Guyana’s New Cabinet: A Public Choice Perspective on an Oil-Fueled Future

President Irfaan Ali’s new 25-member Cabinet, sworn in on September 13, 2025, represents a significant expansion of the executive branch, a move the government has framed as essential for managing the country’s burgeoning oil wealth and accelerating its development agenda. The administration has been vocal in its commitment to a new model of governance, one that prioritizes efficiency, accountability, and tangible results for the people of Guyana. In his address to the new ministers, President Ali emphasized that the government would be “results-driven, people-centred and efficient,” and that the public service would be subject to “continuous assessment” to ensure performance and accountability. The President’s rhetoric has been consistently focused on the need for “agility, speed, and relentless hard work” to meet the country’s ambitious development goals.

The new Cabinet, a blend of experienced ministers and new faces, has been presented as a team carefully crafted to deliver on this promise. The expansion includes the creation of new ministries, such as the Ministry of Public Utilities and Aviation, as well as the addition of new portfolios to existing ministries, including the Ministry of Labour, Manpower, and Planning, and the Ministry of Public Service, Government Efficiency, and Implementation. These changes, the government argues, are necessary to manage the complexities of a rapidly growing economy and to ensure that the benefits of the oil boom are distributed across all sectors of society.

The government’s promises of a new era of good governance are intended to reassure a population that has long been plagued by corruption and inefficiency. The President has been clear that there will be no tolerance for corruption or abuse of power, stating that “those who wish to exercise power will find themselves out of a job.” The emphasis on transparency and accountability is a welcome message in a country that has historically struggled with these issues. The government’s commitment to a results-driven agenda, with clear performance metrics, is also a positive step towards a more effective and responsive public sector. However, the very expansion of the state and the massive influx of oil revenue that fuels it create a new set of challenges and risks that cannot be ignored.

The promises of a more efficient and accountable government, while laudable, must be viewed through the skeptical lens of public choice theory. This school of economic thought, pioneered by James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, applies economic principles to the analysis of political behavior, and its predictions for a country in Guyana’s position are sobering. Public choice theory posits that political actors, like all individuals, are primarily motivated by self-interest. This is not to say that they are inherently corrupt, but rather that their decisions are shaped by the incentives they face. In a political system, these incentives often diverge from the public interest.

The theory identifies several key mechanisms through which this divergence occurs, all of which are highly relevant to Guyana’s current situation. One of the central concepts of public choice theory is “rent-seeking,” the process by which individuals or groups use the political process to secure economic advantages for themselves, rather than creating new wealth. In an oil-rich country like Guyana, the opportunities for rent-seeking are immense. The vast revenues generated by the oil sector create a powerful incentive for individuals and groups to lobby the government for preferential treatment, such as lucrative contracts, subsidies, or protection from competition. This behavior diverts resources away from productive activities and can lead to widespread corruption and inefficiency.

As the government expands, with more ministries, more regulations, and more discretionary power, the opportunities for rent-seeking multiply. The creation of new ministries and the expansion of existing ones, as seen in President Ali’s new Cabinet, creates more gatekeepers and more opportunities for corruption. Another key concept is “bureaucratic inefficiency.” Public choice theorists argue that government bureaucracies, unlike private firms, are not subject to the discipline of the market. They do not face competition, and their performance is not measured by profit and loss. As a result, bureaucrats are often motivated by factors other than efficiency, such as budget maximization, job security, and personal power.

This can lead to bloated, inefficient, and unresponsive government agencies that consume vast resources without delivering commensurate value to the public. The expansion of the Guyanese government, with its new ministries and expanded portfolios, is likely to exacerbate this problem. The influx of oil revenue will enable the government to expand its payroll and programs, but without robust mechanisms for accountability, this expansion is unlikely to result in improved public services.

The theory of the “resource curse” provides a robust framework for understanding the specific challenges faced by oil-rich nations. The resource curse refers to the paradox that countries with an abundance of natural resources, particularly oil, tend to experience slower economic growth, higher levels of corruption, and weaker institutions compared to countries without such resources. The massive influx of oil revenue can distort the economy, leading to a phenomenon known as “Dutch disease,” where the manufacturing and agricultural sectors decline as the currency appreciates and resources are drawn into the oil sector. This creates a dangerous dependency on a single, volatile commodity.

The political consequences of the resource curse are equally pernicious. The availability of significant, unearned revenues from oil can make governments less accountable to their citizens. When governments do not need to tax their citizens to fund their operations, they have less incentive to be responsive to their needs. This can lead to a breakdown in the social contract between the government and the governed, creating fertile ground for authoritarianism and corruption.

The expansion of the Guyanese government, funded by oil revenues, is a classic symptom of the resource curse. The government’s ability to spend lavishly without having to raise taxes will make it less accountable to the public and more susceptible to the temptations of rent-seeking and corruption. The creation of new ministries and the expansion of the public sector will create more opportunities for patronage and political favoritism. The government’s promises of efficiency and accountability, while well-intentioned, are unlikely to be fulfilled in the absence of strong institutional constraints on its power.

The scale of Guyana’s oil-driven economic transformation cannot be overstated. The country’s 2025 budget of US$6.628 billion represents a 21% increase from the 2023 budget of US$5.496 billion, with oil revenue now accounting for 37% of government expenditures. This dependency on oil revenue has grown dramatically in just three years, rising from 23% in 2022 to 29% in 2024, and now to 37% in 2025 – a 14 percentage point increase that signals an accelerating reliance on a single, volatile commodity.

The economic statistics paint a picture of unprecedented growth that would be the envy of any nation. Guyana achieved a remarkable 44% GDP growth in 2024, making it the world’s fastest-growing economy, with the International Monetary Fund projecting a further 14.4% expansion in 2025. This would boost nominal GDP to US$24.5 billion, representing a staggering 410% increase compared to 2018, before the oil boom began. GDP per capita is projected to reach US$30,650.1 in 2025, a figure that would place Guyana among the upper-middle-income countries globally.

However, these impressive macroeconomic indicators mask deeper structural vulnerabilities that public choice theory would predict. The economy has become dangerously concentrated, with mining and quarrying now accounting for 63.4% of GDP, while agriculture has shrunk to just 10.3% and financial intermediation represents 8.6%. This concentration represents a classic case of Dutch disease, where the oil sector crowds out other productive activities, creating a dangerous dependency on a single commodity whose prices are notoriously volatile.

The government’s spending patterns reveal the classic symptoms of resource curse economics. While massive appropriations have been made for health, education, and housing, the government has also implemented populist measures, including one-time cash payments of GY$100,000 to every citizen, free university tuition programs, and minimum wage increases. These measures, while politically popular, represent the kind of unsustainable spending that public choice theory predicts will occur when governments have access to significant, unearned revenues.

The Natural Resource Fund, which receives government revenues from oil, recorded receipts of US$2.57 billion in 2024, and the government expects to receive more than US$12 billion in oil revenues between 2025 and 2028. This massive influx of revenue creates powerful incentives for rent-seeking behavior. It reduces the government’s accountability to its citizens, as it no longer relies primarily on taxation to fund its operations.

The fundamental insight of public choice theory is that the outcomes of government expansion and oil dependency are invariant primarily to the particular choice of ministers. While President Ali has appointed what appears to be a competent and diverse Cabinet, including new faces such as Keoma Griffith as Minister of Labour, Manpower, and Planning, Sarah Browne as Minister of Amerindian Affairs, and Zulfikar Ally as Minister of Public Service, Government Efficiency and Implementation, the structural incentives they face will shape their behavior more than their individual characteristics.

The creation of new ministries and the expansion of existing portfolios may be presented as necessary for managing complexity, but public choice theory suggests that these expansions create their own momentum toward inefficiency and rent-seeking, regardless of who occupies the ministerial positions. The appointment of experienced ministers, such as Ashni Kumar Singh, continuing as Senior Minister for Finance, Vickram Bharrat returning to Natural Resources, and Mohabir Anil Nandlall remaining as Attorney General, provides continuity. However, it also illustrates how the expansion of government creates vested interests in maintaining and growing bureaucratic structures.

Each ministry becomes a constituency for increased spending, more staff, and expanded mandates. The ministers, however well-intentioned, face powerful incentives to maximize their budgets and expand their influence, as this is how success is often measured in government. The bureaucrats who work under them have similar incentives to grow their departments and secure their positions. These incentives operate independently of the personal integrity or competence of the individuals involved.

The expansion from a smaller Cabinet to a 25-member Cabinet creates more centers of power, more opportunities for inter-ministerial competition for resources, and more potential points of capture by special interests. The creation of the Ministry of Public Service, Government Efficiency and Implementation is particularly ironic from a public choice perspective, as it represents the classic bureaucratic response to inefficiency: creating another layer of bureaucracy to monitor and improve the existing bureaucracy.

While Minister Ally may be highly competent and committed to efficiency, the ministry he heads will inevitably develop its own institutional interests and will face the same incentives toward budget maximization and empire-building that affect all government agencies. The fundamental problem is not the quality of the people in government, but the structure of incentives they face. In a system where success is measured by the size of one’s budget rather than the efficiency of service delivery, where there is no competitive pressure to improve performance, and where the ultimate source of funding is not the voluntary contributions of satisfied customers but the coercive power of the state to extract resources from oil revenues, the predictable result is inefficiency, waste, and corruption.

These outcomes are not the result of moral failings on the part of government officials, but the inevitable consequence of the institutional framework within which they operate. Despite these sobering predictions from public choice theory, Guyana’s future is not predetermined. Countries such as Norway, Chile, and Botswana have mitigated the worst effects of the resource curse by implementing robust institutional frameworks that constrain government behavior and promote accountability. The key is to recognize that good intentions and competent personnel are not sufficient; what is needed are institutional mechanisms that align the incentives of government officials with the public interest.

Several specific reforms could help Guyana avoid the pitfalls that have befallen other oil-rich nations. First, the establishment of truly independent oversight institutions with the power to monitor government spending and hold officials accountable for their performance could help counteract the tendency toward waste and corruption. Second, implementing transparent budget processes that require public justification for all expenditures could help ensure that oil revenues are used for productive purposes rather than political patronage.

Third, the creation of constitutional limits on government spending and debt could help prevent the boom-bust cycles that have plagued other resource-rich countries. Fourth, the establishment of a truly independent sovereign wealth fund, managed by professionals rather than politicians, could help ensure that oil revenues are saved for future generations rather than squandered on current consumption.

The challenge for Guyana is that these reforms must be implemented by the very government officials who would be constrained by them. This creates a classic collective action problem: while everyone would benefit from good governance, those in power have strong incentives to resist constraints on their authority. The solution requires a combination of domestic pressure from civil society and international pressure from donors and investors who can make continued support conditional on governance reforms.

The international community, including multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, has a crucial role to play in supporting Guyana’s efforts to build strong institutions. However, their track record in this regard is mixed, as they often prioritize short-term economic growth over long-term institutional development. The ultimate responsibility lies with the Guyanese people themselves, who must demand accountability from their government and resist the temptation to support politicians who promise unsustainable benefits funded by oil revenues.

The expansion of Guyana’s Cabinet and the significant increase in government spending, funded by oil revenues, represent a critical test of the country’s democratic institutions. The predictions of public choice theory suggest that without strong institutional constraints, this expansion will lead to inefficiency, corruption, and economic distortion, regardless of the personal qualities of the ministers involved. The challenge for Guyana is to prove these predictions wrong by building institutions that can harness the country’s oil wealth for the benefit of all its citizens.

