Very brief comments on Venezuela

The election in Venezuela is always contentious. I've written quite a bit about it over the years (see everything here; on the previous presidential election see here). Some have decided already that is a fraud, and sustain that the previous ones were also, although that is far from clear, and most likely Maduro (let alone Chávez) did win all the previous elections. This time around things are less clear. First of all, the opposition seemed more unified, even with the disqualification of Maria Corina Machado, a mistake by Maduro, both from a general preoccupation with democracy, and also, because the actual opposition candidate, Edmundo González Urrutia, might have been more effective.

In my view, the only way to know what happened one would have to check the data, and that is still not possible. Both Lula and Petro have asked for a peaceful recount of the votes. It is the only way to find out what actually happened. Same calls have been issued by reasonable opposition people like Francisco Rodriguez.

There is a great distance from saying that there were problems with the election, to suggest that is what fraudulent, and that Maduro is a dictator. Obviously Venezuela is flawed democracy. But, in all fairness, the US is very flawed too. A lot of people are excluded, some for questionable reasons, like being jailed, which disproportionately affects blacks and Hispanics, and several can't vote on a Tuesday, with limited numbers of polling places and not enough voting machines in poor areas, leading to much longer waiting times for working class people. Disenfranchisement is common here, and has been historically speaking. These are just some examples. And it would be an understatement to say that Trump, and many others, have authoritarian tendencies.

That is NOT to say that everything is fine with Maduro and Venezuela. Certainly he has authoritarian tendencies, and even if he is proved to be the actual winner, there were too many problems with the elections. However, these are only exacerbated by the sanctions imposed by the US, and the anti-democratic tendencies of the opposition, always ready to promote a coup, with US support. Lifting the sanctions, and a more rational American policy towards Venezuela could be the actual path for more democratic outcomes there. Hope springs eternal.

PS (8/4/24): It has been now almost a week, and the government has not provided all the information necessary for the recount of the votes and it looks increasingly like they won't do it. I still think that best solution, rather than acknowledging the victory of the opposition candidate, a mistake the US committed before, would be to lift the sanctions and engage in diplomacy, as Lula has been trying to do, in order to get the government to provide full vote tallies. After all, the US has engaged in diplomacy with much worse international actors.

Venezuela and the embargo

Should have posted this a while ago. I had a conversation with the World Bank economist above on how much of the problems of Venezuela are the result of the embargo. Here a paper by Francisco Rodríguez. Worth reading.

On the unfolding coup in Venezuela

I recommend this video with an interview with Lucas Koerner that is in Caracas about the situation there on the Real News Network.

On the crisis in Venezuela

I wrote a few entries over the last few years that might be useful to understand what is going on in Venezuela. This one from 2016, tries to explain how the crisis is related to an old problem, the dependence on oil exports and the balance of payments constraint. Venezuela can't manage to get beyond the oil dependence in the boom, since a sort of Dutch Disease sets in. One can certainly blame the Chavista governments for not breaking with that dependence, but in all fairness conservative governments also were unable to do it. In the period of a fall in international oil prices a crisis normally occurs (this one is probably already worse than the Caracazo).

Here for context the data on exports (note that about 90 percent of exports are basically oil, and those go mostly to the US that has refineries that specialize in the Venezuelan oil).

The numbers are from the World Bank Development Indicators up to 2016, and then I use the IMF estimates of growth (actually decline) from the World Economic Outlook database. So this is a brutal collapse, something the US government is doing, even at the price of some costs to local refineries, in order to promote regime change in Venezuela. Whatever your views on Maduro and the Chávez period, note that the US is fine with Saudi Arabia. Trump and Dems before too. And remember that Obama tightened the embargo as one of his last measures. Double standards are incredible, and difficult to defend.

Mind you with the collapse of exports and the fiscal capacity of the state, the economy collapsed too, and so did imports. The embargo makes imports of almost everything impossible and heightens the humanitarian crisis, and the refugee problem. It is somewhat hypocritical, to say the least, to complain about the humanitarian crisis and not acknowledging the US role and the embargo in causing it.

Note also, that in the absence of dollars, not only imports collapse, but payments on foreign denominated debt too. Hence, the close possibility of a complete financial meltdown. Not only default will take place, but scarcity of almost anything imported (including food essentials) and the rapid depreciation of the currency would lead to hyperinflation. If you want to understand external crisis in general read this entry, and for hyperinflation go to this one.

On the complex issues of democracy in Venezuela read this entry from 2017, and this one from 2018. For those that think that the current coup, or any coup including a military one would reduce violence (the opposite is more likely to happen) read this.

