Why good policies fail in Sri Lanka: The cost of ignoring stakeholders

Good intentions produce bad outcomes

SRI LANKA has witnessed the dramatic failures of several well-intentioned policy decisions in the recent past, creating social and political turmoil, harming both the Government and the very people they were designed to help. For example, the Government’s (2021) policy on banning chemical fertiliser sought to reduce dependence on imported chemical inputs and promote sustainable farming. Any sensible person cannot find fault in such a policy. Nevertheless, the result was widespread distress among the farming community, an immediate drop in crop yields, a spike in food prices, and the issue staged as political turmoil. The fertiliser policy was reversed within months, but the damage remained for years. 

Today, Sri Lanka stands at another crossroads with its education reforms which aim to modernise and strengthen a long tradition of public schooling. All the stakeholders principally acknowledge the need for educational reforms, but just as in the case of the fertiliser ban, many key stakeholders, including trade unions, educators and social activists, have started protesting and condemning Government initiatives on reforms. Stakeholders feel they have been insufficiently consulted and inadequately informed about the content and process, fuelling resistance and undermining public confidence.

What unites both cases is not simply weakness of the content of the policies themselves, but the way they were designed and implemented often without meaningful engagement with those most affected. This has become a recurring flaw in Sri Lanka’s policy implementation; hence, this article tries to analyse it from the management point of view.

The fundamental issue

At the heart of repeated policy failures in Sri Lanka is a deep disconnect between Government intentions and the everyday realities of the people. Policymakers and political leaders may develop bold and well-meaning visions, but when they move forward without engaging key stakeholders, they introduce risks at every stage of implementation. The problem, therefore, is not the intention of the policy or the political ideology behind it. 

It is fundamentally a management failure. This is a lesson well understood in modern management theory, particularly through the concept of stakeholder engagement and participative management: the idea that those who are affected by decisions should be involved in shaping them. As the intention is genuinely to serve the people and deliver better outcomes, getting involved stakeholders is not a weakness; it is a necessity. When key stakeholders are consulted, informed, and included, policies gain practicality, legitimacy, and public trust. Without these elements even the best ideas or policies are likely to fail. Let’s further break down the problem.

1. The problem of done deal

Both the fertiliser ban, and the current education reforms share a common flaw: they were largely top-down initiatives, announced as ‘fait accompli’, a done deal rather than outcomes of inclusive dialogue.

The fertiliser policy was imposed suddenly and broadly, effectively overnight, without adequate preparation, pilot programmes, or transitional roadmaps for farmers. Over 90% of Sri Lanka’s farmers were accustomed to using synthetic fertilisers, yet they had almost no practical preparation or infrastructure support for the abrupt shift to organic inputs, a transformation that experts say requires years of careful transition.

Similarly, many educators argue that the Government’s education reform proposals which have included controversial provisions like extended school hours, adjustments in curriculum emphasis, and other structural changes have been communicated to teachers and principals primarily after key decisions were made. In some cases, teachers’ and principals’ unions have threatened strikes and widespread dissent has emerged because they feel excluded from meaningful discussions.

2. Ignoring ground realities and expertise

Good policy design requires not only intent but also insights. Farmers understood soil conditions, crop cycles, and seasonal risks; teachers and principals understand classrooms, student needs, and systemic constraints. In both fields, ignoring expert input and lived experience has undermined policy credibility.

Had agricultural experts and farmers been involved in designing a phased organic transition with training, subsidies, and a phased reduction of synthetic inputs, the negative impacts might have been mitigated. Instead, the organic push was guided by ideological commitments rather than pragmatic terrain assessments, and experts warned of likely declines in crop yields.

In education, teachers and principals have pointed out that reform must consider the diverse needs of students across urban and rural schools, existing infrastructure, teacher training capacities, and the cultural context of learning. Reforms that appear to be shaped in isolated policy circles risk overlooking these realities.

