[PEN-L:30357] Re: Recessionless Sri Lanka?

["Anthony D'Costa" <dcosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think the civil war was for 30 years.  As for the recession most
likely the FT reported it because there are talks of peace (recently
brokered in Thailand I think), and the LTTE has been given greater
recognition by the Sri Lankan government.  In other words media coverage
of SL had mostly to do with the insurrectionary movement and not much
else.  It is also possible that SL's economy is at such a (low) level that
a minimum growth was always possible despite the internal war (which
allowed it to beat the technical definition of a recession).  But the
question why the recession now still needs to be explained, if it
indeed is the case.

Cheers, Anthony

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor				Ph: (253) 692-4462
Comparative International Development		Fax: (253) 692-5718		
University of Washington			Box Number: 358436
1900 Commerce Street				
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Michael Pollak wrote:

>
> Yesterday I read for the third time a reference to the fact that Sri Lanka
> is supposedly going through "its first recession since independence in
> 1948."  The first two times I thought it was a misprint but now it's
> beginning to bug me.  It's not possible for a market economy not to have a
> recession for half a century -- is it?  And if it weren't improbable
> enough on its own, they've also had an awful civil war for 30 years.
> That'd have to be some kind of miracle.  And then go unnoticed.
>
> So does anyone know where this idea that they are now in their first-ever
> recession comes from?  I saw all three cites in the FT (the last one in
> yesterday's paper) so I assume it's not the fruit of total economic
> ignorance.
>
> My only thought was that perhaps it was a deferential or winking reference
> to preposterous local statistics.  But I can't imagine why the FT would
> show such enormous circumspection for a teeny tiny country that in
> relative terms doesn't seem that tough on foreigners.  Or choose there of
> all places to perpetuate a running joke worthy of Private Eye.  Or for
> that matter, why Sri Lanka would keep such silly stats or insist on their
> being believed.  So that pretty much squashes my only guess.
>
> Still Seeking Enlightenment,
>
> Michael
>
>