Analysis by AI with my input By Dimuthu Obeysekera, MSc

The recently published book Gerontocracy in America by Samuel Moyn has generated considerable debate by examining how wealth, political influence and economic power have become concentrated among older generations in the United States.

Although America and Sri Lanka have different histories and economic systems, the central question raised by the book deserves careful consideration in our own context.

Has Sri Lanka also become a society where wealth, influence and economic opportunity are increasingly concentrated among older and already established groups?

This question should not be reduced to a conflict between the young and the old. Older Sri Lankans have made enormous contributions to the country, and many continue to work, lead, invest and mentor others well beyond the traditional retirement age.

The real concern is not age itself. It is whether property, capital, business ownership, political influence and leadership opportunities are being passed forward—or remaining concentrated within the same families and networks.

Sri Lanka’s younger generation is entering adulthood under economic conditions very different from those experienced by previous generations. Education and hard work remain essential, but they may no longer be sufficient to provide housing, financial security or the capital required to start a business.

Increasingly, the decisive question is not only what a young person earns, but also what assets and family support stand behind that person.

THE GENERATION THAT ENTERED EARLIER

Sri Lankans who entered employment during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s faced many hardships. They lived through political unrest, economic restrictions, shortages and periods of uncertainty. Their achievements should not be dismissed as mere luck.

However, they also entered the economy when certain opportunities were more widely available.

Land in many areas was comparatively inexpensive.

Housing could be acquired at prices closer to ordinary professional incomes.

Some employees received subsidised housing loans.

Government employment provided stability and, in many cases, pensions.

Professionals and skilled workers who migrated to the Middle East, Europe, Australia and North America could earn foreign incomes and invest them in Sri Lankan property.

Over time, urbanisation, infrastructure development and population growth increased land values in Colombo, Gampaha, Kandy, Galle and other developing areas.

A family that purchased land decades ago may now own an asset worth many times its original price. In some cases, this increase in wealth occurred without the family establishing a new industry or substantially increasing its productive income.

This does not mean that earlier owners acted unfairly. They bought property when they could and benefited from its appreciation.

The problem is that the same appreciation that enriches an existing owner raises the barrier faced by the next person attempting to enter the market.

WHEN ASSETS RISE FASTER THAN WAGES

A salary and an appreciating asset do not create wealth in the same way.

A salary is earned month by month and is largely consumed by food, transport, rent, education, healthcare and other living expenses.

An asset such as land, housing or a business can rise in value over many years. It can also produce rent, provide collateral for a loan and eventually be transferred to the next generation.

When property values rise faster than salaries, a major economic division emerges.

Those who already own assets become wealthier.

Those who do not own assets must save for longer while the price of entry continues to move further away.

A young professional may have a university degree, a respectable job and a reasonable monthly income, yet still be unable to purchase land or a house near the place of employment.

Meanwhile, another person of the same age and with a similar salary may receive land, accommodation, a loan guarantee, business capital or a house deposit from the family.

Their qualifications may be similar, but their economic futures are not.

The first person begins adulthood with an asset.

The second begins with rent, debt and the difficult task of building capital from wages alone.

THE NEW DIVIDE WITHIN THE YOUNGER GENERATION

It is therefore inaccurate to describe the problem simply as older people against younger people.

There are older Sri Lankans without property, savings or adequate retirement security. There are also young Sri Lankans who inherit substantial land, businesses and financial assets.

The deeper divide is increasingly found within the younger generation itself.

On one side are young adults who can rely on family property, accommodation, business connections and financial assistance.

On the other are equally capable young adults who must begin without any such support.

Family assistance is usually given out of love and responsibility. Parents naturally want to give their children the best possible start in life. There is nothing wrong with a parent helping a child purchase a home, obtain an education or establish a business.

However, when access to housing, capital and professional opportunity depends too heavily on parental wealth, society becomes less meritocratic.

The question is no longer simply, What can this young person achieve?”

It becomes, What can this young person’s family provide?”

EDUCATION ALONE CANNOT CARRY THE BURDEN

For decades, young people have been told that education is the principal route to social mobility.

Education remains essential. Sri Lanka must continue to invest in universities, schools, technical colleges and professional training.

But a qualification cannot compensate for every structural disadvantage.

A graduate may possess knowledge and ability but lack the capital to commercialise an idea.

A young engineer may be technically capable but unable to purchase machinery or obtain a loan.

A skilled worker may earn a reasonable income but still find that housing prices rise faster than savings.

A young entrepreneur may develop a strong proposal but be unable to provide the collateral demanded by a bank.

Education creates human capability. It does not automatically create property, credit access, professional networks or business ownership.

Sri Lanka must therefore ensure that education leads into a functioning system of economic opportunity. Otherwise, the country will continue producing qualified young people who remain dependent on families, struggle to establish themselves or eventually seek opportunities abroad.

POLITICAL CONNECTIONS AND CLOSED NETWORKS

Sri Lanka’s pattern of wealth creation also has features that differ from those of many developed economies.

For decades, political influence has sometimes shaped access to import licences, land allocations, government contracts, state appointments, protected markets and commercial opportunities.

Many Sri Lankan entrepreneurs have undoubtedly succeeded through discipline, innovation and risk-taking. Their achievements should be recognised.

Nevertheless, it would be unrealistic to deny that political patronage and privileged access have also contributed to the accumulation of wealth.

When such advantages remain within established circles and are passed from one generation to the next, the economy becomes less open to new entrants.

A family may pass on not only property and money, but also established relationships with banks, officials, suppliers, customers and political decision-makers.

A young outsider may possess greater technical ability or a better idea but still struggle to compete against inherited capital and established influence.

This is how economic concentration can continue without any formal rule excluding the young. The barriers may be invisible, but their effects are real.

IS THIS GERONTOCRACY?

Gerontocracy literally means rule by the elderly.

Sri Lanka’s situation is more complex.

The problem is not that experienced people remain active. A country should never waste knowledge merely because its holders have reached a certain age.

The problem arises when leadership, property, contracts, capital and decision-making authority remain within the same networks for too long, without creating space for capable newcomers.

Experience should not become a gate that keeps others outside.

It should become a bridge that allows the next generation to move forward.

Older professionals and business leaders can provide mentorship, credibility, technical knowledge and investment.

Younger people can contribute technological understanding, new business models, energy and the willingness to enter emerging industries.

A healthy society combines these strengths.

An unhealthy society allows one generation to retain control while expecting the next generation to wait indefinitely.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT BETWEEN GENERATIONS

Every generation inherits something from those who came before it.

This inheritance is not limited to houses, land and bank accounts. It includes institutions, public infrastructure, education systems, professional standards, accumulated knowledge and economic opportunities.

Each generation therefore carries a responsibility to leave behind more than private family wealth.

Parents may do everything possible for their own children while the wider system becomes increasingly difficult for young people without wealthy families.

This creates an important contradiction.

A society may contain many good parents but still fail to provide fair opportunities for the younger generation as a whole.

The responsibility to the next generation is therefore both personal and national.

Sri Lanka must ask whether its policies are creating new pathways into ownership or simply increasing the value of assets already held by established groups.

It must also ask whether young people are inheriting productive opportunities—or mainly public debt, high living costs, expensive property and weakened institutions.

HOW CAN YOUNG PEOPLE CREATE WEALTH?

The most useful question is not how to take wealth away from older Sri Lankans.

It is how to create new routes through which younger Sri Lankans can build wealth independently.

If the principal route to security remains purchasing land and waiting for its value to rise, those who already own land will continue to hold the advantage.

Sri Lanka must therefore create new forms of productive wealth.

• Shipbuilding and ship repair
• Offshore and marine support services
• Renewable energy
• Artificial intelligence and digital industries
• Precision engineering
• Advanced welding and fabrication
• Robotics and industrial automation
• Marine biotechnology
• High-value agriculture
• Logistics and aviation services

These sectors should not be viewed only as sources of employment.

Young Sri Lankans must be given opportunities to become suppliers, contractors, innovators, investors and owners within them.

A job provides an income.

Ownership provides an opportunity to accumulate capital, expand a business, employ others and transfer productive wealth to the future.

VOCATIONAL SKILLS CAN EXPAND OPPORTUNITY

Sri Lanka continues to give greater social recognition to university education than to advanced technical and vocational careers.

This attitude must change.

Modern economies depend on highly skilled welders, machinists, pipefitters, offshore technicians, divers, marine engineers, robotics specialists, equipment operators and industrial maintenance professionals.

These are not low-level occupations. They require discipline, certification, precision and continuous technical development.

In internationally connected industries, such skills can produce strong incomes and pathways into entrepreneurship.

A skilled welder may eventually establish a fabrication company.

A marine technician may become a specialist contractor.

A machinist may develop a precision-engineering workshop.

