often turns out to be more damaging. For example, austerity has been proven to be counterproductive and causes more damage to the economy and social life. The present advice the government is receiving from the IMF, the CBSL, and the Ministry of Finance is no different.

When South Korean President Park Chung-Hee was offered Western economic advisors, he knew exactly what their advice would be. So, he declined the offer and obtained economic advisors from Japan instead.

Sri Lanka, on the other hand, accepted whatever came from the West. Our leaders accepted the ‘Washington Consensus,’ which we follow to this day, even though the author of the document, John Williamson, has himself declared it a dead document.

Economists advise governments towards suicidal actions without observing what has been done around the world before. There are political aspects to this bad advice. As there is an overproduction of global money, such bad advice is actually beneficial to the Western financial sector and its political interests.

Not Understanding Development

Sri Lanka has still not understood what development means. This can be seen from the fact that despite having a potential 30,000 MW of wind power generation, the government wants to give this opportunity to foreign companies and buy back the power with foreign exchange. Even the export potential is given to foreign companies, while local companies lose that opportunity.

If such a situation had been in any of the HPAEs, they would have first developed a local windmill manufacturing industry to meet their needs. That is what development is – developing productive capabilities and creating a productive ecosystem. There are many opportunities that Sri Lanka has missed because the concept of development has not been understood.

Had local inventors been encouraged and supported, a true industrial base would have been flourishing today. One example is Ray Wijewardene’s hand tractor, to which one Sri Lankan asked, “Why do we need hand tractors when there are so many buffaloes around?”. Imagine what the HPAEs would have done with a brilliant, innovative mind like Ray Wijewardene’s.

Even the few sectors of industry built up to world-class levels have been destroyed by bad government policy. One such industry was the heavy construction industry, which is vital for infrastructure development. A local company had built up its capacity to do international projects funded by the World Bank and had performed many projects in the country, but the change of policy after 1977 destroyed the company and opened the doors to foreign companies at inflated prices, for which the country struggles to pay off its loans.

The local highway construction projects are an example, where Sri Lanka’s highways are considered the most expensive in the world, which opened opportunities for corruption. The very first industry developed in the HPAEs was the heavy construction industry in order to keep the cost of development low. Sri Lanka did the opposite.

Conclusion

It is quite clear that Sri Lanka’s present position is of its own making, following quite the opposite of what the HPAEs did. However, though many learn from mistakes, Sri Lanka does not seem to have learnt any lessons. Our advisors keep telling us to repeat our mistakes, and we keep listening to them.

It was expected that the NPP government would make a radical change in thinking, but it has not expressed any meaningful change of thinking with regard to major issues. Without such a change, Sri Lanka will continue on its suicidal path.

(Sunil Abhayawardhana was CEO of Sri Lanka’s largest heavy construction company. He has a master’s degree from the University of Wales and is working on a PhD in economics. He is a member of the Asia Progress Forum, which is a collective of like-minded intellectuals, professionals, and activists dedicated to building dialogue that promotes Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, development, and leadership in the Global South. APF can be contacted at asiaprogressforum@gmail.com).