Fellow Anguillians, the need for population growth in Anguilla has been discussed in several quarters and at varying degrees for over two decades now without any formal consensus or official government policy one way or the other. In my view, there is a valid case to be made for purposefully and systematically increasing Anguilla’s population. It is the intent of this article to layout some of those reasons.
The argument for growing our population to at least 25,000 people is generally made in the context of economic development and economic growth. It generally goes something like this: Anguilla’s small population (approximately 13,000 people) makes it very difficult for businesses to keep prices/fees competitive with others in the region (mainly St. Maarten) and that if we can have more customers, our prices/fees will be more competitive and therefore we can make profits and grow existing businesses, develop new businesses and hire more people. When the suggestion is made to purchase goods in bulk in order to take advantage of lower unit costs the argument is made that large quantities of goods will expire on the shelves because of our small population’s daily need for those goods.
The counter argument to growing our population to at least 25,000 people is generally, first, why 25,000? What is so magical about that number? Secondly, where is the additional population going to come from followed quickly by, “we don’t want indigenous Anguillians to become second-class citizens in their own country.” In essence, while the argument for population growth is one of economic development, the argument against population growth is one of cultural preservation. In my view, this approach is the wrong one. If there is a valid argument for population growth on economic development grounds then, unless we are saying that we don’t need economic development or a stronger local economy, independent of foreign investment, then the legitimate cultural concerns ought to be mitigated through appropriate immigration policies, cultural development and cultural assimilation programmes. In short, the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater.
In response to the question of why 25,000 people, I offer the following: first, experience and the analysis of historical data has led many economic planners to come to the consensus that communities with populations less than 25,000 people struggle to achieve and/or maintain sustainable economies. A review of some of the world’s smallest economies, suggest there is some validity to the 25,000 people benchmark. Monaco, which is only 0.76 square miles is a thriving principality in the south of France with a population of over 35,000 people. The British Overseas Territory of Bermuda, which is only 21 square miles and which at one point boasted the world’s highest per capita income, has a population of over 64,000 people. Our closest neighbours, St. Martin (French) and St. Maarten (Dutch) both smaller than Anguilla, 21 square miles and 13 square miles respectively, both have populations over the 25,000 people benchmark. St. Martin has a population of over 36,000 people and St. Maarten’s population is over 37,000. So to those who question the validity of the 25,000 people benchmark, I ask them to point to a country with a population less than 25,000 people that can claim a sustainable economy. Even the British Virgin Islands, whose economy and British Overseas Territory status is similar to Anguilla’s has a population over the 25,000 people benchmark.
The benefits of increasing our population go far beyond just the economic benefit to businesses. It would also help government directly and tax-payers and citizens indirectly. When the population increases the cost of government and the services that government is best positioned to provide will be spread over a larger number of tax-payers, thus allowing us to pay less and it will also allow government to provide more services, infrastructure and/or facilities. It has been widely reported that currently, our government costs our approximately 9,000 tax-payers EC$10 million per month. This works out to over EC$1,100.00 per tax-payer. If we were to keep the same size civil service and the same monthly government expenditure and increase the tax paying population to 18,000, the cost to each tax-payer would drop to a little over EC$555.00. That is a reduction of just about half of what we are paying currently. Now, I know that increasing the population will also increase government’s expenditure because government will be providing services to more people but the increase would not be a 1:1 ratio. As a matter of fact, increasing the population would help to get some of government’s subsidized institutions such as the Health Authority and the Water Cooperation more economically viable thus eliminating government’s need to subsidize them at all. By increasing our population, we would increase our population density and thus we would reduce the infrastructure cost per customer for all of our utility and telecommunication companies. This reduction should result in reduced cost to customers and/or more employment opportunities and better wages.
The world’s economic recession has resulted in millions of people losing their jobs. This is evident in Anguilla with the closing of several businesses including Malliouhana and Cap Juluca hotels. While these businesses are closing, resulting in hundreds of people instantly becoming unemployed, approximately 100 to 150 students graduate from our high school every year. If we assume two-thirds (66%) of them will enter the labour market and a third (33%) of them will decide to pursue higher education or vocational training, then the Anguillian economy needs to be producing approximately 66 to 100 jobs a year or 6 to 8 jobs a month, just to employ our high school graduates. What will create these jobs? Jobs are created when there is an increase in the need/demand for goods or services. Who has the need for goods or services? People do. Therefore, the more people you have needing goods or services, the more jobs will be created to provide these goods and services. By increasing our population we will be increasing the number of people who need goods and services and thus we will be better able to produce the 66 to 100 new jobs per year or 6 to 8 jobs per month that we need to, just to keep pace with work force growth.
But perhaps the strongest argument for population growth in Anguilla might not be those put forth so far at all. I believe the biggest socio-economic benefit to the majority of Anguillians from population growth would be:
1. The opportunities to use our land to house and feed our new residents and to accommodate any additional businesses that will be needed.
2. The increased work and business opportunities in the construction industry that will be created in order to build the new housing, schools, businesses, recreational facilities and infrastructure that will eventually be needed. In short, the benefits of real estate development.
I often wonder if we inAnguilla, in our quest for economic development and economic growth are not inadvertently overlooking the obvious and in essence are stumbling over plenty dollars in the pursuit of a few pennies, at least, for the majority of our Anguillian workers. I believe the time has come to, in addition to the economic policies centered around tourism, for us to develop economic policies focused on what the majority of our people owns and have the knowledge to utilize, not just for economic growth but for socio-economic development. I’m not saying that real estate should be the only opportunities created for us to generate socio-economic activities but what I am saying is that it is one of the areas that, because of our unique position of having 100% land owners, we are best positioned to exploit. Of course we should pursue other areas in order to diversify our economy such as fishing, agriculture, financial services, information technology services, light manufacturing or whatever else we can think of. However, the reality is that these areas require specialized skills and training and as a result of limited educational opportunities, only a few of our people have had the money to acquire these skills. As I stated on the Mayor Show the other day, we should cast down our buckets where we are. I believe where we are currently, perfectly positions us to use population growth as a means of achieving sustainable socio-economic growth and this new socio-economic growth will position us to take full advantage of the other opportunities that can also be created, as mentioned above.
The good Lord has blessed just about every Anguillian family with what many countries have gone to war for. That is, land. Of the 22,400 acres of land in Anguilla 95% of it is privately owned. If we view land as a resource and if we bear in mind that just about every socio-economic activity occurs on it, then can’t we link the need for economic development and population growth at the very point where the majority of our people are? Isn’t this a win-win situation? Instead of worrying about the foreign worker taking an Anguillian job, can’t we create an opportunity for the Anguillian worker to be the foreign worker’s landlord? Instead of worrying about the Chinese business owner driving the Anguillian business owner out of business, can’t we create the opportunity for them to cooperate together and export Anguillian made goods to China? Instead of worrying about the “indigenous Anguillian” becoming a second class citizen, can’t we create appropriate immigration policies and cultural development programmes so that we all will be Anguillians, with a common set of Anguillian values, committed with hearts and souls to making Anguilla the haven we all sing about in our national song? Instead of fostering an attitude of us versus them, can’t we cultivate a culture of we? Instead of trying to keep out the foreign worker, can’t we extend to them the same hospitality we extend to our North American visitors at our various tourism facilities? Instead of looking at our growing pains through the prism of either this or that, can’t we look for solutions that encompass both or and? I am 100% certain that, like everything else, if we put our minds to doing this, we can and we will. It has been reported that the father of the nation once said that he didn’t want Anguilla to be a nation of bus boys and maids. I suspect he would not mind if we become a nation of landlords and business owners.
How we get there from here is beyond the scope of this article and should be the task for people who are much more qualified and positioned than me but I think it should involve the following: a commitment to a clearly defined socio-economic vision, an immigration policy that is conceived to achieve that socio-economic vision, a comprehensive land use plan with the appropriate land control mechanisms to accommodate the targeted population and economic growth and a political leadership that has the will, the ability and the capacity to see it through. I would expect to see measures such as a programme to encourage Anguillians living overseas to be more involved in Anguilla’s development, a quota system for foreign workers per country and the issuing of work permits for skills that are not available in Anguilla and with conditions to complete certain cultural development programmes such as learning Anguilla’s history, our laws, our National Song and our values. I would also expect to see a preference to families. With respect to the formulation of a comprehensive land-use plan, I would expect that one of the first things we would do is to conduct an assessment to determine how our people want to develop their lands. Areas suitable for up-market tourism should be ear-marked for that. Areas suitable for agriculture should be encouraged to be developed for that. Areas suitable for heritage or ecological development and preservation should be encouraged for such. In instances where land owners are not sure how they want to develop their land, planning professionals, cognizant of what it takes for communities to thrive, should make suggestions and where necessary even provide incentives to encourage specific types of development. These incentives can be in the form of a reduction or the elimination of property taxes for a specified period or duty-free concessions or special financing programmes, just to name a few.
I would like to stress that an attitude of inclusion has always served Anguilla well in the past and I believe will serve us well in the future. An attitude of inclusion is consistent with our history and consistent with what is truly Anguillian- the kindest and friendliest people in the world. Our warmth and friendliness is not and should not be reserved for only our North American visitors, but should be extended to our “up the island” our “down the island”, our Chinese, our Spanish and our other visitors as well. Let us build our nation, in part, on the fact that we were all visitors in everybody else’s country and that makes us fully qualified to be the hospitality capital of the world. We have family and friends in every corner of this world. This too is part of what makes us Anguillian. This too is part of our culture and this too is what we should preserve. If we ignore this, then we ignore the favour and the answered prayers God gave our fore-bearers when our men travelled to Santa Domingo to cut sugar cane or to Curacao to work in the oil refineries or to St. Thomas to work on the construction sites or in the hotels or when we, as students, got on the plane for the very first time to travel to Antigua for trade school or St. Kitts for teachers’ college or Barbados for law school or to Jamaica for medical or nursing school or to England, Canada or the United States for education, work or healthcare. All this is our culture too. So let us not allow the unfamiliar or fear, to deprive us of the full potential of our 35 square-mile island of Anguilla- the land that we all love and perish.
I have attempted to layout my reasons for being a proponent for population growth in Anguilla. I have intentionally done this publicly because I believe it is time to have this issue publicly discussed and debated by those with the power and responsibility to decide one way or the other. So let the public discussions and debates begin.
