S r i L a n k a H u m a n D e v e l o p m e n t R e p o r t

2 0 1 2

B r i d g i n g R e g i o n a l D i s p a r i t i e s f o r H u m a n D e v e l o p m e n t

Sri Lanka Human Development Report 2012

Bridging Regional Disparities for Human Development

sri lanka Human Development report 2012

i

Sri Lanka Human Development Report 2012 Bridging Regional Disparities for Human Development Published by United Nations Development Programme Sri Lanka Copyright ©UNDP Sri Lanka 2012 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission from UNDP Sri Lanka

Cover design: Muradh Mohideen Printed by: Printage UNDP is the UN’s global development network, advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We are on the ground in 177 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global and national development challenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw on the people of UNDP and our wide range of partners.

ii

sri lanka Human Development report 2012

This NHDR specifically focuses on issues of disparity and inequality that prevail in the country. have more choices open to them and live long. health. facing a different set of challenges.Foreword Human development is about fostering an environment where people can realize their potential. UNDP has produced Human Development Reports (HDRs) since 1990 and these reports take human dimensions into consideration when measuring development. sri lanka Human Development report 2012 iii . producing the second NHDR is considered timely and opportune. reflecting country level issues that have an impact on human development. The Report is an independent publication commissioned by UNDP. With the conflict ending more than three years ago and Sri Lanka progressing towards new development horizons. Development opportunities are skewed towards a few urban centers. It has entered the league of middle income countries and is set to achieve nearly all the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. resulting in migration to cities and poor living standards in several rural provinces. The first NHDR for Sri Lanka was prepared more than a decade ago. which can be used to develop policy. suitable living conditions and livelihood opportunities. Years of civil strife have left several provinces lagging in terms of social indicators. in 1998. Sri Lanka. The report identifies factors driving inequality and proposes an agenda of action to bridge these disparities. These reports capture a perspective of development that transcends conventional growth indicators such as GDP and GNI. This lends to a rich and current analysis of data. employment. is used to highlight inequalities that prevail in dimensions such as poverty. However. UNDP stands committed to leading. in partnership with the Government. Thus not only income variables but also other variables such as education and health are deemed imperative for the development of a country. Prevailing inequalities and disparities have adversely impacted the growth potential as well as the equitable human development of all people living in the country. education facilities. these achievements are also accompanied by enormous challenges. the dissemination of the NHDR. healthy and productive lives. It captures the regional imbalances in Sri Lanka’s development in relation to the quality of and access to health services. We believe this report will generate discussions and debates that support Sri Lanka’s drive towards a more equitable society. Information generated through the Household Income Expenditure Survey. In parallel to global HDRs. with environmental sustainability at its core. subsequent advocacy efforts and the development of programming initiatives. compared to several years ago. The research and writing of the Report was undertaken by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS). which are often used to gauge the economic changes of a particular country. women’s empowerment and governance. Sri Lanka is at present in a new phase of development. individual countries have been producing National Human Development Reports (NHDRs). opportunities for economic participation and governance for equitable human development. bolstering the collaboration so essential to addressing regional disparities and targeting vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. Subinay Nandy UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme. education. It is hoped that this NHDR will serve as the foundation for joint Government and development partner engagement.

statistical appendix and inputs for chapter 3 and on the construction of indices). National Advisory / Steering Committee The National Advisory Committee deserves special thanks for its leadership throughout the process of completion of this report. D. for assistance with constructing indices. UNDP Asia Pacific Regional Center (APRC). IPS (inputs on chapter 1). Omar Siddique. Suranjana Vidyaratne. Ayodya Galappattige (background paper for chapter 5). Ms. We would also like to thank the Department of Census and Statistics. Executive Director. IPS (inputs for chapter 5).D. Mrs. The team was led by: 1. Gunasekara (Former Director General of the National Planning Department). Ms. 4. Amala De Silva. Dr. Anura Ekanayaka. While attending various meetings including the stake holder consultations. The availability of this data made the information and analysis very current and policy relevant. Elena Borsatti. Former Advisor. Director General and Mr. Ms. Former Chairman. Ministry of Health (inputs for chapter 3) are also acknowledged. We would also like to specially thank Ms. Head HDR Unit. Maria Emma Santos and Mr. Dr.M. Lakshman. Amarasinghe for compiling the GDP data at district level and to Ms. The team is also grateful to Ms. for making available to the research team the primary data set from the 2009/2010 Household Income Expenditure Survey (HIES). Susie Perera. Priyanka Jayawardena (chapter 4. Anuradha Rajivan. Director General. Mr.L.M. Suman Seth. Saman Kelegama. Mr. the Committee has been supportive in reviewing several drafts and commenting substantively. Batagoda Deputy Secretary to the Treasury. Department of Census and Statistics. iv sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . Dr. Prof. Head Department of Demography. 3. IPS (research guidance and support). K. and 6. especially. Ms. Dr. we would like to thank. Siddihisena. Ms. Inputs by Dr. Ms. Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative. Fernando. University of Colombo (inputs for chapter 3) and Dr. Suranjana Vidyaratne. guiding us on the procedures and providing substantive inputs which are greatly appreciated. Bangkok. Parakrama Samaratunga.Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible without the assistance and support received from various individuals and organizations. we wish to acknowledge the detailed substantive comments provided by the National Planning Department that contributed to improving the quality of the report. 5. to Mr. Mr. Rohini Kohli at the UNDP Asia Pacific Regional Center HDR Unit. Mr. Wimal Nanayakkara (chapter 2 and technical note). Dr. and are pleased to acknowledge the team of authors and key contributors. Ministry of Finance. Bishwa Nath Tiwari. We take this opportunity to thank them for making these valuable contributions.S. as the lead author with background papers and contributions by the IPS team including: 2. B. University of Colombo. Anushka Wijesinha (chapter 6). Niranjan Sarangi and Ms. Tiloka de Silva for research assistance and analysis of indices. Dushni Weerakoon. Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and Mrs. Mr. Center for Poverty Analysis. Contributors We greatly appreciate the excellent work done by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in undertaking extensive research and analysis that made the preparation of this report possible. Sunimalee Madurawala (background paper for chapter 3). H. Priyanthi Fernando. In particular. Nisha Arunatilake. G. Additional Director General. Prof. In that context. The team supported us from day one in conceptualizing the report. Anuradha Rajivan and her team including Mr.Y. W. Dr.

Neil Bhune. development partners and the private sector. Mr.M. former Resident Representative. Our partner UN agencies remained fully supportive through various stages of preparation of this report. Geraldine Ratnasingham and Ms. sri lanka Human Development report 2012 v . Thurangani Dahanayaka.The UNDP Team Our former Country Director Mr. Ramesh Gampat for an excellent job on technical editing and Ms. think tanks.K. civil society. the Government officials. including. academia. Fredrick Abeyratne. Madhushala Senaratne and Mr. We would also like to thank all those who participated at various Stakeholder meetings. Gretchen Luchsinger for language editing. Douglas Keh was instrumental in initiating the development of the 2nd NHDR. Mr. National Consultant. for steering the team at all stages of the production of the Report. was responsible for conceptualizing and identifying possible areas that the NHDR would be addressing. taking into account the country context. Country Director a. non-governmental organizations.i. Ratnayaka. Ms. remained fully behind the team guiding them in defining the areas the NHDR should be focusing on. Scott Standley and Ms. in particular. Muradh Mohideen helped with cover design and layout. R. Thangavel Palanivel. Razina Bilgrami. Sergelen Dambadarjaa for their guidance and substantive feedback on the draft report. Our special thanks to UNDP’s Regional Bureau for Asia and Pacific. Mr. Dr. We thank Mr. We also thank Ms. Programme Associates. Dr. Team Leader Poverty/MDG Unit coordinated all the activities with regard to the production of this report supported by Ms.

sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .

Contents Foreword Acknowledgements III IV CHAPTER 1 Why Revisit Regional Dimensions of Human Development? Introduction Demographic Landscape Conflict and the Governance Structure Recent Patterns in Growth and Poverty People Affected by the Conflict People in the Estate Sector Other Vulnerable Groups A Quick Preview of the Report 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 8 9 Infant Mortality and Under-Five Mortality Rates Maternal Mortality Communicable Diseases Non-communicable Diseases Mental Health Injuries Health Care Services Health Facilities Human and Physical Resources Medicines Health Financing and Access to Health Services Groups with Special Health Needs The Elderly Disabled Persons People in Conflict-Affected Areas 40 41 41 42 43 45 47 47 48 50 50 55 55 55 56 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 2 Patterns of Human Development Sri Lanka and Selected Asian Countries: Overall Progress Regional Variations in the Human Development Indices Human Development Index Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index Gender Inequality Index Trends in Income Poverty Economic Growth and Inequality Multidimensional Poverty (MPI) 13 13 59 59 59 59 62 64 70 70 72 72 74 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Education Education for Human Development Delivery of Education Services Funding Education Equitable Access to Quality Education Educational Performance Educational Performance: Basic Education Educational Performance: Senior Secondary Schools The Educated: Distribution Across the Country Building a Knowledge Economy 13 16 16 19 20 22 26 29 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 3 37 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Health 37 Health for Human Development Health Outcomes Malnutrition 37 38 38 81 81 81 83 85 86 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Employment and Livelihoods Labour Market Performance Job Creation and Quality of Jobs Livelihood Development: Constraints and Solutions Access to land sri lanka Human Development report 2012 vii .

2009-2010 Table A7: Components of the Gender Inequality Index Table A8: 139 140 141 CHAPTER 6 Bridging Governance Gaps: State Capacity and People’s Participation The State Capacity to Finance Development Taxation and accountability Perceptions of corruption An Environment for Business to Prosper Gauging what’s good for business Strengthening Local Governance People’s Participation Women’s engagement Looking Forward 101 101 101 103 105 107 108 111 113 115 116 119 119 142 143 144 145 CHAPTER 7 Building on Peace. Land and Householdssources Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010b. Institutional Deliveries. districts with large estate populations and poor rural areas. 2011B and 2011D. 2006-2007 Table A5: Income Poverty. 146 147 Table A9: Crude Death Rate. Births Attended by Skilled Health Providers and Maternal Mortality Rate 148 Table A11: Child Nutrition. Total Fertility Rates and Teenage Pregnancies Table A13: Health Infrastructure 149 150 151 Notes Bibliography 127 133 viii sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . 2006-2007 Table A12: Maternal Nutrition. Multidimensional Poverty Index and Related Indicators. and Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011. 124 Demography. Basic Vaccinations for Children under five years and Prevalence of Anaemia in Children 6-59 months old. Access to water Accessibility to economic centers Access to finance Access to information and communication Technological advancements and transfer of technology Livelihood Patterns in Conflict-Affected Regions 89 90 92 93 96 97 STATISTICAL ANNEX Statistical Tables Table A1: Distribution of the Population by District and Ethnicity. Life Expectancy. 2009-2010 Table A6: Income Poverty and Measures of Income Inequality. Multidimensional Poverty Index and Related Indicators. 2001 Table A2: Human Development Index and Dimensions by District Table A3: Human Development Losses Due to Inequality Table A4: Income Poverty. and Disabled and Elderly Populations Table A10: Infant Mortality. Under-five Mortality. Progress and Security Establishing Priorities 119 Agenda for Action 121 Develop health policies to reduce the vulnerability of the very poor 121 Design and implement policies to address emerging and non-communicable diseases 121 Make education more inclusive and relevant to the demands of the labour market 122 Develop and implement targeted employment policies and foster opportunities for better livelihoods 122 Strengthen governance mechanisms to broaden participation and utilize resources more effectively 123 Focus on conflict-affected areas.

1: A selected Summary of Damage of Economic and Social Infrastructure in the Northern Province Development of Health Care Facilities on the Estates The Influence of Socioeconomic Factors on Child Nutrition Gender Based Violence 06 07 39 46 The Education Sector Development Framework and Programme 2006-2010 Higher Education for the Twenty-first Century Issues of Land Ownership and Rights of Women in Sri Lanka Building Modern Information Infrastructure 69 77 Programmes to Improve Infrastructure 86 88 95 Table T.5: Contribution to Multidimensional Poverty.2: Box 4.3: Box 6.2: Box 5.1: Box 3.2: Box 3.2: Sri Lanka: Recalculated HDI Value.1: Box 4.4: Multidimensional Poverty Indicators and Weights Used 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 232 233 235 237 Multidimensional Poverty Based on DHS 2006/07 172 Boxes Box 1.1: Box 5. definitions and methodology for computing the human development indices Human Development Index Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index Gender Inequality Index Multidimensional Poverty Index Method of Computation The Datasets Comparison between 2006-2007 and 2009-2010 167 167 168 169 170 170 172 175 Table A15: Literacy Rate and Educational Attainments 153 Table A16: Primary Gross Enrolment and Gender Parity Index 154 Table A17: Primary Completion and Survival Rates 155 Table A18: Government Schools and Students by Type of Schools Table A19: Teachers by Qualification and Student-teacher Ratio Table A20: Labour Force Table A21: Employed Population Table A22: Unemployed Population Table A23: Housing and Living Conditions Table A24: Household Possessions Table A25: Household Income and Expenditure Information Table A26: Average Distance and Time to Access Basic Services.3: Dimensions and Indicators of the Gender Inequality Index Table T. 1980-2011 Table T.Table A14: Health Awareness 152 Technical Note Concepts.1: Dimensions of the Human Development Index Table T.6: Multidimensional Poverty: Indicator Comparison Based on DHS 2006/07 and HIES 2009/108 247 Regional Development Imbalances and the Importance of the Business Environment 110 Agenda for Action 125 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 ix . 2009-2010 Table A 27: Sources of Household Income by Province.2: Box 5. 2006-2007 Table T.1: Box 7. DHS 2006/07 and Hies 2009/10 245 Table T.1: Box 1.

2000-2007 Figure 3.8: Government Hospital Beds per 1.11: Nurses per 100. 2010 66 33 38 40 67 Figure 4. Education and Income Indices by District In 2011 Figure 2.8: Gini Coefficient (per capita expenditure) and Poverty Gap Index by Province.7: GDP (real) Growth Rate.5: Income Poverty Headcount and change in Poverty between 2006-2007 and 2009-2010 Figure 2.2: Distribution of out-of-pocket Expenditure on Education. 2009-2010 31 Figure 2. 2003 and 2007 Figure 4. 2010 68 Figure 4.3: Maternal Mortality Rate by District. 2006-2007 And 2009-2010 27 Figure 2.4: Immunization Coverage by District.11: Multidimensional Poverty: Relative Importance of Indicators. 2009-2010 29 Figure 2.Figure 1. 1990 to 2010 26 Figure 2.12: Multidimensional Poverty by District 2009-2010: Relative Contributions of the Three Dimensions 32 Figure 2. 2010 Figure 4. 2009-2010 Figure 3.5: Prevalence of Chronic Illnesses and Disabilities.15: Health Knowledge and Practices Figure 4. Health.12 : Sri Lanka’s Out-of-pocket Expenditure as a Percent of Private Health Expenditure 52 Figure 3.14: Availability of Safe Drinking Water and Toilet Facilities Figure 3. 2011 Figure 2.10: Multidimensional Poverty Headcount.7: Distribution of Government Hospitals. 2006-2007 Figure 3.3: Proportion of Schools with Science Labs and Permanent Library Facilities by District (%). 2006-2007 Figure 3. 2006-2007 41 42 43 Figure 3.10: Medical Officers per 100.3: Gender Inequality Index by District.1: Share of GDP by Province.000 People Figure 3.000 People Figure 3.4: Proportion of Schools with Advanced Science Streams by District (%). Poisoning and Other External Causes 45 Figure 3. 2006-2007 64 Figure 4. 1990-1991 to 2009-2010 Figure 2.1: Public Expenditure on Education as a Percentage of GDP 53 54 62 28 Figure 2. 2003-2009 04 Figure 1.13: Multidimensionally Poor Headcount and Income Poverty Headcount by District.6: Average Scores of Grade Four Students on National Assessments of Learning Outcomes.000 People Figure 2.2: Human Development Loss Attributable to Inequality.9: Government Medical Institutions with Specialties 48 49 49 50 50 24 25 Figure 3.2: Poverty Headcount Ratio by Province 05 Figure 2.13: Percentage of People with Improved Drinking Water and Sanitation.1: Underweight Children Under Five Years by District.2: Infant Mortality Rate by District. 2008 53 Figure 3.4: Trends in the Incidence of Poverty.5: Deficits in the Supply of Primary English and Secondary Information Technology Teachers.6: Trends in Hospital Morbidity and Mortality due to Injury. 2003.1: HDI. 2006-2007 to 2009-2010 Figure 3. 2006 Figure 3.6: Income Poverty Headcount and Change in Poverty between 1990-1991 and 2009-2010 17 19 20 23 Figure 3. 2011 Figure 2. 2007 and 2009 71 x sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .9: GDP per Capita and Poverty Head Count Ratio by Province.

Other Countries. 2009 Figure 4. 2010 Figure 5.8: 81 104 105 Figure 6. 2010 Figure 5. 2009-2011 Figure 6.5: The CPI: Comparing Country Scores.1: Sri Lanka’s Tax Revenue to GDP Ratio.8: DBI Rankings Across Selected Indicators: Sri Lanka Vs.7: Road Density and Capacity. 2008–2012 108 Figure 6.1: Map 2.9: Mobile Cellular Subscriptions by Country. 2010 78 Figure 5.7: Formal Education Completed by Age Group.10: Number of Households without a Mobile or Fixed Line Phone by Province.4: State-owned Land and the Redistribution of Agricultural Land Figure 5.1: Table 1.3: Human Development Index 2011: Sub-national Variations Regional Variations in Gender Inequality Index 2011 Multidimensional Poverty Headcount. 1983-2010 Tables 95 Table 1.2: Female Labour Force Participation Rates and Agricultural Employment by District. 2009-2010.12: Number of Fishers and Fishing Households in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.9 : Education of Students Aged 5 to 24: Distribution by Institution. 2006-2010 Figure 5.4: Direct and Indirect Taxes as Percentage of Total Revenue: Sri Lanka and Selected Countries. 2011 Gender Differences in Health.2: Tax Revenue to GDP Ratio: Sri Lanka and Selected Countries.3: Agriculture’s Share of GDP and Total Employed by Province Figure 5.1: Unemployment Rate by Education Level.2: Map 2. 2010 93 94 Figure 5.9: Structure of Government in Sri Lanka 111 Maps Map 2.Figure 4. 2010 Figure 5.6: Average Rice Yields Under Different Water Regimes. 1972-2010 Figure 6.3: Indirect and Direct Taxes. Age Group and Sex. Selected Years 82 85 87 88 89 91 106 Figure 6.8: Knowledge Economy Indicators for Sri Lanka and Averages for Lower Middle-income and Upper Middle-income Countries. 2011 Figure 6.6: The CCI: Comparing Percentile Ranks Across Countries. 2002 Figure 5.11: Technical and Vocational Training: Enrolment in Selected Public Sector Institutions. Selected Countries 02 97 09 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 xi . 18 21 30 Commercial Banks: Sectoral Distribution of Loans and Advances Granted to Agriculture and Fishing.5: Agriculture Holdings by Type and Province.2: Distribution of the Population by Province and Ethnic Group.7: DBI Rankings: Sri Lanka’s Recent Performance. 1977-2010 104 Figure 4. 2012 72 Figure 5. 2009 Figure 4. 2012 109 Figure 6. 1977-2010 98 102 74 75 76 Figure 4. 2010 102 Figure 6.10: Distribution of University Enrolments by Subject Figure 6. 2009-2010 Figure 5.11: Marine Fish Production in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. 2008 Figure 5. Education and Labour Market Outcomes.

2: Table 4.2: Table 6. 2007 63 Average Monthly Household Expenditure on Education. IHDI and Gii 2011: Best and Worst Districts* The Comparative Status of Different Districts Comparison of Selected Health Indicators Distribution of Mental Disorder Cases and Psychiatrists.7: Table 4.Table 2.3: Table 6.4: Table 4.1: Table 4.2: Table 3.5: Table 4.7: Table 4.4: Table 3. 2008 61 62 Public and Private Investment as Proportions of Total Investment.1 Table 2.3: Table 3. 2010 109 112 Average per Student and per School Expenditure.8: Table 4. 2002 State Dependence on Taxation: Stylized Governance Effects The CPI: Comparing Country Ranks. 2009-2010 Proportion of Students Scoring above 50 Percent on the National Assessment of Learning outcomes 65 Women in Elected Political Office: Nomination and Representation 116 Parliamentary Elections 2010 and Provincial Council Elections 2008-2009: Nominations of Women By Major Political Parties 116 xii sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . % Land Ownership Patterns.6: Table 6.6: Table 3. 2002–2011 107 Sri Lanka’s Performance on the CCI.6: Selected Countries: HDI and Other Indicators. 2003 and 2010 71 71 72 Highest Level of Formal Education Completed by People 25 Years and Above.1: Table 3.2: Table 2.4: Table 6.1: Table 6.7: for Grade Four Proportion of Students Scoring above 50 Percent in Grade Eight National Examination Success Rates. 2007–2010 Provincial Revenue Performance and Provincial GDP.3: Table 3.5: Table 6.3: Table 4. 2007 Health Workforce and Infrastructure Health Workforce and Infrastructure: A Country Comparison Health Expenditure as a Share of GDP. Selected Years 84 86 103 106 Access to Health Services During Pregnancy. National and Provincial Schools. 2000 and 2006 51 Selected Health Indicators and Resource Availability in Districts of the Northern and Eastern Provinces 56 Trends in Education Provision Public Expenditure on Education. CPI and DBI.1: Table 5. 2006-2007 63 Grades 1 to 13 Net Enrolment Rates. 2000 and 2008 15 22 34 37 44 43 49 51 Table 4. 2009 73 Poverty Head Count Index by Employment of Head of Household. 2011 HDI.2: Table 6.9: Table 5.5: Table 3.

sri lanka Human Development report 2012 xiii .

CHAPTER 1 Why Revisit Regional Dimensions of Human Development? sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .

When they are significant. and undermined human development prospects in many areas. They also hold back human development and mire communities in poverty over long periods of time. but also at the processes that open up these choices. and are incompatible with peace. such as the one experienced by Sri Lanka.2 This National Human Development Report is set against this backdrop. to be educated and to enjoy a decent standard of living. The human development approach provides a framework for examining social. as well as the prevention of future conflicts. political and economic inequalities grow among culturally or spatially distinct groups. Its overriding purpose is to improve all people’s capabilities to “advance their own well-being. of course. Sustaining this momentum and sri lanka Human Development report 2012 1 . fuel and financial crises. in 1998. These multiple aims are not necessarily feasible at the same time. also highlights people’s freedom to participate in the development process.1 They are not the only factor. In detailing changes in human development conditions and prospects.2 percent during the last two years. to contribute to economic growth and also to pursue leisure activities. multi-ethnic society can feed discontent. Where social. This is especially important in postconflict Sri Lanka. in addition to acknowledging the importance of these elements. Even when they conclude. economic growth has accelerated. This is a concern in part because inequalities in a democratic. the first global Human Development Report recognized three dimensions of human development as vital to people: to live long in good health. Sri Lanka’s second MDG Report showed continued development progress. Violent conflicts. Regional Dimensions of Human Development.6 The 8 percent growth in 2010 could have partly been due to a low base effect. provincial and district human development disparities.5 percent was influenced by the conflict as well as the global food. at work and during leisure. affected societies remain fragile and vulnerable to all kinds of shocks. reconstruction and reintegration. as the country’s past has demonstrated. but reinforced the message of the first National Human Development Report: disparities persist within the country in terms of traditional human development indicators and more advanced measures of development. they can provide the basis for dissatisfied people to garner political support that can then spill over into conflict. In 2010. especially when resources are scarce. and their importance depends on the context. an understanding of the main elements of disparities is a critical first step in designing policies to mitigate the recurrence of violence in a post-conflict setting. economic and political disparities.8 percent in the three years preceding the cessation of fighting to an average of 8. and the means by which people use their capabilities to enhance their wellbeing at home. much has changed due to two major factors: the tsunami of 2004 and the culmination of the protracted civil conflict in the Northern and Eastern provinces in 2009.4 In 1990. In 2011.CHAPTER 1 Introduction Why Revisit Regional Dimensions of Human Development? Sri Lanka produced its first National Human Development Report. lead to an unnecessary loss of life and damage to infrastructure.5 This current National Human Development Report. Both of these distressing experiences put significant strains on human security. Since the conflict ended. where prolonged conflict has eroded the trust between population groups and divided their views on the path to development. as growth in 2009 of only 3. the rate was 8.3 percent. It is imperative that post-conflict development policies address relief. It assessed the extent of regional. from an average of 6.”3 It looks not only at the choices available to people. Since then. but they are integral to the idea that human progress must go beyond reconstruction. it explores both the drivers of disparities and necessary actions to bridge differences.

28 percent in the Eastern Province and 15 percent in the Western Province.1 and Table A1).0 10.2 65. the analysis of this report extends across provinces and districts.8 93.1 3.4 6.1: Distribution of the Population by Province and Ethnic Group. Demographic Landscape Administratively.0 100. North Western.2 0. 11.2 2. and 0. 13.0 84. Uva and Sabaragamuwa. and the only international airport are located.2 0. From a larger. Of them. The Tamils.9 Burgher Malay Other 0. rural and estate. are scattered in the other three provinces. North Western.0 100.0 0. A final section provides an overview of the organization of the report.0 9. 2011 Total Sinhalese Sri Indian Sri population Lanka Tamil Lanka Tamil Moor Western Central Southern Northern* Eastern* North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa 100.4 94. Almost 44 percent of the Sri Lankan Tamils live in the Northern Province.1 5.9 million (or 4.3 0.0 2. These five provinces are home to 83.1 0.7 3.5 percent of the population.1 0. are mostly Hindus and account for 16.0 100.3 percent in the North Western Province.2 0.1 4.8 7. Northern. The Sinhalese comprise more than 80 percent of the population in six provinces: Southern. To the extent that data permit.a Note: *indicates estimates.7 The estates are mainly inhabited by Indian Tamils. Sri Lanka’s population of close to 20 million is ethnically. Eastern and Northern.1 0.9 86. religiously. North Central. macroeconomic standpoint. Uva.9 percent) are Sri Lankan Tamils. The Indian Tamils primarily reside in plantation areas located in the Central Province (56.5 8.7 1. the country is divided into three main sectors: urban. Southern.9 4.2 0. Uva (18 percent) and Sabaragamuwa (15 percent). are mostly Buddhists.9 The 14 million Sinhalese.8 22.2 0.1 0.0 100.4 1. both Sri Lankan and Indian.0 100.0 0.1 0. in that order of importance).0 100.2 0.2 million (or 11. both Sri Lankan and Indian. Western and Uva. linguistically and spatially diverse (Table A1).d.4 percent of the Sinhalese.0 100.3 0.7 0. 2 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . who comprise almost threequarters of the country’s population.1 19.1 12.7 44.3 0.2 percent).0 0.3 percent in the Central Province and 11. The rest of this chapter describes the context of the report.6 percent are scattered in the other four provinces (North Central. analysis is carried out across sectors.0 0. The next section discusses the diversity of Sri Lanka’s population and its distribution across different regions.1 Source: Department of Census and Statistics n. Another 15.1 0. The chapter then moves on to discuss the background to economic and social development.1 0.2 32.0 0. Eastern.5 0.0 0.6 percent) are Indian Tamils.1 percent in Sabaragamuwa Province. 2. It is followed by a quick overview of how the governance structure has responded to the nature and causes of past conflicts.1 0.0 100. the remaining 16.1 0.9 1. About one-third live in the Western Province. Colombo. Central. Sabaragamuwa.spreading its fruits more equitably will depend largely upon lasting peace.0 7.8 When data are available. The rest of the Tamils.0 1.0 3.6 79. North Central.0 0.7 85.9 90. This helps in understanding socioeconomic dimensions and foundations for group identities.0 0.0 0.2 0. The country as a whole is divided into a total of 25 districts (Table 1. where the capital city.5 0. Sri Lanka is divided into nine provinces: Western.4 percent live in the Southern Province. Table 1.

perceived injustices regarding ethnic representation in public institutions. The new nation was characterized by a centralized form of government that had safeguards for minority groups. attempted to arrive at a political solution to the conflict. the governance structure and means of ensuring the rights of minority groups received the attention of political leaders. a political demand voiced mainly by rural Sinhalese. Many conflicts occurred along ethnic and regional lines. was one important attempt at devolving some powers to the provinces.2 percent. It was only in May 2009. decentralized administration of development was considered a means for reaching the grass-roots. This then led to conflict.the north and east.14 which changed to demands for a separate state by the mid-1970s. Various governments. rising from the multiple and multifaceted grievances of both Sinhalese and Tamils. sometimes assisted by the international community. Below the provincial councils are municipal and urban councils. brought about by the Indo-Lanka Political Accord of 1987. Close to a third of Sri Lankan Muslims live in the Eastern Province and about a quarter in the Western Province. People directly elect officials to all local councils.11 Nonetheless. and from the early 1980s. The country suffered two uprisings led by a Marxist-oriented political party. mainly representing the Sri Lankan Tamil population. group interests along ethnic lines came to the forefront of the political arena. and pradeshiya sabhas (village councils). Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). elected for a five-year period. It stipulated that the provinces would be governed by provincial councils. postcolonial language legislation. the Tamils called for greater autonomy to manage their affairs in the regions where they were highly concentrated . In particular. access to land and water. however. the socio-political tensions that led to the uprising of the late 1980s were fuelled by the “perceptions among…the rural poor and urban working classes that the dynamics of the early liberalization phase had effectively by-passed them. Differences peaked in the 1977 parliamentary election. There are high concentrations of Muslims in the North Western and Central provinces. It drew support primarily from rural youth as a result of endemic youth unemployment.2 percent (Table A1). including in terms of parliamentary representation.3 percent of the population. Unfortunately.13 The district development councils. and devolution of central power to regions. For their part. the demand was for a separate federal state. primarily among educated youth. Ethnic agitations were unmitigated. Conflict and the Governance Structure Sri Lanka has experienced a series of socio-political disturbances over the past several decades.The Moors comprise 8. after a painful and costly three-decade long conflict. with the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF). the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna ( JVP). while the others live in pockets throughout the country. Following the social conflicts in the early 1970s. Steps to alleviate grievances were incorporated in the 1978 Constitution. Sri Lanka was caught in a conflict that escalated into an armed uprising by the Chapter 1 WHY REVISIT REGIONAL DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT? 3 . different political groups have considered these attempts at power sharing inadequate. Some key measures included the recognition of Tamil as an official/national language alongside Sinhala. different population groups have argued for diverse forms of power sharing. that Sri Lanka was able to end the aggression. Burgers 0. in 1971 and 1987-89.3 percent and others 0. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution. were some of the main initial attempts to link development administration to people. Sri Lankan Moors and Malays are mainly Tamil speaking and are mostly Muslims.”12 Since independence. Sri Lanka has been prone to other conflicts along socioeconomic and political lines in the past. Malays 0.10 Even before Sri Lanka’s independence from Britain in 1948. Immediately following independence. and the adoption of proportional representation in parliamentary elections to accommodate smaller constituent interests. Some underlying causes included the unequal distribution of the benefits of economic growth. campaigning on a platform of a separate state for the country’s Tamil population in the north and east of the country. established in the mid-1970s and transformed into elected bodies in 1981.

20 In addition.21 A general improvement in living standards meant the number of people living below the official poverty line declined from 4. can confuse and weaken development efforts.17 Defence expenditures rose significantly. experiences with coalition arrangements with a slim majority in Parliament have led to political and policy instability.18 In 2009. Given the current system of proportional representation. One example is the emergence of the parochial interests of small political groups at the expense of national priorities. proper coordination between various government bodies.15 However. defence expenditure was 3 percent of GDP. Ambiguities in assigned responsibilities among central ministries. a reduction of close to 58 percent.4 percent of GDP in 1983 to as much as 6 percent of GDP in 1996. since security concerns required a reprioritization of resources.7 percent to 8. but also delayed development in other regions.Negotiations are still ongoing to find a lasting solution acceptable to all communities. which over time has resulted in an increase in the number of line ministries responsible for sectoral policy management. education and other productive assets. the volatile security situation has made it more difficult to compete for international investments. as well as between different levels of government.9 percent over the same period.19 These increases have crowded out any fiscal leeway for boosting investments in health. annual report. reaching US $2.16 This Figure 1. 2003-2009 Source: Central Bank of Sri Lanka. Changes to the electoral system have impacted governance over time. accountability in appointing personnel.22 Recent Patterns in Growth and Poverty The Sri Lankan economy maintained an average economic growth rate above 6 percent from 2003 to 2010.8 million in 20092010. 4 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .1: Share of GDP by Province. and improved physical and human resource capacity. increasing from 1.400 in 2010 from US $981 in 2003. With economic growth. various years. per capita income increased. the likelihood of a single-party Government with a clear majority is small. is an especially noteworthy achievement considering that conflict not only held back development in directly affected areas. The proportion of the population living below the official poverty line (known as the poverty headcount ratio) dropped from 22.3 million in 2002 to 1. One estimate places the economic cost of the conflict from 1983 to 1996 at twice Sri Lanka’s 1996 gross domestic product (GDP). An effective post-conflict scenario has to be based on the efficient demarcation of institutions.

These statistics indicate that economic activities may be shifting away from the Western Province. however.6 percent). language and access to services. People in the Estate Sector The estate sector is a unique feature of the Sri Lankan economy. The evidence at hand. other than the Western Province (Figure 1.2: Poverty Headcount Ratio by Province Source: Department of Census and Statistics 2011d.1). The workers lived in congested and unsanitary housing. have deteriorated in the face of damage to facilities and the shortage of personnel and other resources. The poverty headcount ratio has declined by a higher percentage than the national average in all provinces for which data are available. due to historical circumstances and a variety of other factors relating to geography. It consists of Tamil descendants of workers brought mostly from southern India during the mid19th Century to work on tea and coffee estates. but progress has been slow. however. Chapter 1 WHY REVISIT REGIONAL DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT? 5 . while traditional livelihoods were disrupted because of the lack of security and investment. not uniform across the country. Education and health achievements Figure 1. rendered even more entrenched due to the isolated locations of the estates. which were most affected by the conflict. The Western Province contributed close to half of national GDP in 2009. Most economic infrastructure was destroyed or damaged.23 More recent data suggest a slight reduction in the province’s share and an increase in those of all other provinces (Figure 1. People Affected by the Conflict Systematic information on developments in the Northern and Eastern provinces is not available.1 percent) and industrial output (48.2). and the differences in poverty headcount ratios between the Western and other provinces are declining. housing and sanitation. poor connections to nearby villages and linguistic differences (Box 1.Growth was. These deprivations are a carryover from the time when the welfare of estate workers was largely the responsibility of plantation companies. the government has implemented several projects to improve health. and neglect (Box 1. with little access to social services.2).24 A large proportion of the population has been displaced. in some cases several times. Since nationalization of the estates in the early 1970s. Trapped in generational.1). are in economic difficulty. they have poor health and education outcomes relative to the rest of the country. long-term poverty. It takes time to redress deep historical setbacks. as well as nearly half of the sectoral GDPs of both services (51. shows that these provinces.

The second main livelihood activity. restrictions were imposed on fishing hours and areas. The number of damaged or destroyed houses was estimated at 160. Another major livelihood activity in the region. Several schemes providing pipe-borne water are either not functioning or needed rehabilitating. some agricultural land is no longer accessible because of landmine threats. thousands of wells still need cleaning. education and social services Damages to facilities. assistance for the elderly and disabled persons. also suffered severe losses. in welfare centres across the Northern and Eastern provinces. there were approximately 282. or about 93. However. and the restoration of minor tanks and irrigation facilities for 3. The fishing industry lost boats.000. Livelihoods An estimated 80 percent of the displaced households were involved in farming prior to displacement. The annual catch of over 75. and how it may have affected human development.000 acres of the total cultivable 240. help to illustrate the nature and magnitude of the destruction.750 hectares of paddy land . drilled or re-drilled by the Government and development partners. and support for persons affected by psychosocial trauma. Irrigation infrastructure and access roads were seriously damaged.in 2010-2011. reported by the Government of Sri Lanka and its partners.000 toilets were repaired and reconstructed. such as programmes for child protection. Housing and internally displaced people Soon after the conclusion of the conflict in May 2009. causing damage to farming. Water and sanitation The conflict severely damaged water and sanitation infrastructure. Health. discontinuation of livestock support services. Within a year and a half after it ended. gear and supporting infrastructure.000 internally displaced persons. but several thousand more need to be urgently constructed to avoid water contamination. close to 9.such as subsidized fertilizer.000 acres of paddy land. upgrading and rehabilitating.000 MT by 2008. With support through a wide range of agricultural inputs from the Government and its partners .421 dug wells were cleaned and rehabilitated.000 stray cattle were thought to be roaming the region. it was possible to cultivate 210. Over the same period after the conflict.1 A Selected Summary of Damage to Economic and Social Infrastructure in the Northern Province The following estimates of the damage caused by the conflict in the Northern Province. They lost agricultural equipment and seeds. 2011. an estimated 8.000 acres of abandoned paddy land. 6 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . disruptions to market networks and damage to infrastructure. livestock production. declined due to the displacement of livestock.500 families. Breakdowns in family units meant a greater need for other types of social services. up to 60.000 metric tons of fish prior to the conflict fell to only 15. Source: Government of Sri Lanka et al.. A further 121 tube wells have been repaired. the clearing of 4.Box 1. lack of qualified staff and displacement severely disrupted health and education services. fisheries. Even by 2011.

2 1. respectively. an improvement of over 60 percent in 15 years. compared to 12.5 19.0 42. compared to 98. An additional factor is that some estate hospitals are located near rural hospitals.9 per 1. estate medical assistants and registered estate midwives were the main providers of health care. The former declined from 49.7 and 3.936 49. Low birth weight was 31 percent.2 percent in urban and rural areas. the Social Development Division (SDD) was established to manage the welfare facilities of estate populations. Unlike the SDD. for example.0 19.5 percent. 97. it had to work through different management companies to operationalize their welfare programmes. morbidity and mortality rates remained high into the early 1970s .4 percent for urban and rural areas. as the monitoring of doctors was difficult. respectively. for example. with management contracted to private sector companies. The Land Reform Law in the early 1970s nationalized the estates and handed their management over to two government agencies: the Janatha Estates Development Board (JEBD) and the Sri Lanka Plantations Corporation (SLSPC). Given the high costs. on the insistence of trade unions and politicians. Instead. The infant mortality rate on estates was 16. Health services subsequently increased and became more comprehensive. leading to questions about the rationale for upgrading.9 28.2 1. In the 1990s.1 in 2000. Plantation Sector Health Data.7 per 1.4 17. Earlier.000 live births in 1985 to 19.2: Development of Health Care Facilities on the Estates Morbidity and mortality rates were very high on the estates from the beginning. implement national health programmes and introduce special initiatives to address health needs. the PHSWT did not have direct authority over the provision of health care and welfare on the estates. they have improved significantly. as shown by the data below. In 1978.025 809. respectively). required colonial planters to provide some medical relief to sick workers. and water supply and sanitation facilities. the share of babies born at a weight under 2.1 1. For the same period.2 14.000 live births. the estates were restructured and divided into 23 regional plantation companies.26 The availability of medical personnel remains a major issue on the estates. with guidance from the Ministry of Health.8 60. These efforts have led to a fall in infant mortality and low birth weight rates. there are indications that while health outcomes on estates still lag behind those in urban and rural areas. The Master Servant Law of 1865.2 percent took place in institutions.5 According to the latest data.8 percent and 16. There was also an emphasis on developing housing. with funding from both the Government and development partners.000 live births in the urban and rural sectors.8 85.000 live births in 200725 (compared to 10. Since 1930. registered assistant medical officers.646 886. The Plantation Housing and Social Welfare Trust (PHSWT) was established under the Companies Act to provide social welfare services.5 1.096 849.5 kilogrammes declined from 42 percent to 14.6 per 1. there have been more concerted efforts to improve maternal and infant health care through establishing maternity facilities on estates and increasing the number of registered estate midwives.infant mortality rates were above 100 per 1. there was an attempt to take over the estate hospitals and upgrade them to the status of rural hospitals. But upgrading and staffing them with qualified medical doctors did not result in the desired improvements. changes are taking place slowly.6 27.3 96.6 percent and 98. Chapter 1 WHY REVISIT REGIONAL DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT? 7 . Its main function was to monitor health and welfare standards. the British colonial Government recognized the economic value of the estate population and enacted several laws to improve health care.5 90. and many hospitals are located in geographically isolated areas. Its operational expenditures were covered through a levy paid by private companies and funding from donors. Unfortunately. For childbirth deliveries. 1985-2000 Year Agency Population Infant mortality Maternal Institutional Low rate mortality rate births (%) birth weight 1985 1992 1995 2000 JEBD/SLSPC JEBD/SLSPC PHSWT PHSWT 738. In 1992. Around the 1850s.Box 1. Source: Vidyasagara 2001.

Other Vulnerable Groups A number of other groups in Sri Lanka face specific vulnerabilities. in turn. Resources are an issue. Successive governments have encouraged migration for employment. For some Sri Lankans. and the welfare of the children and families left behind are major concerns. The tsunami of December 2004 was the most devastating natural disaster ever to strike Sri Lanka. including the significant share of the population affected by yearly environmental disasters-such as droughts. however. but also for foreign remittances. with the exception of predominantly Muslim countries that have poor overall records on gender equality (Table 1.711 disabled persons . floods and cyclones. speaking.28 with the proportion of people aged 60 and above projected to rise from its current level of 11 percent to 16 percent in 2020 and 29 percent by 2050.2).including seeing. education and employment services.8 percent and 7. Their vulnerability increases through their displacement and separation from social and administrative networks providing social protection. Disaster-impacted people are at high risk of poverty. Many require better social protection and access to education and health care. making most highly economically dependent on their families.31 The effects of foreign employment on household welfare are mixed. now a major source of foreign exchange. vulnerability comes in the quest for employment in foreign jobs. North Western and North Central provinces. Educational outcomes are at par with or better than those of men. produces an increase in incomes.in the 18 districts covered by the 2001 Census of Population and Housing. women hold only a handful of parliamentary seats. These issues will be discussed in greater detail in subsequent chapters.7 percent. and life expectancy is also considerably higher for women. women’s labour market activity was higher than in Sri Lanka.000 Sri Lankans emigrate per year for foreign employment. directly affecting close to five percent of the population.29 Only a very small proportion are employed. They are at a high risk of poverty because most are not covered by social security support. People with disabilities also need attention to ensure that they have equitable access to health. but are still marginalized in some areas. 9.30 The majority comprises young.32 As a group. There were 274. education and productive assets. Declining fertility rates and increasing life expectancy will likely continue expanding the elderly population in the next 40 years.27 Another vulnerable group comprises elderly people. women in Sri Lanka fare well compared to those in similar developing countries. Around 10 percent of all households receive remittances.3 percent of the populations of the three provinces. which. In all countries considered in South and South-East and East Asia. in 2009-2010. low-skilled female workers who go to Middle Eastern countries as housemaids. especially given the country’s rapidly ageing population. Estimates by the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment reveal that around 250. But the lack of protection for migrant workers. These households invest more in health. amounting to a significant proportion of their income. or other mental or physical disabilities . The country will have to find ways and means of coping with the economic burden of this demographic trend. but people should be able to remain healthy and productive in their older years. Currently. hearing. respectively. The proportion of households affected by disaster is particularly high in the Eastern. especially unskilled female workers. households affected by at least one disaster comprised 10. 8 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .

5 4. Where sub-national data are not available.a. Chapter 4 considers access to education at different levels.1 n. others are North and East Asian countries A Quick Preview of the Report This report examines social. United Nations Educational.a. 34 24.5 2.a. Education and Labour Market Outcomes. n. draws attention to disparities. and health financing. with the exception of the Eastern Province. 75.6 Sources: 1. 3. Selected Countries Tertiary education attainment of Labour force participation population 25 years Life expectancy at rate (15-plus population.6 n.a. which has a more ethnically mixed population.5 3. there is a high correlation between the ethnic and spatial distribution of the population. 74 n.org]. It discusses the ability of the country’s educational institutions to cater to the emerging demands of the labour market. As in the case of health care in Chapter 3.a. 82. and.5 5. 8.a.a. The last 6 countries are South Asian countries.a.ilo. Scientific and Cultural Organization 2010. n.2 n.2 n. 2.9 n. 13.a.6 n. 75 Female Male 55.9 n.8 n.a.9 n. International Labour Organization [http://laborsta. Chapter 3 explores the performance of the health sector across different population groups. n.5 78. using international comparisons as necessary. Note: N.6 n. 65.2 n.a.a. 3.Table 1.4 3.a.4 4.a.a.5 n.4 25.1 n.a.4 38. data for Sri Lanka is from Department of Census and Statistics 2010a for the year 2010.a. proxy variables have been constructed. 52.a.a. The discussion touches on traditional health indicators. 14. the chapter tracks Chapter 1 WHY REVISIT REGIONAL DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT? 9 .4 86. and older (2008 or birth (2009)1 2008 or closest year)2 closest year)3 * Male Singapore Malaysia Republic of Korea China Thailand Philippines Indonesia Maldives India Pakistan Bangladesh Nepal Myanmar Sri Lanka 79 71 77 72 66 67 66 74 63 62 64 65 61 65 Female Male 84 76 83 76 74 73 71 76 66 64 66 69 67 76 76. 12.8 29.2 29 3. The indices mostly use methods followed by the global Human Development Reports. 21. 13.9 n.2: Gender Differences in Health.a. n.1 Female 19.8 25. Chapter 2 looks at human development patterns across districts and provinces. 81.3 5. The process of assessing health care inevitably leads to an examination of the distribution of health facilities and health personnel. such as infant and maternal mortality rates and malnutrition. refers to data not available. as well as the quality of education for different groups. economic and political disparities across Sri Lanka’s population groups. using different human development indices.a.4 n. World Health Organization 2011. 50. focusing in particular on spatial disparities. Across the country. It highlights development differences among provinces and districts to the extent that data are available. * Tertiary education attainment of the International Standard Classification of Education 5 and 6.8 48. and demographic and epidemiological changes. as well as emerging health issues posed by economic development.

It examines gaps in the governance structure’s capacity for encouraging the growth of enterprises and businesses. It seeks to identify areas for policy attention. improving public participation in policy making and building local capacities. Chapter 6 takes up the importance of governance for equitable human development across different population groups. The last chapter concludes the report by drawing out areas for action and suggesting.education financing and the distribution of education facilities. Chapter 5 assesses opportunities for participation in the economy. Because a large proportion of employment is dependent on the agriculture sector outside the Western Province. the chapter explores issues relevant to agricultural productivity and access to other livelihoods. providing services. and the quality of jobs available. some potential interventions. It examines the performance of the labour market in terms of employment. 10 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . unemployment and labour force participation. in broad terms.

Chapter 1 WHY REVISIT REGIONAL DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT? 11 .

