|
The
linear Neoliberal thought and its impact in the Salvadoran economy
“Do what we do, not what we say”
was the title of an article published by the Economics Nobel Price winner
Joseph E. Stiglitz in the Spanish newspaper “El Pais” as a reflection about
the less developed economies. His vision is that the United States has
double moral standards when it comes to play the economic game: on the one
hand they advise to use strict economic policies for the less developed
countries, saying that this measure will lead them to take advantage of
their opportunities; while, on the other hand, they implement a set of
domestic policies that are quite different from the ones they recommend for
others.
Stiglitz says that “nowadays, many emerging markets, from Indonesia to
Mexico, are told that there is a certain code of conduct that they have to
adopt if they want to be successful. The message is clear: this is what they
do and this is what the advanced industrialized countries have done. If you
want to join the club, you should do the same. The reforms will be painful,
several personal interests will go against them; however, with enough
political will, you will be able to see the benefits”.
This is the same conception that the institutions that dominate the global
economy have. That is why the World’s Bank (BM, in Spanish), the
International Monetary Fund (FMI), the World’s Trade Organization (OMC), and
even the international companies have a common ideological root: the
economic development has to follow the logic of the global Neoliberal
Capitalism.
In this sense, the world has become an interconnected territory thanks to
the technological revolution and the new communication systems represented
by the Internet and the development of the international companies. The
economic system that most of the countries have chosen has turned into a
compact “global community” thanks to globalization. However, this is a
fallacy, because not everyone is actually “connected” and not all of the
countries have the same kind of globalization. This situation has brought
along different types of consequences, and some of them are negative for the
less developed countries.
For El Salvador, this is the environment and the scenery that has to be
faced at present, a Capitalist system. The country depends on this system. A
global economic leader, the United States, has a Neoliberal Capitalism and
imposes its logic by force, and through the mechanisms of globalization. For
the countries such as El Salvador this means that they are attached not only
to a certain way of global historic production, which is the Neoliberal
Capitalism, but to all of its economic, social, political, and cultural
logic. For ARENA, this is not a problem, because its objectives intend to
represent and protect the interests of an hegemonic block of business
companies, which find it very convenient to have an extremely intense
Capitalist vision, the one of the Neoliberal model.
The main concern in the present context is that, in El Salvador, there is a
“lineal Neoliberal thought”, where the distinctive figure is the owner of
the capital. The others do not count, except when it comes to deal with the
political rhetoric. The Salvadoran hegemonic business block has nothing to
lose, but plenty to win with the present economic model. This model favors
their interests from any perspective.
In a document called “Neoliberalism in Latin America”, the Jesuits of the
continent explain that the Neoliberal model “is a radical conception of
Capitalism that tends to dominate the market until it becomes the means, the
method and the objective of all of the rational and the intelligent human
behavior”, it includes its morals and its values. In other words, the
“utilitarian vision (which obviously corresponds to the logic followed by
the Capitalist production model and its needs), where morals are based in
the individual interests, guarantees both peace and social harmony”.
What does this mean in economic terms for El Salvador? It means that we have
to allow the owners of the hegemonic business block to go ahead with all of
their plans aimed to increase their profits. Their approach indicates that
through the economic growth that these Capitalists create there will be “an
overflowing effect”, where the welfare of some people will be transferred
sooner or later to the rest of the society improving the development of the
nation.
However, ARENA has characterized itself by forming an unplanned economy, the
government has turned itself into a mercenary instrument of the market, and
a model free of critics that works without following a nation’s plan. A
classic example of how the country has lost the right direction was provided
by Antonio Cabrales, the President of the Salvadoran Foundation for the
Social and the Economic Development (FUSADES), which has been the tank of
thought of this block since the birth of ARENA. Cabrales stated that “our
little country has a positive growth, and if someone says that this is
thanks to the family remittances, we do not care what the reason is, the
important thing here is that it keeps getting ahead”. In other words, the
important thing here is that the model continues to increase the profits of
the businessmen even if it is not a balanced model and even if poverty keeps
increasing.
The negative aspects keep getting worse
There is over one million inhabitants at the rural areas that are not able
to cover their nutritional needs, while there are over three million people
in the same situation all over this country. The government has
underestimated the dimension of the poverty level, something that has been
mentioned in several occasions already. This is obviously not part of the
governmental priorities; that is, to have an exact radiography of the
poverty level of the population.
On the other hand, free trade is a priority: the market is more important
than the people. The evidence of this situation is that, with the upcoming
signature of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, the free
circulation of merchandise inside that country was discussed, but not the
circulation of human beings. The family remittances sustain the fragile
economic structure, the country consumes more than it can produce, and this
excess of consumption is financed with the family remittances and through
debts.
Nevertheless, those who travel illegally to the United States put their
lives at risk, and when they arrive they have to live as third class
citizens, in order to work and send money to their families. This goes to
show that this economic model gives more importance, above all things, the
freedom for the capital.
This irresponsible attitude of seeing everything through the optic of the
sovereign market can be transmitted even through the lack of concern for the
lives of the future generations of Salvadorans. This means that the new
generations will be in the middle of an asphyxiating indebtedness, and an
unsustainable economic profile. It is enough to examine the increasing
public debt, that has reached a 47% of the GNP (which is divided in a 30.3%
for the external debt, and 17% for the internal debt) and prove that the
remittances covered approximately 88% of the commercial deficit, while for
December of 2003, the coverage was slightly superior than 70%. Nothing can
guarantee that an economic model based on the expulsion of workers from the
economic circuit and their later effort to send remittances is a sustainable
strategy for the long term. The remittances are not able to cover the
commercial deficit, and the indebtedness is not a long term strategy either.
If the situation remains the same, soon the economy will have to go through
several adjustments, to at least consume at the same level of whatever the
economy is able to produce, that is approximately 1.5%.
“Just to eat we spend between $150 and $160 dollars per month”, said a woman
when she was interviewed by a morning newspaper by the end of 2003. But what
happens when, according to the DIGESTYC, the families of the urban areas
need at least $129 dollars to survive every month? There is an incongruent
meaning between what has been said by the statistics presented by the
government, and what actually happens in the Salvadoran reality.
Who learns from whom?
It seems that the economic planning of ARENA responds to the taste of the
clients: the businessmen. Are they all successful in this field? No, only
the business elite, since the 500,000 micro and small business companies
from the country do not seem to be included in the list of the winners of
the Free Trade Agreement between Central America and the United States.
Where does ARENA learn this things if there is no plan and if El Salvador
depends from the United States? Metaphorically, inside the Capitalist fish
tank, if countries were fish, they all would have to have a common ideology
to survive inside the “Capitalist waters”, that is, the supremacy of the
free market, individualism, and the search for the maximum amount of profits
as the supreme rationality of the economic behavior. However, it is ironic
to see that the United States proposes the free market for Central America
and it does not practice such a thing inside its own territory.
Stiglitz explains that “in every country, the equilibrium of the budget and
the control of inflation are among the priorities, just like the structural
reforms”. And this is nothing but the presence of a linear economic thought
from the power circle formed by the United States, the BM, the FMI and the
OMC, to the Consensus of Washington and the Structural Adjustment Programs (PAE,
in Spanish). The question emerges by itself. The United States practice what
they preach?
El Salvador is inside a stagnation process without answers. The next
administration of ARENA with Tony Saca will not change the present economic
perspectives if they continue to work with the Neoliberal policies. The
crisis affects human lives, and this is an enormous ethic responsibility in
order to end with the marriage between the governmental administration and
the capital, and begin a new relationship with the welfare of the Salvadoran
population.
|
