Once regarded as a model for universal welfare in South Asia, Sri Lanka is now confronting rising food insecurity, strained public services and widening social vulnerability, prompting renewed calls from economists and rights advocates for a development model centered on universal entitlements rather than austerity-led growth.

For decades, Sri Lanka was recognized for its relatively strong public investments in education, healthcare and food subsidies, which helped establish high social indicators compared with many countries at similar income levels. Universal schooling, accessible healthcare and broad-based welfare programs were often cited as pillars of the country’s post-independence development strategy.

But recent years have seen that framework come under increasing pressure.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization’s 2025 Hunger Map and the World Food Programme’s 2024 Household Food Security Overview, around one million people in Sri Lanka are now chronically undernourished, while nearly nine million more struggle to access sufficient nutritious food. Nearly four in ten households report inadequate diets, reflecting a sharp deterioration in food security in a country that was once largely self-sufficient in food production and a major seafood exporter.

The figures come against the backdrop of Sri Lanka’s prolonged economic crisis, which intensified after the country’s sovereign debt default in 2022 and triggered inflation, currency depreciation, shortages of essential goods and sweeping fiscal restructuring.

Dr. Ahilan Kadirgamar, a leading Sri Lankan economist and senior lecturer at the University of Jaffna, said the country’s current challenges reflect not only immediate economic distress but a deeper structural shift away from universal welfare protections.

He argues that austerity measures, combined with financialization and infrastructure-heavy development priorities, redirected state resources away from people-centered public services and toward projects that did not adequately protect livelihoods.

“Until recently, Sri Lanka was a country that could sustain itself and export seafood worldwide,” Kadirgamar said. “But now we are facing a situation where millions are unable to access enough nutritious food, and public institutions are under severe strain.

”According to Kadirgamar, hospitals continue to face shortages of essential medicines, universities are functioning under reduced real funding, and welfare programs have become increasingly narrow and targeted rather than universal, leaving large sections of the population exposed during periods of crisis.

He said the transition from universal subsidies toward selective welfare mechanisms has weakened the resilience of ordinary households, particularly during inflationary shocks and employment disruptions.

Kadirgamar has called for what he describes as a “Human Rights Economy,” a framework that places universal access, democratic participation and social protection at the center of economic decision-making.

Rather than treating economic planning as a technical domain reserved for specialists, he argues that citizens must have a direct role in shaping the priorities that affect their livelihoods.

“Economic policies cannot be the realm of experts,” he said. “It must be democratized. It is people’s demands that should determine economic policies.”

The concept of a Human Rights Economy has gained wider attention through advocacy by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which frames economic governance through the lens of rights protection, equality and public accountability. The approach emphasizes that economic growth alone is insufficient if it does not translate into dignity, food security, healthcare access and social participation.

Kadirgamar said such a shift requires not only policy reform but also organized civic action.“Change will not come without action,” he said. “There needs to be coalitions organizing at every level.”He pointed to cooperatives as one practical mechanism for rebuilding resilience.

Small, democratic and community-based institutions, he said, can help reconnect producers and consumers while reducing dependence on fragile centralized supply chains and volatile global markets.In Sri Lanka, cooperative structures historically played an important role in rural development and agricultural distribution, though many weakened over time amid market liberalization and institutional decline.

Reviving such models, Kadirgamar said, could support local production while strengthening accountability and participation.“To rebuild the economy, citizens and policymakers must rethink how economic policies are made and form coalitions demanding equality, participation and universal rights,” he said.

He views the Human Rights Economy not simply as a new policy language but as a fundamental departure from the trajectory of recent decades.“That’s the context in which I understand the idea of a human rights economy,” he said. “A new framework, but one that has to completely shift from the path we have been on.”

Sri Lanka’s experience is increasingly cited in international discussions about debt, austerity and social rights, particularly as many developing economies face pressure to implement fiscal consolidation measures while managing inflation, debt servicing and weakened welfare systems.

Critics of austerity argue that reducing spending on health, education and food protection during economic recovery often deepens long-term inequality and undermines social stability, even when such measures are framed as necessary for macroeconomic reform.

Supporters of fiscal restructuring, however, argue that restoring financial credibility is essential for long-term recovery and investor confidence, especially after sovereign default.The tension between these approaches has become central to Sri Lanka’s policy debate.

The issue is also being examined through the United Nations-backed podcast series “Economies That Work for All,” produced by UN Human Rights and the UN System Staff College’s Knowledge Centre for Sustainable Development.

The series explores how human rights principles can be integrated into economic systems to support progress toward the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk has also spoken publicly about the need for rights-based economic models, particularly in countries facing sovereign debt burdens and widening inequality.

For Sri Lanka, the debate is no longer theoretical. With millions facing nutritional insecurity and public institutions under visible pressure, the question of whether recovery should be measured by fiscal balance sheets or by human well-being is becoming increasingly urgent.

