2015 prospects for Jamaica

        Agriculture has a critical role to play in our development.

AS we come to the end of 2014, it is traditional for us to think about what will happen in the New Year. Apart from tradition, however, the end of a year is always used as a mark to measure progress and look towards the future.

2014 has been a year of mixed fortunes, and indeed a transformative year. This is reflected in the progress made under the economic programme, as well as the many transitions in the legislative framework, and society. For example, we saw the following:

* Economy -- fiscal improvements. The foreign exchange market went from volatility to stability and further end-of-year movements; the stock market seems to have levelled off as expected; significant improvement in the Doing Business Report; and businesses experienced mixed fortunes and a new normal in the competitive market emerged.

* Legislative framework -- much change was made in the legislative landscape and we saw many proposed legislative amendments being made, based on public feedback. Overall, however, my own view is that much progress was made.

* Society -- improvement in policing methods and lowering of crime statistics; more vibrant civil society, resulting in greater input in policy actions (eg response to Mario Deane incident); reduced unemployment and also reduced real wages; and, I think, greater effort by authorities to come to grips with some of the societal challenges, although much remains to be done and enforcement is still not where it should be.

My biggest disappointment is that we were not able to make more progress in the public sector reform and bureaucracy issues, because although some movement has been made, this still remains a major stumbling block to businesses.

I think, as we go into 2015, however, we could see further improvements in our economic and social development. But this is going to depend to a great degree on how leadership deals with the issues that will face us.

In other words, we are going to need strong leadership, which must be equitable and come down on the side of justice and fairness, as this will be the only way to balance the competing interests in the society for the benefit of the entire country.

On the economic front, I believe that we stand a good chance of a more vibrant economy as we have dealt with many of the structural issues facing the fiscal and macroeconomic environment. Although there are some significant targets remaining under the economic programme, it is my view that the significant legislative and other reforms made have laid a foundation for us to move forward positively. But this is going to depend on how we handle the advantages we have gained. These include:

1) Fiscal -- I think that the Government has made significant strides in laying a foundation to continue fiscal discipline, and we have seen the benefits in our accounts. However, we must now realise that fiscal discipline alone cannot carry us much further, as all this does is control expenditures while what is needed now is growth. So it is going to be important that we implement policies and legislation that encourage businesses to grow, and particularly SMEs. Much of the infrastructure is still not conducive to a supportive business environment, and unless we are able to change these positively, then we will come to a standstill. This is going to require continued collaboration between the public and private sectors, as one hand can't clap.

2) Governance -- There have been some stormy discussions over governance in 2014, and we must continue the dialogue to address this, as governance is going to be key to building trust, which is the basis of economic and social progress. Governance, however, is much more than at the national level and includes things like enforcing simple laws such as those dealing with road usage, night noises, and littering. It also includes ensuring that public sector bodies follow proper board and reporting governance.

3) Energy -- Over the past few months we have seen oil prices falling significantly, approximately 50 per cent, but there is a concern that consumers have not seen the full benefit. This is important to take advantage of, as falling oil prices create an excellent avenue for providing economic stimulus as it will mean more disposable income in the hands of consumers for the local economy.

4) Macro economy -- The Bank of Jamaica has a critical role to play here, as with the adjustments happening in the economy it will have to know how to tweak money supply; for example, to balance the fear of a moving exchange rate and the need for adequate liquidity. Any miscalculation could put a spoke in the wheel of the economy's development.

5) Agriculture -- I think agriculture has a critical role to play in our development, as many new enterprises can emerge from this, particularly export-led ones. The problem with our agriculture is that it has been highly disorganised and is based more on subsistence farming than large-scale farms. This is unsustainable in a competitive market, and so the agro-parks are a critical component of a future industry. What is going to be important is that we ensure that the proper management is in place to ensure that agro-parks deliver on their potential. If we are able to maximise this area, then there is also a large potential to supply local produce in place of much of the US$1-billion food imports.

6) Tourism -- This is another area of significant potential. However, our inability to enforce environmental laws, deal with squatting, tourist harassment, and littering, and develop our infrastructure is not allowing us to maximise our competitive advantage. With the opening up of Cuba to the US market, it is even more critical to have a well-planned approach to deal with this. This, of course, includes crime, which is a scourge on not only tourism but also business in general.

These are some of the issues we will face in 2015, and whether we are successful or not will depend on what leadership is provided. We have certainly shown that we have the capacity to confront issues, as we have done with the economic programme, and must now ensure this infects other areas.

As we go into 2015, however, as citizens we must also reflect on our individual responsibility to ensure we are compliant with proper law and order and do our part to move the country forward.

Happy holidays and much prosperity in 2015.

Great need to transform Jamaica's labour force

JAMAICA seems set to pass the sixth International Monetary Fund (IMF) test, underlining the fact that we have, no doubt, been making progress in establishing the framework on which development must take place.

I say this against the background that the legislative and fiscal initiatives put in place have been successful in ensuring some amount of stability and confidence in the economy. We see that there is more acceptance of Jamaican debt, and businesses are expressing the view that goods have become more competitive with the depreciation of the exchange rate.

This has also culminated in an improvement of 27 places in the Doing Business Report 2015, which is a reversal of the movement in ranking that we have been seeing in the past few years. This positive change in ranking, however, is as a result of the improvement in the legislative framework in particular. However, it has not translated itself into meaningful improvement on the ground, and this is where the challenge lies for us.

The fact is that businesses still see bureaucracy as a major stumbling block, and people are seeing a real decrease in their disposable incomes. We also note that even though there are improvements in the macroeconomic numbers, and in particular the balance of payments, the fact is that this has come as a result of contraction and specifically a decline in both imports and exports.

The challenge facing the country then, is this: How can we achieve the real GDP growth needed, which will not only ensure greater levels of income but also bring sustained stability in the economic and social framework?

At the heart of this problem is productivity, and specifically the low levels of labour productivity we have been experiencing. This speaks to the unpreparedness of our labour force to adequately compete in a global environment. We face a daunting challenge: How do we transform the labour force from low productivity to one of high productivity?

This is the only formula that leads to sustained economic and social transformation, which should be our ultimate goal. It is also this transformation that will give us the real GDP growth needed to turn around our economic fortunes.

My own experience is that while we may have greater educational opportunities available, our labour force is neither innovative nor sufficiently focused on problem solving to effectively compete globally. And if you think about it, labour is the driving force behind every product or service that is produced.

So if labour is not competitive, in terms of innovation and value-added thought processes, then the resulting product or service will not have the desired competitiveness in a global market.

So how do we transform the labour force?

The first thing we must do is understand what role we want labour to play in a highly competitive economy and society. This also means establishing some societal goals such as income levels and standard of living.

We have never really, from a policy perspective, established what is labour's role in a competitive economy, and therefore there has never really been any link between economic planning and education planning. In other words, we have failed to put our people at the centre of our development.

Second, if you want labour to be competitive, then you must create the environment for productivity, thought, and innovation to thrive. Everyone who is involved in managing people knows that if you don't have a conducive environment to encourage productivity, then people are not going to produce at maximum.

The truth is that as a country we have not created that environment over the years, and this stems mainly from distrust between the citizens and the security forces, Government, the public sector and other stakeholders.

One of my pet peeves has always been that the way we set up our laws, and rules governing public sector workers, for example, assumes that no one is to be trusted. So we have procurement rules and tax compliance certificate regulations, which seem to assume, first, that everyone is dishonest and then they have to prove honesty.

Or we have an environment where the security forces over the years have failed to win the confidence of citizens. So how can we expect a productive labour force if we don't facilitate an environment to encourage it?

Third, it is important that we create a culture of pay for performance. And I speak specifically of the public sector, where reward is more based on seniority and connections in many respects. There is a lot of talent in that sector, which will not be maximised unless we adopt the model of rewarding performance.

Fourth, we need to incorporate education plans into our economic objectives. So the monies lent through the Students' Loan Bureau, for example, should be tied to what skills we will need to move the economy forward. Government should also offer scholarships in those skill sets, instead of using our scarce resources to fund skills that are highly unlikely to get a good job, given Jamaica's comparative advantage.

The last thing I will mention, but which is very important, is that we need to create an environment of discipline and rules. One of the major challenges with labour is that people have grown up with a lack of proper values and are generally undisciplined.

This has resulted, in large part, from the fact that we do not enforce laws, which may be as simple as night noise, littering, child abuse/protection, or the indiscipline on the roads. If we do not address this indiscipline, then we are teaching our children -- our future work force -- that it is acceptable to deviate.

And so it is important for us to understand that as we move into a critical phase of the economic programme, that economic and social transformation are necessary in order to create real sustainable growth. But this is only possible if we transform our labour force into a highly productive one, which means taking the necessary steps to do so.

Overcoming the challenge of poverty

Jonah Johnson shows the kitchen where he cooks for his family. (FILE PHOTO)

ACCORDING to the recently released 2012 Survey of Living Conditions (SLC), Jamaica has recorded an increase in poverty levels between 2009 and 2012.

"The all-Jamaica individual poverty prevalence increased by 2.3 percentage points relative to 2010 to reach 19.9 per cent," the survey stated. This was not totally unexpected, as the global recession hit us in 2008, and capital markets were closed to us amidst a stalled International Monetary Fund (IMF) agreement up to 2013. So it was unlikely that, without global capital market support, Jamaica would have seen any improvement in poverty levels.

One of the primary reasons for this is that , since the 1970s, Jamaica has managed to see improvements in poverty levels only as a result of increased borrowing rather than productivity improvement. That, however, was not sustainable as it was not based on earnings.

So, at the heart of our poverty challenge is the fact that since the 1970s, productivity levels, and labour productivity in particular, have been on a downward trend. As a result, Jamaican-produced goods and services have become less competitive globally, and this has contributed to the increased levels of poverty that we continue to experience.

The only way for us to overcome this poverty challenge is to increase productivity, and in particular labour productivity. For us to do this we have a lot of catching up to do. In developed countries robots are now being used instead of humans in warehousing, agricultural production, and many other industries.

In the meantime, we are grappling with an unemployment rate, hovering around 12 per cent, and relatively low literacy levels. Add to that equation the indiscipline of our labour force and the need for labour reform, and you see the challenge we have with labour and labour productivity.

It is important that we understand this, as the only way for us to sustainably reduce poverty, and even more if we are to improve per capita GDP to the levels of comparable countries, is if we are to significantly increase labour productivity. This is because earnings are a function of productivity, and therefore average wage levels will not increase (without debt) if we do not see first an increase in labour productivity.

The way we have chosen in the past to reduce poverty and increase earnings is primarily through the welfare influence of the State. What we have done is borrowed money (resulting in a $2-trillion debt today) and distribute it through government activity and programmes, with no relation to what the most productive use of that debt is. The result being that we are not able to pay back the debt, culminating in a debt burden that is fiscal, economic, and social.

Now that we have finally chosen the path to reduce our debt burden, and bring about the necessary fiscal reform, it was always going to be inevitable that we would see an increase in poverty levels. This is especially so during the period of the SLC, where we had no international capital support (debt) and there was an economic recession.

From 2012 to now, we have seen where the economy has made fiscal and monetary improvements, after the IMF agreement got back on track. The result has been improvements in the macroeconomic and trade indicators. But this improvement has not been as a result of economic expansion, but rather contraction. This, of course, was not unexpected, as there were so many inefficiencies in the system that it was inevitable that the economy had to contract before it started to expand, and particularly since much of the economy depended on debt, from which we are trying to wean ourselves, just like a drug addict going through withdrawal symptoms.

This, however, is not a sustainable path either, as we could contract to a point where it becomes difficult to start growing again. We are definitely not yet at that point, but you don't wait until you are weakest to try and regain your strength.

I believe the necessary legislative and fiscal reforms are being made, but the major challenge that we will face centres around labour productivity in both the public and private sectors.

The greatest challenge we will face to the turnaround of our economic fortunes is the labour force, and how we improve labour productivity. We must find a way to maximise the productivity of labour, especially in a world where menial tasks are being automated. This is also the only way to reduce poverty, as reducing unemployment by providing low-paying jobs does not reduce poverty, but institutionalises it instead.

So one of the first challenges we have is improving not just the literacy rate, but more importantly training our labour force to become problem-solvers and innovators. This must be one of the primary focuses of learning institutions.

Secondly, we need to use our scarce resources to focus education around the skill sets that we will require to expand our economy. It makes no sense using scarce government resources to educate people in a field where there will be very little or no demand for the skills.

Finally, as a general comment, we must quickly implement the labour market reform called for in the economic programme/IMF agreement.

There are many other initiatives I can think of that would contribute to improved labour productivity, but these are some main initiatives to focus on. What is important for us to understand, though, is that the only way to reduce poverty sustainably is to focus on improving the labour factor productivity to globally competitive levels.

Jamaica’s fundamental challenges

ONE of the things I pointed out early in my second book is that before we can solve a problem we need to understand what the fundamental issues are. I say that because over the years I find that we tend to address the symptoms of our problems rather than the underlying issues.

This is also true when we engage in debate about what solutions are to be applied. I guess that’s because some of us are not able to really understand the issues.

I do find that this is not only a national problem, but also manifests itself on a personal level. So, as an example, many people who are uncomfortable with their weight tend to try to cover it with clothes or undergo cosmetic surgery, or apply other solutions, when the real problem is getting proper nutrition and exercise.

However, humans tend to always seek the easier way out, and so the cosmetic solution is often preferred. This reflects the approach to our economic challenges where, for a very long time, we have delayed having to take the necessary decisions to ensure a better future.

The result is that the delay in acting causes tougher decisions later, both nationally and personally. In other words, it is better to maintain good health than to get it back.

So recently, more than ever I have been giving serious thought to what Jamaica’s fundamental challenges are, and why we have not been able to make any real progress in over 50 years of Independence. Maybe because I am getting older, I am even more distraught at the suffering that many Jamaicans have to endure, especially the children who are abused, and after so many years we are still unable to fix these ills of society.

Instead, what we have done is focus on many macro issues while ignoring the plight of individuals in general.

One thing I have learned is that no matter how much you try to address the macro environment, unless we deal effectively with the smaller issues we will never sustainably solve the bigger problems. This is very true for organisations, as many people try to implement policies and systems without giving due consideration to the environment that the staff has to work in.

In both an organisation and a country, the most valuable resource you will have is the people, as without people there is no organisation or country. This is an important concept to understand as the main reason behind every activity on earth is life, or people.

The other thing that many of us fail to understand is that economics is all about human behaviour. So too is social studies. And whether you have a successful economy or society depends on how people behave. In other words, the vibrancy of an economy is not fundamentally about the policies implemented, but rather how people react to the policies. Do they encourage people to consume or produce?

It would stand to reason then that if we are to truly achieve success, or to achieve the objectives of Vision 2030, then any policies that we formulate must put people at the centre.

After all, policies and laws mean nothing if people don’t support them and act positively towards them. In fact, one of the main reasons why we have failed to achieve prosperity as a country, relative to other countries, is that we have failed to consider the importance attached to the welfare of our people.

I know that we have enacted many laws and that various structures have been put in place. However, for me, the success of policies and actions is not based on announcements and implementation only, as we have become accustomed to, but rather on outcomes. In other words, with all that we have done, and all the investments made, have we seen the desired improvement in income levels and quality of life generally? At the economic level, after all the debt that has burdened us over the years, have we seen the desired economic growth?

If the answer to that is no, then it means that no matter how much effort has been made, we have not achieved what we desired. And it must mean that we have been doing something terribly wrong, and of necessity must relook at what we are doing.

This is why we had to make a seismic shift in how we approached our economic and fiscal challenges. Based on the past two years, it seems as if we have come to grips with what needs to be done in that area. However, this is just a part of the bigger problem, as a country’s development, in the final analysis, is about improving the standard of living generally and providing greater opportunities to people, not just meeting economic targets.

So even after we have successfully achieved the economic targets we still have work to do.

We have to accept that we have not done a good job as a country in this regard, and it is not only because of poor governance, but very importantly a lack of our own personal responsibility, and how we understand our roles as citizens.

I think that the basic problem we face is the lack of proper parenting, and that we live in a time when roles are confused, as children want to act like adults and adults want to act like children. Just like the mosquito infestation, which has contributed to the CHIKV spread, if we were to all address the actions of our own surroundings then we would have better citizens contributing to development.

This problem crystallises itself in social issues that, I think, are at the root of our problems. These include child abuse, poor parenting, unethical values and attitudes, general indiscipline and lack of enforcement of order by the people responsible, and the list goes on. The point is that if we have a society that does not produce good and productive citizens, then we will have economies and societies that are far from optimal, if we accept that economies and societies are nothing more than the interaction of people.

There is a lot more I could say on the subject, but suffice it to say that Jamaica’s fundamental challenges lie in how we build and maintain improved standards of living for our people.

The main lesson I learnt from visiting Cuba

HAVANA, Cuba — Jorge Perez, the head of Cuba’s top tropical medicine institute, points to a map, showing the location of the field hospital set up to train doctors in the fight against Ebola, in Havana on Friday, October 17, 2014. Cuba has sent 165 doctors to Sierra Leone and plans to send 296 more to Liberia and Guinea, the largest commitment of medical personnel so far. Perez says Cuba is ready to send more doctors as long as there is enough funding and infrastructure to support them.

LAST month I was a member of the delegation that visited Cuba with Health Minister Dr Fenton Ferguson to look at that country's preparation for Ebola, and thus take back some lessons for implementation in Jamaica.

There is no doubt that even though Ebola is unlikely to penetrate the Caribbean region, the fact is that the consequences of it doing so are so harmful that it is important for us to do everything to prevent it. In the unlikely event that it does enter the region, it is imperative that we contain it quickly.

This was my first visit to Cuba, and I was very impressed with how organised they are, and their approach to confronting challenges. The team did learn a lot from the visit, and the hospitality of the Cubans was outstanding.

One could argue that the system of government, and the resulting effect on the standard of living leave much to be desired. However, that is not what I want to focus on, as I think there are some very important lessons for us to learn from them.

