Financial Times

Consensus on national issues
The lack of consistency in government policy has been a perennial complaint of the private sector. It has long bemoaned the tendency for policies and people to be changed every time a new government comes to power.

This lack of consistency and the inability of successive governments to look at national economic issues in a bipartisan manner is one of the main reasons for our country to remain backward and to not have achieved the growth rates it could have achieved. We have seen how national policies on health, education and social welfare and now tax have changed virtually overnight with the advent of a new government.

The fact that none of the governments we have had in the recent past has tried to reverse the open economic policy we have followed since the opening up of the economy in the late 1970s is certainly a positive development. There has been some tinkering with the system and some governments have been more open than others but the broad thrust of macro-economic policy has remained unchanged. Not even the advent of the UPFA government with the JVP as an influential coalition partner has led to a reversal of the free trade policies we have pursued in recent times.

However, what is of concern is the practice of setting up a whole heap of committees and groups of experts to go over the same ground covered by a previous administration, to draw up fresh plans or reports on matters that had already repeatedly been covered by plans and reports.

The penchant by governments to set up a plethora of committees to deal with all sorts of issues does not appear to have changed under this regime. One example is the National Council for Economic Development (NCED) this government has created and the numerous clusters under it. In many ways this is similar to the 'Regaining Sri Lanka' initiative of the previous UNP regime and the dozens of committees or sub-committees under it. There was much criticism, even by UNP supporters themselves, that this system did not work, resulted in much duplication of work and led to delays in implementation. The same fate could befall the NCED's efforts. Last week we reported on ambitious plans to revive the small and medium enterprise sector by a sub-committee of the NCED.

While the plans set out by the NCED are certainly laudable the question is whether they can be implemented in a practical manner and whether they would be changed if there is a change of government. If that happens it would a waste of time and money.

Not only does the absence of consistency in policy retard economic growth but it also serves to discourage investors, particularly foreign investors who can easily find other counties with more consistent policies.

However, this is not to mean that all such efforts are worthless. Some initiatives have been successful and appear to have withstood changes of government. One such programme is The Competitiveness Initiative, funded by the US with the aim of improving the competitiveness of selected industries.

There is a need for a truly independent 'economic development council' - a permanent institution that would have bipartisan support and represent the ideas of the two main political parties if not all the major ones in the country.

We need a think tank that is staffed by professionals and technocrats, preferably co-chaired by the ruling party and main opposition party which could look at issues in an objective way, free of partisan politics. It should be able to formulate and implement policies without having to worry about pleasing politicians with vote catching schemes.

Back to Business