by C. Narayanasuwami
(A member of the former Ceylon Civil Service and Retired Senior Professional of the Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines)

There has been substantial discussion in recent weeks on what follows next after a convincing victory by the JVP/NPP. Informed and analytical articles have appeared in the country’s main media outlets outlining the varied tasks at hand for the new government to fulfil its mandate to the people. This Paper is intended to highlight a few priority areas for initiating development guided by the principles of good governance.

Components of Good Governance

Good Governance has been singled out as the most important criterion for sound development management. A World Bank Report on Governance and Development (1992), states that “good governance is central to creating and sustaining an environment which fosters strong and equitable development”. This concept has been reiterated several times subsequently in recent years.

The components of good governance are identified as follows; (i) an effective policy framework that incorporates both growth and equity-oriented policies, (ii) a corruption free management system that rewards good performance, (iii) a well-founded institutional framework, including a good public administrative structure with sound recruitment and retention policies for civil servants, (iv) a qualified, competent and skilled workforce at different implementation levels and (v) overall politico-legal framework that supports non-discriminatory policies, and promotes initiative and dynamism in project and program execution.

Sri Lanka has suffered substantially in upholding many of these requirements/values in the last few decades largely due to the adoption of ill-conceived policies and implementation structures, which combined with entrenched corruption in the entire body politic, seriously undermined effective execution of planned development interventions. Today we are at the crossroads because of the rampant misuse of public funds, flagrant violations of the rule of law and inefficient delivery of public services.

Prioritising and formulating developmental interventions

The tasks that lie ahead are formidable – the government must start working on areas requiring immediate intervention. The writer offers his views based on his own personal experience as a senior public servant in Sri Lanka and as an international civil servant who offered his services to 24 countries in the Asia- Pacific Region as a senior professional of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). The suggestions that follow may evoke controversy but every citizen has the right to offer his/her thoughts on subjects of national importance.

In his first policy speech in the Parliament, the President identified key areas that require intervention, specifically drawing attention to agriculture, rural development, poverty reduction, fisheries, tourism and elimination of corruption, among others. The state of the country warrants simultaneous action on many of these areas. The question that arises is whether the country’s current implementation framework and public service orientation will be conducive to support initiatives in this regard without system change.

System change

was strongly endorsed during the elections and remains the key issue for the government today. Changing highly entrenched practices and procedures require commitment, accountability and a high sense of integrity. As the President himself noted in a recent public speech, corruption has seriously undermined the effectiveness of even the Anti-Corruption Watchdog. Several interrelated issues must be addressed on an urgent basis if system change is to become a reality.

Reforming Public Service

Reforms cannot be instituted unless systems inimical to change management and development are drastically modified or changed. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, former Singapore Prime Minister is credited with the statement that a “little bit of totalitarianism is essential to develop countries which have remained lethargic for years”. This is undeniably an apt statement in the context of Sri Lanka which needs to adopt strong policies to make the public service deliver.

There was a recent statement that the public service is overstaffed with around 750, 000 of the 1.3 million staff considered redundant. A ‘needs review’ should be undertaken as soon as possible to carefully evaluate the scope for reduction and possible retirement and redundancy payments. This should be done in consultation and coordination with staff unions to ensure that the overall scope for redundancies is mitigated by re-employment in new ventures, transfers or changes in roles.

The issues relevant to this phenomenon have been addressed in several documents in the recent past – the writer addressed this problem in a Paper published by the Centre for Policy Alternatives, Colombo in April 2016 entitled, “Public Administration in Sri Lanka and the 19th Amendment to the Constitution: Prospects for the Future”. This was further elaborated in his book, ‘Managing Development: People, Policies and Institutions’ published in 2019. Several strategies were identified to redeploy and retrain superfluous staff, merge staff functions and retire unproductive staff through ‘Golden Handshakes’ or similar incentive filled approaches. Unfortunately, very little has been done up to date.

It may be prudent to look at the historical context and learn from lessons to determine changes required to deepen developmental thrusts.