CHAPTER 2 Patterns of Human Development sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .

the maternal mortality ratio has declined from 92 per 100. however.686 and 98 out of 187 countries.539. Otherwise. The Human Development Index (HDI).661. overall improvements will partly depend on closing differences across regions and sectors. Moreover. its human development achievements are impressive compared to other SAARC countries.33 and living standards: as measured by gross national income (GNI) per capita expressed in constant 2005 purchasing power parity (PPP)$. is a summary measure of long-term progress in three basic and readily measurable dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life as measured by life expectancy at birth. health. and explores some factors generating and perpetuating them. Ranks for the other SAARC countries range from 134 for India.761). with an HDI value of 0. many countries across the globe. Compared to countries such as Singapore (ranked 26 with an HDI value of 0. Except for India and the Maldives. Compared to two decades ago.547. Sri Lanka’s progress could improve. Sri Lanka has room for further improvement. Sri Lanka ranked third. compared to an average of 86. pioneered in the 1990 global Human Development Report.866) and Malaysia (ranked 61 with an HDI value of 0.4 for SAARC countries over the same period. with an HDI value of 0. however. people today are healthier.9 years in 2011 is high compared to most developing countries. There are.5 in 2007.35 The Maldives. are more educated. Although Sri Lanka was affected by conflict. According to Family Health Bureau estimates. It adjusts the HDI for inequality in each dimension.691 in 2011. when they were 0. after Jordan and Algeria.3). as measured by mean years of adult education. which comes second. a statistic that is the lowest by far in the SAARC region. Persistent disparities across provinces. the remaining SAARC countries have not yet reached Sri Lanka’s HDI for 1980.1). Sri Lanka’s achievements in education are remarkable compared to many other developing countries.8 per 1. With an HDI of 0. sri lanka Human Development report 2012 13 . education.398. Its net primary enrolment rate for both males and females was more than 95 percent in 2009-2010. Sri Lanka has the highest level of human development among the eight SAARC countries (Table 2. live longer. subnational disparities in all of these impressive health and educational indicators. Sri Lanka ranked 97 out of 187 countries. The 2011 global Human Development Report34 shows that Sri Lanka’s HDI value increased by 28 percent between 1980 and 2011. and is the lowest in the SAARC region. education and income. This represents a marginal improvement for both the HDI value and ranking over 2010. have recorded substantial progress in human development. Compared to Asia as a whole. education and living conditions have improved substantially. with an HDI value of 0.3 in 2006. districts and sectors suggest that improvements are necessary at various sub-national levels (Table 2. and have better access to goods and services. despite good national averages. which was 0. or access to knowledge. Sri Lanka’s life expectancy of 74. This chapter examines the nature and magnitude of disparities. to 172 for Afghanistan.000 live births in 1990 to 8.000 live births in 1990 to 39. is ranked at 109. Among countries with a medium level of human development. Its infant mortality rate has declined steeply from 19. health. inequality will remain a major factor holding back continued human development. including Sri Lanka. across the Sri Lanka and Selected Asian Countries: Overall Progress In the past 20 years.CHAPTER 2 Patterns of Human Development Although Sri Lanka was affected by conflict for nearly three decades. the global Human Development Report introduced the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI). sub-national disparities need urgent attention. In 2010. respectively. according to most indicators.

41 which assesses severe poverty as lived and experienced in three basic dimensions: health. which. While the three dimensions of the MPI and the HDI are the same. This could be due to several reasons. the HDI can be viewed as an index of ‘potential’ human development and the IHDI as an index of ‘actual’ human development. including university education. 14 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . The labour force participation rate for women 15 years and above has changed little since 19901991. and lower wages for women not fully explained by differences in productive capacity.2 percent in Nepal. whereas in Nepal. the MPI is a much more comprehensive measure. but could considerably improve performance on labour force participation and parliamentary representation. In the SAARC region. As this report will show.5 percent in the Maldives to 33. with minimal shortfalls from the education and health dimensions.population.602. the MPI goes beyond traditional income poverty and related measures.38 It reflects women’s disadvantages in three dimensions: reproductive health. Sri Lanka performs well on maternal mortality and education. India and Pakistan range from 33. Sri Lanka’s loss is only marginally higher than those for countries in the very high human development category. The overall loss is significantly lower in Sri Lanka than in other SAARC countries. Bangladesh. By measuring the different ways in which a household can become impoverished. The ‘loss’ in potential human development is given by the difference between the HDI and IHDI. and particularly free health services have been available to every citizen without any discrimination for more than six decades. which is the proportion of people who are multidimensionally poor.2 percent. including cultural factors. compared to other SAARC countries. Another measure generated by the global Human Development Report is the Gender Inequality Index (GII). The rates for Afghanistan. A household is multidimensionally poor only if it is deprived in some combination of indicators exceeding a weighted sum of 30 percent of total deprivations. however. and the average intensity of poverty.42 The MPI and the multidimensional poverty headcount index in Sri Lanka are the lowest in the SAARC region. education and living standards. and it is also calculated differently. with a loss due to inequalities of 13. Less than 6 percent of parliamentarians are women. It accounts for inequalities by ‘discounting’ the average value of a dimension according to its level of inequality. On the indicators considered for the GII. The female labour force participation rate is 34. and can be expressed as a percentage. Sri Lanka’s GII is high at 0.3 to 53. This reflects the fact that free education. according to the Labour Force Survey done by the Department of Census and Statistics. empowerment and the labour market. helping to reveal the combination of deprivations that simultaneously batter a household. The value of the GII represents the loss of potential human development attributable to inequality between female and male achievements in these three dimensions. reflects the proportion of people who are deprived. a lack of ‘good jobs’ offering flexible or reasonable work hours. These are captured by 10 indicators. Sri Lanka’s poor score contrasts with its HDI achievements. Nepal has both the SAARC region’s highest MPI at 0. Maldives and Bhutan it ranges from 63. which indicates that women fare as poorly as possible in all measured dimensions. where the figure ranges from 6. where deficits range from around 25 to 35 percent.4 percent.40 Another human development measure is the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). It ranges from 0.36 The IHDI for Sri Lanka is 0. such as to measure access to upper secondary education. to 1. It is the product of two numbers: the multidimensional poverty headcount ratio. which indicates that women and men fare equally. India and Pakistan have higher values (Table 2. at less than 10 percent. but its multidimensional poverty headcount index is higher at 5.1). indicating strong inequalities.7 percent. Maldives has the same MPI value as Sri Lanka.1 to 21 percent. From this standpoint.350 and highest multidimensional poverty headcount index at 64.018 and a multidimensional poverty headcount index of 4. only Afghanistan. inequalities are apparent when more advanced indicators are used.4 percent.37 The main contribution to the loss comes from the income component.1 percent.56539 compared to a majority of countries in the medium human development category.7 percent. in a simple definition. Calculations based on 2009-2010 data show an MPI value of 0.

2011 Sources: United Nations Development Programme 2011a and computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c and Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011. of Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka.1 Selected Countries: HDI and Other Indicators. using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka.Table 2. Note: The values in the first row are those computed by the NHDR team. Chapter 2 Patterns of Human Development 15 . covering data for 2006/07. The value in row 2 is from HDR 2011. covering data for 2009/10.

The HDI values of the top five districts (i.900: Hambantota. The Northern Province’s lowest ranking on the HDI. Kegalle. Hambantota and Matara. The low HDI value in the former is partly explained by its large estate population. Monaragala. it was possible to calculate the HDI for the entire province (Figure 2.1.692. While necessary data were not available for districts in the Northern Province. On the HDI component indices. according to the 2011 global Human Development Report.637. including the Northern Province as a whole.001 points higher than the value given in the 2011 global Human Development Report. The Northern Province is exceptional: It has the lowest HDI score at 0. Even the lowest value is well within the medium human development category. Seven districts have a health index with scores exceeding 0.600 on the income index.700.522 in Bhutan in the 2011 global Human Development Report. For the other 16 districts.866. with an HDI value of 0. Out of the 20 districts. which ranges from 0. Batticaloa was directly affected by the conflict.698 in Tunisia. in descending order. only Gampaha and Colombo scored above 0.Regional Variations in the Human Development Indices Human Development Index The HDI for Sri Lanka computed for this report using the latest available data. the highest score was recorded on the health index at 0. all of the rest. among districts for which data were available.1). as well as the lowest scores on the HDI sub-indices of income and health. Gampaha. Because a large number of tertiary hospitals are located in Colombo.625. which has the lowest value (Figure 2. ranging from 0.635.752 and 0. at 0. Among other districts. The value of the education index for all provinces except Nuwara Eliya. perform better than the national average.822 in Batticcaloa to 0. Kegalle.694. This unusual situation could be due to the incorrect registration of some deaths under the district of occurrence instead of the district of the deceased. Matara. Monaragala and Kegalle districts.001 higher than the health index for the Northern Province. have scores on the health index ranging from 0. and the lowest on the income index at 0. 6 districts have scores on the education index of 0. Kalutara. with the last two tying at 0. Nuwara Eliya records the lowest HDI at 0. except the Maldives.700 or higher—Colombo. Colombo. ranged from 0.698 in Jordan to 0. Gampaha. The lowest value in Sri Lanka is higher than the HDI values of all other countries in the SAARC region. while Ratnapura.1 and Table A2).783 in Uruguay to 0. and the Northern Province scored less than 0. the value of the income index ranged between 0.642 in Monaragala to 0.752. With an education index of only 0. many critically ill persons from other districts are treated and die there. followed by Batticaloa at 0.507 in Badulla and 0. It is only marginally lower than some other non-conflict districts.1).547 in Puttalam.889 in Galle.625.552. It is only 0..697 in Matara. Hambantota and Matara) correspond to HDI values in the high human development category. varying between 0. is 0.625. The Colombo District does well in terms of income and education. followed by Kalutara and Colombo (Map 2. All the district/regional HDI values are within a narrow range. but it is pushed into third place mainly because its health index is the second lowest of the 20 districts. HDIs were computed for 20 out of 25 districts. both from the Southern province. Table A2 and Map 2. Outside of Northern Province.e. Gampaha and Ratnapura. Galle and Kurunegala. With the exception of Colombo. At the sub-national level. reflects the impact of conflict. All 20 districts and the Northern Province have very good health outcomes.593. 16 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . Kalutara. Kalutara. Gampaha ranks first. with the education index in the middle at 0.500. Nuwara Eliya is at the bottom. or 0. For districts for which data were available.

650. the Northern Province faces significant challenges and deserves special attention. It falls just 9. with an HDI value of 0. Chapter 2 Patterns of Human Development 17 . owing to the lack of disaggregated district-level data.such as Nuwara Eliya.635.1: HDI. One reason could be the aggregation of districts in the Northern Province. Education and Income Indices by District in 2011 Sources: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c and Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011. Figure 2. As will be apparent throughout this report. The central government initiatives are underway in this regard. Health.7 percent short of the national average. and Badulla. which allows the provincial average to come close to those of provinces not directly affected by conflict. but the pace could be improved. with a value of 0.

Note: Regions with lighter colours have higher levels of human development. darker colours signify lower levels. 18 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .Map 2.1: Human Development Index 2011: Sub-National Variations Sources: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c and Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011.

the loss in human development owing to inequalities is lowest in Trincomalee at 9. and highest in Badulla at 14.2: Human Development Loss Attributable to Inequality. which is closely followed by Kandy at 14.Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index Within Sri Lanka.7 percent. Chapter 2 Patterns of Human Development 19 . The losses due to inequality in Badulla and Kandy districts possibly result from large estate populations.8 percent.2). Figure 2. regional variations in the IHDI are not very high (Figure 2.3 percent. Among districts for which data were available. 2011 Sources: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c and Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011. which could be attributed to inclusive health and education policies.

followed by Anuradhapura and Gampaha (Figure 2. and Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka and United Nations Development Programme 2010. Department of Elections of Sri Lanka 2011. It is highest in Batticaloa at 0. is second only to that of Kegalle District.Gender Inequality Index Among districts for which data are available. although the maternal mortality ratio is high at 50 deaths per 100.000 women aged 15-19. The district’s low adolescent fertility rate.000 live births) and adolescent fertility rate (34. Both the maternal mortality ratio (77.4 deaths per 100.2).5 per 1. 2011 Sources: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2007a. The high GII in Batticaloa District is due to zero representation of women in Parliament and a low labour force participation rate of 24. 20 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . followed by Puttalam.4 per 1000 women aged 15-19) are high compared to most other districts.2 percent in the 15-64 age group).3 and Map 2.474.807.000 live births. The low GII in Hambantota is due to both relatively high parliamentary representation (14. 2009e and 2010c.4 percent. the GII is lowest in Hambantota at 0.43 Figure 2 3: Gender Inequality Index by District. at 11.3 percent) and the high female labour force participation rate (44.

Chapter 2 Patterns of Human Development 21 . and Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka and United Nations Development Programme 2010. Department of Elections of Sri Lanka 2011.Map 2. darker colours signify higher levels.2: Regional Variations in Gender Inequality Index 2011 Sources: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2007a. 2009e and 2010c. Note: Regions with lighter colours have lower levels of gender inequality.

Comparing Districts Across Indices Table 2.556) Badulla (14. whatever their source. Based on the national poverty lines. This could be attributed to robust economic growth in the highly urbanized Western Province.754) GII Hambantota 0. and need strategies to prevent them from sliding backwards.642) Colombo (0.3 percent in 20092010.2: HDI. If present trends continue. the incidence has declined from 26.44 If the poverty line is increased by 10 percent. At the national level.493) Gampaha (0.474) Anuradhapura (0. IHDI and GII.667) Kalutara (0.635) Batticaloa (0. poverty. a reduction of more than 65 percent.7 percent by 2015. data show a large proportion is just above the poverty line.733) Colombo (0. as the overall number contracted from 2.3 percent in 1990-1991 to 5. IHDI and GII 2011: Best and Lowest Districts* Index Three best districts Three lowest districts HDI IHDI IHDI loss due to inequality (%) Gampaha (0. Around 1 million poor people moved out of poverty from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010.4 percent in 2009-2010.710) Gampaha ((0. Table 2.754) Nuwara Eliya (0.1 percent by 2015.000 people.4).9 percent in 2009-2010 (Figure 2. Kandy and Matara incur the biggest losses due to inequality.551) Badulla (0.807) Puttalam (0. computed by the Department of Census and Statistics.515) Note: *excludes those in the Northern Province. The ‘near’ poor are highly vulnerable to economic shocks.45 Rural areas also saw a sharp drop in 22 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . among districts for which data are available.2 highlights the 3 best and the 3 lowest districts in terms of the HDI. 12. Unfortunately. and have the lowest income indices.2 percent below the expected MDG target of 13. many people who have escaped poverty are still at risk of slipping back into it. Accounting for around 5.637) Badulla (0. the estates will achieve the MDG target of halving poverty by 2015. In urban areas.626) Anuradhapura (11. a significant achievement.783) Kalutara (0.5 percent of Sri Lanka’s total population.9 percent in 1995-1996 to 9. poverty was 4. The decline in rural poverty is the main contributor to the significant drop in national poverty. from 30. there was a sharp reduction from 16. Badulla.1 percent in 1990-1991 to 8. which accounts for around 60 percent of the urban population.0) Batticaloa 0. as nearly 85 percent of the poor live in rural areas. Both urban and rural areas have achieved the MDG on poverty.8) Nuwara Eliya (0. amounting to an increase of around 800. passing the MDG target of 14. Batticaloa and Nuwara Eliya are among those ranking the lowest on all three indices.3) Matara (14.4) Gampaha (11.554) Batticaloa ( 0. For districts with available data. Trends in Income Poverty Sri Lanka has already achieved the MDG on poverty. There are no big differences in results produced by the HDI and the IHDI.650) Nuwara Eliya (0.8 percent of Sri Lankans would fall under it.8 million to 1.3) Trincomalee (9.752) Kalutara (0.7) Kandy (14.8 million. halving the incidence. well before the 2015 deadline.

Regional differences in poverty persist despite the overall national decline. Kurunegala and Anuradhapura. Until the early 2000s. which fell to Chapter 2 Patterns of Human Development 23 . affecting more than 30 percent of the population. which was the poorest district in 2006-2007.46 This improvement is mainly due to the increased attention given to the estate sector. such as Badulla. 1990-1991 to 2009-2010 Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011a. percent from 1990-1991 to 2002.6 percent in 2009-2010. except in Nuwara Eliya and Monaragala (Figure 2. Essentially. The second poorest district.4 percent in 1995-1996 to 30 percent in 2002. wages in the estate sector have increased. The latest estimates show that estate sector poverty fell by 32 percent to 11. Monaragala. the poorest districts have made significant improvements in reducing poverty over the last several years. More than 30 percent of people there have been impoverished for more than 10 years. but increased again to 32 percent in 2006-2007. Badulla and Kegalle districts. Kegalle and Hambantota. Nuwara Eliya.47 By 2006-2007. Poverty estimates are not available for districts in the Northern and Eastern provinces. all other districts faced poverty rates topping 20 Outside the conflict-affected region. Kandy. other lagging districts were Matale.the estates have the highest incidence of poverty over a sustained period of time.5). poverty rates had declined significantly in most districts with available data. Ratnapura. among districts with available data. the central districts. with poverty rates above 33 percent. even as urban and rural poverty rates were declining. Among districts with available data. Monaragala. Figure 2. Except for the Colombo and Gampaha districts in the Western Province. lagged behind the coastal ones. has cut its poverty rate by nearly 80 percent—it stood at 7. Estate poverty fell from 38. accompanied by significant improvements in welfare and infrastructure improvement programmes. experienced a 56.4 percent in 2009-2010.4: Trends in the Incidence of Poverty. had high incidences.3 percent reduction in its poverty rate. these two were the poorest in the country in 2006-2007. some. Since 2006-2007. especially those with inadequate accessibility. They were followed by Ratnapura.

6. meaning they have achieved the MDG poverty goal. As seen in Figure 2.9 percent in 2006-2007 to 11. Other districts that still have high rates include Monaragala at 14.3 percent. especially those affected by conflict or with large estate populations. Jaffna District in the Northern Province.5 percent and Badulla at 13.3 percent. shows a 16.14.1 percent incidence of income poverty.7 percent in 2006-2007 to 20. poverty has increased from 10.3 percent in 2009-2010. All international agencies operated there for more than two decades. which was covered in a national survey after more than two and a half decades. Yet poverty is still prevalent in some districts. 24 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . allowing Vavuniya to function as a commercial hub.49 This district was the main administrative centre in the Northern Province throughout the conflict.5: Income Poverty Headcount and the Change in Poverty Between 2006-2007 and 2009-2010 Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011a. and helping to improve living conditions. Across all districts with available data. most other districts have achieved significant reductions.48 Poverty in Ampara District rose from 10.5 percent in 2009-2010. as well as some rural districts.8 percent in 2009-2010. the incidence of poverty declined by more than 50 percent. Figure 2. In the Batticaloa District. Vavuniya has the lowest incidence of poverty at 2.

home to 11 percent of the population. A higher portion of poor people live in rural areas and on estates compared to their population shares. respectively.3 percent and 11 percent. Although the income poverty headcount is only 4. Only 8. For example. where 80. The income poverty headcount index for rural.7 percent of the poor are in rural areas.000 of Sri Lanka’s 1.4 percent.5 percent of poor people.8 million poor. 5. Chapter 2 Patterns of Human Development 25 . its share of people in poverty is high.Figure 2.6: Income Poverty Headcount and the Change in Poverty Between 1990-1991 and 2009-2010 Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011a.1 percent of the total population resides. comprising 14 percent or 253. 84. they have 6. While 5 percent of Sri Lankans live on estates. urban and estate categories is 9.2 percent in the Western Province.8 percent of the poor live in urban areas.

it alone will not necessarily reduce poverty and inequality. 1990 to 2010 Sources: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 1992. 1996. earnings and access to available social services. through gender differences.Economic Growth and Inequality Although economic growth is important to human development. Figure 2. 2002b and 2009d. 26 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .7: GDP (Real) Growth Rate. Inequality manifests in class or income status. and across socioeconomic groups and dimensions such as employment.50 High levels of inequality make it difficult to lower poverty even when an economy is growing.

especially the garment industry. The industrial sector. This trend was observed in most provinces (Figure 2.5 percent and around 8 percent.38 from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010.46 from 1990-1991 to 2006-2007. The latter held at around 0.8: Gini Coefficient (Per Capita Expenditure) and Poverty Gap Index by Province. indicating inequalities. with growth ranging etween 3. the Northern and Eastern provinces contributed little to this achievement. Figure 2. the Gini coefficients for household income and per capita expenditure have remained high.7). except in 2001 (Figure 2. Chapter 2 Patterns of Human Development 27 . Despite satisfactory growth rates. The former stood at around 0.8). Seriously affected by conflict.40 before declining marginally to 0. 2006-2007 and 2009-2010 Sources: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011c and 2011d. and the tourism sector were badly affected.Sri Lanka’s economy grew at a steady pace from 1990 to 2008. Negative growth in 2001 stemmed from the impact of the terrorist attack on the Katunayaka International Airport in the middle of the year as well as the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in New York on 11 September 2001. which adversely affected the economies of Sri Lanka’s main trading partners.

Sabaragamuwa and Central provinces. nearly twice the value of Rs. while the richest 20 percent received 54. 213. which measures the depth of poverty. however. Income inequality needs to be tackled for sustained human progress.51 28 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . including Uva. Sabaragamuwa. 375. the central provinces and the estate sector. GDP per capita income increased in 2009 in all provinces (Figure 2. and in the estate sector. of the population in Sri Lanka received only 4. The most significant improvements are in regions that were the poorest in 2006-2007. has declined from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010. Compared to 2007.000. indicating a marginal reduction in inequality.9). the second highest.000 for the North Western Province. It was highest in the Western Province at Rs. The increase in per capita GDP has improved the living conditions of poorer groups. translating into a lower poverty incidence.5 percent of total household income.9: GDP per Capita and Poverty Head Count Ratio by Province. Overall.1 percent.The poverty gap index. the poorest 20 percent Figure 2. This progress does not extend to the Eastern Province. 2006-2007 to 2009-2010 Sources: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011c and 2011d. and Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2010. with significant reductions in Uva.

7 percent in 2009-2010 compares to 7 percent in 2006-2007. the Technical Note contains a discussion of the MPI based on the DHS data. 2009-2010 Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c. Because the HIES survey is more recent and covers a larger number of districts. Sri Lanka’s multidimensional poverty rate of 4. it was used for the calculation of the MPI and ensuing discussion.4 percent. The multidimensional poverty headcount index for the urban. for rural areas it is almost Chapter 2 Patterns of Human Development 29 .2 percent in 2006-2007 to 8. In Sri Lanka. This decline is consistent with the measure produced by the multidimensional poverty headcount index. respectively (Table A4).10).10: Multidimensional Poverty Headcount. Note: Data did not include information for Killinochchi. and the Household Income and Expenditure Survey of 2009/10 (HIES 2006/07). Mullativu and Mannar districts in the Northern Province. rural and estate sectors is 3. 4. based on the DHS dataset. which indicates a drop from 15.9 percent in 2009-2010 (Figure 2.3 percent. The MPI for urban areas is considerably less at 5.5 and 11.7.Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) MPI analysis depends on micro data from comprehensive national surveys. two such datasets are available: the Demographic and Health Survey of 2006/07 (DHS2006/07). both of which were conducted by the Department of Census and Statistics. Figure 2.

As it increases. Badulla at 6. Badulla at 6.5 percent.6 percent. Kurunegala has the highest share of multidimensionally poor people.3 percent.1 percent. The estates and urban areas account for 12.2 percent.2 percent.4 percent. Rates are comparatively high in Puttalam at 8. For the estate sector.2 percent.9 percent and Matale at 5. Of the 25 districts with available data. Ratnapura at 7.7 percent. at 9.9 percent. Kurunegala at 5. Kurunegala District also has the highest share of people in income poverty at 10. Among districts with available data. a double confirmation of high and persistent rates of poverty there. Jaffna records the highest incidence of multidimensional poverty at 11.8 percent.3 percent.1 percent. Note: Lighter colours represent low levels of multidimensional poverty. 30 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . 2009-2010 Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c.9 percent.6 percent. the MPI and the multidimensional poverty headcount index are exactly the same at 11. followed by Batticaloa at 11. At 76. Ratnapura at 6. respectively.5 percent. followed by Kandy at 8. Ratnapura at 6.2 percent.5 percent and Puttalam at 7. Kandy at 5.3 percent and Galle at 6. rural areas have the highest share of multidimensionally poor people (Table A5).half the headcount index. the colours darken. They are lowest in the three districts of the Western Province (Map 2.3). Map 2. followed by Kandy at 7.2 percent and 11.3: Multidimensional Poverty Headcount.

Figure 2. 2009-2010 Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c. Chapter 2 Patterns of Human Development 31 . although the indicators on which they are deprived are different. People who are multidimensionally poor.4380 in Trincomalee. ranging from 0.The intensity of multidimensional poverty in Sri Lanka is 0. regardless of where they live. Note: The data did not include information for Killinochchi. Mullativu and Mannar districts in the Northern Province. Among the districts and sectors.3887 (Table A4). face more or less the same deprivations and are deprived to about the same extent. the differences are not significant.11: Multidimensional Poverty: Relative Importance of Indicators.3510 in Matara to 0.

It contributes to 28 percent of the deprivations experienced by the average multidimensionally poor person. Such attention would be.the principal cause for acute poverty in Sri Lanka. 32 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . where calorie consumption of the household is less than 80 percent of the requirement. The second deprivation is where the household head is chronically ill or disabled . an investment in the country’s children. Note: The data did not include information for Killinochchi. and household expenditure on food is more than 60 percent of the total. Both factors require the attention of policy makers and planners.11). The first is health as gauged by nutrition. Figure 2.12: Multidimensional Poverty by District 2009-2010: Relative Contributions of the Three Dimensions Sources: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c. as they are dependent upon their caregivers for material support and thus directly affected by multidimensional poverty.What are the factors that push people into multidimensional poverty? The MPI indicators revealed two distinct types of deprivations at the national level in 2009-2010 (Figure 2. Mullativu and Mannar districts in the Northern Province. in effect. the nutrition indicator contributes to 25 percent.

12). Polonnaruwa. This seems to suggest that inadequate income is at the heart of the health deprivations of the mulitdimensionally poor person in Sri Lanka. for the estates. Jaffna. Polonnaruwa. A simple regression shows that income poverty explains Figure 2. as noted earlier (Table A4c). This observation is true for rural and urban areas. The health dimension is responsible for more than 60 percent of multidimensional poverty in Matara. Trincomalee. 45 percent of multidimensional poverty. The overwhelming importance of this single dimension suggests that acutely poor people often suffer health consequences from malnutrition and the disability or chronic illnesses of the household head. Kalutara. poor health dominates as the chief cause of multidimensional poverty across districts and sectors. Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c. Figures related to this chart are in Table A4 The data did not include information for Killinochchi. Colombo and Gampaha have the Chapter 2 Patterns of Human Development 33 . Hambantota. Vavuniya. Ratnapura. Kegalle and Matale are more seriously affected by the living conditions dimension.13: Multidimensionally Poor Headcount and Income Poverty Headcount by District. Nuwara Eliya. Colombo. Hambantota and All 22 districts for which data permitted the calculation of the MPI and the income poverty headcount index had income poverty that was considerably higher than multidimensional poverty (Figure 2. 2009-2010 Note: The size of the bubble indicates the share of multidimensionally poor people in each district (out of the national total).13). Mullativu and Mannar districts in the Northern Province. Ampara. Badulla. which accounts for about 40 percent of their deprivations. Anuradhapura. both measures are the same. Monaragala. Districts such as Kalutara.If the 10 MPI indicators are considered by the three dimensions defining multidimensional poverty (Figure 2.

3. appears in Table 2. but they are still characterized by considerably greater income than multidimensional poverty. the situation there is expected to improve. Galle. Table 2. designed to enable policy makers to identify lagging regions for appropriate action. A ranking of districts. Matara and Kegalle are in the middle. 34 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . Jaffna and Batticaloa districts have the highest income and multidimensional poverty. Registrar General’s Office data and Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011. Family Health Bureau of Sri Lanka 2009.3: The Comparative Status of Different Districts Sources: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2007a and 2010c. With the rapid development and improvement of services presently underway in the Northern and Eastern provinces.lowest incidence of both income and multidimensional poverty.

Chapter 2 Patterns of Human Development 35 .

CHAPTER 3 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Health sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .

57 The reasons are not clear. emotional and mental health also plays a crucial role in making people productive members of society. Source: World Health Organization 2011.54 while the World Health Organization notes that “health is the basis for job productivity. Table 3. 2009 rate. **:per 100.000 live births. and improves the capability of individuals to grow intellectually. or economic or social condition.* 2009 mortality rate. life expectancy at birth is 8. **:probability of dying by age five per 1. and improved nutrition and education. the capacity to learn in school.** mortality rate.000 live births. there are still concerns.”55 The centrality of health to human development is reflected in its inclusion in the Human Development Index. for 20002002. political belief. The Commission on Macroeconomics and Health53 identifies it as a central factor in economic development and poverty reduction. both longstanding and emerging. the Republic of Korea and Singapore all have better basic health indicators than Sri Lanka.1). Sri Lanka’s national performance in health is good according to most basic indicators.000 live births. and maternity and infant mortality rates (Table 3.56 improve.1: Comparison of Selected Health Indicators Country Life expectancy Infant mortality Under-five Maternal at birth.52 Physical. Until 1968. but this advantage has been reversed in recent years. Sri Lankan women seem to be healthier than men in terms of life expectancy at birth.CHAPTER 3 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Health Health for Human Development Health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being. and emotionally. Sri Lanka’s performance can still While overall progess in health has been strong. the higher prevalence of non-communicable diseases among men. Compared to more advanced economies in the AsiaPacific region. such as life expectancy at birth. Malaysia. Several factors could be involved. religion. According to the latest available data. physically. and chronic illnesses/ sri lanka Human Development report 2012 37 . life expectancy for males was higher. child mortality.4 years longer for women than men. however. including lower maternal mortality rates. The analysis of multidimensional poverty in Chapter 2 (and also in the Technical Note at the end of this report) shows that malnutrition.*** Singapore Malaysia Republic of Korea China Thailand Philippines Indonesia Maldives India Pakistan Bangladesh Nepal Myanmar Sri Lanka 82 73 80 74 70 70 68 75 65 63 65 67 64 71 2 6 5 17 12 26 30 11 50 70 41 39 54 13 3 6 5 19 13 33 39 13 66 87 52 48 71 16 9 31 18 38 48 94 240 37 230 260 340 380 240 39 Notes: *:probability of dying by age one per 1. regardless of race.

Polonnarura.disability of the heads of poor households are problems burdening the poor in particular.58 Factors relating to low food intake. affecting both the rich and the poor. Across districts with available data. especially on estates (Figure 3. noncommunicable deseases. hard physical labour. recurrent pregnancies and large families can lead to malnutrition. Poor malnutrition hinders learning. 2006-2007 Note: Based on the World Health Organization Child Growth Standard. such as diabetes and hypertension. Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009a. More than a quarter of the children are underweight in each of these districts. 38 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . burdens families Figure 3. Kandy and Anuradhapura.1: Underweight Children Under Five Years by District. with higher expenditures on health care.1). are on the rise. Nuwara Eliya. Monaragala.59 Although Sri Lanka fares well in most basic health indicators compared to most developing countries. and can reduce productivity. Badulla has the highest percentage of underweight children. Batticaloa. followed by Trincomalee. frequent infections. child nutrition is still a major problem. Health Outcomes Malnutrition Reducing malnutrition is important for health reasons and because it affects many other aspects of peoples’ lives. At the same time. This chapter looks in more depth at some of the major issues at stake.

2003. A mother’s nutritional status and education have strong impacts on a child’s nutrition and birth weight. Yet improvements have been limited. Frequent infections and hard labour. Babies with a low birth weight are twice as likely to be underweight children as babies with normal birth weight. The prevalence of maternal malnutrition and low birth weight babies is four times higher among the lowest socioeconomic group compared to the highest.61 Several government initiatives are in place to arrest malnutrition. be less successful at breastfeeding and caring practices that are vitally important for a child’s health and proper growth. They follow the National Nutrition Policy and Strategic Plan of 2010.60 Most districts with high levels of child malnutrition in 2009 had relatively low female educational outcomes. A child belonging to the ‘poorest’ socioeconomic quintile is three times more likely to be underweight than a child in the richest quintile. have been operating for a long time. Some. Nearly half of all women of reproductive age on the estates do not have even a primary education. such as the Threeposha supplementary feeding programme. which seeks to bring together many different stakeholders to address malnutrition.1). due partly to the fact that raising nutrition levels requires concerted efforts on many different fronts (Box 3. Chapter 3 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Health 39 . More recent malnutrition initiatives are more intersectoral and likely to have a greater impact. but are unlikely to be addressed by feeding programmes. and 30 percent of women are malnourished. among other effects. can also cause malnutrition. for example. A malnourished mother may.Both Nuwara Eliya and Badulla have high proportions of their population living on estates.62 Box 3. Prevalence of Underweight Children and Underweight Babies by Mothers’ Socioeconomic Characteristics Sources: 1Jayawardena forthcoming and Smith et al.1 A child whose mother is educated below primary level is twice as likely to be underweight as a child with a mother who has completed senior secondary level education. for example. where poverty rates are high. Poor education reduces the ability of mothers to benefit from awareness programmes about family health and hygiene.1 The Influence of Socioeconomic Factors on Child Nutrition There are considerable disparities in child nutrition across socioeconomic groups that favour the better-off in Sri Lanka.

Kandy.000 live births in 1990 to 8.5 per 1. 2003 and 2007 Source: Registrar General’s Department n.2: Infant Mortality Rate by District. The rate remains high in Colombo.63 The infant mortality rate declined from 19.Infant Mortality and Under-five Mortality Rates Sri Lanka has been successful in reducing its infant and child mortality rates for more than six decades.8 per 1.2). but with considerable disparities across regions (Figure 3. Figure 3.64 40 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .d. Nuwara Eliya.000 in 2007. a trend spurred by achievements such as the nearly universal delivery of basic vaccinations to children before age two.

4). In Batticaloa. in the 1940s. Kurunegala and Anuradhapura.3: Maternal Mortality Rate by District.9 in 2007. Maternal mortality rates are highest in war-affected districts such as Killinochchi.Galle.1 during the same period. Vavuniya. Basic immunization coverage is close to 100 percent (see Figure 3. which produced positive dividends over the years. Today. by 12 months of age. malaria and Japanese encephalitis. The country now has a wide network of free maternal care services integrated with child care services. Ampara and Mullaitivu. Further studies are needed to determine the reasons for these changes. as well as leprosy.000 live births in 1995 to 39. Half of the population of Nuwara Eliya comprises the estate population whose health care options have begun to improve only recently. A well-trained cadre of Public Health Midwives provides domiciliary care.3 per 100. 98 percent of births take place in public health institutions. and in urban areas. almost 100 percent of infants have been vaccinated against tuberculosis (the BCG vaccine). significant investment in health is an important reason for a steep decline in the maternal mortality rate: from 61 per 100. Chapter 3 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Health 41 . 2006 Source: Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka and United Nations Development Programme 2010. and in Nuwara Eliya and Monaragala.1 to 25. the rate increased from 2003 to 2007. although regional disparities persist (Figure 3. It began heavily investing in maternal and child health Sustained. According to available data. including on estates. In Colombo and Kandy.65 and more than 98 percent of births are attended by skilled health care personnel. Figure 3. it increased from 21. this may be the result of seriously ill infants dying while receiving care in tertiary hospitals there.3).000 in 2006. Sri Lanka has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the SAARC region. according to estimates by the Family Health Bureau. Maternal Mortality For more than six decades. Communicable Diseases Sri Lanka has nearly eradicated most vaccine-preventable diseases. Batticaloa. In some areas. which have high levels of poverty. 74 percent of whom are medical doctors.6 in 2003 to 16. Sri Lanka achieved considerable success in consistently reducing maternal mortality. Matara. where it rose from 13.

chikungunya. For example. these have not been successful. Non-communicable Diseases Recent demographic. Across districts for which data are available. and some conflict-affected districts. the total number of reported cases of dengue increased drastically in recent years. They include more urban areas. leptospirosis67 and dysentery. Dengue is prevalent in more populous urbanized areas. such as Galle and Colombo. there are slight variations in coverage. These debilitating diseases affect work and family life. Other types of communicable diseases. There were no apparent reasons for districts experiencing lower coverage. 2006-2007 Source: Department of Census and Statistics 2009a. and put extra pressure on household budgets. epidemiologic and socioeconomic changes have produced a different set of health challenges in the form of non-communicable diseases. mainly attributable to environmental pollution. such as infectious and parasitic diseases.68 holdovers from the past.66 About 95 percent have received the measles vaccine. while some like cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and neoplasm are evolving problems. nutritional deficiencies and diseases of the blood. are on the rise in Sri Lanka. Further studies will be needed to ascertain the reasons behind the low coverage. such as Batticaloa. Majority of the cases are reported from the Western province.70 42 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . such as Puttalam. Some are Figure 3.4: Immunization Coverage by District.69 Although many initiatives have been taken to clean the environment and arrest the spread of dengue.and given three doses each of polio and DPT (diphtheria. such as dengue. pertussis and tetanus) vaccines. as well as rural areas. but more than 93 percent of infants have been vaccinated in all districts.

affected individuals need expensive full-time care. while that due to infectious diseases has decreased from 42 percent to 20 percent.The World Health Organization defines chronic noncommunicable diseases as those “that have one or more of the following characteristics: they are permanent. These include appointing medical officers for non-communicable diseases to coordinate district activities.72 Chronic illnesses and disabilities are found throughout the country. designing a non-communicable disease surveillance system. At present. the economic burden is probably large. The economic implications of chronic diseases and disabilities are large. and more than 20 percent of household heads struggle with chronic illnesses (Figure 3. observation and care. The World Health Organization defines health not only Chapter 3 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Health 43 . Figure 3.”71 Noncommunicable diseases have become a major cause of death even in countries with low standards of living. which can add to economic pressures on households. especially among household heads. more than 10 percent of people suffer from these. such as heart disease and stroke. During the past halfcentury. the proportion of deaths due to circulatory diseases. nearly 90 percent of Sri Lanka’s disease burden is attributed to non-communicable diseases. require special training of the patient for rehabilitation. leave residual disability. has increased from 3 percent to 24 percent. In all districts.5: Prevalence of Chronic Illnesses and Disabilities. the Government has now launched several prevention programmes. given the prevalence of these diseases. stroke and cancer are high. In some cases. or may be expected to require a long period of supervision. Research in other countries has found that the cost of different non-communicable diseases can be as much as one to three percent of GDP. Mental Health Mental health is essential for a completely healthy person. are caused by non-reversible pathological alterations. 2006-2007 Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011c. Recognizing the importance of containing them. and require constant monitoring and medication. and evaluating prevention and control activities at the district level every three months. Statistics indicate that deaths due to asischaemicheart disease.73 In Sri Lanka. They directly affect productivity and earning potential.5).

586 3. Table 3. 59 percent of psychiatrists were located in Colombo District. 40.333 44 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .037 23 10 10 9 8 5 36 100 24 1 1 3 1 2 9 41 59 2 2 7 2 5 18 100 Cumulative for other districts 14. but also as physical. There were only 41 psychiatrists in the country to treat 40.2). mental and social well-being. have only a limited number of specially trained personnel to provide mental health-related services.135 3. and a number of social issues.as the absence of illness. This could be the result of several factors. including the 30-year conflict. acute in-patient units at Nuwara Eliya Hospital and Mannar Base Hospital have been established.889 3. 2007 Distribution of Distribution of cases of mental psychiatrists disorder District Number % Number % Colombo Gampaha Kurunegala Kandy Galle Badulla 9. Mental health disorders have become a prominent concern in Sri Lanka. where people need more psychological attention and guidance. In 2005.333 people with different mental disorders in 2007.2: Distribution of Mental Disorder Cases and Psychiatrists.74 Resources for mental health have always been low.195 4.107 Sri Lanka Source: Ministry of Health 2007. a 10-year Mental Health Policy was developed. such as alcoholism and unemployment. For example. and there are now programmes in place to improve access to mental health care outside of the Western Province. the devastation caused by the tsunami in 2004.75 Most of the conflict-affected districts. however. and more concentrated in the urbanized districts (Table 3.384 2.

While data are not available. Beyond this. overseen by the Ministry of Health Care and Nutrition. however. A recent survey links alcoholism to domestic violence.847 injured in 2010. Anecdotal evidence suggests widespread prevalence of domestic violence (Box 3. These have mostly started only recently.6: Trends in Hospital Morbidity and Mortality Due to Injury. domestic violence is probably another major cause of injuries.721 people were killed and another 26.000 person-days per year owing to occupational accidents. aim to build awareness on injury prevention and take measures to reduce injuries. poisoning and other external causes has increased over time.6).2).78 Figure 3.76 Morbidity from injury. 2. Chapter 3 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Health 45 . Road accidents make a major contribution to traumatic injuries. Sri Lanka loses around 500. Poisoning and Other External Causes Source: Ministry of Health 2007. especially in Ampara and Batticaloa districts in the Eastern Province.Injuries According to the Ministry of Health. traumatic injuries have remained the leading cause of hospitalization. and it is still too early to determine their outcomes.77 Several programmes under the National Policy and Strategic Framework on Injury Prevention and Management. although deaths have declined since 1990 (Figure 3. According to the Traffic Division of the Department of Police.

3 Second 56.”1 In 2005. the World Health Organization conducted a study2 in 10 countries that found that the proportion of women who had ever suffered physical violence by a male partner ranged from 13 percent in Japan to 61 percent in Peru.8 Education No education 57.4 Fourth 53.8 Primary 56. sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women. but is not limited to. It includes violence which is perpetuated or condoned by the state.6 Secondary 57. 4) if she refuses to have sex with him.” The United Nations Population Fund considers gender-based violence to be “violence involving men and women. Violence is a barrier to women’s empowerment.2 *Note: Women were asked if a husband was justified under at least one of five scenarios: 1) if she goes out without telling him. or affects women disproportionately. confirms that.9 Total 53. 2) if she neglects the children.7 Middle 55. also because statistical systems have not been good at collecting it. sexual. 3) if she argues with him.Box 3. but Sri Lanka’s Demographic and Health Survey.7 Wealth quintile Lowest 57. and psychological harm.8 Rural 54.* 2006-2007 Background Percentage of women Residence Urban 46. including threats of such acts. It includes. physical.2: Gender-based Violence The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women defines gender-based violence as ”any act of genderbased violence that results in. Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009a (This source only for the table above) 46 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . regardless of background. Violence is directed specifically against a woman because she is a woman.5 Estate 47.2 Passed O-Level exams 49. coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. in which the female is usually the victim. whether occurring in public or in private life. or is likely to result in. or 5) if she burns the food. women are highly susceptible to violence. Percentage of Ever Married Women Aged 15-49 Agreeing That a Husband Can Be Justified in Hitting or Beating His Wife.6 Highest 42.3 This is in part due to perceptions that a husband may be justified in beating his wife. physical.7 Higher 42. Reliable data are difficult to obtain because victims are reluctant to reveal incidents of violence. and which is derived from unequal power relationships between men and women. based on 2006-2007 data. and threatens their health as well as that of their children.

424 physicians serving public ayurvedic hospitals. including maternity homes and central dispensaries. including four major instruments relevant to rape and other forms of gender-based violence. a free Western-type government health care service can be found within 4. Mullaitivu. One-stop crisis centers are in place in government hospitals. The number of medical officers and nurses per 100.000 people increased from 41. and there are women’s desks at police stations. 1 2 3 United States Agency for International Development 2009b.80 Private hospitals are largely concentrated in the Western Province. by the end of 2007. their number grew to 65. the adequate supply of services and the Chapter 3 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Health 47 .Continued What has been done so far? Sri Lanka has taken initiatives to stop violence against women. the role of the private sector in health care is smaller.81 opportunity to obtain health care.86 In 2011.85 The number of government hospitals increased from 558 in 2000 to 615 in 2007. although the situation improved markedly from 2000 to 2007 (Figure 3. there are nine provincial ministries of health. Health Facilities Access to health care is a complex process. out-of-pocket health expenditure is very high. organizational. respectively.84 There were 62 ayurvedic hospitals and 208 central ayurvedic dispensaries. As a result. and by 2008 to 90. from 2000 to 2007. public health care is provided free of charge at government hospitals and dispensaries to all citizens. Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011e.. 42 of 1987. It has ratified all key international mechanisms on human rights.8 kilometres of any home. On average. Jaffna. While the public health sector serves nearly 60 percent of the population. Mannar..Box 3. Compared to the public sector.79 Responsibility for the public health service devolved from the central Government to the provincial councils with Provincial Council Act No. which in 2008 had 60 percent of them and 75 percent of all private hospital beds.83 According to the Ministry of Health. encompassing service availability. Killinochchi.82 The extent to which a population gains access depends on a variety of financial.1.2 .023 medical officers and 31. Programmes help raise awareness among women and extend assistance through both government and non-governmental organizations. Only 46 private hospitals operated in 1990. Sri Lanka had 608 hospitals and 68. such as the Domestic Violence Act of 2005.694 patient beds. by 2000.7). but has increased over time. There are fewer government hospitals in the Northern and Eastern provinces (i.1 to 55. although the supply is unable to meet the demand. apart from the Health Ministry at the national level.. as will be discussed later in this chapter. Vavuniya.466 nurses worked in the public hospital system. including teaching. Ampara and Trincomalee). Today. and 72 government medical institutes. social and cultural factors.. World Health Organization 2005. Batticaloa. provincial and base hospitals.3. Following the passage of the Domestic Violence Act. Health Care Services Decades of health investment have enabled Sri Lanka to achieve commendable health outcomes. 11.87 This enormous health infrastructure is not equitably distributed. the Forum against Gender-Based Violence was set up. The Ministry of Indigenous Medicine promotes ayurvedic medicine. and 76 to 157. with 1.e.

2010 4.0 4.9 19.4). 48 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .000 people in Sri Lanka compared to 27.3 in Malaysia. but they lag behind corresponding global figures. Facilities need to be adequately staffed. 2000-2010 Nursing and midwifery personnel per 10. Human and Physical Resources Access to health facilities alone does not ensure good health care. However. Sri Lanka’s statistics appear low in comparison to most other Asian countries. For example.3 per 10.8 Source: World Health Organization 2011. the number of midwives and nurses is low compared to more advanced economies: 19. South-East Asia.000 people. 2000-2010 Pharmaceutical personnel per 10. This is also true in comparison to some more advanced economies such as Thailand and Indonesia (Table 3. Nationally.8 0.8 11 0.000 people. 2000-2009 Radiotherapy units per 1.000 in Malaysia.4 31 0. and require a regular supply of at least essential medicines and equipment.000.4 13. Table 3. Performance is better in terms of the number of hospital beds: 31 per 10.3: Health Workforce and Infrastructure Sri Lanka South-East Asia Global Physicians per 10.7 3.000 people.3 0.3). 2000-2010 Dentistry personnel per 10.1 29 1.0 29. such as Bangladesh and Nepal.000 people compared to 18 per 10. 2000-2007 Source: Ministry of Health 2007.000 people.7 3. perhaps with the exception of pharmaceutical personnel (Table 3.6 5.Figure 3.3 0. 2000-2010 Hospital beds per 10.3 14. Sri Lanka’s health workforce and infrastructure indicators are mostly comparable to those of Sri Lanka does well in terms of physician density compared to the poorer South Asian countries.7: Distribution of Government Hospitals.000 people.000 people.

