Avoiding Latin American Mistakes

Macroeconomic populism may be the easy way to run up political points, but it bequeaths an economic and political mess to future generations.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Article created by The Century Foundation.

Events of the last week offer examples of struggles with a phenomenon that has been called “macroeconomic populism.” Coined nearly 20 years ago to describe the political economy of policy making in Latin America, the idea applies today to political struggles in the United States as well as in our neighbor, Mexico.

In Mexico, presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is rallying working people on his behalf with appeals to macroeconomic populism. Closer to home, on a less grand scale, the fight between Governor Jon Corzine and the state legislature in New Jersey is an example of an effort to confront populism.

The term “macroeconomic populism” was coined in 1989 by economists Rudiger Dornbusch and Sebastian Edwards to describe a pattern they observed again and again in Latin America. Elected leaders would pursue popular policies, spending freely on programs and investments that appealed to low-income voters, running bigger and bigger budget deficits, without regard to the monetary or international payment consequences. Following a period of economic growth and rising incomes, inflation would take off, pressure on the currency would aggravate the domestic imbalances, and the leader would impose price and currency exchange controls. Eventually, the boom would turn into a bust as the fiscal profligacy of early years came home to roost.

The appeal of macroeconomic populism to elected leaders is that it provides immediate benefits to voters while it does not directly confront the wealthy elite who would have to pay for the programs if fair taxes were used to balance budgets. Macroeconomic populism can make everyone happy, for a while, excepting the dour minority that tracks the arithmetic of budgets, balance of payments, and debt.

Of course, only a national economy can run an independent rate of inflation, tied to its currency exchange rate. Mexico has this dubious luxury. But a state or local government can engage in the same sort of fiscal pandering, spending money it does not have to please voters, leaving the resulting fiscal mess to future generations of elected officials and voters. That is the problem Governor Corzine has been grappling with.

There are two reasonable alternatives to the boom-bust cycle of macroeconomic populism. It is necessary either to cut back spending and leave it to market processes to provide jobs and services to the poor or, instead, to combine budget cuts with expansion of the revenue base in order to pay for essential programs with revenues instead of borrowing. Cutting spending and services alone is the conventional conservative remedy. It is also possible, however, to raise revenues and pay for desirable public programs in a responsible way.

A brief examination of Mr. Lopez Obrador’s tenure as mayor of Mexico City suggests that he would reinvent the square wheel of macroeconomic populism for Mexico. During his tenure, he initiated massive public spending programs to increase the road capacity of the city. He created many construction jobs by commissioning expensive double-decker highways.

While Mexico City’s traffic jams are rightly legendary, Mr. Lopez Obrador’s new roadways predictably filled up as fast as they were built. Too, in focusing on private automobile transportation, Mr. Lopez Obrador neglected Mexico City’s extensive metro system, which ought to be expanded and spread as the city expands. The problem with public transportation, which Mr. Lopez Obrador chose to evade, is that subway fares are so low that every mile of new track represents a massive operating cost subsidy which could not be met by borrowing. Because he had no real financing program, the public investments Mr. Lopez Obrador did undertake have greatly increased the debt burden of Mexico City residents. Rather than raising new revenue during his tenure, rather than rationalizing the price structure of the metro system – both politically difficult moves that would require courage – Mr. Lopez Obrador chose the easy route of spending a lot of money on projects that would not meet the real needs of his constituents but would make governing Mexico City harder after he left office.

Mr. Corzine came to office on the heels of a succession of governors of both parties who had relied on a “lite” version of macroeconomic populism. They had failed to fund pension programs, they had disguised current spending as capital costs to increase debt finance, and they had generally pandered to the “tax cut and spend” mentality that has proved popular in the United States on the state and local as well as the federal level.

What is notable about Mr. Corzine’s efforts is that he has challenged this pattern of macroeconomic irresponsibility. He has done so not with the traditional conservative approach represented by Mr. Lopez Obrador’s opponent Felipe Calderon, who advocates cutting both taxes and spending. Rather, while he has indeed cut services and spending, Mr. Corzine has remained committed to retaining essential public services, and to pay for them honestly, through raising taxes. This is a bold move.

As the United States slides toward Latin American standards of income inequality, fiscal irresponsibility, and centralized power, we should recognize the dangers of this trajectory. Macroeconomic populism is the easy way to run up political points among unsophisticated voters, but it bequeaths an economic and political mess to future generations. Only brave and honest leaders can resist the siren song of macroeconomic populism.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate