The Huff and Puff Is Affecting Me and Other Bajans! Let Us Deal With Some Facts – Part III

George C. Brathwaite

Indeed, it is not being openly said, although being quietly refashioned in other words, that the DLP-led government’s approach to privatisation and divestment is very much a policy option for reducing the burgeoning costs of public expenditure should the party retain its majority in the Barbados House of Assembly. Privatisation and divestment are terms which form part of the DLP’s main post-2012 general elections economic formulae. That the DLP is investing in following particular policy prescriptions from elsewhere is only problematic when they do not gel with the things required in the national interests of Barbados. However, it is the obtuse temerity that the DLP engages for using those two words – privatisation and divestment – that is getting lost amidst the executive’s choice to confuse and keep Barbadians in the dark.

The leadership of the BLP is clearly upfront in its efforts to trigger debate on issues of privatisation and divestment, and putting into the open ideas that can generate innovative waves of thinking in order to progress Barbados. Mindful that Chris Sinckler makes the familiar but distorted and incorrect charge that “it was the choice of the last administration to squander the opportunities of the boom years and not restructure the Barbados economy,” the current Minister of Finance readily admits that there is a requirement that the DLP has to function in a way that makes the Barbadian economy “more diversified and resilient to economic shock.”

See related link:

If one enters through the front door as the BLP chooses to do, or clandestinely prefers the backdoor as Sinckler and the DLP are demonstrating, the meanings of privatisation and divestment are not at all altered. The meanings are still about the dispensing of assets or control in order to gain benefits that can be re-directed elsewhere in the economy and at the same time bring about cost efficiencies and build the propensity for economic growth and development in Barbados.

The evidence is clear that less centralisation and a reduction in bureaucracy coupled with the need for efficiencies are necessary given the dominance of the market. It becomes a matter of how does one proceed either to regulate or facilitate business; and how will the derived benefits be distributed within the economy? It is to these considerations that the purposes of the economic policies being contemplated by the DLP need to be clearly said and discussed with Barbadians by those in charge of the country’s economic and development affairs. Forthrightness has not quite been the case emerging from the twists and backdoor entries of Sinckler and the DLP.

Owen Arthur is candid with Barbadians when he asserts that “it is clear that major adjustments have to be made to the scope and nature of Government’s direct involvement in the economy and society.” More telling is Arthur’s crucial statement that:

A regime of fiscal incentives for social transformation … and specific incentives to enable the private sector to invest in new education and health care facilities will ensure that the private sector is encouraged to fill any void in our social capital development that is caused by reduced Government spending. In addition, the State has to go as far as possible with a privatisation programme and use the proceeds to pare down debt and to support the capital programme.

The Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, and several other DLP advocates, while refraining from addressing these issues of privatisation with a head-on view of informed discussion with the Barbadian public, have been blame-prone and accusatory against anyone presenting alternative views on the directions for Barbados. The DLP propaganda machinery has insincerely and unapologetically said that Arthur and the BLP will send home over a 1,000 persons from the public sector because of its privatisation/divestment plans, despite failing to provide evidence and in the face of refutation.

One can only surmise that there is a gross misunderstanding by the DLP of what privatisation/divestment entails, or there could have been some deliberateness designed to spook, if not falsify claims, to a public sector that has barely been given space to breathe. The DLP ought to be aware that Barbados is a small society and persons in the public sector have witnessed many of their families and friends in the private sector being sent home or having their days of work cut from 40 hours weekly.

Eking out a living on 10 or 12 meagre hours is unacceptable in Barbados. Any administration in Barbados that engineers policies and actions that promote maintaining a high public expenditure in terms of wages geared for the public sector but equally renders the underbelly of the private sector dispensable, does not understand development and economic growth in the 21st century. The DLP regime is eroding the social fabric that held Barbados as a place of political and civil stability. Prime Minister Stuart and Chris Sinckler, along with the entire non-dissenting Cabinet – resignation is always an option – are exposing the vulnerabilities that social scientists say are characteristic of populations in small open societies being governed by the wrong set of people at the most damaging and detrimental of times. The DLP says it cares about Barbadians and wants to improve the economy and society; it must do that or give way to the group that is serious about facing and addressing such a challenge.

On reflection, one must remember that it was David Thompson in his first budget speech as Prime Minister in 2008 that said his government intended to sell its remaining assets in the Barbados National Bank and the Insurance Corporation of Barbados. In fact, Thompson at the time said that “the proceeds of these sales will be used to fund part of the upgrading and expansion of the QEH.”Now tell me, why is it that so many silent DLP voices are pushing the view that the BLP’s position for engaging with private enterprise in order to maintain an acceptable standard of living in Barbados, and to move the country forward in a direction of economic growth, is something outlandish? It is clear from the mouths of the past DLP’s Finance Ministers, that they too spoke of and endorsed privatisation and divestment of currently held but underperforming state assets.

To say that divestment is not an option at this time and that it goes against the nationalisation for development policy tool implemented after independence is debateable. However, one must guard against acquiring a similar mind-set to that of Sinckler since he himself has said that Barbados would have to re-adjust their minds and attitudes to economic development with divestment as an option, but is reluctant to stand up in public for what he says his DLP team will actually do.

The BLP has successfully pursued a divestment path in Barbados and the rewards meant Barbados enjoyed a higher standard of living and quality of life than they are currently experiencing under the procrastinating DLP administration. For example, and during

some economic turbulence, Barbados had to pursue initiatives and policies that coincided with the changing rules of trade after the coming into being of the WTO, adjust to the calamities resulting from the 1997/98 Asian Tiger fiasco that filtered into the Americas, and later having to address the dire situation for tourism in Barbados after the 9/11 trauma that brought profound changes in the way that international transport and travel would impact on the tourist industry. The Arthur-led BLP regime responded with purposeful policies. The BLP ensured that the sale and divestment of state assets were used largely to reinvest in the productive sectors of the economy which had a greater propensity for earning much valued foreign exchange.

In addition, and to a lesser extent, proceeds from government’s divestments were used to help maintain that quality of life associated Barbadians became accustomed to since the debacle of the 1991-94 period under the Sandiford-led DLP administration. The practicality of the Arthur inspired policies enhanced the strength of Barbados’ social services while at the same time providing the threshold from which over 30, 000 jobs were created in the Barbadian economy to the extent that by the time of exit in January 2008, the unemployment rate in Barbados was just over 6 %, easily the best this side of the Central and South Americas.

To sum up, Owen Arthur contends that Barbados cannot afford to be riveted to policy directives and out-of-touch economic manipulations that are “carried out through punitive taxation and other draconian pricing policies by state monopolies [which] can only bear adversely on the private economy and are likely to prove counter-productive. Such policies are likely also to be unsustainable.” Barbados must now stand up and call on the government of the day to bring the economic directions for Barbados in the open so that they do not experience any similar or worse conditions than those of the early 1990s.

I concur and hope that many more Bajans will see the rationale in Arthur’s urging that “an appropriate and coherent response to the fiscal crisis which confronts the country can help to establish an environment that supports private sector led growth. It is clear that major adjustments have to be made to the scope and nature of Government’s direct involvement in the economy and society.” We as Barbadians must stand up and be counted; enough of the huff and puff coming from the DLP under the slothful, indecisive, woeful, and uninspiring combination of Messieurs Stuart and Sinckler.

0 thoughts on “The Huff and Puff Is Affecting Me and Other Bajans! Let Us Deal With Some Facts – Part III

  1. please for the love of god name one country run by Negroes that is not total chaos and thievery .name one?

  2. This privatization / divestment issue is a ‘done deal’. The mandate has been handed down and it just a matter of implementation within the coming months regardless of the electoral outcome. It’s simply a case of head you lose tails the IMF wins. The only thing left to debate is which State-owned entity goes on the auction block first and which ones are merged or disestablished. Transport Board or CBC?

    Many of the services now performed “in-house” will be outsourced to private consortiums or individuals. School meals, kitchen and catering, maintenance at the QEH, Psychiatric and geriatric hospitals, security guard services at nearly all government institutions will be on the table for outsourcing. The Police and Defence Force will also witness a radical shake up of operations especially in the ‘civilian-type’ functions.

    So where do we start? The Central Revenue Authority (CRA– the equivalent of the UK’s Revenue & Customs) that will undergo radical rationalization of the four Departments? What would the government do? Keep the existing support services staff and buildings with the current massive overheads?

    How many heads do we need? A Commissioner of Inland Revenue and his/her supernumerary deputies and assistants? Likewise a Comptroller of Customs & Excise? What about the Land Tax Commissioner?
    Or are we going to see a turf war where all three top dogs are kept in the same building trying to do the same thing and fighting for ‘authority’?

    Hopefully the IMF and the lending agency financing the “rationalization” will make the ‘wise’ decisions for us.

  3. @ David | October 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM |

    The Social Partnership had nearly 20 years to do the necessaries to restructure this economy. What has that tripartite arrangement achieved? Contain wage demands and prevent layoffs without compensation?

    As long as the forex was flowing FDI (including sale of assets), remittances and borrowings that arrangement was no more than a good counselor, go-between and sometimes scapegoat to stave of social unrest.

    You know what is before us where forex is concerned. The devil takes the hindmost when it gets much lower in the new year when reserves will fall to their lowest since 1992.
    The unions have found themselves in bed with both political parties, especially the DLP. What are the unions going to do now? Jump ship? Changing colors to their masts from yellow and blue to red will not make a difference.

    Unions will be well advised to encourage their members (existing or potential) to embrace change and facilitate the transition from a public sector focus employment landscape to one created by privatization and divestment.

    • @Miller

      Following your argument so far but you have stopped shorts of the mechanics, the execution. Please continue.

  4. Miller doesn.t that translate into sending home thousands of civil servants and what about the social safety net how what plans would the BLP have put in placeto handle the numerous unemployed who would have no choice but to go for govt assistance again expanding govt and a further rise in defecit this ball belongs to the BLP who is trying their best to include the DLP as part of this scheme

  5. @ ac | October 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM |

    Why don’t you stay out of this debate unless you accept the premise that whichever party wins the coming elections the role of the State in the provision of goods and services must be radically refocused with many of its existing agencies transferred over to private enterprise?

    Are you are aware of what is in store (planned under the last administration but being implemented by this DLP administration) for the Inland Revenue, Customs & Excise,
    Licensing Authority and Land Tax departments of Central Government far less statutory corporations?

  6. @ David | October 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM |

    What do you mean by “the mechanics”? Are you referring to the following queries to be addressed by both parties in their individual policy document on privatization and divestment?

    Which agencies would be up for privatization?

    Who would be the takers and new owners and managers?

    How would consideration be negotiated and agreed? Lawyers can really expect a field day and large paychecks.

    How would the workers be compensated for loss of position or job?
    Would a loan from the NIS or the proceeds of a bond flotation be used to payout these workers pending receipt of proceeds from the sale to private investors?
    Would they be offered opportunities with the new private entities and would that be part of the deal?
    Would priority be given to small business consortiums and worker based collectives?
    Would restrictions be placed on foreign investors or would we be selling mainly to get forex?

  7. We all know that rationalisation must take place. It is disingenuous for either of the two political parties to try to politicise the issue or try to use scare tactics to try to win an election. Which ever party wins, the issues must be faced and fixed.

    Does the DLP think that they can have a rerun of the 1991 election when they denied that there were plans to send home civil servants? And how did that turn out for them in the long run anyway?

    Does the BLP think that whistling in the dark would help them over time? Aside from contesting the slur about an alleged plan to cut 10,000 civil service jobs, they need to find ways to engage the country in this conversation. It will be very hard in this political environment, but it has to be done.

    Barbadians need a mature discussion of our limited options so that we can get a national consensus going forward.

  8. @ David | October 22, 2012 at 1:11 PM |
    “That is correct. Let us move away from the genera and vanilla terms and talk mole negation.”

    I identified in an earlier thread the known and probable agencies that will be on the early auction block for sale, divestment merger or closure.

    Do you want to come up with your own ‘wish list’ or are you frightened for ac and CCC?

    Once we have established a list for the working framework we can proceed to debate possible ownership patterns and time frames.

  9. @Miller

    You are moving too fast.

    Before we get to wish list let us examine how the macro environment will be impacted. Given the rhetoric between the two parties about economy and society how do we manage the impact of dismantling/destabilising the tax base.

  10. Stay out of what debate.this is an open forum all opinions are open. any how did you not hear Chris snickler say that the IMF is not going tob control policies of barbados and PM stuart said that the harsh austerity methods used in greece spain and britian have caused plenty of upheveal you and arthur can try convincing yourself but bajans not going accept all the selling of barbados to pay off debt. and please stop trying to implement The DLP as part of wunna plan

  11. @ David | October 22, 2012 at 2:59 PM |
    “how do we manage the impact of dismantling/destabilising the tax base.”

    The current fiscal policies and economic drag have been destabilising the tax base for the last 4 years now. These depressing measures along with recessionary effects in the international markets have been the bane of Barbados current economic woes.

    The question is how do we contain and reverse it. The public sector does not generate its own tax base but relies on a dynamic private sector for tax revenues. Barbados is not China with State capitalism at its core of economic growth.

    It follows therefore any significant contraction in the private sector economic activity would result in a concomitant narrowing of the government’s tax base. How can the country afford such a large bureaucracy with a dwindling revenue base?

    We are not faced with a ‘which comes first the chicken or egg’ scenario.
    There must be State withdrawal from so much economic oriented activity to allow the private sector to breathe and expand thereby widening the government’s tax base to generate revenues to meet its social obligations and the supply of genuine public goods like basic health, education to secondary and part-tertiary level, law enforcement, justice and national security.

    • @Miller

      It seems you have identified a current state and a future state. What some of us are not seeing is the bridge being proposed that will manage the transition. We cannot convert what we all agree is a public sector led economy to a private sector led as you advocate without provisioning for collateral damage. Do you agree and if so speak to it.

  12. @ ac | October 22, 2012 at 3:26 PM |

    I am not shutting you out of the debate. You were early into the Privatization vs. Divestment debate which you floundered on.

    All we are asking is that you accept the need for government to shed some of its load in areas where the private sector can play a role.

    Your party has signed on to this both in principle and in its actions.
    All we ask of you is to argue within those confines of agreement.

    But before proceeding with the debate you must give BU readers your understanding of the following extracts from the government’s loan application to the IADB.
    Some of the commitments have been already fulfilled such as the keeping of the VAT to 17.5 % and expected to rise to 20% in the next budget.
    Can’t you see reductions in staff complement and divestment of certain functions written over the application document?

    “Component II. Strengthening of tax revenues. The objective of this component
    is to strengthen the tax policy and administration system, ensuring more effective
    tax revenue collection. The programme will support the: (i) review of the
    efficiency of the tax system, including tax policy, tax rates and tax administration;
    (ii) establishment of a Central Revenue Authority (CRA) to consolidate revenue
    collection agencies under one umbrella and; (iii) modernisation programme for
    the Customs, Excise and VAT departments. The targets for the first operation are:
    (i) make permanent an increase in the VAT rate from 15% to 17.5%; (ii) an
    increase of 50% in the excise tax on gasoline and other fees; and (iii) the
    elimination of tax-free allowances.

    Component III. Improving control and quality of expenditure. The objective
    of this component is to support the GoB efforts to improve the quality and control
    of the allocation of resources to entities of the general government. The
    programme will support measures to control the growth of expenditure, which
    include: (i) containing transfers by rationalising the cost of personal emoluments;
    (ii) increasing the efficiency of the procurement system by strengthening the
    procurement framework and; (iii) reducing levels of spending on goods and services.”

  13. miller cannot agree because all he see is the grass greener on the other side but no the scorched earth all the slash and burn policies advocated by the BLP would wrecked havoc not only on familes but the social fabric of this country.barbados does not have the amount of private companies in place to pick up any of the unemployed that the govt unloads and as soon as the govt start unloading the private sector now in place would use that as an opportunity to downsize see what we have here is mass confusion on one hand the govt is letting people go and then the public sector adds more . what we need to do is to handle or ineffeciences put a cap on further spending and wastage but selling or privatising is a short term solution with long term problems, sinckler and PM has laid it out that they are going to stay the course .BTW miller what methods are you and the BLP going to use to privatise,,

  14. @ David:

    Today’s sitting of Parliament should make for interesting debate and listening.
    It should provide both parties (if they worth their salt and fancy their electoral chances) the opportunity to set out their privatization/divestment stalls. We shall hear who is serious or who intends to hoodwink the electorate and bleed taxpayers with this financially haemorrhaging political football of a vital service.

    The DLP needs to be honest and tell us that this administration has already made a commitment to the IADB that this “TB” entity will be the first to go to satisfy one of the conditionalities of the loan application and disbursement of funds.

  15. Miller you need to stop peddling propaganda about the loan i meaning your are very disengenious it is/allabout you and the BLP trying to convince bajans that the BLP and DLP are on the same page about implementing harsh austerity method by cutting jobs and privatisation by “sale” nothing to do with the loan when actually chris sinclker stated that divestment through sales of shares

  16. @ ac | October 23, 2012 at 9:43 AM |
    “… when actually chris sinclker stated that divestment through sales of shares ”

    So when these shares are sold who would be buying them? Not private sector interests and individuals? Or do you think that the government would be buying up the shares via the NIS? Do you consider the credit unions to be private sector entities or just extensions of labour unions which are themselves arms of the political parties?

    Why don’t you stop fooling yourself and come clean that both parties have privatization / divestment on their agenda to reflect the economic zeitgeist set for Barbados by the IMF and its handmaidens.

  17. @ David | October 23, 2012 at 10:19 AM |

    There is no bridge anymore. That has been blown up since 1993.
    We were given a number of life rafts along the way but we failed to make it to the other bank but kept back and living “sweet’ like those on the upper class deck of the Titanic We are in the water now and it is a matter of sink or swim.

    The only piece of log floating is that of privatization.

    Ask ac if he can see a bridge to cross safely.

  18. @ David | October 23, 2012 at 10:32 AM |
    It’s a given that private enterprises because of the profit motive are more efficient than State-owned enterprises of a commercial nature.
    Greater output means higher GDP results.
    As long as the privatized entities are not involved totally in the import distribution sector greater demand for goods and services produced locally will resulting forex savings.
    Currently the commercially oriented entities owned by the State are not inefficient and are certainly not earners of foreign exchange.

    The main returns would be efficiency gains and greater output for the economy.
    Currently we are generating negative returns and financial waste and price distortions because of political interference and corruption in these State-owned and control entities like the TB, CBC, NCC, BADMC & BSIL and QEH.

  19. @Miller

    How do private companies efficiently deliver in instances where there are social obligations?

    How do you see ownership impacting the social heartbeat of our little country?

  20. @ David | October 23, 2012 at 10:56 AM |

    First you have to tell me if you would accept that there is a difference between “social obligations” and “public goods”. A social obligation is determined by a political philosophy of the party forming the administration of the day whereas public goods are necessary function of any State. The provision of public goods is the raison d’être of the State.

    If that more than subtle difference can be agreed upon it would determine my response to your second question.

    • @Miller

      A good question but BU is of the view before the philosophy of the people must define both. A public good is bound up in what kind of country we want to shape.

  21. @David | October 23, 2012 at 5:43 PM |
    “A good question but BU is of the view before the philosophy of the people must define both. A public good is bound up in what kind of country we want to shape.”

    Ok David let us assume there is a game called “One (1) for Me and Two (2) for You”. Me being the functions that must remain solely the functions of the State and You being the Social obligations manifested in a political contract between a political party (socialist or conservative) and the citizenry/electorate in a country governed along democratic lines with a capitalist market oriented principles as the bedrock of its economy, say like Barbados.

    I am going to show my hand to reveal the following cards identifying the functions and responsibilities entrusted primarily to the purview of the State and its executing arm the government:

    • Protection of citizens from danger to life and contraband from internal or external threats. National Security in the form of Prison, Defence Force and Coast Guard given our vulnerable geographical island status.
    • Law enforcement.
    • Administration of Justice.
    • Protect the general health of the citizens and residents against outbreaks of epidemics through preventative programmes such as immunization and provision of basic health facilities and education.
    • Make available opportunities for young citizens to equip themselves with literacy and numeracy skills, a measure of civic responsibility to enjoy their rights as citizens and general knowledge to allow them to enter the world of enterprise to earn a living and not be a burden on the community or the State. (Free Primary education and Secondary education up to Six Form level to meet the demands of a rational society).
    • Protection of the vulnerable and disadvantaged either through accident of birth, physical or mental disabilities, infirmity, old age or minorities.
    • Creation of a legislative framework and the provision of resources to facilitate these functions are efficiently, economically effectively carried out for the protection and betterment of the citizens.

    You should note however that the government does not necessarily have to be directly involved in the actual supply of the goods or services but can either “buy-in” or “outsource” the goods, services or operations from the other private players whether companies, firms or individuals.

    This would indicate that the effective management of any democratic State is not a “black or white” issue but one of interrelationships and interdependence between the government and the private sector to meet the expected goals of the citizens and by extension consumers. These symbiotic relationships- economic and otherwise- should be determined by the strengths and weaknesses of the parties in the union and can reflect any of the different outcomes of a Venn diagram in set theory.

    Now let us see your hand containing those “Social Obligations” that a government should deliver to its citizens either directly or through some private sector mediums.

  22. @ David | October 24, 2012 at 7:01 PM

    You have all the time in the world, my friend. As long as it effluxes before the copycat parties roll out their manifestos. At least we have to give them something to include, albeit embellished and softened up for the naive readers’ consumption.

