Policy inconsistency or national psyche

A remark this week about three-wheelers has opened a window into how Sri Lanka thinks about policy.

Vocational Education Deputy Minister Nalin Hewage recently suggested that the minimum age for driving three-wheelers could one day rise to 40. His reasoning was that school leavers should acquire skills rather than move straight into three-wheeler driving. The Government later distanced itself from the idea, with Cabinet Spokesperson and Minister Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa saying no such move had been considered.

The episode matters less for the proposal than for the thinking behind it.

Sri Lanka has long worried that young people shun factories, construction sites and other work while choosing three-wheelers. Employers complain that vacancies go unfilled. Policymakers then ask how workers can be pushed towards sectors that need labour. The question is understandable. The answer too often starts with restricting choice rather than asking why people make that choice.

Research by the Institute of Policy Studies in 2022 offered a better starting point. Its study of three-wheeler drivers argued that citizens should remain free to choose their occupation. If other sectors need workers, those sectors must become more attractive. That shifts the burden of inquiry from the worker to the labour market.

The latest numbers make that inquiry more pressing. Unemployment was 3.7% in the first quarter of 2026, but labour force participation fell to 49.2%. Youth unemployment among those aged 15 to 24 stood at 16.1%, while unemployment among 25 to 29-year-olds was 11.8%. Among people with G.C.E. Advanced Level qualifications and above, unemployment was 6.5%. These figures suggest a mismatch that cannot be solved by directing people from one occupation to another.

A three-wheeler driver may value income, independence, hours or the ability to avoid a workplace that pays too little for too much control. A factory may need labour, but that need does not create an obligation on citizens to supply it. If firms cannot recruit, wages, conditions, transport, hours, training and prospects deserve scrutiny before the State reaches for restrictions.

This is where the debate exposes something deeper in the national psyche. Sri Lanka often treats policy as a contest over who can make someone else bear the cost. Employers seek labour flexibility. Workers seek job security. Professions protect entry. Businesses seek tax concessions. Consumers seek low prices. Producers seek protection. Each demand can have a case. Trouble begins when its cost is ignored.

Economics is about choice because resources are limited and choices impose costs. Policy must therefore ask who gains, who pays, what behaviour changes and whether the result serves society better. Yet reform debates often begin with a preferred outcome and work backwards. When resistance follows, governments retreat, amend or reverse course. The resulting oscillation is then blamed entirely on politicians.

Politicians deserve blame when they announce ideas without evidence, consultation or Cabinet agreement. But policy inconsistency also reflects a society that demands reform while resisting its costs. Vested interests do not sit outside the system. They shape it. Ultimately, the hard choices confronting the economy will be determined at the ballot box.

Sri Lanka will not become more productive by ordering people into occupations, nor more competitive by protecting every existing arrangement. It needs policy that starts with evidence, respects choice, measures costs and accepts trade-offs.

That requires policymakers, employers, workers and voters to examine not only what they want from reform, but what they are prepared to change.

The three-wheeler debate offers a modest test. Instead of asking how to stop young people driving them, ask why they prefer to. The answer may tell Sri Lanka more about its labour market, its institutions and its national psyche than another rule ever could.