An Echelon Media Company
Tuesday October 13th, 2026

Sri Lanka bond holders earned high returns, should now take the hit: Picketty, academics

ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka’s private bondholders who received a risk premium must now take the consequences of default, and international financial institutions should also do more to help the island which, a group of academics have said.

“Private creditors own almost 40% of Sri Lanka’s external debt stock, mostly in the form of International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs), but higher interest rates mean that they receive over 50% of external debt payments,” a group of 182 academics including from Harvard, Princeton, Cornell and the London School of Economics said a statement.

“Such lenders charged a premium to lend to Sri Lanka to cover their risks, which accrued them massive profits and contributed to Sri Lanka’s first ever default in April 2022. Lenders who benefited from higher returns because of the “risk premium” must be willing to take the consequences of that risk.”

The statement was released by Debt Justice, a UK based charity.

Private creditors held around 50 percent of the debt, and questioned whether sovereign bond holders have engaged in risky lending to corrupt politicians.

“In addition, the lack of transparency of the debt negotiation process and accountability of the holders of ISBs underscores the concern that risky lending to corrupt politicians (leading to what is now recognised as “odious debt”) was a significant element in generating the current debt crisis,” the statement said.

“Apart from revealing the identity of ISB holders, it is also important to disclose how ISBs were deployed, and the use of those funds.

The academics also questioned the role of International Financial Institutions such as the IMF and World Bank.

“They were founded to assist sovereign nations, particularly in contexts in which financial markets would not deliver, to ensure financial stability and prevent or reduce the impact of financial crises, and to provide resources for crucial investments required to meet social and developmental needs,” the statement said.

“The IFIs are not currently living up to these responsibilities, at a time when they are most urgently required. In Sri Lanka they encouraged the very policies of more open capital accounts and deregulation that have led to the current crisis.

“They have been slow to respond to the crisis, and are apparently requiring onerous policy and fiscal conditionalities, such as moving to a primary fiscal surplus in a very short time, even as the economy continues to plunge.”

Sri Lanka was able to build up foreign debt partly due to ‘unconditional’ lending by private lenders as well as China which gave budget support loans according to some critics.

The final collapse came amid unprecedented excessive anti-austerity measures involving massive deficits and funding of new and maturing domestic debt by the central bank over the past two years which led to a quick depletion of foreign reserves and lack of external conditions.

“The implications are already evident in the recent Budget of the Sri Lankan government, which has unrealistic revenue assumptions that are unlikely to be met,” the statement claimed.

“Revenue shortfalls would then necessitate further “austerity” and likely cuts in essential public spending. The Budget also proposes public asset stripping and privatization of strategic lands, marine resources, energy, transport and telecom infrastructure and public enterprises.”

The full statement is reproduced below:

Statement by academics on dealing with Sri Lankan debt, January 2023

Sri Lanka, along with many other low- and middle-income countries, has experienced a series of
financial shocks due to both external and internal factors. Global forces have caused food and energy
import costs to soar and interest rates to rise, even as the currency has devalued significantly.

These shocks, along with a history of policy mismanagement—and specifically the deregulation and
openness that encouraged irresponsible borrowing, enabled illicit financial flows out of the country
and assisted political corruption—have intensified external debt and balance of payments crises.

Over the last decade of liquidity expansion and low interest rates in the world economy, private
lenders provided loans to low- and middle-income countries, at higher interest rates than for
advanced countries. These higher rates were purportedly due to greater risk exposure that could make
debt repayment more difficult in such countries. That risk has now materialised, firstly through a
global pandemic, and then the price shocks and interest rate increases of 2022.

Private creditors own almost 40% of Sri Lanka’s external debt stock, mostly in the form of International
Sovereign Bonds (ISBs), but higher interest rates mean that they receive over 50% of external debt
payments. Such lenders charged a premium to lend to Sri Lanka to cover their risks, which accrued
them massive profits and contributed to Sri Lanka’s first ever default in April 2022.

Lenders who benefited from higher returns because of the “risk premium” must be willing to take the consequences of that risk. Indeed, ISBs are now trading at significantly lower prices in the secondary market. In this context, giving private bondholders an upper hand relative to sovereign debtors in the Paris Club and the IMF’s required debt negotiations violates the basic principles of natural justice.

In addition, the lack of transparency of the debt negotiation process and accountability of the holders
of ISBs underscores the concern that risky lending to corrupt politicians (leading to what is now
recognised as “odious debt”) was a significant element in generating the current debt crisis. Apart
from revealing the identity of ISB holders, it is also important to disclose how ISBs were deployed, and
the use of those funds.

