Crisis of Neoliberalism or Continuity of a Transformed Global Order?

The starting point of my short intervention at the conference on The Economy for Life in Colombia, co-organized by the Progressive International and the government of Colombia, was to problematize the dominant diagnostic. Part of the contemporary discourse, particularly that framed around the idea of an economy for life, tends to sidestep a central issue, that neoliberalism has fundamentally been a regime favorable to capital. In that context, proposing an alternative in terms of “life” is excessively vague. If one aims to build a consistent critique, the focus should shift toward an economy explicitly organized around workers. Welfare, ultimately, is not a moral abstraction but the concrete improvement of the living conditions of the majority, who are, in fact, workers. It should counter the neoliberal narrative for whom workers are only consumers and/or entrepreneurs.

From this perspective, my first point is that neoliberalism is not in crisis, at least not in the strong sense often claimed. The dominant narrative suggests that the neoliberal order is broken, yet there is little solid structural evidence to support that claim. What we observe instead is a significant continuity in its core principles, combined with a capacity to adapt to new circumstances. This is, at most, a transformation within the same regime, not its collapse. In fact, as discussed at the conference, governments of the left have have difficulties in overcoming some institutional limitations imposed by neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is doing what it was supposed to do, creating conditions for the accumulation of capital, and making the lives of workers more difficult. Higher inequality does not reflect its failure, but its success.

The second point concerns the frequent comparison between the current moment and the crisis of the 1970s. This analogy is misleading. The crisis of the 1970s was indeed a crisis of the regulated capitalism of the postwar era, the so-called Keynesian consensus, and it was marked by intense distributive conflict. That conflict rested on two pillars. On the one hand, the bargaining power of organized labor, and on the other, the ability of oil-producing countries, grouped in OPEC, to influence international prices. In addition, the United States was then a net importer of energy. None of these conditions hold today. Workers’ bargaining power is much weaker, OPEC has lost relative influence, and the United States has become a net exporter of energy. In this sense, we are not facing a crisis of neoliberal capitalism, but rather tensions within a capitalism that has already disciplined both the labor force and part of the periphery. But exactly because it succeeded, it created important changes. Which brings the issue of the rise of China.

Third, it is important to address the question of China and the so-called new international order. In some respects, this new order already exists. The rise of China as a global productive center, what might be called China 2.0, is undeniable. This was, in part, the result of the opening of China, first by Nixon in the 1970s, and then by Clinton in the late 1990s, by grating Most Favored Nation status and access to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

However, this shift has not fully extended into the financial sphere. The hegemony of the dollar remains intact, indicating a fundamental continuity in the structure of the system. Moreover, this process is neither recent nor abrupt. It has a long gestation that can be traced back to the opening of China in the 1970s, promoted by US foreign policy, and to the demonetization of gold, that actually reinforced the hegemonic position of the dollar. It is therefore a prolonged transition rather than a rupture, and in monetary matters a great deal of continuity.

In this context, Latin America occupies a position of dual peripheral integration. Even progressive governments in the region have largely been forced to insert themselves into this new configuration. They have integrated commercially with China while remaining subordinate to the financial structure, and ultimately to the military power, of the United States. This significantly constrains their room for policy autonomy.

From the standpoint of economic policy, it is crucial to distinguish between what has worked in practice and what orthodoxy prescribes. The strategies that have shown some effectiveness are not fiscal austerity or strict central bank independence, but rather policies aimed at reducing external vulnerability and promoting domestic economic growth. These include avoiding debt in foreign currency, accumulating international reserves, maintaining a relatively stable nominal exchange rate (in a flexible regime), expanding real minimum wages, and sustaining transfer mechanisms to support the most vulnerable. Even tools such as capital controls have produced mixed and, in some cases, limited results (e.g. Argentina). Industrial policy is central to promote technological development at the national level, and that requires, high levels of public investment.

