Public bodies and their roles

The Government must be commended for placing before the parliament, and by extension the people of Jamaica, the revenues and expenditure estimates for public bodies. This is significant as the expenditure estimates for these bodies amount to approximately 72 per cent of the central government expenditure and, importantly also, these public bodies expect to commit taxpayers to an additional J$36 billion in loans for fiscal year 2010/11.

This should accelerate the steps towards International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), the public sector equivalent to IFRS. If we are to properly assess and address our economic challenges we must be fully aware of all government commitments, both cash and accrued expenses. This will force governments to put all the cards on the table and cease the long-standing practice of meeting fiscal deficit targets by just not paying bills, which in the end harms the economy more than not having known what the true deficit position is.

Myopic views
I am constantly amazed at the myopic view taken of public bodies by elements of our public and private sector leadership, as well as those professing to be knights in shining armour who come flying in on one of the many airlines to prescribe what is "good for us" and fly back home to watch the events unfold on CNN in the luxury of their homes.

The view put forward is that public bodies are costing the Government a lot of money so we need to just cut them out totally, and given the chance, they would do so immediately without any regard for the immediate negative effect on the economic and social conditions of the country. I will agree that some public bodies should be divested and the Government is making the right moves to deal with these bodies.

For example, the Government has either taken steps or stated its intention to divest itself of Air Jamaica, the Sugar Company, Wallenford Coffee and Caymanas Track Limited, among others. And the Government is spot on about the need to get its tentacles out of these businesses, as by their very definition, bureaucracies should not be involved in trying to compete in the market economy. They will always lose.

On the other hand, there are certain bodies which are critical to the economy and the public infrastructure. One such is the JUTC. These bodies should not be targeted to reduce losses without considering the opportunity cost of such an action. So when people say to me that the JUTC costs too much money and we should just do away with it, I have to ask myself what banned substance were they just partaking in, or is it that they are so blinkered in their views that border on being ignorant.

It is very important not to approach the operation of public bodies, or the fiscal deficit, with a narrow- minded approach. This dangerous way of thinking could lead us to not have any proper public infrastructure a few years down the line if we approach it in this way. The purpose of public bodies, and fiscal policy for that matter, should be to target economic and social growth and development. One of the reasons why we have failed to develop as a country is that we have had this long-standing obsession with monetary policy and applying fiscal policy with a view to increasing government revenues rather than addressing it to macroeconomic objectives we lay out year after year without being successful in meeting them. The bottom line is that if we intend to go down road X but we take the path that leads us down road Y, then how can we expect to reach to the end of road X, unless it runs into road Y? Similarly, the approach that we take to fiscal policy will only lead us to our macroeconomic objectives by what Jamaicans call "buck up". Targeting the fiscal deficit as a policy decision, for example, ignores the need for development in the economic and social environment.

Questions to ask
So while the Government is totally on the right path of not wanting to compete with private sector interests in coffee, air transport, and horse racing (can you believe government is involved in this?), there are some public bodies that are critical to an efficient economy. Another argument for government not competing in the industries mentioned is, how fair is it for Government to own interest in a sector that it also regulates? This seems like a serious conflict of interest and one that the private sector should be concerned about.

On the other hand, places like the JUTC should not be assessed according to profit or loss, but rather the following questions need to be asked:

1. What need is the public body fulfilling?

2. What would be the effect on the economy and public order if the body fails to deliver service, or not provide service at a certain minimum standard?

3. How can implementing the service bring efficiency to the economy or save the country much-needed foreign exchange?

4. How can I improve the movement of persons throughout the country, and what is the expected benefit to productivity?

5. What is the most efficient cost structure for carrying out the needed operation?

These are just some general questions that must be asked when assessing the need for a public body, and the question about cost should always be after determining the expected benefit to the economy. So, for example, if we were to have an efficient and safe public transportation system, then we could save billions of dollars from (1) oil imports; (2) productivity increases; (3) freeing up of traffic; and (4) implementing access charges to business districts, just as in Manhattan or London. Before this can be properly implemented, however, we need to have a well-run, and very importantly, safe public transportation system. In the end all of our misfortunes come back to the crime monster.

There are also some public bodies that should be merged, as they provide basically the same function. Some of these include (1) the Betting, Gaming, and Lotteries and Racing commissions; (2) JIS and PBCJ; (3) MIDA and the Self-Start Fund; (4) DBJ and EXIM Bank, and there are many others. This move may not only save the Government hundreds of millions in expenditure but would also create a more efficient service delivery to the market.

While we are going through these necessary consolidations and eliminating what needs to be removed, we must recognise the importance of some public bodies to growth and development. For example, if the JUTC even cost $2 billion to run per annum, if it was saving us 50 per cent of the oil bill related to transportation and getting people to work in a more productive state of mind, or easing the traffic congestion leading to less need for road development and repair, then it would have been $2 billion well spent, as opposed to spending $500 million and not maximising on the benefits of such a public body.

The budget’s role in development

As far as I can remember, every year the government goes to parliament and outlines the expenditure and revenue estimates for the upcoming year. And you can be sure that as night follows day that some new taxes or fees are to be added to the overall economy. Even if something is given to the citizens, be assured that it is going to be taken back elsewhere.

The questions we must ask is why do governments come to the Jamaican people year after year for more but we still see no real development in the country. There are some that will argue that Jamaicans drive better cars, live in better houses, and carry two or three cell phones so the citizen must be better off. While we enjoy natural developments, as a result of the technological advances, the fact is that (as I pointed out in my book) in1975 we were ranked in the top 39 percent of countries surveyed in the Human Development Index (HDI), while in 2005 we moved to the 57 percentile. So relatively speaking Jamaica has declined in HDI ranking.

Governments are parasitic
For years Government has been parasitic, just like the mosquito which sucks blood from the body without replacing it, waiting instead for it to be nourished by other sources before it starts its blood sucking again. The problem is that at some point in time that constant sucking of blood without any adequate replacement will make the person ill and eventually lead to their death.

Add to that the fact that the person is very sick already and what you do is hasten the process of death. So compare that to an economy that is in recession and you will understand why new taxes will only serve to shrink the economy further. Can you imagine if the US in 2008 chose to increase taxes in order to reduce the fiscal deficit? The global economy would have crashed and cause devastation.

So we can understand the effect on the fiscal accounts from the tax package introduced in December 2009.The February fiscal numbers show this. Cursory looks at the fiscal numbers do not reveal the true picture, as the fiscal deficit and tax revenue is distorted by the JADEX. And so one would be misled to utilize those numbers for any assumptions without making the adjustments to smooth out that extraordinary item as accountants would do.

If one were to adjust out the extraordinary items caused by the JADEX, the normalized fiscal deficit would in fact be approximately $121.3 Billion and not $135.6Billion, or 12% of GDP rather than 13%. No doubt the IMF took this into consideration. On the other hand as it relates to the tax revenues, they actually underperformed in January by 19.47% ($4.3 Billion) if normalized. This is because one would have to remove the tax effect of the JADEX in order to arrive at what the normalized tax would be, which I estimate at $17.8 Billion compared to a budget of $22.2 Billion.

The tax revenues is what I am more concerned with than the fiscal deficit target, as it measures how healthy an economy is. And remember that this is in the context of the December tax package. Moreover this does not include the GCT on electricity bills and increased property taxes, which I think will have a further contractionary effect on disposable incomes, which is the blood supply of economies.

The problem with our budgets therefore is that there has been no real alignment between our budget process and the desired economic developmental objectives. So even while we set targets for economic growth, inflation etc., the fact is that our budgets have not been configured around our macroeconomic objectives. So we will inevitably end up missing our targets on that basis.

Budget philosophy
While this budget has made some improvements in that philosophy, I do not think that it has gone far enough to compensate for the negative consequences of the budget. The Minister of Finance has correctly recognized:

(1) the need for restructuring the debt cash flows – this is something I have touted for a while to much ridicule from most persons, even some who know embrace it as the best thing since sliced bread. As a matter of fact the much anticipated downgrades I was told would happen if we discussed it too much, all happened before it was discussed and after it was done and discussed we got upgraded. The Finance Minister has taken a very bold step in doing this and I think is consistent with his overall philosophy on the necessary adjustments that need to be done. While I welcome the restructure, my own view is that the pace of the restructure carries significant risks and means that other revolutionary changes must happen to minimize the JADEX risk, with some amount of social fallout. I also believe that the government is going to have to seek other loans like the China road loan to mitigate this risk;
(2) the need to rationalize and bring efficiency to the bureaucracy of government - among these efficiencies is one that I think is one of the most significant developments in recent times because of its positive effect on business costs and private sector efficiency. That is the efiling rolled out by the Tax Administration. I would certainly recommend this project for special recognition at an event like Business Leader or Jamaica Chamber of Commerce awards because of the efficiency it brings to businesses; and
(3) the need to reduce discretionary expenditure to only what is necessary and adds value.

So the overall philosophy of the Finance Minister is I think moving in the right direction. The problem is that the actions of the Finance Minister need to be supported by the other policy arms and actions of the bureaucracy. So that while the Finance Minister is pressing ahead there are other aspects that are weighting down his initiatives. Not least among them is crime, which I have been at pains to point out will only frustrate any financial effort made to turn the fiscal around, as even if the Shaw and his team get interest rates down to zero percent, no one will make any real productive long term investments in a socially decadent environment. The other factor is that we must settle the dispute between the government and teachers/nurses so as to avoid all the resulting unproductive time.

