PPP/C should be commended for its reasoned, many-sided approach to alleviating the problem of poverty

Dear Editor
Poverty is an enigma that haunts the psyche of conscientious national leaders the world over. And while millions of people globally view poverty as a social disease, not every national leader today has focused attention on tackling this societal problem.
To validate this statement, Guyanese can take a cursory glance at their neighbour Venezuela, from which Guyana has experienced an influx of immigrants. There, Maduro has not only failed to grapple with the problem of poverty, but has further contributed to increased impoverishment of a vast number of Venezuelans, millions of whom have fled the country.
Unlike Maduro, the PPP/C Administration has utilized various approaches to nation building, including addressing problems that gave rise to, and contributed to, the perpetuation of poverty. For example, the Government has distributed house lots and backed financing for home construction; constructed, and continues to construct and modernize, schools and hospitals; granted free university education; and increased the pensions of senior citizens, among other things — all of which are designed and focused on the alleviation of poverty and enhancing the lives and livelihoods of Guyanese.
Continuing its efforts at poverty alleviation within the country, the PPP/C Administration announced, in recent weeks, its intention to award a $100,000 cash grant to citizens 18 years and older. Immediately after the announcement, Opposition politicians and their acolytes, along with critics of the Government, began to agitate for substantial increases in the $100,000 slated to be disbursed to eligible individuals. This some did, citing revenue generated from oil, which they claim is a substantial accumulation of capital (profits).
Undoubtedly, every poverty-stricken Guyanese would be elated with any increase in the amount of cash to be granted. However, Government must seriously consider whether the amount of cash disbursed to citizens would (a) serve as a disincentive for gainful employment; (b) create generational dependency on Government’s handouts/subsidies; (c) create or accelerate inflation, which would negatively impact the purchasing power of the poor, and (d) stymie ongoing development projects and improvements in essential governmental services of health, education, recreation, housing, energy, and infrastructure – all of which benefit the people. In failing to consider such consequences, the PPP/C would be negligent in its governing competencies and responsibilities, which then become additional fodder for critics’ anti-government destabilization rhetoric.
Moreover, the Government cannot afford to lose sight of the reality that: (i) the flow of oil is depleted over time, as experienced by Trinidad; (ii) advances in technology (such as hybrid vehicles), and alternative energy sources (such as lithium batteries and solar power) are slowly but surely eroding the dependence on oil; and (iii) the dwindling reliance on oil would, in all likelihood, intensify competition among the rich and well-developed oil-producing countries (a status Guyana is yet to achieve) for markets and revenue.
For Government, then, to exhaust much of its current revenue on cash grants would be tantamount to reckless governance. Why reckless? Because revenue generated from oil is accrued incrementally; and it is this primary revenue source that funds Guyana’s development projects, ranging from infrastructure: roads, dams, bridges, canals (drainage) etc., to schools, hospitals, recreational facilities, and energy supply (electricity); all of which necessitate major investments both in terms of building and maintenance.
Besides the mentioned areas of expenditure, there is funding for old age pension and for initiatives relative to the safety and security of citizens. Considering the totality of areas that necessitate recurrent public funding, it would not be prudent for the Government to drastically deplete its treasury by disbursing large sums of cash as awards based on expected revenue.
Alleviating poverty is of immense importance, and Government should be commended for taking a wholistic approach to redress this societal stigma. An approach that includes the disbursement of $100,000 in cash grants to eligible individuals — a recent initiative — warrants further analysis that would yield information for future policy decisions.

Regards,
Narayan Persaud