0 5.5 13.0 11.6 8.000 people. 2000-2010 midwifery personnel 10. Available health resources are not well distributed.0 27.8 15.4 19.Table 3. physicians and nurses concentrated in metropolitan areas.8: Government Hospital Beds per 1.10 and 3.9 16.9.0 19.1 4.9 59. The Government has recognized the need for adequate local facilities to screen patients and refer Figure 3.4 44.88 Figure 3.3 31 18 123 41 22 5 6 26 9 6 4.0 20. Many patients bypass primary health facilities to directly access secondary and tertiary health care facilities.3 9.7 4.9: Government Medical Institutions with Specialties Source: Ministry of Health 2007.4: Health Workforce and Infrastructure: A Country Comparison Country Physician density per Nursing and Hospital beds per 10. especially Colombo (Figures 3. leading to congestion.1 3.2 60.000 people.6 2. but available evidence suggests that both health personnel and facilities are insufficient.000 People them to special care facilities as needed. 3.0 8.0 50 6 31 Note: The figures are estimated values for the period given.3 52.000 people. Source: World Health Organization.2 3. 2000-2010 Singapore Malaysia Republic of Korea China Thailand Philippines Indonesia Maldives India Pakistan Bangladesh Nepal Myanmar Sri Lanka 18. Source: Ministry of Health 2007.6 4.0 2.8. and scarcer in conflict-affected and poor rural districts.9 1. 2000-2009 density per 10.11). 3. with medical facilities.5 2.7 14.0 6. Chapter 3 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Health 49 . World Health Statistics 2011.

a low rate compared to a global average of around 8 percent of GDP (Table 3.92 Policy makers are aware of these deficiencies and have taken steps such as the 2005 National Medicinal Drug Policy. Medicines Shortages of essential drugs. No. the dispatch of medicines without prescriptions and drug shortages.5).000 People Source: Ministry of Health 2007. however.90 yet thousands of them are marketed under different brand names. Signs that the market is unregulated. While only a few of the medicines are regarded as essential. including deaths. The Medical Supply Division of the Ministry of Health is authorized to distribute medical supplies to public institutions and narcotic drugs to both state and private ones. but has not been implemented due to delays in establishing the necessary institutional framework and to lobbying by pharmaceutical companies. the pharmaceutical market is regulated under the Cosmetics. 27 of 1980. substandard drugs and easy access to drugs are all health concerns.89 Unregulated use of drugs has resulted in adverse health outcomes. which is implemented by the Drug Regulatory Authority. Devices and Drugs Act. total expenditure on health care94 has remained around 4 percent from 2000 to 2008. include the ready availability of substandard.000 People Figure 3.000 are registered in Sri Lanka. formulated and approved by the Cabinet. outdated and counterfeit drugs.91 over 9. improvements in health facilities and personnel have recently been compromised by more limited resources.93 Health Financing and Access to Health Services After years of heavy investment. Source: Ministry of Health 2007. As a percentage of GDP. 50 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .11: Nurses per 100.10: Medical Officers per 100. Currently.Figure 3.

7 101 187 484 854 Access to health services is very high with regard to pregnancy and childbirth.7 4.5: Health Expenditure as a Share of GDP.3 8.6 95.8 93.2 89.1 48. Source: World Health Organization. Globally.3 98.3 95.4 83.5 38. More than 95 percent of deliveries have the opportunity of taking place in a health facility. * Sample size is too small to disaggregate by sector.6 97. Attanayake and Jayawardena 2009. between 2000 and 2010.6: Access to Health Services During Pregnancy.6 97. Table 3.9 7. Global 2000 2008 8.3 43.3 86.4 60. 90 percent of pregnant women have access to health facilities. 2000 and 2008 Sri Lanka 2000 2008 Total expenditure on health as % of GDP General government expenditure on health as % of total expenditure on health General government expenditure on health as % of total government expenditure Private expenditure on health95 as % of total expenditure on health Out-of-pocket expenditure96 on health as % of private expenditure on health Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US $) Note: The figures are estimated values for the period given. even on estates where accessibility is difficult.9 99.5 6.7 56. 2000 and 2006 2000 2006 Average opportunity Average opportunity opportunity Delivery assisted by health personnel* Delivery in public or private hospital* Received tetanus injection during pregnancy Source: Arunatilake.7 50.Table 3.3 13. and more than 95 per cent of women have the opportunity of getting a tetanus injection during pregnancy (Table 3.7 56.6). only 66 percent of births were assisted by health personnel. World Health Statistics 2011.9 13.7 50.97 Despite slight variations across Sri Lanka. National National National Urban Rural Estate 96.6 92.7 Chapter 3 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Health 51 .9 95.5 3.9 51.3 43.4 95.

patients obtain them from private institutions for a fee.3 percent. For Sri Lanka. Despite issues with quality. health outcomes are not solely determined by what happens (or does not happen) in the formal health sector. respectively. private health expenditure is falling: it accounted for 43. The proportion of out-ofpocket expenditure for private healthcare has grown as Although health services are provided free of charge in public hospitals. it is not readily available for diseases specific to the elderly.12: Sri Lanka’s Out-of-pocket Expenditure as a Percent of Private Health Expenditure Source: World Health Organization 2012c. The result is another disturbing health trend: the rising reliance on private expenditure for financing health care.14). such as laboratory facilities. access and funding. although it is generally above 70 percent (Figure 3. rising from about 83 percent to 87 percent between 2000 and 2008 (Figure 3. and access to clean water and sanitation.13). The percentage of people with improved drinking water sources98 and sanitation99 is high in Sri Lanka compared to countries in South-East Asia or globally (Figure 3. and for non-communicable diseases.12). Access varies across districts.4 percent in 2008. living conditions. but declined to 38. When some services are not available in public hospitals.5 percent of total health expenditure in 2000. the corresponding statistics are 51.While access to public health care is high for mothers and children. the poor may have less access to health services as they become more expensive. Globally. If this trend continues. Other influential factors include poverty. issues relating to the quality of care and time taken to acquire it push some people to seek treatment from private health facilities. which raises concerns about equity. well. 52 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .7 percent and 56. Table 3.

Figure 3.Figure 3.13: Percentage of People with Improved Drinking Water and Sanitation. 2008 Source: World Health Organization 2011.14: Availability of Safe Drinking Water and Toilet Facilities Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011c. Chapter 3 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Health 53 .

they are not protected and water cannot be used for drinking.15: Health Knowledge and Practices dry season of the year.101 A villager from Ellappanmarudankulam. Although most of the households have wells in their own premises. Contraceptive prevalence rate and the usage of mosquito nets is significantly lower in some districts. Those who don’t have toilets use nearby jungles and paddy fields. Even so.Data on access in the Northern and the Eastern provinces are limited. especially in the Eastern Province. For example.3 percent of people aged 15-24 have correct knowledge about HIV and AIDS. Note: Data were not available for Trincomalee District on knowledge of HIV and AIDS. Vavuniya said: “We have to travel long distances to fetch water during the Figure 3. in Vavuniya District. Sometimes we have to face snake bites and wild animal attacks in such occasions. Only 35. Batticaloa. this level of knowledge varied from about 28 percent in Nuwara Eliya District to 46 percent in Galle District. Source: Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka and United Nations Development Programme 2010. 54 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .15). 82 percent of all households have safe latrines.” noted a villager from Mandapathadi.” 102 Available data indicate that basic knowledge of health practices is low and varies widely across different districts (Figure 3. for example.100 The following observations by people living in the Northern and Eastern provinces highlight their plight: “Toilet facilities are not available for all the households. but only 34 percent have safe drinking water. but it is likely low. Only 34 percent of women use contraceptives in Batticaloa District.

whether congenital or not.114 Disabled Persons Globally.5 per cent of the country’s population was 65 years or older in 2006-2007. Family support sustained 73. about 15.” 111 The most comprehensive data on disabled people are from the 2001 Census.6 per cent of people have a disability.108 The rate is higher for women.6 percent of people 18 years and above in any given population are disabled. according to the World Health Organization. as a result of any deficiency in his physical or mental capabilities.109 Sri Lanka has no consistent and reliable data on the prevalence of disability.110 a rate considerably below the 7 percent for the Asia-Pacific region in 2007. but these are hard to quantify. Integrating disabled people into the labour force in a productive manner is a challenging but important step.” This is a relatively narrow definition that may not fully capture the prevalence of disability.107 unable or limited in carrying out activities that he or she can do due to congenital or long-term physical/mental disabilities. This policy has not been fully implemented. 274. including 4. the necessities of life. unfortunately.4 percent of disabled people were employed. according to the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). The variations in numbers may be mainly due to definitional differences. As a result.112 Direct costs include the additional expenses that people with disabilities and their families incur to attend to special needs. For Sri Lanka.105 If this trend continues. Among disabled people. The main responsibility for this lies with the Government. An ageing population also means higher demand for the prevention of non-communicable diseases and related services that are more costly than other types of health care. many of today’s elderly people do not undergo screening for illnesses and are not aware of how to prevent non-communicable diseases. Sri Lanka’s health system has not evolved to take on these additional challenges. one-fourth of the country’s population will be 60 years and older by 2041. the Ministry of Public Administration has decided to allocate three percent of state jobs to persons with disabilities.Groups with Special Health Needs The Elderly Sri Lanka is currently in the third phase of its demographic transition. which has started to move forward. “A person who was Chapter 3 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Health 55 . According to it. Disability can result in direct and indirect social and economic costs. Many who acquire these illnesses do not receive continued and comprehensive care. the 2001 Census defined someone with disabilities as.104 compared to 4. For example. The Commission (ESCAP) takes a broader approach: “Any person who. including social isolation and depression. According to the Department of Census and Statistics. only 14.103 where the population stabilizes with low birth and death rates. since it increases the old-age dependency ratio and has economic implications. the Government has taken initiatives to improve skills and provide financial grants to generate self employment. and non-economic. According to the 2001 Census conducted by the Department of Census and Statistics.851 children aged 0-4. especially those who are poor and live in rural areas. wholly or partly. is unable by himself to ensure for himself. as people with disabilities lack the educational qualifications and required skill sets.3 percent of disabled persons.3 per cent in 1981. 1.106 Ageing is an important emerging issue. only 4.113 To address this issue. 7. Indirect costs are both economic. such as psycho-social burdens faced by the disabled and their caretakers.711 people were disabled. and government expenditure on benefits and social provisions. such as loss of productivity and limitations on labour force participation.1 percent of people with mental disabilities had work.

Sources: 1Family Health Bureau of Sri Lanka 2009.A. equipment and the disorganization of other systems such as education.119 Table 3.A.” 117 The Government faces a major challenge in re-establishing health services in conflict-affected areas.A. For example. N. such as medical supplies. N.3 37. respectively. which is 7 kilometres away from the village.A. lack of other supportive facilities.3 14. But available statistics indicate high rates of maternal mortality.A. loss of human lives. sanitation.4 19. N. N.A. etc.A. prepared by the Ministry of Health: “Damaged infrastructure.A.6 15.A. N.1 19.A. that have a direct adverse influence on health.115 poverty.3 70. Data from these areas were either not incorporated or were under- Special studies of displaced people indicated that their nutrition status was remarkably poor compared to national figures. ranging from primary care centres to tertiary hospitals. N.A. the scarcity of human resources for health in the war-torn areas. N.0 27.2 people. Large-scale disruptions. N. In this hospital also there are not enough doctors. stunting and low weight among children less than five years old in Vavuniya District was 35. As detailed in the Health Master Plan for 2007-2016.3 percent and 21.4 72.9 102.7: Selected Health Indicators and Resource Availability in Districts of the Northern and Eastern Provinces Maternal Medical Nurses per Distribution Maternal Child malnutrition (% of mortality rate children below five years malnutrition (% officers per 100. and the thin distribution of medical personnel and health facilities (Table 3. respectively. As articulated by a resident in conflict-affected Damana in Ampara District: “The nearest hospital to us is the Thottama Government Hospital. 11. 21.000 of per 100.8 46.8 11.3 2007 hospitals.A. 30 percent and 46. N.A. in 2009.A.1 20.A.1 percent.8 16.A. N.7 percent. 17.1 Note: *denotes a 2004 figure.7 N. 27. ideal conditions for diseases and trauma. N. increased disability. have created negative health impacts 56 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .116 were more severe and frequent in the Northern and Eastern provinces.2 N.5 22. N.1 55 37 12 49 48 10 18 61 56 160 95 20 50 53 12 151 112 67 615 28 9 8 8 6 18 30 18 24. live births. N.3 30. destruction of infrastructure and displacements. food insecurity. the prevalence of wasting.A.7 percent. N.7).1 N.4 14.000 people. represented in national surveys and censuses due to poor security conditions.9 17.2 39.5 28.A.6 percent. deviations).A.3 government 15-49). nurses and other medical personnel and there is no sufficient medicine.People in Conflict-affected Areas Fallout from the conflict was evident across Sri Lanka: violence. breakdown of preventive and promotive services.2 2006-2007 2006/2007 2007 2007 20051 Sri Lanka Jaffna Kilinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mulativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee 39. N.000 below two standard of women aged 100.8* 77. 2Department of Census and Statistics 2009a 3 Ministry of Health 2007. N.118 The national figures were 14. N.A.

financial and human. which depends on large-scale health investment projects with a long implementation time. as are the logistical challenges. the return to normalcy will require a holistic approach combining actions on health infrastructure. This entails re-establishing formal health services and networks in a sustainable manner.122 Since many challenges are interrelated. communication. transportation.this is one of the most crucial steps. accommodation.121 Simultaneously. and the need for resources.among those living in these districts. The immediate task is to address the health needs of returnees and internally displaced people in camps.”120 The scale of the destruction of systems that support a decent life is considerable. requisite human resources have to be allocated . livelihood opportunities and psycho-social issues. education. Chapter 3 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Health 57 .

CHAPTER 4 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Education sri sri lanka lanka Human Human Development Development report report 2012 2012 .

with the ratio of girls to boys at 99 percent. senior secondary (grades 10-11).131 Despite being a Delivery of Education Services The general education system provides 13 years in three cycles: primary (grades 1-5). and practically reached gender parity in primary education. Shortages of certain kinds of skills may only grow as the country moves towards a knowledgebased economy. access to primary education and education completion rates.126 The intrinsic value of education is coupled with its instrumental and transitional values: enlarging the national pie. education expands the space for human development. Sri Lanka is often cited as a nation with high educational achievements. has identified five focus areas: naval.5 percent. however. lower middle-income country. including technology. is the need to bridge the mismatch between skills acquired through the education system and the requirements of the labour market. it attained a primary enrolment rate of 97. and the sciences. Sri Lanka will have to improve the quality and relevance of tertiary education.135 Two national level examinations—the General Certificates of Education Ordinary (O-Levels) and Advanced (A- sri lanka Human Development report 2012 59 .124 the 5 topperforming countries in education-Canada. cultural and political developments. needed competencies and capabilities are constantly changing. ‘Mahinda Chintana—Vision for the Future’. and collegiate (grades 12-13). junior secondary (grades 69). and thus to prepare people adequately for work.123 Countries that do well in education do well in terms of human development: According to the OECD’s comprehensive world education ranking for the year 2009. mathematics. and in multi-ethnic societies can build trust and bring diverse people together to work for common goals. Adult literacy reached 91 percent in 2008.127 In the modern global economy. In 2006.130 and Sri Lanka has almost achieved the MDG targets for universal primary education and gender equity in education.132 A principal issue. but also depends on opportunities for more sophisticated learning. Present government development policy aims to reposition Sri Lanka in the global arena as a middle-income country with a strong knowledge base and improved living standards. shattering gender-related barriers. positively influencing the use of health services.125 Education also moulds a country’s social. writing. Finland. and bettering knowledge on child nutrition. The government development policy framework. energy and knowledge. marked by overall increased demand for ‘expert-thinking’128 and ‘complexcommunication’. aviation. Japan.CHAPTER 4 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Education By helping people achieve their competencies. education and research. Education for Human Development Sri Lanka’s education attainment levels are high. New challenges have come in providing quality education that is relevant to a modern economy and the lifestyles of Sri Lankans today.133 A 2003 sector review by the National Education Commission found that the system has failed to enhance the quality and relevance of education.134 This chapter examines Sri Lanka’s successes and limitations in meeting these challenges. if judged by basic indicators such as literacy. and prepare workers with the advanced skills sets that a competitive economy demands. All children aged 5 to 14 must complete the primary and junior secondary education cycles. etc. commerce.129 Building these skills starts with a solid foundation of reading. This needs to be redressed quickly to preserve competitive advantages and reduce the tendency of very skilled people to leave the country. New Zealand and the Republic of Korea-are among the 17 countries with the highest human development achievements. powering upward socioeconomic and political mobility. Like all developing nations.

A healthier teacher-student ratio has been achieved: from 1 teacher for 22. and the registration and regulation of non-state institutions.457. which offers degree programmes. and by more students choosing to attend ‘international schools’. Estimated at between 200 to 250 institutions. New admissions for basic degrees rose by about 83 percent from 2000 to 2010. The education ordinances of 1939 and free education introduced in 1945 were among the earliest national policies aiming to achieve universal and equal access to education at all levels. increasing from 3.241 to 4. the entire formal university system is in the hands of the Government.137 Structurally. The number of private schools rose from 78 to 98. a number slightly less than it was in 2000 (Table 4. A new set of private ‘international schools’ is registered under the Board of Investment.5 students in 2000 to 1 teacher for 18. The number of lecturers grew as well. Recently.141 The National Policy Framework for Higher Education notes a growing need to recognize the role of non-state institutions in higher education.136 This commitment is still in force. and are prerequisites for most public sector jobs at the clerical level and above. Buddhist centres of learning (referred to as pirivenas) also grew. gained admission in 2010. the Government has established new higher education institutes and expanded existing universities with new faculties.805 to 21. the education system of Sri Lanka comprises three kinds of institutions: schools that provide general education. Implementation is awaiting parliamentary approval. and technical and vocational education schools. with an almost even division between public and private institutions.140 It has also recognized foreign universities and higher educational institutes. from 561 to 719. a decline partly explained by demographic changes.Levels)—mark the end of the senior secondary and collegiate education cycles. free uniforms and subsidized transport facilities. including for a countrywide network of government-funded schools. higher education institutions. during this ten-year period (2000 – 2010). The state university system comprises 15 universities. To improve access to general education. Yet only 17 percent of students who qualified.1).918. The number of teachers employed by these schools rose from 186. moving from 11.138 the school system is public. It has allowed some state and non-state local institutions the option to conduct certain courses of study and award degrees. free textbooks.143 A council for non-state higher education is planned to monitor the quality of all providers. scholarships for disadvantaged students.502 schools in 2010. Aside from a handful of private schools. Establishment of degree-awarding institutions outside the University Grants Commission’s purview is a recent development.139 they offer foreign curricula and prepare students for international examinations. In contrast. the student population contracted by 6 percent. Sri Lanka’s tertiary education system consists of universities.457.097 to 212. and institutions for technical education and vocational training. The number of technical schools is relatively small but growing. an increase of 28 percent. The public education system included 10. The exams determine access to higher education. by 52 percent. not with the Ministry of Education. based on their A-Level exam results. To increase opportunities for and to diversify higher education. an increase of more than 25 percent. including public and private sector providers. the Cabinet approved preparation of a legal framework to guide the quality assurance and accreditation of higher education institutions. an increase of 14 percent.142 and in March 2011. the university system. and the Tertiary and Vocational 60 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . capacity remains a constraint.5 students in 2010. successive governments have adopted a variety of demand and supply-side policies. aligned with international standards. there has been some private provision of tertiary education through institutions affiliated to foreign universities. Sri Lanka has provided free education for decades. 7 postgraduate institutes and 10 other higher educational institutions functioning under the purview of the University Grants Commission. based on international acceptance. A wide array of institutions run technical education and vocational training programmes.

Private and non-governmental training institutions play a key role—by the end of 2010. 240 Intake 67.908 3.547 Number of lecturers 3.940. Tertiary and Vocational Education Commission 2010b.193.612 (2002) 63.097 189.234 212. and regulates the sector for the relevance and quality of training.875 4.053 Notes: * Some private schools. but national and international charities also support a large network of free institutions.860 19.248 Current 23.461 10. Table 4.520 21. sets standards. millions)** 30. ** Denotes government expenditure on general and higher education. 898 Non-governmental 112 (2001) n.697 85.942.a. these are not included in this table.929 63. popularly called ‘international schools’. provide education services.195 Capital 7.976 9.a.Education Commission.144 2000 2005 2010 General education Total number of schools 10. Chapter 4 Bridging Human Development Gaps: EDUCATION 61 . plans and coordinates.615 10.241 3.135 12. 939 Private 252 (2001) n.557 104. The Commission formulates policy.685 Pirivena schools 561 653 719 Private schools* 78 85 98 Government schools Number of teachers 186.502 Government schools 9.040 (2006) 108. Sources: Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2010. means not available.457 Number of students 4.794 50.138 were registered as providers.a. The Commission has put in place a system for registering training outlets and accrediting courses as part of a credible quality assurance system.077 3. as such.a.125 Public expenditure on education (Rs.1: Trends in Education Provision Most organizations charge fees. Tan and Chandrasiri 2004. 1.723 9.805 14.984 Technical education and vocational training Number of registered institutions Government and semi-government 556 (2001) n. but are registered as companies. and Ministry of Youth Affairs and Skills Development 2012. N.072 Higher education Number of universities 13 15 15 Number of other higher - 16 17 educational institutions Number of new admissions 11.

6 2. Public expenditure fluctuated around 2. the limited availability of funds has held back plans to improve facilities and increased out-ofpocket expenditure. data for the closest available year (indicated in parentheses) are given.3 percent of GDP between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 4.4 3. excluding other ministries that spend on education.Funding Education Public investment in education is low and declining.9 16. Technical colleges. agriculture schools.a.1).2). means not available. For some instances.8 3. United Nations Educational.3 17.147 Figure 4. Available data suggest that in South Asia. Scientific and Cultural Organization Institute of Statistics data centre. data on public expenditure on education refer only to the Ministry of Education. Of the amount spent on education in 2010. Where data for 2008 were not available.8 2.1 (2006) 2.2: Public Expenditure on Education. Bangladesh.1 2.a.1: Public Expenditure on Education as a Percentage of GDP Source: Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2010 Table 4.145 Sri Lanka’s public investment is also smaller than the average for middle-income countries (Table 4. 14 19 10 n. 13(2007) Note: N.2 15. 62 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . and The World Bank Education Statistics (EdStats).3 4 (2006) 5 (2007) As % of total government expenditure 17.9 n.146 While well-developed school infrastructure may have resulted in a diminished need for investments in recent times. with salaries for teachers comprising the largest component at 75 percent. vocational education institutes. 80 percent went towards recurrent expenditures. even as the public system remains the predominant institution supporting this critical dimension of human progress. Sources: Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2008. 2008 As % of GDP Malaysia Singapore Indonesia Philippines India Bangladesh Nepal Sri Lanka Lower middle-income countries Upper middle-income countries 4.a. training schools.8 2. fisheries training institutes and even some universities are funded under other ministries. India and Nepal all invested a larger share.

7.617 1.0 6.5 4. households still spend a considerable sum on it .313 Sri Lanka 3.5 40.341 Eastern 325.8 6. The richest decile invests 3.020 Expenditure on education.2 4.598 1.500 per annum (Table 4. 9.127 326 19.337 2.1 3.032 17.148 while provincial schools.039 24. Rs. Rs.040 944 12.3).3 5.192 29.559 24.562 North Western 385. most of which are in rural areas.919 795 17. 776 per month.576 Uva 223. including tuition. The largest slice of household expenditure goes to additional private tuition (45 percent).680 772 15. which amounts to Rs.797 11. 2. 2007 Province Number of students Number of schools Per student total expenditure. Table 4.2 percent of total expenditure.153 Central 419.0 2. 19.5 4. The per student expenditure for a national school student was around Rs.288 14. 280 per month. 2006-2007 Income decile Household consumption expenditure. The provincial share of general education spending increased from 68 percent in 2007 to 71 percent in 2009.129 National schools 676.on average.380 Sources: The World Bank 2011a and Balasuriya 2007.503 15.9 3.931 Northern 244.6 4.9 4.4 3.3 3. Per school total expenditure. Rs. equivalent to an average of Rs.434 Sabaragamuwa 300.050 776 Expenditure on education as a % of total expenditure 2. millions of Rs. whereas the lowest per student expenditure was recorded in Eastern Province schools at around Although education in public schools is free. Rs.195 Southern 354.3 3. Chapter 4 Bridging Human Development Gaps: EDUCATION 63 . The Government has taken measures to expand the share of general education provided by provincial schools with the aim of increasing resources for them.3: Average per Student and per School Expenditure.3).626 66. These three items consume 90 percent of typical household outof-pocket expenditure on education (Figure 4. while the poorest decile spends Rs. 12.9 3.888 881 16.314 1. textbooks and subsidized transport. National and Provincial Schools. followed by stationery (23 percent) and transport (22 percent).889 17.150 which accounts for 2.2).4).050.514 9.590 20.4: Average Monthly Household Expenditure on Education.187 17.9 percent of monthly expenditure (Table 4.149 are financed through the Finance Commission (Table 4.2 Poorest decile 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richest decile All Source: Arunatilake and Jayawardena 2011.000 per annum.5 4.1 3. around 3.413 16.1 percent of monthly expenditure.The central Ministry of Education provides resources for national schools.076 16.617 1.7 3.714 1. 280 354 398 489 574 673 820 950 1.867 13.3 3. most are located in rural areas.239 North Central 224. Table 4.5 Western 681.016 36.714 16.836.

participation rates fall and diverge. however. Across provinces. While the enrolment rate for junior secondary education ranges from 90 to 94 percent across most of the country. respectively. Sri Lanka has taken several education measures to improve access to quality education for all. followed by the North Western and Central provinces. After the primary level.5).Figure 4.151 Over the years. The disparity in access to upper secondary education was greatest on estates. at 87 percent in both cases (Table 4. It was highest in Sabaragamuwa and Southern provinces. 2006-2007 Source: Arunatilake and Jayawardena 2011 Equitable Access to Quality Education The 1990 World Declaration on Education for All emphasized equitable access to quality education for everyone.152 These have resulted in universal primary education153 and the access of most children to the junior secondary cycle. the main scene of prolonged conflict. compared to 86 and 81 percent for urban and rural areas. respectively. with net enrolment at 80.6 percent for the country. Girls had a slightly higher enrolment rate than boys: 82 percent compared to 79 percent. 64 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . irrespective of socioeconomic background. An overall fall-off began at the upper secondary level.2: Distribution of Out-of-pocket Expenditure on Education. reaching only 70 percent. it was only 84 percent for estates in 2009-2010. where only 54 percent of children were enrolled. enrolment at this level was lowest in the Northern Province.

compared to 96 percent for the richest quintile. Inequality develops from the junior secondary to collegiate levels so that almost 30 percent of children from the poorest quintile do not have an upper secondary education.1 45. For the richest quintile. About half of the students who enrolled in upper secondary schools made it to the next level of education.2 81. enrolment for the poorest quintile dropped steeply to 71 percent.1 93.7 91.9 93.7 40.4 32.2 39. The collegiate enrolment rate was lowest in the Northern and Uva provinces.9 86.8 29.2 92.6 96. The rate for all quintiles at the primary level was about 96 percent. but was considerably smaller.4 96.Table 4.9 79.1 94.8 78.9 45.5 87.4 32.3 Junior secondary (grades 6–9) 92.6 Upper secondary (grades 10–11) 79.0 79.8 95. In general.7 percent.3 95. compared to two-thirds of the richest quintile. while 80 percent of them do not have a collegiate education. only 21 percent of children from the poorest quintile were enrolled. the estate sector lagged far behind. enrolment rates declined for poor people.9 87. about one-third of the children do not have a collegiate education.8 83.5 62.2 95.7 95.4 Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c. access to education starts off equitably for all children in Sri Lanka. Across economic groups. but only 89 percent for the poorest quintile at the junior secondary level.3 71.7 20.0 92.0 92.3 93.6 92.9 95.6 83. or live in rural or urban areas. The decline was also present for the richest quintile. North Western and Sabaragamuwa provinces fared only slightly better. with less than a third of the eligible children enrolled.5 42. 2009-2010 Net enrolment.0 91.2 69.3 93.4 72.4 37.4 88.8 39. At the collegiate level.4 percent. followed by the Central Province at 40.6 95.3 34.4 37. % Primary (grades 1–5) Gender Male Female Sector Urban Rural Estate Province Western Central Southern Northern Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa Economic groups Poorest quintile 2nd quintile 3rd quintile 4th quintile Richest quintile Sri Lanka 95.5 93.0 96. Only 13 percent of children continued.2 94.8 percent and rural areas at 39. By the upper secondary level. regardless of whether they come from poor or rich families. Chapter 4 Bridging Human Development Gaps: EDUCATION 65 . the net enrolment rate for the country as a whole was 39 percent in 2009-2010. By the time collegiate education comes around.8 96.3 93. Enrolment was highest in the Western Province at 48.8 48.0 51.5 94.6 Collegiate (grades 12–13) 33.3 81.3 95. which is far behind urban areas at 45.9 95. The Eastern.5 93.3 95.4 53.6 95.0 90.4 77.6 34.3 33.4 percent.1 80.3 83.2 93.5 94.2 95.6 92.1 87.9 94.1 77.5: Grades 1 to 13 Net Enrolment Rates.9 88.7 12. Here again.

particularly if they come from poorer provinces or sectors.155 Differently abled children can learn skills and become more gainfully employed if special educational facilities and training programmes are available to them. those with learning difficulties.7 percent for girls. n. Mannar. including children needing special education. As a result 50 per cent of out-ofschool children. street children and children from deprived socioeconomic backgrounds. such as differently abled children. identified in catchment areas of child friendly school programme. 66 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . 2010 Note: Secondary schools refer to schools that have classes from years 1–9. Source: UNICEF-Sri Lanka.3). A lack of facilities and specially trained teachers to guide these children. Mulativu and Nuwara Eliya districts.Male children are generally less likely to attend school at the higher levels. Figure 4. 1–11. Galle. Some are left out of the formal education system. and best in the Colombo. Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Ministry of Education 2010b. The availability of school facilities such as science labs and libraries varies widely across districts (Figure 4.154 One reason could be that boys join the labour market at an early age due to poverty. For example. Facilities are poorest in the Kilinochchi. combines with discriminatory attitudes to discourage their education. UNICEF’s child friendly approach has introduced strategies like school attendance committees which are intended to play a major role in identifying out of school children. UNICEF supports to reduce the number of out of school children and to provide opportunities for children to get back to formal schooling. 1–13. are estimated to have been reintegrated in 2011. the net enrolment for boys from the estate sector is 9 percent compared to 16.d. and 7–13. at the collegiate level. Another challenge comes from extending education to the most vulnerable groups..3: Proportion of Schools with Science Labs and Permanent Library Facilities by District (%). Hambantota and Gampaha districts. ‘Briefing sheet-Education’.

Kurunegala. Most of the best-equipped schools to teach the A-Level science stream are in urban areas. Badulla. Matale. 2010 Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Ministry of Education 2010b. Ratnapura.156 and they are inequitably distributed. Ampara and Trincomalee districts are below the national average in the numbers of these schools (see Figure 4. Polonnaruwa. Figure 4. Chapter 4 Bridging Human Development Gaps: EDUCATION 67 . followed by 17 percent in Jaffna District. One result has been limits on the number of students qualifying for technical education.Both poor facilities and resource constraints have spurred a decline in the quality of education. Kegalle. Only 10 percent of secondary schools have facilities to teach advanced science streams. A fifth of schools are in the Colombo District. Mullativu. Monaragala.4: Proportion of Schools with Advanced Science Streams by District (%). Anuradhapura. Puttalam.4).

68 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .Deficits in information technology and primary English teachers persist in almost all districts. By contrast. Schools in Kilinochchi. there is an excess of such teachers in popular urban schools. Mulativu. (%) Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Ministry of Education 2010b.5).157 Shortages and disparities have worsened the problems of schools in remote locations. 2010 Proportion of schools with primary English teachers. while Kilinochchi. Jaffna.158 Figure 4.5: Deficits in the Supply of Primary English and Secondary Information Technology Teachers. Kurunegala and Batticaloa districts are less likely to have secondary level information technology teachers. (%) Proportion of schools with secondary information technology teachers. and Vavuniya are less likely to have primary level English teachers. particularly in rural schools (Figure 4. Mannar.

and children have been forced to leave schools. and a recent census in the Northern Province found that 90. become disabled.162 It paves the way for sustained development of the sector by mainstreaming and coordinating external donor investments with government budgeting at the central. and teacher shortages continue unabated. Aturupane 2009 and The World Bank 2011b. The extension of school feeding activities to primary grades in the Northern and Eastern provinces started in 2009. In conflict affected areas. • Child-centered pedagogical methods were promoted.501 in-service advisors were trained to help teachers by providing practical guidance on pedagogy. the various levels of the central and provincial education system down to schools. and through. • The passage of students through the compulsory basic education cycle continuously improved from 78 percent in 2005 to 91 percent in 2010. Key initiatives and achievements under different dimensions of the programme include: Promote equitable access to basic education (grades 1-9) and secondary education (grades 10-13). lost family members.000 (a 146 percent achievement). • Delivery of special education programmes for children with special learning needs. Chapter 4 Bridging Human Development Gaps: EDUCATION 69 . • The number of out-of-school children declined by approximately 68. lived for extended periods in welfare centres. It tracks the flow of expenditures to. repairs and maintenance have not kept pace.1 With the end of the conflict. Bottom-up planning gives a greater focus to the needs of schools. Many have been exposed to violence.159 Box 4. government education authorities at all levels. providing facilities and training staff. benefitting 575. • The Public Expenditure and Quality Education Tracking System has been established to promote equity and transparency in resource distribution.Many problems and inequities are graver in conflictaffected areas. parents and guardians are able to participate in school management and make the delivery of school services more sensitive to the needs of local children. Almost all schools have reopened. Improve the quality of education. UNICEF The Education Sector Development Framework and Programme 2006-2010 The Education Sector Development Framework and Programme strategy was developed on the basis of a sectorwide approach. with support from the United Nations and other local and international agencies.000 against the target of 50. and suffered physical and emotional traumas. Both curricula and teacher instructional manuals were revised and updated for all grades. • Provision of school meals to primary school children in poor areas: In 2008.160 The quality of education is still an issue. • The Government introduced a balanced-control model of school-based management. Source: Ministry of Education 2007. • Non-formal education programs for non-school-going children and adolescents included surveying and identifying non-school-going children.9 percent of children required to go to school were now doing so. • There were significant improvements in the national assessment of grade four students. • 110. against the programme target of 88 percent. Education facilities have been damaged. • A medium-term budget framework was developed for basic and secondary education. Enhance the economic efficiency and equity of resource allocation and distribution within the education system. where several hundred thousand families have been displaced from their homes. provincial and school levels. have worked to uphold children’s right to education in conflictaffected areas.024 schools. Theme 4: Strengthen education governance and service delivery. it will take time to resolve.745 children. the programme covered 6. • Local communities.

These also depend on interactions between students and teachers. While there are variations in achievement levels across provinces. appointing newly trained teachers to remote areas. average scores on English and mathematics diverged markedly (Figure 4. the Central. Eastern and Northern provinces. According to 2010 school census data. Information and Communications Technology.6). Teacher deficits in English. and providing living accommodation for teachers serving in disadvantaged remote schools.163 and particularly for schools in rural areas. In alignment with the national policy vision. is to maintain the basic principles of quality. around one-fifth of children did not score above 50 percent in first languages and Mathematics in 2009. the programme will strengthen key skills for knowledge services.d. and a second phase is planned for 2012-2016. Eastern. The main objective of the Education Sector Development Framework and Programme. the supply of human resources and the expansion of physical facilities. and fully decentralized schoolbased teacher recruitment are measures that could be tried.. Northern and Uva provinces had mean scores below the national average. For example. but were less severe. Scores for all subjects. such as the English language.6). Approximately 37. with one important finding being that they have improved over time at the primary level. a joint project by the Ministry of Education and the World Bank. The National Education Research and Evaluation Centre periodically conducts studies to measure children’s learning outcomes. except for Ampara.166 By 2009.supports displaced children who return to catch up on missed education opportunities. gaps continue. The first phase ran from 2006-2010. These range from 19 percent for first languages to 22 percent for mathematics to 81 percent for English (Table 4. however. with particular emphasis on disadvantaged and remote regions. could help to narrow these differences and improve the quality of education over time. it will take into account wide regional disparities. Data show considerable improvements in grade four scores for first language (Sinhalese and Tamil). Mathematics and Science could be one reason for disparities. as practised by some OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. all districts in Eastern Province.000 children benefited from these interventions in 2011. but especially English. According to the Centre’s national assessment of grade four students in 2003. especially for English. Source: UNICEF-Sri Lanka. The latter aims to put more emphasis on secondary education. Even with these and other measures.161 Measures to improve teacher deployment include giving preference to applicants in districts with a shortage of teachers. Gaps in English remained in all other provinces. Government measures. n. conducting inter-provincial teacher transfers to even out surpluses and deficits.165 Educational Performance Educational Performance: Basic Education Access to education captures only one aspect of educational outcomes. equality and equity in education across the country (Box 4. The Government has taken various initiatives to improve the quality of education. ‘Briefing sheetEducation’. the quality of teaching and the learning process.164 Payment of a substantial monthly allowance.167 70 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . Science. could be improved further. around 65 percent of schools in all districts in Northern and North Central provinces. and Nuwara Eliya District in Central Province did not have English teachers at the primarily level. English and mathematics from 2003 to 2009. Science and Mathematics. such as the Education Sector Development Framework and Programme.1). the mathematics gap had disappeared for Uva and narrowed for the Central. For example. given the significant achievements in primary education under the first phase. while the corresponding figure for English was 44 percent. Mathematics and Information Technology. gaps have narrowed. ‘Mahinda Chintana: Vision for the Future’.

while there was a negligible decline for first languages.168 The proportion of students who scored over 50 percent in Mathematics increased by 30 percentage points. The improvement for English was a tepid 3 percentage points. Note: scores is given as out of hundred marks Unlike at the primary level. science and technology.3 72. % Mathematics English First languages 65 31 67 79 56 80 21.5 80.06 Source: National Education Research and Evaluation Centre 2008 Chapter 4 Bridging Human Development Gaps: EDUCATION 71 . however.Table 4. Table 4. and Mathematics. 2007 and 2009 Sources: National Education Research and Evaluation Centre 2007 and 2009. % Change.7). % Change.8 -0.7: Proportion of Students Scoring Above 50 Percent in Grade Eight 2005. 2003. % 2008. % 2009.4 Source: National Education Research and Evaluation Centre 2009 Figure 4.6 19.7 72. learning outcomes at the junior secondary level improved only marginally from 2005 to 2008 (Table 4.6: Average Scores of Grade Four Students on National Assessments of Learning Outcomes.0 59. % Mathematics Science & technology First language 38.5 50.6 57.1 29.5 2.6: Proportion of Students Scoring above 50 Percent on the National Assessment of Learning Outcomes for Grade Four 2003. The national assessment of grade 8 was conducted in 2005 and 2008 for first languages.

2009 Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009e.170 Pass rates for mathematics. and having at least three credit passes qualify to pursue A-Level studies.171 Each year.131 43 213.8: National Examination Success Rates.8). Students passing six subjects. 72 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . about 200. Figure 4. Note: Education levels are in hierarchical order. from 2009.7). including a first language and mathematics. and from 43 percent in 2003 (Table 4. especially in providing the competencies required by the labour market.169 The O-Level pass rate for 2010 rose to 58 percent from 48 percent in 2009.7: Formal Education Completed by Age Group.547 17 Sources: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010b and 2011g. science and English increased to 62.292 44 12. The pass rate on the O-Level exam for people 20-30 years old is 40 percent compared to 20 percent for people 50 years and above (Figure 4. The highest level of completed formal education for younger people is above that of older age groups.736 14 2010 433.354 142.000 students take the A-Level examinations required for entry to public universities. but the quality of education has not improved. The Educated: Distribution Across the Country Sri Lankans have become more educated over the years. The pass rate rose from 44 percent in 2003 to 61 percent in 2010.415 61 21. 60 and 41 percent. respectively. 2003 and 2010 Number sitting for O-Levels Percentage qualifying for A-Levels Number sitting for A-Levels Number qualifying to enter university Percentage qualifying to enter university Number admitted to university Percentage admitted to university 2003 434. Completion of a particular level of education implies the completion of all levels below it.201 93. Table 4.673 58 233.Educational Performance: Senior Secondary Schools National O-Level examinations are required for entrance to collegiate level education.

respectively. almost half of the estate population aged 25 and above was educated below the primary level. By junior secondary level. Table 4. Completion of a particular level of education implies the completion of all levels below it. respectively.14 percent of Sri Lanka’s population aged 25 and above was formally educated up to the A-Level in 2009.9). compared to one-sixth of the rural population and 11 percent of the urban population. 2009 Below primary Primary Junior secondary Passed O-Level Passed A-Level Total National 18 25 28 16 14 Male 16 27 28 16 13 Female 19 23 28 16 14 Urban 11 23 26 18 20 Rural 17 25 29 16 13 Estate 46 32 16 3 3 Western 9 23 28 21 18 Central 23 25 26 13 13 Southern 21 22 27 17 14 Northern 13 39 30 9 8 Eastern 29 28 20 13 10 North Western 19 29 27 14 11 North Central 16 26 35 13 10 Uva 29 23 27 13 8 Sabaragamuwa 22 23 33 11 12 Poorest quintile 32 31 27 7 3 2nd quintile 22 30 31 11 6 3rd quintile 18 27 30 15 10 4th quintile 12 22 30 21 16 Richest quintile 7 16 23 23 32 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c. at 10 percent and 3 percent. A fifth of the urban population had passed the A-Level examination. 55 percent passed the O-Level exam. For the richest quintile. The Northern Province was the lowest performer. while almost a third passed the A-Level. In 2009. compared to 29 percent of people in rural areas. while 30 percent passed O-Level exams (Table 4. there was a slight difference in favor of females on both. On the estates. respectively. Note: Education levels are in hierarchical order. Chapter 4 Bridging Human Development Gaps: EDUCATION 73 . but only 13 percent of the rural population had done so. a trend affirmed in pass rates on national examinations. with about 17 percent and 9 percent of people passing these. At the educational level demarcated by O. By socioeconomic group. the poorest quintile fares the worst. performance on both examinations was dismal: A mere 6 and 3 percent of people passed O-Level and A-Level exams.and A-level examinations. Thirty-eight percent of people in urban areas aged 25 and above had passed the O-Level examination.9: Highest Level of Formal Education Completed by People 25 Years and Above. the Western Province was at the top of the educational ladder in 2009. with 39 percent and 18 percent of its population having passed the O-Level and A-Level exams. The distribution of educated people varies widely across the country. respectively. these differences increased significantly in favor of the urban population. Nationally.

Figure 4. Source: Compiled using data from The World Bank 2012b. a drop from its ranking of 87 in 2000. 2012 Note: All variables have been normalized to take values from 0 (least favourable) to 10 (most favourable). technical journal articles and patents granted). Sri Lanka’s performance is below the average for lower middle-income countries.000 people. An important measure of the robustness of a ‘technical’ economy is the World Bank’s Knowledge Economy Index (KEI). education and human resources.8).000 people) Sri Lanka is either performing below or at par with lower middleincome countries (Figure 4.8: Knowledge Economy Indicators for Sri Lanka and Averages for Lower Middle-Income and Upper Middle-Income Countries. and computers per 1. and information and communications technology infrastructure. For two other indicators (Internet users per 1. The KEI ranked Sri Lanka 101 out of 145 countries in 2012. The problem is with the information and communications technology indicators.Building a Knowledge Economy Sri Lanka is falling behind in terms of the technical knowledge necessary to compete successfully in the global economy. and innovation and technology adoption. innovation and technological adoption. which represent the pillars of the knowledge economy: economic incentive and institutional regime. For all three indicators under the latter (royalty payments and receipts. 74 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . which together measure penetration. It is constructed as the simple average of four sub-indices.172 A scrutiny of the indicators used to construct the KEI reveals that Sri Lanka performs well in terms of rule of law173 and gross secondary school enrolment rates.

