Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman is a mathematician and academic chair at Medgar Evers College, CUNY, and the founder of the Guyana Business Journal. Rennie Parris, MBA, is a Guyanese economist and business strategist with expertise in trade policy, economic development, and regional competitiveness. He holds an MBA in Finance from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and has served in advisory roles in both the private and public sectors. Parris regularly contributes to the Guyana Business Journal, where he writes on trade, investment, and economic policy issues impacting Guyana and the wider Caribbean.

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

Thank you for standing with us.

Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman

Guyana Business Journal

Nation Building Guyana Beyond 2030: A Conversation with Stanley Ming

A GBJ Blog Report Summary

The fifth edition of “Nation Building Guyana Beyond 2030” featured an in-depth conversation with prominent Guyanese entrepreneur and former parliamentarian Stanley Ming, hosted by Kojo Paris and Professor Terrence Blackman. The discussion, which took place on Father’s Day, provided valuable insights into Guyana’s development challenges and opportunities.

Ming opened the conversation by emphasizing that Guyana has been “studied to death” with hundreds of development plans already completed, including a comprehensive 1970 highway development plan that outlined what is now the Heroes Highway. He stressed that the country doesn’t need more studies but rather visionary leadership willing to implement existing plans regardless of their political origins. Drawing from his extensive collection of development documents, Ming demonstrated how successive governments have ignored or abandoned well-researched proposals simply due to partisan politics.

Throughout the discussion, Ming drew heavily from Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership principles, advocating for a development approach based on three pillars: meritocracy, pragmatism, and honesty. He noted that Singapore, with no natural resources and 300 times smaller than Guyana, achieved remarkable development through these principles. Ming emphasized that hiring should be based on competence rather than connections, that focus should be on what works regardless of ideology, and that absolute integrity must guide all dealings.

Ming identified Region 3 as crucial to Guyana’s future, describing it as eight times larger than Georgetown with superior elevation and agricultural potential. He warned that Georgetown faces flooding risks by 2030 due to rising sea levels and announced his plans to relocate his entire business operations to Region 3 by 2027. He also referenced a German government study from 2000-2003 that identified 1,300 square miles of developable land between Parika and Linden, larger than Trinidad, which remains largely unknown to most Guyanese.

Demonstrating his hands-on knowledge of infrastructure challenges, Ming explained Georgetown’s drainage problems in detail and offered concrete solutions. He showed photographs of clogged drainage systems and proposed that the city could be properly drained within six months using existing infrastructure if approached systematically. Ming emphasized that Georgetown doesn’t need new drains but rather proper maintenance of existing ones, starting with clearing outfalls and working systematically inward.

At 74, Ming argued that his generation must “get out of the way” of younger Guyanese who aren’t interested in rehashing historical grievances about race and politics. He emphasized the need to move beyond racial divisions, stating: “Until we stop seeing ourselves as black people and Indian people and become Guyanese, we ain’t going to go anywhere.” Ming shared concerns about young professionals leaving Guyana due to systemic barriers and the perception that success requires political connections rather than merit.

Ming’s business philosophy centers on merit-based hiring, noting that 70% of his managers are women who are selected purely based on competence. He described successful community outreach programs in Tiger Bay, where his company provided healthcare and education support that resulted in several students achieving top national rankings and attending prestigious schools. This work demonstrated his belief that talent exists across all communities when given proper opportunities.

The conversation revealed Ming’s extensive network of knowledge, describing how he maintains relationships with experts across various fields and continues learning daily. He shared examples of Guyanese professionals who have achieved international success, including those who worked on space programs and missile guidance systems, emphasizing the country’s human capital potential.

Ming concluded by committing to share his extensive collection of development studies and plans digitally, thereby making decades of research publicly available. He emphasized that Guyana represents a “five-year project” if approached with proper leadership and implementation focus, citing examples like the Philippines’ City of Dreams, where 5 million people were accommodated in a new city built in just five years.

His final message centered on unity: “One People, One Nation, One Destiny should not just be a saying, but a heartfelt ambition, starting from our leaders all the way down to our children.” The hosts committed to digitizing Ming’s research collection and making it publicly available through GBJ and partner organizations, ensuring this valuable knowledge becomes a national asset rather than remaining in private archives.

This conversation highlighted the critical gap between planning and implementation in Guyana’s development while providing a clear roadmap for moving forward based on existing knowledge and proven leadership principles.

Please see the program here.

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

Thank you for standing with us.

Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman

Guyana Business Journal

Intelligence Unbound: Artificial Intelligence and the Guyanese Moment

A GBJ Saturday Essay

By

Terrence R. Blackman, Ph.D.

Artificial Intelligence is not merely a technological trend; it is a civilizational shift. It is not simply revolutionizing industry, education, and healthcare—it is redefining what it means to know, to decide, and, increasingly, to govern. For Guyana—a young democracy amid an oil-fueled economic transformation—this moment demands more than a fascination with futuristic tools. It requires a critical and strategic reckoning with the nature of intelligence itself, its historical trajectory, and the paths it now opens or forecloses for a country on the cusp of radical transformation.

At its most basic level, artificial intelligence refers to the ability of machines to perform tasks that we typically associate with human intelligence, including learning, reasoning, perception, communication, and problem-solving. Today’s most powerful AI systems are built using machine learning, particularly deep learning—technologies that enable machines to detect patterns in vast quantities of data and improve over time without explicit programming. These systems are not intelligent in the way that we are; they do not feel or understand. However, they can approximate human performance on tasks ranging from cancer diagnosis to music composition. As they scale, they do more than mimic intelligence—they reshape how we live, work, and understand truth and authority.

The idea that thinking could be made mechanical has deep philosophical roots. From Descartes’ mechanistic theories of the body to Leibniz’s dream of a universal logical calculus, the project of formalizing reason has been a constant presence for centuries. In the 20th century, Alan Turing gave this dream a mathematical form. By the 1950s, the field of artificial intelligence had formally emerged. After cycles of disappointment and resurgence, the field has now entered a phase of breathtaking acceleration. The release of generative AI models—systems capable of producing language, images, code, and even scientific hypotheses—signals a turning point not only in technological history but in human self-understanding. What once seemed like science fiction is now an integral part of daily life’s infrastructure. The map is becoming indistinguishable from the territory.

The implications of this shift for Guyana are profound. Too often, we envision AI as a future concern, one relevant to global tech giants and major economies rather than small developing states. This is a dangerous misconception. In a world where data is the new oil and algorithmic decision-making governs everything from creditworthiness to crop planning, Guyana cannot afford to be a passive consumer of technologies created elsewhere. We must recognize that AI is already influencing the extractive industries that drive our GDP. It is embedded in the supply chains, financial systems, and environmental monitoring platforms we are adopting. If we do not shape its implementation with clear principles and competent institutions, we risk surrendering our sovereignty in the very era when we appear to have gained it anew.

Yet the presence of this risk also signals an extraordinary opportunity. Guyana, precisely because so many of its systems are being built or rebuilt, has the chance to leapfrog legacy inefficiencies and design a development model grounded in 21st-century intelligence. A well-governed AI ecosystem could enable us to make evidence-based public policy, optimize resource allocation, expand access to quality education, and deliver health services to remote communities. It could empower our farmers with real-time insights, help us model climate resilience, and match diaspora skills to national needs. These are not abstract promises; they are concrete tools for national transformation—if we are willing to invest in the talent, infrastructure, and ethics to wield them wisely.

That investment begins with our people. AI is not magic. It is math, computation, data, and design—all fields in which Guyanese students can excel if given the chance. We must radically expand and deepen our investments in STEM education. We must do so in ways that also foreground the humanistic questions that AI raises. What should be automated, and what should not? How do we encode fairness, dignity, and cultural specificity into learning systems? How do we ensure that the data collected on our people, land, and customs is not simply exported to enrich foreign platforms but remains part of a sovereign knowledge commons?

This is where questions of ethics and governance become urgent. AI reflects the values of its makers. When those makers are corporations accountable only to shareholders or states pursuing geopolitical dominance, their systems often embed the biases and blind spots of their creators. We have already seen how AI can amplify discrimination, undermine privacy, and distort truth. Guyana must not become a testing ground for systems we do not understand or control. We must establish our regulatory frameworks—ones informed not only by international best practices but also by the lived experiences and aspirations of our people. That means recognizing the cultural dimensions of intelligence and rejecting the idea that development must mean digitization without reflection.

Indeed, the deeper promise of this moment is not that we can adopt artificial intelligence but that we can cultivate a form of Guyanese intelligence—a synthesis of traditional knowledge systems, diasporic insight, youthful innovation, and postcolonial self-awareness. We need not copy the extractive, surveillance-heavy models emerging in parts of the world. We can instead chart a path that uses technology to strengthen democracy, not weaken it; to amplify community, not isolate it; to protect the Earth, not plunder it. We must build AI systems that remember our rivers, honor our languages, and respect our histories, not just optimize profit.

This requires imagination. It requires risk. And it requires leadership. The decisions we make in the coming years about how we govern data, educate our youth, and deploy technology will shape the country our children inherit. If we approach this moment with care, courage, and creativity, we can become not just beneficiaries of the AI revolution but authors of a model of development that others may one day seek to emulate. We can transform intelligence—both real and artificial—into a tool of liberation rather than a means of control.

The machines are learning. The world is watching. And the future, uncertain and luminous, is being written—line by line, code by code, choice by choice. Let us be present to it. Let us be authors of it.

Dr. Terrence R. Blackman is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Mathematics at Medgar Evers College, CUNY, and Founder of the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine.

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

Thank you for standing with us.

Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman

Founder, Guyana Business Journal and Magazine

Transforming Guyana, Season III, Episode XI: Diaspora Bonds: Trust, Identity & Infrastructure in Guyana’s Development Journey

Terrence R. Blackman | June 11, 2025 | Guyana Business Journal

Can diaspora bonds work for Guyana? This deceptively simple question anchored the latest episode of our Transforming Guyana webinar series, where we welcomed Dr. Aleksandr V. Gevorkyan, the Henry George Chair in Economics at St. John’s University and a leading authority on diaspora finance. Dr. Gevorkyan’s response was both enlightening and sobering, drawing from case studies spanning Israel, India, Nigeria, Armenia, and Ghana to illuminate the promise and perils of diaspora bonds as development finance tools. His central thesis was unambiguous: diaspora bonds transcend mere financial instruments—they represent contracts built on trust, identity, and infrastructure.

Many governments mistakenly view diaspora bonds as a straightforward mechanism to convert remittance flows into national development capital. This fundamental misunderstanding has doomed numerous initiatives from the outset. Unlike remittances, which flow through personal and familial channels, diaspora bonds are sovereign debt instruments that demand rigorous legal frameworks, particularly in major markets like the United States. They require transparent governance structures, clear articulation of purpose, and demonstrated financial credibility.

Dr. Gevorkyan identified three essential pillars for successful diaspora bonds. First, identity requires genuine emotional and cultural connections between diaspora communities and their homeland that must be actively cultivated. Second, trust operates on multiple levels within diaspora networks, between diaspora groups, and critically, between diaspora communities and the issuing government. Third, infrastructure encompasses both technical systems for bond issuance and repayment, as well as institutional frameworks for transparent governance and impact reporting.

Israel’s diaspora bond program stands as the gold standard. Launched in 1951, it has raised over $53 billion while maintaining an impeccable repayment record. These weren’t mere patriotic appeals—they were strategically designed instruments backed by government guarantees, transparent fund allocation, and sophisticated marketing campaigns. India’s approach, though structured differently, has similarly leveraged diaspora networks during periods of macroeconomic vulnerability, demonstrating how these bonds can serve as crucial financial lifelines.

The failures are equally instructive. Pakistan’s 2019 diaspora bond raised a mere $26 million, falling short of its $1 billion target. Ghana’s initiative fell dramatically short, with most so-called diaspora investors actually being domestic. These shortfalls weren’t due to a lack of patriotism or financial capacity—they reflected inadequate preparation, unclear purpose, and insufficient engagement with the diaspora.

Guyana presents compelling fundamentals: a substantial global diaspora, growing oil revenues, and favorable economic projections. Yet as Dr. Gevorkyan emphasized, strong macroeconomic indicators are necessary but insufficient conditions for diaspora bond success. Before launching any bond instrument, Guyana must first develop a comprehensive diaspora strategy that establishes a unified, non-partisan commitment to diaspora engagement, one that transcends political cycles and builds long-term credibility.

This strategy demands systematic research to understand diaspora demographics, generational differences, regional variations, and cultural nuances across major diaspora centers. Any bond instruments must be designed with specific, tangible objectives—whether education infrastructure, renewable energy projects, or healthcare systems—that align with the values and priorities of the diaspora. Equally important is implementing robust mechanisms for fund tracking, progress reporting, and measurable development outcomes that demonstrate genuine impact.

The conversation also addressed Guyana’s unique challenge: ethnic segmentation within diaspora communities across New York, Toronto, and London. Any successful strategy must be culturally sensitive, politically inclusive, and capable of bridging historical divisions that have long characterized Guyanese society both at home and abroad.

Diaspora bonds are not financial magic bullets. They demand meticulous preparation, political consensus, and credible state capacity. However, when executed properly, they can transform emotional attachment into developmental capital. As Dr. Gevorkyan reminded us, “A diaspora bond is not just a loan. It is a promise.” That promise encompasses not only financial returns but also genuine development impact, transparent governance, and inclusive national progress.

For Guyana to harness the potential of its diaspora, diaspora bonds must form part of a broader, systematic engagement strategy. The technical aspects—legal frameworks, financial structures, marketing approaches—are well understood. The harder work lies in building trust, fostering inclusion, and demonstrating the political will necessary for long-term success. This conversation marks the beginning, not the conclusion, of Guyana’s diaspora finance journey. The real work starts now—at home, in communities, and in the patient construction of relationships that can sustain both financial instruments and national development.

Watch the full webinar replay here:

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

Thank you for standing with us.

Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman

Guyana Business Journal

Counting Power: How Guyana Divides Seats in Parliament—and Why the Math Matters

By Terrence Richard Blackman, Ph.D. & Rennie Parris, MBA
For the Guyana Business Journal

The rumblings have begun, and the political landscape just shifted dramatically. President Irfaan Ali’s announcement of September 1, 2025 as election day has set off a familiar cycle of political maneuvering, but this time with a crucial twist: the Alliance For Change (AFC) has officially confirmed it will contest the elections independently, ending coalition talks with A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) after negotiations “stalled over the selection of a presidential candidate”.

This split—with the PNCR insisting on leader Aubrey Norton while the AFC maintained its opposition to Norton leading the ticket—fundamentally changes the electoral mathematics. Critics called Ali’s timing inappropriate, using Independence Day celebrations to announce partisan election dates. There are allegations of intimidation campaigns aimed at reducing the contest to just two parties, while opposition parties question GECOM’s readiness to manage credible elections.

Against this backdrop of political tension and unprecedented oil wealth transforming the country, understanding how Guyana’s electoral system actually works has never been more important. When voters cast their ballots in September, they’ll be participating in a sophisticated mathematical process that determines not just who wins, but by how much—and in an oil-rich Guyana where every seat matters, those calculations could shape the nation’s future.

The Basics

Guyana’s National Assembly has 65 seats, filled through a unique dual system:

• 40 seats come from a national list representing the whole country
• 25 seats come from 10 geographic regions (your local area)

When you vote, you actually cast two votes at the same time—one vote for your regional representative and one vote for the national list—though both are typically for the same party.

How the 25 Regional Seats Work

The regional seats are distributed among Guyana’s 10 administrative regions based on registered voter population, as established by the Representation of the People Act:

• Region 1 (Barima-Waini): 2 seats
• Region 2 (Pomeroon-Supenaam): 2 seats
• Region 3 (Essequibo Islands-West Demerara): 3 seats
• Region 4 (Demerara-Mahaica): 7 seats
• Region 5 (Mahaica-Berbice): 2 seats
• Region 6 (East Berbice-Corentyne): 3 seats
• Region 7 (Cuyuni-Mazaruni): 2 seats
• Region 8 (Potaro-Siparuni): 1 seat
• Region 9 (Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo): 1 seat
• Region 10 (Upper Demerara-Upper Berbice): 2 seats

Legal Requirements: To qualify for elections, parties must contest in at least 6 of the 10 regions and compete for at least 13 of the 25 regional seats. This ensures that only serious, nationally oriented parties can participate.

The Math Made Simple: The Hare Quota

Here’s where the mathematics comes in, but it’s straightforward. Guyana uses the “Hare Quota”—named after Thomas Hare, an English reformer from the 1800s who advocated for fairer elections.

The formula: Hare Quota = Total Valid Votes ÷ Number of Seats

Think of it as determining how many votes you need to “buy” one seat in Parliament.

This same formula is applied separately to both your regional vote and your national vote. Within each region, votes are counted separately using this mathematical formula. Your regional vote competes only within your region, while your national vote joins the country-wide pool. For example, in 2020, Region 4 required 28,868 votes per seat (202,077 total votes ÷ 7 seats), while Region 8 required just 4,665 votes per seat (4,665 total votes ÷ 1 seat).

How It Works: The 2020 Election Example

Let’s use the controversial 2020 election to see this system in action. After months of recounts and legal battles, here were the final numbers:

• Total valid votes: 460,352
• Total seats: 65
• Hare Quota: 460,352 ÷ 65 = 7,082 votes per seat

Step 1: Initial Seat Allocation

People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C):

• 233,336 votes ÷ 7,082 = 32.94 quotas
• Initial seats: 32 (the whole number)
• Remainder: 0.94 (or 6,653 leftover votes)

APNU+AFC Coalition:

• 217,920 votes ÷ 7,082 = 30.77 quotas
• Initial seats: 30
• Remainder: 0.77 (or 5,454 leftover votes)

Smaller Parties (LJP/ANUG/TNM joint list):

• 5,214 votes ÷ 7,082 = 0.74 quotas
• Initial seats: 0
• Remainder: 0.74 (or 5,214 leftover votes)

Step 2: Remainder Allocation

After distributing 62 seats (32 + 30 + 0), three seats remained. These go to parties with the largest remainders:

1. PPP/C gets 1 more seat (remainder: 6,653 votes)
2. APNU+AFC gets 1 more seat (remainder: 5,454 votes)
3. Smaller parties get 1 seat (remainder: 5,214 votes)

Final result: PPP/C 33 seats, APNU+AFC 31 seats, Others 1 seat.

How Regional vs National Seats Worked

The 2020 results reveal how the dual system operates in practice:

• APNU+AFC: Won 13 regional seats + 18 national “top-up” seats = 31 total
• PPP/C: Won 12 regional seats + 21 national “top-up” seats = 33 total
• Small parties: Won 0 regional seats + 1 national seat = 1 total

Remarkably, APNU+AFC actually won more regional seats (13 vs 12), but PPP/C’s stronger national vote share earned them more “top-up” seats, securing their parliamentary majority. This demonstrates why both regional campaigning and national vote totals matter—you need both to maximize your seat count.

Why This System Matters

This proportional system ensures that if your party gets about 10% of the votes nationally, they should get about 10% of the seats (roughly 6-7 seats). It’s designed to be fair to both large and small parties.

