Carnival economics

Soca singer Shurwayne Winchester copped $800,000 in cash and other prizes when he won the Soca Monarch and the Groovy Soca Monarch competitions last Friday. This is just the most obvious sign of how far calypso competitions, and by extension the Carnival itself, has advanced economically. But this is a relatively recent development. Over most of the Carnival’s history, calypso singers have been working-class men and women for whom calypso was a vocation, while they earned their living in other ways. Only giants such as The Mighty Sparrow and Kitchener made their living mainly as entertainers.

And, in these modern times, it is the soca singers — i.e. those who sing only fete songs — who are able to make a living from music (the sole exception being David Rudder, who is in the unique position of having combined meaningful commentary with infectious melodies for over two decades). But even Chalkdust, who has won the Calypso Monarch title more often than any other still-competing performer, still earns his living as a university lecturer (and does so at a non-Trinidadian institution). As with calypso competitions, so too with the Carnival bands. The growth of the population combined with the oil-driven economic expansion has resulted in bands where revellers number as many as 3,000 persons.

Managing such an operation presents a fiscal and logistical challenge which a selected few have been able to meet, resulting in Carnival bands being a new business enterprise, quite possibly exclusive to this society. Researchers based at the University of the West Indies have calculated the returns on State outlays on the Carnival and found that, based on foreign exchange earnings and other criteria, there is a 900 percent profit. This study will have to be fine-tuned in order to analyse exactly where the Carnival succeeds and fails financially. It would also be useful to do comparisons with other major carnivals, such as Rio’s and New Orleans’, to find out what makes the Trinidad Carnival more or less appealing than those. After all, the Trinidad Carnival, despite its numerous imitators within the Caribbean and in the metropoles of Britain, the United States and Canada, remains the premier festival of this type.

But, as with any product, the quality of the brand name has to be preserved. And, paradoxical as it may seem, it is adopting too much of a business-like approach which may reduce the profitability of the Carnival. This is because our Carnival got its reputation from cultural aspects not present in other festivals. Whereas other major carnivals are known for their costumed individuals, it is the bands which define our festival. No doubt this organised image helps appeal to tourists. Then there are the fetes and the calypso tents to draw those who want more than to just gawk or take photographs or jump up.

But, if these are the elements that have established our Carnival as a major world festival, then the loss of such elements must mean that, at some future time, the Trinidad Carnival will lose its unique appeal. The calypso tents, once an established feature, now struggle to draw crowds because of the self-inflicted wounds of political and ethnic partisanship and a loss of lyrical cleverness. The bikini-and-beads costumes have so degenerated that this year there is even a band portraying revellers from a foreign carnival. And there is the growing danger of violent crime. So what we have here is a rare instance of market forces which may undermine economic prosperity. But, since everyone agrees that economic diversification is crucial to prosperity, the State must take initiatives to ensure that the core elements of the Trinidad Carnival, our major tourist draw, are preserved even as the festival evolves to keep up with the modern world.