This problem of support can also be implied from the budget numbers, where there are significant real cuts in the budget for the public defender, OCG, auditor general, and courts. My opinion is not based on any detailed knowledge of the programmes but what we need is to get a clear indication of what will the resources allocated to these agencies do to improve the objectives and further serve as a stop to the excesses they seek to prevent. So the budget exercise must not just be a focus on how much is spent this year versus last or how much we can reduce the fiscal deficit by but must focus primarily on what are the deliverables expected in relation to the overall economic targets and whose accountability will it be for certain specific targets to be met.

Unless we understand this inextricable link between the budget and the behavioural aspects of the society we will continue to focus on how much we spend in relation to last year, in a very narrow financial way as I have heard some commentators do, which will only result in us going through the same ritual next year without any real benefit.

As I indicated though, I think the overall philosophy of the budget is changing for the better but we must improve its alignment with the overall economic objectives by taking a much more detailed view of the deliverables in relation to expenditure. That requires a certain shift, which I will not comment on here.

JAMAICA'S ENERGY OPPORTUNITY (PART 2)

AS a result of the numerous responses to last week's article, I thought it would be good to do a part 2. This is also based on my very firm belief that a focus on the efficient use of energy could be the single most beneficial economic activity for Jamaica. As I indicated, a mere 30 per cent reduction in our energy bill could eliminate our trade deficit within four to five years, and so a focus on a comprehensive energy policy would be most beneficial to the country.

In response to a comment from Omari last week:

(1) I agree that it would be more beneficial to focus on an overall energy project but one could argue also that as long as the cost of even a small project is less than the operations it makes sense. Prudence would dictate, however, that the most effective approach is used, as the rest of the world is exploring energy options and if their projects are more cost-effective then although our own may cost less than what currently exists, relative costs will be higher; and

(2) The payback period is typically six to eight years, but the way I implemented the system will cut my payback in almost half. Remember it is not just access to capital that is important but how it is used, which is why professional financial assistance is always prudent.

One other person indicated to me that he used grid-tie technology where the system runs on solar entirely from panels, but the excess produced by the panels not used is pushed back to the grid by turning the JPS metre back. He therefore indicated that he just used JPS at nights and does not invest in batteries. Apart from being illegal, if the numbers are worked out then there is no real benefit as what you push back in the day you use (and more) at nights. A battery backup would allow less JPS use and increase in the payback period, while having the convenience of electricity at night if the JPS supply goes. I guess the emotional thought of beating JPS has trumped the financial logic.

There are two other issues I wanted to address. These are to do with the way in which GCT is computed on the JPS bills and look at what may be an overly optimistic oil cost projection in the IMF projections. The latter is very important because oil is such a substantial cost to the country.

JPS GCT
The first thing is that the JPS is known to estimate many of its monthly bills. Therefore if they are going to charge GCT on consumption above 200KWH per month, then effectively what they are doing is levying estimated tax assessments on the public. This leads to another concern with the computation of the GCT component, and the JPS (and OUR) may want to tell the public how they will deal with what could be an overestimation of tax.

The table above shows two scenarios, based on an actual consumption over three months of 650KWH. In the first case there are two estimated bills of 150KWH each, based on prior consumption patterns, and in the second case three actual readings. The assumption of a $30 per KWH is used, and shows in case 1 where GCT comes out at $450, while the actual readings show GCT of $150, which is what the customer is actually liable for. So because the JPS does not provide an accurate reading per month the consumer is overtaxed by 200 per cent.

The question therefore is how the consumer is going to be protected against this possible overcharge of tax on their bill, which effectively is an overestimation of tax. The truth is that unless the JPS does actual readings each month then it cannot guarantee against this happening. The other policy that needs to be understood is how they will adjust GCT charges on bills that are erroneously sent to customers, as it is very easy to misread the analog metre.

There needs to be some policy direction from the OUR and JPS on this. I would hope that the OUR gave some thought to this. It doesn't affect me, though, as my consumption is less than 200KWH per month.

IMF oil projections
The other concern is the oil price projections in the IMF document, which projects oil price to average (barrel) - US$77.30 (2010/11); US$79.90 (2011/12); US$81.50 (2012/13); and US$83.40 (2013/14). These prices seem to be optimistic given the global energy realities as outlined by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and that oil is currently close to $80 per barrel ahead of 2010/11 and with the world still facing economic challenges.

The IEA states the following:
* Oil demand and price will peak in 2025, and until then oil prices will be on the increase. China and India will account for the steepest increases;
* The greatest demand increases will come from coal, followed by oil and then natural gas;

* Oil supply into 2030 will be mainly from "Fields yet to be developed and found". It goes on to state that the cost of finding oil continues to rise (a higher break-even price) and that there is a declining investment in new oil fields (declined by 19 per cent in 2009); and

* Demand is increasing at a faster pace than supply. Output from existing fields will drop by almost two-thirds by 2030. IEA states "Additional capacity of around ...four times current Russian capacity, is needed by 2030 -- half to offset decline at existing fields and half to meet increased demand".

These arguments also do not include any geopolitical concerns that may arise. It seems very likely therefore that next fiscal year oil could average between US$80 and US$90 per barrel and increasing until 2025, or until new sources of energy are found. The problem is that trends show a steady reliance on fossil fuels.

The question then is how we address our own energy policy going forward. The Green Paper on Jamaica's Energy Policy states that energy use is approximately 98 per cent from fossil fuels and the main users are bauxite/alumina processing (36.6 per cent); Electricity generation (24.7 per cent); and Road transportation (23.5 per cent). These three account for 85 per cent of Jamaica's energy use.

What is needed is an energy policy that targets these areas in specific ways, so that if we can secure policy-based loans to reduce usage by 30 per cent to 40 per cent by 2014, we could save up to US$791 million in 2014 alone. But this needs a multi-policy approach. For example, the bauxite/alumina sector should be looking at coal, wind and hydro; businesses and residences should be looking at solar and wind; and road transportation should be looking at investing in bio-fuels as well as providing more investment to develop the infrastructure and discipline in the public transportation system.

Although many think that natural gas is the way to go I am not a big fan of that approach. My own belief is that based on the demand-supply equation, coal will continue to be a cheaper option, and that coal technology will get better and provide cleaner coal. But that is just my own view based on the cost versus the financial benefit.

What is clear, though, is that the price of fossil fuels will continue to increase over the next 10 to 15 years, and as a poor country we will be negatively impacted. The IEA is very clear on its projections and we should make every effort to ensure that we use some of that sunshine we sell to tourists.

JAMAICA'S ENERGY OPPORTUNITY

WHENEVER I am interviewed about the Jamaican economy, I usually come to the conclusion in my book that the only way for Jamaica to come out of our present downward spiral is to make a fundamental structural shift in our economic and social arrangements. The truth is that there is no other way, as illustrated by a house that is built on a structurally weak foundation. Even if one were to put a fresh coat of paint on the house every year, the foundation would still remain very weak and susceptible to damage.

When I look at the projections in the recent IMF programme, it gives the impression that much of what will be done is tinkering with the numbers and hoping to recover based on the same structural foundation on which we have been unsuccessfully trying to develop the country over the past 20 years.

Fiscal sustainability
In fact it seems as if the main focus by the IMF was to ensure fiscal sustainability so that they can get their money back, and there was not much concern for the development of the Jamaican economy. One cannot really blame the IMF for this myopic view on the economy, as all they really are is a bank to the world. And we all know that the main concern bankers have is to get a return on investment, no matter how caring the marketing sounds. All you have to do to find out is not be able to pay the credit card or loan they throw at you when you are debt-free.

A review of the numbers projected in the IMF paper shows that the fiscal budget balance is projected to move nicely from minus J$106.7 billion in 2009/10 to minus J$10.8 billion in 2013/14. The primary balance is projected to move over the same period from J$66.9 to J$143.4 billion, implying lower real expenditure in the Jamaican economy. But at the end of the day this will assure the IMF repayment.
When one looks, however, at the balance of payments and macroeconomic projections, it shows a difficult ride for the economy, as apart from the lower spending, real growth is projected at an accumulated 2.9% between 2009/10 and 2013/14, or an average of 0.58% per annum. Much of this is caused by our having to pay back for the loans we have been living off in the past.

But one must also examine projections to determine if we can always do better, and my own cursory examination of the numbers leads me to believe there is a significant opportunity for improvement. Unlike the IMF I am looking at the numbers from the point of view of economic development, and so I will see a different path. The irony is that this may even provide greater security for the IMF also.

The table shows extracts of the balance of payments, GDP, oil prices, and exchange rate assumptions of the economic programme. The exchange rate projection is arrived at by taking the 2008/9 GDP from the MOF website, and computing J$ GDP using the nominal GDP growth rate (IMF numbers), and dividing the total by the US$ GDP in the IMF numbers.

The numbers clearly show the following:
* Trade balance is expected to worsen, even with exports growing more than imports. Implication is that not much change is expected in the import content. This is an area of opportunity to be explored.

