Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Aubrey Norton believes the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government can end poverty if the party is committed to lifting the living standards of the citizens.
According to Norton “ending poverty and lifting living standards do not have to be long-term fixes, as the PPP believes. Bringing prosperity to ordinary Guyanese does not have to travel long meandering paths, as the PPP believes. Poverty is no longer acceptable in Guyana. Several oil rich economies have eradicated poverty and lifted living standards in short time spans. We, as the next government, intend to do so as a moral responsibility.”
Norton, at his press conference last Thursday, promised that new coalition government will directly invest the larger share of the national budget in lifting the quality of life of people. “For us, investing in people is both an economic lever and a moral obligation. We will adopt a BOTTOM-UP, MIDDLE-OUT economic development approach by putting low-to-middle income people first. The more people who can contribute to the economy and fairly benefit from it, the more prosperous we all are.’
His full statement follows:-
PNCR and the Coalition are the Party for social protection and inclusive prosperity. We reject the PPP’s approach to economic development.
Several weeks ago, Senior Minister with Responsibility for Finance Dr. Ashni Singh stated, with great pride, that the PPP government made a conscious decision to shift expenditure from public consumption of goods and services to a greater focus on government investment in infrastructure. He illustrated this by noting that in the 2023 budget almost half of the $782B budget, or 49.6%, is being devoted to public investment. The Minister reportedly justified this focus as necessary to ensure that the government could address historic infrastructure impediments to long-term economic growth.
He contrasted this stance with that of the Coalition government by pointing out that in 2019, the previous government spent only 22.7% on public investment and the remainder on public consumption.
We have several fundamental issues with the PPP’s approach to economic development, which we wish to highlight to draw contrast with how we will approach development:
(1) Firstly, it is Jurassic economic thinking to consider spending on infrastructure (important as it is) as the only form of public investment for economic growth. New development planning, backed up by decades of research and practice, considers what was once termed “public consumption” as actual public investment, given its essence and impact. Therefore, government spending in such realms as health, education, crime prevention, child care, nutrition support and food security, and other social programs is no longer mischaracterized as public consumption of goods and services, but as investments because such expenditure, in ensuring and enhancing the quality of life of people, drives economic growth and development.
Take a few simple examples. It is an established fact worldwide that government spending on a full-fledged school feeding program significantly raises school attendance and education uptake, and reduces malnourishment and stunted growth among children. Such spending produces economic and social returns by producing a healthy workforce (when these children mature into adults) and by reducing short-to-long-term health-care costs.
Likewise, government expenditure on Early Childhood Care and Education programs leads to higher female participation in the economy and better social outcomes for children, all of which redound to the benefit of the economy over the short to long term.
The PPP is totally bereft of this understanding and thinking. This is so because the PPP puts corruption and favours to itself, family, friends and favourites first, rather than the interest of the people.
(2) Secondly, the government, in claiming that its infrastructure spending is intended to expand the productive capacity of the economy, seems to believe all such spending will have that effect. Not so. Simply investing in infrastructure is insufficient. Instead, investments for economic development must be directed at infrastructure that has transformative outcomes, such as reducing regional disparities, improving market access, and opening up new investment opportunities.
We shared clear ideas on this issue in the Leader of the Opposition address to Parliament in the 2023 Budget. Therefore, repairs and maintenance of, and modest improvements to, existing infrastructure (though necessary) will NOT significantly expand the productive capacity of the non-oil economy. Nor would the infrastructure spending that wastes tens of billions of dollars through rampant overspending, corruption, and channeling of funds to PPP friends, families and favorites will succeed.
Instead, a coalition government will catalyze development through infrastructure projects that (a) will open new agriculture lands and untapped mineral, forestry, and eco-tourism resources; (b) will provide access countrywide to cheap and reliable water, telecommunications, and electricity; and (c) will increase transport interconnectivity between the coast and the hinterland, and within the hinterland itself – to promote national integration and reduce regional disparities and unequal access to services and opportunities.
Most of the major projects today that can increase economic capacity were initiated by the Coalition government, such as the Gas-to-Energy project (which the present government is mismanaging), the Linden-Lethem road and the new Demerara Harbour Bridge. The PPP is yet to produce an original and cohesive plan on the use of public infrastructure for economic development.
(3) Third, we take issue with the PPP’s mentality of seeing what it terms “public consumption” as a matter devoid of any moral imperative and legitimate expectation. The PPP does not understand, and never will, that it is the moral obligation of a government to use all available resources to ensure all citizens live comfortably. It does not understand, and never will, that this is the also the legitimate expectation of citizens in signing on to the social contract.
Ending poverty and lifting living standards do not have to be long-term fixes, as the PPP believes. Bringing prosperity to ordinary Guyanese does not have to travel long meandering paths, as the PPP believes. Poverty is no longer acceptable in Guyana. Several oil rich economies have eradicated poverty and lifted living standards in short time spans. We, as the next government, intend to do so as a moral responsibility.
A new coalition government will therefore directly invest the larger share of the national budget in lifting the quality of life of people. For us, investing in people is both an economic lever and a moral obligation. We will adopt a BOTTOM-UP, MIDDLE-OUT economic development approach by putting low-to-middle income people first. The more people who can contribute to the economy and fairly benefit from it, the more prosperous we all are.
We therefore believe that economic growth and development must be inclusive, where no citizen is excluded by virtue of poverty, deprivation, unemployment and underemployment, low income, no savings, social marginalization, and discrimination. The more people participate as workers, producers, consumers, investors, and citizens, the better are the chances of building a vibrant and prosperous society and economy for all.
Further, we remain committed to the core belief that each household must be guaranteed a minimum livable income (through a combination of wages, profits, dividends, cash transfers, subsidies, tax breaks, etc.). We remain committed to our proposals on social protection, such as on early childhood care and education, rent and utilities assistance, and free tertiary education with stipend.
The bottom-up, middle-out approach to growth and development is more than a slogan, but a fundamentally different way of thinking about the economy. We are the party for social protection. We are the party for inclusive prosperity.