Several commentaries on the budget but few offering objective or critical analyses

There are several commentaries on the budget from one extreme to the other; few are objective. There is hardly any serious critical analysis – I don’t mean criticism of the budget but an objective commentary, presenting both sides and an informed viewpoint defended with evidence. One does not have to be an economist to analyze a budget. But an economist would tend to present an objective rather than a biased commentary. In Economics, one course (especially in development) dealt with studying budgets – comparing and contrasting budgets of what were then (1980s) called First World, Second World, Third World and Fourth World economies (countries); there are different terms (like developed, developing, emerging economies, etc.) for each category today.

Budgets from World Bank reports for a particular year required critically analyzing one or more Third World countries with that of a First World (Western) or Second World (Socialist European) country (any perspective of the student). Such skills provided one with the requisite ability to objectively analyze a budget. Critical analysis is objectively examining and evaluating an issue (a budget, as an example) offering one’s interpretation and perspective supported with evidence. Critical analyses, not one-sided praises or attacks, would help the government to see another point of view and perhaps embrace it although that is yet to be experienced in independent Guyana. Few commentaries on the budget offer critical analyses.

Commentaries in the papers are either platitudinal (all praise), coming from supporters of the government or very critical (all criticism) coming from supporters of the opposition. There are very few middleof-the-road, objective commentaries that offer sound analyses. One other issue with any budget in Guyana, regardless of which party was or is in government, and it is also the case of other CARICOM countries, is that the views of the opposition are not given serious consideration. A budget was never amended to reflect the viewpoint or request from the opposition. Only once did I experience a government (in Trinidad) amend a budget at the request of an opposition MP. Prime Minister Patrick Manning allocated funding for a project after a convincing presentation by a member of the opposition.

In the US, members of Congress (from the government and opposition sides), in exchange for their votes tend to make deals for funding of projects in their constituencies. In the US, a member of Congress (in the Senate in particular) can hold up passage of a budget or a group of representatives can block a budget item or an entire budget unless their demands are met. In Guyana or anywhere in the Caribbean, MPs don’t have that kind of influence or power as members of Congress. Governments, regardless of party in control, should give serious consideration to points and requests for (additional or reduced) or new item funding made by members of the opposing side or even a ruling party member to rearrange a budget one a convincing case is made.