We did learn a lot about the Ebola virus and how to prepare for it, including the systems to use. However, the main lesson for me went far beyond Ebola. It was the fact that there exists a well-ordered and disciplined society, and that the people seemed to take a lot of pride in what they do and strive for perfection. This, of course, can only come through years of instilling this culture.

The truth is that this type of order exists in countries like the US also, and this is primarily because they ensure the enforcement of law and order, not unlike in Cuba, although in a more democratic way. The level of order and discipline in both societies can only come through the authorities ensuring that they enforce laws.

It seemed to me that it does not matter how many conferences we go to or how many laws we have on the books, if we do not ensure that there is order, which is enforced in a fair and swift manner, then we will never be able to realise our full potential as a country.

The first thing is that, even though we were on an official visit -- where you are usually ushered through immigration quickly -- the Cuban immigration authorities spent time with each member of the delegation quizzing us about our travels and whether we had visited West Africa.

I am sure that they had some indication of whether we had or not, as they went through our passports thoroughly, but may have used the questions as a way of confirming our honesty. The fact, though, is that they ensured that the system of screening applied to everyone, as border control seemed extremely important. They later advised that this level of scrutiny was applied to anyone entering Cuba.

I was also impressed by the fact that for them, 8:30 am did not mean 8:31 am. In other words, there was a lot of respect for time, and everyone with whom we spoke was very knowledgeable and very comprehensive in their analysis.

So they thought about everything that could possibly go wrong, so that every system they had in place was there for a reason, down to how they put on and took off the hazmat suits. They also had a true centralised system of operations and included a wide cross section of people in their deliberations.

The health system is also very well organised, so that each region has a hospital and each hospital has around 25 doctors, who live in the communities where they work, and each deals with about 1,200 patients, so they know each patient very well. This may not work in our system of competition and a broken health care system. However, it shows that health care is a national priority and must be seen as critical for development.

I was also very impressed with the fact that they don't allow the deterioration of the infrastructure, which is also very well organised. There are many parks for communities and the roads are organised for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. Quite a contrast to Jamaica where it's every man for himself.

I noticed, also, that the Cubans are very active in restoring the buildings in Old Havana to their original architectural design, as they recognise the value of this as a tourist attraction. I often wonder when I see the historical pictures of downtown Kingston why we never did that, not to mention Port Royal and the value that would have had as a tourist attraction.

It is this lack of discipline and order in Jamaica that, in my view, has been the primary reason for our economic and social decay. For example, we love to speak about major crimes like murder, but we never seem to realise the link between murder and general lack of discipline and law and order. In other words, how can we solve crime if everyone is allowed to do what they want when driving, throw garbage anywhere they want, or play music at whatever level they want or whenever they want?

Or how can we solve crime when it takes years to get a case through the courts, or there is no equity in justice, as in case of Mario Deane and others held in prisons for long periods without a trial.

How do we talk about economic development when there is no proper monitoring of the zoning laws by the parish councils, leading to improper competition? Or how can we see an increase in productivity when the bureaucracy of the public sector takes hours to deal with one transaction, or it takes each of us 368 hours per year to pay taxes?

The truth is that, unless we can address the problem of a dysfunctional society, in terms of law, order, and values, and unless there is accountability for actions, then we will not realise the potential we need for sustainable economic and social development.

Each citizen, of course, has a big role to play, and I am reminded of this when I see how much garbage gets into the gullies and onto the beaches. It is just plain lack of any respect for self why we as a people throw garbage on the roads, but maybe this is a reflection of the pride some of us have in ourselves.

So while the trip to Cuba did produce valuable lessons about the Ebola situation, more importantly it showed me that if we are to move forward, then we must develop a society that embraces law and order, and citizens who accept their own responsibility.

The risk of inadequate health management

MONROVIA, Liberia — A man walks past a billboard warning people of the deadly Ebola virus in Monrovia on Friday. The number of people killed in the Ebola outbreak has risen above 4,000, the World Health Organisation has said. The latest figures show there have been 8,376 cases and 4,024 deaths in the worst-affected West African nations of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. (PHOTO: AP)

THE world has, in recent weeks, been very concerned with the Ebola virus and more importantly, containing it. Here in Jamaica, we have been dealing with the effects of the chikungunya virus, more commonly referred to as ChikV, while also keeping our eye on what is happening with Ebola, as this can be very devastating for Jamaica and the global economy.

I have seen many comments on social media, and I have posted a few as well, debating what measures should be put in place, and where responsibility lies. Some of these discussions have been constructive, some have been irrational, and some have been political. Many can only qualify as the rantings of ignorant people who don't have the ability to understand what the temperature is beyond the tip of their noses.

What is very clear to me is that proper health management in these circumstances is not something that we should seek opinions and consensus on, as the consequence of failure and delay is too horrendous. Sure, we want to consult with various stakeholders, but that consultation must take place with stakeholders who can make a difference to the fight, and not just consult for consulting's sake.

You also want to constantly review all processes, and be critical of what is not going right, but that should be constructively done in order to improve the situation, not seek one-upmanship.

This means that the management of the health care system generally requires astute and objective leadership which must be free of both ego and sensitivity, and must be able to communicate.

We must also understand that leadership is not just government and other officials, but must be leadership within our businesses, households, and wider communities. In other words, as the prime minister said, health management is more about personal responsibility than anything that can be done at a policy level, as health is really a personal issue. Whether it be ChikV, Ebola, or lifestyle diseases, it is all about how we manage our surroundings that affects us and those around us.

With that said though, leadership is responsible for communication and education, and we can all agree that this CHIKV outbreak was not managed properly. This should be accepted as such by the authorities. But once that is done, then let's put it down to a practice run for the real threat of Ebola, and other infectious diseases that are not here as yet.

So the press conference on Thursday with the prime minister and Sandrea Falconer is a good start to a much better approach after ChikV.

The Medical Association of Jamaica, as reported, also seems more confident in the current approach to the preparation for Ebola, and all of us need to be involved in the fight to keep it away. Which, by the way, means ensuring that we observe safety procedures when we travel, and when we return to Jamaica we are honest about where we went and any possible exposure. Again, the role of personal responsibility.

I say all of this because there is a huge risk

to improper health management, which includes inadequate communication and education. A recent report says that (i) approximately US$32.7 billion will be needed to fight Ebola in West Africa; (ii) failure to contain the epidemic could compromise the future of not only West Africa, but the entire continent.

In other words, this could be much worse than the 2008 financial crisis if it is not dealt with quickly. Any hint of an outbreak in Europe, Asia, North, or South America (largest global markets) could plummet financial markets and cause significant reduction in earning power and consumption. Also, unlike the slowdown in global markets caused by bad mortgages in 2008, this could lead to much more devastating and long-term consequences, as we would see global brands and physical markets disappearing.

This is why all the major developed countries are treating this as a major potential crisis and are pledging billions of US dollars in the fight, because if this is not controlled it could be the end of the world as we know it. In other words, a health crisis resulting from a disease like this is worse than any financial market crash or world war. In fact, it could lead to a global financial meltdown and war.

This is why personal responsibility is very critical, and why Jamaica needs to do everything to protect its borders and residents. This is not about giving some people a "bly", as we are used to doing.

The reality is that we are a tourist destination and we are just trying to cope with an IMF agreement which seems to be bearing some fruit, but we still remain very fragile. We also have a poor health infrastructure, a significant percentage of unemployment and people living below the poverty line, relative to other parts of the region and the world.

Therefore, the best line of defence for us is to ensure that our borders are well protected, and that proper and effective monitoring of anyone suspected is in place. Anyone who believes they have symptoms or have been exposed and do not report it to the authorities should face criminal penalties.

And anyone in authority who is negligent in their duties to act or report should also face penalties. This is how seriously we should approach this situation, as the possible economic and social fallout from this is like a final event.

It is going to require all of us in Government, Opposition, private sector, public sector, and civil society to work together. We need to support each other with action and criticisms. Anyone who is going to take a leadership role has to be big enough to rise above criticism, accept it where relevant and just get the job done.

I say all this, fully aware that there are no cases here, but also understanding that the time to act is not when something happens, but before. As they say, 'prevention is better than cure', and that is definitely so in this case.

I am heartened by last Thursday's press conference by the prime minister, and the comments by the MAJ. The education and communication must be very consistent and transparent as we move forward. Too much information is better than too little.

What is Jamaica's growth potential?

Planning Institute of Jamaica Director General Colin Bullock. The PIOJ is targeting three per cent growth for next fiscal year.

THE Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) is targeting real GDP growth of three per cent in the fiscal year 2015/16. This is against the previously targeted 1.5 to two per cent, under the current IMF agreement. I have long indicated that Jamaica has the capacity to grow at rates of between three to five per cent, in the short to medium term, and also that if we are really to see meaningful growth that will impact the man on the street, then growth must be upwards of three per cent.

I am sure that many will wonder if the PIOJ is being objective in targeting three per cent growth, when for the past 42 years Jamaica has averaged less than one per cent per annum. In fact, the only time that we saw growth over three per cent consecutively was in the 1980s. We have, however, seen one or two years of three per cent growth since then, but the problem we have had is it has not been consistent.

