Guyana has retained its classification as a high-income economy in the World Bank’s latest annual income rankings, but the designation has once again thrown into sharp relief one of the country’s greatest contradictions: record oil wealth alongside persistent poverty, rising living costs and widespread economic hardship.
The World Bank placed Guyana among economies with a Gross National Income (GNI) per capita of US$14,375 or more, a milestone driven by the country’s booming offshore oil industry, which has transformed Guyana into one of the world’s fastest-growing economies since production began in 2019.
Yet the institution itself cautions that income classifications are not measures of poverty, inequality or living standards and should not be interpreted as reflecting how wealth is shared within a country.
For many Guyanese, that distinction is more than statistical.
Despite billions of U.S. dollars flowing into the economy from oil production, international development reports continue to paint a troubling picture of life on the ground. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) has estimated that nearly two-thirds of Guyanese live in poverty, while roughly one-third live in extreme poverty, underscoring the gap between Guyana’s headline economic performance and the lived reality of many citizens. Local analysts contend that the actual figures may be higher, pointing to weaknesses in data collection and the reluctance of many people to provide information out of fear of possible retaliation by government officials.
Children remain among the most vulnerable. International agencies, including UNICEF, have warned of persistently high levels of child malnutrition, with thousands of children lacking consistent access to adequate nutrition despite the country’s unprecedented economic expansion.
Meanwhile, families continue to face a relentless rise in the cost of living. Food prices, transportation costs, housing and utilities have all increased, while labour representatives have repeatedly argued that wage growth has lagged behind inflation, leaving many workers struggling to maintain their standard of living.
The Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) and other labour bodies have long maintained that the benefits of the oil economy have not been distributed equitably, repeatedly calling for living wages, stronger social protections and policies that ensure the country’s natural resource wealth reaches ordinary households rather than being reflected primarily in macroeconomic indicators.
The Government has defended its record, pointing to cash grants, public sector wage increases, tax relief measures, expanded social programmes and major investments in infrastructure, housing, health care and education as evidence that oil revenues are being used to improve the lives of citizens.
Still, the contrast remains striking. Guyana is now counted among high-income economies such as Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Trinidad and Tobago, yet many households continue to grapple with financial insecurity and rising household expenses.
The World Bank’s rankings are based on 2025 Gross National Income per capita, calculated using its Atlas methodology, which smooths exchange-rate fluctuations. The Bank updates income thresholds annually to account for inflation and notes that changes in economic growth, population and national accounting methods can affect a country’s classification.
Elsewhere in the Caribbean, Jamaica retained its upper-middle-income status, joining Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Cuba in that category.
Guyana’s latest high-income designation is likely to be celebrated as another milestone in the country’s economic transformation. But it also raises a difficult question that continues to dominate public debate: How can one of the world’s fastest-growing, oil-rich economies still have such a large share of its population living in poverty? Until the benefits of economic growth are more broadly reflected in household incomes, nutrition, and everyday living standards, critics argue that the country’s high-income status will remain a measure of national wealth—not necessarily of national well-being.