An automation technician may create a systems-integration business.

Vocational education can therefore become more than a route to employment. It can become a route to ownership and social mobility.

But this requires internationally recognised training, modern equipment, industry partnerships and clear progression from apprentice to specialist, supervisor and entrepreneur.

ACCESS TO CAPITAL MUST BE REFORMED

Skills and ideas cannot become businesses without finance.

Sri Lankan banks commonly lend against existing assets. This protects the bank but favours people who already possess property.

A capable young entrepreneur without land may therefore be denied finance, while an established asset owner can borrow more easily even when the new business proposal is less innovative.

This system reproduces existing wealth rather than creating new wealth.

Development banks and financial institutions should establish programmes that assess technical ability, contracts, cash flow and commercial potential—not collateral alone.

Youth-oriented venture-capital and credit-guarantee schemes should support carefully evaluated businesses in engineering, technology, agriculture, energy and maritime industries.

Tax incentives should encourage experienced professionals and established companies to invest in young enterprises.

Government procurement should reserve transparent opportunities for qualified small and emerging firms.

However, simply making more credit available is not enough.

If loans are directed mainly towards purchasing limited land and housing, additional credit may only push prices higher.

Finance should therefore be linked to productive investment, new housing supply, export industries, technology, equipment and business creation.

OPENING THE DOORS OF GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

The government is one of the largest purchasers of goods and services in Sri Lanka.

Yet younger businesses frequently struggle to qualify for contracts because they lack previous government experience, large financial guarantees or established political connections.

Procurement systems should protect public funds, but they should not permanently exclude new entrants.

Large projects can be divided into suitable packages.

Transparent scoring systems can recognise innovation and technical quality.

Emerging companies can be encouraged to participate through partnerships, subcontracting arrangements and monitored pilot projects.

The objective should be to create a competitive pipeline in which capable young firms can gradually build experience and credibility.

Otherwise, public contracts will continue circulating among a limited group of established businesses.

FROM PASSIVE PROPERTY TO PRODUCTIVE CAPITAL

Sri Lankan families have traditionally regarded land and housing as the safest forms of wealth.

This is understandable. Property offers security in a country that has experienced inflation, political instability and uncertainty in financial markets.

But when too much national capital remains locked in land, the country may become asset-rich while remaining industrially weak.

Older asset owners can play a major role in changing this.

A portion of accumulated wealth could be directed towards productive enterprises, start-ups, modern agriculture, export manufacturing and technical training.

Experienced businesspeople could mentor younger partners rather than merely passively transferring property after death.

Such investment would benefit both generations.

Older investors would gain new opportunities for returns and legacy.

Younger entrepreneurs would gain capital, credibility and access to experience.

Sri Lanka needs more bridges between accumulated wealth and emerging talent.

A PARTNERSHIP, NOT A GENERATIONAL WAR

This debate should not become an accusation against older Sri Lankans.

Many worked under difficult conditions, supported extended families, educated their children and saved carefully over decades.

Nor should younger people be dismissed as impatient or unwilling to work.

They are attempting to establish themselves in an economy where housing is expensive, wages are under pressure, stable employment is limited and business finance remains difficult to obtain.

Both generations need each other.

Older Sri Lankans possess experience, networks, property and accumulated capital.

Younger Sri Lankans possess technological knowledge, adaptability, new ideas and entrepreneurial ambition.

The country will progress when experience finances and mentors innovation—and when innovation creates new value rather than merely waiting to inherit existing assets.

CONCLUSION

Sri Lanka’s challenge is not that older people have accumulated wealth.

The challenge is that too many younger Sri Lankans lack an independent and realistic pathway to create wealth of their own.

A society cannot claim to provide equal opportunity when two equally qualified young people have completely different futures because one inherits property and the other does not.

Neither can economic progress be measured solely by rising land values. A country does not become more productive merely because existing property becomes more expensive.

Real progress occurs when a capable young Sri Lankan—regardless of family background—can acquire useful skills, find suitable housing, obtain finance, establish a business and compete fairly for opportunities.

Sri Lanka must therefore move from an economy that rewards possession alone towards one that also rewards innovation, skill, productivity and enterprise.

The older generation should not be pushed aside. Its experience and capital are national resources.

But those resources must help build ladders for the next generation rather than walls around existing privilege.

Only through such a partnership can Sri Lanka achieve stronger social mobility, wider ownership, productive economic growth and genuine fairness between generations.