1/ From a piece I wrote a few months ago but never got around to publishing. Vast majority of Sri Lankans have access to poor quality of life, and in a crisis, my view was that we should ideally focus on them. The piece is linked at the end.
#EconomicCrisisLK #lka #SriLanka
#EconomicCrisisLK #lka #SriLanka
2/ Of course, this is very much personal view and there are many flaws in this argument as its oversimplified a lot. But my hope was that this serves as a good basis to think and talk about inequality in Sri Lanka.
3/ The main idea is that concept of "middle class" or "lower class" or "upper class" is way too subjective and moral. Becomes very difficult to talk and make decisions based on it. Recent tax debate shows this as well.
4/ Instead, I proposed applying a version of what Hans Rosling deemed as the "Levels" of inequality globally. Of course, adapted to SL. Idea is that instead of income first, what matters in specific aspects of QOL that people have access to, and then how much that costs.
5/ Using Rosling's approach as a base, I broke down QOL Levels in SL into 4 categories as below. This is subjective of course, and others can have different breakdowns, but as an approach I hope this format makes sense.
6/ Using amenities data from HIES 2019, I ended up with the following numbers for how many people would be in each "Level". Key here is that very few people fall into L1 and L4, but very many in between.
7/ 2019's expenditure numbers can also give a more "academic" understanding of what this meant in 2019 by daily/monthly/per capita expenditure. Of course, these numbers would be very different now, but the underlying amenities likely not.
8/ Many differences across provinces, so this is a breakdown of the levels by regions. However, issues pop up in this approach here due to geographic differences in amenities (eg-difficulty to access firewood in Eastern Province).
9/ For me, the benefit of this type of approach is that it allows to better understand what "QOL" really needs to be saved and protected in a crisis - since we have limited resources. Should someone who's already well be protected at the cost of someone who's already suffering?
10/ While that idea is "obvious", this also helps put into perspective how poor Sri Lankans really are. To me, it helps me understand my place in the SL income distribution a lot better and thereby, feel better about sacrifices I have to make too.
11/ This is not to say that there is NO cost for a L4. There is - but I feel it's a different type of cost (at absolute worst, moving to a smaller house) compared to the cost that a L2 might face (literally starving). Both sides need to be taken into acount in policy IMO.
12/ I'm also not having a L5 or L6 for 2 reasons.
1 - no credible data so it's an academic exercise only.
2 - I feel once you reach L4, you've "made it" in the context of a poor country. I'd personally rather help more people get to L4 than help L4 become L5 and L6.
1 - no credible data so it's an academic exercise only.
2 - I feel once you reach L4, you've "made it" in the context of a poor country. I'd personally rather help more people get to L4 than help L4 become L5 and L6.
13/ When there is such a deep crisis, we will have to make difficult choices. We must try our hardest for these choices to result in the least pain possible for as many people as possible. For me, an approach like this helps prioritize. I hope it can do the same for you too.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