* The current account balance improvement is heavily dependent on growth in tourism and remittances. The implication is that the economy will remain highly dependent on services and not see much productivity increase (evidenced by remittances, fuel, and import content).

* More importantly, and an area of great opportunity, is that fuel imports are expected to move from 14% to 15.4% of GDP between 2009/10 to 2013/14. This stands out in the projections, and implies that we are projecting a more inefficient use of energy, even though we don't seem to be projecting any real growth in manufacturing, implying most of the use is consumption. This situation I think will be worse than projected as the assumption of oil prices seems overly optimistic. As an example, current oil price (before any real global recovery) is over US$81 while the IMF numbers project an average of US$77.30 in 2010/11.

All about energy
My own view is that focus on more efficient energy remains a significant opportunity for Jamaica. If we were to create energy projects and investments that decrease our energy use by 30 per cent on average, this could create (1) an import bill savings that would wipe out the current account deficit by 2013/14; (2) greater efficiency in manufacturing and service delivery, which could improve our international competitiveness and export earnings; (3) increase available opportunities for investment and ultimately fiscal revenues; and (4) act as a stabilising force for the exchange rate, positively impacting inflation and interest rates. This would certainly start a positive cycle of development.

The question may be asked about the possibility of this happening, and I use my own example. I have been for a while thinking of using solar energy at home, and after doing the research finally did so recently. This is especially as I expect energy costs to increase as a result of oil price increase, devaluation, and the GCT on JPS use over 200 KWH. Of course you have to ensure that you use a company which understands the technology and will be around, as one of the first companies I was looking at went out of business and the costs were higher based on the configuration. You also have to work out the cost-benefit analysis, which I did myself. The company I settled with, which I continue to work with, is Gormann Corporation.

Based on how I implemented and my cost-benefit analysis I expect a four-year payback period. And this does not include the new GCT charges or future increases. My JPS energy consumption fell by over 50 per cent immediately, and more importantly there is no maintenance, and the panels last up to 40 years, and batteries 12 to 14 years. What has not been factored in my computations is the cost benefit of no power outage or risk of equipment damage from JPS even if Jamaica were to see a six to eight-year payback period from the energy bill that could positively impact our future development.

Using this approach, if the government were to secure policy-based loans for cheaper energy projects, it would have the benefit of (1) stimulating jobs and the economy during and after the implementation period; (2) make Jamaican products more competitive; and (3) a 30 per cent import bill savings would reduce energy as a percentage of GDP from 14 per cent to 10.8 per cent. More importantly, it would also have the effect of improving standards of living.

A portion of those loans should be made available for customers with a good payment history at the JPS, to access security-free low interest loans, and those with a poor payment history to require security. An improvement of the public transportation to encourage use over private transportation would also have a significant positive effect on the energy bill, and is an argument for greater subsidy and investment in public transportation. In implementing these projects, however, the objectives must be very clear and the implementation carefully managed to meet the goals.

This illustrates that a focus on energy can have substantial benefits for the country. Maybe the IMF NEEDS to sharpen its pencil and re-examine the projections, as a focus on development rather than just monetary juggling will not only benefit the county but add greater security for their own payback.

A model for development

OVER the past two to three years, I have been involved with two organisations that one can deem successes in their own right. The first is the Jamaica College (JC) School Board and Foundation, led quite ably by the Hon R Danny Williams, and the second a board I have chaired since 2007, and which was recently reported on, Jamaica Ultimate Tyre Company Limited (JUTCL).

In the case of JC, I have had the privilege of working with a group that includes old boys (or they would prefer the term 'past students' to hide their chronological ages) and staff who have been nothing but focused on the development of the institution. At the helm of the operations has been a thoroughly devoted principal, Mr Ruel Reid.

High levels of indiscipline
When the Danny Williams board took over at JC, we were faced with high indiscipline and poor academic performance. Today, I am proud to have played an active role in the transformation of JC into one of the more sought after schools and a place where I would recommend that any parent send their child based on the current development plans. Of course there are problems, but this is mainly as a result of the societal influences. JC is truly living up to its motto, Fervet Opus in Campis: Work is burning in the fields.

In the case of JUTCL, when the three-man board took over the company in 2007, we were making a loss of approximately J$1 million per month. Today, through very strategic policy and operational decisions, we are making a profit of some J$1 million a month. Other decisions are also being taken by the board and management to improve on that profitability in short order. One thing we are very proud of is that we do not get any subsidy from the Government and are current with all our taxes and regulatory requirements. A source of pride for me, also, is that we hold board meetings every six weeks, which averages two hours per meeting, and we restrict refreshments to sandwiches.

I think that both cases hold an invaluable lesson for Jamaica's own development, and are consistent with the view for development I referred to in my book. The path to development is conceptually the same for any institution and despite their differences, the organisations mentioned above both took conceptually the same approach to development.

In both, there was some amount of inefficiency and indiscipline to deal with. The first task in both cases was to carefully assess what the challenges were, and specifically put in place actions that would address those specific problems. In both cases also, the leadership of the organisation was the first thing that we looked at, as this is the most critical part of any transformation.

Similarly for Jamaica, my own view is that the main problem we face is one of the social arrangements and the respect of fundamental human rights. I also believe that Dwight Nelson is suited for the job of security minister, given what I know of his focus, and also the changes I have seen taking place in the police force.

Once the leadership was determined to succeed at both organisations, the next task was to ensure that the supervisory level was in place, to support the policies of the board and the operational objectives of the CEOs. In the case of JC, the principal, with the support of the board, made sure that the teaching staff was disciplined and efficient. This is important as many schools seek to deal with their problems by disciplining the students and ignoring the indiscipline of the teachers: This is a receipe for failure. The same thing was done for the JUTCL, ensuring that the CEO had the support needed to put the action plan in place.

Ministers responsible for policy
Similarly, as a public we must understand that ministers are responsible for policy direction but must ensure that the operational leadership is efficient and focused on the policy objectives, and they must have the latitude to ensure this or else they will ultimately fail. In my case (JUTCL), I continue to work with a minister (Mike Henry) who is very focused on profitability, efficiency, and service and who receives support from the Ministry.

The next task was to set specific operational goals and define the results we wanted to achieve, and by when. In the case of JC, the board and management designated targets for funding, academic, sporting, and development objectives. Timelines were placed on these, and three years later, I can say that most of these targets were achieved. In the case of JUTCL, we recognised that the pressures faced by JUTC would weigh us down if we continued to have them as our main customer, and so took a strategic decision to ensure within one to two years ensure that most of our business came from commercial customers, which we achieved in the timeline set.

For Jamaica, we need to ensure that the macroeconomic programme that we set out is achieved. There can be no wavering, and the risks must be carefully analysed and managed along the way. The biggest challenge the fiscal accounts continue to face is the revenue side, and this can only face further challenges if there is any attempt to raise new taxes. This is supported by the fact that the January 2010 revenue variance from budget is the largest for the fiscal year, even with the December 2009 tax package. The policy direction is correct, but the risks need to be carefully managed.

One very important operational activity was that we examined every single decision as a stand-alone. No decision was taken just based on the fact that we had excess in the system and therefore could afford to do it. It was measured against the objective, and if it did not add any value it was dropped. Certainly in the case of JUTCL, where the objective was profitability and provision of the best retread tyre, every decision whether to replace or upgrade machinery was supported by a cost-benefit analysis. If it was profitable then we would start the process. If not, then it was dropped until it could be proven so.

Of course, at any time an organisation is subject to risks and external forces, and the fortunes can change. What we must do is ensure that we manage the risks that we can control and those we can't, then we have to hope for the best. If, for example, energy costs go through the roof, then the operations of the JUTCL would be highly compromised.

Most important, though was the commitment of the personnel at the organisation. In the case of JC, the support of staff, students and old boys was critical to the success they see today. In the case of JUTC, the staff played an invaluable role. In 2008, when we recognised that the recession would affect us, and we were still making a small loss at the time, we went to the staff and asked them to produce the same amount of work in four days that they did in five. So we closed the plant on Fridays, to reduce overhead costs. We could not have done it without them and so the buy-in is extremely important.

This is the final point I want to make: if Jamaica is to move forward, then the buy-in from all citizens, not simply JLP or PNP, is important. Again I say that this is one ship, and both ends will go down or rise together. So everything must be done to ensure that all share in the vision for development, and not only those of us who are involved in the 2030 objective. The best way to do so is to ensure that the Jamaican citizen is at the centre of any developmental objective for the country.

WANTED FOR DEVELOPMENT - A CIVILISED COUNTRY

When I wrote my book last year, I started out looking at the economic numbers and tried to analyze the challenges and why Jamaica did not over 47 years achieve any real development. After looking at the numbers I concluded in the last two chapters that in order for Jamaica to achieve the elusive development, we must of necessity first see a new political and social order.

Included in this new order "must of necessity... [be]...a focus on developing the human capital across society". The fact is that Jamaica will never be ready for any real development unless we address the social and political challenges that face the country. Sure we may be able to eke out isolated bouts of three percent economic growth occasionally, but that is not development. In fact the growth we have seen, and what is being projected in the IMF programme, has come and will continue to come from international begging...I mean remittances.

Fading productive base
The truth is that the productive base of Jamaica will never grow until we address the social ills facing the country. Until then the truth is that the only real economic systems that will service Jamaica well are feudalism and slavery, which effectively is disguised by political independence. But if you tear away all the hoopla surrounding so called independence, we still have a significantly oppressed citizenry (controlled in the new feudal farms called garrisons) and we still rely on developed countries for debt and aid. So are we truly independent.

Modern day economics of course assumes that a civilized society exists, and does not consider the type of widespread corruption and high crime rates Jamaica has. So development and market theory does not assume a significant cost of business as extortion or that government will consistently run fiscal deficits in order to satisfy a political rather than economic motive. Economic theory assumes that the self correcting mechanism of the market will be allowed to operate and that governments will work in tandem with the market but will intervene in order to allow a smoothing out effect, thus eliminating any violent market reactions that will dismember the working class.

These assumptions do not hold in Jamaica, and therefore our relentless pursuit to practice an efficient market economy is futile.

Last week I wrote about the massive gun find in Mountain View, and said then that the economic recovery will of course depend on how the Commissioner of Police addresses the fight against corruption and crime. I also mentioned that resources were being wasted dealing with issues that should not occur in the first place such as Armadale and Horizon. The week after of course the Armadale report was revealed, which even more frightening to me than the report was the fact that the authorities had it in their possession for well over a month.

So to me the real horror of police brutality, horrendous prison conditions, and neglect of children's rights is not the fact that they occur, but that the authorities over the years have neglected to do anything about it. I am of course horrified by Armadale but let's be honest these things have been occurring consistently over the years. The only difference this time is that some children died and more importantly credit must be given to the Prime Minister for immediately setting up the commission of inquiry. I mean over the past few weeks the Child Development Agency (CDA) had been running these nice sounding ads that anyone who knows about child abuse and does not report it is guilty of an offence. Of course this seemed to me to be nothing but PR, as in plain sight children continue to be abused every day. When children are allowed by their parents to spend the day at traffic lights wiping windscreens or selling on the roads isn't that abuse in plain sight. So what has the CDA or any child protection agency done about it? Give me a break. This does not require resources.

If being cynical you could say that when you look at the animated picture of children on the CDA website they look like they are in strait jackets. So go figure.

When police are accused of brutality against citizens what is done about it, and what is done about the simple things like night noise and blatant traffic violations. The police can't tell me that they need any special investigative arm up setup to deal with these two in your face but important law and order situations.

In May 2008 I wrote an article called 'Déjà vu", where in reaction to the public and leadership outcry against the assassination of a young lady in York Plaza, I indicated that the public outcry seemed like déjà vu as every time there is a crime upsurge everyone speaks out only for nothing to be done to correct the systems. Similarly when Armadale happened last year there was a big outcry and if Nationwide and the Observer did not carry the report everything would have been "no problem". So what will change after we all get tired of talking about this instance and a few people resign? Again déjà vu.

Threat to the economic programme
So while the Finance Minister is busy trying to get interest rates down and manage the debt and fiscal accounts, other parts of the bureaucracy are ensuring that all his efforts come to nil. It is like the finance department trying to control costs and the marketing department making as much contacts as they can but when the customer comes to the organization for service they are abused by the operations personnel. So the Jamaica Debt Exchange (JDX) will be put in place and the interest rates will be immediately lowered, and provide a significant fiscal boost, but the operational people will ensure that the economic programme for improvement is not maintained.

This is because investment decisions are more driven by the need for social stability and economic predictability. People use these factors to determine risk and return on investment more than interest rates. So we have projected that the rate of devaluation will be about four percent per annum, and one can get approximately four percent on US$ deposits. So why invest in Jamaican dollar assets at 10 or 12 percent when one can realize 8 to 9 percent on US$ assets if your money is going to be at risk from the social and economic instability in Jamaica.

This is the real risk to the JDX as no amount of monetary policy can work in a country where citizens are not geared towards productivity either because of the new feudal farms (garrisons), they are crying out for justice from police brutality, or they are being turned into criminals by the state when they go to correctional institutions.

If you look at Jamaica's social development over the years we have fallen behind many other countries. Again quoting from my book - "...of 101 countries surveyed [Human Development Index Report] in 1975, Jamaica ranked 39th or in the top 39 percent...By 2005, however, Jamaica was ranked 101st of 177 countries...or in the top 57 percent." Clearly although our ranking may have improved absolutely we have fallen behind many countries.

In short what Jamaica must first become if it is to achieve the necessary economic and social development to move forward is a civilized society.

POLICING THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY

LAST week, the Government secured the much-needed approval from the IMF board for some US$1.3 billion to be loaned to Jamaica for balance of payments support. More importantly though, this paved the way for the Government to secure the necessary financing from the other multilateral organisations.

For me, however, the greatest impetus to economic recovery last week was not the IMF loan, as the loan does not ensure economic recovery but simply provides a halt to the decline of the economy which will continue if the appropriate policies are not implemented. The greatest impetus to economic recovery last week was the arrest of the police seargent and others in the gun and ammunition find.

Why people invest
My reason for saying this is that the salvation of Jamaica does not rest solely in the way the macroeconomic numbers or fiscal accounts are managed. While the management of the numbers is very important (and being an accountant I know that), it is more important for us to remember that economics is a social science and people invest more because of social stability, predictability and confidence, rather than macroeconomic numbers or interest rates.

As an example, in 2008 global investors were accepting a negative return on US treasuries while other markets and instruments were giving positive returns. This was so because of the prevailing uncertainty in global markets at the time, and the first thing that investors want to secure is their original capital. If you can maintain your original capital then you can live to fight another day, but if you can't, then you have no other opportunity to invest if the current one fails. And failure must always be seen as a possibility.

In fact, when investing, the management of risk and minimising loss are always more important considerations than how much profit you can make. The reason for that is if you can minimise your downside risks, then it means that the number of times you have to win in order to get ahead does not have to be very high in order to be profitable.
If, on the other hand, you take a decision to go for broke and you fail, then more than likely you will be wiped out in one go. So when making decisions about investments, investors usually find the best balance between risk and reward.

It is therefore important for us to understand how the potential investor thinks about the risk element of the investment. Investments take place in all types of environment. In Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, people do make investments, but these are investments that have a relatively short payback period. A rational investor would not, for example, seek to establish a business such as an online book store or an agro-processing plant in Afghanistan, even if he is getting money to borrow at zero per cent. Instead, he may seek to do some trading business where there is a quick turnaround on the investment.

Similarly in Jamaica, there are many people who would want to invest more in agriculture but refrain because of the high incidence of praedial larceny.
It is therefore very important for the investor to see (1) a stable social environment; (2) a predictable system of justice and fair play; (3) maintenance of law, order, and discipline; (4) a favourable industrial climate; (5) reduced bureaucratic structure and impediments; and (6) appropriate legislative protection. After all these are in place, then we will start to see serious investments taking place in the country.

Sure we will see some investments taking place, but they will only be in the form where investments are relatively quickly recouped. As examples we will see investments in financial institutions and services, where other people's money is used as capital while enjoying high returns, or we will see investments in trading and services, which have low capitalisation and quick returns. This, in fact, is the way that Jamaica's economy is structured for the most part, and the reason for that is because of all the impediments faced by potential investors. So if we want to see real long-term investments taking place we have to address those issues.

Efficient, corrupt-free police
At the heart of this drive for recovery, therefore, is the need for a corrupt-free and efficient police force. In the largest economy in the world one can't drive 100 yards without seeing a police car, and do not dare try to bribe any of them, or else you will certainly end up on the wrong side of the law. In the US also, while there are predictable and very efficient laws in place to ensure discipline, protection of human rights, and equity, these laws are not overbearing and do not require that everything that happens in the country has to go through a bureaucrat or the minister in charge. What they do is lay the foundation and guidelines for all to follow.

In Jamaica, for example, I can never understand the system of the Tax Compliance Certificate (TCC), which starts off by assuming that everyone is a criminal. Why does the person who has never been a problem have to go through the same process as the person who has had multiple run-ins with the authorities? Wouldn't it be more efficient to have a system where everyone is assumed innocent and if you have problems with the authorities then you are blacklisted and required to go through the process?

In Jamaica also we do not have much respect for human rights. As I keep saying, if people always have to be crying out for justice, then what time do they find to be productive? So once again, because of the way our bureaucrats operate, we waste a lot of productive time and resources dealing with issues such as Armadale and the Horizon Remand Centre, whereas if we had ensured that the rights of these people were being protected in the first instance we wouldn't have to waste time and money on these matters.

The people who are responsible for this should be asked to pay back the monies spent by the state in investigating. I am heartened by the prime minister's response to the announcement by the public defender that his office was denied entry to the Remand Centre. That is disgraceful for a country that calls itself civilised.

And how can any investor have confidence in the police's ability to solve murders and deal with extortion if they can't even control the night noise or the taxi drivers on the road? It would seem to me that these are basic aspects of discipline that any state should be able to maintain. The police seemed to have been making some effort to do so, but as usual when something starts in Jamaica it is kept alive for about... nine days. So once again people are parking (or stopping for a long while) in vehicles on Knutsford Boulevard to go into the food places thus obstructing traffic while all the policemen stationed at the Knutsford Police Post are holed up in the office trying to enjoy the air-conditioning, I assume.

