Many Sri Lankan households continue to grapple with the harsh realities of life after the economic crisis despite official data showing signs of stabilisation in food prices.
Vegetables and staples may have eased slightly in cost, but prices remain far above pre-crisis levels, forcing families to stretch every rupee and rethink daily essentials.
Daily wage earners in particular juggle shrinking incomes and the burden of high service costs.
For many urban poor, the headlines of recovery and stabilisation fail to capture the daily struggle to make ends meet, highlighting the gap between policy measures and the lived experience of ordinary citizens.
A comparison of Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) Daily Price Reports shows that food prices in Sri Lanka eased significantly between January and November, particularly for vegetables, signalling improved supply conditions and reduced market volatility. However, despite this moderation, absolute food prices remain high, keeping affordability a key concern for households.
According to the CBSL price report dated 31 January, several essential vegetables were trading at elevated levels at the beginning of the year. Carrot prices averaged between Rs. 480 and Rs. 560 per kg, tomatoes were around Rs. 400 per kg, brinjal prices reached Rs. 600 per kg, and green chillies peaked at exceptionally high levels of Rs. 1,400–1,600 per kg. Local potatoes were also expensive, selling for up to Rs. 520 per kg, reflecting tight supply conditions and seasonal pressures.
By 25 November, prices of most of these items had declined substantially. Carrot prices fell to around Rs. 280 per kg, a reduction of approximately 45%. Tomato prices declined by 35–40% to about Rs. 240–260 per kg, while brinjal prices eased by roughly 20% to around Rs. 480 per kg.
The sharpest correction was observed in green chillies, where prices dropped by more than 80%, settling at Rs. 220–260 per kg by late November. Pumpkin prices also declined by nearly 40%, improving affordability for consumers.
Staple commodities showed far greater stability over the same period. Rice prices remained largely unchanged, hovering around Rs. 240–250 per kg, while imported big onion prices declined modestly from around Rs. 220–240 per kg in January to about Rs. 178 per kg in November.
Bean prices remained broadly stable at around Rs. 550–600 per kg and cabbage prices showed minimal variation. Egg prices were one of the few items to record an increase, rising from about Rs. 28 per egg in January to around Rs. 33 in November, an increase of approximately 18%.
Little meaningful improvement
Nevertheless, according to University of Peradeniya Department of Economics and Statistics Professor Ananda Jayawickreme, Sri Lanka’s economy shows little meaningful improvement for consumers, with living conditions continuing to deteriorate and food prices remaining far above pre-crisis levels.
Speaking on the current economic situation, Prof. Jayawickreme said there was nothing for consumers to be happy about, particularly for the vulnerable segments of the population, as real economic recovery had not materialised. He noted that while headline indicators may suggest stabilisation, the lived reality for households told a very different story.
“Prices today are three times higher or even more compared to the pre-crisis period,” he said. “If we are truly recovering from the crisis, prices should be coming down. Recovery means the economy is improving. That is not happening.”
According to him, although prices may have fallen marginally from their peak crisis levels – by around 45–50% in some cases – they remain far above what consumers can afford. “That does not indicate an improving economy,” he stressed, adding that food prices, particularly vegetables, continued to rise again after brief periods of decline.
Prof. Jayawickreme pointed out that productivity and production had not improved since the crisis. “We are still producing roughly what we produced in 2021. There is no new investment, no significant job creation, and no new production activities emerging. Without new production, economic conditions cannot improve,” he said.
He described the economy as “stagnant at the crisis level,” warning that the absence of growth-oriented activity meant households saw no relief in daily living costs. “The symptoms we see – recurring price increases, stagnant incomes – clearly show that the economy is not recovering,” he added.
Disproportionate burden on the public
Prof. Jayawickreme was particularly critical of the Government’s reliance on heavy taxation under International Monetary Fund (IMF)-backed fiscal consolidation measures. He said the Government’s focus was largely on meeting revenue targets, often at the expense of households and the private sector.
“The Government is better off only in terms of revenue generation,” he said. “But this is happening at the cost of consumers.”
