Grenada’s Upper House witnessed a contentious debate on December 10th regarding the 2026 Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure, revealing starkly contrasting perspectives on the nation’s economic direction. Opposition Leader Norland Cox delivered a scathing critique, characterizing the budget document as lacking vision and merely recycling unfulfilled promises rather than presenting a forward-looking financial strategy.
Cox, a former Infrastructure Minister, asserted that Grenada is experiencing “disaster-driven reconstruction spending” financed through short-term passport sales and long-term borrowing rather than genuine economic transformation. He challenged the government’s growth narrative, arguing that post-Hurricane Beryl reconstruction—which caused damage equivalent to 16.7% of GDP—drives temporary recovery rather than sustainable development. “This growth is not due to structural productivity gains. Grenada is growing only because it first fell,” Cox emphasized during his Senate address.
The opposition leader highlighted concerning declines in agricultural output, with nutmeg production falling 51%, mace by 33%, and cocoa by 9% despite hurricane recovery efforts. He pointed to systemic challenges facing farmers, including labor shortages, high costs, and inadequate technical support, arguing that resilience alone cannot substitute for comprehensive agricultural policy.
Contrasting this assessment, Government Business Leader Adrian Thomas defended the budget, presented under the theme “Towards Vision 75: Powering Progress Through People’s Participation and Innovation.” Thomas described the financial plan as reflective of Grenada’s collective dream, envisioning shared prosperity through people-centered development, innovation, and equity.
The budget, initially presented to the Lower House on December 1st, has become a focal point for broader discussions about economic sustainability and transparency. Cox accused the government of obscuring the struggles of key sectors while celebrating limited growth, warning that confusing temporary rebuilding with genuine economic strength risks misleading both leadership and citizens.
The Senate debate underscores deepening political divisions regarding economic strategy as Grenada continues its recovery from natural disasters while seeking to establish sustainable development pathways beyond crisis-response financing.