3. Communication gaps and loss of trust

When people do not understand the why and how of a policy, they are more likely to resist it even if they agree with its goals. In both agriculture and education, policymakers failed to build consensus and communicate effectively.

For farmers, the sudden imposition of the fertiliser ban was not accompanied by sufficient outreach, training, or support channels. Instead of dialogue, the policy announcement was met with confusion and panic, which quickly turned into protest. 

In the case of education, a lack of transparent, sustained engagement with teachers, principals, and educators has created an atmosphere of suspicion and debate, rather than a shared vision for improvement.

4. Neglecting cultural and contextual values

Policies are far more likely to succeed when they align with cultural understanding and everyday realities. The fertiliser ban disregarded the fact that Sri Lankan agriculture had operated within a mixed input environment for decades. Organic farming cannot simply replace decades-old practices without extensive adaptation.

Similarly, education reforms must consider Sri Lanka’s unique strengths, its historical achievements in literacy and schooling access, and the concerns of key stakeholders that feel their values and priorities may be sidelined. 

How to get policy implementation right

If Sri Lanka wants to avoid repeating the same mistakes, policymakers must learn not just from the fallout but also from the process failures that made these outcomes possible. Below are practical recommendations for future policy success:

1. Institutionalise stakeholder engagement

Policies of national importance, especially those touching livelihoods of the general public or long-standing social systems like farming and education, should be developed through structured, inclusive consultations. This could include:

Regional forums where key stakeholders and civil society representatives have real input.

Expert panels with disciplinary expertise that include practitioners alongside academics.

Deliberative public hearings and transparent feedback loops before finalising key decisions.

Meaningful consultation should not be a box-ticking exercise; it should shape policy design and build ownership.

2. Pilot policies before nationwide rollout

Sudden countrywide transitions, whether in agriculture or education, are prone to error. Instead, Sri Lanka should:

Pilot reforms in selected districts or institutions.

Monitor outcomes with independent evaluation teams.

Use evidence from pilots to refine and scale up with adjustments.

This reduces risk and builds confidence among stakeholders.

3. Communicate purpose, benefits, and trade-offs clearly

Policy communication must explain not just what change is proposed, but why it matters and how it will be implemented over time. For example:

Provide key stakeholders with clear timelines, training programmes, and assurances about access to inputs and markets.

Provide key stakeholders with detailed frameworks, expected outcomes, and scope for feedback.

Citizen engagement campaigns, local media outreach, and regular progress reporting can close communication gaps.

4. Respect local knowledge and context

Governments should not assume that technical advice or political vision alone can predict social outcomes. Policies that align expert insights with real community needs and effective stakeholder engagement throughout the process are more sustainable.

In agriculture, this means blending organic and conventional methods based on soil, crop, and farmer capacity — not one-size-fits-all mandates.

In education, it means adapting curricula and teaching methods to reflect Sri Lanka’s cultural diversity, linguistic contexts, and socio-economic realities.

Conclusion 

Good policies can fail just as badly as bad ones if they are developed in isolation from the people they affect. Sri Lanka’s past year has shown that ambition, no matter how noble the vision, is not enough. The fertiliser ban debacle and the controversies around education reform reveal a deeper governance issue: a disconnect between leaders and the grassroots, between policy intent and ground level implementation.

To move forward, Sri Lanka must transform its policy culture from “policy-for-people” to “policy-with-people”. It must integrate consultations, evidence-based planning, transparent communication, and respect for local knowledge into the heart of governance.

If this shift occurs, Sri Lanka’s policy reforms won’t just be well-meaning; they’ll be effective, inclusive, and resilient. Only then can the country truly harness its potential to improve lives and build trust between the State and its citizens. 

(The author has a PhD (Mgt. USJP) and is a senior lecturer, researcher, management consultant, accredited Director (SL), MCIM (UK), MSLIM and a Chartered Member CIPM.  He has 26 years of managerial experience in the construction and engineering, trading, apparel, manufacturing and education sectors.  He has held positions such as CEO, Senior Executive Vice President and Group Head of HR and Administration in large organisations)