We need a serious approach to development

The current government has economic growth as its main thrust. The phrase coined by the Growth Council — “Five in four” — refers to the objective to have five per cent growth in four years. If this is achieved this would be a significant boost to our economic fortunes, and already we are seeing increased economic activity and higher levels of business and consumer confidence.

As a part of the boost to economic activity, the government has started to implement it’s $1.5 million tax threshold promise, made in the run-up to the general elections.

So far we have seen the threshold move from $592,000 to approximately $1 million, with the final move to $1.5 million slated for April 1, 2017.

In addition, the government has indicated that the aim is to move completely from direct to indirect taxes — a very good move, and Finance Minister Audley Shaw indicated on the On Point discussion programme on Business Access TV, that the aim is for this to be done before the end of the current five-year term.

Shaw also indicated that there was the possibility of a small tax package next fiscal year to accommodate the threshold increase, but that this would be on the consumption side.

The fact, however, is that while this tax threshold increase will result in short-term stimulus to the economy, and the move to indirect taxes will assist with greater tax compliance, this by itself will not give us the much-needed development. And without certain other actions or policies being implemented, it will be improbable that we will see the consistent 4.0 to 5.0 per cent growth rates needed.

Further, even if we are to see improved growth rates, this does not equate to the economic and social development needed. Economic growth is one part of the equation — but by itself is insufficient.

Economic and social development means an improvement generally in earning capacity and living conditions for most Jamaicans. This means that the increased capacity of persons to earn, infrastructure development, and personal safety must be at the core of government policy.

The challenge that we have is that our politics, and government policies, have been too much focused on handing out a fish rather than teaching Jamaicans how to fish.

And the reality is that Jamaica will not see true economic and social development unless we build the capacity of everyone to improve their income, and create opportunities for them to earn — instead of policies that seek to increase income without increasing productivity.

We may think that we are doing good for “poor” Jamaicans by “giving” them more — but what we have effectively done by applying those policies is actually caused greater poverty.

The welfare type policies that we have applied over the last 40 to 45 years in Jamaica have done nothing more than cause more long-term impoverishment, as is shown by the devaluation of the Jamaican dollar.

Whenever our governments have talked about improving the lives of Jamaicans, we have spoken in terms of specially created job programmes, housing for the poor, land distribution, tax breaks etc. Instead we should be talking about greater educational opportunities, facilitating more private sector investments (particularly SMEs), and tax incentives for investments (such as the Junior Stock Exchange).

The effect of what we have created can be considered in the example of raising a child.

If every time a child says they want money or a car etc you give it to them — without insisting that they develop the ability to earn it for themselves — then what happens is that you create a child that becomes totally dependent on you to live and maintain the lifestyle he has become accustomed to.

If on the other hand you insist that the child goes and gets an education or starts a business, and puts what he has learned to work, and earns his own money, then the child would eventually be able to earn much more than you can give to him.

And in the end there will be two incomes in the household rather than one income supporting two persons.

So what our policies have done over time is create a dependency syndrome: which we have not only shared what we have earned, but in order to maintain a “high” lifestyle for everyone we have gone out and borrowed to supplement the income.

And because our government policies support more and more dependents, we have continuously increased taxes on those who are more productive — the result being that overall productivity declines, as capital stops working to escape the increased taxes and bureaucracy by becoming dormant or going overseas.

One person recently said to me that every time something starts to do well in Jamaica the policy is to tax it in order to earn more income for the voracious fiscal appetite. In other words, we always kill the goose that lays the golden egg and then when we end up with no goose we wonder why there is no egg.

Because of this approach to policy, and the need to “please” every five years, then we not only create a dependency syndrome, but we also fail to focus on the important issues that hold back development. These include law and order (as this is seen as fighting against the small man who wants to set up his house or business anywhere — squatting, illegal vending, tourist harassment), infrastructure development, and the creation of rules such as the procurement process because we don’t want to face the real monster of accountability and corruption.

So while we strive for much-needed economic growth, we must also support the Growth Council by ensuring that we have policies that support the development of the average citizen of Jamaica, through increasing his capacity, opportunities, and safety.

Adopting a serious approach to economic and social development is the only way to sustainable “prosperity”. This should be the primary focus of the Government and its Economic Growth Ministry.

The chickens have started to roost

The phrase “The chickens have come home to roost”, can refer to a situation where something bad happens after an action, or inaction, occurs. So if a person goes around defrauding people, and is finally caught and goes to prison, then one could use that phrase.

This phrase can be used in relation to the present economic and social conditions Jamaica finds itself in today. When we think about the untenable crime situation in St James (the tourist capital of Jamaica) and the general levels of indiscipline and lack of law and order in Jamaica today, we can safely say that the chickens are starting to roost. That is to say that what we are seeing in Jamaica today is a direct consequence (even if long term) of the way we have practised our governance, and politics in particular.

When Commissioner Williams said that the problems we are seeing with crime in Montego Bay are deep-seated social issues, he is correct. This is the same reason why I have repeatedly said that Jamaica’s economic problems are social.

The fact is that the crime situation we see in Montego Bay today, is not unique to Montego Bay. We have had similar crime spikes in places like Kingston and Spanish Town. In all cases, they have left the nearby residents in a state of fear. So the Montego Bay situation may be what is current but it is certainly not isolated.

And each time we have these upsurges, we normally find a short-term solution, but fail to address the underlying problem. This of course does not mean that short-term solutions are not necessary, but they must always be accompanied long-term solutions also.

It is this lack of long-term solutions, that causes the predictable upsurge in crime to occur every few years or so. And although we do need far more resources, especially in the short term, the fact is that the main problem is not a lack of resources. It is one of political will and enforcement of our laws.

One of the problems with how we manage our resources is that we wait until there is an emergency and then find the resources to throw at it. Never mind that when the emergency occurs it costs you five times more than the preventative cost.

As I always say, fiscal policy in Jamaica is a simple math exercise of addition and subtraction. There is no real strategy about how fiscal policy can be used as a tool for development, and not just focus on how much money is being spent on a project, but rather what is the value added. But then again maybe most of our people in authority don’t understand the concept of value added.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that is we create an environment where women have nine children without any way of feeding them properly; if taxis, buses, motor cyclists, and pedestrians are allowed to use the road as they wish; if people are allowed to squat and build communities as they like; if the justice system turns at a snail’s pace; and other such forms of lack of order are allowed; then what we are doing is laying a fertile ground for criminality.

But what we do is fail to enforce traffic laws or demand order on the road; we fail to enforce the Noise Abatement Act; we turn a blind eye at the squatter communities, until they develop into major communities; and we fail to enforce zoning laws. And when we fail to demand that laws be obeyed and that indiscipline must be rooted out, then we wonder why after many decades of neglect of enforcing the laws that we now find ourselves facing the social and economic challenges we have today.

In other words, how do we expect children to grow up and be successful professionals, if when they are young they are not taught what is right and what is wrong.

If we fail to do this, then the major role of the police will be to react to crime, and if there is a prevalence of crime, as we have today, that effectiveness is significantly reduced. Then what we do is apply a “shock and awe” action to the problem. Crime then dies down for a year, or two if we are lucky, and then rears its ugly head again often with more aggression.

This of course is because we have failed to address the deep-rooted social issues faced daily by our citizens, including children.

And then when these very same children, who have grown up in deplorable conditions (because of lack of urban planning), or grown up listening to deviant musical lyrics (because of lack of not enforcing the Noise Abatement Act), or see their father being abused by the police, or are abused themselves with little consequence in many instances — these children grow up and become criminals. We send the police to address the situation, by which time many of those children are lost, and further exacerbate our social issues.

Minister Montague has, in my view, spoken to some short-term approaches that are needed. However, what we must start to address immediately, and at the same time, are the longer-term solutions like enforcement of road discipline, and other laws like the Noise Abatement Act and the protection of our children from abuse.

Unless we can do these things, we will not be solving the crime and indiscipline issue, but rather just placing a band aid on a sore that will become worse. As we saw when we celebrated the reduction in crime in 2010, but which was just a temporary reprieve.

