I refer to a letter with the caption “Much of the infrastructural work was accomplished via foreign loans and grants,” on June 14, 2010 in the Stabroek News.
I am not necessarily responding to the CADRES poll findings, as these results were from a single cross-sectional study that may be subject to change over time.  Note that several cross-sectional studies will become necessary if we are to finally determine the merit of CADRES’ polling quality, as we move closer to the national election.
Let me make it clear that the success of the Jagdeo Administration in rebuilding social and physical infrastructure is quite phenomenal.  For this reason, I do not need CADRES for information on Guyana’a monumental developmental achievements, given the abysmal state of affairs in 1992.
Even now, the Guyana economy continues to weather difficult storms, some of which still repel its growth.  Some of these difficulties are adverse shocks resulting from the floods of 2005 and 2006, the high oil prices that followed, the economic stranglehold that the World Trade Organization (WTO) inflicted on poor, small, and vulnerable economies, the liberalization of the European sugar regime with sugar price cuts, general erosion of trade preferences; constant migration of skilled professionals, and the huge inherited external US$2.1B debt; and through all of this it took Guyana about 10 years to reach financial and economic viability.  These are just some of the shocks that our economy has had to withstand; there are others.
And the suggestion that because loans and grants paid for infrastructural development, implying that the Administration did nothing, is naive to say the least.  The International Financial Institutions (IFIs) funding conditionalities can be very rigid and piercing to the recipient country. There is some feeling, too, that poor countries automatically receive loans and grants; this, indeed, is not the case.
The enormous funding necessary to rehabilitate, and in some cases, reconstruct the ailing social and economic infrastructures inherited in 1992, was unavailable within the Treasury.  The foreign debt burden was of colossal proportions, and had to be reduced while at the same time making funds available for the social services sector, such as health and education.
But the debt service obligations, too, were of such magnitude that they consumed more than half the country’s export earnings, leaving precious little for the social services sector.  Indeed, all social and economic development became problematic.  In order to move Guyana progressively forward, the PPP/C Administration very quickly realized that the traditional debt relief mechanisms (concessional lending and rescheduling loans) were inadequate to achieve sustainable external debt levels.
For these reasons, Guyana embarked on the arduous road toward seeking HIPC debt relief; those who think achieving the HIPC debt relief is a piece of cake, do not really understand its grueling eligibility protocols, monitoring and evaluation procedures.
For these reasons, factoring the ‘financial and economic viability’ years, we could arguably suggest that Guyana’s real developmental years commenced from around year 2000.  And again, for the reasons to do with financial and economic viability, we need to consider the fact that in the early post-1992 years, balancing debt service and meeting the needs of the poor constituted great challenges.  All of these still have lingering economic and social impact on this economy, a small and vulnerable economy.
However, even amid all of this which the country weathered over the years and as we brace ourselves for what is going to be a very interesting election year – the likes of which we have not yet seen in the short history of independent Guyana – the next President will inherit a far better country than what the 1992 legacy gave to the PPP/C.
Several IFIs over the years poignantly noted the remarkable infrastructural and economic reconstruction that has come to represent and symbolize a thousand points of light of the current Administration. There are others.
Caribbean renowned Commentator and former Caribbean Diplomat, Sir Ronald Saunders, in last Sunday’s installment in the Kaieteur News noted that “Housing, medical facilities and education have all dramatically improved under Jagdeo, as has its infrastructural development particularly water distribution.
“An economic basket case for 25 years since 1976, Guyana has moved from being a Highly Indebted Poor Country (HPIC) with little or no economic growth to steady growth today.  In 2009, Guyana recorded 3.3 per cent growth while the majority of its CARICOM neighbours showed negative growth; public debt fell from 93.1 percent of GDP as of end-2006 to 56.8 percent of GDP in 2009.”
These are all undisputed facts, and I do not need a poll, however credible or not, to tell me this is the case.