  23. it is a basic right if only on humanitarian grounds for govt to provide the basic necessities in life for its citizens like food and water and good health care the same right cannot be attributed to the private sector except in “good conscience” they choose to do so

  24. ac | October 24, 2012 at 8:32 PM |
    “it is a basic right if only on humanitarian grounds for govt to provide the basic necessities in life for its citizens like food and water and good health care”

    You mean like Park food, liposuction and stomach bypass along with breast implants and dick enlargements too?
    What kind of foolishness is this?
    It is this kind of cradle to grave mentality of people like you that would always be the heavy weight on the further advancement of this resource poor country. Begging and relying on handouts will be this country’s economic and subsequent social undoing.
    Get up off your lazy backside and go and produce to live, you parasite.
    Leave that to the vulnerable and disabled.

  25. look at you typical BLP lingo always ready to paint everybody with the same brush anyhow your brain is so scrambled you can’t even realise that a govt must provide basic necessities not even talking about ‘freeness . just a sound and sensible form of goverance in which a society would be able to function.

  26. Now that miller has briought himself to the lowest of lows by attacking Me with words of venom and profanity befitting of one who would associate themselves with people of like minds trying to convince the public of SELLING of barbados assests who would be the reall”a…ss lickers to do so following his destructive advice i would like to tell barbados#1 douc…h b…g miller to get off his arrsss and find a “real job” and stop trying to sell a bunch of hotair befitting of a snake oil salesman

  27. @ ac | October 25, 2012 at 8:37 AM |

    You will not stop vilifying OSA despite my numerous warnings.
    “Do unto others as you will them do unto you.”

    Until you can bring evidence to convince us here on BU that OSA is an incompetent corrupt crook who mismanaged the affairs of this country- and in your blinkered lying eyes is still doing it from the Opposition’s bench- you will be attacked mercilessly.
    ‘Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.’

    I have no personal brief for OSA but enough is enough, ac. Attack the man policies or proposals for managing the country but you must stop accusing the man of stealing and corruption when similar occurrences are staring us right in the face right now; with hard audited evidence to boot.

  28. See you are a propagandist of the highest leve twist and change people comments to fit your own purpose it is indicative ofyou to do so consistenly with out regret and remorse like accusing me of calling the RT Hon a thief you know i have enough legal counsel to go after yuh dead arsss fuh yuh to show such proof time and time again you have put words in my mouth which are down right lies BTW couldn.t give a rats arss on how you respond as long a your comments are not a concoction of your demented mind

  29. @ ac | October 25, 2012 at 10:18 AM |
    ” and remorse like accusing me of calling the RT Hon a thief you know i have enough legal counsel to go after yuh dead arsss fuh yuh to show such proof time and time again you have put ”

    So what is Owen Seymour Arthur in your estimation?

    Remember that everything you have said about OSA is indelibly recorded on BU. And you will not want to go down the legal route now, would you?
    OSA might just been enjoined in the suit.
    You still want to try it?

  30. Miller SOB i have records of everything i comment here on BU not gonna run scared from you and the likes of the RT HON can.t intimidate me .or shut me up

  31. Like other governmental economic activities, also privatization, such as in the sale of government-owned property, is particularly at the risk of cronyism. Privatizations in Russia, Latin America, and East Germany were accompanied by large scale corruption during the sale of the state owned companies. Those with political connections unfairly gained large wealth, which has discredited privatization in these regions.]
    Industries with an oligarchy of companies can be quite corrupt, with collusive price-fixing, pressuring dependent businesses, etc., and only by having a portion of the market owned by someone other than that oligarchy, i.e. public sector, can keep them in line. If the public sector company is making money and selling their product for half of the price of the private sector companies, the private sector companies won’t be able to simultaneously gouge to that degree and keep their customers: the competition keeps them in line. Private sector corruption can increase the poverty and helplessness of the population, so it can affect government corruption, in the long-term.[citation needed]

  32. @Miller

    The challenge with a privatization/divestment strategy is managing the equation:

    Economic investment + Social investment = National development

    One gets the impression that the BLP is focused only on satisfying an economic strategy.

  33. The best time for Government to privatise entities is when the economy is growing.

    It is wise to start planning the future of Barbados and come up with sound policies given the modern world we live in.

    Privatisation of Government entities at this time should not end up as a fire sale to greedy Trinidadians and Canadians.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.