Tweet
<P class=StoryText align=justify>In March 1996, the government undertook to prepare what was then billed as a comprehensive long-term strategic plan to steer the country to prosperity. This was undertaken by Professor Donald Harris of Stanford University and was called the National Industrial Policy (NIP). The plan incorporated some very ambitious economic goals of growth, investment and planning.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Ten years later, because of what would seem like a lack of political will, little or no in-depth planning or implementation and an absence of the human and financial resources to move forward, this plan remains as a wish list, gathering dust on the shelves of the prime minister's office.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Today, we now have the recently formed think tank of qualified professionals who have come together with a view to analysing our recent economic performance (or lack of it), and utilising their findings to move us forward in much the same fashion as the NIP proposed and using the name
"Taking Responsibility". This, one might add, is a laudable undertaking and has the potential to provide the foundation of very positive economic growth in Jamaica's future. However, one cannot help but reflect on what is their questionable and flawed economic analysis of Jamaica since independence and the various conclusions at which they have arrived.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Of all the economic indicators that are monitored in the successful governance of any country, the most important one is economic growth. This takes place when the economic expertise and entrepreneurial skills of that country are brought together in a cohesive and concentrated effort to maximise production and minimise cost, thus creating excess or wealth. This growth, in turn, manifests itself in just about every facet of governmental operations of that country. It provides the means whereby it can meet its obligations both locally and internationally and so move forward with its development.<P class=StoryText align=justify>By any measure whatever, this is what took place in Jamaica in the 1960s and was achieved not by accident but through an enlightened economic philosophy and proper planning. It can always be disputed, however, whether or not this wealth was distributed down through the various economic strata of the society in an even-handed manner. But in very few countries, in the free-market, free-enterprise system, is this ever the case. The overriding and important factor is that growth was achieved. Its distribution remains a separate consideration.<P class=StoryText align=justify>As history would attest, the attempts to address or rectify these perceived inequities of the '60s, through social experimentation in the '70s, were met with abject failure on both the economic and social fronts. And for our think tank therefore to be drawing any moral or economic equivalence to these two periods in Jamaica, is completely disingenuous and borders on the dishonest.<P class=StoryText align=justify>What took place in the '70s in Jamaica was so debilitating to the body politic of the nation that it remains debatable as to whether we have recovered from its consequences even today. Perhaps our greatest setback from that period was the polarisation of our people into political and social tribes, with the unity that has eluded us for so long being only occasionally experienced in cricket and soccer.<P class=StoryText align=justify>It has been said that the debacle which occured in the '70s should not be blamed wholly on Michael Manley and that outside forces were at work. Because of his adversarial stance with the US, it was indeed possible, even likely, that the CIA, knowing what they were capable of, did have a hand in trying to destabilise his regime. We will never know for sure. It is also possible, as is claimed by some, that the local business community, because of dire shortages, may have conspired to manage their inventories in a way that would embarrass the government further.
"Taking Responsibility". This, one might add, is a laudable undertaking and has the potential to provide the foundation of very positive economic growth in Jamaica's future. However, one cannot help but reflect on what is their questionable and flawed economic analysis of Jamaica since independence and the various conclusions at which they have arrived.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Of all the economic indicators that are monitored in the successful governance of any country, the most important one is economic growth. This takes place when the economic expertise and entrepreneurial skills of that country are brought together in a cohesive and concentrated effort to maximise production and minimise cost, thus creating excess or wealth. This growth, in turn, manifests itself in just about every facet of governmental operations of that country. It provides the means whereby it can meet its obligations both locally and internationally and so move forward with its development.<P class=StoryText align=justify>By any measure whatever, this is what took place in Jamaica in the 1960s and was achieved not by accident but through an enlightened economic philosophy and proper planning. It can always be disputed, however, whether or not this wealth was distributed down through the various economic strata of the society in an even-handed manner. But in very few countries, in the free-market, free-enterprise system, is this ever the case. The overriding and important factor is that growth was achieved. Its distribution remains a separate consideration.<P class=StoryText align=justify>As history would attest, the attempts to address or rectify these perceived inequities of the '60s, through social experimentation in the '70s, were met with abject failure on both the economic and social fronts. And for our think tank therefore to be drawing any moral or economic equivalence to these two periods in Jamaica, is completely disingenuous and borders on the dishonest.<P class=StoryText align=justify>What took place in the '70s in Jamaica was so debilitating to the body politic of the nation that it remains debatable as to whether we have recovered from its consequences even today. Perhaps our greatest setback from that period was the polarisation of our people into political and social tribes, with the unity that has eluded us for so long being only occasionally experienced in cricket and soccer.<P class=StoryText align=justify>It has been said that the debacle which occured in the '70s should not be blamed wholly on Michael Manley and that outside forces were at work. Because of his adversarial stance with the US, it was indeed possible, even likely, that the CIA, knowing what they were capable of, did have a hand in trying to destabilise his regime. We will never know for sure. It is also possible, as is claimed by some, that the local business community, because of dire shortages, may have conspired to manage their inventories in a way that would embarrass the government further.
everybody have them myths. When unuh ago start look pon statistical data and the type of governance?
Comment