Dear Editor,

 

THE International Monetary Fund doesn’t hand out compliments easily. Its reports are clinical, data-driven, and cautiously worded. So, when it concludes that Guyana’s economy is not only growing, but doing so without exhibiting symptoms of Dutch Disease, that should be treated as a serious endorsement of sound macroeconomic management.

 

In its 2025 Article IV Report, the IMF affirms Guyana’s unprecedented growth, and attributes it not just to oil revenues, but also to “strong non-oil output” and capital investment. It highlights how public spending, while expansive, has been rooted in a clear fiscal framework, and backed by one of the region’s most robust sovereign wealth strategies.

 

Yet, despite this, Stabroek News frames the same report as a red flag. Their May 8 article twists technically accurate statements into a narrative of looming crisis. It is not analysis; it is editorial sleight of hand.

 

To its credit, Stabroek News begins with the IMF’s central finding: “Guyana does not yet show clear symptoms of Dutch Disease.” But from there, the article departs into insinuation and misrepresentation. It frames the report as a subtle indictment of the government’s economic model, ignoring the structure, methodology, and nuance of the IMF’s sectoral analysis.

 

The IMF’s analysis in Annexe IV uses a framework of five indicator groups: Sectoral shifts, price trends, fiscal behaviour, external sector developments, and governance quality. Dutch Disease is generally characterised by real exchange rate appreciation, inflation in non-tradables, contraction in tradable sectors (especially agriculture and manufacturing), and worsening current account balances.

 

 

According to the report:

 

“Guyana’s economy does not yet show clear symptoms of Dutch Disease.”

 

“The real effective exchange rate has remained broadly stable and does not show strong signs of appreciation.”

 

“Inflation reached 2.9% in 2024, driven mainly by international food prices, and was contained by government policies.”

 

“Private sector credit grew by 20% in 2024, public sector credit by 58%, and excess liquidity has been partially absorbed.”

 

These are not symptoms of macroeconomic dysfunction; they are evidence of policy foresight.

 

The Fund notes that the government has employed “a disciplined policy mix” that has maintained macroeconomic stability while scaling up public investment. The state has leaned into “capital-heavy spending” that builds long-term resilience without stoking immediate inflationary pressure. This kind of expenditure pattern – where current spending is deliberately held below capital allocations – is rare in early-stage oil producers. Notably, it is also a complete reversal of the current to capital ratio under the previous APNU/AFC government, where it averaged 3:1.

 

Nowhere is Stabroek News’ distortion more evident than its portrayal of the non-oil economy, especially agriculture. The article suggests that because the agricultural sector’s share of non-oil GDP has declined, the government has failed in its diversification agenda. This is a fundamental misreading of national accounts.

 

Sectoral GDP share is a relative metric. A sector can shrink as a share of GDP even while growing in real terms, if other sectors grow faster. That’s precisely what is happening in Guyana. Minister Ashni Singh, in his 2025 budget speech, noted that the agriculture sector expanded by 11% in 2024. This far outpaced the South American average where overall growth was just 1.5% according to ECLAC.

 

The IMF makes no value judgment on this shift. Instead, it contextualises it. It recognises that before oil, Guyana had a services- and agriculture-dominated economy with limited food-related manufacturing. With new infrastructure and investment flowing into construction, ICT, and transport, other sectors have simply grown faster.

Where the IMF does assess policy, it is consistently positive. The report repeatedly returns to the importance of the government’s governance choices, fiscal strategy, and institutional maturity. It highlights that:

 

“Current expenditure as a share of total spending has decreased in favour of capital spending, containing demand pressures on the non-tradable sector.”

 

“The authorities’ monetary policy stance has remained appropriately tight.”

 

“Gross international reserves surpassed US$1 billion, while the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) accumulated over US$3.1 billion.”

 

“Guyana’s debt is assessed at low risk of debt distress.”

 

The most egregious misuse of data is Stabroek News’ attempt to undermine job creation claims using unemployment figures from Q3 2021:

 

“This may challenge the government’s claims here about the creation of more than 50,000 jobs since 2020.” This is a dishonest framing. The IMF uses the 2021q3 labour data as a historical baseline, not as evidence of current conditions. And crucially, those numbers come before the Local Content Act; a development that significantly transformed employment dynamics across construction, services, and supply chains.

 

The IMF explicitly notes:

 

“Unemployment and labour force participation rates were 14.5 and 49.6 per cent in 2021q3, respectively… suggesting that Guyana’s economy has capacity to expand its labour supply, especially among women.”

 

“Real non-oil GDP expanded over 13 per cent, reflecting a solid broad-based performance across sectors, particularly in construction, transport and storage, and ICT.”

 

 

 

That level of expansion cannot occur without significant employment growth. The Local Content Act, training programs, and capital projects have all generated labour demand since those 2021 figures. Using pre-expansion data to question the reality of post-expansion employment gains is, at best, lazy journalism, and at worst, intentional obfuscation.

 

The IMF also credits Guyana with improving its institutional framework:

 

“Guyana has made important progress in improving governance… including strengthening fiscal transparency, public investment management, and the effectiveness of public service delivery.”

 

It highlights the adoption of best practices in the Sovereign Wealth Fund, improved AML/CFT compliance, and greater transparency in procurement. Based on the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), the Fund finds:

 

“Guyana appears within the medium range of values for the categories of rule of law, regulatory quality, and government effectiveness when compared with other oil-exporting countries.”

 

The message is subtle but clear: Guyana’s trajectory is toward governance parity with more established producers – not a fragile state muddling through a boom.

 

That is not to say that Guyana is without risk. The IMF highlights potential challenges related to inflation, capacity constraints, and the need for continued structural reform. But the tone of the report is cautiously optimistic, because the data support optimism.

 

Stabroek News, however, presents a narrative in search of a crisis. It quotes selectively, omits core indicators, and distorts structural shifts to fit a storyline of doom and gloom. Plainly put, why does Stabroek choose to amplify every speculative risk while downplaying the Fund’s concrete praise? Why bury IMF lines on macroeconomic prudence, fiscal sustainability, low debt, and governance reforms in favor of cherry-picked figures and contextless warnings?

 

The truth is, the IMF sees a country managing its growth responsibly, cautiously, and, yes, competently. Stabroek News wants readers to see something else. But the numbers don’t lie.

 

Sincerely,

Alfonso DeArmas