The World Bank’s approval of a USD 50 million grant for Sri Lanka’s digital transformation has been greeted with enthusiasm from government spokespeople, development partners, and tech enthusiasts alike. E- government platforms, cybersecurity frameworks, and integrated data systems are the headlines. In press releases, this is framed as a leap toward modernisation. In practice, it is yet another test of institutional capacity, not technology.
Sri Lanka has repeatedly invested in digital platforms over the last two decades. Systems exist; portals have been launched; pilot programmes have been operational.
Yet adoption remains uneven, fragmented, and vulnerable to political cycles. Digitalisation is governance reform wrapped in software. No platform, no matter how sophisticated, can compensate for ministries unwilling to share data, follow process, or submit to audit.
The USD 50 million grant is not transformational by itself. Its impact will depend on sequencing, integration, and enforcement. For example, prioritising revenue administration could strengthen collection and compliance; deploying funds across uncoordinated agency pilots may generate impressive dashboards without outcomes. Technology amplifies institutional efficiency — it does not create it.
Cybersecurity frameworks are another area often highlighted. Policy can be written in a week; compliance requires culture change over years. Breaches often reflect incentive misalignment, not technical deficiencies. Without structural reform, systems remain vulnerable, regardless of how much funding is injected.
Past projects also reveal a pattern: over-reliance on consultants creates dependency. Systems often work perfectly in demonstration environments but fail under routine operational load. Sustainability requires local ownership, training, and authority. These softer elements rarely receive the headlines, yet they determine success.
Finally, digitalisation cannot solve political problems. Rent-seeking, discretionary approvals, and weak enforcement structures persist irrespective of software. If systems do not reduce discretionary power or increase transparency, they may produce activity without impact.
In short, the grant is an opportunity, not a solution. Whether it becomes leverage for accountability or another layer of portals and reports depends entirely on choices made within government — not the design of the programme itself.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.