Venezuela vs Chile: 2-1

Este es de Stinflits, espero que les guste o no.
Esta referido en http://www.rgemonitor.com/latam-monitor/498/chile_-_venezuela__the_hidden_weakness_of_a_strong_economy
pueden sapear allí también una comparación interesante (no la he leido entera todavia, pero no se ve mal)



JOSEPH STIGLITZ:



Chile has had impressive success over the past 15 years, after a major recession brought on by excessive faith in free market economics under Pinochet through insufficiently regulated banking. But there are alternative interpretations/explanations of that success. Chile did not follow many key elements of the Washington Consensus during its most successful years. It imposed capital controls. It only privatized part of its copper mines, and the privatized mines arguably did not perform better than the nationalized ones, though the profits were sent abroad, while the profits of the nationalized mines could be used in the nation’s efforts to develop. Government and foundations lay behind many of its successful development projects (such as its fisheries) - the kind of industrial policies that the Washington Consensus railed against. And unlike the Washington Consensus, Chile put considerable emphasis on social policies.



Chile did two things that were part of the Washington consensus - it liberalized trade and it limited its government deficits. The lesson is similar to that of the successful countries of East Asia: Globalization can help bring prosperity, but countries have to manage globalization on their own terms, in their own way. Chile did this. The countries that followed the Washington Consensus mantra have, by and large, not done so well.



It is the failures of these policies that have provided the impetus for the new movements in Latin America. Venezuela is the country in Latin America with the richest resources, but it is a rich country with poor people; before Chavez came to power, between two thirds and 80 percent of the people were in poverty. The riches of the country went to the rich, who did not want to share them with the vast majority of the citizens. Countries like Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela signed agreements with foreign oil, gas and mining companies that were generous to the foreign companies but cheated the country out of what was rightfully theirs.



There is an ongoing debate about whether it was the result of corruption or incompetence of previous Administrations, or the consequence of pressure to privatize these resources quickly. But for the impoverished people of these countries, these distinctions may matter little. All they know is that their country is getting less than it should. The new governments have been able in many cases to cut a better deal. They know that they need the expertise of the foreign oil companies. They have been explicit in saying that these companies should get a fair return on their investment. Indeed, these companies are getting a very, very high return on their investment. These countries are only asking that they get a larger share.



In many cases, these countries have put into place health and education policies that are already working, bringing health and education to the poor barrios for the first time. It is these successes that partly account for the popular support of these governments. Some critics label such policies as populist, but if populism results in the poor getting education and health services for the first time, isn’t that what democracy is supposed to produce?



The countries are also putting into place longer-run growth policies. Some of these policies and projects make enormous sense. But how successful these policies and projects will be will depend partly on how they are implemented. It is too soon to make a clear verdict.