Portia's Budget: Hope or fancy?

Orville Taylor,  Contributor

I am a patriotic Jamaican and truly love my country and am crossing all 11 of my fingers and 12 toes that Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller got it right and knows what she is doing in this country. This is the third year of her reign, adding the period from 2006 to 2007, and it is old, old news that she is from the belly of the poor, a woman, Sister P or any of those populist appeals.

Furthermore, it is tiresome to hear how much the Labourites were so efficient in mashing up the country in four years, especially after the People's National Party (PNP) had it for 18 before and got it back to run 16 months ago. Even if it were totally true that the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) wrecked the place, this is 2013, and the JLP were JEEPed out in 2011.

So, on with it, Sister P! Some pundits say it was bland and lacked detail, however, the Budget Debate presentation was not a bad one. Better late than never, the PM is understanding what I have been teaching my students since the 1990s: that true development is much more than economic growth. This is something that Professor Dudley Seers from the University of Sussex observed in 1969 and which I have consistently pointed out in my columns in this newspaper.

Put in the simplest of terms, development must reduce: poverty, unemployment, illiteracy and social and economic equalities. To this is added, the concept of democracy, including rights of workers. All this is done while protecting the environment. Nevertheless, the title of her presentation says it: 'National Development and Growth Agenda'.

FORT AUGUSTA ALTERNATIVE

In truth, it is full of generalities, but there are a number of specifics. What makes my heart race is the mega project, by the Chinese, involving some US$9 billion. Originally targeting the Fort Augusta prison and peninsula, the Chinese have now determined that it is too small for the project that they had intended. Being a sentimentalist and a stickler for law, it did bother me that the prison, which is a national heritage site, just like Falmouth, was going to be destroyed.

A fort built by the Spanish in the 1500s, it is one of the oldest colonial structures in the country. In 2006, when it was sold to the Port Authority for proposed development, it was said that "our developers will be working closely with the JNHT to ensure that nothing of historic value is lost and that the important artefacts of the institution will be preserved." While the reprieve and commuting of Lady Augusta's death sentence to life is a relief, there is even greater concern as to what the alternative will be.

According to the PM, the Chinese gave up on Fort Augusta, because it " … was simply not big enough to provide the space they need". Forgive me for not having too much confidence yet. Not wishing to count my unhatched eggs, but this is the same government that made 35 developmental promises in 2011 and 2012, of which only nine were kept. To speak about money going to a place, "the final location for which is still to be determined," is asking me and the Jamaican people to make a very big leap of faith.

"The logistics hub is a central plank of our overall growth strategy and 'potentially' represents US$9 billion of foreign direct investment. It has the prospect of generating tens of thousands of jobs in a variety of fields during the construction and operational phases."

NO MONKEY MONEY

Nine billion US dollars is not john crow feed nor monkey money; a monkey, even if he could, would spend all of his life counting and still never be done. Let me give you a perspective on just how much money this is. Jamaica's gross domestic product (GDP), which is the value of all goods and services produced in Jamaica, was US$25.18 billion in 2012. Therefore, the money that the PM is talking about represents just about 36 per cent of all that Jamaica produced last year.

Moreover, the "US$1,200-million and US$1,500-million … trans-shipment facilities, a logistics centre, industrial plants, a cement plant and, possibly, a power plant," need more concrete demonstration. She expects a significant employment impact. Noting that the majority of workers will be Jamaican, she needs to guarantee that the Chinese will adhere to labour standards. By the way, a majority could mean 5001 labourers, while the Chinese could use their managers, supervisors, foremen, engineers and 4,000 Beijing-originated ordinary workers.

One of my media colleagues, a young economist with a mind as sharp as a coconut cutlass, pointed out that for such large amounts of capital to be outlaid, the PM must tell us specifically that she has agreements, commitments and contracts. Otherwise, they run the risk of becoming ghost fables like those told in December 2011 by who knows whom.

The Inner City Housing Project is back on stream, and once more, the group that the prime minister loves more than any other is set to benefit. This has concerns for me. Government providing access to dwellings for its population is always commendable. However, it must be remembered that the NHT was designed to be a socialist institution, not a charity. Food For the Poor and a similar organisation in the USA called Habitat for Humanity are just that.

JUST PLAIN WRONG

On the other hand, the NHT is supposed to be a sort of cooperative, where the members pool their resources and allow working contributors to see the fruits of their labour. It is morally unjust and unfair that persons, 37 per cent of whom will be delinquent, can be handed keys when the poor worker, who has done all the right things, doesn't qualify because he hasn't contributed enough. Yet, those who contribute nothing beyond a vote have houses. How can a hard-working employed person fail a means test and not get a house, when a jobless person with little or no contribution benefits from his labour?

Nevertheless, she must be lauded for increasing the amount of money available for loans and the reduction of interest rates for public servants. Still, increasing the amount without making it easier for the working poor to qualify doesn't solve the problem

Finally, she has addressed labour market reform, recognising that poor "labour productivity and crime and violence ... all hinder our ability to grow". I invite her to examine the work done in the early 2000s, which pointed to the gaps in our labour laws and the impact they would have had on both crime and productivity. To date, the International Labour Organization finds that these inadequacies prevail since it outlined them to the government in 1990s. Hopefully, this time she will pay attention to them.

Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer in sociology at the UWI and a radio talk-show host. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.