For the better part of three decades, the Cayman economy has achieved enviable growth rates on a sustained basis.

Closer analysis of this “success” story reveals that the process has been championed almost entirely by foreign capital, orchestrated by foreign expertise and implemented in large measure by foreign labour.

Over the same period, the indigenous population has, of its own free will, transferred substantial portions of its patrimony to a select band of wealthy individuals, of other nationalities, some of whom have chosen, for economic convenience, to be domiciled here.

In the main, the proceeds of the transfer of local ownership of land to others in perpetuity have been converted into lavish dwellings and other ostentatious symbols of success.

Indeed the “development” of the islands and its people is now mostly equated with material resplendence and the oversized and seemingly insatiable consumption capacity of its residents.

In the case of the majority of the “indigenous” segment of the populace this “success lifestyle” is possible mainly through borrowings, that if not yet there are very close to levels that are unsustainable over the long term.

Whilst this approach may well have delivered material growth and instant gratification to the people of the islands, it is arguably, at its roots, closer to a feudal model than a truly developmental one.

The late economist William Demas noted that…“an economy is developed when it has acquired the capacity to proceed with its transformation under its own steam. This capacity has two components, the ability to generate enough domestic savings and investment and secondly to adapt and innovate in response to changing needs”.

Whilst the attainment of development, as defined by this measure may always be a “moving target” in the case of small open economies, a failure to appreciate  the  relevance of role of  economic self-determination in the process of nation building is  done at the peril of those entrusted with the responsibility for management of the state.

Arguably, over the past two decades, all those entrusted with the responsibility for governance and leadership here, have chosen, either deliberately or unwittingly to ignore the fundamental  difference between growth orchestrated  by and for external interests and  sustainable development in the best interest of the  people.

Consistently, where restiveness amongst the indigenous populace has reared, they have delivered platitudes about protecting the indigenous people from the “hordes” of third-world immigrants descending on our shores, (the recent 1,500 over-stayers pronouncement is a typical example of this hyperbole) seeking thereby to imply that taking action against these economically weak transient groups will, in the main serve to directly enhance the sustainable economic capacity of the indigenous populace.

It is patently obvious that such action is clearly not the antidote to the malaise afflicting the indigenous population, in particular the younger segments thereof.

It is essential that we foster an understanding in the wider community that growth as we have known it is not necessarily development for the people of the islands.

The propagation of such ideas essentially speaks to fundamental change to the feudally oriented growth model outlined earlier.

Such bold and honest assessment of the past success story, as well as the formulation and dissemination of an alternative approach to sustainable development for the people requires brave and visionary leadership. In its absence we will continue to see rapid growth, largely unmatched with development for yet another decade.

All the immediately visible signs that is exactly what we are facing.

But like the saying goes, time longer than rope.