What emerges from that choice may shape not only the country’s economic future, but the social contract that defines it.

On a spring morning in 1987, Robert Kilgour, then 30, arrived in Kirkcaldy on Scotland’s east coast to inspect a derelict Victorian property he had recently purchased. The four-storey sandstone building, Station Court, had been intended as a residential development project.

That plan faltered when a Scottish government grant scheme for developers was withdrawn, leaving Kilgour with a largely unusable asset and depleted personal savings.Facing financial pressure, Kilgour pivoted. Drawing on his experience in hospitality, he concluded that care homes shared operational similarities with hotels.

In June 1989, after securing bank financing, he converted the property into a care facility and launched Four Seasons Health Care, naming it after a restaurant he had visited in New York.The timing proved advantageous.

In 1990, the UK government began transferring responsibility for social care provision to local authorities, which increasingly outsourced services previously delivered by the National Health Service. This policy shift created a growing market for private operators. Kilgour expanded rapidly, opening additional homes across Fife and nearby regions.

By 1997, he owned seven care homes and had begun to build a regional presence.Kilgour’s business growth coincided with broader structural changes in the care sector. Local councils became key purchasers of care home beds, and demand rose steadily.

Alongside his business activities, Kilgour engaged in charitable work and explored political ambitions, although he was unsuccessful in attempts to enter Parliament.

In the late 1990s, Kilgour sought to scale the business beyond Scotland. He partnered with accountant Hamilton Anstead, who joined Four Seasons as joint chief executive. Over approximately two years, the company expanded to 43 care homes across Britain.Despite the growth, tensions emerged between the two executives.

Anstead later indicated that differences in management style contributed to the strain, with Kilgour focusing on strategy and external engagement while Anstead concentrated on operational detail. In 1999, the founders agreed to sell the company to private equity firm Alchemy Partners, intending to remain involved post-acquisition.

Shortly after the deal was completed, Anstead informed Kilgour that neither he nor the new owners wanted Kilgour to continue in an executive role. Kilgour later said he was exhausted at the time and prepared to leave, though the departure marked a sharp break from the company he had founded.

Alchemy sold Four Seasons in 2004, beginning a series of ownership changes that would define the company’s subsequent trajectory. The business passed to Allianz Capital Partners and later to a Qatari investment fund. Over this period, debt levels increased significantly, reaching an estimated £1.56 billion by the time of the 2008 financial crisis.

When refinancing options narrowed, control shifted to creditors led by the Royal Bank of Scotland.The company’s ownership structure grew increasingly complex. By 2016, forensic accountants at the University of Manchester reported that Four Seasons consisted of 185 companies arranged across 15 layers, describing the organisation as opaque and difficult to analyse.

The report argued that such structures reflected broader changes in corporate financing practices.Ros Altmann, a Conservative peer who has studied the care sector, said investors had introduced financial models that prioritised debt over equity.

She described the process as “financial pass-the-parcel,” adding that there were limited constraints on leverage despite the essential nature of the services provided.In 2012, private equity firm Terra Firma acquired Four Seasons for £825 million, funding the purchase with £325 million in equity and the remainder through borrowing.

The firm’s strategy was to position the company as a reliable, large-scale provider of care services to local authorities. However, the business continued to carry substantial debt, with annual interest payments of around £50 million.The financial model relied in part on stable or increasing public funding.

In 2015, the UK government announced plans to reduce public spending by £55 billion, a policy that translated into tighter budgets for local authorities. These constraints limited the fees councils could pay for care home placements, placing additional pressure on operators.Guy Hands, founder of Terra Firma, later said the firm had misjudged government policy.

He stated that the expectation had been for increased support for the care sector, particularly given demographic trends and political considerations, but that funding instead declined.As financial pressures intensified, concerns about care standards emerged.

Advocacy groups reported recurring issues in some facilities, including inadequate staffing and failures in basic care provision. One case cited by a coroner concluded that a resident had died “for want of care.”Eileen Chubb, who runs a charity supporting whistleblowers in the care sector, said her organisation was assisting hundreds of employees at any given time who had raised concerns about conditions in care homes, many operated by private equity-backed firms.

She reported frequent accounts of residents not receiving adequate food, hydration or hygiene support.Regulatory oversight also faced constraints. The Care Quality Commission, the statutory regulator in England, experienced budget and staffing reductions between 2016 and 2020. Over the six years to 2024, in-person inspections of care homes declined by approximately two-thirds, according to available data.

At the same time, costs for privately funded care rose sharply. Weekly fees in some homes exceeded £1,700, limiting access for individuals without significant financial resources or property assets.

Kilgour, who later returned to the sector with new ventures, said he had declined approaches from private equity investors despite offers of substantial funding. He cited the experience of Four Seasons as a reason for avoiding similar partnerships in future.