- CONTRIBUTED
Prof. Alvin Wint enumerated the various factors affecting a country's development, from resource endowment to well-functioning institutions, to effective policies.PUBLIC DISCOURSE often questions how much influence Jamaica has over the course of its development. It is, after all, a small, trade-dependent island, prone to severe climatic shocks, and nestled up against a superpower with a strong interest in what it does. It can be argued that little of what goes on in Jamaica is determined here. Instead, we take direction from the world economy in which we swim, and can only hope that favourable currents catch us. It is all down to a matter of luck.
This rather fatalistic way of thinking is oft-heard in Jamaica. Indeed, it has frequently been employed by political leaders, blaming the failures of their governments to deliver sustained development on external shocks like the 1970s oil shocks, or the hurricanes that have struck the island from time to time.
FACTORS INFLUENCING
DEVELOPMENT
Recent research suggests the contrary, rather than being constrained by circumstances, political leaders can influence their nation's growth rate in the long run. Indeed, leaders of small island states cast a long shadow over their nations and may actually have a greater impact on the direction of their countries than those of large, powerful ones.
In a recent presentation to the Jamaican Economy Project research team, Dr. Anna Perkins and Prof. Alvin Wint enumerated the various factors affecting a country's development, from resource endowment to well-functioning institutions, to effective policies. They then identified those factors which are directly, indirectly or simply not affected by the country's leaders.
Very few factors influencing development were found to be completely beyond the influence of leaders. Even the level of vulnerability of a nation to the impact of the international economy or natural disasters can be mitigated by pointed policy choices. Indeed, some factors, like policies to establish and enforce property rights, openness to trade and the rule of law, were highly susceptible to the influence of leaders. In short, the presenters argued that the country's leaders must take their share of responsibility for the performance of Jamaica's economy since independence.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION
Having established that point, the presenters - ably assisted by their team researcher, Beverly Shirley - moved to the more controversial topic of assessing how Jamaica's post-independence leadership has fared. Research is ongoing on this matter. However, a preliminary conclusion would appear to be that Jamaica's leaders have not performed as badly as they could have, but still must answer for much of Jamaica's relative under-performance over the last few decades.
Citing the examples of Zimbabwe and Guyana, Professor Wint contended that poor leadership had left some countries in a far worse position than Jamaica. He then turned to the cases of Barbados and Singapore, arguing that with leaders as competent as those countries had produced, Jamaica could have done much better.
In short, Jamaica's leaders, like its economy, have languished in the middle of the international league tables for much of the post-independence period. At times, they made good choices, at other times bad. He used the case of Michael Manley to illustrate his point. Citing specific examples, he suggested that Manley made some very poor policy choices that left the country's economically much worse off, but that he also made decisions that arguably safeguarded Jamaican democracy and freedoms.
LEADERSHIP FAILURE
The discussion soon turned to reasons for leadership failure. In particular, is it just by chance that Jamaica's leadership has underperformed relative to other countries, or did other factors conspire to produce weak leadership? Did the political system act in a perverse way to filter out really good leaders, encouraging them to take their talents elsewhere? Or, as some in attendance suggested, was it that social conditions prodded leaders to make bad decisions, or thwarted them in their efforts to make good ones? The complexity of the analysis turns on identifying the influences, both personal and social, which shaped individual leaders, thus having an impact on the policy and other choices made.
In the face of those who would maintain Jamaica has little control over its destiny, the evidence would seem to suggest that real change will, in fact, begin much closer to home than such fatalists would allow. This has both heartening and troubling aspects. On one hand, it may be we are masters of our own house in a way that makes a new beginning quite accessible. But this also means that leaders who would blame forces beyond their control for the state of their country have fewer places to hide from the harsh light of public scrutiny.
The Jamaican Economy Project is an independent research body dedicated to charting a way forward for Jamaica by conducting a detailed and objective study of the country's economic history. It is in the midst of an 18-month comprehensive and inter-disciplinary study, which is drawing together dozens of the leading researchers on Jamaica both at home and around the world. You can send your
comments to: taking responsibility@gmail.com.
