by R.M.B Senanayake
Professor Shinji Asasuma of Hitotsubashi University recently spoke about Asia’s growth experiences and its lessons for Sri Lanka. The World Bank analyzed the growth experience of the East Asian NICs in "The East Asian Miracle in 1993. The bank also published the Growth Commission Report of 2008. Malaysia too became a success story among 13 success stories, but not Sri Lanka.
Asasuma referred to the method of analysis through paired comparisons, a method that enables considerable illumination of economic processes. Prof Deepak Lal has compared such pairing exercises to the psychologists comparing the medical histories of twins. Some sort of comparative analysis is indispensable for a greater understanding of economic development. He paired Sri Lanka with Malaysia
The two countries have many similarities. In 1960 our per capita income was US$961 (in IPC/Kravis dollars) and Malaysia’s was US$ 888. Both countries are multi-ethnic and have gone through ethnic conflicts. Both countries are engaged in the production of primary commodities and mineral resources. Both countries were largely agricultural and rice cultivation was an important economic activity. Both countries also have undergone a colonial experience and built up some democratic traditions after Independence.
But consider the following development indicators over time in the table. What are the reasons for the differences? Are they due to the civil conflict? The professor though that is not the full explanation. He referred to the spillover effect in Korea from Japan’s growth. When Japan became protectionist and its costs rose, there was a spillover effect to Korea.
The full explanation for the differences in indicators arises not only from the conflict but also from wrong economic policies and bad economic management in the case of Sri Lanka. He also thought it was due to different economic strategies followed in Malaysia and Sri Lanka. Malaysia considered the issue of what to do with its plantations - rubber and oil palms. Only Rohana Wijeweera even bothered to raise the issue here.
Economists have been referring to the long term decline in the terms of trade between primary producer countries and industrialized countries. But Malaysia continued with its rubber plantations and sought to improve their productivity. She built up a first class research institute to study ways and means of raising productivity. Malaysia also gave up identity politics and ideological struggles while Sri Lanka continued to debate about Socialism and went for State Capitalism rather than free market driven capitalism.
There are defining moments in every country where there has been a shift to economic development strategies from identity politics or ideological politics. The defining moment for Malaysia was the launching of the First Malaysia Plan 1970. In Korea it was the coming into power of the Park Chong Hee government. In Indonesia it was the New Regime of 1970 under President Suharto and his development cabinet. In China it was Deng Chiao Ping’s Reforms to allow market prices and market forces to operate. In Vietnam it was the launching of the "Doi Moi" Policy and in India it was the liberal reforms by Dr Manmohan Singh after the balance of payments crisis of the early 1990s.
Sri Lanka produced President J.R Jayewardene’s open economy of 1977. But identity politics and ideological struggles re-emerged in the 1980s. The momentum petered out and the reforms to expand the market economy and de-regulate lost momentum during the regimes of his successors. They were more committed to State power.
The present regime believes in public sector investment and state driven rather than private sector driven development. But the development we have seen so far in all these countries including China is private sector driven development. The present regime believes in state driven rather than private sector driven development although of late it has tended to shift gear. But even then it is to a form of crony capitalism where businessmen who have the favor and support of the rulers alone are favored. Crony capitalism is unlikely to produce development.
The State driven development has not generated the stimulus for the private sector. The economic opportunities arising from the infrastructure investment has not flowed to the private sector. Chinese contractors do not subcontract and they use largely Chinese labor. The Government has however not pre-empted resources available to the private sector and instead is resorting to foreign borrowing for its investment programs.
But this has exposed the economy to the pressures arising from the world financial and capital movements. The liberalization of trade by the reduction of tariffs and other bureaucratic controls in an environment where there is excess money supply and continuous budget deficit has brought what looks like a balance of payments crisis.
Strategies for growthThere has not been a serious debate on the sort of growth strategies suitable for the country. All political leaders pay lip service to economic growth and they all want it. But they don’t realize that there are trade-offs which are indeed painful. There are always winners and losers in the process of growth. The losers will complain and even protest on the streets. But unpalatable changes and reforms have to be carried through if there is to be faster growth.
Our leaders are inclined to follow short term populist strategies rather than long term reforms. Whenever they introduce reforms they want to protect the losers and this has a cost financially. Our political leaders are not willing to go through with the trade-off. In the process they water down the reforms or counteract it and the anticipated advantages do not take place.
The professor also referred to the need for technocrats and professional managers in government. He compared the governance of a country to the management of a business by a company. The company has shareholders and other stakeholders like the employees and the suppliers. They benefit if the company is managed well. But this doesn’t mean that the shareholders should be the mangers or even select the managers. Imagine what would happen if the managers are appointed by popular vote of the shareholders. A modern state cannot be managed except by technocrats and a system of governance where the politicians decide is a recipe for a failed state.
The professor also stressed the need for realistic targets rather than aspirations. Doubling per capita incomes by 2015 is an aspiration not a realistic target, unless it is based on a strategy where there is a direct relationship between the target and the strategy. There must be a commitment to the strategy and given the scarcity of resources it is foolish to attempt to do too much even of a good thing.
The professor next dealt with the implications of his analysis for Sri Lanka by raising the questions but leaving the answers to the audience. Do our political leaders have a commitment to economic growth or are they still concerned more with identity politics and ideological stances of socialism versus capitalism? Are they for short term populist measures to become popular? .
Do we have a long term economic strategy? Have we studied the natural resource availability in the country? What about the productivity of our agriculture? Should we go for expanding the tea or rubber plantations? Have we completed the applications of the Green Revolution? Have we fully utilized the high yielding seeds? How efficient and productive are our irrigation systems? Should we not economize on the use of water and if so how do we do it and what legal measures have to be taken to penalize those who use too much water? What about our agricultural extension service? Do they provide an efficient service? Should we expand our paddy cultivation when we know that we can’t export our rice? Should we produce rice for export and if so what investments will be necessary to make our rice conform to international standards?
IndustrializationWhat type of industrialization should we promote? Should it be export driven or intended for import substitution? If we opt for export driven industrialization should we set up special export processing zones? Do our present export promotion zones meet the requirements of the investors already located in these EPZs? Should we promote labor intensive industries such as textiles, electrical and electronic industries where there are limits to expansion in the world markets? Should we move up the value chain and if so what sort of knowledge and skills do we have to promote? What about creating a suitable environment for domestic investors? What about the overly protective Labor Regulations? Can we continue with them if we want business to develop?
What about the diaspora? Should we not create a conducive climate for them to come back or at least invest locally? The Diaspora has capital, skilled professional knowledge and skill. They also have entrepreneurial ability and run successful businesses abroad. Since there are many Tamil expatriates who can invest in the country, have we created the right climate for them? Are we leveraging India’s growth and what use are we making of the Bilateral, Regional (SAARC) Agreements? These are all questions that should be debated and discussed both within the government circles as well as in business.
http://island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=49229