Professor Victor Bulmer-Thomas, the featured speaker at a symposium hosted by the University of Belize last week, saw troubling signs in our economy, actually described it as stagnant; but IMF staff who were here earlier this month saw promise, saw our economy on the upswing. IMF Staff parroted many of the glowing things our leaders said during their campaign leading up to the March 12 general election. IMF Staff said in their preliminary findings that our economy “has recovered strongly following the pandemic…real GDP grew by 8.1 percent in 2024…the poverty rate declined substantially to 22 percent in 2024, from 36 percent in 2021, according to the multidimensional poverty index.” The IMF further spoke of “the prudent management of public sector wages and a sharp rebound in government revenues”, and the sharp fall of our debt-to-GDP ratio, from 103.3% in 2020 to 61.1% at the end of 2024.
While the IMF projects that the pace of growth of our economy will become slower this year because of an “observed slowdown in stayover visitor arrivals growth and weak agricultural sector performance as a result of unfavorable weather conditions and fungal disease affecting sugarcane”, it predicts a modest recovery in 2026 if, as it expects, “inflationary pressures from major trading partners and oil prices subside.” The IMF cautions, however, that “increased or sustained climate-related disasters could cause severe damage to the agriculture, energy, and tourism sectors”; but, the group says, “the implementation of several large infrastructure projects—particularly in the energy, utilities, and transport sectors—could push growth higher over the medium term.”
Our dependency on foreign-funded “large infrastructure projects” to “grow our economy” cannot be overlooked. Over the years, Belize has given the sweetest deals – unbelievable tax incentives, its best properties – to attract foreign direct investment (FDI). We bend over backwards to attract FDI, lean on grants to balance our budgets, and depend on soft loans to develop our infrastructure. No country is an “island”, and underdeveloped Belize needs to attract capital; but it should not be lost on any of us that every FDI takes a bite out of our sovereignty, and every grant and soft loan says we are not capable of standing on our own feet.
What if we generated more funds at home to develop Belize? On the ground, only myopic Belizeans don’t see the pickle we are in with citrus, sugarcane, and farmed shrimp—backbone industries in our primary productive sector that are sputtering. What if more of our homegrown funds were used to develop Belize? Belizean economist Bill Lindo has been saying for decades that we live above our means. Mr. Lindo wasn’t targeting the 22% poor that the IMF spoke about; they are not the ones purchasing luxury goods with hard-won foreign exchange that should be purchasing machines and equipment that drive production and education.
The IMF team also noted that “reforms to the Pension Plan for Public Officials have been delayed”, and advised that “reducing public sector debt to below 50 percent of GDP would help build fiscal buffers against adverse shocks.” The group also called for us to “broaden the base of the General Sales Tax”, improve “revenue administration”, and “expand priority spending on targeted social programs, infrastructure, and crime prevention.”
BTL, the “buyer”, has much to explain
It was a UDP government that introduced Belize to privatization in their first administration (1984-1989), with the banana industry and telecommunications (BTL). The UDP divested shares in the publicly owned BTL, but retained government control, and with the economy booming from the proceeds of the sale, coupled with an injection of capital from the US through USAID and the economic citizenship program (passport sales), the party was poised for a victory at the polls in 1989. But the UDP lost momentum, ended up being toppled at the polls in a shock result because of an internal rift, their perceived arrogance, a PUP promise to free the airwaves from the grip of Radio Belize, and the people’s rejection of the economic citizenship program.
BTL was front and center when a PUP government gave control to the Ashcroft Alliance. Private control of BTL soured after the Alliance snubbed the Public Utilities Commission when it tried to contain telephone rates, blocked a rival company from “interconnection”, resisted Voice Over Internet Protocol, and wasn’t enthusiastic about government’s initiative to deliver internet to schools. The nationalization, reacquisition, of BTL by the government (UDP) and people of Belize was a long, drawn out saga in the courts, and concluded with Belize on the hook for several hundred million dollars.
In response to a recent exposé by 7News, which indicated that BTL might be making a bid to absorb rival telecommunication companies in the country, the company’s management said that the company has been contemplating the pros and cons of such a move since 2018. In the present climate, with the international Starlink gaining a license for limited operations to provide internet services in Belize, and quite likely applying for an expanded license in the future, a merger of the local players could be heating up.
Big players in the media industry are howling. XTV’s Mose Hyde and Channel 7’s Jules Vasquez have declared their opposition to BTL becoming a monopoly again, fearing the impact that could have on the independence of the media.
BTL buying out its rivals is of major public concern, and both union leaders and regular citizens have questioned the reasoning for BTL’s interest. A common suspicion is that the private telecommunication providers are losing money, thus it is they who are pushing BTL to buy. Eyebrows are raised further because one of the companies mentioned in the exposé is affiliated with family members of the Prime Minister, and another is owned by a relative of the present Chairman of BTL.
A number of Belizeans have opined that the mostly publicly owned BTL should not be in any hurry to buy companies that are “bleeding out”; instead, BTL should wait, and acquire them pennies on the dollar when they fold. That cold-as-ice approach to dealing with local companies and their employees seems unfeeling, and may be a response to public coffers having taken some battering over the years, having suffered significant losses to interests in one of the private telecommunications providers.
BTL has said that acquiring its rivals would minimize duplication and maximize use of underutilized capacity. In a transparent Belize, we could have depended on the Board at BTL to explain the company’s rationale, if it is aggressively pursuing the absorption of its competitors. But Belize is not a transparent place.
Reporter columnist, Leopold Miller, a Belizean author and researcher on future technologies, explored the matter in consecutive articles over the past two weeks, and expressed skepticism based on the reasoning that the technology being discussed might be outdated. In his second article, “Digital Fossils: When telecom regression threatens a nation’s entire future”, Miller cautioned that we might be “investing in infrastructure built for a vanishing world”, that we might look back “perhaps just two years from now—and see not a strategic leap, but a costly consolidation.” Miller said that by investing in “architecture rooted in older tower-based infrastructure, the national telecom [BTL] risks deepening its investment in models already struggling to keep pace with global technological shifts.”
Miller explained that in discussing the matter he wasn’t suggesting illegality or lack of vision. He said “it is entirely possible for a decision to be both legal and misaligned with long-term national interest.” Incidentally, the Reporter put a disclaimer on both of Miller’s articles.
The first privatization of BTL, which was partial, the second that saw us losing control of the company, and the indications in 2025 that BTL is apparently angling to acquire its rivals, are all monumental. The “buyer” has much to explain.