Venezuela is about to explode

A leftist candidate won a close election in a South American country, threatening US interests in the region. The US president asked the CIA to "make the economy scream" to undermine governance and bring regime change, even if by violent means.

I am referring, of course, to Salvador Allende's election in Chile, and Richard Nixon's reaction, which eventually led to Augusto Pinochet's coup, one of the most bloody in the troubled history of the region.

The reelection of Nicolas Maduro last Sunday has led to the denunciation of the election in the US, with Vice President Mike Pence calling the elections "a sham", and suggesting the imposition of more economic sanctions.

Read rest here.

Talk of military intervention in Venezuela is absurd

In early February, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson embarked on a Latin America tour aimed at promoting "democratic security". But just before he set off on his trip, he speculated on the possibility of a military coup in Venezuela.

"In the history of Venezuela and South American countries, it is often times that the military is the agent of change when things are so bad and the leadership can no longer serve the people," he said at an event at the University of Texas at Austin.

Tillerson's comments came six months after US President Donald Trump threatened military action in Venezuela.

Full piece published by Al Jazeera here.

The Latin American Crisis

Downhill

I have not written on the problems in the region for a while now (last stuff that is more comprehensive here in the talk at Keene, for example), in part, because the whole theme is a bit depressing (more recently the Honduras crisis, and the return of the right in Chile). As I have noted before, there is no doubt that the collapse of commodity prices has played a significant role in the downturn in the region, but it is also true that a lot of the problems are political in nature, and the resurgence of neoliberalism (with the support of the US, btw) has played a significant role too. In my view, the latter is far more relevant.

Two recent issues that I wanted to note, and that prompted my return to the issue of the crisis in the region. One is the downgrading of the Brazilian public debt by Standard & Poor's (I've written on credit rating agencies before here, and on the  previous downgrading of Brazil too). As I noted before, the Brazilian economy didn't face any significant fiscal or external problem. Figure below, from IMF WEO data, shows that the primary balances were actually positive until Dilma decided to cave and do a fiscal adjustment in 2015 (which did not save her from the coup, btw). And the external (current account) deficit was small, and manageable given the humongous external reserves and the great amount of global liquidity.

At any rate, why the new downgrading, you ask. The reason is to force the Brazilian government to push once again for pension reform. The whole point is that the crisis was caused to create the conditions for the dismantling of the old remnants of the very incomplete welfare state, if one can speak of one in Brazil, that survived the neoliberal onslaught of the 1990s under Fernando Henrique Cardoso. One should not minimize the importance of the soft power of US institutions, including the credit rating agencies, and how they can be used to promote certain political agendas.

The other issue is related to Venezuela (see my two previous posts here and here). I noted before that Venezuela's democracy (very problematic one, as I noted, before you complain; read the posts in the links please) is under attack, and that right wingers should not be seen as pushing for democracy against an authoritarian regime. That rhetoric, that still permeates most of the coverage in the US, is simply incorrect. I was somewhat shocked to read the recent op-ed by Ricardo Hausmann asking for military intervention by foreign powers (meaning the US). By the way, this comes from someone with the authority of being a Harvard professor (not that Harvard is supporting the coup, as far as I know). The role of the soft power of US institutions again.

If there were any doubts about their (right wingers that supported the 2002 coup) commitment to democracy I think this clears it up. I'll leave a discussion about the accuracy of the claim that elections have been rigged and the extent of the 'famine' for another post (something old on the latter here). I just wanted to note that here there is that step that is always there in the authoritarian argument about the justification for violence and the removal of the democratic institutions. Unacceptable.

On Venezuela, Democracy, Violence and Neoliberalism

Many pieces have been written recently on the situation in Venezuela, including some on the left, that are very critical of the Maduro government (see for example this Jacobin piece that has been widely cited). Interestingly, during the sleepy months of the summer in which I almost didn’t write anything here, this old post on Venezuela has become the most read on the blog (as we approach almost 3 million hits).

Let me first say that I am for democracy and against violence, irrespective of who is behind it. Calls to reduce violence on both sides should be at the top of the international agenda. So, any government constraints on the ability of the people to participate in its own government (some form of democracy) and government repression of manifestations (violence) is wrong. As far as I can tell, the current claims about the lack of democracy in Venezuela are not associated, for the most part, to the election of the president (even though right-wing activists insist, without proof, that Maduro and Chávez have rigged past elections; truth is that they won every time, including the last, even if by a smaller margin), but rather to the Supreme Court reduction of legislative power, and to the new constitutional convention. One could also point out the imprisonment of some opposition leaders, like Leopoldo López, who is under house arrest now. All legitimate concerns, no doubt.

