APNU’s presidential candidate, Aubrey Norton, has made two BIG announcements:
“Private sector depends too much on government” → Translation: Cut public sector contracts and slash government spending, especially on the capital side.
“We will cut government spending and reallocate the budget” → But here’s the kicker: they also promise massive wage hikes and ballooning social spending. That means recurrent expenditure will explode, while capital investment collapses.??? ???? ?? ????????? ??? ??????
Capital spending = roads, bridges, new industrial zones, housing schemes → the backbone of growth, jobs, and diversification.
Cut that, and you choke the economy. Businesses can’t expand without land, infrastructure, and connectivity. No new roads = no new opportunities.
Meanwhile, APNU wants to bank everything on oil revenue while tripling recurrent costs. What happens if oil prices dip? ?????? ????????.
?????: ??? ??????, ????????? ??????, ?????? ???????, ??? ???????? ??????????.
Contrast this with PPP/C
PPP/C’s policy is expansionary:
Massive infrastructure build-out Job creation and investment Wealth accumulation and poverty reduction?????? ????: APNU’s plan is contractionary and reckless. It’s a short road to economic crisis, while PPP/C is building the foundation for sustainable growth and prosperity.
In other words, cutting capital spending that is designed to lift output will choke investment and jobs. The production base rests on four factors—land, labour, capital, entrepreneurship—and government capex is what connects them. New road networks, utilities and serviced plots are what convert land into usable economic space. If those projects are cut, firms cannot access sites for industrial, commercial or residential expansion. No serviced land, no scale; no scale, no hiring.
That’s why the APNU approach is a recipe for an economic crisis. It leans on a single volatile stream—oil revenue—while ratcheting up the recurrent budget. Recurrent bills are permanent; oil prices are not. If Brent slips below the budget assumption, the gap widens automatically. The usual response is to slash what’s easiest to cut—capex—which then suppresses growth, weakens non-oil revenue, and forces even deeper cuts. It’s a textbook fragility loop.
??? ??????????? ?? ???????????????: ???? ??? ??????! Protect core capex that opens land, lowers logistics costs and crowds in private capital; pace recurrent expansions to durable, non-oil revenues; and treat oil receipts as buffers and co-financing for catalytic projects—not as a floor for permanent spending. Anything else trades short-term optics for long-term risk.