Dear Editor,
Poverty is an enigma that haunts the psyche of conscientious national leaders the world over. And, while millions of people globally view poverty as a social disease, not every national leader today has focused attention on tackling this societal problem. To validate this statement, Guyanese can just take a cursory glance at their neighbour Venezuela from which Guyana has experienced an influx of immigrants. There, Maduro not only failed to grapple with the problem of poverty; instead, he contributed to the increased impoverishment of a vast number of Venezuelans, millions of whom have fled the country.
Unlike Maduro, the PPP/C administration has utilized various approaches to nation building which include strategies that address problems that gave rise and contributed to the perpetuation of poverty. For example, the government has distributed house lots and backed financing for home construction, constructed and continue to construct and modernize schools and hospitals, granted free university education, and increased the pensions of senior citizens etc., – all of which are designed and focused on the alleviation of poverty and enhancing the lives and livelihoods of Guyanese.
Continuing its efforts to address poverty within the country, the PPP/C government, in recent weeks, announced its intent to award $100,000 cash grant to citizens eighteen years and older. In an instant after the announcement, opposition politicians and their acolytes, along with critics of the government, began to agitate for substantial increases in the $100,000 slated to be disbursed to eligible individuals. This, some did, citing revenue generated from oil which they claim is a substantial accumulation of capital (profits).
Undoubtedly, every poverty-stricken Guyanese would be elated with increases in the amount of cash grants. Nonetheless, the government must seriously consider whether the amount of cash disbursements to citizens would (a) serve as a disincentive for gainful employment; (b) create generational dependency on government’s handouts/subsidies; (c) create or accelerate inflation which would negatively impact the purchasing power of the poor, and (d) stymie ongoing development projects, and improvements in essential governmental services of health, education, recreation, housing, energy, and infrastructure – all of which benefit the people. Failure to consider such consequences, the PPP/C would be negligent in its governing competences and responsibilities which then become additional fodder for critics’ anti-government rhetoric.
Moreover, the government cannot afford to lose sight of the reality that: (i) the flow of oil depletes over time, as experienced by Trinidad; (ii) advances in technology (such as hybrid vehicles), and alternative energy sources (such as lithium batteries and solar power) are slowly but surely eroding the dependence on oil, and (iii) the dwindling reliance on oil, in all likelihood, would intensify competition among the rich and well-developed oil producing countries for markets and revenue – a status Guyana is yet to achieve. For the government then to exhaust much of its current revenue on cash grants would be tantamount to reckless governance.
Why reckless? It is because revenue generated from oil is accrued incrementally. And, it is this primary revenue source that funds Guyana’s development projects ranging from infrastructure – roads, dams, bridges, canals (drainage) etc., – to schools, hospitals, recreational facilities, and energy supply (electricity), all of which necessitate major investments both in terms of building, and maintenance. In addition to the already mentioned areas of expenditure is funding for old age pension as well as that relating to the safety and security of citizens.
Considering the totality of areas that necessitate recurring public funding, it would not be prudent for the government to drastically deplete its treasury by disbursing large sums of cash awards based on expected revenue. And while alleviating the problem of poverty is of immense importance, the government should be commended for taking a holistic approach to redress this societal stigma, an approach that includes the disbursement of $100,000 cash grants to eligible individuals – a recent initiative that warrants further analysis that would yield information for future policy decisions.
Sincerely,
Narayan Persaud, PhD
Professor Emeritus