The PPP loves to beg
PART 1 OF AN EXAMINATION OF USAID POLICIES IN GUYANA
Peeping Tom
Kaieteur News
April 21, 2007
Given the historical suspicion that the PPP harboured towards US agencies working in the Third World, and given the track record of ideological conversion and subversion of those agencies during the Cold War, it may have come as a surprise to Uncle Freddie's observer from Mars that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has, since 1992, had such a good working relationship with successive PPP Administrations.
The suspicion is there, and I am sure an objective assessment of USAID's interactions with senior Government officials would reveal a fair deal of frustration over things such as procrastination in decision-making and a need to exert greater control over programmes funded by USAID.
USAID has, since the end of the Cold War, downsized its programmes in a number of countries. While this, in part, is attributed to cuts in that agency's budget, it has still managed to continue its engagement in Guyana surprising on a scale that would not, I believe, have been expected.
The main reason why this engagement continues on the present scale has more to do with the mendicancy that has become a permanent feature of the PPP's 15-year tenure in office. Given a government that refuses to think for itself and which looks outside of Guyana for funding for even its own traffic lights, it is not surprising that USAID has survived for so long in Guyana.
In this three-part series beginning today, I want to examine some of the important programmes that USAID is funding in Guyana . The series will take a short break tomorrow, Sunday. The second part will be published on Monday, and the series concludes the following day with what I consider a recommendation that can well force USAID to close its doors in Guyana .
So just what is USAID? According to a factoid just released, the United States Agency for International Development is the United States Government's Agency for assistance, and it operates in some eighty countries supporting economic growth, agriculture and trade; global health, democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance.
Any government that is shameless in begging will find little difficulty in accommodating USAID in their country because of the wide range of sectors in which USAID is involved; and since the Guyana Government is constantly begging for external assistance, it is not surprising that USAID spends some US$13M annually in Guyana .
What is, however, not mentioned is just how much of this sum goes back to the United States through the contracting of services and consultancies from US-based companies.
However, even making accommodation for this traditional flaw in most foreign-funded programmes, it must be acknowledged that USAID's annual assistance to Guyana, when compared to, for example, what is earned in the non-traditional agricultural sector each year, is significant and just goes to establish how under-capitalised is that sector, and how crucial is the provision of goods and services originating from the United States of America to the Guyanese economy.
According to the factoid, for 2004-2008, USAID's programmes support Guyana 's development and reform initiatives in the areas of reduced HIV transmission and mitigating the impact of AIDS; consolidating democratic governance; and encouraging and strengthening an enabling environment for sustained growth of value-added exports .
Logically, of course, the area where the most resources are going to be expended will be in the reduction of HIV transmission and AIDS mitigation. However, the Peeper considers that the programme in which USAID is likely to have the greatest long-term impact is consolidating democracy and governance.
The Democracy and Governance Programme contributes to the strengthening of democracy and good governance by promoting citizen inclusion and greater accountability at all levels of governance, and encouraging ethnic harmony in political processes.
It has a number of components, most of which will turn out to be ineffective and unsustainable.
The Peeper is certainly not expecting much from the strengthening of civil society. I have said before that those who are pushing this concept of civil society in this part of the Third Word do not appreciate the impediments to social capital.
I have also suggested that in small societies articulate voices and dominant (including well-dressed and image conscious) personalities can drown out the legitimate concerns of the masses that comprise civil society.
I do not wish, however, to put down good intentions and the hard work that has so far been invested into the civil society component, but my recommendation would be for encouragement to be given to accurate opinion polls. I believe that this would be the best way for the views of civil society to influence decision-makers in the political establishment.
Unless the politicians in this country understand that when someone in civil society speaks, that person's views are vindicated by opinion polls as representing a large segment of society, civil society personalities will not be taken seriously in this country. It is simple as that.
The Peeper also does not expect much from the training that has been invested in our journalists. If we want to professionalise the media in Guyana , we have to end the elitism of some media houses, who believe that they are pre-ordained to decide what is right and what is not right for this country.
If we wish to establish better standards within the media, a press complaints authority and a long-term media monitoring unit comprised of respected persons would be a better investment.
The two components of the Democracy and Governance programme that should attract greater resources are the Justice Improvement Programme and the support for elections. I do not think that this nation can thank USAID enough for the work that has been done in these two areas.
If we are serious about consolidating democracy and supporting good governance, the first objective would be to support the strengthening of the justice system. I am greatly impressed by the work done so far by USAID, especially in supporting dispute resolution mechanisms within the judicial system.
And, of course, the support for Guyana 's costly and tenuous electoral system is something that has made a significant contribution to democracy and stability in Guyana .