Another question to ask, therefore is: Even if we can achieve growth of three per cent in 2015/16, how sustainable is it, because one year of three per cent growth is not good enough for us to show any significant improvement in the standard of living for the average citizen.

It is also very true that even if we were to achieve a sustained period of growth of three per cent, many persons could still be disillusioned, as they could end up not being impacted positively. This is because macroeconomic growth does not guarantee growth for an individual or organisation, if that individual or organisation is not equipped to take advantage of the growth. Therefore, even in times when there is no growth many persons and businesses will still do well, because they have prepared individually.

In order for us to achieve growth of three per cent and above consistently, we must first understand if we have the capacity to do so, and secondly, what would prevent us from achieving that growth. It should be noted that the PIOJ targeted 2015/16, and did not address the years beyond, based on their expectation of certain projects coming on stream. Therefore, it is very possible that, based on the projects, there could be three per cent growth in 2015/16, but then we return to one per cent in 2016/17. I believe, however, that as a country we have the capacity to grow at three per cent, even beyond the 2015/16 year.

I say this because I don't think that Jamaica has fully exploited our comparative advantages, and there are just a few tweaks that need to be done for us to do so. Many of these changes are being made under the legislative and economic programme by the Government, at which Phillips and Golding are leading the charge. However, there are still some other adjustments to be made, if we are to sustainably achieve three per cent and above GDP growth. In other words, while the economic and legislative programme provides a platform for growth, there are some other things that must be done.

These include addressing the law and order problem, and I don't mean serious crimes like murder alone, but general indiscipline in the society. I am heartened by the position taken by the new police commissioner, and supported by the statement by Minister Bunting, who, I think, has been making the right strategic moves, and in fact, his policy initiatives and work of the former commissioner did have a positive impact on crime in general, and homicides in particular. So this has given the present commissioner an easier wicket to play on. One thing I find, though, that has changed for the worse, is that since Radcliffe Lewis retired from the Traffic department, I have noticed that the indiscipline by the taxis and buses (including JUTC) has got worse. I don't see the same presence by the police on the roads as when he was there. I also continue to notice the blatant disregard that people have for the night noise laws.

If we cannot maintain discipline in a society, then we are going to continue to negatively affect our growth prospects. No one wants to invest, and live, long-term in a society where there is so much indiscipline. A lot of this is personal responsibility by our citizens, who seem to thrive on indiscipline, but still the authorities must enforce the rules. I wouldn't even bother to mention the way we discard our garbage, which is most disgraceful.

This indiscipline extends to the parish councils, who over the years have been some of the biggest let-downs. I think that recently there has been some effort from some parish councils, but we must maintain the discipline of zoning laws and ensure property tax collection. How difficult can these be to enforce?

I have discussed bureaucracy on numerous occasions, and this continues to be the number one challenge that most business persons (large, medium, and small) face. All I will say on this is that I support the call by Minister Phillips for the Public Sector Transformation project to be fast-tracked. When the unit was being set up, I think in 2008/9, I indicated at the time that nothing would come of it, as the way it was set up and the implementation model made it impotent. We must ensure that bureaucracy is addressed, however, as failure to do so will stunt the growth of businesses, particularly at the much needed MSME level.

Energy is another obvious area, which I have discussed a lot also, and nothing more needs to be said as this is an obvious stumbling block to the much-needed value-added exports, which of course means more foreign exchange earnings.

There are two areas which are going to be critical if we are to see sustainable growth of above three per cent. The first is the education system. I believe that Minister Thwaites has been taking the right approach to the challenges the system faces, and I also believe that the stakeholders are coming around to seeing the best way forward. What I will say is that economic growth depends on growing income levels of consumers, and the only way for us to have a growing middle class is for the workforce to become more knowledgeable/educated and hence more productive. This cannot happen in an education system with over 50 per cent of our secondary school leavers graduating without one pass at CXC level.

Finally, there needs to be greater linkages between areas such as agriculture, manufacturing, and tourism. Minister Wykeham McNeill has a Tourism Linkages council, which has successfully been making a lot of this happen, and I am optimistic that the direction it is heading in will bear fruit. So he has been quietly making some positive impact there. This is an important aspect of our growth journey.

My answer to the question, therefore, would be that Jamaica does have the potential to grow sustainably above three per cent, as we have the areas of comparative advantage that will attract investments. However, real sustainable growth will only come when we see the environment changing to become a place where people want to do business, live, and raise families, not just for the large investor, but more importantly, for the small and medium size business.

What is the role of personal responsibility in development?

The persons responsible for Mario Deane’s death must be held accountable.

THE recent Global Competitiveness Re-port has shown that Jamaica is seeing some international competi-tiveness return from the current set of policies being instituted. It has been a while since our competitiveness has improved, and this is indeed welcome news. We still need to bear in mind, though, that the report shows that both GDP and GDP per capita, in US dollars, has declined from the previous year, but that is to be expected if we are making adjustments in an economy with low productivity. After all, exchange rates are primarily a reflection of a country's relative productivity.

Even though we have seen some improvement in the competitiveness index, the economy still remains very fragile, and there is still a lot of work to do, so we must not become complacent. I know it is very difficult for the average man on the street, and the temptation will be there for persons to take advantage of the hardship and call for greater welfare, which will just put us back where we were. We have had over 50 years of welfare government, since independence, and it has not worked. So if we continue to do the same thing we cannot expect different results.

We also have seen improvement in the homicide rate, reducing by 40 per cent year on year; education seems to be making some improvement; agricultural production is up; the unemployment rate has decreased; and there seems to be a greater awareness in the public sector of the need to improve customer service. Also although I am hurt by incidents such as Mario Deane, as any well-thinking Jamaican should be, and the responsible persons must be held accountable, I am encouraged by the response from INDECOM, the security minister, police high command, and civil society. I also welcome the US pathologist and his remarks, as it brings a very objective view.

There is, however, one consideration that we must all be mindful of as persons who want to see Jamaica move forward, and that is understanding what is our personal responsibility to development. It was John F Kennedy who said to the American people in the 1960s, "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." Although I don't believe that we are still at the same levels of nationalism as in the 1960s, because the world is now like a global village, the message is one of personal responsibility.

In my interaction with persons over the years, on social media and other methods of communication, I have found that many of us don't understand the role of personal responsibility. For example, I have always said, and it is still true today, that many of the political party supporters are much more tribalistic in their views and utterances than the politicians. In fact I find most politicians fairly objective in their reasoning, but not so with many supporters.

I also sadly find that many Jamaicans are very pessimistic about Jamaica to the point where even when something good happens they are cynical about it. So if the homicide rate is reported as going down, then it is because World Cup was going on, or there is underreporting. Similarly when the unemployment numbers are reported as going down. I just can't imagine living with that sort of pessimism, as one must lead a very miserable life doing so.

The fact is that while we should hold our leaders, and those in authority, responsible and accountable for things that go wrong (such as Mario Deane), we must also commend them when they do good, or else they won't be encouraged to do so next time. This is why I have taken the stance to commend the efforts of TAJ, Phillips, Thwaites, Ellington, INDECOM, civil society groups, etc. Because we must encourage what we want to see happen rather than be cynical when there is no evidence to the contrary.

In mature democracies also, the reason why they develop is that citizens understand their responsibility to speak against things that are done incorrectly or unfairly. So look at the outcry about the Mario Deane case, and the results we are seeing. It is not enough to just criticise privately, as the voices of the people in democracies are extremely important for progress.

One other disturbing thing I have always noted is the need of the environmentalists to clean up after Jamaicans. I mean, why do we need an annual beach clean-up day, and each year there seems to be more garbage than the year before? I have seen situations where people are driving and just wind down their windows and throw the garbage on the street. Even as we speak about things like beach erosion and tourist harassment, we must understand that these things are not caused by government policy, but rather individual actions.

When I look at countries like the US, I recognise that these countries were built by citizens understanding their individual responsibilities to act in a way that promotes development. So I read an article in the news only this week that parents were protesting the price of lunch at the school, instead of them maybe preparing a less expensive, more nutritious lunch for their child to carry to school. Or the article that speaks to teachers and book stores working together to unnecessarily place books on the booklist.

We also have the situation where schools are strapped for cash, and unable to provide adequate education, and when they ask for a mere $20,000 per annum ($400 per week) for a child to attend school, they are told by parents with $20,000 hairstyle and hair, or while they are protesting they are on the phone the whole time, using phone credit, that they can't afford it.

One of the reasons why I have to be objective, and applaud effort and good works, is because I want to live in Jamaica and nowhere else. And if that is something we all want to do, then we have to ensure that we are objective in our analysis, to ensure the best action for the country at all times. The generations before us have failed to take this country to prosperity, and it is time for those who are currently in leadership positions to make sure that we don't mess it up further and leave our children in a further mess. If we are to do so then we must be cognisant of the role our individual actions play in economic and social development, and act and talk accordingly.

Jamaica’s growing crisis

Jamaica Cancer Society (JCS) radiographer Donnett Hyman (left) demonstrates the functions of the organisation's newly acquired mammography machine to JCS Executive Director Yulit Gordon (second left), Health Minister Dr Fenton Ferguson (second right) and JCS Chairman Earl Jarrett. Gordon estimates that being stricken by cancer can cost someone over $4.5 million

WHILE we debate the economic challenges facing Jamaica, there is an emerging crisis that many are not speaking of, but which we must address as a country. This is the health of our population, and as a result the cost it currently has and its continued impact as it worsens. If, of course, we do nothing about it.

Anyone who knows me understands how important health management is to me. In fact, my passion for lifestyle management led me to write a book (Achieving Life's Equilibrium) and one aspect of that is health management, which I also have done a few presentations on.

The data on Jamaica shows that non-communicable diseases (NCDs) account for 56 per cent of all deaths, 20 per cent of which are caused by cancer, and cost approximately US$170 million ($19.2 billion) annually. Much of this cost is avoidable just by changing some aspects of our lifestyle, such as healthier food choices and exercise. What this means is that our failure to make the right lifestyle choices is causing us to spend up to $19 billion per annum on health costs, much of which could be going towards welfare, education, or some other growth inducement spending.

The Lancet Medical Journal recently reported that high body-mass index increases the risk of developing the 10 most common cancers, according to a study conducted on over five million people. Researchers estimate that over 12,000 cases of these 10 cancers each year is attributable to being overweight, or obesity, and estimates that if average BMI continues to increase there could be an extra 3,500 cancer cases annually.

Yulit Gordon, the Executive Director of the Jamaica Cancer Society (JCS), estimates that being stricken by cancer can cost someone over $4.5 million (assuming four chemotherapy treatments) in addition to the costs to visit the doctor and hospital stay and tests. So an individual could easily spend over $6 million in the initial fight against cancer. And I say initial because many times it recurs. The JCS is doing a very good job in the fight against cancer but is in need of greater support to be able to be even more effective.

There are, of course, other significant costs for an individual to deal with NCDs, such as high blood pressure and diabetes. These NCDs are the main reasons for many of us starting to show our age, and all because we make incorrect lifestyle choices; if the proper decisions are made many of these NCDs and associated costs are totally avoidable.

In addition to the cost on the health care system, and ultimately the fiscal accounts and taxes, the fact is that many of the drugs and products used in the treatment of NCDs are imported. So if we assume that 70 per cent of the US$170 million annually is imported, then it means that NCDs are adding US$119 million ($13.4 billion) to our trade deficit annually, which is just under 10 per cent of the current account deficit.

This cost to our fiscal and balance of payments accounts does not include the cost to GDP from productive hours lost due to sick leave or death. If we assume that 40 per cent of our workforce takes their entitled seven days' sick leave per year, then on average this could negatively impact GDP by over $10 billion annually.

Even at the lower estimates, the computations show that the cost of NCDs to Jamaica is an ever growing threat, is totally avoidable, and is a cost that I don't think we emphasise enough. Certainly if you are trying to improve the cost structure (profitability) of a company, one of the first things that you do is to look at the "low-hanging fruit". In other words it is easiest to minimise avoidable costs as a means of improving the financial situation. So while we focus on new taxes, earnings, or wages and salaries, the fact is that if we look carefully at the fiscal accounts there are significant costs that can be avoided by just doing things differently. This is something I remember Ronnie Thwaites stressing when he was on Power 106 for a very long time.

But are we ready to take responsibility and make the necessary lifestyle changes? The truth is that even many of us who promote the idea of lifestyle changes are guilty of poor choices ourselves, and the most effective way to influence people is to ensure that you are a good example. I am always amazed at the way adults, for example, tell children about certain ways they should behave but at the same time do the same things they tell them not to do. So they tell them, "Do not drink and drive, do not text while driving, make sure you eat properly," etc. However, I see many adults setting a bad example for children to follow even in front of the same children that they instruct.

I also notice that many children today are living a lifestyle that will ensure they have health issues earlier, rather than later. Certainly in my teenage days when there was one television station that signed on at 5:00 pm, and there were no video games, we had no option but to go outside and engage in some physical activity like football, cricket, and so on. I also have noticed that when one speaks about the quality of a school we refer to academics and not emphasise the importance of physical education, the result being that many of the children leave school today academically brilliant but without the physical foundation that will ensure that they are healthy enough to enjoy the money they earn from the academic achievements. So many of our children are just ticking time bombs for NCDs.

There is no doubt that if we continue to ignore the necessary lifestyle choices that will improve our health, then we can safely say that Jamaica will face a health crisis in NCDs, similar to developed countries like the US, and this will impact even more on our fiscal accounts and balance of payments.

So while we try to solve our economic circumstances, we should recognise the role that behavioural choices play in our economic challenges, and the significant cost it has, both nationally and individually. In fact, I have heard many people say they cannot afford to eat properly, as proper nutrition costs more. While this may be true in relation to the direct cost of nutrition, they haven't considered the current and future medical expenses from poor nutrition choices, which ends up being significantly more and the negative impact on quality of life.

Apart from the cost, though, we should be encouraging our children to make healthier choices for their own benefit, and my own view is that this has more to do with lack of exercise and consumption of many of the imported processed foods, as our own local brands and produce are a lot healthier. Yet another reason to support Jamaican products.

Social justice and economic development

EVERYONE should know by now that I believe the economic programme is being managed properly, as the fiscal and legislative adjustments being made are definitely the right option for creating a positive environment for economic development. And certainly, more importantly, is that the leadership of the programme, headed by Peter Phillips, has shown the willingness to see it through to a successful end.

Even with this, though, the economy is still in a very fragile state, with unemployment still too high, and despite improvements in the fiscal and other macroeconomic indicators, we still have a very far way to go. Importantly, any letup on the implementation of the programme, or even a natural disaster, could cause us to be back in dire economic circumstances. So it is important for us to stick to it.

On the other hand, we also need to realise that sustainable economic and social development cannot be achieved merely by implementing this programme, or getting in significant foreign investments, as has happened in the past. The only way for us to truly see sustained development is for any such development to be inclusive of the masses of people. In other words, any path that we are on must of necessity provide opportunities for the ordinary Jamaican to excel, and very importantly Government's primary role must be to ensure that the vulnerable are not only protected, through social programmes, but also have equal access to the opportunities for elevation available.

So everyone should have access to the best education, justice, and social welfare protection where needed.

It is with this in mind that it really hurt me when I heard about the Mario Deane situation. Not because it hasn't happened before, and similarly I was outraged, but because he died on the day we were celebrating our 52nd anniversary of independence as a nation. And my perspective is that independence not only means the right to govern your own affairs, but of necessity independence comes with the responsibility to ensure that we treat others right, as well as manage our own affairs properly.

So a child who attains adulthood is not just independent because he/she earns money. Those allowed independence must practise good citizenship and must manage their affairs properly. Any mismanagement of that independence results in it being taken away. So if you are reckless with your finances and have to rely on others to support you, then you are once again dependent, and similarly, if you break the law your independence can be taken away from you.

Similarly, a country that cannot manage the responsibility of Independence will also become dependent. This is our case with the dependence on the international lending agencies, and other countries that we rely on for aid. Even though we attained Independence in 1962, the way we have managed our affairs has resulted in us losing much of that independence. So, to be independent implies being responsible.

One of the responsibilities of Independence is being fair to all; even those you think may offend you. Because it is when we can truly forgive the indiscretions of others that we have really matured as independent people, and a country. Remaining independent also means accepting responsibility.

The Mario Deane case showed both sides of this argument, as first it showed that the response from the police involved demonstrated that they never accepted responsibility of the power to detain persons against their will. I would have expected a statement to the effect: "We regret to inform the people of Jamaica that Mr. Mario Deane was severely beaten by other detained persons. We accept the responsibility for persons in our care, and will be vigorously investigating this matter to see who is directly responsible and will make our findings known in the shortest possible time." Instead the response was to first deny culpability and then charge two persons, with no apology. It took the ministers of Justice and National Security, the acting commissioner, some politicians, INDECOM, and civil society to express outrage and apologise. Still no one from Barnett Street, from what I know, has issued any statement of apology. If so then I stand corrected.

What as a country we have also failed to understand is that in order to have sustained economic development, it is necessary to also have social justice. Whenever there is no social justice, it results in lost opportunities and wasted talent. It also results in wasted productive hours, as instead of cleaning up the mess caused by some functionaries of the state, we could be planning how to increase agricultural and other production. If we were to do an analysis on the amount of time and resources wasted trying to correct social ills I am sure that it could significantly add to GDP.

This means of course ensuring that law and order exists in the country. And this does not only apply to the citizens who should be abiding by the laws of the land, but it also applies to those with the responsibility for creating and enforcing laws.

As Peter Tosh said, everyone is crying out for peace but there can be no peace without justice. I want to go a step further and say that there can be no sustained economic development without social justice and stability. Just look at the Middle East.

As a country we have made strides. I find that the policymakers are more willing today to engage stakeholders. We see that with the response to criticisms of the recent legislative changes, which has been to engage stakeholders. I personally also see improved customer service within the public sector, and improved service delivery. This even extends to the security forces, as the police are a lot more courteous than days gone by.

However, in order to make that next step to sustainable development, and achieving Vision 2030, social justice must be at the top of the agenda.

Role of values and attitudes in development

DAVIES… when he tries to introduce discipline to the transport system, the response is protest and demonstration

Earlier this week I ran into Bunny Goodison, and we got to talking about the demise of values and attitudes in Jamaica. We spoke about the fact that even though we may see growth in the economy, there is still a critical mass of the population that doesn't know what it means to be productive, and sadly, may not easily find a place in a more competitive economy.

So even as we see the employment numbers declining, and GDP growth chugging along, the fact is that there is still a great concern about many of the youths who grew up in a time when the values of working were never a priority. In fact, Bunny said we may have about two generations that fall into that category.

As I thought about this some more over the ensuing days, I reflected on the importance that was placed on this by former PM PJ Patterson, in his Values and Attitudes campaign. He realised how much of a problem the lack of proper attitudes and values was going to be for the proper development of Jamaica.

The reality is that no country can develop in any sustainable way without a foundation of proper values and attitudes. One may argue that this is the reason we have laws, that is, to bring people in line when they deviate. However, this is only effective when the general behaviour of society is aligned with ethical values and attitudes, and the unethical behaviour is in the minority.

Jamaica has, however, developed in such a way that it seems as if the unethical behaviour is challenging ethical behaviour as the acceptable way of life. When this happens, the laws are not as meaningful, because the people who have grown up accepting unethical behaviour are the ones who enforce the laws.

So many of us grew up accepting indiscipline on our roads -- drinking while driving, boorish behaviour by taxis and buses -- children in bars and at betting shops, underage drinking and smoking, evasion of taxes, domestic violence, and the list goes on.

The danger of constant exposure to that sort of behaviour is that we accept it as the norm, therefore when the child that grew up in this culture becomes a police officer, he/she turns a blind eye to indiscipline.

The reasons for this acceptable norm of behaviour are complex, and sociologists may need to explain it, but one reason for it is the attitude we had in the 1970s and 1980s, where even the slogan of our tourism campaign was 'Jamaica, no problem'. So Jamaica was a laid-back place for both locals and tourists. We could consume alcohol and drive, play music at anytime of the night, tourist harassment was seen as hustling, and if the authorities came down on someone for breaking the law, the attitude was "Bwoy, look how dem fighting down the poor man."

The result of all of this was that anyone who wanted to enforce the law was seen as unreasonable, and this was in no small way promoted by the attitude of politics and the politicians.

So when the political parties had rallies, it was okay for the supporters to hang outside of the buses and destroy property as they travelled to meetings. Some will remember when the supporters, under the influence of political fever, would smash the windows of stores and engage in violent confrontations. In fact, there was a time when political meetings were being held that the law-abiding citizen would stay off the road and allow the law breakers to gain acceptance.

Combine all of this breakdown in proper behaviour with the fact that around the end of the 1980s to today, the role model of many young people became the deejay and the area don. As Bunny said, when he was growing up everyone wanted to be a lawyer, doctor, accountant, nurse, teacher, or other professional.

Today, I see some change as people look to become sports personalities or entrepreneurs, but the values and attitudes have still not improved.

By the late 2000s, the politicians, many of whom helped to create the societal indiscipline, decided that out of necessity we needed to change it for the better. By that time there was a serious breakdown in values, and the two generations that Bunny referred to did not know how to be productive contributors, and this is reflected in the type of music we produce.

So the lyrics of music today tell the children -- who are encouraged by their parents to gyrate to it -- that they must take advantage of the other sex or glorify the gun culture. This, of course, didn't start today, as in the late 1960s to 1970s the "rude boy" culture started to find its way into songs, in response to the perceived social oppression of the time. But at that time there was still respect for authority.

So today, the Government is trying to change that lack of disrespect for authority and indiscipline. The problem is that after decades of acceptable social decay, any attempt to change it will meet resistance. So when Dr Omar Davies tries to introduce discipline to the transport system, the response is protest and demonstration.

When the police try to maintain road discipline or deal with night noise, the patrons come down on them as "fighting against" people who want to make a living. When the tax authorities try to deal with tax evasion they face an uphill battle.

If, however, we want to create a country that is the preferred place to live, raise families, work, and invest, then we must create a society where the rule of law and order is paramount. The only way for us to create this is to ensure that engrained in all of us, as law-abiding citizens, is the desire to always do the right thing. This is not something that can be enforced by application of the law only. It must be learned as a way of life.

As I said to Bunny, I grew up learning from my parents that I should always do the right thing, no matter what the immediate consequences, as this is the only way to hold your head high over time. But how many of us have been able to learn that, given that many of the parents -- themselves teenagers -- were not prepared with that knowledge, much more to teach it.

In fact, the school curriculum never taught you, and still doesn't teach you, to be a good parent or a good citizen. I would go as far as to say that some teachers themselves are not good role models for the children they lead, as they themselves lacked the grounding in proper values and attitudes.

So thanks for the conversation, Bunny. Indeed, if we are to develop a society aligned with Vision 2030, then I don't think it is possible without us changing our values and attitudes, as we could end up with a lot of money but an undisciplined society.

Why private sector-led growth is good for earnings

THE recent Observer report that 7,000 professionals have left Jamaica over the past few years has received much attention. We all know that teachers, nurses, engineers, accountants, and other professionals have been making the trek up north in the hope of either finding employment or seeking better salaries.

This "brain migration" is definitely the best way to exploit the value of these trained minds, primarily through remittances. The greater value is to have them stay in Jamaica and contribute their minds, through ideas and innovation in services and products. You only have to think about the impact of someone like Steve Jobs on the American economy versus any remittances that might have been sent back to another country.

In other words, the value of one idea can be worth much more than the remittances from one million or more people on the economy where the idea is developed.

The question we should ask ourselves is, how can

Canada, or the US, compensate Jamaican-trained professionals more than we can afford to do? Why can't we pay our own professionals more than they can demand in another country? For example, why are Jamaican-trained teachers and nurses able to command higher salaries in North America, and other countries, than they do here? After all, the act of a plane trip doesn't automatically transform them into higher-earning individuals.

It is important to understand this if we are to seriously attack the problem of relatively low wages in Jamaica, and my view is that the reason for this imbalance has to do with the size of the private sector in the economy in relation to the size of government.

In other words, private sector-led economies are always, on the whole, more productive and innovative, and it is productivity and innovation that drive value, which in turn drive financial reward, whether at the organisational or personal level.

This drive for productivity and innovation is, of course, driven by the profit motive, as economics teaches us. In other words, people will always find ways to be more productive and innovate in circumstances where they are rewarded with something they desire. So the motivation doesn't necessarily have to be money.

However, our motivations are driven by

what Organisational Behaviour studies refer to as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In other words, at the basic level man is motivated by food and shelter, but after he acquires enough food and shelter his motivation is more influenced by other things such as clothing style, car, house, education, etc.

At the highest level the motivation is self-actualisation, which is why many billionaires become philanthropists. That is because they are more motivated by being recognised for doing good than for making much more money.

It is this same reasoning that drives the profit motive for companies, that causes economies to grow, value to be added, and similar employees in prosperous countries to be rewarded more than poorer countries.

And it is the absence of this structure that has caused relatively lower wages in Jamaica. In other words, the declining levels of productivity in Jamaica have been the primary problem, which simply means that if your output per hour is declining, then obviously your income per hour must also be declining.

So the key to greater wages, and ultimately sustainable economic growth, is to improve productivity. It is therefore important to understand what causes our declining productivity and the consequence of relatively lower GDP per capita and lower wages.

Arguments are made that the high level of public sector employment is a major problem. However, when you compare Jamaica's percentage of workers in the public sector to other countries like the US and UK, the rates are pretty similar. In fact, some countries that have had significant economic challenges have had a lower rate employed in the public sector.

This is because it is not how many people are employed in the public sector but rather what are the productivity levels in the public sector, in terms of delivering public services and goods. In other words, the efficiency of the bureaucracy is key to determining productivity and explain why bureaucracy is such a big inhibitor to Jamaica's growth.

What is also important for the private sector is that greater facilitation is made for the more innovative ideas to succeed and for workers to be rewarded based on their productivity. And this is the reason that the minimum wage by itself cannot improve living standards, even though a minimum level is important to prevent exploitation. Moving wages by legislation does not guarantee improved living standards; instead, it has the opposite effect of increasing inflation.

So in both the public and private sectors the only real living standard improvements must come from greater productivity and innovation through delivering goods and services that consumers want. Simply increasing productivity and being innovative do not, by themselves, guarantee greater financial returns, but must be coupled with a consumer demand for what is being produced.

How does the private sector address this? If a company produces goods and services which are not in demand, that company will go out of business. On the public sector side, however, this must be carefully looked at by the policy makers to ensure that whatever services are being provided are in demand.

So duplication of effort by public sector bodies or legislating that the public pay for unnecessary services is merely increasing costs and reducing productivity. Also, providing much-needed services inefficiently has the same effect.

This is why the legislative and competitive environment changes being undertaken under the current economic and monetary programme are so important, and welcome. However, it must go further to ensure that the delivery of services by the bureaucracy is as efficient as it can be.

If we can achieve this, and ensure that we facilitate the profit motive of the private sector (ensuring, of course, it is legal, fair, and accessible to all), then we will eventually start seeing greater productivity and wages moving to the levels of other countries.

