Long-term development path
View(s):When the conflict between armed LTTE militants and Government forces ended in May 2009, there was euphoria, joy and a realization that finally Sri Lanka will reach economic stardom. The hope was that many people would be lifted from poverty.
The country’s development path, at a time when (former Finance Minister) Ronnie de Mel was rolling the carpet in the 1980s to create a buzzing Asian financial centre, had been cut short by the cruel war and, post-2009 was the time to leapfrog the global changes that had taken place in the past three decades.
It was a time to reflect on the lessons learnt from how regional superpowers like Singapore, Malaysia or Korea grew and prepare a master plan for the country’s social and economic progress.
Such progress should have taken into account the ‘green’ road where environment is a key factor in the new development. Post 2009 was the best opportunity for this country to grow since independence based on right policies under moderate, secular and statesman-like leadership.
Unfortunately Sri Lanka’s development sans a master-plan is a piecemeal form of progress, short-term in nature and papering the cracks in the economy and society to overcome any immediate crisis.
Many policies have been chartered on a short-term ideology of 2-3 year targets rather that a 25-50 year road-map of development.
Policies for example on agriculture, banking and finance, tourism, services or industrialization have no long term goals. The priorities of the nation are driven rather by political needs and personal agendas.
Agriculture policies in particular are lopsided and continue to be based on a subsidy model where the community is only cutting their losses, rather than being offered an opportunity to grow more high value, export crops. Paddy is perennially making losses.
Likewise in other sectors, policies are being questioned but such criticism, though fair and objective is viewed as anti-government or pro-opposition. It is well-known that business and other professionals are reluctant to raise issues fearing being marginalized or business interests affected. Chambers are impotent in the face of these challenges. Rarely will a chamber protest against an unfair rule or tax. Post-budget seminars organized by chambers are fully of niceties when critical issues should be discussed without any fear or favour. That culture is gradually vanishing and rapidly being replaced by what one would call a ‘complain but comply’ model.
All this points to the need for a 25-30 year master-plan to revive Sri Lanka like the Marshal Plan, the post-World War II development model that rebuild Europe. In many ways, the north and the east was razed to the ground during the war years and just like Japan rose from the ashes of the 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, Sri Lanka needs similar long-term plans for development.
What has happened since May 2009? Only the service industry – financial services, telecommunication, leisure and tourism, IT, entertainment, etc – has seen rapid progress. Industry is yet to take off; large foreign investors are yet to come in apart from big hotel chains.
Yes, expansion of the service sector is welcome but that shouldn’t be the only development that Sri Lanka can boast off. Infrastructure is expanding rapidly but based on borrowed cash with no clear indication on the return on investment apart of the expectation that this development will spur economic growth (unclear through what areas) in the provinces.
Ideally Sri Lanka needs a 2-track master-plan of development for the next 25-30 years that would take into account needs in agriculture, education, health, job skills, human resource requirements, local and foreign investment, industrialization and new areas, services, poverty reduction, labour migration, demographic trends particularly an ageing population among other sectors.
A long-term track must be prepared to chart a course providing clues to how Sri Lanka should look like (or be developed) in the year 2040 or 2050 with key steps of development and policy for each year. The other track is a fire-fighting one that would tackle issues or crises as and when it happens just like the 2008 financial crisis that saw foreigners pulling out their money in Central Bank bonds triggering a foreign reserves’ crisis. For example what happens if the Middle East job market dries up? Is there any (even emergency) plan to employ an additional million in the local workforce?
A group of eminent persons drawn from all spheres of life with little or no political affiliations needs to be drafted into a national think tank-like unit to prepare this master-plan and supervise its implementation. The plan would be subject to changes just like Ronnie de Mel’s 5-year rolling plan of development which was adjusted annually to accommodate global and other changes.Current development is like the fire-fighting track – policies devised to suit immediate needs and emergency situations.
It is never too late for anything, and not too late for a 25-30 year national plan of development sans political bias or personal agendas. A formidable challenge in today’s turbulent political environment but not impossible for Mahinda Rajapaksa who overcome far greater challenges in ending the war, and to be the statesman that the country sorely needs. Is Sri Lanka asking too much from its leaders?