Ian Boyne, Contributor
EVEN THE People's National Party's (PNP) Region Four is joining the chorus of criticism of the Government's economic performance and policy direction, the electronic media reported last week.
Region Four supported the calls for the reduction in the size of the Cabinet, even if it is only symbolic. It also called for a freeze in Parliamentary salaries. Statements from The PNP's Region Four which can be interpreted as taking aim at Finance Minister Omar Davies, and its criticism of the Government's management of the economy at a time when the Government needs unity to face increasing criticism from the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), would provide exciting copy for newscasts and good polemical shots at the Government.
But aside from that, the issues highlighted in the media are extremely limited and narrow. One would have hoped that the Region Four report dealt with more substantial issues. But the apparent myopic and superficial analysis of the economy by Region Four is not isolated. There is a pervasive narrowness of analysis taking place on economic issues in Jamaica today. (I have not seen the full report, so my comments on the Region Four document are very provisional).
Follow the discussions in the media and you will observe the narrow focus on the fiscal deficit, the debt burden and interest rates. Where are the political economists and the development economists? Where are the people who know not just finance and macroeconomics but who can speak knowledgeably about international economics and development studies? The journalists and talk-show hosts apparently don't know where to find them!
The Opposition JLP is not offering the kind of broad-based critique it could offer of the Government's policy direction. Audley Shaw, Edward Seaga and Bruce Golding have been consumed by the same narrow range of macroeconomic issues which dominate the discussions.
The JLP is not even using its manifesto as the philosophical framework within which to critique the Government's economic model.
The JLP in its manifesto indicates that it really believes in an activist, developmentalist state, and as Seaga detractor Robert Buddan and others have pointed out, Eddie Seaga has never been a believer in laissez-faire capitalism. Seaga, from the 1960s, has been more of a believer in the activist, interventionist state. Highly reputable voices today in economics and development studies favour Seaga's approach over the minimalist state and neo-liberalism. But Seaga and the JLP, rather than positing their critique of the PNP in those philosophical terms, perhaps because of their decades-long aversion to ideology and a systematic body of thought, frame their criticisms in terms of being a better manager of the capitalist economy.
Because of the ideological defeat of socialism in Jamaica since the 1970s and the PNP's fear of being labelled 'socialist' there has been a reluctance in the society to take up issues of the poor or to talk anything about class.
Any discussion of class is immediately dismissed as 'stirring up strife and division among Jamaicans', further fracturing the already badly fractured 'sense of oneness among us'.
Any discussion of 'working class interests' or the 'interests of the poor' is seen as 'pitting one group of Jamaicans against another group of Jamaicans'.
IN DEFENCE OF THE POOR
Who speaks for the poor in Jamaica today? The voices in the intelligentsia which were loud in the 1970s have become mute. John Maxwell still wages a lonely battle, crying out relentlessly in the intellectual wilderness. Yet at no time has it been more respectable, indeed more mainstream, to speak on behalf of the poor and marginalized. It is just that in Jamaica we are up-to-date with the latest fashion trends, styles, materialistic gadgets and fads from North America and Europe, but way behind the intellectual trends there.
To encourage those persons who have lost their tongues over the last couple of decades, except to wag them at the cocktail parties of the rich and powerful, let me mention a few facts.
The World Bank and the IMF, the bastions of the international capitalist class, are now some of the most potent advocates of the poor and socially excluded in the world.
The IMF and the World Bank now lecture countries on the importance of maintaining 'social safety nets' (new buzz term in development) when designing macroeconomic policies. Gone are the days when leftists had to organise rallies to demand that the IMF consider the poor.
Now the IMF, having learnt from bitter experience, is counselling developing countries to protect their poor. In fact, the World Bank's latest country report on Jamaica titled Jamaica: the Road to Sustained Growth, warns the Jamaican Government about protecting the poor despite its need to cut the fiscal deficit and its horrendous debt.
CRISIS PROOFING
The World Bank calls for 'crisis-proofing' actions. Hear the World Bank: "Crisis-proofing would also mean being ready to offer relief to the poor in case crisis does take place since it is the poor who will suffer most if a crisis should occur."
