Economic free will or determinism

I’VE RECENTLY found myself drawn to concepts in quantum physics. One that particularly intrigued me is Sierpinski’s Triangle. Though not strictly within the realm of quantum theory, it provokes questions about determinism and whether entities - be they particles or people - can truly exercise free will.

Sierpinski’s Triangle is formed by the following steps: (1) Draw a large equilateral triangle.

(2) Pick any point within it and mark it.

(3) Randomly choose one of the triangle’s three corners.

(4) Move halfway between your current point and that chosen corner and mark the new position.

(5) Repeat steps three and four over and over.

Magically, the points begin to take the shape of a Sierpinski Triangle. It doesn’t matter where you begin - the same fractal pattern always emerges.

Despite the randomness in selecting corners, the strict halfway rule and the boundaries of the original triangle determine the outcome. Yet, if you were to shrink yourself down to the size of a dot on the paper, the process would seem chaotic and potentially infinite. The pattern would repeat forever, but always within its original framework.

This reminds me of small, open economies – ours in particular.

Like Sierpinski’s Triangle, economies that operate within specific rules and dogmas tend to produce consistent outcomes, constrained by their structural design.

In such economies, the culture and choices of individuals are shaped by inherited institutional boundaries. Outcomes, therefore, aren’t always surprising.

Economic stagnation

Barbados is a prime example. Our current trajectory strongly suggests a period of economic stagnation. We are small, densely populated, and ageing.

We import most of our consumables from countries that operate in United States dollars.

Our exports are mostly services – primarily tourism – but even in that sector, the net inflow of foreign exchange is often less than the outflows we generate. In essence, many of our industries consume more foreign exchange than they earn.

On top of this, household consumption habits, driven increasingly by global e-commerce, continue to weaken the foreign exchange position. Skipping the local middleman still incurs a cost – it rarely improves our external accounts, unless underperforming companies fold and their displaced labour is smoothly absorbed elsewhere.

Our government, meanwhile, clings to the principle of “equitable development” - more so than our regional peers. Yet development without competitiveness is inherently fragile.

Our geographical isolation and exclusion from immersive economic blocs add to our vulnerabilities. We often speak of education as the remedy, but the current model appears misaligned with our future needs. It feels more like a mechanism to remain compliant with external expectations than a blueprint for national self-reliance.

Predictable cycles

These constraints are the edges of our largest triangle – our structural boundaries. Everyone sees them. And like in Sierpinski’s Triangle, any action taken within these borders will yield patterns that mirror the larger design. For Barbados, this has meant predictable cycles of foreign exchange booms and busts, wild swings in public debt, and persistent inefficiencies across both the public and private sectors.

Interestingly, Dr Justin Ram has recently spoken on how our prevailing economic models are almost guaranteed to deliver these same outcomes. I find myself agreeing. To me, the smallest triangles in the pattern reflect the individual Barbadian mindset – conditioned by the larger structure. This is a society not built to encourage disruptive change unless we’re willing to fully confront the costs. And I believe that cost is worth facing.

So here is my challenge – my own take on the Prime Minister’s favourite word. We must reflect on the futility of expecting new outcomes from old frameworks. If we want different results, we must redraw the triangle. Perhaps we sketch something entirely different – maybe an obtuse triangle. Perhaps we keep the structure but redefine its rules.

Competitiveness

We could shift our trade alliances and diversify our import relationships. We could embrace a focused form of import substitution, targeting sectors where we have a real shot at competitiveness. We could be bolder in how we negotiate partnerships – demanding more deliberate and enforceable skills transfer to Barbadians, in the spirit of the Sir Arthur Lewis model from decades past.

Best yet, we could commit to painful but highreward strategic bets. One historical example stands out: Barbados during the latter stages of slavery and its rise as a leading sugar producer.

That dominance wasn’t accidental - it was built on a geographic advantage. Nothing replicated that advantage at a reasonable cost for more than a century.

We now find ourselves with another potential edge, once again tied to geography. If we seriously invested in a trans-shipment industry – air and sea – we could transform our economic base. The world is changing, and so are trade flows. There’s opportunity here. I would not mind living in the Barbados shaped by that triangle.

Never mind that St Vincent and the Grenadines are getting ahead of us in this domain. If the end is predetermined under our current model, then we owe it to ourselves to start with a different model. A new pattern. A new triangle.

Jeremy Stephen is an economist/ financial analyst with extensive experience in private equity and economic consulting in Barbados and the region. Email: economistfeedback@gmail.com