A problematic aspect of current debates is the optimism surrounding the integration of the so-called Global South. the Global South is NOT a synonym of Prebisch's periphery. There is a tendency to assume that deeper ties with China or other Southern countries automatically provide a path to development. However, there is no reason to assume that China has an intrinsic interest in the development of our economies. What we observe instead are national strategies driven by its own priorities. Any development project, therefore, must be conceived from the periphery and oriented explicitly toward the needs of workers.

At the same time, it is important to challenge certain myths about advanced economies. In particular, the idea that the West, and especially the United States, abandoned industrial policy and have now rediscovered it. This is largely incorrect. In practice, state intervention in strategic sectors has been a constant, even if it is often denied at the level of discourse. In many ways it was free markets for the periphery (or part of it), and industrial policy for the center.

In sum, it is possible to agree with many of the goals present in contemporary debates, particularly the need to improve living conditions, while strongly disagreeing with the dominant diagnosis. We are not facing a crisis of neoliberalism in a strict sense, nor a repetition of the crisis of the 1970s, nor a complete transformation of the global order. South-South integration is no panacea. More importantly, without an adequate diagnosis, alternative proposals risk becoming vague or ineffective. For that reason, it is essential to reintroduce the analysis of distributive conflict and the central role of workers into contemporary political economy, and the role of military power in the understanding of the geopolitics of money.

Lulismo’s Past and Present

Lula da Silva’s return to the presidency in Brazil has opened up the possibility of deepening democracy and expanding the scope of egalitarian advance for the Brazilian working class. In what ways might his administration pursue expansionary fiscal and redistributive policies that would improve the conditions of his political base?

In the latest print issue of Catalyst, Matías Vernengo explores the historical and contemporary contours of Brazil’s political economy and outlines how the Lula administration can trade a restrictive economic policy for a broadly redistributive one.

Read more here.

A New Turn to the Left in Latin America?

 

Special issue of Cuadernos de Economía, to be co-edited by Esteban Pérez and myself. Deadline is December 15.

Is dependency over?

Short clip of part of an interview. I discussed that in an old paper here, and in another interview here.

A new Pink Tide in Latin America?

 

Episode 52 of the Podcast Missão Desenvolvimento with Paulo Gala and Eduardo Crespo discussing the possible new Pink Tide in Latin America (in Portuguese).

Neoliberalism in the Pampas

Soybean Republic

As promised, here are some brief reflections on the situation in Argentina, which I think is not as bad as in Brazil economically or politically, surprisingly, since Argentina had a balance of payments problem that is completely absent in the increasingly chaotic neighbor, and the left actually lost the election, which was not the case of Dilma (a coup was required to defenestrate her). As I suggested in my talk a year ago (for non Spanish speakers go to this text), the economy would experience a recession and higher inflation as a result of the likely (and effectively adopted) economic package of devaluation and fiscal adjustment.

Figure above shows that inflation accelerated from about 25% to about 40%, later figure from IMF estimates, and GDP moved from moderate growth (2.5%) to slightly less than 2% fall (again IMF estimates). It is worth noticing that many, including some that claim to be somewhat heterodox (in particular when they're not in Argentina), suggested that devaluation was not inflationary, and that it would produce significant growth of exports and lead to GDP growth.

Long term growth of exports depends essentially on the income of the trading partners, and the slowdown in China, the terrible collapse of the Brazilian economy, and overall gloomy perspectives of the global economy suggest that to expect growth from the external economy is wishful thinking. By the way, the notion that the problem is that the nominal devaluation (of about 100%) was not large enough and the real exchange rate is still appreciated (see here, in Spanish, Frenkel suggests that "we reedited the exchange rate lag") is outright delusional. The idea that if you devalue enough a country like Argentina would be competitive not just in the production of commodities, i.e. soybeans, but also in some marginal manufacturing sector, is based on a misreading of the East Asian experience, and the exaggeration of the idea that manufacturing exports respond simply to price signals (the right exchange rate) rather than industrial policy.

Also, there is no reason to expect a recovery next year on the basis of consumption, since real wages are falling, and the unemployment level went up from 7.2 to 9.2% according to IMF estimates. That also implies that private investment is not going to increase (yes, that's called the accelerator, and yes the IMF expects a fall of about 0.5% of GDP in investment).

However, contrary to what you might think all of this was expected. This is less of a surprise for the government that most analysts understand. As I said in the talk linked above, the objective was to get a recession and increase unemployment, reduce the bargaining power of the labor force, and reduce the real wage. That will be the basis of the future stabilization of the economy. Stagnating wages, and a relatively stable exchange rate. For that reason, and to avoid the continuous capital flight, the government did increase the interest rate. And also, since the Obama administration supported this neoliberal government (they are not populists after all) and the Macri administration was willing to do anything the Vultures wanted, Argentina finally returned to the international financial markets, and the external constraint was lifted. International reserves are up, from the low 20s to 30 something billion.

That implies that even with a current account deficit, which is at a bit more than 2% of GDP (slightly lower than before as a result of the recession), fiscal stimulus would allow for a recovery. Note that this could be done without increasing significantly the governments degree of indebtedness in dollars. There is no reason to borrow abroad to finance domestic spending. But in essence that's what this administration is doing, since they self imposed limits on the ability of the central bank to finance the treasury, which they misguidedly saw as the source of inflationary pressures. The more pressing short run question is whether they will accelerate public investment to promote growth and perhaps have a recovery in time for next year's election (something I suggested they might do in my talk last year). It seems that the degree of fiscal conservatism of this administration (there is no way you can call Prat-Gay Keynesian, even if the term has suffered with semantical saturation; or call the neoliberal Macri government heterodox, for that matter) is so extreme that they would prefer to continue with the recession. And yes, without external expansion, private demand, or government expansion there cannot be any recovery.

There are other more preoccupying issues with this administration,* and I'm not even talking the corruption that concerned so much the critics of the previous government (Macri's name is in the Panama papers, for one, or the fact that his energy minister worked for Shell, and the many other conflicts of interest between the government and private corporations) that are now silent, or the fact that the statistical office (Indec) has also left a gap in the data and has actually increased the uncertainty about the macroeconomic numbers, including inflation (something that critics of the previous government also, correctly, complained about, but interestingly enough they are silent now). I mean the cuts in spending on research and development, and the reversion of the very few initiatives that promoted national technology, like the cancellation of the manufacture of communications satellites, after the launch of two (ARSAT 1 and 2) in the last couple of years. Those were the kind of policies that would have the possibility of leading to some degree of manufacturing export dynamism. But for this government the plan is the return of the old 19th century commodity export model, and if they could reverse the external policy to colonial times (with the US instead of Spain as the metropolis) they probably would.

* And I mean just the economic stuff, leaving aside the record on human rights.

Boycott the Rio Olympics to Defend Brazilian Democracy

By Thomas Palley

Terrible anti-democratic events are now unfolding in Brazil with the constitutional coup against President Dilma Rousseff, organized through a cooked-up impeachment trial.

The impeachment coup represents a naked attempt by corrupt neoliberal elements to seize power in Brazil. Make no mistake: it is a threat to democracy and social progress in Brazil, Latin America, and even the global community at large.

If Brazilian voices concur, the world should respond by boycotting the Rio Olympics scheduled for this August.

Read full text here.

The strange and misunderstood reasons for the Brazilian crisis

Almost done for the year. So do not expect many posts before the end of the ASSA conference (January 5). But as I promised, here are some brief thoughts on the Brazilian crisis.

Brazil is a mess. The economy is collapsing, with an estimated decline of about 3.5% in GDP this year (perhaps worse), and inflation has accelerated, to two digit levels, way above what used to be the upper limit of the inflation target band. Worse, politically the country is paralyzed, with an impeachment process in course with a very uncertain outcome.

The conventional view is sort of split on why this happened. Some suggest that it was the slowdown of the international economy, and the decline in commodity prices, that forced Brazil to adjust (for example, that would be Simon Romero's story in the NYTimes, if you add corruption to the mix; more on that below). The alternative is more explicit about the negative effects of the Workers' Party (PT in Portuguese) policies, suggesting that they reduced confidence and, hence, investment (something along these lines can be seen in the Wall Street opinion pages; see here; subscription required).

