Last week, we began a discussion of Guyana’s public financial management systems in both the pre-1992 and post-1992 periods. We noted that after a period of marked decline and deterioration during the 1970s and the early 1980s, some effort was made by the Hoyte Administration to reverse this trend. However, the effort was affected by the need to address the dire economic situation that was inherited. Nevertheless, it was a good start, only to be interrupted by the results of the 1992 elections.
We touched on financial management in the post-1992 period and considered that although public accountability was restored to some degree of respectability, the quality has once again gone into decline, especially over the last ten years. We also referred to the several reform initiatives that were undertaken and felt that the absence of the desired level of commitment and support was a constraining factor. We ventured to suggest that this was because the initiatives were the result of conditionalities insisted upon by the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) as a basis for the grant of debt relief for long outstanding loans and to access new loans and grants. They were not voluntary acts on our part. As we became the recipients of the full benefits of the generosity of our overseas creditors, we turn our backs at the initiatives. Experience has shown that imposed governance and accountability arrangements is likely to result in minimum compliance.
Today’s article is devoted to an assessment of the extent to which these
