A consequential motion: Why MP Darryl York wants St. Maarten to treat creativity as an Economy

Truth be told, St. Maarten has relied on culture to animate its tourism product, fill stages, shape festivals, provide entertainment, tell the island’s stories and distinguish the destination from competitors. Yet many of the musicians, artists, designers, performers, producers, photographers, filmmakers, writers and other creatives responsible for that product still operate without being recognized as belonging to a defined sector of the national economy.

MP Darryl York wants to change that. During the recently concluded 2026 Budget Debate, Parliament unanimously adopted his motion calling for the creation of an official St. Maarten Orange Economy classification and an assessment of whether qualifying creative and cultural professions should receive Turnover Tax exemptions. The unanimous vote was important, not because it immediately changes the tax system, but because Parliament collectively accepted the premise behind York’s argument: culture and creativity should be examined not only as social and artistic activity, but as economic activity.

For York, the motion also represents continuity rather than a new political interest. Development of the Orange Economy formed part of his election campaign, and his interest in the performing arts predates his time in Parliament. Through the Let’s Talk Art Foundation, he has hosted performing arts events and promoted greater attention for the creative sector. What was once part of his campaign platform has now become an instruction, backed unanimously by Parliament, for Government to begin putting structure around the idea.

First, St. Maarten has to know what its Orange Economy is

The strongest part of York’s motion may actually be its first request. Before Government begins handing out incentives, subsidies or tax exemptions, Parliament wants an official definition of the sector.

The motion notes that St. Maarten currently has no national classification identifying which professions, businesses and economic activities constitute its creative economy. It therefore asks Government to develop one, using international definitions while adapting them to St. Maarten’s particular culture, heritage and economic structure.

That sounds bureaucratic until one considers what happens without a classification. Government cannot accurately measure a sector it has never defined. It cannot confidently determine how many people it employs, how much income it generates, where its businesses are concentrated, what obstacles they encounter or whether incentives intended for creatives are reaching actual creative businesses.

Internationally, the sector is much broader than performing artists. UN Trade and Development includes advertising, architecture, arts and crafts, design, fashion, film, photography, music, performing arts, publishing, software, video games, television and radio among creative industries. The connecting thread is the commercial value generated from creativity, knowledge and intellectual property.

That could mean recognizing that a songwriter, costume designer, filmmaker, graphic designer, photographer, digital creator and dancer may occupy different spaces but share an economic characteristic: much of the value they create originates in an idea.

This is an industry, not a hobby

York’s argument becomes more significant when placed against the international numbers.

UNCTAD estimates that the creative economy contributes between 0.5 and 7.3 percent of GDP in countries where figures are available and employs between 0.5 and 12.5 percent of their workforces. Creative services exports reached US$1.4 trillion globally in 2022, an increase of 29 percent since 2017.

The Inter-American Development Bank has been promoting the Orange Economy concept in Latin America and the Caribbean for years. Its research estimated that cultural and creative industries generated US$124 billion in revenue and 1.9 million jobs in the region in 2015. The IDB definition specifically encompasses sectors ranging from fashion and audiovisual production to music, Carnival, visual arts and performing arts.

St. Maarten cannot diversify by attempting to compete in every traditional industry. It has limited land, a small domestic market and an economy whose recent growth continues to be driven heavily by tourism.  The Orange Economy offers another form of diversification because its principal raw material is not land. It is talent.

Culture already helps sell St. Maarten

York’s motion also makes a connection that is often overlooked in discussions about tourism: visitors do not consume only hotel rooms, restaurant meals, beaches and transportation. They consume identity.

Music, entertainment, festivals, food, fashion, local stories, visual art, performances and media all contribute to how visitors experience and remember a destination. York’s motion explicitly argues that these creative expressions help distinguish and market St. Maarten.

This is where development of the Orange Economy can complement rather than compete with tourism. Economic diversification does not necessarily mean abandoning the industry that already works. It can mean capturing more value around it.

A stronger local creative sector can mean more locally produced entertainment in hotels and events, more St. Maarten-designed products purchased by visitors, more local films and digital content carrying the island overseas, stronger festivals, more cultural experiences and more intellectual property that continues producing value after a visitor has gone home.

The Turnover Tax argument

The most politically consequential portion of the motion concerns taxation.

York points out that many creatives operate as sole proprietors or small businesses and can incur substantial expenses before producing anything that generates income. Yet Turnover Tax is applied to gross turnover rather than profit. The motion therefore asks Government to investigate whether selected creative and cultural professions should qualify for exemption under the existing framework.

The distinction between revenue and actual earnings is important in creative work. Productions can require equipment, costumes, rehearsal space, technicians, software, transportation, venue rental, marketing and other expenses before the creator earns a return. Taxing gross receipts can therefore affect a small creative operator differently from a business with lower production costs.

York also points to the fact that the existing Turnover Tax framework already contains exemptions for certain transactions and economic activities, including activities associated with the casino industry. His motion essentially asks why Government should not at least examine whether activities producing St. Maarten’s own cultural product deserve similar consideration.

But the motion stops short of simply demanding blanket tax-free status, and that restraint strengthens the proposal.

It calls for Government to examine the fiscal cost, establish eligibility requirements and create safeguards against abuse. Among the criteria to be considered are cultural contribution, international representation of St. Maarten, tourism diversification, employment, entrepreneurship, locally produced creative products, innovation and economic growth.

Put the creatives in the room

Another merit of the motion is that York does not propose that Government decide by itself who qualifies as a creative professional. The motion specifically calls for consultation with creative professionals, cultural organizations, businesses and other stakeholders.

That consultation could prove as important as the eventual tax discussion. The people actually working in these industries understand problems that conventional economic policymaking may miss: irregular income, limited financing, expensive equipment, lack of production spaces, copyright concerns, difficulty monetizing work, small domestic audiences and the challenge of turning talent into a sustainable business.

If St. Maarten is serious about building an Orange Economy, those conversations should eventually extend beyond taxation into financing, training, export support, copyright protection, venues, procurement, education and access to regional and international markets.

Tax relief alone cannot build an industry.

Within six months of adoption, Government is being asked to return with the official classification, professions recommended for Turnover Tax exemption, estimated fiscal consequences and whatever legislative or regulatory changes would be required.

The unanimous vote also gives the initiative significance beyond York himself. MPs across Parliament have now supported examining whether creativity should be formally organized as an economic sector. The next question is whether that political agreement survives the more difficult stages of classification, costing and implementation.

York’s persistence on the Orange Economy is important because St. Maarten already has creators. It already has performers, designers, musicians, storytellers, producers and cultural entrepreneurs. What it has lacked is an economic framework that sees them collectively, measures what they contribute and asks what they could become with deliberate policy behind them.

The larger argument behind his motion is therefore not that Government should subsidize art for art’s sake. It is that St. Maarten may already possess an underdeveloped industry hidden in plain sight.

For an island searching constantly for diversification while simultaneously trying to strengthen its cultural identity and tourism product, that is an argument worth taking seriously.

‍