by Kari Grenade, PhD, Caribbean Economist and Macroeconomic Advisor
The rate of GDP growth is one of a few metrics that governments tend to be obsessed about.
A fast rate, the government celebrates and a deceleration or contraction, the opposition condemns. Across the Caribbean, growth has been treated as something that will materialise if governments simply invest in a tourism project here, or a digital programme there, or a climate project somewhere else. The region often pursues isolated initiatives. However, without coherence, isolated projects and policies rarely compound into real transformation. Growth is not automatic; it is engineered. It emerges as a result of deliberate choices, coherent systems, and long-term coordination. It is the product of systems that reinforce each other, not isolated initiatives or short-term fixes. Economic growth is a consequence of strategic actions; it is a result, not a strategy itself. It is a by-product of a healthy, coherent, productive, forward-looking society, strong institutions, and well-governed systems.
Across the region, growth has come in bursts, but even when growth does occur, it often fails to translate into better lives. GDP cannot measure dignity, opportunity, or resilience. It cannot tell us whether a young person sees a future at home or feels compelled to migrate. It cannot tell us whether families feel safe, or whether communities feel hopeful. Moreover, even with economic growth, wages and productivity remain low; fiscal pressures persist; and unemployment, poverty and migration remain high. The uncomfortable truth is that GDP growth alone has never guaranteed better lives for Caribbean people.
The region needs a new sustainable development paradigm, one that prioritises wellbeing, inclusion, long-term resilience, and true transformation. But the Caribbean’s political culture does not lend itself to a new paradigm. One of the region’s most persistent obstacles to transformative development is its deeply-entrenched political tribalism. Elections become zero-sum contests. Parties treat each other as enemies rather than partners in nation building. Policies are reversed not because they are ineffective, but because they were introduced by the “other side.” Talent is sidelined if it is not aligned with the right colour. The region has a politics of “exchange,” not change; under one colour one set of contracts, scholarships, and opportunities for example, and a different set under another colour. This is not governance, it is fragmentation and utter backwardness.
Fragmented politics cannot produce coherent sustainable development. It cannot sustain long-term strategies. It cannot build the trust required for citizens to support difficult transformative reforms. It cannot deliver the kind of institutional stability that investors, innovators, youth, and communities need to thrive. If the Caribbean wants real progress, it must confront the harsh reality that tribal politics is undermining sustainable development.
Countries that have transformed themselves did so because they built systemic coherence. A coherent system must involve policies that address real public problems; institutions that endure changes in political administrations; governments that are capable and competent; governance that is inclusive; eco-systems that support innovation, productivity, and social cohesion; and political cultures that are mature, inclusive and reward long-term thinking over myopia. The Caribbean often struggles to sustain progress, not because of frequent economic shocks alone, but also because its political systems are not designed for continuity; they are designed for brutal competition and “tear down.”
If the Caribbean is serious about transformation, it must rethink not only its economic model but also its political one. This means strengthening national purpose through a shared development vision with aligned strategic actions that can endure changes in government; replacing political tribalism with inclusive governance; prioritising competence over political loyalty; building institutions that outlast electoral cycles, which support productivity and innovation; and empowering citizens as active partners in national development.
The Caribbean faces climate shocks, global economic volatility, and technological advances. These challenges demand unity, coherence, long-term thinking, and strategic actions. They also demand political systems that elevate the national interest above partisan identity. Economic growth will follow, but only if the region first commits to a political culture that puts people, not parties, at the centre of a strategic, systematic, and coherent approach to sustainable development and true transformation.
Dr. Grenade, this is a sharp and necessary diagnosis. I agree with your analysis and here is why I do. GDP growth has become a seductive headline metric across the Caribbean. Governments trumpet every decimal point of expansion, while critics pounce on slowdowns, yet it often masks deeper stagnation. GDP is a crude measuring tape: it counts activity, not value. A tourism boom built on imported labor and foreign-owned resorts can inflate GDP while local wages stagnate and profits leak overseas, as is the case in the Caribbean. Reconstruction after hurricanes spikes GDP through spending but leaves families no more resilient. Drug trafficking and remittance inflows register as “growth” without building productive capacity.
The uncomfortable truth is that GDP measures the size of the economy, not the health of a nation. It is like unto some who is tall and obese with DM, HTN and two recent heart attacks with poor heart function and now has swollen legs and can’t lay flat in his bed. Yet, he is admired for his height and size. GDP does not capture brain drain, eroded trust, youth despair, or the quiet violence of low productivity and hollow institutions. A country can post respectable GDP numbers while its people feel poorer in dignity, opportunity, and hope. Sounds familiar?
The deeper failure, as you rightly note, is political. Tribalism turns governance into patronage rotation rather than nation-building. Policies die with administrations, talent is exiled for the wrong “colour,” and long-term coherence becomes impossible. No serious transformation (economic or social) survives in such fragmented soil. Singapore, Estonia, and Botswana did not rise through isolated projects or GDP fetishism; they built enduring institutions, merit-based systems, and a political culture that prized national continuity over partisan victory.
True wealth emerges from coherent systems: capable institutions that outlast elections, human capital that is nurtured and retained, innovation ecosystems, and a political maturity that treats governance as stewardship, not conquest. The Caribbean does not lack intelligence or resources; it lacks the political discipline to align them consistently.
Growth is indeed a by-product, not a strategy. Until we subordinate partisan gods to the national good, GDP will continue to flatter while reality disappoints. The region needs leaders and citizens courageous enough to choose systems over slogans, and continuity over colour. That is the real development frontier.
Well said!
Drawing on established economic theory, macroeconomics, and development economics, the article “Why the Caribbean must move beyond economic growth and political tribalism” by Kari Grenade raises valid points about the social limitations of GDP but also contains several theoretical flaws, oversimplifications, and false dichotomies.
Here is a critique of the article’s arguments through the lens of economic theory:
The False Dichotomy Between Growth and Transformation
The Article’s Flaw: Ms. Grenade represents economic growth and structural transformation as opposing ideas, stating that the region needs to “move beyond economic growth” to focus on wellbeing and resilience.
Economic Theory Reality: In development economics, economic growth (an increase in output) and economic development/transformation (structural changes, institutional strength, and improved quality of life) are not mutually exclusive—they are deeply symbiotic.
According to growth models (such as the Solow-Swan or Endogenous Growth models) https://nyack.top/ab4061, sustained increases in citizen wellbeing, healthcare, and infrastructure require a continuous expansion of the economic frontier. Without GDP growth, a government’s tax base shrinks, leading to fiscal deficits. A country cannot sustainably fund social safety nets, climate resilience, or modern education systems on zero growth. Growth provides the resources necessary for transformation.
Misunderstanding the Direction of Causality
The Article’s Flaw: Ms. Grenade asserts that “Economic growth is a consequence of strategic actions; it is a result, not a strategy itself. It is a by-product of a healthy, coherent… society.”
Economic Theory Reality: This creates a chicken-and-egg fallacy that ignores decades of research into Institutional Economics (e.g., Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson’s Why Nations Fail).
While strong institutions drive growth, economic growth also builds and reinforces strong institutions. Higher income levels historically lead to a more educated populace, higher tax revenues to pay civil servants well (reducing corruption), and better legal infrastructure. Treating growth merely as a passive “by-product” understates its role as an active catalyst for institutional maturity.
3. The “Isolated Initiatives” Fallacy
Ms. Grenade argues that “isolated initiatives” like investing in a tourism project here or a digital program there “rarely compound into real transformation.”
This dismisses the economic concepts of multiplier effects, agglomeration economies, and linkages (pioneered by Albert Hirschman) https://nyack.top/4f85c1
In small island developing states (SIDS), a massive investment in a single dominant sector—like tourism—creates powerful backward and forward linkages. A new resort drives demand for local agriculture, construction, banking, and digital services. Development rarely happens uniformly across all sectors simultaneously; it often relies on “growth poles” that pull the rest of the economy forward.
Conflating the Limitations of GDP with its Invalidation
Ms. Grenade heavily critiques GDP because it “cannot measure dignity, opportunity, or resilience.”
No serious economist argues that GDP measures dignity. Economists openly acknowledge GDP’s limitations, which is why alternative metrics like the Human Development Index (HDI) exist.
However, criticizing GDP for failing to measure happiness overlooks the fact that it is highly correlated with almost every indicator of human well-being. Countries with higher GDP per capita consistently rank better in life expectancy, literacy, infant mortality rates, and gender equality. While it isn’t a perfect measure of welfare, it remains the most reliable gauge of a country’s productive capacity.
Overlooking the “Small Island” Structural Constraints
The piece places almost the entire blame for low wages, poverty, and high migration on political tribalism and a lack of systemic coherence.
Economic Theory Reality: It downplays severe, unalterable structural realities defined by International Trade Theory and Geographic Economics.
Caribbean nations face inherent economic hurdles regardless of how unified their politics are:
Diseconomies of Scale: Small populations mean higher fixed costs per capita for public utilities and infrastructure.
Extreme Openness: Heavy reliance on imports and on single-export sectors (such as tourism) makes them highly vulnerable to external shocks.
Brain Drain: High migration is often less about political tribalism and more about the gravitational pull of larger labor markets (like the US or UK) that offer higher labor productivity, which small islands physically cannot match.
The article is an excellent political-economy critique of partisan dysfunction, but it stumbles theoretically by treating GDP growth as a superficial obsession rather than the foundational engine that funds the very “wellbeing and resilience” it advocates.
Would you like to explore how alternative development models—such as the United Nations’ HDI and the Caribbean Development Bank’s strategies—aim to bridge the gap between growth and social transformation?
I was very surprised to read this article by Dr. Grenade, given her credentials as a PhD, Caribbean economist, and macroeconomic advisor.
Cameron Nyack