But the system has quirks. In tight races, remainder votes can determine who controls Parliament. In 2020, PPP/C’s extra 1,199 remainder votes over APNU+AFC gave them the crucial 33rd seat—and parliamentary control.

The “Alabama Paradox” and Other Mathematical Oddities

Political scientists have discovered strange phenomena in quota-based systems. The “Alabama Paradox” shows that increasing the total number of seats can paradoxically reduce a party’s seat count—something that happened during 19th-century U.S. congressional apportionments.

Another quirk: in rare cases, a party might gain votes but end up with the same number of seats, depending on how other parties’ vote shares shift.

The 2025 Electoral Game-Changer

With the AFC now running independently from APNU, this dual system becomes critically important. The split opposition will compete separately in each region, potentially allowing PPP/C to win regional seats they couldn’t capture against a unified opposition bloc.

Consider Region 4 (Georgetown area): In 2020, the unified APNU+AFC won 116,941 votes (57.87%) and captured 4 of Region 4’s seven seats, while PPP/C got 80,920 votes (40.04%) and won 3 seats. But if APNU and AFC split roughly evenly in 2025—say 58,000 votes each—PPP/C could potentially win more seats despite getting similar vote totals, simply because the opposition vote would be divided.

In regions where APNU and AFC previously shared strong support, their separate campaigns could split the anti-PPP vote, making it easier for PPP/C to reach the regional quota for seats. This mathematical reality explains why coalition negotiations were so intense—and why their breakdown could dramatically reshape Parliament’s composition in September.

What This Means for Voters

Understanding this system helps explain why:

• Small parties can still get representation through remainder allocation
• Regional campaigning matters just as much as national campaigns, since you’re casting separate votes for each
• In close elections, every single vote truly counts
• Coalition governments become more likely when no single party dominates
• Geographic vote distribution can be as important as total vote share

Looking Ahead to September

As Guyana enters the oil era, this mathematical system will continue to determine how power is shared. The 2020 election demonstrated how a difference of just a few thousand votes out of nearly half a million cast can determine who leads the country. The regional breakdown revealed clear geographic patterns: PPP/C dominated coastal regions (Regions 2, 3, 5, and 6), while APNU+AFC controlled interior regions (Regions 7, 8, and 10), with Region 4 serving as the crucial battleground.

The next time you vote, remember: your ballot isn’t just a preference—it’s a number in a calculation that will determine Guyana’s future direction. In September 2025, with opposition parties split for the first time since 2011, every regional calculation will matter more than ever.

Bottom Line: Guyana’s election system utilizes mathematics to ensure that Parliament roughly reflects the people’s votes. In 2020, PPP/C’s 233,336 votes (50.7%) translated to 33 seats (50.8%)—a nearly perfect match. But the system’s regional component adds complexity: PPP/C actually won fewer regional seats (12) than APNU+AFC (13), yet their stronger national performance earned them more “top-up” seats. The system isn’t perfect, but it’s designed to give every vote weight and every party a fair shot at representation. However, the split opposition in September 2025 will test that principle like never before.

Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman is a mathematician and academic chair at Medgar Evers College, CUNY, and the founder of the Guyana Business Journal. Rennie Parris, MBA, is a Guyanese economist and business strategist with expertise in trade policy, economic development, and regional competitiveness. He holds an MBA in Finance from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and has served in advisory roles in both the private and public sectors. Parris regularly contributes to the Guyana Business Journal, where he writes on trade, investment, and economic policy issues impacting Guyana and the wider Caribbean.

Support Independent Analysis

The Guyana Business Journal is committed to delivering thoughtful, data-driven insights on the most critical issues shaping Guyana’s future—from oil and gas to climate change, governance, and development. We invite you to support us if you value and believe in the importance of independent Guyanese-led analysis. Your contributions help us sustain rigorous research, expand access, and amplify the voices of informed individuals across the Caribbean and the diaspora.

📢 Please support the Guyana Business Journal & Magazine today

Thank you for standing with us.

Dr. Terrence Richard Blackman

Guyana Business Journal