The question then is how much of the push to limits to the power of the legislative assembly dominated by the opposition, and how much of the political repression (including the treatment of opposition leaders, but also the police violence) results from the very violent and anti-democratic push from the opposition itself, that has tried to bring down the government since the very beginning (including a failed coup attempt in 2002). And this is also a valid concern that many (almost all the mainstream media) on the left seem to forget. I can’t honestly respond. But I can provide a perspective, based on my understanding of the Argentine and Brazilian cases that are closer to my experience.

In Argentina, the right-wing neoliberal agenda eventually dislocated the Kirchner governments in the ballot (when Cristina was not a candidate I should add), but it basically needed to lie about its intentions. Macri said he would not devalue the currency (and reduce real wages), that he would not cut the tax on exports, that he would not promote austerity, he also said he would end corruption, and he lied on every single element of his platform. Certainly that undermines democracy in my view. A demagogue that on top has been connected to corruption (for example, his name is in the Panama papers) is not necessarily good for democracy (many on the left here in the US are afraid of what another demagogue with corrupt practices may do to democracy). And there are now at least one ‘desaparecido’ (missing, presumably killed like during the last dictatorship) and at least one famous political prisoner (Milagro Sala). These are significant restrictions on democratic values and certainly indicate some connivance (if not direct participation) with violence. But yet I don’t think Macri is a dictator (and certainly the international media doesn’t think that either).

In Brazil, unlike Argentina, the left won the elections (like in Ecuador, btw). Dilma got a second mandate in 2014, and a fourth electoral victory for the Workers’ Party. The solution there for the right-wingers and their neoliberal agenda was a mediatic-judicial coup (and yes Dilma had accepted some of the economic agenda before the impeachment, in particular austerity; but note that Chávez too tried some neoliberal things before too; see my old piece in Dollars & Sense back in 2005 criticizing the left of center governments in the region). In this case, there have been several people imprisoned as a result of corruption charges, in many cases without other proof than the accusation of self-confessed criminals after plea bargains. Also, there has been a lot of abuse of power, including violence against protestors, and they almost certainly will try to preclude Lula from being a candidate in the next election (he too was condemned because somebody says he owns an apartment, without any formal proof). And yes, I would suggest that the current Brazilian government is not democratic.

So why is this relevant to understand Venezuela you ask. Part of the story is that the opposition in Venezuela says that they need to push the boundaries of the democratic system, because the Chavistas are anti-democratic and would not leave power. The US provides full support to that narrative, suggesting that the Venezuelan government is a threat, and that was true of the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations (there is State policy when it comes to the left in Latin America). That’s why Maduro needs to be recalled, in their view, even though he won the election. At any cost. A coup is acceptable and changing the rules too. That was also repeated ad nauseam in Argentina, and it wasn’t true as it is clear now, since Cristina stepped down and followed democratic principles (also that was kind of the argument used against Allende and many other left of center governments in the region before). In addition, the Brazilian case is important because, when the right-wingers loose, as they did in Brazil, they do push and try to promote a coup (if anything Dilma and the left in Brazil were outmaneuvered, but I don’t think they should not have tried to remain in power, since they did win the election, as did Maduro). In my view what we are seeing is a long slow coup in motion, with the US support (and now Argentina and Brazil too), and the Maduro administration is trying to survive.

So, the stakes are high, and the fall of Maduro may come electorally, later (as in Argentina), or by a coup (as in Brazil, but perhaps more violently), maybe sooner, and should not be a surprise. Note that the constitutional crisis to deal with the contested recall of Maduro, and the taking over of legislative powers by the supreme court do restrict some forms of self-government and are problematic and should be criticized. But I hardly think this means that the government is not democratic. For example, in the US the candidate that won the majority of the vote didn’t win the popular vote, and some may think this is not democratic (and that was the original intent of the electoral college, btw). And yes, the rules were in place already you may suggest. But rules are changed all the time, like the rules for financing of campaigns, or gerrymandering, or the rules for who is eligible to vote. It is quite legitimate to argue that the supreme court has restricted democracy in the US with Citizen United. And several states are trying to restrict the ability of minorities to vote, let alone that voting is done on Tuesdays when a significant number of workers cannot vote. And I could go on.