There have been many very insightful studies that we have just placed on a shelf, and not sought to implement. Either because of our inefficient bureaucracy (the number one problem to doing business) or lack of political will to do so. The fact is that no one who has had responsibility for policy to date can claim success, as where we are today is testament to what the efforts have been before.

One of the things I would love to see put back in place is the Rule of Law Committee, a private and public committee that was focused on addressing the crime problem — just as EPOC and ESET were set up. This is needed urgently, as because of our actions, (or inactions), in the past — the chickens have started to roost.

Jamaica needs fewer hedgehogs

A book I am reading called “Superforecasting” looks at the way in which people go about making forecasts, and draws some conclusions why some people – a select few – are consistently more accurate than others. These people are referred to as superforecasters.

One of the reasons mentioned is that most people think like hedgehogs, while the superforecasters think like foxes. Hedgehog-type thinkers make forecasts or predictions that are influenced significantly by their own biases and experiences. In other words, they lack the ability to think “beyond the tip of their nose”. Foxes, on the other hand, are those who are able to objectively take all surrounding information into consideration, and look beyond their own biases and experiences.

No doubt, foxes in most cases will be much more accurate than hedgehogs. So if we consider someone who can make good investment predictions or economic projections, it is usually someone who thinks like a fox. That is, a person who considers all the information objectively and does not pay attention to the short-term market reactions.

One person who thinks like a fox, and he always speaks to it, is Michael Lee-Chin. He always expounds the same principles of investing, always looks beyond short-term market moves, and believes in the information he has analysed, for long-term gain.

This principle is also very important in organisations. When we think about people who are seen as transformational leaders, more often than not they are “foxes”. In other words, one of the significant characteristics a transformational leader has is his/her ability to look into the future, and consider all the information available, and implement strategies based on that objective analysis.

Some transformational leaders we know include Lee Kuan Yew, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, and more recently, in my view, Barack Obama. Closer to home we can think of people like Michael Lee-Chin, Butch Stewart, and Chris Blackwell. And if I were to think of politicians who implemented transformational ideas, I would say Michael Manley, Edward Seaga, and PJ Patterson.

These leaders were able to think about and implement ideas that were not the “talk of the town” at the time. In other words, they looked at the information and the environment around them, and made decisions even when others couldn’t see the reason for it.

One of the challenges Jamaica has, in my view, is that we have too much hedgehog-type thinking. This has frequently caused us to take two steps forward and three steps backward, and has robbed us of innovation and progress.

The fact is that too many of us are not able to see beyond our own personal biases. Because of that (and thanks to social media), you can see where some people have two different views on the same issue, depending on which political party is in power.

When a statement or forecast is made by someone who is not in alignment with other people’s political or personal preferences, some people attack the person and say that the idea is backward, stupid, or political. But if someone who holds their political conviction makes that same statement, they will support it. This is because of their hedgehog style of thinking. In other words, they are unable to think beyond “the tip of their nose”.

After reading this reasoning in the book Superforecasting, I began to realise what makes normally rational people think irrationally, or with unsupported bias, when they enter groups (such as political parties). This also explains why a normally rational person, when he or she takes up political office, would shelve a tried and proven plan in favour of another, sometimes doing the same thing, but with another name. Examples can be found in both parties.

I think this is why we are unable to get consensus many times on governance priorities, because irrespective of how well a plan has performed, because it was implemented by the other party, it must go. Or because someone has always been aligned to the opposing party, then they are not useful. The result is that potentially every five years we can throw out good ideas and start the same process all over again, and then we wonder why after 54 years of independence, it seems like we are still in the starting blocks.

There is no doubt that the only way we will move forward is if more of us as citizens, and at the leadership levels, start to think like foxes. We do see some ministers who are more inclined to be foxes, but there are still too many of us who think like hedgehogs. And we know only too well in Jamaica, from our crime situation, that all it requires is a critical minority that can wreak havoc on any well intentioned plan or idea.

If we are to move this country forward though, there must be an unwritten code that we are going to ensure that we shed our hedgehog-type thinking and start focusing more on objective thinking about national development.

We must learn (especially many of the younger political activists) that it is important to look beyond the messenger and properly analyse the message. Or we must learn to be able to properly assess information, and look beyond our personal biases. If we fail to do so, then we will always be in the starting blocks as a country.

For this to happen, only transformational leadership will set that tone.

Maximising Jamaica’s full potential

AS I listened to the PIOJ’s recent review of the Jamaican economy, I thought to myself that we have become a nation that is too used to mediocrity. The PIOJ estimated that the Jamaican economy grew by 0.9 per cent for the fiscal year just ended, and in the current fiscal year it is expected to grow between one and two per cent.

In the context of how the economy has performed, one could easily say that this is welcome news, as since around 2009 we have seen what the economists love to refer to as “negative growth”. In layman’s term, the economy has shrunk.

On the other hand, while we are happy for the growth, our willingness to accept that meagre growth rate is symptomatic of the way in which we have grown to accept mediocrity as a standard. In other words, we should be very concerned that as a country with a lot more potential to expand at much faster rates, we have failed miserably to achieve that full potential.

This is the same way we accept poor customer service, indiscipline, poor governance by our politicians, bureaucracy, and the list goes on. It seems as if we have been shell-shocked by our mediocre performances, and so we set our standard very low and any politician that comes and tells us how nice we look, we are ready to go with them. This, I think, is one of the major impediments to our economic and social development.

If you grow up in a community where it is expected that garbage will be disposed of anywhere (gullies, sidewalk etc) or loud music is as natural as birds chirping, then it becomes a natural part of the environment. And you can’t imagine your life without it. In other words, what is the big deal about these things? Until finally one day, as we are seeing now, it is no longer just confined to a single community, but rather is very much the accepted culture for the whole island of Jamaica.

So we are numb to murders when they happen, or the number of road fatalities. We also see indiscipline as a way of life in the form of road use or squatting, among others. Because this culture and degradation is now ingrained in us, we then begin to celebrate it through our music.

So songs speak about the abuse of women or violence and we cheer when we hear them. Or, one of the new trends is violence in dancing, where men jump from roof tops on women, many times causing physical harm. But it is so accepted as a part of our culture that the patrons at the dances cheer when they see it.

The irony, also, is that we try to sell Jamaica on this “No Problem” culture, as Jamaicans seem proud to display their indiscipline when overseas. Many times when travelling and Jamaicans are on the aircraft, they have to put on some display, including speaking loudly. Recently I saw a sports team representing Jamaica (funded by the Jamaican Government and in Jamaica-branded shirts) playing music and speaking loudly on the aircraft. I had to speak to one of them to get the other to shut up.

But when I think about it, you can’t really blame Jamaicans too much for how they behave because this is how they have been socialised. Because of the failings of government policy and action, over the decades, we have developed an environment of indiscipline and acceptance of mediocrity, hence the reason for falling labour productivity since the 1970s.

Governments have further solidified this mediocrity by creating labour laws that go way beyond protecting workers rights to harming them, as the stringency of the laws have now led to a situation where a great majority of the workforce do not have any health or pension benefits, because it is best to hire people on short-term contracts.

These same Jamaicans, though, when they go to live in other countries, do conform to the social behaviour in the majority of cases. And then we ask the question why do Jamaicans conform when they migrate, but are indisciplined here. The answer, of course, is that the environment we have in Jamaica encourages indiscipline and mediocrity.

It seems logical to me then that if we truly want to realise our full potential as a country, we must as a priority look at the environment we promote.

For example, the best-selling book Rich Dad, Poor Dad speaks to the belief that the environment for learning created by two different fathers can determine the outcome of the child. So, as long as we teach our citizens to be indisciplined, unproductive and give them handouts, then we will continue to create a country where underperformance and indiscipline is rampant.

It is for this fundamental reason why we will always find it difficult to achieve any sustainable growth about three per cent. It is also for this fundamental reason why we have so many Jamaicans earning very low wages. It is also a fundamental reason why child abuse is so high, why squatting continues to grow, and why crime is a challenge.

For me it seems logical, and I can’t understand why we have not seen it expedient, to fix these underlying issues rather than encouraging celebration of our mediocrity as “No Problem”. It is perplexing that we celebrate the very high standards of people like Usain Bolt, Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce and Bob Marley, but we seem too ready to accept a mediocre society.

