Guyana Focus
In spite of the potential for oil revenues that could spur Guyana’s development, there still remains no clarity on the government’s long-term agenda for the country. Talks of preparing a national development plan surfaced two years ago but nothing has so far materialized.
In its July 2018 report on Guyana, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recommended that the country prepare a national development plan but did not offer any assistance to do so. On the other hand, it offered its assistance to establish a Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF), plans for which have been proceeding at full speed.
Ironically, it would seem natural that the establishment of the SWF and the preparation of a development plan should go hand in hand. It would seem unnatural to allocate funds to the SWF without first determining how much funds are required for the country’s development plans.
The truth is: whatever the long-term goals the government has for Guyana, it would seem prudent for it to prioritize its goals and determine what strategies it must put in place to achieve them, taking into consideration the resources required to achieve such goals, including its excess oil revenues.
Put simply, though a policy document, from an operational standpoint the plan would be like a roadmap for the country to get to its destination, recognizing that there could be speedbumps, potholes and detours along the way. Without it, the government would never know when the country would have arrived at its destination, leaving scope for ad hoc decisions, corrupt practices and discontentment if resources are perceived to be inappropriately or inefficiently allocated.
Regardless of the government’s objectives, the bottom line is that the plan should not be based on political whims and fancies but instead involve a thorough analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the economy as well as its comparative and competitive advantages and opportunities which the country can leverage.
The plan must be developed through broad-based consultation and make adequate use of technical experts who are knowledgeable about the unique circumstances of Guyana.
Typically, the plan must provide a comprehensive overview of the economy, set policy direction for economic growth, and identify strategies, programs, and projects to promote social and economic development over a defined long-term period, typically five to 10 years or more.
The targets of the plan must be periodically measured to determine progress and might have to be adjusted to take into account changing domestic and international conditions which might have a bearing on expected outcomes. One of the failures of past plans is that measurement was weak or non existent.
Whether a national development plan is in the works is not known, but it is not a document that can be prepared in a vacuum.
Just over a year ago, the United Kingdom High Commissioner, Greg Quinn offered his country’s assistance to craft Guyana’s national development strategy (NDS). He pointed out that the country already has an NDS, but noted that the document is outdated.
He also provided some sensible advice, saying “If you are going to make this work, then you need to have an overall statement of what you want and where do you want to see the country 20 or 25 years down the line.”
Quinn noted that the government has to decide whether it wants to start from scratch or wants to build on the strategy that already exists, cautioning that the ball is now in the government’s court to decide on the way forward.
Guyana’s existing NDS, which was presented by the late Cheddi Jagan in January 1997 shortly before his death, is indeed a comprehensive document, but like the country’s 1972-76 plan, is merely a document on paper.
While the NDS could be used as a base for a new strategy, the current APNU/AFC government may want to make significant changes, rendering the document worthless.
A few other factors come into play. The sugar industry, a key feature of 1997 NDS is now dead, plus the government might very well have access to substantially more funds than previous governments as a result of oil.
Besides, the priorities of the APNU/AFC government would naturally be different, not only due to a different political agenda, but also as a result of the changing dynamics of the country which demand new approaches to economic and social realities.
With the ability to potentially self-fund its development, the government could embark on projects that were not possible in the past. The country’s dependence on external funding will also be greatly reduced.
Arguably, Guyanese professionals are best equipped to prepare a national development plan. While the use of foreign experts might be feasible, they are not necessarily always familiar with the nuances of the country and often simply regurgitate what they are told by their local counterparts, making their input worthless. This has historically been a major shortcoming of foreign consultants who are not committed to the success of the local country.
Yet some foreign consultants are too afraid to offer critical assessments while others cannot take criticisms, largely due to a lack of field experience. In most instances, these consultants want to remain in favor with the government of the local country, simply taking directions rather than offering technical input.
On the other hand, they are sometimes not provided with sufficient guidance by local officials who see them as experts who should know what they are doing. But as Dudley Seers of Yale University pointed out 45 years ago in “Why Visiting Economists Fail” (Journal of Political Economy, August 1962), experts “available for posts in underdeveloped countries are often people who have not succeeded in finding satisfactory niches at home.” They are professionally unqualified or unprepared for their roles.
Seers also points out that some economists are also handcuffed by ideological beliefs and very often make recommendations about strategies applicable to developed countries, instead of developing strategies unique to the local economy.
Incidentally, Guyana has had extensive experience attempting to implement programs which have been successful in developed countries, largely due to “tied aid” which hopefully wouldn’t be the case if the country can largely self-fund its development. Most such programs do not take into consideration the unique characteristics of the country.
Perhaps the most important point Seers made of visiting economists is that they remain fundamentally loyal to their own country or organization instead of the government they are advising.
The recommendations of these experts are directly correlated to the benefits to be derived by their country of origin, ranging from sales of supplies and equipment, use of technical services, training, etc. Fortunately, Guyana could be in a position to call the shots because it would not be dependent on tied aid.
The reality is: Guyanese experts know their country best. Barring political influence, they should either create the national development plan or only use foreign experts, if necessary.
In the end, if a national development plan is not in the making, it is necessary for the government to act now to ensure that it has one to guide the country’s development. Otherwise, the country could be embarking on a journey without a roadmap, periodically changing course, and never arriving at its destination.
The truth is: whatever the long-term goals the government has for Guyana, it would seem prudent for it to prioritize its goals and determine what strategies it must put in place to achieve them, taking into consideration the resources required to achieve such goals, including its excess oil revenues.
Put simply, though a policy document, from an operational standpoint the plan would be like a roadmap for the country to get to its destination, recognizing that there could be speedbumps, potholes and detours along the way. Without it, the government would never know when the country would have arrived at its destination, leaving scope for ad hoc decisions, corrupt practices and discontentment if resources are perceived to be inappropriately or inefficiently allocated.
Regardless of the government’s objectives, the bottom line is that the plan should not be based on political whims and fancies but instead involve a thorough analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the economy as well as its comparative and competitive advantages and opportunities which the country can leverage.
The plan must be developed through broad-based consultation and make adequate use of technical experts who are knowledgeable about the unique circumstances of Guyana.
Typically, the plan must provide a comprehensive overview of the economy, set policy direction for economic growth, and identify strategies, programs, and projects to promote social and economic development over a defined long-term period, typically five to 10 years or more.
The targets of the plan must be periodically measured to determine progress and might have to be adjusted to take into account changing domestic and international conditions which might have a bearing on expected outcomes. One of the failures of past plans is that measurement was weak or non existent.
Whether a national development plan is in the works is not known, but it is not a document that can be prepared in a vacuum.
Just over a year ago, the United Kingdom High Commissioner, Greg Quinn offered his country’s assistance to craft Guyana’s national development strategy (NDS). He pointed out that the country already has an NDS, but noted that the document is outdated.
He also provided some sensible advice, saying “If you are going to make this work, then you need to have an overall statement of what you want and where do you want to see the country 20 or 25 years down the line.”
Quinn noted that the government has to decide whether it wants to start from scratch or wants to build on the strategy that already exists, cautioning that the ball is now in the government’s court to decide on the way forward.
Guyana’s existing NDS, which was presented by the late Cheddi Jagan in January 1997 shortly before his death, is indeed a comprehensive document, but like the country’s 1972-76 plan, is merely a document on paper.
While the NDS could be used as a base for a new strategy, the current APNU/AFC government may want to make significant changes, rendering the document worthless.
A few other factors come into play. The sugar industry, a key feature of 1997 NDS is now dead, plus the government might very well have access to substantially more funds than previous governments as a result of oil.
Besides, the priorities of the APNU/AFC government would naturally be different, not only due to a different political agenda, but also as a result of the changing dynamics of the country which demand new approaches to economic and social realities.
With the ability to potentially self-fund its development, the government could embark on projects that were not possible in the past. The country’s dependence on external funding will also be greatly reduced.
Arguably, Guyanese professionals are best equipped to prepare a national development plan. While the use of foreign experts might be feasible, they are not necessarily always familiar with the nuances of the country and often simply regurgitate what they are told by their local counterparts, making their input worthless. This has historically been a major shortcoming of foreign consultants who are not committed to the success of the local country.
Yet some foreign consultants are too afraid to offer critical assessments while others cannot take criticisms, largely due to a lack of field experience. In most instances, these consultants want to remain in favor with the government of the local country, simply taking directions rather than offering technical input.
On the other hand, they are sometimes not provided with sufficient guidance by local officials who see them as experts who should know what they are doing. But as Dudley Seers of Yale University pointed out 45 years ago in “Why Visiting Economists Fail” (Journal of Political Economy, August 1962), experts “available for posts in underdeveloped countries are often people who have not succeeded in finding satisfactory niches at home.” They are professionally unqualified or unprepared for their roles.
