Recap
In last week’s column I introduced the political economy of Guyana as the fourth distinctive feature of the state as it is presently being reconstituted into what I have termed a “vehicle for criminal enterprise.” I described the political economy as the underlying rhythm or economic logic that governed the production and reproduction of economic livelihoods in Guyana.
This political economy assumes that there is inseparability between economics and politics even if politics is very narrowly construed as referring only to issues of “power”. Readers should be aware that in this instance the assumed inseparability of politics and economics has been for quite a long period a hotly disputed issue. This was so even though the early development of economics was led by scholars and philosophers such as Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and J.S. Mill who explicitly adopted the methodology of political economy. Their method was later emphasized by “radical” economists after World War 11 This was strongly challenged for several decades after by “mainstream” economics
Initially, the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) supported mainstream economics and because much of their “policy advice” was directed at the developing countries the consequences were to say the least disappointing. As a result, there has been in recent years an about face in their approach. These institutions now stress numerous issues of a political economy nature. As we noted two weeks ago in this column they even label “corruption” as the single biggest obstacle to Third World development (World Bank).
Today the roles of the environment, the social structure and social psychology, customary forms of social behaviours, crime, violence and governance are among the many non-economic concerns, which receive most attention in “policy advice” affecting the function of the economy and its prospects for development. Perhaps the widest catchall term for many of these non-economic issues is “governance”. This is the main focus of today’s column.
The fifth element
In Guyana “governance” is a much used, if not abused, term in public debates concerning the future of Guyana. The prevailing forms of governance constitute the fifth distinctive feature of the state as it is being transformed. As I indicated four years ago in this column, by governance I am referring to all features, aspects, modalities and characteristic dimensions of the way in which the country is governed. These include both political and economic forms of governance.
Governance in this broad sense produces the “interface” between all four elements we have considered so far, namely, the criminalized ruling elite, the insidious role of transnational crime, the phantom economy and the political economy of backward capitalism. It is through this interface that the insidious criminalization of the state
is concretized. Thus I have previously observed that, being above and beyond the reaches of domestic law, the ruling elite nonetheless champions “law and order” in Guyana. Because of the hypocrisy in such circumstances human rights abuses and gross injustice to persons outside the ruling elite and its supporters abound. The daily media provide a worrisome testimony of instances of poor political governance.
The area of economic governance has a similarly poor record. Economic governance refers to operations of the state, the private sector, and the international community (in their dealings with the government of Guyana). Four years ago I cited evidence from a number of World Bank/ IMF/ IADB and other assessments of governance in Guyana. To recall, these assessments were prompted by two main concerns. One was the global pressure on these institutions to be more transparent and accountable in their dealings with client governments. This pressure came from worldwide networks of NGOs, faith-based associations, individual scholars, and some influential political parties and governments that had been campaigning against what they termed as the “complicity” of the IFIs in Third World fraud, corruption, mismanagement, and other abuses. The second concern was more specific to Guyana and arose from the obvious contradiction between the substantial flow of aid, technical assistance and policy advice to Guyana and its poor economic growth (averaging 0.8% since 1998) as well as the worsening social and political situation (including corruption, mismanagement, crime and violence).
On recollection one piece of information that stood out was a World Bank survey that found as many as 93% of all state officials who responded to the survey believed that corruption is significant in the public sector. At the same time only nine (9) % of the officials that responded to the survey stated having known of another official being disciplined for embezzlement. There have been several incidents over the past few years of procurement abuses in the tendering process and the non-transparent use of public resources. Four years ago I cited some of these and also referred to two intended projects (health and the upgrading of secondary towns) which had to be withdrawn. At the time I also examined the procurement legislation, which is still not satisfactorily settled.
I cite all the above to substantiate my proposition that the IFIs were always aware of poor governance and have tolerated it. Despite worldwide pressure on the IFIs to be more transparent and accountable, in Guyana these institutions have not done nearly enough to put under public scrutiny all cases where malfeasance has occurred.
Whether it is because of political correctness, the timidity of the experts who represent these institutions in their dealings with the Government of Guyana or fear of “rocking the political boat” the result is that the public interest has not been well served.
In recent years these situations have failed to show signs of improvement. The abuse of authority or trust for private profit is now very widespread. Moreover, if we include in economic governance the various public economic policies that are being pursued and take into account the regulatory and incentive framework in which economic activity takes place as well as the regular and timely flow of information with which to aid the public in their decision-making, the circumstances have significantly worsened.
Next week I shall continue this examination of governance issues.
