The Democratic Labour Party is insisting that Government’s 36-month International Monetary Fund (IMF) arrangement is not a “standby insurance policy”.
Senator Ryan Walters, the party’s spokesperson on finance and economic affairs, said that for months Barbadians were told the economy was booming, but Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley’s announcement on Thursday of a US$260 million IMF standby deal was indicating otherwise.
“We were told tourism was strong, foreign reserves were healthy, growth was steady, revenues were outperforming expectations. The Central Bank Governor himself described aspects of the economy as ‘excellent’. So naturally, Bajans are now asking a simple question: if everything is supposedly so strong, why is Government suddenly rushing back to the IMF for another 36-month arrangement?
“Let us stop pretending this is merely some innocent ‘standby insurance policy’. Calling it a ‘standby arrangement’ does not change the reality of what it is, an IMF programme. This Government is clearly worried because they know that beneath the surface, the debt is out of control and they can’t keep up to pace with payments, foreign exchange is under pressure as tourism is slowing and foreign direct investment is lagging behind, along with other structural weaknesses,” Walters told the Saturday Sun yesterday.
BERT
He said the IMF’s representative made it “crystal clear” that the arrangement was intended to preserve macroeconomic stability, support reforms under the Barbados Economic Recovery and Transformation (BERT) 2026 programme and provide protection against economic shocks.
“His words during the press conference were [that] the key objectives of the standby arrangement will be firstly to provide insurance against external shocks in a more shock-prone world.
Secondly, to help preserve macroeconomic stability, and thirdly, to support the reforms under the home-grown BERT 2026 plan, which itself moves the focus from stabilisation and growth towards long-term economic transformation.
“That doesn’t sound like a standby to me; sounds like it has a specific identifiable purpose. That is an IMF programme by another name,” the senator stated.
He reasoned that a country did not enter into a threeyear IMF arrangement tied to fiscal discipline, debt targets, structural reforms and macroeconomic management if it were merely being “proactive”.
“You do it because of the current state of the economy and the concern about what lies ahead. The Government’s messaging today simply does not add up.”
‘Direct conflict’ Walters questioned how could the Government spend years painting a glowing picture of economic strength while simultaneously preparing the country for another IMF-backed intervention.
“Those two narratives are in direct conflict with each other. Let us be honest with the Barbadian people: this feels far less like precaution and far more like panic management. If Government truly had full confidence in the stability and sustainability of the economy that they preach, there would be no need to place Barbados back under another IMF umbrella so soon after BERT.”
He said the language might have changed along with the branding, but the fundamentals remained the same as there is an IMF oversight, IMF-supported reforms, fiscal restraint and macroeconomic targets.
(AC)