Until we can do so, then we will continue to speak about one to two per cent growth and be willing to accept mediocrity as our highest standard.

Safeguarding our growth agenda

The Government has placed growth at the front of its priorities. Since political independence, in 1962, we have only seen growth of any significance in the period 1962 to 1972, and then about three years in the 1980s. So the focus on growth is definitely what is needed if we are to truly see Jamaica develop relative to the rest of the world.

In order for growth to occur in any sustainable manner, however, there are some fundamental things that must first happen. The most important thing to consider is that “sustainable growth” can only occur in an environment that enables its occurrence. This is no different from the need to create an environment that encourages productivity in a single organisation, or even in a business sector.

So, as an example, if someone is learning how to swim they must have a body of water (such as a pool), proper swimwear and, very importantly, a teacher who is capable of teaching someone how to swim — and more importantly can themselves swim.

So growth can only happen in an environment that encourages capital investment, greater productivity, and where people feel incentivised to work. This is the challenge that we have and continue to have. I don’t think that most of our politicians see the long-term link between the need to improve productivity and work ethic, for example, and sustainable growth. For this reason our State has, over many years, encouraged welfare politics and income redistribution rather than productivity improvement and rewards based on productivity.

The result of this welfare politics is squatter settlements and falling labour productivity, because in order to “get ahead in life”, all you have to do is align yourself closely with a political party and ensure they get in power. This type of thinking has led us to develop labour laws that ensure that unproductive labour is rewarded, which results in the long term with many people being contracted without any permanent employment benefits. This in turn creates lower fiscal revenues for the Government and erodes workers benefits into the future.

When I started writing in newspapers in 2003, I thought to myself that surely Jamaica has the potential to be a high growth rate country and see significant development. This, I thought, was where we were destined to be because of our geographic location, language advantage, tourism competitiveness, music and sports competitiveness, etc.

One of my objectives was to see if I could assist to improve the conversation around development and by doing so help Jamaica to achieve economic success, within a 10- to 15-year time span.

One of my main motivations in 2003 was to see Jamaica become a place where my son would grow up and want to live in. At the time he was nine, and I thought that if as a country we did what was necessary, we could have seen Jamaica truly become the place of choice to live, raise families, and do business, as pronounced in Vision 2030. As a result, I also sat on one of the Vision 2030 sector committees.

This obviously didn’t work out as 16 years later we are still grappling with low growth, low productivity, and social issues. Although in the last two to three years we have made some progress in putting a framework in place to address our economic issues, our social and legislative challenges still remain an issue.

This came home to me even more when last weekend I attended my son’s graduation, where he did a bachelor’s degree in actuarial science, and he said to me that even though he would love to come back to Jamaica to live, he would not because it was too disorderly and had too much crime.

He also went on to say that, in his view, Jamaica would be the best place to live if we could control the crime and bring order to the society. I couldn’t argue with him when he said that, and I thought to myself that Jamaica has once again lost another mind that could help us to develop. And this scenario has played out many times over.

This conversation took place in Des Moines, Iowa, which is the same place the two US missionaries that were murdered in St Mary are from. Sitting down to dinner with two residents there, they brought up the matter and said that they were both very popular in Des Moines, and because of it Jamaica had developed a very bad reputation there and many missionaries who were thinking of coming decided not to.

Jamaica has always had the potential to develop into a First-World country, where our people would prosper and we would not be seen as persons of interest for security personnel in other countries. In other words, we could have easily avoided the label of being “extraordinarily violent”.

The problem we have is that we continue to cause our own demise by our failure to do what is necessary from a governance framework to provide an enabling environment for proper economic and social development, and safeguard the growth agenda we speak about so often but fail to realise.

What we must recognise, though, is that creating this environment is not going to come from the continuation of our welfare politics, or biasing our conversations depending on which political party forms Government. For example, I see on social media all the time where some people argue two different ways before and after the election, on the same point.

Safeguarding our growth agenda means that as a people we must change the conversation and we need to start looking at capital as positive for development, rather than with the suspicion we have always treated it and tax it before it starts working.

We have to create an environment of trust, which means that the security forces and government bureaucracy must respect the citizen and not make it hard for them to live and do business.

We have to bring order to the society, which means harsh penalties for those who dispose of waste illegally or who violate the Noise Abatement Act or who break the Road Code.

Until we bring this sort of order to our country, then someone else will lament the fact that their son or daughter chooses not to return to work and live.

A long-term solution to crime needed

According to the World Economic Forum’s 2015-16 Global Competitiveness Report, crime and theft are the second most problematic factors to doing business in Jamaica, accounting for 16 per cent of the challenges. This is only outdone by inefficient government bureaucracy at 16.4 per cent.

Recently we have seen an upsurge in horrific crimes, including multiple killings. These include the following murders: a three-year-old killed by her father, a policewoman shot at a bus stop, and two US missionaries killed by persons unknown. These incidents have renewed calls for severe punishment for the perpetrators. The case of the US missionaries has understandably caused international press coverage, which can result in a negative economic impact if not managed properly.

There have also been renewed calls for hanging by the Security Minister and others. All this comes at a time when we are fighting for the freer movement of Jamaicans within Caricom. The government has also placed responsibility for reducing the crime rate on the shoulders of Police Commissioner Carl Williams.

In my view, the fundamental issues that have created the crime monster will not be addressed by either the resumption of hanging or by saddling the Commissioner with the superhuman task of reducing the crime rate. Hanging can only be a deterrent if we are able to catch the criminals. Even then it is not a solution if a trial takes years to complete, and then through the lengthy appeal process hanging might be in breach of the Pratt and Morgan rules.

It is also impractical to place the responsibility for reducing crime at the feet of the police, as in most cases all they can do is react to the crime after it is committed. I say this because an assessment of the crime statistics reveals that many killings are domestic, with gang murders in second place. We have discussed many times that the real challenges with crime in general and murder in particular have less to do with policing and more to do with the environment.

In 2015, for example, I am told that the police solved 600 murders committed by more than 700 people, which is a significant number of murders to solve. This has been achieved despite being hampered by inadequate resources and operating in a challenging working environment, both in the office and on the streets.

How can the police prevent domestic crimes, if they are defined as mainly crimes of passion, and not premeditated – which means they occur in the heat of the moment? All the police can do is react.

How do the police eliminate gang murders when the society and communities are actually creating more and more people who are likely to fall into crime every day? As an example, one of the challenges with crime in St James is the number of squatter settlements that have mushroomed. So because the communities are not properly organised, they are very difficult to police, and the conditions the people live in do not encourage civil behaviour.

Although short-term fixes must be found to relieve the increasing crime situation, the fact is that a sustained reduction in crime needs a much more detailed assessment. In my view, the first thing we must do is understand what are the causes of crime, and many of these causal factors occur years before the crime actually occurs. For example, people who commit murder today may have been victims of child abuse who saw one or both parents murdered years earlier, or who grew up without any parental control over what movies or music they were exposed to.

The fact is that our crime situation today has resulted from policy missteps over the years. In short, we have continued to create an environment which encourages criminal activity. This is no different from children growing up in a household where there are no rules, and they can do and get away with anything they want. So if children have grown up in an unstructured environment, don’t expect that when they get to 18 they will adhere to the rules of society or their workplace.

Similarly, Jamaica continues to facilitate an environment of indiscipline on the roads (taxis and buses drive how they want); night noise from dances throughout the night (in contravention of the Noise Abatement Act); blaring music that promotes violence and abuse of women; illegal squatting and violation of the zoning laws; illegal vending; violation of environmental standards; and abuse of children and the elderly.

This undisciplined environment is supported by a very slow justice system and a grossly under-resourced police force that is fighting corruption within its own ranks. Add to that a less-than-adequate education system and a high incidence of children not attending school.

So in fact, crime is supported by the ways we have chosen to organise ourselves. We have had many spontaneous reactions to crime over the years – special police task forces such as ACID and Kingfish; curfews; Suppression of Crime Act; Gun Court; and in 2010 – the Tivoli incursion. All this has not resulted in reduced levels of crime, but rather an increasing distrust between the authorities and the Jamaican people, as evidenced by the LAPOP report over the years.

