Could Diaspora Representation on Public Boards Help Jamaica Address Its Talent Challenge?
The conversation surrounding Jamaica’s diaspora often focuses on familiar themes.
Investment.
Remittances.
Tourism.
Philanthropy.
Partnerships.
For decades, members of the diaspora have been encouraged to contribute to national development through financial support, volunteerism, mentorship, advocacy, and expertise.
Recently, however, another conversation has emerged.
Jamaica’s need for talent.
At the 2026 Jamaica Diaspora Conference, Prime Minister Andrew Holness spoke about Jamaica’s need to increase productivity and attract the skilled labour required to support national development. His comments reflected a reality facing many countries around the world. Economic growth, innovation, institutional effectiveness, and competitiveness increasingly depend on access to highly skilled human capital.
At the same conference, Opposition Leader Mark Golding advanced a related proposal. He argued that qualified members of the Jamaican diaspora should be appointed to public boards so that their expertise, experience, and perspectives could contribute more directly to national development.
The proposal immediately generated discussion.
Political commentator Lloyd B. Smith reportedly dismissed the idea as “farfetched,” arguing that Jamaica’s priority should instead be the development of local talent.
His observation raises an important question.
Must Jamaica choose between developing local talent and utilizing diaspora talent?
The answer may be no.
Prime Minister Holness’s emphasis on productivity and access to skilled labour reflects a growing recognition that Jamaica’s future competitiveness will depend heavily on its ability to maximize human capital. At the same time, Golding’s proposal raises questions about how the country can engage the expertise that already exists within its global population.
Viewed through that lens, the two positions may not be in conflict at all.
Lloyd B Smith
Public board appointments are not employment programmes. Appointing a qualified diaspora professional to a public board does not prevent Jamaica from educating, training, mentoring, promoting, and developing Jamaicans living on the island.
In fact, the two objectives may reinforce one another.
One of the less discussed benefits of diaspora representation is its potential to strengthen local capacity. Diaspora professionals often bring access to international networks, institutional partnerships, research collaborations, scholarship opportunities, professional development initiatives, and specialized expertise that can directly benefit Jamaicans at home.
A Jamaican educator serving on a public board while holding a senior position at a university abroad may help facilitate academic partnerships, faculty exchanges, research opportunities, and student scholarships. A healthcare professional may assist in creating training opportunities and professional collaborations. A technology executive may introduce emerging practices, innovations, and industry relationships that expand opportunities for local professionals.
The discussion therefore does not have to be framed as local talent versus diaspora talent.
It can be viewed as local talent plus diaspora talent.
The objective is not to replace Jamaican expertise with diaspora expertise. The objective is to maximize all of Jamaica’s available human capital wherever it resides.
Seen from this perspective, the Prime Minister’s focus on talent and productivity, Golding’s call for diaspora participation in governance, and Smith’s concern regarding local talent development may be addressing different aspects of the same national challenge.
Rather than competing objectives, developing local talent and engaging diaspora talent may be complementary strategies that advance the same national goal.
This raises a broader question.
Could diaspora representation on public boards become one practical way to strengthen governance while simultaneously helping Jamaica engage the skills, experience, networks, and expertise that already exist within its global population?
The proposal is not without critics.
Questions are often raised about accountability, residency, local knowledge, political influence, conflicts of interest, and the relationship between diaspora interests and national interests.
These concerns deserve serious consideration.
At the same time, they may not be sufficient reasons to exclude qualified diaspora professionals from participation.
One concern relates to accountability.
Some argue that public board members should be accountable to Jamaican citizens because their decisions affect people living in Jamaica.
The challenge with this argument is that many members of the diaspora are themselves Jamaican citizens.
Many were born and raised in Jamaica. They attended Jamaican schools, built careers that began in Jamaica, maintain family relationships on the island, own property, support relatives, and continue to contribute to national development through volunteerism, philanthropy, education, healthcare, business, and community initiatives.
Public board members are generally appointed rather than elected. Their accountability arises from legislation, fiduciary responsibilities, governance policies, ethical standards, and performance expectations.
Once appointed, a diaspora representative would operate under the same obligations as any other board member.
Another concern relates to residency and understanding local realities.
This concern is understandable.
Effective governance requires an appreciation of the social, economic, and institutional realities affecting the organizations being governed.
However, residency is not always the best measure of engagement or understanding.
Many diaspora professionals maintain active involvement in Jamaica. They return regularly, participate in development initiatives, collaborate with institutions, support schools, contribute to healthcare projects, mentor young professionals, and maintain extensive professional and personal networks across the island.
Their understanding of Jamaica is often shaped not only by where they live but by how they engage.
In many cases, they bring a unique combination of local knowledge and global experience.
That combination may strengthen governance rather than weaken it.
There are also concerns about introducing independent voices into existing governance structures.
Interestingly, this may be one of the strongest arguments for diaspora representation.
The purpose of a board is not to assemble individuals who think alike.
The purpose of a board is to bring together people with different experiences, expertise, and perspectives in order to improve decision-making.
Independent voices can challenge assumptions, identify blind spots, introduce new ideas, and reduce the risk of groupthink.
Diaspora professionals often operate within educational systems, healthcare organizations, corporations, research institutions, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations across multiple countries. Their exposure to different governance models, technologies, and management practices can become a valuable source of insight for Jamaican institutions.
Questions concerning fiduciary responsibilities, confidentiality, and conflicts of interest are also frequently raised.
Yet these are governance issues that boards already manage.
Conflict-of-interest policies, disclosure requirements, confidentiality agreements, and fiduciary obligations exist precisely to address these concerns. The same standards that apply to locally based board members can apply equally to diaspora representatives.
Perhaps the most significant concern is the belief that diaspora representatives may advocate primarily for diaspora interests rather than national interests.
This concern assumes that the interests of Jamaica and the interests of the diaspora are somehow separate.
In practice, they are often closely aligned.
Diaspora members have families in Jamaica. They maintain cultural ties to Jamaica. Many continue to invest their time, resources, expertise, and energy in Jamaica’s development.
Stronger institutions, better schools, improved healthcare, economic growth, safer communities, and increased opportunities benefit both Jamaicans at home and Jamaicans abroad.
The interests are not necessarily competing.
More often, they are shared.
Beyond addressing these concerns, it is worth examining the potential benefits.
The most obvious is access to expertise.
The Jamaican diaspora includes educators, physicians, researchers, engineers, entrepreneurs, technology specialists, lawyers, financial professionals, public administrators, and executives who have accumulated decades of experience in highly competitive environments around the world.
Public boards provide a structured mechanism through which that expertise can be utilized.
Diaspora representatives can also bring valuable professional networks that create opportunities for partnerships, research collaborations, scholarships, training initiatives, investment, institutional development, and knowledge transfer.
The idea of diaspora representation on public boards is not entirely new.
Several years ago, following discussions with Jamaica’s then Ambassador to the United States, Audrey Marks, I was asked to design and lead in an exercise that sought to identify qualified members of the Jamaican diaspora whose expertise aligned with the mandates of various public boards.
The objective was not simply to recommend diaspora representation as a concept. The exercise involved identifying specific individuals, reviewing their professional backgrounds, and matching their qualifications to the needs of particular institutions.
A list was prepared and profiles were assembled for a number of highly accomplished Jamaicans living abroad.
Although the initiative did not ultimately result in public appointments, it demonstrated that the question had already advanced beyond theory. At least some policymakers were willing to explore how diaspora expertise might be integrated into public governance structures.
That experience remains noteworthy because it suggests that the issue is not whether qualified diaspora candidates exist.
They do.
The more relevant questions are whether there is political will, what governance framework would be most appropriate, and how Jamaica wishes to utilize the expertise that exists within its global population.
These are resources that can strengthen public institutions without requiring permanent relocation.
There is another potential benefit that deserves attention.
If Jamaica is serious about attracting skilled professionals and increasing productivity, board service may provide a pathway for deeper engagement.
Individuals who serve on public boards gain direct exposure to Jamaican institutions, policy priorities, operational realities, development challenges, and opportunities for contribution.
For some, that experience may lead to expanded involvement through consulting, entrepreneurship, investment, executive leadership, public service, or eventual relocation.
In this sense, board participation can serve not only as a governance strategy but also as a talent engagement strategy.
The idea aligns remarkably well with the objectives articulated by both major political leaders.
The Prime Minister has emphasized the importance of accessing talent and increasing productivity.
The Opposition Leader has emphasized the importance of creating opportunities for diaspora professionals to participate more directly in governance.
Diaspora representation on public boards may be one area where those objectives intersect.
It strengthens access to expertise.
It expands the pool of talent available to public institutions.
It creates pathways for deeper engagement.
It encourages knowledge transfer.
It broadens perspectives within governance structures.
And it provides a practical mechanism through which highly skilled Jamaicans abroad can contribute to national development.
The discussion is therefore larger than the question of board appointments.
It touches on how Jamaica chooses to define citizenship, participation, belonging, and national development in an increasingly global world.
If the country recognizes the diaspora as a strategic national asset, the challenge may not be determining whether the diaspora has something to contribute.
The challenge may be determining how best to create opportunities for that contribution to occur.