In the policy/confidence variation version the argument is that the government spent too much, in particular, in the second Lula administration, and more so in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis. There was an attempt to reduce fiscal spending with Dilma Rousseff's election (in this interpretation mostly disguising the spending with creative accounting, more on that below), but that was temporary, and only after Dilma's reelection did the fiscal problems became unsustainable and required adjustment.

Both stories are flawed. First, even though the global economy is growing slowly, and some peripheral economies like China are also slowing down, Brazil has no clear external problem. Current account is negative, but the country is in no danger of an external crisis or default on its foreign obligations, in particular because it is sitting on a huge pile of international reserves. As I noted before Standard & Poor's actually agrees with that view on the justification that they used to reduce Brazilian grading status (last week Fitch's followed the lead and also downgraded Brazil's debt), since they do not cite the external situation as a problem.

So the notion that Brazil needed a fiscal adjustment, to throw the country in a recession, and reduce imports, and solve the external problem seems unfounded. The same is true for the notion that a huge depreciation of the real was needed. In fact, the depreciation has only contributed to the acceleration of inflation, with no impact on the external accounts. Exports have tanked (since the global economy is not doing well), and so did imports (given the recession). Inflation will also have a significant impact on real wages, and will worsen income distribution (which had improved during the PT administration).

But what about the internal problems (both S&P and Fitch actually do blame the fiscal problems). This arguments is even worse, and has some serious logical limitations. Note that this suggests that fiscal deficits in domestic currency might be unsustainable and that inflation results from excessive demand associated to too much government spending. I have discussed this several times in the blog, so I won't delve too much into it.

There is no way a country can default on debt in its own currency. By definition you can  always print money. And yes inflation might follow, but not because printing money causes inflation. The argument implies that economy is generally, and certainly Brazil is not, at full employment. Hence, money printing might lead to more spending and more output, not inflation. However, another effect might be a fear of depreciation, and a run for dollars, and the depreciation might have an inflationary impact.

In other words, the reasons for austerity are not connected really to fear of domestic default. Austerity could be used to solve a current account problem, which is not the case in Brazil, as we saw, or it might be a way of leading to a recession, increasing unemployment and reducing the bargaining power of workers, as Kalecki noted long ago. It is a way to discipline the labor class. And that is what is going on in Brazil (on the slowdown of the economy essentially following the same argument see this paper by Serrano and Summa).

The government could actually spend itself out of the recession (don't worry, it won't). And by the way, since revenue responds to the level of activity, the fiscal outlook would improve. So if the Brazilian crisis is not external and is not fiscal, what caused this crisis. It is a self-imposed political crisis. The relevant question is why is this policy implemented by a left-of center government.

One has to first remember that on some level PT always accepted the conventional thinking when it came to fiscal issues. Lula famously said in his letter to the Brazilian people that he wanted "fiscal equilibrium to be able to grow," suggesting that he had incorporated the notion of contractionary expansion. But, in all fairness, there was some dissent within the party, and with the Plan of Acceleration of Growth (PAC in Portuguese) and, in particular, after the 2008 crisis, it seemed that PT was ready to use government spending to promote economic development. So why after winning the close election last year, in which Dilma decried the economic program of the Social Democratic Party of Brazil (PSDB in Portuguese) did she essentially adopted it?

It is clear that part of the government accepted that fiscal expansion had gone too far, and that workers' demand, and the real wages, were too high. The political pressure was certainly felt, and in addition the nagging issue of corruption might have also played a role. Also, for some reason the so-called New Economic Matrix (which in my view, I might be wrong) was very conventional, trying to reduce interest rates and promoting a moderate fiscal adjustment was seen as a failure for the wrong reasons. The lower interest rates, and the more depreciated currency should have stimulated growth, while the adjustment should have controlled prices. Obviously this New Developmentalist idea failed, since depreciation fueled inflation (which wasn't high, just at the higher end of the target at around 6.5%) and the economy slowed down.

However, the lesson taken from this experiment was that the government lost credibility, since the fiscal adjustment wasn't strong enough and the delays in the payments to public banks (the infamous 'pedaladas'), in particular the development bank (BNDES in Portuguese), were behind the crisis. In this view all depends on 'confidence fairies.' That is, the lack of confidence reduced domestic investment, and lowered growth. A terrible side effect of the generalized acceptance of this view is that now the political use by the opposition of the delays in payments to the public banks, something that was not new, in the impeachment procedures will create a permanent legacy, reducing the ability of future governments trying to pursue expansionist policies.

Finally, a word on the issue of corruption. Yes, there is a significant corruption scandal in Brazil, and before anybody complains, I do hope they get everybody and that the people that are proven guilty end up in paying the price (jail presumably; by the way, if they had something on the president it would have been used for impeachment, rather than a bureaucratic budget issue). I just want to note that there is no evidence (I haven't seen any credible evidence at least) that corruption is worse now, than say with the military back in the 60s and 70s, when most of the connections with big construction firms started. Also, the problems at the state oil company (Petrobras) being investigated go at least back to the Cardoso government. And corruption is not a problem of the government coalition per se. Members of the opposition are involved too, and an impeachment would actually bring to power some of the most evidently corrupt politicians in the country. In that sense, if corruption has not changed, it can hardly be seen as having caused the economic situation. Corruption is just one of the elements used by political groups to obtain advantages.

The problems of corruption that matter in Brazil are associated to the fact that one cannot govern without basically paying for political favors in congress and that means paying the main political force there, the Brazilian Democratic Party Movement (PMDB in Portuguese). It is well known, for example, that Cardoso payed for changing the constitution and allowing his re-election, to cite an example that is old enough, and not connected to the current government. But the country did grow significantly in the past, in spite of corruption.

And, by the way, the susbtitution in the Finance Ministry, with the appointment of my ex-classmate (at all levels, undergraduate, master's and PhD courses) Nelson Barbosa, is unlikely to lead to any significant changes in policy. The fiscal adjustment will continue as he very clearly announced.

Neoliberalism Resurgent: What to Expect in Argentina after Macri’s Victory*

No need for a helicopter

The election of businessman Mauricio Macri to the presidency in Argentina signals a rightward turn in the country and, perhaps, in South America more generally. Macri, the candidate of the right-wing Compromiso para el cambio (Commitment to Change) party, defeated Buenos Aires province governor Daniel Scioli (the Peronist party candidate) in November’s runoff election, by less than 3% of the vote.

Macri is the wealthy scion an Italian immigrant family that made its money on the basis of government contracts. He went on to work for the family business and later, defying his father’s wishes, became president of the most popular professional soccer club in the country, Boca Juniors. In 2007, he won election as mayor of the capital city, Buenos Aires—the springboard for his eventual election to the presidency.

This is a momentous change in Argentina’s history, since it is the first time that a right-wing party has won the presidency by electoral means. In the past, conservatives had only gained power through military coups or by disguising neoliberal policies under more progressive electoral promises and the mantle of a left-of-center party—as in Carlos Menem’s Peronist government in the 1990s.

Macri’s economic team includes among its most prominent members Alfonso Prat-Gay, an ex-president of the country’s Central Bank who also worked for JP Morgan Chase. He will be the next finance minister. Federico Sturzenegger, secretary of economic policy in the Economics Ministry under infamous finance minister Domingo Cavallo—author of the main economic policies of the 1990s—is likely to be the next Central Bank president. In other words, the economic team clearly signals a return to the market-friendly policies of the 1990s. This is also true on the foreign policy front, were Macri has already announced that he intends to use the so-called “democratic clause” of the Common Market of the South (Mercosur), the regional trade agreement, to exclude Venezuela for alleged violations of democratic norms. (Macri has backed off that plan since the victory of the right-wing coalition in Venezuela’s recent parliamentary elections.) He has also signaled a closer alignment with the United States.

The economic program of the new administration is quite clear, even though Macri tried to hide his economic advisors before the election, to reduce the impact of their unpopular views at the polls. They will unify the foreign exchange market, in which there is currently a large gap between the official and black-market exchange rates. This implies a “maxi-devaluation” of the peso, from around nine to about 15 pesos to the dollar (assuming that the current black market level is their desired nominal exchange rate). The effects of a depreciation of this magnitude will be massive.

In contrast to previous devaluations—most recently in 2002, after more than ten years of a fixed one-to-one peso-to-dollar exchange rate under Cavallo’s so-called “Convertibility Plan”—this one is not caused by an external crisis. While it is true that Argentina’s current account balance is negative, and that its reserves are relatively low, there is no significant danger that Argentina will default on its external debt now.

The current account deficit is not big, by historical standards or in comparison to other countries in the region, and international reserves can cover the country’s immediate obligations. Besides, under current conditions, with low international interest rates, it would be relatively easy to attract capital flows with higher interest rates, and borrow in international markets. (That would certainly be easier if Argentina could finalize an agreement with the so-called “vulture funds,” the holdout bondholders that did not agree to the rescheduling of debt after the last default.) And, if anything, Macri’s (unnecessary) promise to give in to all the vulture funds’ demands and rapprochement with the United States and International Monetary Fund (IMF) would resolve any short-run problems in financing the current account deficit.

The question, then, is why the Macri government would promote a huge depreciation of the currency with no clear external crisis on the horizon. The notion that the depreciation would solve the current account deficits is fraught with problems. Not only is the external situation not dire—so depreciation would be a “solution” to a non-existent problem—but there is also no evidence that exports will boom after a depreciation. Exports respond more to the growth of the global economy than to a change in relative prices. So for example, China will not demand significantly more soybeans from Argentina, as a result of lower prices, if the Chinese economy is not growing faster.

Actually, the only significant way in which the depreciation will reduce the external problems of Argentina is by causing a recession. Depreciations tend to reduce real wages, since the increase in the price of imported goods leads to inflation, which is not fully recovered by workers. As a result, consumption declines, with a negative impact on economic growth. Macri and his economic team have been very explicit about the need for a huge devaluation and the closing of the gap between the official and the black-market (or “blue,” as it is known in Argentina) exchange rate. This has already triggered an inflationary surge, as noted by the outgoing Economics Minister Axel Kiciloff.

The reason for the devaluation is precisely to cause inflation and a recession, both of which would weaken working-class bargaining power and, as a result, lead to lower real wages. And that is the ultimate goal of the new Macri administration. He has explicitly said so, in one of the videos that his campaign tried to suppress. The video shows him suggesting that the way out of the problems of the 1990s—when devaluation was not an option due to the Convertibility Plan—was to reduce real wages to increase external competitiveness. The maxi-devaluation of the peso will most likely be accompanied by a “fiscal adjustment plan” or, simply put, austerity. This would push the economy further into recession, reducing the bargaining power of workers even more.

Some skeptics suggest that Macri cannot pursue the classic IMF economic package of devaluation and fiscal adjustment, since that would bring about both inflation and recession, a politically explosive combination. However, the administration will deflect political problems caused by the economic crisis that these policies will trigger by suggesting that both inflation and the recession are the results of the negative legacy of twelve years of “populism” under the previous two administrations. In fact, Macri is already doing this, with intensive media support, suggesting that the inflation since the announcement of the depreciation is just a correction to its true level. One can easily see how higher unemployment would be justified in the same fashion, as an adjustment to the true and sustainable level.

In other words, the Macri government will cause a crisis that does not exist right now—though the economic situation may be difficult and growth in the last three years has not been not high—but blame the effects of its neoliberal policies on the previous government. The idea would most likely be to weather a political storm over the next couple of years and then—after resolving the issues with the vulture funds and normalizing relations with IMF—start borrowing abroad again. That would help promote growth again in time for a re-election campaign in 2019. Growth would be also facilitated by the fact that the economy would be coming out of a crisis, with real wages considerably lower and the working class well-disciplined.

Also, Macri will reduce or eliminate export taxes on grain and soybeans (known as retenciones, or “retentions”), strengthening the position of the ruling elites. The reorientation of the economy toward primary-goods (agricultural and mineral) production, along with a larger role for finance, has been the strategy of the Argentine elites since the last military dictatorship. That is why there is such continuity between the economic plans of José Martínez de Hoz under the military dictatorship of the late 1970s and the early 1980s, Domingo Cavallo under Menem in the 1990s, and (one should expect) Adolfo Prat-Gay under Macri in the coming years.

The initial recession and cuts in retenciones would significantly reduce government revenue and most likely lead to larger fiscal deficits. Hence, austerity will actually worsen the fiscal balance, contrary to what the Macri and his advisors suggest. The key is to remember that austerity policies are not designed to reduce fiscal deficits, even if that is offered up as a rationalization; they are a political instrument for disciplining labor. [And if it is any consolation, at least the adjustment will be done by a right-wing party, in contrast to Brazil, where the same program, essentially, is being pushed by the Workers' Party; and yet the right-wing forces are also trying to bring the left of center government of Dilma Rousseff down; more on that on another post].

In fact, the coming larger fiscal deficits will most likely be used to try to cut social welfare expenditures, which increased significantly during the administration of the outgoing president Cristina Fernández and her predecessor (and husband) Néstor Kirchner. It would not be surprising if Macri tries to privatize social security once again, something that Menem accomplished in the 1990s, and which had to be reversed in the 2000s as a result of the private system’s complete failure to provide a decent retirement for seniors.

But if the Macri administration is a throwback to the neoliberal era of Menem, it is important to remember that the current historical context is very different. Back in the 1990s, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union gave the neoliberal policies of the infamous Washington Consensus a status of unquestionable truth. Supposedly, ideology had vanished and history had come to an end. No alternative was politically possible. Since then, the 2008 global Great Recession has shown the world the perils of unfettered capitalism, and even if the “Keynesian moment” was brief and austerity policies have reasserted themselves, at least it is widely understood that the “free market” is no solution for the problems of development in a globalized economy.

The socioeconomic situation in Argentina is also very different. Back then, the economy was coming out of two bouts of hyperinflation, a whole decade of very low growth with very high unemployment levels and very low real wages, two decades of social conflict with a considerably weakening of the trade unions, several military coups, and an unresolved human-rights crisis from the last dictatorship. Now, the economy has grown at a healthy pace over the last decade, though with slower growth over the last three years. Unemployment remains at relatively low levels, and though inflation is relatively high, real wages have still grown significantly over the decade, with a considerable reduction of inequality.

Further, not only has the reorganization of the economy strengthened the working class, but civil society has managed to bring violators of human rights to justice, and finally come to terms with the nefarious legacy of the dictatorship, something unique in the region. The new government does not control congress, and the election was close, signaling a divided country. In short, society is more organized and better prepared to face the onslaught of neoliberal policies this time around.

* Forthcoming in the January/February issue of Dollars & Sense (subscribe; the other contributors are actually good). A version of my talk at the Universidad Nacional de San Martín (UNSAM) last month.

Right wing turn in Latin America?

No shame

Slow posting during the Thanksgiving break. Just a brief follow up on my recent post on Argentina. By a relative small margin the right wing candidate, Mauricio Macri, won the election. As noted in the previous post the most dangerous result would be an attack on the human rights policies followed by the current government, that have led to jail more than 400 human rights violators (noted that several were acquitted by lack of proofs as it should happen in a civilized society; so this was not witch hunt).

La Nación, the main conservative daily, that benefited economically from the last dictatorship and supported it, had an editorial demanding an end to 'revenge.' They called the left of center militants the true terrorists of the 1970s, even though the vast majority had committed no violent crime (and even those that did commit crimes should have been prosecuted according to the law, not tortured, and summarily executed). Macri has suggested that he will not stop the judiciary system from prosecuting human rights violators. But he made it clear that this will not be part of government policy.

Devaluation is in everybody's minds, and is likely to happen, although no run on the peso for now. There is an external restriction now (and for the last couple of years, but as I noted before there is no external crisis per se, so a maxi-devaluation is a question of choice, not necessity). Also, while it is true that the neoliberal policies of the 1990s are back with the new administration, it is worth remembering that the conditions now are very different than back then. The neoliberal turn in Latin America and Argentina in the 1990s followed a lost decade, with low growth, high unemployment and even higher inflation. Worse, ideologically the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet bloc had given legitimacy to neoliberal ideas, and the notion that history had ended. Only market friendly policies worked.

This time around the right turn in LA comes after a global crisis of capitalism, from which we have not completely emerged, with the US and Europe, in particular, in dire straits, and in the case of Argentina with a society organized and ready to defend its interests after a decade of growth and improving income distribution. Let alone that congress is in the hands of the opposition. My two cents for now.

Will post more on this later.

The Argentinean election, the economy and more

On Sunday, November 22, Argentineans are going to the polls. The two candidates represent significantly different projects, and not just in economic terms. On the one hand, there is Daniel Scioli, governor of Buenos Aires, ex-vice-president during Néstor Kirchner’s presidency and (even if not completely trusted by those closer to President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner) the candidate of continuity. On the other hand, Mauricio Macri—wealthy scion a business family with origins as public works contractors, president of a popular soccer team, and currently mayor of the city of Buenos Aires—is the main opposition candidate.
The election takes place during uncertain economic times.

The Argentine economy grew spectacularly from 2003 (the year after the default) to 2011, including a speedy recovery from the global economic crisis in 2008-9. However, since then the economy has basically stagnated, and inflation has been high. As a result, real wages—which grew fast during the boom years, leading to a reduction of inequality—have now essentially stagnated. And that probably explains to some degree Macri’s rise in the polls and the surprising tight race in the first round of the election.

Read rest here.

Eduardo Galeano (1940-2015)

Open Veins

Galeano, famous for The Open Veins of Latin America, among several other books, has passed away. He was a leading voice of the Latin American left, as The Guardian elegantly put it, which is a more accurate description than the 'anti-capitalist' epithet used by Reuters.

I inherited the copy of the book pictured above from my mom, who loved Galeano's books, in the 1980s, I guess, when I decided to study economics. I can't say that I was influenced by his book, even though Galeano thanks one of my teachers, Carlos Lessa.* He wasn't an economist, and I normally wouldn't post about it. But I decided to post something since, not long ago, a friend told me he had disavowed the book.

If one reads the accounts of his rejection of the book, it seems that it was the language, the vocabulary of the left in the early 1970s, which Galeano seemed to suggest that was heavy and dated, what led to his criticism of his work. Also, as he got older, and found mistakes in the book (sadly he doesn't specify which ones), his older self tended to be less satisfied with the result. Note, however, that in this discussion about what message he would like Obama to get from the book, after Chávez gave the US president a copy, he summarizes the basic point, which he seems to still uphold. In his words, he wanted Obama to get: "a certain idea about the fact that no richness is innocent. Richness in the world is a result of other people's poverty. We should begin to shorten the abyss between haves and have-nots."

A cursory look at the book might give you the not altogether incorrect sense that Open Veins provides a simplified version of Dependency Theory. Galeano was a popularizer of the kind of political economy that can be broadly defined as Structuralist. One not all together different from the one used for consumption in American universities, which simplifies and blames underdevelopment on developed countries, and that sees limited space for development in the periphery.** And, in that sense, it is a good thing that Galeano could say: "Reality has changed a lot, and I have changed a lot." But it is unclear that he threw the baby out with the bath water.

* If I had to say a book that influenced my choice to study economics, that I read in high school, it was Osvaldo Sunkel's El marco histórico del proceso de desarrollo y de subdesarrollo, which has a message that is not altogether different from Open Veins, namely that underdevelopment is part of the same process that caused development. Think of the Industrial Revolution in England, that goes hand in hand with deindustrialization in India. Industry and empire, as another historian would put it, are tied together.

** For alternative and more sophisticated versions see here.