If we are really serious about economic recovery, then while interest rates and other fiscal and monetary policies are important we can never really see real development occurring without first ensuring that we behave like a civilised society. Because as far as I am concerned, our society is far from civilised. In this age of globalisation there are far too many options available to investors other than Jamaica, so we must compete aggressively. For me, therefore, Owen Ellington is going to have the most pivotal role to play in 2010 in policing the economic recovery of Jamaica.

NOW FOR THE NEXT STEPS

THE inevitable debt rescheduling is upon us in the form of the Jamaica Debt Exchange (JDX), and is a welcome attempt to resolve the burdensome debt that would have led to Jamaica's continued suffering. While some of us may argue about the structure, and what we might or might not have done differently, one thing for sure is that the government must be commended for such a bold decision.

Let us understand, though, that the JDX is only the first in a series of steps that must be taken if we want to get to where "X" marks the spot on the treasure map of success. Like all treasure maps, there is a certain pattern and direction in which the steps are to be taken to arrive at the precise location of where the treasure is hidden.

The JDX is nothing but finding the map that will lead us to the treasure. It has added to it the fact that our path is now blocked by hostile forces that will only allow us to pass if we find the treasure. Our failure to do so will no doubt lead to an inescapable death, as we will have nothing to barter with for our lives. In short, the step that we have taken has set us on a path of no return, which we can only survive by taking the necessary steps to achieve the economic success that has eluded us for so long.

It is obvious to me what needs to be done in order for us to achieve that success. As I pointed out in my book, in April 2009, the only chance of seeing development in this country will have to come from "a much needed paradigm shift". That paradigm shift has not happened yet, and has only been started by the JDX. What policies are put in place will determine our progress along that much-needed seismic shift, which will only be truly complete and sustainable with a reform of our constitutional political system.

So now that we have turned the wheel of the car in the direction of the right path, we now have to keep the car on that path. Of utmost importance will be fiscal management. This will make or break the developmental structure we are trying to build. There can be no more "run with it" if we are to reach the Promised Land, because we have "sinned" so many times along the journey that there is no more forgiveness to come.

I reviewed the numbers in the economic programme, and if one does some projections it shows the significant challenges that face us down the road.

Based on the government projections, it is easy to compute that nominal GDP is expected to be $1.581 trillion in 2014. This means that based on the government estimate of a 120 per cent debt/GDP ratio by then the debt stock will be $1.898 trillion at that time.

The economic programme also provided the projected fiscal balance and primary balance percentages of GDP. We can compute the interest costs from that, which would see us having a fiscal balance of -$11 billion and a primary balance of $144 billion in 2014. If we assume that public sector wages are kept at the same figure for the next four years then we can also impute the following:

* While expenditure on programmes and capital expenditure will move from $129 billion in 2010 to $205 Billion in 2014, in real terms the 2014 spend will actually be less than currently, at $124 billion. This implies a much reduced state, which can be good if the state moves to the role of a facilitator of development rather than continuing to intervene. On the other hand, if it is not implemented properly we can end up with a much weaker state.
* If public sector wages are representative of the total wage bill in the economy, and wages are kept at the same figure over the next four years, and assuming we have steady employment, the real purchasing power of consumers will decline by an accumulated 34 per cent over the four years. This has a negative implication for businesses, and means that there will be less vibrancy in local business activity and an increased focus on external markets. This will mean that while the country may meet our earnings targets, we will create a greater disparity between the higher and lower income classes, which may lead to a further decline in the middle class. This will have to be guarded against as it is not good for development for this to happen.
* These numbers also show that over the next four years government will still have a need for financing, even though interest as a percentage of revenues is projected to come down from 53 percent in 2010 to 33 percent in 2014. The numbers also show that consumer purchasing power is expected to decline, which means that government funding is going to be primarily through company taxes and external funding, as consumption taxes will almost certainly underperform those. The implication is that the standard of living will decline for most.

From where I sit, and looking at this preliminary and brief analysis, it is not going to be an easy road. But government is going to be hard-pressed to ensure that the disparity in income is not too wide as this could lead to social conditions that we want to avoid. Government will also be tempted to raise taxes but must of necessity tighten its belt just like the consuming public; otherwise the extraction of more from less will result in further hardships.

One other spin-off from this is that local capital is going to be eroded and we will have to rely on foreigners to invest, if we are to see any substantial increase in economic activity. Lower interest rates will have the effect of making sectors more competitive, and will create opportunities in other sectors, but will not by itself spur investments. Investments depend more on predictability and the ease of capital to go to work. Therefore while the country embarks on the new economic programme, an essential ingredient of that is the significant reduction and control of crime and bureaucracy, in addition to maintaining low inflation levels.

There is a lot more detail that can come from this analysis but space does not allow it. Suffice it to say that the path of no return we have just started will not be

HOW TO DESTROY A COUNTRY AND BRAND 101

THOSE of us aware of the way some universities name their courses will be familiar with the use of the term 101 to refer to beginner courses such as 'Economics 101' etc. Similarly in Jamaica we could easily create another course and sell to the globe (if anyone wanted it). That is 'How to destroy a country and brand 101.'

This is evident in light of the recent report in the Sunday Herald that the decade 2000 to 2009 was the bloodiest on record, with over 13,400 citizens over the period, and 2009 being the bloodiest year on record with 1,680 murders committed.

This is a stark contrast to the country that gained independence in 1962, that grew at an average of over six per cent per annum in the first decade of new nationhood, and that Lee Kuan Yew came to visit in the 1960s as an inspiration for the development of Singapore. So I think that we are more than qualified as a country to teach this course.

The ingredients
To start with, you need to have a country that is considered the jewel of the Caribbean, with a lot of hope and promise, and a lot of natural resources that would be the envy of any other island. The country would need to be capable of achieving great heights and brand recognition not achieved by many countries many times its size and population. Some of these attributes include some of the best beaches in the world, bauxite, some of the best agricultural products, the world's best athletes, inventor of reggae music, and world- renowned artistes such as Bob Marley. The country also includes a people who are amongst the most talented and warmest in the world, and a resilience unmatched by any other.

Next you want to be able to wrest that gem of a country away from the wicked imperialists and give it to those who served at the feet of our former great house masters as the house servants. Allow them to write a constitution, and create a political system that is more in favour of power for the political party than for the people.

Of necessity, also, we must have a people with a relatively high illiteracy rate, who are willing to murder their own for a box of beer and a plate of curry goat at election time, every five years. This is easy if they are kept poor enough, and cordoned like cattle in places called garrisons. You also have to ensure that the health and education systems are inadequate so that the masses are kept unhealthy and uneducated, thus ensuring their loyalty to the providers of the curry goat they are fed every five years.

And there are some other necessary ingredients that cannot be left out. These can be listed as:
1. A police force that is built on political interference and up until recently has never been allowed to do what is necessary to clean up itself. The police force must also be allowed to oppress the rights of the citizens who live in the garrison communities, mainly so that they recognise that they remain nothing but pawns in the greater purpose of the country's destruction;
2. Maintaining a political system that ensures that the representatives elected by the people are more loyal to the political party than the people who elected them, thus ensuring that democracy is really a sham; and
3. A middle class and private sector that are not interested in the country's development. Where there may be a few who are really interested, make sure that their efforts are stifled by the many.

When all these ingredients are present, one will have the perfect recipe for destroying a country and brand. What you will have to do, though, is ensure that these ingredients are blended together correctly and consistently applied, for example, over a 47-year period. If this is done correctly then I guarantee that even with the abundance of natural resources, the close proximity to the world's largest market, the excellent individual achievements of the athletes and artistes, and the resilience of the people, the country and brand will be close to annihilation.
You are guaranteed to create an atmosphere where differences between the people are not created by intellectual discourse but by where you were born, or the colour of your party. I guarantee that you will have a country that will be seen as a basket case by the rest of the world, and one where the people will not be allowed to travel freely, as they will need to have permits called visas.

To top it off and make it seem legitimate, you would have to bestow titles of honourable on those responsible for killing the country and its brand.

Other noteworthy mentions
I must applaud the efforts of the police, and in particular Acting Commissioner Ellington, for the sustained efforts on the road and the push to clean up the police force. This is the first step in trying to tame the crime monster, and the high level of murder in 2009 must not be seen as a failure of these policies. The country's law and order has been compromised for a long time and it will take some sustained effort to recover it.

What the police must be careful of, though, is not to confuse effort with success. The police recently published a list of the number of guns recovered, operations carried out etc, and claimed success. I am sorry to inform them that that is not success. It reminds me of a statement by a friendof mine that a particular financial institution was doing well because the asset base had grown considerably, and I had to point out that success is profitability and equity. Similarly, success for the police will only arrive when public law and order is restored and the number of murders has been significantly. In fact the police would be more successful if there were no operations carried out and crime reduced. That would speak to greater efficiency.

The police must be encouraged to continue their efforts and ensure that the rights of citizens are maintained.

The other point is the practice by a major retail outlet, Pricesmart, to have the security give/collect the parking ticket and also manually lift the heavy metal barrier for each vehicle, which must amount to hundreds of times per day. Apart from holding up traffic this practice seems almost inhumane to the security guards, although it must serve as a weight-training exercise for them. It would seem to me that a better way is to adopt what is done at MegaMart where the security post is covered and they have a remote-controlled gate. It really can't cost that much to follow MegaMart's example.