Debt negotiations in Sri Lanka are now at a crucial stage. All lenders—bilateral, multilateral, and
private—must share the burden of restructuring, with assurance of additional financing in the near
term. However, Sri Lanka on its own cannot ensure this; it requires much greater international
support. Instead of geopolitical manoeuvring, all of Sri Lanka’s creditors must ensure debt
cancellation sufficient to provide a way out of the current crisis.

The role of multilateral organisations, particularly the international financial institutions (IFIs), such as the IMF and the World Bank, is also significant. They were founded to assist sovereign nations,
particularly in contexts in which financial markets would not deliver, to ensure financial stability and
prevent or reduce the impact of financial crises, and to provide resources for crucial investments
required to meet social and developmental needs.

The IFIs are not currently living up to these responsibilities, at a time when they are most urgently
required. In Sri Lanka they encouraged the very policies of more open capital accounts and
deregulation that have led to the current crisis. They have been slow to respond to the crisis, and are
apparently requiring onerous policy and fiscal conditionalities, such as moving to a primary fiscal
surplus in a very short time, even as the economy continues to plunge.

The implications are already evident in the recent Budget of the Sri Lankan government, which has
unrealistic revenue assumptions that are unlikely to be met. Revenue shortfalls would thennecessitate further “austerity” and likely cuts in essential public spending. The Budget also
proposes public asset stripping and privatization of strategic lands, marine resources, energy,
transport and telecom infrastructure and public enterprises.

These policies will harm the most vulnerable groups in Sri Lanka, exacerbate poverty and inequality, and lead to further economic decline. Instead the focus should be on legal and regulatory changes to stem the illicit outflow of capital through transfer pricing and trade mis-invoicing over the past 15 years, which is estimated to be far more than the aggregate foreign debt of Sri Lanka, and on taxation of wealth and consumption of the super-rich.

The Sri Lankan case will provide an important indicator of whether the world—and the international
financial system in particular—is equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent questions of sovereign
debt relief and sustainability; and to ensure a modicum of justice in international debt negotiations. It
is therefore crucial not only for the people of Sri Lanka, but to restore any faith in a multilateral system that is already under fire for its lack of legitimacy and basic viability.

1. Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, USA and India;
2. Dani Rodrik, Ford Foundation Professor of Political Economy, Harvard University, USA;
3. Thomas Piketty, Professor of Economics, Ecole d’economie de Paris/Paris School of Economics,
France
4. Ravi Kanbur, T. H. Lee Professor of World Affairs, Professor of Economics, Cornell University, U.S.A.;
5. Atul Kohli, David Bruce Professor of International Affairs, Princeton University, USA
6. Sakiko Fakuda-Parr, Professor of International Affairs, The New School, USA;
7. Gary Dymski, Professor of Applied Economics, University of Leeds, UK.
8. Robert H Wade, Professor of Political Economy and Development, London School of Economics,
U.K.;
9. Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Professor of Malaya, Malaysia; and former UN Assistant SecretaryGeneral for Economic and Social Affairs.
10.Jean Dreze, Professor of Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics, India;
11.Guy Standing, Professorial Fellow, SOAS – University of London, U.K.;
12.Yanis Varoufakis, Professor of Economics, University of Athens, Greece;
13.Irene van Staveren; Professor of Economics, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
14.Jane Humphries, Centennial Professor/Professor Emerita of Economic History, London School of
Economics/Oxford University, U.K.
15.Daniela Gabor, Professor of Economics and Micro-Finance, University of West England, U.K.;
16.Ha-Joon Chang, Research Professor of Economics, SOAS – University of London, U.K.;
17.Alfredo Saad Filho, Professor of Economics, Kings College – London, U.K.;
18.Sanjay Reddy, Professor of Economics, New School for Social Research, NY, USA;
19.Rolph van der Hoeven, Professor of Employment and Development Economics, International
Institute of Social Studies, The Netherlands;
20.Jungi Tokunaga, Professor of Economics, Dokkyo University – Tokyo, Japan;
21.Yavuz Yasar, Professor of Economics, University of Denver – Colorado, USA;
22.Ben Fine, Professor of Economics, SOAS – University of London, U.K.;
23.C. P. Chandrasekhar, Professor and Senior Research Fellow, Political Economy of Research Institute,
University of Massachusetts-Amherst, USA
24.Alicia Girón, Professor and Director University Studies Program on Asia and Africa, UNAM-Mexico
25.Costas Lapavitsas, Professor of Economics, SOAS – University of London, U.K.;
26.Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky, Professor and Researcher – CONICET, Argentina, former UN Independent
Expert on Debt and Human Rights.
27.Ipek Ilkkaracan, Professor of Economics, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey;
28.Sergio Cesaratto, Professor of Economics, University of Sienna, Italy.
29.Lawrence King, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, USA;30.Mahalya Chatterjee, Professor of Economics, Calcutta University, India;
31.Nancy Folbre, Professor Emerita of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, USA;
32.Ravi Bhandari, Professor of Economics, Skyline Community College, USA;
33.Utsa Patnaik, Professor Emerita of Economics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India;
34.Sudip Chaudhuri, Professor of Economics, Centre for Development Studies – Trivandrum, India;
35.Yana Rodgers, Professor of Economics, Rutgers University, NJ, USA;
36.Gunseli Berik, Professor of Economics, University of Utah, USA;
37.Prabhat Patnaik, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India;
38.Lucas Chancel, Professor and Co-Director – World Inequality Lab, Paris School of Economics.
39.Lee Badgett, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, USA;
40.Radhika Balakrishnan, Professor of Economics & Women and Gender Studies, Rutgers University,
USA;
41.Randy Abelda, Professor Emerita of Economics and Public Policy, University of MassachusettsBoston, USA;
42.David F Ruccio, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Notre Dame, USA;
43.Heidi Hartmann, Professor of Economics and International Development, American University,
USA;
44.Gerald Epstein, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, USA;
45.Smriti Rao, Professor of Economics, Assumption University, USA;
46.Naila Kabeer, Professor of Gender and Development, London School of Economics, U.K.
47.Barbara Harriss-White, Professor Emerita of Development Studies, Oxford University, U.K.;
48.Aaron Schneider, Professor and Leo Block Chair – Development, University of Denver, USA;
49.Kanchana N Ruwanpura, Professor of Development Geography, University of Gothenburg, Sweden;
50.Raj Patel, Research Professor, Lyndon B Johnson School of Public Policy, University of Texas-Austin,
USA;
51.Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah; Professor Emeritus of Law, National University of Singapore,
Singapore;
52.Vinay Gidwani, Professor of Geography, Environment and Society, University of Minnesota, USA;
53.Vasuki Nesiah, Professor of Practice in Human Rights and International Law, New York University,
USA;
54.Page Fortna, Harold Brown Professor of U.S. Foreign Security and Security Policy, Columbia
University, USA.
55.Shirin Rai, Research Professor of International Development, SOAS – University of London, U.K.;
56.Suzanne Bergeron, Helen M Graves Professor of Women’s Studies and Social Sciences, University
of Michigan-Dearbon, U.S.A.;
57.Kanishka Goonewardena, Professor of Human Geography, University of Toronto, Canada;
58.Dia da Costa, Professor of Social Justice and International Studies, University of Alberta, Canada;
59.Kanishka Jayasuriya, Professor of Politics and International Studies, Murdoch University, Australia;
60.Kevin Gallagher, Professor of Global Development Policy, The Frederick S Pardee School of Global