174 Most of those qualified to enter could not do so due to capacity constraints. In 2009.10). compared to 21 percent in Sri Lanka.6 percent in the same age a higher education system that produces graduates capable of taking on complex tasks. Around 20. The obvious implication of the KEI ranking as well as earlier discussion in this chapter is the urgent need for Sri Lanka to develop to that in India (Figure 4. almost 55 percent of undergraduates studied these two disciplines.9 : Education of Students Aged 5 to 24: Distribution by Institution.6 percent of 20-24 year olds were enrolled in a university. In 2009.9). Two issues are involved.000 people aged 20 to 24 entered state universities for higher education in 2008. group enrolled in technical and vocational courses (Figure 4.175 42 percent of undergraduates were studying Engineering and Mathematics. with an additional 3. A major reason that Sri Lankan graduates are unable to find jobs in the industrial sector is the mismatch between their competencies and job requirements. only 3. and generate a steady stream of world class technical innovations. who learn and adapt quickly. A second and related issue is that universities are too heavily focused on non-technical disciplines that do not generate skills required by a modern economy.There is an obvious need to align the country’s university system with the needs of a modern economy. 2009 Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009e. undertake independent research. its capacity is inadequate and it serves only a very small proportion of the population. only around 19 percent of Singapore’s undergraduates chose Humanities. In Singapore. similar Figure 4.000 students from the roughly 330.177 Chapter 4 Bridging Human Development Gaps: EDUCATION 75 . The study areas of Sri Lanka’s undergraduates reveal a heavy concentration on Arts and Management. First. ranked as one the world’s most scientifically oriented countries. while Sri Lanka does have a reputable tertiary education system.176 While 34 percent of Sri Lanka’s undergraduates were majoring in Arts.

students who cannot enter public universities have few other options for higher education. Source: University Grants Commission of India. that further emphasizes the need to modernize the education system. These have gained public attention due to their high cost and questionable quality. Others.182 In particular.10: Distribution of University Enrolments by Subject Source: Ministry of Education of Singapore 2010. The absence of an accreditation system for them makes it difficult to regulate their quality.000 students. Measures are already in place to move towards a competency-based curriculum and away from an 76 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . While there is no explicit legal barrier. more than 100. the government policy document ‘Mahainda Chinthana—Vision for the Future’ aims for a dynamic and modernized education system. around 83 percent of those who qualified for university education.181 The Ministry of Education has developed a complementary policy document. In 2009. control and monitoring mechanisms. Key policy priorities include: successful completion of primary and secondary education by all students. in practice. improvements in the quality of general education and its relevance to the demands of the labour market. ‘New Vision for Education. Source: University Grants Commission of Sri Lanka 2012a. it is extremely difficult to invest in private universities. for example. were forced to abandon their ambitions to study because state-funded universities could not accommodate them.Figure 4. unwilling to sacrifice their desire for higher education and willing to pay for it. A challenge facing the university system is its ‘closed’ nature. enrolled in one of around 30 degree-awarding institutions180 affiliated with private universities outside Sri Lanka. English and Information Technology. Mathematics. the Ministry aims to enhance competencies in Science. and the equipping of children with English and Mathematics competencies. As noted earlier. educational services designed around the needs of all children.178 Consequently. 2010’. 179 Those from highly affluent families opted to go to school outside Sri Lanka. It would help to create a knowledge-based economy by providing competencies and specialized technical skills for rapid growth and a competitive position in the global economy. and there are no proper quality assurance.

and to improve the employability of graduates. the Government anticipated presenting a new piece of legislation.examination-based one. information technology is still in the early stages of development in schools. The latter are provided on a competitive basis to promote modern teaching. Qualification and Framework. particularly to the establishment of private universities. But the process has been delayed due to escalating opposition to the reforms. the Act provides a mechanism to monitor and improve the quality of diplomas and degrees Chapter 4 Bridging Human Development Gaps: EDUCATION 77 . such as distance learning. The project provides university development grants. develop alternative institutes. Sources: Ministry of Education 2007. To boost opportunities for higher education.2 establishment of institutions affiliated to universities. Information Technology is now a required subject for all A-Level students. which draws on funding from The World Bank.185 Priorities encompass enabling a wider choice of courses and disciplines. Several measures have been deployed to incorporate suggested revisions in higher education. and ensuring accountability and financial sustainability. Aturupane 2009 and The World Bank 2011b. As a first step.188 Consideration could also be given to increasing private investment in university education to generate competition. and promote ethnic cohesion among students and staff. issued by the National Education Commission in 2010. it proposes restructuring the governance and institutional framework of higher education to improve access.183 while English as the medium of instruction is available in about 6 percent of secondary schools. It seeks to enhance the capacity of the higher education system and deliver quality services in line with equitable social and economic development.to accelerate implementation of these commitments. and quality and innovation grants. for example Higher Education for the 21st Century The Higher Education for the 21st Century project. According to the Government. improve quality and enhance access. encouraging a culture of research and innovation. Equalization. The former help enhance Information and Communications Technology. and agents of innovation. English language and other skills. the creation of degree-awarding institutions outside the purview of the Universal Grants Commission and cross-border ties with higher education intuitions. and strengthen human resources. promoting private sector participation.and quickly . It aims to: develop a qualification framework and quality assurance and accreditation system. These include increases in human and physical resources.184 Much more remains to be done . the Act on Quality Assurance. the (Box 4.187 The framework also recommends involving the industrial sector in designing courses. Covering all areas of tertiary education. has four components. The project also offers postgraduate and shortterm training programmes for all staff in higher education. and English as a medium of instruction has been introduced for A-Level science streams and selected subjects at the secondary level. learning and assessment methods. quality and relevance. The Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century initiative helps implement strategic and innovative initiatives. the University Grants Commission has allowed nine private institutions to award degrees.186 An important reform instrument is the National Policy Framework on Higher Education and Technical and Vocational Education. promote the relevance and quality of teaching and learning in universities. To date.2). The Government is encouraging higher education institutions to become centres for economic development Box 4. promoting research and generating technical innovations. to Parliament in 2011. Several means of expanding the capacity of existing institutions have been proposed. new methods of teaching. enhancing quality and upgrading standards to satisfy the imperatives of a modern economy.

11: Technical and Vocational Training: Enrolment in Selected Public Sector Institutions. Availability is highest in the Western Province. which is one reason why youth unemployment is so high: 19. about 200.000 did not succeed at the A-Level. compared to a national average of only 4.9 percent. Eastern and Sabaragamuwa provinces. North Western and Sabaragamuwa provinces.offered by private institutions.195 In 2005. as is apparent by public sector enrolment across provinces.191 Training is critical to facilitating the transition from school to work and to reducing unemployment. It is lowest in Uva.189 Given the consensus that the higher education sector needs to be revamped.4 percent for 15 to 24 year olds in 2010. Each year. it has mainly focused on diploma-level 78 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .11).193 Figure 4.190 The majority of these young people are not equipped with marketable skills.000 examinations.196 Funded by the Asian Development Bank. young people were enrolled in 2010. these programmes are poorly recognized. Enrolment was below 5. Reasons include weak links between them and secondary education.192 70 percent of those who are unemployed did not have any vocational training.194 a lack of interaction with industry. In 2010. which is available throughout the country. 146. more even in the other provinces.000 students in the North Central. In the Western.000 young people leave the school system without succeeding in the national While young people are the prime target for technical and vocational training and skills development. a major reform was the establishment of the National Vocational Qualification system to set standards for diploma and certificate courses. while another 76. the implementation of reforms in a transparent and systematic manner can minimize resistance to change. the poor quality of training and the lack of a career development path for participants. distribution is.000-250.500 school candidates did not pass the O-Level exam.000 people. the enrolment of men outnumbered that of women. where enrolment was below 4. The reforms extend to technical education and vocational training. Central. but with skewed distribution (Figure 4. however. where around 34. 2010 Source: Tertiary and Vocational Education Commission 2010a.

This enables it to develop plans for supplying skilled workers depending upon the labour demands of specific geographic areas.197 In general. for example. starting in 2010.courses and the setting up of the University of Vocational Technology to award degree-equivalent qualifications. the system is still a work in progress as it has not yet reached its full potential. 9 technical colleges in 9 provinces were upgraded to colleges of technologies to offer national diplomas. A special vocational education and training plan was devised for the Northern and Eastern provinces.198 The Ministry of Youth Affairs and Skills Development now has a programme to streamline the delivery of technical and vocational training by public sector institutions. Chapter 4 Bridging Human Development Gaps: EDUCATION 79 .

CHAPTER 5 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Employment and Livelihoods sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .

Age Group and Sex. growth. It then explores ways to improve agricultural productivity and access to other types of employment opportunities. For the country as a whole.8 percent. Further. more than sri lanka Human Development report 2012 81 .1). 2010 Note: Total excludes the Northern Province. an improvement over the 7.1: Unemployment Rate by Education Level. and slow job creation. Men were twice as likely to participate in the labour market as women.9 percent in 2010. The type and nature of employment people can find is also important.1 million economically active people in Sri Lanka in 2010. This chapter examines the performance of the labour market in Sri Lanka. the unemployment rate was 4. differences in the terms and conditions of employment across sectors. Various factors explain this phenomenon. The unemployment rate for people with an A-Level education and above was 11. people. is a major concern. Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010a.4 and 46. including the relevance of skills taught by the education system.199 comprising roughly half the population above age 15. youths and women (Figure 5. While Sri Lanka’s unemployment rate is relatively low. as it is the means by which people reap the benefits of investments in health and education. especially outside the Western Province. although it may not be sufficient by itself. Poor employment opportunities may lead mainly to social unrest. recognizing that outside the Western Province.201 But high unemployment among more educated Figure 5.4 percent.6 percent rate in 2000. employment growth lags considerably behind GDP Labour Market Performance There were 8. which averaged at least 5 percent from 1990 to 2001.6 percent in 2010. most people are dependent upon agriculture for employment. respectively. When people do not have assets providing adequate incomes. for a labour force participation rate of 53.200 The rates for rural and urban populations were 54. productive employment remains a key channel out of poverty. the quality of jobs created has been poor.CHAPTER 5 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Employment and Livelihoods Access to productive employment is a key element of human development.

Compared to the national average of 10. mostly in low-productivity agriculture.2: Female Labour Force Participation Rates and Agricultural Employment by District. Badulla and Moneragala districts. and the benefits are better. 2010 Note: Total excludes the Northern Province. North Central. low unemployment is not necessarily a synonym for good employment. Western and Uva provinces recorded the lowest unemployment rates. Anuradhapura. most of those who do not speak English well look for jobs in the public sector. The tradition of providing public sector employment for unemployed graduates practiced by successive governments has in fact created awkward incentives. they note. all of which recorded rates above the national average (see Tables A20 and A21 for details).5 percent. This suggests that a large share of female employment is in this sector (Figure 5. Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010a 82 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . the working days are shorter.2 and 21. across provinces with available data. the problem remains unresolved. unemployment was highest in the Southern. the rates climbed above 40 percent only in Nuwara Eliya. The Government employs about 14. Other factors that influence labour market performance include available job opportunities. This is explained in the Western Province by the fact that it contributes close to half of national GDP. People with degrees wait for public sector jobs for more reasons than one: competence in English is not usually a requirement. Among districts with available data. the private sector employs 41 percent. working conditions.2). Trincomalee and Batticaloa may be due to cultural reasons. and a mismatch between the skills of the educated and those demanded by the labour market. the emphasis on monolingual education in Sinhalese has divided the society into those who speak English well and those who do not. Central and Eastern provinces in that order.4 percent for this category.3 percent of workers. given the high proportion of Sri Lankan Moors. who are mostly Muslims. respectively. and in the North Central and Uva provinces in part due to the high prevalence of unpaid or very poorly paid family workers.203 According to Hettige and Salih.204 Language barriers.202 The lack of language and technology skills poses major constraints for seekers of whitecollar jobs created by the private sector since economic liberalization.twice the rate for the economy as a whole. While the unemployment rate for the educated has been a concern to policy makers for decades. Further. because the economic marginalization of educated youth is common to all ethnic groups. Since more than a third of the labour force works in low productivity agriculture and other poor quality jobs. remuneration and the mobility of workers. the only ones in which the agricultural share of employment is above 50 percent. In 2010. Sri Lanka’s relatively low unemployment rate depends on how an employed person is defined. Figure 5.205 Labour force participation rates are particularly low for women. increase ethnic divisions by limiting young peoples’ access only to those jobs using their mother tongue. Both have a high dependence on agriculture as the major source of employment. and in particular. The low labour force participation of females in Ampara. high youth unemployment rates remain of special concern. Another 42 percent are self-employed or unpaid family workers. the proportions in these two provinces were 24. Available evidence indicates that Sri Lanka faces both the lack of ‘good jobs’ in the formal sector.

9 percent for men with similar qualifications. as educated workers wait for better jobs in the formal sector without taking up available opportunities.208 The share of women among senior officials in the public sector is also small. such as when children become unhappy and fall behind in school because their mothers are abroad.215 In 2010. Evidence indicates that women are paid less than men.an average annual rate of 1. low earnings and difficult working conditions. for example.7 percent. 210 governments have relied upon outward migration as a source of both foreign capital and employment. provincial public and semi-government sectors. an improvement on the 2006-2007 figure of 13. the share of non-agricultural workers in the informal sector was more than 39 percent. this was true in all sectors and irrespective of their ethnic background. disparities. opportunities for part-time employment are extremely limited. mainly because of the ever-increasing outflow of workers seeking employment in foreign countries.5 percent of the agricultural labour force and 51 percent of non-agricultural workers. They are also more likely to have low levels of productivity.216 It defines vulnerable workers as those who do not have formal work arrangements and therefore are less likely to be covered by social protection schemes. Currently.5 percent from 2000 to 2010. such as properties. The labour force.8 percent. especially Job Creation and Quality of Jobs The Sri Lankan economy has created new jobs at the same rate as the growth of the working age population . the unemployment rate was 15. For women. In the state. which hinder job creation in both the public and formal private sectors.000 who enter the labour market211 Successive Chapter 5 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Employment and Livelihoods 83 . Among senior officials and managers. 61. females account for only around 28 percent of senior officials. has grown at a slower pace of only 1.7 percent are women. however. those with at least one have significantly higher levels of total expenditure on food and non-food items. but this is true even in the public sector where women benefit from gender-specific policies. This imbalance has been instrumental in increasing unemployment rates.6 percent of employed people worked in the informal sector.4 percent of Sri Lankan households receive remittances from abroad. They also receive more income from other sources. In all districts. women and youth are more likely to seek flexible working arrangements. and financial and physical assets. However. while youth may still be acquiring an education. This may be due to the occupational segregation of females in the private sector.212 Around 7. a difference not explained by their productive capacity. which operates outside state regulation. In both the public and private sectors. compared to 7. including health and education. Recent data show that 7. mainly the result of the large number of female school teachers.1 percent per year.Some of the primary reasons for women’s low labour force participation include the shortage of ‘good’ jobs and poor pay.217 The proportion of workers in vulnerable employment declined only marginally from 2000 to 2010. an estimated 270. about 62. as has been true over time. Every year.9 percent of employees are women. the employment situation is not helped by the country’s highly protective labour laws. But not all outcomes of migration are positive. so formal sector workers tend to be better protected. A small percentage of households suffer adverse impacts.214 A high proportion of Sri Lankan workers are in the informal sector. women constitute a smaller share at senior managerial levels. however. Around 42 percent of workers were either self-employed or unpaid family workers. Further.209 Unlike their older male counterparts.5 percent of the employed were working poor. compared to 20. defined as the economically active population. only 23.218 There are. the reasons include the management of work at home. Overall. They include 86.213 Compared to households with no migrant workers. for women with A-Level education or above.000 people depart for foreign employment. categorized as vulnerable by the International Labour Organization. most types of social protection are linked to employment.206 In 2010.207 While the proportion of women among professionals is higher than men.

2 percent for urban areas.8 2009-2010 Total 8. irrespective of the type of employment: Over a quarter of estate households were impoverished in 2006-2007.4 Note: Poverty data are not yet available by sector for 2009-2010. North Central provinces.1 16.5 and 2.3 8.3 15.4 11. at 1.8 percent of GDP and was responsible for 33 percent of total employment. more than twice the 4.9 5. where it employs 59 percent of workers (Figure 5. By employment status.3).4 29.6 15. the overall poverty rate in the estate sector fell to 11.4% by 2009-10. The rise in employment from 2000 to 2010 resulted from employment growth in services and industry.8 16.219 Women were more likely to be working poor than men. as more than a third of all employed persons are engaged in it.3 6. This proportion is particularly large in Uva and Table 5.1 11. Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011a per year.221 Outside the Western Province. the increases in industry and services were 2. total employment grew at 1. It is lower than for countries like Thailand.1: Poverty Head Count Index by Employment of Head of Household. In absolute terms. It is highest in the estate sector. Expenditure on agriculture.1 20. educational attainment and housing. Despite its low contribution to employment growth. the portion of working poor was highest in agriculture.5 percent on average Poverty is higher in agriculture and lowest in services (Table 5. it is especially important. agriculture in 2010 produced around 12. By level of education. followed by 31 percent in industry and 8 percent in agriculture.4 28. The considerably higher rate of poverty stems in part from historical setbacks.2 percent. During this period. private sector employees and family workers were most likely to be poor. Across sectors. However. respectively.0 29.220 In comparison. Compared to the national average. Employment in agriculture grew by a marginal 0. possibly because more are unpaid family workers.5 7. Around 61 percent of new jobs were in services. and way below China’s expenditure. as discussed in Chapter 2.across geographic locations and by the level of education. 91 percent of the working poor have not passed O-Levels. In fact. those who have not passed O-Levels are much more likely to be considered working poor than those with higher education.1 percent of GDP in 2007.3 9. % Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate 2006-2007 Agriculture Industry Services Total 21.222 84 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .4 8.6 percent of workers in the estate sector are among the working poor.2 percent in 2007 and the Maldives at 1. except for Bhutan at 2.1). 9. is higher than for other South Asian countries.0 12.2 26. which are clearly evident in poor social infrastructure.0 percent.3 percent that year. the total number of employed persons rose by almost a million.

It depends heavily on agriculture. Land and irrigation are especially germane to agricultural productivity. Sri Lanka’s agricultural potential mostly remains under-fulfilled due to a lack of productivity improvements. while accessibility to economic hubs. labour. agriculture remains important to livelihoods. but its poverty rate is relatively low compared to other provinces that are at least equally dependent. providing both monetary and non-monetary income. Livelihood Development: Constraints and Solutions Despite its falling share of GDP.Figure 5. Note: Employment figures for the Northern Province are not available. especially for people outside the Western Province and in rural areas (Table A27). finance and technology are important for livelihoods in and outside agriculture. and Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010a. however. So far. The North Central Province provides one illustration of how investing in agricultural support services can boost productivity. as evident from persistently high poverty in the sector as a whole.3: Agriculture’s Share of GDP and Total Employed by Province Sources: Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2010. although steps are being taken towards better infrastructure (Box 5. and suffers from poor access to any of these factors. Chapter 5 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Employment and Livelihoods 85 . Productivity depends on land. Agricultural productivity has stagnated. capital and technology.1). This success could be partly attributed to improved services that support the productive land surrounding major irrigation schemes.223 Two potential strategies to improve agricultural livelihoods are to boost agricultural productivity and to facilitate movement into more productive employment.

and the power and energy sectors (Rs. including livestock and fisheries. large-scale water supply and sanitation. It also targets health and education. The programme focuses on roads. major aviation centres and ports.227 Infrastructure reconstruction and development in the Northern and Eastern provinces complements resettlement and rehabilitation activities.228 Access to land The poor depend heavily upon agriculture. where only 0.361 559. 356. Small agricultural plots are often inefficient.879 1.1 Programmes to Improve Infrastructure The Government of Sri Lanka has made improving the country’s infrastructure a high priority. consisting of a community-based feeder road development programme covering the whole island.226 Gama Naguma (Raising the Villages) identifies key village infrastructure barriers.229 but land for agriculture is increasingly scarce. North Central and North Western provinces have the highest numbers of landless operators. It aims to provide modern facilities to support nationwide economic development. expenditure was Rs. including Rs.416.232 holding about 80 percent of the agricultural land. and urban and township development.1 hectare is highest in Colombo at 22 percent. ports (Rs.300 700. About 6 percent of small landholders do not actually own any of the land they use. 177. with low income-generating potential. Top investments have included highways (Rs.1 21. the number of households owning more than 5 acres of paddy land is negligible.236 Table 5. at the national. 5 percent of these holdings are less than a quarter of an acre (or less than 0.225 Maga Neguma is the government initiative to develop rural infrastructure. irrigation facilities. Gampaha at 16 percent.748.9 40. a significant increase from Rs.6 45.233 The share of holdings smaller than 0.Box 5. 86 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .4 percent of plots are over 5 acres. 108 billion in 2010. 2.0 0 298. including that destroyed in conflict areas. a fivefold increase since 2006).402. power generation.5 billion. mainly because of population pressure. All provinces have close to 20 percent or more of their agricultural operators owning only home gardens (Table 5. In 2010.230 Legislation to prevent land fragmentation has not been adequately enforced.241 1. a threefold increase from 2006).2). vocational training and industrial activities. 29 billion in 2010. Another 22 percent own only home gardens. a fivefold increase since 2006).224 Corresponding infrastructure development projects at regional levels are provided under the Maga Neguma and Gama Neguma schemes. Many investments are made in tandem with livelihood support. railway networks. It aims at comprehensive development of villages through active community participation.0 9. and targets both economic and social infrastructure.231 so small landholders dominate agriculture. 2002 Category Number Not owning land Owning home garden only Owning other land only Owning home garden and other land Total 106.439 382. 95 billion. for their livelihoods. Jaffna at 24 percent and Batticaloa at 11 percent.0 Source: Calculated based on Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2002a.235 Southern.0 100.088 % 0.7 billion in 2010.0 45. Ongoing programmes target key economic infrastructure. 293.1 hectare) in size. regional and village levels.4 billion in 2006.335 1.4 3117302 100.1 billion in 2010.2: Land Ownership Patterns. including obstacles to livelihoods. Randora (Golden Gateway) is the national infrastructure development programme.234 The problem is particularly pronounced with paddy land.1 32.341 % Area (acres) 6. such as Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa. Even in predominantly agricultural districts. The Government has launched 21 large-scale projects with a total investment of Rs.

and lack of coordination. of which 34 percent is set aside for agriculture. a land titling debate led to the 2008 Registration of Title Act (RTA) No. services. a large portion of which is in the Northern and Western Provinces. and are termed Swarnaboomi grants. transferability and long-term usage patterns. access to markets. Out of that. Some land under the irrigation systems are vested with allottees with title deeds. such as extension Cultivation is dominated by traditional crops that are less profitable than those with high-export value. land tenure can be less important to agriculture than other inputs.4: State-Owned Land and the Redistribution of Agricultural Land Source: Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2004.240 Figure 5. access to credit. which do not provide full ownership rights (Figure 5. 242 However. Chapter 5 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Employment and Livelihoods 87 . A major share of extent in smallholdings is solely used for crop cultivation (73%).Restrictive land ownership constrains agricultural productivity. as more than 39 operational laws and about 60 institutions are involved in land administration and management. Over the years. People who cannot sell or lease land lose a safety net and the flexibility to move out of farming.237 An additional problem is that existing legislation discriminates against women in the area of property rights (Box 5. this does not seem feasible on a large scale at present because of poor access to water and technology. a situation fostering confusion over powers and duties. No mechanism exists to resolve conflicts. North Central and Southern provinces.241 Practiced on a wider scale and more intensively. This allows under the Land Development Ordinance to develop the state land. Implementation is difficult.2). credit and so on.1% of land extent under smallholding agriculture). 21. dragon fruits and horticultural crops.4). Much of the extent in smallholdings is located in the North Western. fertilizers. A much smaller share of land is used for livestock and crops mixed agriculture activities (Figure 5. such as palm oil. The lack of secure property rights negatively influences investment.5)239 Only a very low amount of land is used only for livestock (0.238 Even so. 48 percent is leased to farmers under the Land Development Ordinance permits. diversification involving high-value crops could generate increased income and transform marginal operations into profitable ones. Note: The Mahaweli Ganga Development Programme is an integrated rural development programme undertaken based on water resources of Mahaweli and allied six river basins. The state owns 84 percent of land.

or women who have been displaced from their original homes and separated from their husbands. ethnicity and religion. Source: Pinto-Jayawardena and de Almeida Guneratne 2010. 2002 Western Central Sabaragamuwa Uva Southern North Central Northern North Western Eastern Holdings with crops and livestock Holdings with crops only All holdings Note: Holdings of less than 20 acres (8. many existing laws. especially with respect to property rights. Gender discriminatory provisions are common to them.09 hectares) are considered smallholdings.Figure 5. women lack awareness of land and property rights. Box 5. Further. On top of the legal and regulatory issues that deprive women from owning land and property. Tesawalamai. These statutes need to be amended to uphold women’s rights. 88 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . such as the Land Development Ordinance and the Land Grants Law.5: Extent (Ac) of Agriculture Holdings According to the Type of Holding-Small holding Sector. The indigenous laws apply to different communities based on region. Many are hesitant to exercise their rights because of social and cultural pressures. and mechanisms for enforcing them.2: Issues of Land Ownership and Rights of Women in Sri Lanka Sri Lanka’s legal system includes indigenous personal laws (i. Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2002a. including provisions for widows. Kandyan and Muslim laws) and two other major legal systems (English and Roman Dutch Law). are overtly discriminatory.e.

from national and provincial intuitions to grassroots groups to international organizations. 10. 7.246 As with land. The 2006-2016 Development Framework has singled out the improvement of water management and irrigation efficiency for special attention. Much could be gained from more inclusive involvement of farmers in irrigation There are. some positive signs. including more than 30 legislative acts.6 billion in 2010. crop switching.245 management. and the cultivation of new high-yielding and more profitable crops.247 Figure 5. as is the rehabilitation of 1. resulting in unreliable supplies. Lack of irrigation restricts diversification. New private-public partnerships are planned. being pursued.248 Public expenditure allocated on irrigation has already increased from Rs.6: Average Rice Yields Under Different Water Regimes.6). In general. which is a 25 percent increase (Figure 5. This has constrained their ability to diversify from paddy to high-value crops. they will go a long way to improve crop diversification and cropping intensities. with recent investment directed Chapter 5 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Employment and Livelihoods 89 .Access to water Poor irrigation seriously constrains land use and cropping intensities. for example. A more practical policy needs to be adopted with improved coordination between land use and water management at large. compared to 10.000 kilogrammes for cultivation under major irrigation schemes.000 minor irrigation tanks. it limits the cultivation of any given crop throughout the year.000 kilogrammes per hectare during 2006-2010. influencing water resources management.3 billion in 2006 to Rs. If these objectives can be achieved. have obstructed efficient management.243 The yield of rice grown under minor irrigation schemes244 was less than 8. Water delivery policies are designed without much consultation with farmers about the optimal levels and frequency of water for different crops.d. Lack of understanding of the responsibilities of different actors and lack of clarity about the degrees of decentralization of different functions. The poor management of water resources is a major problem. Many entities are involved. on top of which current water delivery systems are designed mainly for paddy cultivation. particularly for farmers located furthest from the irrigation source. however. as the Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources Management has recognized. The productivity of crops grown with irrigatation is often substantially higher than under rainfed conditions. there are numerous policies. 2006-2010 Source: Calculations based on Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka n.

9 major and 18 medium irrigation schemes began after 2006. Sri Lanka’s road infrastructure is considered adequate in rural and urban areas. However.253 For accessibility. at 90 vehicles per kilometer of road in year 2010.in terms of number of vehicles per kilometer of road -. but for rural roads. respectively. which views poor infrastructure as a key constraint to businesses in both urban and rural areas of Sri Lanka. benefitting 30. found that geographic isolation and long travel times to Colombo are correlated with high poverty outside of the capital. Overall. as it has the highest population per kilometer of road.000 families.towards constructing multipurpose reservoirs. availability is more important. on top of the completion of work that started beforehand. in turn. the availability of roads is as important as their capacity. The roads of the Western Province are more congested. it is higher than in 5 and 8 vehicles per road kilometer in India and Pakistan respectively for the years of 2008 and 2009.251 A well-functioning road network is important for both finished products and raw materials to reach markets. the road congestion -. Density is lowest for the North Western and Sabaragamuwa provinces. Road density measured as the length per geographical area is commonly used as an index of availability. for the year 2009. This facilitates cultivation of 26. However. 90 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .000 hectares.250 The World Bank. and highest for the Central and Western provinces (Figure 5.7).252 This is considerably less than 232 and 165 vehicles per road kilometer in Singapore and Republic of Korea. two of the ingredients that boost an economy’s competitiveness and its ability to generate employment. and the highest number of vehicles per kilometre of road. where capacity is less of an issue.is somewhat high. Infrastructure and connectivity are.249 Accessibility to economic centers Good quality infrastructure determines a region’s connectivity to economic centres.

2010 Source: Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011 Chapter 5 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Employment and Livelihoods 91 .7: Road Density and Capacity.Figure 5.

the nearest would be about two kilometres away. Formal financial services in Sri Lanka have high outreach. and the post office about 22 minutes away. along with 76.2 percent of households in North Western Province have used them. Over one-half of surveyed rural enterprises cited the constraints of current financial services on expanding or operating their business. Badulla and Ampara. Longer times to access services in some areas may be due to poor quality roads and geography.256 One new road is the recently opened Colombo-Galle highway. but investments have been made in improving their quality. The World Bank identified this as the top hindrance they face.The length of national. 89.259 Despite the high outreach of formal financial institutions. on average it takes about 14 minutes to reach a bus halt. the nearest local administrative authority about 70 minutes away.5 percent in Uva Province and 76. local and gravel roads have particularly increased in more deprived regions such as Sabaragamuwa. Only 75. mostly for livelihood activities. provincial and local roads has improved marginally over the years. clear disparities in the utilization of financial services. poor transport conditions in terms of road quality and the availability of transport facilities hold back rural enterprises. Those with a high concentration of estates and/or lagging development. but access time is over 35 minutes for the districts of Moneragala. A survey found that more than 46 percent of respondents in rural areas said that transport was an obstacle to doing business. For all other districts. The estates.2 percent in Eastern Province. 72 percent has been on improving.258 It takes the average Sri Lankan about 25 minutes to get to a financial facility. absorbing about 23 percent of expenditures. Financial service issues faced by enterprises vary across urban and rural areas. businesses should be able to quickly and cheaply access it through an efficient financial system. Of this number. It is under 15 minutes for Colombo and Gampaha. Roads connecting the main towns have not changed much in terms of length. A 2008 study found that 82. The closest local authority is about 52 minutes away. however.5 percent of sample households have used formal financial institutions. and the other services are accessible in under 30 minutes. and be able to use it in the most productive manner.8 billion in 2010. A World Bank study found that both the cost of and access to finance are major constraints for rural enterprises. 18. access time is about 20-25 minutes (Table A26). upgrading. For a person in Nuwara Eliya. the first of its type in the country.255 Further. But traffic congestion and worker absenteeism stemming from the unavailability of transportation were identified as critical factors influencing productivity. but only the cost of finance is an issue for urban ones. Investment in road infrastructure has increased significantly from Rs. along with possible solutions. several projects have been initiated to connect the main economic centres by expressways. While Sri Lanka’s road infrastructure is in relatively good condition. are located in hilly terrain.257 The examination of congestion in urban areas could consider impacts like these. The survey also reported that only 20 percent of urban manufacturers said that transport was a severe constraint. rehabilitating and maintaining roads. 60 percent identified high interest and 50 percent tedious loan procedures as severe problems. the share of formal finance in total financing is low for 92 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .8 billion in 2005 to Rs.254 Agricultural. experience longer distances and times. while 47 percent have turned to loan services. 107. There are. A person in Colombo can reach a bus halt in about 8 minutes. Access to finance Since capital is a major factor of production. Road quality is poorest in the Northern Province followed by Uva Province. for instance. and by types of investment. which has many estates. In North Central Province. Out of the 2010 investment.8 percent of households have used financial services. The time to access economic and administrative services varies across districts (Table A26).

they can be reluctant to finance agricultural investments. they are not yet adequate to support sustained. Where these services are provided. knowledge and innovation. drafted the Microfinance Institution Act. diversification into high-value crops and adaptation of technologies to boost productivity. Credits for crops other than tea. Mobile and wireless services have rapidly increased. The government has provided funding for microfinance through government institutions such as the National Development Trust Fund and the state banks. and opens doors to markets and global value chains. This hinders innovation. including the lack of skills in developing feasible business plans and adhering to loan application procedures. Cash in hand and borrowing from family and friends provide the biggest share of funds for them. 2010 Source: Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2010 The supply of non-financial services. This discourages investment in microfinance. access to finance can be constrained by low financial literacy. robust enterprise development. There is a need to both build awareness. and simplify procedures and rules. facilitates new management and Figure 5.8). through microfinance institutions is low. as do restrictions on the mobilization of savings. they are typically limited in range and quality.263 Although telecommunication services have improved over the years. departments and government acts control the operations of microfinance organizations. For small businesses. to the point where the entire country is connected.261 To tackle some of these problems. Access to information and communication Information and communications technology infrastructure provides access to technology. making the regulatory framework fragmented and confusing. with a series of amendments now under review.8: Commercial Banks: Sectoral Distribution of Loans and Advances Granted to Agriculture and Fishing.262 Several ministries. rubber and paddy are negligible (Figure 5.rural enterprises. after consultation with a cross-section of stakeholders. Sri Lanka Chapter 5 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Employment and Livelihoods 93 .260 Since financial institutions are extremely risk-averse. organizational systems. the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. which is one barrier to improving output. such as technical advice.

however. A 2008 report by InfoDev emphasized this as a major constraint to human development in rural areas.9)264 As of 2008. The Northern. Sri Lanka still has far to go. both fixed provinces had the highest percentage of households without access in 2009-2010. Because mobile technology was cheaper. Eastern. 64 in China and 64 in India.. the Northern Province. when more than 70 percent of households did not have telecommunications services.9: Mobile Cellular Subscriptions by Country.265 Figure 5. In the Eastern Province. reducing gaps with urban areas. access to telecommunication services is not uniform across the country.9 percent of households without any form of connectivity.266 It noted that the use of information and communications technology for rural livelihoods is almost non-existent. The relatively high density of mobile subscriptions is the result of telecommunications reforms that happened much earlier than in other countries in South Asia.000 persons in Sri Lanka. comes close to this connectivity density (Figure 5. for example. 2008 Source: The World Bank n. Despite overall improvement.d. as well as some other countries in the Asia-Pacific region (Figure 5.10). follows closely behind. with 34. which increased the number of service providers. Only the North Central Province. The Western Province is the most densely connected region: About 14 percent of households are not connected. Uva and Sabaragamuwa Except for the Western Province. all other regions lack significant access to Internet/email services. there were 83 mobile subscriptions for every 1.5 percent of households were not connected by either a fixed line or a mobile phone service. where the gap is 21. connectivity is considerably better than in 2006. These encouraged high private sector participation. services expanded to rural areas. to catch up with the Maldives at 156 and Vietnam at 177. compared to 46 in Bangladesh.7 percent. 94 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . preventing new opportunities such as cyber-extension services for agriculture. Still. 36. line and mobile.performs better in terms of mobile subscriptions than other South Asian countries.

Poor awareness about the availability of services also holds back usage. Institutional challenges include finding ways of reducing costs. there are 667 Nenasala centres throughout the country. Low technology literacy.269 Box 5. especially in rural areas. The e-Sri Lanka programme faces several challenges.nanasala.3). for reasons including language barriers. including in the Northern and Eastern provinces. with an emphasis on bridging the digital divide. photocopying and computer training. Through the Nenasala (Knowledge Centre) initiative. The ‘e-Sri Lanka’ project. Sources: Mike 2007 and Nenasala (www. 2009-2010 Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011d. These provide services such as access to the Internet. e-Sri Lanka has set up community information centres in villages and rural areas. Chapter 5 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Employment and Livelihoods 95 .lk/#).10: Number of Households without a Mobile or Fixed Line Phone by Province. as most information transmitted through information and communications technology is available only in English.268 Language is a major barrier. launched in November 2002. technology literacy is only 31 percent in urban areas and 19 percent in rural ones.Figure 5. The Local Language Initiative is addressing this by developing local language unicode fonts and information. and securing resources to expand the programme to other areas.267 language gaps and lack of awareness further constrain access to information and communications services (Box 5. Rural communities use them to obtain information on farming and other livelihood opportunities. provides a roadmap for the development of services. telephones.3: Building Modern Information Infrastructure Closing the information and communications technology gap between urban and rural areas and across provinces could contribute to better livelihood opportunities. faxes. while Sri Lanka has an overall literacy rate exceeding 90 percent. email. The InfoDev study showed that. In total. One is the low use of existing facilities.

Farmers can communicate with the Department to obtain advice and assistance in solving farming problems. Additional barriers to innovation include socioeconomic conditions. only one issue. Sri Lankans on average can reach an agrarian service centre in about 36 minutes. the restructuring of provincial departments and the involvement of field offices in administrative work reduced interactions between extension workers and farmers. It takes between 43 and 48 minutes for people in the districts of Nuwara Eliya. and bring these to the 96 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . where investments in research and extension services have been inadequate. Matale and Batticaloa. email and Internet facilities to access new knowledge. Landless and marginal farmers have the least access to these services. except for rice. It seeks to identify community resources and needs. Though the use of improved varieties is high. After the devolution of the agricultural and livestock extension service from central to provincial ministries around 1995. and encourages farmers to use interactive CDs. high risks of crop failure through dependence on rain and smallscale irrigation systems.05 percent of agricultural GDP. rice yields are lower than could be expected. Even in major irrigation areas. Plans call for establishing 220 cyber-extension units.277 At the same time. In Sri Lanka. an appropriate business environment.275 Accessibility is. Other factors affecting the adaptation of technology by farmers are illustrated by rice cultivation. as the research component is the responsibility of the central Government.276 The government extension service is the largest and of central importance to small-scale farmers. and a lack of awareness about availability. services are accessible in 27 to 28 minutes (Table A26).279 The Vidatha programme targets small and medium-sized farm enterprises.271 Since 1981. A number of structural problems hinder the system. and are comparatively low by developing country standards. Badulla. weak agricultural extension services pose a major challenge to productivity. subsistence farming and nonavailability of agricultural inputs.270 The outputs of agricultural food crops have been stagnating for over 20 years. limiting opportunities to improve yields. While 49 have been set up so far. Kegalle and Moneragala. while provincial councils are more responsible for the services. however. and using television and community radio broadcasts to disseminate information to rural areas. The Department has also been active in establishing a tollfree line for agricultural advice. only a few have Internet connections.273 While knowledge of new technologies is an important factor influencing productivity. It uses electronic media for disseminating information to extension agents and farmers. including the high number of organizations involved. In Jaffna.274 extension services provide a bridge ensuring that this reaches farmers and is adapted appropriately. and lack of awareness of the importance of seed quality contribute to the problem. the non-availability of certified seeds in required quantities at the appropriate time. Some private sector companies provide advisory services as well. gaps in technological advancements and technology transfer are particularly acute in agriculture. Use is low because of poor Internet connectivity. expenditure on agricultural research and extension has been less than 0. This requires sustained investment.272 According to the World Bank. Links between research and extension services weakened. The investment in agricultural research that powered Sri Lanka’s Green Revolution starting in the 1970s dropped in 1977. there was little coordination among them. A lack of capital. the limited technology skills of extension agents and farmers.Technological advancements and transfer of technology Acquiring and adapting technology to local conditions can produce transformational changes if the process is robust enough to push productivity forward and strengthen international competitiveness. and capacities for research and technology customization. poor quality seeds result in low yields. Ratnapura. which have different mandates and approaches.278 Work to beef up extension services is being complemented by experiments such as the cyber-extension service of the Department of Agriculture.

recognizing that the journey is not a quick or easy one.11: Marine Fish Production in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. are among other priorities. After depressed output from 1983 to 2008. Northern and Eastern provinces lag behind those of the other provinces. Trincomalee. Governance. Progress since Recent studies have shown agriculture and fisheries are the main sources of livelihoods in the Northern and Eastern provinces. fish production rose in Kalmunai. Livelihood Patterns in Conflict-affected Regions In general. 1983-2010 Source: Based on Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development 2010 the end of the conflict has been encouraging. the economies and livelihood prospects of the Uva. rebuilt and extended. It also helps to ensure the transfer of technology that meets community needs.12). about a 60 percent increase in Jaffna and Batticaloa.11). in particular. including the cultivation of paddy and highland crops. has to be repaired. including for the promotion of entrepreneurship and marketing. which has forced many households to abandon traditional occupations and become unskilled daily wage labourers in agriculture and fisheries. health and literacy issues. This is not unexpected for the Northern and Eastern provinces. Jaffna and Mannar. as this report has demonstrated. These occupations are now the main sources of income in the two provinces. The rise from 2009 to 2010 was steep. Figure 5. so did the number of households and fishers involved in the business (Figure 5. which are emerging from drawn-out conflict. As fish production expanded. The end of the conflict has increased competition for natural resources. but there are areas that need attention.attention of science and technology research institutions. but is picking up again (Figure 5.280 Fish production in conflict-affected areas drastically declined during the conflict years. Chapter 5 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Employment and Livelihoods 97 . Infrastructure. Batticaloa.

12: Number of Fishers and Fishing Households in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. 98 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .Figure 5. 1972-2010 Source: Based on Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development 2010.

The Government is another source of employment. Economic activities and households also depend heavily for income upon remittances from members working abroad. infrastructure (particularly irrigation). including Batticaloa. such as pottery and weaving. with high usage in Trincomalee and Vavuniya districts. except in Trincomalee. while the industrial sector is diminutive. lack of trust. According to the latest available data. both rain fed and irrigated.283 Several factors have hindered the growth of livelihood opportunities. There are significant gaps in natural resource management. traditional cottage industries. technology. These constraints. while diversification is relatively low in Ampara and Batticaloa districts. and obstacles to accessing credit. marketing know-how and market linkages. 536 square kilometers of contaminated land has been identified in areas surveyed. One survey found that 54 percent of farmers cultivating crops were growing paddy. with the right infrastructure in place. Water is not a huge problem for paddy cultivation in Batticaloa and Trincomalee. Credit for livestock-related livelihoods has been relatively scarce. where it is done mostly under rain-fed conditions. a survey of the villages of Kanchikudichcharu. thus restricting opportunities for local people to gain new incomes and skills. Many households do not have deeds for their land. By early 2011.288 Extension services are poor except in Trincomalee.281 On the whole. In some districts. One survey of farmers in Trincomalee District found that they are not aware of new technologies and remain heavily dependent on traditional farming methods. are significant sources of income for women. the underutilization of skills. for example. both as a source of employment and as a contributor to GDP. In July 2010. for example. where irrigated cultivation is prevalent. coupled with water scarcity during the dry season. Large-scale investments by the Government and donors have not brought immediate benefits to local economies. with the highest level in Trincomalee.286 Surveys remain to be conducted in 6 Grama Niladari Divisions. as had been anticipated.287 Another serious issue affecting agriculture is inadequate access to inputs and services. including the lack of skills. have been mainly responsible for low productivity. is a major problem in Batticaloa and Vavuniya districts. the Government has allocated the highest priority to land needed for resettlements and livelihood activities near resettlement areas. and Ampara. The unavailability of infrastructure to add value to agricultural production (through. Most households lack access to credit. dominated overwhelmingly by microenterprises. Obtaining seed paddy. crop diversification is low. for example. skilled labour is in short supply. in addition to paddy. particularly in the Ampara District.292 Chapter 5 Bridging Human Development Gaps: Employment and Livelihoods 99 .290 Banks have been reluctant to supply credit for rain-fed cultivation due to the risks associated with it. 2009 and 31st December 2011. Tourism. This has been due in part to practices such as the use of contractors and labourers from outside localities. In the Ampara District. cereals. the lack of market linkages and integration. Agro-wells have emerged as important sources of water.289 Programmes need to be in place to raise awareness about available technology and other inputs for increased production. restricted lending only to the members of microfinance institutions. Other options could be explored. Thangabelautham and the 18th Colony of Damana found that about half the families did not have legally valid documents. Given limited existing capacities for demining operations.285 Safe access to land is restricted in some places by mines planted during the conflict.282 Livelihoods outside agriculture and fisheries are limited. has great potential. between 1st January.291 Many of the problems with livelihoods in agriculture and fisheries have an additional impact by limiting movement to other livelihood options. Farmers there grow vegetables. in addition to the release of large stretches of land certified as safe through non-technical surveys. 555 square kilometers of land were released for resettlement through mine/Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) clearance. limited collateral and the inability to provide guarantors for loans. rice processing). There is a moderate degree of crop diversification in Vavuniya District. and the use of technology in agriculture is very low. chillies and fruits.284 Though labour availability is not a major problem. the Cabinet approved the establishment of the National Mine Action Centre to coordinate and manage all mine-related activities. equipment. all constrain movement out of agriculture into alternative livelihoods. for reasons such as the lack of facilities.Cultivation of paddy is another major economic activity in the Northern and Eastern provinces.

CHAPTER 6 Bridging Governance Gaps: State Capacity and People’s Participation sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .

However. To address education and health needs.CHAPTER 6 Bridging Governance Gaps: State Capacity and People’s Participation As Sri Lanka works to sustain peace. is low. has been changed by several ad hoc tax measures that have excessively complicated the tax system. on the other hand. The State Capacity to Finance Development The Sri Lankan state continues to be the primary provider of social services. it has not raised tax revenues in line with economic growth in recent decades. Strong public investment has enabled Sri Lanka to attain high levels of human development. productivity and efficiency boosted. but this report argues that it is an intrinsic component of human development. similar issues prevail. Some people may still contend that better and inclusive governance is a cosmetic element in the process of growth. compared to about 19 percent before 1995. citizens need confidence in governance structures. They also underscore the centrality of the Government in the complex choices that influence private economic activity across the country. particularly at higher levels. Yet wide disparities exist in access to. particularly as Sri Lanka moves towards upper middle-income country status and has less access to concessionary aid.2). both public and private. remaining low compared to similar countries. Thailand and Vietnam. Tax revenue as a share of GDP dropped to around 15 percent during 2003-2008. Out-of-pocket expenditure by citizens is high and rising. These challenges are not merely about resources. a key element for accelerating growth and sharing it more equitably. Good governance strengthens employment creation through enterprise growth. and thus its ability to provide these services. The fiscal system. This constraint is especially binding when it comes to spatial disparities.293 Sri Lanka’s tax ratio was just 12. is vital. such as education and health. One important caveat is that the lack of data on various governance dimensions severely limits any extended quantitative analysis. India and Pakistan. the creation of an enabling environment for business. As discussed in Chapter 3. Malaysia.1). accelerate growth and ensure inclusiveness in the post-conflict era. along with implications for governance and accountability. For more people to seize new economic opportunities. as discussed in Chapter 4. Its tax-GDP ratio compares poorly with those of Ghana. better provision of government services and inclusive participation in governance processes. education and skills must be improved. the report considers the following dimensions: taxation and state capacity to bridge human development gaps. which has negative implications for equitable access to care. Singapore. investment in health. Funding depends heavily upon government finance through tax sri lanka Human Development report 2012 101 . improving tax revenue becomes ever more important. South Africa. The previous chapters drew attention to a number of human development challenges and the critical public policy choices to meet them. The public education system remains the predominant provider of general education. having declined from a peak of 24 percent in 1987 (Figure 6. This chapter discusses elements of governance important to current development challenges. Meeting increasing and changing health demands requires greater state capacity. It is uncertain whether these complexities are related to weak performance in raising revenues. and innovation and creativity spurred. and the quality of. education across the country. although it is better than for South Asian neighbours such as Bangladesh. The benchmark tax-GDP ratio for a lowincome country is 18 percent. And public investment in education has declined steadily over time. Strengthening the financial capacity of the state. stronger local governance and people’s participation. In the health sector. with a focus on an environment enabling inclusive growth. and is 25 percent for a middle-income country. and marginally better than for Indonesia and the Philippines (Figure 6. revenues.4 percent in 2011. With that in mind.

2: Tax Revenue to GDP Ratio: Sri Lanka and Selected Countries. 2009-2011 25 Total tax revenue as % of GDP 20 15 10 5 0 Source: International Monetary Fund 2011. with a view to stimulating private enterprise activity and encouraging greater compliance with tax regulations. For example. A report by the Presidential Commission on Taxation in 2009 identified all of these issues and provided comprehensive recommendations to address them in a phased manner. are heavily unionized.1: Sri Lanka’s Tax Revenue to GDP Ratio. 102 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . 1977-2010 Sources: Central Bank of Sri Lanka Annual Report (various issues) and Department of Inland Revenue 2010. Full implementation of the recommendations. particularly those on drastically streamlining border taxes and a complete reform of tax administration to make it more effective. however. have not taken place due to competing stakeholder interests and political sensitivities. One bitter experience was in 2002. the Government may hesitate to undertake an overhaul of tax administration because workers in key revenue departments. when the Government moved to streamline tax administration by merging all departments into one Revenue Authority. and it has a general sensitivity to the sentiments of public sector workers. such as Customs and Inland Revenue.Figure 6. were implemented via the 2011 Budget. But resistance was too powerful to make the move a success.294 Some relating to a reduction of income tax. hitherto thought to be impossible by many in the private and public sectors. efficient and tax payer-friendly. Nevertheless. Figure 6. an unprecedented reform measure. did in fact take place: It stripped away the income tax exemption that public sector employees enjoyed since the late 1970s.

3) Wider and more professional scrutiny of how public money is spent. Tax payers comply with tax demands in exchange for institutionalized influence over the level and form of taxation and uses of revenue (i.295 There are clear connections between how a government obtains its revenue and the quality of governance.1: State Dependence on Taxation: Stylized Governance Effects Immediate effects Intermediate effects Effects on the state The state becomes focused on obtaining revenue by taxing citizens. 1) (Some) tax payers mobilize to resist tax demands and/or monitor the mode of taxation and the way the state uses tax revenue. public policy). an emerging body of evidence296 provides a convincing case for enhancing a state’s reliance on taxation in order to improve governance and state-society relationships. 4) The legislature is strengthened relative to the executive (assuming one exists). and more transparent and accountable (Table 6. The taxation process is more efficient.1).. political and bureaucratic capability Results of interaction States and citizens begin to bargain over revenues.297 The former are more responsive to people’s concerns. 1) The state is motivated to promote prosperity. or to build capacity to raise and administer taxes. less bureaucratic. 2) Better public policy results from debate and negotiation. it also has important state-building dimensions. 1) Taxes are more acceptable and predictable.e.*  Greater responsiveness and political capability  Greater accountability Note: *Bargaining is especially likely if representative institutions (legislatures) already exist.Taxation and accountability Taxation is not merely an instrument to raise revenue. Even though links between taxation and governance are complex. 2) The state is motivated to develop bureaucratic apparatuses and information sources to collect taxes effectively. Source: Moore 2007a.  Greater accountability  Greater responsiveness. Direct governance outcomes  Greater responsiveness  Enhanced bureaucratic capability Effects on citizens The experience of being taxed engages citizens politically. Some studies have demonstrated that governments relying more heavily on general taxation are more likely to have better governance structures than those raising their revenues mainly from aid or natural resources.298 while the latter have little need to negotiate with or to be accountable to their citizens. Chapter 6 Bridging Governance Gaps: State Capacity and People’s Participation 103 . if properly and effectively used.299 Table 6.

301 which generated nearly 81 percent of income between 1977 and 2010. however. Figure 6.4: Direct and Indirect Taxes as Percentage of Total Revenue: Sri Lanka and Selected Countries. 2010 Source: The World Bank 2012d 104 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . In contrast.3: Indirect and Direct Taxes.300 In Sri Lanka.3). Figure 6. fostering healthy state-society relationships oriented around accountability and better governance. governments of many similar countries rely much more on direct taxes (Figure 6. 1977-2010 Sources: Central Bank of Sri Lanka Annual Report (various issues) and Department of Inland Revenue 2010.When taxation becomes more visible. taxation remains heavily skewed towards indirect taxes.4). tax payers are more likely to mobilize politically. Direct taxes contributed about 19 percent of total tax revenues (Figure 6. such as through a shift from indirect trade and consumption taxes to more direct taxes on income.

Sri Lanka performs better than Bangladesh. Sri Lanka’s values on the index have fallen from 47. including Bangladesh. a pattern which is of concern. Sri Lanka scores above several countries in South Asia. so-called national schools are administered directly by the centre. the Philippines. Chapter 6 Bridging Governance Gaps: State Capacity and People’s Participation 105 .304 Figure 6. Malaysia. for example. while all other schools are administered by provincial governments. Singapore and South Africa (Figure 6. 19. Singapore. while those of comparable countries have improved (See Table 6. Perceptions of corruption Reducing corruption is an important element of good governance and accountability for the use of resources. Those who attend national schools are typically from more affluent households. India and Pakistan.302 Expanding the provincial share of general education spending would have favourable equity implications.000 for a According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)303.6).5).500 in the Eastern Province (see Chapter 4). Malaysia.Sri Lanka’s predominantly centralized system of government means many governance structures are national and apply across geographical regions and population groups. but lags significantly behind Ghana. with some variations.7 in 2010. According to another measure of corruption.2). India. but it scores below Ghana. South Africa and Thailand. Indonesia and Vietnam. Moreover. It scores above such South-East Asian countries as Indonesia. Per student public expenditure on national schools was around Rs.8 in 2002 to 40.000 in 2007 compared to around Rs.a figure that falls in certain districts.5: The CPI: Comparing Country Scores. its score has marginally gone down in the last decade. the Philippines and Vietnam (Figure 6. In the education system. 12. 2011 Source: Transparency International 2011 provincial school . as students who attend provincial schools are largely from rural locations. the Control of Corruption Index (CCI)305 produced by the World Bank. 17. such as to Rs.

Note: A score relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people.1 4.7 2.7 158 5 39 46 65 59 78 88 137 107 158 9. of which control of corruption is one of six dimensions (captured by CCI).4 5.9 2. while 100 corresponds to the highest rank (least corrupt).3 3.Table 6.4 3.5 - 90 6 36 34 52 60 - 69 85 76 - 9.5 3.8 2.5 4. Selected Years 2000 2002 2005 2010 2011 Country Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Sample size Singapore Malaysia South Africa Ghana Thailand Sri Lanka India Indonesia Vietnam Bangladesh 9.7 2.2 - 2. and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt). Note: The Worldwide Governance Indicators Project.2 3.1 4. Figure 6.1 3.2 102 5 33 36 50 64 52 71 96 85 102 9.3 4.9 3.8 1.8 3.4 4.1 3.8 5.0 2.2 2. corresponds to the lowest rank (most corrupt).2 3.8 3. risk analysts and the general public.4 1.3 4.4 178 1 56 54 62 78 91 87 110 116 134 9.0 3.1 3.7 2.9 3.2 2.9 4.5 3. Selected Years Source: The World Bank 2010.7 183 5 60 64 69 80 86 95 100 112 120 Source: Transparency International 2011.9 2.2 4.7 1. aggregated the governance indicators of 213 economies from 1996-2010.5 3.3 4.2: The CPI: Comparing Country Ranks.6: The CCI: Comparing Percentile Ranks Across Countries.3 2.5 3.6 1. 106 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .9 2.

level of approximately 26 percent of GDP to at least 35 percent.6 percent in 2010 and another 1.000 billion in the next couple of years. etc.5 percent to 73.9 percent in 2011. While public investment in infrastructure . While the share of public investment in total investment rose from 9.49 10.91 22.53 10.54 85. airports. 2. it has contracted by 23. private The drop in public investment signifies the increasing vibrancy of the private sector and underscores fiscal constraints.7 79.46 14.An Environment for Business to Prosper With the end of conflict. Sri Lanka can now focus on a more impressive growth trajectory. falling from 90.09 77.3).45 73.1 percent.11 Source: Central Bank of Sri Lanka Annual Report (various years).3: Public and Private Investment as Proportions of Total Investment. which stood at just above Rs.1 percent since 2009 (Table 6.89 90. growing by 8.roads. continues at a rapid pace.to long-term. To continue the rate of overall investment as a share of GDP. 2002–2011 Year Public investment.4 percent in 2011.49 19. % 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 9.17 83.72 76. Table 6. the private sector will need to play a more active role.2 percent since the cessation of the conflict. Expanding private investment will depend on governance that motivates businesses to expand and create jobs.3 20.83 16.55 26. Once peace was restored.306 With greater fiscal pressures.307 Chapter 6 Bridging Governance Gaps: State Capacity and People’s Participation 107 . needs to increase to Rs. private sector investment will be an important determinant of the ambitious post-conflict scenario envisaged. The Government envisages that private investment. 1. ports. bridges.51 89. Government officials are clear that the preconflict growth of public investment cannot be sustained.51 80.28 23.500 billion in 2011.5 percent in 2002 to 20. the share of private investment in total investment contracted steadily. For Sri Lanka to sustain growth at 8 percent in the medium. the country will need to raise its annual rate of investment from the current investment edged up by 4. From 2002 to 2009. % Private investment. public investment alone will not be enough.47 89.

Figure 6. Rankings closer to 1 indicate that it is easier for a local firm to start and operate a business.While the objective is laudable. The index for 2012 ranks Sri Lanka low on many of the indicators that determine how government rules and regulations impact enterprise growth. The most widely used measure of the ease of doing business is the World Bank’s Doing Business Index (DBI). Facilitating private enterprise in other regions could begin by extending focused support to small and medium enterprises. are the Western and North Western provinces.7). which are least equipped to navigate unfavourable business conditions. 71 percent of people engaged in the industrial sector live and work in these two provinces. particularly those involved in regulation and the granting of licences. it cannot be accomplished unless the growth rate of private investment picks up rapidly. and. The two account for 62 percent of industries. 2008–2012 Note: Rankings are based on 183 countries in the 2012 edition of the DBI. Sri Lanka has not been able to improve its rankings on many index indicators over the last five years. This requires the Government. It benchmarks countries globally on a number of factors. the creation of employment opportunities. to take immediate steps to accelerate private investment. essentially offering a measure of regulation and red tape. Unemployment among the 15-19 and 2024 age groups remains high across most provinces. including governance. to some extent. These include ‘dealing with construction permits’. including by fostering a businessfriendly environment to stimulate investment from domestic and foreign sources. Gauging what’s good for business One indication of the business environment is access to productive employment. a key element of human development. 108 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . except ‘dealing with construction permits’.7: DBI Rankings: Sri Lanka’s Recent Performance. permits and approvals. Other rankings have either gone down or remained the same (Figure 6. in turn. at the national and sub-national levels. The exceptions. ‘registering property’. Government agencies. ‘paying taxes’ and ‘enforcing contracts’. The greater availability of industrial jobs is mainly responsible for disparities in employment and incomes between them and other provinces. Source: The World Bank and International Finance Corporation 2012. can help or hinder private sector growth.

‘dealing with construction permits’. There appears to be no clear link between changing performances on the corruption indices and the DBI (Table 6. 2007–2010 CCI (percentile rank) CPI (rank) CPI (score) DBI (rank) 2007 57. Sri Lanka ranks as one of the lowest among the comparator countries.2 103 2009 41. CPI and DBI. 2012 Note: Rankings closer to 0 indicate higher performance. Note: N. except for ‘closing a business’ (Figure 6.Against some benchmark countries. Sri Lanka comes in lowest for many indicators. Sri Lanka’s poor performance on several DBI pillars may be contributing to the perception of corruption. and The World Bank and International Finance Corporation 2012. Still.4: Sri Lanka’s Performance on the CCI. while Figure 6. Other Countries.1 97 2010 40.4). it is not possible to draw any useful conclusions comparing the two. Source: The World Bank and International Finance Corporation 2012.4 92 3.a.2 102 2011 na 86 3.8: DBI Rankings Across Selected Indicators: Sri Lanka vs.6 97 3. refers to not available.2 89 2008 52. As indices like the CCI and CPI assess corruption perceptions among diverse stakeholders. These low rankings stem in part from outdated regulations on the DBI indicators to higher levels of corruption without a more thorough analysis at the micro level. and ‘paying taxes’. The World Bank 2010. Some changes to ranks are influenced by sample size Chapter 6 Bridging Governance Gaps: State Capacity and People’s Participation 109 .3 98 Sources: Transparency International 2011.7 91 3. It is not easy to directly relate Sri Lanka’s low performance the DBI only measures ease of doing business among members of the business community. and red tape that leads to bureaucratic delays in various government departments and agencies. On ‘registering property’. and could open the door to corruption.8).3 94 3. Table 6.

the EGI ranked 48 municipal and urban council localities across eight of Sri Lanka’s nine provinces. including across different elements of governance. as the Government committed to improving its position on the DBI. which produces the Economic Governance Index (EGI). anecdotal evidence from foreign and local investors indicates that it is useful. the role of local authorities in implementing laws and regulations proves to be decisive for private sector development. such as in locations. as perceived by local communities. local authorities in certain urban areas scored low. as well as Sri Lanka. The EGI revealed how economic governance differs widely. The Government aims to enter the list of the top 30 countries by 2014. with certain provinces ranking high on some sub-indices while scoring low on others. varies widely. at least one attempt at assessment has been made by The Asia Foundation. Source: Salze-Lozac’h 2008 110 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . which brought together relevant regulatory authorities and line ministries to brainstorm. small and medium enterprises to grow and create jobs. the Bank led an initiative to dissect the reasons for Sri Lanka’s weak performance and identify bottlenecks that need to be removed. A wide array of institutional barriers and constraints has in particular inhibited the ability of micro-. The results captured notions of the local business environment.1: indices. perceptions may have changed. tax burdens and tax related services. This is the first handbook of its kind. permits and licences. On access to land and property rights. But the key finding was that the performance of local authorities.309 The EGI is largely based on perceptions. across eight of the nine provinces (the Northern Province was excluded due to conflict).1). Contrary to expectations. partly explain why certain areas of Sri Lanka have developed faster than others. because the kinds of disaggregated data required are not already collected. After conflict ceased. for example.There has been progress on some indicators over the years. it scores the lowest on confidence in legal institutions and conflict resolution. Assessing the DBI at the local level is however. but ranked the lowest in terms of tax administration. Since the EGI was done. This effort. Done in 2007. challenging. Irrespective of these. Regional Development Imbalances and the Importance of the Business Environment Initial endowment disparities. but it targets the local level rather than the entire country. and government decentralization and de-concentration are still ongoing in Sri Lanka. The Western Province. specifically entrepreneurs. Although the general legal environment is still largely shaped at the national level. with 10 subBox 6. however. Based on evidence from Cambodia and Vietnam. 55 percent of businesses in the North Western Province said it was easy to obtain property for commercial purposes compared to 34 percent in the Western Province. Nevertheless. Considerable empirical evidence affirms that the quality of the business environment is a factor in development disparities (Box 6. improving the business environment at the local level appears to be a pragmatic and efficient way to provide local enterprises with increased opportunities to grow and expand. including the performance of local authorities. infrastructure. scored the highest with respect to businesses obtaining registrations. Sri Lanka has since risen in the rankings from 102 in the 2010 report to 98 in the 2012 report (out of 183 countries). the availability of raw material or human resources.308 These laudable efforts at the national level could be strengthened by similar ones at the sub-national level. Uva Province scored highest in the latter category. including by facilitating a task force functioning under the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. The survey covered 4. It strives to evaluate the business environment through perception surveys of local stakeholders. and because of the costs involved. the capacity of local authorities to create a business environment supporting private enterprise goes a long way towards explaining why some provinces do better than others. even as they constitute the bulk of many local economies. What needs greater clarity is whether or not there is a relationship between the financial strength of local authorities and the overall score of the EGI for each province. culminated in the publication of the ‘Step by Step Guide to Doing Business in Sri Lanka’ by the Central Bank.969 firms from 15 municipal and 33 urban councils.

and so forth.310 Reforms of local government institutions can be more finely attuned to serving local communities. at nearly 50 percent. for example.9). provincial councils have been granted the power to raise only about 4 percent of total central government revenue.9: Structure of Government in Sri Lanka Grindle has argued that the contributions of governance to a friendly business climate could be greater if reforms focus on the local rather than central level of government. A reform-oriented project in Sri Lanka supported by The Much work remains to be done. followed by 18 municipal councils and 42 urban councils. such as participatory budgeting. These mechanisms can enhance transparency and accountability. which support a local environment for business. sanitation. and Australia. where feedback guides desired changes. One example is the strengthening of local tax revenues to enable local government institutions to provide better services . where sub-national authorities raise above 15 percent.Strengthening Local Governance There are four levels of government in Sri Lanka (Figure 6. another option. which administer villages. The next layer comprises the 9 provincial councils. India or the United States. where community members are consulted on and help to set expenditure priorities. which administer large and small towns. Historically. street lighting. The final layer is made up of 270 pradeshiya sabhas. Citizen report cards.road maintenance. The enhanced fiscal position of local authorities can improve other areas of local governance via spin-off effects. It includes the 225-member Parliament. equivalent to approximately 0. waste disposal. the ability of local authorities to generate tax revenues has been weak. are used to monitor satisfaction with the local authority.310 Figure 6. regulatory/licensing. with the central Government occupying the topmost layer. This stands in contrast to countries such as Malaysia and Thailand.8 percent of GDP. Most of the discussion in this chapter concerns the devolution of powers from the central Government to the provincial councils. This narrow revenue space has occurred even though the 13th Amendment to the Constitution311 allows provinces Chapter 6 Bridging Governance Gaps: State Capacity and People’s Participation 111 . Asia Foundation has demonstrated the introduction of innovative governance tools. environmental improvement. On average.

2 n/a 2. compared to a provincial total of Rs.536 251.259 Western Central Southern North Western North Central Northern Eastern Uva Sabaragamuwa Total 36. Vertical imbalances are unavoidable in general. indicates not available.3 8. Essentially.704 62. million) revenue (%) 22.820 5.906 180. provinces that have not been able to grow their economies.312 The Central. encompassing various taxes. at Rs. Provincial revenue collection follows a similar pattern to provincial distribution of GDP (Table 6.to collect their own revenue through 21 revenue sources.539 266.948 1. Southern and North Western provinces collect around 8 percent each.4 2. for example. million) revenue (%) (Rs.321 45.4 4. while North Central and Uva provinces collect around 3 percent each. The vertical imbalances in revenue collection are reflected in the 2008 total for the centre.0 3.9 4. They constitute a fundamental reason why transfers from the centre to the provinces average 70 percent of provincial revenue. but in Sri Lanka they are particularly extreme. Provincial revenue currently accounts for only one-fifth of the provincial expenditure.172 599. n.561 225.7 9. they may not be released in a timely manner because of liquidity constraints.576 240. Source: Waidyasekera 2011.2 percent.542 212.387 189.6 2.141 191.a. fees and fines.5). Since the centre is obliged to cover recurrent expenditures under the Constitution.8 3.740 2. debars provincial councils from seeking foreign aid for their development projects.521 214. this could enable provinces to create a more friendly business environment. taxes levied 112 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .0 10. provinces could be given greater power to raise revenues for development. particularly by expanding the local private sector.2 8.1 10. In a recent policy reform.816 350. For example. in the 2011 Budget announced in November 2010. 655 billion. The ability of provinces to pursue their own development is constrained in other ways.4 5.170 n/a 899 975 1.986 2. 52 percent in Australia and 20 percent in France. far higher than in countries such as India at 28. Among provincial budget expenditures.630 160. 2010 Province Revenue Percentage of GDP Percentage of (Rs. the Western Province collects 62 percent of total provincial revenue. compared to 54 percent in the United States.602.488 207. 83 percent is spent on recurrent costs.3 percent or France at 48. Only 17 percent of provincial budgets can be applied to capital development work. With the proper Table 6.3 8.526 331.524. This further undermines planning and development activities.812 558. The picture presents a wide variation. The Reserved List.6 4.924 2.313 Even when the central Government allocates funds for a province.506 Note: GDP at current market prices.4 billion.556 271. Salaries in Sri Lanka consume 79 percent of these costs.5 6. governance structures.960 527.) 430. 31.3 100 Per capita GDP (Rs.5: Provincial Revenue Performance and Provincial GDP. are stuck with a thinner local tax base.

given limited economic activity. The heavy dependence on the central government amounts to a containment of the private sector..314 It is too early to gauge the impact of this reformed tax regime. That said. The Institute of Constitutional Studies pointed out: “…the Provincial Public Administration has matured enough to take up the task of regional development within the unitary polity of Sri Lanka utilizing powers devolved by the Constitution. devolution has narrowed provincial fiscal space and the ability of provinces to create a businessfriendly environment. The Provincial Business Turnover Tax levied by local authorities on all enterprises in their jurisdiction was removed. but it is unlikely to make the provinces fiscally stronger as. Liquidity shortages in turn have impeded the work of the provincial councils and further undermined public perception of them. democracy is deeper and richer if people and organizations from all quarters engage with each other and debate issues that affect them. then. It is more common for civil activists.at the local government level were further centralized. states place less emphasis on engaging private stakeholders in governance. but it has been accompanied by the continued dependence of provincial governments upon the central Government for finance. respectively. In Sri Lanka. The administrative systems of the Provinces have proved that given power. reform processes and public policy-making. the onus is not only on the government. In general. There are questions about lack of coordination between central and provincial governments over the provision of public services. particularly those from the private sector. the devolution of powers from the center to the provinces continues. functional. the media and various interest groups to raise their voices. time. stakeholders. To make better use of the existing structure. The study could also identify which services should be provided by devolved bodies and the centre. could find strategic ways to actively interact with Chapter 6 Bridging Governance Gaps: State Capacity and People’s Participation 113 . local authorities have got entrapped in increasingly centralized fiscal and administrative arrangements. Such a study would identify weaknesses and strengths. space and resources.317 Several reports have noted significant shortfalls in the government structure and highlighted elements to strengthen for provincial authorities to perform well.”319 People’s Participation Often..” 316 In an important sense. they are able to deliver public services and undertake regional development improving local governance capabilities. and how to get local government to work effectively within the limits it faces. Unfortunately. The precarious fiscal position of the provinces has led to a debate about whether devolution of powers as per the 13th Amendment and the creation of provincial governments have worked effectively for Sri Lanka. what needs to be strengthened and why. The Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka argues that the present system of fiscal decentralization is “beset with institutional and financial constraints. the centre’s funding ability was constrained by the prolonged conflict and the corresponding need to beef up security expenditure.315 A 2010 evaluation of the performance of devolved government in Sri Lanka noted: “Whereas local government should have deepened devolution. Sri Lanka could at least undertake a legal. often functions are not clearly demarcated. but one-third of revenue collected from the Nation Building Tax. but accompanied by a revenue-sharing mechanism. In general. revenue collection of provinces outside the Western province is likely to be small. the entirety of stamp duty collection and 70 percent of the motor vehicle registration fee were credited to the revenue account of the provincial councils. which in turn constrains poverty reduction and human development.it is neither a purely administrative and decentralized system nor a fully devolved system of government.”318 No significant change in the present structure of decentralized government is likely to take place soon. These pressures produced high central budget deficits. fiscal and administrative review of local government. which leads to overlap and/or inconsistencies.

In contrast. The Asia Foundation has sponsored dialogues where public officials and private citizens. or if the private sector is unwilling to participate except on its own terms. the initiative is a model of participatory local governance that could help to accelerate reforms through grass-roots pressure. they might contribute to stimulating growth. with the Government demonstrating that it has learned from previous experiences. Since then. rather than a mere formality to rubberstamp official positions. though the pace is slow. traders’ associations. Both the government and the private sector could work with each other for the benefit of the country as a whole. This stalemate could be broken through the introduction of genuine and inclusive consultations. they could be used as part of designing appropriate policy reforms tailored to local circumstances. local actors had very little input in tourism development plans. taking into account local constraints. Participants from Batticaloa. but the experience underscored the need for inclusive consultation. Over the longer term. while the stakeholders in principle did not oppose the concept of the new pension scheme. public policy-making becomes one-sided. rather than merely voicing their concerns. 114 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . This leaves room for easy opposition by interest groups. for instance. Despite the withdrawal of bills under political pressure. agreed that while the tourism potential for their district is high. work collaboratively to address regulatory issues that affect businesses at the local level. increasing job creation and spreading the fruits of growth more equitably. But they would need to move into the mainstream of public policy-making to be fully effective. which can force quick backtracking by the Government . and on some key elements of the benefits. Dialogues can also provide accurate diagnoses of problems affecting private investment and public service delivery.a vicious cycle for which a precedent has now been set. One dialogue convened in Polonnaruwa in 2010 addressed issues constraining enterprise growth in the Eastern Province and made progress towards durable solutions. where social capital and statecitizen relations need much focus. The backlash was more on the way the scheme was developed. it needs to be genuine. concerns and opportunities. which is used by the Batticaloa Municipal Council in its development activities. This opportunism could be reduced through strategic incentives that allow the private sector to be less dependent and more competitive. Public-private dialogues are working especially well in conflict-affected areas. the absence of genuine and continual stakeholder engagement with public policy-making can lead to a breakdown in state-citizen relations. The two are working together in Sri Lanka.the public sector in policy reform processes. It was later learned that the bill creating the scheme was rushed through. Small and medium enterprises in particular need to participate in higher-level policy engagement. Aimed at building a ‘culture of dialogue’. possibly using the private-public dialogue model to foster a bottom-up push for reform. Through discussions. including small business people. private and public sector participants worked together to develop their own strategies. citizens groups and other local stakeholders. As such. A spate of protests against it culminated in the death of a free trade zone worker and a severe public relations backlash for the Government. without a robust and inclusive consultative process. and in promoting transparency by disseminating information and creating conditions for improved public scrutiny. the Government could do more to strengthen consultative policy-making mechanisms. If the government alienates the private sector. A major problem in Sri Lanka is the tendency for the private sector to toe the line of every political regime to minimize ‘political risks’. The bill was withdrawn eventually. A good example was the fallout surrounding the introduction of a new national pension scheme—the Employees’ Pension Benefit Scheme—in May 2011. and democracy is shortchanged. the group has formalized a Batticaloa Town Tourism Development Plan. While consultation is a hallmark of a thriving democracy.

Women’s engagement
Currently, there are 13 women members of Parliament out of a total of 225; the portion is less than 6 percent, a figure that has remained unchanged from 2004 to 2010 (Table 6.6). This is not a recent trend, since women’s representation in political institutions has been minimal in the 60 years since independence, despite a constitutional guarantee of equality, policy statements about commitments to equal representation, the ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and sustained activism and advocacy by civil society organizations.320 Reasons for the low representation of women in politics321 start at the personal level, where fewer women than men self-select themselves for a political career because of sociocultural, economic and psychological barriers. In political parties, women are mostly ignored as candidates, and in elections, many voters prefer to vote for men. Available evidence suggests that political parties are the single biggest barrier to women’s greater participation in politics. The Women and Media Collective noted in 2011 that, “the main obstacle to women’s equal political representation remains within Political Parties, since they do not nominate an equitable number of women to contest elections.”322 Of the 6,060 persons nominated for Parliament in 2004, only 375, or 6.2 percent, were women, close to the share in Parliament. Recently, there has been an increase in the number and percentage of women nominated,323 but this mainly results from greater competition for political support based on proportional representation. Because this may be a strategy to attract voters, and because nominations do not equal representation, women are likely to remain largely excluded from politics. The major political parties have only shown limited commitment to enhancing their political representation, despite heavy national advocacy and campaigning by various groups. For the 2010 parliamentary election, the United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) and the United National Front (UNF) each nominated 15 women out of a total of 262 nominations (5.7 percent). The smaller political party, the Democratic National Alliance (DNA), nominated women as only 3.4 percent of candidates. The share of women nominated in 2008-2009 was even smaller: 4.3 percent by the UPFA, 3.8 percent by the UNF and 3.3 percent by the JVP (Table 6.7). Undeterred, the Women and Media Collective has actively lobbied political parties to increase nominations of women. It has sought to engage women in political campaigns and encourage voters to choose women candidates regardless of political party. Recent advocacy campaigns have called for the introduction of a quota for women in nomination lists, as well as the imposition of a 40 percent quota in Parliament. These demands remain unmet, however, while the motivation of political parties and the Government to move forward is not coming forth. At the sub-national level, women’s representation improved only marginally from 1966 to 2006: from 1.1 percent to 3 percent in the municipal councils, and from 1.9 percent to 3.4 percent in the urban councils. Among the pradeshiya sabhas, women occupied a mere 1.6 percent of positions.324 From 2002 onwards, the representation of women at the provincial and local levels has decreased, even as it remained largely unchanged in Parliament. The ethnic make-up is wholly in favor of one group. The Women and Media Collective notes that, “the majority of women currently represented in elected political institutions are women from the Sinhala Community; women from the minority Tamil and Muslim communities are further marginalized from these bodies. There is only one Tamil woman and no Muslim woman in the current Parliament.”325

Chapter 6

Bridging Governance Gaps: State Capacity and People’s Participation

115

Table 6.6: Women in Elected Political Office: Nomination and Representation
Elected political body Year Representation of women Total number Parliament 2004 2010 2004 Provincial councils 20082009 Local councils 2006 225 225 380 417 3,942 Number of women 13 13 19 17 74 % of women 5.8 5.8 5.0 4.1 1.8 Nominations for women Total nominated 6,060 7,619 4,863 9,356 25,911 Nominated women 375 n.a. 373 711 n.a. % women nominated 6.2 n.a. 7.7 7.5 n.a.

Notes: N.a. indicates not available. Source: Women and Media Collective 2011

Table 6.7: Parliamentary Elections 2010 and Provincial Council Elections 2008-2009: Nominations of Women by Major Political Parties
Political party/alliance Total number of nominations 2010 parliamentary elections Total Nominations number for women of nominations 262 262 - 262 15 15 - 9 % of nominations for women 2008-2009 provincial council elections Total number of nominations 417 417 417 - Nominations for women

% of nominations

UPFA UNF JVP DNA including the JVP

5.7 5.7 - 3.4

18 16 14 -

4.3 3.8 3.3 -

Source: Women and Media Collective 2011.

The exclusion of half the country’s population from electoral politics and governance is a major constraint on democratic governance. Nor does it augur well for more equitable development outcomes. It is critical that the Government explore and address reasons for women’s low political participation.

population groups; constraints on the re-development of governance infrastructure in conflict-affected areas; and the challenges of educating people, especially those who were unable to access public services, and making effective use of existing governance structures. Ultimately, it is what happens in peoples’ lives that matters. Unless more and better jobs are created, unless the fruits of growth are more evenly distributed, unless people are aware and involved in governing their lives, and unless all of these elements are attended to in a timely manner, it might be difficult to contain social discontent. In essence, the country faces the challenge of expanding good governance in the context of securing peace.

Looking Forward
There is now an opportunity to correct the problems arising from Sri Lanka’s prolonged conflict, but progress in the domain of governance has been slow. Among other causes, this is due to difficulties in agreeing on the way forward; the complexities of rebuilding trust among different

116

sri lanka Human Development report 2012

Chapter 6

Bridging Governance Gaps: State Capacity and People’s Participation

117

Progress and Security sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .CHAPTER 7 Building on Peace.

and their returns are too small to justify large amounts of additional investment. Grave and rising inequality.326 When social. the country has achieved relatively high human development for a developing country. Sri Lanka is now on the road to long term peace and stability pursuing human development.328 The feasibility theory hypothesizes that three key economic characteristics drive susceptibility to violent conflict: the level. and in terms of more advanced measures of human development. These must be supported by the requisite political will. Sri Lanka is well aware of the importance of getting to the root causes of problems. Several actions are interrelated. while others remain peaceful for decades? Many theories suggest triggering factors rooted in material circumstances or human nature. this report has identified 5 areas for action by relevant national entities and the private sector. But the costs of conflict have been high. Under the theory of relative deprivation. since human progress often builds on multi-dimensional. It underscores the need for inclusiveness. It has strategically exploited development opportunities and husbanded its resources well. rather than treating symptoms. such as Sri Lanka’s. could subvert it. With peace coming forth after such a long and bitter struggle. when violent conflicts are militarily and financially feasible. These opportunities are now almost fully harnessed. As demonstrated in this report. Sri Lanka has done well. despite formidable obstacles. Countries with higher levels of income. resources were diverted into military hardware and activities. with the highest Human Development Index rank in South Asia. and governance structures and mechanisms. and/or innovative solutions are found to reach all communities. But in some deprived areas. The theory of relative deprivation is especially relevant to multi-ethnic societies. such as Sri Lanka and Fiji in Asia-Pacific and Guyana in the Caribbean. Families were torn apart as people were displaced. With this in mind. but not the only one. erupt into violent conflict. Instead of being used for human progress. But disparities also exist in rural areas and across provinces. they will occur. opportunities for productive and decent jobs need to expand. then. violent political mobilizations are more likely to occur where discontent is induced by grievances. Why do some multi-ethnic countries. economic and political disparities overlap with the way population groups identify themselves. is that relative prosperity. while slow progress on the plantations stems from historical deprivations. based on basic human development measures. sri lanka Human Development report 2012 119 . growth and structure of income. education and livelihoods were interrupted. Unless the structures and conditions that generate and perpetuate differences in access to services at basic and advanced levels are changed. and those that are less dependent on primary resources for income are less likely to experience conflicts. resources. widely distributed. It consumed thousands of lives. achievements in human development may falter.CHAPTER 7 Building on Peace. where bold. Those in the Northern and Eastern provinces are due essentially to prolonged conflict. higher growth rates of income. A considerable share of infrastructure in the Northern and Eastern provinces was damaged or demolished. where disparities are prevalent. as otherwise social tensions may resurface. holistic approaches. by contrast. The country is poised at the edge of a new stage of development.327 An alternative view theorizes that regardless of motive. stirred distrust and hostility among ethnic groups and cost millions of dollars. and for sharing the fruits of peace. The central implication. identities can be a powerful source of political mobilization. Hundreds of square kilometres of land were mined. Rebuilding after massive destruction is one problem Sri Lanka faces today. disparities persist across the country. progress and security more equitably. strategic and innovative thinking is required. Further. Establishing Priorities For a middle-income country. is a key factor underlying peace. Progress and Security After nearly three decades of civil conflict. rather than marginalization.

special and perhaps preferential attention is required for conflict-affected areas. Key health issues encompass poor nutrition. malnutrition widespread and educational outcomes low. means for monitoring and fair access. These measures must be complemented by governance mechanisms to ensure monitoring and compliance. linkages and dynamic feedback effects. is not likely to be successful. Second. while the whole country would benefit from the modernization and expansion of collegiate and tertiary level education. This will not happen during the short-term. but it must be tackled. With the end of civil conflict and an overwhelming victory in the last election. synergies have to be exploited. given resource and technological limitations in the public sector. Major challenges include disparities across provinces. but to realize that. As this report has tried to demonstrate. and persistent poverty. Third. since there are overlaps. even as agricultural productivity remains low. while encouraging private provision in other areas. Science and Technology. especially if the goal is human development. Heavy dependence on agriculture for employment continues. along with the need to improve good quality and comprehensive health services in deprived locations. and reorganize the health system to respond to non-communicable and other emerging diseases. and a prerequisite for peace and security. Sri Lanka has the potential to be a development leader in South Asia. Poor education. diversify and upgrade education and health services. rising demand and competing priorities point to the need to streamline and prioritize publicly provided health and education services. and increased access to electricity. and vocational training. In-depth knowledge on the special challenges of extending public services to these areas needs to be acquired in order to integrate them into the mainstream of life and provide amenities similar to those enjoyed by the rest of Sri Lankans. It is also necessary to convince different stakeholders of the need for change and to secure their buy in so that socio-political differences do not hold back wellconceived policy changes.This is a considerable task. Sri Lanka confronts numerous development challenges without the financial and human resources to deal with all of them at the same time. for example. Many of these challenges should not be sequentially pursued. Sri Lanka has reached a stage where it is necessary to modernize. Employment challenges include mismatches between the competencies of graduates and the demands of the labour market. malnutrition and poverty are problems that influence each other and need to be addressed at the same time. not simply noted and put aside. Across the country. Three issues require urgent consideration by relevant authorities. people need more housing. Health is influenced by policies and actions linked to issues from education to employment to migration. unregulated private participation has underscored the need to ensure quality and standards of services. a more adequate network of roads. women and the educated in general. urban and rural areas and the estates. Exactly how to do this is something that should be studied and carefully debated. water and information technology. identify and exploit synergies. First. Greater private participation is needed to move forward. the Government has the political capital to do so. Any new development strategy will need to establish priorities. which by nature is a long-term commitment engaging all stakeholders. This process could be understood as both a development priority. especially among deprived population groups. 120 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . The traditional approach to health as simply the outcome of actions in the health sector. Mathematics. High unemployment prevails among young people. access to basic education for the most deprived population groups needs to increase. better transportation systems. and ensure sustainability. especially outside the Western Province. Care will need to be exercised so that administrative costs do not exceed benefits. the dire shortage of resources. Already. it must make such a commitment. On the education front. All levels of education require more and better teachers in English. the estates and remote rural areas where poverty is high. poor health. In establishing priorities.

Timely collection and analysis to inform policy makers on operations and outcomes across the sector could improve monitoring and service delivery. there are sizeable disparities in outcomes. the picture worsens: almost one in three children is underweight and just above one in three is stunted. Both physical and human health infrastructure require attention. According to multidimensional poverty analysis. Stunting and wasting due to malnutrition are worst in some conflict-affected districts. The management of health care under the public system could be streamlined and made more efficient to increase returns. as well as in Batticaloa. The Ministry of Health and other relevant national entities need to target more health resources to deprived and conflict-affected areas for a number of reasons. such as Moneragala and Hambantota. Women on the estates are underweight for their height. require greater safeguards and closer monitoring. especially in conflict-affected areas. and there are few adequately qualified and experienced personnel. although the high rates in Colombo and Kandy could be due to errors in data collection. Design and implement policies to address emerging and non-communicable diseases Lifestyle changes from rising incomes. and ensure equitable access to quality health care for all. just over one in five children is underweight.. cultural trends. It already has a presence in the health sector. An integrated approach is required. Unless measures are taken to contain them and the other emerging health concerns. hypertension and cardiovascular illnesses. poor health is the biggest contributor to poverty. Chapter 7 Building on Peace. and nearly one in six is stunted. Third.8 per 1. and could be integrated more seamlessly into the national health system.5 per 1. and in urban centers such as Jaffna and Kandy. there are considerable disparities across regions. Progress and Security 121 . such as Trincomalee and Batticaloa. health outcomes are influenced not only by healthrelated services. however. in some districts with a high concentration of estate workers. also have high levels. An expanded role would. debilitating illnesses that reduce productivity and burden families. it will be difficult to sustain achievements in human development. such as Colombo. Emerging health issues that require greater attention include communicable diseases such as dengue and leptospirosis. working conditions. It is particularly high on estates.000 live births in 1990 to 8. such as Nuwara Eliya and Badulla. medical facilities have been destroyed. more resources are needed to take on emerging health issues and upgrade health facilities throughout the country. For some basic indicators. income. Batticaloa and Ampara. At the same time. Noncommunicable diseases have a higher prevalence rate in more affluent districts. Colombo. but also by a variety of factors such as environment. Some rural districts. however. such as Nuwara Eliya. and in some rural districts such as Moneragala. maternal mortality is considerably higher in some conflict-affected districts. which predisposes them to illness. the quality of remaining services is low. Nuwara Eliya and Kandy.329 Compared to the national average. A larger role for the private sector could bring in the much-needed resources. non-communicable diseases such as diabetes. In districts with large estate populations. and accidents and injuries. mental health problems. Gampaha and Kalutara. At the national level. even as they require increasing amounts of public resources. technology and demography are altering the pattern of disease in Sri Lanka.Agenda for Action Develop health policies to reduce the vulnerability of the very poor Of the three dimensions of the Human Development Index. Second. such as infant nutrition and maternal mortality. safety. Sri Lanka scores highest on health. such as Killinochchi. etc. which helps to reduce congestion in public hospitals in urban centres and to provide specialized services. the public sector will need to continue to operate in key areas to provide preventive programmes. While the infant mortality rate has declined from 19. First.000 live births in 2007. The concern about them is that they may be life-long.

Sri Lanka’s overall unemployment rate is impressive. and the overall drive for inclusion needs to be more targeted and sustained. but limited in the breadth of coverage across different diseases. Another challenge is the mismatch between the skills provided by the education system and those demanded by the labour market. vulnerable children need to be identified. could also bring more resources to education. and the outcomes of these programmes are regularly monitored. Programmes are in place to improve schools in conflict-affected areas and on estates.The Ministry of Health in association with the Ministry of Finance and other relevant entities should develop a health strategy that identifies appropriate actions and resources to reduce health disparities and contain emerging diseases. it must abide by national goals for education.5 percent per year on average from 2000 to 2010. monitoring of programmes. so that essential and emergency services are easily accessible to all population groups. the attainment of desired outcomes. Adequate measures to keep medical personnel in rural and conflict-affected areas could include incentives as well as a re-examination of the system of allocating personnel so they are better linked to the facilities they serve. an increase in the supply of teachers in Science. and the identification of problems as they emerge. While access to compulsory education is high. 122 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .5 for details of net enrolment rates). Issues that demand immediate action include changing school curricula to meet the demands of the labour market in a modern. Most students have access up to the junior secondary cycle. competitive economy. But initiatives like this need to be scaled up. Such initiatives are commendable and should be continued. But job creation has lagged considerably behind robust economic growth. but it falls off progressively with higher levels of education. with the number of employed growing at only 1. in conflict-affected areas and in remote locations. They need to be closely monitored to ensure that desired results are obtained in a timely manner and national education goals are achieved. Efforts are being made to help such children through the non-formal education unit in the Ministry of Education. It re-emphasizes the need to prioritize and streamline public provision of health care. Develop and implement targeted employment policies and foster opportunities for better livelihoods At less than 5 percent in 2011. or children who come from broken families or very poor backgrounds. While the private sector is already engaged in providing education at all levels. children who need special educational facilities. Health care in Sri Lanka is free. an expansion of the capacity and quality of tertiary educational facilities. Make education more inclusive and relevant to the demands of the labour market The Government is the principal supplier of education at all levels: primary. A system of standards and regulations could be coupled with mechanisms to channel feedback to the Ministry of Education and Parliament. The Ministry of Education could estimate the cost of the effort to upgrade education. collegiate and tertiary. junior secondary. These include children with disabilities. This could reveal resource constraints that may necessitate wider private sector participation. The Ministry of Education and Ministry of Higher Education could undertake a stocktaking exercise to identify problems that are nationwide and more localized. and quality of service. upper secondary. the country needs special measures to extend education to the most vulnerable groups (see Table 4. Aside from more physical facilities. to monitor compliance and to correct anomalies. more trained teachers are required. Quality varies across districts and sectors. Giving schools more authority to raise funds. This explains why out-of-pocket expenditure is increasing. Mathematics and Information Technology. but is poorest on the estates. English. under stipulated conditions. and strengthened governance structures to ensure adaptability and flexibility. compared to an average real GDP growth rate of just below 5 percent. Jobs that follow nationally established guidelines for conditions of employment and provision of social security are limited.

but all stakeholders can. Governance mechanisms in turn must be strengthened to monitor the use of resources. the Government needs to improve revenue collection Chapter 7 Building on Peace. Once these are in place. The Government could cultivate creativity and a culture of private investment by incorporating these elements in school curricula and providing incentives for starting business ventures. especially in education. since this group could be easily mobilized to stir up unrest for political gain. Even though agriculture is dominated by small private entitites. Another reason is the lack of job creation. agriculture. and open doors to finance would create more livelihood opportunities outside agriculture. Governance is the responsibility of the Government. In expanding demand and creating more and better jobs. To a large extent. infrastructure and finance can foster a climate for private investments and help create jobs. science and technology. health. The private sector. disparities. Progress and Security 123 . research and extension services. One-third of those employed work in agriculture.The proportion of employment in the informal sector has remained largely constant over the years. There is especially strong justification to improve services in conflict-affected regions. ordinary citizens and other groups need to mobilize to demand more adequate and responsive governance. a high proportion of the workers are in the informal sector. While overall unemployment is relatively low. but the destruction of family units. from the centre and society at large. It could take the lead in improving the overall environment for doing business. For Sri Lanka to continue making rapid human development. Unemployment is higher among youths. non-governmental organizations. greater connectivity and dissemination of information through better access to and use of information technology. roads and other public goods. so that individuals see starting a business as an alternative to finding employment. they could attract private investment. It will also be necessary to encourage entrepreneurship. For youth. both in terms of employment growth and kinds of employment. which would give even small entrepreneurs a better chance to start and sustain their enterprises. technology. public and private investment in agriculture and non-agriculture will be essential. improving access to markets. land mines and competition for resources are among the factors complicating the task. farmers. There is little dispute that adequate public infrastructure is an important determinant of private investment. especially outside the Western Province. Improved infrastructure to access economic centres. women. where productivity is low and stagnant. and increased investment in research and extension services are among the measures that could boost productivity and investment in agriculture. better management of resources such as irrigation water supplies. Unambiguous land rights. student organizations. and in provinces besides the Western Province. Strengthen governance mechanisms to broaden participation and utilize resources more effectively This report has underscored the need for increased public investments. exist across provinces and sectors. unemployment and education are different sides of the same coin. especially jobs attractive to an educated workforce. One cannot be tackled successfully without the other. it was just under 20 percent in 2010 a worrisomely high rate. its problems require the assistance of the Government to raise productivity and move people into more remunerative livelihood opportunities. adequate irrigation facilities. Governance functions best when it is pushed simultaneously from above and below. and should. given the breakdown of administrative systems and infrastructure. The Government is rightly engaged in making huge investments to restore livelihoods there. efficient financial markets. the educated and women. play a role. Part of the reason for unemployed youths and unemployed people with education is that schools have not equipped them with the kinds of skills demanded by the labour market. With stagnating international resources at best. The Government could lead the way in investing in irrigation.

and unclear demarcations of functions have created inefficiencies in public service delivery. Even though some functions of government have been decentralized to the provinces. inclusion in governance mechanisms at the sub-national level is even worse. Empirical evidence suggests that governance mechanisms are likely to be more robust in countries where the government relies heavily upon general taxation for its revenues. which account for over 80 percent of total tax revenue. Increasing the flow of financial and human resources to deprived areas should be accompanied by improved monitoring and evaluation of resource use. The estates have suffered from deep deprivations since the 19th Century. The fact that many problems are linked. various interest groups and beneficiaries. and remote districts such as Moneragala. and more quickly. synergistic solutions that cut across disciplines and ministries. districts with large estate populations and poor rural areas This report demonstrates that the poorest. non-governmental organizations. some of their experiences could inform reconstruction in the Northern and Eastern provinces. but much remains to be done. The Government may wish to revisit the balance between direct and indirect taxation for several reasons: to spread the burden of taxation more evenly. and to ensure that revenue is in line with growth. Sri Lanka has made great progress in achieving gender equity in health and education. the private sector. to improve revenue collection. to achieve better governance and accountability.varies across provinces. Badulla and Ratnapura). such as through better definitions of functions and authority. and that the quality of governance affects business performance. thereby limiting their ability to attend to their local business environment. and avoid the proliferation of uncoordinated projects. The decline of total tax revenue as a share of GDP is a cause for alarm: it slipped from 19 percent prior to 1995 to 15 percent between 2003 and 2008.nationally and locally. less than 6 percent of the 255 members of Parliament were women. provinces with large estate populations (Nuwara Eliya.4 percent in 2011. calls for holistic. Poverty. This hinders independent action. 124 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . This shifts the burden of taxation onto the poor. Consistently. A heavy bureaucracy seems to hold back creativity. This issue is being addressed.essentially the business regulatory environment . to difficulties in obtaining licences. permits and approvals. provincial governments are highly dependent upon the centre for finances and liquidity. from poor access to finance. which constitute the backbone of the industrial sector across the country. and the achievement of targets. taxation should not distort the business environment and force relocation of enterprises. Focus on conflict-affected areas. face a range of problems. and was a mere 12. would be a positive move. small. But it can improve in terms of women’s empowerment. but change needs to accelerate. There is thus a case for reform of the present structure. A study by The Asia Foundation found that economic governance at the local level . for parties and for parliament. At the same time. Since it is still not entirely clear why women are so poorly represented. Additionally. growth potential and employment prospects. From 2004 to 2010. Part of the reason for the slippage is the country’s heavy reliance on indirect taxes. Reconstruction. most deprived parts of the country are the conflict-affected Northern and Eastern provinces. along most indicators. it could also be necessary to understand underlying causes before solutions are proposed.and medium-sized enterprises. coordination between the central and provincial governments is weak. and infant and maternal mortality have come down somewhat. The introduction and implementation of quotas for women. A primary reason for this gap is that political parties nominate considerably more men for positions in political institutions. rebuilding and improved well-being require the assistance of all stakeholders: central and provincial governments.

districts with large estate populations and poor rural areas. • Making education more inclusive and relevant to the demand of the labour market. • Strengthening of governance mechanisms to broaden participation and utilization of resources more effectively • Focusing on conflict-affected areas. Chapter 7 Building on Peace.1: Agenda for Action • Development of health policies to reduce vulnerability of the poor. • Design and implementation of policies to address emerging and non-communicable diseases. • Development and implementation of targeted employment policies and fostering opportunities for better livelihoods.Box 7. Progress and Security 125 .