While Government revenues have improved, Prof. Jayawickreme argued that this had not been driven by economic growth but by higher taxes imposed on an already strained population. “People’s incomes have either increased very marginally or even declined, while taxes have gone up sharply. On top of that, inflation continues every day,” he said.
He warned that the burden of economic adjustment had been placed disproportionately on the public. “The general public is being asked to sacrifice to make the Government financially stable. This is not sustainable,” he noted, adding that improvements seen on the Government’s balance sheet did not translate into better living standards.
Clarifying what genuine recovery would look like, Prof. Jayawickreme said that both taxes and prices should fall if the economy were truly improving. “If the economy gets better, people should feel relief. Prices should come down and tax pressure should ease,” he said.
Until that happened, he cautioned, claims of recovery remained largely statistical rather than real, with consumers continuing to bear the brunt of an economy that had stabilised fiscally but failed to revive productivity, incomes, and living conditions.
Pressure from service sector
Meanwhile, consumer rights activist Asela Sampath said that while food commodities had remained largely affordable and stable throughout the year, the real pressure on consumers was coming from the service sector, where prices had increased sharply and shown no signs of coming down even years after the economic crisis.
Commenting on the cost-of-living situation, Sampath noted that food prices had not posed a major issue for consumers in recent months, with relative stability observed across most essential items.
However, he stressed that the same could not be said for services, where costs had risen dramatically, in some cases by three to four times compared to pre-crisis levels. “Even years after the crisis, service sector prices have not been reduced. Instead, they continue to rise,” he said, adding that these increases had placed a heavy and sustained burden on households.
Sampath stressed that while food affordability had improved to some extent, consumers urgently needed solutions to address the escalating costs in the service sector, warning that unchecked price increases in services were now one of the main drivers of financial stress for the public.
2020 vs. 2025
Nevertheless, according to an analysis of the CBSL’s price reports, Sri Lanka’s food commodity prices between November 2020 and November 2025 reflect a period of recovery from the country’s economic crisis, but not a return to pre-crisis comfort levels, particularly for households reliant on daily market purchases.
The data shows that most essential vegetables recorded price increases well above 100% over the five-year period, far exceeding overall inflation and wage growth.
Cabbage prices rose from around Rs. 50 per kg in 2020 to about Rs. 130 in 2025, an increase of roughly 160%. Tomato prices climbed from approximately Rs. 70 to Rs. 175 per kg, marking a 150% rise, while brinjal prices tripled from about Rs. 100 to Rs. 300 per kg, a 200% increase. Bean prices rose from roughly Rs. 250 to Rs. 550 per kg, up 120%, and snake gourd prices increased by about 118% over the same period.
Not all food commodities followed the same pattern. Imported big onions recorded a relatively modest increase from around Rs. 155 per kg in 2020 to about Rs. 178 in 2025, representing a 15% rise, while local potato prices remained almost unchanged. Green chillies, although already expensive in 2020, rose from around Rs. 240 to Rs. 400 per kg, a 67% increase, lower than the increases seen in many other vegetables.
From a macroeconomic perspective, Sri Lanka’s food inflation moderated to low single-digit levels by 2024–2025, following the extreme price increases seen during the 2022 crisis. This indicates that food prices are no longer rising rapidly on a year-on-year basis. However, the comparison of 2020 and 2025 prices shows that the overall price level has shifted permanently upward. Even with inflation easing, many households are now paying two to three times more for key vegetables than in the pre-crisis period.
Govt. stance
Economists say that while macroeconomic stability has improved, with more predictable supply conditions and reduced price volatility, household welfare remains under pressure. The cumulative price increases of 120–200% for many essential food items have significantly eroded real incomes, particularly for low- and middle-income families whose wages have not increased at similar rates.
Deputy Minister of Trade, Commerce, and Food Security R.M. Jayawardana stated that the Government had successfully curbed the uncontrolled price surges that had plagued the country following the economic crisis.
“We have managed to bring down the prices of several essential food items and halted the rapid food inflation that was affecting households,” he said. The Deputy Minister added that while significant progress had been made in stabilising prices, the Government recognised that there was further room to improve market management.
He also confirmed that measures to support consumers would continue into the next year, with additional concessions aimed at easing the financial burden on households.