A World in Transition: The Caribbean Needs a Productivity Revolution

By Dr. Livingston Smith

This series, A World in Transition: What the New Global Order Means for the Caribbean, examines the changing distribution of global power and how Caribbean societies can respond with greater purpose and influence. The first article explored the emergence of a more multipolar world, arguing that wider diplomatic choices do not automatically translate into greater autonomy. The second considered the regional response, making the case that stronger Caribbean cooperation is essential if those choices are to deliver lasting gains. A region of small states cannot afford to face a more fragmented, competitive and uncertain world as a collection of isolated economies.

But cooperation alone will not secure our future. It can widen our markets, strengthen our collective voice on the world stage and create opportunities for joint action, from expanding trade in Caribbean goods and coordinating food production to sharing educational resources, pooling disaster-response capacity and negotiating together on climate finance and international debt. What we do with those opportunities, however, will depend on something even more fundamental: our capacity to produce.

Can Caribbean societies produce more value from the talents, time, resources and ideas available to them? Can our workers, businesses, educational institutions and governments become more effective, innovative and productive? Can we develop a culture in which excellence, competence, accountability and continuous improvement are expected rather than exceptional?

These questions are too important to be left to economists alone. They concern every academic discipline and every sector of our society. They are questions about the wages our people can earn, the opportunities available to our young people and the resilience of our economies. Ultimately, they concern the kind of societies we can build. If the Caribbean is to navigate the changing global order with confidence, it needs a productivity revolution.

What productivity means—and why it matters

Labour productivity is commonly measured by the economic output generated per hour worked. At the national level, economists calculate this by dividing gross domestic product by the total number of hours worked across the economy. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development explains, this measure reflects the contribution of technology, capital and organisational efficiency as well as labour. It is not simply a measure of how hard individual workers try.

The measure does not tell us everything about a society or its people. It does not adequately capture unpaid care, environmental costs or the distribution of the benefits of production. Nor does a low figure mean that workers in one country are less intelligent, less capable or necessarily working less hard than those in another. It tells us how much economic value, on average, is generated from an hour of work within a particular economy.

That value depends on far more than individual effort. It reflects education and skills, the quality of management, the tools and technology available, the organisation of production, the reliability of infrastructure, access to finance and the industries in which people work. An employee using modern equipment, supported by competent management and working within an efficient organisation can produce considerably more in an hour than an equally capable employee dealing with outdated technology, unclear instructions, repeated delays and poor supervision.

Productivity, therefore, is a question of people, systems and institutions. The comparisons presented in public debate deserve attention. In his 2026 Budget presentation to Jamaica’s Parliament, Prime Minister Andrew Holness cited output per hour worked of approximately US$8.81 for Jamaica, compared with a Caribbean average of US$20.50. These were purchasing-power-adjusted figures, intended to account for differences in prices across economies. They describe output, not hourly wages. The comparison, as presented, placed Jamaica below half the regional average.

No single comparison explains the region’s economic challenges. Differences in industrial structure, investment and economic conditions matter. But the broader issue is consequential: when productivity grows slowly over many years, the effects accumulate. Economies struggle to sustain increases in wages and public revenue. Businesses find it harder to compete. Governments face greater difficulty financing the schools, healthcare, infrastructure and social protection their citizens require.

Higher productivity does not guarantee that prosperity will be fairly shared. That requires deliberate choices about wages, taxation, public services and opportunity. It does, however, strengthen the economic foundation on which those choices depend.

This is not an indictment of Caribbean workers

A necessary distinction must be made. To say that Caribbean economies face productivity challenges is not to say that Caribbean people are inherently unproductive. Caribbean workers have demonstrated their abilities at home and across the world. They contribute to hospitals, schools, universities, businesses, farms, construction sites, public institutions and technological enterprises far beyond our shores. Their achievements offer every reason to reject the idea that the region’s difficulties arise from some fixed deficiency of culture or ability.

The more useful question is why the same human potential can produce different outcomes in different settings. Part of the answer lies in the organisation of work. A talented employee cannot perform at their best indefinitely in a workplace where equipment fails, decisions are delayed, responsibilities are unclear, training is neglected and good performance goes unrecognised. Nor can a business become competitive merely by asking employees to work harder while failing to modernise its processes or invest in their development. Indeed, a productivity revolution that places the entire burden on workers while leaving management and institutional arrangements untouched will fail before it begins.

But the reverse is also true. Better technology, improved management and stronger institutions will not yield their full benefits if we are unwilling to confront weaknesses in our own work habits, expectations and standards. Both sides of the equation matter.

The question of work culture

Across the Caribbean, we need an honest, evidence-informed conversation about attitudes to work. We should resist sweeping claims about entire populations, but we should also be prepared to examine practices that weaken performance wherever they occur.

Do we value punctuality? Do we complete tasks to the highest standard of which we are capable? Do we respond promptly to the needs of customers, students, patients and citizens? Do we take responsibility for solving problems, or do we become accustomed to passing them on? Do we regard deadlines as commitments or as suggestions? Do we maintain equipment and public facilities with care? Are appointments and promotions consistently based on competence, performance and integrity?

These questions apply to every level of society. They apply to the worker on the front line, the supervisor who fails to provide direction, the executive who avoids difficult decisions, the business owner who neglects investment, the public official who allows files to accumulate and the political leader who announces reforms without ensuring their implementation.

A culture of productivity cannot be built through speeches alone. It is formed through the ordinary habits of institutions: the meeting that begins on time; the call that is returned; the promise that is kept; the problem that is resolved; the standard that is maintained; and the willingness to ask whether a task could be performed better.

At the same time, national output figures cannot tell us whether a people are punctual, conscientious or committed. Those questions require their own evidence, including workplace studies. They must be examined alongside the economic and institutional conditions that shape performance.

The purpose of this conversation should be improvement, not blame. We need to identify what prevents good work, recognise what enables it and make the necessary changes.

The neglected importance of management

If we are to speak seriously about productivity, we must also speak seriously about supervision and management. Length of service, academic qualifications and technical competence may all be valuable. None automatically prepares a person to manage people, organise work, communicate expectations, resolve conflict, coach employees or use evidence to improve performance. Yet these are precisely the responsibilities that accompany supervisory and managerial appointments.

Poor supervision can weaken even a capable workforce. It produces uncertainty, low morale, duplication, avoidable conflict and wasted time. It can discourage initiative and allow underperformance to become normal. Conversely, good management creates clarity, develops people, identifies obstacles, recognises achievement and holds everyone, including management itself, accountable. A Caribbean productivity agenda should therefore treat management development as a national economic priority. Supervisors in the public and private sectors should be trained, supported and evaluated on their ability to lead teams, improve processes and help people perform at their best.

Management must also be willing to listen. The employee closest to a process often knows where time is being wasted and what could be improved. A workplace in which people are afraid to speak, or in which their suggestions are routinely ignored, wastes knowledge that could strengthen the organisation.

We must also distinguish useful performance from the appearance of activity. More meetings, longer reports and additional procedures do not necessarily mean better results. The important questions are whether students are learning, patients are receiving timely care, customers are being served and public problems are being resolved.

The Caribbean’s productivity challenge is therefore also a leadership challenge. We cannot ask people to perform better without examining how they are led, supported and equipped. Stronger regional cooperation can create opportunities, but our ability to benefit from them will depend on what happens within our workplaces, classrooms, businesses and public institutions.

In the next article, I will consider how education, management and institutional reform can help turn this ambition into practice.