More groups are lobbying and making claims and they do not always speak coherently to each other.
This comment was made by Director & Senior Fellow Political Science/International Political Economy, of the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute, UWI Cave Hill campus, Dr. Don D. Marshall who was a guest on radio programme Walter.2 which aired on CBC 100.7 FM on Sunday. Dr. Marshall was responding
to the question by the radio host as to whether the Social Partnership is a success.
The topic of the radio show was focus on social partnership, its continuance, relevance and whether there should be changes made to the initiative.
Elaborating on his statement, Dr. Marshall reviewed the history of the Social Partnership noting that the first ten years of the initiative were the best years. However, he highlighted that “interest group politics defined our space” while social capital remains strong and commented on the present climate.
“You can have the unions engaging in a march for symbolism against an austerity that did not include lay-offs. And you have to ask where is the logic behind that? How does that square up with trying to protect due paying members and trying to protect and look after the interests of the unemployed and the underemployed? How do you march against an austerity that does not mirror or reflect what we normally get...from the IMF where it would be cuts in expenditure and spike in revenue generation,” said Dr. Marshall.
During the programme, the political scientist supported the moderators’ point, who highlighted that in 1990s, the unions marched for the eight percent pay cut and loss of jobs. However in 2013, the Government had proposed restructuring measures where 3000 public workers were to be affected with only 1 300 lay-offs, he pointed out that the unions did not strike. This year, with the new budgetary measures where the outcome is unknown and there is a pending increase of the cost of living, he said that Barbadians are extrapolating on what could occur, which he posited is a dynamic competitive economy.
Home Grown measures vs IMF
Dr. Marshall also spoke about the 1990s IMF structural adjustment programme, the major bargain the country received was some policy space for eighteen months to implement corrective measures. To the suggestions by some that in the 2017 economic scenario, the government should seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund rather than home grown measures, Dr. Marshall explained that though the country would get emergency financing as required, the world has changed.
“The IMF has in fact ...some kind of internal reflection all to do with its own legitimacy crisis still has not yet settled the question of whether or not it should engage a trespass into a country’s public policy but it so does. And the question we need to ask ourselves and it seems the Social Partners have not been inclined to question this, is whether or not we would wish an unelected group of officials from the IMF have a hand on the wheel,” said Dr. Marshall.
Noting his previous comment, Dr. Marshall stated that at this time he could not favour an IMF policy at this stage as across the world, there are battles for public policy autonomy, political discretion and an operational space in which to handle questions to do with austerity and managing ones’ debt and public finances.
“The minute you do not have that policy space to manage your debt situation, and the need to economically diversify, the minute you give that up....you are going to set yourself up for a series of crises down the road. Entering into an arrangement with IMF gives us emergency money but it gives us at a cost,” he stated.
He ended by highlighting that the real problem with the Barbados economy is its limited diversification and entering an arrangement with the IMF does not fix the developmental and only temporarily addresseses the fiscal.