ACCESS to financing has long been one of the biggest stumbling blocks for Guyanese entrepreneurs.

Too often, bright ideas die in infancy because their creators lack collateral, or because commercial banks demand interest rates that stifle growth before it begins.

Women, youth, and small business owners, who should be the backbone of a diversified economy, are among the hardest hit.

That is why the government’s decision to move ahead with the establishment of a zero-interest development bank deserves both recognition and scrutiny.

Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo, speaking at a press conference this week, outlined a bold vision: a bank dedicated to giving small and medium-sized enterprises the capital they need to survive and thrive, with fewer barriers and fairer terms.

This is not a new promise. The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) campaigned on creating such a financial institution, and the concept has been shaped through years of consultations and nationwide surveys.

Now, with US$200 million in seed funding on the table and discussions already advanced, the plan is moving to policy reality.

The need is undeniable. Across Guyana, countless entrepreneurs have tried to launch businesses only to find themselves stranded between ambition and affordability.

A zero-interest development bank could close this gap, helping not only to expand existing ventures but also to stimulate new ones in agriculture, services, technology, and the creative sector.

The benefits, however, will not come automatically. Careful design, transparency, and accountability must guide this process.

The expert committee tasked with drafting the model for the Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) Development Bank carries a heavy responsibility: to learn from global experiences, adapt to local realities, and ensure that loans go where they are needed most, not just to the well, connected.

There are also broader systemic issues. Dr. Jagdeo rightly acknowledged that reforms to the wider banking system must accompany the establishment of the development bank.

Without reforms, commercial banks will continue to alienate those with limited collateral, undermining the government’s larger promise of inclusive growth.

The mention of India’s pledge to assist with digital finance is encouraging, particularly for rural and hinterland communities that remain underbanked.

If Guyana is to build a truly inclusive financial system, it must embrace technology that lowers transaction costs and expands access across geography and class.

Still, we must be cautious. Development banks in other countries have been plagued by inefficiency, political interference, and unsustainable lending practices.

Guyana cannot afford to repeat those mistakes. The vision is ambitious, but execution will determine whether this bank becomes a tool for empowerment or another costly bureaucracy.

In the end, the proposed development bank reflects a critical truth: an economy powered only by large-scale investment and oil revenues cannot be sustainable.

Guyana’s long-term prosperity will depend on empowering its people, the small shop owner in New Amsterdam, the farmer in Essequibo, the tech innovator in Georgetown.

If the bank is built with integrity, it could give these citizens the chance to turn ideas into income, and income into lasting wealth.

For once, access to opportunity might not depend on financial capacity, but on what you can build. That is a vision worth pursuing and government must be commended for its foresight.