Dear Reader,

Registration with the Sri Lanka FINANCIAL CHRONICLE™️ would enable you to enjoy an array of other services such as Member Rankings, User Groups, Own Posts & Profile, Exclusive Research, Live Chat Box etc..

All information contained in this forum is subject to Disclaimer Notice published.

Thank You

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

Dear Reader,

Registration with the Sri Lanka FINANCIAL CHRONICLE™️ would enable you to enjoy an array of other services such as Member Rankings, User Groups, Own Posts & Profile, Exclusive Research, Live Chat Box etc..

All information contained in this forum is subject to Disclaimer Notice published.

Thank You
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Encyclopedia of Latest news, reviews, discussions and analysis of stock market and investment opportunities in Sri Lanka

Latest topics

by Equity Win Today at 11:47 am

by ErangaDS Today at 9:11 am

» Ceylon Grain elevators PLC Potential
by LAMDA Today at 2:58 am

» Ceylon cold stores
by cpriya Today at 2:46 am

» LOLC HOLDINGS PLC: Another Restructuring
by God Father Yesterday at 9:46 am

» Focus on Government controlled entities
by K.R Yesterday at 7:39 am

» SRI LANKA TELECOM (SLTL.N0000) - Reawakening the Giant
by Quibit Yesterday at 12:32 am

by SAGA Thu Mar 23, 2023 2:07 pm

» PLR (Prime Lands) Next Value counter.. Fair Value Rs 20
by Anushka Perz Thu Mar 23, 2023 10:09 am

by K.R Wed Mar 22, 2023 4:25 pm

by K.R Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:37 pm

» LCBF Future
by Beyondsenses Wed Mar 22, 2023 1:09 pm

by sanjulanka Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:47 am

» AAIC රු 12 බැගින් අත්පත් කරගත් කොටස් 51% ඇති SCAP වෙත විශාල මූල්‍ය ලාභයක් හිමිවෙන බවට කටකතා ?
by Equity Win Wed Mar 22, 2023 10:49 am

» Trading Least Value 1 rupee???
by ResearchMan Tue Mar 21, 2023 12:33 pm

by MORPHEUS Tue Mar 21, 2023 7:15 am

» Join Exclusive Sri Lankan Community at Mastodon Server
by Quibit Tue Mar 21, 2023 2:45 am

» LOFC Technical Analysis 2023
by SAGA Mon Mar 20, 2023 4:35 pm

» Dividend paying stocks
by Nandana Withanage Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:26 am

» Super March 2023 - Maharaja
by Maharaja Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:17 pm


Submit Post



View results

ශ්‍රී ලංකා මූල්‍ය වංශකථාව - සිංහල
Submit Post


Send your suggestions and comments

* - required fields








You are not connected. Please login or register

Rethinking Sri Lanka’s industrialisation

Reply to topic

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]



Rethinking Sri Lanka’s industrialisation Garment

Sri Lanka’s problems long predate the arrival of the Rajapaksas. Widely touted as an export-dependent economy, its reliance on imports of everything, from intermediate capital goods to bathware, has been its distinguishing feature for the last 70 years. The island’s shift to neoliberal globalisation in 1977 served to reinforce this dependency, making it vulnerable to external shocks. The ineptitude of the Rajapaksas is hence a symptom of a bigger malaise, one that is yet to be understood fully by think-tanks and policymakers.

Neoliberal commentators fault the country’s public sector. They contend that it is too bureaucratised, too politicised, a heavy, crushing burden on the economy. To be fair, they aren’t entirely in the wrong. The public sector has long been the preferred destination of unemployed graduates and the politically connected. When Gotabaya Rajapaksa came to power in 2019 he implied that he would end such a culture. About two years later he made a U-turn, recruiting more than 60,000 graduates to the government sector.

Heterodox economists disagree. For them the problems of Sri Lanka’s economy have to do with its failure to industrialise and shift to manufacture. Among the most vocal proponents of the industrialisation line has been Dr Howard Nicholas. Responsible for setting up the only real think-tank that advocated industrialisation, the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), Dr Nicholas has been tirelessly reminding Sri Lankans of the country’s potential in manufacture, be it in garments or even its traditional sectors, including tea.

The industrialisation discourse has been widely picked up, even by those who otherwise support neoliberal prescriptions. The neoliberal crowd disputes Nicholas’ line for ideological reasons: they think it entails a wider role for the State, which they oppose. Patronised and funded by Colombo’s well-oiled free market think-tanks, they caution against government intervention, pointing at the present regime’s economic policies, like its advocacy of money printing and import restrictions, that supposedly got us into this mess.

I have been a defender of industrialisation and local production. Not because I believe in greater government intervention as necessarily a good thing, but because more than three decades of untrammelled neoliberalism has not got us anywhere. In the 1980s and 1990s the country extensively resorted to traditional aid programmes. Except for the Ranasinghe Premadasa years, which saw at least some attempts at industrialisation, all other regimes in power during this time preferred a strategy of outright privatisation and deregulation. To be sure, in itself this is not undesirable. But taken to an extreme, it takes a country nowhere. By the mid-2000s, it had landed us in a middle-income trap.
Sri Lanka’s debt problems don’t have to do with the Chinese, though debt trap narratives suggest otherwise. They have more to do with the island’s dependence on sovereign bonds and hedge funds. These constitute a far greater share of Sri Lanka’s external debt than does China’s, Japan’s, or India’s contribution. We need to ask why we let ourselves run into this mess, and most importantly why we didn’t use opportunities, like the reduction of oil prices in 2009 and 2010, to shift to manufacture and local production.

Those who pinned hopes on the Rajapaksas thinking they would take us out clearly forgot that they were in power when these opportunities were in place. In the aftermath of the end of the war we could have linked infrastructure development to industrialisation: we could have, for instance, closed in on the then government’s own optimistic objectives of building nuclear power plants by 2030. This never came to be. In pinning hopes on Gotabaya Rajapaksa, we chose to forget their earlier record on industrialisation and production, even though their government was seen as more conducive to these development strategies than a neoliberal dispensation, which we associated with the UNP.

We need to admit that industrialisation was never at the top of the list of priorities for the present regime. True, they appointed W. D. Lakshman, who as an academic – a colleague and contemporary of the Indian Marxist economist Prabhat Patnaik – relentlessly opposed IMF prescriptions. But they were only too willing to discard his policies, to manipulate them to serve their interests, and to finally let him go. His successor, Ajith Nivard Cabral, wasn’t exactly an IMF ideologue, but the policies that the Central Bank undertook in his last few months reeked of an urge to enforce IMF policies without going to the IMF: a line that was not necessarily opposed by Colombo’s neoliberal commentators.
I know people who would say that policies matter and personalities do not. This was the same mistake the Left made in 1964 and 1975. They entered into electoral agreements with a petty bourgeois dispensation in the hopes of fomenting a democratic revolution. To give them credit, they did see through certain important reforms, such as Workers’ Councils. But for every such reform, they faced a setback from the head of their coalition, the SLFP, which they eventually realised, at an exorbitant cost, was neither willing nor able to implement the far-reaching reforms necessary for a radical democratic revolution.

The bottom line, in a nutshell, is that the present crisis would not have come to pass if the government was committed to production and industrialisation. But the problem doesn’t end there. It also has to do with how the Rajapaksas’ electoral base views such complex issues as industrialisation. After all, even the Jathika Chintanaya advocates a production economy, but as one perceptive observer told me, the Chintanites are interested in local production only insofar as it benefits and entrenches a particular collective. They espouse anti-imperialist politics, the sort one can link to production discourses, but they do not, if at all, pursue anti-imperialist ends. Petty bourgeois ideologues hardly ever do.

Where does all this leave us? The same lesson we learnt in 1965 and 1970: relying on petty bourgeois formations take us nowhere and lead us to a shift to the right. In 1970 no one would have imagined that the SLFP would emerge as an advocate of Free Trade Zones. Five or so years later the Finance Minister, Felix Dias Bandaranaike, advocated them. In 2019 no one would have imagined the SLPP recommending the IMF line. Now the President has emerged as its biggest supporter. Those who batted for industrialisation and production, meanwhile, are left in the dark. This is sad. It should not happen again.

The writer is an international relations analyst, independent researcher, and columnist based in Sri Lanka who can be reached at

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Reply to topic

Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum