Rich on paper, poor by convenience

Dear Editor,

In the theatre of development diplomacy, Guyana is once again performing a familiar paradox — pleading poverty while proclaiming prosperity. In his latest defence of continued access to concessional financing, Senior Minister in the Office of the President with responsibility for Finance, Dr. Ashni Singh, argued that per capita income is too narrow a basis for determining a nation’s entitlement to low-interest development funding.

It’s an argument he wielded years ago at the Inter-American Development Bank and recently repeated in Paraguay ; now, with oil revenues soaring and GDP multiplying, it returns with renewed irony. For while the government insists on being counted among the world’s “vulnerable economies,” it simultaneously rejects the World Bank’s data that places more than half of Guyana’s population below the poverty line.

The contradiction is glaring. When the World Bank identifies poverty as exceeding 50 percent, the government cries foul — declaring the methodology flawed, outdated, or politically motivated. But when the same institution’s concessional windows are in question, those very indicators of vulnerability become convenient evidence to justify access to the poor-country portfolio. In effect, Guyana wants to be rich when counting its GDP and poor when counting its eligibility.

This rhetorical acrobatics may be politically expedient, but it is ethically fragile. Oil wealth has undeniably elevated Guyana’s macroeconomic profile — swelling its per capita income and global prestige — yet the government now argues that this is “wealth on paper only.” If so, the question is: what happened to the promised transformation? What happened to the rhetoric of prosperity, housing, jobs, and social upliftment that was meant to flow from oil?

Dr. Singh’s call for broader development criteria — incorporating climate vulnerability and social inequality — is reasonable in theory. Many middle-income states share the concern that narrow income thresholds obscure deeper structural challenges. But in Guyana’s case, the problem is credibility. A government cannot dismiss the evidence of widespread poverty one day and then wield it as a negotiating card the next.

If Guyana’s riches are truly “on paper,” that reflects governance, not misclassification. Billions in petroleum receipts should not coexist with schools in decay, hospitals in neglect, and families struggling to afford basics. It is not the World Bank’s job to reconcile that contradiction — it is ours.

Rather than lobbying for access to handouts, the government could easily unlock interest-free revenue streams through sovereign action. Renegotiating the ExxonMobil Production Sharing Agreement to deliver fairer returns; imposing a windfall tax reflective of current crude price highs; mandating that oil companies purchase Guyana’s carbon credits through our own stock; and discontinuing opaque subsidies to private entities that yield no measurable public benefit — these measures could collectively offset the very concessional loans the state now seeks. The obstacle isn’t financial scarcity; it is political will.

Until that changes, Guyana will continue to perform the role of “poor nation” on the world stage, even as it squanders the wealth that could truly lift its people out of poverty.