Phases in Sri Lanka’s Development Trajectory

The history of Sri Lanka’s development is characterised by several phases closely following the thoughts and actions of leaders who controlled its destiny since independence. The immediate post-independence period, 1948-1956, much of it under the first Prime Minister, Mr. D.S. Senanayake was the first development phase. This phase arguably was the period of agricultural reawakening with priority accorded to the renewal of the tank civilization. Several initiatives were taken to build, renovate and revive ancient tanks for agricultural development. Simultaneously, colonization schemes or tank-based settlements were established in hitherto underdeveloped areas such as Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa. Epoch-making changes in the social sphere such as the establishment of the free education system and an equally accessible health system greatly beneficial to the citizens of Sri Lanka, created new opportunities for revitalising the tradition-bound social structure.

The second phase from 1956-1965,

turned out to be a period of mixed development in agriculture and industry with a substantial loss in the tempo of development due to the 1958 racial riots, the Sinhala Only Bill, and poor political leadership which undermined social cohesion and economic stability.

The third phase -1965-1970-

saw some progress in accelerating agricultural production with emphasis given to both plantation and domestic agriculture. No concerted efforts were made however, to address some of the fundamental problems affecting the industrial sector.

The next phase-1970-1977

-witnessed some success in enhancing agricultural productivity with equal emphasis given to paddy and subsidiary food production. This period saw the country moving toward self-sufficiency in subsidiary food production but unfortunately it did not last long because of rebel activity – JVP insurrection and LTTE activism- resulting in increased suppression and damage to life and property island wide.

The 1977-1989

phase was a turning point for private sector involvement in development activities which embraced garment industries, telecom and tourist-oriented ventures, in addition to development of small and medium scale enterprises. The private sector emerged as an engine of growth for the first time. Despite these positive developments, the country had to encounter significant downturn in agricultural productivity and social mobility, again due to civil conflicts and insurgencies, both in the north and south. The burning of the Jaffna Public Library, an insensitive and abhorrent event in Sri Lanka’s history, added to increased ethnic tensions.

The ensuing phase-1989-1993

witnessed continued civil conflicts leading to subdued development activities. The major thrust in development during this period was in state sponsored housing and urban development.

The next phase 1993-2004 and thereafter from 2005- 2020

could be categorised as the infrastructure era with roads, railways and airports given considerable investment support along with substantial private sector investment in export-intensive garment industries and agricultural products. Despite these efforts, the country’s growth remained stagnant because of corruption and mismanagement particularly after 2005, altering the pace, direction and durability of investment operations. This led to significant decline in valuable international goodwill and support. Variations in governance, including diminished trust and accountability in government operations, and the establishment of less impact projects such as airports created widespread dissatisfaction among the general populace.

Lessons of Development Learned during the past seven decades.

The foregoing analysis suggests that during the past seven decades Sri Lanka witnessed uneven, isolated and disjointed development efforts and substantial break up of social cohesion

that led to significant exodus of the population to western countries in search of greener pastures. The level of dissatisfaction and disenchantment was convincingly proven in the overwhelming support given by the people to JVP/NPP and Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) in particular, at the recent elections.

The major lessons of development could be summarised as follows:

· Development operations were centred on programs and projects that reflected the ideals, political philosophies and the entrenched thought processes of the ruling elite and was not assessed in a holistic manner taking into consideration the diverse needs of a multi-ethnic nation. There was no long-term vision although several 10 year and five-year plans, and a ‘Regaining Sri Lanka’ planning document were prepared. The tragedy of planning in Sri Lanka was that at no time did any of the development plans enlist all-party support and were not viewed as development visions representing overall national perspectives.

·Planning and executing development projects require mature skills in project development and consistency and continuity in implementation. Malaysia adopted a singularly successful monitoring system in the sixties and seventies. Relevant operations came under the direct purview of the then Prime Minister of Malaysia. The establishment of an ‘Operations Room’ in the Planning Secretariat of Sri Lanka in the late 1960s to monitor implementation, including identification of shortfalls with a view to taking remedial action, was an innovation that was adapted from the Malaysian model. This worked well initially but the momentum declined in subsequent years when enthusiasm waned with the change of governments. The concept was revived in 2022 but its operational performance has not yet been evaluated. It is widely recognised that development requires continuity, enlightened monitoring strategies and thoughtful mid-term interventions for achieving good outcomes.

· The three-decade civil war led by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) severely damaged development operations, and the impact of this was noted in destroyed infrastructure, dilapidated irrigation systems, neglected agricultural activities, and destruction of small-scale industries, all of which resulted in increased poverty and distress among the affected population.

· Social cohesion was destroyed, and ethnic tensions had a pernicious effect on communal activities destroying peace, trust and happiness among well-bonded village communities.

