Torture, misplaced
allegiance and
recent police revelations
Last week I announced that I had concluded my reassessment of the criminalisation of the state in Guyana. Consequently, over the past week several readers have sought to persuade me otherwise. They have been encouraging me to continue this analysis since as they point out new evidence was emerging, almost daily as it were, of further deterioration. In particular, they have emphasized reports of torture of persons in police custody, the seemingly misplaced pronouncement of allegiance by the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) to the government first and then the constitution, and recent spectacular revelations by the CID head of the Guyana Police Force about the involvement of organised crime bosses in narcotics trafficking, offers of “protection” to the government, working arrangements with security personnel, as well as some criminal elements connected to the Buxton community.
These are indeed serious developments, which clearly mark the further pathological degeneration of the state. However, the sad truth is that at the present crisis stage we are at, such unwelcome evidence will keep multiplying until the society at large brings a decisive halt to this deterioration. Perhaps I might return to these issues later, but for now I shall proceed with my original intention of engaging other topics. What I do advise up-front is that although these new topics I shall be engaging are seemingly different, they are in fact related to the issues of criminalisation which I have been addressing, as I hope to show.
Competitiveness and
drivers of change
I have repeatedly argued in these columns that the only sure way to sustained economic growth and development of Guyana is through comprehensive efforts to do things smarter, better and more efficiently. Our present growth strategy emphasises “extensive” use of our productive factors (more capital, more labour, more land, more natural resources) rather than their “intensive” use. The history of international development shows, however, that reliance on “extensive” growth factors constitutes the bottom tier in the stages of development, with the top tier occupied by those economies that rely on the “intensive” use of factors (productivity advances and innovation). In the present age of globalisation these drivers of change have become more and more evident as national data are aggregated at the global level to substantiate this hypothesis.
At present, the most important source of these datasets is the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its associated Global Competitiveness Network (GCN). Together these institutions produce the most comprehensive (and I might add, authoritative) global datasets on competitiveness and economic growth. The Global Competitiveness Reports produced by the WEF, and organised and disseminated through the GCN, do for competitiveness considerations what the United Nations Human Development Reports (UNHDR) do for poverty and development.
Global Competitiveness Reports and the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI)
The Global Competitiveness Report first appeared in 1979 as a study of competitiveness in 16 leading European economies. This country coverage was obviously limited but subsequent reports have since broadened the coverage to 131 countries, including developed, developing and transitional economies. Like the UNHDR the methodology used in these studies has also been evolving through time. The Global Competitiveness Index is now the capstone product of the report. It is sufficiently important to us here in Guyana that starting with next week’s column I shall attempt to give a simple, but hopefully accurate, explanation of its methodology for the benefit of readers. Guyana is one of the 131 countries covered in this year’s report along with four other Caricom countries (Barbados, Jamaica, Suriname and Trinidad & Tobago). Because of this I shall also give information on how these countries have performed in the most recent publication of the Global Competitiveness Index.
The pertinent question we may ask at this stage however is: What is to be gained from the publication of these reports? Five answers readily spring to mind. First, such studies help us to identify impediments and obstacles to the enhancement of competitiveness in our national economy and its enterprises and business units. Second, such studies usually provide an indispensable part of a broader attempt at diagnostic analysis, which tries to capture the reasons why impediments and obstacles exist. As readers are well aware without proper diagnosis, there can be no sound solutions, except by pure chance.
Third, such studies, because they are based on global comparisons also allow us the opportunity to capture what may be termed as ‘state-of-the-art’ practices and policies that promote competitive development. In this way countries are better able to design and programme their own remedies. Fourth, as part of such exercises the best tools for monitoring and evaluating improvements in competitiveness can also be designed. It is this element I believe that has been responsible for the continuing improvement in the methodology of the calculation of the Global Competitiveness Index.
Finally, like the UNHDR, such reports provide a firm and factual basis for advocacy for change. In this way it becomes an indispensable tool for persons (like myself) who champion the “intensive” growth path in Guyana and not the factor-driven “extensive” growth path, which presently prevails.
Over the years the WEF has also brought out several supplementary publications to complement its Global Competitiveness Reports. These include specialised studies on the gender gap, information and communication technologies (ICTs), travel and tourism, labour markets and a Business Competitiveness Index. It has also promoted the recent formation of the Community of Global Growth Companies.
Next week I shall focus on the calculation of the GCI and what it seeks to measure.
