Given the late release of the manifestos, the debate on economic matters tonight appears to be the only real opportunity for journalists to interrogate both political parties on their plans for growth and development.

Our statisticians now estimate Jamaica has a larger economy than previously, and therefore our debt-to-GDP ratio is 62 per cent and not 68 per cent. As it should therefore fall below 60 per cent shortly after the election, the first key question is whether we should continue to balance the budget post-election, with a new goal of a 50 per cent debt-to-GDP ratio, as recently suggested by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to reduce our high interest costs as a percentage of GDP, or run a small deficit to finance needed investment or social spending.

In evaluating this decision we should also note that public sector wages are once again half of revenues, and approaching peak historic levels as a percentage of GDP, so that Jamaica’s increased fiscal space to pay for everything else we need has been generated entirely by declining interest costs. The parties can therefore no longer escape a view on public sector wage growth if they want to satisfy other urgent needs.

The fiscal situation becomes more complicated when you consider the role of what the accountants used to call exceptional items, and what global commentators call “selling the family silver”, in financing the budget. Put more clearly, how does one replace the large National Housing Trust grant, or the sale of future revenues from airports, or even stock market privatisation, if one does not approve of these sources of financing.

During his tenure as finance minister, Dr Nigel Clarke, with IMF support, made a serious effort to reduce the number of special funds, so that most revenues went through the central government budget and were thus available for general spending, if needed.

Both parties should be asked to justify their positions as to what is a truly “special” fund, both legally and in terms of its policy objectives.

Another issue is what role should the Development Bank of Jamaica play, and under which ministry should it be situated, in Jamaica’s development, particularly its growth strategy. The world has changed, and strategic objectives are now in vogue globally. The question is, however, whether we want an activist development bank, and what areas should it be active in; for example, agriculture and climate finance or manufacturing and innovation? Should it be Government-owned, or a public-private partnership, or even listed on the stock exchange, and how should it be financed, particularly if a new Government is still debt-averse?

What is the core objective of tax reform in a new, faster growth strategy. Is it still simplification through perhaps the long-awaited removal of the “temporary” asset tax on banks, or the higher corporate tax rate on regulated entities such as banks and Jamaica Public Servide, the latter being perhaps part of the energy licence renegotiation?

Or should Jamaica seek the repatriation of its businesses and its nationals through abolishing the taxation of dividends, or eliminating the higher rate of income tax, as part of a national “come home” diaspora strategy?

The US has just made its lower corporate tax rates permanent, and appears to be operating a reshoring industrial policy. Jamaica needs a response to that development, particularly with a 10 per cent tariff replacing our duty-free access.

Also, both parties need to say how they plan to fund their income tax proposals.