· Unbridled corruption was pervasive from the level of the grass-roots level institutions to heads of institutions/departments making investments costly, unattractive and less profitable. This has had serious repercussions making investors run away from future investments. This was epitomised by a recent statement made by the departing Japanese Ambassador. The result unfortunately was less development and more social dislocation and suffering.

The above analysis confirms how governance approaches, including contradictory socio-economic policies, and lack of a long-term vision contributed to less effective and disjointed development over seven decades. The country continues to remain a developing nation while some of its neighbours have graduated to a first world status. Singapore followed by Malaysia are two examples of countries which had similar beginnings like Sri Lanka but developed fast to overcome their developing country status. Times have changed and a new mandate has been given to revive, review and reconstruct a nation bedevilled by past policies of mismanagement. Past mistakes should serve as solid lessons to promulgate a revitalised approach to development.

Delivering development amidst challenges and opportunities

Policy and Implementation Framework

While policies are framed at the political level the support mechanism for policy planning and implementation are orchestrated through administrative structures. It is axiomatic that an overarching super ministry is given the responsibility for planning and implementing development projects and programs. This has generally been the case in Sri Lanka and many other countries in the region. The President of Sri Lanka has taken over the responsibility for overall management of the ministry of finance, planning and economic development. Plan implementation should be considered central to planning and development and accorded high priority.

The ministry is expected to have overall supervision and oversight in the following areas;

· Support for Policy formulation,

· Designing implementation strategies, including setting of targets, establishing monitoring mechanisms and coordinating delivery of outputs,

· On-going monitoring and post-evaluation of projects and programs.

The current implementation strategies follow a centralised pattern utilising existing decentralized administrative structures at the provincial, district, divisional and grama sevaka levels. The adequacy of the existing administrative structure for planning and implementation needs to be reviewed, restructured and adapted to focus on project/program results/outcomes.

While individual ministries are responsible for implementation of sector-specific programs, it is important that there is proper oversight and coordination at the level of the ministry of plan implementation to ensure that implementation proceeds as originally proposed and that there are no impediments to achieving the intended outcomes. As the functions of monitoring and evaluation are key aspects of project management, it is essential that a highly professional team is set up at the planning ministry level with responsibilities for designing an implementation strategy that accords high priority to achieving targeted results. At the same time, it is important that the ministry also establishes sectoral oversight units or committees consisting of two or three senior staff to oversee implementation at sectoral ministry level by closely monitoring, interacting, and coordinating delivery of anticipated results.

Evaluation of projects/programs

periodically is another management exercise that goes hand in hand with regular monitoring to assess impact and ascertain the level of achievement of anticipated and actual outputs and outcomes. Countries which succeeded in maintaining a rigid, well-coordinated and supervised monitoring and evaluation system such as Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Peoples’ Republic of China and currently Vietnam have lessons to offer in this regard. Although Sri Lanka had received considerable multilateral assistance, including from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), to set up good monitoring and evaluation systems since the nineties, and staff were trained, the results achieved fluctuated over the years due largely to management shortcomings and limited enthusiasm displayed by sectoral ministries and departments.

Agriculture, rural development and poverty alleviation

Over 75 percent of Sri Lanka’s total population resides in rural areas and agriculture remains the backbone of the economy. Domestic agriculture has for decades remained traditional with a few innovations here and there. Though considerable success was achieved in providing improved seeds, better extension services, including advanced fertilizer and agro-chemicals (except during the period of President. Gotabaya Rajapaksa who was misguided to change over to the use of organic fertilizer), further technological improvements are necessary to help modernise agriculture.

Procurement, sale and marketing strategies have not progressed adequately to ensure timeliness, efficiency and improved prices to the farming community. Milling continues to remain an oligopoly constricting the emergence of small and medium scale millers. Rice prices are manipulated by the millers to the detriment of both producers and consumers. Reorganisation of agricultural marketing, including activation of modern tools, methods and practices, require more sophisticated government support.

Agricultural and rural development activities complement each other

and provide scope for advanced initiatives in other areas such as construction of rural roads and bridges and setting up of small-scale agro-industries. Improving the scope and content of rural development activities with focus on employment and income generation would constitute important transformative activities in line with the JVP/NPP manifesto and its public announcements during the election. The success of endeavours will depend on the commitment, direction and leadership provided by the different ministries and departments tasked with varied sectoral activities such as agriculture, industry, irrigation, rural development and transport.

