Abstract:Sri Lanka has recorded a significant reduction in poverty in recent times. Yet, as in many other developing countries, little or nothing is known about poverty levels and reduction of poverty among the disabled or their households. The disabled and their families encounter different hardships than the typical deprivations of the poor. The recent literature questions the ability of the monetary approach in measuring poverty in general and especially among different groups like the disabled. Therefore, this study estimates both monetary and multidimensional poverty among the households with disabled persons, using the Household Income and Expenditure Survey data of 2006/07 and 2009/10. The study found that monetary and multidimensional poverty among households with disabled persons is higher than among other households. Even though multidimensional poverty is relatively low in Sri Lanka, the difference in multidimensional poverty levels between households with and without the disabled is high. Importantly, contributions from the three dimensions considered in this research to the incidence of poverty is almost equal, suggesting that further reduction of poverty in Sri Lanka requires improvements in all three dimensions -health, education and living standards-among poor households, with and without disabled persons.

Introduction: The level of living conditions in a developed country such as the United States of America, Japan or the United Kingdom is not anymore a secret for any of the Sri Lankans living in this information age. Moreover, no one in the 21st Century would reject to have that level of comfort in his or her life. Therefore, the central question that gets to one’s mind is that how they have achieved such development while we are struggling for it for decades even after independence. Alternatively, we can ask the same question, “how did they achieve that much of development while we are not having”? Answering this question is not an easy task. Even the shorted list of answers is so long, to name a few; effects of colonization, typical Sri Lankan culture, religion, corrupted political culture, bad institutions, and poor technological progress. Not to argue with the list, since it is not a complete one and the order can be different as one think. However, if we analyze it with world history, it suggests that the main culprit is the poor technological progress in the country during the past two centuries. Hence, the main objectives of this article are to answer the over raided question of “why Sri Lanka could not achieve the living conditions that the developed countries currently enjoying” and “how the future policy directions should be formulated to catch up the developed world” in a historical economic perfective.

Green gram (Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek) is one of the most economically important grain legumes of the traditional farming systems of Sri Lanka because it is a cheap source of protein and animal feed, and sustains soil fertility by fixing atmospheric nitrogen. Weeds are one of the major problems in green gram cultivation, reducing the yield through competition, interference with harvest and harboring pests and diseases. Controlling of weeds by applying herbicides would definitely cause unexpected damage to human health and the abundant biodiversity of Sri Lanka. Therefore, an investigation was planned to evaluate the yield loss due to weeds and to determine the optimum weed free period to minimize the yield losses. Two experiments were performed. The first experiment was conducted to determine the effects of different weed functional groups on the yield of green gram. In the second experiment, weeds were continuously hand weeded and areas kept weed free. In the third, weeds were allowed to compete with green gram until 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 weeks after cultivation. All the treatments were conducted in randomized complete block design with three replicates. The data collected on types of weed, number of pods and pod weight at 3–6 weeks after planting (WAP) were analyzed using the SAS 9.4 statistical package, and DMRT was performed to determine the best treatment combination. The results from the first experiment showed that average yield loss due to total weed populations was 54.77%. Yield loss due to grasses alone was 46.56%, far worse than broad leaves (16.49%) and sedges (18.01%) at p < 0.05. Crop stand count at 3–4 WAP was not significantly different among treatments. However, biomass weight of 50 plants, number of pods in 50 plants and grain weight of 10 plants were found to be significantly different after 3–4 WAP in weed free conditions at p < 0.05%. When the weed free period increased, the yield was increased until 3 WAP; thereafter, not significant yield increment was observed. In contrast, yield steeply declined in plots that had weeds until 3 WAP. According to the results of the present study, it can be concluded that the critical weed free period from the planting of green gram is 3 WAP. Maintaining a weed free period for 3–4 weeks is recommended to minimize the yield loss of green gram at minimal weed management cost.

No abstract