Stephen Vasciannie
Last Thursday, the Planning Institute of Jamaica (the PIOJ), in conjunction with the United Nations Development Programme (the UNDP), put on a "Dialogue for Development" Seminar at the Rusea's High School. The main issue for consideration was "Globalisation, Rural Development and Tourism". The main speakers were: Dr. Wesley Hughes, Director-General of the PIOJ, Ambassador Juan Carlos Espinola, the Resident Co-ordinator for the UNDP in Jamaica, Dr. Peter-John Gordon, Director of Research at the PIOJ, and myself.
Ms. Lorraine Allen, a Justice of the Peace for Hanover, brought remarks on behalf of the Custos of the parish, while the Mayor of Lucea was present for part of the proceedings and offered his perspective. Mr. Wayne Cummings, a senior member of the Sandals Group, served as chairman of the function, and moved our deliberations along with efficiency. Political contenders for Eastern and Western Hanover were also present, as was a rather large gathering of persons from diverse communities in Hanover.
No Sleepy Eyes
Now, the much-talked about phenomenon of globalisation tends to evoke sleepy eyes. This is partly because the matter is often discussed among economists and near-economists as an abstract concept with little to do with the daily lives of, say, rural tourist workers from Lucea. Sometimes, too, globalisation evokes full-blooded yawns because persons talking about globalisation assume a position, present evidence for their position, and wilfully refuse to consider evidence that may weaken that position.
I am pleased to report that the boredom factor was not readily apparent at last week's Hanoverian deliberations. On the contrary, although the presentations started at about 11:30, one had the impression that when the chairman brought proceedings to a close at about 3 p.m., some members of the audience were still keen to raise issues. This suggests, indeed confirms, that people from all over Jamaica want to take part in important debates about matters that affect them; and as a significant part of that, they want public officials to hear their perspectives.
Some debates about globalisation get bogged down by definitional issues. What is this globalisation? And if people can't even define it properly, why should I worry about it? The main presenters last Thursday were not unduly worried about the definitional conundrum. So, for example, Dr. Hughes paid particular attention to issues such as the value of infrastructure in rural development, Ambassador Espinola emphasised community linkages and the need for efficiency, while Dr. Gordon provided important statistical indicators concerning, among other things, the value of tourism to national development.
Economic Nationalism
All these points are of direct significance to the globalisation debate. In addition, globalisation as understood in the present era, also embraces the following matters:
- The removal of trade barriers between states;
- The opening up of domestic economies to foreign investors;
- Technological developments (especially in respect of information technology);
- Reduction in the extent of national sovereignty;
- Standardisation of some aspects of culture; and
- An overriding philosophy in support of laissez-faire capitalism.
Several arguments in Hanover last week tended to touch on the question of foreign investors in Jamaica. The economic nationalist line was ably put by various persons from the floor. Why should we assume that the hotel developments associated with Spanish investors will be a good thing for Jamaica's tourism sector? After all, it was argued, the new hotels will simply cut into the local market, and deprive local hotels of visitors.
It was also suggested that government revenue would be reduced, for the Spanish hotels charge less per room than local hotels now do (particularly the all-inclusives); and there seems to be the perception that Spanish hotel operators will not be as willing to employ Jamaicans as Jamaican hoteliers are inclined to do.
Supporters of globalisation will argue that all these concerns will be addressed by the market, and that ultimately, what counts is the survival of the fittest - whether or not the fittest happens to be the Jamaican investor. On the other hand, the fact that these nationalist arguments are being presented strongly suggests the need for supporters of globalisation to explain their perspective more consistently and more fully.
Stephen Vasciannie is professor of international law at the University of the West Indies and works part-time as Deputy Solicitor General at the Attorney-General's chambers.
