Sarath Obeysekera 

Some business leaders and professionals are now lamenting that projects for FDI are not coming 

They suggest privately that decision -makers who are cabinet ministers may be allowed to take an incentive rather than calling it bribery, so that FDI can grow in 

Large infrastructure projects are often evaluated on their economic return. In capitalist economies, investors expect profits, dividends, and performance-linked rewards. Corporate executives are compensated based on the value they create for shareholders

Governments, however, operate under a different principle. Ministers and public officials are custodians of public funds rather than investors. Consequently, any personal financial benefit derived from awarding contracts is generally considered corruption rather than profit sharing.
Yet this distinction raises an interesting question. If private-sector decision-makers are rewarded for successful investments, should governments develop transparent mechanisms that reward public-sector leaders for creating measurable national value?

Sri Lanka has invested heavily in highways, ports, airports, conference halls, sports facilities, and other strategic infrastructure. Some projects have generated substantial economic benefits, while others have produced returns below expectations. The challenge is that the individuals responsible for selecting, designing, and implementing these projects often receive the same compensation regardless of the outcome.

In the private sector, a failed investment affects profits and shareholder value. In the public sector, the consequences are often borne by taxpayers. This creates what economists call an incentive gap.”
The solution is not to legalize commissions or unofficial payments. Instead, governments could explore transparent performance-based systems. Rewards could be linked to measurable outcomes such as increased trade, higher tax revenue, job creation, export growth, foreign direct investment, or improved public services. Such incentives would need to be publicly disclosed, independently audited, and approved through legislation.

For example, a port expansion that increases national export earnings and attracts international shipping lines could justify performance rewards for the institutions responsible. Similarly, a successful industrial zone that generates thousands of jobs might warrant recognition and incentive payments to the agencies involved.

At the same time, projects that fail to meet economic objectives should be subject to review and accountability. Public investment must be assessed not only on construction costs but also on long-term economic returns.

The debate is therefore not whether bribery should be renamed or accepted. Rather, it is whether governments can create transparent, legal, and accountable incentive structures that encourage better decision-making while preserving public trust.

As Sri Lanka seeks to accelerate development, attract investment, and improve infrastructure, the country may need to reconsider how public-sector performance is measured and rewarded. The ultimate objective should be to align the interests of decision-makers with the prosperity of the nation rather than with personal financial gain.
Sarath Obeysekera

Regards

Dr Sarath Obeysekera