Notes sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .

2011. Ibid.6 percent Indian Tamils and 7 percent Muslim. Since 2003. Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka n. Bastian 1993. 25 Family Health Bureau of Sri Lanka 2009 and Registrar General’s Department data. The estate sector encompasses people living on plantations. 53 The Commission on Macroeconomics and Health was established by the Director-General of the World Health Organization in 2000 to assess the place of health in economic development. Ibid. some remote areas were not covered. As such. definitions and method of computation of the GII. Only estimates are available for these districts De Silva 1996. but income inequality has remained more or less unchanged. including the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2009/10. 24 Government of Sri Lanka et al. Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2010. Mannar. The last election was an exception. Indian Tamils are largely descendants of migrant workers brought to work on plantations. This data may not be strictly comparable to Perera 2001 data due to definitional and measurement differences. remittances have been the most stable and largest source of foreign capital since 1993. public investments in health and education have fluctuated below 2 percent and 3 percent of GDP. Central Bank of Sri Lanka. 32 Arunatilake et al. Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011d. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Chapter 2 33 Defined as the average number of years of education received in a lifetime by people aged 25 years and older. 37 Obtained from [(0. Computations do not include the districts in the Northern Province due to the lack of data. 35 Ibid. Details on concepts. see the Technical Note at the end of this report. 2011. over the 2000 to 2009 period.9 percent. the population was 74 percent Sinhalese. Based on Table 2 of the Special Statistical Appendix of Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011. and expected years of schooling for children of school-entrance age. 36 United Nations Development Programme 2011a. 4. 5. definition and method of computation of the IHDI. as the Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2006/07 was conducted there soon after peace was restored and as a result. Only the latest survey (2009/10) shows a marginal reduction in inequality. For a comprehensive discussion of the concept and measurement of multidimensional poverty. For the concept. 39 The GII is based on Institute of Policy Studies computations using the latest information available. 31 According to Arunatilake et al. Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011d. 29 Department of Census and Statistics 2011f.1995/96. Alkire 2010. According to the 1981 Census. 2011. the 2001 Census could not be completed in the districts of Jaffna. GDP calculation has been done by the Department of Census and Statistics. 2001. 23 Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2010. Mullaitivu. taken as the total number of years of schooling a child of school-entrance age can expect to receive if prevailing patterns of agespecific enrolment rates stay the same throughout the child’s life. Ibid. Population distribution appears in Table A1 of the Statistical Annex to this report. See Table A7. Remittances have also provided macro-stability during crises. 30 The estimate is not corrected for returnees. which took over from the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. Chapter 3 52 United Nations 2012.Notes Chapter 1 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Stewart 2002. Batticaloa and Trincomalee.a. Based on data from the Central Bank of Sri Lanka. 34 United Nations Development Programme 2011a. Ibid. 26 Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011e.6910.7 percent Sri Lankan Tamils. 2006/07 and 2009/10 have been conducted covering a continuous period of 12 months in the two consecutive years indicated. The Household Income and Expenditure Surveys 1990/91. Gunewardena 2010. clearly show that poverty has been declining. Ibid. 38 For the concepts. The Household Income and Expenditure Surveys 1990/91 to 2009/10. Bastian 1993. 27 Based on calculations using Department of Census and Statistics 2010c. 28 Based on Vodopivec and Arunatilake 2011. respectively. 12. p. Sri Lankan Tamils have been living in the country over a longer period. Various annual Reports 08 09 22 Department of Census and Statistics 2011d. where the ruling party won a resounding victory following a decisive end to the conflict. the last full census for the country. the data series before and after 2003 are not strictly comparable. United Nations Development Programme 2010.691]*100 = 12. Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011d. Dunham and Kelegama 1997. Because of the conflict. Arunatilake et al. definitions and methods of computation of multidimensional poverty-related indices are discussed in the Technical Note for this report. The poverty figures for 2006-2007 for districts in the Eastern Province are likely to be underestimates. while the 2002 survey covered only six months in 2002. Killinochchi. which covers all 48 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 49 50 51 17 18 19 20 three districts in the Eastern Province. The majority are descendants of families brought from South India to work there from the middle of the 19th Century to the early 20th Century. 21 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 127 .d. Vavunia. see the Technical Note at the end of this report.602)/0. conducted by the Department of Census and Statistics. see United Nations Development Programme 2011a.

97 World Health Organization 2011. 2002. which are maintained in nature in the kidneys of certain animals such as rodents. The switching results from the economic development of a country as it moves from a preindustrial to an industrial economy. accessed on 13 May 2011. 63 Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009a. and other goods and services. forthcoming. 96 The direct outlays of households. 88 World Health Organization 2012a. 2007. 111 Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific 2009. 73 Olusoji. evidence on efficacy and safety. 99 An improved sanitation facility is defined as one that removes human excreta from human contact. 127 United Nations Development Programme 2003. including gratuities and in-kind payments made to health practitioners and to suppliers of pharmaceuticals. 130 The World Bank Education Statistics. 90 Weerasinghe 2011. 81 Ibid. firms’ expenditure on health. 60 Jayawardena. 72 Engelgau et al. 70 Ministry of Health Care and Nutrition 2007. 126 The World Bank 2011a. 67 Leptospirosis is an infectious disease caused by pathogenic bacteria called leptospires. 113 Asian Development Bank 2005. livestock. 93 Weerasinghe 2011 and Fernandopulle 2011. 112 World Health Organization and The World Bank 2011. They are selected with due regard to public health relevance. co-payments and fees for services. 131 Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka and United Nations Development Programme 2010. 107 The World Bank 2008b. 135 Regulations for compulsory education for the 5-14 age group were implemented by Parliament in 1997 and came into force in January 1998. therapeutic appliances. 61 Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009a. 124 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). As per the 16th Model List of essential medicines. 80 Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2011a. but the data quality from this source is questionable. p21. 106 De Silva 2007. 74 Siva 75 Ministry of Health 2007. 64 In the absence of more reliable information. 86 Ministry of Health 2007. 58 The World Bank 2006. 85 Ministry of Indigenous Medicine n. Scientific and Cultural Organization 2005. 101 Ibid. 91 “Essential medicines are those that satisfy the priority health care needs of the population. 2011f. and household outof-pocket spending. 132 Department of National Planning 2010. 102 Based on a survey carried out by the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka as a baseline assessment for the 2011 project by Oxfam Great Briton named ‘Socio-Economic Development for Conflict Affected Communities of North and East Sri Lanka’. 82 Gulliford et al. 129 Interacting with humans to acquire information. such as deductibles. 92 Weerasinghe 2011. 65 Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009a. 84 Ministry of Health 2007. 128 Defined as solving problems for which there are no rule-based solutions. or persuade others of its implications for action. 76 Ibid. This includes household direct payments to public and private providers of health care services. 69 Ibid. 79 Ministry of Health 2007. 109 Ibid. canines and wild mammals. 66 Ibid. 59 Ibid. 87 Ibid. 98 An improved drinking water source is one that is protected from outside contamination. 121 Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2010. 55 Ibid. 2010. non-profit institutions serving mainly households. to explain it. 120 Ministry of Health Care and Nutrition 2007. Chapter 4 123 United Nations Educational. 134 National Education Commission 2003.54 World Health Organization 2001. 104 Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011e. 71 World Health Organization 2007. 122 Nagai et al.d. 114 Ibid. Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2011c. 115 Of soldiers and civilians affected by bombings and other war-related destruction of economic and social infrastructure. p. prepared by the World Health Organization’s expert committee in March 2009 and revised in January 2010. and non-reimbursable cost sharing. 2005. 128 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . 77 Ministry of Health Care and Nutrition 2009.. 117 Based on a survey carried out by the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka as a baseline assessment for the 2011 project by Oxfam Great Briton named ‘Socio-Economic Development for Conflict Affected Communities of North and East Sri Lanka’. 103 The Demographic Transition Model is used to explain the shift from high to low birth and death rates. 94 Sum of general government expenditure on health and private expenditure on health. 100 Regional Director of Health Services in Vavuniya 2009. 118 Medical Research Institute 2009. Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2011c. only 358 medicines are essential. 116 Bustreo et al. this report uses infant mortality rates estimated by the Register General’s Department. 68 Ministry of Health 2007.. 133 Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2009. 56 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development and World Health Organization 2003. according to the World Health Organization. 136 Ministry of Education 2004. 108 World Health Organization and The World Bank 2011. 62. 83 Ibid. 89 Madurawala 2010. 78 Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2011c. 57 Gunesekara 2008. 105 Ibid. especially in the Northern Province. 95 The sum of expenditures on health by prepaid plans and risk-pooling arrangements. 119 Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011e. 110 Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka. Smith and Robels 2007. 2009 125 Organisation for Economic Co-operation for Development 2010 and United Nations Development Programme 2010. 137 Ibid. non-profit institutions. and comparative cost-effectiveness”(World Health Organization 2012b). 62 Ministry of Health Care and Nutrition 2010.

application. The World Bank 2011a. in association with the Skills Development Project funded by the Asian Development Bank. Therefore. 196 The National Vocational Qualifications system was introduced in 2005 by the Tertiary and Vocational Education Commission. 139 The World Bank 2011a. reasoning and problem solving. the majority of state-assisted privately managed schools were taken over by the Government (National Education Commission 2003). 149 The World Bank 2011a. 182 Ministry of Education 2010a. 201 2000 data are for the population aged 10-plus.99. 147 Ibid.4 %. and the enforceability of contracts. Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011g. This data is available only at the provincial level. The World Bank 2012a.1 billion.99. For example. According to a survey carried out by the Northern and Eastern provincial ministries of education. 152 Athurupana 2009. The World Bank 2011a. 184 Estimated using Ministry of Education 2010b. expenditure on Kotelawala Defence University and the Vocational Education University. 148 National schools located in all provinces come under the management of the Ministry of Education. 1-13 and 7-13). 142 National Education Commission 2009. 146 Coalition for Educational Development 2008. 212 The inflow of remittances in 2010 was estimated at US $4. This indicator includes several variables that measure the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society. 207 Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010a. there were only 7. 209 Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2006. connections. 193 Estimated from Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009e. 204Hettige and Salih 2010. 200 The labour force participation rates for males and females were 75% and 34. does not come under the public education budget. and science and technology—knowledge. comprehension. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development 2010. 143 Ministry of Mass Media and Information 2011. 198 Ibid. and Rama 1999. 194 Asian Development Bank 2007. and failure (F) 0. mathematics—knowledge and skills. 140 Degrees of institutes have been recognized under Section 25A of the Universities Act No. (D) 35-49. 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 180 according to Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011. 186 Ibid. Thus. 190 Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011g. credit pass. 144 Registered with the Tertiary and Vocational Education Commission.212 secondary schools (having classes from years 1-9. 205 Rama 1999.138 Private sector investment in schools for children aged 6-14 years is prevented by legislation passed in the early 1960s. Based on other country experiences. writing and appreciation. 187 National Education Commission 2009. 202 Gunatilake and Vodopivec 2010. which may use different definitions for measurement. 16 of 1978. 195 National Education Commission 2009.99. 191 Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka2010a. 1-11.9 percent for both the populations aged10-plus and 15-plus in 2010. The unemployment rate was 4. Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011h. Engineering plus science. analysis and synthesis (National Education Research and Evaluation Centre 2008). an sri lanka Human Development report 2012 129 . there were 94. 153 Net enrolment rates measure enrolment of the official age group for a given level of education expressed as a percentage of the corresponding population. 145 The available information on public expenditure on education is not strictly comparable across countries. 211 Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2010. communication.000 school-going children out of school (Ministry of Education 2004). (B) 65-74. Chapter 5 199 Statistics in this section exclude the Northern Province and are taken from Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010a. 179 Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011. Ibid. 154 Estimated from Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c. Ministry of Education 2005. 203 Tertiary and Vocational Education Commission 2010a. 189 Ministry of Mass Media and Information 2011. Ibid. respectively. (C) 50-64. the Government has decided that investment in education using a sectorwide approach to programming would be the most appropriate method to address system-wide needs (Ministry of Education 2007). 197 Tertiary and Vocational Education Commission 2010b. 188 University Grants Commission of Sri Lanka 2012b. Scientific and Cultural Organisation 2008. 150 Ibid. National Education Commission 2009. Abeyratne 2011. 185 Department of National Planning 2010. The World Bank 2011b. Distinction (A) 75-100. 155 Jayaweera and Gunawardena 2007. ordinary pass. 208 Ibid. 156 As of 2010. as per Section 14 of the Tertiary and Vocational Education Act No. 192 Tan and Chandrasiri 2004. 20 of 1990. 210 Gunatilaka and Vodopivec 2010. 206 Gunewardena 2010. for example. Tested abilities in each subject are as follows: first language—vocabulary. These sources are: Commonwealth Universities Yearbook published by The Association of Commonwealth Universities and International Handbook of Universities published by the International Association of Universities. as there is no separate discipline for mathematics. United Nations Education. 183 A drive was launched in 2005 to strengthen and expand information and communications technology education from primary to higher levels. National Education Commission 2009. 181 Department of National Planning 2010. very good pass. the effectiveness and predictability of the judiciary. comprehension.00-34. syntax. National Education Research and Evaluation Centre 2009. 151 Ministry of Human Resource Development 2002.99. Asian Development Bank 2007. expenditure by the central Ministry of Education is largely considered as public expenditure on education. in Sri Lanka. These include perceptions of the incidence of both violent and nonviolent crime. 141 Universities and higher educational institutes listed in authentic sources of information are recognized at the moment.

These are below 20 acres (Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2002a). 267 Information technology literacy is the knowledge and ability to use computers and related technology efficiently. 2002. Vodopivec 2004. 252 Calculations based on Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011. Ibid. Estimated based on Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c. 253 The World Bank. Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2004. 264 Based on The World Bank n. 240 Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2002a. as data were not available during the conflict. (Department of Census and Statistics 2002a) Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2002a. Samaratunga and Marawila 2009. Ministry of Finance and Planning 2011. 257 The World Bank 2005. 243 By 2007. 45 percent are in the agricultural sector (Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009f. 266 Cyber-extension is an initiative whereby farmers can use interactive CDs. Wickramasinghe and Kumara 2005. The Department of Census and Statistics defines a person as computer literate if he/she could do something on his/ her own using a computer (Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009b). The legislation referred to is the Inheritance Law. n. Ibid.10 hectares) of agricultural 234 235 236 237 238 239 land are mainly used for home consumption (ibid. The index is a measure of potential market integration (based on road networks and the location of major cities). 263 Yumkella at al. 265 Based on analysis of Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011d. 254 Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011. 255 Ministry of Finance and Planning 2011. 260 Ibid. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 130 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . and Tilakaratna. But the proportion of own account workers and unpaid family workers. 2011. Ukwatta 2010. Someone is considered to be among the working poor if that person is working and living in a poor household. 251 The study uses the accessibility index to measure geographic isolation. 244 Minor irrigation systems are usually associated with a village. 247 Ibid. 249 Ministry of Finance and Planning 2011.) Mapa et al.213 214 215 217 218 219 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 amount equivalent to 8 percent of GDP. According to the index. Information on the informal sector is available only since 2006. Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka. Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2010. 246 Ibid. 259 The World Bank 2005. about 29 percent of the rice in Sri Lanka was cultivated under rainfed conditions (Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resource Management of Sri Lanka 2010). Holdings of less than or equal to 40 perches (0. 2011. institutional and policy thrusts. 248 Ibid. 241 Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2008. under the Land Development Ordinance (Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2004). Ministry of Finance and Planning 2011. 261 Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2011b. A home garden was defined as a piece of land that has a dwelling house and some form of cultivation. 216 International Labour Organization 2011. and the increased use of fertilizers and irrigation are known collectively as the Green Revolution. has a dwelling house and has some form of cultivation largely for home consumption. 258 German Technical Cooperation 2008. 270 Causes of rice yield gaps are related to biophysical factors. If the land is more than 20 perches. Ibid. 269 InfoDev 2008.d. helping to balance the trade deficit. Estimated based on Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c. 2011. or levels of technology transfer and linkages (Food and Agriculture Organization 2004). 250 Yumkella et al. 262 Tilakaratna. who are mostly in the informal sector. Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka and the Samurdhi Division 2008. Jayawardena and Weerakoon 2011). The World Bank 2008c. They have also helped to increase national savings (Arunatilake. Out of the poor households in the country. and communicate and obtain advice and assistance in solving their farming problems (InfoDev 2008).d. socioeconomic conditions. it was still considered a home garden. the Western Province has good access to business opportunities (The World Bank 2005). All other holdings not falling into the category of estates were defined as smallholdings. and are managed by the local government and maintained by local communities. Galappattige and Perera 2009. The analysis excludes the Northern and Eastern provinces. which identifies a specific successor of land. 256 Ibid. 271 The introduction of high-yielding varieties of seeds. 220 Data for this analysis were taken from the Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010a. has remained around 40 percent since 1990 (Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010a). cultural practices. Remittances have been an important source of external finance. Ibid. email and Internet facilities to access information. Ibid. 245 Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resource Management 2010.). 242 Jayawardena and Weerasena 2000. and has a total area of up to 20 perches. 268 Ibid.

289 Ibid. Moore 2004a and 2004b. with a lower value indicating high perception of corruption. 223 Kodikara 2009. the nation-building tax. 320 Kodikara 2009. 291 United Nations Development Programme 2011b. permits and licenses. Ministry of Finance and Planning 2010. The composite CPI draws upon surveys 310 311 312 313 314 315 302 303 of business people and assessments done by country analysts. burden and services.com/fullstory. many critically ill are brought there for treatment. 325 Women and Media Collective 2011. this could partly be due to the increase in the sample size. The index is based on surveys of business leaders. The latter study surveyed 2. 319 Institute of Constitutional Studies 2010. p. 290 United Nations Development Programme 2011b. php?nid=1189483550. conversely. The CCI measures the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain. lankabusinessonline. 21. 284 Ibid. 273 The World Bank 2007. which means that in order to attain a 1 percent growth in GDP.. legal institutions and conflict resolution. Chapter 7 326 327 328 329 Langer 2005. the country needs to invest at least 5 percent of GDP. Government of Sri Lanka 2009. Reviewed extensively in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2008. 274 Amarasiri. 286 Government of Sri Lanka. World Bank 2011a. 288 Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2011c. 279 InfoDev 2008. 2008.Nagarajah and Perera 1995. Stewart 2002. It ranks countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians. 275 The World Bank 2003. 292 United Nations Development Programme 2011b. some were abolished in the 2011 Budget. Lanka Business Online 2011. 277 The World Bank 2003.000 households from all eastern districts. customs duties and other border taxes such as port and airport levies. compliance and cost. 285 Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2011c. as well as ‘capture’ of the state by elites and private actors. 287 Government of Sri Lanka. 164. including representatives from regional chambers of commerce and traders’ associations across five provinces. and given recent improvements in capital productivity that have reduced the ratio to around 4. land access and property rights. This includes both petty and grand forms of corruption. Prichard 2009 and Ross 2004. Based on unstructured interviews with stakeholders at local government level. Sometimes information records the place of death rather than the residence of the deceased. As Colombo and Kandy both have large hospitals. and Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2011c. This is based on a simple incremental capital-output ratio calculation. tax administration. the regional development levy and the social responsibility levy. Values range from minus (-) 2. 283 United Nations Development Programme 2011b. 316 Institute of Constitutional Studies 2010. Moore 2007b. Accordingly. p. transparency and participation. Ibid. 282 Ibid. Grindle 2007. regulatory environment. Registration. Nagarajah and Perera 1995. See. and Vavuniya and Mannar in the Northern Province. 304 305 306 307 308 309 Chapter 6 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 Gallagher 2005. United Nations and Partners 2011. 224 Ibid. 278 Amarasiri. 321 Ibid. and a higher value low perception. Lanka Business Online http://www. Ibid.5. favouritism and discrimination. lower values indicate higher corruption. the required level of investment is 36 percent of GDP. Values range from 0 to 10.5 to 2. United Nations and Partners 2012. sri lanka Human Development report 2012 131 . It introduced a system of devolved government through the establishment of provincial councils Waidyasekera 2011. Although Sri Lanka’s CPI rank has also worsened. Brautigam et al. 317 These issues have been extensively discussed in Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2006 and 2008.272 Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2011 b. the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was signed in 1987. and crime and security. 276 Wadduwage 2006. if the targeted growth rate is 8 percent. for example. public opinion and assessments by country analysts. Collier. Sri Lanka’s ratio has been historically at a level of about 5. Hoeffler and Rohner 2009. Indirect taxes in Sri Lanka include the value-added tax (previously the goods and services tax). 281 Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2011c. p.5 percent. with higher values indicating higher control of corruption. government attitude towards business. 318 Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2008. 20. 280 United Nations Development Programme 2011b and Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka 2011c.Lanka Accord. informal charges. 322 Women and Media Collective 2011. infrastructure and business services. Following the Indo.

Bibliography sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .

S. [www. 2007. Weerakoon. Human Development Research Paper 2010/11.lk/2011/03/17/ news14. Kelegama.pdf]. 2002a. ‘Beyond Greed and Grievance: Feasibility and Civil War’. 2009. Sri Lanka: International Centre for Ethnic Studies. D. ‘Emerging Health Challenges for Sri Lanka: More Money for Health and More Health for the Money’. 2011. Last accessed on 23 September 2011. Arunatilake. 2001.. ‘Disabled people and Development: Sri Lanka Country Report’. Arunatilake. Arunatilake..dailynews. and B. sri lanka Human Development report 2012 133 .M. Blackman and M. Alkire. A. S. [www. ed. H. [www. L. ———.Demographic and Health Survey 2006/07 data. Santos.asp]. ed. 2011. 2009b.. ‘Sri Lanka. N. Anthony. Bustreo. Statistics database. New Delhi: Sage Asian Development Bank. Colombo. 2010. Colombo: Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka. ———. Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka. National Accounts of Sri Lanka 2002. Annual Report 2008.In Ulrich Everding. 2011. [www. National Accounts of Sri Lanka 1996.gov. 2005. Kandy. ‘Computer Literacy in Sri Lanka—2009’. 2006. N. 1992. Demographic Transition and Pension Series No. ———. 244-263. Last accessed on 18 August 2011. Colombo.org/Documents/Reports/Disabled-People-Development/ SriLanka. N. Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2006/07. ‘Equity in Education and Health Services in Sri Lanka’. Attanayake and P. Jayawardena and D. 2008. ADB Regional Technical Assistance.61: pp. O. 1970. S.. P. W. Bandara. Oxford University Press. 2011. New York: United Nations Development Programme. N. F.. ———. 2010. ———. 2008. Perera. Rohner. Oxford. National Accounts of Sri Lanka 1992. S. James. Census of Agriculture.pdf]. Consortium for Educational Access. S. 1993.. 2009c. Last accessed on 31 May 2012. 2009a. ———. 2008b. [www. ———.statistics. ‘The Economic Cost of the War in Sri Lanka’. Critiques.In Talking Economics Digest. Statistics database. Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2006/07—Final Report. ‘The Pearl of Great Price: Achieving Equitable Access to Primary and Secondary Education and Enhancing Learning in Sri Lanka’. Remittances and Development in South Asia.. Annual Report 2010. 6..worldbank. Moore. 2010. H. and Related Concepts. Bannon. In Oxford Economic Papers. Colombo. 2009. 2009. Omobono. S.gov. Annual Report 2009. In Hyun Hwa Son. P. D. E. Sri Lanka Demographic and Health Survey 2006-07. eds.London and New York: Routledge.In Kelegama. Jayawardena.. S. Problems of Democracy Constitutionalism and Political Violence. Economic and Social Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011. Jayasuriya and S. Colombo.. ———. ———. and P. Genovese. Human Development: Definitions. 2007. 2005. Colombo.. Budget Process and Budget Tracking in Formal School Education in Sri Lanka’. Do Public Funds Matter of Education Attainment?: Public Expenditure and Quality of Education Tracking System (PEQETS) in Sri Lanka. Acute Multidimensional Poverty: A New Index for Developing Countries. Colombo.. 1-27. 1483-1500.United Kingdom. ‘Sri Lanka’. 2: pp. Sri Lanka: Economic Performance Assessment. R. Aturupane. Balasuriya. Colombo. Collier. Alkire. Rice Congress 1990— Papers Presented at a Symposium.adb. 2011. National Accounts of Sri Lanka 2009. Coalition for Educational Development. ‘Sri Lanka Country Assistance Program Evaluation: Education Sector’. Last accessed on 11 May 2011. Jayawardena.. In World Development. ——— 2007a. In Journal of Economic Theory. Colombo: Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka. Human Development Research Paper 2010/01. Colombo.adb. 2009.. ——— . Migration. M. Bastian. Colombo: Ministry of Education. Management and Resolution.lk/poverty/PovertyIndicators. ed. 1996. 2007b.statistics. Colombo. Hoeffler and D. ———. ———. 2009. S.Brighton : University of Sussex. Central Bank of Sri Lanka. ‘Poverty Indicators’. and M. 1996. M. ‘Improving Child Health in Post-Conflict Countries: Can the World Bank Contribute’? [http:// siteresources. H. Colombo. lk/Newsletters/Publication1(Computer% 20litalary). ‘Significant Rise in Pass Rate’. Transitions and Equity Research Monograph No 29. Bräutigam. ‘Beyond Twenty Million: Projecting the Population of Sri Lanka 2001-2081’. Aggarwal. New York: United Nations Development Programme. Sri Lanka: Ethnic Conflict. statistics. htm]. Last accessed on 18 November 2011.K. Colombo. ———. 2007. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. K.. 2008. Amarasiri. Colombo. N. Colombo: Goethe Institute Colombo. Last accessed on 11 May 2011. and Law and Society Trust. ———. E.pdf]. Last accessed on 16 August 2011. 29(9): pp. 2002b.org/publications/evaluation-paper-education-sector-assistance-sri-lanka]. Equity and Well-Being Measurement and Policy Practice. Census of Public and Semi-government Sector Employees—2006. ‘On the Measurement of Inequality’. De Silva. ‘Ethnic Conflict and the Provincial Council System of Sri Lanka’. 2008. Colombo..lk/agriculture/index.Bibliography Abeyratne. Axelsson and I. B. Capacity and Consent: Taxation and State Building in Developing Countries. E. Colombo..International Centre for Ethnic Studies Pamphlet Series 1. July-December 2011. United States Agency for International Development. Nagarajah. ‘Equitability in Education and Health Services in Sri Lanka’. Colombo: Department of Agriculture. 2009d. Labour Force Survey Annual Report. 1995.I.gov. With the Ministry of Health Care and Nutrition. Colombo. De Silva. Arunatilake. Atkinson.org/INTCY/Resources/395766-1187899515414/ ChildHealthPC. Fjeldstad and M. J. pdf]. 2008a. S..Unpublished. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Colombo.. [www. 2009. Colombo. ———.

[www.lk/page.pdf]. Brief Analysis of Population and Housing Characteristics. 2011b. [www. issue 2. D. Rate per 10. 6(1): pp. D. 2004.d. Nutrition and Population Discussion Paper. Paddy Statistics. 2009.pdf].Colombo. 2011. Morgan.org/ ESID/psis/disability/publications/glance/ Disability_at_a_Glance2009. ‘Measuring the Distribution of Human Development: Methodology and an Application to Mexico’.lk/home. 2004. and Z. 125–144. 12. Last accessed on 5 June 2011. Quick online table retrievals from Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2006/07 database. Last accessed on 11 May 2011.gov.. The Development Policy Framework’.gov. [www. D. Gopalan. ‘Outreach of Financial Services in Sri Lanka’. html].gov. Vodopivec. Government of Sri Lanka. 2008. German Technical Cooperation (GTZ). Going Local: Decentralization. [www.lk/PopHouSat/PDF/p7%20populati on%20and%20Housing%20Text-11-1206. May. Navaratne and S.gov.statistics. Last accessed on 22 December 2011. Twenty Two Years of Devolution: An Evaluation of the Working of Provincial Councils in Sri Lanka.gov. M. Institute of Constitutional Studies. Government of Sri Lanka.nlm. Annual Report on Family Health: Sri Lanka 2006-2007. 2009. ———. ‘Concerns of Youth Affected by Civil Conflict in Sri Lanka’. Gallagher. United States: Princeton University Press. 2011d.statistics. 2009e. T.C.statistics.000 Population and District’. ncbi.lk/ poverty/PovertyIndicators2009_10. Washington. Dunham. 2010a. Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2009/10—Final Report. Vodopivec. 2011a.a. n. Gunatilake.gov. Colombo.pdf].. Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka. 2011f. 1989-93’. Enumeration of Vital Events 2011 Northern Province Sri Lanka. R. R. 2009. Colombo. Engelgau.b. 25(2): pp.lk/agriculture/Paddy%20Statistics/ PaddyStats.Statistical Pocket Book 2011. Working Paper No. Last accessed on 2 December 2011. [www.. ‘Poverty in Sri Lanka—Based on Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2006/07’.lk/PopHouSat/PDF/Disability/p11d1%20Disabled% 20persons%20by%20Sex%20and%20Dis trict. ———. Kelegama. L. In Journal of Health Services Research and Policy.statistics.nih. Gunesekara.Mimeo. S. 2011c. Democratization and the Promise of Good Governance..lk/pastElection4.[www.slelections. 2005.: The World Bank. ‘Sri Lanka Demographic and Health Survey 2006/07’. ‘Benchmarking Tax Systems’. 2011g. Hettige. López-Calva. Sex. 25(2): pp. 2011h. 2010..lk/2011/03/27/fin20. ‘Past parliamentary general election results’. ‘Final Report of the Presidential Commission on Taxation’. ‘Does Leadership Matter in the Economic Reform Process? Liberalization and Governance in Sri Lanka. United Nations and Partners. Gunatilake. Vodopivec.C. 2009f. Statistics database. The Challenge of Youth Employment in Sri Lanka. Mayer and M. Food and Agriculture Organisation. In World Development.lk/PopHouSat/Mid%20Year%20Population/ midyearsex%20&district. M. In R.F. ‘Disabled Persons by Type of Disability.lk/abstract2010/Pages/index. gov.C. Last accessed on 16 August 2011. 2010. S. ‘An Analysis of Gender and Ethnic Wage Differentials among Youth in Sri Lanka’.unescap. ‘Call for speedy implementation: National Medicinal Drug Policy to save billions of rupees’. [www.F. Colombo. and M. Colombo. Hughes. Washington. Joint Plan for Assistance. Sri Lanka—State of the Economy 2004. Last accessed on 6 December 2011. Gunatilaka. ———. asp?page=Poverty]. Life Tables for Sri Lanka and Districts 2000-2002. L. 2007. In R. Washington. 2002. Volume 1. Székely. ———. In R. R.statistics. M. Statistical Abstract 2010. 2009.statistics. Last accessed on 11 May 2011.gov/pubmed/12171751]. gov. eds.gov. [www. Gunatilaka. ———. labour force survey data.. M. InfoDev. Mayer and M. Foster.lk/ Pocket%20Book/index. 2010. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.C. E. ———.———. Department of National Planning. Figueroa-Munoz.Last accessed on 31 May 2012. In Public Administration and Development. ‘Rice and Narrowing the Yield Gap’. Princeton. 2010. 2008. ———. 7(3): pp. Colombo. ———. Okamoto.statistics. [www. Washington. Sri Lanka Country Study.: The World Bank.asp]. Grindle.html]. 5-29. Estimated Mid Year Population by Sex and District—2010. Gibson. Statistics database. n. ———.statistics. 2010. M.: The World Bank. and S.htm]. [www. and M. [www. 2011e. 1997. Rome. Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2009/10. J. Family Health Bureau of Sri Lanka. [www. ———.asp].html].org/en/index. eds. Last accessed on 31 May 2012.d.lk/HIES/HIES2006_07Website/ TableRequest. K. Vodopivec. 134 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . Saliah. Last accessed on 28 May 2012. Last accessed on 11 May 2011. [www. 2005. In Journal of Human Development. Northern Province. Beech and M. D. 2011. 170-190. Mayer and M. D. Last accessed on 17 August 2011. Factsheet.Colombo: Ministry of Finance and Planning. ‘Disability at a Glance 2009: a Profile of 36 Countries and Areas in Asia and the Pacific’. H. V. ‘Mahinda Chintana—Vision for the Future. Colombo: Government of Sri Lanka. Department of Inland Revenue. Department of Elections of Sri Lanka.. Health.htm].lk/social/dhs_final_report/Caption%2 0for%20the%20web-%20final%20report %20tables. Prevention and Control of Selected Chronic NCDs in Sri Lanka: Policy Options and Action.sundayobserver. ‘Labour Market Institutions and Labour Market Segmentation in Sri Lanka’. Fernandopulle. K. 2010c. 2010.statistics. Gulliford...gov. ———. Last accessed on 11 May 2011. D.gov.pdf].infodev. Gunewardena. Colombo. ———.: The World Bank. M. M. Hudson. Sri Lanka Labour Force Survey Annual Report—2010. [hwww. 2011. ‘Enhancing the Livelihoods of the Rural Poor through ICT: A Knowledge Map’.. D.pdf]. [www. Colombo: Department of Government Printing. 2008. The Challenge of Youth Employment in Sri Lanka. 1978.statistics.statistics. Last accessed on 30 June 2011. The Challenge of Youth Employment in Sri Lanka.. 2010b. Colombo. Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. B. Written correspondence on Sri Lanka’s tax revenue performance. 186-8. ———. M. ‘Poverty Indicators’. 2010. Last accessed on 30 December 2011. ‘What does ‘access to health care’ mean?’. ———. Colombo: Department of Census and Statistics.htm].pdf}. gov. [www. Last accessed on 12 May 2011. ———. eds.

‘Street Children in the City of Colombo.com/fullstory. Last accessed on 27 December 2011.. lk/statistics. Perera. ‘Census of Private.org/bitstream /123456789/375/1/National%20po licy%20on%20injury%20prevention%20- Bibliography 135 . 2005. Medical Research Institute. Lanka Business Online. [www.. Rice Congress 1990—Papers Presented at a Symposium. htm#TopOfPage]. Murnane. 2011.‘Socio-economic Determinants and Inequalities in Childhood Malnutrition in Sri Lanka’. Ministry of Finance and Planning. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series 2196. Education Statistics Digest 2010. Occasional Paper. [http://whosrilanka.. S. Weligamage and M. moe. In Relevance and Expression of Child Rights in Contemporary Sri Lanka.fisheries. Sri Lanka—State of the Economy. 2011c. 2005. S.healthrepository. Kikuchi.Thailand. Last accessed on 5 December 2011. B.M.K. D. Jayaweera. Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka and United Nations Development Programme.Paper presented at the 17th World Congress of Soil Science. A. Colombo.M. Kumaragamage.: The World Bank. 2007. [www7. Ministry of Education of Singapore. Colombo: United Nations Development Programme. Colombo. A Quick Reference and Statistical Appendix for Statistics of Public Expenditure for Economic Development (SPEED) Database. Kraay and P. ———. ‘Education Sector Development Framework and Programme’.———. Last accessed on 22 May 2012. P. ‘Land Use in Sri Lanka: Past Present and the Future’. International Monetary Fund. ‘Poverty Reduction through Infrastructure Development’. Fisheries Statistics—2010.. [www. Colombo. Last accessed on 2 September 2011. ———. and L. Mike. and R..org/cfe/Educ_21st_Century_ Skills_Levy_Paper. 2008.. Kathmandu. The Inter-American Conference on Social Security and the Universidad Iberoamericana. Dissanayake.. Colombo. A. Amarasiri. L.gov. ———. Joseph. Colombo. ———.com/2010/03/corruption-risksin-provision-of. Fahim and K. ———. R. [www. International Labour Organization.html#more]. Paper presented at the Expert Consultation on Crop Diversification in the Asia-Pacific Region. Colombo: Department of Agriculture.gov. Forthcoming. The World Bank. [http:// laborsta. Annual Report 2010.html]. D. ‘Rapid Assessment of Children 5-14 Years Displaced in Post Conflict’.B.D.L. 2009. 2007. Langer.M. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. Ministry of Health Care and Nutrition. Mettananda.. A. 1 November. 2009. Nagarajah and B. Gunarathne and A R. Unpublished. Colombo.New York: Human DevelopmentReport Office. ‘Sri Lanka Aims High in Doing Business Ranking’.S. 2007. Colombo. ‘Baseline Assessment of EUACAP Programme’. Weerasena.sg/education/education-statistics-digest/files/esd-2010. Social Inclusion: Gender and Equity in Education Swaps in South Asia. Last accessed on 16 August 2011. 2002. Annual Health Bulletin. Co-operative and Estate Hospitals. Barker. N. M. Budget 2011. K. Health Policy Programme. 2000.org/global/about-the-ilo/pressand-media-centre/insight/WCMS_ 120470/lang--en/index. [www. 2008.fao. ‘Health Master Plan 2007-2016’. 14-21 August. ‘Governance Matters’. Sri Lanka—State of the Economy 2008. 2002. Last accessed on 31 May 2012. Last accessed on 1 April 2012. 2011b. Gunawardena. Last accessed on 1 August 2011. 2011a. 2011. Washington.D. S.G.. 2010. org/docrep/003/x6906e/x6906e0b. ‘Irrigation Sector in Sri Lanka: Recent Investment Trends and the Development Path Ahead’. 2010. Colombo.gov. Kathmandu: UNICEF Regional Office for South Asia. ‘New Vision for Education 2010: Progress and proposed programmes 2011’. Last accessed on 5 April 2011. Washington. [www.org]. ‘Millennium Development Goals Country Report 2008/09’. F. 2007. In S. ‘Nenasala Review’. International Labour Organization.ilo.S. Weerakoon.lk/]. 2011. 2002. Last accessed on 28 May 2012. Jayawardena. Samad. Country report on Sri Lanka prepared for the SAARC Regional Poverty Profile 2006/07. Zoido-Lobaton. M. lk/english/?page_id=77]. Revenue Mobilization in Developing Countries. In Well-being and Social Policy. ———. Sri Lanka. 2010.. Medical Research Institute.ifpri.C. Horizontal Inequalities and Violent Conflict. Sri Lanka—State of the Economy 2011. Rome. 1999. 2008. Battaramulla. Children Living in a Shanty Town on the Periphery of Colombo’. Last accessed on 1 June 2011. Colombo: Department of Nutrition. Kaufmann. ———. D. Challenges to Health Financing in a Post-Conflict Environment: Sri Lanka State of the Economy 2010.In Health Statistics 1(4).ilo. and C. 2000. D. Colombo. R.W. ‘National Policy and Strategic Framework on Injury Prevention and Management in Sri Lanka’.nanasala. C.php?nid=795793838]. 14.org/book-39/ ourwork/programs/priorities-public-investment/speed-database]. School Census 2010. [http://www. ‘Corruption Risks in the Provision of Pharmaceutical Drugs in Sri Lanka’. M.Colombo: Initiatives in Research and Education for Development in Asia. Levy. ‘Education for Economic Development and Prosperity’. [http://med. 2010b. Mapa. ———. Jayawardena.C. 2010. Unpublished. 2006. ‘Regional Developments’. ‘How Computerized Work and Globalization Shape Human Skill Demands’. 2010’. ‘Agronomic Practice to Increase Rice Productivity’. 2010a. SAARC Secretariat. The Development of Education. The Struggle for Equal Political Representation of Women in Sri Lanka. Colombo. 2007. Ministry of Economic Development. W. Manchanayake. ‘Crop Diversification in Sri Lanka’.S.pdf]. 1995. Colombo. Food and Agriculture Organization. Ministry of Education. Colombo..D. S. 2004. In Talking Economics. B. A. 2011.lankabusinessonline. 2005. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Colombo. 2011. [www.nationalacademies. Colombo.. Research Report 62.pdf]. Census of Schools 2008—Preliminary Report. Report prepared for Oxfam GB. 2010. Statistical database. Colombo. eds. Madurawala. 2009. ———. [http://ipslk.. P. 2011. ———. Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka. 2010. Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka and the Samurdhi Division. Colombo. Ministry of Health. Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Development. Kodikara. ———. ———. W. blogspot.htm]. J.

Last accessed on 14 February 2012.lk/web/index. IDS Working Paper 330.. 2008. Colombo: Law and Society Trust. ‘Reconstruction of Health Service Systems in the Postconflict Northern Province in Sri Lanka’. 2003. D. Seth. 25(3): pp. Washington.. Smith and S. 108: pp. Last accessed on 8 December 2011.2007. ———..worldbank. ‘National Assessment of Achievement of Grade 8 Students of 2007 in Sri Lanka’.parliament. OPHI Working Paper 27. 2012. 2010. 2002. 2007. Brighton. Olusoji. Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resource Management. National Education Commission. [www. A.C. de Almeida Guneratne. phdt. 375 (9718): pp. n. 2009. Washington. ‘Corruption’. Ministry of Mass Media and Information. P. Organisation for Economic Co-operation for Development. University of Colombo. University of Colombo. Unpublished. Last accessed on 30 December 2011. [www.pdf].. In Economic and Political Empowerment of the Poor—Sri Lanka. M. Robels. 2007a. Scientific and Cultural Organization. and R. 2009. 2010.Unpublished. Parliament of Sri Lanka. 4-5. Martorell. In Forum for Development Studies. Moore. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and World Health Organization. In International Political Science Review. 297-319.Last accessed on 11 May 2011. 2011. 2010. In Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2007b. The Sri Lankan Unemployment Problem Revisited. 2011. 2011.lk/news. Sri Lanka. Samaratunga. State Formation and the Quality of Governance in Developing Countries’. W. Research Report 131. Plantation Human Development Trust. ———. Salze-Lozac’h. Samaratunga.. Marawila. National Education Research and Evaluation Centre. ‘How Tax Affects Governance’. ‘Revenues. 3(2): pp. 880-881. United Kingdom: Institute of Development Studies. Regional Director of Health Service in Vavuniya.. Oxford. D. C. Last accessed on 20 November 2011. [www.d. DAC Guidelines and Reference Series. Taxation and Accountability: Issues and Practices’. Cabinet decisions. ———. 2007. Colombo. 2010. ‘Poverty and Health’. Working Paper 280.org/INTPH/Resources/ PublicPolicyandNCDsWorldBank2007FullReport. D.gov.d. ‘Enhancing the quality of life and bringing dignity to the plantation community’.php?option=com_co ntent&view=frontpage&Itemid=1]. Prichard. Washington. Brighton. Ministry of Human Resource Development. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Skills Development. ’National Assessment of Achievement of Grade 4 Students in Sri Lanka-2007’.’ Colombo.About us. 2009. In Health Policy. Vishny. Statistics. 1993. Vavuniya. Ministry of Higher Education.C.. M. ‘Governance. [www. Dhaka: Centre for Policy Dialogue and South Asia Centre for Policy Studies.A. United Kingdom: Institute of Development Studies. 2009.thelancet.youthskillsmin. Smith. 2011..php?news=1180]. Adeyi. [http://siteresources. ———.2004a. Moore.pisa. Siva.oecd. The Grabbing Hand: Government Pathologies and their Cure.lk/handbook_of_parliament/lady_ members. ‘Handbook of Parliament: Lady members’. E.indigenousmedimini. [www.org/phdt/index. 2004. Paris. 7-32. 2003.lk/About_ us. n. 136 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . M. 2009.gov. 2010.pdf]. A. University of Colombo.php?option=com_co ntent&view=article&id=91&Itemid=89&la ng=en]. ‘Taxation and the Political Agenda. 2008. Colombo: National Education Research and Evaluation Center. ———. ‘Education for All National Action Plan for Sri Lanka’. ‘National Policy Framework on Higher Education and Technical and Voca- tional Education’.development.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60370-4/fulltext]. Ndiaye. 1998. 229-49. ———. Okamoto. North and South’. Moore. ———. Cambridge.jsp]. 84–93. M. Colombo.Data on infant mortality rates. 31(1): pp.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Rama. Last accessed on 1 June 2012. Colombo: National Education Research and Evaluation Centre. ‘PISA 2009 Results: Executive Summary’.pdf]. National Nutrition Policy of Sri Lanka. [www.. Last accessed on 16 August 2011.n. Colombo. Mari. and J. N. Martin. California: The Asia Foundation. V. [www. 2012. United States: Harvard University Press. L. P. eds. M. Colombo: Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resource Management and United Nations Educational. Public Policy and the Challenge of Chronic Non-Communicable Diseases.d.Last accessed on 31 May 2012. Colombo: Institute of Policy Studies. Colombo: National Education Research and Evaluation Centre. O. Registrar General’s Department. Last accessed on 30 December 2011. San Francisco. Ross.. ‘Annual Health Statistics 2007’.Draft-13%2006%202010. Pinto-Jayawardena. Regulations and Administrative Practices Relating to Land and Property Rights of Women in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka—Water Development Report: 2010. ‘The Politics of Taxation and Implications for Accountability in Gha- na 1981-2008’.Is Land Just for Men? Critiquing Discriminatory Laws. In The Lancet. The Importance of Women’s Status for Child Nutrition in Developing Countries. Moore. Kita and A. ‘Sri Lanka struggles with mental health burden’. 1999. Shleifer. Policy Research Working Paper 2227. 34: pp. Aoyama.C.org/dataoecd/34/60/46619703. Ramakrishnan. ‘A Class of Association Sensitive Multidimensional Welfare Indices’.[www.hetc. University of Oxford. 2003.. 2009. 83: pp. K. and D. ‘National Assessment of Achievement of Grade 4 Students in Sri Lanka’. United Kingdom: Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative. M. U. ‘Measuring Sub-National Business Environments: The Provincial Business Environment Scorecard in Cambodia and The Economic Governance Index in Sri Lanka’. Haddad and R.lk/]. Ministry of Indigenous Medicine. ‘Proposal for a National Policy Framework on General Education in Sri Lanka. Paris. In British Journal of Political Science. L. In Tax Justice Focus. 599-617.: The World Bank.html]. Colombo. Suman. ‘Does Foodflation Call for Agricultural Reform’. ‘Empowerment of the Agrarian Society through Rationalizing Land Use and Tenure’. Abraham.The Higher Education for the Twenty-first Century Project. Last accessed on 16 September 2011. Health Bulletin 2009.: The World Bank. 2008. ‘Does Taxation Lead to Representation’. Nagai.CPD-SACEPS Monograph Series 3.2004b. How Does Taxation Affect the Quality of Governance? IDS Policy Briefing. S..A.

