A brief note on Venezuela and the turn to the right in Latin America

So besides the coup in Brazil (which was all but confirmed by the last revelations, if you had any doubts), and the electoral victory of Macri in Argentina, the crisis in Venezuela is reaching a critical level, and it would not be surprising if the Maduro administration is recalled, even though right now the referendum is not scheduled yet.

The economy in Venezuela has collapsed (GDP has fallen by about 14% or so in the last two years), inflation has accelerated (to three digit levels; 450% or so according to the IMF), there are shortages of essential goods, recurrent energy blackouts, and all of these aggravated by persistent violence. Contrary to what the press suggests, these events are not new or specific to left of center governments. Similar events occurred in the late 1980s, in the infamous Caracazo, when the fall in oil prices caused an external crisis, inflation, and food shortages, which eventually, after the announcement of a neoliberal economic package that included the increase in the cost of transportation, led to public protests and government repression.

These are the problems of an economy that is excessively dependent on oil exports, and that has been unable to diversify its economic activity. Sometimes this is seen as the result of a Dutch Disease (or the Resource Curse), the deindustrialization associated to the changes in relative prices related to favorable terms of trade, which lead to an inflow of imports of manufactured goods and deindustrialization. I would be reluctant, however, to suggest that this is the case in Venezuela, since Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) was weak there when compared to say Argentina, Brazil or Mexico, and the industrialization process was never strong in Venezuela.

In both cases, back during the Caracazo and now, the current account deficit has been at the center of all problems (see figure above). And while one can blame the left of center governments of Chávez and Maduro for not being able to break the structural dependence on oil, it is hardly the case that this is a problem just of the left of center governments. In fact, even with this terrible collapse of the economy, for the period as a whole starting in 1999 (or 2003, after the Chávez administration survived the US sponsored coup, and took over the oil company), the economy grew considerably (see figure below).

So growth has been tied to terms of trade and the price of oil. Also, not only the economy collapses when the price of oil collapses, but exchange rate depreciation, in the black market now, leads to high inflation, which goes often with shortages. Anybody that has lived through high inflation in Latin America in the 1980s knows this. It has nothing to do with fiscal policy, or with the central bank printing money. The fiscal situation worsened as a result of lack of growth and the external problems (see figure below).

This is a tragedy, and there are no good solutions. Mark Weisbrot suggests depreciating the exchange rate. But normally this operates by making imported goods more expensive, and leading a recession and lower imports. As he notes, the recession has already done a good chunk of that job, and imports have already collapsed. And Venezuela cannot expect much external help, certainly not from the IMF and the US, not while Maduro is in power. My guess is that there is a good chance that the government of Maduro will not resist and that a right wing government will come to power and adopt a neoliberal program. This would bring almost no relief in the short run, even though access to IMF funds might mitigate the balance of payments for a while, and allow to reduce the worst elements of the crisis, like the food shortages.

I should note also, that while it is not surprising that Maduro's government is unpopular in the middle of this crisis (like Dilma was in Brazil), it would be a stretch to suggest that most people want a return of neoliberal policies (in fact, in Brazil the country remains divided, as much as in Argentina, were the neoliberal Macri only won a narrow victory by deceiving the electorate). The problems of the long cycle of the left in the region, tied to the high prices of commodities, and the reduced popularity of left of center politicians, does not translate into an acceptance of neoliberal policies, and more popular resistance can be expected now, as compared to the 1990s, when the Washington Consensus policies were adopted.

On Argentina's secular decline: why The Economist is wrong

The Economist had a few weeks ago an issue on Argentina (here; subscription required), which I wanted to address, but had no time before today. The argument implies that the current Argentine woes (discussed here before) are part of a pattern which is associated to the long decline in income per capita from the late 19th century and early 20th century until now.

The Economist suggests that:

"In 1914 Argentina stood out as the country of the future. Its economy had grown faster than America’s over the previous four decades. Its GDP per head was higher than Germany’s, France’s or Italy’s. It boasted wonderfully fertile agricultural land, a sunny climate, a new democracy (universal male suffrage was introduced in 1912), an educated population and the world’s most erotic dance. Immigrants tangoed in from everywhere. For the young and ambitious, the choice between Argentina and California was a hard one."

In a sense that's true. According to Maddison's data in 1913 Argentina per capita GDP (in 1990s dollars) was 3,797 while France and Germany had respectively 3,485 and 3,648 (data available here). However, the reasons for the decline in the 20th century are based on simplistic notions, typical of the so-called New Institutionalism of North and more recently Acemoglu and Robinson (for a critique go here). In their words:

"Building institutions is a dull, slow business. Argentine leaders prefer the quick fix—of charismatic leaders, miracle tariffs and currency pegs, rather than, say, a thorough reform of the country’s schools."

They blame corruption and populism (mind you currency pegs were actually typical of liberal governments, both the ones that adopted the Gold Standard, an international institution, back when the economy was fine according to The Economist, and during the 1990s during the Neoliberal experiment, that The Economist fully supported; but I'm glad that now they admit that currency pegs might be sometimes dangerous. The Economist is not for the Gold Standard anymore, it seems. Any day now they will abandon their beliefs on free trade).

On a different note they also suggest that commodity production might be a problematic path to development (yes, The Economist again has a positive take on Prebisch-Singer; see before here). They say:

"Commodities, Argentina’s great strength in 1914, became a curse. A century ago the country was an early adopter of new technology—refrigeration of meat exports was the killer app of its day—but it never tried to add value to its food (even today, its cooking is based on taking the world’s best meat and burning it). The Peróns built a closed economy that protected its inefficient industries; Chile’s generals opened up in the 1970s and pulled ahead. Argentina’s protectionism has undermined Mercosur, the local trade pact. Ms Fernández’s government does not just impose tariffs on imports; it taxes farm exports."

In other words, Pinochet was great (Chile is developed it seems; again according to Maddison's data the Chilean GDP per capita in 1990 dollars in 2008 was 13,185 while the Argentine was 10,995. Not much of a difference; back in 1913 Chile's was 2,968 and like Argentina's high for Latin America's standards. In other words, while France and Germany had in 2008 22,223 and 20,801 respectively in 2008, both Chile and Argentina had fallen behind), and redistribution towards the poor (read Perón and the Kirchners) is bad. That's why the lesson is "that good government matters."

Don't get me wrong, the State matters, and a developmental state matters a lot. However, when and how you connect with global markets also matters. While France and Germany might have had a slightly smaller GDP per capita in 1913 than Argentina, they were quite ahead in the second Industrial Revolution, with firms that were leaders in steel production, in the chemical and pharmaceutical sectors, and with a developed network of firms and universities producing first rate scientists and technological innovations. Meanwhile, Argentina (but also Chile) produced mostly commodities (and only adopted imported technology) and the vast majority of their exports were concentrated in one or two commodities exported to a limited number of countries. Hence, only someone with the limited understanding of The Economist would have thought that Argentina and Chile were in 1913 as developed as France and Germany.

The lesson is more complex than The Economist's 'the state matters' (interestingly enough if markets did matter, which is their traditional motto, specialization in commodities due to comparative advantage should pose no problems). The state matters, but so does your colonial past (being an exploitation colony rather than a settlement one is a problem), what you export matters, and the access to international capital markets also matters (France and Germany got a Marshall Plan to reconstruct, since the US was afraid of Uncle Joe, but in Argentina we weren't that lucky). The parable of Argentina is a rich one, from which many should learn, but The Economist still has no clue.

PS: Don't get me wrong, building schools is nice, and Argentina actually produced three Nobel prizes in sciences (the last one in the 1980s), but schools alone do NOT produce development.

PS': Also, why is Messi a symbol of Argentina's secular decline?

The other Dutch Disease

Simon Wren-Lewis and Paul Krugman have written complaining about Dutch contractionary policies, noting, as should be obvious to any reasonable observer, that is is a huge mistake. Graph below shows Dutch rates of growth, and it's clear that the economy is in a recession (the estimate for 2012 growth rate is from here).

Funny thing, if you look at the 1960s, the period of the infamous Dutch Disease, when the discovery of natural gas supposedly impacted negatively the Dutch manufacturing sector (and should have had a negative effect on productivity and growth), then you see that the economy was doing way better than in the post-1973 period. Perhaps we should rename the disease associated with financial liberalization, and monetary policy focused only on inflation (and the austerity policies that often go hand in hand) as the real Dutch Disease.

What is new about the IMF's views on capital controls?

I wanted to write about this topic for a while, but didn't have enough time. The IMF has adopted a new institutional view on capital controls, which will inform their policy advice and surveillance of member countries, which they suggest reflects "a very broad consensus" [I'm always a little bit wary of broad consensuses]. Note that the Fund is still in favor of capital account liberalization, as noted in the second key feature of their institutional view, which says that "capital flow liberalization is generally more beneficial and less risky if countries have reached certain levels or 'thresholds' of financial and institutional development."

The question is how to get beyond the threshold, but there is no doubt that liberalization should be ultimately pursued, at least to some degree. They do add a cautionary note that full liberalization might be an impossible goal for many countries. In their words: "countries with extensive and long-standing measures to limit capital flows are likely to benefit from further liberalization in an orderly manner. There is, however, no presumption that full liberalization is an appropriate goal for all countries at all times."

The new institutional view is based on the notion that capital flows will continue to move away from the center, and that developing countries will be faced with a persistent pressure for the appreciation of their currencies. Blanchard says in his post that "looking at the relevant set of investors suggests higher flows to emerging markets are here to stay." He also suggests that the biggest threat from those inflows, the so-called Dutch Disease that New Developmentalist authors like Bresser-Pereira (here, for example) have emphasized, is not that dangerous and the empirical evidence about it is not well established [by the way, I tend to agree with Blanchard on this one, and believe that fears of a Dutch Disease are exaggerated].

My concerns with the new institutional view are twofold. On the one hand, I would rather not accept a general rule in which the IMF has a say on when and why a member country should use capital controls. Right now countries have a right to do it. So this new institutional view actually reduces policy space for developing countries. Note that the IMF, in spite of all the talk about the new macroeconomics is enforcing austerity in the European periphery. So the orderly manner that would lead to benefits from capital account liberalization are basically fiscal asuterity and inflation targets (slightly higher, 4% and not 2%).

Second, the view of the relevance of capital controls is limited to its effects on exchange rates, its volatility, the risk of appreciation, and last the possibilities of depreciations with disruptive outflows (or sudden stops). I tend to see capital controls as an essential tool not just for exchange rate management, but also for industrial policy, since the availability of dollars is often essential for determining which sectors can be promoted by allowing imports of essential goods (e.g. capital and intermediary goods), and which ones would be forced to rely on domestic substitutes. Import substitution and alternative development policies, of course, remain an anathema at the IMF.

Further, exchange rates are connected and do affect income distribution. It is far from clear that the only thing a country wants to do is avoid 'excessive' appreciation and loss of external competitiveness. Higher wages, associated with appreciated exchange rates, might be relevant for demand expansion too. At any rate, the point is that a great deal of discretionary power by domestic authorities should be the norm when it comes to capital controls. The less power the IMF has in this respect, the better.