If you bought my argument in the first installment
of this series—that this election will be one of the most important
in Grand Bahama’s recent history—then I would imagine a few questions
naturally followed. If, for example, this election is of such importance,
for whom should I cast my ballot? I am inclined to agree with my friend,
Erin A.
Ferguson. This question is dangerously reductive and
no good can come of it. Instead of asking, “Who ya votin’ for?”
in Grand Bahama, it is time we examine
what we are voting for.
In Part 2 of the “Grand Bahama and the 2012 Elections
Series,” I will attempt to summarize and compare policy initiatives
proposed by each of the political parties as they concern Grand Bahama.
It is not my intention to conclude this piece by telling you which policies
are the best to vote for—that is a decision only you can make. I have
worked to cull together information from various mediums, all of them
public, to conduct this assessment. I’ve focused particularly on the
information provided publicly for voters—speeches, information on
websites and news reports. Just as it is not my intention to instruct
readers how to vote, I am not interested in laying out the platform
of any political party that is not readily available for the benefit
of voters who are interested in finding it.
Let’s be honest, political discourse this election
has been short on policy discussion and long on speeches about “leadership,”
“change,” “hope” and “personality.” I want to suggest that
this imbalance is symptomatic of a larger problem—something that I’ve
suggested before in the column. Our political leadership is bereft of
ideas and if you happen to wade through the distracting discourse of
“who” and focus on the “what,” you’ll find that whatever ideas
they do have are remarkably similar.
In an election year where three political parties
have fielded a full slate of candidates, you’d think they’d be busy
distinguishing themselves. Grand Bahamians, unfortunately, aren’t
so lucky.
In all three cases, each party’s policies concerning
Grand Bahama can be characterized by three specific thrusts: tax incentives,
higher education and training institutions, and—to a lesser extent—tourism.
The Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP), “
Project
Grand Bahama,” is an 11-point plan with minimal
details, despite talk by Mr. Christie of a
“detailed
plan for the revitalization of our nation’s second major population
and business centre.” The Free National Movement
(FNM) has yet to produce its manifesto for the coming election, so my
insight on their initiatives comes from
Prime
Minister Ingraham’s speech at the Marco City campaign office opening.
I could find no information readily available on the Democratic National
Alliance’s (DNA) website concerning Grand Bahama specifically, so
I’ve turned to a
speech given by party leader, Mr. Branville McCartney, at the Grand
Bahama candidate launch to fill the gaps. In fact,
looking at the candidate listing on
the DNA
website, only one Grand Bahama constituency is represented:
West Grand
Bahama & Bimini.
Admittedly, if I didn’t do this as a hobby I would’ve
given up before finding anything of value. For now, I will focus on
the initiatives concerning tourism first, examine the focus on bringing
institutions of higher education and training to Grand Bahama second,
and last, I will look at the reliance on tax incentives and subsidies.
From what I could bear to read through, the only policy
initiatives that are tourism focused, promising direct action, and that
do not rely on incentives come from the PLP and the FNM.
In his
speech in Freeport on the January 27th, 2011 Mr. Christie
suggested that, “…we should support Bahamians
who want to build bed-and-breakfast guesthouses, boutique hotels, and
small resorts, and those who want to get involved as entrepreneurs in
faith-based tourism, eco-tourism, and medical tourism.” To do this,
Christie said that we need to revamp our nation’s lending institutions
to make this a reality. Similarly, Prime Minister Ingraham promised
that if given another term he would work with tourism stakeholders across
the island to develop new and attractive tourism facilities. What those
facilities will be is up for discussion, but I imagine the list will
closely reflect Mr. Christie’s. Under the FNM government, Bahamas
Air will also take over Vision Airline’s routes, a change which the
Prime Minister hopes will lead to the reopening of the Reef Resort.
I, for one, am glad that our political leaders are
finally realizing Grand Bahama can no longer rely on only sun, sand
and sea in the competitive global tourism market. One would think that
the construction of a monstrous, Las Vegas-like resort, modeled after
a mythical underwater ancient city to boost tourism in the capital would’ve
made that clear. Increasing air transportation and cruise ship docking
to the island is a positive step but
when passengers
aren’t interested in leaving the boats, it becomes
less about getting people to the island and more about making them interested
in staying. As the Minister of Tourism, Vincent Vanderpool Wallace has
conceded,
such a solution is not “instant coffee.” I guess
we all arrive to conclusions in our own time.
The establishment of Grand Bahama as a center for
tertiary education and technical training features prominently across
party lines. Mr. McCartney proposes investing in a flagship School of
Science and Technology in conjunction with either the College of the
Bahamas or an upgraded Bahamas Technical and Vocational Institute (BTVI).
He has also advanced the idea of a flagship School of Film and Creative
Arts in East Grand Bahama. Speaking of BTVI, the PLP’s “Project
Grand Bahama” mentions expanding the training institute as “a part
of a major new investment in technical and vocational training,” as
well as developing a public-private partnership to establish a Technology
Centre for education and training, and provide a free laptop to every
7th grader. The FNM will work to seek offshore medical educational
research and manufacturing facilities, as well as build a marine institute
for the training of mariners and a diesel mechanics’ training institute.
I am a huge proponent of education and I’ve practically
made a career out of educating myself. However, there’s a problem
here that everyone seems to be missing. Who will attend these schools?
With males
comprising only 14% of those graduating from the College of the Bahamas
and
the poor performance of students on their BGCSE exams all around,
what can we expect admission criteria to be like at these new institutions?
What about the failing primary and secondary education systems where
only 50% of students are actually leaving high school with a diploma,
as the Nassau Guardian reported in 2008? And, when the students from
these flagship institutions leave with their own diplomas, where will
they work? I have friends who are currently jobless in Freeport despite
having finished advanced degrees and previously establishing relationships
with companies in Grand Bahama. Many of my other friends refuse to return
because of the lack job prospects. In this instance, I think reversing
the order of cart and horse might be of some interest to all parties
involved.
Tax incentives feature heavily in the PLP’s, “Project
Grand Bahama,” representing five out of the eleven points in their
plan. The PLP has proposed incentives and subsidies for departures at
the airport and harbor and for airlift of tourist to Grand Bahama. Local
entertainment such as restaurants, nightclubs, music festivals and craft
markets will be supported by incentives. Duty-free concessions will
also be extended to East and West Grand Bahama. The DNA would also extend
concessions beyond the Port area and lower port taxes to attract greater
numbers of air and cruise visitors. From what I can gather, the FNM
platform does not rely extensively on incentives or subsidies, however,
Prime Minister Ingraham has promised to charge a committee to review
the Guide to Customs Duty Exemptions and Procedure for Freeport—to
insure it is doing more to facilitate business than harm it.
I am not an economist and so in researching this article
I took some time to read up on how effective government incentives are
in stimulating economic growth. The reliance on incentives and subsides
to promote growth seemed to depend a bit too much on a causal relationship
between lower taxes/higher subsides and increased economic growth. I
came across Terry F. Buss’ article in
Economic Development Quarterly, “The Effect of State Tax
Incentives on Economic Growth and Firm Location Decisions: An Overview
of the Literature.” Buss’ research focused on distilling all the
research literature on the use of state tax incentives in the United
States and what they meant for economic growth. While the political,
social and economic situation is obviously different than our own, I
think there are some lessons we can learn from Buss’ work.
As a radical progressive, tax incentives and subsides
are corporate welfare as far as I’m concerned. As Buss makes clear,
tax incentives are good politics because if they don’t seem to work,
politicians can blame general economic conditions and if they do, even
if it’s because of other economic factors, politicians can cite their
tax policies.
The only way tax incentives can work is if they increase
consumption and this can only happen if incentive causes a net increase
in total investments. The thing is—we are often left in the dark about
whether or not tax incentives actually provide the kind of investments
and the increase in consumption that makes the cost of providing the
tax incentives worthwhile. When was the last time anyone’s done a
cost-benefit analysis on incentives and subsidies offered to private
enterprise?
The literature challenges the simplistic causal equation
that tax incentives/subsidies, equals company relocation/investments,
equals economic growth, equals job opportunity. Policy makers must consider
the individual decision making processes of corporations, the industries
which they are hoping to target and other variables.
I must also point at that when taxes are lowered
so is the quality of public services provided to communities. After
all, taxes pay for government programs. Are Grand Bahamians willing
to sacrifice public services and the social welfare programs that have
keep their communities afloat to gamble with tax incentives in the hopes
that they create jobs? We are planning to give companies breaks in
the hopes that those trickle-down into job opportunities. Trickle-down
economics is Regan’s failed neo-liberal legacy, the fruits of which
we are currently reaping.
I am not suggesting incentives are wholly inadequate.
Buss’ remarks, “Public policy makers must intervene with incentives
in different ways, at different times, for different industries.”
He argues that policy makers must require a cost-benefit analysis and
periodic evaluations of tax incentive programs. They should also require
truth and disclosure in financing provisions for private enterprises,
legally binding performance contracts penalizing firms receiving incentives
who cannot meet their goals, and eliminating incentive entitlements
to just any business that wants them—all while diversifying the industries
given such entitlements. If we’re going to do incentives, let’s
do them correctly!
Unfortunately, the above is representative of the
majority of policy proposals laid out for Grand Bahama during this election
season. In addition, the FNM has proposed invigorating Grand Bahama’s
real estate market by promoting it as an island for second homes. Prime
Minister Ingraham has suggested making Grand Bahama the capital of alternative
energy in the Bahamas—an idea of which I am particularly fond. How
this will come about and what kind of alternative energy the island
produce will, though, are unanswered questions.
Generally, manufacturing has also been mentioned without
any specific terms. I’ve always thought the promotion of Grand Bahama
as a manufacturing hub was a job for the Grand Bahama Port Authority,
but like I said previously, I intend to deal with that in my next column.
If I’ve missed anything I place the blame squarely
on the various parties. As a voter, I should not have to synthesize
your party’s platform on your behalf.
Dear reader, if it hasn’t become clear to you while
reading this then allow me to conclude by making it clear for you: these
parties and the men who lead them may claim they are so different but
their policies suggest otherwise. We can talk about personalities all
day, but as I’ve said elsewhere, that’s just an argument about who
will lead us down the same path more vigorously than the others. In
the end it’s the path that is the problem and no one seems to want
to get off of it and propose a new trajectory. Not to be all doom-and-gloom,
but if you did indeed buy my argument at the beginning of this series
then you know—as well as I do—that this poses a grave problem for
Grand Bahamians.
Grand Bahama and The 2012 Elections Part 1: An Island of Two Tales
Joey Gaskins is
a graduate of Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY with a BA in Politics. He was
born in Grand Bahama Island and is currently studying at the London
School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) where he has attained
his MSc in Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonial Studies and has begun a
Doctoral Degree in Sociology. Joey also writes for
the
Nassau
Liberal
www.
nassauliberal. webs.com
and the Tribune
. You can reach him at
j.gaskins@lse.ac.uk