This year’s Budget speech was a mix of strengths and areas for improvement, consumer advocacy group Barbados Consumer Empowerment Network (BCEN) has said.
A BCEN statement said while there are commendable elements that demonstrate thoughtful planning and prioritisation, there are also aspects that need further refinement and attention.
“BCEN finds that the budgetary proposals were ‘broad strokes’ that provided a general overview without delving into specific details about financial allocations and government’s priorities. It is still unclear how funds will be allocated or how specific programmes or initiatives will be funded.
“With a generalised budget, it makes it very difficult for the public to assess the potential impact of the budgetary decisions on themselves and the economy. While the Budget shows effort, there is still more that could have been done to enhance its overall effectiveness and address certain consumer concerns,” it said.
The group said it recognised that the budget proposals were not perfect, but also declared they were not “entirely useless” in that they carry “a fairly well thought out practical side, whether the PM knew it or not”.
It added: “However, in order to zero in on the pragmatic side of the Budget, one has to delve into its contents and extrapolate. BCEN examined the budget from a consumers’ welfare perspective and tried to tease out the direct and indirect effects and the short-term and long-term consequences that the budget would have on consumers.”
BCEN identified what it refers to as the “upsides” and the “downsides” of the budgetary proposals.
One of the “upsides” it cited was the existence of a framework that deals with inflation and price stability.
“BCEN believes that many people would have missed it because of how the PM delivered the budgetary proposals which was too long-winded and diffused. The budgetary proposals as outlined establish a framework that could deal with inflation and ensure that there is some measure of price stability.
“Although details were not explicitly given, nor policies labelled as such in the Budget presentation” the advocacy group pointed out, “the budgetary proposals contain fiscal, monetary, and supply-side policies that are useful for tackling inflation and ensuring price stability.”
For example, BCEN noted the introduction of tax credits for investments in national development projects.
“This is the type of fiscal policy that encourages investment in key sectors identified by the government, and which could potentially stimulate economic growth and productivity, which in turn could help mitigate inflationary pressures. Another example of fiscal policy is the review of tax structures and the introduction of new investment funds.”
BCEN suggested that these are the kinds of fiscal measures that a country could use to attract investment and promote economic activity, which in turn could indirectly contribute to price stability by fostering a competitive business environment.
One of the downsides, according to the consumer organisation, related to the cost of living.
BCEN contended that there is still more to be done to ease the burden of the cost of living and that there are no direct measures that deal with reducing the high cost of living in the budgetary proposals.
“In terms of employment and labour market dynamics, it is unclear how the Budget will affect employment opportunities. Attention was given to spending on job creation programmes (digital training), workforce development initiatives, wages for certain class groups, and improved working conditions for law enforcement workers but will these few initiatives impact on consumers’ ability to secure stable and decent-paying jobs?” the consumer group questioned. (EJ)
