Carnival-To A Holistic Assessment

With respect to the economic benefits of Carnival, there has been a great deal of drum beating by proponents of the festival. We are told that large increases in the production of local goods and services are stimulated as a result of the demand created both by locals and foreigners. Craftsmen, costume designers, music suppliers, entertainers, food and beverage producers, vendors and other distribution intermediaries, contractors and construction workers, hospitality managers and workers and owners and drivers of transport vehicles are all deemed to contribute to the addition to the gross domestic product.

One cannot dispute the fact that the above economic actors do in fact engage in increased activity during the Carnival period but it is as a result of the transfer of incomes of some groups to others ie primarily from participants, patrons of fetes and calypso tents and from the increased consumption of goods and services by onlookers and observers. Given that Carnival is an overwhelmingly consumption activity, the critical question is what is the net benefit to the economy. In other words, given the expenditures involved, is there a net added economic value and, if so, is it noteworthy and sustainable? No doubt the amount spent by foreigners does make some contribution to the economy but exactly how significant is a matter of speculation. This will be dealt with later in the column.

In determining net economic benefit, we must assess the opportunity cost for those making outlays for the festival. For the majority who participate directly or indirectly, could the monies have been spent on improved access to education, health, housing and transport facilities in order to improve their conditions of life and their productive capacity? Then there is enormous expenditure of tens of millions by the state on the construction of temporary stands, on prize money and financial support for calypsonians, steel bands, Carnival bands, the Dimanche Gras show, the parade of the bands, other activities of the National Carnival Commission and the extra costs of policing and security. The pertinent question is whether greater economic benefit could have been derived by diverting these funds to the provision of critical social and physical infrastructure to strengthen and improve the environment for sustained productive endeavour and a better quality of life.

The loss of production associated with Carnival activities seems to be huge and incalculable. It starts with the launching of the bands and the attendant feting well before the Christmas holidays and continues to the intense revelry on the two Carnival days culminating a week or so thereafter. Absenteeism during this period is high due to fete fatigue and other indulgences. Even when employees turn out to work their productive effort is below the norm.

It is understandable why many businesses do not protest against the de facto Carnival holidays as they do against the de jure ones. The fact is that they benefit from the Carnival activities by selling large quantities of imported clothing, trinkets and other costume material. The importers of music equipment and audio accessories enjoy boom times as well as the importers of food items. The food and beverage manufacturers are the beneficiaries of a large increase in demand with the concomitant addition to profits. It is a god-send to the entrepreneurs who are fete promoters and disc jockeys and the owners of bars, restaurants and other hospitality establishments. They are all involved in transactions with a high import content. Moreover any condemnation of the sacred cow of Carnival may be interpreted as an attack on our culture and that is bad for business. Yet it remains an undisputable fact that the majority of businesses experience a significant downturn in overall production as does the national economy during this period. Carnival does in fact attract tourists to the country both overseas based nationals and foreigners. The former are by far the larger component of the total numbers arriving but they do not spend a great deal of money because they lodge with relations and friends and know the economical ways of getting by during their stay here. It is the foreigners with no local connections who would, in all likelihood, spend a fair amount of foreign exchange. However, one needs to ask how many of them do come to Trinidad in the light of the fact that the premier tourist destination is Tobago where the Carnival celebration is subdued. The official pronouncements about tourist arrivals for Carnival is, to say the least, incredulous. Minister of Tourism, Mr Chin Lee, has boasted that 2006 witnessed 50,000 Carnival visitors. They would have come within the two weeks prior to Carnival and left shortly thereafter. In a letter to the newspapers, a contributor who quoted hoteliers has successfully debunked this propaganda. It is necessary to quote this letter at length as a sort of reality check.

The letter states: “To start with, this country has just about 2000 hotel rooms available, which includes hotels, guest houses, bed and breakfasts... Now we know many of our Carnival tourists are returning nationals domiciled abroad, so most times these folks stay with family and friends which would create more room than the formal hotels. But even so, where exactly did 50,000 fit? And more to the point, how and when did they arrive in the country? For 50,000 tourists to come to TT for the Carnival, then there would have to be at least between 15-20 plane loads of people a day, every day, for at least ten days. And that must not include Trinis returning home from holidays or short stays abroad. And our airport is not able to receive and process so many flights a day, even if they work ‘round-the-clock’. There’s just not the security, Immigration, Customs and other personnel to deal with a 5,000 passenger influx every day for more than a week... Chin Lee must produce an itemized breakdown of how these visitors arrived, especially since there were no cruise ships in the country during Carnival Monday and Tuesday.”

The above skeptical query has scuttled any notion that Carnival is a huge tourism success story. The actual number of visitors must be a fraction of what is touted. In any event we should have experienced a significant increase in our foreign exchange inflows over the Carnival period. But there was no such occurrence. The Deputy Governor of the Central Bank, Joan John, said: “There was nothing abnormal. I have not seen any large inflows as a result of Carnival.” Where did the foreign exchange go which was supposed to be brought in by Carnival tourists? Did it all find its way to an underground exchange market?

trevorsudama@tstt.net.tt