Studies, Boston University, USA;
61.Arjun Guneratne, Professor of Anthropology, Macalster College, USA;
62.Pasuk Phonpaichat, Professor Emerita of Economics, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand;
63.Roger Jeffrey, Professor of Development Sociology, University of Edinburgh, U.K.;
64.Ben Selwyn, Professor of International Development, University of Sussex, U.K.;
65.Jennifer Olmstead, Professor of Economics, Drew University, U.S.A.;
66.Parthapratim Pal, Professor of Economics, India Institute of Management – Calcutta, India;
67.S. Charusheela, Professor of Economics and Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Washington,
USA;
68.Philip McMichael, Professor Emeritus of Development Sociology, Cornell University, USA;
69.John Harriss, Professor Emeritus of International Development, Simon Fraser University, Canada;
70.Kendra Strauss, Professor of Labour Studies, Simon Fraser University, Canada;71.Mritiunjoy Mohanty, Professor of Economics, Indian Institute of Management – Calcutta, India;
72.Pablo Bortz, Professor of Economics, Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina and
Researcher at CONICET.
73.Padraig Carmody, Professor of Economic Geography, Trinity College – Dublin, Ireland;
74.John Morrissey, Professor of Geography, National University of Ireland, Ireland;
75.Michele Gamburd, Professor of Anthropology, Portland State University, USA;
76.Elizabeth Dean Herman, Professor of Urbanism and Landscape, Rhodes School of Design, USA;
77.Jonathan Walters, Professor of Religion and Bill Hudson Chair of Humanities, Whitman College,
USA;
78.Dip Kapoor, Professor of International Education, University of Alberta, Canada;
79.Maggie Leung, Professor of International Development, University of Amsterdam, The
Netherlands;
80.David Hulme, Professor of Development Studies, University of Manchester, U.K.;
81.Adil Najam, Professor of International Relations, Earth and Environment, Boston University, USA;
82.Patrick R Ireland, Professor of Political Science, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA;
83.Rainer Kattel, Professor of Innovation and Public Governance, UCL, U.K.;
84.Roar Høstaker, Professor of Sociology, Inland University of Applied Sciences, Norway;
85.Gustavo Indart, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Toronto, Canada;
86.Nirmala Salgado, Professor of Religion, Augustana College, USA;
87.Jonathan Goodhand, Professor of Conflict and Development Studies, SOAS – University of London,
U.K.
88.S Subramanian, former Professor and Independent Scholar, India;
89.Ann Blackburn, Old Dominion Professor in the Humanities, Cornell University, USA;
90.Sunanda Sen, Levy Economics Institute – Bard College, USA;
91.Namika Raby, Professor of Anthropology, California State University – Long Beach, USA;
92.Maria Heim, Crosby Professor of Religion, Amherst College, USA;
93.Christian Barry, Professor of Political Philosophy, Australian National University, Australia;
94.Alicia Puyana, Professor of Economics, Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences, Mexico;
95.R Ramakumar, Professor of Developing Societies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences – Mumbai, India;
96.Venkatesh Athreya, former Professor of Development Economics, India;
97.Rahula Mukhherji, Professor and Head of Political Science, South Asia Institute, University of
Heidelberg, Germany;
98.Kalinga Tudor Silva, Emeritus Professor Sociology, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka;
99.Ruvani Ranasinha, Professor of Post-Colonial Studies, Kings College – University of London, U.K.;
100. Sushil Khanna, Professor Emeritus of Economics, India Institute of Management – Calcutta,
India;
101. Ishac Diwan, Director of Research – Finance for Development Lab, Paris School of Economics,
France;
102. Devaka Gunawardena, Research Scholar, USA;
103. Sirisha Naidu, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Missouri-Kansas City, USA;
104. Karna Basu, Associate Professor of Economics, Hunter College and The Graduate Centre, City
University of New York, USA;
105. Mwangi wa Githinji, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts –
Amherst, USA;
106. Gabriel Zucman, Associate Professor of Economics, University of California – Berkeley, USA;
107. Dean Baker, Senior Economist, Centre for Economics and Policy Research, USA;
108. Mary Wrenn, Senior Lecturer – Economics, University of West England, U.K.;
109. Gabriela Koehler, Economist, UNRISD, Switzerland;
110. Surbi Kesar, Lecturer – Development Economics, SOAS – University of London, U.K.;
111. Lynda Pickburn, Associate Professor of Economics, Hampshire College, USA;
112. Abena Oduro, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Ghana, Ghana;113. Smita Ramnarain, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Rhode Island, USA;
114. Susan Randolph, Emerita Associate Professor of Development Economics, University of
Connecticut, USA;
115. Vamsi Vakulabharanam; Associate Professor of Economics, University of MassachusettsAmherst, USA;
116. Grieve Chelwa, Inaugural Post-Doctoral Fellow, Institute on Race and Political Economy, New
School University, USA;
117. Eduardo Strachman, Associate Professor of Economics, Sao Paolo State University, Brazil;
118. Ingrid Kvangraven; Lecturer – International Development, King College, U.K.;
119. Jerome Roos, Fellow in International Political Economy; London School of Economics, U.K.;
120. Paul R. Gilbert, Senior Lecturer – International Development, Sussex University, U.K.;
121. Sheba Thejani, Lecturer – International Development, Kings College – London, U.K.;
