BY EDWARD THEOPHILUS

Re-modeling economic policies of the country may have been the prime accountability of all governments elected to the office since independence in 1948. Although the policymakers soon after the independence, did not publicly state to accomplish the accountability with balanced growth, the focus of policymaking implied to reduce the bias in the society that created a severe class-struggle and contrasts in the country.  It was a challenge to political leaders as well as economic policymakers.

The economic policy before 1956 was giving priority to boost domestic rice production that was not reflecting self-sufficient status, which was not adequate to change the economy giving advantages to the rural people. Although Sri Lanka had the potential to produce the required volume of rice production in the colonial period the economic policy was not fair, despite the potential colonial masters’ aim was to import rice and local politicians were unhappy about such a policy. It reflected in the operation of the state council before independence. Economic historians should identify the historical reasons to align colonial policies to increase rice production by local politicians, and why they were in narrow thinking field when there was a broader field to think about.

The pattern of economic growth and development echoed apparent bias between urban and rural Sri Lanka during the colonial and after the period. Economic policymakers had no broader understanding of the philosophical aims of economic development and social focus of growth perspectives, but the rural community had a feeling that they were brushed aside by the government in the policymaking process. A shadow of Marxist politics walked around the country concerning the policy negligence as a country which based on more than 75% agriculture shouldn’t have opened the way for Marxist politics. 

The weakness of economic policies in the various sectors of the economy appeared since independence and recorded economic dualism, which was a product of policymakers. Before the Western colonial masters, Sri Lanka’s economy was not dualistic and monarchical rule managed balanced growth in the entire country.

When it looked at the pattern of growth from time to time after independence it showed that the government’s preference was to invest more money in urban areas to give economic advantages to rich people, and no government elected since independence has been focusing to radically change the economy except the government elected in 1977.  Although economic or technical dualism was a popular topic of economic students and talked on removing dualism by a balanced growth approach that was ignored by economic policymakers the right medicine for the problem emerged during and after the colonial period.    

The governments elected from 1947 to 1956 attempted to hang in the colonial economic policy concentrating to be engrossed with the colonial masters’ views. The political authority considered the policy focus had to maintain class differences while development thrust was going on, and the economy had adequate food to provide the needs of a small population and the creation of productivity was the disguised issue.

The government of Sr John Kotalawala attempted to modify the colonel economic policy, considering the issues encountered during the Korean War, and expanding the market economic system inserting domestically intended ideas and changes that were conceded appropriate to Sri Lanka and attempted to stimulate the economy by a six-year development program. Although many have no clear understanding of the policy framework of Sr John Kotelawala it had a very good practical economic philosophy based on the market system. When I was reading the Six-Year development plan I had a feeling that it was an attempt to take market policies to regional Sri Lanka. The policy effort was unsuccessful as the government lost the election in 1956.  

The elected government in 1956 endeavored to reverse the economic policy that has been working since the independence, with a giant hope on a system of the central planning type socialist economic system, and the policy focus directed to applying inward-looking strategies, which had been aimed to promote import substitutions and to increase domestic production.  It was a good idea but policymakers did not affiliate to prevent shortages in consumer goods. 

The Ten Development Program was initiated by the government and the program was not active, as there was a conflict of economic ideology and the practical policy of the government, which attempted to nationalizing private investment projects rather than introducing prudent regulations.  It was considered as the best option to overcome the issues emerged from the market economic policy. However, the economic policy of Mr.S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike was too aligned to the nationalism, which was appeared to be a popular style in the developing world when the wind of independence was blowing around the colonial countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Although the economic policy initiated in 1978 seemed to be popular and logical in the global environment, policy efforts showed a failure without a policy control mechanism that consisted of a prudent regulatory framework.  The policy authority ignored the essential disciplines, that needed to successfully implementing the market economic policies. The control mechanism in the economic policy process has been wicked from 1978 to 2019 as the political influences in the administration system corrupted policy disciplines.  The attitudes of the public demonstrated the willingness to maintain liberal policies, whether they were successful or not achieving economic targets, but the open economic policies were favorable to continue in the future. However, some people continuously blamed the market economic policies disregarding the benefits gained to the country.

The party politics in the country prevented the changes required to the market policies with a prudent regulatory framework, and the elected governments showed a willingness to maintaining the policy focus without regulation and discipline.  The major reason to continue the policy focus despite the disciplines appeared that the satisfaction of the mentality of consumers, and politically, the market environment has been in a favorable environment for the platform-talks of politicians.     The community enjoyed the window shopping, as the shops were full of imported goods under the liberal economic policies which permitted to import any rubbish without proper quality control. The best example of this situation was that certain popular businessmen in the country imported rubbish from the UK in 2019 despite the opportunity was given to businessmen for the development of export industries.

The liberal economic policies supported creating a new wealthy class and they contributed a massive volume of money to political parties in power.  The liberal system further depreciated the government’s financial disciplines and supported to increase corruption. The good governance promoted in platforms during the 2015 presidential election and the politicians gained power engaged in heavy financial corruption such as Central Bank’s bond scam. The traditional wallow politics have been removed and replaced by new capitalists who have been worse economic managers and investors. Traditional capitalists reluctant to engage in immoral business, but the choice of new capitalists seemed to pursue immoral business to destroy the young generation to make quick profits.  

Liberal economic policies showed a massive change in society at the cost of economic disciplines. The major weakness of the system was neglecting a balanced growth between rural and urban areas and a heavy concentration on concrete jungles as the new class emerged after 1978 falsely believed that high rise building reflects the development and growth.  They disregarded the environment and potential opportunities in the environment.

What are the real criteria to determine the upliftment and quality of life of people?  Many economists contributed contradictory views the universally accepted view is the eradication of bias of living conditions of people.  Developing new economic policies Mr. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the president of Sri Lanka needs to concentrate this idea and re-modeling the developing environment with a bunch of anticipated achievements related to each criterion.