Browsing by Author "Dissanayake, Chaya"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Click to give: The future of digital fundraising in Sri Lanka
    (Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, 2024-09) Dissanayake, Chaya
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Is SL's apparel sector prepared to face pathogen X?
    (Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, 2024-03-14) Dissanayake, Chaya
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Threads of resilience is Sri Lanka's apparel sector prepared to face
    (Industrial Development Board, 2024) Dissanayake, Chaya
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Who stands to lose? the effects of GSP+ withdrawal on Sri Lanka's export and labour force
    (Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, 2025-03-19) Wijesinghe, Asanka; Anupama, Rashmi; Dissanayake, Chaya
    In the absence of Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+) tariff preference, Sri Lanka will face a tariff increase up to Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariffs, likely resulting in export loss and associated negative labour market effects. This study estimates the export loss of Sri Lanka due to a hypothetical tariff increase from GSP+ rates to MFN rates. The labour force effect and distributional cost across diverse labour groups resulting from preference erosion are calculated in a second–stage simulation. Trade effects are weighted for the utilisation ratio as preference utilisation is below 100% and varies across sectors. The tariff hike in the EU–28 will cause an export loss of United States Dollars (USD) 1.23 billion (Bn) or 36.7% of EU–28 bound exports from the base year 2019 exports. Wearing apparel and processing fish sectors will be hit hard and face significant export losses. The fall in import demand from the EU–28 will make 4.99% of total industrial employees in Sri Lanka vulnerable to adverse labour market outcomes in line with the base year. This study also points to the differential effect of GSP+ preference erosion on women and low and medium–skilled workers, who account for 65.65% of vulnerable workers. The spatial distribution of vulnerable workforce shows a concentration of workers in rural areas with a high poverty headcount index.