Jacquelyn Hamer is a retired Guyanese diplomat and a Director of the skills training organization Visions of Excellence.

Part 11
By Jacquelyn Hamer
It surprises me little that – at least up until now – that the disclosure in the April 9th issue of the Stabroek Business that the Small Business Bureau, an entity for which provision is made in the Small Business Act of March 2004, is to be set up before the end of April, has evoked little public reaction. Under different circumstances news that what is in fact the Secretariat that is supposed to make available the resources and machinery to fuel the growth of a long-deprived small business sector is about to begin its work ought to create ripples of excitement among fledgling entrepreneurs and budding entrepreneurs. On the other hand it would come as little surprise that the six years of virtual inactivity that have followed the enactment of the legislation have resulted in an almost complete loss of the significance of the legislation. During that period some small businesses would have started and either taken some steps – small or large – in the direction of growth and others would have started, withered and died for lack of the kind of support which the Act was supposed to bring with it.

Now that the promise of a Bureau has been made we must wonder just how much longer it will take for the resources to be forthcoming to grease its wheels and to place it in a position to perform what are in fact the major functions provided for under the Act.

The impact of the unexplained delay must surely have been an unending experience of frustration among small business owners seeking support for the growth and development of their fledgling enterprises as well as persons, including families who may well have contemplated such ventures but have been unable to do so in view of the absence of that enabling environment which the Small Business Act was intended to create. Nor can we pretend that the dilatoriness in bringing the provisions of the Act into force has not resulted in a far worse national unemployment situation than otherwise would have been the case.

Careful perusal of the Act reveals that it creates a number of provisions which, in essence, seek to support the growth and development of the small business sector.  The most obvious of these is the proposed establishment by government of a Small Business Development Fund aimed not only at supporting the funding of small businesses but also “helping small business improve their productivity and competitiveness”  and providing “institutional support” for organizations ‘representing, promoting, supporting and strengthening small businesses.” In essence, what the Act says is that government will be responsible for both providing and mobilizing financing, not only to support, directly, the growth of small businesses but also to support the activities of local agencies concerned with the development of the small business sector. This, presumably, can be taken to mean that some of the funding will be culled from the public treasury and the rest will be garnered from elsewhere though as yet we know little about exactly what mechanisms will be used to raise all of the resources that will go into the Small Business Development Fund. Over the past few years modest amounts of state funds have been allocated to the work of the Small Business Council and one is unsure as to just how much the Council has been able to accomplish with the decidedly meager allocation. In effect, what this means is that given what has been, up until now, the official inability or, perhaps, the official disinclination, to make meaningful financial allocations to servicing the provisions of the Act we are still unsure as to where we are as far as the question of giving effect to its provisions is concerned. We must wait and see what follows the announcement that the establishment of the Bureau is imminent.

A matter of this nature really ought to have generated much more public discourse, particularly in private sector circles at the levels of organizations like the PSC, the GM&SA and the GCCA since these are in fact the principal umbrella organizations set up for the development of the business sector. Except I am totally incorrect I recall no vigorous lobby by any of these organizations for an end to the long delay in implementing the provisions of the Act.

Since it was government that took the legislation to the National Assembly in the first place, we must assume that it recognizes the role that the small business sector can play in the growth of the economy and perhaps more importantly, in the creation of jobs, and in truth, when one examines the provisions of the Act many of them are positive ones.  What is noteworthy, however, is the strong thread of official/state control that runs through the entire legislation underpinned by ministerial control just about of every aspect of the work of both the Council and the Bureau, a matter on which I commented earlier. That control even extends to the various presumably autonomous organizations “representing, promoting, supporting and strengthening small businesses” since the Act also provides for the funding of those organizations. More than that the Act even provides criteria for “approval” of a small business – which, again, is the subject of official determination –  in the absence of which “approval” enterprises, will presumably not benefit from whatever resources are forthcoming under the provisions of the Act.

I certainly do not support the school of thought which says that government ought not to play some role in the development of the small business sector. On the other hand the overtones of official control embodied in the legislation are sufficiently evident to raise questions as to whether a greater modicum of autonomy for the institutions provided for in the Act would not have been much more comforting for all concerned. One can hardly pretend that government control of an institution that is responsible for the development of a facet of the private sector does not run counter to the very idea of a private sector nor can one pretend that here in Guyana state control of institutions does not, often, raise questions about the fairness and transparency that is applied in the running of those organizations. Certainly, one of the fears that might inevitably arise is that once the institutions provided for in the Act are fully ‘up and running’ there is a likelihood that a level of bureaucracy might ‘kick in’ that might itself serve to undermine the intentions of what in many respects is a worthwhile piece of legislation.

Here, one is inclined to wonder whether or not there was any private sector input in the drafting or at least conceptualizing the legislation and whether or not the local private sector institutions and the very small business organizations alluded to in the Act are not at all concerned about a piece of legislation that is essentially concerned with private sector development but which is framed in a manner that affords government total control of the which institutions provided for in the Act.

The argument for some measure of autonomy is compelling. Surely, premises can be found outside of the Ministry of Tourism to house the Small Business Secretariat (the Bureau) and, surely, the government and the private sector can agree on the appointment of a small business “Czar” and a supporting team to efficiently oversee the enforcement of the legislation without needless ministerial intervention. There is an abundance of precedent here in the Caribbean and further afield for the creation of  development-related institutions, including some responsible for private sector support, that function autonomously and without direct state intervention. Must we always think, from what has long been the highly questionable notion that the state is best-positioned to manage entities that are run – partially or wholly – by public funds.

I do not believe that it is too late to seek a reconfiguration of the arrangements extant in the Act for administering its provisions. It is entirely possible, for example, for the both the Council and the Bureau to function with a generous measure of autonomy since, surely, functionaries can be found from outside the traditional public sector – or even seconded from the public sector – who can competently manage both institutions. Phrases like “provided that the Minister may,” “a decision by the Minister,” “the Minister may terminate” and “the Minister may grant” might lead one to believe that the growth and development of the small business sector will only proceed in an environment where the most rigid state controls are applied and that, at least in my view, is a decidedly unwholesome position to embrace.