They still ask: Why doesn't Jamaica grow?....

[Rockman]

Well done Islandman,I am always persuaded by good arguments, thanks.
Strongly disagree with the part about keeping stae ownership to a minmum;Jamaica is not guilty of doing otherwise and besides it is not embraced becuase of ideological differences between political approach(the communists are coming).
But I do agree my initial post is probably falacious.


Blessed

[Don1]

Islandman;218179]Rockman, how would the oil shock of the 70s have affected Jamaica more than Barbados?

Why indeed!

The fact is Barbados is doing significantly better than even Trinidad with its energy resources...they have higher per capita GDP

Education and good social relations/social capital has been key....more important than natural resources.

[ReggaeMike]

Very good points. Excellent post.

thanks

[Willi]

Small disagreement. The PNP hit a wall in 1996...long before 2002.

To me PJ messed up what Manley laid down.

[Islandman]

Very good points. Excellent post.

[Mosiah]

interesting!

[ReggaeMike]

I think the article is making an invidious comparison,and all the experts are merely reciting statistics without suggesting/stating reasons, well other than the one implied(it is our fault).Grant you our politicians make a bad situation even worse but...
A reasonable comparison would be comparing Barbados to Trindad, they both have a small population in comparison to ours, they have petroleum and natural gas(it's said wars are started over the stuff), and yes they are both doing okay.The economy crashing oil crisis of the 70s would affect Jamaica more than it would both countries(it probably benefited...), and that isn't our fault.Yes, it is our fault for signing the free trade agreement, they did too, but it helps to have the cushion they have.
This isn't an endorsement of our leaders, no doubt they failed Jamaica.
I want to know why?


Blessed

That wouldn't be a good comparison:

1. Barbados is currently in the process of searching for offshore oil and gas. They haven't yet produced anything significant and they certainly never even knew of any major fields existing in the 1970s (unlike Trinidad). Barbados first started producing oil in the early 1980s from very small onshore fields and at no point have they produced enough for real commercial purposes, let alone to be self-sufficient (at best they produce maybe 1/10th of what they need). Trinidad however was a known source of oil from the 1800s and a small amount of production was started in the 1900s and before World War I, Trinidad was already producing more oil (and in commercial quantities) than Bim could ever get on a daily basis from it's onshore fields.

2. Unlike Barbados, Trinidad changed it's institutions in the 1970s (becoming a republic in 1976) and also unlike Barbados and Jamaica, T&T experienced an oil boom in the 1970s which boosted their economy thanks to the oil shock of 1973. So there the standard of living (and salaries) increased as oil production increased. Remember Barbados has always had to import oil (even when they started producing their own in the 1980s) so nothing like what T&T experienced would have happened in a net oil-importer like Barbados or Jamaica.

3. The population of Trinidad is not that small, certainly not any more comparable to Barbados than Jamaica's population is. In any event you must have missed the rest of the statistics cited in the article which showed that Barbados and Jamaica are virtual clones in terms of their economy. Plus the size of the population (and a territory) isn't as important as how productive a population is and how interconnected a population is. For instance Singapore only has about as many people as the English-speaking Caribbean (6 million) crammed into an island the size of Dominica while China has 1/6ths of the world's population (1 billion) in one of the top 10 biggest countries on earth. However in 1980, Singapore's GDP per capita was US$4,859 (within the top 50 at the time) but China's was US$191 (ranked 141st and on par with Nepal, Somalia, Bangladesh and Uganda that had just suffered invasion from Tanzania and finally gotten rid of Idi Amin). Both Barbados and Jamaica started out with fairly productive populations, then Jamaica fell away.

So how could they properly compare the effects of policies as opposed to institutions or other factors if Trinidad and Barbados' economies were significantly different and if both countries started using different institutions since the 1970s?

That study seemed like a pretty good study and the most damning parts of it basically point out that neither the JLP nor the PNP had a clue on what to do since 1962 - the JLP from 1962 to 1972 just living off the good times (mainly caused by outside factors as opposed to anything done by Jamaica) while trouble in the bauxite sector brewed until it become a major problem (which was probably bound to cause a decrease in productivity and living standards) and did nothing to head off the problem; the PNP from 1972 until 1980 instituting policies which only exacerbated these problems and created new ones and the JLP from 1980 until 1986/1987 obviously not instituting the right corrective polices (note that in the graph shown in the PDF on page 15 that the between 1980 and 1987 the Jamaican standard of living continued to decrease which is a pretty sad fact when one considers that it only took one year (1972) for Jamaica to tumble and it certainly didn't take 7 years for Barbados to make any of the 2-4 turnarounds in their standard living). From that point on the JLP (1987 to 1989) and the PNP (1989 to 2002) seemed to do okay enough to get the standard of living moving upwards again but it is likely that this might well be due to outside factors as occurred in 1962 to 1972.

[Islandman]

Rockman, how would the oil shock of the 70s have affected Jamaica more than Barbados?

From the original paper:

"The inflation rate in Barbados also spiked in the early 1970s, hitting a peak of 39 percent in 1975, but Barbados’s policy response to the external shocks that precipitated the spike could not have been more different than Jamaica’s. First of all, Barbados avoided nationalization, kept state ownership to a minimum, and adopted an outward-looking growth strategy (Blackman, 2006, page 390). Second, instead of taking an accommodative stance that delayed the inevitable retrenchment needed to adjust to higher energy prices, policy makers in Barbados kept government spending under control."

[Rockman]

I think the article is making an invidious comparison,and all the experts are merely reciting statistics without suggesting/stating reasons, well other than the one implied(it is our fault).Grant you our politicians make a bad situation even worse but...
A reasonable comparison would be comparing Barbados to Trindad, they both have a small population in comparison to ours, they have petroleum and natural gas(it's said wars are started over the stuff), and yes they are both doing okay.The economy crashing oil crisis of the 70s would affect Jamaica more than it would both countries(it probably benefited...), and that isn't our fault.Yes, it is our fault for signing the free trade agreement, they did too, but it helps to have the cushion they have.
This isn't an endorsement of our leaders, no doubt they failed Jamaica.
I want to know why?


Blessed

[Mosiah]

not doing that at all!

[Islandman]

It would be unfair to throw most of the blame on the opposition party, even though they certainly played a role in the damage done to the society in that time.

Maybe we were confronted with a perfect storm: a PNP leader who had a Messiah complex and thought he could do no wrong, coming face to face with a JLP Leader who wanted power by any means necessary.

[Islandman]

I agree, the debt is more a symptom than the disease.

My bredren who studied in Bdos always used to tell me that the level of education and knowledge among the general population there is striking. He said you can even pick up the difference in a rum bar or curry goat cricket conversation.

[Mosiah]

what kind of an opposition party did Barrow have?

[Islandman]

There must be reasons. But how many of them were self inflicted and how many were external forces?

Here is the thing to keep in mind: Errol Barrow of Barbados was as much of a nationalist and almost as much of a socialist as Michael Manley was. He was no friend of the USA.

So maybe its not ideology as much as it is implementation that made the difference.

[Mosiah]

fair enuff!