Guyana should avoid deeply flawed version of cash transfer

In fact, in early October 2025, over 600,000 eligible Alaskans are scheduled to receive a dividend of roughly US $1,000 each. If Mr. Bharrat wishes to argue that cash transfers “do not work,” then let him critique Alaska’s model which is dubbed by many economists as the strongest and most enduring example worldwide.

Equally misleading was his attempt to cite Gulf states such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates as proof that oil-producing nations do not provide cash transfers because it is a failed model. What he failed to mention, however, is that these countries have uniquely structured economies that reduce or eliminate the need for such measures. 

In Qatar and Kuwait, for example, there is no value-added tax (VAT), in the UAE and Oman, VAT stands at a mere 5%, and even Bahrain’s “high” rate only recently rose from 5% to 10%. Payroll taxes or PAYE as we know it, are non-existent in majority of these states. Citizens of these countries therefore enjoy far greater disposable income compared to nations like ours.

Moreover, Gulf governments routinely provide generous universal subsidies, allowances, welfare benefits, and periodic bonuses to their citizens. Direct transfers are not absent because the model is a “failure” but rather because they are unnecessary in societies where the state already shoulders such a broad share of personal expense.

Closer to home, our neighbour Suriname has recently announced its own cash transfer initiative, offering citizens a US $750 “royalties for everyone” savings note. This shows that even in the Caribbean and Latin American context, governments are finding ways to responsibly share resource wealth with their people.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Government of Guyana should immediately institute a fixed cash transfer scheme, handing out a fixed amount to every citizen each month, even though we can. What I do find deeply troubling, however, is the reckless dismissal of cash transfer models as “failed” without any acknowledgement of the evidence. 

A responsible minister ought to know that with transparency, accountability, and proper design, such programmes can succeed, as Alaska’s four-decade experiment clearly demonstrates. Yes, oil will not last forever. That is precisely why resource wealth must be managed prudently, with well-monitored systems, periodic assessments, and strict evaluation mechanisms.

What we must avoid is the deeply flawed version of “cash transfers” that Guyana has seen in recent years, each of them marred by poor accountability, weak oversight, and a dangerous susceptibility to political manipulation and corruption. Those are not failures of the concept itself. They are failures of corrupt governance.

What is evident is that we deserve leaders who inform themselves, who learn from global examples, and who speak to the people with honesty rather than a place of ignorance and arrogance. To deny the very existence of models like Alaska’s, or to misrepresent the fiscal systems of countries like Qatar and those in the UAE, is to insult the intelligence of the public. Minister Bharrat’s remarks were not just ill-informed; they betrayed a troubling indifference to facts. And in the stewardship of our nation’s valuable resources, ignorance of this kind is inexcusable. 

Yours truly,

Clayon F. Halley