122. Joshua Gellers, Associate Professor International Affairs, University of North Florida, USA;
123. Nachi Mani, Associate Professor of Economics, Erode Arts and Science College, India;
124. Isabella Weber, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, USA;
125. Ram Manikkalingam, Director – Dialougue Advisory Group, The Netherlands and Sri Lanka;
126. Bengi Akbulut, Associate Professor of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia
University, Canada;
127. Madhumita Dutta, Assistant Professor of Geography, Ohio State University, USA;
128. Alessandra Mezzadri, Reader in Global Development and Political Economy, SOAS – University
of London, U.K.;
129. Alicia Y Lamin; Lecturer in Law, Harvard University, USA;
130. Chris Baker, Historian, Political Economist, Author, Bangkok, Thailand;
131. Andres Arauz, Senior Research Fellow – Economics, Centre for Economic and Policy Research,
USA;
132. Caroline Shenaz Hossein, Associate Professor of Global Development, University of Toronto,
Canada;
133. Alexander da Costa, Associate Professor of Social Justice and International Education,
University of Alberta, Canada;
134. Jennifer Cohen, Associate Professor of Global and Intercultural Studies, University of Miami –
Ohio, USA;
135. Steven Jordan, Associate Professor of Integrated Studies, McGill University, Canada;
136. Pratheep Kumar, Assistant Professor of Law and Economics, CVV, India;
137. Sarah Small, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Utah, USA;
138. Darini Rajasingham-Senanayake, Anthropologist, Independent Researcher, Sri Lanka;
139. Bart Klem, Associate Professor of Peace and Development Studies, School of Global Studies,
University of Gothenburg, SWEDEN;
140. Jesim Pais, Director – Society for Social and Economic Research, India;
141. Lenore M Palladino, Assistant Professor of Economics and Public Policy, University of
Massachusetts-Amherst, USA;
142. Kalim Siddiqui, Senior Lecturer – Economics, University of Huddersfield, U.K.;
143. Rajni Gamage, Post Doctoral Fellow, National University of Singapore, Singapore;
144. Shanaz Akhatar, Postdoctoral Researcher – International Studies, University of Warwick, U.K.;
145. Dina M Siddiqi, Clinical Associate Professor, New York University, USA;
146. Geethika Dharmasinghe, Visiting Assistant Professor, Colgate University, USA;
147. Eva Ambos, Research Fellow, University of Tubingen, Germany;
148. Susan A Reed, Associate Professor of Women and Gender Studies, Bucknell University, USA;
149. Sankar Varma, Research Scholar, Kerala Council for Historical Research, India;
150. Narayani Sritharan, Fellow – Development Economics, Williams and Mary College, USA;
151. Ayse Arslan, Assistant Professor of Development Studies, Haceteppe University, Turkey;
152. Rohith Jyothish, Assistant Professor of Political Economy, O. P. Jindhal University, India;153. Giselle Thompson, Assistant Professor – Black Studies in Education, University of Alberta,
Canada;
154. Priyanthi Fernando, Executive Director – International Women’s Rights Action Watch-Asia
Pacific; Sri Lanka;
155. Deepta Chopra, Research Fellow, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, U.K.;
156. Heloise Weber, Senior Lecturer – International Studies, The University of Queensland,
Australia,
157. Bishop Akolgo, Director, International Social Development Centre, Canada;
158. Gilad Isaacs, Lecturer – Economics, Institute of Economic Justice, University of the
Witwatersrand, South Africa;
159. Chirashree Das Gupta, Associate Professor – Economics and Political Economy, Jawaharlal
Nehru University, India;
160. Joeri Scholtens, Assistant Professor – Geography, Planning and International Development,
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
161. Samuel Jamiru Braima, Senior Lecturer, Fourah Bay College – University of Sierra Leon, Sierra
Leone;
162. Charles Abugre, Executive Director, International Development Economics Associates, Accra,
Ghana.
163. Samanthi Gunawardana, Senior Lecturer – Gender and Development, Monash University,
Australia;
164. Stanley Chitukwi, Chief Executive Officer, AFRES, Malawi;
165. Gregor Semieniuk, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts-Amherst,
USA;
166. Sudhanva Deshpande, Managing Editor, Leftword Books, India;
167. Farah Mihlar, Senior Lecturer in Human Rights, Oxford Brookes University, U.K.;
168. Kiran Grewal, Reader in Sociology, Goldsmiths College, U.K.;
169. Himanshu, Associate Professor of Economics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India;
170. Ajit Zacharias, Senior Scholar, Levy Economics Institute, USA;
171. Sree Padma Holt, Associate Research Fellow, Bowdoin College, USA;
172. Dharshana Kasthurirathna, Senior Lecturer, Sri Lanka Institute of Technology (SLIT), Sri Lanka;
173. Shyamain Wickramasinghe, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Copenhagen Business School,
Denmark;
174. Nimanthi Rajasingham-Perera, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies, Colgate University,
USA;
175. Mythri Jegathesan, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Santa Clara University, USA;
176. Bernard Anaba, Policy Analyst, The Integrated Social Development Centre, Ghana;
177. Sharika Thiranagama, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Stanford University, USA;
178. Amitav Ghosh, Novelist/Anthropologist, USA and India;
179. Dhanusha Gihan Pathirana, Independent Economist, Sri Lanka;
180. Agustina Calcagno, South Feminist Futures, Argentina;
181. Roman Rafael Vega Romero, Global Coordinator, People’s Health Movement, Columbia;
182. Iratxe Perea Ozerin, University of the Basque Country, Basque Country, Spain;

Sri Lanka President explains measures to speed up capital investment spending

ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka has planned reforms in the public procurement system and alignment of budget and procurement timelines among key measures to speed up the spending under planned projects with capital expenditure allocated in annual budget, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake said.

Dissanayake, also the island nation’s Finance Minister said the current procurement guidelines have become a barrier for public investment projects implemented through budget-allocated capital expenditure.

Sri Lanka has spent less than 30 percent or only around Rs.385 billion of this year’s capital spending of Rs. 1,380 billion through the first nine months of this year, two government sources have told EconomyNext.

Sri Lanka’s chronic failure to utilize its full budgetary allocations for capital investment reflects deep-rooted structural inefficiencies in public financial management and project execution, analysts and economists say.

“Our upcoming budget plans for public capital expenditure of around 2 trillion rupees (Rs.2,000 billion).  Compared to when we took office, this represents a massive increase,” President Dissanayake told the gathering at the launch of the Sri Lanka Economic and Investment Summit 2026 on Monday (12).

He said his administration utilized 76 percent of the allocated capital expenditure last year. However, critics have said that this included some past loan repayments for the central highway project as well.

“Our procurement system was fundamentally built on the mindset that the state apparatus is susceptible to corruption. We created layer upon layer of regulations, and the ultimate result is that the rules have become so restrictive that nothing can get done. It reached a point where the rigidity paralyzed execution.”

“We are actively focusing on redesigning procurement mechanisms tailored for these distinct sectors,” he said, citing the current procurement system was designed merely for purchasing physical goods and there were difficulties in formulating criteria when procuring services like  global promotional campaign or repairs of defence equipments.

“Our objective is to identify these specialized domains and formulate modern procurement systems. How do we procure complex software systems? We need new procurement protocols,” he said.

“Additionally, we must operate competitively in commercial markets. SriLankan Airlines, for example, how does it procure its operational requirements while staying competitive in the market? It requires flexible, modern procurement mechanisms.”

“Defense procurement is another area. We have a fleet of helicopters that cannot undergo timely repairs because the procurement cannot be awarded within the financial year. Funds get allocated, but if the procurement isn’t finalized within that year, the allocation lapses.”

Analysts warn of lower economic growth in the future if the government fails to implement its planned capital investment projects.

The government has repeatedly said most of the spending occurs in the last quarter of the year.

Year after year, bureaucratic delays, protracted procurement disputes, politicized project selection, and a lack of technical expertise within line ministries leave a significant portion of capital expenditure unspent on the Treasury books.

This capital under-utilization carries severe long-term repercussions for the island’s economic trajectory.

By failing to deploy allocated funds into critical infrastructure such as transport networks, modernized power grids, and digital public systems, Sri Lanka suffers from lower productivity growth and worsening structural bottlenecks as well as a decline in overall gross domestic product (GDP) potential.

Procurement Timing

“Previously, the practice was that only after the budget was presented and formally passed, and after the Treasury allocated the funds to the respective Ministry Secretaries, would the procurement process commence,” President Dissanayake explained.

“Consequently, procurements routinely dragged on until August or September before reaching finalization.”

“We have changed that. For major procurements, the Treasury Secretary guarantees funding ahead of time within 2026. For instance, take the Kurunegala–Galewela expressway. Funds will officially be allocated in the 2027 budget, but we have provided Treasury assurance to the Road Development Authority that the funds will be granted in 2027.”

“This allows them to call for tenders, evaluate bids, and select contractors right now. Once the budget is passed in December, we can award the contract directly in January. Work can commence immediately at the start of 2027.”

The President also said Sri Lanka is exploring e-procurement to accelerate the process while addressing professional capacity in the public sector.

“Our public service is currently not attractive enough to recruit and retain high-caliber technical professionals. We face significant deficits in recruiting IT specialists, engineers, and executive management within the standard state salary framework,” he said.

“To attract specialized talent, we must institute specialized, competitive compensation packages. Otherwise, we cannot attract this talent.”

“We are managing a 2-trillion-rupee capital portfolio, running vast services across education and healthcare, yet the state is constrained by rigid salary scales that deter top professionals.”

“When we established GovTech, we were able to bring in leading IT experts by offering specialized salary scales. We must extend this approach to other critical domains. Can we attract a top-tier civil engineer under standard civil service pay? No, because the private sector creates more lucrative opportunities and pays substantially better.”

In a fragile post-default macroeconomic climate, the persistent shortfall of public investment sends a negative signal to international development partners and private investors, analysts say. (Colombo/October 13/2026)

Continue Reading

Sri Lanka rupee closes at 331.00/10 to US dollar spot, bond yields steady

ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka’s rupee closed at 331.00/10 to the US dollar in the spot market on Tuesday, weaker from 330.90/331.00 the previous day, while bond yields were broadly steady, dealers said.

A bond maturing on 01.08.2030 closed at 11.30/35 percent, down from 11.30/37 percent.

A bond maturing on 15.10.2030 closed at 11.35/40 percent, down from 11.37/40 percent.

A bond maturing on 01.02.2031 closed flat at 11.42/47 percent.

A bond maturing on 15.12.2032 closed flat at 11.75/85 percent.

A bond maturing on 15.10.2034 closed at 12.12/18 percent, down from 12.15/20 percent.

An auction of 90,000 million rupees Treasury bills is scheduled on October 14. (Colombo/Oct13/2026)

Continue Reading

Sri Lanka sells Rs100bn in 2029, 2031 and 2036 bonds

ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka has sold 100 billion rupees in 2029, 2031 and 2036 bonds, data from the public debt management office showed.

All offered 20 billion rupees of 15 September 2029 (LKB00629I154) bonds were sold at an average yield of 11.00 percent.

All offered 30 billion rupees of 1 December 2031 (LKB01031L016) bonds were sold at an average yield of 11.67 percent.

30.69 billion rupees of an offered 50 billion rupees of 15 August 2036 (LKB01136H151) bonds were sold at an average yield of 12.33 percent.

The 2029 and 2031 bonds are available on tap. (Colombo/Oct13/2026)

Continue Reading

Sri Lanka’s 2027 budget to “heavily” focus on rural economic empowerment: President

ECONOMYNEXT – Sri Lanka’s 2027 budget has heavily focused on rural economic empowerment with high-speed communication and modern road infrastructure with an aim to address rural poverty in rural area across the island nation, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake said.

Rural poverty in Sri Lanka remains disproportionately higher and more entrenched than in urban centers, accounting for roughly 80 percent of the island nation’s poor.

While urban areas benefit from diversified service economies, concentrated foreign direct investment, and higher-paying industrial employment, rural communities remain heavily tied to smallholder agriculture, seasonal labor, and informal enterprises.

Eradicating rural poverty has proven uniquely difficult due to structural constraints, including low agricultural productivity, land fragmentation, and poor market integration.

“This is why, through the 2026 budget, we have focused heavily on empowering rural citizens within their native regions,” President Dissanayake told the gathering at the launch of the Sri Lanka Economic and Investment Summit 2026 on Monday (12).

“This entails high-speed communication infrastructure and robust road networks connecting rural and urban centers. Through these multifaceted programs, we can address rural poverty.”

“It cannot be solved overnight with a quick-fix solution. It requires a long-term, sustained, structured, and targeted plan, and I believe we have laid the foundation for that.”

“Eradicating rural poverty is not something that can be achieved in a year or two simply by building a road or a bridge. It demands a sustained, targeted program.”

Limited Opportunities

He acknowledged that the segment needing a social safety net has grown excessively and the government has been forced to support groups that should not necessarily require state welfare.

“This is because of our failure to create new economic opportunities for the rural population. What economic avenues do they currently have? The rural populace has access to only a very limited scope of economic activities like agriculture, marine and inland fisheries, and running small, marginal village boutiques/shops,” he said.

“These are essentially their only economic opportunities. Therefore, if we are to eliminate rural poverty, our primary challenge is: how do we create new economic avenues for them?”

He said rural agriculture is restricted to small plots of land and has historically been a subsistence economy.

“It was never a commercial economy for a large portion of the population; it was subsistence-based. Consequently, looking at the extent of land and resources available to us, we cannot develop a large-scale commercial agricultural sector solely by targeting individual smallholders. That remains a poverty-alleviation and food-security mechanism; it must be viewed in that light,” he said.

Small-scale farmers frequently lack access to modern technology, cold-storage facilities, affordable credit, and efficient supply chains, leaving them exposed to volatile crop prices, middleman exploitation, and recurring climate shocks like severe droughts and floods.

Furthermore, long-standing fiscal deficits have constrained state investment in rural infrastructure, education, and non-farm employment creation, while administrative inefficiencies in targeted welfare programs such as Aswesuma have often left vulnerable agrarian households without adequate social safety nets during broader macroeconomic downturns.

Dissanayake said the focus is on enabling the rural poor to generate their own economic opportunities amid obstacles such as lack of capital, lack of technology, weak management capacity, and lack of market access.

“The responsibility of the state is to step in and fulfill these requirements,” he said.

“We have already launched a collateral-free loan scheme. They lack financial assets to pledge to banks, so we introduced collateral-free lending. That program has proven successful, channeling nearly 18 billion rupees so far. Next, we are integrating new technology.”

He said the government is relying two approaches to channel the wealth mobilized by the state toward the rural population, spending the revenue collected the Treasury for rural infrastructure development including for the rehabilitation of minor tanks and irrigation canals and community empowerment to directly link rural communities

He also said rapid communication networks between villages and cities to ensure the flow of rapid information and access opportunities and an advanced transport and road network connecting rural production to urban markets could help in creating more economic opportunities for the rural poor.  (Colombo/October 13/2026)

Continue Reading

Sri Lanka to set up Rs5.4-bn center for disease control

ECONOMYNEXT — Sri Lanka’s cabinet has approved a 5,431 million rupee project to establish a dedicated Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and upgrade national laboratory facilities, minister Nalinda Jayatissa said.

The proposal covers 35 identified activities under the Integrated One Health Pandemic Preparedness and Response Strengthening Project.

The work is funded through a 4,785 million rupee grant received from the Pandemic Fund alongside a 646 million rupee contribution from the Sri Lanka government, with the Asian Development Bank expected to fund the CDC’s establishment.

“Sri Lanka’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and other zoonotic health threats has revealed shortcomings and gaps in national response mechanisms across both the human and animal health sectors,” Jayatissa said.

Although Sri Lanka maintains a routine vaccination coverage rate exceeding 95 percent, an action plan running from 2026 to 2028 was prepared with international partners to address gaps, with all project work scheduled to conclude by March 31, 2028.

“Activities to address these gaps are proposed for implementation through the Pandemic Fund, and an action plan covering the 2026–2028 period has been formulated in collaboration with funding organizations.”

Responding to questions from journalists on whether the facility would be an entirely new institution, Jayatissa confirmed plans for a standalone centre.

“On land belonging to the Ministry of Health in Mulleriyawa, we intend to construct a building of approximately 7,200 square meters as this CDC,” he said.

Jayatissa added that the project will also modernize five existing pharmaceutical warehouses, upgrade the National Medicines Regulatory Authority (NMRA) laboratory, and improve physical infrastructure at the Medical Research Institute’s National Public Health Reference Laboratory. (Colombo/Oct13/2026)

Continue Reading

Sri Lanka Cabinet approves public-private partnership for state printer

ECONOMYNEXT — Sri Lanka’s Cabinet of Ministers has approved a proposal to implement a diversification program for the State Printing Corporation (SPC) through a public-private partnership, minister Nalinda Jayatissa said.

Established in 1968, the SPC is the primary state body tasked with printing school textbooks, official government publications, and state institutional documents.

Jayatissa said that while the state printer has remained profitable, outdated machinery has created operational hurdles.

“Although the Corporation has consistently recorded financial profits in recent years, challenges regarding production efficiency and cost competitiveness have arisen due to the deterioration of existing machinery and the obsolescence of its printing technology.”

Restructuring the corporation’s business model and technical capabilities is essential to ensure its long-term sustainability, Jayatissa said.

Jayatissa dismissed both concerns on the partnership compromising national security or signals privatization.

He said printing syllabus-based schoolbooks involves no confidentiality issues and that old equipment must be modernized and since the corporation alone cannot bear the cost, the government plans to cover part of the expense with private sector assistance.

“We are moving towards a mechanism where this work can be carried out quickly, efficiently, and securely, while placing the minimum possible burden on the Treasury,” Jayatissa said.

He added that non-confidential government printing is already handled through open tenders, and proposals will be obtained to finalize the exact structure. (Colombo/Oct13/2026)

Continue Reading