Since 2003, Latin America's economies have been thriving, with GDP, including estimates for last year, up by 17 percent -- an average annual growth rate of 4.3 percent and a 12 percent increase in per capita GDP. While impressive, this is only the second time in 25 years that Latin America has experienced four consecutive years of positive economic growth. Will such good times continue?
This recent growth has been fueled by a strong boom in commodity prices, including not only energy inputs such as oil, gas and coal, but also metals, minerals and agricultural products. Growing demand for raw materials, owing to sharply increased industrial growth in Asia, particularly China and India, has benefited the terms of trade of many Latin American countries, and this is not expected to end anytime soon.
Historically, fiscal profligacy tends to take hold at times like these, with windfall revenues wasted on extravagant public projects. But not this time -- at least not so far. In Latin America's seven principal economies (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela), which together account for almost 90 percent of regional GDP, annual economic growth averaged 6 percent in the third quarter of last year, while industrial output was up by 8 percent. But these governments seem to be taking advantage of the bonanza to pay off pending external debt and to increase their foreign reserves.
Remarkably, responsible macroeconomic policy has followed a wave of populist/socialist electoral victories in recent years. Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela elected socialist or populist/reformist presidential candidates last year, while Bolivia elected a populist indigenous president in 2005, Uruguay a socialist president the same year and Argentina a leftist-centrist president in 2003.
An increased degree of international financial independence is among the consequences of the raw materials bonanza. Countries such as Brazil and Argentina paid off their loans to the IMF ahead of time, while others are buying up their own debt in secondary markets. Increased liquidity in international capital markets also reduced the need to obtain multilateral financing, and with it the need to accept conditions like privatization of natural resources and deregulation of public utilities.
For the most part, however, fiscal and monetary policies have so far not followed the leaders' rhetorical promises of deep structural reforms and redistribution to favor the indigenous and the poor. Even so, the danger of fiscal deficits and inflation persists in several countries. As a result, the new generation of leaders cannot introduce drastic structural reforms, badly needed in several countries, in a way that jeopardizes macroeconomic stability -- without which none of their promises can be fulfilled.
In fact, whereas economic growth in Latin America is often perceived as being very unequal -- which explains the shift to the left -- recent UN data puts the region in first place among all developing-country areas. Not only is the region's economic performance strong, but so is its score on the Human Development Index (HDI), which includes social indicators such as education and health. Indeed, while Latin America's GDP per capita is lower than the world average, it surpasses all other developing regions, as well as the world average, in the main social indicators.
Only one Latin American country -- Haiti -- appears in the group of low HDI countries, while the rest are in the medium and high HDI groups. Of the 30 Latin American countries included in this year's report, only one-third have lower HDI rankings than GDP rankings, and only a few -- those with the region's greatest need for significant improvements in social infrastructure, particularly provision of health and education -- show large discrepancies.
But two risks to Latin America's economic recovery loom large. First, with the current raw materials bonanza driving up prices of exported goods, the region is increasingly vulnerable to the so-called "Dutch disease," whereby higher wages and prices spread throughout the economy, weakening competitiveness, particularly in industrial markets. With Asian manufacturing exporters penetrating markets worldwide, such a development would be highly damaging to Latin America's growth prospects.
Second, at a time when economic globalization is rendering national borders porous, political leaders may get carried away by their rhetoric of independence. All bonanzas end. If no adequate provisions are made to sustain global competitiveness, the economic, social and political consequences could be dire.
Simon Teitel is research fellow at the International Center for Economic Research in Torino, Italy, and former senior economic and research adviser at Inter-American Development Bank. Copyright: Project Syndicate
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS