Advertisement
by The Wayfinder
Don’t like the neo word? How about ‘Economic Displacement’, the situation when one still has the right to live here, but increasingly needs permission from a wallet to do so.
Traditionally, colonialism meant political control by an outside power. No force needs to arrive with a flag and claim on the island. A cheque book and an attractive offer can sometimes accomplish what military might no longer need to do.
St. Maarten may remain politically independent and formally govern itself, while significant parts of its economy are increasingly controlled from outside. That external economic power gradually becomes so influential that it shapes who owns, controls, and benefits from the country’s resources and opportunities.
The modern neo-colonial version can arrive with investment funds, luxury developments, offshore companies, vacation homes, real estate acquisitions, foreign-owned resorts, imported labor, or external ownership of essential assets.
Subsequently several things may happen: local prices rise beyond local incomes, young residents cannot afford to buy homes, rental prices increase, communities become dependent on foreign capital, and profits leave the island.
It is a legitimate concern and a real issue if an increasing percentage of property, be it real estate or a business is purchased by foreigners, that the local population becomes economically marginal in its own country. Especially when the share of the island’s property is owned by people who do not live on the island.
Sint Maarten needs capital, development, expertise, and international connections. Therefore, foreign investment is not inherently bad. But especially real estate is different from many other investments. On a small island, it is limited and finite. Once beachfront property, hillsides, commercial locations, or residential neighborhoods are sold, they are no longer available for future generations, at least not on the same terms.
What percentage of Sint Maarten should remain economically accessible to the people of Sint Maarten? If the answer is never considered, market forces will answer it. And markets have no concept of national identity, future generations, community stability, or cultural continuity. The market simply sells to whoever can pay the highest price.
It is an unequal economic contest. The silent danger? A generation of tenants. The local population may still live here. They may still work here. They may even vote here. But increasingly, they could become employees and tenants in an economy built upon assets they no longer own.
The underestimated long-term concern is not foreign ownership itself. The profound issue is: what happens if the next generation of Sint Maarteners can no longer afford to own Sint Maarten?
Sint Maarten’s worry should be whether economic growth is actually strengthening Sint Maarten society or slowly dividing it. The IMF specifically notes relatively high inequality despite Sint Maarten’s high income per capita. The economy may look healthy. Continued growth is projected although moderating over the medium term.
Yet, St.Maarten should be cautioned about the inequality, healthcare deficits, infrastructure needs, government execution capacity, and tourism approaching carrying capacity. The country’s immediate problem may not be economic decline. It may be the quality and distribution of economic growth.
Upscale real-estate development is being driven substantially by second homes purchased by non-residents. House prices have risen noticeably about 20% above their 2021 level, while housing affordability for local households has declined. The World Bank has identified a strikingly divided housing market: one serving wealthy, largely foreign investors and the other serving lower- and middle-income residents struggling with affordability and housing quality.
Imagine a future where: commercial properties are foreign-owned and apartments are increasingly owned as investment assets. Over a number of years, the cumulative result may be dramatic. Nobody took Sint Maarten away from its people. It was simply sold, one property at a time; a silent transfer of ownership.
Every individual transaction can be perfectly legitimate. Nothing dramatic happens. There is no invasion. There is no takeover. Every property is voluntarily sold. Every sale can be celebrated as “foreign investment.
The question is what the accumulated result will be. If it makes local people increasingly dependent on foreign owners for employment, housing and access to land, then something has gone fundamentally wrong.
Is foreign investment attracted to help Sint Maarten develop, or is the country gradually selling the economic foundations upon its future depends? That is not an anti-foreign question. The critical question is whether there is an imbalance. A nation does not lose itself only when it loses political sovereignty. It can also lose itself slowly when its people no longer own enough of the land, homes and businesses on which their future depends.
The country’s elected representatives have a responsibility that goes beyond the next election. Elections come every few years and the actors and actresses may change. But a generation comes only once.
Politicians should be asking: Who owns Sint Maarten’s residential property? How much is locally owned? How much is owned by non-residents? How has that changed over the past years? If the trend continues, what will Sint Maarten eventually look like, and who will own it? How many young working families can still afford to buy a modest home?
There should also be a message from Sint Maarten to foreign investors, developers and real-estate professionals: “Invest here, but keep in mind that this is more than a marketplace. It is somebody else’s home!”.
Foreign investment should ideally make the local population wealthier and more economically independent. Foreigners should not be prevented from investing at all. But the concern is balance and the fundamental question is: who will own Sint Maarten in ten or more years? Is St. Maarten up for sale or what …?
About The Wayfinder
A Wayfinder defines a role rather than a person. A Wayfinder is not a leader, a politician, or a critic. A Wayfinder asks questions, studies patterns, and searches for the safest and wisest course ahead. These essays are offered in that spirit—not as answers, but as invitations to think together.
###
ADVERTISEMENT