If we are serious about making Jamaica a safe place, then we must realise that crime can only be solved by creating a society of order and respect for the average citizen. We must stop fertilising the crime tree.

Until we choose to do so, we will continue to react to an ever-increasing problem (at best we might have a short-term reprieve). The security forces will find it more and more difficult to cope, and we as Jamaicans will continue to suffer.

We must create opportunities for all Jamaicans and ensure that our children are protected and not subject to conditions that breed criminal behaviour. We must use technology such as CCTV and properly resource the police force. We must ensure that legislation such as the new Road Traffic Act is enacted in short order, just as we do with tax legislation.

Only then can we say that Jamaica will be the choice of place to live, raise families, work, and do business.

That Caricom issue: Jamaica -Trinidad relationship

The recent impasse between Jamaica and Trinidad, arising out of the latest round of Jamaicans being not only denied entry to Trinidad but being detained in less than acceptable circumstances, has once again raised the question of the purpose of Caricom, and more specifically the CSME.

This is only the last of many incidents that have grabbed the attention of the region on this matter. The tension began in 1961, when Jamaica held a referendum which saw us withdrawing from the West Indies Federation. At that time the then Trinidad Prime Minster Dr Eric Williams appropriately said that “one from 10 leaves zero”, referring to the fact that without Jamaica the Federation would be virtually non-existent.

Since then we have been unable to see the free movement of goods and people within the region, and examples of these include:

(1) the challenges involved with exporting Jamaican products to Trinidad and Belize, especially patties;

(2) previous instances of Jamaicans being refused entry into Trinidad (I remember last year the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Jamaica sought reassurance from Trinidad that our delegates attending the Caribbean Conference would not have any difficulty with immigration because of a prior incident); and

(3) the landmark ruling coming out of the Shanique Myrie case.

In the case of the movement of goods in particular, my own view is that Caricom and the Council of Trade and Economic Development have proven to be very ineffective in addressing this issue. Countries have made commitments at the highest level that the non-tariff restrictions would be addressed, but years later the problems remain – in particular, the case of the restriction by Belize.

This recent impasse between Jamaica and Trinidad is the latest in a long line of events demonstrating the ineffectiveness of Caricom, and more specifically the failure of our governments to rectify this situation. It reflects a serious lack of leadership in the region. I am left to wonder why we are unable to resolve a matter as important as this, yet we find time to proffer solutions to problems affecting West Indies cricket; but such is the irony of our regional politics.

Once again, though, we need to question the relevance of Caricom. The recurrence of these situations creates divisiveness and drains our energy, because the failure of governments to find a sustainable solution always carries us back to the same unfortunate position.

Nonetheless, I am heartened by the stance taken by Prime Minister Andrew Holness and Foreign Minister Kamina Johnson Smith, and former Minister Anthony Hylton, as they have all stated a commitment to take firm action on this. Hylton at the time had in fact overseen rulings against Trinidadian petroleum products for rules of origin breaches under the Treaty of Chaguaramas.

Outside of these three, however, I think the other responsible people have proven to be ineffective and seem to always be seeking quiet diplomacy, while Jamaica and other countries of the region suffer. In fact, one could say that it is the failure of strong leadership on this matter that has seen the persistent failures of Caricom and our inability to move towards a true CSME.

On this recent impasse, however, I appeal to Jamaicans not to get emotional and respond like the former Trinidad National Security Minister, and also the “Donald Trump” surrogate Trinidadian talk show host. As a people we must remain above those types of responses, and understand that there are many Trinidadians who are decent people.

So we should continue to conduct business with Trinidad wherever possible, because it makes us better off financially. That is the only reason for market trade, so let us avoid emotional reactions.

I, for example, will not stop buying Trinidadian goods just because of this issue, but I have always looked for Jamaican goods over any other import, as long as they are equal in value (quality to price). This is because as a Jamaican my preference should always be for Jamaican goods, but certainly not at all costs to me personally. I therefore encourage Jamaicans to always purchase Jamaican goods over imports where they are available and of similar value.

UNFAIR COMPETITON

However, while we consider the comparison of products and services, we must also be mindful of the policy restrictions that create unfair competition.

Trinidad (through its finance minister) has admitted to providing a subsidy on fuel. Based on our own research (at the PSOJ) this subsidy is more than just on petrol, and extends to manufacturers.

I won’t go into detail here, but suffice it to say that this is in contravention of several parts of the treaty. So while we have enforced a policy (CET under the Treaty) to promote the CSME, we must also recognise where policies are failing us because of contraventions, and must act decisively to address that.

This is where the Jamaican government has failed us, because much of this has been suspected for a while, and brought to their attention, and they have failed to protect the Jamaican people. In fact the PSOJ estimates that over the 10 years to 2014, we have paid out approximately US$700 million we wouldn’t have had to pay if there was no CET on fuel because of the premium charged by Trinidad on account of the CET.

This would be enough to fund the sugar industry every year, and hence create jobs in Jamaica as opposed to supporting the subsidy in Trinidad.

So my appeal to Jamaicans is this: Don’t let one or two wayward voices in Trinidad cause us to view everyone in Trinidad with disfavour. And don’t let the ineffectiveness of the current Trinidad Government to address this issue, or the past ineffectiveness of the Jamaican government, play a role in how we feel. What we must do is demand action by the governments to either solve this Caricom façade, and make it a true CSME, or stop fooling ourselves about it. What we must do is act and stop “posing”.

Caricom has a role to play in our regional development. But it is our failure to treat Caricom properly that has resulted in the many breaches – and not only the failure of Caricom, but the poor economic performance of the region.

What should be the real purpose of growth and development?

Last year I had set a goal to ride 7,500 miles on the bicycle, which I achieved. Discussing it with another cyclist, I was asked if that was my ultimate objective and if I would be increasing it this year (2016), to which my response was no because the real purpose of the goal was not to just ride 7500 miles for the year, but rather that was an initiative to achieve the greater goal, which was good health and to perform better on the bicycle.

Also, just recently, I posted that the philosophy that was adopted by the previous NSWMA board was good customer service and good corporate governance. This in itself is not the ultimate objective of the NSWMA, but what it does is guide the development of the initiatives needed to achieve the ultimate goal.

These two examples show that in order to achieve any ultimate objective, we must have carefully designed initiatives and a guiding philosophy.

So even though the initiatives and philosophy have been identified and are both critical to attaining the objective, the fact is that if you were just told the initiatives and philosophy guiding the initiatives, they would both be meaningless unless we are aware of what the ultimate objective is.

However, if we were to know what the ultimate objective is, then we could easily identify a philosophical framework and the supporting initiatives without being told.

So if I told you the ultimate objective of the NSWMA (as defined by section 4 of the NSWMA Act) is responsibility for the proper management and disposal of waste, then you could say to me that in order to achieve that I would need to have a guiding philosophy of customer service and governance. At that point I could then say, well, if I want to achieve that then I must look at the major risks to achieving that and then create my initiatives by order of priority.

This is the approach that the previous NSWMA board took, as the first thing the board did was to go to the NSWMA Act and ask what is our ultimate responsibility. That was able to guide our philosophy and coming out of that analysis we were able to identify Riverton and garbage collection as main risk areas and tackle those early.

For the past 43 years, Jamaica has been trying to achieve growth and development. We have heard many people talk about the need to grow the economy, and identify specific sectors — need for macroeconomic stability; need to reduce the debt to GDP ratio and reduce the fiscal deficit; and how critical it is to pass the IMF tests inter alia.

Vision 2030

It wasn’t, however, until Vision 2030 was developed and launched in December 2013, that we sort of created a guiding philosophy for our development. It was then that we finally decided that what we wanted for our development was to become “the place of choice to live, work, raise families, and do business”.

Until then Jamaica had no guiding philosophy for our development. Sure we knew that we wanted economic growth. We knew that we wanted to develop the country’s infrastructure. We knew that we wanted to reduce crime and indiscipline. We knew that we wanted to eradicate poverty. But to what end? And the fact is that if you don’t know where you are going, then you can take any road and you will get there.

But even though this philosophy (which I think is an excellent one) was developed, the truth is that it really has not been taken seriously by successive administrations, and seems to have remained an academic task with no desire for implementation. So there are a few persons monitoring Vision 2030, but the needed initiatives have not been tied in to the action by the country’s “board of directors”, which is the Cabinet.

