One-size-fits-all? An examination of the differing capacities of Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago in enhancing their trade development

The purpose of this thesis is to explore the impact of prior development on the contemporary capacity of three Commonwealth Caribbean Small Island Developing States: Barbados, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago to improve their trade development. In this thesis, it is argued that the one-size-fits-all trade development policy prescriptions that emerged in the WTO context, ignores the differences in the contemporary capacities of each Commonwealth Caribbean to improve their trade development. To examine this argument, I used a multi-methodology of historical institutionalism and qualitative case study to trace and comparatively analyse the trade development paths of Barbados, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago. More specifically, I examined how exogenous factors such as colonialism, foreign direct investment, multilateral trade and financial rules have caused path dependence in the evolution of these states’ trade development trajectory. I have also explored the endogenous policies employed by each state to mitigate these exogenous threats. The comparative historical analysis reveals that there are differences in these states’ contemporary capacity to improve their trade development and these differences are caused by formative moments. To date, of the three states, Trinidad and Tobago is the least dependent on foreign capital; has the most cohesive relationship between the state and private sector; least dependent on services; produces the most value-added export and is the most resilient to the erosion of trade preferences. This thesis highlights the use of historical institutionalism framework as an alternative lens to analyse trade development in the Commonwealth Caribbean. The empirical findings also demonstrate that trade policy analysis in the 21st century should not focus exclusively on contemporary capacities of Commonwealth Caribbean states. Instead, their development trajectories should be traced to identify development issues unique to each state’s trade development path. This way, states will be able to design policies that address their specific trade development needs rather than relying on one-size-fits-all policy prescriptions.