Introduction
For this and several columns to come, I shall be discussing a number of independent but related topics, under the broad theme of inequality and poverty in Guyana. In these columns, poverty will be treated as the flip side of inequality. That is I plan to portray Guyanese poverty as a relative phenomenon, which has at its core the distribution of living standards, welfare, and well-being among population groups.
The main reason for choosing this theme is that, in my estimation, there has been rather limited, sporadic, and intermittent media coverage of it for some time now. There has also been insufficient sustained commentary and close examination of the issues surrounding this theme. Moreover, in spite of all the other important issues that have been covered in the media meanwhile, inequality and poverty remain perhaps one of the most significant set of constants in the lives of Guyanese; whether poor or non-poor, as they are frequently categorized.
Upfront, readers should further note that information on these topics is not only limited but also quite dated. And to be frank one of the primary motives for my proposed coverage of inequality and poverty at this point is to use the columns to bring readers up to date about the parlous state of the available information on the country.
Allied to this motive there is my intention to express full support and solidarity for calls coming from several quarters for the Government of Guyana to make a deliberate and sustained effort, through its relevant agencies, to vastly improve the sets of social statistics that are collected, and equally important, made available to citizens.
To cite a particular instance of this: the IDB’s Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE) in 2013 had evaluated the IDB’s 2008-2012 Guyana Country Programme. The report pointed out the Country Programme had explicitly targeted “to increase the capacity of the country to generate social and other relevant data to undertake evidence-based policy analysis and to monitor poverty reduction strategy implementation and impact.”
In this regard the 2013 OVE lamented “it was not, however, able to confirm a significant improvement in the quality, quantity, or availability of social statistics.” This prompted the OVE to express concern that the “most recent information on poverty dates from 2006, and information on social statistics is not always publicly available.” From these quotes readers can safely conclude there is an “information black hole” as far as information on inequality and poverty are concerned.
In an effort to avoid pointless challenges to the data that I shall be presenting let me indicate at the outset that, for the purposes of these columns, I shall be strictly utilizing information obtained from official sources. By official sources I refer to information provided by the Government of Guyana (GoG); the international financial institutions, IFIs (that is, the IMF, World Bank, IDB, regional institutions (CDB and CFNI); and the United Nations and its agencies.
Approach
In the coming discussion poverty will not only be treated as the flip side of inequality, but both of these concepts (whether addressed together or separately) are recognized as representing very complex considerations. Let us consider a few of these at this stage
First, the two concepts can be, and indeed have been analysed in terms of varied statistical populations. Thus in Guyana these statistical populations have included individuals; households; other groupings of persons (for example wage-earners and self-employed); communities; geographic areas (for example coastland and hinterland); administrative regions (1-10) and so on.
Second, the variables used to indicate inequality and poverty against which these statistical populations have been measured are also very varied, including income; consumption; wealth; assets; access or opportunities for education, training, skills, information, credit, enterprise development; employment; and so on.
Third, among the variables that have been employed is the lack/absence/deprivation of basic needs. In such studies basic needs refer to a variety of items: food; safe water; health and good nutrition; sanitation; energy; proper housing; an adequate minimum wage; and so on.
Fourth, since in Guyana inequality and poverty have been measured for all the statistical populations identified above in relation to one or more of the several variables also identified above, the key measurement problematic is to identify the way in which these variables are distributed among the various statistical populations.
In Guyana, some variables have been used more frequently than others in studies of poverty and inequality; the same is true for the statistical populations. Thus in Guyana, individuals and households represent by far the most frequently used statistical groupings. Similarly, consumption and income represent by far the most frequently used variables for analysing income inequality and poverty.
Next week’s column will be devoted to explaining, as simply as I can, the techniques that have been used by official sources to measure inequality and poverty in Guyana. Indeed those studies that I have seen are all prefaced with a brief description of the techniques and measures utilized. The reason for this is that this information is absolutely essential for a proper understanding of both the strengths and weaknesses of the results obtained.
Conclusion
In conclusion two other observations are warranted at this stage. As previously hinted, inequality and poverty are directly linked to distributional concerns in the society. Similarly, it can be said that the degree of mobility among the various statistical populations being examined is equally central to the outcome. This mobility encompasses several dimensions: spatial, cultural, economic, political and social. As we shall observe in a later column, it is also linked to international mobility (emigration and immigration).
Following the above observations we can preliminarily conclude that, both policies of redistribution and that promoting general population mobility, will largely determine final outcomes for inequality and poverty in Guyana.
