Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Argentine Economics

The Argentine stock market has been tanking (losing 5.9% in two days) and the peso dipping on a confluence of scary news for conservative economists, businesspeople and—perhaps—the population at large. Roberto Lavagna, the economics minister widely credited with reviving the Argentine economy over the last three years, was forced to resign by President Kirchner. His crime? Not bad management or faulty policies, but failing to keep in line. Over recent weeks, he’s made the politically inopportune remarks that the companies used for infrastructure projects were operating as a ‘cartel’ and overcharging, thus insulting planning minister (and Kirchner buddy) Julio de Vido, and that the country’s high inflation (12%+ annually) was not only caused by businesses raising prices speculatively (as Kirchner has been saying) but also by union demands for pay hikes. As the new minister, Kirchner installed Felisa Miceli, widely seen as a talented economist but not as someone independent from Kirchner’s desires to please the people in the short term, no matter what, not even if it leads to greater pain down the road. Kirchner has since announced plans to bring together the country’s mayors in order to come to an accord to put together price lists and start “social control” of prices which might mean what have historically-useless price pegs down the road.

The reaction was swift and unpleasant. The U.S. signaled a “wait and seeattitude (with analysts worrying that this will hurt Argentina’s negotiations with the IMF) while the Spanish government seemed to express worry. According to Carlos Malamud, an economist at the Real Instituto Elcano quoted by La Nación, “The change is not a good signal. Lavagna was the ideal counterweight to Kirchner’s excesses.” An anonymous analyst quoted in the same article said, “History has shown that the only things that work against inflation are painful; all else fails. The impression is that, in election mode, Kirchner doesn’t want anything that hurts and that is easier with Miceli than with Lavagna.” Whether pain=good is true is open to debate, but the government has shown little willingness to push tightening policies that would tarnish his left/populist image.

Further exacerbating the situation is the strike at Aerolíneas Argentinas, a former state company now owned by Spaniards. The strike—and the fact that the head of the air transport section of the ministry of state, Ricardo Cirielli, leads one of the airline unions—has led some to worry that Kirchner’s government will push for the “re-Argentinization” of the airline, further alienating those thinking of investing in the country. Political analyst Joaquín Morales Solá examines this and other issues in his column of today, “Inside, Discipline; Outside, Chaos,” the title of which refers to Solá’s belief that Kirchner insists on cabinet discipline over solid national policy.

Also:
Argentine President Ousts the Architect of the Country's Economic Recovery [NY Times]

3 Comments:

At 11/30/2005 6:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ian: that NYTimes headline is horribly misleading. Yes, Lavagna did play a role in Argentina's reemergence (mainly the debt restructure), but the facts dictated results:
1. Argentina pushed back against creditors because it had (has?) little capacity to pay what is owed.

2. Argentina's economy grew quickly, because that is what usually happens after a crash. Just look at US GDP growth in 1934, '35, and '36. Barely out of depression mode (and millions still struggling), but the growth rate was something like 11% y/y.

3. Argentina's dollar peg held back export (industrial and agricultural) growth. Moving to a float was certainly painful, but eliminated a strong and unsustainable drag on the economy - an overvalued exchange rate.

If you want more technical talk, google "Brad Setser." He has an excellent blog post today on this topic...

 
At 11/30/2005 10:29 PM, Blogger Ian said...

Hola Senor(a) anonymous,

I'm in agreement there--the Times headline oversimplifies the situation with characteristic zeal. No one man turned the economy around, and a lot of Lavagna's success can be attributed to his taking the helm when the economy was at the bottom (which is also why CEOs who take over companies when they've bottomed out tend to look good--there's nowhere to go but up). My main issue is with the appearance that President Penguin seems to be unwilling to keep on someone who might be willing to take the next steps, which are likely to be painful, and seems to value party-line discipline over dealing with the reality of the situation. I could be wrong--and the new minister may be brilliant--but the direction right now isn't entirely a hopeful one.

 
At 12/01/2005 7:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suppose you haven't been reading only La Nación. Not if you want all the news in perspective... Morales Solá, in particular, has made it his personal goal to show the world that Kirchner is a dangerous, Chávez-loving extremist out of the farthest leftist populism.

As a citizen, I'm a bit worried about K's ideas on dissent, and regretted Lavagna's removal, but I'll follow the U.S. "wait and see" tactic. Miceli is a former student of Lavagna's and she ran a bank, so I'll give her some credit.

Back in the 1990s, we Argies were told with a straight face (by everyone inside and outside the country) that what is good for foreign investment and big business is also good for the people at large. We all know what happened after that. Maybe trying something that bothers investors and businessmen a bit is not necessarily bad. Never mind the stock market; in Argentina it doesn't mean anything.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home