Income Support for the Unemployed: Issues and Options. Kumara. Mayer and M.‘The Growth Report: Strategies for Sustained Growth and Inclusive Development’. Swarnalatha. Scientific and Cultural Organization.[www.pdf]. 2010. Horizontal Inequalities: A Neglected Dimension of Development. Gunatilaka. ———. ‘Sri Lanka: Addressing the Needs of an Aging Population’. Adelaide. 2006. Report No.: The World Bank. 2011. ———. ‘School-to-Work Transition of Sri Lankan University Graduates’. W... Brasília: UNESCO. Colombo. Galappattige and R. Sri Lanka: Improving the Rural and Urban Investment Climate. Colombo. Human Development Report. Oxford. 2004. aspx?ReportId=143]. Last accessed on 14 September 2012.In H.C. Enhancement of Extension Systems in Agriculture.org/ unesco/tableviewer/document. Arunatilake. Last accessed on 7 June 2012. ed. n. Washington.. ‘Sri Lanka Country Report’. 141-163.[http://stats.org/policy_research/ surveys_indices/cpi].2010a. and N. and Sunil Chandrasiri. D. 43396-LK. 10. December. D. Wickramasinghe and T. ‘Sri Lanka: Economic Performance Assessment’. worldbank. United Kingdom: Queen Elizabeth House. ———. n. ———.Annual Report 2008-2009. 2011. [www. [www. Wadduwage. Thousands of nonessential drugs dumped in country’. Kamphuis and B. needs to be written according to the HDR format done. University of Oxford. Working Paper.org/en/documents/udhr/]. Sivaram. and N. dailynews. Tertiary and Vocational Education Commission. 2007. ———. UNESCO Institute for Statistics data centre. 2010. Last accessed on 13 September 2011. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.transparency.unesco. 2002. 2011b.Stewart. Human Perspectives in the Plantation Sector. M..Information Bulletin 2.. Washington..B..in/pub/annualreport/annualreport_0809. ‘Labour Market’. Vodopivec.ac. Vidyasagara./Status _of_Teacher_Education_in_the_ Asia-Paci]. University Grants Commission of Sri Lanka. ‘Undergraduate Enroll & Output’[www. 4(3): pp.. ‘Repositioning Nutrition as Central to Development: A Strategy for Large-Scale Action’. Human Development Report. 2011.C. ———. Colombo. Battaramulla. Washington. Is this a journal? If so. 2010b.d.lk/en/statistics/undergraduate-enroll-a-output.org/ downloadsnov2011/ %20Bank%20Reposi tioning%20Nutrition. Advanced online publication.org/srilanka/2012_SL_fast_facts_Edu. M. thesis. N.pdf]. M. 2012a. Bibliography 137 . Socio-Economic Baseline Analysis for 11 Conflict-Affected Districts in Sri Lanka. Last accessed on 6 January 2012. Montreal.Volume 1. 2009. 2005.Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organisation. 2011. Transparency International.org/INTSRILANKA/Resources/ LKAgingFullRep. 2005. 2008a.United Nations Development Programme. In Journal of Population Ageing. Weerasinghe. ———. Dhaka: Centre for Policy Dialogue and South Asia Centre for Policy Studies Tilakaratna.Last accessed on 17 August 2012. ‘Training and Labor Market Outcomes in Sri Lanka’.lk/2011/03/22/news36. Last accessed on 27 June 2012. United Nations Educational. In R. 2009b. http://www. ———.ugc. The Challenge of Youth Employment in Sri Lanka. Ayrton Senna Institute. ugc.un. ‘Shadowing the State through CEDAW: A compilation of the Sri Lanka NGO Shadow Report.Last accessed on 10 November 2011. eds. ———. Colombo. Human Security and Ethnicity Working Paper. ———.D. World Bank Institute.pdf]. Last accessed on 10 June 2012.pdf. Fact Sheet on Youth Reproductive Health Policy. Vodopivec. Last accessed on 9 September 2011. UNICEF-Sri Lanka.com/Publications/Documents/974_1_GBV_FINAL_ acc. Last accessed on 30 December 2011. ‘Empowerment of the Poor through Microfinance’.2005. G. Withanachchi.healthpolicyinitiative. ‘Population Ageing and Labour Market Participation of Old Workers in Sri Lanka’.pdf]. F. G..E.unicef..d. [http://archive. University Grants Commission of Sri Lanka. eds. ‘Corporate plan 2011-2015’. 2011. ———. Gender Based Violence. [www. Centre for Research on Inequality.2008. ‘Status of Teacher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region’. Ukwatta. United States Agency for International Development.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Last accessed on 2 June 2012. ‘Education for Human Development’.ugc. ‘Decentralised Revenue Mobilization: Challenges and Opportunities—The Sri Lankan Context’.Last accessed on 31 May 2012. 2010. 2009a. Sri Lanka: Poverty Assessment: Engendering Growth with Equity: Opportunities and Challenges.. A.. University Grants Commission of India. In V.html]. Unpublished Ph. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Sri Lanka: Programme Support Group. The World Bank.ac. 2006. D. Mimeo. Vodopivec.wphna. Economic and Social Impact of the Migration of Sri Lankan Transitional Domestic Workers on Families and Children Left Behind...Berlin. 2004.DOI. Tilakaratna.asp]. Sharma.C: The World Bank. D. 2008b.. ———. United Nations.CPD-SACEPS Monograph Series 3. P.2012b. 2003. M. Human Development Report. Australia: Universtiy of Adelaide. Check to see if this is a working paper.C. Sri Lanka: Promoting Agricultural and Rural Non-farm Sector Growth.lk/en/universities-and-institutes/other-recognized-degrees. Tan. ‘Briefing sheet-Education’. Colombo. [www.1007/s12062-011-9045-5. C.reading.org/ . [www. Hong. 2010. Canada: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Global Education Digest 2010. 2003. [www. Corruption Perceptions Index. Perera.. U.ac. ‘Microfinance in Sri Lanka: A Household Level Analysis of Outreach and Impact on Poverty’. [ [http://siteresources.html]. D. Colombo: Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka. ‘Lack of mechanism to restrict registration. Waidyasekera. Vodopivec. 2001. CEDAW Concluding Observations and Other Documents’. Washington. P. ‘Healthcare Facilities on Estates’. 2011a.uis. Women and Media Collective.

C. Land Reforms in Sri Lanka: A Poverty and Social Impact Analysis. P113402.org/ indicator/IT. D.C: The World Bank. Legal framework. Last accessed on 18 June 2012. Last accessed on 10 August 2011. Last accessed on 23 March 2012. Doing Business 2012. ‘Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development’.SETS. Agribusiness for Africa’s Prosperity. [http:// documents. Knowledge Economy Index 2012 Rankings. pdf].who.’ Colombo. 2007.. Washington.who.[www.int/publications/docs/ MODULEONNCD.int/topics/essential_ medicines/en/]. ‘Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women: Initial results on prevalence. Lastaccessed on 27 March 2012. World Bank and International Finance Corporation.pdf]. ———. 2011a. health outcomes and women’s responses.worldbank. ‘Integrating Poverty and Gender into Health Programmes: Module on Noncommunicable Diseases’. ———.who.C.wpro.pdf].P2http://data.int/publications/ 2001/924154550x. 2012. ———. [http://data. World Health Statistics 2011. World Governance Indicators [http://info. World Health Organization and The World Bank.CEL.who. Washington D. K. 2011c. ———. worldbank. 2012c.who.org/kam].wpro. M.worldbank.C. ———. World Development Indicators and Global Development Finance Database. 2010. int/publications/2001/924154550x. Sri Lanka—Higher Education for the Twenty First Century Project. Implementation Status Results Report.asp].pdfwww.———.org/ curated/en/2011/12/15650511/srilanka-additional-financing-education-sectordevelopment-project]. Implementation Completion and Results Report. 2011.org/ddp/home.[http:// databank. 2012d. ———.worldbank. 138 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . Washington D.worldbank. Sequence 03. Sri Lanka’. Washington D. pdfhttp://whqlibdoc.org/curated/ en/2012/01/15681879/sri-lanka-srilanka-higher-education-twenty-first-centuryproject-p113402-implementation-statusresults-report-sequence-03]. int/publications/docs/MODULEONNCD. ———. ———. [www.. ‘Transforming School Education in Sri Lanka: From Cut Stones to Polished Jewels. M. Last accessed on 1 June 2012. ———.int/ countryfocus/cooperation_strategy/ ccs_lka_en.org/data-catalog/globaldevelopment-finance]. Hawkins.int/nha/ country/lka.org/indicator/IT. [http://data. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health.int/gender/violence/who_ multicountry_study/summary_report/ summary_report_English2.who. 2005. 2012a.pdf]. Last accessed on 5 April 2012. ‘Education Statistics (EdStats)’. 2011. basic scorecard.who. Last accessed on 17 June 2012. M. ‘WHO country corporation strategy.org/data-catalog/ global-development-financehttp://data.P2].C. ———. 2001. Geneva. The World Bank.’[www.[www. ———. 2011b. Roepstorff and A.worldbank.pdfwww. dohttp://databank.xls]. ———.Last accessed on 31 May 2012. who. Last accessed on 31 May 2012. [www.CEL. ‘Sri Lanka National Health Expenditure on Health’. ———.org/ddp/ home. Last accessed on 22 December 2011.pdf].worldbank.int/countryfocus/ cooperation_strategy/ccs_lka_en. Yumkella. n. P. Washington.. World Health Organization. [www. T.[http://siteresources.Last accessed on 14 December 2011. eds. Control of Corruption Index 2010.who. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization. 2011.SETS. org/INTUNIKAM/Resources/2012.. int/gender/violence/who_multicountry_ study/summary_report/summary_ report_English2. 2012a. K.int/disabilities/world_ report/2011/report.pdfwww.. pdfwww. ———.org/governance/ wgi/mc_countries. Last accessed 17 June 2012.World Development Indicators Database.pdf]. 2012b.‘Health Topics: Essential Medicines’.int/ disabilities/world_report/2011/report.who. Last accessed on 27 March 2012. 2012b. Report No:ISR5063.worldbank. Report No: ICR00001930. [www.d. Kormawa. ———. D.worldbank.do]. 2008c.who. Last accessed on 8 September 2011. [http://documents.who. World Report on Disability.Knowledge Assessment Methodology 2012 Database. Last accessed on 27 June 2012. worldbank. ———. [http://whqlibdoc. 2012c.worldbank.

Statistical Tables

Table A1: Distribution of the Population by District and Ethnicity, 2001
Total Sinhalese population Sri Lanka* No. 18,797,257 14,011,734 % 100.0 74.5 % 100.0 100.0 Western % 28.6 32.3 Colombo Gampaha % % % % % % % % % % % 12.0 11.0 5.7 12.9 6.8 2.3 3.7 12.1 5.3 4.1 2.8 12.3 13.4 6.6 11.3 6.8 2.5 2.0 15.4 6.7 5.1 3.6 Sri Indian Lankan Tamil Tamil 2,233,624 11.9 100.0 14.6 11.1 2.9 0.6 5.5 2.3 1.1 2.1 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 859,052 4.6 100.0 7.1 2.9 0.9 3.4 56.2 12.1 2.7 41.4 3.1 1.1 1.9 0.0 Sri Burgher Malay Lankan Moor 1,561,910 8.3 100.0 24.0 13.0 5.0 6.0 14.3 10.8 2.5 1.1 4.0 2.2 1.4 0.4 38,388 0.2 100.0 72.0 40.9 28.9 2.2 8.2 5.5 1.0 1.6 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 55,352 0.3 100.0 65.8 39.3 24.7 1.8 7.7 4.8 0.9 1.9 13.6 0.3 0.2 13.1 Other

37197 0.2 100.0 65.7 37.8 26.2 1.8 10.8 7.0 1.5 2.3 1.7 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.2

Kalutara Central Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Southern Galle Matara Hambantota

Northern* Jaffna* Mannar* Mullaitivu* Kilinochchi*

% 5.5 0.4 43.7 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.0 % % % % % % % % % % % 7.6 2.6 3.2 1.8 11.5 7.8 3.8 5.9 4.0 1.9 6.3 4.1 2.1 9.6 5.4 4.2 2.3 0.0 1.7 0.6 13.3 9.6 3.7 7.1 4.8 2.3 6.7 4.0 2.7 11.1 6.3 4.8 28.4 16.2 4.9 7.3 2.9 0.8 2.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.6 1.3 0.3 2.0 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 17.6 16.7 0.9 14.8 9.6 5.1 29.1 7.3 15.7 6.1 14.6 6.1 8.5 5.7 4.0 1.7 3.0 2.5 0.5 4.6 1.3 3.2 11.0 7.0 3.1 0.9 3.5 1.6 1.9 0.6 0.5 0.2 1.8 1.5 0.3 1.4 0.9 0.5 1.4 0.0 0.4 1.0 6.1 3.9 2.2 0.6 0.5 0.1 3.5 3.3 0.2 1.3 0.8 0.5

Eastern* Batticaloa* Ampara Tricomalee* North Western Kurunegala Puttalam

2.0 0.3 1.3 0.4 6.2 3.0 3.2 4.9 4.5 0.5 3.6 2.6 1.0 5.0 2.6 2.3

North Central % Anuradhapura % Polonnaruwa Uva Badulla Moneragala Sabaragamuwa Ratnapura Kegalle % % % % % % %

Notes:* indicatesestimates. District information is not available for the Northern Province. Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka n.d.a..

sri lanka Human Development report 2012

139

Table A2: Human Development Index and Dimensions by District
Province Sector District/sector Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota HDI rank - n.a. n.a. n.a. 3 1 2 12 10 20 6 5 4 HDI Income index Education index 0.692 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.710 0.752 0.733 0.670 0.673 0.635 0.688 0.699 0.709 0.552 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.620 0.628 0.597 0.513 0.506 0.502 0.524 0.526 0.538 0.694 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.754 0.742 0.716 0.701 0.683 0.593 0.700 0.697 0.681 Health index 0.866 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.767 0.914 0.922 0.836 0.884 0.862 0.889 0.930 0.973

Western

Central Southern Northern

Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar 0.625 0.471 0.677 0.766 Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Kurunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle 19 15 17 6 14 13 9 18 11 16 6 0.637 0.666 0.656 0.688 0.667 0.669 0.677 0.650 0.671 0.661 0.688 0.516 0.520 0.507 0.534 0.547 0.518 0.525 0.507 0.497 0.492 0.498 0.610 0.655 0.664 0.700 0.617 0.688 0.675 0.636 0.642 0.650 0.711 0.822 0.868 0.839 0.873 0.882 0.838 0.876 0.852 0.944 0.902 0.919

Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa

}

Note: N.a. indicates not available. Sources: Computations by the reportteam of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010 cand Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011.

140

sri lanka Human Development report 2012

Table A3: Human Development Losses Due to Inequality
Province District/sector HDI rank HDI value IHDI rank IHDI value Sector Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.692 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.602 n.a. n.a. n.a. % HDI loss due to inequality 13.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. GII rank n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. GII value 0.565 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Western Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota 3 1 2 12 10 20 6 5 0.710 0.752 0.733 0.670 0.673 0.635 0.688 0.699 0.709 3 1 2 16 15 20 8 6 4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 18 13 11 5 14 10 8 19 11 16 6 0.626 0.667 0.642 0.574 0.580 0.551 0.597 0.601 0.619 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.556 0.583 0.592 0.602 0.581 0.593 0.596 0.554 0.592 0.574 0.601 11.8 11.3 12.4 14.3 13.9 13.3 13.3 14.0 12.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 12.8 12.2 9.8 12.6 12.9 11.4 11.9 14.7 11.8 13.2 12.6 6 3 17 12 11 17 10 14 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 20 7 13 16 19 2 9 15 5 4 8 0.555 0.515 0.754 0.731 0.725 0.754 0.713 0.742 0.474 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.807 0.635 0.738 0.753 0.783 0.493 0.710 0.743 0.531 0.519 0.700

Central Southern

Northern Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa

Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar 0.625

Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Kurunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle 19 15 17 6 14 13 9 18 11 16 6 0.637 0.666 0.656 0.688 0.667 0.669 0.677 0.650 0.671 0.661 0.688

}

4

Sources: Computations by the reportteam of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2007a, 2009e and 2010c; Department of Elections of Sri Lanka 2011; Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka and United Nations Development Programme 2010; and Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011.

Statistical Tables

141

Table A4: Income Poverty, Multidimensional Poverty Index and Related Indicators, 2006-2007
Province District/sector Income poverty Share of income Multidimensionally Share of Intensity of MPI headcount, % poor, % poor headcount, multidimensionally multidimensional % poor, % poverty Sector Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mulativu Batticaloa Ampara Tricomalee Karunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle 15.2 6.7 15.7 32.0 5.4 8.7 13.0 17.0 18.9 33.8 13.7 14.7 12.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 10.7 10.9 n.a. 15.4 13.1 14.9 12.7 23.7 33.2 26.6 21.1 100 8.8 84.7 6.4 4.8 5.2 4.0 7.9 3.1 3.2 6.2 5.2 2.2 4.9 n.a. n.a. 0.2 n.a. 6.0 4.0 2.2 10.2 4.8 2.6 1.3 6.3 3.8 6.6 5.1 7.0 2.3 6.9 21.1 1.7 1.8 4.4 6.0 12.6 15.7 7.2 7.1 6.9 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.2 9.5 12.1 7.6 6.4 9.4 10.1 11.9 17.4 10.0 6.7 100.0 4.2 80.8 15.0 2.9 3.2 3.6 6.0 3.6 7.6 6.0 4.2 3.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 4.3 4.3 3.0 9.4 3.7 5.4 3.0 7.5 6.5 8.5 4.2 0.3966 0.3844 0.3941 0.4080 0.3695 0.3930 0.4156 0.3908 0.4075 0.4015 0.4032 0.3982 0.4017 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.4180 0.4028 0.3992 0.3858 0.3898 0.3874 0.3949 0.4042 0.3938 0.3988 0.3766 0.0278 0.0087 0.0273 0.0860 0.0062 0.0071 0.0181 0.0233 0.0513 0.0629 0.0289 0.0283 0.0275 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.0468 0.0383 0.0481 0.0293 0.0247 0.0363 0.0398 0.0482 0.0683 0.0401 0.0250

Western

Central Southern Northern Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa

Source: Computations by the reportteam of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka usingDepartment of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2007a and 2007b.

142

sri lanka Human Development report 2012

Table A5: Income Poverty, Multidimensional Poverty Index and Related Indicators, 2009-2010
Province District/sector Income poverty Share of income Multidimensionally Share of Intensity of MPI headcount, % poor, % poor headcount, multidimensionally multidimensional % poor, % poverty Sector Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Kurunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle 8.9 5.3 9.4 11.4 3.6 3.9 6.0 10.3 11.5 7.6 10.3 11.2 6.9 16.1 n.a. n.a. 2.3 n.a. 20.3 11.3 11.7 11.7 10.5 5.7 5.8 13.3 14.5 10.5 10.8 100 8.8 84.7 6.4 4.8 5.2 4.0 7.9 3.1 3.2 6.2 5.2 2.2 4.9 n.a. n.a. 0.2 n.a. 6.0 4.0 2.2 10.2 4.8 2.6 1.3 6.3 3.8 6.6 5.1 4.7 3.7 4.5 11.4 2.7 2.6 2.8 5.9 5.7 5.3 3.7 3.8 3.3 11.5 n.a. n.a. 3.9 n.a. 11.3 3.6 5.2 5.9 8.2 3.5 4.2 6.5 4.5 6.3 3.7 100.0 11.6 76.2 12.2 6.7 6.5 3.5 8.1 2.9 4.3 4.2 3.3 2.1 6.6 n.a. n.a. 0.3 n.a. 6.4 2.3 1.9 9.8 7.1 3.1 1.8 5.8 2.2 7.5 3.2 0.3887 0.3832 0.3869 0.4054 0.3914 0.3908 0.3794 0.3903 0.3929 0.4008 0.3803 0.3510 0.3693 0.3909 n.a. n.a. 0.3978 n.a. 0.3972 0.3692 0.4380 0.3867 0.3982 0.3634 0.3607 0.3798 0.3849 0.4127 0.3798 0.0183 0.0141 0.0173 0.0460 0.0105 0.0101 0.0107 0.0231 0.0223 0.0214 0.0140 0.0134 0.0123 0.0451 n.a. n.a. 0.0058 n.a. 0.0450 0.0132 0.0227 0.0228 0.0326 0.0129 0.0152 0.0245 0.0173 0.0260 0.0139

Western

Central Southern Northern Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa

Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c.

Statistical Tables

143

Table A6: Income Poverty and Measures of Income Inequality, 2009-2010

Province District/sector Income poverty Share of poor Poverty gap Squared poverty Gini coefficient Share of household income headcount, %, households, %, index, HIES gap index, (per capita 2009-2010 Household 2009/10 HIES 2009/10 expenditure), Income HIES 2009/10 and Expenditure Survey (HIES) 2009/10 Poorest 20% Middle 60% Richest 20% Sector Western Central Southern Northern Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Kegalle 8.9 5.3 9.4 11.4 3.6 3.9 6.0 10.3 11.4 7.6 10.3 11.2 6.9 16.1 n.a. n.a. 2.3 n.a. 20.3 11.8 11.7 11.7 10.5 5.7 5.8 13.3 14.5 10.4 10.8 100 8.8 84.7 6.4 4.8 5.2 4.0 7.9 3.1 3.2 6.2 5.2 2.2 4.9 n.a. n.a. 0.2 n.a. 6.0 4.0 2.2 10.2 4.8 2.6 1.3 6.3 3.8 6.6 5.1 1.7 1.2 1.8 2.1 0.7 0.7 1.3 2.2 2.0 1.0 2.1 1.7 1.3 2.6 n.a. n.a. 0.3 n.a. 5.1 2.3 1.8 2.6 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.2 2.8 2.4 1.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.8 n.a. n.a. 0.1 n.a. 1.9 0.7 0.38 0.41 0.37 0.30 0.46 0.34 0.37 0.39 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.38 0.27 0.24 n.a. n.a. 0.29 n.a. 0.20 0.22 4.5 4.7 4.5 5.9 5.4 4.7 5.6 3.9 4.2 5.8 5.7 5.8 5.5 6.2 n.a. n.a. 4.2 n.a. 4.7 4.8 5.3 3.7 4.6 5.6 5.4 4.5 5.8 3.5 5.1 41.4 42.1 41.7 44.7 43.3 38.9 47.2 58.0 40.8 42.9 44.9 47.2 47.2 49.7 n.a. n.a. 46.5 n.a. 46.7 47.9 50.1 35.8 40.8 43.0 47.0 41.0 49.6 34.2 45.4 54.1 53.3 53.8 49.4 51.4 56.4 47.2 53.4 55.0 51.3 49.4 47.0 47.2 44.1 n.a. n.a. 49.4 n.a. 48.6 47.2 44.5 60.6 54.5 51.4 47.7 54.5 44.6 62.2 49.4

Eastern North Central Uva

0.5 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.36 0.36 0.42 0.32 0.35 0.23 0.31 0.27

North Western Kurunegala

Sabaragamuwa Ratnapura

Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011d.

144

sri lanka Human Development report 2012

4 81.9 18.9 33.a.a.4 72. n.8 11.1 0.9 99.7 99. n.1 0.a. n.2 68. 67.a. 15-64 years old.9 88. Statistical Tables 145 .a.1 n.2 80. % Maternal Adolescent M ale mortality per fertility per 100.9 99.1 0.9 36.a.a.1 0.a.5 54. n.1 75.9 99.1 14.6 57.9 49.4 56.a.9 85.2 26.5 30.4 78.a.5 54. n.a.7 88.7 n.a.4 51.7 42.1 0.a.a.1 37.4 22.5 51.a.1 11. 94.9 99.a.9 102. 41. n.a.000 women births aged 15-19 Sri Lanka 39. n.4 26.7 50.6 44.6 n. n. n.0 37.Table A7: Components of the Gender Inequality index District/sector Women’s reproductive Parliamentary representation At least lower secondary Labour force participation health education.a. age 25 years rate.1 Sources: Computations by the reportteam of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2007a.1 20 20 0.6 60.a.9 99.0 9.9 94. n.a.3 82. n.1 42.7 51.1 54.a.8 46. n.2 40.5 83.a.9 34.a.9 70.7 32.9 59.3 41.2 48.5 81.a.1 0.a.2 79.9 99.5 78.4 79.4 55.7 40.1 0.8 57.a.9 35.5 n.9 60.4 35.7 54.1 0.0 n. 38.1 37.2 31. n. Department of Elections of Sri Lanka 2011.1 40.3 60.3 30.9 99.7 26.8 77.3 11.5 18.8 74. n. 80.2 Female Male Female Male Female 5.3 83.2 45.3 70.6 21.a. 35. % and over.0 37. n.9 99. 24.8 39.6 35. 78.1 0. n.0 84.a.2 76.7 42.4 82.9 n. 34.7 n.1 47.5 51. 17.0 47.9 99.a. n. n.3 0.2 34.6 51. n.8 68.7 14.a.a. n.2 48.8 46.0 33. n.a.6 58.a.9 80 80 99.1 80.9 85.a.1 0.9 n.7 26.7 23.3 44.8 54.8 33.a.7 36.2 63. n.8 79.9 99.a.8 55.4 n.a.2 53.0 58.1 14. n.3 11.a. 47. n. 39.7 88.a.0 n. n. 44.9 99.9 23.8 n.2 40.2 39.6 29.8 56.6 n. 5.8 53.1 0. and Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka and United Nations Development Programme 2010.1 0.3 Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Kurunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle n.2 52.9 24.9 40.9 33.8 62.000 live 1.1 0. n.4 42.1 0. n.1 0. 2009e and 2010c.2 n.8 42.5 53.9 99.5 n.a.0 61.4 20.a.8 85.a. n.4 81. 71.8 40. n. n.a.a.9 99.a.5 43.9 99.7 59.8 44.9 99.6 58.6 85.1 11.

9 16.341 1.135 1. n.7 1.861 2. Land and Households Population (‘000). n.664 3.1 4 4. 3777 1623 720 746 255 446 670 661 229 658 129 55 93 61 208 153 148 338 270 125 133 313 80 348 485 Western Central Southern Northern Eastern Uva North Western Kurunegala North Central Anuradhapura Sabaragamuwa Ratnapura Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010b.653 n.a.2 1.a.2 4.952 1.0 1.404 n. 1.a.2 26.6 1. n.a.084 839 571 611 156 104 174 148 543 644 374 1.563 779 830 410 886 440 1.222 2.6 1.529 4.8 4. 2009-2010 Province District/sector Land extent.8 0.1 20. n.9 24.2 27.4 1. 2. n.0 -3.123 246 575 601 293 348 128 190 277 203 144 128 n.236 1. 26.1 25.a.8 1.1 1.4 21.2 22.685 20.0 3.6 329 n.1 4.3 4 4.431 497 761 1. n.a.a.3 21.9 0. 1.a.610 4.6 0.a. 146 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .a 4.a.624 2.249 n.3 n.a. Total Male Female Total Female-headed Household size Population Population square households households growth rate. 4.415 2.a. n. 16.a. density kilometres (‘000s) % 2009-2010 (persons per square kilometer) Sector Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Puttalam Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Kegalle 62.a.270 2.177 1.880 1.617 1.4 3.a.077 2. 2010 Households.4 24.576 19.1 0.a. 676 1.9 3.9 1.2 23 27 22.1 1. 1.125 818 10.247 1. n.4 22. 133 143 79 424 212 216 107 220 120 286 215 23.1 0.9 3.2 4 4.3 n.114 574 733 249 382 557 432 286 321 77 50 89 76 281 328 188 789 392 407 196 446 215 557 418 5.4 0.1 4.a.0 n.a. n. n.2 1.Table A8: Demography.a.a.9 4 4 3.4 22.a. n.117 1.079 711 4.2 1.6 0.a.508 3.3 4.a.7 3.2 22.1 4 3.94 n.1 23.8 3.3 1.7 4 4. n.3 0.706 1.306 1. 39. n.705 n.8 25.8 21.a. and Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011. n.8 28 25.a. n.5 20.a.4 21.882 6.827 5.4 n.9 1.553 2.1 1.4 n.496 929 1.1 4.063 561 698 248 379 527 407 285 290 79 54 85 72 262 316 186 774 387 423 214 440 225 568 400 10.205 1. 2011b and 2011d.

8 Central Southern Northern Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa Notes: *Due to the abnormal situation in the Northern Province. 28.4 242. 73.5 11.3 73. n.9 11 11.5 72. n.a. 70.8 39.85 75. Sources: Central Bank of Sri Lanka 2011. n.5 68.8 40.9 44.4 45.a.8 75.5 14.2 n.3 n.7 5. n.5 76. n. 71.a.a.a.15 77. 66.a.5 172.2 14. n.3 40.a.a. 122.9 172.a.3 3.75 74.9 n.a.6 12.2 35.1 168.a.a.a.5 n.9 69.1 5. n.6 73 n. 8.5 77. 9. n.4 50. n.9 71. n.7 40.a.4 82.Table A9: Crude Death Rate.5 73.5 4. n.1 77.7 169.6 72.5 180.9 n.a.3 15.3 12.3 73.a.7 78. n.a.4 5 6.4 80.7 70.3 163.a.9 13.8 10. 179. n.2 72 72.9 76. n.a.8 70.6 n. n.3 163.1 10.a. n.a.a. and Gunasekara 2008.a.4 14.9 n.2 3. n.5 74.6 n.a.3 5. n.a.9 198.9 80. n.2 9.a.a.5 5.000 with persons and above) any disability mental disability Sector Western Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Kurunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle 6.a.000 with 10.8 41.a. n.6 68. n.2 n.a.a. n.4 200. n. n.35 73.7 67.a.a.1 72.6 6.1 9.a.7 39 27.5 69. and Disabled and Elderly Populations Life expectancy at birth.1 6.6 75. n.8 149. 61.a.a.2 4.8 n.3 13.5 n. n.3 15.95 76.a.9 5.8 12.8 173.8 5.7 8. Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011f. 2002 Province District/sector Crude death Total Male Female % of elderly Number of Number of rate per population people per people per 1. n.2 4.8 12.a.8 59* 4.7 152.9 74.1 71. 66. 42.8 70.a. Life Expectancy. n.a.4 5. n.9 75.2 78 78. n.4 80 12.45 74 71.1 35.4 80.a.2 34.a.a.a.1 66. n.a.3 10.6 4.a.95 79.2 3.a.2 76.7 167.45 76. deaths were registered in Mullaitivu District in 2010.a. 143.8 138.15 74. n.5 78.1 36.9 75.2 75 77.4 n.6 6. n.4 80.9 162.3 6 7.45 71.3 57. n.3 8.3 n.5 64.2 n. Statistical Tables 147 .a. 39. 6.000 (aged 60 10.7 8.a.7 4.3 3.3 68.3 70. n.25 68.

25.6 6.8 19.1 99.000 mortality rate. n.9 70.0 98.6 99.0 98.9 3.3 98.3 99.5 98.a. rate.8 9.1 5.2 7.a. n.a.3 n.a.a.7 99.7 99.1 12.7 7.7 99. Registrar General’s Health Survey DHS 2006/07 Family Health General’s Department (DHS) 2006/07 Bureau of Department Sri Lanka Sector Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate 8.4 99.a.5 51.5 97.6 99.7 15. n.5 39.2 9.3 30.3 98. n.7 42.9 3.4 35.a.4 8.1 7. Under-Five Mortality.a.9 102. Births Attended by Skilled Health Providers and Maternal Mortality Rate Province District/ sector Infant mortality Under-five Institutional Births attended Maternal rate per 1.0 n.9 33.2 3. n.5 96.0 17.8 96.3 n.6 n. Western Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Kurunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle 14.7 5.4 96.a. n.a. Institutional Deliveries.1 20. 98.5 51.3 4. 77.1 96.5 16.a.1 99.0 99.9 8.1 99.8 11.4 4.5 97. 2003.6 35.7 3. by skilled health mortality live births.3 11.7 10.9 9.a.0 98.7 17.0 37.0 0.7 36.4 38.7 16.9 98. n. 97.9 97.2 97.a.7 Central Southern Northern Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa Sources: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011e.4 96.3 99.8 7.3 11.7 14.0 10.0 99.8 46.8 96.3 3.4 72.1 18.9 13.0 12. 2006.2 39.3 3.8 99.a.Table A10: Infant Mortality.9 50. Registrar Demographic and personnel.6 29. n. 2007.2 98. 148 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . %.9 33.9 23.5 8.7 96.5 9. deliveries.7 3.6 9.1 29.6 99.0 94.5 99.9 99.6 98.3 3.4 8.1 2.4 20.Family Health Bureau of Sri Lanka 2009 and Registrar General’s Department data.2 98.0 n.6 99.3 10.2 14.a. n.4 7.5 10.6 5.8 14.6 99.1 4.5 2. n.1 5. %.3 98.2 99.4 97.2 98.1 80.3 95.1 25.

7 14.a.5 29.a.4 10.a.4 8.7 28.0 32.9 16.5 vaccinations.a.1 33.2 North Western Kurunegala North Central Anuradhapura Sabaragamuwa Ratnapura Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011e.a.3 14. n.9 n.8 22.9 23. 0.4 20.8 n.6 50.4 42.7 21.0 33.0 20.0 100. n.4 13.9 12.1 30.2 0. n.8 18.1 19.1 96.3 24.9 25.0 0.3 23.3 11.6 32. n. 16.0 0.3 26.4 0.0 100. 2006-2007 Province District/sector Stunted Wasted Underweight Low birth Children under Mild Moderate Severe Any anaemia (height for age) (weight for (weight for) weight two years height) age children (less with all basic than 2.5 12.a.2 25.a. n.0 0.a.8 12.1 13.8 16.5 14.4 92. n.8 26.4 19.a.a. n. n.a.a. n.a.1 19.9 12.a.0 14.a. n.5 20.8 11.6 16.4 35.8 8.3 16.2 25.2 30.8 21.a. % % Sector Western Central Southern Northern Eastern Uva Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Puttalam Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Kegalle 17.5 18.a.1 16. n.2 27.6 12.2 98.a.1 31. n.0 15.8 n.7 8. n.0 0. n.a. 2006-2007 N utritional status of children under five Prevalence of Anaemia ( World Health Organization Child (children 6-59 months) Growth Standards). 27.0 97.0 0.2 23.3 15.6 13.7 10.3 23.0 0.a.a.6 14.4 95.1 10. Statistical Tables 149 .4 5. n.2 8.a. n.0 27.0 96.5 19.a.3 34.a.0 0.6 21.5 n.6 16.5 34.1 21.5 6. n.0 96. n. 24.7 19.1 21. 45.4 12.9 17.2 17. 27.0 0.3 17.6 19.3 13. n. n.8 n.4 10.2 19.a.3 0.2 94.5 14.0 10.0 97.2 40. Basic Vaccinationsfor Children under Five Years and Prevalence of Anaemia in Children 6-59 Months Old.a.3 97.0 21.6 23.0 96.a.1 99. n.7 11.6 0.3 28.1 15.a.3 36.7 18.7 97.0 18.8 100.4 37.7 26.Table A11: Child Nutrition.a.6 23.5 14.9 0.a. n.4 0.8 10.6 22.7 n.a.5 22.7 17.6 17.8 13.3 16.8 16.9 18.2 20.8 27.1 27. n. n.0 33.7 13.0 9.a.6 n.0 0.8 18.a.8 24.a. n.7 19.5 32.a. n.a.0 98.0 15.3 95.8 14.8 10.a.8 10.7 22. n.6 6.2 28.8 20.0 10.9 0.a.4 4.7 14.a.2 n.2 10. n.1 14.7 95.4 14.7 14.0 7.5 12.a.2 40.0 7.1 27.5 11.0 25.1 95.8 16.1 11. n. 94.0 0.0 15.0 0.1 16.a.5 13.5 21. n.a. n.a.4 24. n. n.6 2. kilogrammes).8 18.7 98.9 18. n.a. 17.5 27.3 22.4 26.0 15.5 22.5 98.3 21. n. 19.6 32. n.3 20.3 17.4 31.2 0.0 0.2 5.5 n.3 23.4 31.4 0.2 93.0 0.a.

4 22. 2.3 3.5 6. n.7 1.7 9.7 6. birth first child among women 2006-2007 aged 15-49.8 n.3 2.9 4. n.9 9.1 2.3 4.5 3.9 20.4 6.6 1.2 2. n.7 3. n.2 n.a. 4.a.3 10.3 n.6 5. %.3 n.a. n.2 9. 11.8 15.2 2.5 2.a.0 7.5 2.4 2.a.9 10. n.5 2.9 n.8 14.8 4.6 2.6 10. n.8 7. 150 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .4 2.6 n.2 9. n.a.8 14.4 0.6 7.8 3.5 4. n.3 2.5 18 19.6 4. n. Central Southern Northern Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011e.a. n.1 3.6 15. Total Fertility Ratesand Teenage Pregnancies Teenage pregnancy (15-19 years).a.1 18.a.0 1.9 2. n.4 18.a. n.9 2.a.6 Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Kurunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle 9.4 5.a. n.a. n.1 2.1 7.a.6 25.a.a.Table A12: Maternal Nutrition.1 5.9 2.a.4 3.0 2.3 2.9 3.a. n.1 2.2 2.1 18.8 2.a.2 2.1 2. 6.2 2.9 5.7 16. 2006-2007 Sector Western Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate 16.3 n.1 1.3 2.0 1.a.1 20.8 5.2 0.1 3.a.1 1.3 7.8 16.2 5.0 1. 2.6 12. n.a.5 1.5 20.9 1.4 18.2 2.a.a.7 5.6 6.4 2. 4. n.a.4 n.8 2.7 8. n.8 19.7 2. n.5 3. 2006-2007 % who have begun child bearing Province District/ sector Maternal Total fertility Have had a live Pregnant with malnutrition rate.4 12.5 7. 1.a.a.4 - 2.4 6.3 10.5 10.3 33.2 2.9 16.0 4.0 2.a.

2 127.5 104.0 61. used for healthy newborns. **all beds in government medical institutions excluding examination and labour room beds. n.0 234. n.8 40.a.0 4.000 government 100. 12.a.a.624 2.9 36.197 570 1.8 2.9 4.078 2.686 1.484 2.a. 2. n.803 3.a.3 20.693 2.a.a.577 465 1.9 51. Statistical Tables 151 .023 n.376 3.661 1.6 48.a.8 3.7 11.1 55.a.8 43.3 81.489 3.533 771 157.3 4.736 1.314 2.4 3.5 2.0 3.5 19.a. 2007 Nurses.a.a.6 72. n.6 4. n.2 96.6 91.9 3.6 37.581 1.3 2.9 2.9 100.291 3.2 2.1 28. 27 24 23 56 25 28 31 19 23 28 9 8 8 6 18 30 18 47 22 39 11 35 19 34 27 Western Central Southern Northern Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa Notes:*all medical officers in curative. 2007 Province District/sector Total medical Medical Total Beds per Total Nurses per Number of officers* officers per beds 1.5 52.390 1.466 n.7 2.5 4.7 61.1 68. 7.5 45.429 1.a. Sources: Ministry of Health 2007.694 n.7 24. n.0 3.8 3.a.126 6.000 nurses 100.7 141.4 111.5 67.9 49. n.a.a.5 47.286 1. n.9 2.9 39.6 151.a. n.4 218.8 31.3 177. 313.Table A13: Health Infrastructure Medical officers.a. n.300 744 578 572 29 50 88 17 792 686 238 3.4 n. etc.0 11.000 people** people medical people institutions Sector Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Kurunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle 11.8 3.2 45.7 39. and cribs and bassinets.8 91. 4.558 438 300 2.118 3.1 2.198 1.3 n.7 95. n. administrative and preventive services including specialists and interns.3 54.a. n.8 160.284 80 1.2 18.1 n.245 3.5 53.6 257.7 56.193 2.2 2.0 42.6 10.1 615 n. 2007 Hospital beds.3 3. 105.a.814 1.2 54.510 309 1.8 2.3 55.185 4.120 258 213 595 305 292 220 17 49 79 15 94 377 198 666 293 342 96 463 195 426 362 55.455 378 472 463 481 1.a. n.2 2. n.773 6.

91.8 91.a.7 22.2 2 1.4 25.1 50 56. 6 21.5 6.5 33.6 16 8.8 55.1 92. knowing that a healthy-looking person can have the HIV virus. Sources: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011e and Ministry of Health 2007.4 93.7 22.7 96 83. n.a.6 93.9 0.6 94.a. 88. n.a.4 29.6 87. 2006-2007 Awareness of HIV and AIDS among ever-married women aged 15-49.8 0.a.9 47.8 23.5 65.5 20. n.a.8 69.4 93.a.2 20 10. n.2 57.1 89.a.4 20.a.1 15.6 24.4 3. 152 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .2 16.5 n. 2007 with at least one. n.7 1.2 54.5 24. n.a. 2006-2007 Province District/sector Any mosquito Ever-treated Suspected Confirmed Deaths Have heard of Have net mosquito net* cases cases HIV and AIDS comprehensive knowledge of HIV and AIDS** Sector Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate 63.6 76.6 0.a.9 0.a.3 17.a.7 n.1 n.a.** comprehensive knowledge means knowing that consistent use of condoms during sexual intercourse and having just one uninfected faithful partner canreduce the chance of getting the HIV virus.a.6 75.5 0.6 85.2 93.9 83. 0 6 20. n.9 59.a.a. n.8 94. n.3 6. and rejecting the two most common local misconceptions about HIV transmission or prevention.5 57.5 0.4 97.4 15. n. n.7 2. n.5 23.8 88.4 0.8 3250 n. n. n.a. n.5 Western Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Kurunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle 57.6 83.a.a.a.a.5 31.7 15.2 Central Southern Northern Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa Notes:* an ever-treated net is a pretreated net or a non-pretreated net that has subsequently been treated with insecticide at any time.6 91.1 67. %.2 1198 618 267 35 24 5 40 64 47 192 0 0 9 0 21 2 27 72 106 263 40 26 15 39 83 565 305 309 92 30 10 25 31 61 55 0 4 0 0 50 1 52 227 101 33 25 13 34 162 232 10 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 97. n.3 64 93.3 13. 24 n.5 n.7 16.a.5 23.3 20. 2417 n.7 61.8 5.a. 22.4 98. n.3 1. n.4 22.3 87.a.a.6 76.a.8 2.2 42 63.Table A14: Health Awareness Percentage of households Dengue. n. n.a.6 93. n.4 38.a. n.8 15.

1 87.4 46.a. n.3 3.a.1 31.3 42.a.a. n. 10. 6.8 6.a.a. n.3 10.a. n.9 n. n.8 89. n.3 89.2 93.3 4.6 16. n. n.3 18.5 21.a.a.5 14.7 12.6 3.4 48.3 10 7. n.4 89. 2.a. n.a.8 82.a.1 87. n.7 n.7 7.7 26. 2009 Educational attainment.63 90.4 92.9 28.4 10.3 18.7 8.1 89.1 15.3 34 24.a.2009c and 2011d.6 43 19.7 11.6 31.5 90.9 10.a.3 7. n. 7. 2.a. n.1 n.1 93.1 n. n.7 4.2 25.5 4 13.a.7 8.1 45.4 16. n. n.1 14.3 95 93.8 19.a. n.9 92.a.4 n.7 87.2 10.1 2. 2009-2010 Province District/sector Total Male Female Computer No schooling Upto grade Upto grade Passed Passed literacy 5 10 O-Level A-Level among people aged 5-69. n.5 3.7 91.a.9 15.a.a. 11.1 35.a.3 20.9 n.a.1 44.a.1 93.8 12. n.1 5.2 24.7 26.a.9 94 89.a.4 49.1 91.4 91.8 10.3 28.1 18.3 8. n.5 91. n.2 17.7 n.5 94.5 92. n.6 14.a.2 12.8 90 20.9 41.2 27.a.2 48.a.2 52.a.9 93.2 94.a.a.8 2.4 87.2 n.9 48.a. 4.3 28.a.1 28.4 28.a.8 5.2 19.a.1 23.4 91.a.a.9 9.5 13.2 6.5 86 89.4 87.6 91.6 9.8 87.a.3 96.9 n.3 39.a.3 87.7 66.9 3.9 92 90.a. n. 84.6 46 42 42.4 0.6 10.a.7 North Western Kurunegala North Central Anuradhapura Sabaragamuwa Ratnapura Kegalle Sources: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009b.4 44.8 3.3 82.a. n.3 6. n. 37.4 11. n. n.8 39. 86.a. n.5 80.6 52.6 24. % 2009 Sri Lanka 91. n.5 11.7 88.a.8 93.5 n.8 88.8 4. 49.5 91 88.a. n.1 95.6 92. n.9 89 74.8 94.3 87 94.4 5.a.7 41 44.1 14.2 n. Statistical Tables 153 . n.9 n.1 97 95.5 8.7 84.a.3 5.4 2.7 14.6 45. %.2 95.2 Sector Western Central Southern Northern Eastern Uva Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Puttalam Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala 94.7 5. n.5 24.4 n. n.8 4.7 86 84. % of total population. n.1 42. n. n.3 94.a.9 83. n.8 74.39 95.a.2 16 15.3 1. 29.5 7.1 19. 82.9 45.9 n.5 11. n.7 13 6.9 24.Table A15: Literacy Rate and Educational Attainments Adult literacy rate.3 2.a.a.a. n.5 92.5 37.5 4.3 4. n.7 13.1 92.7 90.2 45.a.a.6 9. 39 32.

6 105..9 88.a. 94. 2007 Junior Secondary All A-Level Science secondary A-Level 100.6 107.3 114. n.3 100.a.3 98.6 79.4 101.1 97. n.1 94.7 104.8 104. 81.a.6 96.6 79.a.6 108.3 152.1 95.1 97.4 97.8 91.2 97. n.2 97 108.a.6 86.3 101 89.4 96.a.8 130.8 92.3 93. n.9 87.9 92 91.3 105 132.6 84.5 98.8 92 86.6 96.9 153.7 98.2 140.3 97.3 129.6 88 95 86. 80. n. n.8 n.8 100 n.7 102.9 86 93.6 101.2 97.3 104.8 134.1 95.8 107.a.1 83.8 95.9 122.4 97.5 79.5 94.4 93.a.2 89 93.2 105.5 141.5 105. 154 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .6 94.4 107.5 117.7 n.2 89.7 105.4 87.a. 69. n.8 107.3 106.a.7 103.4 95 n.8 126.3 83.3 100.1 96.4 127.5 97.5 138.7 91.2 109.2 133.a.1 95.5 99.4 135.a.3 103.a.4 126.1 109 106.7 96.5 139. 93.4 82.7 107.7 143.5 106 104.7 98.6 93.5 110.6 101.2 131. n.3 95.2 86.1 83.1 152 131.7 87.1 99 101.a.4 101.6 94.8 78.9 98.1 95. 2007 Gender parity index.5 97.7 136.a. 95.5 105.6 98 96. n.2 117.9 93.8 96. n.2 122.1 88. n.9 91.5 91.6 85.6 160 139.9 145.8 84.3 85.3 86.1 95.2 88 88.9 108.a.a.9 90.2 99.1 80.1 83.6 97.1 88.2 Sector Western Central Southern Northern Eastern North Central Uva Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Kegalle n.7 109.2 131.1 96. n. n.9 95.3 110.2 102 98. n. 103.7 106.6 n.4 n.2 91.5 101.8 103. 82.2 91.a.9 109.5 110.7 99.9 111.1 124.7 102.7 84.1 135.1 97.a.7 111.8 111.a. n.8 62.1 92.9 104.2 120.8 95.1 North Western Kurunegala Sabaragamuwa Ratnapura Note: On the GPI.3 119. secondary. n.3 86.7 n. female enrolment is expressed as a percentage of male enrolment in one particular education level such as primary.3 113.a.a.9 94.6 80.4 139.8 91.7 86.1 Province District/sector Total Male Female Primary Sri Lanka 91.1 124.8 103.2 86.Table A16: Primary Gross Enrolment and Gender Parity Index Gross enrolment for primary education.2 115.a.a. Source: Ministry of Education2008.5 88.6 108.6 103.8 100.4 108.4 140.5 115. etc.