What "Buy Jamaican" should mean

There are Jamaican hotels like Pegasus that are always buzzing with activity, and Spanish Court Hotel, which has done very well as a small boutique hotel, not because they are 100 per cent Jamaican but because they are of a very high standard.

Earlier this week I attended a forum and was asked to answer some questions from the audience. The forum was about entrepreneurship and one person, an entrepreneur himself, addressed the audience and encouraged everyone that they should buy Jamaican products in preference to imported ones and criticized the Jamaican branded companies that actually manufacture their products abroad, while everyone believed that they were 100 percent Jamaican made products.

You will recall that a recent news report identified products from two well known Jamaican companies as made primarily in other countries and branded as products of the Jamaican companies, and it to this that the reference was made.

The meeting was addressing young entrepreneurs and therefore I felt compelled to respond to the statement about the need for us to buy Jamaican always in preference to imported products.

I made the point to the young entrepreneurs that I do not want them to walk away with the view that we should buy a product just because it is 100 percent made in Jamaica, as what we could end up doing is supporting inefficiency and this could result in us continuing to underachieve as a country. I went on to say that in fact, up until the early 1990s, when the economy was liberalised, Jamaica actually did have a buy Jamaica campaign. This was well voiced in the 1970s, and continued in the 1980s, not as a campaign, but rather in the form of tarrifs that protected Jamaican goods. In other words, we forced persons to buy Jamaican goods by establishing trade barriers and foreign exchange controls to ensure that we kept as much money as possible in Jamaica and spent on Jamaican produce.

Another country that has done that, whether by their own design or the US embargo, is Cuba. The question we must therefore ask ourselves is, has Jamaica benefitted from the Buy Jamaica campaign in the 1970s and protectionist policies up to the 1990s. I clearly remember that we were only allowed to take out US$50 up to the early 1990s, when we were travelling, and all it did in my view was to create cheats of persons who were caught trying to take more than US$50 out of the country. I have not seen any lasting positive economic results from that era.

The point to be made is that if we are to promote the idea that we should buy a product just because it has 100 percent Jamaican input, in preference to one with 30 per cent Jamaican input then we could actually be doing ourselves a disservice by promoting low poductivity and inefficiency. And this is a very important point for us to understand as a country.

Instead I advised the young entrepreneurs there that they should not expect that their produce will be bought just because its Jamaican, but rather because it is of the highest world standard. To otherwise expect that your product will be bought by a Jamaican just because it is made 100 per cent in Jamaica is to expect patronage.

I, for example, do believe that we should buy Jamaican produce and services and do prefer to buy some Jamaican products to imported ones. But my choice is not based on the fact that they are 100 per cent Jamaican produce but because the Jamaican products I buy I think are superior to the foreign ones.

I think of Jamaican brands like Sandals, which as far as I am concerned is a far superior to most other hotels whether in Jamaica or overseas. This is so much recognised by the market that Sandals is able to charge a significant premium, and is one of the reasons why I can't always go there myself but that is good for Jamaica and Sandals. Also Grace, Lasco, National, and Island Grill are strong Jamaican brands that consumers purchase, not because they are 100 per cent Jamaican but because they represent a higher value than many foreign brands.

There are Jamaican hotels like Pegasus and Knutsford Court that are always buzzing with activity, and Spanish Court Hotel, which has done very well as a small boutique hotel, not because they are 100 per cent Jamaican but because they are of a very high standard.

And this does not mean that their prices are the lowest in the market also (as Sandals) but because they provide the best value for the dollar. I only have to think of my preference for local agricultural products, and the reason why I prefer going to Coronation market to get produce than in the supermarkets. This is not because the prices are necessarily cheaper than the imports, or that it is more convenient to go to Coronation market. Rather I prefer to buy the Jamaican produce from Coronation market because they are fresher and closer to organic than the imports.

The above highlights the importance of value and standards in purchase decisions. My word to young entrepreneurs therefore is not to think along the lines that you will succeed just becaue your products are all Jamaican but rather because you produce the highest standard product. This is the only way that you can sustain your business model and grow your business. Else what you are asking for is patronage.

I also would encourage Jamaicans to always purchase Jamaican products also, not because you should patronize Jamaican products, but because I truly believe that many of our Jamaican products are superior to the foreign ones.

This leads me to another point though that their is no Jamaican product that is 100 per cent Jamaican. A significant part of production cost is energy, of which oil is our main import. There is also the cost of packaging, which even if the printing is done here, the paper is not made here. The furniture that many of us use is either imported or the raw material in the furniture is imported. So there is no truly 100 per cent Jamaican product.

We also need to understand that if we are to develop then we must create global brands, such as Sandals, Grace, Jamaica Producers, etc. What this means also is that these global brands, in order to compete and grow must produce where it is in their best interest to do so, from a financial and supply chain management perspective.

Therefore when we see that a company is not using mostly Jamaican inputs we must not criticise themfor doing so but rather must ask what can we do as a country to ensure that they increase Jamaican inputs. So is it that they can't get consistent supplies; labour productivity is low in Jamaica; bureaucracy stifles productivity; or our tax rates are not competitive.

In other words if we want to create brands with more Jamaican inputs (including foreign brands that want Jamaican inputs) then we must encourage our entrepreneurs to meet global standards and must also ensure that our policy makers create a very friendly doing business environment.

Practising the Law of Priorities

I have just completed reading a book by John C. Maxwell, titled the 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, which was kindly given to me by Everton Bryan from IAS, who was recently recognized as the CEO of the year for Action Coach International. The book is about the characteristics that good leaders possess, and is something that we all know but what it does is lay it out in a very structured way. And I would certainly recommend it to anyone who wants to work on developing their leadership ability.

One of the laws (principles) that I thought is very important for us to understand as a country, and could be extended to the region, as we seek to develop our economy with limited resources (financial and HR) is the law of priorities.

What this law says is that leaders must understand that activity is not necessarily accomplishment. In other words, as I wrote in my last book, working efficiently is much more important than working hard. It is not as important how much you do as it is what you do in a day at work.

Many of us will know people who are always busy and always working late. But at the end of the day it seems like they always have a lot of work piled on their desks with little accomplishment. When I say accomplishment I don’t mean just doing various tasks but doing something that adds value to the organization or people around them. So just working hard and not seeing any “value added” at the end of it means that the organization will stand still as you are doing the same thing everyday and hence you will get the same result, which most times means not creating a competitive edge.

What it means therefore is that when we are faced with a lot of work and limited resources then in order to accomplish any value added what we must do is observe the law of priorities, or put another way focus on what will add value, given the resource constraint.

So using the example of people exercising to get fit, or just have a healthy lifestyle, many persons do not organize their exercise so that it is as efficient as possible. So they spend two hours each day walking or running leisurely and can’t understand why they can’t get results. While if they spent 20 minutes on much more intense exercise, which would not allow them to talk, then they would get far better results. Or in an organization some people always cry out for more resources to get things done, while the more organized person first recognizes the limitation of the resources and prioritizes within that limitation. Guess who ends up getting the results.

I think this lack of prioritizing is also one of the root causes of the challenges we face in Jamaica, and one could maybe extend it to the region. Too many times, especially at the political level over the years, we want to be all things to all people and end up being nothing to all people. In other words in our quest to please everyone we end up making everyone worse off. This of course is because we do not apply the law of priorities to our actions.

So everyone recognizes that the country has a fiscal challenge, a high debt-GDP ratio, and spend more than we earn, among many other challenges. And we recognize that we cannot try to do everything we would like to do because of limited resources. In fact one of the things that is clear is that the maybe the most fundamental reason why the country has not developed is that we have promoted labour and capital unproductivity, through government policies and fiscal welfare, which we have funded with debt in the past.

We also recognize that in order to change this paradigm that we have to change this culture of low productivity, and place capital, which includes the limited fiscal resources, in the places that returns the highest value. In other words we must make a list of what the actions that will bring greatest value and help us to achieve the goal of economic and social development. Put another way if we continue to try to stretch our meagre resources and support spending that discourages productivity then we will be “Back at One” as Brian McKnight sings.

So what we must do is adopt the law of priorities, as well as the law of sacrifice, in our quest for real economic and social development. So we can’t continue to use our meagre resources to promote practices that discourage productivity, which simply means we can’t use fiscal expenditure to support persons who do not intend to become productive or competitive. Otherwise called handouts. It also means that we need to prioritize what our reform areas should be. That is those that will have the greatest impact on the agenda going forward. This is what the documented economic programme schedule is supposed to do and it means that we must ensure that we do not “waiver” from it.

This need to prioritize the right actions also means that when we are setting policy, that we must also ensure that the policies are done with the longer term objective of sustainable development, rather than short term gains to meet a target only.

This is the same thing that businesses must do everyday. They would like to have unlimited resources to do everything they want to do but must consider the capital, projected business, the limitation of the human resources, market conditions etc. and then prioritize the strategies and match them with the available resources. You then do what will bring the greatest long term value to the business.

It seems to me that this is something that we need to understand as a country. As we get nearer to the “political silly season”, a.k.a. elections, let us apply this law of priorities and not get sidetracked with unrealistically trying to be all things to all people, and end up pleasing no one.

This is the challenge that we face as we continue to manage our meagre resources, and while it is possible to achieve the elusive development we have always wanted, even with our much more limited resources. It can only happen with the application of the laws of priorities and sacrifice. The reward for this will be prosperity for all.

What are the opportunities for the Caribbean?

OVER the past two weeks I did some travelling within the Caribbean, first to Suriname and then to St Kitts. In between I was also asked to go to a South American country, but decided against it because of the amount of travelling time it would take. The itinerary would look something like, leave Jamaica at 2:30 pm and get to Suriname at 1:30 am (11:30 am Jamaica time), or 11 hours travelling time; leave Suriname to Curacao then up to Miami (three hours) and then an eight hour flight to South America; then leave South America to Miami and back to Jamaica; and then leave Jamaica to Miami (1.5 hours) and then to St Kitts (three hours) and then reverse the trip on the way home. Not to mention that it is more expensive to get to a location the same distance away in the Caribbean than it is to get to somewhere in North America.

Usually when you do a trip down to Trinidad or Barbados you curse the time it takes to get there, but don’t usually do much reflection on how much of a challenge it is for development within the region. The fact is that it is easier to get to Europe and North America than it is to travel within the region.

It occurred to me also that this is a significant reason why intraregional trade is not maximised, and the region has not developed to its full potential.

Our tourism officials have worked tirelessly over the years to ensure that we have most if not all the North American airlines coming to Jamaica.

The first issue of the lack of progress with intraregional trade and synergy is obvious. The fact is that unless we are able to improve the ease of travelling throughout the region, then regionalism, at the trade and other levels will suffer. In my view it is therefore necessary for the regional governments to get together and look at regional travel if we are serious about developing Caricom. In addition to this though, if we are truly serious about developing Caricom, then it is very important for there to be free movement of goods and people throughout the region.

It is, in my view, because of the lack of this freedom of movement and ease of travel why countries in the region prefer to look towards North America for trade and labour movement. This is evidenced by the size of the Caribbean diaspora in North America and the trade with North America.

The examples of Suriname and St Kitts show the opportunities that are available to us for development, if only we could address the structural issues of transport and movement of people and goods.

Both countries are excellent tourist destinations, and I think Suriname in particular has a lot of opportunities for development because it not only has good tourism potential, but also has other industries such as gold, bauxite, agriculture etc. St Kitts, on the other hand, because of its size can’t take advantage of industries like agriculture but has vast potential for tourism and international services, which I gather they are trying to develop. The Marriot Hotel in St Kitts in particular is an excellent product, as I was very much impressed with the service and the food. And my comparison is based on the service levels at Sandals, which is at the highest standard globally.

The disadvantage for both countries, however, is the ability to get there. This is certainly one of the advantages that Jamaica has, which we don’t realise enough. Our tourism officials have worked tirelessly over the years to ensure that we have most if not all the North American airlines coming to Jamaica, and have been opening up routes from South America, Europe, and Asia. It helps, of course, that we have an excellent geographic location and brand, but one could argue that the travel connectivity has some responsibility for our brand recognition.

It is this connectivity to the world, through airline travel primarily, why our people are able to visit and open up markets with other countries. The ability to travel easily between Jamaica and those countries has created an identification with the cultures that is essential for business. This is a challenge we have to deal with if we want to get into the South American market in a big way. It is a big market, with many opportunities, but unless we can understand and infiltrate the culture, then it is going to prove difficult to access the markets.

If we look, for example, at trade within the region, Jamaica does relatively more trade with Trinidad than any other Caribbean country, and also has strong ties with Barbados in terms of people movement. We also have Trinidadian and Barbadian companies invested in Jamaica, more so than other Caribbean nationals. The main reason for this I think is because of the connections made through the UWI, as students travel to the various campuses to complete their studies, and at the same time make lifelong connections. In other words, there is an infusion of the cultural aspects.

This trade and business relationship between Jamaica, Trinidad, and Barbados proves that as a region we can do much more together, than we are doing today, particularly with the smaller islands. Again using Suriname and St Kitts as examples, if we had easier travel arrangements with them then they would be much better vacation destinations than just travelling to Florida to spend time in the shopping mall.

My own view is that there are a lot of opportunities to be had by the region being more accessible to other countries, including the Caribbean; and if we also promoted easier movement of people. Because our primary areas of comparative advantage are tourism, added value services, and agriculture, it is even more important for our markets to be accessible. So for example, it would be foolhardy of us to try and promote tourism while at the same time having strict visa requirements. Why then do we create a perception that there is a problem with movement of nationals and goods within the region and expect that Caricom will prosper?

Therefore before we start talking about growing CARICOM as a unit, shouldn’t we address the challenges of market accessibility? That is, of course, if we are serious about it.

Understanding the path to development — part 2

The social entrepreneur uses business/economic strategies to solve social problems. The end product is wealth produced by persons at the base of the economic pyramid and living in harmonious, sustainable but economically integrated communities

LAST week I ended by speaking about the risk taken by many private sector investors, which is the story of many successful entrepreneurs I have spoken with, who at some point in time questioned if what they were doing was the right thing, or should they just be satisfied with the safety of a job. The truth, however, is that a real entrepreneur is not one who is driven by money as much as he/she is driven by the need to accomplish something different. If you speak to many of the successful entrepreneurs you will find this trait amongst them.

If you examine the current economic programme, what you will see is that there is a real effort to remove the structural impediments to the entrepreneurial drive. This is very important for sustainability, as what this will do is cause the private individual (entrepreneur) to develop the confidence to invest his savings in starting a business, and by so doing create jobs, and income, which will then result in even further economic activity and growth. And so the cycle continues with further confidence and growth.

So we can all agree that the only sustainable way for economic growth to occur is through private (entrepreneurs and individuals) spending and investing.

The questions that we should be asking, therefore, are what are the inhibitors to the private sector having enough confidence to invest, and also, have we created enough areas of opportunities, again by removing the barriers, for investments to happen. It is important to understand that government policy can have the effect of both creating and also reducing areas of comparative advantage, and so the one of the primary features of government policy should be to create a business-friendly environment in as many areas of opportunity as possible.

It is for this reason that the fiscal and legislative adjustments under the current IMF agreement are beneficial for economic growth. Contrast this to the previous IMF agreements where the primary adjustment was devaluation with no adjustment to the "doing business" environment, which was really just making it more difficult for persons to make purchases, but not give them the opportunity to earn more income. This is because the classical argument for devaluation is that it is supposed to make your goods cheaper, and thus more competitive globally. However, what was not considered is that if you are hampered with the inability to produce (inhibitors), then no matter how much your income is reduced, and how hungry you get, without the ability to earn income then you will not be able to earn your way out of the problem.

What this programme is aiming to do, with the adjustments being made, is to make for an easier path to production for those who are innovative and productive.

However, legislative and fiscal changes are not enough to ensure sustained economic growth. Or put another way, competitive production, or increased productivity does not result from only tightening on government expenditure and putting the legislation in place to aid the business environment.

As examples, government cannot continue to make adjustments just on the expenditure side, or increase taxes, and expect that the fiscal situation will improve. This is because, at best, government services and effectiveness will remain stagnant, or non-existent. Also, we have had many sound pieces of legislation in place that are not enforced.

Therefore, the fiscal situation, and effective government service, can only improve if the fiscal revenues improve and that can only happen sustainably if economic activity and net incomes improve. Definitely not through new tax measures, which have been in the past the only solution we have taken to improving the fiscal budget, which has always failed. And the only way that legislative changes can be effective is if they are enforced without preference or delay.

This speaks to two requirements for development. First, we must improve the "doing business" environment for investment and income growth (economic growth). Second, we must improve the discipline of enforcing legislation and justice for social development. When these two things come together, then what we will see is development, as opposed to just improving social justice or growth separately.

So then we come back to the question of what are the impediments to increased investment and employment, AND similarly, the impediments to social equity and justice? Note that social equity and justice does not mean welfare only, or distributing capital to persons who are unproductive, but rather, it means providing equal and available opportunity to all irrespective of social or income standing.

So for me the solution to development is simple.

Firstly, we need to focus our efforts on creating a "doing business" environment that encourages investments and employment, particularly in export industries. Secondly, it means creating a social environment where everyone has the same opportunity and will succeed based on talent and productivity.

These inhibitors include (i) an efficient and accountable public sector bureaucracy; (ii) ease of paying taxes and greater tax compliance to reduce tax burden across the board; (iii) increased societal discipline and reduced incidence of crime; (iv) lower energy costs; and (v) improved citizen-police relations.

If we remove these obstacles, in addition to the reforms under the IMF programme, then the result will be (i) increased business and consumer confidence leading to (ii) increased consumer spending, investments, and employment leading to (iii) increased production and exports / import substitution leading to (iv) increased income levels leading to (v) increased fiscal revenues. And so the cycle will continue, each time leading to expanded growth and developmental opportunities for all.

This is because the effect of removing the inhibitors will be the exploitation of our best talent and most productive resources. It is for this reason that I am somewhat optimistic about the current economic programme. But while necessary it is far from sufficient for sustainable development.