Seers also points out that some economists are also handcuffed by ideological beliefs and very often make recommendations about strategies applicable to developed countries, instead of developing strategies unique to the local economy.
Incidentally, Guyana has had extensive experience attempting to implement programs which have been successful in developed countries, largely due to “tied aid” which hopefully wouldn’t be the case if the country can largely self-fund its development. Most such programs do not take into consideration the unique characteristics of the country.
Perhaps the most important point Seers made of visiting economists is that they remain fundamentally loyal to their own country or organization instead of the government they are advising.
The recommendations of these experts are directly correlated to the benefits to be derived by their country of origin, ranging from sales of supplies and equipment, use of technical services, training, etc. Fortunately, Guyana could be in a position to call the shots because it would not be dependent on tied aid.
The reality is: Guyanese experts know their country best. Barring political influence, they should either create the national development plan or only use foreign experts, if necessary.
In the end, if a national development plan is not in the making, it is necessary for the government to act now to ensure that it has one to guide the country’s development. Otherwise, the country could be embarking on a journey without a roadmap, periodically changing course, and never arriving at its destination.
of school year
Georgetown – An estimated 3,000-plus teachers stayed away from the classroom across the country on Monday, the first teaching day of the new school year, and intensified their protest action by taking to the streets despite the inclement weather.
In addition to their wage issue, the teachers were further riled up by disparaging remarks made by Minister within the Ministry of Social Protection Keith Scott who accused them of being selfish and uncaring.
In Georgetown scores of teachers gathered on the picket-line outside of the Ministry of Education before heading over to the Ministry of the Presidency where they repeatedly sang solidarity songs. Among the protesters was a teacher bearing a conspicuous placard stating that “teachers are not selfish! We just need to be adequately compensated.” This was undoubtedly in response to Minister Scott's remarks.
GTU President, Mark Lyte, is convinced that the disrespect meted out to teachers has encouraged them to continue to strike. He disclosed that while a number of teachers did sign in at their respective schools, they did sign out shortly after to join their striking colleagues.
“More and more teachers were joining during the course of the day, because not everybody was able to come at the same time to be at the central point, but the impact of this strike action is being felt across the country,” Lyte said. As he spoke, several schools were being forced to close their doors because of the absence of teachers.
He outlined the sizeable turnout of teachers supporting the strike action. Lyte said that based on the union’s tabulation, before noon in excess of 3,700 teachers were picketing across the country. This, he said, translated to some 90 teachers in Region One, over 80 in Region Two, over 400 in Region Three, another 300 in Region Four, over 700 in Georgetown, over 250 in Region Five, over 500 in Region Six, some 70 in Region Seven, 80 in Region Nine and over 1,000 in Region 10.
Even as he considered the impact of the strike action, Lyte reflected on the thousands of children who would have been affected as a result.
“But the strike must go on until an acceptable resolution is realised,” the GTU President said.
However, it is the GTU President’s hope that the strike action will “open government’s eyes to teachers’ contribution to nation building and to education as key and address our concerns urgently so that our children will not be caused to suffer any longer.”
“The union remains open to hearing from the President so that this particular issue can be resolved at the earliest possible time,” Lyte continued.
Also, incensed by the remarks of the government Minister, GTU General Secretary, Ms. Coretta McDonald, made it clear that “teachers feel disrespected…teachers feel that the government is very disrespectful.”
According to McDonald, “that Minister happens to be the Minister whose department is supposed to be the mediating factor. All that we would want to say to that Minister at this time, ‘thank you very much for making our position much more solid, when we said to them [government] we have no confidence or faith in the Department of Labour’.”
Although the Education Ministry had appealed to the Ministry of Social Protection to exercise its powers of conciliation through its Labour Department in hopes that it would bring to an end the ongoing strike action, the GTU had made it clear it could not rely on the Department to be impartial in such a process.
As such, the union had assured government that it was prepared to bring an end to the strike action if a process of arbitration conducted by neutral persons was instead embraced. Since this was not accepted, the union has decided to continue with its strike, which commenced last week.
As she affirmed the increase support of teachers on the first day of the new school year, McDonald assured that this was also the situation in other regions as well.
“This is not only happening in Georgetown,” said McDonald as she added that teachers are engaged in the struggle for a living wage, which the union had long been hoping government would offer. The union since 2015 had proposed a 40 percent across the board increase for teachers in 2016 and five additional percent for the following four years [2017 – 2020].
“We have been saying all along a proposal is a proposal, if you can’t meet the proposal, come and let’s talk. GTU went further to say to this government, we are willing to accept something substantial in the first year of the agreement and the five percent for the remaining four years and that is where we are. Come to us with 10 percent, 15 percent or whatever, we are willing to accept that because we don’t want to be on the road, we don’t want to be away from our classrooms with our children, we want to be in our schools. Come and talk to us and let us have a resolution to this situation,” McDonald appealed.
Although President David Granger at a press conference last Friday said that government has been looking for fresh sources of funding to meet the salary needs of teachers, McDonald said that this development has not yet been communicated to the union. “This has not been communicated to the Guyana Teachers’ Union except for what we read in the newspapers and what we saw on television,” said McDonald as she stressed the continued disrespect shown to teachers.
In addition to their wage issue, the teachers were further riled up by disparaging remarks made by Minister within the Ministry of Social Protection Keith Scott who accused them of being selfish and uncaring.
In Georgetown scores of teachers gathered on the picket-line outside of the Ministry of Education before heading over to the Ministry of the Presidency where they repeatedly sang solidarity songs. Among the protesters was a teacher bearing a conspicuous placard stating that “teachers are not selfish! We just need to be adequately compensated.” This was undoubtedly in response to Minister Scott's remarks.
GTU President, Mark Lyte, is convinced that the disrespect meted out to teachers has encouraged them to continue to strike. He disclosed that while a number of teachers did sign in at their respective schools, they did sign out shortly after to join their striking colleagues.
“More and more teachers were joining during the course of the day, because not everybody was able to come at the same time to be at the central point, but the impact of this strike action is being felt across the country,” Lyte said. As he spoke, several schools were being forced to close their doors because of the absence of teachers.
He outlined the sizeable turnout of teachers supporting the strike action. Lyte said that based on the union’s tabulation, before noon in excess of 3,700 teachers were picketing across the country. This, he said, translated to some 90 teachers in Region One, over 80 in Region Two, over 400 in Region Three, another 300 in Region Four, over 700 in Georgetown, over 250 in Region Five, over 500 in Region Six, some 70 in Region Seven, 80 in Region Nine and over 1,000 in Region 10.
Even as he considered the impact of the strike action, Lyte reflected on the thousands of children who would have been affected as a result.
“But the strike must go on until an acceptable resolution is realised,” the GTU President said.
However, it is the GTU President’s hope that the strike action will “open government’s eyes to teachers’ contribution to nation building and to education as key and address our concerns urgently so that our children will not be caused to suffer any longer.”
“The union remains open to hearing from the President so that this particular issue can be resolved at the earliest possible time,” Lyte continued.
Also, incensed by the remarks of the government Minister, GTU General Secretary, Ms. Coretta McDonald, made it clear that “teachers feel disrespected…teachers feel that the government is very disrespectful.”
According to McDonald, “that Minister happens to be the Minister whose department is supposed to be the mediating factor. All that we would want to say to that Minister at this time, ‘thank you very much for making our position much more solid, when we said to them [government] we have no confidence or faith in the Department of Labour’.”
Although the Education Ministry had appealed to the Ministry of Social Protection to exercise its powers of conciliation through its Labour Department in hopes that it would bring to an end the ongoing strike action, the GTU had made it clear it could not rely on the Department to be impartial in such a process.
As such, the union had assured government that it was prepared to bring an end to the strike action if a process of arbitration conducted by neutral persons was instead embraced. Since this was not accepted, the union has decided to continue with its strike, which commenced last week.
As she affirmed the increase support of teachers on the first day of the new school year, McDonald assured that this was also the situation in other regions as well.
“This is not only happening in Georgetown,” said McDonald as she added that teachers are engaged in the struggle for a living wage, which the union had long been hoping government would offer. The union since 2015 had proposed a 40 percent across the board increase for teachers in 2016 and five additional percent for the following four years [2017 – 2020].
“We have been saying all along a proposal is a proposal, if you can’t meet the proposal, come and let’s talk. GTU went further to say to this government, we are willing to accept something substantial in the first year of the agreement and the five percent for the remaining four years and that is where we are. Come to us with 10 percent, 15 percent or whatever, we are willing to accept that because we don’t want to be on the road, we don’t want to be away from our classrooms with our children, we want to be in our schools. Come and talk to us and let us have a resolution to this situation,” McDonald appealed.
Although President David Granger at a press conference last Friday said that government has been looking for fresh sources of funding to meet the salary needs of teachers, McDonald said that this development has not yet been communicated to the union. “This has not been communicated to the Guyana Teachers’ Union except for what we read in the newspapers and what we saw on television,” said McDonald as she stressed the continued disrespect shown to teachers.
Georgetown – One day after not even being considered, in a high level shakeup of the Guyana Police Force, former Top Cop (ag) David Ramnarine has called it a day.
Ramnarine, known for bluntness, calling out rogue cops ever so often, said he is proceeding on a much-deserved annual leave, and will be contemplating his options.
His options in the police force were made clear Thursday after the Ministry of the Presidency announced that Commander of ‘D’ Division, Leslie James, was chosen to be the new commissioner.
James is also a former head of the Special Branch, the intelligence division of the police force, and the Criminal Investigations Department.
Also approved to assist James, were four Deputy Commissioners – Lyndon Alves, Maxine Graham, Nigel Hoppie and Paul Williams.
Ramnarine was among several persons interviewed and given ‘Grade Six-type’ tests. However, he was not shortlisted in the final list that was sent to Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo recently.
Following “consultations” Thursday at State House, the Ministry of the Presidency named James as the new police chief. He was sworn that afternoon.
Ramnarine was not there at the State House ceremony. It is unclear if he was invited.
Jagdeo later said that President, during the consultations, did not immediately give details for his decision, but said there were “specific reasons” for not choosing Ramnarine.
Ramnarine would not delve too much into what has transpired, as “what is done is done”. He said that he has extended congratulations to the new commissioner and three deputies, and he will be doing the same with the fourth one shortly.
He said that he has some well-deserved annual leave due and will be proceeding on same.
While he did not immediately say whether he has resigned, he had this to say: “Whatever has happened is not the end of my life and the world…”
Ramnarine also said that decision was not totally unexpected and he had been preparing for it since last year. He hinted of certain matters that arose that affected his possibilities, but did not want to talk about it. He insisted that serving the police force and Guyana has indeed been “very satisfactory” and it was a “pleasure”.
Ramnarine is confident that the opportunities to continue in new areas will open up and he will be “contemplating” these options.
Jagdeo had disclosed Thursday that he was told by the President that Chairman of the Police Service Commission, Paul Slowe, had recused himself when it came to the recommendation of certain names.
Ramnarine, known for bluntness, calling out rogue cops ever so often, said he is proceeding on a much-deserved annual leave, and will be contemplating his options.
His options in the police force were made clear Thursday after the Ministry of the Presidency announced that Commander of ‘D’ Division, Leslie James, was chosen to be the new commissioner.
James is also a former head of the Special Branch, the intelligence division of the police force, and the Criminal Investigations Department.
Also approved to assist James, were four Deputy Commissioners – Lyndon Alves, Maxine Graham, Nigel Hoppie and Paul Williams.
Ramnarine was among several persons interviewed and given ‘Grade Six-type’ tests. However, he was not shortlisted in the final list that was sent to Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo recently.
Following “consultations” Thursday at State House, the Ministry of the Presidency named James as the new police chief. He was sworn that afternoon.
Ramnarine was not there at the State House ceremony. It is unclear if he was invited.
Jagdeo later said that President, during the consultations, did not immediately give details for his decision, but said there were “specific reasons” for not choosing Ramnarine.
Ramnarine would not delve too much into what has transpired, as “what is done is done”. He said that he has extended congratulations to the new commissioner and three deputies, and he will be doing the same with the fourth one shortly.
He said that he has some well-deserved annual leave due and will be proceeding on same.
While he did not immediately say whether he has resigned, he had this to say: “Whatever has happened is not the end of my life and the world…”
Ramnarine also said that decision was not totally unexpected and he had been preparing for it since last year. He hinted of certain matters that arose that affected his possibilities, but did not want to talk about it. He insisted that serving the police force and Guyana has indeed been “very satisfactory” and it was a “pleasure”.
Ramnarine is confident that the opportunities to continue in new areas will open up and he will be “contemplating” these options.
Jagdeo had disclosed Thursday that he was told by the President that Chairman of the Police Service Commission, Paul Slowe, had recused himself when it came to the recommendation of certain names.
To advertise in ICW call
Call 905-738-5005