We noted last week that the budget provides a glimpse that the government is starting to think about a coherent development strategy. The column furthermore underscored the need for greater clarity of the principles underpinning the vague development programme. For example, the budget speech presents better governance and better government as parallel to the Green State Development Strategy (GSDS). It is unlikely that in a divided country the quality of governance and governance can be separated from any economic development programme.
While many observers are preoccupied with the more tangible measures of the budget like housing, roads, bridges, schools, etc, I prefer to focus on the intangible infrastructure of governance, government and social cohesion. This intangible infrastructure is not evident on a daily basis as a new bridge across the Demerara River would be, but it is crucial for the present and after 2020 when the State will assume a greater role in the economy; a role in which government will receive oil rents and will have to decide how and when to spend these funds. Circumventing the resource curse and probable open civil conflict after 2020 will depend largely on the quality of government and whether it is perceived to be fair in its allocations.
The budget speech said some of the right things, but it has not followed through with action in some areas. For instance, there is no financial allocation to constitutional reform even though this is listed as an instrument of better governance. I could not find in the budget estimates funds appropriated for constitutional reform. The estimates indicate that monies have been allocated to social cohesion which comes under the Ministry of Presidency. Labour costs associated with social cohesion amount to $186.2 million while other charges are budgeted to be $203.9 million. It would be interesting to find out what are these other charges.
To further put things into perspective, the