Open for Business, but Where Is the Financial Foundation?

 Open for Business, but Where Is the Financial Foundation?

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar November 2026

Guyana’s persistent foreign-exchange difficulties expose a widening gap between the country the government advertises and the conditions businesses encounter. The administration sells opportunity, expansion and economic transformation. Businesses then confront the practical question beneath those promises: how do we pay our overseas suppliers?

That is a question of “readiness”. And the explanation offered by Bank of Guyana Governor Dr Gobind Ganga raises serious concerns about whether the government and its institutions have adequately prepared for the growth they so enthusiastically promote.

According to the report of his remarks, Ganga acknowledges unprecedented demand for foreign currency, says close to US$7 billion is available in the Natural Resource Fund, and points to legislative constraints on accessing additional money. He offers no definite timetable for a noticeable improvement in access.

This is not an explanation that should bring the discussion to a close. It should open a much more searching examination of economic management.

A foundation cannot be an afterthought

The government’s approach resembles promoting a larger building before establishing whether its foundation can carry the additional weight.

The building is the expanding economy. Its foundation includes the institutions, payment arrangements, banking capacity and policy coordination required to support commercial activity. Advertising more floors does not strengthen that foundation.

Nor does celebrating demand resolve an inability to meet it.

The investment boom itself helps explain why foreign-exchange demand is rising. The IMF has identified strong demand associated with import-heavy private investment. Expansion can therefore generate additional dollar requirements even as it brings new capital into the country.

That relationship should be central to planning—not treated as a surprising complication after businesses begin experiencing payment difficulties.

A government courting investment must ask more than how many businesses it can attract. It must ask what those businesses will import, how their payments will be financed, when their foreign-currency requirements will arise, and whether the financial system can accommodate them.

Demand need not be forecasted perfectly for the obligation to anticipate it to exist.

Known rules are not an unforeseen emergency

The Governor’s reference to legislative restrictions deserves precision, not dismissal. Public money must be governed by law. Safeguards protecting the Natural Resource Fund should not be abandoned merely because pressure has increased.

But respecting safeguards is not the same as accepting inadequate preparation.

The Bank of Guyana is responsible for the fund’s operational management, including accounting and financial reporting. Its Governor speaks from within the institutional framework governing these resources. The relevant rules are therefore not some external obstacle that suddenly appeared in the authorities’ path. They are part of the architecture within which economic policy must operate.

Guyana also already has a lawful mechanism for withdrawing NRF resources. In October 2024, the government reported cumulative withdrawals of US$1.150 billion against parliamentary approval for approximately US$1.586 billion that year. The issue is not that access has never been legally possible. It is what currently limits additional access, and how the authorities planned around that limitation.

If the framework cannot accommodate the economy’s legitimate requirements, the government must explain what needs updating. If the framework is adequate but policy coordination has failed, it must explain that instead.

Either way, “legislative constraints” cannot become a refuge from accountability.

National wealth must translate into a functioning economy

Ganga’s reported disclosure of close to US$7 billion in the NRF should be treated as an authoritative statement from the head of its operational manager. It does not mean every dollar is immediately available for commercial-bank customers, or that he can authorize withdrawals at will.

But it makes the public’s question unavoidable: how are substantial national resources being connected, lawfully and effectively, to the functioning of the domestic economy?

The answer cannot simply be that money exists somewhere while businesses must wait somewhere else.

Kiskadee Watch reports delayed transactions, outstanding foreign-currency requests and recourse to a parallel market at higher exchange rates. These are practical difficulties for businesses and individuals, not merely abstract differences between categories of national assets.

A development strategy must account for the passage from headline wealth to usable economic capacity. Otherwise, impressive balances and investment announcements coexist with avoidable uncertainty in ordinary commerce.

Promotion is not preparedness

Conferences, expos and investment campaigns are instruments of promotion. They are not substitutes for a functioning payments system.

Even when visitors and investors bring foreign currency, the relevant question is whether the timing and volume of those inflows match the economy’s payment requirements. The investment-related demand identified by the IMF shows why expanding activity cannot automatically be equated with adequate dollar availability.

The government must therefore stop treating investment promotion as a self-contained achievement. Attracting a business is only the beginning of the responsibility. The operating environment must support the business after the speeches end.

Continuing to sell expansion without adequately addressing the constraints already facing participants is not a coherent development strategy. It is promotion running ahead of preparation.

What accountability now requires

The authorities owe the country a specific, measurable response:

• Identify the exact legal provisions limiting the proposed use of NRF resources.
• Explain why the existing framework and available policy instruments have not produced adequate relief.
• Publish the scale and age of outstanding foreign-exchange requests.
• Set out the measures available before the next budget, with clear responsibilities and reporting dates.
• Demonstrate how investment promotion, public expenditure and foreign-exchange planning will be coordinated.

None of this requires dismantling safeguards or promising unlimited dollars at any price. It requires competent administration within a transparent framework—and timely reform where that framework no longer serves its intended purpose.

The evidence does not establish that every restriction is defective. It does establish the need for the government to explain whether its institutions have kept pace with the expansion it champions.

“Unprecedented demand” describes the pressure. “Legislative constraints” describes a limitation. Neither, on its own, answers the charge of inadequate foresight.

Guyana cannot build a dependable investment destination on the assumption that its financial foundation will somehow strengthen itself. Before inviting ever more weight onto the structure, the government must show that it can support what is already there.