A CONSENSUS that emerged at a recent seminar of the Jamaican Economy Project was that no political regime has forged a development strategy which has reconciled Jamaica's racial and class divide. That statement may seem simple enough, but if it is true, its implications could be profound.
One inheritance bequeathed to Jamaica at independence was a political economy characterised by sharp ethnic and class cleavages.
In 1962, the country's distribution of assets reflected the patterns produced by Jamaica's past as a plantation economy. The gap between rich and poor was wide. Moreover, it reflected a European/African dichotomy.
There is now a large literature showing how inequality is bad for development. Inequality inhibits the consumption that drives economic growth; tends to hamper human capital formation by restricting the money poor families have to invest in their childrens' education; and often produces volatile politics, of the sort that frightens investors.
In itself, though, inequality did not have to inhibit Jamaica's post-independence development. Other countries inherited similarly skewed distributions of wealth and income, but found ways to address them and revitalise growth.
Countries like South Korea, Taiwan or Malaysia redistributed farm land or taxed industrial development to assist the poor.
By creating large, consuming classes and increasing the household income that would spur human capital formation, such strategies laid the groundwork for the decades of rapid growth that would follow in these countries. In Malaysia's case, redistribution also helped mitigate a Chinese-Malay divide.
In the 1960s, though, Jamaica's political leadership opted for a more consensual type of development strategy, one that would stress the people's commonness, and which found its embodiment in the 'Out Of Many, One People' motto. But, as critics would argue, this portrayal of solidarity rested at least in part on a downplaying of the identity and culture of the country's poor, black majority.
INEQUALITY WORSENED
Economically, the strategy was questionable, even if, at the time, its shortcomings might not have been evident. The idea was that by piggybacking on world growth and protecting local industries from import competition, the then-government hoped to generate enough new jobs to mop up urban discontent. Growth, it was hoped, would 'trickle down' to everyone.
As discussed in an earlier column, this strategy did not do as well as expected. There is no question that the 1960s was Jamaica's best decade in terms of growth. However, formal sector growth did not generate enough urban jobs to absorb the flood of migrants from the countryside. Nor did rural development stem this flow. And the available evidence suggests that inequality probably worsened in the 1960s.
Consequently, among the growing army of urban unemployed, discontent seethed. This would eventually provide the basis of the seismic shift that took place in Jamaica's politics in the 1970s, when Michael Manley came to power promising a more inclusive form of development, and a celebration of the country's African cultural heritage.
Yet those who would romanticise the Manley period have to overlook a crucial flaw of his administration. If the 1960s development strategy paid insufficient attention to the needs of Jamaica's marginalised masses, Manley's populism alienated much of the business class. His "five flights a day" speech may stand as the starkest metaphor of his government's failings.
As we know, a great many Jamaican entrepreneurs accepted the invitation to leave. Consequently, the social gains of the 1970s were largely - possibly entirely - offset by the decade's economic decline. And without growth, development runs aground.
Since then, arguably, Jamaica has returned to a business-inviting economic strategy based on growth that, it is hoped, will trickle down. So far though, growth has remained elusive.
AWAITS A PLAN
That is not so say it will never come. Given the reasonable estimation that inequality in Jamaica is today no less bad than it was in 1962, however, there may still remain obstacles to economic growth.
Some see the 1970s as Jamaica's lost decade. Others say that the policies of the decade preceding it - not to mention the period since - are the real cause of the country's underdevelopment.
Within the Jamaican Economy Project, this remains a lively debate. What seems less controversial is that Jamaica still awaits a development plan which effectively brings Jamaicans together into a path of inclusive, sustainable national development.
