Dear Editor,
Recent announcements about the construction and rehabilitation of municipal markets across Guyana raise an important question: Is it prudent for the Government to commit billions of dollars of public funds to these projects, and could such investment unintentionally crowd out private capital?
The concern is highlighted by the New New Amsterdam Municipal Market, estimated to cost approximately $1.03 billion. It forms part of a wider programme involving markets in Pouderoyen, Zeelugt and East Ruimveldt, as well as the planned reconstruction of the Stabroek and Bourda markets. Collectively, these projects represent several billions of dollars in public expenditure.
There is nothing wrong with modernizing Guyana’s aging markets. Vendors need safe and sanitary facilities, and consumers deserve clean and orderly environments. However, the scale of spending makes it essential to examine whether these projects are economically justified, properly managed and financially sustainable.
The experience of the Kitty Market illustrates the risks. Rehabilitation began in 2016 with an estimated cost of roughly $240 million, yet almost a decade later the project has continued to face delays, additional funding requirements and incomplete works. This raises serious concerns about whether today’s billion-dollar projects will be completed on time, within budget and properly maintained.
The public should therefore be told how many vendors each new market will accommodate, what revenue will be generated from rentals and other fees, and what it will cost to operate, secure and maintain the facilities. Feasibility studies, cost-benefit analyses, construction schedules, projected revenues and long-term operating plans should be made public.
These questions are especially relevant when compared with private investment in Guyana’s commercial sector. Giftland Mall represented an investment of more than US$30 million when it opened, West Central Mall at Leonora involved a reported US$5 million private investment, and Amazonia Mall was developed as a multimillion-dollar private project. These developments show that private investors are willing to commit substantial capital when they see sufficient demand and the possibility of a return.
The Government’s growing role in commercial infrastructure could, however, affect those investment decisions. A private developer must borrow capital, pay interest, attract tenants, maintain the facility and earn a return. Government-funded facilities may operate with different financial expectations and could offer space at rates that do not reflect the full cost of construction and maintenance. This could discourage private investors from developing competing markets or commercial centres.
That does not mean markets should be left entirely to the private sector. Public markets serve important social purposes, particularly by providing affordable space for small vendors. But Government should consider whether its role can complement rather than compete with private capital. Public-private partnerships, concessions and vendor cooperatives could allow the State to provide land and basic infrastructure while private investors finance, construct or operate commercial components.
There is also an opportunity cost. Every billion dollars spent on markets is money that cannot be spent simultaneously on drainage, roads, healthcare, education, housing, water, sanitation and public transportation. Oil revenues have increased Guyana’s financial capacity, but the availability of funds does not make every expenditure automatically productive. Greater resources require stronger prioritization, transparency and accountability.
The issue is not whether Guyana needs modern markets. It does. The issue is whether the Government is choosing the most efficient way to provide them, whether the projects will be completed and sustained, and whether public investment will strengthen or unintentionally weaken private-sector participation.
Future generations should judge these investments not by how much was spent, but by what was delivered, how well it was maintained and whether Guyana’s resources were used wisely.
Sincerely,
Keith Bernard
Discussion