So imagine if the NSWMA management identified a philosophy for the organisation, but it was not accepted by the board. Could it be achieved?

Last Tuesday, I accepted an invitation to interview some young people from a low-income community, in an attempt to identify what their skill sets and needs are. I thought it was important, even though I had a really hectic day, because I believe our young people need serious nurturing and guidance. I was happy to see that several professionals were there, and it was more encouraging because it took place at 7:00 pm.

Disheartening

But while speaking to some of these young people, just out of school, I was very disheartened. These youngsters were very ambitious and creative, but had a poor family background, had been abused, had produced children early, or had to drop out of school because they had no financial support.

One young lady of 18 was trying to make life better for herself, and wanted to go back to school, but had to drop out at 13 when her mother died and her grandmother could not afford to send her and two younger siblings to school. So she had to start hustling to help them. Immediately I thought to myself, what type of future does she have? Fortunately, she had no children and I pleaded with her not to do so until she was financially independent.

There were many stories similar to this, and it was obvious that they were very willing to improve themselves and at a time when they should have been enjoying their childhood but could not do so. I will definitely participate again.

This led me to think that even though we are talking about passing IMF tests, and nice terms like macroeconomic stability, the fact is that there is a significant part of our population that is just concerned about what they will eat tomorrow. Hence the disengagement we saw in the election turnout.

The fact is that our governance and philosophy is totally disconnected from what the ultimate objective of development should be – to improve the general standard of living for Jamaicans and ensure that all Jamaicans have an equal opportunity at success.

That is what governance should be about. Instead we focus on initiatives, and because we have not been able to define anything but initiatives we have not been able to see any meaningful development.

In other words, our leaders need to go back to basics and understand that the real purpose of growth and development should be about enhancing the lives and opportunities for the people. This is why the US has been so successful as a country, because their ultimate objective is improving the lives of US citizens, guided by the philosophy of government by the people and for the people.

Why should we buy Jamaican?

As we pursue our eternal search for economic development, one focus has been on the need for us to purchase local goods and services in preference to imports. The reasoning behind this seems logical, as it should mean that the balance of payments should improve, and this should mean a stable exchange rate and employment for more Jamaicans.

As a result, there have been many calls for us to ‘Buy Jamaican’. Former senator Norman Grant has been at the helm of this initiative, which, in my view, has reaped much success. Even with this successful campaign, however, we have continued to see currency depreciation, high inflation and interest rates, and increased unemployment over the period. So the question is, why wouldn’t things improve if we had such a successful ‘Buy Jamaican’ campaign?

There are a few reasons for this, and it underlines the fact that simply saying we should ‘Buy Jamaican’ will not improve our economic fortunes.

So while the campaign was very good and necessary, the truth is that we never really supported it with policies that would sustain a move towards consuming more Jamaican-made products and services. In addition to lack of policy stimulus, many local producers have not improved the service and product quality to properly compete with imported products.

The first thing to note is that it is a futile exercise to be pushing a ‘Buy Jamaican’ campaign when we are unable to significantly increase the production of Jamaican goods and services. So what we have failed to do as a country is ensure that appropriate policies address this failing. To do so all we had to do was ask the question – what is it that prevents capital from making long-term investments in locally produced goods and services? In other words, does capital feel comfortable investing for the very long term in sustainable production, and – importantly – locating their facilities in Jamaica?

The answer to this is that government policy has never effectively addressed the issue of being more attractive to capital than our competitors. Sure we have done it by creating special incentives for industries such as tourism, bauxite, free zones, etc. But the fact is that government’s attitude to capital generally has been very wanting.

As an example, tax policy in Jamaica has always pinpointed increasing fiscal revenue as its primary purpose. Never mind that it ends up killing incentives for capital and businesses generally. In contrast, countries like Panama have a direct policy of focusing on attracting capital, and as a result they have consistently grown at 6.0 per cent to 8.0 per cent per annum.

Government policy in Jamaica has always created a hostile environment to capital, and then created special carve-outs for foreign direct investments. Small wonder then that local investors are reluctant to risk their savings and pensions in business ideas.

The fact is that if government policy was focused on addressing the four most problematic factors in the 2016 Doing Business Report: inefficient government bureaucracy, crime and theft, tax rates, and corruption — then not only would we solve 54 per cent of our business challenges, but we would also see increased capital inflows and employment. Instead we have struggled for years to implement a computerised tracking system for development approvals, and then we wonder why growth remains anaemic.

Secondly, many of the Jamaican products and services produced are not able to compete in terms of quality and price.

Price in many instances is again affected by government policy, which seeks to extract as much revenue as possible without much concern for the survival of businesses and their ability to compete. But there are also quality issues with some of the goods and services produced. As an example, last year I took my daughter to the Easter Funfest at Hope Gardens, and it was a great event for children. I got there very early and she was almost alone on the rides so it was good.

This year I went early with her, only to be greeted by blaring music, with speaker boxes lining the route to the rides. The music was so loud that my daughter started crying and wanted to leave, and it was equally unbearable for me and some of the staff. Later I got a video of them having a stage show there with children dancing on the stage to a large audience of cheering adults.

A significant deterioration over last year.

This is a similar story for many Jamaican products and services. They start out well and end up being uncompetitive. This is okay in a competitive market, but the problem is that this mediocrity is supported somewhat by government policy, which in many respects creates significant barriers to entry. The result is that the invisible hand of a competitive market does not get to work properly. For example, something as simple as not enforcing zoning laws allows some businesses protection by allowing them an unfair advantage from a cost point of view. The result is mediocrity.

Other inhibitors are lack of information and inability to move goods effectively. Just look at the deplorable state of most farm roads.

The point is that we should not ‘Buy Jamaican’ just because it is a Jamaican product or service. But rather we should ‘Buy Jamaican’ because it is just as good or better than the imported products.

It is only when we can produce competitively that we will see improved growth and employment. This is because buying an inferior product actually does have economic costs: (i) higher cost of living, (ii) lower productivity and hence lower wages, and (iii) decreased potential for foreign exchange earnings.

At best then, producing inferior products and services will produce a more closed economy which becomes more uncompetitive and produces lower income levels, as happens in Cuba.

If we are to grow the economy at acceptable levels, then we must increase the number of Jamaican products and services. This, however, must be done competitively if we are to benefit.

Jamaica’s road to prosperity — Part 2

In order to secure power (spillover from the colonial system), both political parties when they formed government set about creating institutional loyalties, using the state bodies and security forces to cement their hold on power and share spoils amongst supporters. This resulted in an inefficient bureaucracy (based on political loyalty, rather than ability, for board appointments, as an example) and dysfunctional state mechanisms that excluded those supporting the opposition, instead of including all citizens.

I could go on and develop this, but suffice it to say that Jamaica’s political arrangements have resulted in a state of affairs where most of the citizens have either been excluded from participating in any “prosperity” because (1) people were given special economic privileges based on party affiliation and not market opportunity; (2) the masses suffered from declining values and poor educational and health access because of inefficiency and poor governance; and (3) our political system created garrisons that focused on furthering political division.

Therefore if we are to move towards “prosperity” for all, we must find a way of firstly continuing the current fiscal and legislative reform programme, in order to create the foundation for development.

In other words, no development can happen with a debt-burdened society and poor legislative infrastructure. Secondly, we must create an environment that encourages capital to invest and by doing so provide employment and entrepreneurial activities. Thirdly, we must then create a policy and political environment which includes everyone (irrespective of political preferences) and which builds on the natural talent of all and not just some.

If we can achieve these three goals, then we can create prosperity for all, as we will then be able to create value at the individual level.

The problem with where we currently are in the ERP is that it has never seriously considered the third objective up to this time, and hence people were not feeling the improvements on the ground.

Of course, there are the usual policy actions that need to be taken, and these include a modern legislative framework, and other policies to enable a competitive and business-friendly environment. I have been emphasising that all we need to do is create policies that speak to the top four problematic factors in the World Bank’s Doing Business Report, which are Inefficient Government Bureaucracy, Tax Rates (uncompetitive tax environment), Crime and Theft (lack of law and order), and Corruption. These four account for 54 per cent of the challenges perceived to doing business in Jamaica. So if we were to just focus on these four areas alone, then we would have gone a far way in enhancing the business climate.