J'CA BURDENED WITH $115B IN NEW TAXES OVER 6 YEARS

FINANCIAL analyst Dennis Chung says that Jamaicans have been taxed an additional $115 billion over six years to grow the debt and not the economy.

He told the Observer's Monday Exchange that these new taxes only fuel government's ability to borrow for succeeding fiscal years.

"The budget imposed an additional $115 billion in new taxation cumulatively over six years (between fiscal years 2003/4 to 2008/9). Has that generated any growth or development? No. What it has done, however, is ensure that we borrowed an additional $234 billion in debt," he told journalists and economists at the Observer's Kingston head office on Monday. "And I put it to you that the only reason we were able to collect that $115 billion was because we borrowed that money to put in the economy."
The cumulative taxes represent a similar amount, which the government hopes to borrow from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this year.

Chung's argument is that new taxes within an already declining Jamaican economy are more likely to shrink the economy and lead to lower tax revenues rather than increase it.

"Everyone knows I am against additional taxation. The very nature of tax is non-productive, I can't imagine anywhere else in the world where you're trying to develop the economy, a shrinking economy, and you throw more money out of it."
His analogy was a half-empty glass that leaks from the bottom but is also skimmed from the top "and you expect it to be full. It cannot work".

Empirically, the evidence does not support a taxation model, he reasoned.
"Certainly when the US tried this approach in the 1930s it led to the Great Depression. Other countries which have come out of the recession have not come out through increased taxation, but reduced taxation," adding that governments have increased public spending and deficits.

Chung who is the author of Charting Jamaica's Economic and Social Development -- A much needed paradigm shift wrote in his column that the economy needs to be stimulated rather than taxed.

"Unless that is done then I am almost certain that we will be speaking about the same issues next year, only from a worse vantage point. A year ago I had told all who criticised me for saying we need to look at restructuring the cash flows re the debt that we would be talking from a worse position a year later," he said.

Chung who is also an Observer columnist, added in his Christmas day article that "if the rate of taxation were to be reduced by two per cent, at a multiplier effect of four, then the government could in fact collect marginally more tax than is currently the case".

The logical solution, he wrote, was to withdraw the government's influence on the economy in the form of taxes and the bureaucracy; and second, improve the multiplier effect by introducing fiscal measures that will increase confidence and the economic outlook.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding announced his fourth tax package for the year on December 23rd. Government is seeking to raise $21.8 billion -- annualised -- to close the gap in the budget as a result of the economic downturn affecting small and large economies worldwide. Budgetary support of US$1.3 billion is also being sought from the IMF, and the Opposition has suggested that the new tax measures were part of the IMF conditions.

Included in the new tax package is increased GCT from 16.5 to 17.5 per cent, but for goods and services supplied by the tourism sector GCT will increase from 8.25 to 10 per cent effective April 1, 2010.

Golding said that individuals earning incomes above $5 million annually will be charged increased rates of income tax from January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011. The new rates include: no tax on salaries under $441,168; 25 per cent on salaries up to $5 million and 35 per cent over $10 million.

Also Jamaica Public Service (JPS) residential customers, effective January 1, were to pay 17.5 per cent GCT on electricity usage that exceeds 200 kilowatt hours per month. The measure was expected to earn the Government revenues of $1.2 billion.
A reviewed package was announced days later requiring the JPS customers to pay a special 10 per cent GCT on whatever electricity they use in excess of 200 kWh each month. The adjustment is now expected to yield $1.45 billion.

Subsequently, JPS notified the public that it would not be able to collect the tax until its billing system could accommodate it. They are targeting a start-up date in March to implement the tax.

What power, what glory?

AS we go into 2010 it would suit us to remember a song from one of Jamaica's greatest singers, Ernie Smith. He released "We de people/the power and the glory" in 1976, and these words ring true today more than any other time, as if he had some prophetic vision of what Jamaica would become under our political system. Or is it that the same culture existed then? I remember the state of emergency at the time but was too young to really appreciate all that was happening.

I also remember the 1980 election and the celebratory sounds of gunshots that rang out throughout Kingston when the sun started to go down. It was indeed a period of change in Jamaica that we never seemed to capitalise on, as many other countries have done, as we find ourselves back in the same quagmire of tribalism as in 1980. So for Jamaica it always seems like an everlasting state of deja vu.

Words ring true
Lines from Ernie Smith's song include the following:

* "As we fight one another fi the power and the glory, Jah kingdom goes to waste and every drop of blood we waste a fi wi own disgrace"

* "We the people want to know where we going...we have too far to go not to

really know just how we getting there and if we getting anywhere"

* "We have too much to change not to know the range of possibilities and changeabilities"

* "Can't build no foundation pon a if nor a but. Are we building a nation or are we building a hut? Can't build no dream on a fuss nor a fight"

These lines aptly describe how Jamaica has progressed over the years and the fight between the two political tribes, who seek the power and glory of a sinking ship, quite content with being the captain when it is at the bottom of the ocean.

Realising that the ship (Jamaica) will eventually sink to the depths of poverty and the point of no return if we continue, I have to ask, what power and glory is there in a damaged nation? What power and glory is there in seeing our people continually suffer? As far as I am concerned there is none, and we need to realise that when the Jamaican ship goes down the half with PNP or JLP won't stay afloat while the other half sinks. This is physics, as my son would say.

A lot of the blame must rest with our citizens, however, who would rather discuss their disgust on verandahs while showing hypocrisy in public. So one reader writes to chastise me for "insulting" the Jamaican people in my last column when I said that as usual they focus on the wrong issue regarding whether to tax the rich or the poor, when what really needs to be discussed is the effect of taxation on the country.

This is nothing but an escape from reality, which as a people we have perfected as illustrated by our ability to profile in the latest cars, clothes, and attending the most expensive events even while we are overdue on our credit cards or other loan payments. As I said to Bev Manley in November 2008, as a country we would not deal with the effects of the global financial crisis because politics would take precedence over the needed debate on how to move the country forward. So instead of planning how to chart the country's progress in 2009, our discussions focused on elections, nailing corrupt individuals, arguments about sexual orientations, and whether the government was meeting its timetables or not. Even now we refuse to focus on the real issues before us. It seems we have lost the capacity to do so, or could it be a deliberate strategy?

Inevitably, in our quest to victimise each other we end up hurting everyone who lives in Jamaica. There is no way the rich can get richer if poverty increases and there is no way the poor can improve if the rich are targeted.

Facing reality
So in response to the reader, the argument is not whether Jamaicans felt insulted or not; it is whether it is true or not, and on that I think I stand vindicated. In order to solve a problem we first need to admit we have one. And we are a country that prefers "suss" over facts.

This article really has nothing to do with economics, or numbers, with which people relate my columns. This is because, as I concluded in my book, the real problems Jamaica faces are social, as it is the accumulation of behaviour that determines what happens in an economy. We cannot debate the balance of payments or fiscal accounts without understanding the behaviour that causes the deficit in these numbers. Economics is about behaviour, and economic theory assumes that social behaviour is not in contradiction to development.

So as we go into 2010 we must realise that it is irrelevant what policies or taxes are put in place if we cannot address the issue of disunity. If anyone can identify a country that is as tribalistic in their politics as we are and has achieved economic and social development, then I am willing to learn, but frankly I can't recall any. What I see on CNN of these countries, on the contrary, is constant warfare between their citizens.

As an example, it is my view that what drives our high interest rates is the risk to investment that arises from our crime rate and bureaucracy. That is, investors are more concerned about uncertainty and risk in an economic environment when determining whether to invest, rather than the level of interest rates. Return on investments will always adjust to the cost of money in a predictable investment climate, and interest rates will eventually come down if this risk is removed.

So as a country we need to determine where we want to go, not where we want our political party to be in relation to the other political party. We need to fully understand that when the PNP side of the ship goes down the JLP side goes down with it also. When we understand this, then that will be the point at which we start to develop as a nation. The IMF agreement will not help if we fail to understand this basic concept of community and nationalism. And more importantly, we will never see economic or social development without it.

For 2009 my personality of the year is the Jamaican people for enduring the ravages of the global financial crisis and our own self-imposed destruction through our tribal politics, practised more by the followers than by the politicians.

I think I am getting to the point where I have to assess whether or not it makes sense to continue to contribute to economic commentary in Jamaica, as it does not seem to make a difference in the ever downward spiral Jamaica continues to face. Until then I have to ask, what power and what glory are we fighting for?

No new taxes: a better alternative

As usual in Jamaica we consume ourselves with arguments around the wrong alternative. So instead of discussing the real issues that will carry the country forward we end up being caught up in the political and social spins on the various issues.

The fact is that the recent discussions re the tax package, as to how much burden the rich or poor should bear, is really a redundant argument. Empirical evidence and logic show that you can't help the rich by burdening the poor and similarly you can't help the poor by crucifying the rich. The latter is supported by the rich taking up the offer of "five flights a day to Miami in the 1970s" and the former supported by the recent decimation of the US consumer in 2007/8, which caused economic declines, and a worldwide global recession.

