Just last month, I wrote about Argentina’s grim economic outlook and criticized the supposed right-of-center President, Mauricio Macri, for failing to deliver any meaningful economic liberalization.
And reform is desperately needed.
According to Economic Freedom of the World, Argentina is one of the most statist nations on the planet (the only nations that do worse are Libya and Venezuela).
For all intents and purposes, Argentina is suffering from decades of bad policy.
Argentina is a sobering example of how statist policies can turn a rich nation into a poor nation. …After World War II, Argentina was one of the world’s 10-richest nations. But then Juan Peron took power and initiated Argentina’s slide toward big government, which eroded the nation’s competitiveness and hampered growth.
To put it mildly, the country is an economic tragedy and it should be a lesson for all countries about the importance of good policy.
Yet why am I writing again about Argentina after last month’s analysis?
Because a story in The New York Times discusses the nation’s upcoming presidential election and manages to paint a grotesquely inaccurate picture of what’s been happening in the country. We’re supposed to believe that Macri has been a hard-charging free-market fundamentalist.
Since taking office more than three years ago, President Mauricio Macri has broken with the budget-busting populism that has dominated Argentina for much of the past century, embracing the grim arithmetic of economic orthodoxy.
Mr. Macri has slashed subsidies… ‘It’s a neoliberal government…It’s a government that does not favor the people.’ …tribulations playing out under the disintegrating roofs of the poor are a predictable dimension of Mr. Macri’s turn away from left-wing populism. He vowed to shrink Argentina’s monumental deficits by diminishing the largess of the state. …Mr. Macri’s…presidency was supposed to offer an escape from the wreckage of profligate spending.
And we’re also supposed to believe that his failed free-market policies are paving the way for a return to left-wing populism.
As the October election approaches, Mr. Macri is contending with the growing prospect of a challenge from the president he succeeded, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner… Her return would resonate as a rebuke of his market-oriented reforms while potentially yanking Argentina back to its accustomed preserve: left-wing populism.
For what it’s worth, I suspect that Kirchner will win the next election. So that part of the article is correct.
But the part about free-market reforms is laughably inaccurate.
You don’t have to believe me. Let’s look at the Argentinian data from Economic Freedom of the World. Maybe I’m being dogmatic, but I hardly think a tiny improvement in 2015 followed by backsliding in 2016 qualifies as ‘diminishing the largess of the state.’
The bottom line is that Macri should have been bold and made sweeping changes once he was in charge. Like Chile after Allende’s Marxist regime was deposed.
Those reforms doubtlessly would have triggered protests. But if they became law, they would have produced tangible results.
Instead, Macri chose a timid approach and the economy has remained stagnant. Yet, because many voters think he adopted reforms, they blame him and they blame free markets.
The net result is that they will probably vote for Kirchner, which presumably will mean even more statism for the long-suffering people of Argentina.
P.S. What’s happening in Argentina is not an isolated example. It’s very common for supposed right-wing politicians to choose bad policies, which then paves the way for left-wing election victories. Look at how Bush’s statist policies created the conditions for an Obama victory. Or how Sarkozy set the stage for Hollande in France. Or how Theresa May’s fecklessness in the United Kingdom may lead to a win for Jeremy Corbyn.
This International Liberty article was republished with permission.
Daniel J. Mitchell
Daniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
FEE.org Donate
YouTube feeseminars
Twitter @feeonline
Facebook @feeonline
FEE.org
