Part I of II
By Marlon Bute
In this first essay, I examine why wealth creation must precede wealth distribution, why the Government’s broader economic agenda should be viewed as a coherent strategy for national development, and how investment, entrepreneurship and tourism can expand opportunities for ordinary Vincentians. In Part II, I will examine the historical context, the role of foreign capital in national development, the plantation analogy and why these issues must be viewed through the lens of a modern, independent state.
Professor Justin Robinson in his brand-new column in the Searchlight newspaper has made a thoughtful contribution to the national discussion surrounding the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Global Ports Holding. His central question is whether St. Vincent and the Grenadines will truly benefit from the economic value generated by the port or whether others will reap the greater rewards.
It is an important question, and one that deserves thoughtful consideration. But there is a more fundamental question that must first be answered.
Where is that value today?
Before we debate how prosperity should be divided, we must first create it. Before we argue over the rent, we must first build the enterprise that generates it.
That is where I respectfully part company with Professor Robinson.
My perspective is shaped not only by my study of history but by entrepreneurship. For years I have invested capital, employed people, met payroll, paid taxes and built businesses in sectors where success depends not on theory but on whether customers walk through the door, whether investment is taking place and whether confidence exists within the wider economy.
Entrepreneurs learn very quickly that ownership alone is not prosperity. A man may own a building, but if it stands empty, it produces nothing. Likewise, a nation may own a strategic asset, but if that asset is underdeveloped, poorly managed or disconnected from the wider economy, ownership by itself does not improve the lives of ordinary people. The real question is whether that asset is generating commerce, stimulating investment, creating employment, and building wealth.
It is against that backdrop that I view the economic direction of the new Government.
What has appeared over the past few months appears to be far more than a collection of isolated policy announcements. It reflects what I believe is a deliberate, disciplined, and imaginative economic agenda aimed at expanding the productive capacity of the country, restoring business confidence, attracting investment, strengthening tourism, encouraging private enterprise, and creating the conditions for sustained economic growth.
The same philosophy can be seen in the Government’s emphasis on improving food security and food sovereignty, expanding opportunities within the fisheries sector, strengthening water management, promoting greater fiscal discipline across the public sector, insisting upon higher standards of governance and accountability and seeking to make public institutions more efficient. These are not disconnected initiatives. They are complementary parts of a broader vision to build a more productive, resilient, and prosperous economy.
Necessarily, a good government must concern itself with the creation of wealth. It must create the conditions in which businesses invest, entrepreneurs expand, workers find meaningful employment and families improve their material well-being. That, in my view, is the defining focus of the new NDP Government.
In my assessment, the administration has deliberately set out to replace an economic philosophy centred on state control and dependence with one centred on enterprise, investment, productivity, and wealth creation. I believe that marks a fundamental departure from the approach of the previous regime, which, in my opinion, relied too heavily on an expanding state, a culture of dependency and welfare policies that served political ends by encouraging electoral support and reinforcing the centralisation and retention of power.
The difference is more than ideological. It has profound implications for the future of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. A country cannot sustainably redistribute what it does not first produce. Lasting prosperity is created when government sets up the conditions in which private initiative flourishes, investment is welcomed, businesses grow and ordinary citizens are empowered to create wealth for themselves and their families.
It is equally important to appreciate where we are coming from.
St. Vincent and the Grenadines is operating under significant fiscal constraints. Public debt is high, economic challenges have accumulated over many years and the capacity of Government to finance every major development project from its own resources is necessarily limited. The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Dr. the Honourable Godwin Friday, has repeatedly spoken about the need to restore sound public fiscal management, strengthen fiscal discipline and rebuild confidence in the economy. Those aims are not optional. They are essential if the country is to place itself on a more sustainable path.
Several months ago, in an article published in iWitness News, I argued that years of poor fiscal management, mismanagement and corruption had left the country confronting distressing economic choices. We are therefore not beginning from a position of abundance. We are beginning from a position that requires disciplined leadership, difficult decisions and a willingness to embrace policies that expand the productive capacity of the economy.
That is why attracting responsible investment matters.
A country facing constrained public finances cannot realistically expect Government alone to modernise its infrastructure, transform its tourism product, finance major developments, and simultaneously satisfy every social need. Public resources have limits. Responsible private investment, intelligently negotiated and properly regulated, enables a nation to accelerate development while preserving scarce public resources for education, healthcare, security, and social protection.
Governments cannot permanently improve living standards simply by redistributing limited resources. They improve lives by creating an environment in which businesses invest, entrepreneurs expand, workers find employment and families earn better incomes. That is how food reaches the tables of ordinary Vincentians. It is how young people find reasons to remain at home rather than seek opportunities abroad. It is how communities become stronger, more confident, and more prosperous.
As someone who owns a construction company and a business that supplies construction materials, I instinctively evaluate economic policy through a practical lens.
When I hear that investment is coming, I at once think about what it means for contractors, suppliers, tradespeople, and small businesses. Will hotels renovate? Will restaurants expand? Will commercial buildings be upgraded? Will more homes be constructed? Will suppliers sell more products? Will carpenters, masons, electricians, plumbers, painters, and transport operators find more work?
These are not theoretical questions. They are the questions entrepreneurs ask because the answers determine whether an economy is expanding or standing still.
If Kingstown becomes more vibrant, if tourism grows, if confidence returns and if private investment increases, I know precisely what that means. It means more demand for materials, more contracts for contractors, more employment for workers and more opportunities for businesses throughout the economy.
That observation is not unique to my own business. It is simply how healthy economies function. One successful investment stimulates another. One expanding business creates opportunities for several others. Economic activity multiplies as it moves through the economy, touching people who may never have any direct connection with the original investment.
Walk through Kingstown today and look honestly at the condition of our capital. Too many buildings have fallen into disrepair. Too many businesses struggle simply to remain open. Too many vendors wait patiently for customers who never arrive. Too many taxi drivers spend long hours hoping for a fare. Too many young people look at the city and see limited opportunity rather than possibility.
This is not the Kingstown that our country deserves. Nor is it the Kingstown that a modern tourism economy should produce.
A modern cruise port, properly managed and effectively connected to the wider economy, has the potential to become one of the catalysts for changing that reality. Not because any investor is a saviour, and certainly not because foreign capital alone solves every problem, but because increased economic activity creates opportunities for countless Vincentians whose livelihoods depend upon a vibrant economy.
Every cruise passenger who steps ashore stands for potential business for a taxi driver, a tour guide, a restaurant owner, a craft vendor, a boat operator, a farmer, a fisher, a shopkeeper, or a small entrepreneur. Multiply those opportunities by thousands of passengers over hundreds of cruise calls and one begins to appreciate that cruise tourism is not merely about ships docking at a port. It is about livelihoods. It is about commerce. It is about creating wealth where too little presently exists.
To be continued in Part II: Why history should inform rather than imprison us, why the plantation analogy does not adequately explain the choices confronting a modern independent state, and why the intelligent use of capital, competent negotiation and wealth creation are indispensable to the future of St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of ANN. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].