Why accept constricting IMF terms?

THE EDITOR: From 2005 to the beginning of 2009, TT’s GDP growth had collapsed from about plus 14 per cent to minus six per cent. After that the PP government managed GDP growth slightly over and under the zero per cent mark, in spite of having a very liquid economy.

By the time the PP demitted office GDP growth had already collapsed again into the minus five per cent range. Today, as throughout the whole time, our nation’s reliance on IMF’s SDRs (special drawing rights) is well in excess of the 25 per cent free access level.

It almost certainly means there are explicit IMF stipulations on the holdings. The governments have not made them known. If they exist it would be interesting to compare the terms given to the PP and those endorsed by the present Government.

It might help explain both the restrictive GDP and economic policies we are seeing, the de facto privatising of sections of industry and the bias to foreign interests in benefits or “rent” collections.

TT’s present SDR usage is a small proportion of GDP, so one question is: why accept or follow IMF terms that are too constricting on the economy which also divests parts? It is very likely similar plans are now being hatched up for Guyana.

E GALY via e-mail


"Why accept constricting IMF terms?"

More in this section