Testing
a mixed economy
A foreign specialist working for an international agency, in an
informal conversation, said the other day that a fully liberalised
economy may not be the panacea for all ills in economies like Sri
Lanka.
In
fact in some World Bank corridors in Washington, there is talk of
a mixed economy model to resuscitate economies devastated by war,
strife and poverty. Another reasoning for this argument is that
democratic models are under threat from semi-radical elements and
their growing popularity.
The
Sri Lankan case is a good example. Both the UNP and the SLFP-one
following the other in liberalized economic policies - have failed
the people. Thats why people are looking desperately for a third
force that came this time in the form of the JVP and the JHU. Another
point that was proved is that the peace process alone will not feed
farmers, the rural poor and their children. One needs a balance
between peace and taking care of family needs.
How
does one balance globalisation with a human face-the kind of doctrine
that President Ranasinghe Premadasa once practiced? The mixed-economic
model proposed mainly by the JVP though giving the jitters to the
Colombo-based business community may turn out to be just what the
doctor ordered if-and that is a big “IF”- it is tempered
with the reality of globalisation.
The
other day the first question a J-Biz personality asked me as we
met in a Colombo cinema was … “we are in trouble, no?”
The mostly-Colombo based elitist business community is terrified
about the policies of a government that would have a strong JVP
input. Their biggest concern is whether they could make the same
high level of profits, evade taxes (in the case of some businessmen
through various means including tax amnesties) and simply live a
life of glitter and glory.
There
is no national interest in the pursuit of these goals whatever J-Biz
statements may try to make out. The UNP, despite a praiseworthy
peace process, didn't succeed with its top-down approach to development
where development funds were to be invested in the private sector
and then expected to trickle down to the grassroots. The UPFA government
is doing the reverse- making sure rural communities are comfortable
before urban societies reap the benefits of development.
Whether
it would succeed or not remains to be seen but this is the model
that is to be practiced, which will undoubtedly run into some opposition
from the World Bank and the IMF as state spending rises and budget
deficits go off targets set during the UNF regime.
New
Finance Minister Dr. Sarath Amunugama has also made it clear that
the Treasury will not be “obsessed” with fiscal-deficit
targets and spending cuts but development-oriented policies.
Spending
is expected to rise under this government with privatisation proceeds
drying up as a revenue measure, due to the new policy of suspending
privatisation of the bus sector, state banks, etc. The government
is faced with the complicated task of raising revenue under a spending-restricted
2004 (UNF) budget which, according to Amunugama will continue to
function till the end of the year.
One
thing is however clear. If the JVP has its way, small and medium
industries will thrive in this country creating wealth at the rural
level in incomes, new jobs and better living standards. This would
however be at the expense of the urban elite whose days when they
made money at random will be a thing of the past.
The
country's wealth doesn't lie in Colombo's five-star hotel circuit,
casinos, shopping malls and fast food restaurants. It is there in
the rural countryside. Agriculture will always be the backbone of
the economy while millions of simple, hard-working women rake in
petro-dollars for the country working in plantations, garment factories
and households in the Middle East. In most cases it is a glorified
life of slavery as a series of features in The Sunday Times this
week shows.
What
have we given them in return for their toil? Nothing other than
attempts to cut wages through increased productivity without any
improvement to their living standards other than the superficial
changes “proudly” claimed by governments, past and present. |