The bad economic omens for Latin America, one of the most unequal regions in the world, intensified after the COVID-19 pandemic. The health systems were exposed as deficient and the confinements pushed those who work in the informal sector to precariousness. But amid the pessimistic voices, multi-award-winning British economist and political scientist James A. Robinson (61) is on the safe side.
With a particular interest in the region, the Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago is co-author of Why Do Countries Fail ?: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (Deusto) with Daron Acemoglu, professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2012. The work is today considered one of the most important in economic thought.
A graduate of Economics and Political Science from the London School of Economics and a doctorate from Yale University, Robinson speaks in this interview with EL PAÍS with enthusiasm and intensity. You give the impression that you are eager to present the argument that will turn any assumption upside down.
Question: What do you think of this that has been on the lips of analysts and multilaterals that indicates that Latin America is heading towards “a lost decade” in economic matters?
Answer: There is no reason why Latin America cannot have the same levels of prosperity and quality of life as North America, and indeed many parts of the region did 200 years ago. The real delay has occurred in the long term, over 200 years, when Latin America adopted extractive economic and political institutions. This was the colonial period and those institutions were replicated in the 19th century and still today. In other words, the region has lagged behind because it never created the institutions necessary to generate prosperity. Now, in a more granular way, I find reasons to be optimistic. Although there are countries like Nicaragua or El Salvador, where you have these dictatorships reproducing themselves, what I find interesting are the things that are happening in some other countries, such as Chile. El País is at a time when society is becoming radically more inclusive. They are recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples for the first time. They are getting rid of the illegitimate military constitution. There are other types of advances, with the empowerment of young people and women. I believe that there is a social revolution in Bolivia and Peru, where the elites of European descent are the businessmen who govern and now society wants to change that. That is social mobility. I think there have been tectonic shifts in those societies, because it is fundamentally undermining all these extractive institutions that were based on the exploitation of indigenous people and the creation of hierarchies. I think even what is happening in Mexico is interesting. It is not the same old and corrupt elites who rule, López Obrador is ruling and that is a sign of more inclusion. We still don’t really know what the full consequences of that are, but it’s good that the political system is more inclusive, that there’s more room for change, that they were able to kick out the corrupt PRI and aim for something more radical. I don’t know where this idea of ten wasted years comes from. That sounds like some kind of neoliberal rhetoric or something. I don’t know who is promoting that idea or even what the factual basis for it is.
P. If you do not see a lost decade for the region, what do you think of the impact that this pandemic will have on the economies?
R. Obviously, the pandemic has been a human crisis, but I don’t know if it will be a lasting economic crisis. The 2000s and the financial crisis are likely to have had major repercussions for Latin America. I really don’t see any big consequences from the pandemic, honestly, other than the human consequences, which have been dire, especially for countries with very poor health systems. I think people who talk about a lost decade focus a lot on commodity prices and say that Latin America will not do well if commodity prices fall, that they depend a lot on China. And yes, but, for me, that is neither here nor there. Economically successful countries do not get rich because the prices of raw materials move in the right direction, they get rich because of the people, their citizens, the entrepreneurship, education, vision and creativity of their citizens. You could say that Chile is richer or more successful because copper prices have been advantageous, but that’s not the story in Chile at all. The story in Chile is that it has much better institutions than anywhere else in Latin America, much more inclusive institutions with which it takes that wealth and spends it on public goods, which it invests in its citizens. The social movements that we are seeing are the pains that come when a country becomes more democratic and Latin America is much more democratic today than it was 20 years ago.
P. He speaks enthusiastically about what is happening in Mexico, for example, but the data suggests that those most in need are those who lost protection under the López Obrador government.
R. Many of the things that have happened are quite curious, like this intimacy with the military, for example. And some of what’s been going on with social programs, I really don’t understand enough about what you’re trying to achieve or what the motivation is for doing it, honestly.
P. Before the pandemic, protests broke out in several Latin American countries against inequality, poverty and, above all, calling for an end to this extractive model that you are talking about. Do you think we are near the end?
R. This model has not expired and is very persistent. We started this conversation by talking about how Latin America has been lost for 200 years because it has been reproducing this model since colonial times. I don’t think it can be easily evicted and that is why the protests are good, they are very healthy. In the case of Chile, they are leading to real change and, in other countries, such as Colombia, they have been less effective because the Government refuses to recognize them as legitimate, despite the fact that they are enshrined in the Constitution. neol. People have to organize, they have to protest because the elites and Carlos Slim alone are not going to do anything. Who is going to remove Daniel Ortega from power? He is not going to give it up. It will be the people who will have to get rid of it. That is the iron law of the oligarchy. People are desperate and desperate people are looking for desperate solutions. Many of us underestimate how difficult it is to transition to a more politically inclusive and democratic society in places where states are weak and lack capacity and control. And those are many challenges.
Subscribe here to the EL PAÍS América newsletter and receive all the informative keys of the present time of the region.