6 99.a.a.7 99 99.7 98.5 94.1 164.4 176.1 Female 99.1 Western Central Southern Northern Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa Source: Ministry of Education 2008.5 n.7 98.2 97.1 90.7 100.2 94.1 74 68.a.a.7 75 76.4 154.8 85. n.9 98. 80 83.1 79 71 69.6 119.8 97.9 99. 2007 Survival rates to grade five.5 100. n. n.5 117.1 80.4 90 77.4 76.a.8 118.4 148. Statistical Tables 155 .2 98.3 102.5 99.1 96.a.6 n. n.a.9 94 117.6 73.2 75. 100.6 98. 79.7 106.Table A17: Primary Completion and Survival Rates Primary completion rate.1 99. 2007 Female Total Male 83.6 99.5 100.7 79.2 189.5 87.9 97.6 75.3 117.a.5 84.6 105.8 99.a.5 119.6 148.6 142.a.5 74.2 98.1 83.2 75.3 96.3 100 98.7 97.8 98.1 74.8 100.2 96.8 84.5 77.8 100.6 Province Sector District/sector Total Male Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Kurunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle 83.6 82.3 n.8 96. n.4 100 98.1 98. n.4 88.7 85.7 98.9 100.5 99.a.2 77.3 95. 98. n.a.7 87.6 n.1 99.a.8 98.3 148.6 94.6 78. n.8 100.2 99 99.a.2 82. n.4 92.5 78.3 98 95.8 99.7 101.9 102.6 102.8 162.9 97.3 99.2 99.7 n.3 84.3 67.9 93.5 98.a.9 99.a.9 100.7 99 87 84.8 71. 99.9 100 99.2 93.1 70 83.8 133.2 146.9 84.6 79.a.5 101 100.5 183.9 169.9 84. 80.2 129.2 100.7 98. n.7 125.1 94.2 106.3 86.1 84.7 74 74.6 n.6 93. n.a.8 84.7 99.8 76.7 100. n.

and Type 3 is a school with classes only up to grade 8.8 37.547 173.5 48.0 11.3 29.6 40.8 12. 355.5 32.8 36.2 6.0 16.6 10.214 28.2 22.a.3 31. n.023 North Western Kurunegala North Central Anuradhapura Uva Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Kegalle Sabaragamuwa Ratnapura Notes: 1AB is a school with advanced level science streams classes.a.a.1 29. n. n.7 31. % 1C.0 n.0 22.5 37.1 23.4 36.7 33.4 28.8 49.204 41.1 59.5 5.2 16.3 28. 20.7 n. n.417 129.a.1 50.1 10.8 23.a.187 153.a. n.5 26.825 162.9 27.6 6.3 20.675 95. 51.8 5.5 24.2 4.5 32.1 8. 22.9 48.418 155.2 5.a.a.3 35. n.a.a.4 9.3 33.3 13.2 23.9 26.0 36.6 10.2 n.9 12.4 32.1 30.6 20.a.5 15.a.0 23.5 5.8 35.3 5. n.a.7 3.4 38.a.6 34.604 36.0 43.9 22.4 39.5 21.4 11.5 23.8 19.4 23.8 6. n. % Total 1AB.4 9.7 5.8 15.a.8 6.5 42.8 6.7 3. % Type 3.4 60.4 23.a.8 30.179 34. % Type 2.2 45.Table A18: Government Schools and Students by Type of Schools Schools Students Province District/sector 1AB.9 49.0 4.2 9.9 29.5 47.3 19.1 37.4 20.1 28.1 23.4 31.6 23.1 11.5 20.4 20.1 n.777 127.2 29.3 10.0 27.2 43. 46.a. n.a.662 n.4 24. 16.2 n.6 7. 156 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .454 182.5 5.0 40.9 12.5 34.6 29. n.0 7.297 204.1 10.0 18.7 37.1 37.327 159. n.882 337.172 269.7 22.9 39.5 n.3 49.1 46.0 22.3 23.3 39.2 41.7 22.a.1 29.0 28.5 44.a.8 42.2 46.9 8. n.471 309.5 40.3 28.0 7. 1C is a school with advanced level arts and/or commerce streams but no science stream.753 96.2 16.a.2 6.4 46. Type 2 is a school with classes only up to grade 11.248 121.a.5 17.1 12.9 21.5 14.9 25.8 33.1 3.2 29.234 n.3 9.5 10. n.a.1 28. n.8 17. Source: Ministry of Education 2008. % Type 3. n.3 33.7 38.5 34.6 20.8 13.6 37.2 12.4 36.3 8. 20. n.7 24. 16.1 16.385 93.6 34.a. % 1C. 403 535 402 637 306 516 423 361 310 397 91 99 186 104 325 396 248 876 342 543 231 570 262 578 521 33.6 30.8 27.a.7 31.846 208. n.0 9.5 14.3 36.3 22.929. % Total number number Sector Western Central Southern Northern Eastern Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Puttalam 7.a.3 26.7 5.7 3.294 78.7 n.0 23.a.6 n.9 31.6 46.7 38.7 6.8 27.4 9.7 37.8 5.7 25. 5.4 36.0 33.1 18. n.8 36.5 20.8 41.4 39.a.a.a.5 30.7 28.049 216.986 158.6 29. % Type 2.3 17.5 26.8 40.0 22.0 23.5 19.8 5.2 30.8 22.5 5.3 29.7 32. n. n.9 12.4 35.

Table A19: Teachers by Qualification and Student-Teacher Ratio

Teachers, 2008

Student-teacher ratio, 2008

Province District/sector Total Male Graduate, % Trained, % Untrained, % Overall Graduate Trained Untrained Proportion number literacy teacher teacher teacher of A-Level students in the science stream Sector Western Central Southern Northern Eastern Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Puttalam 212683 n.a. n.a. n.a. 15894 15037 10065 16176 6069 9243 11292 10192 7659 7099 1169 1129 2347 1312 5851 7937 4160 19960 6768 10351 3778 11748 5681 11616 10150 34.9 n.a. n.a. n.a. 44.3 40.9 39.8 34.3 36.3 22.9 36.7 38.7 45.4 45.4 22.8 31.6 27.9 23.0 37.3 24.8 21.8 37.8 29.9 25.3 25.8 27.3 28.3 37.4 33.5 59.9 n.a. n.a. n.a. 54.0 58.0 56.9 61.2 59.0 53.3 61.9 59.7 53.0 52.9 72.2 62.4 67.5 60.5 60.7 70.7 74.0 57.9 66.7 62.2 63.0 62.5 61.2 58.8 62.7 5.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1.7 1.1 3.3 4.5 4.6 23.7 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.7 5.0 5.9 4.6 16.5 2.1 4.5 4.3 4.4 3.4 12.5 11.2 10.2 10.5 3.8 3.8 18 n.a. n.a. n.a. 22 22 20 17 15 17 19 16 17 17 31 25 18 26 22 19 23 15 24 17 21 16 17 18 16 53 n.a. n.a. n.a. 51 55 51 48 42 73 52 41 37 38 136 79 63 114 59 78 105 41 79 66 80 57 60 48 46 31 n.a. n.a. n.a. 41 39 36 27 26 31 31 27 31 32 43 40 26 43 36 27 31 27 35 27 33 25 28 31 25 355 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1313 2032 619 373 332 71 1330 958 1052 1005 614 421 378 159 1077 427 536 356 697 134 185 153 162 474 413 n.a. n.a. n.a. 34.1 23.6 24.7 22.2 18.1 21.4 27.1 27.0 28.6 20.2 18.0 17.1 14.7 22.7 18.7 19.5 14.1 20.4 19.4 18.2 19.7 19.0 15.5 21.7 24.0

North Western Kurunegala North Central Anuradhapura Uva Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Kegalle

Sabaragamuwa Ratnapura

Source: Ministry of Education 2008.

Statistical Tables

157

Table A20: Labour Force

Labour force participation rate, 2009

Unemployment rate, 2009 Female

Province District/sector Working age Labour force Total Male population, (economically age 10 and active above population) Sector Western Central Southern Northern Eastern Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee 1,6578,628 8,073,668 1,968,113 696,077 1,919,232 2,104,446 1,167,057 1,089,958 346,020 557,172 952,271 696,882 518,609 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 349,077 598,201 233,755 1,419,109 713,461 672,539 339,893 751,219 414,100 998,706 736,921 856,241 391,026 893,289 959,406 536,947 469,307 179,522 310,254 446,679 341,468 272,967 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 143,959 248,376 108,945 710,067 341,949 384,508 173,660 423,514 236,079 534,691 358,084 48.7 43.5 49.1 56.2 46.5 45.6 46.0 43.1 51.9 55.7 46.9 49.0 52.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 41.2 41.5 46.6 50.0 47.9 57.2 51.1 56.4 57.0 53.5 48.6 66.6 63.1 67.28 63.76 65.5 66.1 63.9 61.1 71.8 66.6 63.5 66.8 70.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 64.8 66.4 66.8 68.8 69.5 71.1 70.3 68.1 71.3 67.8 64.8

Female Total Male

32.8 26.2 32.96 49.29 29.7 27.0 30.1 28.0 34.7 45.3 32.9 33.1 36.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 20.6 18.8 27.6 34.2 29.0 44.8 33.9 46.6 43.5 39.9 34.9

5.8 6.4 6.0 2.2 4.4 4.6 4.1 9.7 5.4 2.4 8.3 9.8 10.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 7.4 7.7 8.0 5.4 5.5 3.9 6.5 4.0 5.8 4.8 7.2

4.3 5.8 4.2 2.1 4.5 4.3 2.6 7.0 * * 4.8 8.9 6.7 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.8 5.1 * 3.4 * * * * * 3.3 6.3

8.6 7.8 9.1 2.4 4.3 5.3 6.9 14.6 * * 14.0 11.4 17.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. * 15.9 22.9 8.7 10.9 5.8 * 4.7 11.7 7.2 8.6

13,914,438 6,826.401

North Western Kurunegala North Central Uva Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala

Sabaragamuwa Ratnapura Kegalle

Note:* indicates reliable estimates cannot be provided due to small sample size. Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009c.

158

sri lanka Human Development report 2012

Table A21: Employed Population

Employed population, %, 2009 Employment by economic sector, 2009

Province District/sector Number of Ratio of Own Unpaid Informal Agriculture Industry Services employed employed to account family sector persons, working age worker worker employment 2009 population, 2009 Sri Lanka 7,602,414 45.9 29.2 10.6 61.9 32.6 25.1 42.3

Sector Western Central Southern Northern Eastern North Central Uva Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala 801,374 6418747 382,292 853,571 915,069 515,157 423,880 169,857 302,922 409,560 308,123 244,034 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 133,303 229,342 100,232 671,874 323,141 369,386 162,388 406,623 222,442 509,173 332,335 40.7 46.1 54.9 44.5 43.5 44.1 38.9 49.1 54.4 43.0 44.2 47.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 38.2 38.3 42.9 47.3 45.3 54.9 47.8 54.1 53.7 51.0 45.1 20.58 31.4 9.51 19.1 21.2 25.4 23.5 38 17.3 27.9 29.2 44.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 26.7 30.5 39.9 37.9 26.7 40.3 45 34.8 44.9 33.3 24.1 3.9 11.84 4.38 4.1 4.8 6.3 8.8 20 9 9.7 11.3 13.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.9 6.4 4.4 12.6 7.6 27.7 14.4 25 21 11.5 7.4 47.26 65.65 30.33 42.87 44.45 54.06 60 70.12 40.52 63.7 65.3 77.03 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 74.64 73.64 75.48 72.41 73.29 79 74.15 68.77 80.44 72.66 61.03 4.16 33.59 74.94 4.1 7.5 19.8 24.8 42.5 69.4 28.6 41.8 44.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 27.2 36.2 38 35.3 32.3 59.3 47.9 63 62.4 47.1 29.5 27.16 25.78 9.93 29.8 38.3 31 23.8 19.2 9.5 29.8 24.2 24.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 22.3 18.5 15.5 27.1 29.7 10.6 19.2 11.3 10.2 23.8 30.7 68.68 40.63 15.14 66.1 54.3 49.2 51.4 38.3 21.2 41.6 34 31.2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 50.5 45.4 46.5 37.6 37.9 30.1 33 25.6 27.4 29.1 39.8

North Western Kurunegala

Sabaragamuwa Ratnapura Kegalle

Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009c.

Statistical Tables

159

85 n.7 14.0 4.46 1.a.a. 9.63 20.6 14.05 n.84 1. 18.04 4.6 11. n.75 4.9 8. n.68 4. 26.11 22.36 10. n.6 0.6 6.7 8.5 9.46 23.5 9.3 n.5 8.54 1.25 22.0 8.6 1.08 4.62 19.a.7 9.a.5 7.88 10.99 0.3 18.a.3 5. n.4 4.2 9.a.36 17.9 n.86 4.36 0.57 5 6.88 11.7 5.a. n.a. 160 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .0 3. n. n.6 10.19 1.0 4.82 22.57 2.19 1.a.27 12. n.5 6.0 8.45 32.56 10.8 11.77 37.1 9.a.7 2.0 5.6 6.05 7.Table A22: Unemployed Population Unemployment by education level.3 4. 11.48 1.25 16.a.33 Western Central Southern Northern Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2009e.18 8.1 33.95 23.93 22.44 22.01 20. n.03 0 0. n.97 14.57 32.89 2.a. n.98 15. 0.13 n. 2009 21.88 0.41 10.a.19 19.69 12.81 12.a.8 1.25 17. n.9 1. ages 15-24.a. n.01 15.63 5.07 20. n.01 0.99 20. n.a.45 12. 2009 Province District/sector Sector Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Kurunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle Youth Below grade 5 Grades 6-10 O-Level A-Level and unemployment above rate. n.1 7. n. n. n. n.a.6 8.a.4 10.29 23.31 17.69 0 0.51 11.1 8.65 7.2 3.4 6.5 4.55 6.a.a.17 27.49 1.1 22.6 4.74 1.a.a.a.0 14.3 0.64 2.a.8 16.a.7 4.2 7.

7 0.8 6. 83. %.a.6 84.1 2.5 99. n.9 1.6 15 n.2 0 0.6 0.7 99.5 68.a.5 4.2 n.9 3.2 9 7.4 81.2 7.7 85.a.3 92.a. Statistical Tables 161 .8 11.a.5 12.2 13.9 5.1 11.4 76.6 74.5 15.a.8 90.a.3 79 92.2 n. n.5 73.9 5.1 0.3 98 98.7 95 95.4 87.9 22 56.3 30.6 3.2 36.2 84.7 7. n.5 0.2 93.a.5 1.4 14 8.6 n.3 0.a.8 88. 4.9 0.a.3 98 97.a.3 7.6 13.5 8. 22.a. n.1 0.2 14.4 14 9.3 76. n. n.6 n.a. 0. 14 4.a.9 14.7 18.1 6. 12. 86.6 0.2 17.6 60.7 0.1 21. n.7 82.4 87. 2006-2007 Housing/living conditions.1 89.7 97.4 0. n.5 8.1 n.2 59.2 97.6 4.7 n.2 0.9 11.a. 2009-2010 Province District/sector Single/ Line and Slum/ Permanent Permanent Permanent Safe No toilet Electricity flat/ row shanties walls floor roof drinking facilities as principal annexed water type of lighting Sector Western Central Southern Northern Eastern Uva Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Puttalam Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Kegalle 93.5 91.9 0.a.9 1.2 6.7 69.7 96 91.1 n.1 11.8 0.6 4.6 0.5 87.4 21.3 n.1 10.8 5. 13.2 5. n.3 2.8 22.9 6.1 90.9 1. 97. n. n.2 10.3 2.6 13.3 5.3 0. 15.a.6 22. % of houses.6 1. n.Table A23: Housing and Living Conditions Type of housing.8 17.4 16.8 0.1 77.3 95.1 10.3 23.5 11.6 67.1 96. 95.8 9.4 9.9 23.4 5.1 6.2 99.8 1.8 6. n.a.6 3.2 2.2 99. n.2 0.6 0.6 10 11.5 10.8 1.4 n. n.6 0.a.5 9.a.9 1.1 77 7.6 4 4.8 23.a.4 1.7 95.a. 12.9 5.a.8 1.8 6.4 88.3 10.a. n.3 1.5 97.7 0.6 62.a.6 81.a.1 n.5 74. 3.7 1.1 65. 73.6 0.2 0.4 n.a.3 8.9 12.1 6.6 32.7 0.4 12.9 n. n.2 95.8 0.a.9 96.4 98.a.1 1.6 84.6 74.6 91 81 84.1 9.4 8.7 0.1 93.2 89.3 2 0 n. 7.9 8.a.1 76.3 8.8 93.4 0.6 8 17.3 n. n.8 91 93.5 1.6 11.9 88.a.1 87 North Western Kurunegala North Central Anuradhapura Sabaragamuwa Ratnapura Sources: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011c and 2011d.6 92.a.5 5.6 0.1 8.9 3.a.5 0.6 97.4 87.3 0.

61 60.1 24. n.a.4 78 82.8 73.1 32.6 60.1 81.4 41.6 8.5 7.a.5 79.3 26.4 85.4 n.2 n.7 4.1 10 9.5 35.9 81.8 28.2 1. 6.3 74.9 10.5 66.3 77 80.6 81.1 34.9 9.a.4 69.9 79.0 3.9 21.2 5.5 23.1 40.4 33.2 5. 22.6 15.6 31.5 12.8 65.a.5 20.2 19.7 n.6 78.1 29.8 6.9 6.5 5.1 62.9 7.6 n.4 27.a.4 11.9 80.2 11.3 68.7 4.2 46.7 3.a.9 75. 10.3 11.4 84.9 6.3 0. n.5 70.1 78.2 2.3 n.4 48.8 80.1 5 6.8 29.a.a.4 11.3 22. 80.7 10.2 27.9 n.a.6 80. 31.a.8 75.3 10.5 9.2 48.8 21.7 72.a.6 21.1 n.3 6.4 North Western Kurunegala North Central Uva Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Kegalle Sabaragamuwa Ratnapura Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011d. 72 n.4 73.4 34.3 6.1 7.6 48.3 1.4 69.6 10.5 57.Table A24: Household Possessions Consumer durables and vehicles.1 3.5 14.9 50.a.2 47.3 58.2 n.2 25.4 5.1 84.5 38.3 14. 57.8 3. n.6 38.a.5 16.6 11.4 3.8 69.2 17. n.7 35.7 61.a.9 4.1 84.6 35.4 25.5 77. 2009-2010 Province District/sector Washing Fridge Electric fan TV Mobile or Computer Motor car/ Motorcycle/ machine fixed line (desktop or van scooter phone laptop) Sector Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate 13.7 1. 10.0 23.7 2.3 49.9 78 81.3 6.1 2.2 80.a.4 21.3 15.9 6 7.8 72. 1.2 88.2 9. n.5 23.1 22.a.a.0 3.1 10.6 60.2 73.2 37.1 28 11.6 n.a.6 43.3 0.2 9.a.2 7. n.8 9.6 34.3 70.7 33.8 92.8 78.3 29. 49.7 44.3 n.8 n. n.0 4.2 42.9 25.2 5.8 2.8 n.7 74.a.9 5.1 0.9 24. 0. 4.6 41.7 39.1 Western Central Southern Northern Eastern Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee 32.6 10.4 72.9 49 48 55.5 15.3 88. 56.4 3.5 n.1 0. 162 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .8 76.5 80 86. % of households owning.5 5.5 16.1 48.5 22.0 3.3 10.a.6 34.4 79.2 9.4 5.6 32.2 37.1 12.9 69.

013 31.029 31. 10.a.a. Sources: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2011d and Ministry of Economic Development 2011.5 34.0 41.* 2010 Province District/sector Income earners Household Household Total Number of Percent of per household income.783 35.7 1.980 36.9 1.8 40.018 290.752 106.640 n. n.291 36.a. n.366 118.8 n. 552.6 1.8 1.0 Southern Northern Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa Note: *Samurdhi is the main poverty alleviation programme of the Sri Lankan Government.a.9 42.681 163.376 30.295 n.0 39. % of total households households Sector Western Central Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Kurunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle 1.179 196.070 48.228 24. 25.2 26.063 30.922 32. 155. 1.342 42 36 44 51 34 35 39 43 44 49 46 43 42 65 n. n.5 1. n. n.268 49.6 1. 46 n.446 141.7 1. n.9 25.490 24.161 41.3 n.a.8 1.a. 2009 food.709 42. n.780 33.a.7 1. 2009-2010 Samurdhi.060 104.6 23.364 n.1 30.7 1.918 37.a.a. 56. n.734 n.a.200 339.9 1. n.a.8 1.9 1.7 2.a.a. n.283 75.324 276. 87.728 n.7 30. n.917 n. 11.2 46. 56.a.6 1.9 1.8 1. 1.826 63.7 27.526 32. 39.751 72.9 36.437 424.291 62.a.569 138.8 n.Table A25: Household Income and Expenditure Information Income and expenditure.517 179.4 59.353 48.a.a.338 280.a.879 18.a.844 24.586 31.304 85.889 211.812 45. 59 56 58 46 49 41 42 44 54 46 47 n.281 79.a.0 38. 44.395 158.1 1.649 52.162 51.a.6 1.955 94.515 233.a. Statistical Tables 163 .5 1.6 41. monthly expenditure on households participating participating mean.1 42.815 71.641 n.8 1.a.557 189.451 47.a.312 29.6 1. 22.721 24.3 30. n.a.5 n.7 34.838 n.870 35.a.9 1.a.078 86.769 103.902 118.000 221.313 22.200 238.9 30.324 516.240 31.

37.3 11.9 14.6 1. n.8 12.6 24.2 31. 29. 27.4 24.9 n.8 n.7 n.8 n.7 48.8 n.a.4 16.9 23.7 31.9 n.4 15.a.8 11.a.a.4 8.1 35.3 2.7 12.8 33.a. 15.3 39. 15.2 42.5 11.7 32. n.2 11.0 2.0 32. n.4 25.7 n.4 11.a.9 26.a.a.2 39.1 47.2 33.9 1.5 52.0 39.a.9 1.a.a. 28.a.7 37.4 36.5 15.3 18. minutes Province District/sector Nearest bus Nearest bus Municipal Divisional halt halt council/ secretariat urban council/ office pradeshiya saba Sector Western Central Southern Northern Eastern North Central Uva Sri Lanka Urban Rural Estate Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Kegalle 1. n.a.7 8. 9.5 35.a. n.1 35.7 10.a.2 10.1 9.4 Grama Post office/ Bank.a.9 19.a.8 2.5 47.6 2.8 23.3 38.a. 7.4 17.1 42. n.9 12. 18.2 n. 10.3 10.a. 13.6 42. 35.0 39.5 17.1 38. n. 12.3 8.a.8 n.9 13.9 31.2 33. n.2 24.a. 2009-2010 Average distance.7 2.7 48.7 40.7 25.1 30.6 19. 31.1 39.a.2 23.4 51.a.6 12.a.4 36.0 n. n. 26. n.0 33.1 n. 8. n.a.9 n.8 33.1 29.5 13.4 12.8 n.a.5 35.5 36.8 24.3 12.8 36.9 13.a.a.4 34.3 n. n.3 n.3 38.4 35.0 1.6 n.2 27.a.a.7 42.1 33.8 13.0 16. n. n.7 32.1 59.2 1.7 26.8 9.8 35.9 1.3 n.5 11.0 36.7 10.a. n.3 27.8 30.2 16.4 28.8 13.4 56.5 18.0 11.6 23.2 1. n.3 24. n.5 2.2 26.2 21. 32.4 36.8 12.2 38.1 39. 31.9 22. Agrarian niladhari sub-post government service office office or private centre 12.a. n.5 18.2 25. 164 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . 31.a. 1.a. n.8 16. 12.9 13.2 11.7 17.4 23.3 1.1 19.a.6 25.1 n. 31.a. n.0 22.7 35.2 1.7 48.0 2.7 2.a.a.5 16.6 14.6 69.7 16.7 n.4 31.0 32. n. n.a.3 17.9 n.0 1.a.a.0 31.a.a.8 n.a.0 22.8 North Western Kurunegala Sabaragamuwa Ratnapura Source: Calculations based on Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2010c.4 n.a. n.a.4 9.0 2.5 15.2 9. 1. 22.6 1.a.2 n.a. kilometres Average time from house.9 13.9 n.4 43.9 38.Table A26: Average Distance and Time to Access Basic Services. n.

9 15.9 12. Source: Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2007b.3 8.7 10.5 14.1 15.8 21.1 24.5 14.6 14. 2006-2007 Province Source of household income.8 24.1 11.1 17.6 17.8 4.7 21.4 10.7 32.8 34.8 40.7 17.4 11. average monthly All island Western Central Southern Eastern North Western North Central Uva Sabaragamuwa Wages and Agricultural Non-agricultural Other Other windfall Non-monetary Total salaries activities activities income % % % % % % % 35.7 18.6 20.5 39.5 14.2 13. Statistical Tables 165 .6 28.3 9.2 4.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Note: Excludes the Northern Province and the Trincomalee District in the Eastern Province.7 9.9 13.8 13.2 10.6 8.8 11.2 14.7 3.9 14 13.9 35 11.2 14.3 12.Table A 27: Sources of Household Income by Province.8 15.4 33.6 12.1 9 6.1 13 10.3 13.4 18.

Technical Note sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .

These are the observed minimum and maximum values in the time series from 1980 to 2011. expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A decent standard of living is measured by GNI (gross national income) per capita expressed in PPP (purchasing power parity) US dollars.1) mean years of adult education and 18 years of expected years of schooling for children of school-entrance age. the sub-indices are calculated as follows: Dimension index = actual value for the country or districtminimum value) maximum value-minimum value sri lanka Human Development report 2012 167 . Once the minimum and maximum values are defined. These values are based on the actual values during 1980 to 2011. and a decent standard of living (Table T. called ‘goalposts’. and the maximum values are 13. which is the at birth average number of years of education Four indicators received in a life-time by people aged 25 years and older Expected years of schooling for children of school-entrance age. The scores for the three HDI dimension indices are aggregated into a composite index using a geometric mean. Table T. or access to knowledge. The logarithm of income is usually used in the calculation to reflect the diminishing importance of income. Per capita consumption expenditure at district level is used as a proxy. respectively. The minimums for both education indicators are 0.721 (PPP). education. It measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life. the maximum value is $107. The health component is calculated by using a minimum value of 20 years of life expectancy and a maximum value of 83. data on per capita GNI at district level are not available.4 years. which is the total number of years of schooling a child of school-entrance age can expect to receive if prevailing patterns of age-specific enrolment rates stay the same throughout the child’s life Per capita consumption expenditure The HDI sets a minimum and a maximum for each dimension.Technical Note Concepts. The minimum value is $100 (PPP). Definitions and Methodology for Computing the Human Development Indices Human Development Index The HDI is a summary measure of human development. and then shows where each country stands in relation to these.1: Dimensions of the Human Development Index Three dimensions Health Education (or access to knowledge) Living standards Measured by Mean years of adult life expectancy education.1 For Sri Lanka.

539 1990 0. and can be expressed as a percentage.686 2011 0. calculated across the population for each dimension separately. The IHDI equals the HDI when there is no inequality across people. The IHDI is the mean of the three dimension indicators adjusted for inequality.633 2005 0.The IHDIis computed as a geometric mean of geometric means.. based on the new goalposts for HDI.2: Sri Lanka: Recalculated HDI Value. provides the recalculated HDI values (Table T2) for Sri Lanka. It accounts for inequalities in HDI dimensions by discounting each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality. such as regions or districts.Mini. Sub-national HDIs are calculated by using the data for the HDI dimensions and indicators at the sub-national levels. HDI= √ (1 .HDI= (ILife Expectancy)1/3 × (IEducation)1/3 × (IIncome)1/3 Life Exp. Lopez-Calva and Szekely (2005). Disaggregated HDIs help to draw attention to disparities and gaps.ALife) (1 .AEducation) (1 . Max. It is based on a distribution-sensitive class of composite indices proposed by Foster. see Technical Note 2 of United Nations Development Programme 2011a. ILife Expectancy =Life Expectancy Index= A country’s overall HDI can conceal the fact that different regions. 1980-2011 Year Recalculated HDI 1980 0. The ‘loss’ in potential Table T.observed Life Exp. Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index The IHDIadjusts the HDI for inequality in the distribution of each dimension across the population. while the HDI can be viewed as an index of ‘potential’ human development (or the maximum level of HDI) that could be achieved without inequality.662 2009 0. observed Life Exp. The Statistical Annex of UNDP 2011a.691 Source: United Nations Development Programme 2011a. districts or sectors within the country have very different levels of human development. Atkinson (1970) family of inequality measures.observed Life Exp. For more details on the methodological aspects of the HDI. but is less than the HDI as inequality rises.583 2000 0. the IHDI is the actual level of human development (accounting for this inequality). which draws on the 3 human development due to inequality is given by the difference between the HDI and the IHDI. In this sense.680 2010 0.AIncome ) × HDI where ALife = Atkinson Inequality Measure for Life Expectency AEducation = Atkinson Inequality Measure for Education AIncome = Atkinson Inequality Measure for Income 168 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .of the country or district Mini.

These means. and by secondary and higher education attainments by each gender. calculated separately for women and men. The aggregation formula for women and girls GF= 3 ( 1 1 x MMR AFR ) 1/2 (PRF x SEF) 1/2 (LFPRF) The aggregation formula for men and boys GM= 3 1 x (PRM x SEM) 1/2 (LFPRM) Technical Note 169 . The GII shows the loss in human development resulting from inequality between female and male achievements in these three dimensions. The GII is computed using the association-sensitive inequality measure suggested by Seth (2009). The values range from 0 (which indicates that women and men fare equally) to 1 (which indicates that women fare as poorly as possible in all measured dimensions). are then aggregated using a harmonic mean across genders. market by the labour force participation rate for each gender. and the labour Table T. The IHDI can help in developing policies to reduce inequalities and in evaluating the impact of various policy options aimed accordingly. but the method of computation is complex. regions with lower human development have more multidimensionalinequalities. Reproductive health is measured by maternal mortality and adolescent fertility rates.3: Dimensions and Indicators of the Gender Inequality Index Dimensions Reproductive health Empowerment Labour market Women Men Maternal mortality ratio Adolescent fertility rate for ages 15 to 19 years Secondary or higher levels of education attained by adult women and men (aged 25 years or more) Female and male shares of parliamentary seats Labour force participation rate (aged 15 years and above) Not applicable Source: United Nations Development Programme 2011a. empowerment by the share of parliamentary seats held by each gender.3).Generally. and thus larger losses in potential human development attributable to inequality. The index is based on the general mean of general means of different orders—the first aggregation is by the geometric mean across dimensions. Gender Inequality Index The GII reflects gender-based inequalities in three dimensions: reproductive health. empowerment and the labour market (Table T.

PRM =share of parliamentary seats held by men. PRF=share of parliamentary seats held by women. LFPRF = labour force participation rate for women. which HARM(GF.4. Each dimension and indicates that the household is deprived in some combination of indicators.where MMR=maternal mortality rate.‘c’. SEF = share of women who have secondary and higher education.e. A household is identified as a multidimensionally poor household if it is deprived in some combination of indicators. As deprived households have to be identified at the individual level. GM) G F. the weighted sum of which exceeds 30 percent of total deprivations. The weights to be assigned to each deprivation in the household are given in Table T. this GF.the weighted sum of which exceeds 30 percent. SEM = share of men who havesecondary and higher education. micro-data from national surveys are needed to compute the MPI. The female and male indices are aggregated by the harmonic mean to create the equally distributed gender index: indicator is equally weighted. education and living standards.M= 3 Health x Empowerment x LFPR whereHealth = ( 1 1 x +1 MMR AFR )/ 2 2 Empowerment = (√PRF + √PRM)/ LFPR = LFPRF + LFPRM 2 HARM(GF. Method of computation Each person in a given household is classified as poor or nonpoor depending on a weighted count of deprivations. The geometric mean of the arithmetic mean for each indicator: is calculated based on the number of deprivations his or her household experiences.. if c>3). The MPI thus requires a household to be deprived in multiple indicators at the same time. M Gender Inequality Index (GII) = 1 - Multidimensional Poverty Index The MPI is an index of acute multidimensional poverty that has three dimensions: health. If the weighted count of deprivation ‘c’. These are measured by 10 indicators. LFPRM= labour force participation rate for men.GM) = [ (GF)-1 + (GM)-1 2 ] -1 Using the harmonic mean of geometric means within groups captures the inequality between women and men and adjusts for association between dimensions. The MPI reveals the combination of deprivations that batter a household at the same time. 170 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . AFR=adolescent fertility rate. exceeds 3 (i.

Education 1.56 10 Household has dirty (mud/dung) Household has dirty (mud/dung) floor floor Household uses firewood. TV.67 3 1. room but does not have a separate kitchen Household has no car and does not own more than one radio.67 2 2. telephone. Technical Note 171 . 2 under education and 6 under living conditions) Calorie (energy) consumption of the household is less than 80% of the requirement. Source: Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka internal work and United Nations Development Programme 2011a.56 8 0.4: Multidimensional Poverty Indicators and Weights Used Dimensions Weight Indicator assigned to number each indicator Demographic and Health Survey Household Income and 2006-2007 Expenditure Survey2009-2010 10 indicators (2 under health.56 5 One or more children in the household have died No one in household has No one in household has completed five years of schooling completed five years of schooling At least one school-age child not At least one school-age child not enrolled in school enrolled in school Household has no electricity Household has no access to clean drinking water Household has no access to adequate sanitation Household has no electricity Household has no access to clean drinking water Household has no access to adequate sanitation 0.67 4 3.56 6 0.56 9 0. andfood expenditure is more than 60% of total household expenditure Head of the household chronically ill or disabled 1. 2 under education and 6 under living conditions) 10 indicators (2 under health. motorcycle or refrigerator Note: Indicators slightly modified from United Nations Development Programme 2011a to suit local conditions. telephone. bicycle.56 7 0. TV. Health 1. motorcycle or refrigerator Household has no car and does not own more than one radio. Living conditions 0.67 1 At least one member of the household is malnourished 1. Household living in a shanty/line charcoal or dung as cooking fuel. bicycle.Table T.

and Jaffna and Vavuniya districts in the Northern Province.0278.021. but does not have a separate kitchen’. standard indicator nine. The MPI represents the share of the population that is multidimensionally poor. however. since health is fundamental to multidimensional poverty in Sri Lanka. was seven percent. It also does not contain all standard indicators necessary to calculate the MPI. and is somewhat dated. has been modified.Multidimensional poverty headcount(H) = (Number of multidimensionally poor persons) (Total population) q =n where q is the number of multidimensionally poor persons and n is the total population of the area considered in the analysis. If Sri Lanka considers the MPI sufficiently important. 172 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . per UNDP 2010. The Demographic and Health Survey 2006/07 (DHS 2006-2007) provided all data to compute the MPI and related indices down to the district level. conducted by the Department of Census and Statistics. poor people are deprived. including all three in the Eastern Province. DHS2006/07 does not cover the districts in the Northern Province. but differ on three. The deprivation scores are summed up for all the people living in the multidimensionally poor households and divided by the product of the total number of indicators and by the total number of multidimensionally (MD) poor people. the Household Income and Expenditure Surveys do not usually provide the necessary data to compute the two health indicators shown in Table T. two suitable proxy indicators were used. For example. The change was done after consultations with regional experts The latest Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES 2009-2010). this indicator was changed to ‘household uses firewood as cooking fuel but no separate Multidimensional Poverty Based on DHS 2006/07 The multidimensional poverty headcount for Sri Lanka. were used to calculate the MPI and related indices for Sri Lanka. This was less than half the income poverty headcount based on HIES 2006/07 (Figure T. it does not contain all of the standard indicators required for the MPI. Because of the importance of the health dimension. reflects the proportion of weighted component indicators in which. ∑ qc i Intensity of poverty = A = qd Sum of depreviation scores for all members in MD poor households = MD poor persons×number of indicators wherec is the total number of weighted deprivations the poor experience and d is the total number of component indicators considered (in this case 10).1 and Table A4). Since around 80 percent of the households in Sri Lanka use firewood for cooking. it was 0. conducted by the Department of Census and Statistics. it may wish to include the relevant indicators in future surveys. kitchen’ for the DHS 2006/07 dataset. however. (A).4. ‘household uses firewood as cooking fuel. excluding the Northern Province and based on DHS 20062007. The DHS 2006-2007 and HIES 2009-2010 datasets are not directly comparable: They share seven common indicators. Again. on average. has the latest data to calculate both consumption/ income poverty and multidimensional poverty for 22 out of 25 districts. The MPI for Sri Lanka in 2006-2007 was 0. The Datasets Micro-data from two national surveys. The MPI = MD poor population ×intensity of poverty=HA. In particular. The intensity of poverty. An attempt was made to compare the health dimensions of the MPI derived from the two datasets.

086 per DHS 2006/07.were the least deprived.Figure T. Galle and Kurunegala—with similar headcount levels were the next least deprived. followed by Kalutara. Monaragala.8.0683. It was followed by Nuwara Eliya. with a headcount at 4. the income poverty headcount was 32 percent per HIES 2006/07.1 percent per DHS 2006/07.7 percent. with a headcount of 33. the estates recorded the highest poverty rates on both income poverty and multidimensional poverty estimates: the multidimensional poverty headcount for the estate sector was 21. Across districts.2 percent.6 percent. Across sectors. Technical Note 173 . Trincomalee at 12.1: Multidimensional Poverty Headcount. Income Poverty Headcount Index and MPI.4 percent and an MPI of 0. with a headcount of 1. Badulla at 11.0629. A group of six districts—Kandy.8 percent. with a headcount at 15.1 percent and Ratnapura at 10 percent. with a headcount of 33.9 percent. The other districts recording high multidimensional poverty headcounts were Matale at 12. Colombo.6 percent. Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka. Kegalle. For income poverty. Hambantota.1 percent. with a headcount at 17. with a headcount of 1. DHS 2006-2007 Note: DHS 2006/07 and HIES 2006/07 did not coverthe districts in the Northern Province. and Gampaha. and the MPI was 0. Monaragala was the poorest in terms of multidimensional poverty.4 percent. Batticaloa at 11. According to multidimensional poverty estimates. using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2007a and 2007b.was marginally better than Nuwara Eliya. Matara. Polonnaruwa at 10.7 and MPI at 0.3. with the headcount ranging from 6 to 7.

on average. Two other high contributors are under living conditions: ‘household has no electricity’at 10.3695.8 percent of deprivations. This indicates that an average multidimensionally poor person suffers 39. For Sri Lanka.8 percent.2: Intensity of Poverty and Multidimensional Poverty Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka usingDepartment of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2007b.0 percent of the contribution.4180. ranging from 0. The intensity of poverty among districts varied very narrowly. Although Sri Lanka managed to bring down itsinfant mortality rate to 8. In short. Per DHS 2006/07. the rate is as high as 30 percent.3966. two health indicators are responsible for the highest contribution:‘at least one person in the household is malnourished’accounts for 30 percent.7 percent of the deprivations on the weighted indicators. poor people are deprived. in which. the intensity of poverty was 0. The situation on estatesis especially serious. 174 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .4 percent.000 live births in 2007. Nutrition and child mortality in poorer households should be a major concern for policy makers and health planners. The calculation of (A)was done only for those households identified as multidimensionally poor.to 0. for Batticaloa District.Figure T. and ‘at least one child in the household has died’accounts for 10. or 37 percent.000 live births in 2003.5). The percentage contributions of each dimension/indicator to multidimensional poverty reveal four distinct types of deprivations at the national level(Table T.2 and Table A4). The intensity of poverty (A) recalled reflects the proportion of the weighted components of indicators (d). or 41. DHS2006/07 showed that more than one-fifth of children under five years of age are underweight. perDHS 2006/07 (Figure T.5 per 1. the MPI contribution from the deaths of children in poor households is still high. multidimensionally poor persons throughout the country face more or less the same intensity of deprivations.5 per 1. for Colombo District. and the under-fivemortality rate to 13.and ‘household uses firewood for cooking but does not have a separate kitchen’at 10.

6 percent and Kandy at 6 percent. Galle. They were followed by Matale. Kurunegala had the highest share of people (9. which are located in another cluster just below the top right.5 percent. 2006-2007 uultiNote: The size of the bubble indicates the share of multidimensionally poor people in eachdistrict (out of the total in Sri Lanka).5 percent. Nuwara Eliya at 7. in the chart towards the horizontal axis.4 percent) who weremultidimensionally poor. Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka using Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2007a and 2007b. There are overlaps and gray areas. In 2006-2007. which the survey did not cover. The districts with the highest incidences of multidimensional poverty and those with highest income poverty are located in the top right of the chart.6 percent. Batticaloa District had the highest incidence of multidimensional poverty. Badulla at 7. As there is no perfect relationship between these two measures.866. followed by Kalutara. Those with the lowest incidences are located in the bottom left. Its national index is 0. Colombo and Gampaha were the least deprived districts.552 or the educational index at 0. located at the top right of Figure T. were Monaragala and Nuwara Eliya. which is considerably higher than the income index at 0. health is the most developed of the three HDI dimensions.3: Multidimensionally Poverty and Income Poverty Headcounts by District. multidimensional poverty analysis reveals that the health dimension is responsible for 41 percent Technical Note 175 . followed by Ratnapura at 8.3.The bubble chart (Figure T. but broad associations are discernible.694. Matara and Hambantota districts are hidden behind the second cluster from the bottom. excluding those in the Northern Province. districtsare not grouped into four distinct clusters. On the other hand. the most deprived districts in the country. Badulla and Ratnapura. Figure T. Monaragala at 6. In another cluster located midway Comparison between 2006-2007 and 2009-2010 In Sri Lanka.3) shows the relationship between the percentage of multidimensionally poor people and income poor people. although its income poverty was less than that for most other districts in its cluster.

0 completed five years of schooling At least one school-age child 4. including through the appropriate targeting of social welfare programmes. Living conditions 5 One or more children in the 11.5).of the total deprivations of poor people.0 charcoal or dung as cooking fuel. bicycle. 176 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 . Education 3 4 3. The difference stems from the fact that the HDI is a quick summary. 2 under education ional poverty- health.0 adequate sanitation Household has dirty (mud / 7. both DHR 2006/07 and HIES 2009/10 underscore how the most deprived groups of society are affected mainly by poor health: inadequate nutrition. telephone. motorcycle or refrigerator Household has no access to 7. while multidimensional poverty is a more comprehensive assessment based on highly disaggregated data. the contributions from the education dimension based on the two are almost the same: 13 percent and 12 percent. but does not have a separate kitchen Household has no car and does 9.0 not own more than one radio. and infant and child mortality. motorcycle or refrigerator Source: Computations by the report team of the Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka usingDepartment of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2007a and 2010c. Across health indicators.0 3. and 53 percent based on the HIES 2009/10 dataset (Table T. bicycle.0 household is malnourished 2 2.0 not enrolled in school Household has no electricity Household has no access to clean drinking water 8. while HIES 2009/10 identified the highest contributor as the chronic illnesses or disability of the head of the household.0 does not own more than one radio.0 At least one school-age child 6.0 household have died No one in household has 9. DHS2006/07 showed that malnutrition accounted for 30 percent of multidimensional poverty.0 not enrolled in school Household has no electricity 10. 2 under education and 6 under living conditions) DHS2006/07 and 6 under living conditions) 1. chronic illness or disability of the head of the household. at 28 percent.0 adequate sanitation Household has dirty (mud / dung) floor 6.0 Household living in a shanty / 8. telephone.0 clean drinking water Household has no access to 5. These issues deserve more attention.0 dung) floor Household uses firewood. Table T.0 6 7 8 9 10 Household has no access to 5. 10.0 line room Household has no car and 8.0 of the household is less than 80 percent of the requirement andfood Head of the household chronically ill or disabled No one in household has completed five years of schooling 28.0 % contribution to multidimens- ional poverty- HIES2009/10 Calorie (energy) consumption 25. Health 1 At least one member of the 30. TV.5: Contribution to Multidimensional Poverty. For example. The contributions from other indicators to multidimensional poverty do not show significant variations between the two datasets. TV.0 6. DHS2006/07 and HIES 2009/10 DHS2006/07 HIES2009/10 % contribution Dimensions Indicator 10 indicators (2 under to multidimens- 10 indicators (2 under number health. based on the DHS 2006/07 dataset.

0233 0.0107 0.3992 0.3 3. UNDP 2010.3898 0.0278 HIES 2009/10 0.3908 0. % Intensity of poverty (A) MPI (HA) DHS 2006/07 HIES 2009/10 DHS 2006/07 7.0132 0.7 2.3887 0.0481 0.7 percent in 2009-2010.3929 0.6 6. UNDP 2011a.5 6.7 7.0152 0.0468 0.0283 0.3 11. Based on the Technical Note in UNDP 2011a.7 0.0139 Source: Computations by the report team of Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka usingDepartment of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka 2007a and 2010c.5 4.5 4.6 2.7 1. and Alkire and Santos 2010.4380 0.8 5.0326 0.0181 0.2 7.0105 0.4 6.0140 0.1 6.0183 Colombo Gampaha Kalutara Kandy Matale Nuwara Eliya Galle Matara Hambantota Jaffna Killinochchi Mannar Vavuniya Mullativu Batticaloa Ampara Trincomalee Kurunegala Puttalam Anuradhapura Polonnaruwa Badulla Monaragala Ratnapura Kegalle 1.0401 0.8 3.6 5.3510 0.5 12. Gampaha.Table T.3766 0.0231 0.4 10.0260 0.9 8. Nuwara Eliya.7 5. Trincomalee.2 6.4156 0.7 3.0223 0.7 0.4180 0.0629 0.1 7.0482 0. District/sector Sri Lanka Multidimensional poverty headcount (H).0071 0.6 15.0 12.0513 0.0247 0.0451 0. Technical Note 177 .8 4.4015 0.3938 0.0450 0.0293 0.3914 0.3634 0.3 3.3874 0.9 - - - - - 11.0250 0.9 - 11.0245 0.6: Multidimensional poverty indicators at the district level for the two datasets.0683 0.4042 0.2 9.3849 0. The national multidimensional poverty headcount has declined from 7 percent in 2006-2007 to 4.3798 0.3803 0.3 3.9 5.3909 - - 0.4127 0.4 10.3867 0.3692 0.0 4.4 9. Badulla.0289 0.3798 0.3988 0.1 11.3978 - 0.0101 0.3982 0. except Colombo.3930 0.3949 0.0058 0.4028 0.0398 0.3972 0.3974 0.0383 0.4032 0.0123 0.3607 0.0062 0.0227 0.0228 0.0129 0. Most districts have also experienced a drop.0214 0.3903 0.0363 0.2 5.9 17.4017 - - - - - 0.4008 0. DHS 2006/07 and HIES-2009/10.3693 0. Puttalam and Batticaloa.3982 0.7 2.4075 0. Monaragala and Ratnapura districts have shown significant improvement.5 - - 3.0134 0.2 3.3695 0. The labour force participation rate is the percentage of people aged 15-64 actively engaging in the labour market either by working or actively looking for work.3858 0.3966 HIES 2009/10 DHS 2006/07 0.3908 0.0173 0.0275 - - - - - 0. Matale.0 6.

178 sri lanka Human Development report 2012 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful