Fiscal Decentralisation: A Stepping Stone Towards Conflict Resolution
Dr. Muttukrishna Saravananthan
For too long, the political processes in Sri Lanka to resolve minority grievances have been preoccupied with the nature of the state (unitary versus federal), unit of devolution of political and administrative power (village, district, or province), language, land, police, and other administrative issues. Very little discussions have taken place regarding the division of financial/fiscal powers between the centre and the peripheries. All the previous political processes have failed on one political and/or administrative issue or the other.
Even the externally imposed provincial council system under the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution has not lived up to the expectation of the minority communities because of the lack of devolution of land, law & order, and fiscal powers. Though land and law & order power devolution continues to be contested, the matter of fiscal devolution has not attracted the attention of the protagonists or the opponents of the Thirteenth Amendment thus far. So, this window of opportunity should be made use of to promote fiscal devolution as a stepping stone towards a durable political solution to the grievances of the minorities, particularly the Tamils of East and North.
Internationally, the sub-national government revenue as a percentage of the central government revenue has been high as circa 50 per cent in Brazil (in 1998) and India (in 1999), moderate in Malaysia (15.4 per cent in 1997) and Thailand (17.0 per cent in 2002), and low in Indonesia (3.2 per cent in 1993), Philippines (2.7 per cent in 1993), and Sri Lanka (4.3 per cent in 2004) (Waidyasekera, 2005: 5). The sub-national government expenditure as a percentage of the central government expenditure has been high as 88.7 per cent in India (in 1999), moderate in Indonesia (13.7 per cent in 1993), Malaysia (12.4 per cent in 1997), and Sri Lanka (11.7 per cent in 2003), and low in Philippines (5.5 per cent in 1993) and Thailand (6.0 per cent in 2002) (Waidyasekera 2005: 20) The foregoing international comparison data is based on different years and therefore should be considered cautiously.Read More