The stakes could not be higher, as the decisions made in the coming years will determine whether Guyana becomes a prosperous, well-governed democracy or another cautionary tale of squandered resource wealth. The path forward requires not just good intentions and competent leadership, but a fundamental commitment to institutional reform that constrains government power and promotes accountability. Only by understanding and addressing the structural incentives identified by public choice theory can Guyana hope to avoid the resource curse and build a sustainable, prosperous future for all its people.

References

“President Ali sets results-driven agenda as the new Cabinet is sworn in,” News Room Guyana, September 13, 2025, https://newsroom.gy/2025/09/13/president-ali-sets-results-driven-agenda-as-the-new-cabinet-is-sworn-in/.

“Twenty-five ministers sworn in,” Stabroek News, September 14, 2025, https://www.stabroeknews.com/2025/09/14/news/guyana/twenty-five-ministers-sworn-in/.

“Public Choice Theory,” Umbrex, accessed September 14, 2025, https://umbrex.com/resources/tools-for-thinking/what-is-public-choice-theory/.

“The Resource Curse,” Natural Resource Governance Institute, March 2015, https://resourcegovernance.org/sites/default/files/nrgi_Resource-Curse.pdf.

“Oil revenue to fund 37% of Guyana’s US$6.6 billion 2025 budget,” OilNOW, January 18, 2025, https://oilnow.gy/news/oil-revenue-to-fund-37-of-guyanas-us6-6-billion-2025-budget/.

“Guyana: A 2025 Snapshot,” Americas Quarterly, January 14, 2025, https://americasquarterly.org/article/guyana-a-2025-snapshot/.

“Oil output, exports drove Guyana economy’s growth of 43.6% in 2024,” Reuters, January 17, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-output-exports-drove-guyana-economys-growth-436-2024-2025-01-17/.

“Guyana Budget 2024_Summary of Fiscal Measures,” EY, January 17, 2025, https://www.ey.com/content/dam/ey-unified-site/ey-com/en-gy/documents/ey-gy-executive-summary-budget-2025-20250117.pdf.

“Guyana: 2025 Article IV Consultation-Press Release,” International Monetary Fund, May 7, 2025, https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2025/103/article-A001-en.xml.

“Economy of Guyana,” Wikipedia, December 20, 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Guyana.

“Guyana leads in economic growth amid expanding oil infrastructure boom,” Department of Public Information, May 8, 2025, https://dpi.gov.gy/guyana-leads-in-economic-growth-amid-expanding-oil-infrastructure-boom/.

“GUYANA’S $100k PAYOUT: Is the Initiative Sustainable for the Newfound Oil-Rich State,” Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy, March 16, 2025, https://blogs.shu.edu/journalofdiplomacy/2025/03/guyanas-100k-payout-is-the-initiative-sustainable-for-the-newfound-oil-rich-state/.

“The Divergent Oil Economies of Guyana and South Sudan,” International Policy Digest, April 12, 2025, https://intpolicydigest.org/when-growth-misleads-the-divergent-oil-economies-of-guyana-and-south-sudan/.

“Guyana’s Oil Boom: How It’s Reshaping Election Politics,” Discovery Alert, August 29, 2025, https://discoveryalert.com.au/news/oil-transformed-guyanas-economy-2025/.

“Guyana anticipates more than US$12 billion in oil revenues in four years,” Caribbean News Global, January 26, 2025, https://caribbeannewsglobal.com/guyana-anticipates-more-than-us12-billion-in-oil-revenues-in-four-years/.

“Guyana has received more than US$5 billion in revenue since first oil,” OilNOW, October 23, 2024, https://oilnow.gy/featured/guyana-has-received-more-than-us5-billion-in-revenue-since-first-oil/.

“US$6.6bn National Budget tabled in Guyana,” Caribbean Council, January 24, 2025, https://www.caribbean-council.org/us6-6bn-national-budget-tabled-in-guyana/.

Guyana Business Journal 

September 16, 2025