President Bharrat Jagdeo has called for a transformation of the economic culture of Guyana. The President outlined the major elements of this transformation at two major events recently. The first was at the 19th GAWU Delegates Congress, and the second at ‘Conversations on the Future, both held at the Guyana International Conference Centre at Liliendaal.

To help us understand ‘where the President is coming from’ let us start with an examination of the more abstract concept of economic culture. According to Michael E. Porter, (Professor of Business Administration at Harvard University), “[e]conomic culture is defined as the beliefs, attitudes, and values that bear on the economic activities of individuals, organisations, and other institutions” (Porter in Culture Matters, ed. by Harrison and Huntington, 2000, p. 15).

Porter also notes that “[t]reatments of the role of culture in economic prosperity tend to focus on generic cultural attributes that are deemed desirable, such as hard work, initiative, belief in the value of education, as well as factors drawn from macroeconomics, such as a propensity to save and invest” (Porter, p. 15).

Drawing on the French Annales School of historiography we may use a temporal methodology to operationalise the categories – attitudes, beliefs, and values (see Fernand Braudel’s On History).

In this instance we take it that attitudes are short term in nature and can be changed more rapidly. Attitude then is more of a behavioural tendency. Beliefs are more deeply embedded in the cultural configuration, and exist in what Braudel once called the level of conjuncture, or medium term. Beliefs are harder to change, and obviously take much longer. Values are more structural in nature, and much more difficult to change. Change proceeds at a snail’s pace, if not ‘pushed’.

The President called for change in attitudes, beliefs, and values. His remarks were targeted at workers, management, and entrepreneurs.

The attitude to work was discussed at the ‘Conversation on the Future’. It was raised by Chairman of the Private Sector Commission, Captain Gerry Gouveia, who pointed to a productivity gap. Mr. Gouveia noted that it is difficult to get a full day’s work in Guyana, while the same workers give it their all when they go elsewhere. FITUG President Mr. Carvil Duncan suggested that workers must be given a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. President Jagdeo underlined the point that for Guyana to move forward, we need to improve productivity so that our products are competitive in world markets. Other commentators noted that focus, discipline, dedication, and a positive attitude, though intangible, are in fact critical to increased productivity. The basic point of increased productivity is, of course, lower unit cost, which translates into lower consumer prices, and thus greater market competitiveness.

President Jagdeo underlined the productivity issue again in his speech at the Commissioning of the Skeldon Sugar Factory. He insisted that while the factory itself is a great accomplishment in the history of Guyana, real success will only come about when we produce more sugar. Both management and the general work force must do their part in this regard. The President was clear about the type of transformation in attitude that Guyana needs. He thus insisted that those who perform should be rewarded; those who do not should be ‘held accountable’.

Although President Jagdeo did not say so in plain words, it must have been obvious to all that it is no longer sufficient to blame multinational corporations, bad weather, and the usual ‘suspects’ for below-par performance. Put differently, the President did not shy away from linking rewards to performance.

Commonsensical though it may seem, there are many critics of this ‘rewards-performance regime’. Some labour activists might see it as ‘neoliberal’. Is it though?

President Jagdeo was equally clear about cultural transformation of entrepreneurship in Guyana. He characterised the business culture in the country as ‘risk-averse’, and noted that this culture of ‘security’ is acting as a fetter on business dynamism.

The President also encouraged the business sector to abandon what he characterised as “the culture of shame”. What Mr. Jagdeo had in mind here was the propensity for some in the business community to feel less worthy if a business venture did not succeed. He noted that in the more developed world it is not unusual for many new businesses to fail. Business men and women in that part of the world however, do not attach any ‘shame’ to a failed venture. We need to change this culture by understanding that a key part to business success is actually accepting a level of risk. No risk; no reward.

The President addressed another aspect of Guyana’s economic development culture that is of fundamental importance. He ‘challenged’ Guyanese to think about development as our own responsibility. In this regard, domestic capital formation should be at the cutting edge of national economic development. Jagdeo insisted that while there is ample room for foreign investments, we need to break the dependency mentality of only looking ‘outwards’.

Among other things, the President noted that education is a crucial vehicle for change. Two aspects of education were dealt with by the President. Firstly, Mr. Jagdeo insisted that in addition to improved delivery of and performance in education, there must be greater emphasis on the appropriate education. Education, productivity, and development should all be linked.

Secondly, the President made it clear that the education sector needs to produce more Guyanese with entrepreneurial skills. He also noted that the diffusion of entrepreneurial skills throughout the country is one of the surest ways of building opportunities and opening doors across ethnic and class lines. Further still, a new ‘breed’ of young entrepreneurs is more likely to hasten the needed changes in our economic culture.

The President’s call for fundamental and urgent change in Guyana’s economic culture is not mere rhetoric. This transformation is about the future of the country, and if we do not change, Guyana will not move forward. Professor Porter, quoted earlier, put it this way – “The question is, will a country voluntarily embrace a productive economic culture by changing the old beliefs, attitudes, and values that are impeding prosperity, or will the change eventually be forced upon it? (Porter, 27). He goes on to state that “[i]t has become a question of when and how fast a country’s economic culture will change, rather than whether it will change” (Porter 27).