The Pulse | Economy | South Asia

The Price of Collusion: Why Sri Lanka Needs a New Approach to Debt Governance

By empowering local actors and fostering genuine competition, Sri Lanka can ensure that its debt serves the nation’s future, rather than the interests of a well-connected few.

Construction work at the Port of Hambantota, Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka’s 2022 default was not merely a fiscal accident; it was the result of a crisis of governance. While the country is still grappling with the fallout of its debt crisis, a crucial question arises: How can the next cycle of unsustainable borrowing be prevented?

Standard “good governance” reforms – the kind often prescribed by the International Monetary Fund – assume that transparency and formal oversight (vertical enforcement) are enough. But these mechanisms are easily bypassed in developing economies where powerful networks of politicians, bureaucrats, and businesses collude to inflate project costs.

Sri Lanka’s infrastructure boom began in 2008 following the electoral victory of Mahinda Rajapaksa. Financing came from China, India, and international bond markets. Major projects included the Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport, Hambantota Port, highways, and power projects such as the Mannar Wind Power Project. The debt incurred to finance these large-scale projects contributed significantly to rising public debt. Around 65 percent of foreign debt accumulated in the decade prior to the crisis was linked to investments in transport, energy, water, and port and airport infrastructure. Many of these mega projects failed to deliver the expected economic returns and were among the factors contributing to Sri Lanka’s eventual default.

The case of the Mannar wind power project, linked to the Adani Group, is telling. Our analysis suggests the agreed price was around 2.7 U.S. cents per kWh higher than the actual market price. This means an overpricing of 48 percent — an overpayment of around $612 million. While a change in government and public outcry ultimately stalled the project, the fact that such a deal could be negotiated in flagrant contradiction of existing procedures proves that the current vertical oversight is a paper tiger.

Price discrepancies on this scale are sadly not uncommon, and rarely accidental. In most cases, they reflect deliberate governance failures involving carefully orchestrated corruption or political collusion that involves all the relevant insiders, making external monitoring and enforcement very difficult. Once we understand the sums involved and the small number of insiders who can collude in these projects, we can see why standard governance approaches have failed to address these massive challenges. Formal........

© The Diplomat