MP Labega motion to Govt: There is enough data on poverty, do something with it finally

St. Maarten does not have to be convinced that poverty and financial hardship exist. Government has been studying, debating and trying to respond to the issue for years. The country has information on household costs, wages, social assistance, pensions, food security, employment, healthcare and other pressures that determine whether a family can comfortably make it through the month.

What St. Maarten still does not have is one national plan that pulls all of that together, decides what government is actually trying to change, sets measurable targets and allows Parliament and the public to see whether those targets are being met.

That is what Member of Parliament Dimar Labega is now asking government to produce.

During the 2026 Budget Debate, Labega presented a motion calling for the development of a National Poverty Reduction Strategy within six months. The motion states plainly that the cost of living is placing significant pressure on households, particularly low-income families, pensioners, single parents and vulnerable persons. It also recognizes that poverty is not simply about how much money someone earns. It affects access to healthcare, education, housing, food security, employment opportunities and social mobility.

The motion then goes further. It asks government to establish a baseline assessment of poverty and vulnerability in St. Maarten, set measurable poverty-reduction targets and create a monitoring and evaluation framework. It also calls on government to identify the programs it is already funding that contribute to poverty reduction and explain how those programs will be brought together under one national strategy.

Government would then have to report back to Parliament annually on what targets were achieved, what challenges were encountered, how much of the allocated budget was used and what policy adjustments may be necessary.

On paper, some of that can sound like standard government language. Baselines, targets, monitoring frameworks and annual reports are not the sort of words that immediately connect with someone worrying about grocery money or an electricity bill. But that is exactly why the motion is important.

The spread

For the single mother trying to stretch one salary across rent, school expenses, groceries and utilities, government departments are almost irrelevant. She does not experience one problem belonging to Social Development, another belonging to Education and another belonging to Economic Affairs. She experiences one household budget that is under pressure.

The same is true for a pensioner whose monthly income may remain roughly the same while food, medicine and electricity become more expensive. A worker can have a job and still struggle. A young person can complete a government-funded training program and still be unable to find work that pays enough to live independently. Poverty does not organize itself according to the structure of government.

That is one of the central points behind Labega's motion. Government has already identified and budgeted several initiatives that can contribute to reducing poverty, including workforce development, support for small and medium-sized businesses, agricultural development, food-security initiatives, healthcare reform and employment creation. The problem, according to the motion, is that those efforts are spread across different ministries and policy areas without one clearly defined national poverty-reduction framework.

In other words, government can be doing many things without being able to say whether the overall situation is actually improving.

A training program might enroll hundreds of people. That is activity. The more important question is how many found sustainable employment afterward. Government might fund an agricultural project. Again, that is activity. The policy question is whether it improved food security, reduced dependence on imports or made food more affordable for households.

Money can be allocated to housing, healthcare, entrepreneurship and social programs, but unless government establishes a starting point and measures what changes afterward, it becomes difficult to know whether those expenditures are reducing hardship or simply maintaining a collection of separate initiatives.

Gathering info

The country has studied poverty and poverty-related issues before. There have been statistical reports, socioeconomic research, discussions about minimum wage and social assistance, studies of household costs and repeated warnings about the effect of high living expenses on lower-income households. Government is therefore not starting from a blank page.

Some information will certainly need to be updated. There may be gaps in the data, and older studies will not perfectly reflect conditions in 2026. But the six-month exercise should not become another long process of rediscovering what government already knows.

The first task should be to gather the information that already exists, determine what remains useful, identify the gaps that genuinely prevent government from making decisions and move from research to policy.

Labega's motion gives government six months. That is probably not enough time to redesign every aspect of poverty measurement in St. Maarten, but it is enough time to begin organizing the available evidence into one national direction. Government will also have to confront one of the most basic questions of all: what exactly does St. Maarten mean when it talks about poverty?

An income figure alone may not be enough

A person earning a certain amount while living rent-free has a completely different financial reality from someone earning the same amount and paying market rent. A household with one adult has different needs from a household with three children. Someone with major medical expenses may have considerably less disposable income than another person earning the same salary.

There will also be households that fall slightly above whatever official threshold government chooses but remain financially vulnerable. One illness, one lost job, one major household expense or one unexpected bill can push them into difficulty very quickly.

The motion appears to recognize that reality by defining poverty broadly enough to include housing, healthcare, food security, employment, education and social mobility. That means a credible poverty strategy cannot belong to one ministry.

The Ministry of Public Health, Social Development and Labor will obviously play a major role, but social assistance alone cannot solve a problem shaped by wages, housing costs, electricity, food prices, education, healthcare and employment opportunities. A national strategy would therefore have to assign responsibilities across government.

If employment is one of the tools being used to reduce poverty, then government should eventually be able to show whether more vulnerable residents are entering stable employment.

If housing is part of the strategy, there should be a measurable housing objective.

If food security is included, success cannot simply mean that another project was announced or another grant was approved.

If social assistance is meant to protect vulnerable households, government should be able to show whether that assistance is actually helping people maintain an acceptable minimum standard of living.

This is where the motion's annual reporting requirement could prove more important than the strategy document itself.

Then the questions

The motion says effective public policy requires measurable objectives, defined targets, coordinated implementation and transparent monitoring. It also makes the point that a more strategic approach would help Parliament determine whether public money intended to improve the lives of vulnerable residents is actually producing results.

Once MPs demand measurable targets from government, budget debates should eventually move beyond asking how much money was allocated to a ministry or program. They should also ask what the money achieved.

What problem was the allocation supposed to solve? What was the starting point? How many people were supposed to benefit? Did the target move? If not, why not? Should the program continue unchanged? Should it be expanded? Should the money be redirected?

Those are more difficult questions, but they are also the questions that determine whether policy is working.

A familiar risk.

St. Maarten has seen strategies, reports, committees and policy documents come and go. A National Poverty Reduction Strategy could easily become another impressive document that is tabled, discussed for a time and then slowly disappears from public attention.

That would defeat the purpose of the motion. The value of Labega's proposal is not in producing another document confirming that people are struggling. Government already knows that. Residents certainly know it. Its value would be in forcing government to answer more specific questions.

How many people are poor or economically vulnerable in St. Maarten? What conditions are government trying to improve? What is the target? How much improvement is expected? By what date? Which ministry is responsible? What is being spent? And after the money is spent, did anything actually change?

Labega's motion does not provide the answers. What it does is demand that government start producing them.

‍