Good governance will be secured as long as there is a judiciary that is independent, efficient, and within the reach of the small man. No matter how many little Burnhams appear within the political directorate, so long as we have a fearless judicial system that is prepared to dispense justice, no transgressions of civil or political liberties, no violations of citizens' rights will be allowed to go without recompense.
The best guarantee of good governance is an independent and efficient judicial system.
And the best way to consolidate democracy is to have more of it. Through a constant diet of elections, whether national, regional, or local government, we will wean a democracy that will match the standards that the western world wants of us.
And, after all, it is the promotion of those standards that the US feels is right for small countries like Guyana . For when we achieve these standards, we will pose less headaches for the most powerful nation on earth, something that is the ultimate objective of USAID.
The programmes of foreign agencies in Guyana often suffer from one terminal defect: they are often ill-designed and poorly conceived to address the objectives that they set themselves.
This deficiency is multiplied when the basis and assumptions upon which these flawed designs are premised are themselves false. In the case of USAID's programmes in Guyana this has never been truer than in the programmes that they are presently administering which is aimed at forging economic growth export diversification.
In its factoid on this programme, USAID notes that “Guyana's overriding development objective, as outlined in its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) National Development Strategy (NDS) and National Competitiveness Strategy (NCS), is to increase incomes across social levels and reduce the level and incidence of poverty. Increasing jobs and earnings will require stimulating business activity and productivity. However, with a population of only 750,000, Guyana's domestic market is too small to provide a viable base for long-term growth.
“Therefore, the chief strategy available for creating sustainable growth lies in the development of value-added, non-traditional exports.”
This is fundamentally flawed premise. For one, the Peeper believes that Guyana's small internal market is more of an obstacle to exports than as the basis for pursuing an export-oriented strategy. While it is true that in most industries Guyana lacks economies of scale, it must be reminded that our economy has traditionally been export-oriented since the small internal market has always been dwarfed by the strength of those sectors – timber, rice, sugar, gold and bauxite -- that have traditionally dominated Guyana's production and which are mainly exported.
On the other hand it is the value-added sector that has failed to take off because of the small internal market. The small internal market thus acts as a constraint to export orientation in the value added sector, rather than serving as the impetus for the development of value-added non-traditional exports, as claimed by USAID's factoid.
Secondly, it does not follow, as USAID would have us believe that Guyana's domestic market is too small to provide a viable base for long-term growth. If growth is measured, as it is these days in terms of output, the size of the internal market may not necessarily be an obstacle to long-term growth but rather to the type of growth that would be necessary to raise incomes.
It must also be borne in mind that all the other Caribbean economies also suffer from a small internal market but they have adopted economic policies that have been able to foster levels of economic growth that allow their citizens a higher per capita income than what exists in Guyana.
USAID, as most foreign agencies, however has an ideological mission in the countries in which it operates. That mission is aimed at promoting open economies, an outcome consistent with US foreign policy objectives.
However, if the United States of America was serious about increasing incomes in poor countries it would roll back many of its objections to free and fair trade for developing countries; withdraw its objections made under the World Trade Organisation which has affected market access and prices for poor countries such as Guyana.
It would also reduce its agricultural and industrial subsidies so as to promote fairer global competition.
The United States is however not relenting its protectionist measures but is instead using its economic might and financial clout to force developing countries to liberalise their economies.
Notwithstanding, however, the contradictions and flaws of the approach by the US towards economic growth and development in poor countries, it must be acknowledged that there is a role for agencies such as USAID to play in improving the life or ordinary citizens.
In playing this role, USAID, as all foreign development agencies, should avoid couching its programmes within the context of grandiose goals or as part of some grand economic strategy.
USAID should be commended for its role in building trade capacity with various Government Ministries in Guyana. This is a necessary role but not one that is likely to have the sort of macro-impact on the country as is being touted in USAID factoids.
I have read about some impressive work being done by the British in developing organic farming in Guyana. I have read of micro-projects in the interior being funded by other foreign-funded agencies. And just yesterday there was a report about the work of the Canadian Hunger Foundation in introducing new breeding stock to farmers in Essequibo.
These activities, I feel, highlight the important role that non-governmental organisations can and should play in reducing poverty within communities. There is a niche within this structure/model for increased engagement by foreign development agencies such as USAID.
USAID should avoid getting into the bigger macro-economic picture. For one, USAID should stay clear of any involvement with the National Competitiveness Strategy since this is nothing more than a repackaging of the Social Compact which I have critiqued as constraining wages within the labour market.
If anything, USAID should take consolation from the fact that it is through its auspices the individual who has had the greatest influence on the PPP administration has come to these shores. Given the influence of this one individual, there is no need for USAID to even bother about the larger economic strategy being pursued. It is being scripted just as the West desires.