In late February, the National Population Commission of Barbados released its draft document which sets out how the country plans to grow its population by 185,000 from its current level of 289,000 by 2050.
The context of this long term objective is that Barbados’ fertility rate has declined precipi-tously from 4.3 (average live births per woman in the reproductive age groups) in 1960, to 1.7. This is below the 2.1 rate that is required to maintain the same level of population in any given country with no net migration. At the same time average life expectancy for Barbadians has increased from 65 in 1960 to 77.3 years in 2017. If left unaddressed this poses very serious problems as the executive summary explains: “An ageing population, without any intervention, will result in consequential decreases in the workforce, increases in the care responsibility of a minority for the majority of the population; declines in government revenues as the tax-base contracts and a likely decline in economic, social and cultural dynamism.”
We have seen recently in France how kicking the issue of declining fertility rates and increas-ing life expectancy down the road ends up in violent protests, after President Macron’s con-troversial increase in the retirement age.
Doing nothing, the Commission projects that “Barbados will have a quarter of its population over 60 years by 2025, and a third over 60 by 2050.”
And the document outlines some of the mechanisms to achieve this 2050 goal. Since fertility rates are not easy for governments to increase – or decrease unless you are China – the primary mechanism will be through managed migration. Barbados has not seen much outward migration in recent decades but still has a net migration rate of -0.276 per 1000 population. The commission recommends “a pro-growth migra-tion policy that outlines the categories of people entitled to citizenship, permanent residence and work permits and reduce the bureaucratic processes.”
As for increasing the fertility rate, the com-mission recommends “a framework to support those who may wish to have children but are unable to do so because of financial, social or fertility issues.” This might include better access to maternal care, subsidies for fertility treat-ments and child tax credits.
The policy document also looks at the issue of high youth unemployment (something Guyana suffers from). “Education reform is needed to expand from the post-colonial preoccupation with certification at all stages of schooling and re-oriented to foster confidence, critical thinking, empathy and life skills needed for flexibility and resilience. Young people should be better prepared for the work world and community participation through the development of a diversity of capabilities and interests.”
Where will all these new citizens live is a question many Barbadians are asking. The document says there is a need for “a reconciliation of population redistribution, land use and settlement patterns which includes encouraging higher-density residen-tial development within the urban corridor to reduce incursion into agricultural lands and for efficient delivery of services; and encouraging the placement of major development facilities including schools, health centres, police stations and community facilities in predominantly residential areas.”
It is important to note that this policy has been three years in the making and involved a com-mission constituted of a wide cross section of experts in their respective fields. Secondly this is just a draft document which is currently the subject of townhall meetings for citizen inputs.
What can Guyana learn from this initiative? Firstly we should acknowledge that our circum-stances are different. The draft policy notes that “Barbados’ total population has grown by just 24% since 1960” If only that was the case here. Our population has grown by only 2.9% even though we have had a fertility rate that was in 1960, 6.3 and is still at 2.4. Meanwhile life expectancy has only increased from 60 years in 1960 to 70. (This is no country for old people)
Obviously the migration rate is the key variable here. Even up to 1998 it stood at negative 22 per 1000. Indeed it was still estimated at -6.571 per 1000 population in 2022, despite perceived improved economic prospects for its citizens.
Guyana is, as we hear every single day, in the midst of an economic boom and there is vague talk of the need for migrant workers to build trans-formational infrastructure. What we have not heard is any proposal that we craft a population policy similar to that of Barbados. Indeed we talk of Vision 2030 as if it was some long term goal but it is only seven years away.
Any discussion on population and migration would require a maturity fitting for such a serious and consequential issue. It ranks alongside climate change and measures to mitigate its effects in demanding consensus. In fact we have no long term policies for any sector. Instead it seems we must rely on the PPP/C manifesto along with calls for the diaspora to come back home. That is not a realistic approach to population control let alone managed migration.
And of course the matter of who we want to migrate here is an issue of great contention given our race based politics and a historical (and some-what justifiable) suspicion of foreigners including even our Caribbean brothers and sisters. As it now stands migration is a free for all with many Vene-zuelans seemingly settling here.
Clearly this is an issue that needs addressing in the same manner that Barbados is doing. Given the close ties between President Ali and Prime Minister Mottley perhaps the government should ask for assistance on how it could be duplicated. In particular it should reflect the same inclusive approach and the reliance on experts. Who knows it might be the kind of solemn project that in touching so many sectors such as health, education and housing it brings a much needed dialogue among the political parties. And dare we say it, civil society?