Rarely in the discussion of high finance in the media do you hear the ubiquitous financial analysts talking about the poor except to tell the Government it must cut jobs and cut back on social expenditures in order to reduce the fiscal deficit and manage the debt.
PJ Patterson made a most important statement recently and there was absolutely no comment on it. In the face of mounting pressure to carry out massive cuts in the public sector and to cut social services, he said firmly that the Government would not be jeopardising the interests of the poor and would be protecting critical sectors like health, education and housing.
RESPONSIBLE MACROECONOMIC MANAGEMENT
Now, it is a fact that you must have responsible macroeconomic management to be able to invest in the social sector and that economic growth is absolutely necessary for social development. (This has been conclusively demonstrated in the economic literature). But the fact is that you could have a Government only concerned about aggregate economic growth and leaving the market to take care of the poor.
PJ Patterson, to his credit, stood firm in his recent statement against that bias against the poor. He has the solid backing of the World Bank in that stance.
Says the World Bank in the country report: "It will be important that Jamaica's growth is pro-poor - the poor face a number of problems in benefiting from growth alone. This is illustrated by the aforementioned World Bank study which implied that in half the countries, income of the poor rose less rapidly than overall growth policies that promote growth in demand for labour and access to education, health and social services can help to reduce poverty and reduce the vulnerability of the poor."
Region Four should be looking at the broader economic framework of its own party and the socially enlightened stance of its party leader. It should examine the party leadership's broad-based economic development model rather than be side-tracked by the prevailing narrow, often trite, analyses of the economy.
WHICH MODEL?
Diane Elson, Professor of Sociology at University of Essex in her 2002 paper, The International Financial Architecture: A View from the Kitchen notes: "The IMF has become more concerned with social policy. The IMF has been paying more attention to the links between social policy and financial policy, and has agreed to work with the World Bank in preparing explicit ex ante assessments of the expected effects of its programmes on the poor." Yet, here in Jamaica many of our financial analysts and commentators are saying, in effect, to hell with the poor, let us get the fiscal deficit and the debt down at all costs.
When investments pour in, the benefits of growth will trickle down. My problem is not so much with the financial analysts and commentators. My problem is that there are people who are supposed to have a more comprehensive view of these matters who are silent in the face of the lopsided discussions taking place.
Where is a person of the intellectual stature and reading like Professor Trevor Munroe? Everybody, including the unions, is now excited about the latest imported model, the Irish model. Some years ago it was the Asian Tigers before their roar turned to a whimper. In the 1980s it was the Puerto Rican Model or the Soviet-Cuban Model.
Nobody is pointing out that the only country in the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) with a more unequal distribution of income than Ireland is the United States. In Ireland the poorest ten per cent receives about two per cent of total disposable income, and the richest 10 per cent gets 27 per cent of disposable income.
The book Equality: From Theory to Action (2003) comments on Ireland's social partnership agreements which have expanded from Government, the private sector and unions to now include civil society.
The objectives of these partnerships which the Jamaican private sector is excited about have included 'social inclusion', but not greater equality of income. Indeed, unlike other countries where the evidence indicates that centralised wage bargaining tends to be associated with lower wage inequality, the partnership agreements in Ireland have done little to counteract the increase in income inequality. But who are the advocates for the poor in Jamaica to scrutinise these things? Where have they gone?
REDUCING INEQUALITIES
It is not only socialists who talk about the desirability of reducing inequalities. No less a person than the Managing Director of the IMF, Horst Kohler, said in a speech titled Toward a Better Globalization in October that "Experience has shown, most recently in Latin America, that social equity is a crucial pillar of political stability and a sustained good investment climate."
Make no mistake about it: Reckless, irresponsible macroeconomic policies hurt the poor. Growth is good for the poor. But growth in itself does not necessarily benefit the poor. And if we neglect the social sector while trying to balance the budget, we will have more robberies in Negril and Dunn's River to deal with, more Spanish Town and East Kingston flare-ups, driving away of investors, including Jamaicans, and tourists.
Follow the World Bank, if you are paranoid of what smacks like socialism: Crisis-proof the poor. Stop making them invisible in your rarefied discussions about the economy.
Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. You can send your comments to ianboyne1@yahoo.com.