Poverty cuts across sectors and territorial boundaries and affects about 26 percent of the population in Sri Lanka.

There is therefore a critical need to address poverty on a holistic basis. Both agricultural and rural development initiatives should be targeted to address extreme poverty in the first instance followed by other vulnerable groups. Infrastructure and industry related projects should also seek to improve the livelihood of rural people whose income levels are below the poverty line.

A separate unit in the ministry of plan implementation should ideally be responsible to initiate, monitor, evaluate and document poverty alleviation efforts undertaken by all ministries.

While sectoral ministries will target special programs for poverty alleviation, the role of the special unit in the ministry of planning should be to ensure that there is no overlap and duplication of efforts and that the final outcomes match originally proposed results. Success stories of other countries such as South Korea and Malaysia clearly suggest that direct interventions and targeted approaches brought about convincing improvement in the livelihood of the rural people.

Reconciliation

One of the hallmarks of the last election was the unity achieved among all communities to elect a new government to work towards equality and fairness in delivering the fruits of development. Having set out openly to achieve development for all, the President has a Herculean task now to complete it. He is aware that missed opportunities, lost ethnic harmony and resultant civil war, and rising corruption levels eroded the benefits of development and made people to wish for change. The nation is now looking for redemption and resolution of the ethnic conflict once and for all.

The question of whether the solution lies in implementing the 13^th amendment to the Constitution in full or adopt a new variation ultimately lies in the hands of the government. The President has reiterated that he is for devolution of power and functions to the periphery. The writer considers that substantial devolution of power and functions to the periphery without prejudice to the powers and integrity of the central government would go a long way to satisfy ethnic aspirations.

Question arises as to what kind of structure is viable and justifiable. Looking at the countries around us and beyond, substantial devolution should involve decentralized power to manage education, health, land, police and revenue operations. While the aim of the government should be to ensure equality, justice and fairness for all, a structure is warranted to give legal status to this commitment. Whether this should be achieved through improved delegation to the existing provincial councils or through a new structure could only be settled at the political level with the participation of the concerned ethnic communities. Lack of progress in achieving a consensus can further delay development and hamper efforts to reaching economic stability and social transformation.

Review and revision of existing regulatory provisions for attracting foreign investment and promoting tourism.

Restrictive regulatory policies and practices have hindered the development process considerably in the recent past. Sri Lanka must set up a special overarching institution that will cut red tape, ease restrictions inimical to investment, and provide easy access to investment opportunities. Our embassies, and consulates should be instructed to raise the image of the new Sri Lanka that is willing to engage in fair and reasonable international trade cutting across red tape and corruption.

Tourism has great potential in Sri Lanka because the country is endowed with significant natural resources, including scenic landscapes with beautiful mountains and valleys, moderate climate, and pristine beaches. Tourism cannot be promoted merely through advertising and related promotional activities. Thailand attracts millions of tourists (32 million in 2024), and Vietnam 12.5 million in 2023, because of the exclusive tourist-oriented policies and well-coordinated institutional framework servicing the tourist industry. Improved administrative structure for tourism should facilitate easy entry and exit formalities for tourists. For example, easing of visa restrictions, reduction of cumbersome immigration procedures, improved airport and aviation facilities, and strengthened hotel services serve as important packages for attracting tourists and making them feel welcome to the country. The country has the resources – intellectual and financial – to formulate a new image that will promote tourism and expand trade potential that would help enlarge its foreign reserves.

Conclusions

This paper serves to provide a synopsis of developmental interventions over the last seven decades and identifies issues that constrained development over this period. It also highlights some of the pervasive impediments to development such as ineffective governance, mismanagement, public service inefficiencies and corruption. Some of the more pressing developmental areas that require intervention in line with the proclaimed policy statements of the current government are outlined and discussed with the objective of drawing the attention of the government to move forward decisively.

There is commitment and leadership to steer the country toward the path of development. Priorities therefore need to be accorded to (a) reforming the public service, (b) mitigating if not altogether eradicating corruption in the short term, (iii) moving forward to restructure agricultural and rural development policies to alleviate poverty, improve productivity and generate better employment and income, (iv) promoting international trade and investment, (v) attracting more tourists and (vi) resolving the ethnic conflict by promoting reconciliation and making structural changes through constitutional arrangements.

(To be continued next week)