PDF

In the case of Argentina it is problematic to describe the government in terms of the research parameters, as a "progressive" or "left-wing" government. These two categories are not accepted by pro-government forces in Argentina, which prefer to refer to Peronism, a complex social and political phenomenon that does not easily fit the parameters of "left" or "right" -or even "centre".

In the economic policy of Néstor Kirchner we can identify two very clear phases, corresponding to the periods in office of the two ministers who have held the "economy" brief. Roberto Lavagna, who had been Eduardo Duhalde's Minister of Economy since April 2002 (the initial date of the Argentine economic recovery, after a long recession between 1998 and 2002) continued in his function in the new administration until December 2005. The main theme of this phase was macroeconomic "stabilisation", combining a high exchange rate and strong state intervention in the exchange market, and the re-insertion of Argentina in the world credit system, which it had effectively abandoned when it defaulted. The country was bankrupt from the last week of December 2001 until May 2005, when the debt exchange was materialised against the interests of the creditors of eligible shares with delay. Both aspects (stabilisation with a high exchange rate and international re-insertion) characterise Lavagna's administration as head of the Ministry of Economy. Once those objectives had been achieved, according to the official discourse, a new phase of renovation inside the government was needed.

Lavagna was replaced by Felisa Micelli, who previously worked at Lavagna's personal "consultancy" and was brought into government circles by him, first as the minister's spokesperson at the Central Bank (BCRA), and later as head of the Banco de la Nación Argentina (BNA). This second phase is marked by efforts to maintain the country's economic recovery and reactivation, privileging the struggle against inflation, which had increased considerably during 2005 and was expected to rise in 2006.

Whereas retail prices had increased by 3 per cent in 2003, they rose by 6 per cent in 2004. By the end of 2005, the rate of increase had increased to 12.1 per cent, and it was expected to reach 15 or 16 per cent in 2006. A debate on anti-inflationary policy started, where Lavagna appeared to hold a stance considered orthodox by the government. He demanded restrictions on monetary policy and immediate action to tackle higher salaries. Minister Micelli attempted to negotiate prices and salaries, and this became a central axis in the definition of a social alliance to support the government's administration.

When assuming the presidency, Néstor Kirchner emphasised that building a national capitalism, able to generate alternatives to reinstall upward social mobility, would be central to his programme. Securing stable growth was made the basic economic policy goal, which was seen as allowing for an expansion of economic activity and constant employment; a greater income distribution; the strengthening of the middle class and the elimination of poverty. The emphasis would be on solving unsatisfied social demands regarding education, health and security.

Regarding the international creditor institutions, the relationship between the government and the IMF was one of the keys to the government's economic policy during the first of the indicated phases. During Lavagna's administration, 15,000 million dollars of the debt owed to the international financial institutions was cancelled. Immediately after the ministerial change, the cancellation of a further 9,500 million dollars of the IMF debt was announced, an operation realised during Micelli's administration and welcomed by Lavagna.

The IMF was marginalised in the debate on defaulting the debt. The government pursued a policy of exposing the agreements with the IMF, cancelling the terms with it and other international institutions and managing the relationships with other creditors. The IMF became a privileged creditor (because it rigorously collected the debt) but at the same time was brushed aside in negotiations, with its comments and advice on economic policy ignored.

The foreign economic policy of Argentina has led to the improvement of its relationship with the great powers, especially after it defaulted on its debts. The USA was sympathetic in the treatment of the debt question, and in the discursive dispute with the IMF. Relations with Europe increased, although there were conflicts with the European companies running Argentina's privatised public services.

However, the main new development in the relations with other countries in the region has been in relation to MERCOSUR. The relationship between Buenos Aires and Caracas has strengthened, especially in economic matters. Venezuela is actually the only money lender Argentina has. The incorporation of Venezuela into MERCOSUR led to renewed expectations concerning the re-launch of regional integration. This greater proximity to the Chávez government has been strongly criticized by Roberto Lavagna, and constitutes a key feature of the Argentinean economy at the present moment, because of its financial and energy needs.

The variables analysed show that there is a distance between the discourse and the practice of economic policy in Argentina, a point that has been made by left critics of the government and a significant proportion of the country's popular movements. There is a strong discourse against the IMF, but there have been rigorous and punctual payments of 25,000 million dollars of debts owed to it and to other international institutions - an amount claimed for other purposes. The government is critical of the main economic operators, such as the privatised public services companies, but has sought to re-establish the business cycle and their profitability. The growth of the economy has coincided with the growth of inequality. Economic growth has not mitigated the existence of high levels of poverty and unemployment, labour precariousness and a black economy. The main progressive demand remains for the redistribution of income and wealth, as a starting point for the discussion of another project for the country, with different social relations for the production and distribution of goods and services.