Latin America is experiencing an exceptional boom, owing to soaring income from exports of natural resources. But is the region making the most of this opportunity? Have these funds been used as effectively as possible?
With the exception of Central America, rising commodity prices have improved the external accounts and fiscal positions of Latin American countries. Revenue from natural-resource exports represented 25 percent of total income in the public sector in 2008. In Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Mexico, it exceeded 40 percent. This comes to around 7 percent of GDP in these countries (more than 11 percent in Venezuela and Bolivia, and 8 percent in Ecuador and Mexico).
To determine what should be done with this windfall, it is important to know whether the increase in commodity prices is likely to be permanent or transitory. If the latter, the best course of action would be to save the additional income or use it, as a second-best option, to reduce the national debt. If the increase were considered permanent, however, it would make sense to increase spending or reduce tax pressure.
The choice will depend on the characteristics of the country. There would be more reason to reduce taxes in Norway, for example, than in Latin America, where the general course would be to increase spending.
It is reasonable to presume that the commodity boom’s positive effect on Latin America’s terms of trade will last for an extended period — perhaps 10 to 15 years — but that it will not be permanent. Moreover, it could be argued that if more knowledge is not added to exports, it will be hard to achieve sustainable economic development based on natural resources.
Given this, it would be wise to spend at least part of the windfall on improving the capacity to innovate, which is essential for a long-term growth beyond the fluctuation of international commodity prices. That means investing in education and building incentives to increase productivity through changes in products, processes or organization.
So what happened to the additional revenues derived from the commodity boom of recent years? Some of these funds were aimed to improve countries’ fiscal balance. While the primary deficit (before interest payments) in 2002 was similar among countries with and without important natural resources, in 2007, the former showed a surplus equivalent to 3.8 percent of GDP — compared with 1.6 percent of GDP for non-commodity-exporting countries.
As a result, public debt fell to 28 percent of GDP region-wide in 2008, from 51 percent in 2003. Fiscal consolidation was not, however, the result of formal fiscal rules. While several countries established legal limits to control spending, deficits and debt, in some cases — for example, Argentina, Ecuador and Venezuela — such laws were not enforced.
In addition to reducing debt, Chile used its additional revenues to increase the resources of two fiscal funds: When the recession began, there were more than US$22 billion in assets in both funds. Despite imprudent fiscal management, Venezuela, too, maintained considerable resources in specific funds (US$11 billion at the end of 2008). Ecuador and Colombia, by contrast, eliminated their stabilization funds in 2005 and 2008 respectively.
Beyond improving public accounts, a large part of the revenues from high commodity prices were used to increase public spending, although this proportion varied from country to country. At one extreme stands Argentina, with the largest increase in public spending relative to GDP in Latin America (almost 10 points). At the other extreme are Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay.
Since there is no attribution in countries’ fiscal accounts of income from products linked to natural resources, we can only hazard a reasonably informed guess about how that spending was allocated. Between 2001 and 2002 and 2007 and 2008, social-welfare spending in countries with abundant natural resources increased by around 55 percent in real terms, with spending relative to GDP rising by nearly 3.5 percentage points. Therefore, on a regional level, a large part of the additional resources were used to increase public spending, especially for social security, health and education, in that order.
In some countries, there were also increased subsidies. Argentina, for example, increased subsidies for energy and transport to the equivalent of 3 percent of GDP. Something very similar occurred in Ecuador and Venezuela throughout the decade. In contrast, spending for other objectives — for example, research and development on new products and processes — increased very little.
In short, Latin American countries have used their additional export revenues to pay down debt and increase social spending. Both were necessary, but, with few exceptions, the region is not using the commodity windfall to do what it must: Improve technological capacities sufficiently to ensure that future economic growth does not depend entirely on the fickle fortunes of finite natural resources.
Jose Luis Machinea, former executive director of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and former minister of economy of Argentina, is dean of the School of Government at Torcuato Di Tella University, Buenos Aires.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past