Export-led economy or import substitution?

Sri Lanka is facing its worst economic crisis. Although successive governments may have contributed to this state of affairs, the present government stands directly accused of causing a total collapse of the economy. Three main reasons are given for this sudden downturn; the drastic tax reductions, the fertiliser ban and depletion of dollars due to artificial jacking up of the rupee causing a dollar and rupee crisis. These policies may have succeeded under different circumstances but not when the country is ravaged by a pandemic. However, the inability to foresee the unsuitability of such policies at this time is the failure of our leadership and their economic advisers. There are about 54 countries which are in debt crisis at present but none of them are as hopeless as Sri Lanka.

Historically, the reason for the weakening of the economy is the fact that the expenditure on imports has been higher than the income from exports under successive governments since 1977. In 2014, Sri Lanka spent USD 19 billion on imports while the export earnings have been just USD 11 billion. To meet the difference, we had to borrow and as a result got into debt which at present is about USD 50 billion. Worse, we have been borrowing to live high, pay back loans and even for vanity projects.

Most of the developing countries are deeply in debt and often the debt is much more than their total export earnings. This is a situation that countries with export-led economies have to cope with. Export-led growth attempts to promote the expansion of gross domestic product and per capita income with inflows from export earnings but this seldom happens.Sri Lanka’s earnings from exports was only 23% of the GDP in 2014 and it has been around that figure since 1977. If exports are to be increased to a significant level, we may have to borrow heavily to start export-oriented projects on a large scale which would take us deeper into debt, making repayment almost impossible.

Foreign direct investments and foreign funded industry are the other sources of foreign exchange. What attracts investors mainly is the cheap labour available in the developing countries. Thus, the governments of developing countries are forced to keep wages low to attract investors. The workers may be deprived of an improvement of their living standards that growth is supposed to bring. A good example is Sri Lankan estate workers.

People in countries with export-led economies must produce what people in another country want. The economy therefore depends on foreign demand, when the demand declines the economy suffers. For instance, when the Covid pandemic hit the rich countries the demand for garments dropped and the garment industry suffered. Another problem is access to foreign markets and the competition among producing countries. Further, the governments of the countries which import these items may control the quantities they import through taxes and sometimes through politically motivated sanctions. Thus, the export-led economies are at the mercy of the rich countries.

The global economic system controlled by the Western powers through the Bretton Wood Twins and Washington Consensus does not encourage developing countries to seek alternative means of growth. They give aid to those who follow their instructions which are geared for capital development at the expense of labour. Self-sufficiency is discouraged. Instead, they must remain as suppliers of few commodities and cheap labour to the global market. Sri Lanka supplies tea, garments and cheap labour to West Asia. We have not looked at alternative models. We have not attempted to produce our essential needs, such as food, medicine, building materials, etc. Though these can be locally produced, we import them using foreign exchange earned by exporting tea, garments and cheap labour. And when the demand for these falls, as it happened at the height of the pandemic, our economy becomes so weak that a bungling government could send it crashing.

In 2021, while its economy was struggling, Sri Lanka imported fruits and vegetables worth USD 380 million out of a total of USD 6 billion spent on non-essentials such as cheese, butter, ice-cream, bottled water. We need only USD 300 million to import chemical fertiliser. This was while the farmers were protesting and agriculturists were opposing the fertiliser ban. This, I see as a consequence of not having a well-developed national economy and an import-substitution programme. Self-sufficiency in food was not considered important, and catering to the super rich and tourists became a priority.

Now, the question is whether Sri Lanka will continue with export dependency. More importantly, are we going to spend more than we earn and live beyond our means? Are we going to borrow more and depend on foreign largesse? Don’t these loans and gifts come with strings attached? Will we have to cough up a few more ports or grant federalism?

What has happened has happened, there is no point in crying over spilt milk. The solution lies in our ability to learn to live within our means. We must never import more than we export, if we have no gas we must learn to find alternatives. The energy-efficient Anagi stove made of clay can be used even in Colombo flats. This could develop into an excellent cottage industry which could supply both the stove and firewood made of wood chips, sawdust or paddy husks compressed into cakes for easy storage and use in the stove. If instead the government, to pacify the protesters, import gas with borrowed dollars we will sink deeper in the debt mire. We must get along on a shoestring until we can stand on our own feet. Even IMF loans have their serious disadvantages and no country up to now has developed with IMF aid.In the long run, what Sri Lanka should do is to adopt a strategy to strike a balance between strengthening the domestic demand and export orientation. Import-substitution is a suitable policy for countries which want to come out of the debt trap. Heavy indebtedness, whether for an individual or a country, is a fetter that could restrict forward movement and freedom. It has made us part with ports, fuel storage facility, and sign agreements inimical to the national interest.

Sri Lanka, being predominantly an agricultural country, must give priority to the development of agriculture. Our aim should be to curtail our dependence on imported food items, which could be produced locally. More than 50% of export earnings go for import of food items, half of which could be locally produced. Everything required for agriculture––fertiliser, pesticides and weedicides, seeds and machines––should be locally produced. Big investors may not be interested, for they cannot expect high returns, as the local market is small. Yet, the small farmers could be made into small entrepreneurs and assured of reasonable returns on their investment if the exploitation by rice mill owners and middlemen could be eliminated by government intervention. By this means a quarter of the export bill could be reduced.Renewable energy policy should be fully implemented to reduce expenditure of fuel imports. CEB engineers are not very co-operative and their resistance has to be overcome. The capacity of the petroleum refinery also should be enlarged making use of facilities available at Sapugaskanda, Trincomalee and Hambantota which would further reduce the cost of fuel imports.

Small industries mainly for local needs such as electrical items, kitchen utensils, building materials, small electronic items, fabrics, could also be gradually developed with the aim at import substitution.Sri Lanka has to learn experience and decide whether to continue with the export-led economy, which, as shown above, is subject to external factors beyond our control and which has several disadvantages, including debt accumulation and the threat of sudden collapse. Time is opportune for use to think of import-substitution. The present crisis may offer a good opportunity to make virtue out of necessity and give priority to local production.

N. A. de S. Amaratunga