The point is that the US (which until very recently, 1964 in fact, did not allow a vast majority of the African-American population to vote) is a democracy (some may actually disagree with this), a very imperfect one (and Churchill was right, if he said it, that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others), but one none the less, like Argentina, and in my view Venezuela. Reasonable people may disagree, as much as some people may think that the US is not a democracy too.

Violence is a more complicated issue. There has been violence on both sides of the dispute, even though you would think it's all the government's fault if you only get the mainstream media. A lot of the discussion is related to the fact that young, middle class, university students are on the receiving end of some of the violence which is not common in Latin America. There has been less coverage or preoccupation with the regular violence against working class people in Venezuela. But as I said, I think here the government should err on the side of extreme caution and avoid all confrontation.

Note that in the Argentina, Brazil and the US (and in Venezuela too; the recent burning alive of a lower-class man because he was a Chavista is an example of that) there is a lot of violence against minorities and working-class people. More often than not it goes undiscussed in the media. In the US, only recently as a result of the widespread use of smart phones with cameras the systematic killings of black people have shocked the nation. For violence to be controlled institutions have to be strong and capable of punishing the culprits. In the US, clearly institutions still fail, as the many policemen that shot African-American kids go free. Again, I do think the US is democratic, but for many black folks that couldn’t vote until a generation ago, and/or have been imprisoned and deprived of their political rights the idea of American democracy probably rings hollow. In other words, restrictions on democratic processes, which exist in both Argentina and Brazil (and in the US too), and the existence of violence (always condemnable) per se does not necessarily mean that the government is a dictatorship. Anti-democratic tendencies like those of Macri, Trump and Maduro (Temer in Brazil is the representative of a coup and beyond just having anti-democratic tendencies) should be discussed and condemned, as much as of the opposition to their governments when they exist (if you think Dems in the US have no anti-democratic tendencies, check the primaries, the super delegates and so on). And the opposition in Venezuela is also accountable for a fair share of violence and undemocratic practices.

Don’t get me wrong, there were lots of problems with Chávez (and still true with Maduro) and with the left of center governments in the region. The inability to break with the dependence on exports of commodities (and the price being paid now that prices have fallen), the lack of counter cyclical policies at crucial times, the absence of a coherent industrial policy, the integration with China on subordinate way and so on (read my post on Venezuela linked above). In the case of Venezuela, it’s worth quoting at some length this excerpt from Tarver and Fredrick’s history of the country:

the Chávez-Maduro tenure has also been termed a ‘petroleum dictatorship’… The enormous increase in national revenue allowed Chávez and Maduro to pay off Venezuela’s foreign debt and undertake a massive social works program… For most Venezuelans, the petroleum era did not bring with it additional jobs, increased wages, or an improvement in the standard of living. Instead, the oil boom brought about a decline in domestic industry, and increase in imports and inflation.

Seems like a familiar critique of Chavismo, doesn’t it? As it turns out, this is a misquote (oops, my bad). The book actually says the Gómez tenure (president in the first decades of the 20th century), public works instead of social works program, and agriculture instead of industry. The point is (as noted in my post linked above) that these problems are not new. In the case of Venezuela there are two excellent papers (in Portuguese) written by Celso Furtado, in 1957 (a report for ECLAC) and in 1974, showing the problems of development with abundance of foreign reserves (should be a paradox since the normal problem, the constraint, is lack of dollars), which are a must read for those interested in the problems of development.

As I said in my previous post too, this is a tragedy, and there are no good solutions. I would prefer the continuation of the democratic institutions, meaning Maduro’s government with an opposition with a significant role in parliament, and without violence of course. And it would be even better if it could be achieved without a return to neoliberal policies. But this seems increasingly unlikely. The fall of the Maduro government will not end violence, and will not bring back democracy. Unless you have a very Manichean view of the meaning of violence and democracy. But hey, Hayek thought that Pinochet was a paragon of democracy, so who knows what neoliberals think.

Overdose of heterodoxy, failed Keynesian policies or same old balance of payments constraint?

The hunger games

Ricardo Hausmann blames the situation in Venezuela to excessive heterodox policies. The piece is not particularly well written, but if you look for the deep cause of the crisis, according to Hausmann, then you must conclude that it is a fiscal one. The government spent too much, and got into too much debt. In his words:

Governments often struggle to balance their books, leading to over-indebtedness and financial trouble. Yet fiscal prudence is one of the most frequently attacked principles of economic orthodoxy. But Venezuela shows what happens when prudence is frowned upon and fiscal information is treated as a state secret... Venezuela used the 2004-2013 oil boom to quintuple its external public debt, instead of saving up for a rainy day. By 2013, Venezuela’s extravagant borrowing led international capital markets to shut it out, leading the authorities to print money.