Fixing these alone, however, will only solve the layer of creating an enabling business environment and generating country-level growth. But to get to the desired levels of “prosperity” for all, what is needed is to create an environment of inclusion for all. Of course, this means breaking down the institutional barriers to inclusion. Very importantly, the existing political and economic structures will have to give up some power over their respective territories.

This, of course, will require strong, sincere, and forward-looking leadership.

To the credit of the politicians, and also business people, they have been giving up some of that power and this is why Jamaica is making some progress under the ERP.

This is very important to understand, because no reform programme can work sustainably if institutional arrangements continue to strangle any progress made, which is why we have had to go through so many IMF agreements and reform programmes without any success. The fact is that as soon as we start to see some progress and the squeeze starts to threaten the political process, then the institutions usually reverse any improvements and maintain the stranglehold, through debt, as an example.

Since I wrote the book in 2009, however, I think much of that institutional stranglehold has been released and there has been more citizenry inclusion in the political process. So things like the Charter of Rights, INDECOM, Fiscal Rule legislation, Political Ombudsman, Public Defender, etc. have all been incremental steps towards greater citizenry inclusion.

I am also reminded that the current Electoral Commission started out as the Electoral Advisory Board and is a shining example today of citizenry inclusion.

This progress has come as a result of our much regarded press freedom, which has encouraged more radio and television stations and with it a voice given to Jamaicans. It has also resulted in a very active civil society and private sector, all of which have forced the Parliament to bring about incremental changes that have resulted in greater participation.

The problem we have, though, is that while we have progressed significantly in terms of social inclusion, we have made little progress in terms of economic inclusion. This is evidenced by the fact that a significant number of Jamaicans still remain below the poverty line and more importantly, we have not seen any relative improvements in our middle-class structure when compared to other countries. Everyone knows that in order for countries to do well, and for shared prosperity, there must be a growing middle class. Because what it means is that there are greater opportunities for all.

The challenge for the new government in moving towards prosperity, therefore, will be how we achieve economic inclusion. One thing is certain: it can only be done by breaking down institutional barriers. So, for example, we must create educational and health opportunities but in a fiscally responsible way, as we cannot achieve individual prosperity without country growth, and that can only be done with a stable fiscal, legislative, and macroeconomic environment).

We must also find a way of breaking down the invisible, but divisive barriers of garrisons. We must find a way to create a safe environment for all, where the security forces are seen as protectors of the people.

We must find a way to make government service delivery efficient and focused on providing quality service.

We must find a way of creating a low tax environment where people see maximum returns from their efforts.

If these can be done, then we will truly be on the path to “prosperity” for all.

Jamaica's road to prosperity - part 1

The JLP’s slogan, “Poverty to Prosperity”, was very catchy and seemed to have been embraced by enough people for them to win the elections. Now that the election is over, we certainly as a country must turn our attention to moving towards prosperity.

The first thing we must clearly understand is what true prosperity is, as many people, even in their personal lives, do not truly understand the concept of prosperity and how to achieve it. And even at a national level you could say that we have never understood what prosperity is, as we have never been able to achieve it since independence in 1962.

Many people get confused and think that prosperity is borrowing money to buy the latest luxury car, when you don’t own a house or can’t afford to do things you want to do because you are hamstrung by a loan. Or even worse, cannot afford to miss one month’s salary or else all financial hell breaks loose.

Similarly Jamaica gives the impression of prosperity to many who visit and see the cars etc, and can’t believe that this is a country that is burdened by debt that has reached as high as 150 per cent of GDP in recent years and 212 per cent in 1984.

So maybe the first thing that we need to do is understand what prosperity means. Because prosperity is not driving the latest model car, while not being able to feed yourself properly. And it is not borrowing money to pay people more, or provide welfare, as Jamaica has done in the past.

Also the socialist experiments, which came to an end with Russia and China effectively accepting market economies, showed us that redistribution of income from one set of people to the next does not mean long-term prosperity if there is no increase in productivity. Our own social experiment in the 1970s demonstrated to us that a country cannot be prosperous without capital, when for example there was migration of capital from Jamaica.

The fact is that prosperity for a country only comes about when there is sustained economic and social development. And this can only happen when real GDP grows consistently at above average levels, and when there is social inclusion. And at the individual level, prosperity can only come when you are yourself more productive and can increase your earnings based on that productivity.

So a country’s prosperity comes when greater value is created either through increasing the capital investments in a country, or by improving the return on the current investments. In other words, producing more value through goods or services.

At the same time a country can be prosperous, but a large majority of the citizens are not. In other words, prosperity for a country does not automatically translate into prosperity for the population. If we look at countries such as those in the Middle East, for example, where the countries earn a lot of money from oil, there is still only a small set of persons who really experience prosperity. So the challenge that Jamaica’s government will have, to realise prosperity, is not only to grow the economy, but also to find a way to push that prosperity down to all Jamaicans.

And as indicated above, the only way for this to happen sustainably is to find a way for these people to improve their productivity and value creation. It certainly cannot be done by moving money from one place to another, by borrowing, by increasing taxes, or by ignoring capital spending in favour of recurrent expenditure. All these things we have consistently tried in the past, but they have not worked.

The recent economic reform programme (ERP) has also generated much debate, with some saying that it has not improved the lives of most citizens, and in fact has caused more pain. Although this is a very true statement, the ERP should not be blamed for this, as it has been constantly said, and is true, that the ERP is necessary but far from sufficient to bring about prosperity. What it does, however, is lay the foundation for prosperity. So, for example, you cannot eat dirt, but dirt is necessary for a tree to grow and bear fruit. If you get rid of the dirt then there will be no fruit, and similarly if you do not do the necessary fiscal and legislative adjustments there can be no sustained growth and prosperity.

The challenge is this: How do you first of all create sustained economic and social development, and then translate that country-level development into as much widespread individual development as possible? Because irrespective of what you do, there are going to be some people who will not benefit. The role of governance, however, should not be to see that everyone benefits, even if they don’t deserve to, but rather to create an environment where everyone has the opportunity to be the best they can be. This is true whether you run an organisation or a country.

This comes down of course to the problem of politics. In 2009, I wrote the book Charting Jamaica’s Economic and Social Development: a much needed paradigm shift. The book looked at our economic development since 1962, as I sought to answer why Jamaica has not done better economically and socially, and what needed to be done to get us to the elusive “prosperity” goal.

I concluded (which was not the intention) that the problem with our economics and society is our politics. Our political system, and the way we practise it, pulls the life out of our economy and society and does nothing more than create a welfare economy where the ruling party controls the resources to the exclusion of half of the country at any one time (remember the statement “[Jamaica’s] politics is about who gets what…). So at best we have half of our resources pulling in one direction and half in the other direction.

I recently began reading another book, which supports the conclusion I arrived at in my own book. The book is called Why Nations Fail and is a book I recommend to all politicians, and those interested in understanding the difference between rich and poor nations. In fact I was in Guyana recently and mentioned the book to their Minister of Energy (who was on a panel discussion) and he indicated that he was currently reading the same book.

What the book says is basically that our political systems, and how we practise our politics, is ultimately what determines why one country is rich and another is poor, which supports my own conclusion about Jamaica’s development since 1962.

The fact is that politics determines inclusion or exclusion (as said in Why Nations Fail), and pursuing a path of inclusion or exclusion determines whether or not we achieve long-term prosperity. Since 1962 (and before, but my concern is with our own governance) we have pursued a politics of exclusion by virtue of our political arrangements.

This politics of exclusion got even more aggressive in the 1970s, having its roots in the 1960s, when Jamaica and Jamaicans started to be divided along political lines, culminating in the democratic socialist ideals of the PNP in the 1970s, versus the market doctrine of the JLP.

We are Jamaica's problem

I am sitting down to write this article on election day (February 25), after watching the lead-up to the election and the commentary from not only politicians but also us the citizens of Jamaica.

In considering this, I am even firmer in the belief that Jamaica’s challenges have more to do with the way we have ordered our society and the way we interact with each other. After all, economics teaches us that the way economies are organised and developed has more to do with social interactions than anything else. Which is why economics is a social and not natural science.

While we spend much time speaking about the macroeconomy, the fact is that it is an outcome of the microeconomy, which is nothing more than the behaviour of individual households. And that behaviour is determined by the social interaction and behaviour of individuals within the household.

So my preferred taste for imported foods over local foods, if I am joined by enough Jamaicans, will determine what the demand for foreign currency is and ultimately the balance of payments. Similarly, if enough individuals believe that school is a waste of time and it is better to pursue an athletic or music career, or just “beg” money, then we would end up with low labour productivity.

In the context of elections, many people have made some very strong opinions about policies being proposed by both major political parties. but when when you ask them if they will vote they tell you they are not enumerated. At that point I always tune them out because I realise that they are irrelevant and can contribute nothing meaningful beyond words.

This is no different from the parent who tells their child that it is important to eat properly, but then they themselves eat the same things they tell their child not to eat. Or the person who wants to own the most expensive car, without first trying to own a home, and does so with bank loans they can’t afford.

So we can see that the accumulated behaviour of everyone determines the economic outcome for the country.

So when people tell me they feel hopeless about making changes in the country as they don’t have influence, I tell them that everyone has the platform to make their voices heard. And many times these are the same people who will say that they can’t bother to go out and vote, or worse they can’t even bother to get enumerated. I feel very strongly about this, as it is a fundamental right that we all have and even if we are the only vote against everyone else in the constituency we live, it is important for us to exercise the right that many of our forefathers gave their lives for. Ensuring that we do this also sends a very good signal to our children, not making it into a hopeless cause like the bad examples some show on health and social interaction.

As of today though, our failure to have exercised that right (because many say of frustration) on Election Day will have determined our own future whether you voted or not. Because any policy implemented by any government will affect you whether you voted or not. The fact that you did not vote means you don’t have the moral authority to criticise. Just like they say, “God helps those who helps themselves.”

If we accept that the success of economies are determined by the sum of individual behaviours, then it seems to me that countries can only successfully develop if societies are properly ordered and policies are geared towards influencing behavioural outcomes. And if that is the case, shouldn’t we as a people demand that political parties (and governments) implement policies that would lead to behavioural attitudes that will result in economic success. In other words impacting social development is critical for impacting economic development.

So as I always say, despite the economic failures of the Manley administration in the 1970s, his social policies were critical in ensuring greater opportunity for the average Jamaican and transforming the advantage from the ruling colonial class to average Jamaicans. The problem is that the policies were primarily focused on upstaging the power balance rather than integrating everyone into it.

This change in approach to policies that influence behaviour can only come, however, when we demand it as a people. And I don’t think that enough of us have paid any interest to long-term acceptable social behaviour to make the politicians pay enough attention to it. The truth is that without this the country will continue to perform way below our potential.

Societies and economies cannot, for example, develop without order. What most of us show interest in, however, is just getting rid of the high murder rate, without making the link between road indiscipline, night noise, and the way we treat our environment.

This election was no different, in that we really did not address the important issues. What we were talking about mostly is what one party would do for us as opposed to the other and vice versa. And the conflict in many respects was a retrograde step, as we have made too much progress to go down that road again.

One major problem is that many young people do not understand the social and violent turmoil coming out of the 70s leading up to the 1980 election and so are prone to repeat the mistakes again. This is why it is important for us to teach the history of Jamaica (no matter how short is is) in our schools instead of focusing on the history of other countries.

So the next time we think of criticising someone else (politicians, civil society groups, or private sector) for Jamaica’s problems, take a look in the mirror first and understand that the outcome of policies and how our governors behave have more to do with how we behave at an individual level. In other words, we can either be Jamaica’s problem or success.

One from ten leaves nought

In 1961, when Jamaica voted by referendum to withdraw from the West Indies Federation, Dr Eric Williams, then Premier of Trinidad and Tobago, said “one from ten leaves nought”.

This statement can be interpreted to mean that there are always key ingredients in an object or event that make it unworkable, or achieve suboptimal performance. So for example, if a car does not have fuel it will not drive, while on the other hand a car with a flat tyre may still be able to move but at a significantly slower pace.

So too if we look at our economy, there are some who from the start have lamented the hardships that have come as a result of the fiscal programme, and at the same time talk about development. The fact, however, is that development could not have happened until we were able to fix our fiscal and debt situation. As a result the necessary adjustments, which created the downturn, were an essential part of any development that was to take place.

I think that many have accepted that reality, with the exception of a few diehards who still believe that it is always going to be possible to have economic and social prosperity without sacrifice. And it is not surprising, as even at the individual level there are many who believe that sacrifice is not necessary for success, and so they will borrow to buy the most expensive cars when they are young, only to face the reality at retirement.

Now that we are at a point where the fiscal and legislative reforms have borne fruit (as we see from the confidence sentiments, low inflation and interest rates, improved capital market, relative exchange rate stability, etc), it is now necessary for us to realise what the next ingredient is to move to the next level of economic and social development.
To illustrate, growing an economy or a company is similar to riding a century (100 miles). The first 50 miles may be the easiest, but even if you can’t easily get to the first 50 miles, you can still be in condition to go the full century. As you progress, however, every additional mile is going to require more fluids, food, and physical and mental toughness.

So it is with our economic and social development. Getting to a point of fiscal and macroeconomic stability is an essential base, but to move from this base to the next 50 miles of real economic and social development is going to require more, and different strategies, than what we used to complete the first half of the journey.

This, of course, is one of the challenges we have had with implementing Vision 2030. The fact is that we have sought to make it happen without any real attempt to change the bureaucratic and social environment needed for us to realise that vision. The result is that we are pressing the gas pedal with the emergency brake still engaged. The car may move slightly with the emergency brake engaged, but the performance will be way below what is required to get anywhere soon.

New thinking needed

It is important for us to understand this as we move from fiscal and macroeconomic reform to sustained economic and social development. In short, for this to happen it will require a different and bold way of thinking, as the strategies that got us to this point cannot be the same ones to get us through the next 50 miles of the race.

For this reason I have always maintained that any strategy that focuses primarily on fiscal revenues will do so to the detriment of economic and social progress. This is because the nature of a focus on fiscal revenues is in contrast to incentivising productivity and investment. Therefore, it is important for us to find the optimal balance, where fiscal revenues are maximised and productivity and investments are optimal.

This is the mistake that we have always made with our fiscal accounts, and as a result have always put more and more taxes in place only to watch economic performance stagnate over the years.

Today, my view is that the economic reform programme of the past three years has created a very attractive base for us to now move to the next level of real economic and social development, like no other time that I can remember. Whereas in the ‘90s we were attractive for debt, today we are seen as the best place in the Caribbean to do business (Forbes andDoing Business Report) — a significant contrast.

The only way to move to the next level is to now get the ingredients necessary for it all to come together. It is going to require a new and bold way of thinking. Not the old linear way of saying that if we increase fees and taxes, then more will come to the government coffers. Or that every business person is trying to run a scam.

It is going to require even more public-private partnerships (which has been one of the reasons over the past three years for the progress we have made). It is going to require bold moves such as charting a way for more competitive tax rates by reducing rates, and even setting out a programme to gradually move from direct to indirect taxes. It is going to require an assault on indiscipline, such as road indiscipline, and clamping down on night noises. It is going to require investing significant sums in the security forces, not just for equipment but for training, and demanding even more accountability. It is going to require that we take decisions — such as was taken with the oil hedge — and realise that we won’t win every time, but that we take decisions based on risks to the stability of the country. It is going to require political maturity to rally around a common cause, and for us as individuals to be tolerant of each other’s views and to vote based on issues and to move away from welfare politics.

Unless we can make this paradigm shift in our thinking, then we will always be reminded that “one from ten leaves nought”.

2016 must be a year for growth

As was expected, 2015 was a turning point for the economy and the fiscal accounts.

In 2015 the Jamaican economy started to see the benefits of the economic reform programme (ERP) and ended the year in a very strong position, with third-quarter growth of 1.5 per cent, the fastest-growing stock market in the world, multi-year lows in both interest and inflation rates, and improved business and consumer confidence.

All of this resulted from the perseverance of policies to maintain fiscal discipline and create the legislative framework that would bring greater competitiveness to the market. As a result Jamaica saw our debt to GDP ratio fall to 126 per cent (from 150 per cent in 2012), improving fiscal balances, and the first balance of payments surplus in 10 years, which by itself is a game changer and a significant achievement.

This performance was strengthened by the fortune of lower oil prices, the PetroCaribe debt buyback, and — up until recently — near zero US interest rates.

Without these occurrences, we would still have seen improvement in the economy — but at a much slower pace.

Also, from a regional perspective, Jamaica is poised to regain its place as the “Powerhouse of the Caribbean”, with the Trinidad and Barbados economies now in free fall, as low oil prices and policies against offshore financial havens take a toll on both economies.

Trinidad in particular is in for a rough ride, as oil prices are projected to remain low until maybe 2020, and by that time it could be further impacted by new sources of energy.

Micro level challenges

With all these macro achievements, however, Jamaica’s economy is still in a very vulnerable state, as there are still challenges at the micro level to address.

These risks include (i) an inadequately trained labour force (which resulted from periods where approximately 70 per cent of secondary school leavers left without passing one subject); (ii) crime and indiscipline, which is a major inhibitor to maximising our productivity; (iii) a still struggling SME sector, which, although conditions have improved, still struggles with capacity issues and bureaucracy in doing business; and (iv) an uncompetitive tax structure.

The fact is that unless we address these four major issues — which account for the majority of the most problematic factors in the Global Competitiveness Report — we will not successfully maximise our growth potential. This means that the benefits of growth for the economy, fiscal accounts and general standard of living will take longer to be realised.

This is important because even though we have been seeing the benefits at the macro level and specifically the fiscal and trade accounts, the fact is that the widespread micro effect has not been felt as yet. This is expected in any economic recovery. However, a failure to have widespread benefits in a timely manner will mean that economic activity and spending could be inhibited and lead to a loss of confidence.

In effect, therefore, we have done a very good job as it relates to the ERP, and the effect on the fiscal accounts and other macroeconomic indicators. Much commendation is due to those who have been charged with implementing and overseeing the ERP. However, similar to when a company is being restructured, expenditure management can only have short-term benefits. For the recovery to be sustained, you have to work on the revenue side.

As it relates to the country this means that we must now turn our focus to higher levels of GDP growth in 2016, as 1.5 or 2.0 per cent is insufficient to see the much needed impact on the middle and lower income classes.

In order for this to happen, it is going to be very important to focus on deliberate policy actions to address the issues of inefficient public sector bureaucracy, crime and indiscipline, more efficient justice system, more competitive tax rates and tax compliance, and — very important for me — labour market reform and workforce productivity.

Labour market reform and workforce productivity will be a critical success factor in 2016 if economic growth is to be above the low levels we are used to. It also is going to be a very important factor to increase the value added and compensation to labour. In other words, unless we are able to improve the productivity of the labour force, the standard of living generally will not significantly improve.

Therefore deliberate policy action geared towards education and productivity is going to be essential.

This for me will be the most critical factor for fundamental benefits of growth. That is to ensure that the average man on the street benefits from growth, as to do so they must be able to participate at the highest value added.

Some of the actions that can be taken include (i) vocational training programmes at HEART; (ii) focusing loans from the Students’ Loans Bureau on professions that will be in demand; and (iii) labour market reform.

If we are able to successfully address this and the other issues mentioned, then I have no doubt that we can achieve growth in excess of 3.0 to 4.0 per cent and Jamaica will once again be the envy of the Caribbean.

Honesty is very much alive

An incident occurred which gave me hope in our young people. Recently a friend of mine lost his phone at an event and gave up hope that it would be recovered only to receive a text from a young lady to say that she had found the phone and wanted to return it. She arranged to meet him and return it and refused to take any compensation and said she only wanted to return the phone because it was the right thing to do.

This single action certainly has bolstered my faith in the youth, and I want to say,’Well done, Lindesia’. She is a Political Science student at UWI.

Foundations for prosperity

The World Bank recently released a paper called “Jamaica Economic Update Fall 2015”, in which it gave an update on the Jamaican economy and spoke to the necessity to achieve higher levels of growth. As stated in the report, “While the government has made important progress on the structural reform agenda, Jamaica will need to accelerate its growth in order to achieve lasting debt sustainability”.

This is a very important point to note by the World Bank, as it is saying what some of us have been saying for a long time that while the fiscal adjustment is necessary, it is far from sufficient.

This is because the fiscal reform programme has been more on the expenditure management side and there is a limitation to what can be done in expenditure management, as there is a point that you can get to where everything stops.

If we are not at that point yet, we are certainly nearing that point. We should also note when the World Bank says that accelerated growth is necessary for debt sustainability. In other words, if we do not get the growth we need then we could start to compromise our debt to GDP ratio progress.

This has always been very clear, but the fact that it is mentioned in a World Bank report shows that after two years of expenditure management, it is very important to shift our focus to accelerated growth rates.

The World Bank goes further to suggest that capital investment may be a good way of doing so, which is what the US, for example, uses to emerge from economic recessions. This stimulus will usually come through the public purse in the form of roads, bridges, etc. One could think of Highway 2000 as having provided much of the stimulus for the economy because without it the economic conditions would have been much worse.

The recent decrease in the primary surplus balance will certainly allow some room for increased government spending, but even that amount will not be sufficient to create the stimulus for accelerated growth by itself, although it will help. In addition, the fact is that the government does not have the money required for the capital investments needed and so we should examine other sources to achieve that growth.

The best way to do that, without causing a strain on the fiscal accounts, require focusing on a few options.

The first is utilising Public-Private Partnerships (PPP). We have seen PPPs in the form of JPS and Sangster International Airport for example. In addition to PPPs in the pure sense, we also need to be looking at privatising some government assets, not just to take the burden off the government but also to make the assets more efficient and increase employment. Examples include Jamaica Telephone Company sold to Cable and Wireless; NCB privatisation; Air Jamaica taken over by Caribbean Airlines; and Sugar companies divested to the Chinese, among others.

These had the advantages of (i) reducing the burden on the fiscal accounts as well as (ii) increasing competition and employment as many have got larger.

In this vein I would also propose the privatisation of bodies like the National Water Commission, and looking at PPPs to manage entities like the Registrar General’s Department (RGD).

This approach will have the effect of (i) increasing capital investments; (ii) increasing employment and earnings; and (iii) reducing the fiscal burden, while increasing revenues from assets.

Poverty rate troubling

One troubling statement in the World Bank report is about the poverty level. It states: “Between 1997 and 2007 Jamaica’s poverty rate fell from 19.7 to 9.9 per cent, but by 2012 the poverty rate had rebounded to 19.9 per cent”.

This is a very worrying figure, as higher poverty rates means that purchasing power is reduced, resulting in lower economic activity. If economic activity is reduced, then it primarily affects SMEs, which are the ones that create the most new jobs. It also means that innovation which comes from the influence of SMEs will be limited. This will result in lower employment and uncompetitiveness eventually.

One of the main foundations for prosperity, therefore, must be to reduce the poverty rate to the lowest possible levels. For this to happen we need perhaps to increase employment. In order to increase employment in the past, the governments increased the number of people employed in the public sector. The only problem is that that is not a sustainable model as we are seeing now.

Therefore, increased employment can only come through increased private sector activity. Increased private sector activity can only come through people making investments with private capital. And capital will only invest where the risk-return is the best it can get, or else it goes to a safer haven.

What this means is creating an environment to facilitate capital moving into investments in Jamaica. In this global village it is easy to move capital from one market to another. This means that policies must be created to attract capital to the country, as is done in Panama where investors’ terms under which they invest are protected by law, which allows for predictability and lower risk.

The real foundation for prosperity lies in policies geared at full employment (defined at five per cent or less unemployment). But for full employment to occur it requires capital investments, as the World Bank says.

Since the government does not have the necessary fiscal space, it therefore requires private capital investments through PPPs or private investments. This in turn requires policy action deliberately aimed at inviting capital to invest.

When this occurs (increased capital investment) then we will see increased employment, which will be the road to prosperity.