Poverty statistics – counting eggs before they are laid?

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Prime Minister Andrew Holness recently announced that Jamaica’s poverty rate has been cut in half, now reportedly standing at 8.2 per cent. While this headline grabs attention, it warrants deeper scrutiny – not celebration. Especially during an election cycle, where optimism can be weaponised, and statistics, selectively interpreted.

As an academic and author of Neoliberalism, Globalization, Income Inequality, Poverty And Resistance I have long studied the metrics and myths that surround poverty reporting in postcolonial economies. Jamaica is no stranger to fluctuations in poverty – we’ve had moments of apparent prosperity before, only for them to unravel quickly due to geopolitical shifts, natural disasters, external debt obligations, IMF structural adjustments, and internal governance issues.

The real question is this: What methodology underpins this 8.2 per cent figure? Are we still measuring poverty solely by average income per day — a narrow and outdated standard? Or are we accounting for productive capacity, sustainable employment, access to social goods, and resilience against economic shocks?

Poverty is more than a number; it’s about whether Jamaicans can not only survive but thrive. And that requires policies rooted in long-term vision, not short-term optics.

Fellow academics, policymakers, and journalists should not to take this statistic at face value. Hard questions need to be asked. Investigate the data. Demand transparency.

This is not cynicism – it’s responsibility. We cannot afford to count eggs before they're laid – especially if there may be no eggs at all.

RENALDO MCKENZIE