How worried should be about Latin America's future?

Check the interesting article on Latin America's future at Vox written by World Bank experts. It offers a nice contrast with the Wall Street Journal article I mentioned last week, and reminds us that all is not bad in Latin America. Many of the countries in the region increased investment during the 2000s and were careful in the management of inflation, their budget and their foreign reserves. The data is fascinating and all the arguments interesting even if controversial: 1. As the article recognizes, the region has failed to undertake important reforms. By this we should read market-friendly reforms, but policy changes that could contribute to improve productivity and reduce structural heterogeneity. Education systems are still problematic and unequal, industrial policy insufficient and support to small, informal firms quite absent and disorganized. More importantly, these problems are as significant in Mexico or Peru as they are in Brazil or Argentina--there are no two Latin Americas there. 2. Notice the significant differences between Central and South America in the numbers. Central America still invests little and grows through remittance-fueled consumption and growing imports. The key division in Latin America takes place between countries North and South of Panama and not between "good" and "bad" countries. 3. With some exceptions (sadly, Venezuela comes to mind), a sudden financial crisis is unlikely to happen in the region. Yet what we still can have is a long period of low growth and stagnant income distribution--sometimes these lack of advance is politically more worrying than sudden crises.

The good and bad Latin American again

An article on the Wall Street Journal a week ago echoes the traditional division between a "good" Latin America (opened to the world, responsible, modern) and a "bad" Latin America (closed to the world, opposed to globalization, irresponsible). Unfortunately this is still the type of simplistic dichotomy that does not take us anywhere... even more when Brazil is included as part of the bad group. There are several problems with the article: a. Is any one calling China "bad" in terms of its policies? Is Brazil doing any different when protecting certain sectors and making (a weak and ineffective) effort to develop its national champions? b. How much longer will we evaluate the success of specific policies through the growth rate of a few months or a year? And is anyone really going to call Mexico´s current performance successful?

Is De Guindos jocking?

I have not written in this blog for a long time and intend to do it more from October onward. Before that, however, I could not resit to include a quote from the Spanish Minister De Guindos today: "Si hay algo de lo que estamos lejanos es del modelo chino. España es un país competitivo y su competitividad no se tienen que basar en salarios bajos, sino en la productividad, el capital humano, la formación y el desarrollo de la investigación con productos de valor añadido elevado". Does Spain really have a model? And how they plan to develop that kind of model with sharp cuts in research and development and the university sector?

Income inequality increases in Spain... and will likely keep increasing in the future!

According to El Pais, Spain is the fourth most unequal country in the European Union after Lithuania, Romania and Latvia. The Gini coefficient was in 2010 at the highest level since 1995 and as a result of the crisis more than one person in five is in below the poverty line. One would think that this would lead to social mobilization beyond the "Indigandos" and inequality playing a large role in the next elections. Instead, the conservative Partido Popular (likely winner in November) has promised to further liberalize the labour market AND reduce income taxes on capital gains. How is this possible? What will be the Gini coefficient in a few years? And how can Spaniards accept all these reforms? There is little doubt that some countries are more conservative than others and, implicitly or explicitly, are willing to accept market reforms without much opposition...

Participación en Radio Universidad (Costa Rica)

En el seno del proyecto que Juliana Martínez Franzoni y yo estamos llevando a cabo sobre el Estado social universal en países periféricos, tuve la oportunidad de conversar con Juani Guzmán en el Programa Desayunos de Radio Universidad.  El programa se puede escuchar aquí.  Fue interesante poder tratar de vincular nuestra investigación con el debate presente en Costa Rica y en otros países--algo que Juliana tiene que hacer todos los días en su nuevo papel de miembra de la Comisión Técnica sobre la Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social. Algunos puntos claves: (1) La importancia del universalismo como principio de la política social y la necesidad de convertirlo en una de las bases de cualquier propuesta política progresista; (2) Necesidad de entender mejor los requerimientos institucionales, políticos y económicos de ese universalismo.

Educating for the Digital Era

The NYT reviews an interesting book book by Cathy Davidson on teaching students in the new global era.  In her book, she criticizes term papers and argues that students write much better when engaging with blogs.  I actually believe that there is still a lot of room for a well-thought essay that forces students to think in an organized and synthetic way and to take their time.  Nevertheless, there is a larger point: we must integrate digital resources better in the classroom--even at the MA and PhD level.  I have made some attempts through this blog... although not very successful (writing once every three months does not help).

New:  And here the blog of the author with an interesting discussion on how to enrich education at all levels.

The false radicalization

Gillian Tett is usually excellent, but here  she reproduces a false argument about recent polarization in the US (and some other parts of the world?).  According to her "On one side of the spectrum, Tea Party activists have been brandishing the constitution and declaring “no surrender” on fiscal issues, even at the risk of sparking an American default. On the other side, leftwing parts of the Democratic party have been equally intransigent."  

Where are those leftwing parts of the Democratic party?  How much power do they have?  Is defending the (small) social system that the US have "radical"?  The real radicalization has taken place from the right alone and the Tea Party is succeeding in mainstreaming ideas that are unsustainable and inflexible.