So fiscal problems, too much spending and borrowing, too much money printing, which caused inflation and the currency crisis (the black market gap between the official and parallel value of the domestic currency). As I have discussed in many posts (too many to link) and in a recent paper causality is upside down. It is the external problem, the current account deficit (as I noted in the previous post) that is at the heart of the problem.

Actually, as far as I know the authorities remained for a long while very anti-Keynesian and not particularly in favor of spending. In the immediate aftermath of the global crisis in 2008-9 Venezuela did not pursue Keynesian anti-cyclical policies vigorously. If memory doesn't fail me Mark Weisbrot actually organized a symposium in which government officials encountered a few heterodox economists to try to convince them of the need of counter-cyclical policies. Mind you, many on the left also assume that the problem is the failure of Keynesian policies, like Michael Roberts suggests in a recent post.

On the problem of food shortages, it is important to note that for the most part the wealthy are fine. Only regulated products are scarce, and those tend to be the ones needed by the low income groups (see here; you can follow this guy who keeps showing how much food, and how well the wealthy live in Caracas here). Contrary to what Hausmann suggests nobody is dying for lack of food, even though the situation for the poor is incredibly difficult. And yes, the opposition and orthodox policies are all about making the life of the poor easier, aren't they?*

Again, the problems of Venezuela are perennial, and have to do with the excessive dependence on oil, and the need to diversify production, including probably having a preoccupation with food security, and diversifying exports. Hausmann should know, since he has been writing about the importance of what a country exports, or maybe he thinks that orthodoxy (laissez faire, in this context) would magically produce a more diversified export structure. History is not on his side on this.

* If you have any doubts see what happened in Argentina after Macri's election. That would be a guide (perhaps a moderate one) to what to expect if a Brazilian like parliamentary coup occurred in Venezuela.

Is Venezuela a threat to the US?

I published not long ago on the sanctions imposed on Venezuela, in the middle of the easing of relations with Cuba. Now the US has imposed additional sanctions on Venezuela, and declared that the country is "an extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States." That this statement is, at face value, ridiculous is fairly evident. The sanctions are imposed allegedly on the basis of violations of human rights, which is also not credible, since the US (not just in the past, but right now) supports governments with a very poor record on human rights. In Latin America the US gives full support to the government of Colombia were human rights violations are the norm.

The media coverage in the US about Venezuela is, as noted by Mark Weisbrot, worse than the coverage during the build up to the Iraq war. I normally don't discuss non-economic issues in the blog. But it is worth listening to Mark on the Diane Rehm show today. Note that as Mark says, it is the US that is isolated on Venezuela, with almost all the governments in the region decrying the US policies. And as he says, there are problems with the economic policies in Venezuela (and other left of center governments in the region), but nothing justifies the US support for "regime change" in Venezuela, in particular, and the region. And no the government is NOT a dictatorship. Not only it was elected in clean elections, but also the vast majority of the media is anti-Chávez and they do have freedom of expression, as Mark notes, probably more than in the US.

Note that the pressure on Venezuela takes place at the same time that in many countries, the right wing forces which historically have received support from US administrations, both Republican and Democratic ones, are pushing for impeachments and veiled threats of coups. Part of the reason for right wing pressure, and the hate these left of center governments have generated on the wealthy and the middle classes (which in the past were for military coups) is, as noted by Bresser-Pereira in Brazil, related to the improvement of income distribution and the conditions of the poorest in the region. Note that the region is the exception in the last decade, with inequality falling, even if it is still high.

PS: Beyond the political questions, which of course do have an economic impact, there is very little sensible written about the long run problems of growing with abundance of foreign currency (something often referred to as a resource curse or Dutch Disease). A precursor to that discussion can be found in the work of Celso Furtado, written in 1957, when he was at the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA). See more here.

Is Venezuala's SICAD II Resolving Exchange Rate Problems?

 By Mark Weisbrot

All economies have major structural and policy problems, but some problems are more important and urgent than others at particular times. In Venezuela, the most important economic problem is in the exchange rate system. A fixed exchange rate system with periodic devaluations tends to be more crisis-prone than other exchange rate regimes, especially in a country like Venezuela where inflation has historically been higher than that of its trading partners. This is particularly important right now because opposition leaders who have called for the overthrow of the government have pointed to 57 percent inflation and widespread shortages of consumer goods as justification for (often violent) street protests over the past two months. Although the protests have failed to attract the working and poorer people who are most hurt by the shortages, they are still a major complaint – as is inflation – for most Venezuelans.