Poor and rich suffer together
Economics does not distinguish between rich and poor, like politics, and is concerned with things like total money in circulation and the multiplier effect. I don't remember, limited as my knowledge is, looking in any economics book and reading about whether to burden the rich versus the poor. So once again politics takes the forefront in Jamaica, in the face of a worsening economy.

My argument has always been, and continues to be, that any new taxes within the context of an already declining Jamaican economy are more likely to shrink the economy and lead to lower tax revenues rather than increase it. This of course assumes that the other two arguments forwarded holds, that is (1) no new debt; and (2) reduced government expenditure.

It is only logical that if an economy is stagnant or declining (that is no real growth from production) at say $1 Billion, there is no new input in it from loans or other external funds, and in addition taxes are taken from the economy, then logically the economy must shrink. So we can verify this by assuming the following:

The table clearly shows that without any growth in the economy, if money is taken out then the size of the economy will contract and subsequently the tax collections will decrease, instead of the intended effect of increasing revenue.

This I think is borne out by Jamaica's fiscal numbers over the years. Looking at the fiscal numbers between 2003/4 to 2008/9, the government has increased taxes every year for a total tax increase over the period of $115 Billion. Over the same period the total new debt was $232 Billion, and was the only reason why the economy managed to grow, and also the only reason why the government was able to collect the increased taxes. So it stands to reason that if there is to be any increased economic activity or even a maintenance of the current economic activity, then the only way is for new loans to be introduced into the system.

Replacing higher cost debt
One way that the government is correctly doing so is by replacing the higher -cost debt with lower-cost debt. That again is another argument and I don't think it will have the effect intended for other reasons, but I will not get into that here.

On the other hand if the rate of taxation were to be reduced by 2%, at a multiplier effect of 4, then the government could in fact collect marginally more tax than is currently the case. This could be further increased if through fiscal policy, crime falls bureaucracy is addressed thus allowing the multiplier effect to increase.

The logical conclusion then is that the way to find ourselves easing out of this vicious downward spiral is to (1) withdraw the government influence on the economy in the form of taxes and the bureaucracy; and (2) improve the multiplier effect by introducing fiscal measures that will increase confidence and the economic outlook.

So the argument that we have been having over the past week on whether to tax the poor or rich is really based in politics rather than economics, as proper economic policy dictates that in times of recession less taxes and increased stimulus is needed as promoted by Maynard Keynes. This theory has been successfully used in the recent recession.

So my view is that what is needed is not new taxes but a stimulation to the economy, and a restructuring of the bureaucracy and fiscal policies to engender the much needed paradigm shift. Unless that is done then I am almost certain that we will be speaking about the same issues next year, only from a worse vantage point. A year ago I had told all who criticised me for saying we need to look at restructuring the cash flows re the debt that we would be talking from a worse position a year later.Need I say more?

Poor customer service continues
A few months ago I wrote an article about poor customer service, and this seems to be growing worse. It seems as if this has escalated with the harder economic times. Only a few months ago I had experiences with two listed companies calling me about money I did not owe them, only to apologise and say that their systems had messed up.

Just this week Scotiabank, who I have a mortgage with called me on three different occasions to say that I had missed a payment. This was after a similar incident about two months ago. One lady even insisted that I (the customer) was wrong, wasting my time for five minutes and refusing to hang up when I told her she would have to call back as I was in a meeting. Well, she didn't call back but I had to call someone and tell them to stop wasting my time. Again the excuse is that the system was not working properly. Similarly NCB wrote to me a few months ago to say I owed them for a card they had sent me, which I had not requested and I had never accepted or used. They also blamed the systems.

Poor Jamaicans. We are let down not only by our governments over the decades but also by the poor customer service from various institutions. I long to see the day when the Jamaican citizen is put first.

Jamaica's opportunity

At the time of writing this column, I, like every other Jamaican, am waiting to see what tax package the government delivers and the final outcome of the IMF negotiations. Both these issues have been on the tongues of everyone except the dead in Jamaica.

Jamaica is, I believe, at a significant crossroads, as what happens over the next six to twelve months will determine if we go down like the Titanic or rise like the phoenix from the ashes. It is, I think, the "last hurrah" for Jamaica, because if we mess up this time then there is a very low probability of turning back. And this is why all hands must be on deck and political expediency must take a back seat. It also means that the way in which we seek to crucify persons for the smallest of mistakes must stop because I guarantee you that as we seek to emerge from the mire we are in, mistakes will be made. What we need to ensure is that the mistakes are controllable and do not have a materially detrimental effect. We need to take a practical approach to it lest we find ourselves being a victim of our own criticisms.

A serious bind
There is no denying that the country is in a serious bind, and this will have a dramatic negative effect on the lives of many Jamaicans. But I really do believe that the present crisis provides us with a significant opportunity, as we are forced to face our reality as we are unable to postpone our challenges by going to the capital markets. In addition to this inability to beg or borrow our way out of the problem, there are some positive signs as shown in the significantly improved balance of payments, and more heartening for me, the way in which the police seem to have risen to the challenge of ridding the streets of indiscipline and stemming the tide of corruption within its ranks. The police leadership must be applauded for this, and I only hope that the courts can start to support them by dispensing with cases quickly.

One thing is certain: when we emerge from this present crisis we will be looking at a different Jamaica. In order for Jamaica's economy to properly adjust we will see business failures, as well as changed consumption patterns that will result in changed market behaviour. And there is nothing wrong with that if we are to move ahead, but any resistance to change will see a more painful and prolonged transition.

One of the changes will be to the government bureaucracy and in particular the fiscal accounts. Government has responded to the shortfall in revenues by announcing that new taxes will be announced, and no doubt the IMF may have had some hand in this. While the truth is that the government did not seem to have any other option, I don't think this will improve the fiscal situation much and could in fact cause it to worsen.

The fact is that taxes have been raised twice since the start of the current fiscal year, and the revenues continue to underperform. In addition the signs are evident that the retail sector is in trouble. The Bank of Jamaica has released data showing that the real value of money in circulation this Christmas is lower than last year. Real GDP is also down by 4 per cent and over 40,000 persons have lost jobs since the start of the year. There also has not been any increase in the salaries of public sector and many other workers. The fact is that purchasing power has fallen by approximately 20 to 25 per cent.

The world has learned from the 1930s recession that in a declining economy the only viable course of action is to increase government spending and reduce taxes. This course was not taken in the 1930s when we had the great depresiion.

Under performing revenues
As at October 2009 tax revenues have seen a real increase of approximately 3.68 per cent over October 2008, which means that government is already taking more money out of the economy, no doubt to primarily pay debt charges. In relation to the budget, however, tax revenues have under performed by approximately 10 per cent, indicating that the economy will not give up anymore taxes.

Increased taxes will have the effect of reducing the real purchasing power of an already fledgling consumer market. This will in turn lead to more conservatism around spending and result in lower profits for companies, which will face a stagflationary environment. This will result in lower company profits tax, which will see more businesses closing their doors resulting in lower employment or lower incomes. This in turn will lead to lower PAYE collections. Again, if more people see lower income levels (from reduced income or unemployment) then the result is lower consumption, which of course means lower GCT, SCT, and customs duty.

In addition to this, as government seeks to further reduce interest rates then a natural outcome will be lower tax collected on interest. Some have argued that government needs to increase tax on interest payments but that move itself will have a downside which could cause a more significant longer-term problem. The Prime Minister referred to this in his interview last weekend, when he said that this would result in persons seeking a higher interest rate to compensate for the increased tax. In addition to that, any taxes on interest, or profits, raises the question of uncertainty and risk for capital and therefore could see a resistance to invest risk capital, which is what is needed for economic development. So while this is an attractive offer, it could lead to a Tiger Woods-type backlash.

In the past the government was able to increase taxes successfully because it borrowed monies to support the economy and by doing so created a false sense of growth.

So the question is, if new taxes will cause the economy to compress and not improve the fiscal, and if the attractiveness of taxing interest or profits further is not recommended, then what options does the government have?

The first thing is that the public sector like businesses must accept that the environment has changed and they must adapt, or pull Jamaica down with it. A smaller and more efficient public sector is necessary if we are to move forward, but the bureaucratic and inflexible culture of the public sector does not provide me with much hope. The Prime Minister is making an attempt to make the change and I wish him well. At the same time this is happening the only real viable option for growth is to conclude the IMF agreement and allow for access to multilaterals for budgetary support. When this funding is accessed, however, it must be spent efficiently and not get caught up in the old ways of expenditure habits in an increasingly burdensome public sector.

Diamond in the rough
While all of this is happening it is critical that we applaud the efforts of our entrepreneurs. About two weeks ago I was given a brief tour of the development that is happening at the Wexford Hotel and was quite impressed. The new wing of suites and facilities for meetings is impressive in an environment that has not been very kind to the tourism industry. This investment shows a certain amount of confidence in the Jamaican economy and must be commended, and I would even go as far as to nominate it for Business Leader in 2010, even though I have no influence on the selection committee.

HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY

When I was growing up I always heard the phrase "Honesty is the best policy". This can be applied in many ways, as you can speak about being truthful to someone about an event or facing the reality of the situation. So even at the expense of looking bad, one should always understand that a delayed consequence in most cases is always much worse than confronting the reality as soon as it arises.

This has been the demise of Jamaica. We have simply failed to confront our reality for too many years and have suffered as a result. In my book I looked at Jamaica's economy (through numbers) since 1962, and the thread that underlies our economic demise is that for most of our 47-year history we have just failed to confront our reality and deal with it. Because of that we have continuously postponed our development by always telling ourselves a lie that all is well, not necessarily in words but by our actions.

Gloom and doom
In fact, over the past few years people have always told to me that I'm always predicting gloom and doom for the economy. And in fact just over a year ago someone said to me that I should stop being so pessimistic and "think positively". Only recently I was told that someone else said that I and three other analysts were being too negative on the economy and that we needed to talk it up.

My response to these accusations is that I have always believed that "honesty is the best policy". Because when we are honest with ourselves then we truly recognise the challenges we face and that is always the first step to deal with them. But when we continue to lie to ourselves, we continue to do things like borrow more money to afford the new car and new clothes, only postponing the day when the truth cannot be deferred. And so Jamaica finds itself in that situation today, where we can no longer postpone the truth of our reality.

There is, of course, a subtle distinction between realism and pessimism. Encarta defines them as (1) Pessimism - "tendency to see only negative or worst aspects.and to expect only bad or unpleasant things to happen"; and (2) Realism - "a practical understanding and acceptance of the actual.rather than an ideal or romantic view."

So people tend to confuse pessimism with realism because of their own lack of understanding of the circumstances. In other words, if a train is coming directly at you, then being optimistic that it will not hit you without action is stupid. So if you do not understand that the train is going to hit you and dismiss the warning as pessimism then it will of course hit and kill you. On the other hand, if you accept the reality that the train is coming, then you can act and move out of the way to avoid being killed. This is the purpose behind plans and budgets.

And this distinction, in my view, is one reason why the global financial crisis has caused so much stress for so many, and even closer at home why many individuals find themselves in difficulty after the collapse of the unregistered investment schemes.
In March 2007 when it was obvious to Greenspan and even two local analysts (Ralston Hyman and I) that the US economy would enter recession, the great Bernanke and Paulson were confident that the US would not enter recession and the bias was still towards monetary policies geared towards tightening. Similarly, many local persons were unwilling to accept the reality that the unregistered schemes were in fact unsustainable and thought many who warned to "check before you invest" were pessimistic.

The consequences of both are on record for everyone to see.

Benefit of realism
If, on the other hand, both situations were looked at from a realistic and analytical point of view, then much of the pain that the world and individuals go through today could have been avoided. The world may still have fallen into recession but policies could have been put in place earlier to make it less painful. And if persons were more realistic about the investment schemes, much individual pain could have been avoided.

The problem is that people always find greater comfort in going with the crowd and so would rather believe what the crowd is saying rather than the minority. This is why markets crash, for example, because people usually follow the herd mentality and flock to investments along with the crowd, which inevitably leads to bubbles and eventual market crashes. There is nothing that replaces good and solid analysis.

So if you think about it, if Jamaica had faced the reality of our structural economic challenges decades ago then we would be in a much better position than we are today, and therefore "honesty is always the best policy". But we get there not by calling down "fire" on all those we deem to be pessimistic but by carefully analysing why they are pessimistic and comparing it against our own well-researched findings.
So when the National Anthem says "give us vision lest we perish", I think we need to add to that: "and allow us to properly analyse and interpret lest we be blinded".
When I listen to some of the analyses relating to the present challenges we face I only see a repeat of the same mistakes made, as a lot of the analysis and solutions are misguided. The one thing you want to do when faced with a challenge is first and foremost maintain a clear head and do not rush to judgement and solutions, as this is just as dangerous as taking the line of optimism without foundation.

Last year (2008) I had indicated that companies and individuals should have started to put their house in order for what was coming this year. Those who did are better today than those who did not; even though survival is never guaranteed, at least you get to live longer than those who did not.

As we go into 2010 the probability is that the economy will decline further, which will be exacerbated by the fact that many companies and individuals did not prepare adequately. But we can see a better 2010 if the correct choices are made at the country, company, and individual levels. The question is, will we continue to be optimistic without foundation or face the reality and allow for well-founded optimism?

The business of productivity

Recently, the Jamaica Productivity Centre released a productivity report on the period 1972 - 2007 in Jamaica, where it showed that over the 35-year period the labour productivity of the Jamaican worker declined by 1.3 per cent per annum. It further stated that at our current rate of growth it would take 40 years to get to Barbados' current per capita
GDP level.

What surprised me about the report weren't the findings, as anyone who is even slightly aware of what is happening in Jamaica will know that our productivity and growth levels are at the bottom of the pile. What I am surprised about is the reaction to the information, as if "Wow, I didn't know we were doing this badly". It seems as if everyone has forgotten that the last time the centre reported the results were similar.

Consistent decline
The fact is that Jamaica's productivity has always been in consistent decline since the 1970s, as I illustrated in my book, with the exception of the decade of 1980 to 1990, when the Total Factor Productivity (TFP) - productivity measurement factor - was 1.0. In the decade 1960 to 1970 the TFP was 2.4, 1970 - 1980 it was minus 3.8, and in 1990 to 2000 it was minus 1.7; all measured as annual averages.

During similar periods, this was reflected in the GDP growth numbers. These periods are 1962 to 1971, when accumulated GDP growth was 68.5 per cent (average annual of 6.9 per cent); 1972 to 1981, accumulated GDP growth of minus 9.5 per cent (average annual of minus 1 per cent); 1982 to 1991, accumulated GDP growth of 19 per cent (average annual of 1.9 per cent); 1992 to 2001, accumulated GDP growth of 8.9 per cent (average annual of 0.9 per cent); and 2002 to 2007, accumulated GDP growth of 9 per cent (average annual of 1.3 per cent.

One could ask the question why we had growth during the 1990s if TFP was negative. The answer is simply that we were able to grow because we borrowed to consume and create economic activity. So today we are faced with a situation where we have to pay back for all the money we borrowed to consume when we were not producing the means for our
own consumption.

This is at the heart of all our challenges. The question then is how we improve our productivity so that we can enjoy real economic development and all the benefits that come with it. First I think we need to get an understanding of what productivity is, as it seems obvious from the policies that our leaders have pursued that they really have no idea of what productivity really is.

So for the benefit of our leaders, productivity can be defined as "the rate at which a [country] produces goods or services, in relation to the amount of [resources] needed" - adapted from Encarta.com. In other words if someone employs $100 worth of resources and produces $200 worth of goods yesterday, and today can employ the same resource value and produce $250, then productivity would have increased by 25 per cent. What Jamaica has been doing is producing less with the same amount of resources, which means that more resources are needed to produce the same amount. But ironically our consumption has been increasing while our production has been falling. So in order to consume more we need to borrow from others who are producing more than they consume and end up with reserves. In effect Jamaica is a parasite on the world's production.

What of technological improvements?
But some may say that during the 1990s especially, we had improvements in technology, as more computers were put to use, the Internet came into being, and more persons had cellular phones. So if we saw an increase in the productive tools being used then obviously productivity must have increased. And some people have tried to argue with me in that manner, as Ripley would say "Believe it or not".

First, we need to understand that if we look at the use of technology in Jamaica, most of it is geared towards personal consumption, in my own informal analysis, rather than employed in productive use. And the reason why we are able to consume these productive tools is that we borrowed the money to consume them.

Secondly, and in my mind more importantly, we need to understand that a computer does not work by itself, nor does a new state-of-the art piece of machinery. All productive tools require a productive mind behind them in order to be the most productive they can be. So even when the police talk about the number of guns on the road, that is not what causes the crime. What causes crime is the number of criminal minds behind the guns. Similarly, when we talk about the absolute amount of debt, that is irrelevant without looking at how effectively each dollar of debt is used.

So the real challenge we have when it comes to lack of productivity is not how much foreign investment we attract, or how much agricultural land is in production, or how much money is pumped into the economy. The real problem of productivity comes back to the social issues. The problems relate fundamentally to how productive our people are. And so when we see a situation where 50 per cent of students leave secondary school without one subject, then is it any surprise that this translates into Jamaica having the lowest productivity rate in the region? Can we be surprised at our low rates of productivity when our citizens spend their days demanding justice from both the police and the criminals? How can people be productive if at a basic level they have to worry about their security? How productive can people be if their days are caught up worrying about their missing children?

And if our citizens cannot be productive, then what sense does it make to have the most efficient tools of productivity? We also need to remember, and everyone is seeing it now, that economies like Jamaica's thrive on consumer spending, and it is a known fact that most spending occurs within the lower-income classes, so that if they don't earn a decent wage the economy will stagnate. This is exactly what is happening as real purchasing power, particularly in the low-income groups has fallen significantly year over year.

So in the final analysis when we speak of productivity and growth it would do us well to understand that this is fundamentally a social problem. My own view continues to be that the failure of Jamaica's economy starts with our failure to protect and advocate for the fundamental human rights of our citizens, and unless we change this then we will persist on a path of economic and social failure.

The great USA that we look up to starts its constitution with the words "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice." (You will note that Justice has a capital J). The fact is that unless we start to realise that all our economic and social challenges come from the inability to provide the Jamaican citizen with justice and a protection of his/her basic human rights, then I guarantee that next year this time, and into the foreseeable future, we will be talking about the decline of both the Jamaican economy and values and attitudes.