The 2017 Report by the “Ministerial Task Force on the Revitalization of The Cooperative Movement in Guyana”, information from which was published in last Friday’s issue of the Stabroek Business was by far the most candid official assessment of the performance of cooperatives in Guyana to have been seen in several years. Successive political administrations have, deliberately it seems, opted to minimize the extent of information on the performance of cooperatives placed in the public domain and if the findings of the Ministerial Task Force are anything to go by it is easy to see why this has been so. The assessment of the performance of the cooperative movement between 1989 and 2018 reflected in the Report is dismal to say the least and the reasons for their woeful underperformance include weaknesses that range from managerial ineptitude and attendant mismanagement of resources to corruption.
What the Report does, as well, is to point a critical finger at government, alluding particularly to a debilitating “dependency syndrome” that eventually infested much of the cooperative movement and hurried the demise of many cooperatives though it makes no specific mention of the disastrous implosion of the state-created Guyana National Cooperative Bank (GNCB) an institution intended to provide support financing for cooperatives but which collapsed under a cloud of corruption and mismanagement.
Cooperative banks, incidentally, have been operated with marked success in other countries, a notable example being the Cooperative Bank in the United Kingdom which has only recently extended its HIVE initiative, a specialist business support programme for new and existing co-operatives until the end of 2020. Since its launch in 2016 The Hive has seen more than 500 cooperatives in the UK receive specialist support and training. One makes that point to draw attention to the fact that – contrary to what is now the considered view in sections of the private sector – cooperatives are not inevitable failures. In some countries with fairly large economies they account for as much as 10% of economic activity.
The fact that there is still a government Ministry with responsibility for cooperatives points, first, to a presumed ongoing official interest in elevating the cooperative to the level of a ‘key’ sector in the country’s economy. The work of the Ministry is supported by various other institutions in which the state plays a controlling role.
What would appear to obtain at this time is a heightened official confidence in the role of the cooperative as a mechanism for national economic advancement as manifested in the view expressed by Keith Scott, the Minister with responsibility for Cooperatives that “The Cooperative Movement is destined to be a beacon of hope for economic development of our nation” and that “it has the potential of becoming the third pillar of our economic infrastructure.” Whether, up to this time, there exists any persuasive foundation for this belief is clearly questionable.
Just how much work has been done to revive the movement since the completion of the work of the Task Force more than a year ago is decidedly unclear so that in the absence of verifiable data regarding the revival of cooperatives a clear picture cannot be derived. Frankly, even assuming that work is ongoing in that direction, what would appear to be the studied reluctance of the subject Ministry to place information on the cooperative movement (Annual Reports, for example) in the public domain means that we remain considerably in the dark as to the overall picture regarding the direction in which the movement is heading insofar as its impact on the country’s economy, including employment is concerned. So that what remains undetermined is whether we may not be witnessing a repeat of the earlier ‘error’ of excessive government involvement in the ‘revival’ of the movement.
No one is suggesting that there may not still be a role, even a considerable one, for cooperatives in the country’s economy. Agro-processing, for example, a sector which requires the twin components of farming and manufacture would appear suited to small and medium sized groups whose aptitudes span the various sub- sectors that comprise the agro processing sector. There would appear to be considerable scope as well (and across a wide range of disciplines, particularly in the services sector) for cooperatives insofar as them being able to take advantage of the 20% ‘set aside’ concession in the Small Business Act is concerned. What, it seems, is still to be determined, is whether or not attempts to rebuild the movement are not likely to encounter pushback from communities that have become cynical about the cooperative movement and have long drifted away from what, three or four decades ago used to be described as the “spirit of cooperativism” and towards more orthodox private sector pursuits.
Arguably the acid test of the satisfactory recovery of the cooperative movement in Guyana could repose in the outcome of the plan announced by government in February last year to pump more than US$12 million into the establishment of four “model cooperative societies” – in Buxton, BV-Triumph, Ithaca and Mocha. These are expected to create around 160 jobs. Here the point should be made that government is taking this step despite the alarm bells rung in the Report of the Ministerial Task Force about government ‘controls’ and the dangers associated with mismanagement and corruption. Experience ought to have long taught us – insofar as the cooperative movement is concerned – the risks associated with repeating the same mistakes all over again.
Across the world successful cooperatives are driven by the collective sense of purpose of its members with commitment deriving not just from the employment that it provides but also from the sense of ownership that it creates. This is where the government’s four “model” cooperatives could face challenges. Contextually and interestingly, the Report of the Ministerial Task Force in its prognosis for ‘the way forward,’ envisages cooperatives as “self-reliant, autonomous and democratized institutions” and advocates that they function “within the realms and spirit of private enterprise.” The question that arises here is whether the Task Force’s own recommendations may not be considerably at variance with the ‘model’ cooperatives’ which government says it intends to roll out. After all, there is no clear indication that the envisaged ‘model’ cooperatives are heading in the direction of the “self-reliant, autonomous and democratized institutions” which the Ministerial Task Force would presumably want them to be. But then we would hope to be proven wrong.
