Development for whom?

Mar 24, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News- The Vice President of Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo, has declared with great confidence that there is more disposable income in Berbice today. Of course, no empirical data was provided.

Who needs data when you have conviction? We are, after all, living in a trillion-dollar economy—at least on paper. The reality on the ground, however, is a little more complicated. In Berbice, as elsewhere in Guyana, the question is not simply whether disposable income has increased, but rather: whose disposable income has increased?

Before we dive into that murky pond, let’s define disposable income. In simple terms, it is the money left over after taxes, the money one can use freely for savings or spending. But disposable income is a tricky little concept. It’s a lot like a magic trick: now you see it, now you don’t.  More money in circulation does not necessarily mean the average person has more to spend. If the government injects billions into an economy, but that money goes primarily to a selected few, then disposable income may rise overall, but only in certain pockets—pockets that already had money to begin with.

So let us consider where the money is actually going. It is no secret that the government has been pumping capital into Berbice through massive infrastructure projects. Roads, and pump stations and schools and health infrastructure are being built.

But who really are the primary beneficiaries of these projects? The contracting class—those who win the lucrative construction contracts, the suppliers of raw materials, and the owners of heavy machinery. For the average worker on the ground, the wages they receive are short-lived, quickly absorbed by rising food and housing costs and other cost-of-living expenses. The real money never trickles down; it pools at the top.

Then there are concessions and assistance to the agricultural sector. But who reaps the benefits? The large-scale farmers, the ones with enough land and equipment to take advantage of fertilizer and paddy distribution and drainage and land subsidies are the one who reap the greater benefits, relatively and absolutely.

The small farmers—the ones who need the help the most—continue to struggle with debt, rising fertilizer costs, and unpredictable market prices. The large farmers expand their wealth, while the small farmers barely keep their heads above water.

And let’s not forget the much-vaunted brackish water shrimp initiative. The government has funneled resources into this sector, claiming it will uplift the economy of Berbice. But there is a curious silence when it comes to identifying exactly who has benefited from this investment. Why? Because if we scrutinize the beneficiaries, we may find that only a few hands are in the pot, stirring up the profits. The poor remain spectators to their own supposed upliftment.

The trillion-dollar economy is a marvel to behold, but like all magic tricks, it is an illusion. It benefits the rich disproportionately, while the poor are left scrambling for the crumbs. Consider the part-time job programme—heralded as a solution for unemployment. What is it really? A form of disguised unemployment relief. It keeps people occupied but does not provide a stable financial future. It is the economic equivalent of giving someone a bucket to catch water while the ship is sinking.

Government workers, meanwhile, have been granted modest salary increases. But these raises have been swiftly eroded by inflation. A trip to the market is now a journey into the absurd: staple food prices have skyrocketed, and the price of cooked food has nearly doubled since Guyana became an oil-producing nation. People are paying oil-economy prices while earning non-oil wages. It is a cruel joke, except nobody is laughing—except, perhaps, those who set the prices.

Housing costs have spiraled out of control. Once upon a time, a wooden house was the symbol of modest living. Today, it is a luxury beyond the reach of the poor. A two-bedroom unfurnished house can now cost as much as $160,000 per month in rent, while a one-bedroom can demand $120,000. How does one pay such exorbitant rents with the earnings from a part-time job? This is the math of economic despair.

The land distribution system has also been gamed. Government house lots, initially allocated at affordable prices, are being snapped up by those with means and resold at exorbitant rates to the bourgeois class. Word on the streets is that the rich are acquiring government house lots from allottees at G$16 million per plot, using irrevocable power-of attorney documents to circumvent the regulation that restricts the sale or transfer of these lands to ten years after allocation.

Meanwhile, poor families, eager to own a home, are left staring at loan repayment terms that make ownership a distant dream. It is not the banks’ fault but rather the high cost of construction materials that drive up the cost of home ownership, this despite the subsidies being provided in the form of foregone taxes.

All of this—the cost-of-living, the wealth disparity, the skewed benefits of government spending—cannot be captured by a simplistic declaration that “disposable income has increased.” Even if we accept that more money is circulating, where is it going? Into the hands of those who already had disposable income to spare. The average Berbician may have a few more dollars in their pocket, but the cost of everything they need has outpaced their earnings. What use is a small raise if it is instantly swallowed by rising prices?

More disposable income does not necessarily mean greater spending power. This is so, especially when the cost of essentials like food and rent is rising at an even faster rate. If someone’s income increases by 10%, but the price of basic groceries jumps by 20% and rent skyrockets by 30%, then in real terms, they are worse off despite technically having more money in hand. What could have bought a full basket of groceries last year now barely covers half. In an economy where wages struggle to keep up with living costs, higher disposable income often just means higher expenses, leaving people stuck in the same financial struggle, if not deeper in it.

This is the reality that the Vice President’s statement conveniently ignores. The government speaks of economic growth, of development, of progress. But growth for whom? Development for whom? Progress for whom? The answers to these questions cannot be hidden behind grand proclamations. If disposable income has increased, let’s see the numbers. Let’s see where the money is going. Until then, we are left with words, and as every Berbician knows, words do not pay the rent.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)   

---

• contracting class, Disposable income, great confidence, Peeping Tom, trillion-dollar economy

---