By: H.E. Sasenarine Singh, Ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium and Netherlands and Permanent Representative to the European Union
THE contrasting economic performances of Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago over the last decade offer a striking case study in how resource wealth can either catalyse transformation or expose structural stagnation. While both nations are hydrocarbon economies, their current trajectories suggest that natural resources alone do not determine success; policy direction, timing, and adaptability do.
Guyana’s economic surge is nothing short of extraordinary. Since its first major offshore oil discovery in the Liza field in May 2015, the country has rapidly repositioned itself as a global growth leader. While annual GDP growth rates have at times exceeded 40 per cent in real terms (the IMF forecast a 33.9 per cent expansion for 2024), the World Bank projects more moderate but still remarkable growth of 19.6 per cent for 2026 and 21.9 per cent for 2027. This reflects a decisive shift from a small, raw-material-based economy to a major oil producer in under a decade. The ambition is ongoing, with President Irfaan Ali now making a renewed push for the establishment of an oil refinery in Guyana, which he has described as a “critical national security priority amid escalating global energy uncertainties and supply chain disruptions”.
However, the real argument is not that Guyana is succeeding, but why it is succeeding. The country has aggressively leveraged foreign investment to accelerate productive and infrastructure development. In doing so, it has embraced globalisation rather than resisted it. Critics may warn of overdependence on oil, but such caution often underestimates the strategic value of timing.
Guyana’s rapid oil development, projected to make it the world’s fourth-largest offshore producer by 2035 according to Rystad Energy, is heavily scrutinised about economic overdependence and resource-curse risks. However, this “oil bonanza” provides critical, time-sensitive capital needed for infrastructure, human capital development, and strengthening regional energy security. The bottom line remains: Guyana is capitalising on its resource window while global demand still supports it. This is the only way; a pragmatic approach.
In contrast, Trinidad and Tobago represents a cautionary tale of what happens when an energy-rich economy fails to evolve. Once one of the most prosperous nations in the Caribbean, its economy has stagnated, with the IMF estimating growth of just 0.8 per cent in 2025 and projecting 0.7 per cent for 2026. The issue is not a lack of resources, but a failure to adapt to changing global dynamics. Declining natural gas output, persistent foreign exchange shortages (described as a key feature of the 2025 economic environment), and limited diversification reflect deeper structural inertia.
The uncomfortable truth is that Trinidad and Tobago’s challenges are largely self-inflicted. Years of reliance on hydrocarbon revenues created a level of economic complacency that discouraged diversification and innovation. While policymakers have long discussed economic transformation in key areas such as agriculture, tangible progress has been limited. The result is an economy that is stable but stagnant (arguably a more dangerous position than volatility), because it masks underlying decline.
That said, it would be naïve to view Guyana’s rise as an unqualified success. Rapid growth driven by oil carries well-documented risks, including inflation, inequality, and the classic symptoms of Dutch disease. However, the IMF concluded in its 2025 Article IV report that “Guyana does not yet show clear symptoms of Dutch disease”, suggesting that the government’s focus on fiscal discipline and diversification is bearing fruit. Without careful governance, Guyana could still replicate the pitfalls that now constrain Trinidad and Tobago. The difference is that Guyana is at the beginning of its trajectory, and the statements from key decision makers continue to illustrate that they understand the key challenges and have designed policy measures to mitigate these challenges.
President Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali is actively positioning the country as a leader in food, energy, and environmental security to drive economic empowerment, utilising the nation’s oil and gas revenue to fuel a sustainable, non-oil economy. His development agenda, often referred to as a “people-cantred” approach, aims to transform Guyana’s infrastructure, reduce the cost of living, and diversify the economy through technology-driven agricultural and industrial sectors. Meanwhile, Trinidad and Tobago is still grappling with the consequences of past inaction.
Ultimately, the comparison between these two economies underscores a broader argument: resource wealth is not destiny; policy choices are. Guyana’s momentum (especially in infrastructure build-out), reflects bold, if risky, decision-making, while Trinidad and Tobago’s stagnation highlights the cost of delayed reform. The real question is not whether Guyana will face challenges (it will), but whether it can avoid becoming the next example of missed opportunity. Thus, a total study of how the economy of Trinidad and Tobago was managed over the last 20 years is required for academics at the University of Guyana and key policymakers in both the public and private sectors. The sooner, the better.