THE EDITOR, Sir:
MY ATTENTION has been drawn to an article entitled "Phillips does not deserve a honeymoon," written by Dr. D K Duncan on Tuesday, January 22, 2002.
The major focus of Dr. Duncan's article is the crime plan presented by Dr. Phillips; however, that is not the question which I wish to address today. Rather, I wish to discuss Dr. Duncan's attempt to provide a 'snapshot analysis' of the last four decades in Jamaica.
To review, he characterises
1. The 1960s as a decade of "growth no equity"
2. The 1970s "equity no growth"
3. The 1980s "some growth no equity"
4. The 1990s "no growth no equity"
I was drawn to this section of Dr. Duncan's article because of his frequent use of the word 'equity.' This is an 'Alice in Wonderland' word in that it means precisely what the user wishes it to mean 'nothing more, nothing less.'
Nonetheless, social scientists have tried to provide a quantitative assessment of the word by developing what is called the GINI co-efficient. It is perhaps the most widely used measure of equity in terms of income distribution, where 0 means perfect equality and 100 means perfect inequality.
Coincidentally, another columnist, Kevin O'Brien Chang, in another newspaper, wrote a very interesting article called "A mysterious country." I commend this article to Dr. Duncan. Mr. Chang quotes the well-known American writer, Mark Twain, who said "it's not what people don't know that gets them in trouble, it's what they know that just ain't so."
Dr. Duncan's discussion of equity falls clearly in this latter category when we look at the data presented by Mr. Chang. It shows that the GINI co-efficient for Jamaica remained the same for the 1970s, but this is the decade which Mr. Duncan characterised as "equity no growth".
The table quoted by Mr. Chang also shows that in 1989 the GINI co-efficient was 43.3 but had improved to 36.4 at the end of the 1990s. This means that equity, in terms of income distribution, improved significantly over the decade of the 1990s. But this is the decade that Dr. Duncan characterises as "no growth no equity."
It may be that Dr. Duncan uses his own measures, other than income distribution to assess 'equity.' If that is so, then it would be useful if he specified the factors which contributed to his assessment. Failing that, I can only return to Mark Twain.
Over to you, Dr. Duncan.
I am, etc.,
OMAR DAVIES
Minister of Finance
& Planning