Read rest here

Mark Weisbrot: Will Venezuela's New Floating Exchange Rate Curb Inflation?

Since Venezuela exports petroleum and petroleum byproducts and imports most of what it needs, the exchange rate is crucial for economic stability. Food scarcity and inflation has been cited among the reasons why there is ongoing protests in Venezuela. Hoping to quell some of this protest, last week the Bank of Venezuela introduced another exchange system, Sicad II, hoping to take control of inflation and scarcity of essential goods.To discuss all this and more is our guest, Mark Weisbrot, who recently returned from Venezuela. Mark Weisbrot is an economist and codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C.

Mark Weisbrot on Venezuela’s Struggle - Widely Misrepresented, Remains a Classic Conflict Between Right and Left

By Mark Weisbrot

The current protests in Venezuela are reminiscent of another historical moment when street protests were used by right-wing politicians as a tactic to overthrow the elected government. It was December of 2002, and I was struck by the images on U.S. television of what was reported as a “general strike,” with shops closed and streets empty. So I went there to see for myself, and it was one of the most Orwellian experiences of my life. Only in the richer neighborhoods, in eastern Caracas, was there evidence of a strike, by business owners (not workers). In the western and poorer parts of the city, everything was normal and people were doing their Christmas shopping – images unseen in the U.S. media. I wrote an article about it for the Washington Post, and received hundreds of emails from right-wing Venezuelans horrified that the Post had printed a factual and analytical account that breathed air outside of their bubble. They didn’t have to worry about it happening again. The spread of cell-phone videos and social media in the past decade has made it more difficult to misrepresent things that can be easily captured on camera. But Venezuela is still grossly distorted in the major media. The New York Times had to run a correction last week for an article that began with a statement about “The only television station that regularly broadcast voices critical of the government …” As it turns out, all of the private TV stations “regularly broadcast voices critical of the government.” And private media has more than 90 percent of the TV-viewing audience in Venezuela. A study by the Carter Center of the presidential election campaign period last April showed a 57 to 34 percent advantage in TV coverage for President Maduro over challenger Henrique Capriles in the April election, but that advantage is greatly reduced or eliminated when audience shares are taken into account. Although there are abuses of power and problems with the rule of law in Venezuela – as there are throughout the hemisphere– it is far from the authoritarian state that most consumers of western media are led to believe. Opposition leaders currently aim to topple the democratically elected government – their stated goal – by portraying it as a repressive dictatorship that is cracking down on peaceful protest. This is a standard "regime change" strategy, which often includes violent demonstrations in order to provoke state violence.

Read rest here.

Chávez and the left in Latin America

Chávez has passed away, and there will be a lot of reviews on his tenure, much of it biased and incorrect I'm afraid. As noted by Mark Weisbrot not long ago: "such is the state of misrepresentation of Venezuela – it is probably the most lied-about country in the world – that a journalist can say almost anything about Chávez or his government and it is unlikely to be challenged, so long as it is negative."

Growth performance, after the failed coup in 2002 and the oil strike, was reasonably good, and the recovery from the 2009, was not the best in the region, but has been steady. The average growth rate between the debt crisis in the early 1980s and the election of Chávez was around 2%, while in the post-Chavéz era it was around 2.3%. If one takes the post-crisis period, starting in 2004, with the commodity boom, growth was around 5.5% or so (see graph below). Mark provides a good analysis of the Venezuelan economy here.

More importantly, the oil boom allowed space for redistribution policies. Chávez was the central figure in what has been termed natural resource nationalism, which has been central in the rise of left of center governments in South America. One characteristic of these governments is that functional income distribution improved as a result of increasing social transfers. As noted in UNCTAD's last Trade and Development Report: "the share of wages increased significantly in Chile (during the 1990s), the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (since 1997) and Argentina (since 2003), although it did not return to its previous peaks" (see graph below).

That does not mean that everything is fine with the Venezuelan economy. The limits of a model based on the exploitation of natural resources are difficult to overcome, and some authors like Leonardo Vera, had noted the problems of low labor productivity growth, particularly in the industrial sector.

A balanced view of Chávez would probably have to admit that he did reasonably well. But you might read a lot about the end of the dictatorship, and the return of democracy. For that it's worth remembering what Mark noted (in the same piece quoted above): "here is what Jimmy Carter said about Venezuela's 'dictatorship' ...: 'As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world'."