Dr. Anna Perkins speaks with a member of the public
The Impact of Political Leadership on Growth: Comparing Jamaica, Singagpore, Barbados, Guyana and Zimbabwe Download Research to date

GROUP LEADER

Professor Alvin Wint, Professor of International Business and Head Department of Management Studies, UWI, Mona Click here for Bio

RAPPORTEUR

Dr. Anna Perkins, Dean of Studies/ Lecturer, St. Michael’s Theological College Click here for Bio

Country Specialists

Barbados – Rolin (Oliver) Ferguson – Graduate Student Botswana - Jermaine McCalpin – Ph.D. Hong Kong - Dawn Stephenson Ireland - Indianna Minto - Ph.D. Candidate Mauritius - Jo-Ann Johnson – Ph.D. Candidate Singapore - Thavia Robinson, MPhil

The extent to which political leadership can have an impact on economic growth is dependent on the degree to which political leadership influences the drivers of economic growth, e.g., property right protection, the rule of law, macro-stability, infrastructure development, institutional quality, level of male secondary schooling, primary and secondary school enrolment rates, democracy, the inflation rate, the freedom of citizens to engage in financial transactions with foreigners, government consumption ratio, attraction of foreign direct investment, terms of trade index, cohesiveness of the nation state, life expectancy, fertility rate, initial level of GDP, geography, climate and neighbourhood wealth.

A survey of the policy inflexion points in independent Jamaica leaves the authors of this paper with little doubt that political leadership has played a critical role in the rate of development of Jamaica, as it has in the rate of development of outlier countries like Barbados, Guyana, Singapore and Zimbabwe. Jamaica has not grown and developed as rapidly as Barbados and Singapore because it has not experienced the level of economic stability experienced by either of these countries. High inflation, chronic budget deficits and government policy changes, such as the unilateral abrogation of the bauxite taxation agreement, have stymied both local and foreign investment. Jamaica’s world-leading level of violent crime has also negatively influenced investment, and by extension economic growth, to the level of 4-6 percentage points of GDP, in the estimate of the World Bank. (World Bank, 2003)

Jamaica’s political leadership has to accept responsibility for decades of macro-economic instability, whether manifest in high inflation, high interest rates, a constantly depreciating or overvalued currency or high levels of indebtedness. Jamaica’s political leadership also has to face its responsibility for the country’s social instability, given that law and order is such a critical state responsibility, and the widely-held view, that it has been unable to change, that political expediency leads Jamaica’s political leaders to overlook the criminal activities and associations of “community leaders” who also happen to be political activists.

Jamaica has not grown as rapidly as Singapore, in particular, because, especially in the second and third decades after independence, Jamaica’s foreign investment policy did not nearly capture the aggressive investment promotion that Singapore pursued consequent upon the personal intervention of Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yee. The 1974 imposition of the bauxite production levy, led by Prime Minister Michael Manley, and the hostility of the Jamaican regime to investment placed a death knell on effective investment promotion for the remainder of that decade.

Jamaica has not grown as rapidly as Barbados, which was, following its independence in 1966 under the leadership of Errol Barrow, able to follow policies of social redistribution, without sacrificing macro-economic stability. Barbados, over the four decades since its independence, has had successive political leaders (Barrow, Adams, Sandiford, Arthur), who have continued to focus on social redistribution and protection within the context of macro-economic stability.

Indeed, Jamaica’s development experience, contrary to the views of many Jamaicans desperate to see faster development, is a two-dimensional, not a one-dimensional experience. While it is important to understand why Jamaica has not grown as rapidly as countries such as Barbados and Singapore, it is also critical to understand why Jamaica has developed at a faster rate than Guyana, Zimbabwe and many poor performing countries around the world.

Again, political leadership has played a critical role in Jamaica’s development successes. Jamaica’s political leaders since independence have respected property rights. Manley’s unwillingness to engage in truly radical action (Stone 1994) ensured a greater level of stability for Jamaica than poorer performing economies, such as Guyana, even during the most turbulent economic period in Jamaica’s history. Subsequently, both Prime Ministers Seaga and Patterson placed significant emphasis on the rule of law and contract enforcement. Jamaica’s unblemished record in honouring debt repayment has ensured the country’s continued access to funds from foreign and local sources, and reduced the level of capital flight, even during periods of financial crisis.

Further, Jamaica’s social investment policy has maintained the population at a relatively healthy level. And its post-1980 investment-friendly investment policy has contributed either to high (during the 1980s and early 1990s) to very high (during the late 1990s and early 21st century) levels of foreign direct investment. All political leaders in Jamaica have overseen and promoted a vibrant democracy and tolerance for dissent that has been unusual in its vociferousness. But this tolerance has probably contributed to social stability by providing a vent for deeply felt concerns across the country about the slow pace of development. In conclusion, the Jamaican case, both in its negative and positive dimensions demonstrates the close link between development and political leadership.