This document synthesizes the principal characteristics of National Public Investment Systems (SNIP) in Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago as a representative picture of the situation in the entire Caribbean subregion. In preparing this document, all variables that make up the Investment Systems have been analysed following the ILPES methodological approach applied to other Latin American countries, in order to facilitate a comparative analysis and highlight the main differences, similarities and distinctive characteristics while taking into account the institutions, standards, procedures, resources and policy criteria that are unique to the countries of the Caribbean. The document begins with a review of the most notable properties that the island countries of the Caribbean must contend with from the economic policy standpoint, as a function of their small size, isolation, scarce resources, dependency on external market fluctuations and high risk for natural disasters. In the balance of advantages and disadvantages, from the perspective of SNIPs, emphasis is placed on the role that tradable and non-tradable goods play vis-à-vis diseconomies of scale and the possibilities for social cohesion and closer ties between the State and the citizenry for the purpose of identifying and executing investment projects. The analysis of SNIPs in Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago focused primarily on the development of three thematic elements: coordination and sources of financing for projects and programmes; Basic Planning Functions (evaluation, forward planning, coordination), and the programming cycle dictated by the plan-investment programming-budget programming-project relationship. The value added or net contribution made by the SNIPs is examined, either as a process for improving the quality of investment using available margins for reorienting economic and social development on the islands, or as a tool for bridging strategic planning and efficient investment and budget allocation. The document concludes with a look at the various implications of a systemic approach at the strategic (macro), programmatic (meso) and operational (micro) levels of projects and programmes, taking into account the role of the stakeholders, policies, time frames and in particular the relationships between project execution units and national budget offices as the project cycle evolves. This study drew on official publications and documents provided by the relevant agencies in each country and on Internet access to a wide variety of national and multilateral institutions. A mission to each of the countries concerned made it possible to conduct interviews and thereby to complement the array of information and validate hypotheses. The contributions and interest of numerous individuals were fundamental to making this product a reality, and the authors hope it will facilitate the debate and promote the sharing of experiences among countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, and between the four countries analysed and the rest of the subregion.