Five Structural Signals from Geopolitical Shock to Sustainable Transformation
|
EXECUTIVE
MESSAGE |
|
EXECUTIVE
MESSAGE |
Executive Summary
Artificial
intelligence has moved from experimental technology to a general-purpose driver
of economic transformation, and development economics is being rewritten as a
result. Global corporate AI investment reached $252.3 billion in 2024 and, per
Stanford's 2026 AI Index, surged to $581.7 billion in 2025 — yet more than
three-quarters of that private capital remains concentrated in the United
States a
lone. This asymmetry sits atop deeper divides: 2.2 billion people
remain offline globally, five-sixths of them in low- and middle-income
countries, and only 23% of people in low-income countries use the internet
compared with 94% in high-income economies. At the same time, IMF and ILO
research shows AI's labour-market exposure is lower in poorer countries (around
26–28% versus 60% in advanced economies) — a "double-edged" finding,
since lower exposure also signals weaker readiness to capture AI's productivity
dividend. This article examines how development economics is evolving in
response: from digital public infrastructure in India and Estonia to AI-enabled
health logistics in Rwanda, precision agriculture, and algorithmic public administration.
It argues that the decisive variable is not technological access but
institutional capability — governance, human capital, data infrastructure, and
regulatory maturity. Without deliberate policy design, AI risks entrenching a
new hierarchy of nations; with it, AI can become one of the most powerful
accelerants of inclusive growth since the Green Revolution. The article closes
with concrete recommendations for governments, development banks, the private
sector, and universities.
Oil at $110 and rising. Cooking gas scarce. A country that spent $4.35 billion on fuel imports in 2024 now faces a supply shock it has never structurally prepared for — and the women running Sri Lanka's micro-enterprises will bear the sharpest part of the cost.
In a small room behind a kitchen in Kurunegala, a woman named Priyanka runs a home bakery. She wakes before five in the morning, turns on a gas oven, loads trays with bread and short-eats, and waits for her nephew to load the delivery tuk-tuk that will reach three neighbouring villages by eight. Her entire operation — the oven, the tuk-tuk, the refrigerator that keeps her ingredients fresh — runs on fuel. She does not know the price of Brent crude. She has never heard of the Strait of Hormuz. But when a war broke out across the ocean and oil prices surged past USD 110 per barrel in early March 2026, Priyanka's cost of gas rose by thirty percent in a week. Priyanka is not an outlier. She is the face of an economic reality that Sri Lanka's macro-level discussions on geopolitical risk consistently fail to bring into focus: the two hundred thousand women who run micro and small enterprises in the informal and semi-formal economy are among the most exposed citizens in the country to the fuel shock that a prolonged Middle East war is now transmitting with escalating speed.
Sri Lanka stands at a critical juncture, having navigated its most severe economic crisis since Independence. The immediate challenge of macroeconomic stabilization has largely been met, but the more profound task of achieving sustained, inclusive, and transformative growth remains. The Public Investment Programme (PIP) 2026–2030, formulated by the Department of National Planning, serves as the government’s primary medium-term policy framework to guide this transition [3]. This analytical article, written for an audience of policymakers, researchers, and development partners, conducts a growth diagnostics analysis of Sri Lanka, using the PIP as the central reference. The analysis moves beyond a mere description of the plan to provide a critical economic diagnosis, evidence-based reasoning, and policy-relevant insights necessary to ensure the PIP successfully addresses the nation’s deep-seated structural impediments to high growth. The central thesis is that while the PIP’s targets are ambitious and its strategic pathways are correctly identified, their successful realization hinges on the political will to dismantle the binding constraints that have historically derailed Sri Lanka’s development trajectory.