Dear Editor,
Below are a few comments on the IMF’s newly released economic report. Most people know that reports of this type are thoroughly sanitised by “many pairs of eyes” editing to satisfy every competing political constituency. Consequently, when one picks up the Staff Concluding Statement of the 2026 Article IV Mission, it must be read as much as a political document as an economic report, with the result that its most critical conclusions are entirely lost in translation.
So: Here are just four examples in the report of the “diplomacy” in action:
1. Burying the Context: The report notes that “the non-oil primary deficit amounted to one third of non-oil GDP,” but stops short of providing an analytical baseline. By itself, this isolated figure carries about as much meaning as telling a stranger with no knowledge of Guyanese geography that the “Demerara River is 15-20 feet deep.” By deliberately avoiding any context regarding historical trends or fiscal sustainability, the IMF neatly avoids assigning blame or credit.
2. Cautious Phrasing: We are told that “available indicators do not point to clear signs of overheating or resource-driven competitiveness pressures.” The qualifier “available” is telling, raising the obvious question: what if more comprehensive data were available? Furthermore, “resource-driven competitiveness pressures” serves as a polite bureaucratic euphemism for a far more unsettling reality: Dutch Disease. To be fair, the report does address the data gaps.
3. Grammatical Sleight of Hand: The report praises expanding public expenditure, claiming it is “supported by the new centralized digital platform.” The clever use of the passive voice structures the sentence to imply that this digital procurement infrastructure is fully up and running, whereas it is actually a work in progress (I stand corrected).
4. The Denominator Illusion: The IMF continues to report Guyana’s external debt scaled by total GDP (a comforting 12%) rather than non-oil GDP (a more sobering 35%). Yet, in a seeming contradiction, the report simultaneously suggests that the non-oil primary balance should serve as the government’s main operational budget anchor. If Guyana’s explicit goal is to diversify away from hydrocarbons, its debt must be measured against the onshore economy. After all, it is the non-oil tax base that will be left servicing these massive foreign liabilities when the wells run dry in 25 to 30 years.
On the whole, though, the report reveals that Guyana has scaled the first hurdle and may have no trouble with the second or third― provided it adopts the recommendations in the report ― in what promises to be a long road ahead.
Sincerely,
Terence M. Yhip
Discussion