The European Union’s latest warning about Caribbean citizenship-by-investment programmes raises issues that extend beyond border security and migration policy. It speaks to a broader, recurring challenge faced by small states: the steady narrowing of legitimate economic options.
Citizenship by Investment did not emerge in a vacuum. Following the early experience of St Kitts and Nevis, several OECS countries adopted these programmes as a means of generating revenue for development, infrastructure, and fiscal stability in economies with limited natural resources and constrained access to capital.
Antigua and Barbuda’s experience is instructive.
Over the past two decades, successive economic sectors in the country have been diminished or dismantled under external pressure. Its once-thriving online gaming industry was curtailed after action by the United States, despite Antigua and Barbuda prevailing at the World Trade Organization. That ruling has yet to be meaningfully honoured. Offshore banking followed a similar trajectory, shrinking under regulatory and geopolitical pressure.
Citizenship by Investment now faces comparable scrutiny.
What complicates the current debate is the uneven global landscape. Investor residency and citizenship programmes exist in Europe and elsewhere, often under different labels. Yet Caribbean programmes are repeatedly singled out for intensified examination, with the implied consequence that continued operation may come at the cost of visa-free travel for ordinary citizens.
The EU report highlights Antigua and Barbuda’s relatively low rejection rate. This can be interpreted in more than one way. It may point to effective pre-screening before applications reach the formal stage. It may also reflect programme design choices. What is clear is that the metric is being used to question legitimacy rather than to acknowledge compliance efforts made in response to years of engagement and reform.
At stake is more than a programme, it is the principle of economic agency.
Small states are often encouraged to be innovative, resilient, and self-reliant. Yet when that innovation succeeds, it is often recast as problematic. Each adjustment demanded of Caribbean countries reduces fiscal space, increases dependence, and limits policy options.
Security concerns must be addressed. Standards must evolve. But reform should be proportionate, consistent, and cognisant of the developmental realities of small island states.
Antigua and Barbuda’s record shows that when an industry is removed, it is rarely replaced by an equivalent alternative in the short term. The cumulative effect is an economy that continually adjusts downward in the short to medium term, while larger states retain the flexibility to protect their own interests.
The question is no longer whether Caribbean countries should comply. It is whether the global system allows them sufficient space to build and sustain a decent quality of life for their people.
That question remains unresolved.
