World markets seem to be turning up their nose at Brazil right now. They may be as mistaken about Brazil as world soccer experts were earlier this summer. When the World Cup began, you will recall, the Brazilian team was deemed talented but flawed. Yet somehow Brazil again became the World Cup champion. The country, too, may prove equally surprising and resilient.
Indeed, in recent years, Brazil has created a vibrant democracy with a strong economy. It deserves a vote of confidence from investors and political leaders alike.
As in any vibrant democracy, differences in views exist. Not all Americans are enthusiastic about President George W. Bush's rapid conversion of trillion-dollar surpluses into deficits, nor does a majority embrace his proposals to privatize the US' social security system, which has done so much to eliminate poverty among the elderly. On key issues within Brazil, however, a broad political consensus (not unanimity, but no one should expect that) exists, and this includes all the major contenders in Brazil's forthcoming presidential election in October.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
There is a consensus, for instance, on sound fiscal and monetary policies -- no one wants to return to the hyperinflation of earlier decades. Brazil's monetary policy has been managed extraordinarily well by Arminio Fraga (my former student), but behind him is a strong institution, with the analytic capacities of a first world central bank.
The initiative that Brazil's Central Bank made to increase transparency and openness are a model for central banks throughout the world -- in the developed world as well as the less developed. To be sure, there may be disagreements about fine-tuning the economy, but such are routine in any democracy.
There is also a broad consensus that while markets are at the center of a successful economy, there is an important role for government. Brazil's government, for instance, pushed one of the most successful telecom privatizations, but also pushed for stronger competition and regulatory policies.
Unlike the US, when the country faced an electricity crisis, it didn't blithely sit by, saying let market forces (which in the US, meant market manipulation by Enron and others) "handle" the matter; rather, the government came in with strong actions. As an American, I looked on in envy as Brazil managed its way through a difficult situation.
Brazil is a country of extraordinary human and physical resources. It may be called an emerging market, but it has first rate financial, educational and research institutions. Discussions about economics in Sao Paulo are as sophisticated as those in New York. University seminars in Rio are as lively as those in Cambridge, Massachusetts, or Cambridge, UK.
It produces one of the finest airplanes in the world -- so good that competitors in the more advanced industrial countries have tried to impose trade barriers. But Brazil, for all of its strengths, has one critical weakness -- a high level of inequality. It is a weakness that (unlike in the US) also carries a broad consensus: most agree that it needs to be addressed, and that government has the obligation to do so.
The current government has made extraordinary strides in education. Ten yeas ago, 20 percent of Brazil's school-age children were not attending school; now that number is down to 3 percent. Whoever wins the election almost certainly will continue to make further investments in education.
Similarly, landless peasants are both an economic and a social problem, and the current administration has taken on vested interests to push forward an exciting market-based land reform, one which has received support from the World Bank. Whoever wins the election will in all likelihood pursue a strong land-reform program.
With the AIDS epidemic, Brazil faces challenges to its health system, and while one may agree or disagree with the particular approaches taken by the Brazilian government, this much is clear -- everyone recognizes that this is a major responsibility of government. Moreover, whoever wins the election almost surely will reflect that broad national consensus.
Brazil's debt-to-GDP ratio is moderate -- better than in the US at the time Bill Clinton became president, far better than that of Japan and several European countries. Unlike its neighbor to the south (prior to Argentina's crisis), Brazil has a flexible exchange rate system: its currency is not overvalued -- if anything, it is undervalued. With strong exports, it should have no problem meeting its debt obligations, so long as interest rates do not soar to levels that turn a problem into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Brazil has carved out a path that is not based on ideology or over-simplistic economics. It seizes opportunities while confronting and dealing with harsh realities, whether these are lack of education, landlessness or AIDS. By successfully charting its own course, Brazil has created a broad domestic consensus behind a balanced, democratic, market economy. Brazil's victory in the World Cup may have no connection with these reforms, but the creativity of that winning team does say a great deal about the spirit of the country.
Joseph Stiglitz is professor of economics and finance at Columbia University, the winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, and the author of Globalization and its Discontents.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers