A Promise Kept, a Programme Preserved: Jamaica’s New Government Delivers Tax Relief Without Breaking the IMF Deal

When Finance Minister Audley Shaw rose in parliament to present Jamaica’s Budget 2016-17, the fiscal community was watching for signs of slippage. The Jamaica Labour Party had promised voters an income tax threshold increase that economists had quietly worried might unravel the primary surplus discipline at the heart of the IMF programme. Shaw’s budget delivered the promise and kept the programme — a balancing act that marked the most consequential economic test of the new government’s first months in office.

• Budget 2016-17 raised the income tax threshold to J$1.5 million annually, delivering the JLP’s central campaign pledge
• Offsetting revenue measures, including a general consumption tax adjustment, ensured the primary surplus target was maintained
• The IMF completed its quarterly programme review without waiver, endorsing the new government’s fiscal approach
• GDP growth for the first half of 2016 tracked above 1%, building toward the strongest annual expansion since before the financial crisis
• Tourism continued its record run, with stop-over arrivals in Q2 2016 again outpacing the equivalent period of the prior year
• The Business Process Outsourcing sector attracted new foreign investment, with two major operators announcing expanded Kingston operations

The Budget 2016-17 debate was, by Jamaican parliamentary standards, unusually technical. The opposition People’s National Party, now reconfigured as a watchdog for a programme it had itself designed, found itself in the strange position of scrutinising the JLP’s implementation of PNP policies. Shaw, for his part, approached the budget with the careful arithmetic of a man who understood that the market was watching every line item for evidence of backsliding. The income tax threshold increase — raising the floor below which no personal income tax was payable from J$592,000 to J$1,000,272 in the first instance, with a further phase-in toward J$1.5 million in the following year — was politically essential. But it came with a cost that needed to be covered from somewhere.

The revenue offset package included adjustments to the General Consumption Tax, increases in special consumption taxes on certain goods, and improved collection efficiency measures that the Tax Administration Jamaica had been developing over several years. The Ministry of Finance‘s projections showed that the overall fiscal position — the critical primary surplus that underpinned the IMF programme — would be maintained above the 7 per cent of GDP target agreed with the Fund. When the International Monetary Fund completed its quarterly review of programme performance in June, all quantitative performance criteria were found to be on track. The incoming JLP government had, in its first full budget, demonstrated that it was capable of the same fiscal discipline as its predecessor.

The broader economy was performing well. The Planning Institute of Jamaica reported that GDP growth for the first half of 2016 was tracking above 1 per cent year-on-year, driven by continued strength in tourism, a recovering construction sector, and improved performance in financial services. The tourism sector, which had by 2016 become the dominant engine of Jamaica’s formal economic growth, continued its run of record performance. The Jamaica Tourist Board reported that stop-over arrivals for the second quarter were again above the prior year, extending a consecutive record that stretched back to 2012. Hotel occupancy along the north coast was approaching the levels that had previously been achieved only in the peak winter season, reflecting both the sustained marketing effectiveness of the board and the quality improvement across Jamaica’s hospitality product.

The Business Process Outsourcing sector — call centres and back-office operations serving North American and British clients — added a different dimension to Jamaica’s economic recovery story. Two of the world’s larger BPO operators announced in the second quarter of 2016 that they were expanding their Kingston and Portmore operations, citing Jamaica’s English-speaking workforce, competitive wage costs relative to North America, and improving infrastructure. The sector, which had grown steadily since the early 2000s, was by 2016 employing tens of thousands of Jamaicans in formal, above-minimum-wage jobs. For a government committed to broadening the base of economic growth beyond the enclave of the tourism industry, BPO expansion offered a model of private sector-led employment creation that did not require the fiscal expenditure that infrastructure investment demanded.

The Bank of Jamaica maintained its cautious easing stance through the second quarter, making a further modest reduction in the overnight policy rate as inflation remained subdued. The exchange rate — which had been a source of significant volatility in 2013 and 2014 — was moving at a measured, predictable pace of depreciation that reflected fundamental factors rather than speculative pressure. Foreign exchange reserves remained comfortable, supported by tourism inflows, remittances, and continued access to multilateral lending under the IMF programme.

The political context remained delicate. With a parliamentary majority of one, the Holness government was governing without the room for error that a conventional majority provides. Opposition pressure was intense and well-informed — the PNP’s shadow finance team, drawing on its four years of programme management, was capable of identifying technical inconsistencies in the government’s fiscal projections that might otherwise have passed unnoticed. The government’s response was to maintain the Economic Programme Oversight Committee’s independence and to rely on the IMF’s quarterly endorsement as a credibility anchor. As long as the Fund was approving each review, it was difficult for the opposition to argue that the fiscal programme was being mismanaged, whatever its political criticisms of the income tax relief package’s design.

The Statistical Institute of Jamaica data for Q1 2016 confirmed that unemployment had continued its downward trajectory, falling toward 12 per cent — levels not seen since before the 2008-09 global recession. The labour market improvement was, in aggregate, the most democratically felt consequence of the four-year stabilisation programme. Abstract measures like the debt-to-GDP ratio or the primary surplus meant little to most Jamaicans; the availability of jobs, and the prospect of more, was a tangible change that voters could assess directly.

What This Means

The second quarter of 2016 resolved the central uncertainty that had surrounded the JLP’s election victory: would the new government prioritise its campaign commitments or the inherited IMF programme? The budget’s delivery of both — through revenue offsetting rather than deficit expansion — was the answer the market needed. It established that the change of government had not disrupted the programme’s trajectory, and it gave the IMF a basis for confidence in the new team’s fiscal judgment. For Jamaica’s economy, the broader implication is that the institutional framework built between 2012 and 2016 — the Fiscal Responsibility Framework, the Economic Programme Oversight Committee, the Partnership for Jamaica architecture — is now functioning as intended: constraining fiscal discretion in ways that transcend the electoral cycle. The programme is no longer purely dependent on one government’s political will. It has been embedded in law and institutional practice in ways that the next government, whatever its partisan colour, will find difficult to unwind.

The Road Ahead

With the EFF’s final year now fully underway under the Holness government’s management, the next twelve months will test whether the institutional gains of the past four years are durable. The programme is due to conclude in May 2017, and both the government and the IMF will need to agree on the post-programme framework before that date. The Fund has discussed with the Jamaican authorities the possibility of a successor arrangement — likely a precautionary facility that provides insurance without requiring fresh borrowing — that would maintain market discipline and creditor confidence through the debt restructuring that continues into the medium term. Whether the Holness government opts for a clean exit or a successor programme will depend partly on its assessment of Jamaica’s vulnerability to external shocks and partly on the political calculus of being seen to remain in an IMF relationship. Either choice is defensible. What matters is that the fiscal framework, now encoded in law, continues to discipline the budget regardless of the programme’s formal status.

Follow Jamaica Homes on Youtube @jamaicahomes and Instagram @jamaica_homes and on Facebook @jamaicahomes Send us a message or email us at onlinefeedback@jamaica-homes.com or editor@jamaica-homes.com